Discussion:
Britain to become first G7 country with net zero emissions target
(too old to reply)
Bod
2019-06-12 09:22:41 UTC
Permalink
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA

What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rod Speed
2019-06-12 09:38:30 UTC
Permalink
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit to
reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government said
late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
Nothing because he is the main source of them, stupid.
Peeler
2019-06-12 09:43:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 19:38:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Bod
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
Nothing because he is the main source of them, stupid.
If someone wanted an asshole's opinion, they'd have farted, senile asshole!
--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$***@news.mixmin.net>
procrastinator
2019-06-12 10:20:37 UTC
Permalink
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You going to brexit or not?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/12/third-of-britons-say-they-avoid-news-out-of-brexit-frustration
g***@aol.com
2019-06-12 15:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Bob F
2019-06-12 16:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
Crop failures are becoming a major problem in central america, and are
part of the reason refugees are coming here now. And some places in the
US have had 3 floods already this year.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-12 18:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
Crop failures are becoming a major problem in central america, and are
part of the reason refugees are coming here now. And some places in the
US have had 3 floods already this year.
The undeniable fact is that CO2 tracks population as closely as any
other metric tho. We can sacrifice and throw all of the Hummers in the
volcano but as long as the 3d world is plowing up prehistoric turf
land and burning the rain forest to grow food (or sugar for auto
fuel), CO2 will continue to rise.

Loading Image...
trader_4
2019-06-12 18:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
ROFL. Not that you need to discredit yourself and your stupid lib BS
anymore, but that surely is icing on the cake. Climate refugees from
the south. ROFL. So, which is it? Climate change or crimes and gangs
and they are seeking asylum. Silly libs. I just heard some Guatemala
officials quoted on the radio and they say things are not really bad at
all. There are always going to be some poor, fucked up countries in
the world. Why you libs think that they should all be transported here,
instead of solving their own problems, is beyond me.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-12 19:09:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:39:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
ROFL. Not that you need to discredit yourself and your stupid lib BS
anymore, but that surely is icing on the cake. Climate refugees from
the south. ROFL. So, which is it? Climate change or crimes and gangs
and they are seeking asylum. Silly libs. I just heard some Guatemala
officials quoted on the radio and they say things are not really bad at
all. There are always going to be some poor, fucked up countries in
the world. Why you libs think that they should all be transported here,
instead of solving their own problems, is beyond me.
That whole thing is bullshit. Climate change mostly affects northern
climates. The southern climate is not really changing that much.
People are leaving Guatemala and Honduras because they are tired of
being poor and having to live in a lawless land.
I am not sure how we fix that without shipping more jobs south. We
might be better off if they work here and help our economy. The main
problem is they work harder and cheaper than the Americans they
compete with.
I will say if you set up a table on career day for landscapers,
laborers and service workers at your average suburban high school you
would be a lonely guy.
trader_4
2019-06-13 00:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:39:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
ROFL. Not that you need to discredit yourself and your stupid lib BS
anymore, but that surely is icing on the cake. Climate refugees from
the south. ROFL. So, which is it? Climate change or crimes and gangs
and they are seeking asylum. Silly libs. I just heard some Guatemala
officials quoted on the radio and they say things are not really bad at
all. There are always going to be some poor, fucked up countries in
the world. Why you libs think that they should all be transported here,
instead of solving their own problems, is beyond me.
That whole thing is bullshit. Climate change mostly affects northern
climates. The southern climate is not really changing that much.
People are leaving Guatemala and Honduras because they are tired of
being poor and having to live in a lawless land.
I am not sure how we fix that without shipping more jobs south. We
might be better off if they work here and help our economy. The main
problem is they work harder and cheaper than the Americans they
compete with.
I will say if you set up a table on career day for landscapers,
laborers and service workers at your average suburban high school you
would be a lonely guy.
Good friend of mine develops and runs golf courses. He told me the story
about how he had a golf course project in Westchester and he ran ads
including trying to get people from NY, including Bronx, Harlem, etc.
Just about zero interest. He uses mostly workers from Costa Rica.
Not only can't you get Americans, but if you did, they'd do half the
work of the guys from CR or Mexico and do half the complaining, calling
in sick, goofing off, etc.
Ed Pawlowski
2019-06-13 00:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:39:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
ROFL. Not that you need to discredit yourself and your stupid lib BS
anymore, but that surely is icing on the cake. Climate refugees from
the south. ROFL. So, which is it? Climate change or crimes and gangs
and they are seeking asylum. Silly libs. I just heard some Guatemala
officials quoted on the radio and they say things are not really bad at
all. There are always going to be some poor, fucked up countries in
the world. Why you libs think that they should all be transported here,
instead of solving their own problems, is beyond me.
That whole thing is bullshit. Climate change mostly affects northern
climates. The southern climate is not really changing that much.
People are leaving Guatemala and Honduras because they are tired of
being poor and having to live in a lawless land.
I am not sure how we fix that without shipping more jobs south. We
might be better off if they work here and help our economy. The main
problem is they work harder and cheaper than the Americans they
compete with.
I will say if you set up a table on career day for landscapers,
laborers and service workers at your average suburban high school you
would be a lonely guy.
Good friend of mine develops and runs golf courses. He told me the story
about how he had a golf course project in Westchester and he ran ads
including trying to get people from NY, including Bronx, Harlem, etc.
Just about zero interest. He uses mostly workers from Costa Rica.
Not only can't you get Americans, but if you did, they'd do half the
work of the guys from CR or Mexico and do half the complaining, calling
in sick, goofing off, etc.
I see a lot of Mexican workers here. Good bit of my house was built by
Mexicans, most of the landscaping in the area too. My cleaning lady
does a fantastic job and I pay her well for it. No siesta, just hard
steady work.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-13 01:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Pawlowski
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:39:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
ROFL. Not that you need to discredit yourself and your stupid lib BS
anymore, but that surely is icing on the cake. Climate refugees from
the south. ROFL. So, which is it? Climate change or crimes and gangs
and they are seeking asylum. Silly libs. I just heard some Guatemala
officials quoted on the radio and they say things are not really bad at
all. There are always going to be some poor, fucked up countries in
the world. Why you libs think that they should all be transported here,
instead of solving their own problems, is beyond me.
That whole thing is bullshit. Climate change mostly affects northern
climates. The southern climate is not really changing that much.
People are leaving Guatemala and Honduras because they are tired of
being poor and having to live in a lawless land.
I am not sure how we fix that without shipping more jobs south. We
might be better off if they work here and help our economy. The main
problem is they work harder and cheaper than the Americans they
compete with.
I will say if you set up a table on career day for landscapers,
laborers and service workers at your average suburban high school you
would be a lonely guy.
Good friend of mine develops and runs golf courses. He told me the story
about how he had a golf course project in Westchester and he ran ads
including trying to get people from NY, including Bronx, Harlem, etc.
Just about zero interest. He uses mostly workers from Costa Rica.
Not only can't you get Americans, but if you did, they'd do half the
work of the guys from CR or Mexico and do half the complaining, calling
in sick, goofing off, etc.
I see a lot of Mexican workers here. Good bit of my house was built by
Mexicans, most of the landscaping in the area too. My cleaning lady
does a fantastic job and I pay her well for it. No siesta, just hard
steady work.
That is who I like to hire. I do get push back from my contractor
friends because they say I pay union wages. It is a bargain for me.
Bob F
2019-06-13 03:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by trader_4
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
ROFL. Not that you need to discredit yourself and your stupid lib BS
anymore, but that surely is icing on the cake. Climate refugees from
the south. ROFL. So, which is it? Climate change or crimes and gangs
and they are seeking asylum. Silly libs. I just heard some Guatemala
officials quoted on the radio and they say things are not really bad at
all. There are always going to be some poor, fucked up countries in
the world. Why you libs think that they should all be transported here,
instead of solving their own problems, is beyond me.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=crop+failures+in+honduras
Bob F
2019-06-13 03:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by Bob F
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do.     Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
ROFL.  Not that you need to discredit yourself and your stupid lib BS
anymore, but that surely is icing on the cake.  Climate refugees from
the south.   ROFL.  So, which is it?  Climate change or crimes and gangs
and they are seeking asylum.  Silly libs.   I just heard some Guatemala
officials quoted on the radio and they say things are not really bad at
all.  There are always going to be some poor, fucked up countries in
the world.  Why you libs think that they should all be transported here,
instead of solving their own problems, is beyond me.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=crop+failures+in+honduras
Possible ways to reduce the CO2 problems? Watch "Ice on Fire" while it
is still free on HBO.

https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/ice-on-fire
devnull
2019-06-13 10:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Possible ways to reduce the CO2 problems? Watch "Ice on Fire" while it is still free on HBO.
https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/ice-on-fire
ROFLMAO! Just another fake pseudoscience documentary by the libtards.
Bob F
2019-06-14 03:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by devnull
Post by Bob F
Possible ways to reduce the CO2 problems? Watch "Ice on Fire" while it
is still free on HBO.
https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/ice-on-fire
ROFLMAO! Just another fake pseudoscience documentary by the libtards.
Do tell us some of the problems you have with it. Details are important.
Bob F
2019-06-13 04:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by Bob F
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do.     Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
ROFL.  Not that you need to discredit yourself and your stupid lib BS
anymore, but that surely is icing on the cake.  Climate refugees from
the south.   ROFL.  So, which is it?  Climate change or crimes and gangs
and they are seeking asylum.  Silly libs.   I just heard some Guatemala
officials quoted on the radio and they say things are not really bad at
all.  There are always going to be some poor, fucked up countries in
the world.  Why you libs think that they should all be transported here,
instead of solving their own problems, is beyond me.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=crop+failures+in+honduras
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drought-leaves-up-to-2-8-million-hungry-in-central-america/
Bob F
2019-06-13 04:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by Bob F
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do.
Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Yes - it's all about the Republicon plan to ignore the issue and never
do anything about it. In the meanwhile, it will get warmer and warmer,
and climate change refuges from the south will just keep increasing.
ROFL.  Not that you need to discredit yourself and your stupid lib BS
anymore, but that surely is icing on the cake.  Climate refugees from
the south.   ROFL.  So, which is it?  Climate change or crimes and gangs
and they are seeking asylum.  Silly libs.   I just heard some Guatemala
officials quoted on the radio and they say things are not really bad at
all.  There are always going to be some poor, fucked up countries in
the world.  Why you libs think that they should all be transported here,
instead of solving their own problems, is beyond me.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=crop+failures+in+honduras
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drought-leaves-up-to-2-8-million-hungry-in-central-america/
"OROCUINA Honduras (Reuters) - A severe drought has ravaged crops in
Central America and as many as 2.81 million people are struggling to
feed themselves, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) said on
Friday, though the region's coffee crop has been largely unscathed.

The drought, which is also affecting South America, has been
particularly hard on the so-called "dry corridor" of Central America,
which includes southern Guatemala, northern Honduras and western El
Salvador.

"The drought has killed us. We lost all our corn and beans," said Olman
Funez, a 22-year-old farmer who lives in Orocuina, a rural town in
southern Honduras.

Funez earns $4.74 per diem as a day laborer, and says he and his wife
are rationing what food they have.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega recently allowed 40,000 tonnes of red
beans and 73,500 tonnes of white corn to be imported to help lower prices.

Guatemala declared a state of emergency after 256,000 families lost
their crop.

"I am 60 years old, and this is the first time I have seen a crisis like
this," said Jesus Samayoa, a farmer in Jutiapa, about 160 km (99 miles)
from Guatemala City.

Pea, green bean and broccoli farmers estimate losses of 30 to 40 percent
of their crop.

Guatemala's national coffee association Anacafe said earlier this month
that a preliminary survey of two of the country’s coffee-growing
regions, Santa Rosa and Jutiapa, revealed that drought will cause output
to fall next season by 3 percent, or about 9,600 60-kg bags.

However, none of Central America's four other major coffee producers -
Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua - have revised their
output forecasts for the coming season due to the drought."
Roger Blake
2019-06-12 16:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
for the True Believes and does not sway them from their beliefs:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."

This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.

TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
g***@aol.com
2019-06-12 18:21:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Even if you throw away the fact that we farm with IC engines and we
also burn a lot of fuel transporting that food to market you are still
left with the fact that farms are replacing a very effective CO2 sink
with a very seasonal crop that gets harvested and the rest plowed
under to slowly oxidize, just at the time that it starts really eating
the CO2. Native grasslands and forests are disappearing in the 3d
world at an alarming rate, just as their populations are exploding.
Simply the burning that is going on is a problem but that is
vegetation that is not coming back any time soon.
I suppose if you believe in the power of nature you will take comfort
in the idea that is global warming wipes out several billion humans,
the problem will rectify itself.
OTOH a small nuclear war would too. That seems more likely every day.
If some of the middle east was turned into a lake of green glass I
think the world would be better off.
Bob F
2019-06-14 03:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-14 04:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
You are also not likely to have much luck telling those 3d worlders,
we have our cars, electricity and heat in the winter but fuck you.
You can drive your Leaf and put solar collectors on your roof but
don't expect any miracles to come from it.
The best hope with current technology is a lot of new "zero carbon"
nuclear power plants but that is not politically viable, for many
reasons.
Rod Speed
2019-06-14 05:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
You are also not likely to have much luck telling those 3d worlders,
we have our cars, electricity and heat in the winter but fuck you.
You can drive your Leaf and put solar collectors on your roof but
don't expect any miracles to come from it.
The best hope with current technology is a
lot of new "zero carbon" nuclear power plants
Yep.
Post by g***@aol.com
but that is not politically viable, for many reasons.
It clearly is for russia, china, india etc.
Peeler
2019-06-14 09:27:09 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:17:08 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
The best hope with current technology is a
lot of new "zero carbon" nuclear power plants
Yep.
Post by g***@aol.com
but that is not politically viable, for many reasons.
It clearly is for russia, china, india etc.
It clearly isn't for other countries, senile bullshit artist!
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
Cindy Hamilton
2019-06-14 10:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
You are also not likely to have much luck telling those 3d worlders,
we have our cars, electricity and heat in the winter but fuck you.
You can drive your Leaf and put solar collectors on your roof but
don't expect any miracles to come from it.
The best hope with current technology is a lot of new "zero carbon"
nuclear power plants but that is not politically viable, for many
reasons.
Regardless of whether the climate is changing, whether change is
affected by human activities, or whether we simply can't tell with
our current models and statistical methods, it's foolish to wait
until we've pumped the last gallon of gas into a car before we
take action to develop alternative sources of energy.

I'd prefer to handle it by a combination of actions, including direct
government subsidy. The government subsidized the construction of
the railroads and that worked out pretty well for quite a while. It
chose winners and losers. There's no reason not to kickstart alternative
energy with subsidies and then let the market decide which ones will
win in the long run. Funding of basic research is also something that
the government could do with future payoffs.

Sadly, very few people in the U.S. can think past the next quarter or
see past their own back yard. Cultures that can think in terms of
decades are going to eat our lunch.

