They are mostly talking about using nitrogen as a fertilizer, do you do realize, don't you?
It's not CO2 as Climate alarmists claim, it's Nitrogen
- Thread starter JuanGoodman
- Start date
and dishonestly spent
Nitrogen and Oxygen in the atmosphere do not "hook up" and create a love child in the atmosphere named Nitrous Oxide. It takes a combination of high pressure and heat to create Nitrous Oxide.
Last edited:
it's worse than that, it's a criminal issue
we are being lied to and robed blind by our government
under a pretense of a noble cause like saving the planet
the exorbitant taxes that are collected will have no effect on improving the state of the climate
but will have a huge affect on the bank accounts of some climate champions
it's like claiming on social media that one has cancer and hoping for donations
it's dishonest
you are missing the point completely
forest for the trees my friend
you know Biology but you do not know when you are being robbed
Yes. I agree with you on those points.
But to dismiss the current, potential, projected and/or hypothesized catastrophic effects of unchecked polluting of our water, land and air will make money meaningless.
If you agree that it's a bad thing to pollute, how would you propose to reduce increasing rates of general pollution? Or are we just too far gone and since neither of us will be alive iin 50 years we should just say fuck it?
Why not blame Oxygen instead of Nitrogen since both are part of Nitrous Oxide?
And you are trying to conflate your misapprehension of organic chemistry (ie: referring to 80% inert nitrogen being a factor in GHG) with dishonestly labelled taxes.
climate is changing without a doubt
but not sure about the cause of the change, agree polluting is never a good thing but is that the main engine of change?
also and most important
until we unite ALL NATIONS in the common cause of limiting pollution
punishing unfairly smaller developed nations, to the point of complete breakdown,
and giving a pass to the biggest polluters out there
shows that politicians are not serious about the climate change
and only use the name to create division as they increase taxes beyond any reasonable amount
Ok, so should we mark you down as saying nothing should be done until every country agrees on the science and to reduce pollution?
If not, then what would you propose if you were all powerful King Dictator of The World to reduce general human created pollution output?
is the science blinding you to the fact that you are being lied to?
If I was King Dictator I would definitely not be pouring billions of tax dollars into unproven and ineffective technology like wind and solar. Nuclear and hydroelectric absolutely.
I know what I wouldn't do
I wouldn't lie to them that I need more of their money so I can save the planet
even though it would be easy to fool them
since some of them are educated just enough that they actually would fall for the scam
Last edited:
Pretty excellent example of the quality of arguments against the science, I do say.
We better just mail this post straight to the IPCC and have them retract all their findings.
In fairness to our government saving the planet's climate future is
indeed the wish of a majority of voters. At least in the parts of the
world run by democracy an elected government has to be foolish
not to put on some sort of a pretense to fight climate change.
A politician arguing against climate change would just play into
the hands of his liberal opponents. Climate denial and science deniers
are labels that could cost those running for office (and academics
as well) dearly.
Climate sheeple voters wish their government to do 'something'
about climate change. But that 'something' must not entail any
compromise of their standard of living. Understanding this is key
to winning support from the sheeple.
I already agreed with you and acknowledged the carbon tax lies.
What more do you want me to say to agree with you on the falsely labelled taxes.
The science is a different matter.
