Fox covers what CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC cover-ups.People believe what they believe because they want to believe it. Fox News just parrots what they already believe.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fox covers what CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC cover-ups.People believe what they believe because they want to believe it. Fox News just parrots what they already believe.
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?Doesn't really mean anything other than the ice core samplings indicate natural climate variation during the past 2,500 years. The previous temperature peaks were just as high or higher that our current Modern Warm Period. Assigning all of the current global warming to humans completely ignores the previous global warming periods of the past. It is apparent to those who examine climate data that CO2 forcing by carbon emissions is exaggerated.
Did a poor person ever hire you?
Fox covers what CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC cover-ups.
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.Oh, my goodness. A proxy study of the last 2,500 years was done in the year A.D 2000. That 21 years makes all the difference in the world! LOL.
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.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.
There are the evidences that Global Warming is ANTHROPOGENIC!Doesn't really mean anything other than the ice core samplings indicate natural climate variation during the past 2,500 years. The previous temperature peaks were just as high or higher that our current Modern Warm Period. Assigning all of the current global warming to humans completely ignores the previous global warming periods of the past. It is apparent to those who examine climate data that CO2 forcing by carbon emissions is exaggerated.
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.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?
You have poor clients - not a poor employer. Big difference!not sure what you are getting at, but yes, many poor people hire me. I’m an electrical contactor.
You have poor clients - not a poor employer. Big difference!
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.my clients employ me, without them I wouldn’t have a job. But really, what was your point?
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?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.
Morally reprehensible to exterminate people. I assume you know that.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?
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!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.
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.I said poor people (the long tail of the climate crisis) are easier to exterminate.
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.
Your argument makes no sense.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 it 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
Your argument makes no sense.
No.Your argument makes no sens
Care to expound?