Donald Trump running for president

[Jiigzz]

Its actually 97%, but thats 97% of climate scientists that concluded on the primary causes of climate change, but notice what I just said, "climate scientists that concluded" .......so that isnt accounting for climate scientists that are uncertain and inconclusive to the causes of climate change which makes of the majority of them.

So that being said Im just going with whats most popular in the science community and going with the majority of the climate scientists who say we dont know for sure and are skeptics to extremist views on climate science.

People are always going to profiteer off either green energy or oil. Anytime a new industry opens up, that's what happens. Why is it such a talking point to say "omg people are making money off dis!?!?!!!!! It can't be real if people making money!!!!"

It's just funny to me that people listen to those with money in oil when they say climate change isn't real but then ignore climate researchers who say it is who are middle class income earners lol

 

[Jiigzz]

So to be more accurate, the term used for "climate papers stating a position" So thats either yes or no. That # does not include those who have not stated a position, and have taken no position because there isnt enough evidence, which is the majority.


Invalid Link Removed

You do realise that research papers can conclude no significant findings though, right? Researchers don't just publish papers that agree with their hypothesis lol

The entire POINT of research is to not take a position, but instead analyse the data that attempts to disprove the null hypothesis (the commonly accepted truth). So quite literally the point is to go against the consensus. So if the consensus says CO2 emissions cause warming, researchers try to prove it doesn't because rejecting the null is how you advance understanding.

So again you saying "the majority haven't taken a position" literally makes no sense, because research isn't about taking a stance.

Again this just demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the research process, but yet you are interjecting your own thoughts and relaying them as fact when it simply isn't true. But it isn't just you doing it, it's many people who have no idea how research works saying what you say.

I.e. if you look at papers about keto and fat loss you have a breadth of data showing conflicting views; some for and some opposed because that's how research works. We know now that a Calorie deficit is king, but yet data still emerges discussing keto vs high carb that still doesn't equate Calories (i.e. the keto group eat fewer Calories vs carb group) despite this being a known confounder.

So when you have a bunch of papers discussing climate change, a lot of them will discuss whether human-induced CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change, and the data will simply reflect that "yes it does" in those 97% of papers, regardless of whether the researcher believes in climate change or not

 

[Ricky10]

I think I already had 5-6 bags of chinese food have liquid leak all over my clothes and floor since they started using paper. Everytime I yell f'ing libtards, my wife knows exactly what happened when she hears my across the house lol.

Terrrible..

FYI: I know you know Portland, Maine quite well. It has been destroyed by let’s just call them “immigrants”...which some are. I wouldn’t bother coming here anytime soon. Or any of the towns in the immediate vicinity. All ghetto, and not what people live or travel to Maine to experience. It has been a drastic change for the worse.

I avoid it at all costs now, while I used to enjoy it just a few years ago. My friends, family, and coworkers feel likewise. It’s just not safe, and at the very least depressing and dirty. Trash and tents everywhere, homeless people harassing you for money at every stoplight, graffiti everywhere. My girlfriend is concerned about me because I get so upset by witnessing the deterioration of our community. She also sees it, but states her relationship with God enables her to not let it bother her.

I remain very bothered. I have always been open to diversity, (before this administration) but when it strikes your community, the detriments speak for themselves.

 

[Jiigzz]

Terrrible..

FYI: I know you know Portland, Maine quite well. It has been destroyed by let’s just call them “immigrants”...which some are. I wouldn’t bother coming here anytime soon. Or any of the towns in the immediate vicinity. All ghetto, and not what people live or travel to Maine to experience. It has been a drastic change for the worse.

I avoid it at all costs now, while I used to enjoy it just a few years ago. My friends, family, and coworkers feel likewise. It’s just not safe, and at the very least depressing and dirty. Trash and tents everywhere, homeless people harassing you for money at every stoplight, graffiti everywhere. My girlfriend is concerned about me because I get so upset by witnessing the deterioration of our community. She also sees it, but states her relationship with God enables her to not let it bother her.

