You didn’t think Warmists would forget about using Independence Day as a way to push their cultish beliefs, did you?
Declare Energy Independence this July 4th!
Once again we are gearing up to celebrate the Fourth of July, which also means it’s time to declare your energy independence from fossil fuels! Improving energy efficiency in your home or going solar are just two ways to take control of your energy destiny while saving money.
Yes, you read that right. Becoming more energy efficient willsave you money! A few simple ideas include using fans instead of air conditioning, changing the light bulbs in your house to compact fluorescents or LEDs, and wrapping your water heater with an inexpensive insulation blanket.
There’s nothing wrong with saving money on energy. I certainly take steps to do this. But, of course, they have to link it to ‘climate change’. Why? Because their bat guano insane. They even have this little graphic
Then we get to hot dogs. No, really
Celebrate America by avoiding our national embarrassment: Hot dogs
Independence Day has historically been a time to remember our forbears, to consider the spectacular achievements this country has made, and to shove approximately 155 million hot dogs down our collective throats. But, this year, I’m begging you: Say no to the weenie, the worst meat of them all.
Reading on, you can see that how some hot dogs are made is pretty gross. Of course, ‘climate change’ rears its silly head
Most of the 9 billion hot dogs Americans purchase each year are produced in massive factory farms. In the U.S., about 97 percent of pork — some 65 million pigs — are reared and slaughtered in factory farms. While strides have been made to improve sanitation and animal welfare at these farms in recent years, the industry is known for cramped conditions, overuse of antibiotics, and inhumane conditions. Not to mention factory farming’s contribution to climate change: According to the FAO, animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions — more than all the emissions from transportation.
Having read Grist for years, that last bit is the most important. Greenhouse gases. Why won’t Warmists give up meat?
Here’s What Your Road Trip Means for the Climate https://t.co/I8xDAmR0Fm via @ClimateCentral @bobbymagill #RoadTrip #ClimateChange
— Resilience Kenya (@ResilienceKenya) July 1, 2016
Time wants you to take a quiz to see if you agree with other Americans
Americans may widely support fireworks, cookouts and days off work, but as we approach July 4, national opinion remains deeply divided over topics like gun control and climate change. This quiz will poll you on 10 questions from the Pew Research Center and tell you how strongly your opinions and habits align with the country at large.
Of course, all Americans are equally “American,†and few things are arguably more patriotic than holding unpopular or fringe opinions. This quiz will simply show you how close you are to the average citizen, based on nationally representative polls. The results may surprise you.
Of course, what they mean is if you’re against gun control and solving ‘climate change’, you’re fringe. Of course, on the question “Do you think climate change is a very serious problem?”, 55% said “no’. Oops. Decades of “spreading awareness” and they still lose.
But, hey, if Warmists want energy independence from fossil fuels, they should simply give them up. Easy peasy, right?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
from the linked article, while discussing the DOD and climate change:
So for the military it’s not just the leftist coup of all things American that is driving them to consider the impacts of global warming.
if Warmists want energy independence from fossil fuels, they should simply give them up
if Pro-Lifists want to end abortion, they should simply not have them
Why won’t Warmists give up meat?
Why won’t Conservatists give up federal subsidies?
Two died protecting civilians, another two protecting ammunition convoys, and thee were killed while sleeping. So what kind of a stupid point are you trying to make by joining unrelated statistics?
They don’t, moron.
They would if they could but you communists have made them so pervasive and insidious they’re everywhere. But it is your way of promoting your anti white racist policies and to maintain your anti black plantation.
Hoagie seems to think it is ok for the Red States to be on the Federal dole while the blue states support them
Hoagie you are so old now that abortion access has really ceased to be a personal issue choice
Hoagie seems to think it is ok for the Red States to be on the Federal dole while the blue states support them
Hoagie you are so old now that abortion access has really ceased to be a personal issue choice
And Teach in that poll where 55% said it was not a very serious problems how many rated it as a serious problem and how many rated it as not a problem? You aren’t trying to mislead us by with holding info are you?
