Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby lachisbackisback » Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:39 am

Buc2 wrote:Get off your high horse, know-it-all.


Yes, Hammy has buck teeth and is on all fours a lot when I'm around, but we still don't appreciate the horse comment.
User avatar
lachisbackisback
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:49 pm

lachisbackisback wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Get off your high horse, know-it-all.


Yes, Hammy has buck teeth and is on all fours a lot when I'm around, but we still don't appreciate the horse comment.


Okay. I chuckled. But just a little. What else could you ask for from a wannabe Libertarian?
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 198 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:29 pm

Buc2 wrote:Okay. I chuckled. But just a little. What else could you ask for from a wannabe Libertarian?


Damn, he really touched a nerve with that comment didn't he?

But in defense of the assertion, it is a common position among libertarians to end military interventionism and while your sig is more of an expression of pride in your military service (to which you are most certainly entitled), it is counter-intuitive to that libertarian position. Particularly when you consider the Pentagon refers to an Aircraft Carrier as a "Power Projection Platform".
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:09 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Okay. I chuckled. But just a little. What else could you ask for from a wannabe Libertarian?


Damn, he really touched a nerve with that comment didn't he?

But in defense of the assertion, it is a common position among libertarians to end military interventionism and while your sig is more of an expression of pride in your military service (to which you are most certainly entitled), it is counter-intuitive to that libertarian position. Particularly when you consider the Pentagon refers to an Aircraft Carrier as a "Power Projection Platform".


Touched a nerve? Not really. I actually thought it was pretty funny so I've been running with it. I even thought of changing my board name to Wannabe.

As to your other paragraph. Yes. I am proud of my service and always will be. I have no problem projecting our country's power. I feel we have to at least show we can defend ourselves. Projecting power might also help deter others from forcing us to use it. Regardless, being agreeable to projecting power does not mean I have to be agreeable with the U.S. Mid East Police policy we seem to have right now. I've also, more than once, stated I'm not 100% on board with any political party. At this point in my life, however, I found that I align more so with the LP platform. I know I'll never be 100% libertarian anymore than I was ever 100% republican. The only thing that pisses me off some what, is when someone tries to tell me what I think. I know what I think and don't need some faux Dr. Phil trying to figure it out for me.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 198 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby lachisbackisback » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:31 pm

Buc2 wrote:The only thing that pisses me off somewhat, is when someone tries to tell me what I think.


You may think that, but it actually bothers you quite a bit more. Trust me on this one.
User avatar
lachisbackisback
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:49 pm

lachisbackisback wrote:
Buc2 wrote:The only thing that pisses me off somewhat, is when someone tries to tell me what I think.


You may think that, but it actually bothers you quite a bit more. Trust me on this one.


Well, it is a pet peeve. So probably.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 198 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Alpha » Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:19 pm

Buc2 wrote:
lachisbackisback wrote:
You may think that, but it actually bothers you quite a bit more. Trust me on this one.


Well, it is a pet peeve. So probably.


It's a blast how the pseudo-neo-cons want to co-opt the "Libertarian" philosophy and attempt to make it their own.

Buc2...go back to what you REALLY want. Ronald Regan and ALL he "stood" for. Or didn't stand for.

You are one confused individual.
Alpha
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:51 am
Location: St. Pete
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:53 am

Alpha wrote:
Buc2 wrote:
Well, it is a pet peeve. So probably.


It's a blast how the pseudo-neo-cons want to co-opt the "Libertarian" philosophy and attempt to make it their own.

Buc2...go back to what you REALLY want. Ronald Regan and ALL he "stood" for. Or didn't stand for.

You are one confused individual.


Thank you, Dr. Phil. Don't know how I have survived without your wisdom.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 198 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Alpha » Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:58 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Alpha wrote:
It's a blast how the pseudo-neo-cons want to co-opt the "Libertarian" philosophy and attempt to make it their own.

Buc2...go back to what you REALLY want. Ronald Regan and ALL he "stood" for. Or didn't stand for.

You are one confused individual.


Thank you, Dr. Phil. Don't know how I have survived without your wisdom.



Meh. I don't give a rat's-ass about YOUR "service".

I DO care about another, mis-informed, uneducated, 'tard, having the "right" to make ANOTHER (assuming you've voted before) ignorant vote.


You and Jonny should have a "Tard-Off" to see who spends a week in T.O.

