@Marcus_Summers tell me, do you type with these hands?

ye

look into it

down syndrome

💯

Did they ever explain why the rise of temperatures preceded rise in CO2?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectrodactyly

@Undead Mockingbird Nope. Nor were they convinced that skepticism is the appropriate response when fabrications, mistakes and out-right fraud is exposed almost every time the UN produces a "climate report." Like when they claimed that the US was spending more money on storm repair every year when their numbers came from "speculation" and the actual numbers spent on storm damage had be going down for over a decade.

Eh. Storm damage spending is a bad metric for determining storm intensity anyways. It would be far more accurate to compare wind speeds, air pressure, temperatures, etc.

even if everything they say was correct, it's not obvious what the right response would be

@Salacious Swanky Cat Sure, but if you want a good keynote to talk about at your Climate Panel to demonstrate the IMMEDIATE costs of global warming then what better than to talk about the cost of storm damage cleanup?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM

Which is exactly what they all did. Then when it was exposed as another hoax the UN claimed it was a minor piece of their report and was in no way an indication of the validity of their other claims.

@CasualSailor I guess, but I still think it’s a bad proxy.

Noam Chomsky

GLobal Warming

chomsky should have been content with being a linguist

Crusade or not?

I enjoy Sowell here

sowell is based

facts

ultra facts

Sowell is the best indeed.

one of the most based men on the planet

Øbama ended all manned space flight programs but increased NASA's budget. What for? To provide scientific evidence of global warming. Not to prove or disprove since that debate was settled by Al Gore. But simply to provide evidence to support the theory. Want to guess what the bureaucrats at NASA found? You guessed it. Scientific proof of global warming. And their budget increase was extended.

either way, you don't produce good science by making it politically incorrect to ask questions about it

It occures to me that if we depopulated the developing countries the majority of the toxicity damaging the planet would stop

yes, like china

or india

if you want to fight pollution, which is an immediately good thing you can do, capitalism has been one of the most effective ways of doing so

But it is the developed countries trying to change the way their people live to "Fight Climate Change"

put a price tag on pollution and you set the right incentives

you don't have to be a tree hugger to want a city in which you can see your hand in front of your own eyes

even libertarians like friedman make cases for cost to third party impact

@Khanclansith I read the Population Bomb when I was in H.S. It predicted that billions would be dead and whole countries like England would be gone by the year 2000. Population density may be a minor problem but population is not. Every man, woman and child on the planet could be housed in a single story, 1000 sq foot, house and the space require would be less than the State of Texas. And we only farm about 1/4 of the total available farmland.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/idaho-dog-fight-mountain-lion-cougar-woman-mackay-custer-county-a8770401.html
Nothing important just thought it was funny

Have a good day

lel

eh