Global Warming - Right & Wrong

fishlessman

nolaegghead said:

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

We should do what most governments do to influence behavior - fund fixing problem by collecting money from those that contribute to the problem, and subsidize correct behavior by the usual means - tax breaks typically.  

i remember in the 80's, a dirty burning paper mill plant could buy clean credits from a nonpolluting clean burning plant. if you owned two the clean credits were just exchanged. then nobody paid taxes. thats more how our govt works. wonder if they still do that or will they bring that back.....gotta love loop holes, makes the people happy, makes the polluting companies happy....

Legume

fishlessman said:

nolaegghead said:

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

We should do what most governments do to influence behavior - fund fixing problem by collecting money from those that contribute to the problem, and subsidize correct behavior by the usual means - tax breaks typically.  

i remember in the 80's, a dirty burning paper mill plant could buy clean credits from a nonpolluting clean burning plant. if you owned two the clean credits were just exchanged. then nobody paid taxes. thats more how our govt works. wonder if they still do that or will they bring that back.....gotta love loop holes, makes the people happy, makes the polluting companies happy....

That sounds more like how industry lobbyists can be a horrible influence.

fishlessman

Legume said:

fishlessman said:

nolaegghead said:

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy.  I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline.  Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption.  Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

We should do what most governments do to influence behavior - fund fixing problem by collecting money from those that contribute to the problem, and subsidize correct behavior by the usual means - tax breaks typically.  

i remember in the 80's, a dirty burning paper mill plant could buy clean credits from a nonpolluting clean burning plant. if you owned two the clean credits were just exchanged. then nobody paid taxes. thats more how our govt works. wonder if they still do that or will they bring that back.....gotta love loop holes, makes the people happy, makes the polluting companies happy....

That sounds more like how industry lobbyists can be a horrible influence.

and thats how our government rolls. insanity at best

Legume

I don't watch vids that are posted (not just yours).  Why don't you give me the high points?

JohnInCarolina

It seems Wildman gets much of his news from Facebook.  That certainly explains how well informed he is.  

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

Why don’t you alarmist want to talk about this? 

It must be a kick in the nuts. It’s okay…we know. 

https://fb.watch/lUnoJnL3h-/?mibextid=v7YzmG

By far the best part of that exchange comes at the end, where the GOP representative states that we can’t reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because plants need it to live, and we don’t want to kill off all the plants because then we’d die too.  😂😂😂

Are all of your heroes weapons-grade morons, or just the majority?

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Legume said:

Draconian, lmao.

Don’t forget, Wildman is one of those clowns who never got the Fauci ouchie.  You know, because reasons.

And yet here I am… A younger and strapping man at work had the jab and died of blood clots. He would be alive now had he not fallen to pressure and disinformation. 

Sorry to hear you lost your gay lover to an imaginary affliction.  That has to sting.

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

Why don’t you alarmist want to talk about this? 

It must be a kick in the nuts. It’s okay…we know. 

https://fb.watch/lUnoJnL3h-/?mibextid=v7YzmG

By far the best part of that exchange comes at the end, where the GOP representative states that we can’t reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because plants need it to live, and we don’t want to kill off all the plants because then we’d die too.  😂😂😂

Are all of your heroes weapons-grade morons, or just the majority?

add destroyer of plants to your list

HeavyG

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Legume said:

Draconian, lmao.

Don’t forget, Wildman is one of those clowns who never got the Fauci ouchie.  You know, because reasons.

And yet here I am… A younger and strapping man at work had the jab and died of blood clots. He would be alive now had he not fallen to pressure and disinformation. 

"

Study found excess risk of blood clots was 1.4 cases per 1 million people vaccinated, far fewer than cases caused by COVID-19

A study led by University at Buffalo researchers has confirmed that contrary to claims by anti-vaccine proponents, COVID-19 vaccines pose only trivial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), or blood clots. In addition, the study found that becoming infected with COVID-19 poses a significant risk of blood clots.

The paper was published online Feb. 1 in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science.

“This population-based study found only a trivial risk for VTE following COVID-19 vaccination,” said Peter L. Elkin, MD, first author on the paper and UB Distinguished Professor and chair of the Department of Biomedical Informatics in the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at UB.

“Given the large risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection, the risk-benefit ratio strongly favored vaccination,” said Elkin, also a physician with UBMD Internal Medicine.

The study was launched in order to investigate whether or not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine put one at higher risk for developing VTE, a claim that had circulated widely on social media and in mainstream media..."

****

The article continues but since it doesn't fit your narrative I won't bother posting the link.

fishlessman

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Legume said:

Draconian, lmao.

Don’t forget, Wildman is one of those clowns who never got the Fauci ouchie.  You know, because reasons.

And yet here I am… A younger and strapping man at work had the jab and died of blood clots. He would be alive now had he not fallen to pressure and disinformation. 

"

Study found excess risk of blood clots was 1.4 cases per 1 million people vaccinated, far fewer than cases caused by COVID-19

A study led by University at Buffalo researchers has confirmed that contrary to claims by anti-vaccine proponents, COVID-19 vaccines pose only trivial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), or blood clots. In addition, the study found that becoming infected with COVID-19 poses a significant risk of blood clots.

The paper was published online Feb. 1 in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science.

“This population-based study found only a trivial risk for VTE following COVID-19 vaccination,” said Peter L. Elkin, MD, first author on the paper and UB Distinguished Professor and chair of the Department of Biomedical Informatics in the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at UB.

