Climate change doubtful?

Climate change doubtful? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Milesnmiles -> Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 3:29:55 AM)
How Do We Know That Humans Are Causing Climate Change? These Nine Lines of Evidence By Ilissa Ocko \| Bio \| Published: March 23, 2017 While most Americans acknowledge that climate change is happening, some are still unsure about the causes. They are often labeled “climate skeptics,” but that label can cause confusion or even anger. Isn’t the nature of science to be skeptical? Isn’t it good to question everything? Yes, but — Here’s what is getting lost in the conversation: Scientists have been asking these questions for nearly 200 years. The scientific community has been studying these questions for so long that collectively they have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion. A similar situation is smoking and cancer. Nowadays, no one questions the link between smoking and cancer, because the science was settled in the 1960s after more than 50 years of research. The questions have been asked and answered with indisputable evidence. We can think of the state of human activities and climate change as no different than smoking and cancer. In fact, we are statistically more confident that humans cause climate change than that smoking causes cancer. Our confidence comes from the culmination of over a century of research by tens of thousands of scientists at hundreds of institutions in more than a hundred nations. So what is the evidence? The research falls into nine independently-studied but physically-related lines of evidence, that build to the overall clear conclusion that humans are the main cause of climate change: Simple chemistry that when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s) Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s) Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is indeed increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s) Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s) Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s) Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s) Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the Sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s) Employing computer models to run experiments of natural vs. human-influenced “simulated Earths” (research beginning in 1960s) Consensus among scientists that consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s) (You can also see these nine lines of evidence illustrated in the graphic below) Skeptics sometimes point to the last two supporting lines of evidence as weaknesses. They’re not. But even if you choose to doubt them, it is really the first seven that, combined, point to human activities as the only explanation of rising global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution, and the subsequent climate changes (such as ice melt and sea level rise) that have occurred due to this global warming. The science is settled, and the sooner we accept this, the sooner we can work together towards addressing the problems caused by climate change – and towards a better future for us all. http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/

heavyblinker -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 5:00:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles We can think of the state of human activities and climate change as no different than smoking and cancer. In fact, we are statistically more confident that humans cause climate change than that smoking causes cancer. Interestingly enough, the people who worked to try to convince the public that second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer are the same ones now working to spread various types of disinformation about climate change. On the other hand, climate change threads are without a doubt the most frustrating ones-- the willful ignorance of the RWNJs goes up to 11 every single time.

Termyn8or -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 5:14:29 AM)
Doubtful ? I doubt it. One would have to be a total idiot to deny that us burning all this shit will cooll the place down. Not even considering CO2 yet, we emit so many BTUs of heat into the environment it is ridiculous. You know even when you turn the AC on it does not remove the heat, it just moves the heat outside. And of course there is probably something burning somewhere to generate the electricity to do that. Look at a highway, look at a traffic jam. Now realize that each and every one of those cars has a (heat) radiator, for a reason. But now the issue is supposedly CO2, a greenhouse gas. That the effects of increasing the levels of it are cumulative and supposedly disastrous according to some. I do not doubt the effect, I doubt the extent of it. In fact, even those 90 % of scientists who agree do not agree on how much. If this is cut and dry science, there should be reliable numbers and there are not. But still, it is true and it is happening. The question becomes how much are we doing to make it happen, and how much of it is nature. We are just now coming out of a Malinkovich cycle that had us closest to the sun during the northern hemisphere winter. They say that effect is negligible but you move this planet a few hundred miles towards the sun and it will get quite hot. The energy we get is inverse square. You get half the distance you get four times the energy. So that might be a more significant factor than "intelligencia" recognizes. They have been wrong before. But the fact still remains that we burn all kinds of stuff and put CO2 into the air and that is a greenhouse gas. Nobody with any science knowledge would deny that. However, the question becomes - what do we do about it ? We are trillions in debt. We cannot force other countries to conform to anything. If we abolished all factories in the US, China won't. They are spewing the shit into the other side of the fishbowl. They are on the same planet. As bad as Trump may be, he wants for jobs here, and that pipeline thing is part of it. You need energy to run a factory, you need energy to run anything. This is cheap, and it works. And pipelines, they are like NIMBY here, though we fight wars to get pipelines in other countries. What do you think all the shit in Ukraine is about ? Western oil companies want a piece of that European market that Russia supplies. But I digress. What is the solution ? We cannot all afford to just scrap our cars and buy electric ones. What's more, more CO2 is produced by the generation of electricity than cars anyway, so that doesn't look too promising as a plan. What do you have in mind ? I am a natural born troubleshooter and I have given this alot of thought, and come up with nothing. You want to ride bicycles ? Walk ? You want to have to walk down the street to the neighbor and trade some of your beans for his tomatoes ? Because that is how it will be without gasoline. You can start riding horses and having carriages. Do you want that ? See that is the only solution. You cannot have what you have without this. And big truck polluting, everything you have came in on a truck, including your truck. They might have self driving ones now, but they still run on diesel fuel. I know electric cars are powerful, needing no transmission and all, but nobody as far as I know has been able to make an electric tractor/trailer. (lorry for y'all across the pond) We all know a solution is needed, and one day technology will get there. But there is no good reason to cripple industry here for these lofty goals while other countries will simply do what they want and pollute our fishbowl. This is one of the things on which I agree with Trump, build that pipeline. I would do a couple of things different though, I would make it a million dollar fine for any leak, and then a million dollars a gallon. That should make the environmentalists happy, or at least less unhappy. Those Natives protesting don't really mind a pipe so much, it is the fact that they leak. STOP MAKING THEM OUT OF PAPER MACHE' ! Dammit. People said Florida would be gone. The stupid rubes in one state down there (a bunch of republicans) tried to pass a law making it illegal to talk about the rise in sea level. What kind of fucking brainiac thought that up ? It is not only unconstitutional it is like, totally, and I mean totally stupid. Anyway, we cannot all afford to just go throw seventy grand down on the Tesla. I don't know if you know about how people live in this country but most of us cannot even afford a new car at all. People have to put gasoline on their credit card. Jobs are mostly part time. Many are through temp agencies, which make more than the worker for his work. And in the end, what is really the consequences of global warming ? Sea level rises, that floods a few places. But those desert lands could become arable if they get flooded. We might have a smaller land mass but it is definitely not the end of the human race. It is just a change. Your kids can figure out how to deal with it. Just like everybody else. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 5:27:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles We can think of the state of human activities and climate change as no different than smoking and cancer. In fact, we are statistically more confident that humans cause climate change than that smoking causes cancer. Interestingly enough, the people who worked to try to convince the public that second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer are the same ones now working to spread various types of disinformation about climate change. On the other hand, climate change threads are without a doubt the most frustrating ones-- the willful ignorance of the RWNJs goes up to 11 every single time. If you believe that shit about second hand smoke you are a goddamned idiot. You have never been to a barbecue or a cookout ? Never been around a campfire ? Never even had a fire in the backyard just for fun ? Never broiled a steak ? That is all smoke buddy. Some people cannot handle it and some people can. There are ninety year old Men smoking a pack of Camels a day, and there are people who die of lung cancer who never smoked anything. Sure there is a link, but it has to do with the person. Some can take it and others cannot. They make it sound like if you never smoke you will never get lung cancer but if you smoke you certainly will. This is completely untrue. It has to do with your body chemistry or whatever. T^T

MasterBrentC -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 5:54:33 AM)
Here's an idea, Google "the year without a summer." In a nutshell you will find that a volcano eruption put so much soot and ash into the atmosphere that the sun could not get through and the earth cooled a bit. The lesson learned from mother nature is that if we want to stop this so called "global warming," we need to polite the air with so much smoke and dust that the sun can't get through. But then the Sierra Club and all the other environmentalist freaks wouldn't be happy.

MrRodgers -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 7:20:53 AM)
Well in addition to the problem of C02 causing a retention of heat and BTW, not through any additional containment of radiant heat like say the way a car with its windows up, gets hot in the sun but through changes in the light wave, we have a change in what scientists call...the carbon cycle. That cycle contains what are described as two dominant carbon sinks...greens and the ocean. Out of all of the C02 absorbed by them: Green plants, the predominant influence of which is rain forests absorb as a carbon sink and approx. 20% or the ocean also being a carbon sink...approx. 80%. We are unbalancing that. We are tearing down the rain forests for any number of reasons most of which is so-called modern dev. And warmer water in the ocean reduces [it] as a carbon sink. That brings us to the pure and unsustainable burning of fossil fuels until they are gone and because they remain a highly profitable and highly subsidized use. It's what the scientists call: The Shfiting Baseline Syndrome which is each generation and on this commodity, about 4 or 5 generations going back to the highly subsidized beginning of the fossil fuel industry that created of the fossil-fuel based industrial revolution. Fossil fuels were deliberately promoted an entire industry and the coming revolution, a dependence on what scientists call level 2 energy. Level 2 energy moved away gen 1 or from wind and wood or coal burning heat energy and to fossil fuel heat generation. This 100 years plus leaves society into accepting this version of nature when this syndrome often takes only 25 years to develop. Then society plunders the resource, i.e., seeks to exploit it to its full benefit and leaves us fucked. Subsequent generations of society now must deal with this new depleted version of nature. That's where we are now and deeply ensconced into fossil fuels for heat energy.. And by not actually throwing Trillion$ (like we did fossil fuels) in subsidy to a similar Manhattan project based on Tesla's technology research on 'free' energy he believed was in earth's natural magnetic field and was on the way to proving it, until J.P. Morgan heard the details, wanted no part of 'free' energy...and pulled th plug on financing Tesla. Trillion$ in subsidies were used and are still being used in favor of fossil fuels because everybody loves the money involved. 'Mankind' will now need to develop a new gene to survive what will be a new carbon-rich atmosphere and world.

heavyblinker -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 7:26:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Sure there is a link, but it has to do with the person. Some can take it and others cannot. They make it sound like if you never smoke you will never get lung cancer but if you smoke you certainly will. This is completely untrue. It has to do with your body chemistry or whatever. T^T So if it only causes lung cancer in certain people, that means it doesn't actually cause lung cancer? I don't understand how what you're saying is somehow a refutation of what I said. Who are the people who are saying if you never smoke you will never get lung cancer, but if you smoke you will?

Kirata -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 7:30:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Interestingly enough, the people who worked to try to convince the public that second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer are the same ones now working to spread various types of disinformation about climate change. Well that's interesting indeed. Who are they? Can you name a few for us? K.

heavyblinker -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 7:30:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Here's an idea, Google "the year without a summer." In a nutshell you will find that a volcano eruption put so much soot and ash into the atmosphere that the sun could not get through and the earth cooled a bit. The lesson learned from mother nature is that if we want to stop this so called "global warming," we need to polite the air with so much smoke and dust that the sun can't get through. But then the Sierra Club and all the other environmentalist freaks wouldn't be happy. Aerosol pollution causes cooling for sure (it's how they explain the cooling period roughly between the 50s and the late 70s, when aerosols were more carefully regulated), but this comes with its own set of problems that I don't think need to be explained. If you want to experience aerosol-related cooling, go to Beijing on one of their bad air days. If you breathe deep enough for a few hours, you'll get enough pm2.5 particles in your lungs to shave a year or two off of your life.

NoirMetal -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 7:32:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well in addition to the problem of C02 causing a retention of heat and BTW, not through any additional containment of radiant heat like say the way a car with its windows up, gets hot in the sun but through changes in the light wave, we have a change in what scientists call...the carbon cycle. That cycle contains what are described as two dominant carbon sinks...greens and the ocean. Out of all of the C02 absorbed by them: Green plants, the predominant influence of which is rain forests absorb as a carbon sink and approx. 20% or the ocean also being a carbon sink...approx. 80%. We are unbalancing that. We are tearing down the rain forests for any number of reasons most of which is so-called modern dev. And warmer water in the ocean reduces [it] as a carbon sink. That brings us to the pure and unsustainable burning of fossil fuels until they are gone and because they remain a highly profitable and highly subsidized use. It's what the scientists call: The Shfiting Baseline Syndrome which is each generation and on this commodity, about 4 or 5 generations going back to the highly subsidized beginning of the fossil fuel industry that created of the fossil-fuel based industrial revolution. Fossil fuels were deliberately promoted an entire industry and the coming revolution, a dependence on what scientists call level 2 energy. Level 2 energy moved away gen 1 or from wind and wood or coal burning heat energy and to fossil fuel heat generation. This 100 years plus leaves society into accepting this version of nature when this syndrome often takes only 25 years to develop. Then society plunders the resource, i.e., seeks to exploit it to its full benefit and leaves us fucked. Subsequent generations of society now must deal with this new depleted version of nature. That's where we are now and deeply ensconced into fossil fuels for heat energy.. And by not actually throwing Trillion$ (like we did fossil fuels) in subsidy to a similar Manhattan project based on Tesla's technology research on 'free' energy he believed was in earth's natural magnetic field and was on the way to proving it, until J.P. Morgan heard the details, wanted no part of 'free' energy...and pulled th plug on financing Tesla. Trillion$ in subsidies were used and are still being used in favor of fossil fuels because everybody loves the money involved. 'Mankind' will now need to develop a new gene to survive what will be a new carbon-rich atmosphere and world. I read an interesting article i will try to find on other cyclic climate trends. It has to do with how our galaxy travels through space. An indication was that the galactic plane has differing degrees of debris included in it,and that the galaxy is in different relation to different proportions of it as it travels. At some times there will be more dust,and so we experience more sub absorption(ice ages). At others there will be more.(warming trend) This is because the plane is flat,and the galaxy tends to oscillate over under and through the debris layer.

Kirata -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 7:36:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoirMetal I read an interesting article i will try to find on other cyclic climate trends. It has to do with how our galaxy travels through space. An indication was that the galactic plane has differing degrees of debris included in it,and that the galaxy is in different relation to different proportions of it as it travels. At some times there will be more dust,and so we experience more sub absorption(ice ages). At others there will be more.(warming trend) This is because the plane is flat,and the galaxy tends to oscillate over under and through the debris layer. Without commenting on the theory, I think you mean our planetary system and the plane of the galaxy. K.

Musicmystery -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 7:56:35 AM)
Additionally, even if (1) climate change is not, wholly or partly, man-made, and (2) the current climate changes are merely natural cycles, then it STILL makes far more sense to take what steps we can to address those consequences, rather than deny the changes have happened and are happening. There's nothing "scientific" about that denial.

heavyblinker -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 8:09:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoirMetal quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well in addition to the problem of C02 causing a retention of heat and BTW, not through any additional containment of radiant heat like say the way a car with its windows up, gets hot in the sun but through changes in the light wave, we have a change in what scientists call...the carbon cycle. That cycle contains what are described as two dominant carbon sinks...greens and the ocean. Out of all of the C02 absorbed by them: Green plants, the predominant influence of which is rain forests absorb as a carbon sink and approx. 20% or the ocean also being a carbon sink...approx. 80%. We are unbalancing that. We are tearing down the rain forests for any number of reasons most of which is so-called modern dev. And warmer water in the ocean reduces [it] as a carbon sink. That brings us to the pure and unsustainable burning of fossil fuels until they are gone and because they remain a highly profitable and highly subsidized use. It's what the scientists call: The Shfiting Baseline Syndrome which is each generation and on this commodity, about 4 or 5 generations going back to the highly subsidized beginning of the fossil fuel industry that created of the fossil-fuel based industrial revolution. Fossil fuels were deliberately promoted an entire industry and the coming revolution, a dependence on what scientists call level 2 energy. Level 2 energy moved away gen 1 or from wind and wood or coal burning heat energy and to fossil fuel heat generation. This 100 years plus leaves society into accepting this version of nature when this syndrome often takes only 25 years to develop. Then society plunders the resource, i.e., seeks to exploit it to its full benefit and leaves us fucked. Subsequent generations of society now must deal with this new depleted version of nature. That's where we are now and deeply ensconced into fossil fuels for heat energy.. And by not actually throwing Trillion$ (like we did fossil fuels) in subsidy to a similar Manhattan project based on Tesla's technology research on 'free' energy he believed was in earth's natural magnetic field and was on the way to proving it, until J.P. Morgan heard the details, wanted no part of 'free' energy...and pulled th plug on financing Tesla. Trillion$ in subsidies were used and are still being used in favor of fossil fuels because everybody loves the money involved. 'Mankind' will now need to develop a new gene to survive what will be a new carbon-rich atmosphere and world. I read an interesting article i will try to find on other cyclic climate trends. It has to do with how our galaxy travels through space. An indication was that the galactic plane has differing degrees of debris included in it,and that the galaxy is in different relation to different proportions of it as it travels. At some times there will be more dust,and so we experience more sub absorption(ice ages). At others there will be more.(warming trend) This is because the plane is flat,and the galaxy tends to oscillate over under and through the debris layer. How quickly does our galaxy pass through the dust clouds? In order to explain the current warming trend, we would have to be moving extremely quickly or moving through a very very very large dust cloud, and the rapid warming trend we're currently experiencing would have to mean that we have just extremely rapidly entered a point of perfectly dust-free space. I mean, we're not talking about the gradual progression that I would imagine would be the result of passing in and out of dust clouds. How dense are the dust clouds? If they are massive enough that our planet is engulfed in enough dust to cause an ice age on every rotation (which takes how long?), they must be pretty dense considering we're talking about a galactic scale... or have they just not moved over the space of millions or billions of years? Or wait... it's a series of dust clouds?

NoirMetal -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 8:15:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: NoirMetal quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well in addition to the problem of C02 causing a retention of heat and BTW, not through any additional containment of radiant heat like say the way a car with its windows up, gets hot in the sun but through changes in the light wave, we have a change in what scientists call...the carbon cycle. That cycle contains what are described as two dominant carbon sinks...greens and the ocean. Out of all of the C02 absorbed by them: Green plants, the predominant influence of which is rain forests absorb as a carbon sink and approx. 20% or the ocean also being a carbon sink...approx. 80%. We are unbalancing that. We are tearing down the rain forests for any number of reasons most of which is so-called modern dev. And warmer water in the ocean reduces [it] as a carbon sink. That brings us to the pure and unsustainable burning of fossil fuels until they are gone and because they remain a highly profitable and highly subsidized use. It's what the scientists call: The Shfiting Baseline Syndrome which is each generation and on this commodity, about 4 or 5 generations going back to the highly subsidized beginning of the fossil fuel industry that created of the fossil-fuel based industrial revolution. Fossil fuels were deliberately promoted an entire industry and the coming revolution, a dependence on what scientists call level 2 energy. Level 2 energy moved away gen 1 or from wind and wood or coal burning heat energy and to fossil fuel heat generation. This 100 years plus leaves society into accepting this version of nature when this syndrome often takes only 25 years to develop. Then society plunders the resource, i.e., seeks to exploit it to its full benefit and leaves us fucked. Subsequent generations of society now must deal with this new depleted version of nature. That's where we are now and deeply ensconced into fossil fuels for heat energy.. And by not actually throwing Trillion$ (like we did fossil fuels) in subsidy to a similar Manhattan project based on Tesla's technology research on 'free' energy he believed was in earth's natural magnetic field and was on the way to proving it, until J.P. Morgan heard the details, wanted no part of 'free' energy...and pulled th plug on financing Tesla. Trillion$ in subsidies were used and are still being used in favor of fossil fuels because everybody loves the money involved. 'Mankind' will now need to develop a new gene to survive what will be a new carbon-rich atmosphere and world. I read an interesting article i will try to find on other cyclic climate trends. It has to do with how our galaxy travels through space. An indication was that the galactic plane has differing degrees of debris included in it,and that the galaxy is in different relation to different proportions of it as it travels. At some times there will be more dust,and so we experience more sub absorption(ice ages). At others there will be more.(warming trend) This is because the plane is flat,and the galaxy tends to oscillate over under and through the debris layer. How quickly does our galaxy pass through the dust clouds? In order to explain the current warming trend, we would have to be moving extremely quickly or moving through a very very very large dust cloud, and the rapid warming trend we're currently experiencing would have to mean that we have just extremely rapidly entered a point of perfectly dust-free space. I mean, we're not talking about the gradual progression that I would imagine would be the result of passing in and out of dust clouds. How dense are the dust clouds? If they are massive enough that our planet is engulfed in enough dust to cause an ice age on every rotation (which takes how long?), they must be pretty dense considering we're talking about a galactic scale... or have they just not moved over the space of millions or billions of years? Or wait... it's a series of dust clouds? The debris cloud lies on a flat plane. Imagine the galaxy moving up and down through the flat plane as it progresses through space. I just found it an interesting theory that might help explain more. The last ice age ended about ten thousand years ago-a blink in geologic time. As of yet,we have no methodology to measure interplanetary debris levels. Or any past data on it.

mnottertail -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 8:18:03 AM)
What is the Milky Way? Its not just a candy bar any more.

NoirMetal -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 8:19:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What is the Milky Way? Its not just a candy bar any more. don't chip your teeth on the asteroids.

heavyblinker -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 8:26:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoirMetal The debris cloud lies on a flat plane. Imagine the galaxy moving up and down through the flat plane as it progresses through space. I just found it an interesting theory that might help explain more. The last ice age ended about ten thousand years ago-a blink in geologic time. As of yet,we have no methodology to measure interplanetary debris levels. Or any past data on it. Yeah, it's pretty interesting... but usually the issue with using naturally occurring cycles to explain the rapid warming we've seen since the 20th century is that the climate changes they cause tend to be very slow to progress (assuming they're responsible for dramatic climate shifts like glaciations, not more minor, transient changes). and I would say that this is especially true during an interglacial period where every other known factor suggests we should be cooling instead of warming.

Aibo -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 8:42:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Additionally, even if (1) climate change is not, wholly or partly, man-made, and (2) the current climate changes are merely natural cycles, then it STILL makes far more sense to take what steps we can to address those consequences, rather than deny the changes have happened and are happening. There's nothing "scientific" about that denial. Well you're mixing two different facts here. The natural cycles is one thing, and it is as it always has been. The man made global warming do however make that cycle run in an elevated warmer level.

Musicmystery -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 8:44:54 AM)
The point, which sailed over your head, is that WHICHEVER it is, addressing it and responding to it makes more sense than pretending it isn't happening at all, whatever the cause.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Climate change doubtful? (3/24/2017 9:01:18 AM)
Donald Trump has a lot of things to say about global warming. He's called it an urgent problem, and he's called it a hoax. He's claimed it's a scam invented by the Chinese, and he's denied that he ever said that. He's promised to "cancel" the historic Paris climate agreement, and he's said he still has an "open mind" on the matter. Can someone translate that incompetent garbage to me and my flock of cats? and the mad fuk goes on - go read guffaws http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/11/trump-climate-timeline [image]http://collarspace.com/attachments/032417/555E546E-CB8A-4442-99BC-76A3CF16E3081.jpg[/image]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625