|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Mann Down! /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1499361368 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 07/06/17 at 10:16:08 |
|
Title: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/06/17 at 10:16:08 https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/07/04/fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/ It's been Obvious for a long time.. Really people, learn how to see past the lies. The medieval warm period is destroyed by Mann. He's toast now. And soon, maybe the simpering Snowflakes will distance themselves from the lies. Naaaah, even when they get straight up Admissions of lies, they don't admit it. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/06/17 at 10:31:34 485751564B4C7D4D7D45575B10220 wrote:
Yeah... there ain't no such thing as man made global warming.... http://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WV5yatPyvgE http://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*t6fe_DI1kXOvuj3Y. http://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32 http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Yeah... what a bunch of hooey! smh |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/06/17 at 15:35:48 There are REASONS why the Raw Data never see daylight. We are being gamed. OnceafukkinGAIN. Nobody SAYS we Have Had NO IMPACT. The question is What percentage And What would mitigate it ENOUGH to be effective? What are they telling us they want to do Carbon TAXES, We won't be able to run air conditioners after a few years of Rising Carbon TAXES. What's YOUR suggestion? You DID read that, right? You know they Adjust data. Are you unaware of the medieval warm period? Mann HIDES it. Archeologists have found Orchards North of Where they Can Grow NOW. OKAY. LOGICAL thinking time.. If it was warm enough for orchards to exist NORTH of Where they can grow NOW, it's COOLER NOW than it was when Knights were jousting. Aaand, HEERES a question.. Since the Climate was Warmer back then, and that was BEFORE the SUBs, then the only SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION is NATURAL EVENTS can cause Global Warming. Now, CO2 gets Pumped INTO greenhouses. So,SINCE CO2 AIDS plant growth, we can expect more trees and plants THAT SHADE THE EARTH and Eat CO2. You're panicking over nothing. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by pg on 07/06/17 at 18:29:37 http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/03/epa-funded-research-lab-accused-of-fabricating-data-on-respiratory-illnesses/ Duke University admitted Sunday that it used manipulated and completely fabricated data about respiratory illnesses to obtains grants from the Environmental Protection Agency, among other agencies. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/06/17 at 19:36:37 When the people handing out the money WANT Proof of What They want people to believe being true, THAT IS what they get. The scientists are whores. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/07/17 at 07:51:13 283731362B2C1D2D1D25373B70420 wrote:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/ |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/07/17 at 07:52:48 332C2A2D30370636063E2C206B590 wrote:
LOL - yeah... look at all the billionaire scientists.... oh wait. And, we know that when oil corporations are against something, it's for the good of the people, right? BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAA!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/07/17 at 07:55:15 3E292F232C3C4E0 wrote:
And this is relevant how? ONE stupid, greedy person bilked the EPA out of grant money... BFD! Nice try... |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by Serowbot on 07/07/17 at 07:58:21 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/ Behind the Hockey Stick Seven years ago Michael Mann introduced a graph that became an iconic symbol of humanity's contribution to global warming. He has been defending his science ever since Quote:
So funny that you choose to believe Big Energy funded information over real science... You really think they are impartial?... Billion dollar interests are telling you what to think... :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/07/17 at 09:53:48 Medieval warm period. Address it. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/07/17 at 10:11:35 554A4C4B5651605060584A460D3F0 wrote:
No one here is arguing that there have been and will be changes in climate due to natural forces. What's at issue is the RATE OF CHANGE that is happening right now. The cause of this drastic rate of change is manmade pollution. No dispute. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/07/17 at 10:16:36 Nope, address the points I spent time pointing out. I typed a long time. It's not gonna be ignored like the games you played yesterday. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/07/17 at 10:17:43 5B444245585F6E5E6E56444803310 wrote:
Sucks to you, don't it? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/07/17 at 10:20:20 Loss by default! Next.. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/07/17 at 10:34:29 4B545255484F7E4E7E46545813210 wrote:
LOL - yeah, in your mind maybe. But I'll go with science on this one. Thanks. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/07/17 at 11:24:15 The Science PROVES it was Warmer in medieval times than NOW, so, what is the big deal? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/07/17 at 11:26:40 253A3C3B2621102010283A367D4F0 wrote:
RATE OF CHANGE IN THE LAST 100 YEARS |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/07/17 at 11:28:58 How is it different from the years leading up to the warm period? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/07/17 at 11:32:37 081711160B0C3D0D3D05171B50620 wrote:
Sigh.... https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm ..the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by Serowbot on 07/07/17 at 12:11:14 Climate deniers don't believe in science... They follow total nonscience... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/07/17 at 14:30:31 I'm much the scientist. That's interesting,, |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by pg on 07/07/17 at 18:40:54 5D434C4D405D465B290 wrote:
