Page 32 of 72
More proof
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:55 pm
by GORDON
I go by All Gore's original cutoff back in 2015 when he was selling movie tickets.
More proof
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:00 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: Another doomsday deadline offered.
The biggest problem with this is you can't constantly keep changing the date on this type of warning and expect people to continue taking you seriously.
Well, you can. Science is supposed to get better knowledge and understanding over time.
More proof
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:01 pm
by GORDON
Remember when they were selling carbon credits a decade ago?
More proof
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:13 pm
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: Well, you can. Science is supposed to get better knowledge and understanding over time.
Oh, you absolutely can. Just don't expect people to listen.
More proof
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:19 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: TheCatt wrote: Well, you can. Science is supposed to get better knowledge and understanding over time.
Oh, you absolutely can. Just don't expect people to listen.
Which is why people cannot be trusted. Most of them are idiots.
More proof
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:27 pm
by GORDON
Wasn't Al Gore actually selling carbon credits while putting out a movie talking about how we'll die without carbon credits, and then sold hundreds of.millions worth to China? I barely remember that, and may be wrong.
But it fits my Al Gore/supervillain theory.
More proof
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:53 pm
by Leisher
I truly feel Al Gore's hyperbole, lies, and profiteering has done more to harm the environment than help it.
More proof
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:14 pm
by Leisher
Just an interesting tidbit. "Do as I say, not as I do."
An interesting example of government failure occurs when public companies that are completely owned and operated by the government violate the law at higher rates than private companies.
A 2015 study of 1,000 hospitals, 3,000 power plants, and 4,200 water utilities found that public providers were substantially more likely than private companies to violate health and safety laws. Public hospitals and public power plants had 20 percent more high-priority violations of the Clean Air Act, while public water companies had 14 percent more health violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act as well as 29 percent more monitoring violations.
One explanation is that public companies may have difficulty getting taxpayers and politicians to approve the funding that would be needed to improve their facilities by enough to comply with the law. But the law also appears to be applied much more leniently against public companies because public power plants and public hospitals are 20 percent less likely to be fined when found to be in violation of the Clean Air Act. In addition, there is evidence that public violators are allowed to delay or avoid paying fines even when they are assessed. So they are under substantially less pressure than private firms to comply with the law.
More proof
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:18 pm
by Leisher
2030 is the latest "deadline" or point of no return.
The actions the article says we must do are basically impossible.
Listen, there is NO way that you're getting China and India to completely change their cultures overnight. It's not happening.
The answer has to lie in whatever changes you can make, plus technology used to clean the atmosphere and oceans.
More proof
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:23 pm
by TheCatt
Well, I'm not buying a beach house any time soon.
More proof
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:27 pm
by GORDON
One EMP each over india and china. Problem solved.
Them, in 3 months when the retaliatory strikes happen over the US, even more problem solved.
More proof "environmentalists" are fill of shit
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:45 pm
by Vince
I thought we'd passed the point of no return around 2010?
More proof
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:03 pm
by GORDON
Vince wrote: I thought we'd passed the point of no return around 2010?
According to Al Gore, yes.
More proof
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:04 am
by GORDON
Everyone always knew those small Pacific islands would be the first to go, with the rising ocean waters.
Except they're getting bigger.
The science is settled.
http://diekaltesonne.de/trotz-meeresspi ... ergrosert/
More proof
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:14 pm
by TheCatt
Here's an English article with the same scientist (and others):
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180940704/
More proof
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:19 pm
by GORDON
From 14 years ago.
More proof
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:32 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: From 14 years ago.
Yes, but his story is the same, and it provides more context. Basically, some handful of island will derive some amount of benefit. That doesn't help other larger island and such.
He's basically saying that the bad thing may not be as bad for a small set of island, or may be mildly good, depending on the rate of change. It's like saying that the antibacterial soap that kills 99% of germs isn't so bad for the 1%.
More proof
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:41 pm
by GORDON
The report said something like 70% of islands were getting bigger, the rest not, with a net gain of 3% of land mass.
More proof
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:56 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: The report said something like 70% of islands were getting bigger, the rest not, with a net gain of 3% of land mass.
74% of islands
in Tuvalu (and 27% decreasing, indicating poor rounding skills) increased, with a total net increase of 3%. Still only applying to Tuvalu.
Tuvalu has a TOTAL land area of 10 square miles. 3% is basically a rounding error. Tuvalu itself is much smaller than a rounding error relative to the world.
More proof
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:58 pm
by GORDON
Well shit, end of the world.