Any doubts about Climate Change?

**RPETER65** · 17-10-2016, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

A futile waste of time but anyways...

If the Earth’s temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would be obvious.
But the temperature has not been steady at all. Twenty thousand years ago, the planet was going through an ice age, with glaciers covering much of Europe and North America. A hundred million years ago, the Earth was so warm that crocodile-like creatures prowled through tropical vegetation not far from the North Pole.

In other words, climate variations are not at all unusual. So how do we know this one is caused by humans?

Several reasons. First, we know that burning coal, oil, and gas releases heat-trapping carbon dioxide, or CO2. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily climbing as we burn more. Not only that — chemists can tell the difference between the CO2 released naturally by plants and animals and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of the CO2 now in the atmosphere is the result of human activity.

The one obvious natural suspect — the Sun — can pretty much be ruled out. It is an obvious suspect because astronomers know that the Sun can vary in brightness. When it does, the amount of heat it sends to the Earth varies too. It would not take much brightening to cause the increases in temperature we have seen. But satellites have been monitoring the Sun since the 1970s — when the fastest warming has been taking place — and the brightening just is not there.

There is plenty of other evidence — the pattern of warming, for example, which is greatest in the Arctic, and the pace, which is faster (as best we can tell) than prehistoric warming episodes. The upper atmosphere has actually cooled, because so much heat has been trapped below.

The bottom line is that nobody has come up with a natural explanation for the current warming episode that fits the observations. At the same time, the un-natural explanation—that our industrial civilization is a big part of the cause—fits the evidence.

That’s how we know it is not natural. One last thing. If the Earth has survived earlier warming episodes, what is so bad about this one even if it is not natural? The problem is that our civilization — where cities are located, where we grow food, where we get fresh water—is all based on the climate we have experienced for the last 10,000 years. So are many of the world’s ecosystems. If the climate changes, many of those things will suddenly find themselves in the wrong place.

How do we know?

Two NASA satellites, known as ACE and STEREO, measure the brightness of the Sun from Earth orbit, where the dimming effects of our atmosphere are minimal. Another satellite, called Aqua, looks down with an instrument called AIRS at the atmosphere from above to measure how much carbon dioxide is in it. And, as we discussed in the answer to the first question, we are measuring the Earth’s radiation budget from space.

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate Central

Interesting reading but that is not the question I asked. What I am getting at is the very high probability a combination of natural cycle and man made condition is the actual answer.
Still waiting on your answer to an earlier question, is temperature not a part of climate change?

**harrybarracuda** · 17-10-2016, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

A futile waste of time but anyways...

If the Earth’s temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would be obvious.
But the temperature has not been steady at all. Twenty thousand years ago, the planet was going through an ice age, with glaciers covering much of Europe and North America. A hundred million years ago, the Earth was so warm that crocodile-like creatures prowled through tropical vegetation not far from the North Pole.

In other words, climate variations are not at all unusual. So how do we know this one is caused by humans?

Several reasons. First, we know that burning coal, oil, and gas releases heat-trapping carbon dioxide, or CO2. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily climbing as we burn more. Not only that — chemists can tell the difference between the CO2 released naturally by plants and animals and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of the CO2 now in the atmosphere is the result of human activity.

The one obvious natural suspect — the Sun — can pretty much be ruled out. It is an obvious suspect because astronomers know that the Sun can vary in brightness. When it does, the amount of heat it sends to the Earth varies too. It would not take much brightening to cause the increases in temperature we have seen. But satellites have been monitoring the Sun since the 1970s — when the fastest warming has been taking place — and the brightening just is not there.

There is plenty of other evidence — the pattern of warming, for example, which is greatest in the Arctic, and the pace, which is faster (as best we can tell) than prehistoric warming episodes. The upper atmosphere has actually cooled, because so much heat has been trapped below.

The bottom line is that nobody has come up with a natural explanation for the current warming episode that fits the observations. At the same time, the un-natural explanation—that our industrial civilization is a big part of the cause—fits the evidence.