It'll be amusing, to say the least.
Alpha
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:51 am
Location: St. Pete
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Sat Dec 12, 2015 1:58 pm

Breaking: World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming
Will the Paris Agreement be enough?
—Tim McDonnell and James West on Sat. December 12, 2015 1:27 PM PDT



There was relief and celebration in Paris Saturday evening, as officials from more than 190 countries swept aside monumental differences and agreed to an unprecedented global deal to tackle climate change.

The historic accord, known as the Paris Agreement, includes emissions-slashing commitments from individual countries and promises to help poorer nations adapt to the damaging effects of a warming world. Negotiators also agreed on measures to revise, strengthen, and scrutinize countries' contributions going forward.

However, the deal leaves some key decisions to the future, and it is widely recognized as not representing an ultimate solution to climate change. Instead, it sets out the rules of the road for the next 10 to 15 years and establishes an unprecedented international legal basis for addressing climate issues. Within the agreement, nearly every country on Earth laid out its own plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change impacts. Although those individual plans are not legally binding, the core agreement itself is.

The deal sets a long-term goal of keeping the increase in the global temperature to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels and calls on countries to "pursue efforts" to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees C. It adds that "parties aim to reach a global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible."

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who has served as chair of the two-week summit, said the deal is the most ambitious step ever taken by the international community to confront climate change.

In announcing the deal, President Barack Obama clinched a major foreign policy success years in the making and secured long-term action on climate change as a core part of his legacy, despite extraordinary opposition at home from the Republican majority in Congress. During the second week of the talks in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry was a driving force, delivering several high-profile speeches in which he sought to cast the US as a leader on climate action. For Kerry, who has been a prominent voice in climate summits for two decades, it was essential to craft a deal the US could agree to and not to return home empty-handed.

The deal signals that world leaders are now committed to responding to the dire scientific warnings about the impacts of warming. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and other human activities are threatening to usher in an era of rising sea levels, sinking islands, scorching heat waves, devastating droughts, mass human migration, and destruction of ecosystems.

Among the deal's biggest successes is a commitment to produce a global review of climate progress by 2018 and to bring countries back to the negotiating table by 2020 to present climate targets that "will represent a progression beyond the Party's then-current" target. In other words, countries are committed to ramping up their ambition in the short term. This was an essential item for many people here, since the current raft of targets only keeps global warming to 2.7 degrees C, not 1.5. The deal also promises to hold every country accountable to the same standard of transparency in measuring and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions; this was a provision that the US had pushed hard for in order to ensure that other big polluters such as China and India abide by their promises.

"Countries have united around a historic agreement that marks a turning point in the climate crisis," said Jennifer Morgan, global director of the climate program at the World Resources Institute. "This is a transformational long-term goal that should really send clear signals into the markets" about the imminent decline of fossil fuel consumption.

The deal is expected to be a boon for the clean energy industry, as developing and developed countries alike increase their investments in wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. Early in the talks, a high-profile group of billionaire investors, including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, promised to pour money into clean energy research, and a critical component of the agreement is a commitment for developed countries to transfer clean technologies to developing countries.

"If we needed an economic signal from this agreement, I think this is rather remarkable," said Michael Jacobs, a senior advisor at New Climate Economy.

Still, parts of the deal left some environmental groups unsatisfied, particularly with respect to financing for clean energy technology and climate change adaptation. The deal requires all developed countries to "provide financial assistance to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation." Although the deal sets a floor of $100 billion for that assistance and calls for that number to be raised by 2025, it doesn't specify a new higher target and does not commit any country, including the US, to any particular share of that. The deal also specifies that nothing in it can be construed as holding countries with the biggest historical contribution to climate change—most importantly the US—legally or financially liable for climate change-related damages in vulnerable countries. And it provides no specific timeline for peaking and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions; according to some scientists, that will need to happen within the next few decades for the 1.5 degrees C target to be achievable.

"There's not enough in this deal for the nations and people on the frontlines of climate change," said Kumi Naidoo, international executive director of Greenpeace, in a statement. "It contains an inherent, ingrained injustice. The nations which caused this problem have promised too little help to the people who are already losing their lives and livelihoods."

The task of delegates at Le Bourget, a converted airport north of Paris, over the past two weeks was substantial. After all, more than two decades of UN-led climate talks had failed to produce a global deal to limit greenhouse gases. The Copenhagen talks in 2009 collapsed because officials couldn't agree on how to level the playing field between rich and poor countries, sending negotiations into a morass of recriminations. Before that, the Kyoto protocol in 1997 also failed—the US and China didn't ratify it, and it only covered about 14 percent of global carbon emissions. This year's negotiations, the 21st in the series of UN climate talks, had to be different.

