Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100

And yet not one of them enjoyed widespread acceptance of the scientific community, which was the condition stated to you. So thanks for wasting everyone's time.

 

I always find is amusing when the far left claims man is the primary cause of global warming but admit in the Paris accords man cannot fix it.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-that-the-paris-climate-deal-was-a-fraud/

 

I already mentioned the other driver...over population.

 

Correct, through laws and policy. Your reasoning is that night polling can't help....which is absurd on it's face, as the biggest polluters will make the most difference when they make efforts to polluters less. Secondly, only government can enjoy laws and policy, so your little soundbyte is silly.

 

This is so stupid. For one, it's not only "the left" claiming this....it is actually everyone on the planet that observes scientific knowledge.

Second, the Paris accords did not say that, so your statement is a shameless lie.

 

That is not accurate. That is a "meta" driver. Over population can lead to wanting drivers caused by humans to become more prominent.

And there is more than one driver of temps and of warming, so saying "the other" is not accurate.

Furthermore, we can increase the population while decreasing emissions. So your statement is also defeatist and dismissive.

 

Alpha and beta males like eating dead animals.

That means more cows who fart releasing methane gasses into the atmosphere.

Jerry Brown a climate change bigot thinks he solved the problem. Tax cow farts.

There goes another industry and jobs leaving the hermit kingdom of California.

 

Actually, the farmers are getting money from the government to get the machines to accomplish this. Which you might have known, had you read a single word of the article you just linked up.

 

Democrats talk about climate change but proceed to pack this country with millions of immigrant every year.

More people = more use of resources = cutting down more trees cause they need a place to live = driving more cars that increase greenhouse gasses

Same goes for the global increase in population.

The left isn't as bright as they say they are.

 

Because the proposed solutions to climate change are meant to be ones that allow humans to continue to thrive. So your talking point is stupid.

 

Hehe. they were wildly off the mark in their predictions RE: Hillary's landslide, but they can predict what the earth's temperature will be in 80 years. because sciencey.

um, yeah...

 

What a moronic comparison. It wasn't climate scientists conduct political opinion polls, nor was it pollsters doing climate science. Furthermore, public opinion can be swayed by perception and propaganda. Empirical scientific data cannot.

 

Is California telling farmers to leave?

DAIRY INDUSTRY SHRINKING AS COWS LEAVE CALIFORNIA
https://thebusinessjournal.com/dairy-industry-shrinking-cows-leave-california/

 

Unless you want to go to war with China and India it is in fact to late. The US isn't the boogey monster anymore, Asia is now the problem and they show no signs of slowing down their economies at all.

 

From the second article you linked up,but did not read a single word of:

"Driving the trend is rising land values."

Stop wasting my time. I am not going to read articles you never read and don't understand, then spoonfeed them back to you.

 

Overpopulation is thriving? Wow. Poverty is on the rise. Not in decline. And this is globally.

Maybe do your homework before you call someone stupid.

 

False. While it may be too late to meet certain targets in a certain amount of time, it will never be too late to reduce global emissions.

 

Irrelevant, you spoke of people moving from one place to the other. So this is a bait and switch by you. I am I'm to these charlatan's tacyics.

Furthermore, "overpopulation" is a completely relative term. At one time, 1000 people in village was "overpopulation".

Lastly, and to make sure you understand how irrelevant tyour comments are, the solutions to climate change are meant to allow people to thrive. Being allowed to have a baby is part of that. As is being allowed to fly on an airplane, or drive a car.

 

Stop ****ing editing posts. Quote the entire thing or **** off! The answer you are trying to avoid is already in the last part of my response.

 

There is no bait & switch. Your intelligence level can’t comprehend the relation of overpopulation & climate change.

Another idiot on the ignore list.

 

Sorry if scientific laws are causing your doomsday religious beliefs problems..

But the facts are the facts..

 

You got milk ?

 

What makes John Cook a bigot?

 

This list was already presented in this thread. See post #64 for my response to it.

Ah yes. No thread is complete without a video from Tony Heller (or is Steven Goddard...I can never remember). I've seen that video many times already. It's posted on this forum on almost a weekly basis. Which points in that video would you like to discuss? Which one would you like debuked first?

Again, I'm asking for a climate prediction that is widely accepted by the scientific community as consensus that you feel is bad.