That’s how we know it is not natural. One last thing. If the Earth has survived earlier warming episodes, what is so bad about this one even if it is not natural? The problem is that our civilization — where cities are located, where we grow food, where we get fresh water—is all based on the climate we have experienced for the last 10,000 years. So are many of the world’s ecosystems. If the climate changes, many of those things will suddenly find themselves in the wrong place.

How do we know?

Two NASA satellites, known as ACE and STEREO, measure the brightness of the Sun from Earth orbit, where the dimming effects of our atmosphere are minimal. Another satellite, called Aqua, looks down with an instrument called AIRS at the atmosphere from above to measure how much carbon dioxide is in it. And, as we discussed in the answer to the first question, we are measuring the Earth’s radiation budget from space.

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate Central

Interesting reading but that is not the question I asked.

It's exactly the appropriate response to the question you asked, you moron.

"So put the article aside and tell me again how you don't believe the earths climate has gone through cyclical changes".

Take your Alzheimers meds.

**pulvarien** · 17-10-2016, 09:05 PM

Today on the site that cannot be named [climatedepot.com] there is an article announcing indias plans to double coal production and become the number 2 producer/user of coal in the world. All this after gloriously signing the latest propaganda paper in paris. The article can be found on the right listed under 411.

Now how can this member of the paris accord do this?? Is the paris accord nothing but a farce except of course to the western nations of the world who will use it as a club against its own population as a key tactic in their GLOBALIZATION drive. Globalization for all those who don't know is a push to equalize wages for the poor all across the world. Of course this means a massive increase in poverty in the west all driven bye the socialist parties of Europe and America. Indias doubling of coal production gives the lie to the Green Paris Accords. Its all a lie a trick and to be used against the lower classes in the west while asia catches up.

I'm not against the rest of the world catching up economically, I'm just against the enforced impoverishment of the masses in the west bye the left wing socialists.

Oh and lets not all forget that the next conference on global warming has been announced. This year its an all expenses paid outing to Ecuador!! Yes, all the govt officials will get an all expenses paid air polluting flight/vacation to Ecuador just for attending a few meetings on blah blah blah. Oh and what about the pollution caused bye all this? Fuck you world. Gee and I thought the greens were supposed to be green? Its all about milking the populace for all their worth, free trips for the greens where their green footprint will explode with pollution but do they care? No not at all because its all a farce after all and at our expense once again. Skype, hasn't anyone heard of skype and being green? The green leadership aren't green at all, theyre watermelon green. Time to wake up and smell the coffee folks, its all so obvious.

**harrybarracuda** · 17-10-2016, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Today on the site that cannot be named [climatedepot.com] there is an article announcing indias plans to double coal production and become the number 2 producer/user of coal in the world. All this after gloriously signing the latest propaganda paper in paris. The article can be found on the right listed under 411.

Now how can this member of the paris accord do this?? Is the paris accord nothing but a farce except of course to the western nations of the world who will use it as a club against its own population as a key tactic in their GLOBALIZATION drive. Globalization for all those who don't know is a push to equalize wages for the poor all across the world. Of course this means a massive increase in poverty in the west all driven bye the socialist parties of Europe and America. Indias doubling of coal production gives the lie to the Green Paris Accords. Its all a lie a trick and to be used against the lower classes in the west while asia catches up.

I'm not against the rest of the world catching up economically, I'm just against the enforced impoverishment of the masses in the west bye the left wing socialists.

Oh and lets not all forget that the next conference on global warming has been announced. This year its an all expenses paid outing to Ecuador!! Yes, all the govt officials will get an all expenses paid air polluting flight/vacation to Ecuador just for attending a few meetings on blah blah blah. Oh and what about the pollution caused bye all this? Fuck you world. Gee and I thought the greens were supposed to be green? Its all about milking the populace for all their worth, free trips for the greens where their green footprint will explode with pollution but do they care? No not at all because its all a farce after all and at our expense once again. Skype, hasn't anyone heard of skype and being green? The green leadership aren't green at all, theyre watermelon green. Time to wake up and smell the coffee folks, its all so obvious.

Still "blah blah blah".

No science. Just bullshit.

**Takeovers** · 18-10-2016, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Yes the whole global warming scam is bullshit and fraud science.

Done in an evil conspiracy of the whole US scientific community, the Europeans, the Japanese and the Chinese. Not to mention the scientists of many other countries. Wow.

**blue** · 18-10-2016, 05:16 AM

^ it's not pop idol where votes count... and all those mentioned are riding the same gravy train ..

Back to the real world :

Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We'll Have More Of Them

Whether they admit it out loud or not, many global warming alarmists want more destructive weather events to validate their assumptions. But what happens when they can't get their "dirty weather," as Al Gore calls it? Then they'll just have define down what a disaster is.

Eleven years ago, Gore swore that "the science is extremely clear now." Global warming was "magnifying" the "destructive power" of the "average hurricane," he said. Man's impact on the environment "makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger."

The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists' faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, "Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message." From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said "Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change." The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was "absolutely" right.

Strain though they might, they're not convincing anyone who isn't already riding along on the climate-change disaster wagon. And they know they're not. So the climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn't make landfall will in the future be catastrophic "hurricanes" or "extreme weather" events that they can point to as proof that their fever dreams are indeed reality.

Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We'll Have More Of Them | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

**bsnub** · 18-10-2016, 06:08 AM

^ What a crock of shit. A hurricane is very easily identified and classified by wind speed. It is the same now as it was in 1960. Stop posting up bullshit. You people are just complete idiots who really have no place commenting on science that you can not even begin to understand. First rpeter666 posts up an article claiming the Chinese sailed through a nonexistent Suez canal in the 1400's and visited Italy and now your stupid article claiming that the definition of a hurricane is being changed. Not to mention the insane ramblings of pulvarian. You people are retards.

**kingwilly** · 18-10-2016, 06:10 AM

How the fuck is this thread still going? It's like the 9/11 conspiracy thread... just let the nutters mutter. No normal person believes it.

**S Landreth** · 18-10-2016, 12:14 PM

NASA’s September 2016 number

NASA Analysis Finds Warmest September on Record By Narrow Margin - September 2016 was the warmest September in 136 years of modern record-keeping, according to a monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

__________

NOAA’s September 2016 ranking,…..

__________

September 2016 - JMA

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in September 2016 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.42°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.74°C above the 20th century average), and was the 2nd warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.64°C per century.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2015 (+0.51°C), 2nd. 2016 (+0.42°C), 3rd. 2014 (+0.35°C), 4th. 2013 (+0.26°C), 5th. 2012 (+0.25°C)

____________

This is going to be a lengthy post because it is a review of a new study that purposely debunks two favorite science deniers myths.

A new study has just appeared in the Journal of Climate which deals with an issue commonly raised by those who deny that human-caused climate change is a serious risk. As I have written many times, we know humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change. We know this for many reasons.

First, we know that certain gases trap heat; this fact is indisputable. Second, we know that humans have significantly increased the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Again, this is indisputable. Third, we know the Earth is warming (again indisputable). We know the Earth warms because we are actually measuring the warming rate in multiple different ways. Those measurements are in good agreement with each other.

Of course there is other evidence too. For instance, ice loss across the globe is widespread: in the Arctic, the Antarctic ice shelves, Greenland, and from land glaciers. Sea levels are rising as warm water expands in volume and as melt waters flow into the ocean. We are also seeing changes of weather patterns and climatic zones shift. The point is, there is a whole body of evidence that proves the climate is changing and the change is caused largely by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Over the years, contrarians have looked for evidence that the climate either isn’t changing or the change is not as fast as predicted. Their findings have often been used in the media to suggest that human-caused climate change was not something to worry about. But we’ve seen, over and over and over again, that these contrarian arguments don’t hold up.

