Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#1230706 2020-01-24 3:28 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35


Just felt this was long overdue for its own topic.

I have a separate topic for nuclear war, but gave mention to global warming there. Global Warming is an issue of controversy, a mixture of science and pseudo-science, one the Democrat/Left exploits to advance their push for federal control, based on fearmongering and distortion of the actual science.


The "12 years to environmental armageddon" narrative, from what I can see, began with or slightly before the Nov 2018 election. And its biggest proponents were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Beto O'Rourke. This clip from Tucker Carlson explains the 12-year scare, and its origins. Origins in politics, not science.

Fact checking Ocasio-Cortez and Beto's climate claims -Tucker Carlson, Mar 18, 2019





Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35


Tucker confronts AOC adviser on agenda behind Green New Deal - July 12 2019




This type of manufactured crisis to implement change is a standard tactic of the far left. Its origins are from a 1965 plan published by two radical left university professors named Cloward and Piven (i.e., Cloward-Piven strategy)

i.e., deception.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35


Bill O'Reilly - Global Warming Hot Air - Mar 22, 2010 (edited with pro-global warming facts added)




Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
.


Ingraham: What The Democrats are planning next


Detailing the latest trillion-dollar legislation by Democrats, part of which "green energy" push subsidizes purchase of electric vehicles [EV's], and funds tens of billions in taxpayer dollars for EV refueling stations nationwide. This is the latest Solyndra, doomed to failure, and an enormous waste of billions, if not trillions, of tax dollars.
That endangers and de-funds an existing fossil-fuel energy national infrastructure in the U.S. that ACTUALLY WORKS.

Ingraham cites that electricity is generated using oil, natural gas, and coal on giant turbines.
So it's completely delusional that electricity is somehow more "green". It's created with fossil fuel.

The TRUE purpose of "green energy" is to skyrocket the price of energy, to limit affordability of personal inexpensive transportation. To eliminate personal freedom and limit mobility of the public, restricting them to public transportation so an authoritarian Leftist/Marxist government can restrict their movements. It's not about environmental preservation, it's about Leftist/Statist government control of the population.

Further, these electric vehicles (EV's) average about $52,000 per vehicle, so even with a $4,500 purchase credit, very few people can afford them.
And "EV recharging stations" are oddly placed nationwide in poor inner-city areas, despite that the poor in these areas clearly can't afford these vehicles and won't be driving them. And sure won't be refueling them in these urban EV recharging stations.
So they'll cost a fortune, and just end up rotting and being vandalized by the poor in these neighborhoods who have absolutely no use for them, and resent the people who do.
Your tax dollars at work, hosed away by Democrats. Building back broke.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
Originally Posted by Wonder Boy
Tucker confronts AOC adviser on agenda behind Green New Deal - July 12 2019


This type of manufactured crisis to implement change is a standard tactic of the far left. Its origins are from a 1965 plan published by two radical left university professors named Cloward and Piven (i.e., Cloward-Piven strategy)

i.e., deception.

Through several rounds of sneaking massive "green" spending into three other Biden legislative bills, we're seeing this deception and waste fully unveiled.
"Oh no NO, Tucker, it's not about stealing. It's about using subterfuge to appropriate trillions of others' capital into our pockets. It's perfectly normal..."

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
.


"Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."
--Saikat Chakrabarti, Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez Chief of staff/puppetmaster, as quoted in the Washington Post.

Verifying that climate change and global warming are not real, they are just the sales vehicle for pushing legislation to crush the U.S. fossil fuel industries and larger U.S. economy, with crippling legislative spending. Just as they have already been implemented to crush European nations, where the cost of fueling cars is upwards of $8 per gallon, and many are now unable to even heat their homes.
No such legislation in Russia, India, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Mexico...
In China they open a new coal energy plant every week, and coal is their primary fuel industry. This is all about crippling the U.S., not actual reduction of global emissions.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
.

https://patriotminear.com/wp-content/uploads/mememe/mememe_2c9fda64d39a232cb066ead8d63f986e-1.jpg

( image won't hotlink anymore, they changed the link to oddly, trannie porn instead of the political image I posted. Pretty funny. They REALLY don't want you to hotlink their images.
You can see the original link is a https://patriotminear.com meme, about world leaders of 150 countries each flying in private jets to a world summit, to lecture the rest of us on energy conservation, a funny bit of irony. But because I hotlinked their meme, they made the link now always rolls over to trannie-porn instead. Point made, I guess. You can see it under "climate change memes" )

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,077
Likes: 29
Society's Discontent
6000+ posts
Offline
Society's Discontent
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,077
Likes: 29
Originally Posted by Wonder Boy
.


[Linked Image from patriotminear.com]

"Chicks with Dicks" on X-Hamster...what the fuck is wrong with you?

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,352
Likes: 12
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,352
Likes: 12
"The TRUE purpose of "green energy" is to skyrocket the price of energy, to limit affordability of personal inexpensive transportation. To eliminate personal freedom and limit mobility of the public, restricting them to public transportation so an authoritarian Leftist/Marxist government can restrict their movements. It's not about environmental preservation, it's about Leftist/Statist government control of the population."

OK. I am Che Dave, an authoritarian Leftist out to seize control of government and crush white Christian American values and my agenda is to "inhibit mobility of the public" in furtherance of the elimination of a personal freedom.

Aren't I just better off taxing the crap out of cars and creating road toll everywhere? After all, even e-cars will enable my subdued population to move about. I should also cause the cost of getting a driver's license to skyrocket.

That way, I keep the energy sector alive and tax the crap out of it, too, to better fund my communist, Godless agenda.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
The democrat/Left want to make cars running on fossil fuel to be so expensive, that everyone in the U.S. will be forced to electric cars, wind and solar power.
All of which don't work as reliably, and are as great of polluters or worse than fossil fuels are.
And all the minerals and manufacturing are produced by slave labor in China, and would make us all dependent on China, if we switch to those "green" energy systems.

Rep Massie (R-LA) in hearings with secretary Pete Buttegeig, made the point that one electric car being charged in your garage nightly uses the same power as 20 refrigerators, or 4 home central air conditioners. Buttegeig (as usual) just sat there looking stupid, having no answers, no understanding of the energy infrastructure he is in charge of. All he knows is leftist ideology, that has no capacity to solve the problems his "green" policy will cause. The car charging in your garage is charged with electricity from energy created by giant electric turbines... generated from tens of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel. FROM OIL. If you have millions of cars charging in garages in a metropolitan area every night, you're going to need a lot more electrical turbines generating electricity from oil, not less.

It's all a shell game.

Likewise, the minerals mined to create batteries, windmills, and solar panels are created by children and slave labor, who are poisoned by the chemicals they work in.
And by using these completed products from China, we are supporting slavery.
AND when these products wear out, as everything does, and they are thrown away, they actually create more pollution than the fossil fuels that are demonized.
Again: It's all a shell game.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
.
50 YEARS OF PREDICTIONS THAT THE CLIMATE APOCALYPSE IS NIGH (New York Post)


Quote
Apocalypse . . . now?

For the past two weeks in Glasgow, Scotland, world leaders have gathered at COP 26, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, to listen to the same message: Disaster is just around the corner.

“The world has to step up, and it has to step up now,” former President Barack Obama said. “When it comes to climate, time really is running out.”

Professional yeller Greta Thunberg demanded the United Nations declare a “systemwide climate emergency,” and force countries to take action.

Press accounts were similarly Chicken Little-esque. If developed nations don’t phase out oil and gas and give $100 billion in “climate financing,” Paul Behrens, professor in environmental change, told Politico that “the only fact about the future I can declare with certainty is that the world as we know it is coming to an end.”

If it all sounds slightly familiar, consider this news story from 1972:
“We have ten years to stop the catastrophe,” said the UN’s environmental protection boss. That’s one of the headlines collected by Bjorn Lomberg, author of “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”

Lomberg notes that, for more than 50 years, the United Nations and the media have regularly predicted we’re on the verge of calamity. And they always seem to forget about the last warning.

In 1982, after the catastrophe failed to materialize, the New York Times covered the second UN conference on the environment, which opened “amid gloom”:
The piece quotes Mostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the United Nations environmental program, as saying that if things aren’t fixed by the turn of the century — the year 2000 — the world would face “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.’’

In 1989, a senior UN environmental official shaved a year off that dire prediction, saying that if we didn’t fix climate change by 1999, we would have “Global disaster, nations wiped off the face of the earth, crop failures”:
[image of newspaper headline cover]

Tolba was back in 1990 to say that “We shall win — or lose — the climate struggle in the first years of the 1990s.”
[photo-image of headline]

The 1990s passed without the arrival of the End Times (unless you count Vanilla Ice), but that only turned up the volume. In 2004, the Guardian newspaper said a “secret report” from the Pentagon to President George W. Bush said climate change would “destroy us.”

Among the predictions:

* Major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas

* Britain is plunged into a “Siberian” climate by 2020

* Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world

The Guardian described this as “humiliating to the Bush administration” because they weren’t doing enough to tackle climate change. No word on whether the Pentagon or the Guardian are humiliated now that it’s 2021 and Britain is still experiencing summer.

But then, another dire prediction came and went in the meantime. In 2007, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN climate panel, said, “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late”:
That year did bring disaster in the form of the movie “2012,” but besides John Cusack’s career, the rest of us survived.

But don’t fret, the goalposts have been moved again. As of 2019, the UN said “only 11 years left to prevent irreversible damage from climate change”:
[image of more headlines of hysterical warnings ]

That gives us until 2030 — or 58 years after the warnings of 1972. Advocates for change believe if they just scream louder, or write more like the Book of Revelations, they’ll get the world to agree to a complete upheaval of modern life and trillions in spending. But after decades of alarmism, they sound like the boy who cried warming. People have tuned them out.

Climate change is real, but adapting to it, mitigating it with technology is the most realistic solution. Will China and India just give up on coal, gas and oil overnight? No, and neither will the United States. But emissions already are falling in Western countries, the world is innovating.

We predict things are going to get better. Ten years. Twenty years, tops. Maybe 30.
.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253
Likes: 35
.

CLIMATE CHANGE HYSTERIA COSTS LIVES, BUY ACTIVISTS WANT TO KEEP PANIC ALIVE (New York Post)

Quote
Last month, I published a book, “Apocalypse Never,” which debunks popular environmental myths. Among them: that humans are causing a sixth mass extinction and that climate change is making natural disasters worse.

While I expected my book to be controversial, I didn’t expect CNN’s top climate reporter to compare it to an advertisement for cigarettes. Or to have an environmental journalist with nearly half a million followers on Twitter ­accuse me of promoting “white supremacy.”

I’m hardly a climate denier. In fact, I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmental ­activist for more than 30. Governments, including the US Congress, regularly ask me to offer my testimony as an energy expert. And this year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asked me to serve as an expert reviewer of its next major report.

I decided to speak out last year, after it became clear to me that alarmism was harming mental health. A major survey of 30,000 people around the world found that nearly half believed climate change would make humanity extinct. Mental-health professionals now routinely find themselves addressing adolescent anxiety over climate. In January, pollsters found that one in five UK children reported having nightmares about it.

And yet the IPCC doesn’t predict billions or even millions of deaths from climate change. That’s in part because economic development and preparedness mitigate natural disasters, diseases and other environmental impacts of climate change. And scientists expect our ability to mitigate harms to expand and improve long into the future.

There has been a 92 percent ­decline in the per-decade death toll from natural disasters since its peak in the 1920s. In that decade, 5.4 million people died from natural disasters. In the 2010s, just 0.4 million did. The decline ­occurred during a period when the global population nearly quadrupled and temperatures rose more than 1 degree centigrade over pre-industrial levels.

Would deaths have been even lower had temperatures not risen that 1 degree? Maybe, but we will never know. Huge reductions in deaths outweighed any increase in deaths from more forceful disasters. Could future temperature increases reverse the trend of declining mortality?

Perhaps, but the IPCC doesn’t predict that happening. That’s partly because — again — we are so much better at protecting people from natural disasters, climate-fueled or not.

Climate alarmists steadfastly ­ignore our capacity to adapt. To take just one example, France in 2006 had 4,000 fewer deaths from a heat wave than anticipated thanks to improved health care, an early-warning system and greater public consciousness in response to a deadly heat wave three years earlier.

Even poor, climate-vulnerable nations like Bangladesh saw deaths decline massively thanks to low-cost weather surveillance and warning systems and storm shelters.

Some have said that climate change will make epidemics like COVID-19 more frequent or more severe, but the main factors behind the novel-coronavirus pandemic had nothing to do with climate and everything to do with the failure of the Chinese regime to protect public health.

It’s why the IPCC names “poverty alleviation, public health interventions such as the provision of water and sanitation and early-warning and response system for disasters and epidemics” — not emissions reductions — as the keys to lowering disease risk in the future.

So why do some alarmists claim that climate change is making disasters worse? In part, it’s so they can use the world’s most visual and dramatic events, from Hurricane Sandy to California’s forest fires, to make the issue more salient with voters.

If it were acknowledged that Hurricane Sandy’s damage owed overwhelmingly to New York failure to modernize its flood-control systems or that California’s forest fires were due to the buildup of wood fuel after decades of fire suppression, alarmist journalists, scientists and activists would be deprived of the visually powerful events and “news hooks” they need to scare people, raise money and advocate climate policies.

Climate alarmism isn’t just about money. It’s also about power. Elites have used climate alarmism to justify efforts to control food and energy policies in their home nations and around the world for more than three decades.

In just the last decade, climate alarmists have successfully redirected funding from the World Bank and similar institutions away from economic development and toward charitable endeavors, such as solar panels for villagers, which can’t power growth.

Contrary to the claims of CNN’s top environment reporter, using energy that emits carbon dioxide isn’t like smoking cigarettes. People need to consume significant amounts of energy in order to enjoy decent standards of living. Nobody needs to smoke cigarettes.

In the end, climate alarmism is powerful because it has emerged as the alternative religion for supposedly secular people, providing many of the same psychological benefits as traditional faith.

Climate alarmism gives them a purpose: to save the world from climate change. It offers them a story that casts them as heroes. And it provides a way for them to find meaning in their lives — while retaining the illusion that they are people of science and reason, not superstition and fantasy.

There is nothing wrong with ­religious faith and often a great deal right about it. Religions have long provided people with the meaning, purpose and consolations they need to weather life’s many challenges. Religions can be a guide to positive, pro-social and ethical behavior.

The trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly destructive. It leads its adherents to demonize their opponents. And it spreads anxiety and depression without meeting the deeper spiritual needs.

Happily, real-world events, starting with the coronavirus pandemic, are ­undermining the notion that climate change is an “emergency” or “crisis.” After all, it was a disease that brought civilization to a halt, not climate-fueled natural disasters. And while COVID-19 has killed more than half a million people and counting, alarmist scientists struggle to explain how climate change will make diseases and disasters worse.

Meanwhile, emissions are declining in much of the world. In Europe, emissions in 2018 were 23 percent below 1990 levels. In the United States, emissions fell 15 percent from 2005 to 2016. And emissions are likely to peak and start to decline in developing ­nations, including China and India, within the next decade.

As a result, most experts ­believe that global temperatures are unlikely to rise more than 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. No amount of warming is ideal, since it will change conditions for both people and wildlife. But 3 degrees isn’t catastrophic for, much less an existential threat to, human societies and economies.

For pointing out these basic facts, I have been smeared, bizarrely, as a racist. Yet readers will discover that, far from being a defense of white supremacy, “Apocalypse Never” exposes ­European and North American environmentalists for promoting discriminatory anti-development policies toward poor African, Asian and Latin-American ­nations.

The activists and their media allies censor news articles. But eventually, the public will get to review the evidence and realize that the censors are wrong.

It is my hope that, after the public reckoning, everyone, particularly anxious adolescents, will go from seeing climate change as the end of the world to viewing it as a highly manage­able problem.
_____________________________________________

Michael Shellenberger is the author of “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.”


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5