Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Beaver dams are a great place to get moose here in northern Ontario......:lol:
I wasn't gonna answer this bullshite but this was too good to pass up
The lady changed her mind after that original statement to break the coal miners union strike in favor of nuclear energy
The lady changed her mind after that original statement to break the coal miners union strike in favor of nuclear energy
Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic? - Telegraph
What the heck .... you missed my point entirely. I don't babble....brooks do.
and Capt. of course it is pollution that is causing the earth's climate changes.
According to the eco truthers, it's carbon and ghgs that is causing all of this chaos and the only solution is to transfer money from developed nations in the West to the non-developed nations.
... That is the only way to stop global warming in it's tracks
... That is the only way to stop global warming in it's tracks
Oh for pete's sake!! How ridiculous does this discussion get. A commie?? Fascist?? Maybe you need to look up the meaning of terms before tossing them about. Excuse me but without regulations of some sort i.e. against killing your neighbouur or stealing, from him what kind of a world would we have??
It is about paying our fair share or more for what we have caused and to give a helping hand to those who are too impoverished t to pay as much. AND not shooting ourselves in the collective foot by trying to save a few bucks. We want cheap goods and those who can produce these cannot afford as yet to do it as cleanly as we could but won't.
Where the heck did common sense go? What is the difference between paying to clean up the messes or paying to prevent them?? NOW we need to do both. Because we are not affected as badly as others as yet we ineviitably will be. The rain does't just fall on the polluting countries nor does drought does not just occur to those who are causing harmful changes.. The sun is not just causing more skin cancer in Africa or the arctic but over the tender skinned of North America.
Just in case there is such a thing as reincarnation, I tend towards wanting to leave the place a bit better than when I came into it. And if it is a once around the block at least my children and grandchildren would have a decent world to live in.
Last edited:
Already paying 50% plus of my income to various forms of government . How much is my fair share ?
Katharine Hayhoe: 'The true threat is the delusion that our opinion of science somehow alters its reality'
Whilst the climate is changing rapidly, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe says that scientists have no option but to fight against the politicisation of science
Katharine Hayhoe on anti-science sentiment
Most people don’t reject science wholesale because they actually have a problem with the science. The same equations of radiative transfer and non-linear fluid dynamics that explain how our stoves work or how airplanes fly provide the basis of our climate models, too. Rather, people selectively reject a specific set of scientific findings: those they perceive to be a threat to their ideology or worldview, and hence to their identity.
How can the reality of climate change be perceived as a threat? First, there’s the pragmatic aspect: six out of ten of the wealthiest corporations in the world either extract oil or create the cars that use them. And there’s no getting around it – to fix the climate, we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels as quickly as we can. These companies have a significant financial stake in muddying the waters on the science and delaying action on climate as long as possible; because every year that carbon emissions continue, they make an additional profit. Climate change solutions threaten their bottom line.
Profiteering is only one part of the picture, though. Climate change is, at its root, a tragedy of the commons. We can only fix it by working together, and working together typically implies government legislation. For many people in the United States, where the concept of personal liberty has been virtually deified, any implied interference of the government in their lives is anathema. As one man put it honestly, after a talk I gave to water managers in south Texas about preparing for a changing climate: “Everything you’ve said makes sense; but I don’t want the government setting my thermostat.” People believe climate change solutions threaten who we are, and how we live.
The true threat, however, is the delusion that our opinion of science somehow alters its reality. If we say we don’t believe in gravity and we step off the cliff, we’re still going down. Sea level will rise regardless of any legislation we may pass, and the climate is changing no matter how many politicians say it isn’t. The window of time to prevent widespread dangerous human interference with the climate system is closing fast. Rejecting this reality puts us all at risk.
Katharine Hayhoe: 'The true threat is the delusion that our opinion of science somehow alters its reality' | WIRED UK
Whilst the climate is changing rapidly, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe says that scientists have no option but to fight against the politicisation of science
Katharine Hayhoe on anti-science sentiment
Most people don’t reject science wholesale because they actually have a problem with the science. The same equations of radiative transfer and non-linear fluid dynamics that explain how our stoves work or how airplanes fly provide the basis of our climate models, too. Rather, people selectively reject a specific set of scientific findings: those they perceive to be a threat to their ideology or worldview, and hence to their identity.
How can the reality of climate change be perceived as a threat? First, there’s the pragmatic aspect: six out of ten of the wealthiest corporations in the world either extract oil or create the cars that use them. And there’s no getting around it – to fix the climate, we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels as quickly as we can. These companies have a significant financial stake in muddying the waters on the science and delaying action on climate as long as possible; because every year that carbon emissions continue, they make an additional profit. Climate change solutions threaten their bottom line.
Profiteering is only one part of the picture, though. Climate change is, at its root, a tragedy of the commons. We can only fix it by working together, and working together typically implies government legislation. For many people in the United States, where the concept of personal liberty has been virtually deified, any implied interference of the government in their lives is anathema. As one man put it honestly, after a talk I gave to water managers in south Texas about preparing for a changing climate: “Everything you’ve said makes sense; but I don’t want the government setting my thermostat.” People believe climate change solutions threaten who we are, and how we live.
The true threat, however, is the delusion that our opinion of science somehow alters its reality. If we say we don’t believe in gravity and we step off the cliff, we’re still going down. Sea level will rise regardless of any legislation we may pass, and the climate is changing no matter how many politicians say it isn’t. The window of time to prevent widespread dangerous human interference with the climate system is closing fast. Rejecting this reality puts us all at risk.
Katharine Hayhoe: 'The true threat is the delusion that our opinion of science somehow alters its reality' | WIRED UK
Here is a fun fact. Cap and Trade is not new. SO2 cap and trade turned out to be a cash cow for the petroleum, energy and mining companies.
Why do you think they support it again?
https://www.perc.org/blog/whatever-happened-so2-trading
Why do you think they support it again?
https://www.perc.org/blog/whatever-happened-so2-trading
The only solution to alleged GHG emissions is efficiency. Carbon taxes and cap and trade do nothing other than line pockets and Govt coffers.
It's like buying a sapling when you buy a plane ticket. It's only helping the ego.
It's like buying a sapling when you buy a plane ticket. It's only helping the ego.
It never will be revenue neutral unless it's managed by a third party at arms length of Govt.
Very fake.
What’s causing Cape Town’s water crisis?
08:07 17/05/2017
Cape Town - There are several likely causes of Cape Town’s water shortage. GroundUp spoke to Kevin Winter, a lecturer in Environmental and Geographical Sciences at the University of Cape Town, who helped us get to the root of the problem (we take sole responsibility for any errors).
Population growing faster than storage
Since 1995 the city’s population has grown 55%, from about 2.4 million to an expected 4.3 million in 2018.
Over the same period, dam storage has increased by only 15%.
The Berg River Dam, which began storing water in 2007, has been Cape Town’s only significant addition to water storage infrastructure since 1995. It’s 130 000 megalitre capacity is over 14% of the 898 000 megalitres that can be held in Cape Town’s large dams. Had it not been for good water consumption management by the City, the current crisis could have hit much earlier.
The population never increased 2 fold on a system that was only beefed up by 15%?
They have a civic planning crisis.
Would there be a crisis had the population stayed the same?
They have a civic planning crisis.
Would there be a crisis had the population stayed the same?
Last edited: