Anybody who thinks the global climate change movement is really about changing the climate does not think critically or is propagating a lie. It's about money.
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
That's the beauty of Climate Change. A year of above average activity (based on a tiny data set of recent recorded history) or a year with below average activity. Both are because CC.
Every weather event is because of climate change.
Just think a little autistic Swedish girl decided to skip school and now all of Europe is in an energy crisis
Are these true - if so, pretty interesting huh?
I think it was Dr Thomas Sowell who said "there is no right or wrong, only trade offs".
Greta is about to show Europe what they traded a first world economy for. People burning firewood for heat will make cities more polluted too. Poverty breeds a worse environment. Ecology is a science of the affluent.
Covid, monkeypox, liberalism, excessive mask wearing, wokeness, AR15's, Fauci, McD's ice cream machines broken, flat tires, your wife's headaches....all caused by climate change.
Yeah, it's like when I want to understand why my knee has been hurting I choose to go to Jim's house who likes to drink beer and yell, rather than going to an orthopedist.
Honestly, Canada, China, India, the US all need to get on the same page because the ones that actually run these countries are linked in to Vanguard, State Street, JP Morgan Chase, and BlackRock, in addition to a few Middle Eastern and Eastern banks. There are several doable projects that would actually save money over time. If one wants to listen to the larger US, European, and Eastern banks with what they actually say to investors and are reported in the financial press, these parties are not ready to get off of the oil and gas gravy train. It is pretty easy. The above-noted financial entities, manage about 59 trillion dollars worth of global assets (See the book Giants-based on publicly viewable internal data) and are closely linked to the Exxons, BP's, Bayers, Meat Industry, etc. Movement towards solutions, endangers these coordinated entities' power over markets--in essence, it is still incredibly more profitable for these entities to do business the way they've done it for decades. These entities pay their Marketing and Legal arms very well to make sure the many are misinformed so that the gravy train continues.
Solution: First, the best thing we can do to not come up with a solution is to argue about this for the next 100 years, which is exactly what the internal documents of these entities want us to do, as demonstrated in Open Access document searches from legal briefs in dozens of cases. First, it was Co2 being a problem was "insane". Now, it's "well it looks like CO2 is a problem but there's nothing in place that can be done or 'how will we pay for it?'--while both parties bail out the banking system-and not people-to the tune of 32 trillion dollars.
Next, we look at what some of the people that have been studying this for decades recommend and see what can work. Don't be fooled. Investment in getting away from fossil-based sources of energy will make economic sense. But, the burning question for the people/entities tied to the IMF/World Bank and represented by corporate wings of both parties is "How will we be able to control the levers of power in the future?"
This is just my take based on looking into it a bit.
Why hath thou God forsaken thee science "believers". Did science and climate change again?
"That's not how it works!"
***next bad storm happens***
"See climate change is happening right in front of us"
"That's not how it works!"
***next bad storm happens***
"See climate change is happening right in front of us"
Which is exactly why they year ago pivoted from global warming to climate change. It was pretty clear there was no warming. So they just changed the name so they could pursue their pursuit of power.
There is no perfect, only tradeoffs....
Last edited:
I have family who are promoting food scarcity for the “existential threat.” They want farming businesses that produce livestock and products from livestock to be greatly reduced or ended. If you look at the initiatives of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, you may see the same sorts of rhetoric. Ruin family farms, regulate an industry out of business, and create less food, to save mankind. That appears to be the “technological advance” they are promoting for the planet.
Can't die of climate change if we first die of starvation or apocalyptic mayhem. Science..... or something
This approach is actually the biggest threat to the US that we have right now. You have a handful of very powerful, extremely rich people that are funding levers to create disassociation between groups of people. They are essentially creating challenges that will destabilize our economy and human independence at such a cost that people won't have the opportunity to manage on their own. It is extremely scary and needs to get controlled. Bill Gates is the largest farm land owner in the US now, and all of the land is sitting still not being used? Soros funding groups who are doing everything they can to destabilize criminal law. The government attack on the second amendment including ammunition buy back programs. All of this is happening and all are intended to reduce or remove our current liberties. It's very scary to me.
Ending livestock production would not lead to food scarcity (well, it might if you immediately ceased all animal based food production without reallocating livestock feed operations to human food production). We feed animals 4 to 10 times as many calories as we get out from them as food products. Stopping livestock production means stopping production of livestock feed and instead using arable land to grow food for humans. Even if half the land used for growing livestock feed were unsuitable for human food production, using the other half to grow crops for human consumption would result in a net increase in calories available for human consumption.
Note: this is not an endorsement of eliminating livestock production.
Note: this is not an endorsement of eliminating livestock production.
Non farmers don't understand the difference between what we feed livestock and what we eat. Farming isn't as generic as some think. Some ground is only fit for livestock grazing or for hay. It's a misconception that we could just move all that production into growing potato's, tomato's, soybeans... Most of those farms would simply go out of business.
There is a reason that they are tying to sell people eating bugs.
Hence, why I said, "Even if half the land used for growing livestock feed were unsuitable for human food production, using the other half to grow crops for human consumption would result in a net increase in calories available for human consumption."
If we stopped raising cows for beef, we'd only need 1/10 of the land used for their food to produce food for humans to break even. Anything more than 1/10 and we'd increase the amount of food available for humans.
So the answer is to limit consumption of meat so we can eat more grain?
And we would also all start to hug tree's, wear robes and smell like patchouli. Honestly why is this is a conversation anyway.
Just sayin....
"And despite what you may have heard about record-breaking costs from weather disasters (mainly because wealthier populations build more expensive houses along coastlines), damage costs are declining, not increasing, as a percent of GDP.
But it’s not only weather disasters that are getting less damaging despite dire predictions. A decade ago, environmentalists loudly declared that Australia’s magnificent Great Barrier Reef was nearly dead, killed by bleaching caused by climate change. The UK Guardian even published an obituary.
This year, scientists revealed that two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef shows the highest coral cover seen since records began in 1985. The good-news report got a fraction of the attention.
Not long ago, environmentalists constantly used pictures of polar bears to highlight the dangers of climate change. Polar bears even featured in Al Gore’s terrifying movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” But the reality is that polar bear numbers have been increasing — from somewhere between five and ten thousand polar bears in the 1960s, up to around 26,000 today. We don’t hear this news. Instead, campaigners just quietly stopped using polar bears in their activism."
"cold quietly kills many more. In the US, about 20,000 people die from heat, but 170,000 die from cold"
nypost.com
"And despite what you may have heard about record-breaking costs from weather disasters (mainly because wealthier populations build more expensive houses along coastlines), damage costs are declining, not increasing, as a percent of GDP.
But it’s not only weather disasters that are getting less damaging despite dire predictions. A decade ago, environmentalists loudly declared that Australia’s magnificent Great Barrier Reef was nearly dead, killed by bleaching caused by climate change. The UK Guardian even published an obituary.
This year, scientists revealed that two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef shows the highest coral cover seen since records began in 1985. The good-news report got a fraction of the attention.
Not long ago, environmentalists constantly used pictures of polar bears to highlight the dangers of climate change. Polar bears even featured in Al Gore’s terrifying movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” But the reality is that polar bear numbers have been increasing — from somewhere between five and ten thousand polar bears in the 1960s, up to around 26,000 today. We don’t hear this news. Instead, campaigners just quietly stopped using polar bears in their activism."
"cold quietly kills many more. In the US, about 20,000 people die from heat, but 170,000 die from cold"
Climate gains are ‘inconvenient truth’ — it’s not all bad news about the environment
Climate change fear is causing life-changing anxiety. You might be hearing nothing but bad news, but that doesn’t mean that you’re hearing the full story.
nypost.com
Wait until those batteries start causing some kind of cancer. Nah! It’ll never happen.
If it's T shaped and running through the entire car, there's no way it's getting replaced. Ever. The cost would be so high that you might as well buy another car.
Any sort of accident at all would completely total this vehicle for much the same reason.
Literally nothing changes because the power is still required except now it's burnt at the plant instead of the pump. Not to mention the enormous strain that we're nowhere near ready for.
It's amazing how so many are duped. Literally all that's happening is a transfer of wealth from a former political ally to a new one, under the guise of climate change.
$cience.
I burn trash every day in my back yard in the hopes to burn a whole in the ozone right above my residence so it’s not so hard for me to get a tan in the summer. Mostly plastics and styrofoam. The blacker the smoke the better. If ya breathe heavily while it burns ya get a good buzz too.
Damn. I was just worrying about the ozone hole again this morning.
As it is said. Follow the science and you won’t find it. Follow the money and you will certainly find the Science
Just change past data and you can make any chart say what you want it to.
It's going to crank up in October but it's not climate change it's just hurricane season.
Trade offs. I hope everyone is ok with being cold to save the planet. Weird that we are all going to freeze due to global warming.
“Inflation Reduction Act” - the fact that she can use that legislative name in a discussion about climate change without a shit-eating grin is pathological.
“Inflation Reduction Act” is going to fight against hurricanes. Regardless how they lie about the naming, does anybody really believe we can legislate to stop GD hurricanes? This climate change religion is unreal.
I doubt this changes any of the stoopid happening in this thread but important information nonetheless for gulf residents.
The thread is about climate change (actually on another planet, but it is what it is). General non sequitur information that has been true for centuries about hurricanes probably does add to the “stoopid.”
