All Things Environment

[cradleandshoot]

Is the "All things Environment" thread?
Or the dumb Petey rant thread?

IMO Pete's opinion probably makes more sense than the fear mongering that is perpetuated on this thread. There are times where a tangent can be refreshing indeed. I do know that if we " invest" trillions of dollars mother earth will show her gratitude and save us from global warming. There is a huge difference between being good stewards of our planet and thinking we can change what mother earth will do. What exactly is the mechanism that reverses global warming? All we have to do is lower our CO2 emissions and we are out of the woods. Too bad the Chicoms don't give two figs about saving the planet. They would prefer to become the worlds next global super power... damn the planet in the process. Why is it that I bet if we looked at the investment portfolios of the environmental fear mongers we would see where they are investing their money...

In my Greata voice... "How darrre youuu"

Some people lack the ability to walk and chew gum. Not one person in this world believes we should treat mother earth like mother earth like shyt....well maybe a handful of corporate douchebags. It is no different than their messaging on damned near everything else....which is borderline sci-fi...'we have to save you from yourself, and we need your money to do it, and never mind what I do or how wealthy I get in the process'.

The US has been going green for damned near 3 decades.....just look up USGBC, and we have rocked it here on our turf and only getting better. But the sky is falling message is played out.

The excessive histrionics of the left are indeed their Achilles heel. If you read or listen to their speeches, you’d think the world is dead already.

Total clowns.

I have no doubt that climate has changed. It will always change. But what these numbskulls want is not for climate to revert to mean (as if!), they simply want an excuse to tax corporations and individuals more, all the while promoting some kind of bizarre one world government. So the left latches on to a partially correct theory, but need to blow it completely out of proportion. So normal people tune them out…so they get more hysterically woke. The cycle continues.

Nothing would delight a Democrat more than stealing 95% of Elon Musks stock, which would of course crater the stock, hurting every shareholder. But as the saying goes, the left simply wants everyone to be equally miserable…they abhor success.

Normal people reject this idiocy. Normal people like opportunity and excellence. Normal people win in the end. Be a normal person.

+1 Pete. Your post is the reason why some folks on this forum are scared to death of people like Dr Roy Spencer. It takes balls to go against the mainstream environmental terrorists. When a young girl like Greta has been granted expert status as an environmentalist activist... say no more.

Spencer has already been proven wrong.

Not by you... he has written 100s of articles. Which ones has he been proven wrong on? i understand why you hate him. He knows more about the subject than you ever will. You PhD types are so thin skinned when anybody questions you..

[cradleandshoot]

https://news.trust.org/item/20211108095820-ay5ap

So all of peasants should be forced to drive electric cars to save the planet. The billionaires flip all of us the middle finger. Hey 72, does your yacht have a helicopter pad on it?

[Peter Brown]

Is the "All things Environment" thread?
Or the dumb Petey rant thread?

IMO Pete's opinion probably makes more sense than the fear mongering that is perpetuated on this thread. There are times where a tangent can be refreshing indeed. I do know that if we " invest" trillions of dollars mother earth will show her gratitude and save us from global warming. There is a huge difference between being good stewards of our planet and thinking we can change what mother earth will do. What exactly is the mechanism that reverses global warming? All we have to do is lower our CO2 emissions and we are out of the woods. Too bad the Chicoms don't give two figs about saving the planet. They would prefer to become the worlds next global super power... damn the planet in the process. Why is it that I bet if we looked at the investment portfolios of the environmental fear mongers we would see where they are investing their money...

In my Greata voice... "How darrre youuu"

Some people lack the ability to walk and chew gum. Not one person in this world believes we should treat mother earth like mother earth like shyt....well maybe a handful of corporate douchebags. It is no different than their messaging on damned near everything else....which is borderline sci-fi...'we have to save you from yourself, and we need your money to do it, and never mind what I do or how wealthy I get in the process'.

The US has been going green for damned near 3 decades.....just look up USGBC, and we have rocked it here on our turf and only getting better. But the sky is falling message is played out.

The excessive histrionics of the left are indeed their Achilles heel. If you read or listen to their speeches, you’d think the world is dead already.

Total clowns.

I have no doubt that climate has changed. It will always change. But what these numbskulls want is not for climate to revert to mean (as if!), they simply want an excuse to tax corporations and individuals more, all the while promoting some kind of bizarre one world government. So the left latches on to a partially correct theory, but need to blow it completely out of proportion. So normal people tune them out…so they get more hysterically woke. The cycle continues.

Nothing would delight a Democrat more than stealing 95% of Elon Musks stock, which would of course crater the stock, hurting every shareholder. But as the saying goes, the left simply wants everyone to be equally miserable…they abhor success.