I remain very bothered. I have always been open to diversity, (before this administration) but when it strikes your community, the detriments speak for themselves.

Damn man, heartbreaking to hear.

 

[Jiigzz]

You do realise that research papers can conclude no significant findings though, right? Researchers don't just publish papers that agree with their hypothesis lol

The entire POINT of research is to not take a position, but instead analyse the data that proves or disproves the null hypothesis.

So again you saying "the majority haven't taken a position" literally makes no sense, because research isn't about taking a stance.

Again this just demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the research process, but yet you are interjecting your own thoughts and relaying them as fact when it simply isn't true. But it isn't just you doing it, it's many people who have no idea how research works saying what you say.

I.e. if you look at papers about keto and fat loss you have a breadth of data showing conflicting views; some for and some opposed because that's how research works. We know now that a Calorie deficit is king, but yet data still emerges discussing keto vs high carb that still doesn't equate Calories (i.e. the keto group eat fewer Calories vs carb group) despite this being a known confounder.

So when you have a bunch of papers discussing climate change, a lot of them will discuss whether human-induced CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change, and the data will simply reflect that "yes it does" in those 97% of papers, regardless of whether the researcher believes in climate change or not

That's not to say bias in research doesn't exist - of course it does. Humans are by nature biased. But the process accounts for this by having peers review the study design, methods, results and conclusions etc of papers to ensure those biases do not skew the data or conclusion. Some journals are better than others at this, which is why you view the body of data and not just papers in isolation.

So the "proper" way to read research is not just to pick one study and say "Ha! This study says the opposite to the other thousand, so therefore this paper is the truth!" As some people do, but rather to consider each paper as a piece of evidence toward a topic KNOWING that conclusions are never definitive, and that 100% certainty never exists.

As our understanding develops on a topic, we discover new confounders to explore.

So in the case of ketogenic diets vs high carb diets, if a study design allows ad libitum food intake, then that is confounding variable as equating Calories and protein is an important consideration. But this is often overlooked, especially when people aren't aware those are confounders.

So I could easily write an article that favours a keto diet or high carb diet by manipulating Calories of one group comparative to the other, however the peer review process should catch that OR it will be readily available in the study design that I'm not accounting for a major confounder. Then people who know the topic well will simply discard my research as it doesn't contribute to the body of evidence

 

[Ricky10]

So let’s just say that science is indecisive about the role of humans and our carbon footprint upon climate change. Because essentially, that is the plain truth.

Imagine a senile old man by the name of Joe Biden being placed in a position of great power as a puppet of globalists. Now imagine people believing in the political policies perpetuated by climate change that Biden is told to endorse.

Imagine people thinking they can change the trajectory of the planet while China and India are doing the exact opposite. Now imagine people who think that isn’t on purpose.

Imagine people not recognizing that climate change is a government’s intangible tool to manipulate people and pool money to benefit only themselves. I don’t think it takes a genius to interpret what is going on here.

 

[Ricky10]

Damn man, heartbreaking to hear.

Yes. Portland has a Democrat governor and we are blue state. So I suppose things are proceeding according to plan.

 

[Jiigzz]

Yes. Portland has a Democrat governor and we are blue state. So I suppose things are proceeding according to plan.

The sad thing is how many vets are homeless there. A shame that republicans recently voted against helping them. Too many senators are bribed to oppose anything their "donors" want them too. Profits over people, and this is what happens

Ah well, with house prices, low wages and an inflation crisis you can expect it to get worse.

 

[Jiigzz]

Yes. Portland has a Democrat governor and we are blue state. So I suppose things are proceeding according to plan.

This is part of your problem right here

 

[ax1]

Terrrible..

FYI: I know you know Portland, Maine quite well. It has been destroyed by let’s just call them “immigrants”...which some are. I wouldn’t bother coming here anytime soon. Or any of the towns in the immediate vicinity. All ghetto, and not what people live or travel to Maine to experience. It has been a drastic change for the worse.

