Discussion:
Can We Sue The Neanderthals for Starting Fires? Cro-Magnon?
(too old to reply)
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-09 23:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The plaintiffs hold these fossil
fuel companies accountable for rising sea levels, changing landscapes,
higher global temperatures and increased risk of storms and droughts.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

WHO changed the landscapes before, during and after the ice ages?

WHO caused the rising of the sea levels when the ice ages went into the
interglacials?

WHO caused the higher global temperatures when the ice ages went into
interglacials?

Who caused the storms and droughts of the past, BEFORE CO² "pollution"?

Was it Exxon or BP?
Exeter!
2017-10-09 23:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hillbilly Davis
The plaintiffs hold these fossil
fuel companies accountable for rising sea levels, changing landscapes,
higher global temperatures and increased risk of storms and droughts.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
WHO changed the landscapes before, during and after the ice ages?
WHO caused the rising of the sea levels when the ice ages went into the
interglacials?
WHO caused the higher global temperatures when the ice ages went into
interglacials?
Who caused the storms and droughts of the past, BEFORE CO² "pollution"?
Was it Exxon or BP?
Well now I think we all know the answer to that, certainly Plato did at
least - it was the brutal octane battle between the rapacious
multinational awl companies on Lemuria and Atlantis that did the planet in!





,*-'.
.'+*
' # '
/v\
,' .`.
__.-" ^ "-.__
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
Unum
2017-10-10 15:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hillbilly Davis
The plaintiffs hold these fossil
fuel companies accountable for rising sea levels, changing landscapes,
higher global temperatures and increased risk of storms and droughts.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Bleats like a sheep, lol.
Post by Hillbilly Davis
WHO changed the landscapes before, during and after the ice ages?
WHO caused the rising of the sea levels when the ice ages went into the
interglacials?
WHO caused the higher global temperatures when the ice ages went into
interglacials?
Who caused the storms and droughts of the past, BEFORE CO² "pollution"?
All of this has been explained to ratboy many times. What does any of it
have to do with present-day global warming, dumbass?


http://www.nasdaq.com/article/oil-majors-face-lawsuits-on-climate-change-issues-cm856519

Oil Majors Face Lawsuits on Climate Change Issues

Oct 06, 2017, 04:44:00 PM EDT
Zacks Equity Research

Per the latest Carbon Majors report, around 71% of the global
emissions have been caused by just 100 companies, wherein ExxonMobil,
Shell, BP and Chevron rank among the top 4 contributors. The report
also highlighted that the contribution of fossil fuels to climate
change have doubled since 1988. The report further pinpoints that
global average temperature will rise by 4 degree Celsius by the end of
the century if the fossil fuel extraction continues at the same rate.
BumbleBee
2017-10-10 15:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Oil Majors Face Lawsuits on Climate Change Issues
Given up on your long haul battery powered semis, turdly?

Lol.
Unum
2017-10-10 19:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Unum
Oil Majors Face Lawsuits on Climate Change Issues
Given up on your long haul battery powered semis, turdly?
Lol.
You hang on my every word, lol. Keep checking, I might post again
in a little while.
BumbleBee
2017-10-10 19:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Unum
Oil Majors Face Lawsuits on Climate Change Issues
Given up on your long haul battery powered semis, turdly?
Lol.
You hang
You hung yourself, know-nothing greeny.
Unum
2017-10-10 23:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Unum
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Unum
Oil Majors Face Lawsuits on Climate Change Issues
Given up on your long haul battery powered semis, turdly?
Lol.
You hang
You hung yourself, know-nothing greeny.
You were able to wait 7 minutes before responding this time. You hang on my
every word. Keep checking! I might post again in a little while!
BumbleBee
2017-10-11 00:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Unum
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Unum
Oil Majors Face Lawsuits on Climate Change Issues
Given up on your long haul battery powered semis, turdly?
Lol.
You hang
You hung yourself, know-nothing greeny.
You were able to wait 7 minutes
Delayed gratification is a wonderful thing.
Wally W.
2017-10-11 03:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Unum
Oil Majors Face Lawsuits on Climate Change Issues
Given up on your long haul battery powered semis, turdly?
Lol.
You hang on my every word, lol. Keep checking, I might post again
in a little while.
But you're not saying that you will answer his question about long
haul battery powered semis.

So no need to bother "checking" for your posts.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 22:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:50:29 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill says...
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Unum
Oil Majors Face Lawsuits on Climate Change Issues
Given up on your long haul battery powered semis, turdly?
Deniers openly admit their talking points will not hold up in court?
Nope. Do yours?

Hardly.


Al Gore's Environmental Documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth", Contains
Nine Key Scientific Errors, A High Court Judge Ruled

The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British
schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to
prevent political indoctrination.

In the documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, the former US vice
president and environmental activist calls on people to fight global
warming because "humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb".

But Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen "in the
context of alarmism and exaggeration" in order to support Mr Gore's thesis
on global warming.

His criticism followed an unsuccessful attempt by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent
school governor, to block the Government's plan to screen the documentary
in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales.

The father of two claimed An Inconvenient Truth included "serious
scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush".

The film's distributor, Paramount, warns in its synopsis of the film: "IF
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S SCIENTISTS ARE RIGHT, WE HAVE JUST TEN
YEARS TO AVERT A MAJOR CATASTROPHE THAT COULD SEND OUR ENTIRE PLANET INTO
A TAIL-SPIN OF EPIC DESTRUCTION INVOLVING EXTREME WEATHER, FLOODS,
DROUGHTS, EPIDEMICS AND KILLER HEAT WAVES BEYOND ANYTHING WE HAVE EVER
EXPERIENCED."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But the judge ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film
was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of
climate change.

It is, he ruled, a "political film".


The nine alleged errors in the film:

Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused
by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future".
The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-
up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount
of water - "but only after, and over, millennia". "The Armageddon scenario
he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres
might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific
consensus."

The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being
inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled
there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean
Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North
Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean
Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut
down in the future, though it might slow down.

Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the
other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an
exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific
agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish
what Mr Gore asserts".

Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly
attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists
have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is
primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example
of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was
insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far
more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and
over-grazing, and regional climate variability."

Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New
Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient
evidence to show that".

Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that
polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances
- up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific
study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four
polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. "That was
not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears
if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does
not support Mr Gore's description".

Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached
because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the
judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade,
there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral
could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due
to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution
was difficult.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-13 01:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill says...
Post by BumbleBee
Post by Unum
Oil Majors Face Lawsuits on Climate Change Issues
Given up on your long haul battery powered semis, turdly?
Deniers openly admit their talking points will not hold up in court?
Nope.
So what talking point are deniers going to put into their friend of the court brief?
"Since it was hotter in the early Limbocene -- you greenies think they had SUVs in the early Limbocene? LOL! Boy are you dumb -- and since the early Limbocene was natcheral, and since natcheral is good, then the fact that it is getting hotter now means that it's natcheral now and cannot be Exxon's fault!"
Then you cite numerous cases were prosecutions against arsonists were summarily dismissed because forest fires existed in the early Limbocene.
Dropped on your head as a baby, huh? No wonder you grew up a gay nerd,
who now lives in mommy's basement... you have ZERO social skills and can't
GET a job.

My, it must suck to be in your situation. Are you still nursing from
mommy, Brettainey, or did you manage to stop this year?
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-12 21:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill says...
This means no human today can be prosecuted for arson today
To WHO, you fucking koOk?

Go ahead... start a forest fire... PLEASE!

Typical dumb ass liberal basement dwelling mommy's boy... makes up stupid
analogies to make a stupid fucking point.

By YOUR "logic", people have been dying of natural causes since man's been
around, and that it would be OK to murder someone, because you know, death
is natcheral.

God, the IDIOCY of you leftard do-nothings is beyond belief.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-13 01:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:13:15 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill says...
forest fires is natcheral
Yup... you are correct.

Nobody gave a shit about wildfires (a misnomer, since many fires are
purposely set), until dumb asses starting building their houses in areas
where wildfires NATURALLY lit.

400 years ago, America was JUST as dry where the current wildfires are
now, but or course, no one lived there. Now, people die because of their
stupidity, and we're all suppose to blame everything that happens, on
something in particular... now, it's the climate screechers who don't
screech to save the planet... they screech to redistribute wealth away
from big oil and coal, to the "green" fanatics.

Yeah... it's Exxon's fault because some dumbasses built their houses in
tornado, wildfire and hurricane "alleys".

Keep telling that to yourself, basement boy.

=====

There is no doubt that wildfires are a problem for homeowners in the
American southwest and that most of the residents in that area would just
as soon do away with them if it was possible. The problem with that line
of thinking is that wildfires provide a very important service to the
ecological system in the region.

Because wildfire is a NATURALLY OCCURRING EVENT, usually the result of a
lightning strike on dry grassland areas, the species indigenous to areas
with high rates of wildfire have adapted to it. Trees are especially
adapted to wildfire because of the particular way in which it usually
burns. Wildfires generally troll through the lower regions of the forest,
clearing out dead branches, fallen trees and various other dry materials.

After the fire has burned through there is a huge ecological rebirth.
Pioneer species, including fast growing grasses and weeds, begin
repopulating the newly burnt area. After a few years fledgling trees start
to emerge, especially pines whose pine cones are adapted to open only
after a period of intense heat. These small pines continue to grow in the
area and start to amend the soil so that hardwood species can grow.
Hickory and oak trees are usually the most common. The entire process to
take a burnt forest through rebirth to a climax period (the time when it
is at its ecological best) can take hundreds of years.

After the fire - http://www.ecopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/After-
the-fire-e1369596879275.jpg

In addition to clearing the canopy and allowing for new growth in the
region, wildfires also destroy pest infestations, eliminate fungal growths
and destroy diseases that are slowly killing the old growth. This
disinfecting feature of the fire also returns carbon and nitrogen to the
soil, creating a much more fertile environment (which is why clear-cutting
and burning is a popular way to establish new farmland).

Interestingly, when forest fires first started encroaching on lands
inhabited by humans, every effort was made to put them out as quickly as
possible. The unfortunate side effect was that dry wood and grasses
accumulated in these forests so the next time a fire started it burned
hotter and more voraciously. As we have learned about the importance of
periodic burns in the forest, our approach to handling them has changed.
Now, we are more content to control a fire and try to direct it away from
heavily populated areas. We even engage in periodic controlled burns that
supplement the natural burn cycle.
Byker
2017-10-13 02:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hillbilly Davis
Because wildfire is a NATURALLY OCCURRING EVENT, usually the result of a
lightning strike on dry grassland areas, the species indigenous to areas
with high rates of wildfire have adapted to it. Trees are especially
adapted to wildfire because of the particular way in which it usually
burns. Wildfires generally troll through the lower regions of the forest,
clearing out dead branches, fallen trees and various other dry materials.
For a long time it was believed that the Indians had little impact on the
land they inhabited, taking only what was needed and moving on. However,
this version of history is not true. Native tribes and in fact all people
have changed the landscape they live on to meet their needs for survival and
growth. Fires were purposely set by Indians for many reasons, all critical
for their survival: providing food, places to live, safety, and in warfare.

"The Indians could remember years when their homeland caught fire; sometimes
they set blazes to clear a patch of land...Lewis and Clark saw land that had
been burned deliberately to open up the country, and the Indians entertained
them at night by setting fire to tall trees."

-- "The Big Burn", by Timothy Egan (2009), page 111
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did Native Americans use fire?

According to Williams (2000) Native Americans used fire for the following
reasons:

Hunting. Fire was used to drive large game such as deer, elk, and bison into
areas that made hunting easier. Sometimes animals were driven by fire over
cliffs or into narrow canyons, rivers or lakes where they could be more
easily killed. Torches were set to find deer and attract fish. Smoke was a
useful tool in forcing raccoons and bears from their tree dens.

Growing Food. Fire was used to clear areas for growing food; prevent fields
from growing back to shrubs and trees while they were fallow; increase the
yield of berries such as strawberries, raspberries, huckleberries; and clear
areas under oak trees to make the gathering of acorns easier.

Insect Collection. Fire was used to collect and roast crickets and
grasshoppers. Smoke was used to drive bees from nests aiding in honey
collection.

Pest Management. Fire helped to keep the population levels of pests such as
rodents, poisonous snakes, flies, and mosquitoes down.

Range Management. Fire stimulated the growth of new grasses for grazing
animals and kept the area from growing back to shrubs and trees.

Fireproofing. Native Americans knew how to fight fire with fire. Fires were
deliberately set near settlements and other special areas. If a fire moved
through the area it might go out when reaching the already burned area
because there was no fuel.

Warfare and Signaling. Fires were purposely set in fighting enemies. A
cleared area was hard to hide in. Fires were used to destroy enemy property.
Fires were set during an escape to camouflage movement. Large fires were
also set to notify others of enemy movements and gather forces for fighting.

Economic Extortion. Some tribes burned large areas to prevent settlers and
traders from finding game. They would then trade with them for dried meats.

Clearing Areas for Travel. Keeping trails open and free from brush was
important for travel, and safety.

Tree Felling. Trees were important for building structures and canoes.
Before axes were available through trade, Native Americans used fire to kill
trees. One method was to drill two intersecting holes in a trunk, put
charcoal in one hole and let the smoke escape in the other. The other method
involved encircling a tree with fire at the base, "girdling" it, and
eventually killing it.

Clear Riparian Areas. A riparian area is land near water. Clearing brush
made hunting for beaver, muskrats, moose, and waterfowl easier.

Reference: William, G.W. 2000. Introduction to Aboriginal Fire Use in North
America. Fire Management Today. 60(3):8-12.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire

http://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/biblio_indianfire.htm

http://www.californiachaparral.com/enativeamericans.html

"Nothing will ever ever ever EVER stop wildfires in California. NOTHING. And
passing programs off that they WILL accomplish this deceives the public.":
http://tinyurl.com/yc5gksux
Siri Cruise
2017-10-13 06:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Byker
For a long time it was believed that the Indians had little impact on the
land they inhabited, taking only what was needed and moving on. However,
Only believed by the same idiots who bought that noble savage crap. By the time
the europeans arrived en masse the indians had hunted most of the large prey to
extinction, leaving only bison and various kind of deer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-Smashed-In_Buffalo_Jump
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Exeter!
2017-10-13 14:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Byker
For a long time it was believed that the Indians had little impact on the
land they inhabited, taking only what was needed and moving on. However,
Only believed by the same idiots who bought that noble savage crap. By the time
the europeans arrived en masse the indians had hunted most of the large prey to
extinction, leaving only bison and various kind of deer.
Thanks for being a bigot against Natives, meth whore.
gordo
2017-10-13 17:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Byker
For a long time it was believed that the Indians had little impact on the
land they inhabited, taking only what was needed and moving on. However,
Only believed by the same idiots who bought that noble savage crap. By the time
the europeans arrived en masse the indians had hunted most of the large prey to
extinction, leaving only bison and various kind of deer.
Clearly not true that they hunted most large prey to extinction unless
you are talking about the wooly mammoth and sabre toothed tiger etc.
Is that what you meant?

"Mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers and other megafauna went extinct because
of ancient climate change"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mammoths-sabre-tooth-tigers-megafauna-extinct-ice-age-climate-change-water-a7688716.html
Post by Siri Cruise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-Smashed-In_Buffalo_Jump
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Byker
2017-10-13 23:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Only believed by the same idiots who bought that noble savage crap. By the
time the europeans arrived en masse the indians had hunted most of the
large prey to extinction, leaving only bison and various kind of deer.
Clearly not true that they hunted most large prey to extinction unlessyou
are talking about the wooly mammoth and sabre toothed tiger etc. Is that
what you meant?
Elephants are still around after 100,000 years of Africoonians hunting them.
What gives?
Exeter!
2017-10-13 23:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Byker
Post by Siri Cruise
Only believed by the same idiots who bought that noble savage crap. By the
time the europeans arrived en masse the indians had hunted most of the
large prey to extinction, leaving only bison and various kind of deer.
Clearly not true that they hunted most large prey to extinction unlessyou
are talking about the wooly mammoth and sabre toothed tiger etc. Is that
what you meant?
Elephants are still around after 100,000 years of Africoonians hunting them.
What gives?
And Hippos, don't forget the Hippos!

Byker
2017-10-13 19:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Byker
For a long time it was believed that the Indians had little impact on the
land they inhabited, taking only what was needed and moving on. However,
Only believed by the same idiots who bought that noble savage crap. By the
time the europeans arrived en masse the indians had hunted most of the
large prey to extinction, leaving only bison
I wonder why "modern" bison survived and Bison antiquus didn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_antiquus
Exeter!
2017-10-13 21:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Byker
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Byker
For a long time it was believed that the Indians had little impact on the
land they inhabited, taking only what was needed and moving on. However,
Only believed by the same idiots who bought that noble savage crap. By the
time the europeans arrived en masse the indians had hunted most of the
large prey to extinction, leaving only bison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_antiquus
No Buffalo Wild Wings?!?!

;-))
Loading...