Davos speaker calls for one billion people to stop eating meat, for the environment

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

It doesn’t matter how much CO2 is emitted by termites and volcanoes, because that is all part of the balance of nature which our planet and our species has adapted to.  

It matters to you NAZIS because you are the goose steppers blaming human activity for this, even after I have provided REAMS of evidence to the contrary.

Let’s be clear about what climate change means: Life on Earth will definitely go on, it just might go on with a lot less humans. You forget that we are dependent upon food which grows in the ground in massive fields across the mid US and Canada. If climate change makes 30% of that land unproductive, it can have catastrophic effects. And then there’s the weather and the loss of coastal cities.  
 

And human beings have NOTHING to say about that. NOTHING we do will change things. I've proven that in one SCIENTIFIC LINK AFTER ANOTHER. All we'll do is ass screw our economy while China continues to move forward.

Ignoring all that, we will all be much better off if we develop energy production methods which don’t rely on the whims of unstable Arab dictators.  Those people are not our friends. 

Gee. We had that before you NAZIS illegally installed a racist PEDOPHILE who shut down domestic energy production and went to OPEC begging for oil. LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP had made America ENERGY INDEPENDENT, (with America using the CLEANEST energy producing technology on the planet) and a LYING Nazi ex Vice president turn all that around and  put our fate in the hands of Iran,  Saudi Arabia and Russia.

As far as needing new source of energy any time soon, The United States is sitting on 200 years' worth of oil today.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-200-year-supply-oil-2012-3

The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil

That's just this country.

Our great grandchildren will be dead long before a new energy supply is needed.

Find something else to worry about.

 

Which is it?

You say that whatever WE do does not affect the climate, but what CHINA does is affecting the climate.  
 

Is that because you’re stupid, or because you’re a racist POS?

[reason10]

35 minutes ago, robosmith said:

CO2 contains Carbon. One and the same. Are you referring to PARTICULATES which have a completely different effect on the climate?

China and US are 1 and 2. Of course per capita, US is number 1 cause China has 4x the population.

 

Gee! You get a participation trophy for correctly identifying the substance CO. I guess you'll probably want a college degree for announcing that we are CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS.

This is why so many people laugh at you every time you open that Woke pie hole. You've NEVER actually had to THINK of anything.

I have presented REAMS of evidence proving that (a) 95-57 percent of all greenhouse gasses are WATER VAPOR, and (b) all combined human  production of CO released into the atmosphere is a FRACTION of what is released by TERMITES.

And so you found the word CARBON.

Do you want a cookie for all that hard work?

[Rebound]

12 minutes ago, reason10 said:

You REALLY are stupid.

I was answering a REALLY stupid remark about a scientific FACT being being 40 years old and therefore maybe not true. I gave a 200 YEAR OLD scientific fact and you try to spin it?

The third grade classes I sub for are smarter than you. Downs Syndrome kids are smarter. 

No you f-ing jackass, you said that Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune were all discovered in the 19th century. 
 

I don’t know how else to break this to you: You Are An ldiot.  You are poorly educated. You lack basic understanding of the world around you and you suffer from some sort of demented view that you’re the smartest person in the world, even though you routinely make easily disprovable and often blatantly contradictory statements.  It’s pathetic. I feel sorry for you and your dog. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Rebound

[reason10]

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Which is it?

You say that whatever WE do does not affect the climate, but what CHINA does is affecting the climate.  
 

Is that because you’re stupid, or because you’re a racist POS?

What does RACE have to do with this discussion?

(Boys and girls, this has got to stop. I know you children are mostly a bunch of uneducated moe rons, but when you lose an argument you don't look any smarter by calling your superior a racist.)

You have the reading comprehension of a  blue stater, so for all I know you probably think my observations AND THE LINKS I PROVIDED are in another language. How about getting off your lazy, unproductive entitled Woke ass and actually READ the thread and READ the reliable links I have provided. Come back to class when you can keep up.

Florida third graders have better reading comprehension.

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, reason10 said:

Why should SCIENCE somehow be ignored just because these hacks have an opinion? They aren't scientists. They're just left wingers. Why should THEIR opinion be more important than the qualified SCIENTISTS who say the opposite?

Sigh. This is going to be as fruitless and pointless as ever, but this person (the Chairman of these two companies) is listening to climate scientists specifically because he has multibillion dollar businesses to protect, nurture and grow. 

And make no mistake, climate scientists are nearly unanimous in their recognition of anthropogenic warming and climate change, and have been for decades. There is not a single scientific body on the planet that denies anthropogenic warming. The last group to abandon their dissent were the Petroleum Geologists, who stopped dissenting in 2007. That's it. Now just a few lonely voices in the scientific community offer dissent, and typically for questionable motivation. 

It is because of the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus that companies like Siemens and Maersk and literally every other major enterprise are investing millions if not billions in adopting sustainable business practices. 

Now, you are welcome to desperately search out some heterodox meteorologist or something who denies climate change, and you can say that this person is right instead of the overwhelming scientific consensus being right, but since you lack the ability to conduct any independent research it's clearly not a belief based in logic. It would be like going to 10 doctors who all tell you your cholesterol is dangerously high and you need to change your diet, and instead of listening to them, you look, and look, and look for just one doctor to tell you he thinks you'll be okay. You can choose to ignore scientific and medical advice because you simply love potato chips and petroleum, but there's nothing smart or honest about it. And for an individual actor with individual consequences (death by potato chip), fine with me, kettle-cook your arterieries into concrete tubes. But when it comes to a shared planet and shared consequences other people get to vote. 

[Rebound]

Just now, reason10 said:

What does RACE have to do with this discussion?

(Boys and girls, this has got to stop. I know you children are mostly a bunch of uneducated moe rons, but when you lose an argument you don't look any smarter by calling your superior a racist.)

You have the reading comprehension of a  blue stater, so for all I know you probably think my observations AND THE LINKS I PROVIDED are in another language. How about getting off your lazy, unproductive entitled Woke ass and actually READ the thread and READ the reliable links I have provided. Come back to class when you can keep up.

Florida third graders have better reading comprehension.

Hey Jackass, which is it? For the umpteenth time:

Is China contributing to climate change? Yes or no?

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

Science doesn't change based on fashion or public opinion. Science remains FACT, and facts don't care about your feelings.

In the 19th Century,  Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Neptune were discovered. Are you now going to say those planets do not exist based on the information being old?

 

I don't know...

I think maybe you want to review what you think you know about science.

Science by its nature it changes. Facts don't change by they are challenged by other facts. And old facts are often revealed to be not quite so factual. 

For example, why isn't Pluto on your list of planets? 

Our understanding of things is in constant flux. Science adapts with the scientific method. Hypothesis to theory through experimentation and study.

Try these:

https://www.famousscientists.org/7-scientists-whose-ideas-were-rejected-during-their-lifetimes/

https://www.businessinsider.com/science-facts-from-school-not-true-2019-9?op=1

https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/6-world-changing-ideas-that-were-originally-rejected.html

 

[Rebound]

7 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I don't know...

I think maybe you want to review what you think you know about science.

Science by its nature it changes. Facts don't change by they are challenged by other facts. And old facts are often revealed to be not quite so factual. 

For example, why isn't Pluto on your list of planets? 

Our understanding of things is in constant flux. Science adapts with the scientific method. Hypothesis to theory through experimentation and study.

Try these:

https://www.famousscientists.org/7-scientists-whose-ideas-were-rejected-during-their-lifetimes/

https://www.businessinsider.com/science-facts-from-school-not-true-2019-9?op=1

https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/6-world-changing-ideas-that-were-originally-rejected.html

 

Most of those facts relate to things we cannot see or measure, such as the skin color of a dinosaur or the composition of subatomic particles. And I think even particle scientists were always pretty clear that sub-sub-atomic particles may exist.  