Cindy Hamilton
g***@aol.com
2019-06-14 14:42:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 03:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
You are also not likely to have much luck telling those 3d worlders,
we have our cars, electricity and heat in the winter but fuck you.
You can drive your Leaf and put solar collectors on your roof but
don't expect any miracles to come from it.
The best hope with current technology is a lot of new "zero carbon"
nuclear power plants but that is not politically viable, for many
reasons.
Regardless of whether the climate is changing, whether change is
affected by human activities, or whether we simply can't tell with
our current models and statistical methods, it's foolish to wait
until we've pumped the last gallon of gas into a car before we
take action to develop alternative sources of energy.
I'd prefer to handle it by a combination of actions, including direct
government subsidy. The government subsidized the construction of
the railroads and that worked out pretty well for quite a while. It
chose winners and losers. There's no reason not to kickstart alternative
energy with subsidies and then let the market decide which ones will
win in the long run. Funding of basic research is also something that
the government could do with future payoffs.
Sadly, very few people in the U.S. can think past the next quarter or
see past their own back yard. Cultures that can think in terms of
decades are going to eat our lunch.
Cindy Hamilton
The current plans are certainly good for China
They don't have any significant environmental regulations to prevent
the ancillary pollution that comes from building solar cells and
inverters so are flooding the market. All we can do is be happy that
we are eating the scraps by letting Mexicans hang them up.

We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Tekkie®
2019-06-14 18:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
--
Tekkie
Scott Lurndal
2019-06-14 18:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-14 20:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
What? Too Soon?

Even Von Braun got away with that kind of joke.

"I aim for the stars, but occasionally I hit London".
Tekkie®
2019-06-17 19:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
--
Tekkie
g***@aol.com
2019-06-17 20:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Rod Speed
2019-06-17 20:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Corse you lot never did anything like that to Japan, eh ?
Peeler
2019-06-17 20:58:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 06:44:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Corse you lot never did anything like that to Japan, eh ?
If someone wanted a senile arsehole's opinion, they'd have farted, senile
Ozzietard!
--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <***@haph.org>
g***@aol.com
2019-06-18 00:15:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 06:44:50 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Corse you lot never did anything like that to Japan, eh ?
Absolutely, LeMay would have been swinging by a rope next to Harris if
we had lost that war and faced war crimes tribunals.
There were responsible military people in the war department who
pointed this out at the time but they were shouted down.
Rod Speed
2019-06-18 03:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 06:44:50 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Corse you lot never did anything like that to Japan, eh ?
Absolutely, LeMay would have been swinging by a rope next
to Harris if we had lost that war and faced war crimes tribunals.
Bullshit, the Japs never did war crime trials. At most they just
chopped the heads off those they didn’t like to see how good
their swords were and worked most prisoners to death because
they had this idea that only the dregs ever surrendered.
Post by g***@aol.com
There were responsible military people in the war
department whopointed this out at the time
Yes, there were in fact a few who were that pig ignorant
about how the Japs operated at that time even tho there
was plenty of evidence about how they operated in
Nanking, Malaya, Singapore and HongKong.
Post by g***@aol.com
but they were shouted down.
For a damned good reason.
Peeler
2019-06-18 07:32:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:11:20 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the two senile asshole's endless off topic sick bullshit unread>
--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <***@haph.org>
Scott Lurndal
2019-06-17 20:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
And what country was that? And to whom are you referring?
g***@aol.com
2019-06-18 00:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
And what country was that? And to whom are you referring?
UK but as Rod pointed out, the US did the same thing to Japan. In fact
our submarine campaign in the Pacific was modeled after the campaign
Doenitz spent a decade in Spandau for. The only exception was we did
not adopt the wolf pack because the merchant ships we attacked were
usually unescorted. A lone sub could just follow them and pick them
off one by one.
Rod Speed
2019-06-18 03:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Scott is an australian.
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
And what country was that? And to whom are you referring?
UK but as Rod pointed out, the US did the same thing to Japan.
In fact our submarine campaign in the Pacific was modeled
after the campaign Doenitz spent a decade in Spandau for.
Another pig ignorant lie. He was in fact convicted of unrestricted submarine
warfare against neutral shipping. The US never ever did anything like that.
Post by g***@aol.com
The only exception was we did not adopt the wolf pack because
the merchant ships we attacked were usually unescorted.
Another pig ignorant lie. The US didn’t in fact
sink any neutral shipping it ever came across.
Post by g***@aol.com
A lone sub could just follow them and pick them off one by one.
But never did that with neutral shipping.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-18 04:05:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:22:24 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Scott is an australian.
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
And what country was that? And to whom are you referring?
UK but as Rod pointed out, the US did the same thing to Japan.
In fact our submarine campaign in the Pacific was modeled
after the campaign Doenitz spent a decade in Spandau for.
Another pig ignorant lie. He was in fact convicted of unrestricted submarine
warfare against neutral shipping. The US never ever did anything like that.
What neutral shipping? The US sending war materials to UK?
There were really not any neutral ships sunk in the Atlantic after Dec
8, 1941. Name one. I can only think of a couple that were sunk before
that and they were full of war materials.
Fuck, even the Lucitania that led up to the US going into WWI was
packed with ammunition and high explosives. That is why one torpedo
resulted in a couple of huge secondary explosions sinking that ship in
a couple of minutes.
... next.

Even the senior officers in the US navy was against prosecuting
Doenitz. It was hitting too close to home for them.
Peeler
2019-06-18 07:34:43 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:54:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the latest idiotic troll drivel unread again>

...and much better air in here again!
--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: <***@news.giganews.com>"
Peeler
2019-06-18 07:34:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:22:24 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the senile asshole's latest absolutely idiotic bullshit>
--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
Scott Lurndal
2019-06-18 13:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Scott is an australian.
No, he is not.
Tekkie®
2019-06-18 20:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
And what country was that? And to whom are you referring?
Selective memory aye?
--
Tekkie
Scott Lurndal
2019-06-18 20:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
=20
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Good one!=20
=20
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous becau=
se=20
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved yo=
u=20
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up. =20
=20
And what country was that? And to whom are you referring?
Selective memory aye?
I'm not, and never have been, a citizen of the United Kingdom,
Ireland or Scotland. So, you were incorrect in your attribution
using the derogatory term Limey. Not surprising given your general
lack of erudition and intelligance as exemplified by your Usenet
posting history.
Tekkie®
2019-06-19 19:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
=20
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Good one!=20
=20
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous becau=
se=20
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved yo=
u=20
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up. =20
=20
And what country was that? And to whom are you referring?
Selective memory aye?
I'm not, and never have been, a citizen of the United Kingdom,
Ireland or Scotland. So, you were incorrect in your attribution
using the derogatory term Limey. Not surprising given your general
lack of erudition and intelligance as exemplified by your Usenet
posting history.
Who cares?
--
Tekkie
rbowman
2019-06-18 23:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
And what country was that? And to whom are you referring?
Selective memory aye?
The victor gets to write the history books.
Vic Smith
2019-06-17 21:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
The Germans simply got what they had coming.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-18 00:26:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:01:12 -0500, Vic Smith
Post by Vic Smith
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
The Germans simply got what they had coming.
So did Trayvonn Martin, what's your point?

It still calls into question intentionally bombing civilians. There is
still a lot of debate whether it actually shortened the war or whether
it made them more resilient and less likely to accept surrender.
There is also a lot of debate about how much the bombing actually
stifled the war machine. Bear in mind the V-1, V-2, the STG44 (perhaps
the most capable small arm in the war) and the King Tiger tank were
developed and built in the midst of the bombing campaign. War
production numbers were still very high in 1943-44.
Tekkie®
2019-06-18 20:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Did not know about this.
--
Tekkie
rbowman
2019-06-18 23:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Tekkie®
Scott Lurndal posted for all of us...
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Tekkie®
Post by g***@aol.com
We are also getting all excited about someone in UK "setting a
target". The last one to actually hit a target in UK was Werner Von
Braun.
Good one!
No, it's not. One shouldn't celebrate the deaths associated with
the Nazi rocket program. Boorish, indeed; but not unexpected from
either of you.
Too bad. I do not like your nonsense either. You are just jealous because
the good ol USA had to save your ass. Just think if we had not saved you
Limeys you may have never gotten to be born.
The country that sponsored the war crimes of "Bomber Harris" should
shut the fuck up.
Did not know about this.
Bomber Harris and Lindemann?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lindemann,_1st_Viscount_Cherwell

They were real peaches. Strategic military and industrial targets in
Germany tended to be heavily defended, but if you carpet bomb the areas
where the workers live you disrupt production. Preferably you pick
crowded tenement areas so you can start a firestorm if you're lucky with
your willie peter bombs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Cap_Arcona_%281927%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff

Ain't life a bitch? You survive the camps in the East only to drown when
the RAF sinks your ride.

