Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Let's build it in your backyard, and dump it there too.

 

NIMBY

 

I have a reactor not too far away, I'd need a bigger yard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, twa said:

 

NIMBY

 

I have a reactor not too far away, I'd need a bigger yard. 

Everyone is a NIMBY....EVERYONE.

And for all of your blustery talk, I'd bet that if they were proposing building one in your back yard you'd be opposed to it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Everyone is a NIMBY....EVERYONE.

And for all of your blustery talk, I'd bet that if they were proposing building one in your back yard you'd be opposed to it too.

 

Looking around you seem wrong. 

Hard to imagine what else they could put in my area.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Pic of your back yard, if there isn't a nuclear powerplant in frame then my point still stands.

 

You seen to be taking NIMBY literally.

:ols:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

No I do not have a nuclear reactor in my backyard....I am open to it though NIMBY 

Apparently, you don't even have ons visible from your back yard either. How easy it must be for you make decisions that negatively affect others but not you. This what be what being a male white Senator feels like!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been prowling this thread for a while now, and I think I see my man @twa's angle here.  You're not necessarily a denier, but a harsh critic of the fight against climate change, no?  Like, you DO understand that adding more CO2 to an atmosphere will absorb more sun heat, right?  Like Venus.  Yeah, it's closer to the Sun yada yada, but it's also insulated by enormous amounts of CO2.

 

I'm wondering about these machines we're making to regulate the amount of CO2.  They like, filter it out or some ****.  Seems to me twa can keep revving his Harley and Diesel pick up truck, while the non-barbarians can regulate our habitat perhaps.  I get it, we don't want to HAVE to do that, but it seems like a novel idea that's on the up and up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a critic of the solutions and lifestyles embraced by many climate alarmists, and personally am more green in my living than most.

my vehicles always have got good mpg and my carbon footprint is small by design.

 

CO2 is overrated as a climate driver, and science illustrates that.

 

here have a cookie

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good thing for the scientific community.  It will give them a platform to talk at length about the science and why people like Pruitt are wrong and how science works.  I am certain that Mr. Pruitt will set up a fair process that is in no way underhanded or manipulative. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2017 at 0:02 PM, twa said:

I'm a critic of the solutions and lifestyles embraced by many climate alarmists, and personally am more green in my living than most.

my vehicles always have got good mpg and my carbon footprint is small by design.

 

CO2 is overrated as a climate driver, and science illustrates that.

 

here have a cookie

 

 

Your link seems to flat out lied to you and is presenting data in a misrepresentation way to mislead you.

 

The flat out lie is the paper started with the study in the 1970s.  That's not true.  They started in the 1950s.  The second thing is the study didn't mention a temperature, because they are looking at the combination of temperature, humidity, wind, etc where all of these things in combination of have in impact and they describe how they are looking at the combination (using a support vector machine (SVM) and include graphics of their SVM results in the supplemental data.

 

Now, you probably didn't bother to read the underlying paper that the new article is based on so you probably didn't realize this.  Here's a link to the paper if you actually want to look at it.

 

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/Publications/Mora 059.pdf

 

But the graphic that showed up in your post is also false in that it is misleading and encourages drawing a false conclusion (that is since the 1920s there is not an increased chance of a deadly heat wave).  

 

I'm wondering now that I've pointed out that it is misleading, can you actually identify what about it is misleading about it?

 

On another note, do you really believe the majority of scientists in climate change field and related fields (and even people like myself where I don't even do things associated with climate change) are so stupid or dishonest to not catch and criticize things like this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arctic set for record-breaking melt this summer

 

The record heat that is baking Alaska is poised to smash a host of climate records in 2016, including the earliest snowmelt date at NOAA’s Barrow Observatory, the northernmost point in the nation.

 

Staff at the observatory reported snowmelt occurred May 13, the earliest snowmelt date in 73 years of record-keeping, beating the previous mark set in 2002 by a full 10 days.

 

The early melting follows a record-setting winter that saw temperatures average more than 11 degrees above normal for the 49th State, shattering the previous record set in 2015.  At 320 miles north of the Arctic Circle, Barrow is usually one of the last places in the United States to lose snow cover.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...