But temperature is measurable, and the composition of the upper atmosphere is measurable. The theory that CO2 is increasing is measurable and proven and the theory that it is warming the planet is measurable proven. 
 

Ask yourself this: Why do you feel it is so important to seek out every anti-climate change article you can, and to believe only that?  Have you ever once thought, “What if I am wrong?”

Edited January 24, 2023 by Rebound

[reason10]

9 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Hey Jackass, which is it? For the umpteenth time:

Is China contributing to climate change? Yes or no?

Asked and answered BAT GUANO FOR BRAINS.

Geez, you're lazier than a kindergartener.

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, reason10 said:

Asked and answered BAT GUANO FOR BRAINS.

Geez, you're lazier than a kindergartener.

It’s a yes or no question:

Hey Jackass, which is it? For the umpteenth time:

Is China contributing to climate change? Yes or no?

Edited January 24, 2023 by Rebound

[Infidel Dog]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Sigh. This is going to be as fruitless and pointless as ever, but this person (the Chairman of these two companies) is listening to climate scientists specifically because he has multibillion dollar businesses to protect, nurture and grow. 

And make no mistake, climate scientists are nearly unanimous in their recognition of anthropogenic warming and climate change, and have been for decades. There is not a single scientific body on the planet that denies anthropogenic warming. The last group to abandon their dissent were the Petroleum Geologists, who stopped dissenting in 2007. That's it. Now just a few lonely voices in the scientific community offer dissent, and typically for questionable motivation. 

It is because of the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus that companies like Siemens and Maersk and literally every other major enterprise are investing millions if not billions in adopting sustainable business practices. 

Now, you are welcome to desperately search out some heterodox meteorologist or something who denies climate change, and you can say that this person is right instead of the overwhelming scientific consensus being right, but since you lack the ability to conduct any independent research it's clearly not a belief based in logic. It would be like going to 10 doctors who all tell you your cholesterol is dangerously high and you need to change your diet, and instead of listening to them, you look, and look, and look for just one doctor to tell you he thinks you'll be okay. You can choose to ignore scientific and medical advice because you simply love potato chips and petroleum, but there's nothing smart or honest about it. And for an individual actor with individual consequences (death by potato chip), fine with me, kettle-cook your arterieries into concrete tubes. But when it comes to a shared planet and shared consequences other people get to vote. 

That whole post is so rife with little contextual errors it would take ten pages to begin to cover it.

But let's just start here. If I understand your stance correctly you're saying what you're now suggesting "climate change" is the believe that man's use of fossil fuels is causing or will cause calamities on earth so severe the survival of man is in jeopardy. And you say you have a nearly unanimous  consensus of scientists who are willing to put their reputations to it.

Very well, produce it.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

32 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Shut the fck up, TROLL.

 

?.... This is me.... Laughing in your stupid gullible face, halfwit.

[reason10]

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Sigh. This is going to be as fruitless and pointless as ever, but this person (the Chairman of these two companies) is listening to climate scientists specifically because he has multibillion dollar businesses to protect, nurture and grow. 

And make no mistake, climate scientists are nearly unanimous in their recognition of anthropogenic warming and climate change, and have been for decades. There is not a single scientific body on the planet that denies anthropogenic warming. The last group to abandon their dissent were the Petroleum Geologists, who stopped dissenting in 2007. That's it. Now just a few lonely voices in the scientific community offer dissent, and typically for questionable motivation. 

It is because of the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus that companies like Siemens and Maersk and literally every other major enterprise are investing millions if not billions in adopting sustainable business practices. 

Now, you are welcome to desperately search out some heterodox meteorologist or something who denies climate change, and you can say that this person is right instead of the overwhelming scientific consensus being right, but since you lack the ability to conduct any independent research it's clearly not a belief based in logic. It would be like going to 10 doctors who all tell you your cholesterol is dangerously high and you need to change your diet, and instead of listening to them, you look, and look, and look for just one doctor to tell you he thinks you'll be okay. You can choose to ignore scientific and medical advice because you simply love potato chips and petroleum, but there's nothing smart or honest about it. And for an individual actor with individual consequences (death by potato chip), fine with me, kettle-cook your arterieries into concrete tubes. But when it comes to a shared planet and shared consequences other people get to vote. 

You assume it's a big company, so they can IGNORE the facts and dictate to us our DIETS?

Here are the facts.

1. NOBODY is denying climate change, YOU FCKING LIAR. The climate HAS changed over history. The earth went through an ICE AGE, which is why we are not sharing our space with T-Rexes.

2. In the first post, I provided ALL the best links to indicate that ALL the cattle production in the world takes place on ELEVEN PERCENT OF THE PLANET'S SURFACE. So I'm calling out ANY ignoramus who suggested that eating meat will cause climate change. 

3. The paid hacks who point their fingers at human activity as being responsible for impending climate change are IGNORING THE FACTS. It's all based on greenhouse gasses interfering with the temperature of the planet. Right now 95 to 97 percent of all greenhouse gasses is WATER VAPOR, probably because (STOP THE PRESSES) most of the planet's surface is WATER. (I've provided reliable LINKS to THAT FACT.) The hacks accuse human production of CO2 as being the culprit and I've already proven that HUMANS PRODUCE LESS CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THAN TERMITES, and you knuckleheads cannot spin that. (I provided a reliable link to prove that.)

4 Algore said global warming would cause the state of Florida to be under water. The world didn't warm, and NONE of our coastlines seem to be disappearing.

One truly brain dead poster actually called me a racist in this thread, even though race was never mentioned.

 

[Infidel Dog]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Most of those facts relate to things we cannot see or measure, such as the skin color of a dinosaur or the composition of subatomic particles. And I think even particle scientists were always pretty clear that sub-sub-atomic particles may exist.  

But temperature is measurable, and the composition of the upper atmosphere is measurable. The theory that CO2 is increasing is measurable and proven and the theory that it is warming the planet is measurable proven. 
 

Ask yourself this: Why do you feel it is so important to seek out every anti-climate change article you can, and to believe only that?  Have you ever once thought, “What if I am wrong?”

Hang on. I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I was just talking with you about termites. I was just saying I thought the proposal termites created more CO2 evolved into the science seeming to tell me they were talking about methane.

You know like at one time the accepted belief was disease was caused by vapors then Pasteur comes along and shows us germs.

Or there was no continental drift then Wegener comes along and shows us there was. 

[reason10]

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

It’s a yes or no question:

Hey Jackass, which is it? For the umpteenth time:

Is China contributing to climate change? Yes or no?

Asked and answered for the umpteenth time, YOU MOE RON.

Humans cannot change the climate. So your question is stupid and irrelevant.

For that matter, YOU are stupid and irrelevant.

[reason10]

3 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

?.... This is me.... Laughing in your stupid gullible face, halfwit.

Shut the fck up, TROLL.  Crawl back under your rock.

[CrakHoBarbie]

Just now, reason10 said:

Shut the fck up, TROLL.  Crawl back under your rock.

Said the profoundly stupid old nursing home dolt 

[reason10]

20 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I don't know...

I think maybe you want to review what you think you know about science.

Science by its nature it changes. Facts don't change by they are challenged by other facts. And old facts are often revealed to be not quite so factual. 

For example, why isn't Pluto on your list of planets? 

Our understanding of things is in constant flux. Science adapts with the scientific method. Hypothesis to theory through experimentation and study.