And this is relevant how? ONE stupid, greedy person bilked the EPA out of grant money... BFD! Nice try...[/quote] Actually, I feel it was an exemplary effort. I illustrated how money can compose & organize an argument. Adults call these bribes & kickbacks.... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by MnSpring on 07/07/17 at 19:39:34 "...it was Warmer in medieval times than NOW..." Gosh, ALL those Cars, and Cow Farrts, are the reason. "...No one here is arguing that there have been and will be changes in climate due to natural forces..." What about all those cars, and Cow Farrts ? But of course, the, 'Medieval Period', did not change, 'rapidly'. (They had a LOT of Cars and Cow Farrts then, according to Chicken Noodle News) Yea, all those cars and Cow Farrts ! And of course, everyone that 'understands', what is really going on, throws tires in the Ditch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Totaly, unlike a person, "Who Invented the Internet', Stuffed BILLIONS, in his Pocket, from D.F.I.'s, who bought TOXIC, CFL's, and threw them in the Landfills, to Pollute this Planet ! Yea, the 'Ice age', is coming, Oh wait, 'Global warming', is coming Wait again, 'the Ice age is Coming' Hang on, 'Global warming', is coming. Gotta get rid of those Cars and Cow Farrts, |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/07/17 at 20:04:24 Tax |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/08/17 at 04:39:33 An Inconvenient Truth Three weeks or so ago, we all got a good laugh from the New York Times fretting that China was in the process of seizing "climate leadership" from the United States. As reported here on June 8, Pravda had just reported that China was aiming to win the "economic and diplomatic spoils" that would come from dominating the world markets for wind and solar energy. Of course, this was big front-page news. But wind and solar as sources of electricity are intermittent and fundamentally useless to power a 24/7/365 grid. Are the Chinese really this stupid? Or are they just putting up some token Potemkin village demonstration projects to deceive the deluded climate cultists into pressuring the U.S. to hobble its economy, even as China floods the world with hundreds of more coal plants? Today's Pravda has the answer. Of course, since the answer is inconvenient, it's not big front-page news, but rather buried on page A10. The headline is "As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants." It seems that a German consultancy called Urgewald has gone out and compiled data on plans for new power plants around the world. The compilation comes after a recent highly-publicized announcement that China had scaled back plans to build coal power plants, and had canceled more than 100 of them that had previously been planned. That's "climate leadership"! But according to the Urgewald data, even after the cancelations China seems to be gearing up to build some 700 new coal plants, both in China itself and in countries around the world: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. To give you an idea of the scale of this, the U.S. currently has around 600 coal generation units, of which close to 50 are currently scheduled for closure. So, what the Chinese companies have in the pipeline for just the next few years is more than the entire U.S. capacity for generating electricity from coal. And, of course, China is not the only one out there building new coal plants: Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent. The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Did you somehow have the impression that the Trump administration was going to destroy the world's environment by declining to join the Paris climate agreement and failing to cut back U.S. carbon emissions by around 25%? Well, how is this even relevant to anything when the rest of the world is currently in the process of planning and building some three times as many coal electricity plants as the U.S. ever had? See if you can find the answer to that question anywhere in Pravda! The whole climate thing is quickly devolving into a game where countries around the world make preposterous and obviously false statements of intent to appease the climate cultists, while at the same time going ahead and developing the fossil fuel resources -- particularly coal -- just as fast as possible. I just hope that you appreciate the humor. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/08/17 at 07:50:37 The ScienTISTS made dire predictions. The Arctic is now ice free. Well, no. The hurricanes have been bigger, more destructive and more of them. Well, noo, not exactly.. So, why are the continual WARNINGS listened to? How long do you bow and scrape to Be PC before you admit They haven't been RIGHT? Why continue to pretend they are credible? Their most dire predictions not only HaVen't happened, They are inverted in the observed reality. Florida went, what? Ten YEARS not pounded by a hurricane? How many Scientific Expeditions to Prove what horrors exist have to be rescued by ICEBREAKERS before you start questioning the validity of the Fearmongers? Naturophobics sharing their fears and screaming in unison won't change the Fact that The warnings have been bullshit. Keep responding to the Scientists who cried wolf. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/08/17 at 09:33:51 https://lewrockwell.com/2017/07/no_author/things-get-hot-michael-mann/ |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/10/17 at 09:56:26 See below. So Turkey will pull out of the Paris Climate scheme because the number one mark in this con, The United States, was smart enogh to figure out this was never about anything other than money. But climate scientists are pure as snow and would never mislead us for their own selfish gain.... The US decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement means Turkey is less inclined to ratify the deal because the US move jeopardises compensation promised to developing countries, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday. Erdogan was speaking at the G20 summit in Germany where leaders from the world’s leading economies broke with US President Donald Trump over climate policy, following his announcement last month that he was withdrawing from the accord. Erdogan said that when Turkey signed the accord France had promised that Turkey would be eligible for compensation for some of the financial costs of compliance. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 10:01:37 SMH at deniers... Oh well, to each their own. I keep forgetting that there are still people out there that believe the Earth is flat, that angels really exist, believe in psychics, the devil, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, and ghosts. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/10/17 at 10:32:47 You and Sew are both foolish. You're playing the role of the Church in their battle against Galileo. Covering your ears and shouting out "Deniers....!" like a cowardly leader in some alternative world's version of a climate Inquisition. Why do you push so hard against someone asking valid questions? Even the Prophets of your Climate Religion admit their predictions have all been wrong, but they just blame it on obscure conditions that apparently weren't revealed to them before. Now they promise disaster is just around the corner and you must believe them this time. You guys remind me of some Churches in 1999 who were positive Y2K was the start of the end times. When it came and went, they merely adjusted a few variables in their calculations, predicted a new end date in the future and posted a new link to send donations.... |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 10:43:27 447671606776615E726178130 wrote:
LOL - well, science and the church could not be further apart... bad analogy. If you remember, it wasn't the churches that made the dire predictions, it was the big corporations. The Y2K "bug" was one of the biggest scams ever. Companies bilked other, larger companies out of millions of dollars in eradicating the "bug". Climate change is nothing like that - again... bad analogy. If you can sit there and deny that Man (all 7 billion of us) has had no effect on the Planet - you're delusional. It's impossible for us NOT to have an effect. So - why not err on the side of conservation? Hey - even if it's not as bad as the scientists think it is - look at China. They're in line to make hundreds of billions on the world market in solar. The US should be leading that charge, don't you think? Anyway - I'll stick with the scientists' view. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 10:53:10 Even the Prophets of your Climate Religion admit their predictions have all been wrong, but they just blame it on obscure conditions that apparently weren't revealed to them before. Now they promise disaster is just around the corner and you must believe them this time. Again, what's wrong with being proactive? That's just Earth Shattering.. How revealing.. The Boy who Cried Wolf is a tale about what happens to those who point to impending disaster when no threat exists. You somehow manage to pretend that After having been LIED to or, somehow Accidentally Misinformed, Gee, I Thought I saw a Wolf, Honest,, we should just go along with the same people who were so WRONG? How many nights in a row would You have to get up, grab the gun, and head out to hunt down a nonexistent wolf before you stopped responding? You're always gonna run and go, out of a need to be ProActive?? Wouldn't that preclude the notion that intelligent creatures Learn? Ohhh, not necessarily,, sorry. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 11:07:18 382721263B3C0D3D0D35272B60520 wrote:
Intelligent creatures learn from their surroundings. Again, we know that the Earth has warmed before. We know that it's cyclical. We know how that happens. What's troubling is the rate that it's happening. Like I said - I'll go with science on this one. I'm surprised that you don't find it more dubious that those denying it are the likes of large corporations and the right wing establishment. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 11:13:10 If you can sit there and deny that Man (all 7 billion of us) has had no effect on the Planet - you're delusional. It's impossible for us NOT to have an effect. How many times do you have to be told nobody of any importance believes that? This is what makes me call you a troll. You quickly pretend a position, and defend from there. Your straw man is dead. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/10/17 at 11:17:44 -So you don't think the rate of change has anything to do with Man? I think mankind has a small impact on climate. I think every reasonable person would agree to that which is why you get the infamous 97% number. But it's seems tiny compare to what we've been told we are responsible for. Why do you push so hard against someone asking valid questions? -I don't - but I'd rather err on the side of conservation. If the giant oil companies and other corporations got behind solar, wind, etc., would you feel different? What's wrong with being proactive? Are you so foolish you reject the possibility that professors and scientist are just as corruptible? Oil executives are demons but climate scientist are angels? Have you read nothing of the scientist who've lost careers because they didn't toe the line? You don't think the threat of being blackballed has the potential to influence them? Oil companies etc... are behind wind, solar etc... It's a business decision, but mostly a decision based on PR. Oil companies know, as does most everyone else (including those in renewable energy) that wind and solar have a ceiling and it's a low ceiling at that. Even the Prophets of your Climate Religion admit their predictions have all been wrong, but they just blame it on obscure conditions that apparently weren't revealed to them before. Now they promise disaster is just around the corner and you must believe them this time. -Again, what's wrong with being proactive? You guys remind me of some Churches in 1999 who were positive Y2K was the start of the end times. When it came and went, they merely adjusted a few variables in their calculations, predicted a new end date in the future and posted a new link to send donations.... -LOL - well, science and the church could not be further apart... bad analogy. Science and the Church are much closer that you, but regardless, my analogy is darn near perfect. Look how you all want to shut off debate. -If you remember, it wasn't the churches that made the dire predictions, it was the big corporations. The Y2K "bug" was one of the biggest scams ever. Companies bilked other, larger companies out of millions of dollars in eradicating the "bug". Again, you don't think scientist and academia have made millions? Why is Turkey pulling out? The money's no longer there. Corrupt people are corrupt regardless of whose side of the debate their on. People questioning climate change are losing their careers, not building careers. Climate change is nothing like that - again... bad analogy. -If you can sit there and deny that Man (all 7 billion of us) has had no effect on the Planet - you're delusional. It's impossible for us NOT to have an effect. No one said that. That's your fallback, straw man argument. -So - why not err on the side of conservation? Hey - even if it's not as bad as the scientists think it is - look at China. They're in line to make hundreds of billions on the world market in solar. The US should be leading that charge, don't you think? We are leading. We are not being fooled into redistributing our wealth. China is leading the charge..... in coal plant construction. the paris agreement exempted them for 10 years, India too. We should damage our economy, increase the wealth of our competitors all for a hypothetical fraction of a degree? Telling them to kiss off and go back to the drawing board is leading. Anyway - I'll stick with the scientists' view. Fine, I agree. Look up scientist who pose genuine questions about the fact that climate change has been seriously over-estimated. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 11:19:12 2C3335322F2819291921333F74460 wrote:
I don't present a strawman - I present that the rate of change is what's more in question than the change itself. Address that if you'd like. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 11:20:57 Ouch |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 11:32:18 1B292E3F38293E012D3E274C0 wrote:
I have - I still side with the proven climate scientists. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 11:42:48 I have - I still side with the proven climate scientists. The ones who admit being wrong. Or lying. And you must, of Course, have some elements of these scientists claims that were so correct that you simply must continue to believe. Please, share their claims that proved out. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 11:51:21 322D2B2C31360737073F2D216A580 wrote:
Rate of change: http://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*t6fe_DI1kXOvuj3Y. http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-evidence/ |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 12:01:57 CO2 rising Feeds plants Science agrees |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/10/17 at 12:05:19 You didn't answer the question. The rate of change is at issue. Do you believe that it's cause for concern? -No. It's miniscule. I'm 56 and have traveled the country and to a lesser extend the world, since I was in my 20's. I can't see any difference anywhere. And neither can you. Sorry, I don't believe in such crazy conspiracies. I do know that the main lobbyists for denial are funded heavily by big oil. To me, that's more cause for concern. It's also concerning that the establishment right wing is behind the denial as well. Two red flags that are hard to miss. -No, they are not heavily funded by "big oil". You don't honestly believe Judith Curry was funded by big oil and that's why she spoke up and lost her job? You think Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian is a secret big oil employee? If I listed a 1000 scientist and professors who question the currently climate change story, would you think Mobil pays them all a salary? I don't particularly like you at all, but I don't think you're that stupid. Says who? Oh yea.,. oil and coal companies!! LOL . The fact is, the entire planet gets ALL the energy it has ever had, or will ever have, from the sun. Yes, even geothermal, tidal and wind can be traced back to the good old sun. So to say that there's a "ceiling" - that's kind of absurd. The true "ceiling" or actually "basement" is fossil fuels. They are indeed finite and non-replenishable. -Says me. I see it all the time. In my work, we use the sustainability angle and we all know it's BS. Yes, there's a ceiling. Just like there's a ceiling in anything mechanical. We can never have flying cars and spaces ships that zip in and out of orbit that are popular in science fiction for example. It's fun to think about and watch NASA make little jet packs suits a guy can fly around in for a few minutes. But our physical world will not allow the ships in "Close Encounters" for example. There is a mechanical ceiling that we'll bump up against. We'll make improvements no doubt but we'll hit a limit. How soon is anyone's guess. And there's a ceiling for solar energy. We've been at this for 30 or 40 years and it's a fraction of our energy. We can spend billions and billions to move up a few percentage points. Not a strawman - it's actually a fact. Humans do indeed affect the Earth on a daily basis. -Saying humans affect the Earth is like auditioning for Captain Obvious. No $hit Sherlock. But that's not the question now is it? The question is: Is the majority of the temperature increase we see (and we do see it. 15,000 years ago, the Great Lakes were nothing but ice so no one disputes the earth has/is warming) due to CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels? Plenty of scientist say NO to that question. I have - I still side with the proven climate scientists. -I side with the proven climate scientist who say manmade climate change due to co2 from fossil fuels is overstated. The evidence is more on their side than the other side. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 12:13:58 350700111607102F031009620 wrote:
Rate of change. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 12:15:59 435C5A5D40477646764E5C501B290 wrote:
Um, not really.... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 12:39:29 Whether Scientists agree or not, the SCIENCE is settled.. WebImagesVideosMapsNews 1,640,000 RESULTSAny time About our ads Co2 Injector at Amazon | Amazon.com Ad · www.Amazon.com Free Shipping on Qualified Orders. Buy Co2 Injector at Amazon! Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses - Ministry of … www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. Carbon ... Greenhouse growing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) supply ... - Praxair www.praxair.com/industries/food-and-beverage/greenhouse-growing Greenhouse growing carbon dioxide ... Print; Growing green. Achieve optimal greenhouse growing with carbon dioxide ... build and install the best CO 2 injection ... Hydrofarm - Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Methods https://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2_enrichment.php Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Methods . By Roger H. Thayer, Eco Enterprises . CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent of the air … Subpart UU – Injection of Carbon Dioxide | Greenhouse … https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/subpart-uu-injection-carbon-dioxide 10 rows · Rule Information. This rule requires reporting of greenhouse gases (GHGs) … FEDERAL REGIS… CITATION ACTION DESCRIPTION 12/09/2016 81 FR 89188 Final Rule Finalizes revisions to specific pro… 11/29/2013 78 FR 71904 Final Rule Finalizes amendments that consi… 04/02/2013 78 FR 19802 Proposed Rule Proposal to amend the Greenhou… 08/13/2012 77 FR 48072 Final Rule Finalizes confidentiality determin… See all 10 rows on www.epa.gov Is CO2 is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouses … www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators... If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 12:54:52 3B242225383F0E3E0E36242863510 wrote:
