Kinda told you so...

[Revoltingest]

Wow the two richest capitalists nations on the planet contributing to the fall of the planet by two percent. What a shock, science already was telling you guys, thanks a bunch. Of course US and China doesn't care, that doesn't make money.

The planet will survive just fine...albeit with higher sea levels.
This points out a problem with selling GW to non-believers.
Histrionic claims like "Killing the planet!" are wrong & easy to debunk.
This makes GW denial easier because they can point to bad science...or really, non-scientific claims.

Tis best to stick to defendable predictions....
- Rising sea levels mean flooded coastal cities, species loss, livable land loss.
(Think of the penguins!)
- Climate changes (& rising sea levels) mean massive population relocations. Oh, boy....more refugee problems.
- Warmer climes mean increased tropical diseases.
Humanity can survive all these challenges.
But should we avoid them? That's the real question.
And the 500# gorilla which few discuss is population control.
This drives AGW, & portends a miserable crowded life...like living in NYC.

 

[Tmac]

Wow the two richest capitalists nations on the planet contributing to the fall of the planet by two percent. What a shock, science already was telling you guys, thanks a bunch. Of course US and China doesn't care, that doesn't make money.

Don't forget the consumers.

 

[Tmac]

The planet will survive just fine...albeit with higher sea levels.
This points out a problem with selling GW to non-believers.
Histrionic claims like "Killing the planet!" are wrong & easy to debunk.
This makes GW denial easier because they can point to bad science...or really, non-scientific claims.

Tis best to stick to defendable predictions....
- Rising sea levels mean flooded coastal cities, species loss, livable land loss.
(Think of the penguins!)
- Climate changes (& rising sea levels) mean massive population relocations. Oh, boy....more refugee problems.
- Warmer climes mean increased tropical diseases.
Humanity can survive all these challenges.
But should we avoid them? That's the real question.
And the 500# gorilla which few discuss is population control.
This drives AGW, & portends a miserable crowded life...like living in NYC.

I don't think population control is the starting point, teaching the difference between immediate gratification and lasting gratification would change the course. Truth is I believe in both but like Kenny Roger's sang, you got to know when to hold them and when to fold them.

 

[Thief]

Paris deal failing? Global emissions up 2% despite U.S. drop; Chinese pollution skyrockets

Non-binding means non-binding...

but China never had an EPA......?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think population control is the starting point, teaching the difference between immediate gratification and lasting gratification would change the course. Truth is I believe in both but like Kenny Roger's sang, you got to know when to hold them and when to fold them.

I don't believe in singular starting points.
Everything worth doing is worth starting.

 

[idav]

The planet will survive just fine...albeit with higher sea levels.
This points out a problem with selling GW to non-believers.
Histrionic claims like "Killing the planet!" are wrong & easy to debunk.
This makes GW denial easier because they can point to bad science...or really, non-scientific claims.

Tis best to stick to defendable predictions....
- Rising sea levels mean flooded coastal cities, species loss, livable land loss.
(Think of the penguins!)
- Climate changes (& rising sea levels) mean massive population relocations. Oh, boy....more refugee problems.
- Warmer climes mean increased tropical diseases.
Humanity can survive all these challenges.
But should we avoid them? That's the real question.
And the 500# gorilla which few discuss is population control.
This drives AGW, & portends a miserable crowded life...like living in NYC.

OK Ok you got me, you know what I mean by the fall of the planet, I really mean human devestation. Yeah we will likely survive after said devestation. Should we avoid devestation by any means necessary, absolutely.

 

[Tmac]

I don't believe in singular starting points.
Everything worth doing is worth starting.

I like that.

My thought is don't mess with biology, the urge to procreate is too powerful to those that don't understand it. And there is so much propaganda supporting the benefits of creating a family for the so called intelligent and survival for the less.

 

[Tmac]

OK Ok you got me, you know what I mean by the fall of the planet, I really mean human devestation. Yeah we will likely survive after said devestation. Should we avoid devestation by any means necessary, absolutely.

Is genocide on the table?

 

[idav]

Don't forget the consumers.

What about them, they want solar power across all incomes.
https://pvsolarreport.com/consumers-want-residential-solar/

 

[idav]

Is genocide on the table?

What are you talking about?

 

[Tmac]

What about them, they want solar power across all incomes.
https://pvsolarreport.com/consumers-want-residential-solar/

How far is that behind: I want an I-Phone.

 

[Tmac]

What are you talking about?

"Any means necessary"

 

[idav]

"Any means necessary"

Wow way to quote mine, save from human devestation by any means necessary means genocide would be defeating the purpose.

 

[idav]

How far is that behind: I want an I-Phone.

Solar printing is getting cheaper and cheaper you can get some cheap solar panels for about 15 bucks at wal mart. A big one for the house 250 watt is like 250 bucks on Amazon.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You actually get your news from that website?

Can you point to any specific factual inaccuracies in the article?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Actually I just saw this on a Facebook page. You can check USA Today, Reuters, or any number of news outlets to find the same information. Or you can remain so pitifully partisan that you can't see the truth for the...erm...smog.

Also getting your news off FB without checking out the source was the entire problem with fake news on FB.

 

[DavidFirth]

"Climate change" is a crock. Trump is right to ignore it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Can you point to any specific factual inaccuracies in the article?

Here let me quote myself since it appears you cannot read.

I am not wrong about that site, I have taken the time to review it several times in the past. One out of ten does not make them a good news source, it makes them a bad one. Also I do not care at all about your assessment of the Paris Agreement.

 

[idav]

"Climate change" is a crock. Trump is right to ignore it.

You have some facts to back up that opinion?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Do you people just not pay attention to where you are getting your news?