Moron,
Your hatred has blunted your limited ability to reason.
The stat was that 1 in 8 were killed protecting fuel convoys. Put another way, 12.5% of Army deaths in Iraq during that time period. It’s not clear what you are talking about or where you got the “information”. What kind of stupid point are you making?
You claim that pro-lifists don’t obtain abortions! Great. Problem solved. Are you concerned about non-pro-lifists obtaining abortion? You, of course, missed the point. Climate realists HAVE reduced their fossil fuel consumption but obviously that doesn’t solve the problem. Do you think that since pro-lifists obtain slightly fewer abortions than pro-choicers that the problem of abortion is solved to your satisfaction? Do you think other should also not obtain abortions?
So you blame others for making you take subsidies, LOL. That’s the standard response from pseudoCons who want to keep their own federal subsidies but cut spending for things they don’t use. How noble.
I was going along with your “stupid point”, I thought. I thought you were intimating the futility of war and how many good men die in it, that’s all. They die doing all kinds of duty. But you wouldn’t know that would you?
They have? You mean Algore sold one of his mansions? How about Leonardo DiCapprio, did he sell off his and their private jets too? Liar. What you call climate realists are only those grifters smarter than you making money off the AGW fraud. Just a bunch of Bernie Madoffs of climate, that’s all.
Pro life people do not “obtain slightly fewer abortions” than pro deathers, they obtain none or they’re not pro life, idiot. Don’t you think fewer abortions is better? Don’t you believe instead of abortion people should use birth control? Or is killing ones progeny just like using a condom to a heartless leftist?
I blame a system that has woven the subsidies into our every day life. How do I avoid farm subsidies? Not eat? What’s a pseudoCon? Do you just make stuff up to avoid the truth about your vacant and immoral leftist philosophy?
And John, I never stated “Hoagie seems to think it is ok for the Red States to be on the Federal dole while the blue states support them”, did I? Why do you so blatantly lie about what I say? Very childish.
BTW, abortion is a moral issue as well as personal. You apparently don’t have a moral code or you would have known that. To idiots like you it’s a political issue. Just so you know I have had involvement with people who have had abortions, John. Love of life and caring about other people doesn’t end as you mature, it intensifies. You could use a little compassion yourself there kid. You need to brush up on your empathy, John or you’re going to have a miserable life.
So you want to keep others who want abortions from obtaining abortions? Why isn’t it enough that so-called “pro-lifers” don’t have abortions (they do obtain abortions, but that’s beside the point)?
So those that claim to be pro-lifers have never had an abortion or forced their mistresses to have an abortion? LOL. Liar.
You expect climate realists to reduce their use of fossil fuels while you do nothing. Yet you expect pro-choicers to eschew abortions because you don’t like abortion. Hypocrisy!
You want to cut government spending except for what they pay you. I bet you think Social Security and Medicare payments shouldn’t be slashed. How about food stamps?
For part of the time I was in Italy, we had rented a little BMW diesel automobile. I quickly discovered that the engine shut off whenever the vehicle was completely stopped via the brake, and would start up again when the brake was released. “That’s a good way to save fuel,” I thought, though I wasn’t certain that it would work as well with a gasoline engine.
And then it occurred to me: this little car was utilizing the starter many times each trip. In the traffic jam on highway S2 between Strove and Firenze, I’d guess that the engine cut off and restarted twenty times.
Now, in a normal vehicle, if your starter fails, at least you haven’t gotten on the road; in the car we had, if the starter failed, the odds would be that you were on the road, stopped at an intersection or stuck in traffic. How often, I wondered, do the starters need to be replaced in vehicles that are set up like that? And was this system one in which people’s lives were being traded for fuel efficiency?
Jeffrey wrote:
So you want to keep others who want own slaves from buying slaves? Why isn’t it enough that so-called “abolitionists†don’t own slaves?
