More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
"Fred Singer clearly did not use the word "deemed".

I didn't say he did! I USED THE WORD.

Reread what I said. 'Meant what I said exactly as I said it. 'Not 'walking it back. N-O-T-H-I-N-G re: GW/CC has been "PROVEN". It's STILL only 'theory'. What HAS been "proven" is that the Earth has warmed and cooled several times since it was formed. Apparently it still IS doing so.

You can put all the words in my mouth you choose. 'Changes nothing.

G'day, Nick...
 
Last edited:
"Fred Singer clearly did not use the word "deemed".

I didn't say he did! I USED THE WORD.

Reread what I said. 'Meant what I said exactly as I said it. 'Not 'walking it back. N-O-T-H-I-N-G re: GW/CC has been "PROVEN". It's STILL only 'theory'. What HAS been "proven" is that the Earth has warmed and cooled several times since it was formed. Apparently it still IS doing so.

You can put all the words in my mouth you choose. 'Changes nothing.

G'day, Nick...

You appear to have totally misunderstood my point, which actually agrees with yours, I was fully aware you "USED THE WORD". .

The point I was trying to make, you can change or add words, i.e. "deemed" in this case, but you are then "putting words in his mouth" and changing what he meant, i.e. and his words not mine, "it is proven humans are warming the atmosphere".
 
Last edited:
Great to see human pastoral activity “may” have slowed the decline there. That’s great. Too bad it’s a dry as a bone now.

Maybe it’s a sign that active environmental intervention now can slow the decline effectively. I certainly hope so.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
"The possibility that humans could have had a stabilising influence on the environment has significant implications. We contest the common narrative that past human-environment interactions must always be one of over-exploitation and degradation.

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-10-humans-onset-sahara-years.html

And you'll notice "Pastoralism" as a practice DID NOT include mandated Government/EPA-like rules, regs, fines and penalties to produce the results described in the link.

Imagine that...
 
And the rediculas part of all of this bull dust, its been proven scientifically beyond any shadow of doubt that the climate is actually getting cooler not warmer, so you will probably have noticed the change of heading in all the rhetoric from "globing Warming" to now its Climate Change" funny that.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
And the rediculas part of all of this bull dust, its been proven scientifically beyond any shadow of doubt that the climate is actually getting cooler not warmer, so you will probably have noticed the change of heading in all the rhetoric from "globing Warming" to now its Climate Change" funny that.

On that point:

I've mentioned before that, no matter what the weather anomaly might be anywhere on the planet, according to the "greenie" faithful it's due to "global warming" ("climate change" these days). If it's HOT when/where it should be COLD - it's proof of global warming. If it's COLD when/where it should be HOT - it's proof of global warming. No matter what happens anywhere - it's proof of global warming.

When 'them's' the ground rules, the pro GW/CC stance is the only possible winner. :cool:
 
“Over the past 12 months, three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public late on Tuesday, seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/572212/?__twitter_impression=true
 
Oh for gods sake, give it up. Everyone knows we're f'ing up the environment.....big time.....including the effects of climate change..... The debate (other than here apparently!) is long, long, long over.
 
Thank god......the voice of reason.
I just don’t understand the paranoia of those who deny we are responsible for climate change (or global warming, it’s not a conspiracy if the name changes) just look at all the crap we’ve been doing for the last 100+ years, do you REALLY think there aren’t consequences? Come on guys.....common sense.
 
And you'll notice "Pastoralism" as a practice DID NOT include mandated Government/EPA-like rules, regs, fines and penalties to produce the results described in the link.

Imagine that...