Repeatedly, mainstream scientists have taken these claims seriously and discovered they were just plain wrong. In some cases, the contrarians have made simple arithmetic errors (like mixing up a negative and positive sign in their equations), while in others, they have made more fundamental errors. But regardless, they have been wrong time after time. But whenever they are found to be wrong, they just go and find some new piece of evidence that once again calls into doubt our understanding of the human-climate link.

One contrarian argument has appeared repeatedly over the past few years, even at a hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce held by Ted Cruz in 2015. The claim was by well-known contrarian John Christy. Christy claimed that the mid-troposphere temperatures (temperatures in approximately the middle of the atmosphere) are rising three times faster in climate models when compared with measurements. Another related claim is that there has been no statistically significant warming in the troposphere (lower part of the atmosphere) for 18 years.

Now, both of these facts, even if they were true, would not prove much. We know the Earth is warming because of measurements in oceans, underground, and at the Earth’s surface. But it would open a question as to why the atmosphere is behaving differently.

The recent paper just published looked at these two claims. The authors found errors in the analysis that, when corrected, debunked the contrarian claims. Let me explain some of the science.

First, these atmospheric temperatures are measured by satellites which can “see” the temperature of gases in the atmosphere. It works differently from a thermometer but regardless, such measurements are possible. These measurements have a lot of uncertainty.

First of all, as the Earth warms from greenhouse gases, the upper part of the atmosphere should cool down. A simplistic but appropriate description is that greenhouse gases hold the heat down toward the Earth, making the upper atmosphere cooler. Since the satellites see both the upper and lower parts of the atmosphere, the cooling upper region may contaminate the measurements of the warming lower part of the atmosphere.

A second source of uncertainty is that the satellites themselves are not perfect. When satellites are launched, they orbit the Earth for a number of years until they are replaced by new satellites. The data, which goes back to 1979, is actually stitched together from multiple satellites in sequence. No two satellites are completely identical – sort of like no two thermometers will give exactly the same temperature. These differences have to be rectified and are another source of error.

Additionally, the satellites change while they are in orbit, in particular they lose altitude and their orbiting time drifts (the time they pass certain global locations drifts later and later in the day). Both of these facts contaminate the measurements and must be accounted for. There are other accuracy issues as well that space doesn’t permit discussion, but you get the point.

So, this recent paper did a few things. First, they took the contrarian argument that the mid-troposphere temperatures have been rising at only 1/3 the rate predicted by models. They found that Christy’s team neglected the contamination of the cooling in the upper stratosphere. When they applied this correction, they found that Christy’s claim was incorrect. Differences between modeled and observed warming rates were much smaller, and had known explanations.

Next, the authors asked whether it is true that there has been no warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) in the past 18 years. They found that for five of the six groups that provide satellite temperature analysis, this claim was also incorrect.

Finally, they asked whether it is true that the temperature changes in different layers of the atmosphere are in disagreement in models and measurements. Their result is that when temperature changes in different layers of the atmosphere are compared, one of three satellite records is in close agreement with the climate models.

While this paper largely debunks the most current contrarian mainstay, it doesn’t answer all of our questions. For instance, exactly how accurate are these satellite measurements and how can they be made better? Do the models capture all of the thermal processes which are occurring, especially in the middle and upper layer of the atmosphere? Why does there appear to be a small difference in the satellites and the model predictions in the middle of the atmosphere? Is this difference important?

These questions can be answered, but a prerequisite is a continuation of high-quality data from satellites. This means a continued commitment to launching new measurement satellites as the current fleet ages.

____________

Goodbye, HFCs: the world just took one of the biggest steps yet to fight global warming

Climate change will never get solved in a single flourish. If the world’s nations are ever going to stop the planet from warming unbearably, they’ll have do so step by step, pushing down emissions across a dizzying variety of sectors and sources.

On Saturday, the world quietly took one of those steps — and it was a crucial one. In fact, this was one of the single biggest measures ever taken to address global warming.

