Jump to content

Trump to bar California from setting vehicle emissions rules, say sources


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, msm859 said:

Are you serious?  That is your defense of climate change?  Another article on that page. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181210150614.htm

Everyone should be concerned.  And anyone who is not should ask themselves the question; What if I am wrong?  What are the consequences?  I - and everyone else can live if I am wrong. Can you say the same?

I think it's good that scientists question their own findings and seek for more meaning on what's actually happening.

 

I find it interesting that they're looking at what was causing the earth to cool before man made CO2 became a factor.

It could actually unlock the mechanisms that remove CO2 from our atmosphere and allow us to drive that end as well.

So it looks like the health of our oceans will also be critical to clearing up excess CO2.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, msm859 said:

Are you serious?  That is your defense of climate change?  Another article on that page. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181210150614.htm

Everyone should be concerned.  And anyone who is not should ask themselves the question; What if I am wrong?  What are the consequences?  I - and everyone else can live if I am wrong. Can you say the same?

 

I never said I was a denier.  Why is it that anyone who dares to question the doomsday predictions is labeled a denier?

 

i think we should continue taking sensible steps to reduce CO2 but that includes a lot of things like reforestation and not just banning ICEs.

 

That article simply points out that our global climate is extremely complicated and can’t really be modeled and just because there is some kind of scientific consensus doesn’t mean they’re right or that there is anything we can do about it.

 

A little skepticism and common sense is what we need not overreaction to doomsday predictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2019 at 1:29 AM, msm859 said:

Seriously?  I forgot NASA has always been known as part. of the "green movement".  What exactly would it take for you to "believe" that the majority fo scientist believe in anthropogenic  climate change.  And unfortunately this is not a feeling or belief issue - it is science.

 

Well it certainly is now, as evidenced by your supplied link. And of course, the graph and verbiage you see immediately upon opening the link is a common ploy used by climate “scientists” - make conclusions on apples to oranges comparisons. In this particular case trying to compare temperatures from as far back as the 19th century with recent readings when temperature locations have changed, and  thermometer accuracy has changed. Of course 97% of climate change “scientists” will insist that climate change is due to man -its what they do and how they get paid. Funding dries up  if they decide otherwise. It’s the branch of “science” that draws almost exclusively those who are out to save the planet. Calling them “scientists” is a bit misleading. Charlatan would be a better term. You’re right - it is science - bad science. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, msm859 said:

Everyone should be concerned.  And anyone who is not should ask themselves the question; What if I am wrong?  What are the consequences?  I - and everyone else can live if I am wrong. Can you say the same?

 

Perhaps maybe a better way of putting this is that generally in Western countries we don't have as a big of an impact on the environment as much as say China or India does, both that have larger populations and worse emission standards/laws then the US or EU. 

 

Its like banning plastic straws-we make of a minuscule amount of plastic waste due to better waste disposal/recycling, but yet in the overall picture we aren't the problem. 

 

Western Society as a whole is in race to see who can out do one another just to feel good about themselves because it gives them a "high" and finding that next 'high" leads to more stupid and draconian reactions to imagined issues. 

 

Lets not talk about the leadership that travel around the world (creating more pollution) to talk about climate change either. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, akirby said:

 

I never said I was a denier.  Why is it that anyone who dares to question the doomsday predictions is labeled a denier?

 

i think we should continue taking sensible steps to reduce CO2 but that includes a lot of things like reforestation and not just banning ICEs.

 

That article simply points out that our global climate is extremely complicated and can’t really be modeled and just because there is some kind of scientific consensus doesn’t mean they’re right or that there is anything we can do about it.

 

A little skepticism and common sense is what we need not overreaction to doomsday predictions.

There May be more advantage in improving ocean health and it’s ability to absorb CO2 and pass onto crustaceans and shellfish and lock it up as calcium 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...