Try these:

https://www.famousscientists.org/7-scientists-whose-ideas-were-rejected-during-their-lifetimes/

https://www.businessinsider.com/science-facts-from-school-not-true-2019-9?op=1

https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/6-world-changing-ideas-that-were-originally-rejected.html

o: September 23, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Neptune		13th Planet (1846)[a] 8th Planet (1851)	Galle and Le Verrier[29][30]
o: October 10, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Triton		Neptune I	Lassell[31]
o: September 16, 1848 p: October 7, 1848	Hyperion		Saturn VII	Bond, Bond,[32]Lassell[33]
1850s
o: October 24, 1851	Ariel		Uranus I	Lassell[26]
	Umbriel		Uranus II
1870s
o: August 12, 1877	Deimos		Mars II	Hall[34][35][36]
o: August 18, 1877	Phobos		Mars I
1890s
o: September 9, 1892 p: October 4, 1892	Amalthea		Jupiter V	Barnard[1][37]
i: August 16, 1898 o: March 17, 1899	Phoebe		Saturn IX	Pickering[38][39]

Those are the time lines for the discoveries of the planets I mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons

 

[reason10]

1 minute ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Said the profoundly stupid old nursing home dolt 

Crawl back under your rock, bee itch.

[reason10]

26 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No you f-ing jackass, you said that Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune were all discovered in the 19th century. 
 

I don’t know how else to break this to you: You Are An ldiot.  You are poorly educated. You lack basic understanding of the world around you and you suffer from some sort of demented view that you’re the smartest person in the world, even though you routinely make easily disprovable and often blatantly contradictory statements.  It’s pathetic. I feel sorry for you and your dog. 

Mars Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune WERE discovered and documented in the 19th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons

anuary 1, 1801 p: January 24, 1801	Ceres		8th Planet (1801) Asteroid (1851) Dwarf planet (2006)	Giuseppe Piazzi. He first announced his discovery on January 24, 1801, in letters to fellow astronomers.[27] The first formal publication was the September 1801 issue of the Monatliche Correspondenz.[28]
1840s
o: September 23, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Neptune		13th Planet (1846)[a] 8th Planet (1851)	Galle and Le Verrier[29][30]
o: October 10, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Triton		Neptune I	Lassell[31]
o: September 16, 1848 p: October 7, 1848	Hyperion		Saturn VII	Bond, Bond,[32]Lassell[33]
1850s
o: October 24, 1851	Ariel		Uranus I	Lassell[26]
	Umbriel		Uranus II
1870s
o: August 12, 1877	Deimos		Mars II	Hall[34][35][36]
o: August 18, 1877	Phobos		Mars I
1890s
o: September 9, 1892 p: October 4, 1892	Amalthea		Jupiter V	Barnard[1][37]
i: August 16, 1898 o: March 17, 1899	Phoebe		Saturn IX	Pickering[38][39]

 

You can't spin this. Don't even try.

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by reason10

[CrakHoBarbie]

2 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Crawl back under your rock, bee itch.

Call your nurse. I think you've bumped your head again 

[Infidel Dog]

29 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Are you blind?

Puerto Rico destroyed by hurricane

Bahamas destroyed by hurricane

New Orleans destroyed by hurricane

California city destroyed by largest-ever wildfire

Oregon skies turned orange throughout state from largest-ever wildfires

Highest temperatures ever recorded 

Ice caps and glaciers that are 30,000 years old have been melting. 
 

Ignoring all that evidence makes you an ldiot

Weather, Buddy. Look it up. There was the pacific ocean equivalent of a hurricane that hit Seattle and Vancouver in the 60s. It's never happened since. We were told Atlantic landfall hurricanes were going to mightily increase immediately after one IPCC conference. They went quiet for over a decade. Then they started up again. Has to do with wind shear and ocean confluences. Has nothing to do with how much oil you use to heat your home in the winter.

There's no support for the idea anything listed has never happened before. Even your historical temperature record only covers 150 years.

And the 30,000 years old glaciers that are melting have been melting for 30,000 years.

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, reason10 said:

You assume it's a big company, so they can IGNORE the facts and dictate to us our DIETS?

Here are the facts.

1. NOBODY is denying climate change, YOU FCKING LIAR. The climate HAS changed over history. The earth went through an ICE AGE, which is why we are not sharing our space with T-Rexes.

