Climate Change

[Johnny from PA]

 

Since climate change is such an extreme threat, and since taxing carbon
is not a scientific solution, but a political-economic one, I have a suggestion.

Instead of taxing the heck out of the middle class over their cars and
heating bills, let's all sign this petition.  I'd like Art to discuss this on
the air in order to get as many signatures as possible.

This is a petition to the President.  Worried about climate change?
Sign here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/declare-eminent-domain-over-all-clean-energy-patents-and-declare-them-public-domain

[=Schlyder=]

Climate Change alarmism is bunk.

[boilingpitsofsewage]

The climate has been changing for billions of years, and not a damn thing we can do about it.  The worrying bullshit comes from the same low-IQ libtard peons that are worried about gluten and sugar in everything.

[Wintermute]

"Extreme threat" as in world changing and very difficult to stop... yes absolutely.

But climate changes over time are gradual. Those changes do produce phenomena that humans and other species may not be prepared for today. But most risk can be mitigated almost entirely for humans by moving to locations that are less effected by natural disaster variables.

I tend to think we all have a role / are a variable in the climate and greater Earth ecosystem. It's silly not to think so. But I also think that a lot of issues humans have are brought on by their own poor judgement, which is correctable.

[Lt.Uhura]

"Believe it or not"...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/weather/atlantic-cold-blob/index.html

"...In this case, the study suggests that the massive amounts of freshwater melting into the ocean from Greenland can prevent the sinking of the dense, cold, salty water and alter the AMOC circulation.
Believe it or not, this was the very scenario in the popular movie "The Day After Tomorrow". In the movie, the global climate changes in a matter of days, causing tornadoes in Los Angeles, deadly hail in Tokyo, and a massive blizzard in New York City.

Fortunately "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario is Hollywood fiction at its best, and not based on sound science. That said , there is cause for concern that the changes we have observed in both the Atlantic and Pacific..."

[Juan]

Seizing private property for public use requires the payment of fair market value.  How would those promoting this pay for the patents?

[Keykou]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOVvYyA-HQg

[Keykou]

Stuff They Don't Want You to Know - The Thorium



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AptxNrQpGA4


More on the subject.....

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stuff+they+don%27t+want+you+to+know+thorium

[Keykou]

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

no one has seen the same rainbow at the same time. 

[Keykou]

no one has seen the same rainbow at the same time. 

I'm not so sure if that is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=32&v=Xx8u9aZ3Zvs

[HedgehogNorman]

Seizing private property for public use requires the payment of fair market value.  How would those promoting this pay for the patents?

Obviously OPM - other people's money

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

I'm not so sure if that is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=32&v=Xx8u9aZ3Zvs

i know i made the statement in a poor way. sorry bout that...  http://education.nationalgeographic.com/encyclopedia/rainbow/

Viewers on the ground can only see the light reflected by raindrops above the horizon. Because each person's horizon is a little different, no one actually sees a full rainbow from the ground. In fact, no one sees the same rainbowâ€"each person has a different antisolar point, each person has a different horizon. Someone who appears below or near the "end" of a rainbow to one viewer will see another rainbow, extending from his or her own horizon.

[onan]

i know i made the statement in a poor way. sorry bout that...  http://education.nationalgeographic.com/encyclopedia/rainbow/

Your statement on seeing a rainbow was exact. No two people ever see the exact same thing. One could argue that seeing an event via a similar medium (such as television) would have a closer experience than viewing the actual event. But two people looking at a rainbow at the same time will have a different vantage point, different visual capabilities, and different processing capabilities.

[Keykou]

Your statement on seeing a rainbow was exact. No two people ever see the exact same thing. One could argue that seeing an event via a similar medium (such as television) would have a closer experience than viewing the actual event. But two people looking at a rainbow at the same time will have a different vantage point, different visual capabilities, and different processing capabilities.

These three have a different vantage point, different visual capabilities, and different processing capabilities, but no one can say they are riding a different elephant.

[onan]

These three have a different vantage point, different visual capabilities, and different processing capabilities, but no one can say they are riding a different elephant.

And no one is saying they didn't see the rainbow. But each have a unique view.