ADVERTISEMENT

Global Climate Changes

Tskware said:
Well, you first have to believe that climate change is a big problem, which seemingly most of the posters on this site utterly reject...
Click to expand...
That really is the impasse we are at succinctly put. Roll it around a few times on your tongues. Most of the posters on this site utterly reject the unanimous consensus of every scientific organization on earth with a national or international standing with expertise bearing directly on the subject.

You cannot find one legitimate scientific organization on earth to agree with what the overwhelming majority of posters here think from their google research and barber shop discussions. They reject the collective work of the entire world's combined scientific institutions in favor of Big Energy propaganda driven hacks just like the tobacco lobbyists used successfully for a hundred or so years. Same playbook. Same poor misguided souls mired in generational poverty buying it.

Here's an idea. Find just one say RUSSIAN scientific institution with international standing to say it's all a lie? Big problem, Putin sent his top scientific team led by Semiletov and Shakhova to the Arctic in 2019 and they came back with bad news for Vlad. So the RUSSIANS are trying to help the liberal Democrats with their "climate change agenda" in America:

Russian scientists say they’ve found the highest-ever ‘flares’ of methane in Arctic waters

Why can't you guys get JUST ONE COUNTRY or, not even that, just ONE legitimate scientific institution FROM ANY COUNTRY ON EARTH to agree with you? You mean the whole planet is in on the climate change scam? Nobody finds it useful to tell the truth? Can you think of any other topic in all of human history that every country and every legitimate scientific institution on earth all agree to lie about? What's so special about climate change that nobody but a few rural country bumpkins have it all figured out?

I agree completely. Case closed. These guys don't even see the problem so why on earth try to discuss it with them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
LOL_Man said:
That really is the impasse we are at succinctly put. Roll it around a few times on your tongues. Most of the posters on this site utterly reject the unanimous consensus of every scientific organization on earth with a national or international standing with expertise bearing directly on the subject.

You cannot find one legitimate scientific organization on earth to agree with what the overwhelming majority of posters here think from their google research and barber shop discussions. They reject the collective work of the entire world's combined scientific institutions in favor of Big Energy propaganda driven hacks just like the tobacco lobbyists used successfully for a hundred or so years. Same playbook. Same poor misguided souls mired in generational poverty buying it.

Here's an idea. Find just one say RUSSIAN scientific institution with international standing to say it's all a lie? Big problem, Putin sent his top scientific team led by Semiletov and Shakhova to the Arctic in 2019 and they came back with bad news for Vlad. So the RUSSIANS are trying to help the liberal Democrats with their "climate change agenda" in America:

Russian scientists say they’ve found the highest-ever ‘flares’ of methane in Arctic waters

Why can't you guys get JUST ONE COUNTRY or, not even that, just ONE legitimate scientific institution FROM ANY COUNTRY ON EARTH to agree with you? You mean the whole planet is in on the climate change scam? Nobody finds it useful to tell the truth? Can you think of any other topic in all of human history that every country and every legitimate scientific institution on earth all agree to lie about? What's so special about climate change that nobody but a few rural country bumpkins have it all figured out?

I agree completely. Case closed. These guys don't even see the problem so why on earth try to discuss it with them?
Click to expand...

😂😂😂😂😂👊

The kountry bumkins have it all figured out.
 
They'll be along shortly to post something from some individual quack bought and paid for by Exxon Oil to cite.

They don't have anywhere to go. What do you do for legitimacy when no scientific organization on earth agrees with you? No country agrees with you. Just lonely you and a bunch of propaganda and yet it mystifies them. Captivates them. They are SURE the fix is in because to them the fix is always in unless it is exactly what they want from exactly who they want from exactly where they want.

Their own delusional bubble that can never be penetrated. They guard it jealously and attend to its fence line fastidiously with their every waking hour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
niteshift said:
Two most dangerous religious cults. Climate change zealots and abortion zealots
Click to expand...
Abortion how? Like, no one should have it or everyone should? I lean right for sure but trying to stop abortion is really dumb and basically the same as people that say, “Well if everyone just turns their guns in we’ll be great!” Neither is going to happen. So quit.
 