One of the major reasons negotiators were able to reach a deal was that much of the work had been done in advance. By the time Paris rolled around, more than 150 countries had promised to change the way they use energy, detailing those changes in the form of individual commitments. Known as INDCs, these pledges formed the basis of Saturday's deal. Of course, the INDCs won't be legally binding, and even if most countries do manage to live up to their promises, they aren't yet ambitious enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming.

The latest estimate is that the INDCs will limit global warming to about 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That's above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts of global warming—and far above the 1.5 degrees Celsius target that negotiators in Paris agreed to aim for. But it's also about 1 degree C less warming than would happen if the world continued on its present course.

The Paris summit began as the largest meeting of government leaders in history (outside the UN building in New York) just two weeks after ISIS-affiliated terrorists killed 130 people across the city. While French officials immediately promised the talks would continue, they soon banned long-planned, massive climate protests, citing security concerns. That decision set the stage for several skirmishes between police and protesters, who remained committed to disrupting the talks in order to highlight issues such as sponsorship from big oil companies and the plight of poorer countries. At one protest, an estimated 10,000 people formed a human chain in the Place de la République, the site of a spontaneous memorial to the victims of the Paris attacks. There were scores of arrests.

But the climate talks themselves went ahead as planned. Some 40,000 heads of state, diplomats, scientists, activists, policy experts, and journalists descended on the French capital for the event. Perhaps the biggest factor driving the negotiators' unprecedented optimism was the fact that the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, and the world's two biggest economies—the US and China—had made a public show of working together to get an agreement. A landmark climate deal between the two countries in November 2014 built critical momentum. China later promised to create a national cap-and-trade program to augment a suite of emissions-control policies. The Obama administration, meanwhile, pushed through its Clean Power Plan regulations, despite aggressive resistance from Republicans. Still, as the talks neared their conclusion on Friday, tensions were rising between the so-called "High Ambition Coalition"—a negotiating bloc including the US, European Union, and dozens of developing countries—and China and India.

Nevertheless, a rare alliance between world leaders ultimately prevailed: Pope Francis, for one, campaigned tirelessly for a climate deal ahead of the talks, decrying the "unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem."

All of this cleared the way for large groups of developed and developing countries to cooperate at the talks. Bigger countries appeared ready to work with the 43-country-strong negotiating bloc of highly vulnerable developing nations. Recent changes of leadership in Canada and Australia, notable adversaries of climate action in recent years, switched these mid-sized players into fans of a deal before the talks. Even Russia's Vladimir Putin seemed to have an eleventh hour change of heart—or, at least, of rhetoric—and called for action.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4435
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 140 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:18 pm

So for those keeping score:

That's the leaders of 180 countries who think we need to take action against global climate change.

Vs Republics who dont.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4435
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 140 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby HamBone » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:31 pm

Corsair wrote:So for those keeping score:

That's the leaders of 180 countries who think we need to take action against global climate change.

Vs Republics who dont.


Well, if the Leaders think so...
HamBone
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Sat Dec 12, 2015 3:30 pm

Can someone do me a favor? What was the last worldwide issue to get this much global consensus?

Defeating Nazism?
Last edited by Corsair on Sat Dec 12, 2015 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4435
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 140 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby HamBone » Sat Dec 12, 2015 3:32 pm

And there is the Nazi reference...lol
HamBone
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Moozician » Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:49 pm

I dunno about this... I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole "Terrorism was caused by Global Warming" thing.
Image
User avatar
Moozician
 
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: Wintah Gahden
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:23 pm

Moozician wrote:I dunno about this... I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole "Terrorism was caused by Global Warming" thing.

It would be a silly thing to say that....but nobody said that.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby The Outsider » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:34 pm

Corsair wrote:Can someone do me a favor? What was the last worldwide issue to get this much global consensus?

Defeating Nazism?


It's called Facism you filthy ****ing damn commie.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Ken Carson » Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:38 am

Corsair wrote:Can someone do me a favor? What was the last worldwide issue to get this much global consensus?

Defeating Nazism?


Japan and Italy were notable detractors.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:23 pm

I stand corrected.

This summit gained more consensus than when the world defeated the Nazi's.

And the GOP still denies it.

Guess who chairs the Environment and Public Works committee?
Image
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4435
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 140 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Ken Carson » Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:55 pm

Here's the thing, Corsy. I'm pretty much 100% aligned with Outsider on this. No reason not to be smart with the environment. No reason not to be good stewards with the natural resources on earth. The problem I have with the climate change zealots is that many of them are beyond the pale in extreme viewpoints.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:22 am

A frigging idiot would know as the earths population grows were gonna kill everything.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:28 am

For no real reason, I went back and read page 2 of this thread and found that it is painfully obvious I was eyeballs deep in Grad school at the time.

