hq post op
hq post op
You might also like:
You might also like:
* /s/Conservation
* /s/GlobalCooling
* /s/ClimateChangeSkeptic
You know the carbon and methane fall out of the atmosphere over a period of time right? They don't just get tired of the elevation they bond to rarer atmospheric gasses over a pretty long time and they become a denser gas or particle and fall down to the earth methane which they now say us the worse offender is supposed to be on a 6 to 8 year cycle and they claim the shortage of the rarer gas is making methane stay in the upper atmosphere longer. This is why they want you to cut down on red meat, and why they'll say that america is the worst green house gas emitter, the problem seems really fucking simple to me though, just synthesize the chemicals that methane bonds to and release it strategically across the planet in the upper atmosphere. IDGAF if we have a mini ice age, all the niggers will starve or fall ill from D deficiency.
You know the carbon and methane fall out of the atmosphere over a period of time right? They don't just get tired of the elevation they bond to rarer atmospheric gasses over a pretty long time and they become a denser gas or particle and fall down to the earth methane which they now say us the worse offender is supposed to be on a 6 to 8 year cycle and they claim the shortage of the rarer gas is making methane stay in the upper atmosphere longer. This is why they want you to cut down on red meat, and why they'll say that america is the worst green house gas emitter, the problem seems really fucking simple to me though, just synthesize the chemicals that methane bonds to and release it strategically across the planet in the upper atmosphere. IDGAF if we have a mini ice age, all the niggers will starve or fall ill from D deficiency.
That's part of their models. Carbon doesn't "fall out", but it's absorbed by plants. Methane eventually oxidizes into carbon dioxide and water. Their models are pretty inclusive; but there are definitely some assumptions in there that aren't panning out.
That's part of their models. Carbon doesn't "fall out", but it's absorbed by plants. Methane eventually oxidizes into carbon dioxide and water. Their models are pretty inclusive; but there are definitely some assumptions in there that aren't panning out.
I know this is radical but I don't think it's as radical as introducing a disease for plebs to shorten their lifespan and cut gluttons down.
If climate change is so disastrous for humanity and life on the planet a war on emissions may be justified. M.A.D. prevents the US and china from duking it out along with basically every other developed and developing country, india and pakistan deny they poses them any longer but we know they've got nukes too. So we turn our eyes to south america the mideast and africa. The worst terrain for war and holding territory as an occupier is south america an airborne extermination campaign would be counter productive in the loss of vegetation and decreased energy efficiency. The mid east involves nukes religious zeal and loads of international alliances and power games, it would be a mess of nuclear powers. Africa is under-defended, the population centers are all on plains or at the edges of jungles, lack of competent land management has created desertification and due to western investments africa is entering the developing stage in most places but it will be an arrested development, their lack of intelligence will keep them in this developing nations stage perpetually, and their booming populations will double and quadruple their populations, nigeria is expected to have 1 billion niggers in 30 years it will be another india a disaster by any right but especially for climate change.
I say we solve all of our problems all at once. "Neo Garveyism" my idea in a package boons will swallow thinking one of malcom x's pals came up with it, we pay niggers 100-300k per nappy head to go to apefrica force the last ones back at the end then invade and kill them all. A genocide is easier than a war, just use the airforce and our new railgun tech in concert with a continental food embargo, half their cities would be gone in a year and the other half would be overcrowded and devolving into cannibalism.
We can split the continent up to countries who participate in the war and pledge to aid the conservation effort.
"Bury" about a billion dead africans at the edges of the deserts so as to fertilize soil so we can plant new forests and jungles.
I also support ocean research into responsible expansion of oceanic vegetation and the construction of a gigantic shade cloths floating above sections of endangered reefs.
Ideally we could move on to the mideast too but it would take an uncucked europe, a world mad at israel, an alliance with russia, at least a dozen neutron bombs and an agreement to cut the chinks in on africa and hand them some territory in central asia.
The US military industrial complex aught to just declare me fuhrer, I'd keep them in business better than anybody else.
I know this is radical but I don't think it's as radical as introducing a disease for plebs to shorten their lifespan and cut gluttons down.
If climate change is so disastrous for humanity and life on the planet a war on emissions may be justified. M.A.D. prevents the US and china from duking it out along with basically every other developed and developing country, india and pakistan deny they poses them any longer but we know they've got nukes too. So we turn our eyes to south america the mideast and africa. The worst terrain for war and holding territory as an occupier is south america an airborne extermination campaign would be counter productive in the loss of vegetation and decreased energy efficiency. The mid east involves nukes religious zeal and loads of international alliances and power games, it would be a mess of nuclear powers. Africa is under-defended, the population centers are all on plains or at the edges of jungles, lack of competent land management has created desertification and due to western investments africa is entering the developing stage in most places but it will be an arrested development, their lack of intelligence will keep them in this developing nations stage perpetually, and their booming populations will double and quadruple their populations, nigeria is expected to have 1 billion niggers in 30 years it will be another india a disaster by any right but especially for climate change.
I say we solve all of our problems all at once. "Neo Garveyism" my idea in a package boons will swallow thinking one of malcom x's pals came up with it, we pay niggers 100-300k per nappy head to go to apefrica force the last ones back at the end then invade and kill them all. A genocide is easier than a war, just use the airforce and our new railgun tech in concert with a continental food embargo, half their cities would be gone in a year and the other half would be overcrowded and devolving into cannibalism.
We can split the continent up to countries who participate in the war and pledge to aid the conservation effort.
"Bury" about a billion dead africans at the edges of the deserts so as to fertilize soil so we can plant new forests and jungles.
I also support ocean research into responsible expansion of oceanic vegetation and the construction of a gigantic shade cloths floating above sections of endangered reefs.
Ideally we could move on to the mideast too but it would take an uncucked europe, a world mad at israel, an alliance with russia, at least a dozen neutron bombs and an agreement to cut the chinks in on africa and hand them some territory in central asia.
The US military industrial complex aught to just declare me fuhrer, I'd keep them in business better than anybody else.
He believes in space. it's not that good of information
He believes in space. it's not that good of information
lol no you can’t debunk decades of science in 8 minutes.
lol no you can’t debunk decades of science in 8 minutes.
Without the Sun, there would be no climate. There would be no us.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming
Out-right ignoring the Sun is the dumbest shit scientists have ever done. They ignore it because it would destroy their "theories" that fuel their agenda.
Without the Sun, there would be no climate. There would be no us.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming
Out-right ignoring the Sun is the dumbest shit scientists have ever done. They ignore it because it would destroy their "theories" that fuel their agenda.
“ The Sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
“ The Sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
Define warming trend? For the last 100 years the temperature has both dropped and increased. All negligible numbers and all cyclical. Also NASA just recently said the earth has never been greener as it is right now since their collection of the data. When asked why? They said carbon dioxide. Yep plant food. Saying climate change is like saying the weather changes. Ask yourself why the climate experts stopped using the terms deep freeze, new ice age, or global warming? Especially global warming. They dropped that moniker like a hot potato. All evidence refuted those terms. It's cyclical. Climate change is their new word. I invite you to do a deep dive into the Paris Accord mumble jumble. It's a cash grab.
Define warming trend? For the last 100 years the temperature has both dropped and increased. All negligible numbers and all cyclical. Also NASA just recently said the earth has never been greener as it is right now since their collection of the data. When asked why? They said carbon dioxide. Yep plant food. Saying climate change is like saying the weather changes. Ask yourself why the climate experts stopped using the terms deep freeze, new ice age, or global warming? Especially global warming. They dropped that moniker like a hot potato. All evidence refuted those terms. It's cyclical. Climate change is their new word. I invite you to do a deep dive into the Paris Accord mumble jumble. It's a cash grab.
Damming rivers and mass bottling water are also ignored.
Damming rivers and mass bottling water are also ignored.
OK. How many minutes does it take?
OK. How many minutes does it take?
Three to four hours of debate. But that’s already happened many times, and the climate change deniers lose every time.
Three to four hours of debate. But that’s already happened many times, and the climate change deniers lose every time.
It takes 4 hours to disprove an 8 minute video? Seems disproportionate. Is there a counter argument video? Hopefully less than 4 hours long.
It takes 4 hours to disprove an 8 minute video?
Seems disproportionate. Is there a counter argument video? Hopefully less than 4 hours long.
(post is archived)