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm http://www.salon.com/2015/05/22/scientists_destroy_another_climate_denier_myth_rising_co2_levels_arent_good_for_plants/ http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ (skepticalscience.com) What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general? 1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2). On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer. 2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food. 3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat. 4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit 5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows. 6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures. In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change. Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects. Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/10/17 at 13:08:54 -No. It's miniscule. I'm 56 and have traveled the country and to a lesser extend the world, since I was in my 20's. I can't see any difference anywhere. And neither can you. See chart and links above. =The actual change in temperature attributed to CO2 from burning fossil fuels is unknown by anyone. In fact, the tiny change in the actual temperature is debatable since adjustments have been made from past readings. Sorry, I don't believe in such crazy conspiracies. I do know that the main lobbyists for denial are funded heavily by big oil. To me, that's more cause for concern. It's also concerning that the establishment right wing is behind the denial as well. Two red flags that are hard to miss. -No, they are not heavily funded by "big oil". You don't honestly believe Judith Curry was funded by big oil and that's why she spoke up and lost her job? You think Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian is a secret big oil employee? If I listed a 1000 scientist and professors who question the currently climate change story, would you think Mobil pays them all a salary? I don't particularly like you at all, but I don't think you're that stupid. You can't list that many. Nice try though. = Bet me. Says who? Oh yea.,. oil and coal companies!! LOL . The fact is, the entire planet gets ALL the energy it has ever had, or will ever have, from the sun. Yes, even geothermal, tidal and wind can be traced back to the good old sun. So to say that there's a "ceiling" - that's kind of absurd. The true "ceiling" or actually "basement" is fossil fuels. They are indeed finite and non-replenishable. -Says me. I see it all the time. In my work, we use the sustainability angle and we all know it's BS. Yes, there's a ceiling. Just like there's a ceiling in anything mechanical. We can never have flying cars and spaces ships that zip in and out of orbit that are popular in science fiction for example. It's fun to think about and watch NASA make little jet packs suits a guy can fly around in for a few minutes. But our physical world will not allow the ships in "Close Encounters" for example. There is a mechanical ceiling that we'll bump up against. Like the "unbreakable" sound barrier, right? =I don't know what you do for a living or what your background or education level is but you really don't have any idea what you're saying in regards to this. And if they didn't think the sound barrier was breakable, they wouldn't have done it. We'll make improvements no doubt but we'll hit a limit. LOL - again, says who? Are you a theoretical physicist? Are you a astrophysicist? = Not exactly. Let me guess, you believe in Star Trek's transporter?.... How soon is anyone's guess. And there's a ceiling for solar energy. We've been at this for 30 or 40 years and it's a fraction of our energy. We can spend billions and billions to move up a few percentage points. You may want to check what those "fractions" are... not so insignificant anymore. =yes, they are. In the big picture, they are literally the pimple on the elephant's butt. Not a strawman - it's actually a fact. Humans do indeed affect the Earth on a daily basis. -Saying humans affect the Earth is like auditioning for Captain Obvious. No $hit Sherlock. But that's not the question now is it? The question is: Is the majority of the temperature increase we see (and we do see it. 15,000 years ago, the Great Lakes were nothing but ice so no one disputes the earth has/is warming) due to CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels? Plenty of scientist say NO to that question. Sigh.... rate of change. Rate of change. Rate of change.... =You have no idea what the rate of change is. I have - I still side with the proven climate scientists. -I side with the proven climate scientist who say manmade climate change due to co2 from fossil fuels is overstated. The evidence is more on their side than the other side. Rate of change. =The IPCC reports estimating global temperatures have been wrong every time. I think they've issued 5 since they started, maybe more. Now they are telling you the same thing again and it never occurs to you to think they've been wrong every single time?.... It's said you can't argue with a religious zealot and I think that's the case here. Go bow to your climate change God. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 13:15:35 The PERPETUALLY WRONG scientists are supported by the PERPETUALLY WRONG left. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 13:22:22 457770616677605F736079120 wrote:
Climate change is based in science, not God - nice try. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/10/17 at 14:02:40 But the RATE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE is the crux!! =How could you know the rate of change associated with CO2 if you don't know the natural rate of change? The historical temperatures are unknown, they are estimates. As has been pointed out by the Climategate emails, they were changed to hide the decline. Have at it!! =Nope. Bet me. $100 bucks. It’s not your country. Scientists thought (at the time) it was unbreakable!!! That's a FACT!!! Sheesh!! Lol =No they didn’t! Whips break the sound barrier when you snap them. The props on airplanes break the sound barrier. They knew and understood this. I give, you win. You've successfully convinced me that by being wrong about almost everything we've discussed, you at right. So I will be like you. The IPCC scientist have told you the temp would be X. In reality it's currently X-Y. And they've done this to you over and over again. You however believe everything they say. You have been wrong over and over again in this thread. So I choose to believe you know what you're talking about despite all evidence to the contrary. I am TT. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 14:13:59 All scientific Facts presented provided by the Same PERPETUALLY WRONG scientists. But allegedly critically thinking adults continue to buy it. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 14:18:16 4D7F78696E7F68577B68711A0 wrote:
Rate.... of.... change..... |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 14:21:37 Called important by the same Perpetually Wrong scientists. I'm all shook up. Let's hyperventilate over what is unproven, And Import refugees, who have wrecked Europe. I'm supposed to yield to That decision making ability? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 14:24:00 253A3C3B2621102010283A367D4F0 wrote:
