We're Turning The Planet's To Shit: Climate Change & Humanity's Ability To Ruin Anything Good

Thruth said:
Except without a script she is a dolt.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything else you say but what is this about? She is a mentally/emotionally ill-developed child answering verbose tabloid type questions about something way over her head (her situation/emotions). What would you expect?

And in general, if everyone is so annoyed with the ranty tuna and everything surrounding it (I am for sure), they why not just ignore it as much as possible but at least shut the fuck up about it.

I propose to consider banning all posts including a video of tuna and/or (especially shirtless) dudes explaining anything about or related to tunashit and/or posts containing excessive mention of tuna/tunashit. (actually I don't care what anyone posts anywhere)
 
The Shooman said:
Grand Potentate Grand Potentate I have listened to the first 7 minutes so far, and l am far from impressed. They use misleading terms like "fringe" and "far right", and that doesn't make for a good start. I would prefer unbiased commentary.

What is far right or alt right? Here is probably a good explanation of what it really is. It is very different to having conservative values. I hope you watch it, it is important.
www.youtube.com

What Is the Alt-Right?

What is the alt-right? What is its worldview? How big is it? Michael Knowles, bestselling author and host of The Michael Knowles Show, took a deep dive into ...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

People often misunderstand the differences between traditional conservatives and far right wingers.
Click to expand...
Keep going
 
güero said:
I agree with everything else you say but what is this about? She is a mentally/emotionally ill-developed child answering verbose tabloid type questions about something way over her head (her situation/emotions). What would you expect?

And in general, if everyone is so annoyed with the ranty tuna and everything surrounding it (I am for sure), they why not just ignore it as much as possible but at least shut the fuck up about it.

I propose to consider banning all posts including a video of tuna and/or (especially shirtless) dudes explaining anything about or related to tunashit and/or posts containing excessive mention of tuna/tunashit. (actually I don't care what anyone posts anywhere)
Click to expand...

Dude, don't tell me to shut the fuck up. It is illustrating the point that you can't argue with spokespeople and acolytes just for the reasons you mention.

it was like before Ranty there was nothing and then she is celebrated for either being so brave when she barks at politicians or defended because of her inability to answer questions because of her disability. Can't have it both ways. But that is the way that it rolls out.
 
Thruth said:
You cannot win debates using science over laypeople, educated-over-the-internet wanktards and the true believers. Scientists have to remain sanguine because they lose the audience if they lower themselves to yelling, cajoling and acting like the uneducated they are debating against.

Look at idiot Igents and style influencers and their lack of knowledge but masses follow them. That is only suit science debates!

Non-Scientists or sham scientists cherry pick studies to back up their POV. They do not use the preponderance of evidence. They don't use systematic reviews and meta analyses to measure the quality and impact of good studies while ruling out shite studies.

The public and politicians generally are no different than the uneducated.

I am no climate change denier but I do have issues with some of the spokespeople that rant for or against.

That is why Ranty Thunberg is viewed so highly by the masses. She ranted and people took up the rant. Except without a script she is a dolt.
Click to expand...


I was speaking to a bonafide ecologist and scientist this week and is professionally engaged in this field. Where he works the issue is afforestation, that is forests now where there use to be 8 foot tall buffalo grass through over grazing. His view on Greta zeroed in on her negativity and as a practical scientist engaged in real conservation projects, he had some strong views on carbon trading and the corporatist watermelon brigade who know zero about the environment and climate other than CO2 limits. He's sussed them out. I didn't expect anything less.
 
Thruth said:
But that is the way that it rolls out.
Click to expand...
Not sure it necessary has to roll that way, at least itt. Any mention of her, positive, negative or even neutral, is an apophenial smoke grenade (not sure that's a concept but it does make sense?) to distract from the presumable undeniability of climate change. I believe w/o those Greta tics on every other page there could be at least a semi-intelligent discussion of the undeniability hypothesis itt.
 
güero said:
Not sure it necessary has to roll that way, at least itt. Any mention of her, positive, negative or even neutral, is an apophenial smoke grenade (not sure that's a concept but it does make sense?) to distract from the presumable undeniability of climate change. I believe w/o those Greta tics on every other page there could be at least a semi-intelligent discussion of the undeniability hypothesis itt.
Click to expand...

She's a 17 year old drop-out with zero credentials or experience to be changing the world through earning it. Those that follow her, are the ideal candidates for The Peoples Temple Agricultural Project solution.

We won't be joining you.
 
