Biden on track to reduce deficit by $1.5T this year

[WapPride]

You guys don’t think different rivers have dried up, at different times of the ever changing earth?

What about the next flood which hits the news? In a typically dry area?

As stated, libs don’t care about the environment, anymore than conservatives. They care about using an indefensible narrative, to force policies which give them power.

Global cooling, Greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change…. Looking forward to the next catchy narrative.

it must be incredibly comforting to run through life thinking everything you don't agree with is just some grand conspiracy that's not real.

if you don't believe that mankind has negatively impacted the climate then idk what to tell you. do i care that 20 years ago some politicians were overzealous and maybe overexaggerated the timeframe on the effects of global warming? not in the slightest.

it just must be coincidence that the 150 years immediately following the industrial revolution saw the largest spike in carbon emissions and rise in global temps in thousands of years. being in the high 60s in alaska in late december (for the first time in recorded history), glaciers in the himalayas melting and breaking through dams in pakistan flooding towns - no worries nothing to see here

 

[DW4_2016]

You guys don’t think different rivers have dried up, at different times of the ever changing earth?

What about the next flood which hits the news? In a typically dry area?

As stated, libs don’t care about the environment, anymore than conservatives. They care about using an indefensible narrative, to force policies which give them power.

Global cooling, Greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change…. Looking forward to the next catchy narrative.

Right, supporting drilling and spilling oil everywhere is proof that conservatives care about the environment. Well reasoned.

 

[CUT93]

oit must be incredibly comforting to run through life thinking everything you don't agree with is just some grand conspiracy that's not real.

if you don't believe that mankind has negatively impacted the climate then idk what to tell you. do i care that 20 years ago some politicians were overzealous and maybe overexaggerated the timeframe on the effects of global warming? not in the slightest.

it just must be coincidence that the 150 years immediately following the industrial revolution saw the largest spike in carbon emissions and rise in global temps in thousands of years. being in the high 60s in alaska in late december (for the first time in recorded history), glaciers in the himalayas melting and breaking through dams in pakistan flooding towns - no worries nothing to see here

View embedded media

The problem is it wasn't just politicians over exaggerating. we were told that is what the "science" said, not Al's best guess. There were also numerous people who at least called themselves scientist saying the same thing 30 yrs ago. I'm not saying the climate is not changing, mind you. I am, however, skeptical man is the sole cause. If we are, china and other countries most certainly make anything we can do about it neglectable. If you don't believe that, you need to run over to pakistan and stick your finger in the dam to help stop the flooding.

 

[CUT93]

Right, supporting drilling and spilling oil everywhere is proof that conservatives care about the environment. Well reasoned.

Do you think drilling in America or other countries(like russia) with much less stringent environmental restrictions results in more pollution?
Also, CA refuses to do things such as brush/under/over/growth management in forests to mitigate the severity of forest fires. Pretty sure more carbon was released from forest fires in CA a couple of years ago than from all other sources there in multiple years combined. Perspective.

 

[dpic73]

Do you think drilling in America or other countries(like russia) with much less stringent environmental restrictions results in more pollution?
Also, CA refuses to do things such as brush/under/over/growth management in forests to mitigate the severity of forest fires. Pretty sure more carbon was released from forest fires in CA a couple of years ago than from all other sources there in multiple years combined. Perspective.

LOL at you parroting your favorite turnip who said California should rake the forest like the Finns do. He also failed to mention that the federal government owns 58% of California forestlands.

 

[CUT93]

LOL at you parroting your favorite turnip who said California should rake the forest like the Finns do. He also failed to mention that the federal government owns 58% of California forestlands.

View embedded media

View embedded media

First, I didn't pay much attention to what Trump said. That is not where that came from. Almost every other state and forest service would tell you it is beneficial to the environment.

Finally, maybe we should just cut all those trees down and use them to help the supply shortage and save the planet at the same time! No trees = no forest fires = drastic reduction in yearly carbon emissions. If the threat is that serious what is more important, having the trees or reducing carbon emissions? When all the lib elites stop taking private planes everywhere, maybe they can convince people it is serious. Should we get rid of first class seats, so more people can fit on planes and we can reduce flights?
It's amazing to me all the rich elites living in houses 10-20x larger than they need, who unnecessarily fly all over the world on a routine basis, have more cars than they can drive, and generally use massively more resources(which produce pollution), back politicians that tell the people they pay to cut their grass they can't have a gas powered weed eater bc it's bad for the environment.

