Joey Diaper's natural gas fireplace

They aren't banned. You can go right down to Home Depot and
buy one for your hovel.

--
Cindy Hamilton

Alexandria Ocasio-Mayorkis

2024-11-20 11:34:29 UTC

They aren't banned. You can go right down to Home Depot and
buy one for your hovel.

Yabbut the libturds tell us fireplaces cause climate change.

Cindy Hamilton

2024-11-20 14:16:09 UTC

They aren't banned. You can go right down to Home Depot and
buy one for your hovel.

Yabbut the libturds tell us fireplaces cause climate change.

"Yabbut" ? Is that what passes for rhetoric in your bubble?

--
Cindy Hamilton

De-Trois-Leaning

2024-11-20 16:38:32 UTC

They aren't banned. You can go right down to Home Depot and
buy one for your hovel.

Yabbut the libturds tell us fireplaces cause climate change.

"Yabbut" ? Is that what passes for rhetoric in your bubble?

https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/

Share on Facebook
Share on X
Share on Parler
Share on Gab
Share on Telegram
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
Popular
Study Shows Ketogenic Diet Shrinks Pancreatic Tumors
Knowledge is Power: The Corruption Behind Seed Oils
Funded by BARDA, Japan Approves Next-Generation Self-Amplifying mRNA Jabs
A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence
that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact
on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though
most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet
due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact,
the case. Instead, the study authors deduced that their research
unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human
activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is
merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.

The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the
warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited,
with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms
what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the
“manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers”
regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has
nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived
far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”

In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the climate
situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming, humans emit
CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission spectra that,
overall, acts to warm the planet. However, after that, there is much
disagreement over the most consequential issues propagated to fuel the
climate change narrative, such as how much of the warming has been
caused by humans and how significant is human-caused warming relative to
solar-variability, ocean circulation patterns, and so on?

Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for
political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19
pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and
control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
has become known as an outspoken scientist who doubts the “scientific
consensus” on climate change. Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who
dared speak up about the deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots, Curry was
“academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable.”
But that has not stopped her from speaking up. When asked how far from
reality the picture of doom and gloom painted by those pushing the
climate agenda really is, Curry stated:

“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and right
over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything because
they’re not doing enough.

People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe
dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be
hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do
what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the system.

If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some
people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very,
very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory
very much.

So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But
thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero
very quickly is not good.”

Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in
the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any
measure than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that
period was inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and
hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy
infrastructure to rely on wind turbines and solar energy, which require
a massive land and water footprint.

According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really
stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have
something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate
risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly
getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if society
transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts of fossil fuels will
be needed to do all the mining, establish the supply chains, transport,
and everything else. So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use
all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of
fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any
thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”

And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the
Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by a
despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the
Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in
Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the
world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant
pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet
Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth
to warm up indefinitely.

As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can
only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase
temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time
ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse
consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only
so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very
similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2
together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical
greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus,
amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge
that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence
Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is
not a dangerous thing, commenting:

“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole
argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s
good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow
creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic
ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely
to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global
warming.”

MikeJ

2024-11-21 04:26:32 UTC

Post by De-Trois-Leaning

On 2024-11-20, Alexandria Ocasio-Mayorkis

On 2024-11-19, Greta Thongturd

They aren't banned. You can go right down to Home Depot and
buy one for your hovel.

Yabbut the libturds tell us fireplaces cause climate change.

"Yabbut" ? Is that what passes for rhetoric in your bubble?

https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-
impact-on-climate-change/
Share on Facebook
Share on X
Share on Parler
Share on Gab
Share on Telegram
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
Popular
Study Shows Ketogenic Diet Shrinks Pancreatic Tumors
Knowledge is Power: The Corruption Behind Seed Oils
Funded by BARDA, Japan Approves Next-Generation Self-Amplifying mRNA
Jabs A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial
evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have
zero impact on the Earthâs global temperatures. The study concludes
that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic
future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious
doubt that this is, in fact, the case. Instead, the study authors
deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially
presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2
increase on Earthâs climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a
substantiated reality.
The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that
the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally
limited, with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study
also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is
that the âmanufactured consensus of scientists at the request of
policymakersâ regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an
agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that
âEarth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are
doing.â
In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the
climate situation are clearâglobal temperatures have been warming,
humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission
spectra that, overall, acts to warm the planet. However, after that,
there is much disagreement over the most consequential issues
propagated to fuel the climate change narrative, such as how much of
the warming has been caused by humans and how significant is
human-caused warming relative to solar-variability, ocean circulation
patterns, and so on?
Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for
political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19
pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and
control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
has become known as an outspoken scientist who doubts the
âscientific consensusâ on climate change. Unsurprisingly, akin to
the doctors who dared speak up about the deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots,
Curry was âacademically, pretty much finished offâ and
âessentially unhirable.â But that has not stopped her from
speaking up. When asked how far from reality the picture of doom and
gloom painted by those pushing the climate agenda really is, Curry
âItâs very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and
right over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything
because theyâre not doing enough.
People who think that they can control the climateâŠ Itâs just a
pipe dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It
would be hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is
going to do what the climateâs going to do. And thereâs a lot of
inertia in the system.
If the carbon dioxide that weâve put in is as important, as bad as
some people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a
very, very long time. And stopping now isnât going to change that
trajectory very much.
So, we must look forward and try to understand whatâs happened. But
thinking that weâre going to control the climate by going to net
zero very quickly is not good.â
Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in
the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any
measure than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that
period was inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and
hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy
infrastructure to rely on wind turbines and solar energy, which
require a massive land and water footprint.
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if âwe do really
stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have
something better to replace it with.â She believes the biggest
climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of
rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if
society transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts of fossil
fuels will be needed to do all the mining, establish the supply
chains, transport, and everything else. So, in the near term, even if
the plan is to use all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need
large amounts of fossil fuels to get there. âPeople just repeat
these mantras without any thought,â Curry said, adding, âItâs
not a good place.â
And now, following Dr. Curryâs sound advice and insight, we have the
Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by
a despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the
Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in
Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the
worldâs coal, extracted all the worldâs oil, and burned it in one
giant pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up
planet Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause
the Earth to warm up indefinitely.
As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earthâs atmosphere
can only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase
temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long
time ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a
greenhouse consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can
contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the
atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a âgreenhouseâ
gas, but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like
the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this
conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around climate
changeâand the knowledge that many things, including changes in
solar activity heavily influence Earthâs weatherâDr. Curry
believes even if the Earth is warming, it is not a dangerous thing,
âThis whole issue of âdangerousâ is the weakest part of the
whole argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of
whatâs good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And
thatâs a slow creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to
the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens
there, thatâs as likely to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as
it is to be with global warming.â

