by mell ➕follow (10) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 43 - 82 of 936 Next » Last » Search these comments
This should be a place where people can discuss anything without being attacked for their beliefs.
Bd6r says"global warming"
When it started in the late 70's it was actually global cooling.
I expected better of YOU, Richwicks, than to act like a burned out teacher who can't be arsed to sort out a real conflict between her charges
Automan Empire saysMy problem is I HAVE explained my viewpoint
No. You never explained why you voted for Biden.
We don't have many dissenting opinions on subjects here on patnet. Would be nice when we do if people would remember not to take it personally and attack the dissenter. If you want to flame, go to reddit, or any other social platform where you can be as nasty as you want. This should be a place where people can discuss anything without being attacked for their beliefs.
The same "idiot case" keeps getting made, and it was the EARLY 70s when this one already got SOLVED. This is the environmentalism version of "There's no point working harder to earn a raise, this will only bump me into a higher tax bracket and I'll just make the same or less!"
then any new predictions coming out of that crowd
I just demonstrated, what you are calling "that crowd" is three completely different phenomena, the first two occurring 10 years earlier than you even claimed and more than 2 generations prior to the "warming" alarmists and genuinely concerned people of today.
if we refer to "climate scientists" making wrong predictions since 1970 (or even earlier) as a "crowd",
It's different scientists, making different claims, about different phenomena and potential sequelae, in a different era.
Literally every connection you try to make or equivocation you falsely assume betweem the two, has no connection to actual climate science or actual climate scientists.
Literally every connection you try to make or equivocation you falsely assume betweem the two
The connection perhaps is called "climate science" in both cases.
The medical system in America is broken in 1000 ways as well. Your argumentation is like saying medicine sucks today and modern doctors can't be trusted, because bloodletting and mercurochrome, then leaving it at that and dismissing anyone questioning the claim as some kind of shill.
Automan Empire saysThe medical system in America is broken in 1000 ways as well. Your argumentation is like saying medicine sucks today and modern doctors can't be trusted, because bloodletting and mercurochrome, then leaving it at that and dismissing anyone questioning the claim as some kind of shill.
We should question everything in science, including the currently accepted theory of global warming (and also the opposite). However, if a particular field becomes too politicized then we should be extra careful. I get that some of this panic is created by MSM journos who need audience to earn $$$, but even if we discount that, there were several relatively high profile cases where climate scientists of the global warming panic type were refusing to dissect their models etc. Any opposition is shouted down, and not in a very scientific way, which is irritating. With respect to medicine, the politiciza...
Then again, more CO2 means greener Earth and it is demonstrably better for plant life.
We should question everything in science
All things being equal, CO2 enrichment will only accelerate growth to the limits of some other factor, and if CO2 isn't the primary limiting factor for a given plant in a given microclimate, it won't help and may make the plant suffer, as from chlorosis if iron or magnesium isn't locally bioavailable. CO2 has been well known to "the left" for 30 years as clandestine pot growers developed the technology and technique. The optimum CO2 concentration for "ideal" plant growth is therefore well documented in actual practice, and it's nowhere near a desirable atmospheric level for the entire planet and everything in the biosphere, to say nothing of the warming that would occur should we reach a fraction of this amount.
Well because of Fukushima and chernobyl. Of course the degree of environmental and health impact of both has been debated and there is no clear conclusion.
Anyone who thinks we wouldn't be better off with more reservoirs has a hole in their head.
mell saysWell because of Fukushima and chernobyl. Of course the degree of environmental and health impact of both has been debated and there is no clear conclusion.
There is a hard number of deaths per produced unit of energy. Nuclear fares pretty well, so opposition is unscientific.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ug7ju/deaths_per_pwh_electricity_produced_by_energy/?source=patrick.net
My argument isn't that we wouldn't be better off without more reservoirs
GLOBAL COOLING AND ACID RAIN ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTAL HOAXES
earth was once "venus like" before climate change
as is so often the case, the WEF has their story wrong way 'round
“Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”
and current levels are, by past standards, very low at about 420 parts per million.
Italian motorists dealing with global warming crazies. Bravo 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Hey @Patrick - you ever believe this bullshit about Global Warming?
I did, until about 15 years ago. My 20 year old self would be screaming at me questioning how I became a "science denier".
richwicks says
Hey @Patrick - you ever believe this bullshit about Global Warming?
I did, until about 15 years ago. My 20 year old self would be screaming at me questioning how I became a "science denier".
Feeble-minded in your 30s == feeble-minded forever.
The 6-3 ruling declared that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate emissions from plants that contribute to global warming. ... “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.” ... The decision also could have a broader effect on other agencies’ regulatory efforts, from education to transportation and food.
Yes, I assumed it was true, back before the mass bribery and intimidation of doctors in order to inject people with the toxxine for the profits of Pfizer.
Dutch farmers attack government vans, block roadways, spray police with manure after authorities shut down dozens of family farms for the Climate Cult
In case you were wondering why America has the Second Amendment, here's lesson #8,912 ...
It's horrible. These men have families to feed. Their food is sorely needed for the nation as the supply chain dries up. Their farms are likely multi-generational. There is zero threat to the planet by them raising cattle and growing crops.
It doesn't matter. The government has spoken, their homes and livelihoods are now destroyed, and the Religion of the State™ marches on.
Here's few more spicy videos, including one where farmers spray government buildings with manure.
The Solution to Desertification Is What’s For Dinner
The answer is beef.
Savory and his team have reversed desertification over 15 million hectares by introducing herds of cattle and sheep to deserts.
The process is simple. It works exactly as nature planned—before pointy-headed scientists decided they knew more about nature than nature.
Reversing Desertification Feed The Hungry, Too
In most of the world, only animals can feed the human population. The environment will not support enough plant-based nutrition no matter what you do.
But herds of animals can live off the land, and feed the people.
« First « Previous Comments 43 - 82 of 936 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,256,986 comments by 15,002 users - Ceffer online now