The German film version of 'Titanic' that utilized the Cap Arcona
alleged the ship was pushing forward at full throttle to set a record
Atlantic crossing so the stock prices would go up. Propaganda, but there
may have been a grain of truth in the story.

The Wilhelm Gustloff also had an interesting history;

https://devilofhistory.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/blame-cruise-ships-on-the-nazis/

I'm sure Roosevelt would have built cruise ships for the working class
so they could have nice vacations if he had thought of it. Just like he
would have promoted a low cost car like the KdF-Wagen (later the VW
after a little interruption)

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/HitlerKDF.htm

Better late than never, Eisenhower figured a US Autobahn might be a good
thing.
Rod Speed
2019-06-14 16:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
You are also not likely to have much luck telling those 3d worlders,
we have our cars, electricity and heat in the winter but fuck you.
You can drive your Leaf and put solar collectors on your roof but
don't expect any miracles to come from it.
The best hope with current technology is a lot of new "zero carbon"
nuclear power plants but that is not politically viable, for many
reasons.
Regardless of whether the climate is changing, whether change
is affected by human activities, or whether we simply can't tell
with our current models and statistical methods, it's foolish to
wait until we've pumped the last gallon of gas into a car before
we take action to develop alternative sources of energy.
We've already done that with nukes, solar, wind power, hydro etc.

And it makes no sense to stop using brown coal for
power generation when its of no use for anything else.
Post by Cindy Hamilton
I'd prefer to handle it by a combination of
actions, including direct government subsidy.
Only if what is being subsidised makes sense like nukes.
Post by Cindy Hamilton
The government subsidized the construction
of the railroads and that worked out pretty well
for quite a while. It chose winners and losers.
And fucked up when it chose to subsidise
solar at houses instead of nukes.
Post by Cindy Hamilton
There's no reason not to kickstart alternative
energy with subsidies and then let the market
decide which ones will win in the long run.
But while ever the subsidy continue, the market doesn’t decide.
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Funding of basic research is also something that
the government could do with future payoffs.
That’s what has been done for more than a century now.
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Sadly, very few people in the U.S. can think past the next
quarter or see past their own back yard. Cultures that
can think in terms of decades are going to eat our lunch.
And yet the full commercialisation of almost all technology
other than the industrial revolution itself and chemistry and
immunisation has almost always happened in the US first
and that still happens today, most obviously with
smartphones and the internet today. And even very
much more basic stuff like credit cards, jeans, T shirts,
baseball caps and stupid shoes like nikes etc.
Peeler
2019-06-14 17:53:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 02:35:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Regardless of whether the climate is changing, whether change
is affected by human activities, or whether we simply can't tell
with our current models and statistical methods, it's foolish to
wait until we've pumped the last gallon of gas into a car before
we take action to develop alternative sources of energy.
We've already done that with nukes, solar, wind power, hydro etc.
Oh, look, the senile Ozzietard has ALL the answers, AGAIN!

<FLUSH the rest of the self-opinionated, senile asshole's latest shit>
--
***@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Tekkie®
2019-06-14 18:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Cindy Hamilton posted for all of us...
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Sadly, very few people in the U.S. can think past the next quarter or
see past their own back yard. Cultures that can think in terms of
decades are going to eat our lunch.
Cindy Hamilton
You mean like China?
--
Tekkie
trader_4
2019-06-14 15:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate and co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before reaching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger problem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fossil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.
Post by g***@aol.com
You are also not likely to have much luck telling those 3d worlders,
we have our cars, electricity and heat in the winter but fuck you.
You can drive your Leaf and put solar collectors on your roof but
don't expect any miracles to come from it.
The best hope with current technology is a lot of new "zero carbon"
nuclear power plants but that is not politically viable, for many
reasons.
The chap from Australia just pointed out that you can get a solar home system installed there for just $3800 now.
Scott Lurndal
2019-06-14 15:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back (via fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle. Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.

Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Cindy Hamilton
2019-06-14 15:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back (via fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle. Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Mass market cattle production relies on an awful lot of corn, which
requires an awful lot of fossil fuel.

Cindy Hamilton
Tekkie®
2019-06-14 18:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Cindy Hamilton posted for all of us...
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Mass market cattle production relies on an awful lot of corn, which
requires an awful lot of fossil fuel.
Cindy Hamilton
So we can make make ethanol?
--
Tekkie
g***@aol.com
2019-06-14 20:33:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back (via fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle. Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Mass market cattle production relies on an awful lot of corn, which
requires an awful lot of fossil fuel.
Cindy Hamilton
True.
The most imminent problem is not CO2 tho, it is water. The midwest has
drawn down the ogalalla aquifer to levels where that agriculture may
someday be unsustainable. California is already looking at that
prospect. We are going to run out of fresh water long before we run
out of oil or get inundated with salt water.
You folks up around the great lakes don't comprehend that but if we
started piping great lakes water to Kansas and Nebraska, it would
become apparent to you pretty quickly.
Cindy Hamilton
2019-06-15 10:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back (via fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle. Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Mass market cattle production relies on an awful lot of corn, which
requires an awful lot of fossil fuel.
Cindy Hamilton
True.
The most imminent problem is not CO2 tho, it is water. The midwest has
drawn down the ogalalla aquifer to levels where that agriculture may
someday be unsustainable. California is already looking at that
prospect. We are going to run out of fresh water long before we run
out of oil or get inundated with salt water.
You folks up around the great lakes don't comprehend that but if we
started piping great lakes water to Kansas and Nebraska, it would
become apparent to you pretty quickly.
Every time someone talks about massive export of fresh water from
the Great Lakes, I get ready to improvise some explosive devices
to destroy the infrastructure required to pipe the water away.

Cindy Hamilton
Tekkie®
2019-06-17 19:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Cindy Hamilton posted for all of us...
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Every time someone talks about massive export of fresh water from
the Great Lakes, I get ready to improvise some explosive devices
to destroy the infrastructure required to pipe the water away.
Cindy Hamilton
Hmm, you just put yourself on a watch list, somewhere.
--
Tekkie
Cindy Hamilton
2019-06-17 20:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tekkie®
Cindy Hamilton posted for all of us...
Post by Cindy Hamilton
Every time someone talks about massive export of fresh water from
the Great Lakes, I get ready to improvise some explosive devices
to destroy the infrastructure required to pipe the water away.
Cindy Hamilton
Hmm, you just put yourself on a watch list, somewhere.
It's probably not the first one I've been on.