LOL_Man said:
They'll be along shortly to post something from some individual quack bought and paid for by Exxon Oil to cite.

They don't have anywhere to go. What do you do for legitimacy when no scientific organization on earth agrees with you? No country agrees with you. Just lonely you and a bunch of propaganda and yet it mystifies them. Captivates them. They are SURE the fix is in because to them the fix is always in unless it is exactly what they want from exactly who they want from exactly where they want.

Their own delusional bubble that can never be penetrated. They guard it jealously and attend to its fence line fastidiously with their every waking hour.
Click to expand...
So what’s your plan hoss? We go bankrupt and lose world dominance in the name of green energy that won’t do a thing when India and china are still dumping everything in the ocean?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WTF Cat
Russia and China could humiliate the West. Call a press conference and have your scientists all come out and spell out exactly why these Americans are trying to pull a fast one on the rest of the world with their climate change lies and green energy agenda.

No. Can't do it? China and Russia are vested in liberal success on Climate Change in the West? They want the United States to be at the front of clean renewable energy when they could just completely discredit us before the world?

How about Saudi Arabia? The oil rich OPEC countries? You think they want everyone rushing into green energy when all they have to do is expose the lie? But they don't? Their own scientific academies universally agree with the entire rest of the world on climate change?
 
roguemocha said:
So what’s your plan hoss? We go bankrupt and lose world dominance in the name of green energy that won’t do a thing when India and china are still dumping everything in the ocean?
Click to expand...
Good question. I think I'll rip my shirt off and scream out "I CAN LIFT MORE THAN EVERYBODY IN THE GYM" at the attendant and see how it goes after that.

On a more serious note, there is only one first step. Do whatever it takes to keep the arctic from going ice free in the summer which it has been flirting with since 2012. There are a number of already well understood ways to do that and who knows, maybe the cloud seeding part of that is already being done. The consequences of an ice free artic in the summer are planet altering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roguemocha
I can get a little bit conspiracy nut on you guys before you go to sleep.

One of the latest discoveries and least understood which the IPCC does not properly take into account is the Global Dimming Effect. Pollutants and other particles in the atmosphere have a cooling effect by anywhere from .5 to 1 full degree and they fall out of the atmosphere rather rapidly in a couple weeks compared to methane which lasts a hundred or so years and CO2 which lasts thousands.

COVID was a big test for Global Dimming and the answer was clear. All over the globe as the world economies slowed down we saw that corresponding temperature rise as the skies cleared and more sunlight was available at the surface to warm the globe. China, especially, with their pollution problems saw direct temperature spikes as their skies cleared.

That raises an interesting and potentially new dangerous question to climate change. The weaponization of it. COVID and the subsequent temperature increases suggest you could at some level weaponize climate change. If we were secretly seeding clouds or deploying some other particles into the air resulting in our cooling "arctic blasts" we've seen, then we would continue to be far less impacted by climate change than China is.

So my question is, were those Chinese spy balloons looking to sample what we may or may not be doing to the air above us? Were they deployed to sample our atmosphere to see if we already had our fingers on the scale of Climate Change? /conspiracynut
 
No they were stupid balloons with barely any real tech. That was a false flag they threw up. Let’s be honest. A 1940s balloon is really going to get info a satellite can’t? Come on Brody.
 
Nothing to rip your shirt off about but they were measuring something up there:

balloon_frank_melliere_promo.jpg


Besides, I admitted I am purposefully being conspiracy nutty on this.
 
Deeeefense said:
The problem with your argument is you are assuming, erroneously that fossil fuel is lowest cost energy source which is false. Solar and wind are much less expensive than fossil notwithstanding the costs associated with the environmental impact on human health, but you seem to always be opposed to those sources. I favor an "all of the above" approach and let utilities and governments choose the lowest cost methods that make sense for them. Industrialized countries should, and for the most part are transitioning to cleaner more efficient and lower cost sources. Even China the worst offender spends over $100 Billion a year on alt energy.

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
As I stated, I prefer getting power to people in need at the most affordable rate with reasonable consideration to climate change issues. Admittedly, this is because I don’t buy the “existential threat,” and you can thank the climate activist community for that. The sky is falling can be exclaimed only so many times before most people wise-up.

While I think windmills are ugly warts on a beautiful landscape, if they truly amounted to viable sustainable energy that provided the least amount of impact to the environment, I would be all in. Sadly, that is not true.

I want reliable affordable power that serves people and helps people get out of poverty. I don’t give a crap how that is achieved and do not deny that impact on environment is a factor, but is not a factor that would justify low energy production or a high cost.

Not everyone in the marketplace of ideas agrees with solar and wind. And, not all of them are beholden to the fossil fuel industry.

www.prageru.com

The Real Cost of So-Called Green Energy | PragerU

Think Better. Live Better.
www.prageru.com www.prageru.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
LOL_Man said:
That really is the impasse we are at succinctly put. Roll it around a few times on your tongues. Most of the posters on this site utterly reject the unanimous consensus of every scientific organization on earth with a national or international standing with expertise bearing directly on the subject.


I agree completely. Case closed. These guys don't even see the problem so why on earth try to discuss it with them?
Click to expand...

Let me give you a personal example. I have a very close friend, college educated engineer, have known him for almost 50 years, but he was convinced the election in 2020 was rigged. We argued about it, but finally I was able to send him the 75 page report authored by Ted Olsen, who represented Bush in 2000 in the Bush v. Gore presidential election litigation, and whose wife was killed in the 911 plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Report co editors were many very prominent former federal judges, prosecutors and the like. They examined the 60 or 70 lawsuits filed in the five states in contention, and concluded that they had almost no merit in every single one. Maybe one or two would have affected a few hundred votes here and there, but nothing remotely significant. Further, in a fact I did not know, a fairly large number of the cases were voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiffs early on when it became obvious they had no case.

So I sent it to my friend and asked him to read it. He emailed back saying "well, they made some interesting points, but the Republicans say the vote was rigged and the Democrats say it wasn't, so I just don't know what to think or who is right"

So . . . how do I argue with that?? I just let it go, and we just don't talk about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LOL_Man and Kingseve1
Caveman Catfan said:
As I stated, I prefer getting power to people in need at the most affordable rate with reasonable consideration to climate change issues. Admittedly, this is because I don’t buy the “existential threat,” and you can thank the climate activist community for that. The sky is falling can be exclaimed only so many times before most people wise-up.

While I think windmills are ugly warts on a beautiful landscape, if they truly amounted to viable sustainable energy that provided the least amount of impact to the environment, I would be all in. Sadly, that is not true.

I want reliable affordable power that serves people and helps people get out of poverty. I don’t give a crap how that is achieved and do not deny that impact on environment is a factor, but is not a factor that would justify low energy production or a high cost.

Not everyone in the marketplace of ideas agrees with solar and wind. And, not all of them are beholden to the fossil fuel industry.

www.prageru.com

The Real Cost of So-Called Green Energy | PragerU

Think Better. Live Better.
www.prageru.com www.prageru.com
Click to expand...

Is PragerU your source?

Just copied this from Wiki:

PragerU is an American advocacy group that creates videos and content to promote a conservative viewpoint on various political, economic, and sociological topics. It was co-founded in 2009 by Allen Estrin and talk show host Dennis Prager.

Despite the name, short for Prager University, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes or grant diplomas. Many of PragerU's videos contain misleading or factually incorrect information promoting both climate change denial and vaccine skepticism. Historians and political scientists have also heavily criticized PragerU's videos for containing misleading claims about topics such as slavery and racism in the USA, immigration, and the history of fascism.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: PhDcat2018, Caveman Catfan, MadaboutBlue and 2 others
Tskware said:
Is PragerU your source?