No - you do you. I'll take the path of caution and err on the side of the scientists. No big deal to me. I'll buy a Tesla as soon as I can. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 14:51:52 But WHY ? Who is So WRONG for so Long but retains credibility? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 15:00:42 435C5A5D40477646764E5C501B290 wrote:
Like I said - you do you. You think I'm wrong - I think you're wrong. That's never gonna change apparently. I personally want to err on the side of caution. I'll support lowering emissions, and increasing funding to cleaner energy. I see the alternative as unsustainable and damaging. I think that Man has caused the rapid elevation of Earth's temperature. I can see more science supporting it than not. I also take comfort in the fact that I will try and change for the betterment of the Planet than to turn a blind eye to it. So.... Let's say it is all a hoax - I'd STILL rather try to find alternatives to fossil fuels. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 15:07:28 Change towards something cleaner and sustainable is only reasonable. Pretending the climate is going crazy, driving support for change with fear, that's WRONG. You can want better without screaming Fire. You can't justify pretending the demonstrably incorrect Science we've had shoved down our throats by saying you want to err on side of caution after the Destruction promised BY THEIR INFORMATION hasn't happened. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/10/17 at 15:14:02 4D5254534E4978487840525E15270 wrote:
I don't see it that way. I see core, ocean and geologic sediment temps that point to acceleration at an alarming rate. I'm not scared of it - I see the immediate need to change. What scares me is the denial. That everything is fine. You just said it - "Change towards something cleaner and sustainable is only reasonable." Well then... let's get going on it - why wait? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/17 at 15:55:16 I'm not Rossi. What steps do you suggest? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 05:34:56 Putting this Mann thread to bed; a couple of important points. One guy responsible for the original global warming charade taking off is the guy this thread's titled after, Michael Mann. He filed two libel suits after articles appeared saying he basically made stuff up to make his infamous hockey stick graph work. In both cases, he's refused to provide his data during the discovery part of the pre-trial. So the writers said his data was false, he sued for libel but now refuses to show the original data.... Hmmmmm Yea, he lied. So, for Sew and TT who seem to impose near angelic status on anyone claiming to be a climate scientist, one of the original architects of GW created false data and that helped to kick off the greatest scientific fraud in history.... Secondly, from Manhattan Contrarian. (whom you should all read by the way;http://manhattancontrarian.com/ ). Basically, the temps are back where they were in the 80's and 90's. And if you read thru the rest of his stuff, he post all the temp readings and the MARGIN OF ERROR showing how all these headlines that we've just head the hottest June etc.... are BS because the temp difference in so tiny and within the margin of error. With the breakup of last year's big El Niño, global temperatures declined significantly. The latest global temperature anomaly from the UAH satellite temperature series is +0.21 deg C for June 2017 -- down a remarkable 0.65 deg C from the February 2016 global anomaly of +0.86 deg C. The Northern Hemisphere anomaly dropped even more, by 0.86 deg C, from +1.19 deg C to only +0.32 deg C. Those declines represent well more than half of the entire warming that had been present in the satellite record at the peak of the El Niño, and bring recent temperatures below those recorded during many months in the 1980s and 90s. It's no wonder that the breathless press releases from NASA and NOAA trumpeting "hottest [April, May, June, etc.] ever!" have at least temporarily ceased. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 05:41:43 I lied. One last thing on this climate change thread and then off to work. Trump should be on Mt. Rushmore today, why wait? He saved all of us an incredible amount of money and did his part to maintain our prosperity by pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Why? There's a phrase, the Devil's in the Details. Check out below from someone who did the research to determine exactly what was in this 'agreement'. As a basic starting point, I suggest that on any story of political importance in the New York Times, the truth is probably exactly the opposite of what they report. Consider that lead story on the front page of yesterday's Sunday print edition: "World Leaders Move Forward on Climate Change, Without U.S." Scary! The U.S. is getting completely isolated from the world community! In a final communiqué at the conclusion of the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany, the nations took “note” of Mr. Trump’s decision to abandon the pact and “immediately cease” efforts to enact former President Barack Obama’s pledge of curbing greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. But the other 19 members of the group broke explicitly with Mr. Trump in their embrace of the international deal, signing off on a detailed policy blueprint outlining how their countries could meet their goals in the pact. You can definitely count on Pravda not to look into what these other 19 countries have promised to do and let you know if there is any substance to it. So the hard work falls once again to the Manhattan Contrarian. If you just Google the letters "INDC" ("Intended Nationally Determined Contribution") along with the name of a country, you can find out exactly what that country has promised to do as part of the Paris Agreement. So let's take a look at what a few of the big countries are up to. •China. We already know that answer from my post just last week. China, through its companies, is planning to build over the course of the next decade or so well more than double the number of coal power plants that the U.S. has today. Its INDC calls for its proceeding to increase carbon emissions as much as it wants through 2030, and only then (when everyone in China presumably has electricity and a couple of cars) to level things off. By that time its emissions will probably be at least triple those of the U.S. •India. India's INDC openly admits that it intends to increase its electricity supply by more than triple between now and 2030, with no commitment whatsoever as to how much of that will come from fossil fuels. Oh, they