Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[chipbennett]

This is the summary for the video "Military submarines have been measuring the Arctic ice cap since the beginning of the Cold War. What they've discovered is startling. According to their measurements, the thickness of the ice cap has diminished by half since 1980". It doesn't look like it's receding from above but the effect is at the bottom. The US military frequently surveys the area as it's the closet path from Russia.

The holy doctrine of the church of climate change requires that all measurements, data, and trends start at 1979.

 

[Alpo]

You have to admit, the carbon footprints of these families are just a bit much.

 

[pudly]

You have to admit, the carbon footprints of these families are just a bit much.

I admit that their exhalations will contribute more to global greening than yours.

 

[Tombs]

I heard on the radio that they're proposing "limiting" the temperature increase by a specific number of degrees over a specified time frame.

I'd like to know how they intend to accomplish that.

Where there's a will, there's a way... Probably would end up with nasty consequences, but it's doable none the less: Meet the Man with a Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming | MIT Technology Review

 

[chipbennett]

You have to admit, the carbon footprints of these families are just a bit much.

The People's Republic of China agrees.

 

[Alpo]

Gee, I thought you luddites would be more incensed. After all, they use more than their fair share of all government services than others, and you always complain about the cost of government services.

They also generate a lot more garbage than you do....unless you're a mega-consumer.

Would you feel different if they were Asian or Black?

 

[chipbennett]

Gee, I thought you luddites would be more incensed. After all, they use more than their fair share of all government services than others, and you always complain about the cost of government services.

They also generate a lot more garbage than you do....unless you're a mega-consumer.

Would you feel different if they were Asian or Black?

[Read entire post as implied-purple. Ignore.]

 

[Alpo]

Subtle. It's hard enough to see purple on this forum...now I have to see implied purple? LOL

 

[pudly]

Gee, I thought you luddites would be more incensed. After all, they use more than their fair share of all government services than others, and you always complain about the cost of government services.

They also generate a lot more garbage than you do....unless you're a mega-consumer.

Would you feel different if they were Asian or Black?

What is your evidence that they use more than their fair share of government services? Given that all we have to judge by is two pictures, then by definition we can only go by appearances. Based on the appearance of the one home, their clothing, the apparent close extended families, they would seem to be producers in society. It takes a real leftist to look down on what appear to be happy, productive families.

 

[Alpo]

Happy productive families, with the oldest boy in therapy for sexual abuse of a couple of his sisters.

If you can't do the math on government services, you ought to stay off science threads.

Carbon footprint expansion by generation is obvious. Oh...I forgot. Carbon footprint is a non-issue with some of you.

OK...how about garbage pickup?

 

[pudly]

Happy productive families, with the oldest boy in therapy for sexual abuse of a couple of his sisters.

If you can't do the math on government services, you ought to stay off science threads.

It is obvious that you are making a lot of assumptions about these families that you assume others should share. Care to enumerate them? And no, I won't accept your assumptions as to whether I ought to stay out of public conversations on which I do have something to contribute.

 

[Alpo]

It is fairly intuitive that the resource consumption of a family of 21 is greater than an average family of 4. It may not be a growing problem as kids coming from large families generally do not have large families themselves.

 

[pudly]

It is fairly intuitive that the resource consumption of a family of 21 is greater than an average family of 4. It may not be a growing problem as kids coming from large families generally do not have large families themselves.

It is also fairly intuitive that the productive capacity of a family of 21 is greater than an average family of 4. What is your point other than every post being anti-human?

 

[Alpo]

We are talking about environmental impact, aren't we? 21 kids will need more services than 2 kids. Housing, safety, sanitation. Yes, they can pay for those services, but assuming that the unemployment rate is greater than zero, they are filling a finite economic niche that would have gone to someone else, thereby contributing to unemployment (at a very macro level).

 

[eldirector]

Considering the Dugger family pays taxes, but does not even use the public school system, I'd guess their "net cost" to taxpayers is lower than you think.

That's still a bunch, maybe even a gaggle, of kids...

 

[pudly]

Considering the Dugger family pays taxes, but does not even use the public school system, I'd guess their "net cost" to taxpayers is lower than you think.

That's my point. Alpo is making a series of unsubstantiated negative remarks and even tried to throw in race as a means to put others on the defensive. These folks pay their own way and are raising kids that will likely be productive members of society. I wish every family could claim to do as well.

 

[Alpo]

eldirector: Yeah. I'm aware of that. And apparently their net worth after the show is over $3 million, so they are unlikely to use much in the way of SNAP or welfare...at least at this point.

I came from a large family and we (my siblings) have looked at our generational carbon footprint. It went from 10 units (my bros & sis) to 4.5 (our children) in one generation. So far, their children (our grandchildren) add up to 1.5 units.

pudly: we have many more people on this planet than when I was born (2.5 billion vs 7.3 billion today). I don't think it is useful to talk about whether your Prius is more efficient than my F150, or the miles driven, etc., except on a macro basis. I think most people can understand average consumption and the potentially harmful effects of a single human in a modern society, hence looking at incremental humans or "carbon footprint of each human" is a generally understood measure.

I try to be environmentally friendly, because it was a lesson I learned in Boy Scouts way back in the 1950's-60's before we started talking about global warming.

 

[eldirector]

I'll just leave this here:
Jonathan V. Last notices a creeping anti-natalism in America and says that big families like the Duggars will support us all in our old age. - WSJ

How The Duggars Live Debt-Free - Business Insider

More about costs than environmental impact. But, its not like INGO stays on topic anyway.

 

[pudly]

Yeah. I'm aware of that. And apparently their net worth after the show is over $3 million, so they are unlikely to use much in the way of SNAP or welfare...at least at this point.

So, you are saying they did use SNAP or welfare before their show?

I came from a large family and we (my siblings) have looked at our generational carbon footprint. It went from 10 units (my bros & sis) to 4.5 (our children) in one generation. So far, their children (our grandchildren) add up to 1.5 units.

The future belongs to those who decide to show up.

 

[Alpo]

The future belongs to those who decide to show up.

Good luck with that. I'm reasonably satisfied with my time slot.