Normal people reject this idiocy. Normal people like opportunity and excellence. Normal people win in the end. Be a normal person.

+1 Pete. Your post is the reason why some folks on this forum are scared to death of people like Dr Roy Spencer. It takes balls to go against the mainstream environmental terrorists. When a young girl like Greta has been granted expert status as an environmentalist activist... say no more.

Spencer has already been proven wrong.

Not by you... he has written 100s of articles. Which ones has he been proven wrong on? i understand why you hate him. He knows more about the subject than you ever will. You PhD types are so thin skinned when anybody questions you..

+1

[jhu72]

I see the President and Vice President of "Club Insecurity Complex for White Men" have seen fit to comment.

[CU88]

In a groundbreaking move this week, the city of Ithaca, New York, voted to decarbonize and electrify buildings in the city by the end of the decade — a goal that was part of the city's own Green New Deal and one of the portions of the plan that will help the city become carbon neutral by 2030.

Ithaca is the first U.S. city to establish such a plan, which the city says will cut Ithaca's 400,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions by 40%. The timeline to achieve its goal is much sooner than what other cities around the world have pledged to do.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/06/10524727 ... gs-by-2030

[cradleandshoot]

I see the President and Vice President of "Club Insecurity Complex for White Men" have seen fit to comment.

Nice try doc, with a PhD and a such a distinguished career i would expect a much better and sophisticated put down from you. i still think Roy Spencer would kick your ass to the curb in an open debate. i would pay good money to see it happen...

[cradleandshoot]

In a groundbreaking move this week, the city of Ithaca, New York, voted to decarbonize and electrify buildings in the city by the end of the decade — a goal that was part of the city's own Green New Deal and one of the portions of the plan that will help the city become carbon neutral by 2030.

Ithaca is the first U.S. city to establish such a plan, which the city says will cut Ithaca's 400,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions by 40%. The timeline to achieve its goal is much sooner than what other cities around the world have pledged to do.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/06/10524727 ... gs-by-2030

Ithaca, isn't that the hometown of those substandard Cornell rejects from the late 80s? FTR CU, my brother in law and nephew are both Cornell grads. They were fortunate enough to avoid the scraping the bottom of the barrel that occurred ironically around the time you graduated. Ithaca is gorges though. FTR, i am busting your chops in case your ivy league education did not include sarcasm 101. Good to know those Ithaca folks are saving our planet.

[cradleandshoot]

My thoughts here are probably going to come across as convoluted to the brilliant minds on this forum. Here goes anyways. Is there a baseline start where scientist agree on when GW/CC began? I know when i was in HS in the mid 1970s the fear was global cooling and the planet was going to turn into an iceberg, sorry i digress. If you use the year 1970 as a baseline then GW/CC has been an ongoing issue now for 51 years. The expectation is to reduce Co2 to the proper levels by 2050. So it will have taken roughly 80 years to achieve critical mass in achieving the levels of Co2 the experts on this forum say is mandatory to save the planet. So does it not take 80 years to reverse the damage done? i don't know, i have no idea, i'm not a scientist. I'm guessing some of you folks, being as brilliant as you all are can explain to me how this happens. Enlighten me please how you roll back the damage you all claim has occurred? Do we accomplish this by driving electric cars, eating veggie burgers and putting solar panels and wind turbines in our back yards? What about the poor foke who can't afford the latest technology. They are forced to heat their homes with the dreaded fossil fuels like heating oil and natural gas. How many trillions of dollars does it take to save the planet? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? I believe the scientific consensus has always been 3.

[Typical Lax Dad]

My thoughts here are probably going to come across as convoluted to the brilliant minds on this forum. Here goes anyways. Is there a baseline start where scientist agree on when GW/CC began? I know when i was in HS in the mid 1970s the fear was global cooling and the planet was going to turn into an iceberg, sorry i digress. If you use the year 1970 as a baseline then GW/CC has been an ongoing issue now for 51 years. The expectation is to reduce Co2 to the proper levels by 2050. So it will have taken roughly 80 years to achieve critical mass in achieving the levels of Co2 the experts on this forum say is mandatory to save the planet. So does it not take 80 years to reverse the damage done? i don't know, i have no idea, i'm not a scientist. I'm guessing some of you folks, being as brilliant as you all are can explain to me how this happens. Enlighten me please how you roll back the damage you all claim has occurred? Do we accomplish this by driving electric cars, eating veggie burgers and putting solar panels and wind turbines in our back yards? What about the poor foke who can't afford the latest technology. They are forced to heat their homes with the dreaded fossil fuels like heating oil and natural gas. How many trillions of dollars does it take to save the planet? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? I believe the scientific consensus has always been 3.