De-Trois-Leaning

2024-11-20 16:35:08 UTC

On 2024-11-19, Greta Thongturd

They aren't banned. You can go right down to Home Depot and
buy one for your hovel.

Yabbut the libturds tell us fireplaces cause climate change.

Bemusing deceits always!

https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/

A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence
that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact
on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though
most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet
due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact,
the case. Instead, the study authors deduced that their research
unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human
activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is
merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.

The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the
warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited,
with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms
what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the
“manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers”
regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has
nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived
far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”

In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the climate
situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming, humans emit
CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission spectra that,
overall, acts to warm the planet. However, after that, there is much
disagreement over the most consequential issues propagated to fuel the
climate change narrative, such as how much of the warming has been
caused by humans and how significant is human-caused warming relative to
solar-variability, ocean circulation patterns, and so on?

Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for
political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19
pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and
control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
has become known as an outspoken scientist who doubts the “scientific
consensus” on climate change. Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who
dared speak up about the deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots, Curry was
“academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable.”
But that has not stopped her from speaking up. When asked how far from
reality the picture of doom and gloom painted by those pushing the
climate agenda really is, Curry stated:

“It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and right
over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything because
they’re not doing enough.

People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe
dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be
hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do
what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the system.

If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some
people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very,
very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory
very much.

So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But
thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero
very quickly is not good.”

Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in
the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any
measure than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that
period was inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and
hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy
infrastructure to rely on wind turbines and solar energy, which require
a massive land and water footprint.

According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really
stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have
something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate
risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly
getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if society
transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts of fossil fuels will
be needed to do all the mining, establish the supply chains, transport,
and everything else. So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use
all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of
fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any
thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”

And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the
Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by a
despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the
Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in
Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the
world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant
pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet
Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth
to warm up indefinitely.

As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can
only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase
temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time
ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse
consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only
so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very
similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2
together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical
greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus,
amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge
that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence
Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is
not a dangerous thing, commenting:

“This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole
argument. What is dangerous? Everybody has a different idea of what’s
good. The only harm from warming is rising sea levels. And that’s a slow
creep unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic
ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely
to be associated with under-ice volcanoes as it is to be with global
warming.”

h***@ccanoemail.com

2024-11-19 18:10:03 UTC

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 07:03:15 -0500, Greta Thongturd

this weekend, I saw a video clip of Trump and Joe
having a chit-chat in front of a fireplace at the White House.
The fireplace had a roaring gas log fire going.
Shouldn't the Democrats have an electric heat pump fireplace?

It sounds like you're just jealous ..
Ask your Mommy nicely and maybe she'll order one
for your basement mange cave .. :-)
.. don't burn yourself ..
John T.

"?"

2024-11-19 19:17:48 UTC

Post by Greta Thongturd
On OANN's Weekly Briefing this weekend, I saw a video clip of President
Trump and Joey Diapers having a chit-chat in front of a fireplace at the
White House.
The fireplace had a roaring 75k BTU gas log fire going.
Why do the democrat climate change nazis ban America's natural gas
stoves yet have a natural gas fireplace at the White House?
Shouldn't the Democrats have an electric heat pump fireplace?
Why are the Democrats such hypocrites?
And why do people keep electing these phony phuckers?
"How dare you!"

Fireplaces are good if they emit noxious byproducts that kill Trump
supporters.

marika

2024-12-01 20:18:17 UTC

Post by Greta Thongturd
On OANN's Weekly Briefing this weekend, I saw a video clip of President
Trump and Joey Diapers having a chit-chat in front of a fireplace at the
White House.

my dream is for both of them to be arrested

Post by Greta Thongturd
The fireplace had a roaring 75k BTU gas log fire going.
Why do the democrat climate change nazis ban America's natural gas
stoves yet have a natural gas fireplace at the White House?
Shouldn't the Democrats have an electric heat pump fireplace?
Why are the Democrats such hypocrites?
And why do people keep electing these phony phuckers?
"How dare you!"

Comerciante_Cuatro

2024-12-02 02:36:42 UTC

Post by marika

Post by Greta Thongturd
On OANN's Weekly Briefing this weekend, I saw a video clip of President
Trump and Joey Diapers having a chit-chat in front of a fireplace at the
White House.

my dream is for both of them to be arrested

America's gas logs are safe for another 4 years.

marika

2024-12-10 17:06:12 UTC