How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:09 pm

SO Chump tells us NASA has lied to us about the Earth being oblate spheroid, that they lie and are not to be trusted, yet this guy now uses the same source, NASA, to prove the charts were fudged; has NASA suddenly become a agency with credibility, in your mind ?

It is impressive at how baldfaced the manipulation of the statistics and graphs that were put up as examples. Just start where convenient, knowing that the faithful will never confront their beliefs with something so messy as rationality or god forbid a longer time-line.


Imagine that, I completely agree with you, sounder. You shouldn't do such things, chump.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:26 pm

Nice deflection Iam, but if you cannot address the argument, you lose the argument.

The argument in question is whether or not the vid titled 'My Gift to Climate Alarmists' makes valid points or not when they produce a wildly different picture of things by extending truncated timelines.

I imagine your religious obligations will prevent you from watching the vid, prove me wrong.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby chump » Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:47 pm

:whisper:

^^First of all (fwiw), a confused, flip, flatulent tool is flim-flam flummoxing and fuckin’ conflating a fracking “flat earther” with a genuine certified geo-centricitist!!

https://www.globalresearch.ca/greta-thu ... de/5690434

Greta Thunberg and Big-Biz’ Climate Charade

A 16 year old girl is obviously not behind a “global movement” demanding “climate action” from governments.

The massive corporate Western media is. And anything the corporate media is behind certainly cannot be described as “grassroots.”

It is the Western media’s daily promotion of this 16 year old that has created “her” movement for her.

Her family background of entertainers and performers is particularly interesting in this regard – Greta Thunberg being the daughter of entertainer Malena Ernman and actor Svante Thunberg, and granddaughter of actor Olof Thunberg. She is the perfect candidate surrounded by the perfect coaches to become a central figure in an exercise of corporate public relations.

Also behind the growing momentum of this “climate action” movement is a myriad of corporate-foundations – notorious for their support of regime change around the globe, the protection and promotion of corporate-financier special interests, and the co-opting of legitimate causes ranging from human rights to now concerns over our collective impact on the environment.

Just like the “war on terror” was a fraudulent campaign aimed at very real terrorists – Greta Thunberg’s “Fridays for Future” climate movement is a fraudulent campaign aimed at the very real environmental damage being done around us.

And just like the “war on terror” where the US was caught in fact arming and funding the very terrorists they were supposed to be fighting – all as a pretext to advance otherwise indefensible wars of aggression, “Fridays for Future” is supported by and being advanced for the very worst environmental offenders on Earth to advance an agenda that allows for otherwise indefensible and unpopular policies – many of which will be easily delayed or redirected in the West while forced on developing nations.

“Climate action” forced on the developing world is aimed at crippling progress and granting the West a reprieve from its otherwise irreversible economic, political, and military decline upon the global stage and its ability to coerce and exploit these nations, their people, and their resources.

What is “Fridays for Future?”
 
Following the money is particularly easy in unravelling “Fridays for Future.” The “movement’s” own website – under “About” contains a list of websites that make up the “movement’s” network.

Each page listed contains the School Strike 4 Climate (SS4C) logo. They also contain links to various supporters and affiliates. The Canadian page – for example – has a “Promo Toolkit” page full of resources provided by corporate foundations.
One foundation in particular that turns up repeatedly is 350.org.

350.org has published the “Climate Resistance Handbook” which includes a “foreword” by Greta Thunberg herself.

The handbook itself lists zero relevant concerns or actions regarding actual environmental issues and instead is a rehash of familiar CIA-honed tactics used by the US for its so-called “color revolutions” around the globe.

The handbook even cites the US overthrow of Serbia and Ukraine as examples for environmental activists to follow.

Regarding Serbia, the handbook would claim:

A group of young people in Serbia nonviolently fought their powerful, ruthless dictator in Serbia. Tey required every person who joined their movement to learn the upside-down triangle. They led trainings to explain the concept and their plan to remove the pillars they saw.

This approach was a key ingredient to their movement. And they were successful in overthrowing the brutal Serbian dictator.

In reality, the US itself would eventually reveal no such tactics worked and instead it was the millions of dollars the US government funneled into Serbia to back a covert coup that eventually overthrew the Serbian government.

This coup was not to stop a “brutal dictator,” but rather to fold Serbia, its people, and resources into America’s eastward expansion toward Russian borders.

The New York Times in its article, “Who Really Brought Down Milosevic?,” would admit:

Backed by extensive financing from the United States, Otpor steadily coaxed them from the inertia and introspective desperation of the 1990’s, when the most decisive act of the best and the brightest was emigration or draft evasion. Through marches and mockery, physical courage and mental agility, Otpor grew into the mass underground movement that stood at the disciplined core of the hidden revolution that really changed Serbia. No other opposition force was as unsettling to the regime or as critical to its overthrow.

The New York Times would also admit details of the extent of US financing:

American assistance to Otpor and the 18 parties that ultimately ousted Milosevic is still a highly sensitive subject. But Paul B. McCarthy, an official with the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy, is ready to divulge some details. 

The article continues:
…McCarthy says, “from August 1999 the dollars started to flow to Otpor pretty significantly.” Of the almost $3 million spent by his group in Serbia since September 1998, he says, “Otpor was certainly the largest recipient.” The money went into Otpor accounts outside Serbia. 

Not only were the “young people of Serbia” successful only because of dubious, secretive US funding, they were successful and their “efforts” lauded by the Western media only because their efforts ultimately served US special interests.

US Mass Mobilizations: Wars and Financial Plunder

Serbia is no more “free” or “democratic” today than it was under Milosevic. The only real change has been efforts to draw the broken nation westward into Washington and NATO’s orbit and away from its traditional ties to Russia. In essence, the youths of Serbia were drawn in as unwitting participants in expanding American hegemony, not promoting “democracy.”

In many ways then – 350.org picked the perfect example to help illustrate just exactly what “Fridays for Future” is really about – a cynical public relations exercise obviously funded and directed by Western special interests using “youths” and a well-meaning agenda as cover.

Instead of specifically and explicitly targeting the worst environmental offenders on Earth – corporations like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, and Syngenta spraying our food and environment with poison, or Exxon, BP, and Shell for their attempts to perpetuate petrol-driven energy, or labor unions like America’s United Automobile Workers which is part of a concerted effort to sabotage electric vehicle manufacturers like Telsa – “Fridays for Future” is allied with them in making ambiguous demands and giving naive youths the illusion that something is being done.

Worst still is the likelihood that this movement will actually result in much of the burden for these corporations’ offenses against the environment and human health being shifted onto the public in the form of new taxes and regulations.

Who Funds 350.org? 

Since 350.org has written the handbook “Fridays for Future” is following, it would be useful to know who exactly is behind 350.org itself and thus the agenda and movement it is promoting.

The organization lists around 200 different private and corporate foundations funding its activities.

This includes notorious actors like CREDO – a for-profit telecom corporation that uses the cover of activism to build up a loyal – if not fanatical – customer base. It also includes the big-pharma linked Burroughs Wellcome Fund.

The KR Foundation both directly funds 350.org and also funds other foundations listed on 350.org‘s donor list including the New Venture Fund and the European Climate Foundation.

The Oak Foundation also not only directly funds 350.org – it too funds many other donors appearing on 350.org‘s list including the Climate Works Foundation and the European Climate Foundation.

The Oak Foundation is deeply involved in virtually every aspect of US “soft power,” sponsoring organizations involved in US-funded “color revolutions” as well as fronts posing as human rights advocates like Amnesty International whose role is to fabricate human rights offenses to justify US wars of aggression in which very real human rights abuses thus unfold.

Alongside The Oak Foundation is George Soros and his Open Society Foundation as well as the US government’s own National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries and affiliates.

On “Fridays for Future’s” official website Amnesty International is openly listed as one of several organizations assisting the movement with legal matters. The Open Society-linked Tides Foundation also appears on 350.org‘s list of donors.

NED-linked “labor unions” – the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) – are also heavily involved in the “Fridays for Future” movement. Labor unions in other countries like Australia openly admit they are involved in organizing the actual protests themselves.

Older stories from Democracy Now! like, “Unholy Alliance? The AFL-CIO and the National Endowment for Democracy in Venezuela,” illustrate the ties between the NED and AFL-CIO and their role in promoting US foreign policy. The NED has since deleted links from its webpage documenting its direct funding for the AFL-CIO and its activities worldwide.

The Sierra Club is also listed as one of 350.org‘s donors.

Time  reported in a 2012 article on just one instance of the Sierra Club’s big-oil sponsorships that:

TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

While Time claims the Sierra Club “stopped” taking this money – it was only because the information became public – not because of any fundamental issue against taking big-oil money or working on behalf of big-oil’s agenda.

What is also revealed by the 2012 article is that the Sierra Club promoted an “anti-coal” agenda – not on behalf of the environment – but on behalf of the shale gas industry.

“Fridays for Future” – a movement ultimately sponsored and directed by these very same collection of interests and organizations – has no intention of helping the environment – but rather helping the special interests that created the movement under the cover of promoting “environmentalism.”

Good Intentions Aren’t Enough

The youths joining these movements undoubtedly have the right intentions at heart – but the movement itself is marketed toward youths specifically because they lack the experience and discernment needed to understand the difference between how government “works” in their school books and how it actually works when money and special interests are involved.

Greta Thunberg and “her” movement – should they in any way acutally threaten the special interests that still dominate Western society – would be marginalized, censored, smeared, and attacked across the media. At their protest venues – they would be tear-gassed, beaten, and chased off the streets. And any tangible “action” that threatened to undermine big-business they advocated for would be promptly outlawed.

The fact that those responsible for repressing actual change in the West are eagerly aiding and abetting Greta Thunberg and “Fridays for Future” should tell the average onlooker all they need to know about the legitimacy and agency of these protests even without looking into the financials and ties of organizations openly sponsoring, promoting, and even directing the movement.

But the financials and ties are undeniable and quite familiar evidence that closes the case on “Fridays for Future.”

The Environment Needs Real Help 

Human civilization – without doubt – is negatively impacting the environment.

Big-agriculture poisons our land and water with chemicals and genetic contamination. Big-oil chokes our air. Big-defense litters battlefields with depleted uranium constituting a modern-day equivalent of plowing the earth with salt. Plastic packaging necessary for “globalized” consumerism fills our land and seas.

Even if one does not believe in mainstream notions of “climate change,” petroleum-based transportation has a direct and undeniable impact on human health that must be reduced if not entirely eliminated. The wealth and power consolidated by big-energy is also a major social problem that needs to be confronted.

If Greta Thunberg and her Fridays for Future activists wanted to “save the Earth,” they would be gathering outside the headquarters of the corporations responsible for these offenses – not protesting outside the offices of the politicians they own.

When “Fridays for Future” begins advocating boycotts of big-box stores and their oil-dependent, global-spanning supply chains in favor of local industry and business – when they protest genetically modified organisms and big-ag food in favor of locally produced organic produce, and when they begin advocating and investing in alternative energy rather than demanding the government do it for them – they will finally be on the road with a growing number of very real activists already working to truly save the environment.

They will also realize that these real activists – toiling for years – have never been known to them because the cameras and studios eagerly promoting “Fridays for Future” and their anemic, co-opted “activism” have already long ago worked hard to marginalize, censor, smear, and attack these genuine activists.

Genuine activism – like promoting and investing in local manufacturing and agriculture – has already been targeted by legislation to outlaw it or at the very least – seriously complicate it to the point of being impractical to pursue.

This is how one can tell the difference between genuine activism and co-opted or even manufactured activism – by seeing where the corporate media’s camera’s are pointed and who corporate special interests through their faux philanthropic fronts are promoting.

The environment is indeed facing an emergency – not only because of the real damage human civilization is doing to it – but also because of who the public has put their faith in to fix it.

And finally – if the environment is in such dire straits why is the world entrusting it to a 16 year old and a movement allegedly comprised of children?

Children are being enlisted because they are the only demographic left that are still capable of putting their faith into fronts like the Sierra Club, Amnesty International, The Tides Foundation, The Oak Foundation, and many other instruments of Western corporate-financier power long since exposed, distrusted, and disdained by the rest of the global public.

Greta Thunberg’s story isn’t one of inspiration and activism – it is one of child exploitation, one of manipulating public perception, and one of re-entrenched special interests desperately seeking an audience – any audience – still gullible enough to believe in and help reconstruct the facades used to cover up their otherwise transparent and self-serving agenda.

The environment needs to be saved, but not by big-business’ “Fridays for Future” charade.

*Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


——————————



https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/27 ... tertwined/

September 27, 2019
10 Ways the Climate Crisis and Militarism are Intertwined
by Media Benjamin

Image


The environmental justice movement that is surging globally is intentionally intersectional, showing how global warming is connected to issues such as race, poverty, migration and public health. One area intimately linked to the climate crisis that gets little attention, however, is militarism. Here are some of the ways these issues–and their solutions–are intertwined.

1. The US military protects Big Oil and other extractive industries. The US military has often been used to ensure that US companies have access to extractive industry materials, particularly oil, around the world. The 1991 Gulf War against Iraq was a blatant example of war for oil; today the US military support for Saudi Arabia is connected to the US fossil fuel industry’s determination to control access to the world’s oil. Hundreds of the  US military bases spread around the world are in resource-rich regions and near strategic shipping lanes. We can’t get off the fossil fuel treadmill until we stop our military from acting as the world’s protector of Big Oil.

2.  The Pentagon is the single largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world. If the Pentagon were a country, its fuel use alone would make it the 47th largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, greater than entire nations such as Sweden, Norway or Finland. US military emissions come mainly from fueling weapons and equipment, as well as lighting, heating and cooling more than 560,000 buildings around the world.

3. The Pentagon monopolizes the funding we need to seriously address the climate crisis. We are now spending over half of the federal government’s annual discretionary budget on the military when the biggest threat to US national security is not Iran or China, but the climate crisis. We could cut the Pentagon’s current budget in half and still be left with a bigger military budget than China, Russia, Iran and North Korea combined. The $350 billion savings could then be funneled into the Green New Deal. Just one percent of the 2019 military budget of $716 billion would be enough to fund 128,879 green infrastructure jobs instead.

4. Military operations leave a toxic legacy in their wake. US military bases despoil the landscape, pollute the soil, and contaminate the drinking water. At the Kadena Base in Okinawa, the US Air Force has polluted local land and water with hazardous chemicals, including arsenic, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos and dioxin. Here at home, the EPA has identified over 149 current or former military bases as SuperFund sites because Pentagon pollution has left local soil and groundwater highly dangerous to human, animal, and plant life. According to a 2017 government report, the Pentagon has already spent $11.5 billion on environmental cleanup of closed bases and estimates $3.4 billion more will be needed.

5. Wars ravage fragile ecosystems that are crucial to sustaining human health and climate resiliency. Direct warfare inherently involves the destruction of the environment, through bombings and boots-on-the-ground invasions that destroy the land and infrastructure. In the Gaza Strip, an area that suffered three major Israeli military assaults between 2008 and 2014. Israel’s bombing campaigns targeted sewage treatment and power facilities, leaving 97% of Gaza’s freshwater contaminated by saline and sewage, and therefore unfit for human consumption. In Yemen, the Saudi-led bombing campaign has created a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe, with more than 2,000 cases of cholera now being reported each day. In Iraq, environmental toxins left behind by the Pentagon’s devastating 2003 invasion include depleted uranium, which has left children living near US bases with an increased risk of congenital heart disease, spinal deformities,  cancer, leukemia, cleft lip and missing or malformed and paralyzed limbs.

6. Climate change is a “threat multiplier” that makes already dangerous social and political situations even worse. In Syria, the worst drought in 500 years led to crop failures that pushed farmers into cities, exacerbating the unemployment and political unrest that contributed to the uprising in 2011. Similar climate crises have triggered conflicts in other countries across the Middle East, from Yemen to Libya. As global temperatures continue to rise, there will be more ecological disasters, more mass migrations and more wars. There will also be more domestic armed clashes—including civil wars—that can spill beyond borders and destabilize entire regions. The areas most at risk are sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and South, Central and Southeast Asia.

7. US sabotages international agreements addressing climate change and war. The US has deliberately and consistently undermined the world’s collective efforts to address the climate crisis by cutting greenhouse gas emissions and speeding the transition to renewable energy. The US refused to join the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord was the latest example of this flagrant disregard for nature, science, and the future. Similarly, the US refuses to join the International Criminal Court that investigates war crimes, violates international law with unilateral invasions and sanctions, and is withdrawing from nuclear agreements with Russia. By choosing to prioritize our military over diplomacy, the US sends the message that “might makes right” and makes it harder to find solutions to the climate crisis and military conflicts.

8. Mass migration is fueled by both climate change and conflict, with migrants often facing militarized repression. A 2018 World Bank Group report estimates that the impacts of climate change in three of the world’s most densely populated developing regions—sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America—could result in the displacement and internal migration of more than 140 million people before 2050. Already, millions of migrants from Central America to Africa to the Middle East are fleeing environmental disasters and conflict. At the US border, migrants are locked in cages and stranded in camps. In the Mediterranean, thousands of refugees have died while attempting dangerous sea voyages. Meanwhile, the arms dealers fuelling the conflicts in these regions are profiting handsomely from selling arms and building detention facilities to secure the borders against the refugees.

9. Militarized state violence is leveled against communities resisting corporate-led environmental destruction. Communities that fight to protect their lands and villages from oil drills, mining companies, ranchers, agribusiness, etc. are often met with state and paramilitary violence. We see this in the Amazon today, where indigenous people are murdered for trying to stop clear-cutting and incineration of their forests. We see it in Honduras, where activists like Berta Caceres have been gunned down for trying to preserve their rivers. In 2018, there were 164 documented cases of environmentalists murdered around the world. In the US, the indigenous communities protesting plans to build the Keystone oil pipeline in South Dakota were met by police who targeted the unarmed demonstrators with tear gas, bean-bag rounds, and water cannons—intentionally deployed in below-freezing temperatures. Governments around the world are expanding their state-of-emergency laws to encompass climate-related upheavals, perversely facilitating the repression of environmental activists who have been branded as “eco-terrorists” and who are subjected to counterinsurgency operations.

10. Climate change and nuclear war are both existential threats to the planet. Catastrophic climate change and nuclear war are unique in the existential threat they pose to the very survival of human civilization. The creation of nuclear weapons—and their proliferation–was spurred by global militarism, yet nuclear weapons are rarely recognized as a threat to the future of life on this planet. Even a very “limited” nuclear war, involving less than 0.5% of the world’s nuclear weapons, would be enough to cause catastrophic global climate disruption and a worldwide famine, putting up to 2 billion people at risk. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set its iconic Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes to midnight, showing the grave need for the ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The environmental movement and the anti-nuke movement need to work hand-in-hand to stop these threats to planetary survival.

To free up billions of Pentagon dollars for investing in critical environmental projects and to eliminate the environmental havoc of war, movements for a livable, peaceful planet need to put “ending war” at the top of the “must do” list.


—————————



C Everard, FB:

EVERY 50,000 years there is an ICE AGE, followed by a THAW and a GREAT FLOOD. The ice age is called a glacial maximum... According to the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, the average global temperature around 19,000 BC (about 21,000 years ago) was 9.0 °C (48.2 °F). This is about 6.0 °C (10.8°F) colder than the 2013-2017 average... So, right now, right this minute, planet Earth is in the THAW stage, and in about 25,000 we'll get another ICE AGE with northern Europe, Canada and most of the USA covered in permanent thick ice and snow. This obviously KILLS CIVILISATION - and is an age-old cycle of ice ages and floods recorded in ancient texts and oral legends of the aborigines and hopi indians.

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), permanent summer ice covered about 8% of Earth's surface and 25% of the land area during the last glacial maximum. The USGS also states that sea level was about 125 meters (410 feet) lower than in present times - you can see that in Brittany, neolithic stone circles built around 2,540BC are now half submerged in the sea...

When comparing to the present, the average global temperature was 15.0 °C (58.9 °F) for the 2013-2017 period. Currently, about 3.1% of Earth's surface and 10.7% of the land area is covered in year-round ice... Yes the glaciers are now melting and sea levels are rising - THAT IS FUCKING NORMAL. And this punk kid with pigtails is brain washing idiots into supporting the PARIS AGREEMENT which will load-up yet more fucking carbon taxes on families who are already impoverished with over-taxation. Macron, Soros, the punk kid's mind-control handlers all need to be thrown in jail for FRAUD. One of them handlers is pictured here and is currently under investigation.... Oh - by the way - I have made a TV documentary showing a film financed by Her Majesty's government for 'education' in African schools promoting the idea that EATING BUGS AND INSECTS is 'normal' and the 'FUTURE' of African farming and an African diet... You can watch all my documentary films here https://EnigmaChannel.com Likewise, meat-eating is being demonised as 'killing the planet' - I just want to point out that most meat and fish at point-of-sale purchase is wrapped in paper and is UNPROCESSED - unlike commercially marketed vegan and vegetarian foods which contain vast numbers of 'food miles', processing and packaging. This punk kid has not said a word criticising the destruction of trees for 5G and never said a word about the toxic danger of nuclear nor criticised FRACKING... She says she wants you to PANIC LIKE YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE - but has not criticised FRACKING for triggering wildfires, or earthquakes, for that matter.


—————————



The Nazi Roots of Environmentalism and the Climate Change Fraud | Close Encounters Ep. 2


In the second episode of Close Encounters, Rupert Darwall and Ben Weingarten discuss Darwall’s new book ‘Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex’ and a series of topics including the Nazi roots of the modern environmentalist movement, Sweden’s environmentalist power grab, the anti-capitalist underpinnings of the environmentalist movement, the links between the acid rain fraud and today’s global warming movement, why the Paris climate accord represent a battle for America’s soul and much more.
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:58 pm

Sounder » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:26 pm wrote:Nice deflection Iam, but if you cannot address the argument, you lose the argument.

The argument in question is whether or not the vid titled 'My Gift to Climate Alarmists' makes valid points or not when they produce a wildly different picture of things by extending truncated timelines.

I imagine your religious obligations will prevent you from watching the vid, prove me wrong.


The video has three red flags even before watching: Tony Heller / Steven Goddard (same person and neither of his personalities are climate scientists), chump and you.

As for the content, here's the first thing that jumped out (after the insanely lame joke about third graders being better educated than "AOC or Greta"):

When he's looking at the graph for Arctic sea ice extent, he adds a few years on the left to show how sea ice was really low back then. What he doesn't show is the preceding data that shows that the extra part he throws on is the middle of a short downward bump.

Then he's looking at the graph for US sea level rise, and comparing it with the tide data for New York harbor. New York isn't the US, and the ocean isn't flat. It's a useless comparison.

I could go on, but he's doing exactly what he's accusing the climate scientists of doing. In other words, he can go fuck himself.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2658
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:58 am

Sounder » Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:26 pm wrote:Nice deflection Iam, but if you cannot address the argument, you lose the argument.

The argument in question is whether or not the vid titled 'My Gift to Climate Alarmists' makes valid points or not when they produce a wildly different picture of things by extending truncated timelines.

I imagine your religious obligations will prevent you from watching the vid, prove me wrong.


Not hard at all to prove you wrong, Sounder, but why do that to yourself and why should I want to? You have certain beliefs I refuse to challenge, lest I leave you doubting them if I did. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but in our Earth's warming there are only facts to examine, and after an honest examination of all evidence gathered, the preponderance of examiners have concluded humans have exacerbated the rapidity of the Earth's warming to the point of inevitable extinction for the majority of all lifeforms now known to exist on earth. It is not my argument that is at risk of being lost.

I surprised you've decided to pick that stinker to focus on, after all those hundreds of words in print, all worthy of righteous scorn. I understand your need to keep it simple.

But no, Sounder, the video makes no valid points, other than perhaps as a lesson on how not to do climate change denial propaganda.

By now you should be aware of the fact that I have no religion. I was baptized at four, late, I know, due to an old, protestant family practice called parental laziness. Technically, and surprisingly, I still haven't been excommunicated, and so I remain an Episcopalian because I have a piece of paper saying I belong to this heretical "Church," created by a mad, murderous, gout-ridden, obese "King" of England. (Surprising that I was allowed to be confirmed at 12, after being kicked out of the confirmation class!) I humbly admit one very Roman Catholic person, a woman I've admired who has long been influential and well respected and has received many honors for her good works once asked me in all seriousness if I was Jesus! Of course I assured her the only similarity was that our names began with the letter "J," had five letters, and ended with the letter "S." But, I do try to help those I can, in any way I can. Also, I humbly submit I was once called a "Saint" for relocating an intransigent elderly gay man facing dispossession or eviction when all efforts by others had failed. I got him into a beautiful one bedroom apartment, made affordable by his being granted a Section 8 housing subsidy. He died maybe 18 months later. I had met him and his elderly mother soon after moving to Albany in 1974 and he invited me to a few of his holiday gatherings of influential, but interesting members of society. All now long gone. I hadn't seen him in more than 30 years when I coincidentally hooked up with him again, after being called in by a tenants rights organization I had worked with once before, voluntarily, with this same man on a similar issue long ago. In the early years of the 20th century his aunt traveled throughout the "Orient" and collected an amazing portfolio of Islamic art, truly museum quality works of beauty, though some portrayed violent scenes. His dysfunctional, drug addicted, severely mentally ill and much younger partner inherit everything and sold all the art for $1,000; a single leaf being worth ten times that. And so, here we are.

I digress. You would like me to not be evasive, so I won't be, though I'll regret this.

Just because chump drops an off-topic turd in this thread, I, unlike a picky coprologist like you, do not feel any need to discuss its 'finer' attributes, those regarding its consistency, or peculiar aromas. But only to please you, I will now "tear that shit up."

I did watch at least a majority of the video before I had submitted my earlier comment. I honestly cannot recall whether I watched it to its end, but it's unlikely I did. The first question after having had my fill of it, was who is this jackass discussing a twenty year old chart and accusing the IPCC of fudging the charts, amazingly, by the very same method he uses, the floating average? And an old and long disproved argument, at that. So, who is he, this video poster, Tony Heller? Is he paid to promote such nonsense? Oh, he has another name! Steven Goddard! How odd! I never before heard of any serious researcher of any subject in any field using two names.

You folks should really subscribe to the Epoch Times, if you believe anything printed by Global Research

Headline: North Korea, a Land of Human Achievement, Love and Joy

—Everything you need to know about Globalresearch


Globalresearch is an "anti-Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.


Although GlobalResearch does not state ownership, it is assumed Michel Chossudovsky is the owner. Revenue is derived through donations and advertising.
,

I'll post the items of merit worthy to note because of their particularly personalized unpleasant aromas, though in general, most peoples noses wouldn't be able to discern their uniqueness, considering all their offerings nothing more but servile slaves spreading their master's shit. And most rational people believe one pile of shit smells just as bad as another.

Let's see what other peculiar ingredients this pointless video reveals, shall we. Ben Weingarten.

Oh, darn! The rest are in chumps next posting, so enough. Maybe tomorrow I'll have time to post a response; I've more than a few pages bookmarked to refer to when I do, so I'm ready to, but too tired tonight to respond to chump and his flat earth mentality, odd for a geo-centricitist, but they do exist, supposedly.

Image

Image
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:11 am

The Climate Change Solution Scientists Have Been Overlooking
You might have learned about it in sex ed.


Poring Studio/Shutterstock
Overpopulation is a major contributor to climate change, but according to new research, a solution is lying in plain sight: increased access to effective contraceptives.

“Global climate change represents a grave threat to the future of human welfare and our natural environment,” write doctors John Bongaarts and Régine Sitruk-Ware of the Population Council in New York in an article published Tuesday in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health. “The contentious ongoing policy debate about potential interventions focuses on switching to renewable energy sources and increasing energy use efficiency. But given the urgency of the problem and the lack of political will, other approaches to limit greenhouse gas emissions should be given higher priority. Improving access to effective contraception is one such policy that has thus far been largely ignored by the international climate community.

The authors claim that improved access to contraception could slow population growth and thereby reduce long-term greenhouse gas emissions globally by 40 percent or more. Bongaarts and Sitruk-Ware write that many married women—more than half in some countries—who do not wish to become pregnant still fail to use contraception due to barriers to access, high costs, and social stigma. Consequently, there are about 99 million unintended pregnancies worldwide each year. By 2100, Earth’s population is expected to reach 10.9 billion people. (The current population is about 7.7 billion.)

As Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, told Mother Jones in 2010, “overpopulation, combined with overconsumption, is the elephant in the room” in climate discussions. “We don’t talk about overpopulation because of real fears from the past—of racism, eugenics, colonialism, forced sterilization, forced family planning, plus the fears from some of contraception, abortion, and sex. We don’t really talk about overconsumption because of ignorance about the economics of overpopulation and the true ecological limits of Earth.”

Bongaarts and Sitruk-Ware recommend that governments worldwide increase access to contraceptives by investing in family planning programs. They also encourage the research and development of new forms of contraception, and they suggest combatting social opposition to birth control through media campaigns.

“Wider distribution of contraceptives already on the market through greater investment in voluntary but underfunded family planning programmes is sufficient to raise contraceptive use substantially,” they write. “This in turn would have a profound positive impact on human welfare, the climate and the environment.”
https://www.motherjones.com/environment ... erlooking/
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:36 pm

To all you fuckwits who think this is a hoax...

Myself and my bushfire brigade have been fighting fires since mid winter.

Nearly a quarter of the north coast of NSW is burnt out.

For the last 3 years we've had section 44 fires (local state of emergency declared, as warning go out hourly or more frequently to entire towns in my fire district.) This year we've had 40 degree temps in the first half of spring and Catastrophic fire danger readings in October. 10 years ago you could count the number of days with that level of fire danger on one hand at the height of summer after repeated 38C/100F days. Now its happening in spring.

Why don't you get fucked you propaganda spreading wankers.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:31 pm

When I saw "count the number of days on one hand" I mean in recorded history not just in a year.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:02 am

Joe Hillshoist » Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:36 am wrote:To all you fuckwits who think this is a hoax...

Myself and my bushfire brigade have been fighting fires since mid winter.

Nearly a quarter of the north coast of NSW is burnt out.

For the last 3 years we've had section 44 fires (local state of emergency declared, as warning go out hourly or more frequently to entire towns in my fire district.) This year we've had 40 degree temps in the first half of spring and Catastrophic fire danger readings in October. 10 years ago you could count the number of days with that level of fire danger on one hand at the height of summer after repeated 38C/100F days. Now its happening in spring.

Why don't you get fucked you propaganda spreading wankers.


You would think that posters on a conspiracy site would be aware of the fact that big oil has been spending decades and millions on spreading doubt and mis-information about global warming, but apparently not. It's not the oil companies conspiring, it's everybody else. :wallhead:
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2658
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:38 pm

good to hear from you Joe Hillshoist......we don't have the fires but the flooding has been horrific here


...................
Adam Klasfeld

Verified account

@KlasfeldReports
25m25 minutes ago
More
Good afternoon from New York.

Trial in the New York AG's fraud case accusing Exxon of misleading investors about risks due to the climate crisis is about to kick off in state court in Manhattan, which I will cover live for @CourthouseNews.


Fraud Probe Uncovers Secret Tillerson Emails on Climate Change
ADAM KLASFELDMarch 14, 2017
MANHATTAN (CN) — New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman revealed Monday that his fraud investigation of ExxonMobil uncovered a secret email account U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson used as CEO.

Detailing its findings in a 4-page letter to the Manhattan Supreme Court, Schneiderman’s office said ExxonMobil must be ordered to disclose all of Tillerson’s alter egos.

“Specifically, [the Office of the Attorney General] found that Exxon’s former chairman and CEO, Rex Wayne Tillerson, utilized an alias email address on the Exxon system under the pseudonym ‘Wayne Tracker’ from at least 2008 through 2015,” Assistant Attorney General John Oleske wrote. “Mr. Tillerson used this secondary email address to send and receive materials regarding important matters, including those concerning to the risk-management issues related to climate change that are the focus of OAG’s investigation.”

Wayne is Tillerson’s middle name.

ExxonMobil produced roughly 60 documents from the “Wayne Tracker” account, but Schneiderman says it never disclosed that this had been Tillerson’s account. The email address also did not appear on the company’s list of preserved custodial sources or its privilege logs, according to the letter.

Schneiderman’s office says the emails demonstrate ExxonMobil’s attempts to skirt subpoena compliance, despite having promised the court to “move heaven and earth” to do so.

New York’s investigation has been publicly known since Nov. 4, 2015, shortly after Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News published a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles reporting that ExxonMobil scientists privately confirmed the effects of a warming planet as early as the 1970s.

Using its hefty resources as the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company, Texas-based ExxonMobil enlisted think tanks, junk scientists and lobbyists in a misinformation campaign, the articles reported.

Schneiderman’s office is investigating whether this campaign misled shareholders over what risk climate change posed to ExxonMobil’s operations.

In a 2014 report, ExxonMobil insisted that it did not need to prepare for a “low carbon scenario” because such a transition would be “highly unlikely,” as the cost would be too high for U.S. households.

“Exxon’s top executives, and in particular, Mr. Tillerson, have made multiple representations that are at the center of OAG’s investigation of potentially false or misleading statements to investors and the public in regard to these purported internal safeguards,” the attorney general’s March 13 letter says.

Schneiderman wants the oil giant to “identify whether any other relevant Exxon custodians utilized secondary email accounts, and whether Mr. Tillerson utilized any additional email accounts, and if so, whether documents relating to those accounts have been preserved, collected, and/or reviewed for production.”

His office asked Judge Barry Ostrager to schedule a compliance conference at the “earliest possible date.”

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.
https://www.courthousenews.com/fraud-pr ... te-change/



Adam Klasfeld


Assistant AG is up first: "What we are saying is that Exxon not mislead its investors. That's what this case is about."

AAG says that the separate costs were known internally, including "carbon asset risks," finding that regulation due to the climate crisis could make fossil fuels "uneconomical to extract."

Quoting Exxon documents, AAG says: "We rigorously consider the risk of climate change in our planning bases and investments."

AAG: “These statements were false and did not reflect what Exxon was actually doing.”

AAG claims that this op-ed by Exxon's VP published in the Dallas Morning News in 2016, touting its efforts in the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement, was false and misleading.


The AAG is Kevin Wallace, acting bureau chief of the investor protection bureau.

Slide up now:

Alberta 2015: "alternate methodology" to avoid "massive GHG costs."

This refers to the Tar Sands project.

Around this time, Wallace notes, Morgan Stanley published an analysis finding: “Climate change is increasingly recognized as a material investment consideration that investors cannot ignore.”

Wallace: Rex Tillerson was "deeply involved" in these issues for "years."