So you want to keep others who want to own firearms from buying guns? Why isn’t it enough that so-called “gun controllers†don’t have guns?
And I can keep turning your argument around with things like forcing people who do not believe in homosexual “marriage” to still provide services for homosexual “weddings,” or integration, or just about any other subject you wish.
Dana,
Welcome home. Where in Italy?
You’re exactly right on abortion, slavery, gay marriage etc. Which was the point I was trying to make with global warming.
Started in Roma, then to Firenze, then four days in Tuscany, followed by Venezia, and finally Milano, all in two too-short weeks. Rome is too big, and while the old Roman sites are awesome, the city itself is just too busy. Italian drivers are absolutely crazy, everywhere.
Firenze — Florence — is large, but the ancient areas are compact and mostly walkable. San Marco, the island where we stayed in Venice, has neither cars nor bicycles, and everything has to be walkable, or boatable. Milan still has some amazing sights, but the city was bombed during World War II, and large swaths of it are now modern; it does have wider roads and a good subway system. Fortunately, the wall containing The Last Supper was heavily sandbagged, and remained standing even though the Basilica di Santa Maria delle Grazie itself was heavily damaged. Duomo di Milani, the Gothic church which is the Cathedral of Milan, was spared, as were many Renaissance-era churches in the city.
Right now, our plan is to win the lottery, and buy an old villa in Tuscany. 🙂
Jeffrey wrote:
I was pointing our that your argument was flawed, because you tried to attribute it to the right.
My position is simple: the state has the right to compel you to forego something only when it violates the rights of a specifiable individual: the state can ban slavery, because to engage in slavery is to violate the rights of the individual held in bondage. Abortion should be banned, because it is the murder of an individual person.
Global warming does not meet that test: it is, at best, an argument that people in general might be harmed, sometime in the future, if we do not make people poorer today. When it comes to homosexual “marriage,” I would not criminalize homosexuals living together or doing whatever they wished in their bedrooms, because that harms no one other than themselves, but forcing same-sex “marriage” on other people and institutions does not meet any test which requires that those other people and institutions have their own consciences violated. The gun control arguments are your absolute worst, because they attempt to curtail the rights of people who are not breaking any laws, who are not infringing on the rights of anybody else, because criminals don’t obey the laws.
It was not so very long ago that it was the left who were for the greatest individual freedom, absolute freedom of speech and religion and the like, possibly because the left were not in power. Today, with a leftist in the White House, it is the left who want to use the power of government to compel others to go along with their ideas.
So Jeffery do you remember our one sided debates last year about Farming and animals causing large quantities of co2 to be emitted into the atmosphere?
The Release of co2 into the air from dying and decaying plants and animal life>?
One of your own is pointing out for you…….the simple facts that Nature is a huge culprit in the emission of Co2. Always has been or how else would we have ups and downs over history of co2 readings from core samples?
But, but, but, Mr Thomas, don’t you understand? If we’d all become vegans, we wouldn’t have these huge herds of CO2 emitting animals, and if we’d just give up fossil fuels, Mother Gaia would recover completely!
The fact that we’d all be living in caves and dying before we turn forty, well, that’s a small price to pay to save Mother Gaia!
But the rapid and steady increase in CO2 over the past century has been shown to be primarily from burning fossil fuels, i.e., oil, gas and coal. The current run-up in CO2 is decidedly unnatural. You’re not arguing that the increased CO2 is natural, are you?
The natural carbon cycle stays in approximate balance. That produced by volcanoes, decaying plants, animal respiration and the combustion of plants (e.g., wildfires) is equaled by plant growth. Hence, in the natural carbon cycle, sources are balanced by sinks. Our addition of gigatons of CO2 has overwhelmed the sinks.
Do you now consider human agriculture to be a “natural” source of CO2 or in the case of ruminants, methane?
