Discuss

[Bigtimber2]

Sir, are you insinuating the Conservation is anything but honorable? Like the nomination of The Honorable Michael Pitts to the Bank among the State GOP leaders was a backroom deal with some predetermined deals already in the works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JABIII]

COP25 climate summit ends in 'staggering failure of leadership'
16 December 2019

The UK faces the task of breaking the deadlock on international climate negotiations next year, after the COP25 talks ended in Madrid yesterday with no new ambition and little progress.

The meeting overran to become the longest climate summit yet as delegates from nearly 200 countries struggled to reach agreement on key issues on the framework underpinning the Paris climate deal. Drawing up rules on a carbon market between countries has been deferred until next year, when the UK hosts a landmark climate summit in Glasgow.

António Guterres, the UN secretary general, said he was disappointed with the outcome, and that leaders had missed an opportunity to be more ambitious on climate change mitigation, adaptation and finance for poorer countries. “But we must not give up, and I will not give up,” he tweeted.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...of-leadership/

[BRR]

As long as China is around why would we ever waste time and money on concerning ourselves with climate change here in the US.

[Hogg]

Don't forget about India too.

[DRDUCK]

All this is giving me a headache.

[w33kender]

Her quote was misconstrued. She was not advocating a firing squad. She was saying, in her second language, that the leaders should be left with no other choices. The saying "up against a wall" in our vernacular mean to have no other choice.

I don't like her politics either but I dislike even more the disingenuous tactic of assigning a different meaning to one's quotes.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. My mistake.

[Gander]

I like little Greta. She's very charming. I hope the Liberals keep her on the forefront of the climate change movement.

[JABIII]

Sir, are you insinuating the Conservation is anything but honorable? Like the nomination of The Honorable Michael Pitts to the Bank among the State GOP leaders was a backroom deal with some predetermined deals already in the works.

No worries. They went and made him a Judge in Laurens County. Perhaps he will get to sentence the champ with all the face tats...

[Bigtimber2]

He may need a speedy trail. It seems the magistrate does not know what it okay and not okay for a judge to post on Facepage.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strick9]

More Eider down oughta do it.

[DRDUCK]

I like little Greta. She's very charming. I hope the Liberals keep her on the forefront of the climate change movement.

Me to. We all need a little 16 year old little snot telling us what whe need to do.

[2thDoc]

you read right thru me....

[dubs]

Here is what I don't understand.

Cancer research, diseases, vaccines, air planes, boats, posi track on a hemi, rifles, scopes, ammunition, NASCAR for pete's sake. I could go on and on and on. All of these things are only possible because of SCIENCE and our continuous research into the world around us. So we love us some science and reap the benefits of it ALL THE TIME.

But, in the case of climate change, SCIENCE is completely full of shit? There is no doubt that the climate was changing long before humans. It will continue to change long after we are gone. But, I think you would have a hard time finding a scientist out there who wouldn't agree that humans have had some level of an effect on the natural forces that dictate the global climate. To what extent is that effect? That is certainly debatable. Can we take any realistic steps to mitigate things? That is debatable as well. But to outright deny that humans have had ANY effect on our natural world is ignorant at best.

[Highstrung]

I'm more upset with the changes Old Spice has been putting me through.

[JABIII]

Here is what I don't understand.

Cancer research, diseases, vaccines, air planes, boats, posi track on a hemi, rifles, scopes, ammunition, NASCAR for pete's sake. I could go on and on and on. All of these things are only possible because of SCIENCE and our continuous research into the world around us. So we love us some science and reap the benefits of it ALL THE TIME.

But, in the case of climate change, SCIENCE is completely full of shit? There is no doubt that the climate was changing long before humans. It will continue to change long after we are gone. But, I think you would have a hard time finding a scientist out there who wouldn't agree that humans have had some level of an effect on the natural forces that dictate the global climate. To what extent is that effect? That is certainly debatable. Can we take any realistic steps to mitigate things? That is debatable as well. But to outright deny that humans have had ANY effect on our natural world is ignorant at best.

Quantify it then.

1. What changes can you point to, and how did humans cause them?

2. How is wealth distribution going to mitigate said changes?

[dubs]

CO2 1.jpg

CO2 2.jpg

CO2 3.jpg

CO2 4.jpg

CO2 5.jpg


1. Atmospheric levels of Carbon Dioxide, which is one of the main gases that results in the increased 'greenhouse' effect which has warmed temperatures. Cause, the industrial revolution and everything since.

2. Don't understand your question? Is it meant to say wealth redistribution?

Look I am not some die hard climate change person. It is GLOBAL climate change and as previously stated, there's not much one country can do, so long and China, India, the African Continent, etc. are doing their thing trying to increase their standards of living. Climate change is most certainly a first world problem. We have the luxury of being able to 'try and make a difference' whatever that means.

[JABIII]

1. Atmospheric levels of Carbon Dioxide, which is one of the main gases that results in the increased 'greenhouse' effect which has warmed temperatures. Cause, the industrial revolution and everything since.



2. Don't understand your question? Is it meant to say wealth redistribution?

Yes. Redistribution, which is the impetus for all of this nonsense in the first place...

.

[Baggy]

Just another attempt to scare or guilt complex Americans into ceding their freedom in exchange for being protected from a straw man.

[dubs]

The Galileo Movement is no different than the extreme left groups that are saying we will drown in 10 years from rising sea levels. They are the far right alternative to those groups, funded by corporations to try and discredit any science as to reduce any types of restrictions on CO2 emissions for manufacturing facilities.

Here is the issue: On one side of the argument, you have the far left who are the ones saying that NYC will be underwater in 10 years. This generally aligns with the government. Most government related funding has gotten to a point of an understanding of a pre-determined result in order to obtain that funding. On the other side, you have far right groups, funded by private business (who no doubt have a reason to debunk) who will say the whole thing is a hoax, there is no such thing as climate change, etc.

My contention is that, as with most of life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Is NYC going to be underwater in 10 years? No. Is all of this just a giant hoax? No.

Can we on an individual level do anything about it? Nope.

But, we can try our best to utilize our resources in a responsible manner. I see that as what God called us to do in the first place, regardless of whatever the climate may or may not be doing.

[Gander]

So let me get this straight...for the last 30 years the United States has required automotive manufacturers to make cars more fuel efficient and cleaner burning and all the scientific stats have shot thru the roof? What more are we supposed to be doing now? What's the solution? Is it this silly green deal scheme?