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

[eldirector]

Also interesting: they were debt-free before the show, and not on any government assistance. At least, according the the above posted articles.

I wonder how many of us can say the same?

How does one calculate their carbon footprint units, anyway?

 

[pudly]

Also interesting: they were debt-free before the show, and not on any government assistance. At least, according the the above posted articles.

I wonder how many of us can say the same?

The vast majority of people before the creation of the welfare state.

How does one calculate their carbon footprint units, anyway?

First you get an advanced university degree. Then you abandon all sense of history. Then you swallow whole what others tell you uncritically.

 

[Jludo]

I'm enjoying this global warming thing, shorts and a sweatshirt all day today

 

[pudly]

According to that noted climate scientist John Kerry at the Paris climate conference:

The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.

But then, it really never was about "carbon pollution" anyway.

Britain and other rich countries face demands for $3.5 trillion (£2.3 trillion) in payments to developing nations to secure a deal in Paris to curb global warming.

Note that this attempted extortion is to cut their own emissions and has nothing to do with first world countries other than to treat us as a global welfare teat to suck dry. Seems that climate scientists have been thinking small when they only received billions in government funding to generate results that give the government more power to "fix" us.

 

[jamil]

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?

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?

So, you're saying you want to go full on snark-fest? Months ago I'd have obliged, but I'm trying something different. How about just make your points and leave the smarmy bull**** to the *******s? Well, unless you are an *******. Then, by all means, expose yourself.

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).

Well, YOU may be talking about environmental impact, but probably GW skeptics aren't going to find that more important than, say, economic impact. I don't give a flying **** how much garbage they produce. However, you make a valid point that this family does impact economics negatively since at least up to the present, they've been takers more than producers. Or as some would say, sucking government teat. But then that would be a discussion more suited to one of the many socialist vs capitalist threads.

 

[pudly]

Well, YOU may be talking about environmental impact, but probably GW skeptics aren't going to find that more important than, say, economic impact. I don't give a flying **** how much garbage they produce. However, you make a valid point that this family does impact economics negatively since at least up to the present, they've been takers more than producers. Or as some would say, sucking government teat. But then that would be a discussion more suited to one of the many socialist vs capitalist threads.

Please don't accept Alpo's BS as fact. These are productive families who work, home school and take care of their own children. They ask far less from anyone else than many smaller families and are not "sucking the government teat".

Here are a couple of links about the Duggars:
How The Duggars Live Debt-Free - Business Insider
20 Creepiest Things You Didn’t Know About the Duggar Family - Most of what they find creepy reflects more on the writers than the family.

 

[Alpo]

Gee, you sure are using a lot of *'s. Is that allowed?

We can get all Kurzweil and project what things will look like in a generation or two. The population may peak at 9.5 billion. Then again, it may not. What does the world look like with 15 billion or more? From a macro-economic standpoint, real GNP growth is not sustainable if population growth and resource depletion achieve certain threshold levels.

I don't really know whether the world is getting warmer as a result of humans or whether some additional level of carbon saturation in the atmosphere is bad for humans but possibly good for plants and agriculture. What I surmise from what I've been able to read from various sources is that when we get a warmer atmosphere and more people, the quality of life is not going to necessarily be very good for a great many people. That could possibly lead to greater political unrest, disease, starvation and poverty.

So, excuse me if I attempt to avoid gluttonous consumption and recycle that trash pile.

A family of 21 will probably need a number more homes than a family of 3 or 4 over the long term. And, up to a certain point, the more successful they are, the more they will consume depletable resources.

Good day.

 

[Ericpwp]

Well, obviously humans are a virus in need of eradication.

 

[Roadie]

Let's play nice, shall we? k?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Gee, you sure are using a lot of *'s. Is that allowed?.

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

[Alpo]

Code. I knew it. The INGO secret code......

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Code. I knew it. The INGO secret code......

Be **r* to d**** yo** Oval****.

 

[jamil]

Gee, you sure are using a lot of *'s. Is that allowed?

We can get all Kurzweil and project what things will look like in a generation or two. The population may peak at 9.5 billion. Then again, it may not. What does the world look like with 15 billion or more? From a macro-economic standpoint, real GNP growth is not sustainable if population growth and resource depletion achieve certain threshold levels.

I don't really know whether the world is getting warmer as a result of humans or whether some additional level of carbon saturation in the atmosphere is bad for humans but possibly good for plants and agriculture. What I surmise from what I've been able to read from various sources is that when we get a warmer atmosphere and more people, the quality of life is not going to necessarily be very good for a great many people. That could possibly lead to greater political unrest, disease, starvation and poverty.

So, excuse me if I attempt to avoid gluttonous consumption and recycle that trash pile.

A family of 21 will probably need a number more homes than a family of 3 or 4 over the long term. And, up to a certain point, the more successful they are, the more they will consume depletable resources.

Good day.

Well thanks. G'day to you too.

Conservation only postpones the inevitable. Not saying that's a reason to be wasteful. It's certainly not. But that's the thing. You act like people who aren't all that upset with global warming and such are gluttonous wasters. I am a GW skeptic, but to me, just being a responsible individual is reason enough to avoid gluttonous consumption. I don't need a pseudo threat of global catastrophe to scare me into turning the lights off when I leave the room.

 

[jamil]

Be **r* to d**** yo** Oval****.

That ****'s nasty. My mom tried to push it on me when I was a kid. I hated it and quickly forgot it's existence when I had a choice. It's been decades since I've heard that name and now you went and mentioned it. Thanks.

 

[Alpo]

What is the "inevitable"? I missed that.

 

[jamil]

What is the "inevitable"? I missed that.

How could you miss it? You listed a boatload of stuff you're afraid of.

 

[Alpo]

Well, "conservation only postpones the inevitable" sounds rather nihilistic. I doubt Walter Sobchak will be around to save the planet.

 

[chipbennett]

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

I couldn't care less about a made-up pearl-clutching non-issue such as "carbon footprint".

I bet the Duggar family's "carbon footprint" is less than Al Gore's, with his multiple, million-dollar homes, and his gallivanting around the world on a jet to decry "carbon footprints".

 

[chipbennett]

Note that this attempted extortion is to cut their own emissions and has nothing to do with first world countries other than to treat us as a global welfare teat to suck dry. Seems that climate scientists have been thinking small when they only received billions in government funding to generate results that give the government more power to "fix" us.

One of the purposes of the Church of Climate Change is global wealth redistribution. It has been the home of world socialists for a few decades.

 

[chipbennett]

Be **r* to d**** yo** Oval****.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid.