Some of it is real, some of it is natural but there is a big part of it that is just over reach and it's another Government tool to control the masses. Sometimes I feel like we're living in one big The Campaign movie by Will Ferrell.
POLL OT: Climate Change
- Thread starter Thatsallfolks
- Start date
Sure, "climate change" is real. It's called NATURE. Man made global warming is complete bunk. The same type of people that advocate the existence of man made global warming are the same people that in the 1970s told us we were all doomed because the planet was COOLING too fast. Humans contribute a minuscule amount of greenhouse gases. Take the trillions of dollars being wasted on climate change and put it toward the national debt, cancer research, job retraining, etc. Put that money toward things that will actually help humankind.
Can you please take this kind of stuff to the OT board? Most people don't come here to debate climate change. JFC , after more than 20 years, I'm about done here.
OK BobbyB, so let's say we set out as a Human objective to heat the Earth up by ...oh I don't know...let's say 20 degrees? How would we/could we do it and how long would it take?
My point is we're not even trying to do that yet all the "predicted models" of imminent Global warming never show any significant changes...in fact they show the exact opposite... we are actually cooling off! Then the "climate changers" claim we're still effecting the atmosphere by cooling the Earth off too much!!!
Unreal.
We just don't have that kind of power over other factors/forces in Nature that have far more influence over why climate "changes".
It's nothing but a giant hoax.
Last edited:
I'm a moderate democrat that voted for Trump because HRC is an evil piece of shit. I'm not proud of my vote, it was truly the lesser of two evils.
There are not many of us in the middle folks these days.
I believe in gun rights, carry one myself............ live and let live, I don't care who you marry...................... boys go to their bathroom and women to theirs, I've stood and pissed beside a dude dressed in full drag and had not a problem with it...................any abortion after the first 6 weeks is murder.............. separation of church and state....................fair and equitable trade...........and finally I believe in long slow wet deep kisses that last three days..........
You crazy "Conspiracy Theorist", you.
This from a country that's had 4 sitting Presidents iced while in office.
Nothing to see here ... it's that crazy "alternative news" and stuff.
Listen to that Rachel Maddow dude and that Megyn Kelly chick. They'll tell you the straight dope.
You may be right, who knows....but these ppl are making hand over fist loot to tell us what to do. So many bills a year are passed on everything it's mind blogging. Crazy
Hell were going to get to drink a beer before 1p on Sunday here in Morgantown soon! That's how much control they have lol
Bees are dying because of pesticides and herbicides plus an infestation of mites. I have bee hives and it is a struggle to keep a healthy hive.
Of course it's another mechanism for control.
As a wise man once pondered, "When did public servants become our masters?"
lol he's also convinced that we are living in a computer generated world. Meaning like a video game.
You probably don't like being called what you think or sound like BobbyB, but what you are and what you sound like to me at least is a pretty rational and reasonable Patriot Dude!
If it looks like a Duck, and sounds like a Duck---it is what you think it is?
Read Michael Crichton's book "A State of Fear". He categorically thinks Global warming is bullshit but contends were it true, it would BENEFIT mankind. .....longer growing seasons, less tax on fuel supply and the like.
Radiation exposure will likely kill many if not all on the way. Even if we have 1 or 2 missions make it through the 6 month travel to Mars we likely won't have many after that. Especially once reality sets in that people are going there to die and die quickly.
Great book, though most of the research he used has since been stated by the researchers as bastardizing used to mislead.
Lot of money funding grants for academics to push agendas one way or the other.
Assuming that Climate Change does exist, can we humans alter that change to the extent that it has an impact on humanity. That is the only thing that requires study.
Why would anyone consent to abandoning use of fossil fuels until we know that doing so contributes to controlling Climate Change - in a positive way?
The initial term used was global warming. And liberals decided that that term was not going to work since the data showed the globe not warming nearly as much as all the models predicted. They also realized that satellite data showed no warning at all.
So they changed the term to climate change. The climate has always changed and no one can deny that.
The real question that you put well is what is man's role in the warming of our climate, to the extent it is warming. Secondly, what price are we willing to pay to affect man's role enough to make a difference. Thirdly, what are we going to do with Third World countries that desperately need a cheap energy in order to build their economies like we did using cheap energy. Liberals don't want to answer those questions because it would scare the daylights out of everyone. The cost would be astronomical. The Money transfer to the third world alone would be in the many trillions of dollars.
They (Liberals) can't even tell you how we would warm up the planet if we tried. If it isn't happening now despite all of their "doom and gloom" predictions, what more can we really do to make it any worse?
You'll never hear them answer that question or your 3 excellent questions.
All they do is call you names like "climate denier" or carp and yelp that if we do nothing now, it's going to get worse later. They were saying that back in the late 60's and early 70's when I was still in grammar school. In fact, we're supposed to be under water by now, and there was not supposed to be any polar ice caps by 2020.
No one ever holds them accountable for their missed or failed predictions, and they just keep moving the "doomsday" target further and further out when their old predictions prove false.
I vividly remember after graduate school in the late 70s and early 80s, scientist were predicting the coming of the next Ice Age. Then it became global warming and now climate change.
The reality is that our climate is far too complex for us to model. Too many feedbacks that we do not understand. Too many variables that are impossible to model. That is why all of the models predictive of global warming and have been wrong and all on the high side. Two years ago the experts said that El Niño had no effect on the rise in temperatures and that global warming was why the planet was warming.. Now we are experiencing La Niña and the temperature drop has been the greatest in recorded history and they are exclusively blaming this drop on La Niña. These so-called scientists are trying to have it both ways .
You may remember WVPATX when Mt. St. Helens erupted back in the late 80's? I remember all of the gloom and doom from the "ash clouds"...which was more concentrated pollution in a few days spewed out into the atmosphere than anything we've done with our gasoline fired engines since the 20's!
They (Left alarmists) were saying it would take hundreds of years for the atmosphere to recover. Yet, there was nothing they could do. Less than a year later, the skies were clear, and all was well.
They issued the same dire warnings after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown in Soviet Russia at the time. Neither man made disaster had any long term or dangerously measurable effects on either the atmosphere or ground water anywhere.
Now if we couldn't destroy the Earth with any of those, or nature didn't destroy it through that Volcano erupting and spewing all of that pollution everywhere...why does anyone believe anything they have to say about us simply driving our cars or using air conditioners?
You're getting at the heart of the situation. If the alarmist couldn't create abject fear amongst the population, where would they get their donations? This is all about money for them. They claim the mantle of science, but it is a false science predicated on shoes amounts of money.
James Delingpole
Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.
But the news has been greeted with an eerie silence by the world’s alarmist community. You’d almost imagine that when temperatures shoot up it’s catastrophic climate change which requires dramatic headlines across the mainstream media and demands for urgent action. But that when they fall even more precipitously it’s just a case of “nothing to see here”.
The cause of the fall is a La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Nino.
As David Rose reports:
Big El Ninos always have an immense impact on world weather, triggering higher than normal temperatures over huge swathes of the world. The 2015-16 El Nino was probably the strongest since accurate measurements began, with the water up to 3C warmer than usual.
It has now been replaced by a La Nina event – when the water in the same Pacific region turns colder than normal.
This also has worldwide impacts, driving temperatures down rather than up.
The satellite measurements over land respond quickly to El Nino and La Nina. Temperatures over the sea are also falling, but not as fast, because the sea retains heat for longer.
This means it is possible that by some yardsticks, 2016 will be declared as hot as 2015 or even slightly hotter – because El Nino did not vanish until the middle of the year.
But it is almost certain that next year, large falls will also be measured over the oceans, and by weather station thermometers on the surface of the planet – exactly as happened after the end of the last very strong El Nino in 1998. If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words.
Yes indeed. I recommend this sober assessment of the situation written earlier this month by Dr. David Whitehouse, science editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
With 2016 being predicted as a record warm year it is interesting to speculate on what the El Nino’s contribution will be, which is, in a word, everything. It can be argued that without the El Nino (and the so-called “Pacific Blob”) 2014-2016 would not have been record warm years.
He calls the cooling a “reality check”, noting:
Many think that 2017 will be cooler than previous years. Myles Allen of Oxford University says that by the time of the next big United Nations climate conference global temperatures are likely to be no warmer than the Paris COP in 2015. This would be a strange thing to happen if, as some climate scientists have claimed, recent years would have been a record even without the El Nino.
The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare. Thanks what’s now recognised as an unusually strong El Nino, global temperatures were driven to sufficiently high levels to revive the alarmist narrative – after an unhelpful pause period of nearly 20 years – that the world had got hotter than ever before.
It resulted in a slew of “Hottest Year Evah” stories from the usual suspects. As I patiently explained at the time – here, here, and here – this wasn’t science but propaganda. If you’re a reader of Breitbart or one of the sceptical websites this will hardly have come as news to you. But, of course, across much of the mainstream media – and, of course, on all the left-leaning websites – these “Hottest Year Evah” stories were relayed as fact. And, inevitably, were often cited by a host of experts on Twitter as proof that evil deniers are, like, anti-science and totally evil and really should be thrown in prison for sacrificing the future of the world’s children by promoting Big-Oil-funded denialism.
This is why there is such an ideological divide regarding climate change between those on the left and those on the right. The lefties get their climate information from unreliable fake news sites like Buzzfeed.
Just recently, I had to school my former Telegraph colleague Tom Chivers, now of Buzzfeed, with a piece titled Debunked: Another Buzzfeed ‘Hottest Year Evah’ Story.
Perhaps I’m wrong: I don’t actually look at Buzzfeed, except when they’re doing something worthwhile like “Five Deadliest Killer Sharks” or “Ten Cutest Kitten Photos”. But I’ve a strong suspicion they haven’t yet covered this 1 degree C temperature fall because, well why would they? It just wouldn’t suit their alarmist narrative.
Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.
But the news has been greeted with an eerie silence by the world’s alarmist community. You’d almost imagine that when temperatures shoot up it’s catastrophic climate change which requires dramatic headlines across the mainstream media and demands for urgent action. But that when they fall even more precipitously it’s just a case of “nothing to see here”.
The cause of the fall is a La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Nino.
As David Rose reports:
Big El Ninos always have an immense impact on world weather, triggering higher than normal temperatures over huge swathes of the world. The 2015-16 El Nino was probably the strongest since accurate measurements began, with the water up to 3C warmer than usual.
It has now been replaced by a La Nina event – when the water in the same Pacific region turns colder than normal.
This also has worldwide impacts, driving temperatures down rather than up.
The satellite measurements over land respond quickly to El Nino and La Nina. Temperatures over the sea are also falling, but not as fast, because the sea retains heat for longer.
This means it is possible that by some yardsticks, 2016 will be declared as hot as 2015 or even slightly hotter – because El Nino did not vanish until the middle of the year.
But it is almost certain that next year, large falls will also be measured over the oceans, and by weather station thermometers on the surface of the planet – exactly as happened after the end of the last very strong El Nino in 1998. If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words.
Yes indeed. I recommend this sober assessment of the situation written earlier this month by Dr. David Whitehouse, science editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
With 2016 being predicted as a record warm year it is interesting to speculate on what the El Nino’s contribution will be, which is, in a word, everything. It can be argued that without the El Nino (and the so-called “Pacific Blob”) 2014-2016 would not have been record warm years.
He calls the cooling a “reality check”, noting:
Many think that 2017 will be cooler than previous years. Myles Allen of Oxford University says that by the time of the next big United Nations climate conference global temperatures are likely to be no warmer than the Paris COP in 2015. This would be a strange thing to happen if, as some climate scientists have claimed, recent years would have been a record even without the El Nino.
The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare. Thanks what’s now recognised as an unusually strong El Nino, global temperatures were driven to sufficiently high levels to revive the alarmist narrative – after an unhelpful pause period of nearly 20 years – that the world had got hotter than ever before.
It resulted in a slew of “Hottest Year Evah” stories from the usual suspects. As I patiently explained at the time – here, here, and here – this wasn’t science but propaganda. If you’re a reader of Breitbart or one of the sceptical websites this will hardly have come as news to you. But, of course, across much of the mainstream media – and, of course, on all the left-leaning websites – these “Hottest Year Evah” stories were relayed as fact. And, inevitably, were often cited by a host of experts on Twitter as proof that evil deniers are, like, anti-science and totally evil and really should be thrown in prison for sacrificing the future of the world’s children by promoting Big-Oil-funded denialism.
This is why there is such an ideological divide regarding climate change between those on the left and those on the right. The lefties get their climate information from unreliable fake news sites like Buzzfeed.
Just recently, I had to school my former Telegraph colleague Tom Chivers, now of Buzzfeed, with a piece titled Debunked: Another Buzzfeed ‘Hottest Year Evah’ Story.
Perhaps I’m wrong: I don’t actually look at Buzzfeed, except when they’re doing something worthwhile like “Five Deadliest Killer Sharks” or “Ten Cutest Kitten Photos”. But I’ve a strong suspicion they haven’t yet covered this 1 degree C temperature fall because, well why would they? It just wouldn’t suit their alarmist narrative.
Last edited:
That's all it is...a giant money grab and a chance for them to dictate to us how we are supposed to live.
Pwoeful electromagnetic pulses from the sun,can and does not the earth off of its polar axis..but magnetic field of the earth gradually realigns itself..when you get a disruption in the communications satellites,that's usually a pretty good indication that we're a little off kilter . .
And this gives rise to my conspiracy theory and distrust of Obama and his followers. Really suspect him of following yet another.
Our economy was headed for the crapper. He was going to rebuild our entire economy in GREEN ENERGY. He bet a hell of a lot of taxpayer money that he could convert to GREEN and everything associated. The obvious (to me and others) was to develop our coal and oil(gas). There was a world need and the US could satisfy the demand.
Obama group took us in the opposite direction with Agency regulations Killing supply and demand via the regs that increased cost of fossil fuels. Other energy sources became competitive and all the bad mouthing of fossils destroying the planet. Natural gas became competitive and cheaper over time. It was not regulated into non-existence.
Also, from my perspective, government did nothing to address the ruptured pipeline in the Gulf until oil had reached shoreline. Obama allowed it to linger for maximum visual effect on the shoreline. After scarring the waters off state lines, he allowed a tanker ship to be positioned over the break and create an umbrella over escaping oil that the tanker could process to separate the oil from water to minimize further impact. As I recall, the ship of foreign registry could not go directly to site, but had to wait a few weeks to satisfy union and satisfy some legal technicalities.
Of course, the newly developed Solendras could not produce a GREEN Economy. Enough wind and sun could not produce when needed. And other barriers to the dream energy did not materialize. Obama is still trying, and Hillary had even bought into Green Energy. It just needed more financing.
Hopefully Trump will allow the market decide which energy is preferred and quit trying to force Green into the economy. If someone develops green energy to meet market demand and makes a fortune, God Bless Him.
Our economy was headed for the crapper. He was going to rebuild our entire economy in GREEN ENERGY. He bet a hell of a lot of taxpayer money that he could convert to GREEN and everything associated. The obvious (to me and others) was to develop our coal and oil(gas). There was a world need and the US could satisfy the demand.
Obama group took us in the opposite direction with Agency regulations Killing supply and demand via the regs that increased cost of fossil fuels. Other energy sources became competitive and all the bad mouthing of fossils destroying the planet. Natural gas became competitive and cheaper over time. It was not regulated into non-existence.
Also, from my perspective, government did nothing to address the ruptured pipeline in the Gulf until oil had reached shoreline. Obama allowed it to linger for maximum visual effect on the shoreline. After scarring the waters off state lines, he allowed a tanker ship to be positioned over the break and create an umbrella over escaping oil that the tanker could process to separate the oil from water to minimize further impact. As I recall, the ship of foreign registry could not go directly to site, but had to wait a few weeks to satisfy union and satisfy some legal technicalities.
Of course, the newly developed Solendras could not produce a GREEN Economy. Enough wind and sun could not produce when needed. And other barriers to the dream energy did not materialize. Obama is still trying, and Hillary had even bought into Green Energy. It just needed more financing.
Hopefully Trump will allow the market decide which energy is preferred and quit trying to force Green into the economy. If someone develops green energy to meet market demand and makes a fortune, God Bless Him.
Obama or any Liberal really doesn't want to see this country energy independent or even self sustaining.
In their "utopian World" all energy is 'shared' among all people (no Nations) interdependent on a fixed amount of resources that gets 'equally distributed' so no one has any more than anyone else or any more than anyone needs. They then get to decide who gets what as long as we all do as we're told, and bow to their omniscience and benevolence, in exchange for not doing or thinking for ourselves.
Setting themselves up as God, to be God.
Similar threads
