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

(no message)

(no message)

Your side made the claim. Give us the rules of the game. And what science gave us 1 in 3? Simple non threatening questions.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Take a ci moment - think about it.

Where did this guy get these numbers? You chose to chime in so I'm asking you what is the dividing line between a victim of climate change and just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Just like those stranded by Biden in Afghanistan. This is your side claiming this. I'm asking you for an interpretation. Don't you know the science behind your side's talking points?

was your post on "thunderboomer".

Your rage is all your own, or should I say, you and your moron pals.

You're all so difficult. All in rage.

To borrow a phrase - Lighten up Francis.

So, by the way the left is responding to this, they all don't even know what the hell Joe is talking about. It's OK. Just having some fun. Don't know if the word "thunderboomer" threw you, but it's defined as a large thunderstorm that even Chicago TV weather people will throw around every once in a while. If the left can mangle and change traditional words and meanings, I thought I would join the circus.

(no message)

That's jim in a nutshell. An expert on well just about everything - law, medicine, international relations, climate...but when pressed he'll run and hide. We refer to it as "self-banning". When cornered he will call you stupid and then disappear. Then reappear with a link YouTube link to obscure band or foreign movie. A transparent sleight of hand to take the heat off the fact he's clueless about the topic. It's sort of sad and pathetic if you think about it. The reality he's terribly unaccomplished and quite insecure about it.

So waiting for him to answer is a waste of your time. Go teach your dog Latin.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(Actually just tossing it out 'cause it's my favorite weather term.)

Do you wish to join the other Board crackpots who deny the reality of dangerously increasing greenhouse gases (caused by human activity) warming our planet and causing extreme climate events?

These are many of the same crackpots who believe Trump won the 2020 election.


Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=30798

Also, considering greenhouse gas emissions mostly come from Asia. So what do you propose to force Asian countries to stop emitting so much?

(no message)

You get the posts from conner that clearly point the finger at Conservatives for not taking climate change nearly as seriously as the left, filled with lots of references to "Trumpists."

You then ask the question: What is the left doing to actually tackle the issue? (Nuclear, India/China, etc.) You also ask why -- if they view this to be such a catastrophic issue -- are so many of them purchasing coastal properties? You also ask why -- if it's so paramount that we act with urgency and speed -- was the bill that was introduced to "solve" the problem loaded with trillions in unrelated spend that will surely be contentious, rather than exclusively focused on CO2-related issues?

You don't get an answer.

(no message)

which just happens to flood freshly printed dollars to the myriad bases of the Democrat Party.

steadily rising...hasn't happened in the last 800,000 years...surely, you wouldn't post innuendos of mis-statements by Biden, if you didn't have rock solid evidence to the contrary...now, would you?

Is it pure coincidence that the rise started just when mankind started burning fossil fuels in earnest and injecting levels of CO2 that our natural ecosystem can't remove fast enough?....let's have your latest hypothesis on what's "really happening".

This is the argument against your claim:

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.
It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33 years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming.

CO2 levels are demonstrably higher, due primarily to deforestation and carbon emissions add to this. But the link to global temperature has not been made. Is this ecologically good or neutral? I doubt it. But is there scientific evidence of the anthropogenic causality of global climate change? Not that I have seen. Certainly not enough to enact the massive changes that the Paris Accords espouse.

But even if this issue is clearly resolved, then there’s the issue of whether the changes would actually affect the climate significantly. No China and India to start. Countries allowed to buy other countries carbon credits. Dictators being given money to use for green energy production with no way to enforce its proper use, etc.

Let’s all agree to first attack the problem that does not require a new liberal world order…..deforestation.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

increasing CO2 levels...how so you manage to dismiss the #1 cause in your assessment?...the burning of fossil fuels...that's totally absurd...unless you want to 'empty the tank' before switching to other sources of energy. (note the oft-posted British Petroleum estimate of recoverable oil reserves...currently at "53 years")...it is "Urgent" that we switch to other energy sources wherever appropriate...and you know where I stand on that topic.

btw...CO2 is a greenhouse gas...no one disputes that...it is being rapidly injected into our atmosphere is very large quantities, much faster than our ecosystem can take it out (forests, oceans, etc)...note: it takes anywhere from 50-300 years to remove most of the CO2,


Link: https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/global-warming/global-co2-emissions/story

1)prove that the CO2 increase is linked to the global temp rise (you haven’t as I outlined above based on our own data going back over 100 hrs)

2) prove that your measures will do diddly squat

3) If you prove the first 2 things, come up with a way that will be implemented rather than abused.

I also have not even delved into the data fixing scandals that have gone on that bring the validity of many findings into question - because it isn’t really even necessary as you can see from how far you are from making your case at this point.

It is worth noting though how it works out that the unprovable measures to save the world just happen to align with the Progressive agenda.

(no message)

Link: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

(no message)

Link: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

then, with the "Why" issue hopefully resolved, we can go on to #2, which is easily addressed, and then finally #3, which is the painful, but necessary part.

BTW...you're going to have to take some time to read this material...that is, if you truly care. In any event, I trust that others viewing this exchange will benefit.

Here's the first link...(see attached)


Link: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/