Carbon taxes work.

[Dave]

Just now, revkevsdi said:

Obviously.  Living in 100 grand houses takes some major scratch. 

Paid less then 30.

Pocketed all the money i sold my house for in Ontario....didnt have to share it with a brother either.

[revkevsdi]

3 minutes ago, DAVE said:

Paid less then 30.

Pocketed all the money i sold my house for in Ontario....didnt have to share it with a brother either.

That's nice. If I sold my million dollar plus home, I wouldn't have to share any of it with a brother.  Not sure many people would.

But I'm not surprised that another stupid statement came from Dumb Dave.  

Tell you one thing. If I sold, I sure as fuck wouldn't move to some 30 grand dive. 

You must have really low standards to spend 6 months a year in such a shithole. 

[Dave]

Just now, revkevsdi said:

That's nice. If I sold my million dollar plus home, I wouldn't have to share any of it with a brother.  Not sure many people would.

But I'm not surprised that another stupid statement came from Dumb Dave.  

Tell you one thing. If I sold, I sure as fuck wouldn't move to some 30 grand dive. 

You must have really low standards to spend 6 months a year in such a shithole. 

Im happy.

Next.

[revkevsdi]

4 minutes ago, DAVE said:

Im happy.

Next.

Most Down Syndrome people are. 

[Dave]

5 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Most Down Syndrome people are. 

But youre not happy...what gives?

[XCR1250]

CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING

Read to the end, an eye opener:

 

          
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarce and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,

            according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from
the Consulate at Bergen Norway.


             Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
  
             temperatures in the Arctic zone.

             Exploration expeditions report that hardly any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.


             Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream waters are very warm.          

             Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while many glaciers have

             disappeared entirely.


             Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have

             never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


             Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice meltthe sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.
            

                 ************* ****************************** ****************************** ****************************** ****************************** *********************

             I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 , as reported by the AP and published

             in The Washington Post 93 years ago.


             This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

 

****************************** ****************************** ****************************** ****************************** ****************************** ****

             Yet further evidence: The high tides and coastal flooding caused by Hawaii’s
King Tide occur regularly every Spring.

 

             The only difference in 2019: It’s Trump’s fault.

 

 

[snopro31]

Rev how much have you donated to fight the climate change battle?

[Dave]

1 minute ago, snopro31 said:

Rev how much have you donated to fight the climate change battle?

[snopro31]

5 minutes ago, DAVE said:

I have yet to get an answer from anyone.

 

[revkevsdi]

1 hour ago, XCR1250 said:

CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING

Read to the end, an eye opener:

 

          
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarce and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,

            according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from
the Consulate at Bergen Norway.


             Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
  
             temperatures in the Arctic zone.

             Exploration expeditions report that hardly any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.


             Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream waters are very warm.          

             Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while many glaciers have

             disappeared entirely.


             Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have

             never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


             Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice meltthe sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.
            

                 ************* ****************************** ****************************** ****************************** ****************************** *********************

             I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 , as reported by the AP and published

             in The Washington Post 93 years ago.


             This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

 

****************************** ****************************** ****************************** ****************************** ****************************** ****

             Yet further evidence: The high tides and coastal flooding caused by Hawaii’s
King Tide occur regularly every Spring.

 

             The only difference in 2019: It’s Trump’s fault.

 

 

Did you intentionally leave this part out?

As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn’t substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.

That was 1922 so they could be excused for not knowing the difference between weather and climate. 

What’s your excuse?

check back there is a link from NASA for kids. 

[snopro31]

4 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Did you intentionally leave this part out?

As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn’t substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.

That was 1922 so they could be excused for not knowing the difference between weather and climate. 

What’s your excuse?

check back there is a link from NASA for kids. 

How much have you donated to fight climate change?

youre the hero the world needs!  

[XCR1250]

Where did that ice age go again??

[revkevsdi]

4 hours ago, snopro31 said:

How much have you donated to fight climate change?

youre the hero the world needs!  

Micro vs macro. 

Do you understand why that is a stupid question?  

It rates up there with idiots who say. “Oh you think refugees should be allowed in the country?  How many you got living in your house?

How much time did you spend in Iraq and Afghanistan?  You supported the war didn’t you? You going to sign up to attack VeneZuala?

[revkevsdi]

22 minutes ago, XCR1250 said:

Where did that ice age go again??

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php.   

Let me know if you have anymore questions. 

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour ago, revkevsdi said:

Micro vs macro. 

Do you understand why that is a stupid question?  

It rates up there with idiots who say. “Oh you think refugees should be allowed in the country?  How many you got living in your house?

How much time did you spend in Iraq and Afghanistan?  You supported the war didn’t you? You going to sign up to attack VeneZuala?

Micro?  Fuck that beta, your're a long ways from pico yet.  Keep trying.

[XCR1250]

54 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php.   

Let me know if you have anymore questions. 

You answered your own question, the Earth's temps. has always changed hot and cold, not man's doing but 100% natural changes, always will change, same as before.

[irv]

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

"The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."

Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

In this case, it didn't warrant any news coverage.

In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly."

Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump's face into a glacier to prove climate change "is happening."

In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades.

That's not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax. Two years out of hundreds or thousands doesn't necessarily mean anything. And there could be a reasonable explanation. But the drop in temperatures at least merits a "Hey, what's going on here?" story.

What's more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven't seen any stories pinning Hawaii's recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won't be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.)

We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.

Hiding The Evidence

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsvilleshowing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets.

Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden "deniers" and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.

But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.

Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. "At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported."

He goes on: "Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all."

Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they're doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk.

[irv]

U.N.'s Global Warming Fraudsters Are More Interested In Climate Cash Than Climate Change

Climate Deceit: Just when you think the climate change lunacy couldn't get any worse, the U.N.'s climate-crats up the ante. Meeting in Bonn, Germany, for yet another unneeded climate conference, attendees are now demanding $300 billion a year more to help less-developed nations cope with anticipated climatic warming. Are they kidding?

By the way, that $300 billion is in addition to the $100 billion that the world's governments have already promised to deliver under the Paris Climate Agreement. So now they're asking for a total of $400 billion a year in climate welfare for the developing world. No sane government would sign on to such a scam. Which of course means that most of them probably will.

There's really no end to this insanity. To make it worse, the proposal before the Bonn climate talks calls for the added taxpayer-funded cash to be doled out not by the governments themselves, or even the U.N. No, the money will be channeled through existing nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs.

In other words, left-wing green groups around the world will become the conduits for billions of dollars in money handed out to ethically challenged, nondemocratic governments. Think there might be a tiny temptation for corruption there?

As one green group leader put it, NGOs, not the U.N., need to dole out all this money because "It's so tedious to set up an institution and get it going, and make sure the money reaches the intended people."

Such a scheme will no doubt lead to massive looting and fraud by green groups, which will suddenly hire massive new staffs to handle their new duties, and pay for it all through enormous "handling fees," "service charges," and other nontransparent charges paid for by American taxpayers. Basically, it's a financial model designed to create global fraud.

All of this is based, mind you, on the purely hypothetical future threat that global warming supposedly poses to low-income nations.

"What stands out most clearly is that there isn't currently enough funding to even begin thinking about financing loss and damage, with available climate, development, risk reduction and disaster recovery financing all falling short by an order of magnitude," said a statement by "researchers" at Berlin's Heinrich Boll Foundation.

Of course, apart from its inherent fraudulence, this is all ridiculously wasteful of scarce resources, in particular, the developed world's financial capital.

Why wasteful? Well, let's start with the most obvious and most important point of all: For 19 years, there has been no significant warming in the atmosphere. None. Atmospheric temperature readings — the most comprehensive and accurate temperature data available — taken by satellite show this clearly.

But what about all those highly complex mathematical climate models that show, given the rising amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, that future temperatures will soar — requiring the spending of that $400 billion a year just so poor nations can survive the rising temperatures?

In point of fact, the climate models used by the U.N. to "predict" the future are all but useless. The U.N. has in the past used more than 70 climate models as the basis of its predictions that the climate will get much warmer in the future. The only problem is, none of those models can accurately predict past climate, much less the future.

As the U.N. itself admirably admitted back in 2007: "In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

And yet, we're supposed to be laying out not just hundreds of billions, but trillions of dollars every year to prepare for the possibility of global warming and, if possible, forestall it.

Indeed, we already spend some $1.5 trillion globally on mitigating global warming, according to Climate Change Business Journal. Put in perspective, that's roughly equivalent to all online retail sales globally.

And yet, as climate skeptic and statistician Bjorn Lomborg has noted, even if you take the models seriously and if every nation on earth lived up to its commitments to slash output of CO2 and all other greenhouse gases by 2030, the net reduction in predicted temperature would be just 0.048 degrees Celsius — about 1/20th of a degree. That is a rounding error. Nothing, really.

Despite all this, the U.N. and its enviro-socialist allies would have all of the world's developed economies march lockstep off the cliff of global warming, if they could. They've even suggested making climate-change denial a crime. That's extremism of the worst sort, and intolerable for a free nation to support.

We have suggested before, and we will repeat now, what the only rational response to such financial and scientific lunacy should be: to cease all cooperation with the U.N. on its global warming schemes — which amount to little more than a massive effort to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations, and to put all free people directly under the controlling thumbs of global bureaucrats.

That means we should pull out of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump promised to do as a candidate, but has yet to do as president. It's a costly fraud perpetrated on the America people by morally preening global socialists. It's time to make the world great again.

[revkevsdi]

9 hours ago, XCR1250 said:

You answered your own question, the Earth's temps. has always changed hot and cold, not man's doing but 100% natural changes, always will change, same as before.

Try reading that link again. 

 

[revkevsdi]

8 hours ago, irv said:

U.N.'s Global Warming Fraudsters Are More Interested In Climate Cash Than Climate Change

Climate Deceit: Just when you think the climate change lunacy couldn't get any worse, the U.N.'s climate-crats up the ante. Meeting in Bonn, Germany, for yet another unneeded climate conference, attendees are now demanding $300 billion a year more to help less-developed nations cope with anticipated climatic warming. Are they kidding?

By the way, that $300 billion is in addition to the $100 billion that the world's governments have already promised to deliver under the Paris Climate Agreement. So now they're asking for a total of $400 billion a year in climate welfare for the developing world. No sane government would sign on to such a scam. Which of course means that most of them probably will.

There's really no end to this insanity. To make it worse, the proposal before the Bonn climate talks calls for the added taxpayer-funded cash to be doled out not by the governments themselves, or even the U.N. No, the money will be channeled through existing nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs.

In other words, left-wing green groups around the world will become the conduits for billions of dollars in money handed out to ethically challenged, nondemocratic governments. Think there might be a tiny temptation for corruption there?

As one green group leader put it, NGOs, not the U.N., need to dole out all this money because "It's so tedious to set up an institution and get it going, and make sure the money reaches the intended people."

Such a scheme will no doubt lead to massive looting and fraud by green groups, which will suddenly hire massive new staffs to handle their new duties, and pay for it all through enormous "handling fees," "service charges," and other nontransparent charges paid for by American taxpayers. Basically, it's a financial model designed to create global fraud.

All of this is based, mind you, on the purely hypothetical future threat that global warming supposedly poses to low-income nations.

"What stands out most clearly is that there isn't currently enough funding to even begin thinking about financing loss and damage, with available climate, development, risk reduction and disaster recovery financing all falling short by an order of magnitude," said a statement by "researchers" at Berlin's Heinrich Boll Foundation.

Of course, apart from its inherent fraudulence, this is all ridiculously wasteful of scarce resources, in particular, the developed world's financial capital.

Why wasteful? Well, let's start with the most obvious and most important point of all: For 19 years, there has been no significant warming in the atmosphere. None. Atmospheric temperature readings — the most comprehensive and accurate temperature data available — taken by satellite show this clearly.

But what about all those highly complex mathematical climate models that show, given the rising amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, that future temperatures will soar — requiring the spending of that $400 billion a year just so poor nations can survive the rising temperatures?

In point of fact, the climate models used by the U.N. to "predict" the future are all but useless. The U.N. has in the past used more than 70 climate models as the basis of its predictions that the climate will get much warmer in the future. The only problem is, none of those models can accurately predict past climate, much less the future.

As the U.N. itself admirably admitted back in 2007: "In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

And yet, we're supposed to be laying out not just hundreds of billions, but trillions of dollars every year to prepare for the possibility of global warming and, if possible, forestall it.

Indeed, we already spend some $1.5 trillion globally on mitigating global warming, according to Climate Change Business Journal. Put in perspective, that's roughly equivalent to all online retail sales globally.

And yet, as climate skeptic and statistician Bjorn Lomborg has noted, even if you take the models seriously and if every nation on earth lived up to its commitments to slash output of CO2 and all other greenhouse gases by 2030, the net reduction in predicted temperature would be just 0.048 degrees Celsius — about 1/20th of a degree. That is a rounding error. Nothing, really.

Despite all this, the U.N. and its enviro-socialist allies would have all of the world's developed economies march lockstep off the cliff of global warming, if they could. They've even suggested making climate-change denial a crime. That's extremism of the worst sort, and intolerable for a free nation to support.

We have suggested before, and we will repeat now, what the only rational response to such financial and scientific lunacy should be: to cease all cooperation with the U.N. on its global warming schemes — which amount to little more than a massive effort to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations, and to put all free people directly under the controlling thumbs of global bureaucrats.

That means we should pull out of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump promised to do as a candidate, but has yet to do as president. It's a costly fraud perpetrated on the America people by morally preening global socialists. It's time to make the world great again.

Your  info was debunked. Check politifact. It’s one of the Trumpsters Here used it. Hopefully you accept it as well. https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/nov/28/danielle-pletka/recent-cold-spells-irrelevant-climate-change-big-p/

 

[XCR1250]

Biggest scam in the history of man, designed to make climate alarmists rich..

[revkevsdi]

41 minutes ago, XCR1250 said:

Biggest scam in the history of man, designed to make climate alarmists rich..

Since you ignored, misread or didn’t understand the NASA link, let’s go with your narrative  

So how much money does a NASA scientist make vs someone paid by oil companies to deny climate change? You just made that statement so you must have some info at your disposal. 

[Dave]

30 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Since you ignored, misread or didn’t understand the NASA link, let’s go with your narrative  

So how much money does a NASA scientist make vs someone paid by oil companies to deny climate change? You just made that statement so you must have some info at your disposal. 

What are you doing to help with climate change?

[irv]

1 hour ago, revkevsdi said:

Your  info was debunked. Check politifact. It’s one of the Trumpsters Here used it. Hopefully you accept it as well. https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/nov/28/danielle-pletka/recent-cold-spells-irrelevant-climate-change-big-p/

 

Recent cold spells irrelevant to climate change big picture

So we are just suppose to brush off recent cooling trends but panic with some recent warming trends? 

[Dave]

Just now, irv said:

Recent cold spells irrelevant to climate change big picture

So we are just suppose to brush off recent cooling trends but panic with some recent warming trends? 

Were all gonna die remember!!!!