Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

Mad Mike

By Mad Mike
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Llevron

Llevron

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, twa said:

Maybe because you can be bought?

 

I'm not trying to support mine, just pointing out the flaws in yours....for free :silly:

 

He more or less says right here he is just trolling yall. I say this once a month but yall gotta stop talking to TWA about serious **** lls 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

So instead pretend the whole thing is made up so you don't have to do anything.

 

Talk about head-in-the-sand thinking.

 

I'm in favor of doing many things, just not the wrong ones

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Just now, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Exactly.  Like building more coal power plants because the planet is actually cooling. 

 

I'm your Scottie Pippen.

 

Science says the coal plants are cooling areas, probably not the best solution though :silly:

 

The Green:rolleyes: Germans seem to thing coal and imported wood are better than nuclear, but I hear the neighbors are complaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mad Mike

Mad Mike

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

He more or less says right here he is just trolling yall. I say this once a month but yall gotta stop talking to TWA about serious **** lls 

 

and it's been going on forever....

I'll probably get banned again for saying it but, this* is not a debate. Its a nonsensical attempt to throw a smarmy package of #### against the wall. It lowers the standard of conversation for all.

*

Quote

I do admit him and folk like him make it difficult for ya'll. :rofl89:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hype-doesnt-help-1505672774

 

what % of the increase in temp is due to humans(that is changeable w/o killing them off) in your opinion?

 

do you know the % in the 97% bs that think it is above 50%?

 

but maybe we should kill off some/many for mother earth, ya'll already seem receptive for lesser reasons than survival.

 

maybe a poll?

Edited by Mad Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mad Mike

Mad Mike

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Trump administration removes links to taxpayer-funded climate data on USGS website. You paid for U.S. Geological Survey climate data, but the White House is making it disappear.

Quote

Rather than simply ignore the scientific information and research accessible to the public, however, the administration instead has chosen to remove climate data and references to climate change from government websites.

In the process, they’ve gone to “shocking” and “distressing” levels to hide the truth from the American public — who, it must be remembered, funded all this research

 

 

Edited by Mad Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, twa said:

 

How are your AGW solutions going to help?

You seriously think you are going to prevent or reduce them?

If you don't think we can do anything about hurricanes hitting places and doing damage and costing lives in places like Puerto Rico, just admit it.

 

Don't claim that there are solutions if you don't believe in it.

 

But with respect to the your question to my, yes, I do.  Reducing CO2 will reduce the power of hurricanes and reduce their effects by reducing sea levels. And I believe in the United States as that shining city on the hill being an example in the world.  I believe in the value and power of US leadership to the rest of the world.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Just now, PeterMP said:

If you don't think we can do anything about hurricanes hitting places and doing damage and costing lives in places like Puerto Rico, just admit it.

 

Don't claim that there are solutions if you don't believe in it.

 

But with respect to the your question to my, yes, I do.  Reducing CO2 will reduce the power of hurricanes and reduce their effects by reducing sea levels. And I believe in the United States as that shining city on the hill being an example in the world.  I believe in the value and power of US leadership to the rest of the world.

 

No I don't think you can prevent them and yes there are many things we can do to prepare for and react to hurricanes...if we don't waste funds elsewhere.:kickcan:

 

Lotta ways to reduce CO2 not embraced by the Greens, but they ain't too bright in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d0ublestr0ker0ll

d0ublestr0ker0ll

Posted
Posted
Just now, twa said:

 

No I don't think you can prevent them and yes there are many things we can do to prepare for and react to hurricanes...if we don't waste funds elsewhere.:kickcan:

 

Lotta ways to reduce CO2 not embraced by the Greens, but they ain't too bright in general.

 

It's not about literally preventing them, lol.  It's about not having the oceans become nitro fuel for them.

 

Zero ways to reduce CO2 embraced by the GOP, but they ain't too bright.  At all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:


OK smart guy. Name some. Lets see how bright *you* are.

 

 

Nuclear is the big dog, natural gas the most easily implemented, carbon sequestration to promote higher production.

If you don't embrace the first you are a fraud, the second a moron

 

How bright are you?

Edited by twa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
d0ublestr0ker0ll

d0ublestr0ker0ll

Posted
Posted (edited)

I can dig nuclear, but there are only so many places you can put the waste.  Disasters can occur, where areas have to be abandoned for thousands of years.  It's not a long term option.  Natural gas is not as bad as coal, but that's not saying much.  Still emits a good amount of CO2.  If we were to go all-nuclear, the coal jawbs would be lost you know...

 

Don't shoot yourselves in the feetsies.

 

 

Edited by d0ublestr0ker0ll
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, twa said:

 

Nuclear is the big dog,

Ohmijezus I knew it, I absolutely knew that he was going to push nuclear. And lemmie guess, apply the standard GOPer "deregulation is the key to the future" too. 

I still cannot figure out why alternative green energy sources are such an anathema to you. Tidal hydro, wind, solar, etc, oh that's right no single alternative source supplies everything. That's small thinking IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, twa said:

 

Nuclear is the big dog, natural gas the most easily implemented, carbon sequestration to promote higher production.

If you don't embrace the first you are a fraud, the second a moron

 

How bright are you?

 

I've made this point before, but for a supposed conservative, you seem pretty insistent on you knowing the answer.  Why not tax consumption or CO2 release and then let the market decide?

 

I suspect plenty of "greens" would sign up for an acid rain causing emissions cap and trade program today.  I suspect the vast majority of them would sign up for a CO2 release tax.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...