Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore

mockingbird131313

mockingbird131313

Well-Known Member
When I majored in economics (and ass scratching), the profs always talked about either or issues as Guns or Butter choices. But the answer was always the same. People are happiest when they maximize BOTH options.

Would it not make much more sense to slow down on resource consumption? Should we plan on replenishment engineering? Today, people seem are more interested in a fight, than a solution.

For example: we need more nuclear power plants. Much less pollution and much greater public safety. Nuclear power comes as close to a maximum solution as anything I have seen. Yet fools wish to littler the landscape with windmills. Those stupid things kill birds by the bushel baskets full. They will NEVER produce anything close to the needed power levels. Windmills are ugly. Yet, I have seen windmill infomertials on the nightly news till I'm ready to puke.

I assume we will never all get along. But, could we agree to try and achieve max-max solution models?
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Thanks johnny!

Med will surely enjoy the middle link to a bizarre piece of reasoning, in which the author states that the evil global warming deniers(right wingers) will be wiped out by global warming.Woweeee!

...............................
Looks like this Frenchman has Al Gore pegged accurately.....lol

Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Climate-change skeptics are taking a beating these days even in France......

He calls Gore a ``crook'' presiding over an eco-business that pumps out cash. As for Gore's French followers, the author likens them to religious zealots who, far from saving humanity, are endangering it. Driven by a Judeo-Christian guilt complex, he says, French greens paint worst-case scenarios and attribute little-understood cycles to human misbehavior.
Full article...Bloomberg.com: Muse
 
aattocchi

aattocchi

Well-Known Member
mockingbird131313 said:
Uh, please check your facts.
1. In the USA we are reforesting more acres than we destroy. Trees are now a replenished cash crop.
2. Some scientist think there is proof that most of earth's oxygen comes from prarie grasses and seaweed. We should be paying alot more attention to urban sprawl into praries and destruction of our oceans.
Click to expand...

Dude, my facts are right. There are trees being cut down everyday, taller then any building. Do you mean to tell me a tree that took thousands of years to grow will grow back in 10, or even 100 years. Also, what about all the species of trees we exterminated(you can't replant those, now can you).

When it is all gone, which it will be(prarie grasses and trees). I guess our kids can just play in some semetrical rows of pine trees.

IN THE US:confused: what about the trees we cut down near the north pole, or from tropical rain forest? Once they are gone the land is no longer able to support life, and they do supply most of our oxygen, or at least they did.

What you say is some sort of propaganda to help me be at ease about millions of non american trees being cut down daily. I highly doubt little grasses and alge release more oxygen then the trees that have been growing for thousands of years, but I know they help contribute.

Besides, why would I have to check any facts? If you do not already know trees produce oxygen then you are a fool!
 
aattocchi

aattocchi

Well-Known Member
Garden Knowm said:
The world is a lot bigger than the USA.. and the TREES in this planet are getting TAXED...

I have been to 50+ countries and most of them are 3rd world.. let me tell you.. the tree situation is really bad!!! really bad...

There are concerns that the algae in the oceans is growing at an unbalanced rate and consuming massive amounts of oxygen and killing/altering much of the oceans habitats
Click to expand...
Take a look at Hatie. They get shot for trying to cross into the Dominican Republic for trying to find fire wood!
 
aattocchi

aattocchi

Well-Known Member
mockingbird131313 said:
When I majored in economics (and ass scratching), the profs always talked about either or issues as Guns or Butter choices. But the answer was always the same. People are happiest when they maximize BOTH options.

Would it not make much more sense to slow down on resource consumption? Should we plan on replenishment engineering? Today, people seem are more interested in a fight, than a solution.

For example: we need more nuclear power plants. Much less pollution and much greater public safety. Nuclear power comes as close to a maximum solution as anything I have seen. Yet fools wish to littler the landscape with windmills. Those stupid things kill birds by the bushel baskets full. They will NEVER produce anything close to the needed power levels. Windmills are ugly. Yet, I have seen windmill infomertials on the nightly news till I'm ready to puke.

I assume we will never all get along. But, could we agree to try and achieve max-max solution models?
Click to expand...
What are a few birds compaired to the huge land fills full of nuclear waste? I happen to own 2 small wind mills and solar pannels. I purchased my first wind mill 5 years ago, and it has already payed for itself.

How can you say nuclear power is better for the environment then wind mills, I never heard about a wind mill melting down, have you?
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Wavels said:
Thanks johnny!

Med will surely enjoy the middle link to a bizarre piece of reasoning, in which the author states that the evil global warming deniers(right wingers) will be wiped out by global warming.Woweeee!
Click to expand...
WTF? I am curious on how to interpret what is meant by the lifetimes of his two cats? If he's right we should start seeing some serious s*#t very soon. I'll go out on a limb and say 50 years. The lifetime of two cats consecutively would most likely be under fifty, but let's use it.

Fifty years?

If all that will start happening within 50 years, what in the world can we do about it? Even the mighty Kyoto Protocol would reduce very little carbon dioxide if the U.S. were to sign on.

"Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius".
Eight Reasons Why Global Warming Is a Scam - by Joseph L. Bast - The Heartland Institute

So... We should cripple our economy over something we can't do much about?

