Majrelende wrote on July 25, 2019 at 11:23 PM (edited on July 25, 2019 at 11:23 PM)

Where do you have to live to be able to say this?

daniel wrote on July 25, 2019 at 3:56 AM

I am receptive to good science, reproducable evidence-based analysis. Science is not a democracy. Science is based on empirical evidence and reproducable experiments.

mofongo OP wrote on July 25, 2019 at 11:21 AM

No, you don't. I showed you scientific studies that show and prove you're wrong and you ignore them after saying you'll read them. You're a fool and a liar.

arewehavingfunyet wrote on July 25, 2019 at 4:01 AM

I am receptive to objective reality. the sun is the source of all energy in our solar system, both gravitic and thermal. weve been moving into a grand solar minimum and the weather has correlated with it exactly. all of this global warming nonsense is simply fear propaganda to make people accept Al Gore and his globalist buddies carbon tax scheme.

daniel wrote on July 25, 2019 at 4:12 AM

AGW is a hypothesis, some call it a theory, and it's fine to do that. We can discuss things that are theoretical, but we shouldn't treat them like they are facts.

mofongo OP wrote on July 25, 2019 at 1:52 PM

It was an hypothesis 30 years ago, now it doesn't matter because global warming will screw us all.

arewehavingfunyet wrote on July 25, 2019 at 4:14 AM

they've put a lot more advanced satellites in orbit since spacex got rolling. they are finding that the planet is greening from carbon. they just couldn't have been any more wrong.

mofongo OP wrote on July 25, 2019 at 1:55 PM

And heating, lots of heating. And deserting, lots of desert. You can't just point at China and claim its 10 million trees is getting the world better when the Amazon is being ravaged.

daniel wrote on July 25, 2019 at 4:22 AM

Some scientists have actually applied the scientific method to the problem and correctly calculated that planting 1 billion hectares (3,861,021 sq miles) of trees would reduce atmospheric CO2 by 25%. It's also not very expensive. Plus even if they're completely wrong about the CO2-warming thing, you can always use trees for stuff. Wood, sap/syrup, fruit, shade, recreational outdoor stuff, etc. So I would be in favor of it. Would even donate time/money/trees. I think it's a win-win idea.

mofongo OP wrote on July 25, 2019 at 1:56 PM

You want to plant trees to cut them down? That's defeating the purpose.

[deleted] 0 wrote on July 25, 2019 at 1:59 PM

mofongo OP wrote on July 25, 2019 at 2:05 PM

It's like a plan my government had when complaints arose about the construction of a coal power plant. To make things greener, they would make a mahogany forest around the coal plant, located in a semi arid area of the country.

arewehavingfunyet wrote on July 25, 2019 at 4:34 AM

I agree, but folks like tequila wolf and ziq definitely have inverted moral compasses, and I suspect they run the place. its a thing for enemies to just pump bad stuff out into the world in an attempt to subvert and destroy.

mofongo OP admin wrote on July 25, 2019 at 1:59 PM

You have to pass through me first.

[deleted] 0 wrote on July 25, 2019 at 2:00 PM

mofongo OP wrote on July 25, 2019 at 2:06 PM

Yes, please!!!!

surreal wrote on July 25, 2019 at 7:40 AM

the ignorance is strong in this one

arewehavingfunyet wrote on July 25, 2019 at 4:31 AM

coming from a logging community, we are in complete agreement.

mofongo OP wrote on July 25, 2019 at 1:58 PM

Finally, someone from an industry that benefits from less climate change regulation! Is not like cutting down trees to make toothpicks is making climate change worse.

'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on anthropological global warming up to 99%, say experts

arewehavingfunyet wrote on July 25, 2019 at 3:53 AM