Trump administration hints at ‘greater enforcement’ of marijuana laws

[dddaver]

Climate change, lol.


I will give somebody ten bucks if they can even name the biggest greenhouse gas........ Come on climate guys, lets hear it.

Carbon dioxide. You owe me, and a few hundred other people, ten bucks smart guy.

 

[packerfan79]

I'm with ya 100% there, we grow all of our own food and raise our meat, grow my med and love life. most of my leftie friends live in the city and shoot off about "the big bad oilfields" that make there way of life possible. Anyways I just stopped in for a bit, I'm gonna go back to just reading all the replys now. - cya on the other side packer

You got it og. I will be over there also

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Climate change, lol.


I will give somebody ten bucks if they can even name the biggest greenhouse gas........ Come on climate guys, lets hear it.

What's the answer? Water vapour? I thought u were talking man made substances

It depends what you mean by "biggest greenhouse gas" (how can you measure how big a gas is?) , but I think Ogtg2213's answer is what you were looking for. But by pushing this angle you're just showing your ignorance.

Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 levels, which in turn absorb radiant heat from the earth. And so our atmosphere has warmed, which in turn warms the oceans. This results in increased evaporation from ocean surfaces. Since atmospheric H2O is such a powerful greenhouse gas, this increase in water vapor captures radiant heat from Earth surfaces and heats the earth big league.

It's a positive feedback loop which contributes to runaway heating. Another positive feedback effect is that the melting of ocean surface sea ice allows incoming sunlight to be absorbed by the dark ocean surface instead of being reflected back out to space. This warms the polar ocean waters which then melt more sea ice (and allow more evaporation).

Recent satellite images show that Earth's sea ice extent is the lowest ever recorded since we started launching satellites. Ships are now traveling back and forth between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans across the Arctic seas. When I was a kid I was taught that the Northwest Passage was an old pipe dream. Now it's a reality (not an alternative fact, but a fact). There is now a rush to develop sea ports along the northern coasts of Alaska, Canada, and Russia to service these ships and develop petroleum resources made accessible by the lack of sea ice. There is also a rush to establish Arctic coastal military bases. The Russians are ahead in these endeavors. This is serious business, not some alternate reality.

We could go into other positive feedback loops like the release of frozen Arctic Ocean methane... but its foolish to argue with someone who is willfully ignorant. These events are "tipping points". And we are just blowing past one tipping point after another. For those who don't choose to be blind, the future looks extremely grim.

Oh, and when I think of science, Bill Nye isn't what comes to mind.

 

[Cannavore]

what an interesting time we live in when the mostly uneducated public thinks theyre more informed than the entire scientific community that isn't on the payroll of big oil.

what's even more interesting is i'm sure some of you were alive back when they did this with cigarettes, too. tobacco companies hiring special "doctors and scientists" to shill their poison... "9 out of 10 doctors smoke camels!" "cigs don't cause cancer!"

 

[packerfan79]

It depends what you mean by "biggest greenhouse gas" (how can you measure how big a gas is?) , but I think Ogtg2213's answer is what you were looking for. But by pushing this angle you're just showing your ignorance.

Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 levels, which in turn absorb radiant heat from the earth. And so our atmosphere has warmed, which in turn warms the oceans. This results in increased evaporation from ocean surfaces. Since atmospheric H2O is such a powerful greenhouse gas, this increase in water vapor captures radiant heat from Earth surfaces and heats the earth big league.

It's a positive feedback loop which contributes to runaway heating. Another positive feedback effect is that the melting of ocean surface sea ice allows incoming sunlight to be absorbed by the dark ocean surface instead of being reflected back out to space. This warms the polar ocean waters which then melt more sea ice (and allow more evaporation). Recent satellite images show that Earth's sea ice extent is the lowest ever recorded since we started launching satellites. Ships are now traveling back and forth between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans across the Arctic seas. When I was a kid I was taught that the Northwest Passage was an old pipe dream. Now it's a reality (not an alternative fact, but a fact). There is now a rush to develop sea ports along the northern coasts of Alaska, Canada, and Russia to service these ships and develop petroleum resources made accessible by the lack of sea ice. There is also a rush to establish Arctic coastal military bases. The Russians are ahead in these endeavors. This is serious business, not some alternate reality.

We could go into other positive feedback loops like the release of frozen Arctic Ocean methane... but its foolish to argue with someone who is willfully ignorant. These events are "tipping points". And we are just blowing past one tipping point after another. For those who don't choose to be blind, the future looks extremely grim.

Oh, and when I think of science, Bill Nye isn't what comes to mind.

There is a simple way to reduce co2, PLANT MORE POT PLANTS MILLIONS OF THEM.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

There is a simple way to reduce co2, PLANT MORE POT PLANTS MILLIONS OF THEM.

Yeah, but for this to work, you can't smoke them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, but for this to work, you can't smoke them.

Harvest the trichomes, turn the rest back into the soil. It's still a net gain in carbon sequestration.

 

[packerfan79]

Yeah, but for this to work, you can't smoke them.

Don't worry I couldn't smoke millions of plants not in 10 lifetimes.

People fail to realize that one volcanic eruption puts more nasty shit in the atmosphere than humans have in many decades. To think that humans are the primary driver of climate change is woefully arrogant. The earth has been here for millions of years and will be here for many millions more. Humans may not, mother nature is quite powerful. I am all for preserving the earth just not when it's used for purely political reasons. There are better ways, all the money we spend on environmental penalties, could be better spent providing clean drinking water to millions in Africa. Africa thousands die each year due to contaminated water. I don't hear anyone going affter China by far the worst polluter on the planet, or the oil rich middle eastern countries who provide oil to the world. Fossil fuels have raised the standard of living for billions of people, so it's obviously not all bad.

I personally don't need all the modern-day conveniences, I prefer a life without all the technology, it just clouds the mind into thinking you need the new car, new phone new computer, ect.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

People fail to realize that one volcanic eruption puts more nasty shit in the atmosphere than humans have in many decades. To think that humans are the primary driver of climate change is woefully arrogant.

Many years ago, people studying atmospheric CO2 realized that human activity could have a significant effect upon atmospheric temperatures. Scientists modeled these climatological effects using physics. What's observed to be happening now matches these models, but for one big exception... Everything's happening much sooner than predicted. For those paying attention, it's truly frightening.

Volcanoes emit CO2 but the sulfur and particulate emissions have a cooling effect that negates the CO2 heating. "Nasty shit" doesn't necessarily equate with climate warming. The arguments you're throwing out are red herrings.

 

[Boxfarm]

IMHO

IMHO

People fail to realize that one volcanic eruption puts more nasty shit in the atmosphere than humans have in many decades. To think that humans are the primary driver of climate change is woefully arrogant. The earth has been here for millions of years and will be here for many millions more. Humans may not, mother nature is quite powerful.

Agreed. In fact, in the last 4500 years, there have been 78 major climate swings in BOTH directions. The hottest period was around 1100 BC when global temperatures were about 4 degrees F higher than they are now (ironically, the same warming climatologists predict will happen if we double the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere). I think most conservatives would not deny climate change. I certainly spend a lot of time considering the problem and worrying about it. Wondering how much of what we do effects the climate. At the end of the day, you simply cannot ignore one simple fact. Energy enriches human life. Countries that have access to plentiful cheap energy (i.e. fossil fuels) flourish, while countries that do not are plagued with starvation, disease and poverty. I am all for protecting the environment, but not at the expense of human life.

Anyone who grows marijuana should know that CO2 makes plants grow bigger and faster. When plants grow bigger and faster they pull more CO2 from the atmosphere. This planet is a complex system that has been around for 4.5 BILLION years. It has ways of correcting these minor fluctuations

Many years ago, people studying atmospheric CO2 realized that human activity could have a significant effect upon atmospheric temperatures. Scientists modeled these climatological effects using physics. What's observed to be happening now matches these models, but for one big exception... Everything's happening much sooner than predicted. For those paying attention, it's truly frightening.

Volcanoes emit CO2 but the sulfur and particulate emissions have a cooling effect that negates the CO2 heating. "Nasty shit" doesn't necessarily equate with climate warming. The arguments you're throwing out are red herrings.

Firstly, I greatly respect your opinion and admire your love of this planet and efforts to advocate to protect it. I just like to look at the big picture. The belief that CO2 will cause a runaway warming effect is based on speculative climate science and computer models that have thus far failed to accurately predict most of the current trends. Just google "failed climate predictions" and you will have a few hours of reading to do. I remember being told when I was in high school that half of Florida would be underwater by the year 2005. I just got back from a family vacation to Cape Canaveral. It was quite nice...and quite dry.

Look, I am not saying humans have no impact on the climate. We most certainly do. Most people would probably believe (based on current market trends) that we will all probably be driving electric cars in the next 50 years or so. If we can just find a viable alternative to fossil fuels by that time, problem solved. We are humans. We are awesome. We will figure it out before we catastrophically change the climate of this planet that has been here for 4.5 billion years. IMHO, nuclear is the only clear choice. Unfortunately, the same people that advocate for CO2 reduction are advocating just as hard if not harder to block this clean, viable energy source.

If you have time, go read the book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" by Alex Epstein. There is also a great documentary on Netflix called "Pandora's Promise" that really changed the way I view nuclear energy.

 

[Genghis Kush]

the problem is overpopulation everything else is a symptom.

the only solution is limiting couples from having more than one child for a few generations.

 

[packerfan79]

the problem is overpopulation everything else is a symptom.

the only solution is limiting couples from having more than one child for a few generations.

This is a direct path Maoist massacres, communism has taken over 50 million lives, just in the cultural revolution, not including the one child policy. Close to 100 million lives from China alone. Sounds like a solution to you?

 

[vta]

what an interesting time we live in when the mostly uneducated public thinks theyre more informed than the entire scientific community that isn't on the payroll of big oil.

 

[topheavy420]

Agreed. In fact, in the last 4500 years, there have been 78 major climate swings in BOTH directions. The hottest period was around 1100 BC when global temperatures were about 4 degrees F higher than they are now (ironically, the same warming climatologists predict will happen if we double the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere). I think most conservatives would not deny climate change. I certainly spend a lot of time considering the problem and worrying about it. Wondering how much of what we do effects the climate. At the end of the day, you simply cannot ignore one simple fact. Energy enriches human life. Countries that have access to plentiful cheap energy (i.e. fossil fuels) flourish, while countries that do not are plagued with starvation, disease and poverty. I am all for protecting the environment, but not at the expense of human life.

Anyone who grows marijuana should know that CO2 makes plants grow bigger and faster. When plants grow bigger and faster they pull more CO2 from the atmosphere. This planet is a complex system that has been around for 4.5 BILLION years. It has ways of correcting these minor fluctuations




Firstly, I greatly respect your opinion and admire your love of this planet and efforts to advocate to protect it. I just like to look at the big picture. The belief that CO2 will cause a runaway warming effect is based on speculative climate science and computer models that have thus far failed to accurately predict most of the current trends. Just google "failed climate predictions" and you will have a few hours of reading to do. I remember being told when I was in high school that half of Florida would be underwater by the year 2005. I just got back from a family vacation to Cape Canaveral. It was quite nice...and quite dry.

Look, I am not saying humans have no impact on the climate. We most certainly do. Most people would probably believe (based on current market trends) that we will all probably be driving electric cars in the next 50 years or so. If we can just find a viable alternative to fossil fuels by that time, problem solved. We are humans. We are awesome. We will figure it out before we catastrophically change the climate of this planet that has been here for 4.5 billion years. IMHO, nuclear is the only clear choice. Unfortunately, the same people that advocate for CO2 reduction are advocating just as hard if not harder to block this clean, viable energy source.

If you have time, go read the book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" by Alex Epstein. There is also a great documentary on Netflix called "Pandora's Promise" that really changed the way I view nuclear energy.

Great post, you've taken the time to consider all angles and form a practical stance. We are simply at a crossroads in energy, I would think fusion is the grail we seek. I beleive in France the are about to start a fusion reactor that will have a net gain, a long road ahead but it could be the ultimate solution. Energy storage will be a big area to consider too.

 

[Cannavore]

View Image

ah yes those greedy capitalist scientists and their hidden agendas! but scientists employed by fossil fuel companies that have a profit motive and incentive to keep things the way they are, they're totally objective and being honest! it's all the big bad govt's fault!

we know the government is owned by the corporations and people at the top, so how does this work? the gov't pays scientists to falsify data, while at the same time energy and fossil fuel companies are putting out contradictory data saying it isn't real?

when you unravel this shit just the slightest bit it falls flat on it's face. anti climate change side is fueled by big money propaganda, just as how the tobacco industry operated in the past. for fucks sake, some of the same people involved in the tobacco campaigns to have it viewed to be less harmful are the same idiots telling you co2 and warming is good and that the ice isnt melting.

you're on the wrong side of this issue. cigarettes don't cause cancer.

 

[OneStonedPony]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tHO1ebNxhVI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[subrob]

Here's a view on climate change from a lefty pant suit wearing cuck:
I don't know
I'm not a scientist
It's a frustrating situation
As an individual I have to decide:
Are the majority of the world's scientists idiots? Did humankind actually somehow end up w suckers running science? Or maybe they are virtually all on the payroll of lefty scum? That's a LOT of scientists! I understand there is LOTS of government grant money to suck up, but is there only money for climate change? I have no illusions about the tendency for humans to take the eSy path but cmon! I also have to weigh the fact that the vast majority if not all scientists(that I have personally seen or read) who denounce climate change are being paid by companies that are directly affected by legislation!
So what am I supposed to think? I love v8's and Harley's w aftermRket exhaust...I fought in Iraq for oil during desert Storm so I'ma gonna use me some godamn petroleum!!!
I DO believe that right now the left is attempting to forge their own "abortion army" that will never vote to the right...that's a powerful tool man...they are swinging between gun control and this...that certainly doesn't help
But I have to go back to science
It's what people who don't have a god rely on for answers
And it's very difficult to believe the scientific world community is pulling one over our eyes

And what about scientists outside of the evil Obama realm? How did the American Democrats convince people from countries that hate us that climate change is affected by humans?

Keep in mind: I don't have children so I don't give a flying fuck if earth burns up 50 years from now..but I am fascinated by this debate here in the U.S.

 

[Boxfarm]

Yes!

Yes!

Here's a view on climate change from a lefty pant suit wearing cuck:
I don't know
I'm not a scientist
It's a frustrating situation
As an individual I have to decide:
Are the majority of the world's scientists idiots? Did humankind actually somehow end up w suckers running science? Or maybe they are virtually all on the payroll of lefty scum? That's a LOT of scientists! I understand there is LOTS of government grant money to suck up, but is there only money for climate change? I have no illusions about the tendency for humans to take the eSy path but cmon! I also have to weigh the fact that the vast majority if not all scientists(that I have personally seen or read) who denounce climate change are being paid by companies that are directly affected by legislation!
So what am I supposed to think? I love v8's and Harley's w aftermRket exhaust...I fought in Iraq for oil during desert Storm so I'ma gonna use me some godamn petroleum!!!
I DO believe that right now the left is attempting to forge their own "abortion army" that will never vote to the right...that's a powerful tool man...they are swinging between gun control and this...that certainly doesn't help
But I have to go back to science
It's what people who don't have a god rely on for answers
And it's very difficult to believe the scientific world community is pulling one over our eyes

And what about scientists outside of the evil Obama realm? How did the American Democrats convince people from countries that hate us that climate change is affected by humans?

Keep in mind: I don't have children so I don't give a flying fuck if earth burns up 50 years from now..but I am fascinated by this debate here in the U.S.

I think your view is extremely logical and my response is in no way meant to put you down. It's important to me because in my experience, this is the view that most people have.

"I am not a scientist, so I have to trust what the scientists are saying"

Taking this viewpoint IS the easy way out. The fact that you don't believe in God is irrelevant. We as human beings have a unique ability to determine the difference between right an wrong. As a military man (thank you for your service by the way) I would venture to guess you have a fair bit of common sense as well. Since you are a veteran, I will use a military example to back up my point:

Every civilization from the beginning of time has had different perspectives on how to fight a battle or win a war. However, had you ever heard of a civilization in which it was considered a great honor to run away in the midst of a battle? That is just wrong. Plain and simple.

With that being said, in the absence of the means to conduct your own research on the matter, you have two choices. You can consider all the data available and draw your own conclusions, or you can take the scientists word for it. My personal opinion is based not only on the fact that CO2 probably does have an impact on the environment but also on the enormous benefits that energy has on humanity. I believe that the science is probably accurate, but most likely skewed since most environmental research is funded by big government or big oil. When you look at the whole picture, it seems very clear to me. Restricting fossil fuel use would have a much more devastating effect on humanity than any amount of global warming. Especially when you consider the global temperature trends over long periods of earths history and how close we are to replacing fossil fuels with cleaner sources of energy.

If we were going to be burning fossil fuels for the next 1000 years, I would be making a completely different case. My hope is that fossil fuels will be a healthy and necessary debate for the foreseeable future, but in the end it will be irrelevant. We will discover cheaper and cleaner sources of energy before we wreck the environment.

I mentioned the book in my last post "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" by Alex Epstein. Read it! If nothing else, it will give you different perspective. He is not working for big oil. He is a philosopher. An atheist philosopher I might add.

 

[Boxfarm]

I also might add that without fossil fuels, we would all be harvesting once a year and dealing with all manner of cannabis loving pests! We would still be high, just not as high. LOL

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Agreed. In fact, in the last 4500 years, there have been 78 major climate swings in BOTH directions. The hottest period was around 1100 BC when global temperatures were about 4 degrees F higher than they are now (ironically, the same warming climatologists predict will happen if we double the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere). I think most conservatives would not deny climate change. I certainly spend a lot of time considering the problem and worrying about it. Wondering how much of what we do effects the climate. At the end of the day, you simply cannot ignore one simple fact. Energy enriches human life. Countries that have access to plentiful cheap energy (i.e. fossil fuels) flourish, while countries that do not are plagued with starvation, disease and poverty. I am all for protecting the environment, but not at the expense of human life.

Anyone who grows marijuana should know that CO2 makes plants grow bigger and faster. When plants grow bigger and faster they pull more CO2 from the atmosphere. This planet is a complex system that has been around for 4.5 BILLION years. It has ways of correcting these minor fluctuations




Firstly, I greatly respect your opinion and admire your love of this planet and efforts to advocate to protect it. I just like to look at the big picture. The belief that CO2 will cause a runaway warming effect is based on speculative climate science and computer models that have thus far failed to accurately predict most of the current trends. Just google "failed climate predictions" and you will have a few hours of reading to do. I remember being told when I was in high school that half of Florida would be underwater by the year 2005. I just got back from a family vacation to Cape Canaveral. It was quite nice...and quite dry.

Look, I am not saying humans have no impact on the climate. We most certainly do. Most people would probably believe (based on current market trends) that we will all probably be driving electric cars in the next 50 years or so. If we can just find a viable alternative to fossil fuels by that time, problem solved. We are humans. We are awesome. We will figure it out before we catastrophically change the climate of this planet that has been here for 4.5 billion years. IMHO, nuclear is the only clear choice. Unfortunately, the same people that advocate for CO2 reduction are advocating just as hard if not harder to block this clean, viable energy source.

If you have time, go read the book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" by Alex Epstein. There is also a great documentary on Netflix called "Pandora's Promise" that really changed the way I view nuclear energy.

Big money drives policy. And petroleum is the ultimate in big money. Exxon is infamous for it's surreptitious funding to influence the study of human caused climate change. Then there's the Koch brothers... The parallels with the cigarette industry are striking. You are right that technological advances in alternate clean energy sources will eventually make drilling oil uneconomical. In fact the process has moved quite a ways down the road in other countries. The US energy markets are still shackled to fossil fuels though. The push to accelerate coal extraction, and oil and gas drilling seems to be more about making the richest people richer than preparing for future needs.

I too am intrigued by the advances in nuclear energy, especially the small reactors. But once again our energy policy is controlled by big money. And big money wants big centralized power generation, which sets us up for big failures. Worst case scenarios aren't fantasy. This was shown by Fukushima which was greatly the result of massive greed and corruption. Humanity will be haunted by that ongoing catastrophe for countless generations to come. Nuclear energy is not clean. We can instead accomplish a lot by utilizing that big fusion reactor in the sky if only we set ourselves to it.

Yes, climate changes. And we have been living in a long period of climatic stability. But with recent years we keep setting new records for high temperatures. Atmospheric CO2 as measured on the Mauna Loa observatory has shown a steady stair-step increase (stair-step because of seasonal intake and release of CO2 by annual plants). Oceans are acidifying from absorption of increasing atmospheric CO2 with negative effects upon marine life. Weather patterns are changing radically. All of this is explainable by CO2 released from human activity. Is there an alternative observed phenomena that can explain all these occurrences?

I remember being told when I was in high school that half of Florida would be underwater by the year 2005.

Well, that was high school. Actually some portions of the Florida coast are being negatively impacted by rising sea levels, though most can be explained by ocean heating and changes in the ocean currents (why is the Gulf Stream changing?). The climatologists who ran the computer model that predicted changes in the northern jet stream over North America (which have come true), used in their modeling the prediction that persistent Arctic sea ice would be essentially gone by 2045. This work was published around 2005. I have no idea where your high school teacher got the prediction that sea level rise would be so profound by 2005.