Deadly Global Warming-South Central Texas

Why does any one person need three polluting vehicles nevermind more?
Same reason one person needs three man-killing firearms or even more.

BTW, what evidence do you have that increased ICE-vehicle ownership by one person increases pollution? Does a person who owns four ICE vehicles drive more miles than a person who owns three? And how much pollution and use of unrenewable resources does an ICE vehicle cause, compared to a lithium-battery-powered vehicle?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Same reason one person needs three man-killing firearms or even more.

BTW, what evidence do you have that increased ICE-vehicle ownership by one person increases pollution? Does a person who owns four ICE vehicles drive more miles than a person who owns three? And how much pollution and use of unrenewable resources does an ICE vehicle cause, compared to a lithium-battery-powered vehicle?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Ask Siri :rolleyes:
 
.....

Folks, you know how we view hoplophobes who argue that somehow or other, guns are responsible for violence, and who try to ignore the human element in crime because it doesn’t suit their agenda? Well, that’s exactly how legitimate scientists who have studied climate change view those who argue that human beings aren’t responsible for what’s happening to our planet.

Problem with your analogy is that there are a goodly number of legitimate scientists that see no convincing evidence of anthropogenic climate change. That aside, the supposed "solutions" climate activists provide (wind, solar,etc) wouldn't actually solve the "problem" but would drive us all into energy starvation and penury.

We've had a carbon-free energy source that can actually support a large industrial economy for 80 years.

If climate change is such a threat, where're the nukes?
 
Last edited:
That is the goal.

Problem with your analogy is that there are a goodly number of legitimate scientists that see no convincing evidence of anthropogenic climate change. That aside, the supposed "solutions" climate activists provide (wind, solar,etc) wouldn't actually solve the "problem" but would drive us all into energy starvation and penury.

We've had a carbon-free energy source that can actually support a large industrial economy for 80 years.

If climate change is such a threat, where're the nukes?
 
Ah... Global warming... climate change... whatever. I would have more respect for the advocates of it's prevention if they were trying to sell their agenda to the Chinese.
Scientists tell me that 15,000 years ago there was a mile of ice covering my neighborhood. With that in mind I'm inclined to be thankful for a little global warming every now end then.

John
 
Some people need to learn and understand that their local weather in some State or County is not the same as climate change or global warming
 
When I was in grade school back then (late 1950's) they taught us that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.... It's taken some years but someone has figured out how to turn this into an industry of scarring the heck out of folks....

Who would have known......??
 
Sir, if you can document, from an impartial source, that Greta Thunberg owns nine cars, I’ll donate $100 to the charity of your choice.

Folks, you know how we view hoplophobes who argue that somehow or other, guns are responsible for violence, and who try to ignore the human element in crime because it doesn’t suit their agenda? Well, that’s exactly how legitimate scientists who have studied climate change view those who argue that human beings aren’t responsible for what’s happening to our planet.

Legitimate scientists or scientist you agree with? Because I'm sure a lot of the scientists who don't agree or are unsure about man made climate change would think they are legitimate also. Any "scientist" who says any hypothesis is written in stone is one you should run away from.
 
Problem with your analogy is that there are a goodly number of legitimate scientists that see no convincing evidence of anthropogenic climate change. That aside, the supposed "solutions" climate activists provide (wind, solar,etc) wouldn't actually solve the "problem" but would drive us all into energy starvation and penury.

We've had a carbon-free energy source that can actually support a large industrial economy for 80 years.

If climate change is such a threat, where're the nukes?

A few minutes’ worth of Googling can be very enlightening. I trust NASA and the National Geographic Society…I can’t find any reason for them to grind an axe on climate change one way or the other. Organizations preaching climate change denial are usually so nakedly political that linking to them here will likely violate The Rules.

Believe what you want.

Home – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
A few minutes’ worth of Googling can be very enlightening. I trust NASA and the National Geographic Society…I can’t find any reason for them to grind an axe on climate change one way or the other. Organizations preaching climate change denial are usually so nakedly political that linking to them here will likely violate The Rules.

Believe what you want.

Home – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Ooooo Kayyyyy. I've looked a little farther than that. Try reading the IPCC reports and then looking at the input data. ;)

And still, where's the nukes?
 
I honestly don’t know what’s better on this forum a good ‘ol bear caliber thread, or a global warming thread! Hey, as long as we keep it respectful, I say let’s talk about it!

So, let’s face it, there is exponentially more that science/we don’t know, compared to what is known. I’m positive that people a thousand years from now will look back at our society and laugh at our ignorance and brutality.

And, let’s also acknowledge the fact is that there’s plenty of money to be made in this “global warming,” turned “climate change.” What a bit of irony is that cover-all term…! Did you know that there’s been a minimum of at least 5 ice ages in earth’s history (and so, conversely, at least 5 “global warmings”…)? Did you know that we’re technically still in an ice age today? It’s an Interglacial period, but we’re still in the ice age.

As for “science,” that generally goes to the highest bidder. The old saying is true, you get the science that you pay for. And if you don’t think that industry doesn’t buy science that drives their profits, and laws that drive their profits, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you! Do some research on how “science” and scientific papers are funded. Understand how universities and their research is funded. It would shock you to know the truth behind government, universities, research organizations, NGOs, and corporations. Facts are there, they just won’t ever be on your nightly news. We people get what’s fed to us, opposing voices and science are not easily surfaced, and when they are they are mocked, marginalized, and
/or demonized. This has been all out there for us to see over the past few years with another well known crisis that I won’t name by name, yet most just buy into the scam. Follow the money people… Tin foil references don’t bother me, I’m more concerned with independent research and free thinking, outside of the money driven propaganda.

Well, at least some people are getting filthy rich from this whole mess. One thing won’t change however, the earth will do what the earth is going to do…
 
Back
Top