Thanks Wavels!
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Johnnyorganic said:
WTF? I am curious on how to interpret what is meant by the lifetimes of his two cats? If he's right we should start seeing some serious s*#t very soon. I'll go out on a limb and say 50 years. The lifetime of two cats consecutively would most likely be under fifty, but let's use it.

Fifty years?

If all that will start happening within 50 years, what in the world can we do about it? Even the mighty Kyoto Protocol would reduce very little carbon dioxide if the U.S. were to sign on.

"Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius".
Eight Reasons Why Global Warming Is a Scam - by Joseph L. Bast - The Heartland Institute

So... We should cripple our economy over something we can't do much about?

Thanks Wavels!
Click to expand...
No I guess not, full steam ahead, right over the cliff.. It's like your digging in a pile of shit, someone comes up and says: There's nothing to be gained by digging in that shit, in fact it's harmful to you, you should stop, now. What do you want to do? Keep on digging. This kind of mind set is what your grandkids will be trying to figure out, as in how could grandpa have been so fucking stupid.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
No I guess not, full steam ahead, right over the cliff.. It's like your digging in a pile of shit, someone comes up and says: There's nothing to be gained by digging in that shit, in fact it's harmful to you, you should stop, now. What do you want to do? Keep on digging. This kind of mind set is what your grandkids will be trying to figure out, as in how could grandpa have been so fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
I'm in favor of green energy. Our economy could move in that direction much faster for my taste. I'll look my grandchildren in the eye and say, "We saw our error and eventually eliminated our petroleum dependence."

To extended your analogy: I'm digging in shit. I'd like to make sure that shit is manure. That's pretty fucking stupid.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
mockingbird131313 said:
When I majored in economics (and ass scratching), the profs always talked about either or issues as Guns or Butter choices. But the answer was always the same. People are happiest when they maximize BOTH options.

I assume we will never all get along. But, could we agree to try and achieve max-max solution models?
Click to expand...
If nuclear is good enough for Frenchie, it's good enough for me. Nuclear technology has evolved tremendously since Three Mile Island.
 
mockingbird131313

mockingbird131313

Well-Known Member
Garden Knowm said:
he was talking about discovery channel... he never said it was his theory...

iloveyou
Click to expand...
Dear Knowm,
Yes he did speak of Discovery and a couple other things.

World-wide tree destruction is hideous.

But, here in the USA, we are tree + on the production side and that is very good news. In fact, the improvements are seldom reported. Also, junk science always talks about trees and oxygen. Currently, the more important issues are grassland depletion and ocean destruction.
 
closet.cult

closet.cult

New Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Here's to hoping you say to yourself in the near future; "Damn.... I was a dumb-ass!"

Me love you long time. :joint:
Click to expand...
regarding med: anyone too brain-washed by their political party to even read the literature of opposing scientists will remain in the dark like a good little sheep. ignorance is bliss.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
This baby mammoth died long ago. I bring this up because it mentions possible causes to the extinction of the woolly mammoth: global climate change or over-hunting by man. 37,000-Year-Old Baby Mammoth Carcass Arrives in Japan for Study

Before you start, it is Fox News. I wonder how many of you will not follow the link for that reason?

Here is the question: If global climate change is a possible reason for the extinction of the woolly mammoth, how is man responsible?
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
I've said it many times, and probably will again in the future, especially if I give creedence to your posts.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, I've said it many times myself.:?

Any responses to my previous questions? I'll re-capp:

1. Are deaths from weather-related events related to global climate change?

2. Can man be held responsible for global climate change that took place in pre-history?
 
mockingbird131313

mockingbird131313

Well-Known Member
aattocchi said:
Dude, my facts are right. There are trees being cut down everyday, taller then any building. Do you mean to tell me a tree that took thousands of years to grow will grow back in 10, or even 100 years. Also, what about all the species of trees we exterminated(you can't replant those, now can you).

When it is all gone, which it will be(prarie grasses and trees). I guess our kids can just play in some semetrical rows of pine trees.

IN THE US:confused: what about the trees we cut down near the north pole, or from tropical rain forest? Once they are gone the land is no longer able to support life, and they do supply most of our oxygen, or at least they did.

What you say is some sort of propaganda to help me be at ease about millions of non american trees being cut down daily. I highly doubt little grasses and alge release more oxygen then the trees that have been growing for thousands of years, but I know they help contribute.

Besides, why would I have to check any facts? If you do not already know trees produce oxygen then you are a fool!
Click to expand...
I do not doubt your sincerity. But, your junk science stinks. Your geography is over-the-top.

You have spoken about Mars, America, the north pole, and who knows where else.

I cannot fix the rain forests in Brazil or Indonesia. I may be able to do something about America. And in America we are on the tree-plus side of the equation. Most of the construction and pulp board feet being cut today is second, third, and fourth harvest wood. I have seen this with my own eyes.

A significant problem exists today, according to reports from many scientists, because of prairie grass and ocean conditions. These two earth features appear to be THE major pollution scrubbers. I have no personal information about this, but I have read some articles that seems compelling to me.

Since you receive most of your scientific knowledge from the Discovery Channel, then watch about 50 years worth of videos feature the Costeau family. Or go to Cousteau Society - Interim site for more information.

So it behooves you not to start a response with "Dude" and finishing with "fool". You education is limited. Please accept help with good spirit. Otherwise, readers will think you are the Dude who is the Fool.


</IMG>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top