Just copied this from Wiki:

PragerU is an American advocacy group that creates videos and content to promote a conservative viewpoint on various political, economic, and sociological topics. It was co-founded in 2009 by Allen Estrin and talk show host Dennis Prager.

Despite the name, short for Prager University, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes or grant diplomas. Many of PragerU's videos contain misleading or factually incorrect information promoting both climate change denial and vaccine skepticism. Historians and political scientists have also heavily criticized PragerU's videos for containing misleading claims about topics such as slavery and racism in the USA, immigration, and the history of fascism.
Click to expand...
Dude, PragerU is one source. Just like Wikipedia is one source. But, I am my source for the lies told by climate alarmists.

And, the last paragraph of your cut and paste made me laugh. As if the sources of Wiki are unbiased.
 
Caveman Catfan said:
BTW, an education resource, but not an actual university, should someone still be confused.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was in the Wiki piece. About 1000 posts on this thread alone have cited studies from scientists and academians from all over the world that have been ongoing for decades, but you chose to cite a website started by a talk show host in 2009? Is that correct? And that is where you go to learn about science? Good to know . . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deeeefense and Kingseve1
Tskware said:
Yes, that was in the Wiki piece. About 1000 posts on this thread alone have cited studies from scientists and academians from all over the world that have been ongoing for decades, but you chose to cite a website started by a talk show host in 2009? Is that correct? And that is where you go to learn about science? Good to know . . . .
Click to expand...
Yeah, boss, I was being sarcastic. You may be the very last person to know what PragerU is. And, the presentations of PragerU are usually conducted by the scientists that study the issue, not a brilliant talk show host. Maybe your Wiki deep dive did not reveal that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kingseve1
Caveman Catfan said:
Yeah, boss, I was being sarcastic. You may be the very last person to know what PragerU is. And, the presentations of PragerU are usually conducted by the scientists that study the issue, not a brilliant talk show host. Maybe your Wiki deep dive did not reveal that.
Click to expand...

OK, I promise to quit arguing with you after this, but I have a personal request. Another good friend of mine just got a lung transplant at Vandy and while he is doing OK, he is having some post op issues. Now we all know that these universities are filled with libtard commies with an agenda, so can you get back on PragerU and ask their medical experts for some advice I can pass on to my friend? Thanking you in advance . . .
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kingseve1
Great piece on 60 Minutes last night featuring Occidental Petroleum's plans to advance its clean energy transition business, including spending between $800 million and $1 billion on a facility to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air.

www.reuters.com

Occidental plans up to $1 bln for facility to capture carbon from air

Occidental Petroleum on Wednesday outlined plans to advance its clean energy transition business, including spending between $800 million and $1 billion on a facility to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Good thing they didn't read Dennis Prager's blog first. 😁
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Tskware, LOL_Man and Kingseve1
Tskware said:
OK, I promise to quit arguing with you after this, but I have a personal request. Another good friend of mine just got a lung transplant at Vandy and while he is doing OK, he is having some post op issues. Now we all know that these universities are filled with libtard commies with an agenda, so can you get back on PragerU and ask their medical experts for some advice I can pass on to my friend? Thanking you in advance . . .
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear about your friend. Maybe you could contact the philosophy departments of your favorite universities to help out. Or, maybe Al Gore or Greta can lend a hand. Perhaps, a solar panel company can find a solution. Or, maybe we stop with the strawman arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
Tskware-

This guy is a troll. He doesn’t make any sense.

There’s no way anyone would say without laughing, that cheap energy is for the good of humanity.

After all, dirty energy side effects like cancer and heart disease are nothing when you’re saving an extra 50 bucks a month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LOL_Man and Tskware
roguemocha said:
No one will watch, sum it up.

And it’s not about $50/month @Kingseve1 , it’s about nose diving the economy so you feel like you’re making a change bubby.
Click to expand...
Yea lower energy costs and more jobs are bad for the economy:

www.weforum.org

Jobs in renewable energy are growing in the US – here are the highlights

Renewable energy jobs grew across every US energy sector in 2021, a new report finds. In electricity generation, solar was the fastest growing technology, adding 17,212 jobs and growing 5.4% in 2021.
www.weforum.org www.weforum.org
 
Well if it’s new it’s going to be the “fastest growing” obviously. It’s like, there’s no way Coke is ever going to be the fastest growing company, they’re already there.

Idgaf about the bs govt-funded jobs it creates. How is it sustainable and efficient for the long term success of the US? You okay with eating ramen and being poor and china running the world so you feel the ozone is happy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
Fun twist: the environmental movement and the global warming activists have adopted the word “green” as their identifier. Green is good. CO2 and the greenhouse effect have made the earth significantly greener over the recent past decades. :)
 
Kingseve1 said:
Tskware-

This guy is a troll. He doesn’t make any sense.

There’s no way anyone would say without laughing, that cheap energy is for the good of humanity.

After all, dirty energy side effects like cancer and heart disease are nothing when you’re saving an extra 50 bucks a month.
Click to expand...
The guy who gave us daily weather reports for Alabama is calling someone a troll. Precious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018
CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere, and the fact is that man made CO2 makes up 4-5% total of all CO2 at the very most. So ultimately we are responsible for .0012. Of that .0012% of CO2 21% is due to transportation of all kinds. So now we are at .000252% of atmospheric CO2 is due to ALL types of transportation. During COVID air travel, driving and most other common forms of CO2 output slowed significantly. but CO2 levels continued to increase. So explain to me why we are getting pushed into billions if not trillions of dollars in spending on something that is ultimately going to have zero impact on the overall levels of atmospheric CO2? Please help me understand this math, and not some dumbass hockey stick chart that 1) likely isn't based on reliable data, but more importantly 2) doesn't reflect the macro view of what the total universe of data looks like? Would love to hear a statistical response from Kingwhateverthehell and his posse to support alternative claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018 and sefus12
Kingseve1 said:
It would strengthen the economy with new jobs in the us of a
Click to expand...
No it won’t. It’s crushing the economy by increasing the cost to grow or make anything. Government choosing to force an industry to grow before its ready isn’t good. Here are three unavoidable truths about forcing the shift to renewable generation though:

1) It will increase the price volatility of electricity costs.
2) It will absolutely increase the number of forced brownouts/blackouts in the US.
3) It will make the US more dependent on China to supply us with the parts needed to make solar cells and batteries for battery storage.

That’s also not getting into the impacts on the environment from mining those rare-earth minerals. Or to animal populations being hurt by the renewable buildout (check out what is happening to whales along the Atlantic Coast). Or the massive costs associated with upgrading the transmission systems to be able to handle the renewable buildout. Or, most noticeably, how it will make everything we grow or make more expensive, hurting the economy in the process.

Enjoy those warm-fuzzies you get from 100% supporting an energy transition that simply can’t work for years to come. I will keep hoping that some semblance of common sense is found by those making energy policy before even more damage is done, though I think it’s far too late at this point.

Sincerely,
Someone who knows how our energy system works

PS: if you aren’t 100% behind going all-in on nuclear to lower emissions, then you really don’t care about lowering emissions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhDcat2018, IdaCat and roguemocha
8titles said:
CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere, and the fact is that man made CO2 makes up 4-5% total of all CO2 at the very most. So ultimately we are responsible for .0012. Of that .0012% of CO2 21% is due to transportation of all kinds. So now we are at .000252% of atmospheric CO2 is due to ALL types of transportation. During COVID air travel, driving and most other common forms of CO2 output slowed significantly. but CO2 levels continued to increase. So explain to me why we are getting pushed into billions if not trillions of dollars in spending on something that is ultimately going to have zero impact on the overall levels of atmospheric CO2? Please help me understand this math, and not some dumbass hockey stick chart that 1) likely isn't based on reliable data, but more importantly 2) doesn't reflect the macro view of what the total universe of data looks like? Would love to hear a statistical response from Kingwhateverthehell and his posse to support alternative claims.
Click to expand...
King Seve to you sir. Seve Ballesteros
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back