I avoid it at all costs now, while I used to enjoy it just a few years ago. My friends, family, and coworkers feel likewise. It’s just not safe, and at the very least depressing and dirty. Trash and tents everywhere, homeless people harassing you for money at every stoplight, graffiti everywhere. My girlfriend is concerned about me because I get so upset by witnessing the deterioration of our community. She also sees it, but states her relationship with God enables her to not let it bother her.

I remain very bothered. I have always been open to diversity, (before this administration) but when it strikes your community, the detriments speak for themselves.

I wouldnt say I know Portland "quite well" but I did go there for a few days almost a full year to date ago and had a great time. I did see bums on the street and some beggers but nothing like the way you are explaining it. Not to the level of seeing tents with garbage all over the place or people bugging me at stop light, but it was only a few days I was there. I did have to keep my eyes open the one night I was out late in the city with bums and drunks.

Its really sad its going south, the place for sure looks like it had its day and still can have its potential, saw alot of beautiful things around the area. I hope it turns around soon.

So your confirming its much worse now that a year ago?

 

[ax1]

People are always going to profiteer off either green energy or oil. Anytime a new industry opens up, that's what happens. Why is it such a talking point to say "omg people are making money off dis!?!?!!!!! It can't be real if people making money!!!!"

It's just funny to me that people listen to those with money in oil when they say climate change isn't real but then ignore climate researchers who say it is who are middle class income earners lol

I want companies to make alot of money and be incentivized to do good things, but where there are policies taking place that effect people's lives negatively and its at our expense that we have to question whats going on, especially when corrupt corporate paid governments are putting in policies that wont really have a much of an outcome to the problems they exaggerate over and over again to happen and missing out on potential meaningful opportunities to prepare for what may come, which is preparing to adapt for the future rather than spending all the time and energy on something questionable that more than likely wont have any impact on all at stopping it from happening.

Questioning "green energy" policies doesnt equate to taking the side of big oil.

 

[Ricky10]

The sad thing is how many vets are homeless there. A shame that republicans recently voted against helping them. Too many senators are bribed to oppose anything their "donors" want them too. Profits over people, and this is what happens

Ah well, with house prices, low wages and an inflation crisis you can expect it to get worse.

The illegal “and legal” immigrants get treated better than our veterans in many cases for sure. Supposedly, Maine is now receiving up to 100,000 illegal immigrants per month, but likely more. They are often being placed in hotels throughout Southern Maine and receive other assistance as well. Many of these places are hotels the next town over from me in Freeport, Maine.

Then we have to hear on the local news all the time that our hotels are running out of room to place immigrants. As if we are supposed to beef up resources out of concern for that! It shouldn’t be permitted to happen in the first place, but we all know exactly why they are being flooded everywhere and who is paying for them. Meanwhile, we need to take care of our own people and homelessness problems. Ridiculousness!

 

[ax1]

You do realise that research papers can conclude no significant findings though, right? Researchers don't just publish papers that agree with their hypothesis lol

The entire POINT of research is to not take a position, but instead analyse the data that attempts to disprove the null hypothesis (the commonly accepted truth). So quite literally the point is to go against the consensus. So if the consensus says CO2 emissions cause warming, researchers try to prove it doesn't because rejecting the null is how you advance understanding.

So again you saying "the majority haven't taken a position" literally makes no sense, because research isn't about taking a stance.

Again this just demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the research process, but yet you are interjecting your own thoughts and relaying them as fact when it simply isn't true. But it isn't just you doing it, it's many people who have no idea how research works saying what you say.

I.e. if you look at papers about keto and fat loss you have a breadth of data showing conflicting views; some for and some opposed because that's how research works. We know now that a Calorie deficit is king, but yet data still emerges discussing keto vs high carb that still doesn't equate Calories (i.e. the keto group eat fewer Calories vs carb group) despite this being a known confounder.

So when you have a bunch of papers discussing climate change, a lot of them will discuss whether human-induced CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change, and the data will simply reflect that "yes it does" in those 97% of papers, regardless of whether the researcher believes in climate change or not

But it still seems cherry picked to claim its 97% because your not including the majority who found it as inconclusive. And on top of it all, those 97% are the ones who took a position, the other 3% who also took a position. Your leaving out some 65% who were inconclusive in taking a position. So that 97% is a total farce. We can say maybe 35% took a position that are pro-c02 climate change and at least be honest about that. The claim is 97% of those "who stated a position" and agree which leaves you with 3% "who stated a position" and dont agree.....your missing the majority who are not stating anything which makes that 97% extremely deceptive.

 

[ax1]

The illegal “and legal” immigrants get treated better than our veterans in many cases for sure. Supposedly, Maine is now receiving up to 100,000 illegal immigrants per month, but likely more. They are often being placed in hotels throughout Southern Maine and receive other assistance as well. Many of these places are hotels the next town over from me in Freeport, Maine.

Then we have to hear on the local news all the time that our hotels are running out of room to place immigrants. As if we are supposed to beef up resources out of concern for that! It shouldn’t be permitted to happen in the first place, but we all know exactly why they are being flooded everywhere and who is paying for them. Meanwhile, we need to take care of our own people and homelessness problems. Ridiculousness!

That is just totally freaking insane and sad. Thanks for the morning, we actually had thought of going back this or next year but wow.

 

[Ricky10]

I wouldnt say I know Portland "quite well" but I did go there for a few days almost a full year to date ago and had a great time. I did see bums on the street and some beggers but nothing like the way you are explaining it. Not to the level of seeing tents with garbage all over the place or people bugging me at stop light, but it was only a few days I was there. I did have to keep my eyes open the one night I was out late in the city with bums and drunks.

Its really sad its going south, the place for sure looks like it had its day and still can have its potential, saw alot of beautiful things around the area. I hope it turns around soon.

So your confirming its much worse now that a year ago?

I didn’t get out to Portland all that much last year, but defintely less this year by choice. At this point, I just get too mortified by the people and things I see, so I have made a conscious decision to stay away. My sentiments are shared by many others in my social network.

I mean, its obviously not as bad as Philadelphia, Chicago, or NYC, but it’s a human cess pool and dump by any standards.

 

[ax1]

This is part of your problem right here

The more government meddles with everything the more our country goes to the trash year after year. And people want even more government, the people who always create the problems always come back back to solve all our problems wtf why society so naive???????

 

[ax1]

The more government meddles with everything the more our country goes to the trash year after year. And people want even more government, the people who always create the problems always come back back to solve all our problems wtf why society so naive???????

I really loved that waterside area and main strip, felt like I traveled in a time machine depending what direction I looked. That restaurant Anthony Bourdain visited, the Ferry Ride to the island (cheap cruise haha!) and the park I walked on down the road among other things. That place really has the potential to still be special but this sure sucks.

 

[Ricky10]

That is just totally freaking insane and sad. Thanks for the morning, we actually had thought of going back this or next year but wow.

I mean, its probably not that dramatically different in the Old Port from a year ago, in one of the fancier hotels. Of course I can’t be sure as I don’t go there either..haha! The city in general is skank central though, and looks the part. It’s just not something I am used to in Maine, and that used to be one of the nice reasons to live here, and for people to travel here.

If you are going to come to Maine, skip that entire area and look more up North for a peaceful camp on a lake. That’s where the magic is still alive.

 

[ax1]

I mean, its probably not that dramatically different in the Old Port from a year ago, in one of the fancier hotels. Of course I can’t be sure as I don’t go there either..haha! The city in general is skank central though, and looks the part. It’s just not something I am used to in Maine, and that used to be one of the nice reasons to live here, and for people to travel here.

If you are going to come to Maine, skip that entire area and look more up North for a peaceful camp on a lake. That’s where the magic is still alive.

We stayed at the double tree inn in South Portland as it was cheaper than the actual inner city. They were those two round hotels that used to be another famous hotel chain. I read that Elvis stayed there once.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[rob112]

This is part of your problem right here

Invalid Link Removed

 

[rob112]

Invalid Link Removed

First the Ashly diary thing about Joe being a pedo now Hunter names him that. There is some weird stuff coming out of this laptop on telegram.

Don’t get me wrong he obviously isn’t running the country but man he is the type of person that makes conspiracies like Q possible.

 

[WesleyInman]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Jiigzz]

But it still seems cherry picked to claim its 97% because your not including the majority who found it as inconclusive. And on top of it all, those 97% are the ones who took a position, the other 3% who also took a position. Your leaving out some 65% who were inconclusive in taking a position. So that 97% is a total farce. We can say maybe 35% took a position that are pro-c02 climate change and at least be honest about that. The claim is 97% of those "who stated a position" and agree which leaves you with 3% "who stated a position" and dont agree.....your missing the majority who are not stating anything which makes that 97% extremely deceptive.

I'm really not following. If 97% of papers are in support, then that includes inconclusive and against in the 3%.

Inconclusive is still a finding, so your logic literally makes no sense. I know you're trying to make the data somehow got your narrative but it just doesnt.

Read my post again - inconclusive is still a finding

 

[Jiigzz]

The more government meddles with everything the more our country goes to the trash year after year. And people want even more government, the people who always create the problems always come back back to solve all our problems wtf why society so naive???????

It's tough because corporations control your govt. The people that represent you have vested interests to screw you over.

What you need is for money to be removed from controlling your senators because every single one is paid off or has shares in industries that guide their policies. There's no way a senator should be able to draft legislation which sees Nvidia getting billions in bailouts while her husband is allowed to snatch up shares through insider trading.

It's all corrupt, and we're all pawns in a billionaire game.

But instead of being mad at these senators, you're mad at a migrant and the corps and senators laugh their way to the bank

 

[Ricky10]

If you aren’t passionate about having sex with yourself, don’t expect anyone else to be…

 

[Jiigzz]

Invalid Link Removed

First the Ashly diary thing about Joe being a pedo now Hunter names him that. There is some weird stuff coming out of this laptop on telegram.

Don’t get me wrong he obviously isn’t running the country but man he is the type of person that makes conspiracies like Q possible.

So someone names a person in their contact list Joe Biden, makes up a fake Convo and you eat it up? Damn lol people really are easy to fool.

In other news here's Jesus messaging his mates about what food to get

 

[Jiigzz]

Invalid Link Removed

First the Ashly diary thing about Joe being a pedo now Hunter names him that. There is some weird stuff coming out of this laptop on telegram.

Don’t get me wrong he obviously isn’t running the country but man he is the type of person that makes conspiracies like Q possible.

I knew it!

 

[Jiigzz]

Invalid Link Removed

Bro this is the most Photoshopped image of all time. How are you falling for this?!

Btw Hunter Biden in the Pentagon!

 

[Jiigzz]

Invalid Link Removed

First the Ashly diary thing about Joe being a pedo now Hunter names him that. There is some weird stuff coming out of this laptop on telegram.

Don’t get me wrong he obviously isn’t running the country but man he is the type of person that makes conspiracies like Q possible.

Check this out man, you'll never believe the stuff being leaked on Telegram

 

[Jiigzz]

So let’s just say that science is indecisive about the role of humans and our carbon footprint upon climate change. Because essentially, that is the plain truth.

Imagine a senile old man by the name of Joe Biden being placed in a position of great power as a puppet of globalists. Now imagine people believing in the political policies perpetuated by climate change that Biden is told to endorse.

Imagine people thinking they can change the trajectory of the planet while China and India are doing the exact opposite. Now imagine people who think that isn’t on purpose.

Imagine people not recognizing that climate change is a government’s intangible tool to manipulate people and pool money to benefit only themselves. I don’t think it takes a genius to interpret what is going on here.

Except it isn't indecisive at all. You saying it is doesn't make it so. I'm willing to bet you haven't read a single paper on the subject. I'd put money on it

 

[ax1]

I'm really not following. If 97% of papers are in support, then that includes inconclusive and against in the 3%.

Inconclusive is still a finding, so your logic literally makes no sense. I know you're trying to make the data somehow got your narrative but it just doesnt.

Read my post again - inconclusive is still a finding

Because it’s cherry picked out of papers that have taken a stance. Most are inconclusive so it’s not 97%. Therefore we don’t know if man made CO2 is contributing to the climate changing.

It’s simple math and inconclusive means we don’t know for sure, which is true. I just don’t get why that needs to be so complicated. There is no stand means there is no stance, inconclusive…may or may not. Could be other reasons and after all climate always had and will change.

 

[Jiigzz]

Because it’s cherry picked out of papers that have taken a stance. Most are inconclusive so it’s not 97%. Therefore we don’t know if man made CO2 is contributing to the climate changing.

It’s simple math and inconclusive means we don’t know for sure, which is true.

Did they specifically say "inconclusive" is not a stand for that stat?

And if we are not sure, can we dig into that?

Edit: ok, I found your 66% no stance stat. But you also need to consider that 98% of publishing climate scientists agree we are the cause. So even if the papers show no stance, the researchers in many cases do

 

[ax1]

It's tough because corporations control your govt. The people that represent you have vested interests to screw you over.

What you need is for money to be removed from controlling your senators because every single one is paid off or has shares in industries that guide their policies. There's no way a senator should be able to draft legislation which sees Nvidia getting billions in bailouts while her husband is allowed to snatch up shares through insider trading.

It's all corrupt, and we're all pawns in a billionaire game.

But instead of being mad at these senators, you're mad at a migrant and the corps and senators laugh their way to the bank

The lobby industry and corporate campaign contributions should be banned in my opinion, absolutely agree.

We we moved forward with real responsible change to a cleaner environment I wouldn’t be bitching so much. I just don’t really see them really doing anything but saying things while doing the opposite.

 

[Jiigzz]

Because it’s cherry picked out of papers that have taken a stance. Most are inconclusive so it’s not 97%. Therefore we don’t know if man made CO2 is contributing to the climate changing.

It’s simple math and inconclusive means we don’t know for sure, which is true. I just don’t get why that needs to be so complicated. There is no stand means there is no stance, inconclusive…may or may not. Could be other reasons and after all climate always had and will change.

Ok, it took me 2 seconds but here is their source bank: Invalid Link Removed

 

[Jiigzz]

And more: An analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching the search ‘global climate change’ found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW.

So no papers in a decade disagreed with the consensus position. None.

 

[Jiigzz]

I want companies to make alot of money and be incentivized to do good things, but where there are policies taking place that effect people's lives negatively and its at our expense that we have to question whats going on, especially when corrupt corporate paid governments are putting in policies that wont really have a much of an outcome to the problems they exaggerate over and over again to happen and missing out on potential meaningful opportunities to prepare for what may come, which is preparing to adapt for the future rather than spending all the time and energy on something questionable that more than likely wont have any impact on all at stopping it from happening.

Questioning "green energy" policies doesnt equate to taking the side of big oil.

You want a corporation focused on making lots of money to do good things? You do know why anti child labor laws exist, right? Because if they didn't you'd have sweat shops in the US.

Can you name 1 example of a company making lots of money that is actually doing good?

 

[Jiigzz]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Jiigzz]

Invalid Link Removed

Hunter Biden in Church

 

[Jiigzz]

Invalid Link Removed

Hunter Biden on a rollercoaster

 

[Jiigzz]

Invalid Link Removed

Hunter Biden about to go to Space

 

[ax1]

You want a corporation focused on making lots of money to do good things? You do know why anti child labor laws exist, right? Because if they didn't you'd have sweat shops in the US.

Can you name 1 example of a company making lots of money that is actually doing good?

You really think its hard to come up with a company doing good things and making lots of cash in the meantime?

Ok, it took me 2 seconds but here is their source bank: Invalid Link Removed

Ok, so you deserve this, this is really old research and out of date. First you pick on me for posting something from NASA from 2012, and now you post me something about research ending a full year earlier in 1991-2011, LMFAO how do people make this up????!!!!

Anyways I did look at that what stood out even from those cherry picked stash:

We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

So Im assuming global cc is Global CCS Institute? I dont trust them, if they can fake data and feed scientists misleading numbers they can cherry pick what research papers that are on their database, I bet if you start connecting all the dots it all leads money and no solutions. They already admit a bias on their about page "a vital technology to tackle climate change and deliver climate neutrality."

Unless I got the wrong group I couldnt find what CC is.

Either way nobody is going to do anything about stopping the climate from changing, if resources and research arent set up to adapt to the future alot of people will get into big trouble. On top of it all we need full declassification of of all the governments climate weapons, full research on blowing up the ozone layer with nukes, and other dark side experiments such as HAARP. I truly dont believe that most scientists really know what they need to look for.

 

[ax1]

Hunter Biden about to go to Space

LMFAO, they need to rig that suit with a tube he can sniff coke off from during his space walks!

 

[Jiigzz]

You really think its hard to come up with a company doing good things and making lots of cash in the meantime?


Ok, so you deserve this, this is really old research and out of date. First you pick on me for posting something from NASA from 2012, and now you post me something about research ending a full year earlier in 1991-2011, LMFAO how do people make this up????!!!!

Anyways I did look at that what stood out even from those cherry picked stash:

We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

So Im assuming global cc is Global CCS Institute? I dont trust them, if they can fake data and feed scientists misleading numbers they can cherry pick what research papers that are on their database, I bet if you start connecting all the dots it all leads money and no solutions. They already admit a bias on their about page "a vital technology to tackle climate change and deliver climate neutrality."

Unless I got the wrong group I couldnt find what CC is.

Either way nobody is going to do anything about stopping the climate from changing, if resources and research arent set up to adapt to the future alot of people will get into big trouble. On top of it all we need full declassification of of all the governments climate weapons, full research on blowing up the ozone layer with nukes, and other dark side experiments such as HAARP. I truly dont believe that most scientists really know what they need to look for.

Yeah, can you name one?

No no no, that is the source for the infographic you posted lol. That was literally their source for the 97% stat LOL

 

[Ricky10]

Except it isn't indecisive at all. You saying it is doesn't make it so. I'm willing to bet you haven't read a single paper on the subject. I'd put money on it

I don’t read papers, they are bad for the environment

However, I have read several articles online. The ones I come across more often than not state that we could bend over backwards in efforts to reduce our carbon footprint and it would only be capable of making an insignificant difference at best. Many say it is too late anyway and that the damage has been done. We will continue seeing those repercussions in the decades to come. Maybe I am coming across the wrong sources, or maybe they are the right ones….who knows? I don’t believe there are right or wrong ones.

What I do know is that we all should have been long dead by now based on prior extremist theories on global warming which has now morphed into climate change.

Regardless of what we choose to believe, the fact that China produces infinitely more greenhouse gases than anyone with plans to increase emissions through 2030 is preposterous. On top of that, China only pledged to be carbon neutral by 2060! Do people even realize that? If the situation is so dire that the damage is potentially already done, then why are we accepting of China having these absurdly conflicting timeframe of goals?

It’s kind of like:

A: It’s too late now to reverse the damage, but let’s make everything more challenging and more expensive for everyone except for China until the upcoming generations die anyway.

B: The impact of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is potentially greater than human contribution? Maybe major natural events that occurred years ago contribute to the climate change factors that we hear about today. Only to be blamed on human emissions?

C: Maybe it‘s mostly bullsh*t and more of a natural evolution. Potentially we would be better served to acknowledge that the climate is changing/evolving without a doom and gloom outlook as being the only trajectory. Maybe we should take on the approach of changing with the climate rather than making fruitless sacrificial efforts to attempt fighting it?

Ultimately, I believe the Earth is infinitely more powerful and resilient than its inhabitants. We simply aren’t going to make a significant impact on the trajectory of the Earth’s climate no matter how much money we throw around the world.

 

[Jiigzz]

I don’t read papers, they are bad for the environment

However, I have read several articles online. The ones I come across more often than not state that we could bend over backwards in efforts to reduce our carbon footprint and it would only be capable of making an insignificant difference at best. Many say it is too late anyway and that the damage has been done. We will continue seeing those repercussions in the decades to come. Maybe I am coming across the wrong sources, or maybe they are the right ones….who knows? I don’t believe there are right or wrong ones.

What I do know is that we all should have been long dead by now based on prior extremist theories on global warming which has now morphed into climate change.

Regardless of what we choose to believe, the fact that China produces infinitely more greenhouse gases than anyone with plans to increase emissions through 2030 is preposterous. On top of that, China only pledged to be carbon neutral by 2060! Do people even realize that? If the situation is so dire that the damage is potentially already done, then why are we accepting of China having these absurdly conflicting timeframe of goals?

It’s kind of like:

A: It’s too late now to reverse the damage, but let’s make everything more challenging and more expensive for everyone except for China until the upcoming generations die anyway.

B: The impact of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is potentially greater than human contribution? Maybe major natural events that occurred years ago contribute to the climate change factors that we hear about today. Only to be blamed on human emissions?

C: Maybe it‘s mostly bullsh*t and more of a natural evolution. Potentially we would be better served to acknowledge that the climate is changing/evolving without a doom and gloom outlook as being the only trajectory. Maybe we should take on the approach of changing with the climate rather than making fruitless sacrificial efforts to attempt fighting it?

Ultimately, I believe the Earth is infinitely more powerful and resilient than its inhabitants. We simply aren’t going to make a significant impact on the trajectory of the Earth’s climate no matter how much money we throw around the world.

Noone denies that China is a huge contributor, but what you're kinda saying is that "if we can't stop all crime, why do we bother stopping any crime"

You know the consequence of Nuclear war is Nuclear winter, so are you saying we actually aren't capable of that? So we shouldn't fear a man-made nuclear war because the earth will protect us?

Phew

 

[Ricky10]

LMFAO, they need to rig that suit with a tube he can sniff coke off from during his space walks!

I would need mine to have a zipper fly so I could still pleasure myself.

 

[ax1]

Yeah, can you name one?

No no no, that is the source for the infographic you posted lol. That was literally their source for the 97% stat LOL

McDonalds....up until they stopped making grilled chicken salad, so to hell with them, Ill go with Wendy's.

 

[ax1]

I don’t read papers, they are bad for the environment

He is posting on his PC which is powered by Fossil Fuels. He need to stop before the polar bears sink

 

[Jiigzz]

McDonalds....up until they stopped making grilled chicken salad, so to hell with them, Ill go with Wendy's.

Is that your final answer?

 

[ax1]

Noone denies that China is a huge contributor, but what you're kinda saying is that "if we can't stop all crime, why do we bother stopping any crime"

You know the consequence of Nuclear war is Nuclear winter, so are you saying we actually aren't capable of that? So we shouldn't fear a man-made nuclear war because the earth will protect us?

What is cell towers are the reason bees go extinct. Do you think people will care? Or just give up and let all of human life die? I say the latter.

Anyways that really means nothing to the topic of discussion. Now as I always say Im for sure all for reduction in pollution and moving on to next generation energy.

So the real question is, can humans stop Califonria from going under water (20 years delayed already lol!) or should we put our focus on energy on adapting to something we cannot stop?