Global Cooling(oops) how about warming?

[DeletedUser]

Yes climate change is happening, BUT it's a natural event. Provably so, it's down to THE SUN. Temperatures are also up on Mars... now can anyone direct me to the martian factories and cars belching out carbon dioxide? No... well check out this video to see what's really happening. The powers that be are cashing in on a natural event and have sold us blantant lies and suppressed the truth. WHY? It's all about the money, and how much they can justify taxing people, that's why.

This video is an hour and 15 mins long, but it's well worth it and will show you the real science. I was angry the first time I watched this documentary because the government is duping everyone to line their own pockets.

This is not an unbiased factual documentary. It was made by a production company and director who are only interested in furthering their own agenda. They undoubtedly pick and choose their "experts" from among the discontented fringe of the scientific community. Just google "WAG TV" and "Martin Durkin, Director" and you will learn the truth about them.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

This is not an unbiased factual documentary. It was made by a production company and director who are only interested in furthering their own agenda. They undoubtedly pick and choose their "experts" from among the discontented fringe of the scientific community. Just google "WAG TV" and "Martin Durkin, Director" and you will learn the truth about them.

How about countering the scientific arguments made in the film, and not just dismiss them because of who is reporting them. The facts presented are either true or false, but you won't even consider them.

Not like your side of the debate doesn't do the same thing. Heck, they even go so far as to fake their data. Hockey Stick Graph Faked. Scientific Fraud. What?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...rt-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/

Why not try at least being intellectually curious enough to investigate the facts and information. Oh wait, that's called intellectual honesty and well ... we already know where you stand on that. You sit.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

There's nothing suspicious about that. Oil fracking, deforestation and the like are being green-lit by "conservative" politicians who don't care about anything but who is lining their pockets.

Does more photosynthesis, and likewise the conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen, occur on an acre of forest, or an acre of golf course?

 

[DeletedUser]

How about countering the scientific arguments made in the film, and not just dismiss them because of who is reporting them.

Because I am not going to waste time watching such garbage. It would be like watching an NRA "documentary" on the issue of gun control. Or a coal industry film on clean energy.

Not like your side of the debate doesn't do the same thing.

So it's okay to lie if the other side does too? Interesting from someone who advocates for absolute truth.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...rt-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/

Why not try at least being intellectually curious enough to investigate the facts and information. Oh wait, that's called intellectual honesty and well ... we already know where you stand on that. You sit.

Yeah, that's a completely unbiased source.
Google "the gateway pundit". It is a far right blog. Which means that it not only has an agenda, but it is strictly opinion and not reporting.

Does more photosynthesis, and likewise the conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen, occur on an acre of forest, or an acre of golf course?

I'm guessing forest based on this website...
https://sciencing.com/how-much-oxygen-does-grass-make-12222682.html
...where it says this:
"Grass does not produce much net oxygen because of the type of carbon it produces. When grass dies, its carbon products—sugars and starches—use up oxygen and release carbon dioxide when it decays. If an animal eats the grass, oxygen is used by the cow's digestive process to turn the grass into energy. Thus, grass is a poor producer of oxygen."

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Why is making things more efficient suddenly so terrible because there’s actually a good reason for it? Coal and gas are extremely terrible at converting heat into energy and are stagnant in that regard. Meanwhile photovoltaic cells are getting increasingly more efficient.

America does not produce a lot of oil because we would destroy our land to have to pump more. Why not find alternative fuels to run our cars?

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Because I am not going to waste time watching such garbage. It would be like watching an NRA "documentary" on the issue of gun control. Or a coal industry film on clean energy.

So it's okay to lie if the other side does too? Interesting from someone who advocates for absolute truth.

Yeah, that's a completely unbiased source.
Google "the gateway pundit". It is a far right blog. Which means that it not only has an agenda, but it is strictly opinion and not reporting.

I'm guessing forest based on this website...
https://sciencing.com/how-much-oxygen-does-grass-make-12222682.html
...where it says this:
"Grass does not produce much net oxygen because of the type of carbon it produces. When grass dies, its carbon products—sugars and starches—use up oxygen and release carbon dioxide when it decays. If an animal eats the grass, oxygen is used by the cow's digestive process to turn the grass into energy. Thus, grass is a poor producer of oxygen."

You don’t have to guess ... I specifically asked you about photosynthesis.

And your answer is incorrect ... Because like most of the “science” around the climate change mess, you started with the answer you wanted and tried to find whatever you could to support the position you wanted.

You didn’t get the answer correct ... Because your mind was so polluted with the desire to support an agenda, you couldn’t understand the question.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

You don’t have to guess ... I specifically asked you about photosynthesis.

And your answer is incorrect ... Because like most of the “science” around the climate change mess, you started with the answer you wanted and tried to find whatever you could to support the position you wanted.

You didn’t get the answer correct ... Because your mind was so polluted with the desire to support an agenda, you couldn’t understand the question.

Firstly, your question is assuming that deforestation is done solely to put up golf courses. Fact is, most deforestation removes all of the flora from the area.

Secondly, you are correct that a field of grass produces more oxygen than the same area of forest. However, a golf course would produce significantly less oxygen than an uncut field of grass.

Thirdly, Stephen is also correct because you have to look at the net transfer of carbon to oxygen. Dead grass produces more carbon in the form of sugars and starches as it decomposes. Wood, such as tree trunks, lock in the carbon.

Also, there are enough golf courses. I literally drive by 3 on my way to work. We don’t need more.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Firstly, your question is assuming that deforestation is done solely to put up golf courses. Fact is, most deforestation removes all of the flora from the area.

Secondly, you are correct that a field of grass produces more oxygen than the same area of forest. However, a golf course would produce significantly less oxygen than an uncut field of grass.

Thirdly, Stephen is also correct because you have to look at the net transfer of carbon to oxygen. Dead grass produces more carbon in the form of sugars and starches as it decomposes. Wood, such as tree trunks, lock in the carbon.

Also, there are enough golf courses. I literally drive by 3 on my way to work. We don’t need more.

First off ... You made the mistake of assuming my question meant anything other than what it asked.

You just managed to make the same mistake ... And failed to understand it is a simple question. I wasn’t asking you what position you took towards climate change ... I was wondering if you were so screwed in the head you would have to make the question mean something it didn’t in order to support an agenda.

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity ...

 

[Lannister the Rich]

First off ... You made the mistake of assuming my question meant anything other than what it asked.

I answered your question didn’t I? You also don’t join a conversation like this with a simple question like that without a meaning behind it. You think you’re clever trying to redirect what you meant behind the question just because it’s all you asked...

Why did you say golf course? You could have said a field of grass to prove your point, but instead you used golf course as an example. You would support deforestation for capitalistic gain. Whether you meant to or not, you set it up.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Because I am not going to waste time watching such garbage. It would be like watching an NRA "documentary" on the issue of gun control. Or a coal industry film on clean energy.

So it's okay to lie if the other side does too? Interesting from someone who advocates for absolute truth.

Yeah, that's a completely unbiased source.
Google "the gateway pundit". It is a far right blog. Which means that it not only has an agenda, but it is strictly opinion and not reporting.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...rt-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/

If you'd actually read the article, which you won't might upset the internal narrative, you would see it is about a court case involving said fraud. Either the case happened, or it did not. Either the verdict being reported was the verdict handed down, or it is not. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Absolute truth, or absolute lie.

Turns out the case actually happened, and the verdict that was purportedly handed down is the verdict that was, in fact, handed down. The scientist that created the hockey stick graph falsified data to falsify the graph. That's what happened. Fact, not opinion.

Only opinion is your which says if you don;t like the news outlet reporting the facts, the facts don't exist. That's pure idiocy or the mark of an intellectual fraud. At least you're consistent. Just like refusing to read what the Founding Fathers had to say on the Second Amendment. No, let's not get facts mixed with your opinion. You and Uncle Joe, "We believe in truth over facts."

 

[DeletedUser36572]

I answered your question didn’t I? You also don’t join a conversation like this with a simple question like that without a meaning behind it. You think you’re clever trying to redirect what you meant behind the question just because it’s all you asked...

Why did you say golf course? You could have said a field of grass to prove your point, but instead you used golf course as an example. You would support deforestation for capitalistic gain. Whether you meant to or not, you set it up.

Of course I set it up ... That’s the point.
You did answer the question ... And got it correct.

And you’re still trying to make it mean something to support an agenda ...


Edit:
I’ll answer one of your questions about my support of deforestation for capital gain ... Yes, I could support deforestation for capital gain. I could support clearing some forested land, selling the trees, building a shop, and manufacturing solar panels ... All for capital gain.

Could probably get a government subsidy to build the shop and start the business ... Then make a few panels, get the tax breaks, and piss away the rest of the money like Solyndra or whatever.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...rt-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/

If you'd actually read the article, which you won't might upset the internal narrative, you would see it is about a court case involving said fraud. Either the case happened, or it did not. Either the verdict being reported was the verdict handed down, or it is not. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Absolute truth, or absolute lie.

Turns out the case actually happened, and the verdict that was purportedly handed down is the verdict that was, in fact, handed down. The scientist that created the hockey stick graph falsified data to falsify the graph. That's what happened. Fact, not opinion.

Only opinion is your which says if you don;t like the news outlet reporting the facts, the facts don't exist. That's pure idiocy or the mark of an intellectual fraud. At least you're consistent. Just like refusing to read what the Founding Fathers had to say on the Second Amendment. No, let's not get facts mixed with your opinion. You and Uncle Joe, "We believe in truth over facts."

I did read the article and it was cancerous at best to read. I literally cringed at every sentence as it was written with the clear intention of entertaining the poor saps that believe all that garbage. Sorry to let you know that one scientist losing a court case due to contempt does not shutdown the entire climate change movement. Tim Ball was being sued for defamation, and there was no reason for Mann to have to provide his data as it did not have to do directly with the case, but he lost anyway because he wouldn’t show it. So what? It doesn’t punch a hole in the thousands of other scientific data that supports Mann and climate change in general.

I also remember someone posting a nasa link and you completely dismissing it as nasa propaganda, so what’s that about dismissing news sources you don’t agree with?

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Of course I set it up ... That’s the point.
You did answer the question ... And got it correct.

And you’re still trying to make it mean something to support an agenda ...

You can lie to me and the rest of the folks on this forum, but you shouldn’t lie to yourself

 

[DeletedUser36572]

You can lie to me and the rest of the folks on this forum, but you shouldn’t lie to yourself

You can call me a liar, if you feel so compelled to by your agenda ... Hope it makes you feel better ...

 

[DeletedUser41019]

Let's just be totally honest about this, global warming is a political hot potato. Both sides have some points, but I do not believe for a second that the government is telling the truth (after all, they lie to us about practically everything if it serves their agenda of more power and more money, anyone recall the WMDs in Iraq that never existed, that's how much you can trust the politicians to tell the truth).

Whether or not global warming is caused by C02 (personally, I think it isn't based on the evidence given in the documentary) we should be working for cleaner sources of energy because fossil fuels pollute in other ways too even when you take carbon dioxide, which isn't a pollutant it is a natural component of air by the way and essential to the survival or more or less every plant in existence, out of the equation. I'm all for cleaning up the environment and using other sources of energy instead. My point is that they shouldn't blatantly lie to us to get more money whilst claiming it's for the environment, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to switch to more modern and clean ways to produce energy. It's the lies I don't like, the dishonesty, not the new technology.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was appalled at the lines of people getting fuel at gas stations in Florida before the hurricane.

She commented that people would be better off with electric cars, because there was no way they could get more gas if the power was off for a week.

And ... Some people want the government in charge of climate control and healthcare.

 

[Emberguard]

She commented that people would be better off with electric cars, because there was no way they could get more gas if the power was off for a week.

electric cars with no power.... that’s a funny statement. Cars the least of your worries with no power

Moot point to say we’d be better with electric cars if the power cut off for a week. If there’s no power the electric is in the exact same position as gas given the power plants use gas to fuel electric cars and most won’t have alternate power sources at home (solar panels are expensive and reliant on sun. Batteries are expensive and need replacing). Any power in those cases would be reserved for emergency only.

If we all switched to electric tomorrow we’d run out of energy sources far quicker then using what we have and slowly replacing due to the resources involved in creating those cars even if we recycled old materials.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was appalled at the lines of people getting fuel at gas stations in Florida before the hurricane.

She commented that people would be better off with electric cars, because there was no way they could get more gas if the power was off for a week.

And ... Some people want the government in charge of climate control and healthcare.

No, she didn’t. Find the tweet and link it. The original one, not someone who posted a picture of the tweet (which isn’t a retweet if you know how twitter works)

 

[Emberguard]

No, she didn’t. Find the tweet and link it. The original one, not someone who posted a picture of the tweet (which isn’t a retweet if you know how twitter works)

Ah! Now that makes a lot more sense. No wonder the logic was so funny

 

[DeletedUser36572]

No, she didn’t. Find the tweet and link it. The original one, not someone who posted a picture of the tweet (which isn’t a retweet if you know how twitter works)

I don’t have Twitter ... So that’s not the case.

It’s all good though ... I am sure Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is still working out the details of The New Green Deal ... Like figuring out where they are going to plant all their food in Manhattan, after they figure out where they are going to put all the windmills and solar panels they are going to need.

Of course she could try to get rid of the Electoral College ... And just make “fly-over country” slave states.