Cindy Hamilton
g***@aol.com
2019-06-14 20:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back (via fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle. Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Some of these forests and turf lands are fossils too. They have been
sequestering and sinking carbon for hundreds of thousands if not
millions of years. Once they are burned and not replaced it is the
same effect as burning oil.
Scott Lurndal
2019-06-14 20:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back (via fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle. Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Some of these forests and turf lands are fossils too.
By what definition of the word fossil can you make that statement?
Post by g***@aol.com
They have been
sequestering and sinking carbon for hundreds of thousands if not
millions of years. Once they are burned and not replaced it is the
same effect as burning oil.
Not by several orders of magnitude. Note that there are more forests
in the US today than at any time in the last 150 years. And can you
point me to a single tree that has lived for "millions of years"? No,
trees live, produce seedlings, die in an endless carbon cycle in
equilibrium over millenia. Burning oil and coal that hasn't been
part of the carbon cycle for hundreds of million years is a completely
different thing. The oldest trees in the world are mostly less than three
thousand years old, and there aren't many of them (great basin/rocky mtn bristlecone
pines, giant sequoias, and a handful of others)

Peat bogs do sink carbon, but again, on much shorter timeframes;
it is the peat bogs that eventually became oil and gas deposits, but only
if they reach the right pressure (i.e. subsidence due to to geologic processes
that create overburden).
g***@aol.com
2019-06-15 00:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back (via fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle. Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Some of these forests and turf lands are fossils too.
By what definition of the word fossil can you make that statement?
The age of those forests and turf lands
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
They have been
sequestering and sinking carbon for hundreds of thousands if not
millions of years. Once they are burned and not replaced it is the
same effect as burning oil.
Not by several orders of magnitude. Note that there are more forests
in the US today than at any time in the last 150 years. And can you
point me to a single tree that has lived for "millions of years"? No,
trees live, produce seedlings, die in an endless carbon cycle in
equilibrium over millenia. Burning oil and coal that hasn't been
part of the carbon cycle for hundreds of million years is a completely
different thing. The oldest trees in the world are mostly less than three
thousand years old, and there aren't many of them (great basin/rocky mtn bristlecone
pines, giant sequoias, and a handful of others)
The difference is those forests and grasslands go on forever
regenerating themselves being part of the cycle. When you burn them
and plow the rest under, all of the carbon is released and there is
nothing left to take it back. Crops are certainly not it because by
the time they really start eating CO2, we harvest them and plow the
rest under to essentially burn again.
Rod Speed
2019-06-15 01:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back (via fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle. Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Some of these forests and turf lands are fossils too.
By what definition of the word fossil can you make that statement?
The age of those forests and turf lands
That's not what fossil means. There are no fossil forests.
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
They have been
sequestering and sinking carbon for hundreds of thousands if not
millions of years. Once they are burned and not replaced it is the
same effect as burning oil.
Not by several orders of magnitude. Note that there are more forests
in the US today than at any time in the last 150 years. And can you
point me to a single tree that has lived for "millions of years"? No,
trees live, produce seedlings, die in an endless carbon cycle in
equilibrium over millenia. Burning oil and coal that hasn't been
part of the carbon cycle for hundreds of million years is a completely
different thing. The oldest trees in the world are mostly less than three
thousand years old, and there aren't many of them (great basin/rocky mtn bristlecone
pines, giant sequoias, and a handful of others)
The difference is those forests and grasslands go on forever
regenerating themselves being part of the cycle. When you burn them
and plow the rest under, all of the carbon is released and there is
nothing left to take it back. Crops are certainly not it because by
the time they really start eating CO2, we harvest them and plow the
rest under to essentially burn again.
Not with tree crops we don't.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-15 03:09:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 11:41:39 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back (via fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle. Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Some of these forests and turf lands are fossils too.
By what definition of the word fossil can you make that statement?
The age of those forests and turf lands
That's not what fossil means. There are no fossil forests.
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
They have been
sequestering and sinking carbon for hundreds of thousands if not
millions of years. Once they are burned and not replaced it is the
same effect as burning oil.
Not by several orders of magnitude. Note that there are more forests
in the US today than at any time in the last 150 years. And can you
point me to a single tree that has lived for "millions of years"? No,
trees live, produce seedlings, die in an endless carbon cycle in
equilibrium over millenia. Burning oil and coal that hasn't been
part of the carbon cycle for hundreds of million years is a completely
different thing. The oldest trees in the world are mostly less than three
thousand years old, and there aren't many of them (great basin/rocky mtn bristlecone
pines, giant sequoias, and a handful of others)
The difference is those forests and grasslands go on forever
regenerating themselves being part of the cycle. When you burn them
and plow the rest under, all of the carbon is released and there is
nothing left to take it back. Crops are certainly not it because by
the time they really start eating CO2, we harvest them and plow the
rest under to essentially burn again.
Not with tree crops we don't.
Tree crops may be an exception but the same people who think carbon is
killing the planet, also fight logging.
Rod Speed
2019-06-15 03:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 11:41:39 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.=20
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate a=
nd co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before re=
aching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger p=
roblem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to
reduce
fos=
sil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.=20
Carbon released from burning vegatative matter or methane from cattle
is considered "carbon-neutral". In both cases, the carbon is removed
from the atomosphere and fixed into plant matter for a short period
of time (well under 100 years generally) before being released back
(via
fire, farts
or decomposition). This is part of the standard carbon cycle.
Doesn't
really matter how many cows or how much vegatative matter, it's still
doesn't affect the overall carbon budget.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been sequestered for millions of
years. Releasing those into the atmosphere changes the equilibrium that
has been in place for millions of years and obviously will increase the
total carbon budget.
Some of these forests and turf lands are fossils too.
By what definition of the word fossil can you make that statement?
The age of those forests and turf lands
That's not what fossil means. There are no fossil forests.
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by g***@aol.com
They have been
sequestering and sinking carbon for hundreds of thousands if not
millions of years. Once they are burned and not replaced it is the
same effect as burning oil.
Not by several orders of magnitude. Note that there are more forests
in the US today than at any time in the last 150 years. And can you
point me to a single tree that has lived for "millions of years"? No,
trees live, produce seedlings, die in an endless carbon cycle in
equilibrium over millenia. Burning oil and coal that hasn't been
part of the carbon cycle for hundreds of million years is a completely
different thing. The oldest trees in the world are mostly less than three
thousand years old, and there aren't many of them (great basin/rocky mtn bristlecone
pines, giant sequoias, and a handful of others)
The difference is those forests and grasslands go on forever
regenerating themselves being part of the cycle. When you burn them
and plow the rest under, all of the carbon is released and there is
nothing left to take it back. Crops are certainly not it because by
the time they really start eating CO2, we harvest them and plow the
rest under to essentially burn again.
Not with tree crops we don't.
Tree crops may be an exception but the same people
who think carbon is killing the planet, also fight logging.
Sure, but its no news that those fuckwits are fuckwits.
Peeler
2019-06-15 09:12:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:59:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
Tree crops may be an exception but the same people
who think carbon is killing the planet, also fight logging.
Sure, but its no news that those fuckwits are fuckwits.
Nor that you fuckwit are a fuckwit, senile Rodent!
--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <***@haph.org>
Peeler
2019-06-15 09:11:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 11:41:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
The age of those forests and turf lands
That's not what fossil means. There are no fossil forests.
Of course, that's what "fossil" means. Even YOU are a fossil, you senile
pest!
--
***@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Rod Speed
2019-06-14 16:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate
and co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before
reaching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the
bigger
problem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce
fossil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.
We can however grow them much more efficiently so we don’t
have to keep chopping down forests like in the amazon to grow
more shit like soybeans that are already vastly over produced.
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
You are also not likely to have much luck telling those 3d worlders,
we have our cars, electricity and heat in the winter but fuck you.
You can drive your Leaf and put solar collectors on your roof but
don't expect any miracles to come from it.
The best hope with current technology is a lot of new "zero carbon"
nuclear power plants but that is not politically viable, for many
reasons.
The chap from Australia just pointed out that you can get
a solar home system installed there for just $3800 now.
Peeler
2019-06-14 17:55:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 02:58:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by trader_4
problem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce
fossil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.
We can however grow them much more efficiently
Obviously not efficiently enough, senile Mr Know-it-all! <tsk>
--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$***@dont-email.me>
g***@aol.com
2019-06-14 20:37:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 02:58:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate
and co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before
reaching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the
bigger
problem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce
fossil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.
We can however grow them much more efficiently so we don’t
have to keep chopping down forests like in the amazon to grow
more shit like soybeans that are already vastly over produced.
But what about the poor farmers ;-)
Those billionaires at ADM, Monsanto and Cargill need all the
government welfare they can get don't they.
Rod Speed
2019-06-15 01:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 02:58:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the
idea
of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate
and co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before
reaching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the
bigger
problem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce
fossil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.
We can however grow them much more efficiently so we don’t
have to keep chopping down forests like in the amazon to grow
more shit like soybeans that are already vastly over produced.
But what about the poor farmers ;-)
They're the ones that have been growing stuff more efficiently for
centurys now and are why the USA can export stuff like soybeans
to places like China even now.
Post by g***@aol.com
Those billionaires at ADM, Monsanto and Cargill need all the
government welfare they can get don't they.
They do fine without govt welfare, We don’t provide govt welfare to ours.
Bod
2019-06-15 04:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
We can however grow them much more efficiently so we don’t
have to keep chopping down forests like in the amazon to grow
more shit like soybeans that are already vastly over produced.
But what about the poor farmers  ;-)
They're the ones that have been growing stuff more efficiently for
centurys now and are why the USA can export stuff like soybeans
to places like China even now.
Those billionaires at ADM, Monsanto and Cargill need all the
government welfare they can get don't they.
They do fine without govt welfare, We don’t provide govt welfare to ours.
"Almost 6,000 farmers granted welfare payments in last year, FOI
documents show"

Freedom of Information documents show the most farmers to receive the
Government's Farm Household Allowance (FHA) — 95 — were from Griffith, a
major citrus and wine grape-growing region in the New South Wales Riverina.

That was followed by 76 in Mitchell, in drought-stricken southern
Queensland, and 59 in Red Cliffs in northern Victoria and Glenn Innes in
NSW.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/almost-6,000-farmers-granted-welfare-payments-in-last-year/7441444
--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rod Speed
2019-06-15 06:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Rod Speed
We can however grow them much more efficiently so we don’t
have to keep chopping down forests like in the amazon to grow
more shit like soybeans that are already vastly over produced.
But what about the poor farmers ;-)
They're the ones that have been growing stuff more efficiently for
centurys now and are why the USA can export stuff like soybeans
to places like China even now.
Post by g***@aol.com
Those billionaires at ADM, Monsanto and Cargill need all the
government welfare they can get don't they.
They do fine without govt welfare, We don’t provide govt welfare to ours.
"Almost 6,000 farmers granted welfare payments in last year, FOI documents
show"
Freedom of Information documents show the most farmers to receive the
Government's Farm Household Allowance (FHA) — 95 — were from Griffith, a
major citrus and wine grape-growing region in the New South Wales Riverina.
That was followed by 76 in Mitchell, in drought-stricken southern
Queensland, and 59 in Red Cliffs in northern Victoria and Glenn Innes in
NSW.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/almost-6,000-farmers-granted-welfare-payments-in-last-year/7441444
That’s welfare in the sense of the dole etc, not the govt welfare handed
out when doing normal production that he was talking about.
Peeler
2019-06-15 09:15:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 16:04:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH clinically insane auto-contradicting asshole's latest
auto-contradicting>
--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <***@85.214.115.223>
Peeler
2019-06-15 09:13:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 11:27:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by g***@aol.com
But what about the poor farmers ;-)
They're the ones that have been growing stuff more efficiently for
centurys now and are why the USA can export stuff like soybeans
to places like China even now.
Post by g***@aol.com
Those billionaires at ADM, Monsanto and Cargill need all the
government welfare they can get don't they.
They do fine without govt welfare, We don’t provide govt welfare to ours.
Senile Rodent has ALL the answers, AGAIN! ...and AGAIN ...and AGAIN ...and
AGAIN! LMAO
--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <***@haph.org>
g***@aol.com
2019-06-14 20:13:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:10:57 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate and co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before reaching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger problem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fossil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.
Post by g***@aol.com
You are also not likely to have much luck telling those 3d worlders,
we have our cars, electricity and heat in the winter but fuck you.
You can drive your Leaf and put solar collectors on your roof but
don't expect any miracles to come from it.
The best hope with current technology is a lot of new "zero carbon"
nuclear power plants but that is not politically viable, for many
reasons.
The chap from Australia just pointed out that you can get a solar home system installed there for just $3800 now.
I have one to charge the battery on my lawn tractor that cost $15. The
issue is how big is that "system"? Who is really paying for it?

Most of these things are simply shifting the cost from the installer
to the public at large, either in taxes or electric bills.
Tekkie®
2019-06-17 19:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:10:57 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by Bob F
Post by g***@aol.com
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:29:47 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
I don't agree with that either. Humans are causing it but it is simply
the fact that we are here and farming that may be the biggest factor.
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
When compared to the whole carbon cycle, it is not that big a number.
How does that compare to millions of acres of forest being burned and
prehistoric turf land being plowed under, which affects carbon going
both ways. More is released, less is consumed. Raising crops to feed
7 billion people is horrible for the carbon cycle.
I would think that all the scientists around the world working on climate and co2 would have considered that as well as burning fossil fuels before reaching their consensus. If you have data that shows crops are the bigger problem, if be happy to see it. But even if true, we know how to reduce fossil fuel co2, AFAIK we can't stop growing crops.
Post by g***@aol.com
You are also not likely to have much luck telling those 3d worlders,
we have our cars, electricity and heat in the winter but fuck you.
You can drive your Leaf and put solar collectors on your roof but
don't expect any miracles to come from it.
The best hope with current technology is a lot of new "zero carbon"
nuclear power plants but that is not politically viable, for many
reasons.
The chap from Australia just pointed out that you can get a solar home system installed there for just $3800 now.
I have one to charge the battery on my lawn tractor that cost $15. The
issue is how big is that "system"? Who is really paying for it?
Most of these things are simply shifting the cost from the installer
to the public at large, either in taxes or electric bills.
Where do people think the 'rebates' come from? It sure isn't the PoCo
shareholders.
--
Tekkie
Roger Blake
2019-06-14 16:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
So you believe that Reid Bryson was a moron? You belive that Freeman
Dyson is a moron? Only a moron would believe that human activity has
any major effect compared to the natural forces of nature that give rise
the cycles of the earth's climate .

It takes an especially dim-witted moron to believe that we are going to
take control of the earth's climate, which is what the Climate Cult
would have us believe they are going to do.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
trader_4
2019-06-14 21:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Bob F
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
So you believe that Reid Bryson was a moron? You belive that Freeman
Dyson is a moron? Only a moron would believe that human activity has
any major effect compared to the natural forces of nature that give rise
the cycles of the earth's climate .
I'd say it's the other way around. Only morons would deny the established
science from ice cores that shows CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by a
third in just the last 100 years and that it's accounted for by the
burning of fossil fuels. CO2 is now at levels not seen in 700,000
years and the previous, natural cycles, took tens of thousands of years,
not just 100.


Reid Bryson:
In 1973, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.

There is no way right now that we can control the climate to make it more benign. Even if we were to say "let us stop using fossil fuels so that we do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because that impacts the world climate," how on earth could you stop using fossil fuels? Even those countries that are most heavily impacted by the climatic change are the ones who say it is our turn to be affluent and it is in the use of fossil fuels that one gains affluence.[7]


Decades later he flipped and he died in 2008 at 88, that's over a decade
ago. Whether he was even current with actual research in the last decades,
who knows. He would not be the first scientist that had credentials that
went off the rails. For example, I can cite for you "scientists" that
still deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Freeman Johnson is not a climate scientist.

Wiki:

Freeman John Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) is a British theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.

But even he doesn't deny anthropogenic warming:

"Dyson believes global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide through burning fossil fuels, but is sceptical about the simulation models used to predict climate change, arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."
Post by Roger Blake
It takes an especially dim-witted moron to believe that we are going to
take control of the earth's climate, which is what the Climate Cult
would have us believe they are going to do.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
Who said we are going to take control of the earth's climate?
All the scientists are saying is that if we don't limit the rise in CO2
global warming will increase at an accelerated rate. I'd say it takes
morons to think that they know the science better than the climate scientists
the world over who actually know the science. The deniers main argument
seems to be about like what that college dropout Rush Limbaugh has to say.
The earth is too big for man to have any effect, end of story, no further
analysis required.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-14 23:01:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:47:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Bob F
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
So you believe that Reid Bryson was a moron? You belive that Freeman
Dyson is a moron? Only a moron would believe that human activity has
any major effect compared to the natural forces of nature that give rise
the cycles of the earth's climate .
I'd say it's the other way around. Only morons would deny the established
science from ice cores that shows CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by a
third in just the last 100 years and that it's accounted for by the
burning of fossil fuels. CO2 is now at levels not seen in 700,000
years and the previous, natural cycles, took tens of thousands of years,
not just 100.
A moron would say population did not bloom at the same rate too.
Post by trader_4
In 1973, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.
There is no way right now that we can control the climate to make it more benign. Even if we were to say "let us stop using fossil fuels so that we do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because that impacts the world climate," how on earth could you stop using fossil fuels? Even those countries that are most heavily impacted by the climatic change are the ones who say it is our turn to be affluent and it is in the use of fossil fuels that one gains affluence.[7]
Decades later he flipped and he died in 2008 at 88, that's over a decade
ago. Whether he was even current with actual research in the last decades,
who knows. He would not be the first scientist that had credentials that
went off the rails. For example, I can cite for you "scientists" that
still deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Freeman Johnson is not a climate scientist.
Freeman John Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) is a British theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.
"Dyson believes global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide through burning fossil fuels, but is sceptical about the simulation models used to predict climate change, arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."
Post by Roger Blake
It takes an especially dim-witted moron to believe that we are going to
take control of the earth's climate, which is what the Climate Cult
would have us believe they are going to do.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
Who said we are going to take control of the earth's climate?
All the scientists are saying is that if we don't limit the rise in CO2
global warming will increase at an accelerated rate. I'd say it takes
morons to think that they know the science better than the climate scientists
the world over who actually know the science. The deniers main argument
seems to be about like what that college dropout Rush Limbaugh has to say.
The earth is too big for man to have any effect, end of story, no further
analysis required.
The only thing more arrogant than thinking man changed the climate is
thinking we can stop it from changing.
trader_4
2019-06-15 17:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:47:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Bob F
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
So you believe that Reid Bryson was a moron? You belive that Freeman
Dyson is a moron? Only a moron would believe that human activity has
any major effect compared to the natural forces of nature that give rise
the cycles of the earth's climate .
I'd say it's the other way around. Only morons would deny the established
science from ice cores that shows CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by a
third in just the last 100 years and that it's accounted for by the
burning of fossil fuels. CO2 is now at levels not seen in 700,000
years and the previous, natural cycles, took tens of thousands of years,
not just 100.
A moron would say population did not bloom at the same rate too.
No, a moron would just stop at that and not look at more detailed
analysis of how that growth impacted CO2. And the climate scientist
actually studying it, as opposed to arm chair experts that haven;t,
agree that it's man burning fossil fuels that's lead to the 30% rise
in CO2 in the last 100 years.
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by trader_4
In 1973, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.
There is no way right now that we can control the climate to make it more benign. Even if we were to say "let us stop using fossil fuels so that we do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because that impacts the world climate," how on earth could you stop using fossil fuels? Even those countries that are most heavily impacted by the climatic change are the ones who say it is our turn to be affluent and it is in the use of fossil fuels that one gains affluence.[7]
Decades later he flipped and he died in 2008 at 88, that's over a decade
ago. Whether he was even current with actual research in the last decades,
who knows. He would not be the first scientist that had credentials that
went off the rails. For example, I can cite for you "scientists" that
still deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Freeman Johnson is not a climate scientist.
Freeman John Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) is a British theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.
"Dyson believes global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide through burning fossil fuels, but is sceptical about the simulation models used to predict climate change, arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."
Post by Roger Blake
It takes an especially dim-witted moron to believe that we are going to
take control of the earth's climate, which is what the Climate Cult
would have us believe they are going to do.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
Who said we are going to take control of the earth's climate?
All the scientists are saying is that if we don't limit the rise in CO2
global warming will increase at an accelerated rate. I'd say it takes
morons to think that they know the science better than the climate scientists
the world over who actually know the science. The deniers main argument
seems to be about like what that college dropout Rush Limbaugh has to say.
The earth is too big for man to have any effect, end of story, no further
analysis required.
The only thing more arrogant than thinking man changed the climate is
thinking we can stop it from changing.
Some deniers were saying the same thing about water pollution in the 60s
and 70s. US CO2 emissions have decreased in the last 12 years, even as
the economy and population have grown. And we could do a lot more to limit
growth, but not when we have a throwback moron the the 19th century,
that wants to burn more coal and has done nothing to advance other source,
eg nuclear.
g***@aol.com
2019-06-15 18:15:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:15:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:47:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Bob F
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
So you believe that Reid Bryson was a moron? You belive that Freeman
Dyson is a moron? Only a moron would believe that human activity has
any major effect compared to the natural forces of nature that give rise
the cycles of the earth's climate .
I'd say it's the other way around. Only morons would deny the established
science from ice cores that shows CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by a
third in just the last 100 years and that it's accounted for by the
burning of fossil fuels. CO2 is now at levels not seen in 700,000
years and the previous, natural cycles, took tens of thousands of years,
not just 100.
A moron would say population did not bloom at the same rate too.
No, a moron would just stop at that and not look at more detailed
analysis of how that growth impacted CO2. And the climate scientist
actually studying it, as opposed to arm chair experts that haven;t,
agree that it's man burning fossil fuels that's lead to the 30% rise
in CO2 in the last 100 years.
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by trader_4
In 1973, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.
There is no way right now that we can control the climate to make it more benign. Even if we were to say "let us stop using fossil fuels so that we do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because that impacts the world climate," how on earth could you stop using fossil fuels? Even those countries that are most heavily impacted by the climatic change are the ones who say it is our turn to be affluent and it is in the use of fossil fuels that one gains affluence.[7]
Decades later he flipped and he died in 2008 at 88, that's over a decade
ago. Whether he was even current with actual research in the last decades,
who knows. He would not be the first scientist that had credentials that
went off the rails. For example, I can cite for you "scientists" that
still deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Freeman Johnson is not a climate scientist.
Freeman John Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) is a British theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.
"Dyson believes global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide through burning fossil fuels, but is sceptical about the simulation models used to predict climate change, arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."
Post by Roger Blake
It takes an especially dim-witted moron to believe that we are going to
take control of the earth's climate, which is what the Climate Cult
would have us believe they are going to do.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
Who said we are going to take control of the earth's climate?
All the scientists are saying is that if we don't limit the rise in CO2
global warming will increase at an accelerated rate. I'd say it takes
morons to think that they know the science better than the climate scientists
the world over who actually know the science. The deniers main argument
seems to be about like what that college dropout Rush Limbaugh has to say.
The earth is too big for man to have any effect, end of story, no further
analysis required.
The only thing more arrogant than thinking man changed the climate is
thinking we can stop it from changing.
Some deniers were saying the same thing about water pollution in the 60s
and 70s. US CO2 emissions have decreased in the last 12 years, even as
the economy and population have grown. And we could do a lot more to limit
growth, but not when we have a throwback moron the the 19th century,
that wants to burn more coal and has done nothing to advance other source,
eg nuclear.
Water pollution is still a very big problem in lots of places. It is
just a different kind of pollution in most cases (mainly nutrients)
... next.

The fact that we (the developed countries) have reduced CO2 some
minuscule amount is not really making a dent in CO2 overall and as
those undeveloped countries get richer, I do not expect the trend to
change much. We can't even get them to stop hacking each other up with
machetes, I doubt they are going to give a shit about how they make
electricity for their people. China is an excellent example of that.
Sure they brag about their solar efforts but that is not a pimple on
the ass of the coal they still burn..
Tekkie®
2019-06-17 19:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:15:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:47:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Post by trader_4
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Bob F
Only a moron could ignore the easy calculations of how much fossil fuel
we burn, and the CO2 released when we do. It is massive, and clearly has
a significant effect on heat retention.
.
So you believe that Reid Bryson was a moron? You belive that Freeman
Dyson is a moron? Only a moron would believe that human activity has
any major effect compared to the natural forces of nature that give rise
the cycles of the earth's climate .
I'd say it's the other way around. Only morons would deny the established
science from ice cores that shows CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by a
third in just the last 100 years and that it's accounted for by the
burning of fossil fuels. CO2 is now at levels not seen in 700,000
years and the previous, natural cycles, took tens of thousands of years,
not just 100.
A moron would say population did not bloom at the same rate too.
No, a moron would just stop at that and not look at more detailed
analysis of how that growth impacted CO2. And the climate scientist
actually studying it, as opposed to arm chair experts that haven;t,
agree that it's man burning fossil fuels that's lead to the 30% rise
in CO2 in the last 100 years.
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by trader_4
In 1973, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.
There is no way right now that we can control the climate to make it more benign. Even if we were to say "let us stop using fossil fuels so that we do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because that impacts the world climate," how on earth could you stop using fossil fuels? Even those countries that are most heavily impacted by the climatic change are the ones who say it is our turn to be affluent and it is in the use of fossil fuels
that one gains affluence.[7]
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by trader_4
Post by g***@aol.com
Post by trader_4
Decades later he flipped and he died in 2008 at 88, that's over a decade
ago. Whether he was even current with actual research in the last decades,
who knows. He would not be the first scientist that had credentials that
went off the rails. For example, I can cite for you "scientists" that
still deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Freeman Johnson is not a climate scientist.
Freeman John Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) is a British theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.
"Dyson believes global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide through burning fossil fuels, but is sceptical about the simulation models used to predict climate change, arguing that political efforts to reduce causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."
Post by Roger Blake
It takes an especially dim-witted moron to believe that we are going to
take control of the earth's climate, which is what the Climate Cult
would have us believe they are going to do.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
Who said we are going to take control of the earth's climate?
All the scientists are saying is that if we don't limit the rise in CO2
global warming will increase at an accelerated rate. I'd say it takes
morons to think that they know the science better than the climate scientists
the world over who actually know the science. The deniers main argument
seems to be about like what that college dropout Rush Limbaugh has to say.
The earth is too big for man to have any effect, end of story, no further
analysis required.
The only thing more arrogant than thinking man changed the climate is
thinking we can stop it from changing.
Some deniers were saying the same thing about water pollution in the 60s
and 70s. US CO2 emissions have decreased in the last 12 years, even as
the economy and population have grown. And we could do a lot more to limit
growth, but not when we have a throwback moron the the 19th century,
that wants to burn more coal and has done nothing to advance other source,
eg nuclear.
Water pollution is still a very big problem in lots of places. It is
just a different kind of pollution in most cases (mainly nutrients)
... next.
The fact that we (the developed countries) have reduced CO2 some
minuscule amount is not really making a dent in CO2 overall and as
those undeveloped countries get richer, I do not expect the trend to
change much. We can't even get them to stop hacking each other up with
machetes, I doubt they are going to give a shit about how they make
electricity for their people. China is an excellent example of that.
Sure they brag about their solar efforts but that is not a pimple on
the ass of the coal they still burn..
If people only had the long view...
--
Tekkie
trader_4
2019-06-12 18:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
To quote the father of climate science, Reid Bryson:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson

Bryson's main contribution to the debate on climate change was the idea of "the human volcano" causing global cooling, via an increase in aerosol loading.[4] This idea was sparked in 1962 by his own observation, while flying across India en route to a conference, that his view of the ground was blocked not by clouds but by dust. At the time, the instrumental temperature record did not show unambiguous warming and the view that the earth might be cooling, and heading for further cooling, was not unreasonable. Others, including Hubert Lamb, who created a Dust Veil Index,[5] thought volcanoes were more responsible for global-scale aerosol.[6]

In 1973, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.

There is no way right now that we can control the climate to make it more benign. Even if we were to say "let us stop using fossil fuels so that we do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because that impacts the world climate," how on earth could you stop using fossil fuels? Even those countries that are most heavily impacted by the climatic change are the ones who say it is our turn to be affluent and it is in the use of fossil fuels that one gains affluence.[7]


Then in later years, he flipped:

In later years, when it was clear that the climate was indeed warming, Bryson argued that while climate change and a global increase in temperature are real, he did not believe that they are caused by human activity. Rather, he argued that they are part of natural global climate cycles, particularly the end of the Little Ice Age.



And he's been dead for a decade, so he's hardly a relevant source today.
But this does show the problem when you selectively take something someone
said that supports what you want to hear, but don't look at the rest,
where they said the opposite. It would be also interesting to see how
involved he was in actually following the current research at the time
he made those comments. Not unusual for scientists to have brilliant
careers, but then go totally off the rails on something later in life,
when they are no longer really engaged or on subjects outside their
own field. It's also a fact that the scientists that don't believe
in anthropogenic warming are a very small minority.
taxpayer
2019-06-12 19:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
+1
Bob F
2019-06-13 04:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by g***@aol.com
You can "plan" anything you want. Lets see how you do. Personally I
think we are all tilting at windmills. We better plan on a warmer
climate because as long as population is growing at our present rate
so will CO2. It isn't all about who drives Hummers.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Nothing we do will effect any
real-world changes. CO2 is not a pollutant except in the minds of the
power brokers' useful idiots. You can no more "fight climate change"
than you can "fight" the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Every once in a while the perps reveal the truth, but it's a religion
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
To quote the father of modern climate science, Reid Bryson, the idea of
human-caused global warming (which is what it was called before being
changed to "climate change" to cover all bases) is "absurd" and "a bunch
of hooey."
This nonsense is one of the major reasons for keeping the Communists
(known as "Democrats" in the U.S.) out of power.
TRUMP 2020 - Make Liberals Cry Again!
LOL!

trumptards in their Lala land, heads stuck in the sand..
trader_4
2019-06-12 18:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bod
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit
to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government
said late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
--
Bod
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
We have reduced emissions:


https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26152


We've reduced them second only to the EU. Maybe you should ask China
and India why they are spewing at exponential rates?


Relevant graph here is about 2/3 the way down the article:


https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-slower-than-expected-in-2018


If the USA and EU continue to drive up our manufacturing costs,
our energy costs pursuing reducing CO2, while China does not,
aren't we just screwing ourselves?
Neill Massello
2019-06-12 19:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit to reaching net zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government said late on Tuesday,
becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
Perhaps by then the UK government will have fulfilled that other
commitment it made, to leave the EU. Commitments are cheap, especially
for politicians. Remember the Kyoto Protocol? If we only we could reduce
pompous gas emissions.
gregz
2019-06-14 08:25:29 UTC
Permalink
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will toughen its climate targets and commit to
reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government said
late on Tuesday, becoming the first G7 nation to set such a goal.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-britain/britain-to-become-first-g7-country-with-net-zero-emissions-target-idUKKCN1TC2QA
What is Trump gonna do about seriously reducing emissions!
You can stop using your car and electricity at any time. Plant some trees
too.

Greg
Loading...