2. In the first post, I provided ALL the best links to indicate that ALL the cattle production in the world takes place on ELEVEN PERCENT OF THE PLANET'S SURFACE. So I'm calling out ANY ignoramus who suggested that eating meat will cause climate change. 

3. The paid hacks who point their fingers at human activity as being responsible for impending climate change are IGNORING THE FACTS. It's all based on greenhouse gasses interfering with the temperature of the planet. Right now 95 to 97 percent of all greenhouse gasses is WATER VAPOR, probably because (STOP THE PRESSES) most of the planet's surface is WATER. (I've provided reliable LINKS to THAT FACT.) The hacks accuse human production of CO2 as being the culprit and I've already proven that HUMANS PRODUCE LESS CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THAN TERMITES, and you knuckleheads cannot spin that. (I provided a reliable link to prove that.)

4 Algore said global warming would cause the state of Florida to be under water. The world didn't warm, and NONE of our coastlines seem to be disappearing.

One truly brain dead poster actually called me a racist in this thread, even though race was never mentioned.

 

You are wildly and willfully ignorant. Your Gish gallop of grade-school trivia means absolutely nothing. You're not even making arguments. Just randomly stating (often questionable) factoids, as if they should be compelling. It's something a child would do. 

It's like you're shouting at a doctor that overhydration can't exist because 60% of the human body is water! 

The total absence of logic and reason is still shocking, even though you've been posting here for some time now.

[Infidel Dog]

8 minutes ago, reason10 said:

o: September 23, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Neptune		13th Planet (1846)[a] 8th Planet (1851)	Galle and Le Verrier[29][30]
o: October 10, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Triton		Neptune I	Lassell[31]
o: September 16, 1848 p: October 7, 1848	Hyperion		Saturn VII	Bond, Bond,[32]Lassell[33]
1850s
o: October 24, 1851	Ariel		Uranus I	Lassell[26]
	Umbriel		Uranus II
1870s
o: August 12, 1877	Deimos		Mars II	Hall[34][35][36]
o: August 18, 1877	Phobos		Mars I
1890s
o: September 9, 1892 p: October 4, 1892	Amalthea		Jupiter V	Barnard[1][37]
i: August 16, 1898 o: March 17, 1899	Phoebe		Saturn IX	Pickering[38][39]

Those are the time lines for the discoveries of the planets I mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons

 

So where's Pluto. At one time we were told that was a planet.

[Hodad]

13 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Mars Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune WERE discovered and documented in the 19th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons

anuary 1, 1801 p: January 24, 1801	Ceres		8th Planet (1801) Asteroid (1851) Dwarf planet (2006)	Giuseppe Piazzi. He first announced his discovery on January 24, 1801, in letters to fellow astronomers.[27] The first formal publication was the September 1801 issue of the Monatliche Correspondenz.[28]
1840s
o: September 23, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Neptune		13th Planet (1846)[a] 8th Planet (1851)	Galle and Le Verrier[29][30]
o: October 10, 1846 p: November 13, 1846	Triton		Neptune I	Lassell[31]
o: September 16, 1848 p: October 7, 1848	Hyperion		Saturn VII	Bond, Bond,[32]Lassell[33]
1850s
o: October 24, 1851	Ariel		Uranus I	Lassell[26]
	Umbriel		Uranus II
1870s
o: August 12, 1877	Deimos		Mars II	Hall[34][35][36]
o: August 18, 1877	Phobos		Mars I
1890s
o: September 9, 1892 p: October 4, 1892	Amalthea		Jupiter V	Barnard[1][37]
i: August 16, 1898 o: March 17, 1899	Phoebe		Saturn IX	Pickering[38][39]

 

You can't spin this. Don't even try.

 

You are unbelievably dumb. It beggars belief. Like, this can't be a real person. It's performance art, right?

The planets of our solar system have been "discovered" and identified since ancient times.