say that they plan to lower the "emissions intensity" of their energy generation, and greatly expand (useless) wind and solar capacity, as well as nuclear. Whoopee! •Indonesia. These things get more comical the more of them you read. The first thing you learn in reading Indonesia's INDC is that the large majority of its emissions come from burning down the rain forest ("most emissions (63%) are the result of land use change and peat and forest fires") and very little from using fossil fuels for energy ("fossil fuels contribute[e] approximately 19% of total emissions"). So they'll promise to burn down less of the rain forest, and nothing whatsoever as to reducing use of fossil fuels for energy. Their (completely illusory) "reduction target" of 29% by 2030 is not against a fixed amount of past usage (like the United States' benchmark of 2005 emissions), but rather is against what they call a "business as usual" scenario of projected future emissions that are a multiple of today's. •Russia. What, you didn't know that Russia was a member of the G20? What is the chance that Russia would make an honest promise about emissions reductions? Their INDC calls for reducing emissions by 25-30% below 1990 by 2030. Impressive! Wait a minute! The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Then they closed down all that inefficient Soviet industry. According to a graph at Climate Action Tracker here, by 2000 their emissions were down by almost 40% from the 1990 level, and they have only crept up a little from there since. In other words, Russia's supposed "commitments" again represent increases from today's level of emissions. Yet another total scam. •Germany. Germany is part of the supposed EU commitment to reduce emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Oh, but now that Germany has gotten its electricity production from renewables up to about 30%, it seems that it has hit a wall, and its carbon emissions have actually gone up for both of the last two years (2015 and 2016), according to Clean Energy Wire. Exactly how do they plan to meet their goal? Excellent question. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 06:10:02 Well, NOW look what you've done! You've introduced FACTS into a totally emotional event. You can rest assured that the ones who hate Trump will be unable to discern the truth. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 06:18:36 Wouldn't want anyone to miss this. Probably not gonna matter, but, I gotta try. The ANSWERS that are being proposed will destroy what is left of the economy. The people pushing for this are the same people who wanted Bamicare. They are always Wrong. They don't know how this is part of Agenda 21. Yeah, let's Level the Playing Field, you remember, like Nafta did.. You won't be able to afford to run your air conditioner and won't be Allowed to have a fire. We will be paying for carbon credits and carbon taxes. A surcharge on manufactured goods, to Pay for the carbon emissions required to manufacture your television.. But who sees it? Not the masses. They clammer for their own destruction. Sold lies, AGAIN! 192B2C3D3A2B3C032F3C254E0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 06:33:50 Sigh... Just read the thread below boys... don't get your panties in a twist (hey, jog even says cleaner and more sustainable is better, so...). This is what I believe - period.- 554B444548554E53210 wrote:
I don't see it that way. I see core, ocean and geologic sediment temps that point to acceleration at an alarming rate. I'm not scared of it - I see the immediate need to change. What scares me is the denial. That everything is fine. You just said it - "Change towards something cleaner and sustainable is only reasonable." Well then... let's get going on it - why wait?[/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 06:36:57 514E484F52556454645C4E42093B0 wrote:
Don't be so blatantly obtuse. It's obvious. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 06:46:28 It was obvious that the guy admitting he lied was actually busted, What steps to take to address a problem that may not exist may be less obvious. You're full of answers, Share, c Don't be so blatantly obtuse Funny, coming from you. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 07:01:56 495650574A4D7C4C7C44565A11230 wrote:
Why not ask me how to draw a circle? Same concept jog - I'm not falling for your fake naivete. We all know what needs to be done. If you honestly don't, then stand out of the way. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 07:54:03 There's another aspect to this climate change BS. 20% of the world doesn't have regular access to electricity. that's 1.2 billion. Cutting fossil fuel emissions means relegating them to poverty. This is the anti-human aspect of environmentalism. Sending money to build a pedal powered pump for a poor African village instead of a looking for a way to provide affordable, reliable electricity is nothing short of evil. Wind and solar might be fine for you because no matter what, you've go the grid to back you up, keep your hospitals open, keep your refrigerator with medicine cold.... But that's not good enough if it's your only source. "I've got my prosperity, to hell with you" is what you're really saying by following though with the ramifications of lowering emissions. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 08:21:33 7E606F6E637E65780A0 wrote:
Why not ask me how to draw a circle? Same concept jog - I'm not falling for your fake naivete. We all know what needs to be done. If you honestly don't, then stand out of the way.[/quote] Your ideas of smart scare me. What do you want to see done? If you're waiting for your handler to tell you what to say, I understand. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 08:28:07 497B7C6D6A7B6C537F6C751E0 wrote:
LOL - this whole time, I've been talking about the US and industrialized countries... as have pretty much everyone else. Talk about a strawman - nice example! Eye on the ball, huh? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 08:31:35 534C4A4D50576656665E4C400B390 wrote:
Why not ask me how to draw a circle? Same concept jog - I'm not falling for your fake naivete. We all know what needs to be done. If you honestly don't, then stand out of the way.[/quote] Your ideas of smart scare me. What do you want to see done? I refuse to think that you are that stupid - but you sure are pushing that narrative. If you're waiting for your handler to tell you what to say, I understand.[/quote] What is that... some kind of jab? Ohhh... woe is me..... you think I don't think for myself... whatever shall I do?...... It's funny - you accuse me of being a troll, and then you exhibit the EXACT nature of one... nice! You're not gonna be successful jog. But keep on tryin'. LOL |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 08:50:21 You got nothing.. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 09:25:04 382721263B3C0D3D0D35272B60520 wrote:
LOL - talk about your ripping retort! Huzzah!!! |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 10:01:34 504E41404D504B56240 wrote:
LOL - this whole time, I've been talking about the US and industrialized countries... as have pretty much everyone else. Talk about a strawman - nice example! Eye on the ball, huh?[/quote] I don't think you're grasping the big picture. Pursing CO2 emission reductions in prosperous nations will condemn millions to poverty. China, India will build coal plants, they can afford it. Little country in central Africa can't. They will be left behind because no one will build them a coal fired plant or a nuclear plant. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 10:04:42 Looking at the problems that Solving the Problem will cause isn't a strawman. Explain Why you would claim that. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 10:35:02 0D3F38292E3F28173B28315A0 wrote:
LOL - this whole time, I've been talking about the US and industrialized countries... as have pretty much everyone else. Talk about a strawman - nice example! Eye on the ball, huh?[/quote] I don't think you're grasping the big picture. Pursing CO2 emission reductions in prosperous nations will condemn millions to poverty. China, India will build coal plants, they can afford it. Little country in central Africa can't. They will be left behind because no one will build them a coal fired plant or a nuclear plant. [/quote] Have you read the Paris Accord? Did you know that the burden of reduction is not the same across the board? It's been addressed. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 10:38:49 647B7D7A6760516151697B773C0E0 wrote:
Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. Well, when web said "Cutting fossil fuel emissions means relegating them to poverty." - that's untrue - a strawman. According to the Paris Agreement, the burden is less on underdeveloped countries. It's like someone saying - "Oh, you want to get rid of fossil fuels? Then the government is gonna take your motorcycle away". Not a true statement. See? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 10:45:55 This one looks different from the last one with respect to the smaller nations. This one does injure America and allow China and others to grow. It's been posted. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 10:58:43 332C2A2D30370636063E2C206B590 wrote:
LOL - "injure America". I think not. Pull its own weight, yes. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 11:01:41 Which trade deals did you oppose? If you are unable to see the weight of the restrictions is on us, while China and India and others get to go without restrictions, well, I can't say I'm surprised. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 11:08:04 392620273A3D0C3C0C34262A61530 wrote:
I can see quite clearly - but it's a moot point now, isn't it. Our president, in his infinite wisdom, has pulled out of the agreement. I personally think it's a bad idea. His team thinks it will somehow strengthen the US. What they fail to see is the global economy we live in now... and if things keep going the way they are, the US will less of a world power. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 11:27:12 Ridiculous. No one will pass up a business opportunity in the US because Trump wisely refused to screw over his nation. You cant have your cake and eat it too. On one hand, you can't say evil business men will do anything for a buck and on the other hand, say they'll bypass profits to follow an unenforceable agreement. Other nations and a few stupid governors will say they'll honor the agreement, they won't. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 11:32:57 China, India and Russia have Zero requirements. Our cutting our throats will impact nothing Except OUR standard of living. Am I the only one who read the post? |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 11:47:31 576562737465724D61726B000 wrote:
So says you... that's just your opinion. I've shared mine too. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 11:53:17 77686E6974734272427A68642F1D0 wrote:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-paris-accord-china-and-coal-pla/ In the Paris Agreement, each country determines, plans and regularly reports its own contribution it should make in order to mitigate global warming.[5] There is no mechanism to force[6] a country to set a specific target by a specific date,[7] but each target should go beyond previously set targets. In 2017, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement, causing widespread condemnation in the European Union and many sectors in the United States. In July 2017, France’s environment minister Nicolas Hulot announced France’s five-year plan to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040 as part of the Paris Agreement. Hulot also stated that France would no longer use coal to produce electricity after 2022 and that up to €4bn will be invested in boosting energy efficiency.[8] |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 13:04:20 Looks like a buncha fluff over reality. When they eliminate coal, I'll look at what they replaced it with. Nukular is as dumb an idea as any I've seen. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 13:09:29 No president writes their own and remember Obama couldn't even do a press conference w/o a TelePrompTer so you can forget that useless crap and stay on topic. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 13:53:03 4C7E79686F7E69567A69701B0 wrote:
No, not useless crap - very legitimate in this context. Our president has all the intelligence of a radish when compared to Obama. Further, anytime that Obama was off prompter, he was deliberate and articulate. Our current president? Not so much. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 14:00:46 6D7274736E6958685860727E35070 wrote:
Hmm, not sure what you mean by writing "nukular", but whatever.. Nuclear is far cleaner and more efficient than gas or coal. Yes, there are many drawbacks, but there is much room for improvement - molten salt reactors, better safeguards, etc. Don't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of fusion either. |
|
Title: Re: Mann Down! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 17:18:05 I wish for fusion. The environmental Cost of building a nuke plant is very high. If the goal is lower carbon, gotta consider everything. I'm not gonna be supportive of nukes. Never did agree with that. The waste Stays Waste for too long and IF there's a problem, it can be a Really BIG problem. See Fukushima |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |