Good afternoon. We're all going to die (Volume II).
- Thread starter Raising Heel
- Start date
This Aussie sees Gore for what he always has been...... a fraud and a phony. What a scam this manmade GW is....... the biggest in history by far
All about power( controlling YOU) and MONEY!!!!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...r/news-story/5079c031c43e3de67572402640cc6fc0
All about power( controlling YOU) and MONEY!!!!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...r/news-story/5079c031c43e3de67572402640cc6fc0
Let the climate change ... as for me, I'm holding out for the
Rapture! Remember ... nothing has to
happen before the Rapture!!!
I love how these 'scientists' can tell us nameless, faceless masses exactly what happened 252 million(with an M) years ago!
Yeah, I have no idea why these hacks couldn't narrow it down to the specific year.
Consensus among scientists is also a load of shit. Got enough money,political clout, military strength and you can have scientists say anything you wish. There was once a consensus among German scientists and doctors that the Jews, homosexuals, mental patients, and the physically disabled were 'inferior creatures' worthy of extermination. By your logic they were correct.
Is your polio acting up again?
Money, like Exxon and Shell, who have both warned about the dangers of increased carbon emissions. Military strength, like the U.S. Department of Defense, which has warned that climate change represents a national security risk. Hacks, all of 'em.
Thank you for proving my points. Our military, at its highest levels, is a purely political animal, and so many high ranking officers will fall in line or be purged altogether. Exxon and Shell, as billion dollar multinational corporations, do not wish any hostility toward government and therefore will change their positions as the elected officials change. Your anecdotal examples do not disprove my argument. The easiest way to tell if these policies are good and necessary is to look at those that are promoting them. Are those politicians living in smaller homes, driving electric cars, selling their private jets? What does their 'carbon footprint' amount to? Same goes for education and healthcare. Do 'they' send their children to public school? Do 'they' use the public healthcare system? We need much more critical thought, and not merely parroting what you've been fed. Today's 'science' is ultimately driven by pop culture and politics.
Which makes it really easy to just believe what you want to believe and not have to defend or justify it, amiright?
There's a good amount of truth in this. Politicians are very much "do as I say, not as I do" types.
Our military at the highest level, Trump, is a skeptic. That doesn't fit your argument. A politician being a hypocrite has zero to do with science. This isn't a political issue. The problem is people try to make it one.
Is that the best you can do? The president is not 'in' the military, he is the civilian commander in chief. His career does not hinge upon the whims of an elected official, he is that official.
Try again.
Would it be possible for you to talk about the actual issue or are you just the type who likes to turn everything into something political?
This statement is vague and unconvincing. The armed forces are among the most conservative government agencies since most federal employees self-select into agencies whose mission they support. Also, the office of Secretary of Defense has historically been dominated by conservatives. What would be the political motivation for the largely conservative Department of Defense to declare climate change a threat to our national security?
This statement is even more vague and unconvincing. Every multinational oil and gas company has an enormous incentive to disavow climate change. Their trade associations do, and their investors consistently vote down climate-related measures. Yet all of the world's largest producers are on record declaring climate change is a critical imperative. None of the American companies retracted their statements when Trump -- a climate change denier -- took office. This is to say nothing of the foreign companies who aren't subject to the whims of elected officials. Instead, these companies have continued to invest billions of dollars in research and development of renewable energy sources.
Politicians are the biggest hypocrites on earth. As you've mentioned, they play by an entirely different set of rules from the rest of us. They're probably the last people I would look to for guidance on this issue.
In my estimation, the easiest way to tell if these policies are good and necessary is to look at those who truly understand the underlying science. The people who subscribe to the rigor of the scientific method behind the findings. The subject matter experts: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, oceanographers, etc. Roughly 90% of them are telling us that climate change is real. JMHO, but I'm always a bit shocked to see how easily people reject that number because of their personal political beliefs. You demand critical thinking, but then discount the professional judgment of those best equipped to provide it.
The only scientist I know personally -- an oceanographer -- shares a single hybrid vehicle with his wife. I never knew about the so-called "Pacific Garbage Patch" until he told me about it. He advocates for the standard reduce/reuse/recycle lifestyle. Fortunately, he's not pushy about it, so I haven't had to punch him in the face. Anyway, take that for what it's worth.
As I suggested in the OP, it wasn't my intention to turn this into a political debate. I'd prefer to step away from that. I was more fascinated with the idea of what climate change could possibly mean for us, our lifestyles, and our future.
I generally like to take the experts word, especially in arenas that I'm not very familiar with, which is why I believe climate change is real. However, the issue I have is the fearmongering that is used to further other various agendas. Like, it's possible that climate change is real, but that with a little course correction, we can stop or slow the damage being done. It doesn't have to be that climate change is real, thus if we ever drive a gas powered car, or use an aerosol can again in our lives that we'll all drown under the melted polar ice caps the following day.
That would be a nice discussion to have, but I didn't expect that to happen here. Thanks for trying though.
I agree, those are the type of people that are part of the problem. They create people like key and cletus who just say everything is fake. You have to look past the alarmist and past the people who ignore everything. That's the only way to have a rational discussion. Unfortunately both of those groups are usually the loudest, so it makes it hard to have the discussion.
Read this article about "The Hamburger Problem." It's a great take on how "liberals have supplanted conservatives as moralizing busybodies."
That's a good article and I think it's basically on point. The biggest problem for democrats lately has been the cultural/ PC stuff. Voters rarely vote in their own best interest when it comes to policy issues. Most voters vote for who they want to have a beer with. Democrats have become the party that you can't have a beer with because alcohol is wrong and you should have walked to the bar while passing out brochures about supporting LGBT issues instead of driving your car. Republicans can also go too far in the opposite direction, but most people just want to be left alone. Right now democrats seem to be more likely to knock on your door.
I know for a fact that climate change is real, not denying that. The climate has been changing since this ball of dirt came into existence, and doing so long before man, if you believe the scientists. Deserts have become fertile rain forests, rain forests dry up into deserts, ice ages have come and gone, superheating of the planet allowed for life to begin. My point is 'man made' climate change for the sake of further controlling populace should be questioned and reexamined at every turn. It has been proven that most of these models are flawed due to the lack of data. 150 years of recorded temperatures are not enough to base a theory upon. Please look into the funding for most 'science' today and you will find that most comes from government either directly or indirectly. There may have been a time in science where the methods were beyond corruption, but any reasonable thinking being will come to the conclusion that a scientist just as any other human, wants to keep a job and pay the bills, survive. The following excerpt explains that 'made made climate change' is merely a means to reach global governance.
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”
The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Straight from the scientists mouths.
I don't ignore everything. I choose to do my own research, question the conclusions, and form my own. Try it sometime, you will feel better about yourself, and you may yet even become a productive member of society.
What can we do about it? Radically change our energy and food production systems.
Burning fossil fuels to power our energy grids is not sustainable by any metric. Shifting to renewables with more advanced battery storage can almost take us off the grid entirely. Tesla has already developed the storage systems, and the price of lithium ion batteries is falling by the day. Using nuclear as our backup system would provide more than enough power to sustain humanities needs for the foreseeable future without pumping hydrocarbons into our atmosphere.
We also have to cut back on our severe meat addiction. The vast majority of human agriculture now is just to sustain the animals we eat. That also has to change.
Burning fossil fuels to power our energy grids is not sustainable by any metric. Shifting to renewables with more advanced battery storage can almost take us off the grid entirely. Tesla has already developed the storage systems, and the price of lithium ion batteries is falling by the day. Using nuclear as our backup system would provide more than enough power to sustain humanities needs for the foreseeable future without pumping hydrocarbons into our atmosphere.
We also have to cut back on our severe meat addiction. The vast majority of human agriculture now is just to sustain the animals we eat. That also has to change.
Judging by your posts in this thread you at least ignore most of it.
Looks like you still need to do some research. It's good that you have started though.
I have and do. That's why I went from being a denier to someone who has accepted the science that shows humans can contribute to the problem.
I like this, minus you meat comments.
Nuclear brings it's own set of issues, but is a cleaner source. As regulated as that field is, it is safe. At least where the NRC is over it
^^^^bs alert.
"......and you will not know what hour I will come upon you." Revelation 3:3
That guy is quoting the Bible, too, so this is incredibly awkward.
It would save me a lot of trouble to know if it will be before or after my anniversary dinner.
Looks like it's going to be after the dinner.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...1-nibiru-planet-x-2017-apocalypse-tribulation
I thought the seven years of pain was interesting. Maybe that means Trump is going to be reelected.
Dammit. I only have a 30-day grace period.
