[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by PersonOfInterest

What happened to in God we Trust? Don't you think he/she has things under control?

Trust God all you want. "He" gave us this planet to live on and made us stewards to care for it. Look what we have done to it.
Trust God? Perhaps. Trust your fellow "man"? No.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Old Bob

I agree that we have climate change, it has been changing for millions of years. I just think that it is foolish to think that we have any control over it. Mother nature is going to do whatever it wants to, no matter what we do.

Open eyes. Look at world around you. Open mind. Humans: capable of anything they can concieve of.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

Save the planet for future generations. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but is this I got mine screw everyone else. Let me rephrase save the planet, to instead leaving a habitual place for the people who come after me when I'm gone. The way I see it the planet has been pretty good to me, and I want to leave it that way for others. Think of it this way it's like flushing the toilet in a public restroom before you leave. As I stated in earlier postings I don't know if man is responsible for climate change, but to try do nothing is selfish and irresponsible.

Wise and compassionate.

I like your public restroom analogy. Very appropriate.

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by Moderator

If the usual list of sniping posters appears with their usual lists of snipes, this thread will be closed. There will be zero tolerance.

So my question to you the moderator is if you know this individual's posts always causes controversy then why do you allow it to stay on? I believe you have the ability to remove it. Is that correct.

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by dougjb

I would just hope that the presenter can present at least one peer reviewed journal article citation that backs up the presenter's opinion. Otherwise, we shall hear only an opinion, not science. Unfortunately, that seems to be the orientation of the presenter, no science, just opinion!

AGREED!!!!!

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

So my question to you the moderator is if you know this individual's posts always causes controversy then why do you allow it to stay on? I believe you have the ability to remove it. Is that correct.

True, if the rules are broken. Moderator has (I assume) some leeway. He,she,they are the moderator, not dictator. They (again, I presume) do their job pretty darn well, imho.

Discussions often have various points of view. Discussions become arguments as you (figurative "you") present your "arguments" to support your view. Even heated debate can occur without breaking the rules.

Moderator, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance.

[NJRICHARD]

Nobel Winner Refutes Climate Change Narrative, Points Out Ignored Factor | The Epoch Times

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by NJRICHARD

Nobel Winner Refutes Climate Change Narrative, Points Out Ignored Factor | The Epoch Times

Didn't Al Gore win a Nobel? Hmm.

I've got appointments to get to. See ya'll later, maybe.

[jjombrello]

At what cost?

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

Save the planet for future generations. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but is this I got mine screw everyone else. Let me rephrase save the planet, to instead leaving a habitual place for the people who come after me when I'm gone. The way I see it the planet has been pretty good to me, and I want to leave it that way for others. Think of it this way it's like flushing the toilet in a public restroom before you leave. As I stated in earlier postings I don't know if man is responsible for climate change, but to try do nothing is selfish and irresponsible.

Like I said and I will repeat it; save the planet from what? In what way have we influenced Climate Change? If you wish to address air pollution and man's contribution toward it, then I can see some merit in the purposed goal of cleaning up the world. If you are suggesting that we can in any way/manner change the climatic cycles that have been recurring since the beginning of time, then I believe you are talking pure folly. Throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at research to prove that man has or can influence climate change, is about as ludicrous as giving money to criminals to prevent them from committing crime. Since NO ONE has been able to prove that mankind has any effect on the cyclic changes in climate, I see absolutely no legitimate reason for American citizens to waste money by giving it to someone that produces absolutely nothing lucrative or productive, just to prove the negative. If you believe so sincerely about making the world a better place, do something productive like planting a tree, or you can do something else like one joker said a few years ago, by putting more air in your tires so that you get more miles per gallon of fuel.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

In before lockdown. Quoting from "Epoch Times" is equal to announcing that you believe conspiracy theories, you are an extremist, you don't believe in compromise, you don't believe in science, you don't believe in anything factual unless your favorite youtube conspiracy theorist states that they agree with the facts. Which - they don't.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Climate change exists. Normal people around the world know this is a fact, it's not an opinion. The contribution of human activities to this climate change is what's debated.

