Fox covers what CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC cover-ups.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change Denial
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change
That plot was a plot for the temperature of central Greenland. Why is it ok to use Greenland as a proxy for the entire global temperature instead of one part of the historical record?
How does the temperature record of central Greenland explain the extra zettajoules of energy in the ocean and atmosphere if not from CO2 plus associated feedbacks?
not sure what you are getting at, but yes, many poor people hire me. I’m an electrical contactor.
oh boy.... it’s like, “even I know it’s not true but I’m gonna say it anyway cause I know it will enrage the libtards”...
Last edited:
Given that the human industrial era is less than 10% of that period, and that human activity is increasing, recent data should have the strongest signals of any impact.
It's similar to the way using 2016 UK coal usage data to describe its level of coal use is omitting a significant time period.
In addition his link is to a pic of the Central Greenland temperature reconstruction from ice cores. The higher temperatures in the past from this chart are limited to the central Greenland area and can't by themselves be extrapolated to the entire world. They are simply one piece of data that he's cherry picking.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
There are the evidences that Global Warming is ANTHROPOGENIC!
Main evidence is the increasing concentration of C13 isotope in the ATMOSPHERE!
Please STUDY THE SCIENCE of AGW!
Because the ice core data of Greenland corresponds to the ice core data from Antarctica. If that doesn't indicate a global climate variation, I don't know what does.
my clients employ me, without them I wouldn’t have a job. But really, what was your point?
The point was that some of you unthinking ones believe that rich people are the main problem in the world. I was simply pointing out how dumb that idea was.
From an environmental standpoint, the rich in the world are the main problem. If you ignore the environment, they are less bad. Still bad mind you but less so.
At some point in an interconnected world, excess use of a limited resource creates a burden to the poor even when you ignore the environment.
If you can't stand back and see that, then you are missing a good part of the picture. Doesn't make rich people "bad" of course, but their power to do things usually creates a problem for some people. There really isn't any great solution for it but you should acknowledge that is an issue.
I work in health care. My employer (like most) is a non-profit. It is not owned by rich people. There are lots of government dollars and lots of health insurance dollars. Most of my patients are what you might call poor - because truly rich people tend to have less medical issues. But we should probably clarify what poor is - which is very few people in the US.
So how does that fit? - I am not employed by a rich person. In fact, I don't work nearly as much for rich people. And my sector is just over 13% of the US workforce.
At some point in an interconnected world, excess use of a limited resource creates a burden to the poor even when you ignore the environment.
If you can't stand back and see that, then you are missing a good part of the picture. Doesn't make rich people "bad" of course, but their power to do things usually creates a problem for some people. There really isn't any great solution for it but you should acknowledge that is an issue.
I work in health care. My employer (like most) is a non-profit. It is not owned by rich people. There are lots of government dollars and lots of health insurance dollars. Most of my patients are what you might call poor - because truly rich people tend to have less medical issues. But we should probably clarify what poor is - which is very few people in the US.
So how does that fit? - I am not employed by a rich person. In fact, I don't work nearly as much for rich people. And my sector is just over 13% of the US workforce.
I never said that. I said poor people (the long tail of the climate crisis) are easier to exterminate. Maybe you didn’t know what long tail meant?
Morally reprehensible to exterminate people. I assume you know that.
Wouldn't solve the problem of human caused environmental damage since most of that is caused by rich people.
If you exterminate the poor people thee is no one to produce the stuff for the rich people, and they die as well. Win win for the earth!
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
That doesn't really make sense though since the rich are a tiny percentage of the population. Why would it be easier to get rid of the vast majority than a tiny minority? Numbers don't favor your position.
We are already killing poor people better than rich people. Homelessness, drug use, gun violence, malnourishment, ect.... those all disportionatrly kill poor people.
Hypothetically, since the rich people control the weapons, I’m sure that if we provided them a choice “use your weapons to kill the poor people or we will have the poor people kill you” they will agree that killing poor people is a better alternative. It’s just easier. The poor don’t have the resources to kill all the rich people and once you kill all the rich people, the richest poor person becomes the richest person and then you have to kill them too. It gets complicated.
to be clear, I am not advocating to kill people. I just said it was the best way to swap with three climate crisis. So one suggested killing just the rich would be more effective, I’m merely providing the counter argument
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
