UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Easy, Peasy right?

I have lived here for 20 years...and have yet to see a glacier.

I have never denied climate change.

A tax with higher rates on the worst offenders. Higher taxes on coal power than nat gas, etc. The market would sort things out.

But, nobody is serious enough to push it.

For far too many the issue is justification for passing a bill that will fundamentally “transform” the country.

And then there is China, which is both the greatest polluter and already “transformed.”


Link: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092915/5-countries-produce-most-carbon-dioxide-co2.asp

(no message)

There always has been. Nothing new

we've never seen a CO2 atmospheric concentration of 412ppm...and no one argues that it isn't a greenhouse gas.

Our ecosystem can't process the added CO2 quickly enough...so it keeps rising...along with global temperatures...so long as we continue to burn our "Finite" reserves of fossil fuels.

CO2 levels have been this high before…actually higher, before man existed.

Link: https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

then...to reproduce that environment would have dramatic effects on our current lives...plus the changes there happened over tens of millions of years...not centuries or decades...IMO this return to the pre-historic regime would be catastrophic and chaotic for humankind...the data is not ambiguous...we're looking at a truly 'sudden step change' in our environment...not something to be trifled with...especially when there are actions we can take to significantly minimize it.

(no message)

Just a coincidence that NYC just broke the record for most rainfall within an hour. The previous record was set two weeks earlier.

(no message)

BTW, you are allowed to acknowledge you were wrong in denying the reality of global warming and climate change.

(no message)

And the results of global warming are readily apparent on Earth I. See last week. See California. See the data.

See the attached link summarizing recent United Nations report on global warming.


Link: For Adults

(no message)

Are their proposals the best bang for the buck initiatives?

Probably not. But let Congress first agree that the issue is a huge urgent problem. Then, let Congress vet the proposals (to include expanding nuke power) and funding, pass the legislation, and the set the example for the rest of the world.

But, right now, as evidenced by many posters, we cannot even agree that fossil fuels (i.e. human caused global warming) is the culprit.

Too much disinformation, propagated by the same folks who propagate election fraud and COVID myths, is interfering with what should be an undisputed urgent issue.

Global warming and cliamte change is not political. Most of the climate scientists are not American scientists.


Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/16/how-senate-democrats-3point5-trillion-budget-tackles-climate-change.html

Why did Hussein Osama buy Martha's Vineyard property? Why does the leftist "solution" leave out nuclear but include communism?

Tick-tock...

I've linked and it might lower your BP on the nuclear issue...that being said, I've witnessed first-hand, since 1974, the anti-nuke stances taken by those who have supported Bernie and AOC, so I'm 'cautiously' optimistic about Biden's support for nuclear power...nonetheless, it's up to him and his admin to "walk the talk"...and do it soon...if we are to get where we need to be.

That other stuff you brought in.............Wow!...just Wow!...


Link: https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/joe-biden-nuclear-energy-infrastructure/

Your cowardly lack of response is again noted.

6th graders start name calling when they lose.

Maybe try yoga?

Or learn to acknowledge a losing argument?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

If they had, we'd see massive spending bills with significant investment in Gen-IV nuclear power. But we don't - if anything, the opposite is happening. Nuclear plants are being closed and gas pipelines are being shut down.

however...as the attached article relates...it isn't just the far left that has hindered NP...we all need to get educated and push for a solid, bi-partisan Energy Policy that produces a dramatic reduction (not elimination) of fossil fuels, and intelligent developments/applications of alternatives (Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Hydro...and perhaps some others).

This is an issue that I care deeply about...I have engaged with my Congressman and he's put me in contact with his D.C. staff member responsible for energy policy...I encourage you and any other readers to do the same...it's very important for politicians to feel the "pulse" of the electorate...it can be daunting, frustrating and time-consuming...but it also can have an effect...especially when organized (hold that thought).


Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/08/17/what-will-a-biden-harris-administration-do-for-nuclear-energy/?sh=6be47c51dd9c

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

You're clearly making a pathetic attempt at a "gotcha" here, as if noting Conner's idiocy and supporting Nuclear investment are mutually exclusive.

Nice try, though.

sentences that express your opinion on 'Climate Change' and the relative roles of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power in our nation's energy policy?

For me, it's...

A) 'Climate Change' is the rapid...and essentially 'unprecedented'...rise in global atmospheric temperature that is causing dramatic changes in our environment/ecosystem...to the degree that it is 'game changing' and extremely difficult to deal with.

B) The burning of Fossil Fuels has given us all a much better life...however, a) it is a 'Finite Resource' that has unique and valuable uses (e.g. Plastics)....takes tens of millions of years to create...and shouldn't be incinerated in an instant...and b) the burning of FFs is causing dramatic climatic changes that will be very difficult to adapt to...thus producing a severe threat to our current societies. Nuclear Power offers a proven solution toward dramatic reductions in CO2 atmospheric levels, while maintaining our standards of living, economies, etc.

Agree on nuclear power.

Please link GOP legislation to address climate change, particularly during the Trump Administration.

The Norwegian girl that you mock, gets it.


Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=126584

Add to that the fact that Osama bought Martha's Vineyard, and it's clear scum like you doesn't deem it catastrophic.

Also, any thoughts on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Girl traveling globally on private jets?

The Chernobyl series didn’t help. But it was great.

Nuclear power could solve the whole problem. Since we won’t do it, then geo-engineering is our only hope.

It’s too easy to win elections by whipping up fear and blaming the other side and offering to save everyone.

Forget which side of the CO2 debate anyone's on, fossil fuels won't last forever. Start powering the grid with nuclear, and you completely change the game there, not to mention becoming energy-independent.

(no message)

(no message)

There'd be no need to worry about electric cars.

(no message)

There is a pipeline proposed across Iowa and other Midwestern states to take CO2 from ethanol plants and store it underground in the Dakota's. This seems like a great plan to me that will have incredible benefits on the global scale.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Link: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2021/06/03/companies-planning-carbon-capture-pipelines-across-iowa-midwest-navigator-co-2-ventures-summit/7511185002/

If they really thought Climate Change was an existential threat, they would be making sure that we weren't wasting money on much less threatening issues. They would want our country to remain financially viable to handle the global threat. But, they don't do that.

If they really cared about the future generations, they wouldn't be stealing money from future generations to have handouts to the current generation.

(no message)

When discussing mere climate change (lowercase), which meant that "the climate was changing, and warming since the last ice age," you would say science supports it.

Then, when discussing Climate Change (uppercase), which meant that "the climate was changing due primarily to human behavior in such a way that there was imminent danger requiring immediate and very costly liberal spending programs," you also pretended that science supported it.

So, when someone denied Climate Change, you would attack them for denying climate change, which was a great political tactic but was disingenuous. Also, I think it succeeded in confusing people on both sides. If you had used consistent terminology, the debate would have been clearer. But, your goal was not clear debate.

Maybe it would work if you called for the deaths of climate change deniers while pretending to love your fellow man? You seem to think that works in other contexts.

(no message)

warming trends...coincidently, global CO2 levels and temperatures have changed as well. There are theories as to why those fluctuations have occurred (e.g. Milankovich Cycles...Google it), but what's clear in all is this...
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas
>CO2 levels...for the last several hundred thousand years...have not exceeded 300ppm,
>Our ecosystem has established a natural input/output flow (with obvious variations) during that time...involving the biosphere, oceans and atmosphere
>Starting with the dawning of the modern industrial age...humankind has continually accelerated the injection of CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere
>It takes about 30-50 years to 'remove' ~50% of the CO2 from the atmosphere through natural means...the remainder can take 200-500 years...
>Our current CO2 concentration level stands at 412ppm...and it has been rising steadily.

Bottom line...CO2 is being steadily added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels, in excess of our ecosystem's ability to process it out of the atmosphere...so the level increases and temperatures rise (Google "Roy Spencer"..."UAH/RSS global temperature data"...to get satellite data that is not disputed)...these changes are exceptionally rapid when compared with the rates of the last several hundred thousand years, and portend serious consequences (e.g. Hurricanes 'feed' off warm waters...warmer waters beget more and larger hurricanes...etc.).

This is one of those issues that affects everyone, regardless of party...we really need to come together (at least to the level of a "critical mass" (pun intended) on a solution (set), so try to minimize the political content.

(no message)

as you might expect...oh, and just in case you were wondering...no "Sharpies" were used ;-).

Link: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

… I fear that disinformation will continue to be a major obstacle in getting Americans and The World to get an urgent problem.

Unless we want to live like Mad Max, …. vote for candidates who put climate change and as their #1 priority.

(no message)

Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=616236

In that post, I acknowledged there has been warming since the last ice age.

If you do actually find a post in which I "deny climate change," I assure you I was denying the modern data which we have since found was being faked, but which you supported because it helped you satisfy your political goals.

Your position (like many here) is that “shit happens” on Planet Earth, none of which is caused by fossils fuels (humans), and therefore, we should do nothing.

“It’s just leftist politics. …. Looking for an excuse to throw taxpayer dollars at a nuthinburger”

Yes Ned, that makes you a crackpot, willfully blind to the data.

(no message)

There is a constant drumbeat of crises from the left requiring immediate and massive govt. intervention and spending. The boy cries wolf all the time.

Now we are all required to just take our castor oil and change our entire way of life with no complaints at massive costs over a snapshot of climate data from a little more than 100 years. If COVID has taught us anything it’s that we don’t know everything about the natural world.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Quite honestly, I've always been most concerned about consuming our precious and finite fossil fuel resources in a relative instant, when there are other means available to 'do the job'...e.g. power our industries and most of our transportation needs, thus saving those FFs for unique benefits, like all the myriad uses of plastics and synthetics. In the early days of "Climate Change", I was a bit skeptical of the claims, but as I've delved further into the issue, it is absolutely compelling.

Take your time (but not too much) to absorb what's being said...and the critical data that's being gathered (bookmark the CO2 and global temperature data websites I've linked)...then, hopefully, you'll join in by voting for leaders who are committed to taking action to confront this societal challenge.

BTW, I don't view 'Fossil Fuels' as "Demons"...mankind has used them very well to advance it's growth and capabilities...it's a much better world we live in, thanks to that entire industry...but it won't last forever, and it has a cost...so, we must not sit on our hands...we must do what needs to be done to continue the advances we've made thus far. "Energy" is at the root of our entire civilization...we need to solve this problem...it's #1 in my mind.


Link: https://www.co2levels.org

(no message)

Instance they are finding villages under 60 feet of ice from thousands of years ago in Greenland. And by the way why did they call it GREENLAND?

How many cars and factories caused that? Also and more importantly we can make Americans suffer with higher energy prices and destroy our economy to make us feel good while China, India, African and Asian countries, and Russia don’t do a fucking thing.

What have you accomplished?

it's from the burning of fossil fuels by humankind.

(no message)

(no message)

If there is an issue, blame cows and China and tell the Climate warrior elites to stop using private jets, cooling and heating their mansions, and driving everywhere in gas guzzling limos.

we can shift our electricity generation from coal and gas to nuclear, wind and solar...it's a process, and a complicated one at that. We need to 'keep the plane flying' as we 'redesign it' ;-)

(no message)