I don't see anyone being attacked.
I just see disagreement.
Because he is the supposed leading expert on climate change. If he doesn't see the need to stop wasting energy on a personal level, he must not really think that climate change is man-made. You don't see many oncologists who smoke.
so what you're saying is that to curb the co2, we should kill the poor? The Dead Kennedys win again!Key word: detectable.
Again, humans are producing 700 times as much as the volcanoes. It's difficult to blame the volcanoes for any ill effects. If I were to drink four thermometers, I don't think Hoosierdoc would be able to detect the mercury poisoning from the salmon I have for dinner every few months. He'd find the mercury poisoning, and he'd blame the biggest source of mercury in my body rather than the one that barely contributes.
The point is made later in the paragraph you quoted.
Key word: detectable.
Again, humans are producing 700 times as much as the volcanoes. It's difficult to blame the volcanoes for any ill effects. If I were to drink four thermometers, I don't think Hoosierdoc would be able to detect the mercury poisoning from the salmon I have for dinner every few months. He'd find the mercury poisoning, and he'd blame the biggest source of mercury in my body rather than the one that barely contributes.
The point is made later in the paragraph you quoted.
Well, this has all been good and fun, but I can see now where many of the members of this community want to take the thread. And as I already said above:
Memes, political cartoons, and comedians FTW!
I will say, though, that many here should examine themselves in light of this conversation. The INGO community frequently complains that the political left doesn't actually use facts but rather feelings and ad hominem attacks as their M.O. This thread is quickly turning that direction, and I have no expectation that it can be salvaged.
Out of respect for the moderators and the INGO community, I'm going to bow out of this one. I'm sure that some will try to goad me into reentering, but I will not. So do not take my silence on the topic as an admission of defeat. Instead, it's just and admission that the conversation won't be productive.
I'll see everyone later in some firearm-related thread.
All stores should turn off their lights (including signage) when they are not open.
That will save more in a day than my LED bulbs will save in a year.
Energy yes- lost stock...no.
Energy yes- lost stock...no.
Climate change is real. Global average temperatures are rising.
Facts aren't political.
Would you prefer people not use facts?
I'd prefer to see agreement based on raw data and genuine peer review, not fudged data and manipulated peer reviews. "Climate Scientists" have been caught modifying data, conspiring to freeze out unfavorable peer reviewers of their data, and conspiring to cover all of that up. Now we hear that original raw historical data has been destroyed and all we have is doctored data. So upon what "facts" do you think we might be able to agree?
And, since NONE of the predicted catastrophic effects of "Global Warming" (or "Global Cooling circa 1975) have eventuated in the projected timeframes and all such future catastrophic effects are now projected well into the future, why should any serious person put any credence into them? "Science" is supposed to be based on data - repeatable experimential or observable data - and theories are supposed to be derived from observations and/or experimentation. Theories are NOT supposed to be formulated, then backed up with cherry-picked or fudged data.
[video]https://youtu.be/h60KFYocdcQ[/video]
Oh Al Gore...
Climate change is real. Global average temperatures are rising.
Facts aren't political.