Jump to content

The real agenda


Cardboard
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey all:

 

I was very shocked & dismayed at what happened at the UN the other day.

 

How did that goofy girl from Europe get to speak there?  She is a total "tool" and hypocrite, please see:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9739595/greta-thunbergs-carbon-free-yacht-trip-flights/

 

Obviously, she is just the mouth piece and there is somebody behind her...

 

There I've never understood about the climate change people:

 

A). It has NEVER entered their consciousness that "climate change" could simply be a scam?  The whole thing is being brought to us by the leftists in academia!  Look at all the other scams they've produced! 

 

B). The track record on climate change is not good.  When I was a child, I can distinctly remember TIME magazine talking about the coming ice age.  The oceans were supposed to rise, rain forest were supposed to be GONE years ago.  None of this ever happened.

 

C). Many of the climate change folk lecture the deplorables to lower their "carbon foot print" all the while they fly on private jets, and have "silly" carbon footprints.  Perfect example of this is Al Gore.  Please see:

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/08/15/al-gores-carbon-footprint-hypocrisy/

 

So Al Gore uses at least 20X the electricity of the average American household and he flies in private jets.  If he practiced what he preaches, he would take the train to Europe.

 

D). Several prominent climate change activists have said the world will end in about 10 years.  The most prominent might be AOC.

 

The fate of the world & humanity is really at stake?

 

If so, why are they not more vociferous in their calls for change & carbon footprint reduction?  Why aren't they calling for an IMMEDIATE end to internal combustion engines?  Why aren't they against IMMEDIATELY capping 98% of oil wells?  Why aren't they going after China & Africa & India? 

 

If this is truly the fate of humanity, would that also not being worth going to war over?  Just set off a string of EMP bursts all over the world (and detonate them every month or so) to destroy the electrical grid and move humanity back to a pre-industrial society. 

 

If this is the end of the world, why aren't they advocating an immediate change in government & society?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the money and you will find the truth or Sherlock Holmes' investigative method.

 

Why is Florida still intact? Why are banks still lending money to buy highly expensive homes by the oceans? Why are insurers still insuring these? Are they crazy? All climate change deniers?

 

There is some truth to man-made climate change and we should highly emphasize man-made because some is certainly out of our control. Biggest one is sun activity which is dismissed in most if not all of these studies which is nuts when you think about it. Things like sunspots activity is considered a controversial subject when it comes to climate change. Huh really? Because something does not fit the theory you dismiss it altogether?

 

They also manipulate data which makes their study laughable so why should we try to fix something that has been deformed?

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-feds-scrapped-100-years-of-data-on-climate-change

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the money and you will find the truth or Sherlock Holmes' investigative method.

 

Why is Florida still intact? Why are banks still lending money to buy highly expensive homes by the oceans? Why are insurers still insuring these? Are they crazy? All climate change deniers?

 

There is some truth to man-made climate change and we should highly emphasize man-made because some is certainly out of our control. Biggest one is sun activity which is dismissed in most if not all of these studies which is nuts when you think about it. Things like sunspots activity is considered a controversial subject when it comes to climate change. Huh really? Because something does not fit the theory you dismiss it altogether?

 

They also manipulate data which makes their study laughable so why should we try to fix something that has been deformed?

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-feds-scrapped-100-years-of-data-on-climate-change

 

Interesting you mention Florida. NO state income tax. Very business friendly, incredible employment track record. Open carry/lax gun policies...Definitely aint no NY or CA....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the money and you will find the truth or Sherlock Holmes' investigative method.

 

Why is Florida still intact? Why are banks still lending money to buy highly expensive homes by the oceans? Why are insurers still insuring these? Are they crazy? All climate change deniers?

 

There is some truth to man-made climate change and we should highly emphasize man-made because some is certainly out of our control. Biggest one is sun activity which is dismissed in most if not all of these studies which is nuts when you think about it. Things like sunspots activity is considered a controversial subject when it comes to climate change. Huh really? Because something does not fit the theory you dismiss it altogether?

 

They also manipulate data which makes their study laughable so why should we try to fix something that has been deformed?

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-feds-scrapped-100-years-of-data-on-climate-change

 

Interesting you mention Florida. NO state income tax. Very business friendly, incredible employment track record. Open carry/lax gun policies...Definitely aint no NY or CA....

 

I think he was referring to the topological and geological structure of the state and how it should be underwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fate of the world & humanity is really at stake?

 

If so, why are they not more vociferous in their calls for change & carbon footprint reduction?  Why aren't they calling for an IMMEDIATE end to internal combustion engines?  Why aren't they against IMMEDIATELY capping 98% of oil wells?  Why aren't they going after China & Africa & India? 

 

If this is truly the fate of humanity, would that also not being worth going to war over?  Just set off a string of EMP bursts all over the world (and detonate them every month or so) to destroy the electrical grid and move humanity back to a pre-industrial society. 

 

If this is the end of the world, why aren't they advocating an immediate change in government & society?

 

They are. I don't think you get how radical they are. Your assuming they don't really believe this. THEY DO. Their rhetorical get shriller everyday. They believe its the end of the world and there is a requirement for a radical alteration of government and economic systems. It ends up just being socialism on a world wide scale.

 

The scientists are advocates and science itself is pushed in the direction of increasing radicalism. The effect of social media is to amplify the most extreme craziest people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I wouldn't go that far. Most of Florida sucks.

 

I hear this a lot. Why?

Outside the main cities I found it to be the embodiment of ramshackle. And the only good parts are at high risk of extensive hurricane damage for half the year (except maybe st Pete's which is outside the flood zone)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida has it right. Its funny hearing people from freeloader states/countries rip on Florida.

 

Their policies are pro people, pro business, anti government. Same thing goes for Texas. Florida has tons of immigrants(most of which ironically are Republicans who detest boarder hoppers) Look at who's moving there...every NYer and heck, even guys like Tepper and Icahn are relocating their businesses. Despite the fact that Miami will be underwater bc of global warming....

 

St. Pete is actually what I'd call a shithole, sorry LC...you continue to know very little.

 

Theres literally something for everyone there. You like rural? Gainesville/Alachua is great. You like cities, Broward is solid. Historian? St Augustine is tremendous. Like the bayous? Check out the panhandle. Caribbean? Florida Keys are a treasure. You'd be surprised how many Canadians regularly vacation/retire there. Check out a company called Minto Communities and what they are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

I was very shocked & dismayed at what happened at the UN the other day.

 

How did that goofy girl from Europe get to speak there?  She is a total "tool" and hypocrite, please see:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9739595/greta-thunbergs-carbon-free-yacht-trip-flights/

 

Obviously, she is just the mouth piece and there is somebody behind her...

 

There I've never understood about the climate change people:

 

A). It has NEVER entered their consciousness that "climate change" could simply be a scam?  The whole thing is being brought to us by the leftists in academia!  Look at all the other scams they've produced! 

 

B). The track record on climate change is not good.  When I was a child, I can distinctly remember TIME magazine talking about the coming ice age.  The oceans were supposed to rise, rain forest were supposed to be GONE years ago.  None of this ever happened.

 

C). Many of the climate change folk lecture the deplorables to lower their "carbon foot print" all the while they fly on private jets, and have "silly" carbon footprints.  Perfect example of this is Al Gore.  Please see:

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/08/15/al-gores-carbon-footprint-hypocrisy/

 

So Al Gore uses at least 20X the electricity of the average American household and he flies in private jets.  If he practiced what he preaches, he would take the train to Europe.

 

D). Several prominent climate change activists have said the world will end in about 10 years.  The most prominent might be AOC.

 

The fate of the world & humanity is really at stake?

 

If so, why are they not more vociferous in their calls for change & carbon footprint reduction?  Why aren't they calling for an IMMEDIATE end to internal combustion engines?  Why aren't they against IMMEDIATELY capping 98% of oil wells?  Why aren't they going after China & Africa & India? 

 

If this is truly the fate of humanity, would that also not being worth going to war over?  Just set off a string of EMP bursts all over the world (and detonate them every month or so) to destroy the electrical grid and move humanity back to a pre-industrial society. 

 

If this is the end of the world, why aren't they advocating an immediate change in government & society?

 

Are you guys really that bloody stupid?  Yeah, the left has their environmental shills, but the science is nearly 100% behind that mankind is having an environmental and climate impact on the planet...that is without a doubt and if anyone is arguing that, then you shouldn't even worry about it, since you probably still think the world is flat!

 

Now, exactly the degree of the impact and the timeline of how things will unfold, I think that can be argued well and the science probably has a long ways to go to prove how much damage has occurred, how much time we have, and exactly what the implications are relative to sea levels rising, changes in currents, weather, storm patterns, etc.  What is absolutely proven is that we are doing significant damage in terms of the flora and fauna, and species are going extinct at a great rate...we are essentially killing the planet's balance due to our consumption.

 

I'm a technologist, and believe that alot of these problems will be resolved through technology, or the planet become so inhospitable, that it kills off a large number of the population...like a fever, the planet will fight the infection and kill the virus...the planet will live on, technology may live on in the form of AI, but mankind may be gone. 

 

But we could certainly do things to delay and possibly prevent that ever happening...like we've done with food production, water consumption, the ozone, agriculture, emissions control, etc.  What we've done so far is given ourselves more time...like in the 70's when the world was supposed to run out of food by 2000...but we just keep pushing the inevitable further into the future.  We'll be able to do that for a while, but common sense and science is telling us that as we damage the planet, certainly good things won't come out of it over the very long-term.  Cheers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 50centdollars

Hey all:

 

I was very shocked & dismayed at what happened at the UN the other day.

 

How did that goofy girl from Europe get to speak there?  She is a total "tool" and hypocrite, please see:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9739595/greta-thunbergs-carbon-free-yacht-trip-flights/

 

Obviously, she is just the mouth piece and there is somebody behind her...

 

There I've never understood about the climate change people:

 

A). It has NEVER entered their consciousness that "climate change" could simply be a scam?  The whole thing is being brought to us by the leftists in academia!  Look at all the other scams they've produced! 

 

B). The track record on climate change is not good.  When I was a child, I can distinctly remember TIME magazine talking about the coming ice age.  The oceans were supposed to rise, rain forest were supposed to be GONE years ago.  None of this ever happened.

 

C). Many of the climate change folk lecture the deplorables to lower their "carbon foot print" all the while they fly on private jets, and have "silly" carbon footprints.  Perfect example of this is Al Gore.  Please see:

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/08/15/al-gores-carbon-footprint-hypocrisy/

 

So Al Gore uses at least 20X the electricity of the average American household and he flies in private jets.  If he practiced what he preaches, he would take the train to Europe.

 

D). Several prominent climate change activists have said the world will end in about 10 years.  The most prominent might be AOC.

 

The fate of the world & humanity is really at stake?

 

If so, why are they not more vociferous in their calls for change & carbon footprint reduction?  Why aren't they calling for an IMMEDIATE end to internal combustion engines?  Why aren't they against IMMEDIATELY capping 98% of oil wells?  Why aren't they going after China & Africa & India? 

 

If this is truly the fate of humanity, would that also not being worth going to war over?  Just set off a string of EMP bursts all over the world (and detonate them every month or so) to destroy the electrical grid and move humanity back to a pre-industrial society. 

 

If this is the end of the world, why aren't they advocating an immediate change in government & society?

 

50 years of failed eco predictions

 

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975

2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)

3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000

4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980

5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070

7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast

8. 1974: Another Ice Age?

9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)

10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent

11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)

12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)

13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s

14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs

15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)

16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000

17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)

18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is

19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy

20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024

21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World

24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’

25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014

26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)

27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’

28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide

29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources

30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years

31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years

32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s

33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000

34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020

35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010

36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!

37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015

38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985

39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable

40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish

41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production

43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century

44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum

45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980

46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018

47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020

48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past

49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming

50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Are you guys really that bloody stupid?  Yeah, the left has their environmental shills, but the science is nearly 100% behind that mankind is having an environmental and climate impact on the planet...that is without a doubt and if anyone is arguing that, then you shouldn't even worry about it, since you probably still think the world is flat!"

 

An incontrovertible truth on science nearly 100% behind it? I guess then it is fair to call people who question timing, cause and solutions as "bloody stupid".

 

In the 30's we had the rise of fascism and Nazism following the Great Depression. Right to question was abolished, books were burned, capitalism was bad, anyone opposed was killed or silenced.