Edit: You know that person didn't vote for Trump right? I'm aware you think anyone should be able to vote in any election without proving they have that right, but I'm pretty sure that was not the case here.

 

[DW4_2016]

Do you think drilling in America or other countries(like russia) with much less stringent environmental restrictions results in more pollution?
Also, CA refuses to do things such as brush/under/over/growth management in forests to mitigate the severity of forest fires. Pretty sure more carbon was released from forest fires in CA a couple of years ago than from all other sources there in multiple years combined. Perspective.

there are no other power sources, only oil. Perspective.

 

[CUT93]

there are no other power sources, only oil. Perspective.

If you have a nuclear power plant in your back pocket, please let someone know. I agree we could absolutely use it right now. Also, do you travel unnecessarily, go on vacation, use resources you don't need? If so, could you please stop that, you are destroying the earth!

 

[dpic73]

First, I didn't pay much attention to what Trump said. That is not where that came from. Almost every other state and forest service would tell you it is beneficial to the environment.

Finally, maybe we should just cut all those trees down and use them to help the supply shortage and save the planet at the same time! No trees = no forest fires = drastic reduction in yearly carbon emissions. If the threat is that serious what is more important, having the trees or reducing carbon emissions? When all the lib elites stop taking private planes everywhere, maybe they can convince people it is serious. Should we get rid of first class seats, so more people can fit on planes and we can reduce flights?
It's amazing to me all the rich elites living in houses 10-20x larger than they need, who unnecessarily fly all over the world on a routine basis, have more cars than they can drive, and generally use massively more resources(which produce pollution), back politicians that tell the people they pay to cut their grass they can't have a gas powered weed eater bc it's bad for the environment.

Edit: You know that person didn't vote for Trump right? I'm aware you think anyone should be able to vote in any election without proving they have that right, but I'm pretty sure that was not the case here.

TL DR but I saw enough to know why no one should be listening to your scientific revelations. Please tell me you aren't oblivious to the fact that trees CAPTURE CARBON? 😅

 

[DW4_2016]

If you have a nuclear power plant in your back pocket, please let someone know. I agree we could absolutely use it right now. Also, do you travel unnecessarily, go on vacation, use resources you don't need? If so, could you please stop that, you are destroying the earth!

keep going. there are still more choices.

 

[CUT93]

TL DR but I saw enough to know why no one should be listening to your scientific revelations. Please tell me you aren't oblivious to the fact that trees CAPTURE CARBON? 😅

So do they capture more carbon than they produce when they burn? Also, I don't make scientific revelations, I'm not a scientist. You must be thinking of some of your lib buddies.

 

[CUT93]

keep going. there are still more choices.

In your scientific opinion, which one is the best?

 

[CUT93]

TL DR but I saw enough to know why no one should be listening to your scientific revelations. Please tell me you aren't oblivious to the fact that trees CAPTURE CARBON? 😅

Also, you do know many of your climate alarmists back power plants that use wood as the fuel source, right. Are those trees they are burning capturing carbon?

 

[dpic73]

So do they capture more carbon than they produce when they burn? Also, I don't make scientific revelations, I'm not a scientist. You must be thinking of some of your lib buddies.

I mean, it's not a revelation that you're not an Einstein either but surely you know google?

Is burning wood carbon-neutral? – Wood Energy

wood-energy.extension.org

 

[CUT93]

I mean, it's not a revelation that you're not an Einstein either but surely you know google?

Is burning wood carbon-neutral? – Wood Energy

wood-energy.extension.org

Did you expect the wood producing industry who favors burning wood to frame it as bad, lol? As with most things, you have to actually read the article and think about it before blindly agreeing with it. Basically that article says burning wood is ok bc you are just releasing the carbon it collected over it's lifetime. Think about that for just a minute. In one post you point out the benefits from trees removing carbon from the atmosphere over their life cycle. I assume based on that, you think that reduction is significant. Even though it takes years or even decades, for those trees to capture the carbon they do, it is still significant despite hoe long it take them to do it. Yet somehow, by virtue of that article you claim to have read and understand, you are also saying releasing all that carbon that the tree collected over it's life time in a matter of days is no big deal?

