66820 pts · December 9, 2012
The amount energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted for 1 kg of red meat is INSANE.
Regardless of whether it's a good doc (haven't seen it), eating less red meat is definitely a good move either way. Much more sustainable.
Check your DM's.
Also, even IF you only count 2 and 1, I can see at first glance that even THAT is more than 1,4%. Come on, just admit your claim is wrong.
Do "implicit claims" somehow mean they disagree with AGW being a major factor? It doesn't, it just means they didn't specify.
Above a "4" means they endorse AGW, meaning they think humans are a driver of climate. Not just "anything but a 1", that's nonsense.
Wow, you do not understand your source at all. In fact, it directly contradicts your claim.
Wow, you do not understand your source at all. In fact, it directly contradicts your point.
Yes, and he also said that the media completely misquoted him. http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CLIMATE_STUDY?SITE=AP
If you want, here's a good video on the subject with sources in the description. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQph_5eZsGs
Oh please, the "NOAA cooking the books" story was completely blown out of proportion by people who don't know what they're talking about.
Not true at all. There were some studies predicting cooling, but the majority of them predicted a warming trend.
1.4% ? Haha, what the fuck. Source?
It has happened before... they called it "Lügenpresse". Goebbels actually used it a lot to discredit foreign or "jewish/marxist" media.
Look up "Global Warming Potential". The lifetime of some greenhouse gases is hundreds of years. Water vapor has a very short lifetime.
Just because it doesn't SOUND like much doesn't mean it has no impact. Please, I study meterology. You don't know what you're talking about.
They're not "bit players". Even 400 ppm can have a very, very substantial effect on the climate; it's a sensitive system.
The ozone hole was a real, very serious, problem, and we fixed it by banning CFC's. Look it up.
Correct, it's Water vapor. In higher temperatures the air can hold more water vapor, creating a positive feedback to other greenhouse gases.
Agreed, Reddit is great because you can suit it to your own interests. Imgur is just one giant swamp where everything is thrown together.
That's the great thing about Reddit, it's not just ONE community, it's several. If one particular subreddit annoys you just un-sub from it.
Yeah, I mean I'm not American, but it's sad to see how an election like this can divide the country in such a way.
Weird world we live in when quoting someone on things they've said is considered propaganda.
Maybe not he himself, but the anti-LGBT people he surrounded himself with. Does he care about it strong enough to oppose them? Probably not.
You might want to read this, then. http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality
COUGH http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality
Sure thing http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality
Wow this joke is really fresh and not stale at all 10/10
Even better in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe9blE0liN0
Here you go: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/11/09/here-is-what-president-trump-means-for-lgbt-rights/
The amount energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted for 1 kg of red meat is INSANE.
Regardless of whether it's a good doc (haven't seen it), eating less red meat is definitely a good move either way. Much more sustainable.
Check your DM's.
Also, even IF you only count 2 and 1, I can see at first glance that even THAT is more than 1,4%. Come on, just admit your claim is wrong.
Do "implicit claims" somehow mean they disagree with AGW being a major factor? It doesn't, it just means they didn't specify.
Above a "4" means they endorse AGW, meaning they think humans are a driver of climate. Not just "anything but a 1", that's nonsense.
Wow, you do not understand your source at all. In fact, it directly contradicts your claim.
Wow, you do not understand your source at all. In fact, it directly contradicts your point.
Yes, and he also said that the media completely misquoted him. http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CLIMATE_STUDY?SITE=AP
If you want, here's a good video on the subject with sources in the description. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQph_5eZsGs
Oh please, the "NOAA cooking the books" story was completely blown out of proportion by people who don't know what they're talking about.
Not true at all. There were some studies predicting cooling, but the majority of them predicted a warming trend.
1.4% ? Haha, what the fuck. Source?
It has happened before... they called it "Lügenpresse". Goebbels actually used it a lot to discredit foreign or "jewish/marxist" media.
Look up "Global Warming Potential". The lifetime of some greenhouse gases is hundreds of years. Water vapor has a very short lifetime.
Just because it doesn't SOUND like much doesn't mean it has no impact. Please, I study meterology. You don't know what you're talking about.
They're not "bit players". Even 400 ppm can have a very, very substantial effect on the climate; it's a sensitive system.
The ozone hole was a real, very serious, problem, and we fixed it by banning CFC's. Look it up.
Correct, it's Water vapor. In higher temperatures the air can hold more water vapor, creating a positive feedback to other greenhouse gases.
Agreed, Reddit is great because you can suit it to your own interests. Imgur is just one giant swamp where everything is thrown together.
That's the great thing about Reddit, it's not just ONE community, it's several. If one particular subreddit annoys you just un-sub from it.
Yeah, I mean I'm not American, but it's sad to see how an election like this can divide the country in such a way.
Weird world we live in when quoting someone on things they've said is considered propaganda.
Maybe not he himself, but the anti-LGBT people he surrounded himself with. Does he care about it strong enough to oppose them? Probably not.
You might want to read this, then. http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality
COUGH http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality
Sure thing http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality
Wow this joke is really fresh and not stale at all 10/10
Even better in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe9blE0liN0
Here you go: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/11/09/here-is-what-president-trump-means-for-lgbt-rights/