Tucker Carlson spanks Bill Nye and the crazy global warming hoax

[Brewdog]

I believe the Global Warming and Cooling are all lies designed to take more money from the working poor. The educational system has no answers, most are cover ups for what don't know. Academia can only profess what they've been taught. There is no wisdom or vision in what they say. They cover up the Nephilim as if thousands and thousands of giants were not discovered across America and other nations. This nation adopted the Darwin theories to replace holy scripture as truth. Millions of year ago and what happened only God has answers for.

Just like the latest Social Security cuts to fund Obama No-Care programs. In the end of all this are carbon coupons that if you buy and trade enough, you or your company gets perks and government forgiveness for a heavy carbon foot print. In 40 years or less all the people promoting this nonsense will be dead and gone. Hoping all of their works will get them favor and a heavenly seat. Let's hope they found Jesus before they leave this earth. Eternity is a long time. Now that's something you can take to the bank.

[luckyluciano]

"the crazy global warming hoax"

Try spanking this guy........


https://youtu.be/cjxJsltLDrw

[Verismo]

The earth is a self sustaining, self cleansing body whether it's Mt. St. Helels or Mt. Pinatubo, Kuwaiti oil fires or 6 billion people breaking wind at the same time, don't put a dent. We couldn't destroy this planet if we tried to as the earth will be here long after we cease to exist. And now a word from our First Lady:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr9IXS8Aum0

All due respect intended here, I disagree with you completely. The human body is also self-sustaining in many ways, but if you throw enough sugar into it, insulin production will be thrown off, and it will die. All bodies and ecosystems are like this. They have a tipping point, past which is a rapid onset of decay or entropy, or death.

The above is common sense. But there is also an overwhelming amount of data that corroborates the fact that anthropogenically introduced CO2 is the volume dial that is currently heating up the Earth.

For the rest of you, if you want to have a debate on the science, then let's do that. But please be aware that the I.P.C.C. is made up of a large body of scientists from all over the world, and they have amassed quite a bit of research that backs up the above assertions.

We need to get off our asses and be vigilant about this and damn quickly if you ask me.

Jason

[taxfree4]

All due respect intended here, I disagree with you completely. The human body is also self-sustaining in many ways, but if you throw enough sugar into it, insulin production will be thrown off, and it will die. All bodies and ecosystems are like this. They have a tipping point, past which is a rapid onset of decay or entropy, or death.

The above is common sense. But there is also an overwhelming amount of data that corroborates the fact that anthropogenically introduced CO2 is the volume dial that is currently heating up the Earth.

For the rest of you, if you want to have a debate on the science, then let's do that. But please be aware that the I.P.C.C. is made up of a large body of scientists from all over the world, and they have amassed quite a bit of research that backs up the above assertions.

We need to get off our asses and be vigilant about this and damn quickly if you ask me.

Jason

I just rolled on this, first, comparing the human body to planet earth is ludicrous, with all due respect. As global temperatures rise CO2 follows, you have it bass ackwards. The IPCC has one goal and that is to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels so they have absolutely no credibility. The IPCC deliberately excluded and misrepresented climate information in their report which was eviscerated point by point.

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variation


BTW, every one of Al Gore's predictions: new ice age in Europe, massive floods in China, India, and other areas went belly up except the prediction he'd make a LOT of $ off the hoax. As far as a gaggle of scientists backing this farce, sure, because if you want that grant money you had better play along or your department will be gone.

[BIGLRY]

I just rolled on this, first, comparing the human body to planet earth is ludicrous, with all due respect. As global temperatures rise CO2 follows, you have it bass ackwards. The IPCC has one goal and that is to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels so they have absolutely no credibility. The IPCC deliberately excluded and misrepresented climate information in their report which was eviscerated point by point.

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variation


BTW, every one of Al Gore's predictions: new ice age in Europe, massive floods in China, India, and other areas went belly up except the prediction he'd make a LOT of $ off the hoax. As far as a gaggle of scientists backing this farce, sure, because if you want that grant money you had better play along or your department will be gone.

[dadeo]

Why bother? Nobody's changing anyone's mind. I am long past believing that I can convince anyone who has picked a side already on this issue.

But carbon dioxide is increasing, and the world is getting warmer. I don't know if its a correlation or causation. Do any of you really know?

What I do know is that when we burn stuff we pollute the atmosphere. We add tons of carbon dioxide. Many well meaning scientists think that CO2 is not good for you. At high enough concentrations it is not good. So the less we add to the atmosphere the better.

And if you don't think we can harm the earth, you ought to seriously take a look at how much of its land we now occupy with our billions. Take a look at the east coast of the USA, CA, the mid west to Chicago, Florida, Western Europe, China, India etc. Take a serious look at the NASA images of Earth at night. It gives you a real perspective on how much of this planet is lighted up by us... Its amazing how much of the habitable portion of the planet we occupy. Color enhanced images also show how much of our land is in fire, or involved in burning off fossil fuels.

So, no I don't KNOW for sure if Global warming is being caused by humans. But I do know that IF in 70 years the doomsayers turn out to be right.... my kids will be screwed, and my generation will have not even have tried to stop it. Not tried and failed. Not turned out to have been wrong in trying to stop it.... But done nothing to reduce pollution, because we chose to "risk it".

Thats pretty stupid in my book.

[ths61]

Here is how much Al Gore believes in Glow-Bull-Warming, Green Energy, Low Carbon Footprints and Rising Seas from melting polar caps.

This is his OCEAN SIDE (note: rising seas) Montecito, CA mansion.

Notice all of the sweet invisible green SOLAR ENERGY PANELS on the roof of his ocean side mansion that will soon be under water ?

I count at least 4 wood-burning-carbon-green-house-gas-producing fireplaces.

Nothing says credibility and sincerity like practicing what you preach.

[Ewreck]

Why bother? Nobody's changing anyone's mind. I am long past believing that I can convince anyone who has picked a side already on this issue.

But carbon dioxide is increasing, and the world is getting warmer. I don't know if its a correlation or causation. Do any of you really know?

What I do know is that when we burn stuff we pollute the atmosphere. We add tons of carbon dioxide. Many well meaning scientists think that CO2 is not good for you. At high enough concentrations it is not good. So the less we add to the atmosphere the better.

And if you don't think we can harm the earth, you ought to seriously take a look at how much of its land we now occupy with our billions. Take a look at the east coast of the USA, CA, the mid west to Chicago, Florida, Western Europe, China, India etc. Take a serious look at the NASA images of Earth at night. It gives you a real perspective on how much of this planet is lighted up by us... Its amazing how much of the habitable portion of the planet we occupy. Color enhanced images also show how much of our land is in fire, or involved in burning off fossil fuels.

So, no I don't KNOW for sure if Global warming is being caused by humans. But I do know that IF in 70 years the doomsayers turn out to be right.... my kids will be screwed, and my generation will have not even have tried to stop it. Not tried and failed. Not turned out to have been wrong in trying to stop it.... But done nothing to reduce pollution, because we chose to "risk it".

Thats pretty stupid in my book.

C02 not good for you? You do understand without it life doesn't even exist. If you have quotes from actual scientists who said that, talk about stupid. If you believe the planet has ever been in an ice age, use your logic to explain how earth came out of it. The path to hell is always paved with good intentions so no, please don't encourage any government to hunt unicorns on my dime.

[dadeo]

C02 not good for you? You do understand without it life doesn't even exist. If you have quotes from actual scientists who said that, talk about stupid. If you believe the planet has ever been in an ice age, use your logic to explain how earth came out of it. The path to hell is always paved with good intentions so no, please don't encourage any government to hunt unicorns on my dime.

What a stupid uneducated biased response. Your statement is almost verbatum out of the denier handbook, courtesy of the Koch Bros.

If CO2 is so good for you, why don't you try breathing it at high concentrations sometime?

CO2 is necessary for PLANT life, and plants don't need more than VERY LOW LOW LEVELS in our atmosphere. Like less thn 1%. At higher concentrations IT IS POISON. You can't breath it at a certain level and its greenhouse effect is well docmnented in experiments, and has been for 100+ years.

If you If don't think CO2 can be harmful to human health at pretty low levels, ask the guys in who rode Apollo 13 back to earth, who had to figure out away to filter CO2 out of the ship. (You DO believe that Americans went to the moon don't you?) Note: they had plenty of oxygen. CO2 was the issue.

Like I said in my original post: Deniers would rather risk our future than take reasonable acts to reduce pollution and make our planet healthier. I'd rather risk paying now to reduce our use of coal, gas and other polluting fuels in favor of solar, wind, and yes even nuclear power (if we can fitgure out how do so safely). Deniers are not conservatives, not in the traditional, historic sense of the word. They are stupid.

[ths61]

What do you think makes O2 and why does it REQUIRE CO2 ? It used to be common knowledge for school children that O2 and CO2 was the cycle of life here on planet Earth. Ever notice how Glow-Bull-Warmin's fanatics now use the term "CARBON FOOTPRINT" instead of "CO2 FOOTPRINT"? It is to make public erroneously think CO2 is actually poison, like carbon monoxide (CO), which it is not.

Here is some more information on Glow-Bull-Warmin's CHIEF PROFIT (with an f $$$, not a prophet).

"... Al Gore's used over 20 times more energy to power his [Nashville, TN] home for a year than the average American, according to a report published on Wednesday. [NOTE: This does NOT include his other properties or vehicles.]

The National Center for Public Policy Research reported that Gore's Nashville home used a total of 230,889 kilowatt hours of electricity from August 2016 to July 2017. The average U.S. residential utility customer used 10,812 kWh in 2015, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. ..."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/al...rticle/2630475

What a stupid uneducated biased response. Your statement is almost verbatum out of the denier handbook, courtesy of the Koch Bros.

If CO2 is so good for you, why don't you try breathing it at high concentrations sometime?

CO2 is necessary for PLANT life, and plants don't need more than VERY LOW LOW LEVELS in our atmosphere. Like less thn 1%. At higher concentrations IT IS POISON. You can't breath it at a certain level and its greenhouse effect is well docmnented in experiments, and has been for 100+ years.

If you If don't think CO2 can be harmful to human health at pretty low levels, ask the guys in who rode Apollo 13 back to earth, who had to figure out away to filter CO2 out of the ship. (You DO believe that Americans went to the moon don't you?) Note: they had plenty of oxygen. CO2 was the issue.

Like I said in my original post: Deniers would rather risk our future than take reasonable acts to reduce pollution and make our planet healthier. I'd rather risk paying now to reduce our use of coal, gas and other polluting fuels in favor of solar, wind, and yes even nuclear power (if we can fitgure out how do so safely). Deniers are not conservatives, not in the traditional, historic sense of the word. They are stupid.