Those posts read like stereo instructions.


Image
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:28 am

Shining Light on ‘Settled’ Science: There Is No ‘Climate Crisis’
By James Wanliss | April 18, 2016 | 10:07 AM EDT

The science of global warming is settled. At least, this is what politicians keep insisting. Why should they care? Well, it turns out that global warming has provided a pretext for massive increases in political control over the public. The science of global warming has been used to justify the banning of lightbulbs, shutting down coal-fired power plants, and even a possible sighting of the holy grail: increased taxation without end (to save the planet).

When the story began to break down the narrative changed. Global warming became climate change. Next, as the stall in warming continued (by the end of 2015 over 18 years without warming), climate change morphed again. Since relatively flat lines don’t fit well with the narrative of change, climate change is currently morphing into “climate crisis” and “extreme weather.” Never mind that all observational evidence indicates reduced variability in weather events.

We are now knee deep in the second decade of the twenty-first century, and it wasn’t supposed to be like this. CO2 emissions climb rapidly, and thus, global warming is accelerating wildly out of control. That is what all the computer models predict. We are supposed to see the sea level rise accelerating dangerously, more tornadoes, hurricanes, heat waves. We were not supposed to have any more snow, and experts said the Northwest Passage would be completely open. Indeed, the media, movies, and politicians, including President Obama, all insist that “dangerous” carbon dioxide emissions are causing “unprecedented” global warming, “more extreme” droughts and hurricanes, and so on.

But the worldview motivating these actions is falsified by data. It’s over nine years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States. Tornado frequency is at a multi-decade low. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s. Sea ice is back to average. There is no crisis.

The fact is, extreme weather events are less common now than in earlier eras, before global warming became a planetary emergency. But never mind about the data; the science is settled.

I’m reminded of a scientific meeting I attended a couple years ago at which the question was raised about whether solar irradiance variability influences climate.

It was gratifying when several scientists agreed that global warming had stalled and thus falsified computer climate models. Nonetheless, according to Roger-Maurice Bonnet of the International Space Science Institute in Switzerland, human population growth and energy demands were still the cause of global warming.

Other speakers mentioned solar cycle influences, but were careful to add caveats that the present stall is only temporary and soon things will be much worse.

Scientists always need to check their motives at the door. They need to remember the very human tendency to allow emotion to cloud better judgment. We have much to lose. Yet from the lips of Bob Cahalan, IPCC contributor and SORCE project scientist, I heard scorn poured on what he called “climate deniers.” In dinner remarks I learned from him that this is a synonym for “Tea Party followers.”

What is this supposed to mean? No one denies that climate changes, has always changed, or that humans might influence climate. It seems to me that what is being pushed is correct political thoughts, rather than truth.

Who can say with certitude whether things will be much hotter in 100 years? The uncertainties and unknowns are enormous. What is clear is that the hijacking of climate science is harmful to science in general.

Instead of becoming more political, scientists could benefit from becoming less dogmatic and more open about the uncertainties inherent in their research. But the political process eschews uncertainty. The science is settled, right? Indeed, organizations like the American Geophysical Union, of which I am a member, insist that scientists must pound the podium, get upset, and use the gravitas of science to get the word out, to agitate for political change.

And what is that word? It is that human produced CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.

Really, what crisis? The science is settled? Hardly.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 198 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:15 pm

More proof that history repeats itself...

Image
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 198 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:38 pm

So you really don't think that Climate Change is a thing, Buc2? Despite what 99% of scientists say?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:38 pm

The date is horribly photoshopped. You can see the lines clearly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotomization
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:43 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:The date is horribly photoshopped. You can see the lines clearly.

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

Trump supporters will believe anything they read that fits their agenda. I had a Facebook "friend" post this just yesterday. I pointed and laughed at him for being gullible enough to believe it.

Image

How gullible do you have to be to think that someone like Hilary that's taking huge donations from the NRA is going to shut it down. LOL!!!
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:47 pm

Fact checking can be a real pain in the ass for some people.

Part of me wants to see what the left comes up with if Trump wins. Then again, Trump is so full of weirdness they probably wouldn't have to make things up.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:49 pm

You two should get a room.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 198 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:51 pm

Buc2 wrote:You two should get a room.

We're actually arguing in a different thread at the same time. The push/pull dynamic of it all is a real turn on.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6801
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 410 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Man's Part and 1 guest