Wallace asks the judge for a "comprehensive review" of Exxon's carbon costs going back to fiscal year 2014, in order to tabulate the damages demanded.

Per Wallace: Exxon claims this sentence from a 2014 doc was the only disclosure it needed to make.

"Perhaps most importantly, we require that all our business segments include, where appropriate, GHG costs in their economics when seeking funding for capital investments."

Wallace emphases: "We are not telling [Exxon] how to run its business," but the company's internal docs "at odds" with what it told investors.

"The costs of that failure are staggering. Investors are entitled to the truth."

Recess before Exxon's up. (Corrected tweet)

Exxon's attorney insists the company accepts "climate change is real" and it should “be addressed” by the nations of the world.

In 2006, Rex Tillerson became the CEO of Exxon and he recognized that climate change regulations were increasing, the attorney says.

Exxon attorney calls this line of the NYAG's complaint "outrageous."

"Exxon's fraud was sanctioned at the highest levels of the company."

He claims that NYAG did not ask to interview Rex Tillerson for years, until recently.

Exxon attorney Theodore Wells appears to have just confirmed that Tillerson will be a "live witness."

He quotes Tillerson:

"I had taken the view and we had taken the view as a corporation that the risk of climate change and that… appropriate action was going to be needed."


https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/sta ... 3396371457
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby BenDhyan » Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:06 am

Trump seems to be less than impressed with California on climate change issues...

California 'veered' out of its lane in climate pact with Quebec: U.S. lawsuit

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Wednesday sued California for entering a climate agreement with Canada’s Quebec province, saying the state had no right to conduct foreign policy, in the latest feud between the Trump administration and the state.

President Donald Trump’s administration argued in the lawsuit that California’s 2013 agreement to link its emission-trading program - the centerpiece of its climate change policy - to Quebec’s violates the constitution, which prohibits states from making treaties or pacts with foreign powers.

“The state of California has veered outside of its proper constitutional lane to enter into an international emissions agreement. The power to enter into such agreements is reserved to the federal government, which must be able to speak with one voice in the area of U.S. foreign policy,” Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark said in a statement.

California, the most populous state and one of the top 10 largest economies in the world, has positioned itself as a leader on climate change action in the absence of federal leadership on the issue, setting off numerous political and legal battles with Washington.

Trump, a Republican who questions the science behind climate change, has eased regulations on the oil, gas and coal industries and intends to pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change.

The U.S. Justice Department said California, state officials, the California Air Resources Board, and the Western Climate Initiative Inc entered a complex cap-and-trade emissions-curbing climate program with Quebec in 2013 without congressional approval.

California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra countered on Wednesday that the Trump administration is attempting to “chip away” at the cap and trade program it has had in place since 2012, which he said was “strengthened” by linking with Quebec.

California and Quebec’s emissions-trading programs are connected through the Western Climate Initiative, a carbon market program in which governments set a steadily declining limit on emissions, and polluters that cut emissions quickly can sell credits to others that need more time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-lawsuit/california-has-veered-out-of-its-lane-in-emissions-pact-with-quebec-u-s-lawsuit-idUSKBN1X21OJ

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby coffin_dodger » Fri Oct 25, 2019 4:35 am

...and polluters that cut emissions quickly can sell credits to others that need more time.


The Money shot.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby lucky » Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:07 am

Global warming is a result of sunspot activity or lack of it and has nothing to do with mans activity or burning fossil fuels - is that a given here or do most believe the rhetoric pouring forth from the msm and talking heads (paid shills in the main) spouting nonsense. Genuinly interested to know.
There's holes in the sky where rain gets in
the holes are small
that's why rain is thin.
User avatar
lucky
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:39 am
Location: Interzone
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Pele'sDaughter » Fri Oct 25, 2019 7:30 am

Looking back through history when, most certainly, climate change happened and we either weren't around or had just begun with the industrial revolution, I'm skeptical about AGW. The controllers never do anything out of concern or care; only for enrichment, so it's a pretty safe assumption that what they're doing now has f*ck all to do with saving the planet. We know so little about the history of the planet, not to mention our own, that it's hard for anyone to make any sort of claims about what happened or predict what will happen. I personally believe there are massive cycles and that we may be at the end or beginning of one of those. Regardless, they will take advantage of it to continue the blood sucking. Whether or not there's an actual climate change going on, it would behoove us to live more organically and in tune with the rhythms of our environment.
Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pele'sDaughter
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Texas
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:24 am

lucky wrote...
Global warming is a result of sunspot activity or lack of it and has nothing to do with mans activity or burning fossil fuels - is that a given here or do most believe the rhetoric pouring forth from the msm and talking heads (paid shills in the main) spouting nonsense. Genuinely interested to know.


Yes the timelines for sunspot activity and temp match rather well, whereas CO2 and temp does not.

However, most folk here do believe the rhetoric pouring forth from the msm and talking heads (paid shills in the main) spouting nonsense.

Sad but true. Thanks for all who speak up, it's good to feel less lonely.

It is a tax farming operation and has nothing to do with 'saving the world', but it is interesting what the PTMB get away with simply by feeding the peons with something to feel self-righteous about.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests