$1B Climate Change Denial Industry: Getting Rich Telling Lies, Destroying Humanity...

[Stretch]

Lies

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Stretch,

Lies

You're doing a good job of repeating what the Denial Industry wants you to say.

 

[Stretch]

Alchemy

 

[PoliTalker]

Makes ya wonder how these people sleep at night.

Why don't they care about their children and grandchildren?

Why don't they care about humanity.

BASIC wisdom:

If there is a chance that you will face a destruction, it is best to prepare for it.

Even if it is not a certainty that it will occur.

The wisdom goes like this.

Prepare for the worst; Hope for the best.

Denial is foolish.

 

[PoliTalker]

Most deniers have guns.

Ask them why.

They are preparing for the worst possibility, that they will be attacked by some stranger meaning to do them harm.

They hope they never have to use them.

Most gun owners never have to use their guns to defend themselves.

They are preparing for the worst, hoping for the best.

 

[anonymoose]

Synth

I use that for engine lubrication but I didn't know it could be used for combustion. Who is the manufacturer and distributor? I don't think it's available where I live.

 

[Celticguy]

It would be easier to accept AGW if there were any documented scientific proof that CO2 were capable of whats claimed of it.

 

[anonymoose]

We can keep doing that. Just run em on biofuel.

Why?

The simple proposal that biofuel is carbon-neutral almost by definition, has been superseded by the more nuanced proposal that for a particular biofuel project to be carbon neutral, the total carbon sequestered by the energy crop's root system must compensate for all the above-ground emissions (related to this particular biofuel project). This includes any emissions caused by direct or indirect land use change. Many first generation biofuel projects are not carbon neutral given these demands. Some have even higher total GHG emissions than some fossil based alternatives.[6][7][8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

 

[reagansghost]

What brand of petrol do you recommend as an alternative to BP, Chevron or Exxon? I want to be environmentally conscious.
I've already queried McSlawber about this, he refused to answer

probably refused to answer your question because it's moronic, posed by a moron

...the same reason I would need to drive a car to work, no alternate means of transportation available

...the same reason I must use PGE natural gas and electric, and a local ATT land line into my house, no alternatives

try asking questions that actually make sense

 

[anonymoose]

Hello anonymoose,



There is no deadline.

That's a relief. Can you tell your friends on the left to stop brainwashing kids into believing the End of Times comes in 12 yrs.? That's child abuse and I plan on reporting them to social services.

The sooner the better, the longer we wait the more extreme the devastation.

I know. Wait long enough and the sun enters the red giant phase. We need to take action now before it's too late.

 

[anonymoose]

probably refused to answer your question because it's moronic, posed by a moron

...the same reason I would need to drive a car to work, no alternate means of transportation available

...the same reason I must use PGE natural gas and electric, and a local ATT land line into my house, no alternatives

try asking questions that actually make sense

If there's no alternative and you use refined oil products in your every day life why do you hate the industry so much?

 

[anonymoose]

Synth

That does not work for combustion. What brand of petrol for combustion do you recommend as an alternative to BP, Chevron or Exxon?

 

[anonymoose]

It would be easier to accept AGW if there were any documented scientific proof that CO2 were capable of whats claimed of it.

There is none, nothing.

 

[PoliTalker]

Happy first day of summer, anonymoose,

That's a relief. Can you tell your friends on the left to stop brainwashing kids into believing the End of Times comes in 12 yrs.? That's child abuse and I plan on reporting them to social services.I know.

I have about as much control over what other liberals say as you do over other conservatives.

But you knew that.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Celticguy,

It would be easier to accept AGW if there were any documented scientific proof that CO2 were capable of whats claimed of it.

The proof is there but it involves believing in science.

Does that make it a problem?

 

[Cypress]

It would be easier to accept AGW if there were any documented scientific proof that CO2 were capable of whats claimed of it.

Carbon dioxide has been experimentally proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to have greenhouse gas properties. This has been known for a century, it is known by all informed people, and Exxon's own scientists knew it when they secretly concluded four decades ago that burning fossil fuels and adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause the planet to relentlessly warm.

 

[Celticguy]

Hello Celticguy,



The proof is there but it involves believing in science.

Does that make it a problem?

Nope. Trouble is its not been done.

 

[Celticguy]

Carbon dioxide has been experimentally proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to have greenhouse gas properties. This has been known for a century, it is known by all informed people, and Exxon's own scientists knew it when they secretly concluded four decades ago that burning fossil fuels and adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause the planet to relentlessly warm.

If this is true the scientific evidence should be availble. Perhaps even readily availble. And by scientific evidence i mean an actual repeatable demonstration.

 

[Cypress]

If this is true the scientific evidence should be availble. Perhaps even readily availble. And by scientific evidence i mean an actual repeatable demonstration.

It just means you are uninformed and should not be participating in this conversation, if it is news to you that science has experimentally shown and unequivocally proven that CO2 has greenhouse gas properties. This was proven about a century ago.


Its not my job to teach and educate you about widely known and understood scientific principles of earth science and atmospheric science. Especially principles that have been known about for about a century.

 

[Celticguy]

It just means you are uninformed and should not be participating in this conversation, if it is news to you that science has experimentally shown and unequivocally proven that CO2 has greenhouse gas properties. This was proven about a century ago.


Its not my job to teach and educate you about widely known and understood scientific principles of earth science and atmospheric science. Especially principles that have been known about for about a century.

I get that you have never looked into it and are willing to accept the debunked "97%" gang with eyes closed.
But if you ever do you will find that only theory and models support this.
There is one greenhouse gas capable of producing the greenhouse effect. Trouble is its not CO2.