“Given the large risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection, the risk-benefit ratio strongly favored vaccination,” said Elkin, also a physician with UBMD Internal Medicine.

The study was launched in order to investigate whether or not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine put one at higher risk for developing VTE, a claim that had circulated widely on social media and in mainstream media..."

****

The article continues but since it doesn't fit your narrative I won't bother posting the link.

theres a pretty good possibility i won the 1.4/million odds of a dvt a couple weeks after the last shot. theres also that possibility it wasnt from that....who knows for sure

YukonRon

Is NASA wrong? Nah.
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

lousubcap

Not gonna challenge the above from @WildmanWilson as it is within the ballpark of the exchange.  Whatever was said atfter the clip was cut is not available.

HeavyG

WildmanWilson said:

Legume said:

I don't watch vids that are posted (not just yours).  Why don't you give me the high points?

Since it’s tough to click a button…. It basically had Kerry stammering and admitting what he said in the past was no longer what he would do. Also shows that nothing Americans do will effect anything other than take us to the poor house. It would cost 1 quad trillion to get where they want to take us. It’s really worth the time to watch so you can see how ridiculous this is. You can come to your own conclusions. It’s just a senate, hearing where they are questioning Kerry. You can use whatever source you like to watch it. Oh, and he admits we are at one of our lowest points in CO2 in our atmosphere. 

And when the planet was at one of its highest levels of atmospheric CO2 what do you think life was like?

I'm sure you would have loved living during the Cambrian period. Of course there were no land plants then so it would be tough to find some shade or make clothing to protect you from sunburn.

JohnInCarolina

This is fine

nolaegghead

We’re in uncharted territory

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/jayblackisfunny/status/1682837870698954759?s=20

https://twitter.com/TheUSASingers/status/1682760999554674690?s=20

Botch

fishlessman said:
theres a pretty good possibility i won the 1.4/million odds of a dvt a couple weeks after the last shot. theres also that possibility it wasnt from that....who knows for sure

The biggest health impact to myself from COVID was not working out at the gym for the last 3 years (lost weight training, continued to walk around my neighborhood).  Does weight training decrease your susceptibility to clots?  Dunno. A rise of 1.4 cases/million vaccinated could easily be masked by so many more folks reducing their gym time; that wouldn't surprise me at all.  
(ftr, I've had two DVTs and two PEs, but they were before COVID came in; no issues since COVID but I'm on meds now too, so a worthless datum)

Gulfcoastguy

My older sister has a major blood clot in one leg. She had a bad case of Covid just before vaccinations were available. She sewed a lot of cloth masks for people. Would she have taken the shot if it had been available? Unknown.

fishlessman

Botch said:

fishlessman said:
theres a pretty good possibility i won the 1.4/million odds of a dvt a couple weeks after the last shot. theres also that possibility it wasnt from that....who knows for sure

The biggest health impact to myself from COVID was not working out at the gym for the last 3 years (lost weight training, continued to walk around my neighborhood).  Does weight training decrease your susceptibility to clots?  Dunno. A rise of 1.4 cases/million vaccinated could easily be masked by so many more folks reducing their gym time; that wouldn't surprise me at all.  
(ftr, I've had two DVTs and two PEs, but they were before COVID came in; no issues since COVID but I'm on meds now too, so a worthless datum)

my dr didnt know if there was a correlation was between the first shot and the dvt. she said dont worry about the second shot with the drugs you are now on

Gulfcoastguy

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

Onolaegghead said:

We’re in uncharted territory

True…. We never had a time in history so many are willing to greatly lower our standards of living all the while giving the government unprecedented power. Even when they have been wrong over the last 50 years but still get to make more predictions like they have a wonderful track record. 

Yeah that Jim Hansen guy from NASA, boy did he get it wrong 50 years ago, amirite?!?!?



Oops.

HeavyG

WildmanWilson said:

This is why you sheep are so gullible. You never look further than what your gods tell you. 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/557540366421020/?mibextid=v7YzmG

yeah.... that ALARMIST propaganda by the GLOBALIST agenda. 

Can't believe they left out the New World Order and Agenda 21!!!

LMAO

nolaegghead

Oh, the sheep laugh at thee 😝🤪😂

lousubcap

At least California surfers are getting some benefit-

Waves grow up to 13 feet tall in California as Earth warms, research finds

https://apnews.com/article/ocean-waves-bigger-california-climate-change-2dba8b958acf6642647b40a716924765?utm_

JohnInCarolina

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

while i agree with the chart, its not so much the surface temp, more how deep that surface temp goes. been watching the lake at camp this year, its deep enough the turnover from wind holds the surface usually in the low 70 f but that 70f seems to be getting deeper. batteries died last year in my good depth therm and the unit is now junk, a new cheaper one on the way. my bet this year 70 degrees is down from the surface to 45 feet deep which is insane for this lake. the feed fish which feed near the surface dont do well in that at all, but then again, theres no bait fish this year anyways.  it shouldnt be 70 anyways, we just went thru what must be close to 40 days of rain

JohnInCarolina

This feels like it belongs here.

HeavyG

"Colorado isn't even near an ocean, what would they know about sea levels??" - Wildman probably.

Legume

#SnowfakeNews

dbCooper

This news, centered on the Brazilian rainforests gives some reasons to be cautiously optimistic.  60% less destruction is still net destruction, but the needle may be moving the right way...

https://cuencahighlife.com/brazil-reports-impressive-progress-in-stopping-deforestation-in-the-amazon-jungle/