Your post come across as uninformed.

[Peter Brown]

My thoughts here are probably going to come across as convoluted to the brilliant minds on this forum. Here goes anyways. Is there a baseline start where scientist agree on when GW/CC began? I know when i was in HS in the mid 1970s the fear was global cooling and the planet was going to turn into an iceberg, sorry i digress. If you use the year 1970 as a baseline then GW/CC has been an ongoing issue now for 51 years. The expectation is to reduce Co2 to the proper levels by 2050. So it will have taken roughly 80 years to achieve critical mass in achieving the levels of Co2 the experts on this forum say is mandatory to save the planet. So does it not take 80 years to reverse the damage done? i don't know, i have no idea, i'm not a scientist. I'm guessing some of you folks, being as brilliant as you all are can explain to me how this happens. Enlighten me please how you roll back the damage you all claim has occurred? Do we accomplish this by driving electric cars, eating veggie burgers and putting solar panels and wind turbines in our back yards? What about the poor foke who can't afford the latest technology. They are forced to heat their homes with the dreaded fossil fuels like heating oil and natural gas. How many trillions of dollars does it take to save the planet? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? I believe the scientific consensus has always been 3.

You know the deal here, Cradle…total sham to be able to tax you more and centralize government power with the elite. Ignore this nonsense.

US president Barack Obama has told the #COP26 summit that island nations are the 'canaries in the coalmine' of climate change.

From a quick Google search, it appears Obama has spent nearly $25 million securing beachfront property, which would be an intensely questionable investment for someone who thinks we’re a decade from receding shoreline and rising oceans.

Boom.

[MDlaxfan76]

My thoughts here are probably going to come across as convoluted to the brilliant minds on this forum. Here goes anyways. Is there a baseline start where scientist agree on when GW/CC began? I know when i was in HS in the mid 1970s the fear was global cooling and the planet was going to turn into an iceberg, sorry i digress. If you use the year 1970 as a baseline then GW/CC has been an ongoing issue now for 51 years. The expectation is to reduce Co2 to the proper levels by 2050. So it will have taken roughly 80 years to achieve critical mass in achieving the levels of Co2 the experts on this forum say is mandatory to save the planet. So does it not take 80 years to reverse the damage done? i don't know, i have no idea, i'm not a scientist. I'm guessing some of you folks, being as brilliant as you all are can explain to me how this happens. Enlighten me please how you roll back the damage you all claim has occurred? Do we accomplish this by driving electric cars, eating veggie burgers and putting solar panels and wind turbines in our back yards? What about the poor foke who can't afford the latest technology. They are forced to heat their homes with the dreaded fossil fuels like heating oil and natural gas. How many trillions of dollars does it take to save the planet? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? I believe the scientific consensus has always been 3.

Your post come across as uninformed.

Worse.

[Typical Lax Dad]

My thoughts here are probably going to come across as convoluted to the brilliant minds on this forum. Here goes anyways. Is there a baseline start where scientist agree on when GW/CC began? I know when i was in HS in the mid 1970s the fear was global cooling and the planet was going to turn into an iceberg, sorry i digress. If you use the year 1970 as a baseline then GW/CC has been an ongoing issue now for 51 years. The expectation is to reduce Co2 to the proper levels by 2050. So it will have taken roughly 80 years to achieve critical mass in achieving the levels of Co2 the experts on this forum say is mandatory to save the planet. So does it not take 80 years to reverse the damage done? i don't know, i have no idea, i'm not a scientist. I'm guessing some of you folks, being as brilliant as you all are can explain to me how this happens. Enlighten me please how you roll back the damage you all claim has occurred? Do we accomplish this by driving electric cars, eating veggie burgers and putting solar panels and wind turbines in our back yards? What about the poor foke who can't afford the latest technology. They are forced to heat their homes with the dreaded fossil fuels like heating oil and natural gas. How many trillions of dollars does it take to save the planet? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? I believe the scientific consensus has always been 3.

Your post come across as uninformed.

Worse.

Vietnam war was going on after mid 1970’s?

[youthathletics]

Where did he mention Vietnam?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Where did he mention Vietnam?

He didn’t. I did, sport.

[MDlaxfan76]

For cradle, https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Farfromgeneva]

Where did he mention Vietnam?

He didn’t. I did, sport.

It all started when I was traipsing through the Ho Chi Minh trail with my boot camp buddy Billy Pilgrim…

[jhu72]

My thoughts here are probably going to come across as convoluted to the brilliant minds on this forum. Here goes anyways. Is there a baseline start where scientist agree on when GW/CC began? I know when i was in HS in the mid 1970s the fear was global cooling and the planet was going to turn into an iceberg, sorry i digress. If you use the year 1970 as a baseline then GW/CC has been an ongoing issue now for 51 years. The expectation is to reduce Co2 to the proper levels by 2050. So it will have taken roughly 80 years to achieve critical mass in achieving the levels of Co2 the experts on this forum say is mandatory to save the planet. So does it not take 80 years to reverse the damage done? i don't know, i have no idea, i'm not a scientist. I'm guessing some of you folks, being as brilliant as you all are can explain to me how this happens. Enlighten me please how you roll back the damage you all claim has occurred? Do we accomplish this by driving electric cars, eating veggie burgers and putting solar panels and wind turbines in our back yards? What about the poor foke who can't afford the latest technology. They are forced to heat their homes with the dreaded fossil fuels like heating oil and natural gas. How many trillions of dollars does it take to save the planet? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? I believe the scientific consensus has always been 3.

Your post come across as uninformed.

Worse.

... worse still, everyone knows the correct answer is 42.

[Farfromgeneva]

My thoughts here are probably going to come across as convoluted to the brilliant minds on this forum. Here goes anyways. Is there a baseline start where scientist agree on when GW/CC began? I know when i was in HS in the mid 1970s the fear was global cooling and the planet was going to turn into an iceberg, sorry i digress. If you use the year 1970 as a baseline then GW/CC has been an ongoing issue now for 51 years. The expectation is to reduce Co2 to the proper levels by 2050. So it will have taken roughly 80 years to achieve critical mass in achieving the levels of Co2 the experts on this forum say is mandatory to save the planet. So does it not take 80 years to reverse the damage done? i don't know, i have no idea, i'm not a scientist. I'm guessing some of you folks, being as brilliant as you all are can explain to me how this happens. Enlighten me please how you roll back the damage you all claim has occurred? Do we accomplish this by driving electric cars, eating veggie burgers and putting solar panels and wind turbines in our back yards? What about the poor foke who can't afford the latest technology. They are forced to heat their homes with the dreaded fossil fuels like heating oil and natural gas. How many trillions of dollars does it take to save the planet? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? I believe the scientific consensus has always been 3.

Your post come across as uninformed.

Worse.

... worse still, everyone knows the correct answer is 42.

What are you some kind of racist blaming Jackie Robinson for climate change?

[jhu72]

My thoughts here are probably going to come across as convoluted to the brilliant minds on this forum. Here goes anyways. Is there a baseline start where scientist agree on when GW/CC began? I know when i was in HS in the mid 1970s the fear was global cooling and the planet was going to turn into an iceberg, sorry i digress. If you use the year 1970 as a baseline then GW/CC has been an ongoing issue now for 51 years. The expectation is to reduce Co2 to the proper levels by 2050. So it will have taken roughly 80 years to achieve critical mass in achieving the levels of Co2 the experts on this forum say is mandatory to save the planet. So does it not take 80 years to reverse the damage done? i don't know, i have no idea, i'm not a scientist. I'm guessing some of you folks, being as brilliant as you all are can explain to me how this happens. Enlighten me please how you roll back the damage you all claim has occurred? Do we accomplish this by driving electric cars, eating veggie burgers and putting solar panels and wind turbines in our back yards? What about the poor foke who can't afford the latest technology. They are forced to heat their homes with the dreaded fossil fuels like heating oil and natural gas. How many trillions of dollars does it take to save the planet? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? I believe the scientific consensus has always been 3.

Your post come across as uninformed.

Worse.

... worse still, everyone knows the correct answer is 42.

What are you some kind of racist blaming Jackie Robinson for climate change?

... I had to go back and read C&S' rant before I got your joke.

[jhu72]

China and US announced an unexciting agreement at COP26. China, the world's biggest coal consumer, did not sign on to a statement at COP26 committing to phasing out the use of coal. The US (as predicted by me) and India also declined to sign on. The countries are the world's three-biggest emitters and the biggest consumers of coal.

IMO this lack of signature is not very meaningful of anything other than internal politics in all three countries. Coal is dead, it will not be revived by any of these countries as a preference. It will fade away over the coming decades in all three. The US will be the fastest and there is nothing the folks of coal producing states can do but get use to it. This is not an intentional injury, it is just economic reality. Economics will work against it. The US could hasten the day for all three by taking the lead in design, development and deployment of renewables. Once we show how, the others will follow.