 

[dpic73]

Did you expect the wood producing industry who favors burning wood to frame it as bad, lol? As with most things, you have to actually read the article and think about it before blindly agreeing with it. Basically that article says burning wood is ok bc you are just releasing the carbon it collected over it's lifetime. Think about that for just a minute. In one post you point out the benefits from trees removing carbon from the atmosphere over their life cycle. I assume based on that, you think that reduction is significant. Even though it takes years or even decades, for those trees to capture the carbon they do, it is still significant despite hoe long it take them to do it. Yet somehow, by virtue of that article you claim to have read and understand, you are also saying releasing all that carbon that the tree collected over it's life time in a matter of days is no big deal?

You were arguing that it would be better to burn all the trees. Would it be better for the environment to have no trees to capture carbon ?

 

[CUT93]

You were arguing that it would be better to butn all the trees. Would it be better for the environment to have no trees to capture carbon ?

Are you drinking already? Go back and read what I said. That is the exact opposite of what I said. I said the forest fires(burning of the trees) produced more carbon emissions in CA in one year than the total of several years without forest fires and that they were partly to blame bc they did nothing to try and mitigate the severity of the fires by getting rid of undergrowth (or spraying vegetation in the direct vicinity of the lines to decrease the likelihood of fires for that matter). No where did I advocate for burning all the trees down.

 

[Cocks are Number 1]

it must be incredibly comforting to run through life thinking everything you don't agree with is just some grand conspiracy that's not real.

if you don't believe that mankind has negatively impacted the climate then idk what to tell you. do i care that 20 years ago some politicians were overzealous and maybe overexaggerated the timeframe on the effects of global warming? not in the slightest.

it just must be coincidence that the 150 years immediately following the industrial revolution saw the largest spike in carbon emissions and rise in global temps in thousands of years. being in the high 60s in alaska in late december (for the first time in recorded history), glaciers in the himalayas melting and breaking through dams in pakistan flooding towns - no worries nothing to see here

View embedded media

20 Years ago?
@WapPride

'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says

The youngest woman ever elected to Congress said climate change is her generation's World War II.

www.usatoday.com

 

[dpic73]

Are you drinking already? Go back and read what I said. That is the exact opposite of what I said. I said the forest fires(burning of the trees) produced more carbon emissions in CA in one year than the total of several years without forest fires and that they were partly to blame bc they did nothing to try and mitigate the severity of the fires by getting rid of undergrowth (or spraying vegetation in the direct vicinity of the lines to decrease the likelihood of fires for that matter). No where did I advocate for burning all the trees down.

I wasn't drinking but my eyes do glaze over when reading some of your posts. But my bad, you said "cut down" not burn. The problem with that is not only that you're removing trees, which capture carbon, but you have to burn lots of fossil fuels to do it. Between the cutting, transporting to the mill, the milling and transport to final destinations, you're increasing the carbon footprint exponentially.

 

[CUT93]

I wasn't drinking but my eyes do glaze over when reading some of your posts. But my bad, you said "cut down" not burn. The problem with that is not only that you're removing trees, which capture carbon, but you have to burn lots of fossil fuels to do it. Between the cutting, transporting to the mill, the milling and transport to final destinations, you're increasing the carbon footprint exponentially.

What you say above is true, and the comment about cutting down the trees was half joking. Doesn't change the fact that the forest fires in one year accounted for more carbon emissions than than every other source in the state for multiple years and that the state doesn't do simple things to mitigate this.

 

[dpic73]

What you say above is true, and the comment about cutting down the trees was half joking. Doesn't change the fact that the forest fires in one year accounted for more carbon emissions than than every other source in the state for multiple years and that the state doesn't do simple things to mitigate this.

AGAIN, In California state, the federal government owns nearly 58% of the 33 million acres of forest, according to the state governor's office. The state itself owns just three per cent, with the rest owned by private individuals or companies or Native American groups.

 

[PawsFan_]

If you vote for people who deny climate change is real, how is that helping our children?

Weathermen and their weather models can't predict the weather a week out. So yeah, their predictions for 100 years from now instill a lot of confidence in me.

 

[PawsFan_]

That's not science. That just means the man in the sky has turned off the tap to punish us.

Don't worry, I hear the ice caps are melting. There should be more water so to fill it back up.

 

[WapPride]

so you don't trust climate change science because your local weatherman is off on his predictions sometimes?

yeah that tracks

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

Weathermen and their weather models can't predict the weather a week out. So yeah, their predictions for 100 years from now instill a lot of confidence in me.

Your neighborhood weatherman isn’t a climatologist.