Atmospheric CO2 has varied between about 200 to 300 ppm over the past 1 million years. At the low end during the glacial periods and 300 ppm during the warmer interglacials. During our own 10,000 year Holocene period CO2 has stayed about 280 ppm until recently.
The glacial-interglacial transitions are thought to result in slight changes in the Earth’s rotation and axis. As you have pointed out the resulting loss of glaciation releases trapped CO2 that has a positive feedback effect on increasing temperatures.
We are in a stable interglacial period now but the rapid jump in CO2 from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm is not a natural event common to interglacials but results from our burning carbon sources.
— that little guy who exaggerates often posts another assumption that has not been proven
Ask Mikey.
But the rapid and steady increase in CO2 over the past century has been shown to be primarily from burning fossil fuels, i.e., oil, gas and coal. The current run-up in CO2 is decidedly unnatural. You’re not arguing that the increased CO2 is natural, are you?
Yes actually I am because this does not even take into account the fact that a warming planet is revealing more buried foilage that is aspirating its co2. Its how the thing works. Now I cannot deny that the burning of fossil fuels is causing increased levels of co2 into the atmosphere but the facts are quite simple:
Historically a runup of co2 has accompanied a warming planet….even when there were no people on the planet……The fact that the process might have been sped up slightly by mankind is more a process of …………are you ready for this………
POPULATION then it is industrial revolution.
To feed and cloth and power 7 billion people takes quite a bit of natural co2 byproducts.
This has always been my argument and its an argument made by the Sierra Club which is certainly a friend of the AGw crowd.
Atmospheric CO2 has varied between about 200 to 300 ppm over the past 1 million years. At the low end during the glacial periods and 300 ppm during the warmer interglacials. During our own 10,000 year Holocene period CO2 has stayed about 280 ppm until recently.
The AGW talking point has always been the last 1 million years. As a geologist I wont bore you with the details of why the last 1 million years have been steady in co2 but suffice it to say that there are simple explanations as to why the co2 has remained within a given range during this time frame.
But the last 1 million years are the only time reference in which they can get a stable co2 core sampling. They simply ignore longer periods in which core samples reveal much higher rates and the south seas coral beds which show tremendous amounts of co2 in the atmosphere as far back as 50-60 million years.
The Tidal Marks on the great island of Hawaii is a great indicator of just how high the ocean will rise given XXXX in Co2. During the great sauna period nearly 45 million years ago the earth was at 4000 PPM thats right FOUR THOUSAND PARTS…..this was an in depth study done by the Santa Barbara School of Oceanography which has since pulled their study and no trace of it can be found.
Additionally for the last 165 million years the pacific rim has been spewing molten lava co2 and other gases into the pacific ocean non stop and have contributed greatly to why the pacific ocean is considerably warmer then the Atlantic. Newly discovered superplumes under the South Arctic Ice shelf are revealing why the ice is struggling with its stability yet these reports are buried and turned to graffiti in a shredder.
See this is the types of crap the left does that total negates their position and turns deniers into conspiracy theorists. In depth reports where they would have by simple expedience made 1000’s of copies and distributed them for peer review suddenly turn up missing when congress subpoena’s them for their methodology.
There are many ways to skin a cat…the AGW crowd has learned them all.
The angry white puppy that understands nothing types:
You are more wrong than usual.
Actually, that the CO2 is increased by fossil fuel burning is certainly proven. The isotopic fingerprint proves it’s from coal, oil and gas. So unless coal, oil and gas are “evaporating” by an unknown mechanism the increase in CO2 we’ve seen over the past century comes from humans burning fossil fuels.
The last million years encompasses the evolution of humans and is a period of a relatively stable Earth, including the cyclic glacial and interglacial periods (much like our Holocene). By all means compare any and all periods you wish, just realize you’re talking about a very different Earth from the past million years or so. It makes perfect sense to look back to the beginning of the Quaternary Period, some 2+ million years.
Obviously there’s not been much continental drift during this time.
How old are the Hawaiian Islands? Are they 45 million years old?
Did you mean Antarctic Shelf? You typed Arctic Shelf. There are studies confirming volcanic activity in the Antarctic. Nothing hidden, nothing shredded.
Are you claiming that the government or some other nefarious body or bodies are disappearing entire scientific studies? No records at all? No raw data? No remembrances of the scientists? How did you hear about them? Did you see them and then they disappeared? Do you think the government hacked their computers, hard drives, CDs etc and erased all the data? Or is it a conspiracy amongst the scientists.
Studies have shown 5000 ppm CO2 over 100 million years ago. So what?
Can you support your claim that the Pacific Ocean is significantly warmer than the Atlantic Ocean?
— the little guy who exaggerates often cannot even interpret what he wrote and certainly doesn’t prove anything with his response
Ask Mikey.
Laim,
Really? People used to make thousands of paper copies of a manuscript for peer review?
Don’t blame others for your conspiracy theories and paranoia. It’s on you.
Who’s involved in the conspiracy to suppress the data? And if it’s suppressed, how do you know about it?
Curiouser and curiouser.
Really? People used to make thousands of paper copies of a manuscript for peer review? Yes. When your a government agency as in NOAA you make a thousand copies at least. Why? Because your are responsible to a 1000 people who would want to have access to your research to further the SCIENTIFIC PROOF YOU JUST ASTOUNDED THE WORLD WITH.
If your not a government agency and are working with/for or commissioned by a school of higher education or a think tank then yes you created perhaps 100’s of copies along with your methodology. The entire data set by Author and authors would then be assembled/collated and bound into a central location with multiple copies produced for the requests that are sure to follow the publishing of your PHD Thesis or a great work of scientific study that IS P R O O F! of AGW being without a question a scientific fact!!!
BUT OMG IM sorry we cant seem to find that information for you.
Its obvious to me that you are indeed a janitor as I suspected. If not you would know these things.
How many copies did you make of your PHD Thesis and to whom did you disperse your work too for peer review after defending your thesis to your board? Can you still pull up the entirity of the work at an instants notice? Did your University not pay to have it published along with the complete collection of methodology and supporting research?
@Jeffery
When My company is called in for a large project the first thing we do in an Environmental impact study. This is my area of Expertise. I then call upon dozens of experts in the field in the nation of origin who submit there research along with their methodology.
In addition I have a staff of between 11-16 depending on the complexity of the task at hand in which each of us are responsible for certain elements within the study….such as ground water retention, runoff and water table elevation, any existing wildlife that are in danger and the effects that this project would have on the surrounding community OR the environment along a transit route if its that type of study.
We then collect all this data and spend 15 hours a day 7 days a week compiling it into a report that is coherent and understandable. No ones work is expunged because it does not go along with the consensus……dissenting work is included in the final report along with they or their compiled research and methodology of said research.
All in all the Report will be between 250-900 pages long by the time my staff along with dozens of local and contracted experts in their fields have added their collective research and analysis into the report.
This is then bound into a Report and at least 1000 copies are produced along with the entire subset of data placed on at least 150 copies usually requireing 3-4 DVDs per copy. In addition the main research goes into the companies archived Hardware and is also archived into the STATE, NATION or CORPORATIONS own archives.
Pulling the report is as easy as having the clearance to do so or FOIA requests to either my company or the state, nation or corporation.
Hearings are then conducted and speeches given and questions asked and answered. Many times to the satisfaction of the attendees and many times not….Its not our call…..we simply prepare the report……
At least 50 percent of the time the proposed project never gets off the ground because of the Environmental impact study and or because of local opposition and the estimated cost then becomes prohibitive for the contracting party to undertake.
And thats how you do it….any other way and the entity doing the research are simply HIDING, COVERING UP or flat out lying when they say that data seems to be missing. We will get back to you when we have altered the data to corraborate our fictious story.
Really? People used to make thousands of paper copies of a manuscript for peer review?
Don’t blame others for your conspiracy theories and paranoia. It’s on you.
Who’s involved in the conspiracy to suppress the data? And if it’s suppressed, how do you know about it?
Curiouser and curiouser.
Thank you for Playing SAUL ALINSKY.
Laim,
I was a janitor for a year in college (I paid my own way except for a year on an athletic scholarship).
The reason I was being so inquisitive was to reveal how truly full of shit you are. Thousands of paper copies, LOL.
Someone is expunging complete, published reports? All sorts of reports falsifying AGW, but they’ve been expunged. How convenient for your argument.
Here’s a counterargument with just as much proof as you have. Exxon-Mobil has at least 225 high quality studies since 1974 proving that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. Their own research shows that the Earth warms 5.5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. 225 studies! And they have made a 1000 copies of each that they keep hermetically sealed at an undisclosed location. Prove me wrong please.
You’re nuts, as I suspected. Paranoid.
Laim,
One Lie at a Time, Please.
1. Proof that the Pacific Ocean is considerably warmer than the Atlantic Ocean, please.
If you can prove that, could you prove it’s from hidden undersea volcanoes?
2. Since the studies supporting 4000 ppm CO2 and superplumes melting Arctic ice were expunged, how do you know about them?
(N.B. – In the real world, there is little doubt that atmospheric CO2 levels were 4000 ppm and higher 10s of millions of years ago. Several studies have confirmed this and are available, not “shredded” or buried.)
(N.B. – In the real world, there is little doubt that atmospheric CO2 levels were 4000 ppm and higher 10s of millions of years ago. Several studies have confirmed this and are available, not “shredded†or buried.)
True but the Santa Barbara report appeared to prove that the Greenland Ice sheet only melted 40 percent of her ice during this 10,000 year time frame in which the PPM of CO2 was 4000ppm.
This sorta messed with the “WERE ALL GONNA DROWN MEME.”
One Lie at a Time, Please.
I finally get it Jeffery….Your one of those guys who grab the microphone and begin shouting at an Impact hearing claiming were all liars and deceiving the public.
I finally understand you now Jeffery. Saul Alinsky taught you well.
1. Proof that the Pacific Ocean is considerably warmer than the Atlantic Ocean, please.
Let me answer this with a basic understanding of science….OH gawd I dont believe Im wasting my time with a Saul Alinsky tactician.
1. The Pacific Ocean is significantly wider near the equator than the Atlantic.
2. The majority of ocean heating and heat export takes place in the equatorial regions, and it is important to note that waters there are not stationary.
More importantly pay attention here.
3. The Atlantic is nearly 6,500 km wide at the equator, while the Pacific is nearly 18,000 km wide there. This means that in the Atlantic, waters undergo their greatest heating for around 45 days, while in the Pacific they undergo this heating for around 125 days before being diverted north and south.
There proven facts….not made up….Even oceanographers will agree with me on this.
2. Since the studies supporting 4000 ppm CO2 and superplumes melting Arctic ice were expunged, how do you know about them?
Because I read the report. It used to be published on the internet and at Santa Barbara’s own website.
If I did not have answers I would not be talking to you but Im a patient man Jeffery with no agenda.
I have repeated this 10k times in my life and will continue to do so……..I do not care WHO makes the money from energy…..
I only care that the planet has energy because without it….this world will fall into world wide anarchy within weeks.
Don’t believe me…..just look at what happened in the NORTH EAST when the lights went out for a night.
I do not have an agenda….I only deal with reality…the reality is that we power the world on fossil fuels…..
I encourage you to build a billion solar and wind devices……Of course the world will have to give up cell phones and computers but thats a subject for a different debate because the rare earths used in computers and cell phones would be depleted building your solar panels and then you would not be able to replace them when they quit working…
but oh well…..Kum Bye Ahh….Mankinds life on this planet is limited…..A superFlu will end all your Worries jeffery. Then you can worry about all those people trying to break into your mansion because your a HAVE and they are a HAVE NOT.