My opinion: we contribute to it. We don't cause it. But we certainly contribute to it. We contribute to pollution significantly. We cause most of the planet's waste. We contribute to most of the planet's destruction of rainforests, which is a main component of our planet's ecosystem. We contribute 100% to the depletion of natural gas and oil deep within the planet. All of that oil and gas is then used for plastics - which doesn't decompose, or for fuel, which is exhausted into the air, which pollutes the planet.

I am not opposed to using fossil fuels for plastics production, though I am also in favor of seeking alternatives to it. I'm in favor of leaving less waste, and creating less toxic exhaust in the air. But I also recognize that there's no way we'll really be capable of ditching fossil fuels entirely. So I think we just need to be more prudent in how it's used, AND we need to work more on alternative energy and preservation sources such as hydropower, thermal heating, more efficient insulation, solar and wind energy. We already have nuclear energy. We need to continue to study it and make it more efficient, safer, and find safer methods of elimination of nuclear waste. We need more scientists for that. That means stronger education, and the means for students who don't have money, but show interest in ability in the sciences, to get those advanced courses and degrees.

Climate change isn't a one-cause, one-solution situation. The sooner we can get people on board with this fact, the sooner we can come up with solutions that improve our planet, with the least negative impact on our daily lives.

[Elixir34]

Originally Posted by Retiredsteve

. If the deniers are wrong we are screwed. If the climate change people are wrong we wind up with a cleaner planet

We shouldn’t be turning the USA into a socialist American dictatorship or world into a socialist global dictatorship on the advice of those who want assume the roles of the dictators.

[Ladays1978@gmail.com]

Originally Posted by Retiredsteve

. If the deniers are wrong we are screwed. If the climate change people are wrong we wind up with a cleaner planet

And broke.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

In before lockdown. Quoting from "Epoch Times" is equal to announcing that you believe conspiracy theories, you are an extremist, you don't believe in compromise, you don't believe in science, you don't believe in anything factual unless your favorite youtube conspiracy theorist states that they agree with the facts. Which - they don't.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Climate change exists. Normal people around the world know this is a fact, it's not an opinion. The contribution of human activities to this climate change is what's debated.

My opinion: we contribute to it. We don't cause it. But we certainly contribute to it. We contribute to pollution significantly. We cause most of the planet's waste. We contribute to most of the planet's destruction of rainforests, which is a main component of our planet's ecosystem. We contribute 100% to the depletion of natural gas and oil deep within the planet. All of that oil and gas is then used for plastics - which doesn't decompose, or for fuel, which is exhausted into the air, which pollutes the planet.

I am not opposed to using fossil fuels for plastics production, though I am also in favor of seeking alternatives to it. I'm in favor of leaving less waste, and creating less toxic exhaust in the air. But I also recognize that there's no way we'll really be capable of ditching fossil fuels entirely. So I think we just need to be more prudent in how it's used, AND we need to work more on alternative energy and preservation sources such as hydropower, thermal heating, more efficient insulation, solar and wind energy. We already have nuclear energy. We need to continue to study it and make it more efficient, safer, and find safer methods of elimination of nuclear waste. We need more scientists for that. That means stronger education, and the means for students who don't have money, but show interest in ability in the sciences, to get those advanced courses and degrees.

Climate change isn't a one-cause, one-solution situation. The sooner we can get people on board with this fact, the sooner we can come up with solutions that improve our planet, with the least negative impact on our daily lives.

CO2 is part of the solution -- and more is better -- which is why greenhouses apply CO2 enrichment. It is the gas of life.

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by sounding

CO2 is part of the solution -- and more is better -- which is why greenhouses apply CO2 enrichment. It is the gas of life.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2...arbon-dioxide/
And too much CO2 has an opposite effect in greenhouse it also requires correct light nutrients and water