Going "Green"

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: IBD, You're full of it. Noone orders me todo anything.

Yes, we all understand that's what you were ordered to say. We get it.

keepit wrote:Your post is nothing but english lessons and fluff.

Yes, we all understand that presenting you with an opportunity to learn is in very poor taste. You have my apologies.

keepit wrote: You don't know a lot about the subject mater.

Now that you mention it, you remind me somewhat of Mater. Some day you might be as smart as he.



.

keepit wrote:
IBD,ITN, gfm,
You don't reason about issues. You just deny.
I'm guilty of the same thing. As a result debate becomes a bunch of wild goose chases.

keepit wrote:
So where do you get information from?

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
So where do you get information from?

I don't know about everybody else, but I get information from all over the world, and all around me. I don't just switch on the 'magic box' each morning, then regurgitate what ever it tells me to believe. I don't put any value on opinion, of the people reporting the 'facts', because they tend to omit key facts, that they should have available. That isn't called reporting a story, it's called lying.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Some people believe 'learning', is simply memorizing the contents of a textbook, or lecture, digesting. Others believe learning, is understand the information presented. They keep asking question, tearing things apart in their minds, until they understand why, they are being told to believe something is true, and factual. Some people you encounter are 'smart', in that they can recite a lot of stuff they memorized. But they aren't really, because they don't actually know what it means. There are 'smart' people, who may not know a huge variety of things, but the know how and why, and can actually use what they learned. They are also very good at figuring out new things, based on how they learned everything else in life.

keepit wrote:
IBD,
You're full of it. Noone orders me todo anything.
Your post is nothing but english lessons and fluff.
You don't know a lot about the subject mater.

gfm7175 wrote:

keepit wrote:
IBD,
You're full of it. Noone orders me todo anything.
Your post is nothing but english lessons and fluff.
You don't know a lot about the subject mater.

Does your mind-master tell you to incessantly whine whenever someone who your mind-master tells you is "the enemy" happens to disagree with you? It sure seems like it to me.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
Tell me more about this "ministry of societal manipulation".

keepit wrote:
Is it a filament of your imaginaton?

keepit wrote:
Can i look it up on google?

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:gfm, Tell me more about this "ministry of societal manipulation". Is it a filament of your imaginaton? Can i look it up on google?

The correct answer is that you cannot learn any information about it, so just fuuhgettaboutet.

.

duncan61 wrote:

keepit wrote:
IBD,ITN, gfm,
You don't reason about issues. You just deny.
I'm guilty of the same thing. As a result debate becomes a bunch of wild goose chases.

I am feeling you.This forum is for climate debate however it would seem that Politiplex is not getting any traction so its been moved here.Illegitimi non carborundum.

duncan61 wrote:
While were at it I am convinced CO2 has an effect on the temperature just a tiny amount as I have seen too many scientist agree to it and that there may have been some warming through the last few decades again it has stopped.This is based on local readings not global but does it hurt to shrug and go so what like the Canadian scientist I have just watched who has spent his entire career studying the effect of heat at a molecular level and he goes on to explain just how complicated the climate is and how difficult it is to understand.He also had no problem stating WE DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND US TO CALCULATE.He dared to say fossil fuel as well.Bring it on 3 stooges.You know who you are

gfm7175 wrote:

duncan61 wrote: I am feeling you.This forum is for climate debate however it would seem that Politiplex is not getting any traction so its been moved here.Illegitimi non carborundum.

The purpose of Politiplex, as I understand it, is to be a reference site rather than a forum. However, I am not the authoritative source on that matter since it is not my website.

gfm7175 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:While were at it I am convinced CO2 has an effect on the temperature just a tiny amount as I have seen too many scientist agree to it ...

CO2 cannot warm the Earth, not even a teeny tiny bit.

keepit wrote: IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth.

Swan wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

keepit wrote:
IBD,
You're full of it. Noone orders me todo anything.
Your post is nothing but english lessons and fluff.
You don't know a lot about the subject mater.

Does your mind-master tell you to incessantly whine whenever someone who your mind-master tells you is "the enemy" happens to disagree with you? It sure seems like it to me.

That rant has absolutely no substance. Is this all you can bring to the board?

keepit wrote: Not true. IBD, you misinterpret again.

keepit wrote:
gfm,
How did you form such strong opinions of those media since you don't view them?

keepit wrote:
Did someone tell you to have that opinion?

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: Not true. IBD, you misinterpret again.

You are gibbering, keepit, as usual. Is this all you bring to this forum?

.

IBdaMann wrote:
Duncan is not rational. For him it's a religion. Notice how he insists that it is a matter of consensus, a subjective matter of opinion ... of the clergy who do his thinking for him.

Duncan is obviously not talking about science. Just let him worship as he wishes.

.

keepit wrote:
IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth. Is that a "filament" of your imagination?

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth. Is that a "filament" of your imagination?

They used to say it, then said climate change and now are starting to say it again.
Technically speaking, because it increases the density of the atmosphere, it would have some affect on atmospheric temperature.
These guys don't understand how initially ice core researchers linked an increase of CO2 to a warmer atmosphere but such a link does exist. Is it the cause of warming or just a release of CO2 from bodies of water as the seas and oceans become warmer?

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth. Is that a "filament" of your imagination?

They used to say it, then said climate change and now are starting to say it again.
Technically speaking, because it increases the density of the atmosphere, it would have some affect on atmospheric temperature.
These guys don't understand how initially ice core researchers linked an increase of CO2 to a warmer atmosphere but such a link does exist. Is it the cause of warming or just a release of CO2 from bodies of water as the seas and oceans become warmer?

They stopped referencing CO2 when the pause happened as CO2 continued to skyrocket

I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

keepit wrote:
Not true. IBD, you misinterpret again.

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
IBD, I don't think anyone says that co2 warms the earth. Is that a "filament" of your imagination?

They used to say it, then said climate change and now are starting to say it again.
Technically speaking, because it increases the density of the atmosphere, it would have some affect on atmospheric temperature.
These guys don't understand how initially ice core researchers linked an increase of CO2 to a warmer atmosphere but such a link does exist. Is it the cause of warming or just a release of CO2 from bodies of water as the seas and oceans become warmer?

They stopped referencing CO2 when the pause happened as CO2 continued to skyrocket

duncan61 wrote:
Can I have a definition of MORON its not a term we use here.The term dickhead is popular.Yes I am loving and worshipping the preachers of my faith that are random scientists I choose to watch present information and my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect
I am on a gun forum and if this site was moderated like Enough gun 3 posters would no longer be here and have to rejoin under different names.Skeptical Science will not let me back in on the desktop as they have the IP address.There was an ice age or is it all made up.The planet did show a warming trend for a while and now its stopped and its called the pause.This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control and it is not.My personal CO2 readings show a 30ppm drop since I have had the device.All this stuff is not 100% proof of anything but at least I am looking for the reality.I am sure many people visit this site and consider contributing then see all the insults and do not bother.Cut it out clowns.Have you considered if you can not share your point of veiw for the benifit of others dont post at all.Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.Right on I am the cyber police.I like people like Swan and Sponge bob as the need more information not being told there in some sort of cult.CAN YOU DIG IT

Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south. Right now we believe that these "climate ripples", the bipolar swings, can be explained through an interaction between the atmosphere and ocean currents. More we do not know just now.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Can I have a definition of MORON its not a term we use here.The term dickhead is popular.Yes I am loving and worshipping the preachers of my faith that are random scientists I choose to watch present information and my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect
I am on a gun forum and if this site was moderated like Enough gun 3 posters would no longer be here and have to rejoin under different names.Skeptical Science will not let me back in on the desktop as they have the IP address.There was an ice age or is it all made up.The planet did show a warming trend for a while and now its stopped and its called the pause.This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control and it is not.My personal CO2 readings show a 30ppm drop since I have had the device.All this stuff is not 100% proof of anything but at least I am looking for the reality.I am sure many people visit this site and consider contributing then see all the insults and do not bother.Cut it out clowns.Have you considered if you can not share your point of veiw for the benifit of others dont post at all.Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.Right on I am the cyber police.I like people like Swan and Sponge bob as the need more information not being told there in some sort of cult.CAN YOU DIG IT

If you read the link, read it a few times. There is this;

Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south. Right now we believe that these "climate ripples", the bipolar swings, can be explained through an interaction between the atmosphere and ocean currents. More we do not know just now.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

Initially, the rise in CO2 levels was thought to be at the end of the ice age. This was used to promote the "fact" that CO2 caused the ice age to end. Then with better testing, CO2 levels rose about 800 years after the end of the ice age. And this is about the amount of time that it takes the thermohaline circulation to go around the world 1 time. And when water warms, it releases CO2.
Today, we're trashing our environment and we do need the ozone layer.

duncan61 wrote: ... my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect

duncan61 wrote: ... if this site was moderated like Enough gun

duncan61 wrote:The planet did show a warming trend for a while

duncan61 wrote: This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control

duncan61 wrote: Cut it out clowns.

duncan61 wrote: Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.

Swan wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Can I have a definition of MORON its not a term we use here.The term dickhead is popular.Yes I am loving and worshipping the preachers of my faith that are random scientists I choose to watch present information and my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect
I am on a gun forum and if this site was moderated like Enough gun 3 posters would no longer be here and have to rejoin under different names.Skeptical Science will not let me back in on the desktop as they have the IP address.There was an ice age or is it all made up.The planet did show a warming trend for a while and now its stopped and its called the pause.This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control and it is not.My personal CO2 readings show a 30ppm drop since I have had the device.All this stuff is not 100% proof of anything but at least I am looking for the reality.I am sure many people visit this site and consider contributing then see all the insults and do not bother.Cut it out clowns.Have you considered if you can not share your point of veiw for the benifit of others dont post at all.Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.Right on I am the cyber police.I like people like Swan and Sponge bob as the need more information not being told there in some sort of cult.CAN YOU DIG IT

If you read the link, read it a few times. There is this;

Climate ripples between north and south
There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south. Right now we believe that these "climate ripples", the bipolar swings, can be explained through an interaction between the atmosphere and ocean currents. More we do not know just now.
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

Initially, the rise in CO2 levels was thought to be at the end of the ice age. This was used to promote the "fact" that CO2 caused the ice age to end. Then with better testing, CO2 levels rose about 800 years after the end of the ice age. And this is about the amount of time that it takes the thermohaline circulation to go around the world 1 time. And when water warms, it releases CO2.
Today, we're trashing our environment and we do need the ozone layer.

Why wouldn't CO2 levels drop after the ice age as new forest sequestered that available CO2.

Yawn

duncan61 wrote:
Can I have a definition of MORON its not a term we use here.

duncan61 wrote:
The term dickhead is popular.

duncan61 wrote:
Yes I am loving and worshipping the preachers of my faith that are random scientists I choose to watch present information and my choices are
1.Believe scientists who study in a relavant field that a small increase in CO2 can affect UV light
2.Believe some posters on a public forum that insult and rant and claim CO2 can have no effect

duncan61 wrote:
I am on a gun forum and if this site was moderated like Enough gun 3 posters would no longer be here and have to rejoin under different names.

duncan61 wrote:
Skeptical Science will not let me back in on the desktop as they have the IP address.

duncan61 wrote:
There was an ice age or is it all made up.

duncan61 wrote:
The planet did show a warming trend for a while and now its stopped and its called the pause.

duncan61 wrote:
This is what all the scare is about it is supposed to run away and out of control and it is not.

duncan61 wrote:
My personal CO2 readings show a 30ppm drop since I have had the device.All this stuff is not 100% proof of anything but at least I am looking for the reality.I am sure many people visit this site and consider contributing then see all the insults and do not bother.Cut it out clowns.Have you considered if you can not share your point of veiw for the benifit of others dont post at all.

duncan61 wrote:
Any poster that puts RQAA should have their account suspended.

duncan61 wrote:
Right on I am the cyber police.I like people like Swan and Sponge bob as the need more information not being told there in some sort of cult.CAN YOU DIG IT

duncan61 wrote:
You mean like this

ANTI 2A The Constitution Under Attack
Congressional Bill H.R. 127- To Provide for the Licensing of Firearms and Ammunition.....
Written by:
K. Clemens
Posted on:
January 28, 2021

H.R.127 – To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

This Bill was introduced by Sheila Jackson (D) TX Congressional District 18 on January 4, 2021. There are no co-sponsors. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

The Text for The Bill was released on January 28th, H.R. 127

A brief overview:

Seeks the following:

Licensing of Firearms and Ammunition-
Firearm Registration System.—

REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau-"(A) the make, model, and the serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.

DEADLINE FOR SUPPLYING INFORMATION.—The transmission required by paragraph (1) shall be made— in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section; or in the case of a firearm acquired on or after the effective date, on the date the owner acquires the firearm



Database to store above information in which Law Enforcement, The US Military AND the public have access to.
Licensing Requirements- MUST be licensed to possess firearm AND Ammunition

Must be 21 years of age.
Undergo a criminal background check.
Undergo a psychological evaluation and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm. As deemed necessary by the licensed psychologist involved, the evaluation included a psychological evaluation of other members of the household in which the individual resides; and As part of the psychological evaluation, the licensed psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.
successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 24 hours of training.
On issuance of the license, the individual will have in effect an insurance policy.
FEE.—The fee for the license is $800.
It shall be unlawful for a person to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the sale or gift.
It shall be unlawful for a person to loan a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the loan, including the identity of such other person and the period for which the loan is made.
It shall be unlawful for a person to transfer a firearm or ammunition to a person who is not licensed.
It shall be unlawful for a person to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the sale or gift.
It shall be unlawful for a person to loan a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the loan, including the identity of such other person and the period for which the loan is made.
It shall be unlawful for a person holding a valid license issued under section 932(c)(1) to transfer a firearm to an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.
It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.
It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."
Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(4) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both, except that if the transferee of the firearm possess or uses the firearm during or in relation to a crime, an unintentional shooting, or suicide, the transferor shall be fined not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 25 years and not more than 40 years, or both

HarveyH55 wrote:
The 2nd Amendment has stood the test of time. They have tried, and fought hard, with very little results. I'm doubtful they can really mess with it, in any significant way. People of all political parties, know that guns are needed these for protection. The police rarely show up, before you need to pull the trigger. People also understand, that criminals don't respect laws, that's why we call them criminals. Regardless of what's on paper, they still break those laws. Laws aren't to victimize honest, hard working patriots.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The 2nd Amendment has stood the test of time. They have tried, and fought hard, with very little results. I'm doubtful they can really mess with it, in any significant way. People of all political parties, know that guns are needed these for protection. The police rarely show up, before you need to pull the trigger. People also understand, that criminals don't respect laws, that's why we call them criminals. Regardless of what's on paper, they still break those laws. Laws aren't to victimize honest, hard working patriots.

Dude they want to do away with cops too. Furthermore you only have the right to own whatever gun that the government lets you own so the second amendment is trash

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they really intend to take guns away from people. It's just another scam to generate tax money. Consider that cigarettes were determined to be a serious health issue, addictive. They literately cost pennies per pack, to produce. The bulk of the retail price, is tax. Why do the continue to allow sales, of a hazardous product? A whole lot of other product, get pulled off the market, do to health and safety issues. Guns are the same way, people want and need them, and will continue to pay cash to have them. Every time they put up legislation like this, guns and ammo sales skyrocket. People who thought about getting a gun, rush to get it, while the still can. Government gets some cash, out of each sale, adds up quick. We don't write the check directly to the Treasury Dept., so nobody really knows how much of these 'taxes', actually makes it.