At a United Nations conference in Rwanda, 197 nations agreed to drastically reduce their use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), an obscure but extremely powerful greenhouse gas used in air conditioners, refrigerators, and foams.

____________

PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume

____________

Originally Posted by pulvarien

the latest pew research poll

There is still work to be done (see above) but the awareness campaign seems to be working (from the low of the 2010).

_____________

Originally Posted by kingwilly

CO2 is a trace level gas, 50% increase or 100% sounds big, but tell me what percentage of the atmosphere it is?
It's just silly to blame one trace level gas in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Global warming is not the issue

Originally Posted by pulvarien

the sun is shining

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by blue

Am I thick...

For you science deniers, from Michael Mann who (with his story) inspired me to start this thread. Stefan Rahmstorf also shows up in the video.

you science deniers will see this video from time to time. I don’t have the time nor the patience to debunk all of the crazy (non-peer reviewed) babblings/cherry picked articles (see Pew response above)/regurgitated same old debunked tired myths with different titles that show up here and will respond to your posts with the video (above) for the most part.

**Mr Earl** · 18-10-2016, 01:24 PM

Destruction of the planet's environment is the issue. Shape shifting global warming alarmism does not focus on the real problems.

Which are:

The subsidized meat industry.

Petro/plastics/automobile industries.

Corporate agriculture industries.

The whole climate change alarmism serves as a distraction from the real issues.

Heaven forbid, anyone feel uncomfortable eating a steak, or driving a car!

**Jesus Jones** · 20-10-2016, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

How the fuck is this thread still going? It's like the 9/11 conspiracy thread... just let the nutters mutter. No normal person believes it.

"No normal person believes it".The man-man scare mongering while pushing consumerism to max bullshit. Is that what you're saying?

**harrybarracuda** · 18-10-2016, 01:58 PM

You're right Kingwilly, any time there is a sensible scientific post, it's immediately followed by some ranting, dribbling lunatic spouting emotive shite.

**Hugh Cow** · 18-10-2016, 04:08 PM

If we cannot agree whether climate change is natural or man made, we can agree that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We can also agree that most of that increase is due to man made pollution. We should also be able to agree that regardless of our beliefs on the causes of climate change, reducing pollution which causes CO2 is a good thing. So lets concentrate on ways to reduce carbon pollution and let the science take care of itself.

**Mr Earl** · 18-10-2016, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

If we cannot agree whether climate change is natural or man made, we can agree that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We can also agree that most of that increase is due to man made pollution. We should also be able to agree that regardless of our beliefs on the causes of climate change, reducing pollution which causes CO2 is a good thing. So lets concentrate on ways to reduce carbon pollution and let the science take care of itself.

The real problem is how the alarmists just quibble and equivocate, without really doing anything significant to change things.

You hear nothing from the media about zero emmissions or how eating less meat would help.
Precious little is talked about renewables like hemp, bamboo, as replacements of plastics and steel.

Why you might ask?

Because the mega corporate interests own the media and hence control the narrative.

It serves them well to put forth the contentious global warming/ climate change debate, when the reality is there are some rather incontestable issues(mentioned above) they would rather not address.

**Norton** · 18-10-2016, 04:54 PM

Climate change or not fossil fuels are finite so only makes sense to find alternatives. 110 years ain't really that long.

"There are an estimated 892 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 110 years at current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 52 and 54 years at current production levels."

Where is coal found? | World Coal Association

**pulvarien** · 18-10-2016, 08:43 PM

OHOH greenies cover your eyes now. At the annual GWPF lecture it was announced that the world has experienced a global greening increase of 14% in the last 30 years. Largely due to Drum roll please, CO2 increase.

This can all be read at thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening.

This has been presented, checked and rechecked. Supported bye dozens of scientists, using satellites a 14 % increase in green cover all over the earth in all terrains all areas. Snow cover over 30 years no change, Cyclones no change, drought down, arctic sea ice down, Antarctic sea ice up, deaths from extreme weather on a massive downward trend.