I was around before the EPA and its fines etc.The Northeast was a POLLUTED mess.Couldnt hardly find a river to fish in never mind dead lakes in White Mtns from acid rain.Oh yeah How did all that mercury get in the Tuna and Swordfish? Coal fired power plants that's how.
That was an era where polluters just sent their poison down stream or up in the air for someone else to deal with. Sorry but I don't believe we need to go back to that. What ever it takes. DJ
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I was around before the EPA and its fines etc.The Northeast was a POLLUTED mess.Couldnt hardly find a river to fish in never mind dead lakes in White Mtns from acid rain.Oh yeah How did all that mercury get in the Tuna and Swordfish? Coal fired power plants that's how.
That was an era where polluters just sent their poison down stream or up in the air for someone else to deal with. Sorry but I don't believe we need to go back to that. What ever it takes. DJ

Common sense rules/regs (over simplification: "Don't dump used oil [antifreeze, chemicals, et al] down storm drains or into bodies of water]" are good and would suffice. It's THAT sort of logical approach that made pastoralism successful...not stuff like $wapping "carbon credit$" for the privilege of continuing to dump...or requiring 50 year, bazillion dollar STUDIES of this and that before the first shovelful of dirt can be dug, etc.

My biggest 'b---h' about the EPA is crap such as telling me I can only have "X" percentage of my property covered by "non-porous surfaces" (concrete driveways/slabs, buildings, et al)...and ZERO 'development' within "Y" distance of A-N-Y sort of "wetland"...as defined by the >EPA< on a case-by-case basis. Oh, and BTW...in our local "Rain Water Runoff" regs it says, for the purposes of that act, GRAVEL - GRAVEL!!! - shall be considered a NON- POROUS SURFACE!!! How is the amount of the "rain water runoff" FEE one pays government determined? Yeeeew guess it - by the total sq. footage of NON-POROUS surfaces on one's property - THAT'$ how! Convenient, huh?

Or, how about the construction company here in my area that was fined TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for having left an imprint of a bulldozer's 'track' on the shore of a local lake...an imprint that the first good rain/windstorm would have completely erased in heartbeat.

Screw that... :mad:
 
Common sense rules/regs (over simplification: "Don't dump used oil [antifreeze, chemicals, et al] down storm drains or into bodies of water]" are good and would suffice. It's THAT sort of logical approach that made pastoralism successful...not stuff like $wapping "carbon credit$" for the privilege of continuing to dump...or requiring 50 year, bazillion dollar STUDIES of this and that before the first shovelful of dirt can be dug, etc.

My biggest 'b---h' about the EPA is crap such as telling me I can only have "X" percentage of my property covered by "non-porous surfaces" (concrete driveways/slabs, buildings, et al)...and ZERO 'development' within "Y" distance of A-N-Y sort of "wetland"...as defined by the >EPA< on a case-by-case basis. Oh, and BTW...in our local "Rain Water Runoff" regs it says, for the purposes of that act, GRAVEL - GRAVEL!!! - shall be considered a NON- POROUS SURFACE!!! How is the amount of the "rain water runoff" FEE one pays government determined? Yeeeew guess it - by the total sq. footage of NON-POROUS surfaces on one's property - THAT'$ how! Convenient, huh?

Or, how about the construction company here in my area that was fined TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for having left an imprint of a bulldozer's 'track' on the shore of a local lake...an imprint that the first good rain/windstorm would have completely erased in heartbeat.

Screw that... :mad:

Kind of reminds me of oyster season after oyster season cut short due to non point source pollution.Especially non functioning or no septic tanks.The pollution from the bad tanks found its way into the bays by rain water runoff. That cost millions in lost revenue to fishermen,dealers and restaurants and tourist industry.(ie no swimming) because someone didnt use common sense and do the right thing. Now most people are on a sewer system and things have greatly improved.Point Im making is that there are many people who will not do the right thing unless made to do so.lIm not saying all these regs are good or even needed but many are.As far as the 10k fine if you dig deep the guy might have had multiple violations.
If we had politics that wasn't a zero sum game this kind of stuff could be worked out but unfortunately we don't.So the pendulum swings back and forth . Thanks for listening DJ
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
.Point Im making is that there are many people who will not do the right thing unless made to do so.lIm not saying all these regs are good or even needed but many are.

Like I said: common sense rules are fine. 'Have no problem with those. ;-)

.As far as the 10k fine if you dig deep the guy might have had multiple violations.

Nope.

And, in any event, HOW does leaving a Dozer track imprint on a shoreline harm a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g...to say nothing about doing $10K worth of "harm"?
Abuse of power to that degree is flat-out disgusting.

The EPA is an >agency< whose rules have the power of LAW...and, in this country, CONGRESS is supposed to be the body that creates laws.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top