What's new

Climate Change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
They against before they were for it. Just like they were for the Iraq War before they were against it. Before they were for pulling out of the Middle East entirely until Obama got elected an lied an then they were against it an we invaded Afghanistan.

Both parties do this man. They do it all the time. Look how angry they got when Trump hijacked there anti-free trade agenda. Look at this forum alone. [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] was on here mocking that republicans are suddenly climbing on that bandwagon an I was mocking the liberals for jumping ship.

If republicans were leading the charge to combat climate change then many many democrats would be right there with those republicans wanting to try to fix the problem. Just like right now there are plenty of republicans who want to do something about climate change even though democrats are leading the charge.
 
If republicans were leading the charge to combat climate change then many many democrats would be right there with those republicans wanting to try to fix the problem. Just like right now there are plenty of republicans who want to do something about climate change even though democrats are leading the charge.

This coming from the guy bashing equal opportunity rights for Trumps autistic kid and the women in his family. Where are the liberals demanding fairness under Americans With Disabilities Act huh? They disappeared cause it is not there candidate.
 
This coming from the guy bashing equal opportunity rights for Trumps autistic kid and the women in his family.

Link? I have bashed equal opportunity rights for trumps autistic kid and the women in his family? Sounds like something you just made up. I will wait for the link to when i said that.
 
Good to see Trump coming round on the Climate change issue...


I kinda knew he'd do the right thing though. Most of what he said outrageous as they may be are just to get attention and get him elected.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-climate-change-new-york-times/index.html?sr=twCNN112316donald-trump-climate-change-new-york-times0259AMStoryPhoto&linkId=31471291


ent-elect Donald Trump conceded Tuesday there is "some connectivity" between human activity and climate change and wavered on whether he would pull the United States out of international accords aimed at combating the phenomenon, which scientists overwhelmingly agree is caused by human activity.

The statements could mark a softening in Trump's position on US involvement in efforts to fight climate change, although he did not commit to specific action in any direction. During the campaign, he vowed to "cancel" the US's participation in the Paris climate agreement, stop all US payments to UN programs aimed at fighting climate change and continued to cast serious doubt on the role man-made carbon dioxide emissions played in the planet's warming and associated impacts.

"I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much," Trump said Tuesday in a meeting with New York Times reporters, columnists and editors. He has previously called climate change a "hoax" invented by the Chinese.

Asked if he would withdraw the US from international climate change agreements, Trump said he is "looking at it very closely," according to Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Mike Grynbaum, who were live-tweeting the meeting. He added that he has "an open mind to it," despite explicitly promising to withdraw from at least one climate accord on the campaign trail.
 
fish gettin' pwned by a troll. What's this board coming to?

Eh, i just kept copying and pasting the same couple sentences over and over again and he kept responding to it. Would seem that i was the one putting the bait out there and gettin dem bites.
 
Eh, i just kept copying and pasting the same couple sentences over and over again and he kept responding to it. Would seem that i was the one putting the bait out there and gettin dem bites.

That's how I read it. He wants to imitate a wall by the way he argues, just keep responding to his posts that have not taken your points into consideration with the same thing over and over.
 
That's how I read it. He wants to imitate a wall by the way he argues, just keep responding to his posts that have not taken your points into consideration with the same thing over and over.

Thanks for proving my point. You are on the Fish team an against me so you take whatever side he is taking by default. You overlooked him continually taking me out of context, putting words in my mouth and being rude. This is hateful an divisive. This is how politics works. You were not able to see the wrong in your team an consider what the other side was saying.

When Trump supported repealing NAFTA you all flip flopped on it an called him racist. Your team now supports NAFTA.
 
Good to see Trump coming round on the Climate change issue...


I kinda knew he'd do the right thing though. Most of what he said outrageous as they may be are just to get attention and get him elected.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-climate-change-new-york-times/index.html?sr=twCNN112316donald-trump-climate-change-new-york-times0259AMStoryPhoto&linkId=31471291

Trump will morph when he sees any good reason to do so. He is not a scientist, nor a political ideologue.

The valid reasons to withdraw from an agreement which has the main effect of creating a tax for the UN, and which does absolutely nothing real about human effects on environment, might make more sense to him than getting on board with a mob of political ideologues pushing the reduction of American economic power and world leadership.... well, you'll have to make a case for another path to reduce our impacts, I'd say.

coal and natural gas have the same equations, the same outputs of CO2. The reason the Dems like natural gas power might be examined in the Lobby aspect, as there is little else to distinguish the two types of combustion. Coal particulates and other assorted emissions should be scrubbed regardless of global warming, and they can be, and would be if required.

Nuclear power has been touted by Obama as a transition resource while powering up wind and solar renewables. If there were need, we could design plants based on Thorium. The reason that hasn't been done is the Radon gas byproduct. But all radioactive byproducts of any nuclear resource can be contained, and exploited as their radioactive lives roll on. Each resource has technological challenges that require us to do better than we now know.

I like renewables, but seeing perfectly good deserts turned into glass seas is pretty disillusioning. Or seeing the forests of windmills taking a cut outta migrating birds.

Cold fusion, on the other hand, is getting warm again.......

Meanwhile, Dal's little diagram would also describe the last nine warmer periods preceeding the last nine Ice Ages.

So here's the thing. Ice Ages start when the oceans warm up and as a result there is an increase in snowfall in susceptible areas like the Great Lakes/Hudson Bay region, by far the largest ice sheet in every ice age, because of the warm Gulf of Mexico.

We should reduce energy demands by using better efficiency in all we do. Beyond that, we should build our cities where we don't have to build sea walls, and not on the shores of great lakes like Lake Bonneville which fill up during Ice Ages. . . ..
 
animated2opt10lossy80virq_185001-201606.gif



America now has a president that is ignoring the climate in basically every single way. What can be done, and must be done to prevent cataclysmic impacts from the policy decisions of a Trump presidency? If you think things are "going to be okay"-- why?

This smart student has some good arguments against the Climate change denier.

 
Back
Top