 

Now following the Great Recession we have the rise of environmental radicalism along with anti-capitalism and growth. They are starting to shaming people for traveling, having children or even eating meat.

 

If you think that they will stop at shaming you are, yeah, "bloody stupid". History shows us clearly what happens when true radical elements take control. Think AOC, Warren, Sanders or real Pol Pot's wannabe wanting to turn the world upside down.

 

In the meantime, looks like radical elements are turning against each other. Let's hope they destroy each other in the process for our own good sake:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/24/france-warns-radical-stance-could-depress-generation-greta-thunberg/amp/

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

I was very shocked & dismayed at what happened at the UN the other day.

 

How did that goofy girl from Europe get to speak there?  She is a total "tool" and hypocrite, please see:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9739595/greta-thunbergs-carbon-free-yacht-trip-flights/

 

Obviously, she is just the mouth piece and there is somebody behind her...

 

There I've never understood about the climate change people:

 

A). It has NEVER entered their consciousness that "climate change" could simply be a scam?  The whole thing is being brought to us by the leftists in academia!  Look at all the other scams they've produced! 

 

B). The track record on climate change is not good.  When I was a child, I can distinctly remember TIME magazine talking about the coming ice age.  The oceans were supposed to rise, rain forest were supposed to be GONE years ago.  None of this ever happened.

 

C). Many of the climate change folk lecture the deplorables to lower their "carbon foot print" all the while they fly on private jets, and have "silly" carbon footprints.  Perfect example of this is Al Gore.  Please see:

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/08/15/al-gores-carbon-footprint-hypocrisy/

 

So Al Gore uses at least 20X the electricity of the average American household and he flies in private jets.  If he practiced what he preaches, he would take the train to Europe.

 

D). Several prominent climate change activists have said the world will end in about 10 years.  The most prominent might be AOC.

 

The fate of the world & humanity is really at stake?

 

If so, why are they not more vociferous in their calls for change & carbon footprint reduction?  Why aren't they calling for an IMMEDIATE end to internal combustion engines?  Why aren't they against IMMEDIATELY capping 98% of oil wells?  Why aren't they going after China & Africa & India? 

 

If this is truly the fate of humanity, would that also not being worth going to war over?  Just set off a string of EMP bursts all over the world (and detonate them every month or so) to destroy the electrical grid and move humanity back to a pre-industrial society. 

 

If this is the end of the world, why aren't they advocating an immediate change in government & society?

 

Are you guys really that bloody stupid?  Yeah, the left has their environmental shills, but the science is nearly 100% behind that mankind is having an environmental and climate impact on the planet...that is without a doubt and if anyone is arguing that, then you shouldn't even worry about it, since you probably still think the world is flat!

 

Now, exactly the degree of the impact and the timeline of how things will unfold, I think that can be argued well and the science probably has a long ways to go to prove how much damage has occurred, how much time we have, and exactly what the implications are relative to sea levels rising, changes in currents, weather, storm patterns, etc.  What is absolutely proven is that we are doing significant damage in terms of the flora and fauna, and species are going extinct at a great rate...we are essentially killing the planet's balance due to our consumption.

 

I'm a technologist, and believe that alot of these problems will be resolved through technology, or the planet become so inhospitable, that it kills off a large number of the population...like a fever, the planet will fight the infection and kill the virus...the planet will live on, technology may live on in the form of AI, but mankind may be gone. 

 

But we could certainly do things to delay and possibly prevent that ever happening...like we've done with food production, water consumption, the ozone, agriculture, emissions control, etc.  What we've done so far is given ourselves more time...like in the 70's when the world was supposed to run out of food by 2000...but we just keep pushing the inevitable further into the future.  We'll be able to do that for a while, but common sense and science is telling us that as we damage the planet, certainly good things won't come out of it over the very long-term.  Cheers!

 

The science is hardly settled on whether or not man is having a significant impact. The Ice Age ended about 11k years ago. Between that time the world warmed cooled and now warmed again. We are currently finding burial grounds, villages etc under receding glaciers. Nobody can say "this is what the climate should be or what a normal climate should be." The Earth has seen periods of extreme volcanic activity that dwarf any type of CO2 emission from the industrial revolution onward. We have also seem hundreds of species go extinct long before man had any significant impact on the ecosystems. So no, the science is not settled.

 

I think it's important that we try our best to take care of the environment. Even in the Bible that is one of the first commandments so nobody has an excuse. We as humans are certainly having negative impacts (pesticides, urban sprawl, coal mines, etc.) But I think its dishonest to say we have 10 years! Or mass extinction begins and then push forward with this obvious power grab nonsense. I agree that tech will solve the issue. We already have carbon scrubbing tech that works yet we don't utilize it. We have nuclear energy (thorium) yet we don't use it. No instead we want to clear large swaths of land use inefficient means (wind and solar) and then store the energy in an extremely inefficient manner (batteries) all in the name of creating 20m jobs to secure votes. ALLL of which will have zero impact on the global emissions scale.

 

Why is it important humans survive? Why is it important anything survive if there is no meaning to life? Especially if you don't believe in anything beyond ourselves. Shouldn't we just allow nature and the universe to do it's thing and perhaps let the human population go extinct? I mean the universe will still be here if we as humans aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

I was very shocked & dismayed at what happened at the UN the other day.

 

How did that goofy girl from Europe get to speak there?  She is a total "tool" and hypocrite, please see:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9739595/greta-thunbergs-carbon-free-yacht-trip-flights/

 

Obviously, she is just the mouth piece and there is somebody behind her...

 

There I've never understood about the climate change people:

 

A). It has NEVER entered their consciousness that "climate change" could simply be a scam?  The whole thing is being brought to us by the leftists in academia!  Look at all the other scams they've produced! 

 

B). The track record on climate change is not good.  When I was a child, I can distinctly remember TIME magazine talking about the coming ice age.  The oceans were supposed to rise, rain forest were supposed to be GONE years ago.  None of this ever happened.

 

C). Many of the climate change folk lecture the deplorables to lower their "carbon foot print" all the while they fly on private jets, and have "silly" carbon footprints.  Perfect example of this is Al Gore.  Please see:

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/08/15/al-gores-carbon-footprint-hypocrisy/

 

So Al Gore uses at least 20X the electricity of the average American household and he flies in private jets.  If he practiced what he preaches, he would take the train to Europe.

 

D). Several prominent climate change activists have said the world will end in about 10 years.  The most prominent might be AOC.

 

The fate of the world & humanity is really at stake?

 

If so, why are they not more vociferous in their calls for change & carbon footprint reduction?  Why aren't they calling for an IMMEDIATE end to internal combustion engines?  Why aren't they against IMMEDIATELY capping 98% of oil wells?  Why aren't they going after China & Africa & India? 

 

If this is truly the fate of humanity, would that also not being worth going to war over?  Just set off a string of EMP bursts all over the world (and detonate them every month or so) to destroy the electrical grid and move humanity back to a pre-industrial society. 

 

If this is the end of the world, why aren't they advocating an immediate change in government & society?

 

Are you guys really that bloody stupid?  Yeah, the left has their environmental shills, but the science is nearly 100% behind that mankind is having an environmental and climate impact on the planet...that is without a doubt and if anyone is arguing that, then you shouldn't even worry about it, since you probably still think the world is flat!

 

Now, exactly the degree of the impact and the timeline of how things will unfold, I think that can be argued well and the science probably has a long ways to go to prove how much damage has occurred, how much time we have, and exactly what the implications are relative to sea levels rising, changes in currents, weather, storm patterns, etc.  What is absolutely proven is that we are doing significant damage in terms of the flora and fauna, and species are going extinct at a great rate...we are essentially killing the planet's balance due to our consumption.

 

I'm a technologist, and believe that alot of these problems will be resolved through technology, or the planet become so inhospitable, that it kills off a large number of the population...like a fever, the planet will fight the infection and kill the virus...the planet will live on, technology may live on in the form of AI, but mankind may be gone. 

 

But we could certainly do things to delay and possibly prevent that ever happening...like we've done with food production, water consumption, the ozone, agriculture, emissions control, etc.  What we've done so far is given ourselves more time...like in the 70's when the world was supposed to run out of food by 2000...but we just keep pushing the inevitable further into the future.  We'll be able to do that for a while, but common sense and science is telling us that as we damage the planet, certainly good things won't come out of it over the very long-term.  Cheers!

 

My goodness!

 

I must really have hit a nerve!

 

I am surprised that Parsad does not address any of the points I make and simply calls me "stupid" and asserts that I think the world is flat.

 

I thought we were supposed more understanding in our "political" discussions, but here is the moderator himself sinking into the muck.

 

Once again, the people of the left generally can't even fathom that climate change might NOT be going on OR might not be primarily generated by humans AND that it simply might be a scam.

 

Too bad, so sad.  This board has really gone downhill when even the moderator won't follow his own rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change studies are similar to a technician coming to your home to diagnose your furnace but, never having a look at the heat source (electric, gas, wood, geothermal, etc.)

 

In my thermodynamic class, we used to study a problem by defining the system and providing all inputs and outputs to arrive at a balance. The largest input and many other factors are amazingly ignored by most if not all these climate scientists. Maybe that it makes the problem too complex or impossible to calculate? Or they don't have the competency or desire to include them in their analysis?

 

Sun spots, sun cycles, Earth magnetic field, even Earth reflective capabilities are all ignored among many others. Only one factor or heat accumulation from greenhouse effect due to certain gases is being considered. Is that real? Sure it is. However, how can that simplistic model be used with any predictive ability is beyond me?

 

They are calling for 25 cm of snow in some places in Canada later this week or unheard of. It is also pretty darn cold for this time of year. Once again if you can't explain global warming, then make it all-inclusive and call it climate change...

 

Cardboard 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change studies are similar to a technician coming to your home to diagnose your furnace but, never having a look at the heat source (electric, gas, wood, geothermal, etc.)

 

In my thermodynamic class, we used to study a problem by defining the system and providing all inputs and outputs to arrive at a balance. The largest input and many other factors are amazingly ignored by most if not all these climate scientists. Maybe that it makes the problem too complex or impossible to calculate? Or they don't have the competency or desire to include them in their analysis?

 

Sun spots, sun cycles, Earth magnetic field, even Earth reflective capabilities are all ignored among many others. Only one factor or heat accumulation from greenhouse effect due to certain gases is being considered. Is that real? Sure it is. However, how can that simplistic model be used with any predictive ability is beyond me?

 

They are calling for 25 cm of snow in some places in Canada later this week or unheard of. It is also pretty darn cold for this time of year. Once again if you can't explain global warming, then make it all-inclusive and call it climate change...

 

Cardboard

 

It makes me laugh when scientists in the arctic find a small bubble of air trapped in ice and then all of a sudden they know the climate history of the earth lol.....these same people can't predict a 10 day forecast yet they somehow know it was 75 degrees and rained on a Tuesday 10,000 years ago. As you said there are far too many variables to know jack shit about the global climate in any meaningful manner. As someone who studied Geology in college for two years (no I'm not an expert), went to many sites across the US/CA. I listened to far too many 30 min GSA conferences from your local sweaty neckbeard professor about sedimentary rock, prehistoric mud flows and recumbent folds. This has lead me to the conclusion that the vast majority of these people are grasping. I don't think we will ever be able to accurately describe the Earths geologic or climate history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been wondering of a few things I came across in my readings. Curiously there is little discussion that I have seen. That doesn't mean that there isn't discussion I just don't know of any. The focus seems to be what happens to a trace gas in the air with little discussion of what is going on in the soils, the oceans, the sun and the local galactic region. 

 

1. There is more carbon in the soil than in all the plants and atmospheres. Think of the Prairies with 20 feet of good black earth when the settlers arrived. Think how all old civilization end up being found deeply buried over thousands of years. As Leonardo daVinci discussed obviously the soils increase in volume over time burying everything. Until the modern age. A lot of soil is gone thanks to NPK fertilizers which mine the soil by depleting slow to accumulate soil to feed crops giving the illusion it works. It works until it does not and the soil is too depleted to farm. When that occurs depends on the area. Nitrogen fertilizers also kills worms. Try this in your garden if you doubt this. Worms build soil with the carbon coming mostly from the atmosphere. Read William Jackson's books if you doubt this. All you need for an abundant garden is worm composting, humic and fulvic as Jackson explains in his great books. Now given these facts why are there no policies or measurement of this carbon dioxide cycle? It is a win-win way to fix carbon into soil. Carbon dioxide fixing into soil is a technique where nature pays you with abundant nutritious food. Think how much soil building work a million worms an acre will do. Look how Russia agriculture has prospered since they stopped using nitrogen fertilizers since 1990. Look how much healthier the average Russian is now compared to the average Americans. In Canada where the rising co2 levels have greatly expanded the forests think of all the soil that has built up especially where there is a mixture of deciduous trees. Canada and Russia are likely massive carbon sinks if the soil building or depletion is properly accounted for. I do not see what the problem is except for too little broad reading and too few generalist instead of specialists.

 

2. The sun's spectrum has changed dramatically yet there is no discussion of the effects. There is far more UV A, B and C. Since the air is like a camera filter which lowers the wavelength of all light creating more infrared etc. this will have dramatic effects on climate which we now see. UVC especially dumps all its energy on the surface. Think how you can no longer pick up metals in the south. Tools as I recollect used to take hours to get too hot to touch now are too hot in 10 minutes. Think of the ocean. More UV more evaporation and higher surface temperature but lower infrared means less deep heating. Evaporation cools. What is the net effect? Cooling of the oceans is my expectation but I leave that to those that can test the complex effects. We all see the atmospheric rivers that did not exist in the past. If the higher UV does cool the ocean then this will with lags dissolve a lot more carbon dioxide into the ocean and the ocean has 50x the carbon dioxide as the air. I doubt the higher UV is caused by thinning atmosphere as sea level pressure does not seem to have changed. A former NASA technician explained to me that the sun has moved from a dusty to less dusty region of space. This has cooled the sun's surface a few thousand degrees and it burns cleaner so less yellow more white like you see in a gas stove where the flame yellows with contaminants. This means that the past 13000 years of a slowly less energetic heliosphere will change long term as more energy can get to the heliosphere now that we have left the region of dust. We better get used to it and I suspect the change is much better for civilization as less dust means more cosmic rays and more cosmic rays seems to stimulate intelligence based on the wonderful music that came from the great composers living during and after the Deep Maunder solar minimum and the age of enlightenment. The fact sea level pressure pressure has not changed suggests to me that temperature has not changed except for local effects because of Boyle's law that temperature is proportional to pressure. My suspicion is that pressure is an adjustment mechanism to keep temperature stable. I find it interesting in solar minimums when there is more accretion of the atmosphere  from solar wind due to weak magnetic field that the earth fortuitously responds with more volcanism and more off-gassing. Was there always a thousand years of natural gas or is it a recent creation? There seems to be more forces at work we do not understand which restore balance than those that create a runaway tipping point. Focus on one thing and you may see disaster. Focus on the whole system and feedbacks and you are encouraged because if you look, the universe tends toward order and beauty instead of the entropy we are all taught at university. Yes there are cycles. Get used to it. The tide goes in and out yet no one forecasts flood or drought because of the tides. 

 

3. The only public policy that really matters for civilization is what density of energy flux is allowed. If it is allowed to increase civilization will advance and prosper. Since the 1960s in the West the policy has been to reduce the allowed energy flux density. This has caused the decline of the West. Other civilization from earth or elsewhere who do not shoot themselves in their feet will surpass us. We should be a space civilization by now. That is the crime. There are plenty of cheap and clean higher energy flux density technologies. My current favourite being to copy the solar corona as Randall Mills has been doing and convert hydrogen into hydrino with the electron orbit lower than the ground state. Or, like Tesla said, we live in a sea of energy known as the aether so why not convert some of that energy to our uses? I hope that this is what the current fuss is about Trump. Most of his policies seem designed to convert the US into a space civilization. Certainly Lockheed Martin has prospered and is there another stock which will benefit more if the space civilization technologies they have been working on since 1970 when Nixon gifted all Area 51 technologies to them and their like. Where are the ion engines used on the B2 bomber which allow flying and propulsion with electrostatics instead of fuel? I don't understand how all us Star Trek fans think a change in policy allowing US to become great by becoming a space civilization is a bad idea. They don't use oil in Star Trek nor is there artificial scarcity and hence no apparent need for money. Instead cheap energy creates abundance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...