No worries with nukes, Dear Leader Trump says that KJU has said that he wil l denuclearize, they will sign a peace treaty with SK and the UN, he's got that all solved without the US giving up anything. In a few hours he's going to pull the US out of the nuke agreement with Iran, he;ll then resolve the nuke issue there with a twitter war and some good old insults. His fellow Trumptards in Congress just nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
The problem with that mindset is that so many people think like you that ... that kind of property is now as expensive as property in the more desirable parts of the city . The nearest freeway to us is like over 75 miles away ... we are geographically isolated , and while that drives some costs up , it's worth it . Now we get our share of city slickers , but they don't stay long and they leave a lot of money behind . That's just the way we want it .
I live 30 minutes drive from Edinburgh, but my house costs a fraction of theirs.
Obama got a peace prize while waging TWO wars.
It is not the same article but it is by the same guy.
On Tue, 08 May 2018 16:38:08 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in
Saw this posted in another thread:
MAN-MADE climate warming/change is junk science used by big-government tax and spend politicians and special interest groups to justify massive new taxes and government control (e.g. gas cans, light bulbs and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data assumptions used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models are egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling, sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".
global%20climate.pdf
Exactly what the consequences will be, no one knows. But it's indisputable, sound science that the co2 concentration has risen sharply, to levels not seen in over half a million years and that change is due to burning carbon fuels over just the last 100 years. Co2 cycles in the past took tens of tho usands of years or more to change as much.
I won't be doing that. In fact I look for ways to *increase* my CO2 output. Increased carbon == increased prosperity. I won't change my lifestyle one iota to decrease CO2 output no matter how much the Climate Change/Global Warming religious hucksters and their legions of useful idiots howl.
You may be able to reduce the output per person in the developed world but the output in the undeveloped world is going up and they don't care. There are also a s*it load more of them. Most of the population growth is there. Population growth is going down in the sector of the world that has even heard of global warming.
It didn't look the same (the graphics are different) but I also did not read the whole link you posted and compare it word for word to the magazine. I did agree it was the same guy and the same hypothesis. What the f*ck do you want from me? At a certain point you just want to fight and insult.
Are you going to talk about the article or are you just going to continue to attack me?
rote:
Did you even read what I just wrote? I know you guys are thick and gull= ible, but come on.... it's basic English.
-- =
"Hi, It's a great day and I'm out enjoying it right now. I hope you are= too. The thought for the day is 'Share the love.'" BEEP. "Um, yeah, hello? This is the VD clinic calling. Your test results are= back and you're positive. Stop sharing the love."
Signing the accord and actually lowering their emissions are two different things. China can build more solar capability than everyone else and still be increasing the CO2 they create because of the amount of coal infrastructure they will continue to develop. They have a billion people crawling up out of the 16th century and renewables are not going to get it done for them.
You ignore the fact that population increased at the same time
They were killed by the cold. It is theorized that this happened, either by a meteor or volcanic activity. It just goes to show that s*it happens.
That is very well put.
Your about as bright as someone who believes in god.
+1
On Thu, 10 May 2018 16:32:27 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail" wrote in
Not so. MAN-MADE climate warming/change is junk science used by big-government tax and spend politicians and special interest groups to justify massive new taxes and government control (e.g. gas cans, light bulbs and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data assumptions used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models are egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling, sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".
Simple questions:
Do you dispute that we have solid scientific evidence of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere going back 800,000 years? (It comes from ice core samples, very basic science)
And while the record shows that CO2 has had several cycles over those 800K years, it's now gone up about 40% ABOVE the other previous peaks? That the other up cycles took tens of thousands of years, this last move higher occurred in just 125 years, precisely when we started burning fossil fuels in massive amounts?
None of that has anything to do with models or assumptions. Do you accept those as facts, yes or no?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required