The argument is over folks the greens have lied, the truth is out, co2 is extremely good for the environment, the world is greening in spite of the greens.

And if that address isn't good enough you can find the article on breitbart.co London section. Titled the royal society climate change lecture the greenies tried to nix.
Yes the greens are actually trying to destroy the environment not fix it, the greens like ive been saying have been taken over bye the extreme left and are the enemy.

**harrybarracuda** · 18-10-2016, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

OHOH greenies cover your eyes now. At the annual GWPF lecture it was announced that the world has experienced a global greening increase of 14% in the last 30 years. Largely due to Drum roll please, CO2 increase.

Another wind and piss "think tank" that just happens to have shared its chairman with the Heartland Institute ... yes, we're back to serial global polluters the Koch brothers.

And fucking morons like you believe every word, because you're too stupid to understand the science (and their lack of it).

Nothing to cover up, only a fucking idiot would swallow that horseshit.

**pulvarien** · 18-10-2016, 09:08 PM

You can tell hard core leftards bye what they do. The 14% green coverage increase in the world in the last 30 years coincides exactly with the 30 years of the global warming scare. And its all due to co2. The Greenmunists are scared. This may be the culminating battle their Stalingrad. The world may now see the corner turned and be saved from the Khmergreen.

They will not go down without a fight, deny deny deny, doesn't do away with the facts.

**harrybarracuda** · 18-10-2016, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

You can tell hard core leftards bye what they do. The 14% green coverage increase in the world in the last 30 years coincides exactly with the 30 years of the global warming scare. And its all due to co2. The Greenmunists are scared. This may be the culminating battle their Stalingrad. The world may now see the corner turned and be saved from the Khmergreen.

They will not go down without a fight, deny deny deny, doesn't do away with the facts.

Repeating the same Koch-funded bollocks is just that, bollocks.

And you're still a gullible fucking idiot.

**blue** · 19-10-2016, 02:10 AM

**pulvarien** · 19-10-2016, 03:38 AM

The circle of life animals breath in oxygen out co2, plants breathe in co2 out oxygen. The circle of life.

**Hugh Cow** · 19-10-2016, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The real problem is how the alarmists just quibble and equivocate, without really doing anything significant to change things.

They have just finished another talkfest on refrigeration gases. CFCs are basically only available in developing countries. HCFCs are phased out or nearly so in the west. HFCs such as R134a which is in most car a/c systems domestic refrigerators and some commercial refrigeration systems will eventually replaced with low GWP HFOs at this stage. In any case they are credited with about 1% of total CO2 output. This will have virtually no impact but it is the low hanging fruit. The use of statistics should be used with caution. Australia is the biggest emitter per capita, but close to the smallest per square kilometre. This of course is somewhat irrelevant. Australia emits roughly 1% of the worlds CO2 output so whatever Australia does will have virtually no impact on the global CO2 level. This does not mean Australia should do nothing. But without China, India and the USA and to a lesser extent the EU making severe cuts to their emissions the global impact will be next to nothing.This is not possible without some lifestyle changes. I will not double up on Mr Earl's suggestions, a lot of which will need to be seriously considered together with nuclear fuel generation, if we are going to control planet wide pollution.

**harrybarracuda** · 19-10-2016, 11:00 AM

Well from what I can see, manufacturers have seen this coming for a long time and have already developed alternatives.

So basically they've milked it for as long as they can.

Which is why we need regulation.

**Mr Earl** · 19-10-2016, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Which is why we need regulation.

Are you fucking retarded? Government is largely part of the fucking problem.

Big government is big corporate control.. wake the fuck up!

**harrybarracuda** · 19-10-2016, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Which is why we need regulation.

Are you fucking retarded? Government is largely part of the fucking problem.

Big government is big corporate control.. wake the fuck up!

Yes it is if you're fucking dumb enough to vote Republican you teabagger dickhead.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions