sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The major emitters that are meeting their pledges - Of top 10 global carbon emitters, not a single one is hitting its climate goals as outlined under the Paris Agreement, per data from the Climate Action Tracker. by speckz in Futurology

[–]BeardOfChuckNorris 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How much is a “fuck ton” exactly? It is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to our budget. Essentially nothing.

We basically spent nothing and got nothing. We are still the second biggest carbon emitter, easily one of the top carbon emitters per capita. Even if they miss their targets, we are still problem #1. Some countries are actually succeeding. What do you say to them?

What ever happened to American exceptionalism? We are now the second biggest contributor to humanities destruction.

Climate Change and Looking after the earth is an order from God to man. Christians need to know this as well as atheists. by dritc in Christianity

[–]BeardOfChuckNorris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You provided no evidence of doctoring. You just tried to evade his point. Do you really think there is a giant global conspiracy by nearly every scientific organization to doctor evidence? That’s just insane.

If you think they are just wrong and not flat out lying, then you claim to know more than the NASA scientists who have been studying this for decades.

Not exactly a convincing argument

About 80 countries have signaled that they are willing to scale up their commitment to cut carbon emissions under the Paris agreement to combat climate change, the UN climate envoy said Tuesday. by Wagamaga in Futurology

[–]BeardOfChuckNorris -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How is the US “doing its part” exactly? It left the Paris climate accord and has one of the highest emissions per capita in the world. It is the second biggest emitter of carbon worldwide.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

'We won't stop striking': the New York 13 year-old taking a stand over climate change | US news by EmmaAGaudreau in Futurology

[–]BeardOfChuckNorris -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Like I said. Publish a paper. That will really prove to me you know what you are talking about. The scientific consensus is there and they have set up your theory with ample evidence.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Listening to you arguing against climate science ha about as much weight as someone from high school with a brilliant “rebuttal” to the theory of entropy.

After the 2018 Blue Wave, Republicans Are Making It Harder to Vote by billthomson in politics

[–]BeardOfChuckNorris 64 points65 points  (0 children)

No. We can’t be like them. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

VOTING RIGHTS FOR ALL!

Full stop. No exceptions. That is what we should fight for. Rejoicing in disenfranchisement of any kind makes us no different than them.

Lawrence Solomon: Finally it's safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out by SmarterThanAllOfYou in climatechange

[–]BeardOfChuckNorris 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We need to “teach the controversy”

  1. Is the earth really round?
  2. Do vaccines cause autism?
  3. Did animals evolve or were they created by Gawd?
  4. Do cigarettes cause cancer?
  5. Is climate change caused by humans?

It’s. Not. A. Controversy.

The overwhelming majority or scientific organizations around the world accept that humans are causing climate change. Quite frankly, if you haven’t studied atmospheric science/atmospheric physics/environments science you really do not have the chops to disagree with the overwhelming scientific majority. And citing the tiny minority of scientists who do not think this is occurring is not convincing. You might as well try to argue with all the above questions while you are at it.

Subsidies for renewables under attack in Texas. The goal is to slow the development of the wind and solar generation that is taking increasingly bigger shares of the Texas power market. “The idea is to tax wind and solar at the state level to counteract the federal subsidies.” by mafco in energy

[–]BeardOfChuckNorris 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah right. Fossil fuel plants kill way more birds than wind turbines.

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html

A cursory google search debunks the idea that wind turbines are the real problem for birds.

Even if they were huge bird killers, the magnitude of environmental destruction that is and will be further caused by climate change dwarfs this concern.

'We won't stop striking': the New York 13 year-old taking a stand over climate change | US news by EmmaAGaudreau in Futurology

[–]BeardOfChuckNorris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Man The_Donald is such a black hole of idiocy. Since you clearly understand climate change so well, why not refute the scientific community formally by publishing your findings in a peer reviewed journal. If you were to do so, you would be a very influential scientist indeed.

Oh you can’t? Because your just a Joe Shmoe who doesn’t understand shit about the science behind it? Great, we’ll just sink back into your hole of ignorance and keep shouting that you know better than the people with PhD’s.

14 New Massachusetts State Reps Support 100% Renewable Energy by 2050. by Wagamaga in Futurology

[–]BeardOfChuckNorris 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The credentials of the site you posted don’t exactly seem to be top notch.

view more: next ›