Don't worry about it Cuckley, semi-intelligent is quite a bit above your paygrade.
 
güero said:
Not sure it necessary has to roll that way, at least itt. Any mention of her, positive, negative or even neutral, is an apophenial smoke grenade (not sure that's a concept but it does make sense?) to distract from the presumable undeniability of climate change. I believe w/o those Greta tics on every other page there could be at least a semi-intelligent discussion of the undeniability hypothesis itt.
Click to expand...

Certainly. But, while you and I can discuss this in a sanguine manner, most cannot. There always has to be props or hand puppets when divisive topics are discussed.

Discussing climate change is no different than discussing water fluoridation or the flat earth theory because somewhere in the exchanges, conspiracy theory rears its head and all objective facts are lost.

Of course it is because we live in an alien ant farm and that cannot be debated!
 
Pimpernel Smith said:
I was speaking to a bonafide ecologist and scientist this week and is professionally engaged in this field. Where he works the issue is afforestation, that is forests now where there use to be 8 foot tall buffalo grass through over grazing. His view on Greta zeroed in on her negativity and as a practical scientist engaged in real conservation projects, he had some strong views on carbon trading and the corporatist watermelon brigade who know zero about the environment and climate other than CO2 limits. He's sussed them out. I didn't expect anything less.
Click to expand...

Carbon trading, credits, taxes are all creations that don’t necessarily change what is occurring.

It’s like snow removal here. It is pushed from one place to another but not really removed.
 
Rambo said:
Keep going
Click to expand...

Grand Potentate Grand Potentate I forced myself to listen to 30 minutes of it, and it was absolutely awful. It is one of the worst podcasts l have ever listened to. It was talking about how Stossel is a scallywag and takes bias angles as a reporter. I agree, he probably does that a lot, BUT the thing is that he doesn't need to with the global warning theories because much of what he has said is reported anyway. He doesn't need to make up stories about the global warming lies because there is enough evidence to sink the global warming ideas already.


O.k, l will get a little more serious now. Here is a scientific research article, and not a junk paper apparently because it has been sited 128 times be researchers. Look!

Drought is on the decline. Global warming is a lie!

Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system
www.nature.com

Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system - Scientific Data

Design Type(s) observation design • data integration Measurement Type(s) meteorological drought index • agricultural drought index • integrated meteorological and agricultural drought index Technology Type(s) data transformation Factor Type(s) observation period • temporal resolution • spatial...
www.nature.com www.nature.com



or expressed in easy to understand terms:
upload image to url


and remember the recent research l showed you from a top IPCC member that showed drought is NOT linked to global warming (Andy Pittman)

Grand Potentate Grand Potentate , l will say it again, there are rats in the ranks of the global warming mob. They are telling people outright fibs.
 
Last edited:
and of course they had to stop calling it "global warming" because the lies were being debunked by scientists. They now call it "climate change".

Look!
Heatwaves are DECREASING!!!




Heatwaves debunked 3.jpg


More damning evidence here:


You know why l am a skeptic?
- too many coverups and lies by the IPPC
- all predictions have been wrong
- too much evidence proving all the climate alarmists wrong
- too much fraudulent science pushed by climate change scientists because they are politicial scientists and not real scientists.
- the results of the fake science pushed by climate scientists for global warming can't be duplicated
- too much rubbish science like consensus of scientists etc
- too many banks loaning out to business and households buying property by the sea....should be risky for the banks to loan out for these things if the oceans are rising.

It goes on and on. The elites know it is a lie, but the little people don't know IMO.

I might post more another day. There is plenty of stuff.

I have posted some of the greatest scientists to debunk this climate change stuff, and of course they lost their jobs because they didn't play the game. IMO most of these climate change scientists who speak out are playing the game, but the reality seems that most scientists have integrity and keep neutral about it. It seems very few scientists support the global warming idea...about .03% or something. The 98% consensus was debunked years ago...NASA got that figure from a bunch of student activitists who got busted for highly flawed research (I think l posted that months ago)
 
Last edited:
güero said:
Don't worry about it Cuckley, semi-intelligent is quite a bit above your paygrade.
Click to expand...

For an alleged environmentalist, and it hasn't gone unnoticed by others, you're very focused on people's paygrades, for modern eco-tyranny and environmentalism is merely the watermelon approach to implementing fantasy economic policies and doing over those who can by those who can't:

www.spiked-online.com

The Green New Deal – welcome to super-austerity

Environmentalists are obsessed with driving down people's living standards.
www.spiked-online.com www.spiked-online.com
 
Despite predictions we would never see snow again, the good news for the global warmists is that it looks like things are cooling.
www.youtube.com

Outsiders weather and ice age watch: Historic snow levels hit US

Global Warming activists will be "giving extra thanks" over the Thanksgiving Weekend after significant parts of the US recorded record snowfalls, according t...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

The global warming alarmism will naturally die soon. Australia recently rejected such things at the polls, America has rejected it, India rejects it and China rejects it. Others do too. Much of the world rejects it. The extreme predictions have failed to come true and people are going to be waking up more and more as time goes by.
 
Last edited:
The Shooman said:
Australia recently rejected such things at the polls, America has rejected it, India rejects it and China rejects it. Others do too. Much of the world rejects it.
Click to expand...

You don't think that a lot of countries reject it because of a focus on short-term interests?

Let's face it, most humans are not good at long-term thinking. If you have two political parties, one telling people that everything is OK and the other telling people that in order to have a good long-term future, they'll have to take a hit in the short-to-medium term, which one do you think people are going to vote for?
 
Journeyman said:
You don't think that a lot of countries reject it because of a focus on short-term interests?
Click to expand...

Yes it is likely because of short term interests therefore some of my point above is moot, but l think growing numbers of people are starting to grow skeptical, and l think the people promoting these ideas will naturally lose influence. Why? Because basing an economy on these green energy policies is not sustainable and economically affordable and will fail soon, and with that failure the world will continue to go on and thrive, and people will naturally question the idea that the world is doomed and will soon come to laugh at the idea.

I think the idea of global warming killing the planet is atheist in nature. It goes against God's design for this planet....our technology is at a certain level, yet people want to FORCE a technology we aren't able to implement to develop a sustainable lifestyle where people can afford to live properly. Humans try to force outcomes, but you can't put a square peg in a round hole.

Where the climate alarmists got it wrong - they got too ambitious and shot themselves in the foot
Where they messed up is when they got desperate and went to extremes by claiming the planet is doomed if something dramatic isn't done within 12 years. The goals for one world dictatorship got too desperate and they went to extremes. Now they have to try and implement a technology over the world that can't be implemented, and it is bound to fail. On top of that, China and India will continue to avoid green policies, and a whole mockery of the situation will become a big joke and peopel will stop believing.


Climate alarmists ignore the people - good in theory but very bad in practice
What about the poor, how are they supposed to keep warm?
What about those people who supplement but still can't live without meat?
What about the industries that can't afford to keep going due to green policies being FORCED on them?
What about the people who can't afford all the green technology?
What about the threats people will get if they can't afford to implement new green measures?...of course the government will fine then and threaten to sell their house.
What about the unrealistic planning for having electric cars???


Green policies are really stinking watermelons - using false virtue to do dirty deeds, that's how watermelons work
People promoting green energy don't think about these things. They say everything will work out one day, and they will try to push and push and FORCE their way over people and place great penalties over them if they don't comply. Can't one see the evil nature of this?...it is communist in nature because the authorities use propaganda to force policies on the people, but ultimately the people pushing these policies get chewed up as well because the governments themselves are putting themselves out of business, and that is why the U.N is pushing this so hard.


They dress this stuff up as so virtuous, but it's the ultimate in sinister agendas. They have been caught out lie after lie, and the hypocrites have been exposed time and time again, yet still the followers of this stuff don't ask questions. I really don't know what to say anymore.
 
Last edited:
The Shooman said:
Because basing an economy on these green energy policies is not sustainable and economically affordable and will fail soon, and with that failure the world will continue to go on and thrive, and people will naturally question the idea that the world is doomed and will soon come to laugh at the idea.
Click to expand...

I understand that there are some issues with "green" energy generation - it's not as constant/reliable as coal- or gas-fired power generation, for example.

However, do you really think that our current economy is "sustainable and economically affordable"? Our current economic model is built upon constant growth, but that is impossible. Our growth is restrained by our limited resources.

To be frank, either we need to learn to restrain ourselves or, at some stage in the not-too-distant future, we will get a very rude shock.
 
Journeyman said:
I understand that there are some issues with "green" energy generation - it's not as constant/reliable as coal- or gas-fired power generation, for example.

However, do you really think that our current economy is "sustainable and economically affordable"? Our current economic model is built upon constant growth, but that is impossible. Our growth is restrained by our limited resources.

To be frank, either we need to learn to restrain ourselves or, at some stage in the not-too-distant future, we will get a very rude shock.
Click to expand...


I agree with that too. We can't keep on FORCING economic growth. We do need to tighten belts and restrain ourselves. Our constantly growing economy is not a sustainable way of doing things. The problem is that capitalists get greedy, and now we face the current situation. Fortunately big busts are going to happen and the greedy will be put firmly in their place. Capitalism is in a filthy state because it has become greedy and dishonourable. Capitalism used to be a way for men to make a living and live normally, but now everyone wants to live well and become rich, and when man tries to force outcomes to get rich we get the problems we face today....bad decisions get made and before long things become unsustainable. Of course much pain is to be had in the near future.

Forcing outcomes = doing bad deeds and warping the nature of how things should be
Forcing outcomes = green policies and getting greedy and selfish to get rich
Forcing outcomes = usually bad

Self interest rules the world now, but it won't last for much longer. The dark hearts will be humbled.
 
Journeyman said:
I understand that there are some issues with "green" energy generation - it's not as constant/reliable as coal- or gas-fired power generation, for example.

However, do you really think that our current economy is "sustainable and economically affordable"? Our current economic model is built upon constant growth, but that is impossible. Our growth is restrained by our limited resources.

To be frank, either we need to learn to restrain ourselves or, at some stage in the not-too-distant future, we will get a very rude shock.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of issues with ''Green'' energy and I'm involved with wind farms offshore/onshore and biomass which is an utter disaster, but getting billions in subsidies.

You need constant growth if you have ever expanding populations, failure to achieve that will result in Malthus like war and famine.

The bad news is the current crop of politicians are determined to deliver diminished lives and lifestyles to deliver their vision of eco-tyranny and Wokeness.

The good news is that there has never been an energy evolution or technology one that is less efficient than the previous one. Natural selection will cure this current political class, the question is only how long they cling to power by artificial means at the expense of the people and quality of life for all except themselves.
 
For people who may be interested:

Sea ice decreases in the Arctic, but increases in the Antarctic.

Despite Antarctic Gains, Global Sea Ice Is Shrinking

NASA ice expert Claire Parkinson confirms that global sea ice coverage has continued its overall downward trend since her original analysis was published in 2015.
www.climate.gov www.climate.gov

Polar Bear populations are increasing (not decreasing like reported) despite melting ice in the Arctic. Some populations have been reported to "thrive".

See: more polar bears, more greening of the planet, less severe weather, less drought, and more tree growth. Doesn't look like the planet is about to end. Hardly any warming either over the last 100 years, and l think there has been a cooling in the last 15 years if l recall correctly despite carbon dioxide levels rising. Hmmm.

But as is said, if one is a hard line believer in global disaster, one will never be convinced of any science that runs to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
The Shooman said:
For people who may be interested:

Sea ice decreases in the Arctic, but increases in the Antarctic.

Despite Antarctic Gains, Global Sea Ice Is Shrinking

NASA ice expert Claire Parkinson confirms that global sea ice coverage has continued its overall downward trend since her original analysis was published in 2015.
www.climate.gov www.climate.gov

Polar Bear populations are increasing (not decreasing like reported) despite melting ice in the Arctic. Some populations have been reported to "thrive".

See: more polar bears, more greening of the planet, less severe weather, less drought, and more tree growth. Doesn't look like the planet is about to end. Hardly any warming either over the last 100 years, and l think there has been a cooling in the last 15 years if l recall correctly despite carbon dioxide levels rising. Hmmm.

But as is said, if one is a hard line believer in global disaster, one will never be convinced of any science that runs to the contrary.
Click to expand...
shooey it literally says in the headline 'despite gains, global sea ice shrinking'. in the article itself the lead researcher even says:

“When I give public lectures or talk with people interested in the topic of polar ice, somebody will often say something like: ‘Well, the ice is decreasing in the Arctic but it’s increasing in the Antarctic, so don’t they cancel out?’” said Parkinson. “The answer is no, they don’t cancel out.”
 
Rambo said:
shooey it literally says in the headline 'despite gains, global sea ice shrinking'. in the article itself the lead researcher even says:

“When I give public lectures or talk with people interested in the topic of polar ice, somebody will often say something like: ‘Well, the ice is decreasing in the Arctic but it’s increasing in the Antarctic, so don’t they cancel out?’” said Parkinson. “The answer is no, they don’t cancel out.”
Click to expand...


I had a feeling you would have pointed it out, but l posted this because I have nothing to try and hide. The point is...we can't blame global warming for the melting of ice. Why? Because some areas are gaining ice, so how can this be explained by the global warming theory. They can't explain it so they conveniently leave that out and only focus on the Arctic and total ice loss.

The other point is that the climate changes all the time; sometimes places lose ice and other areas gain ice. It is just a change in climate, but to call it a disaster is jumping the gun. It is just weather changes, not a sign of the end of the world and pending disaster. Sometimes the climate gets hot and sometimes it gets cold, and sometimes fires burn lots of stuff. It's how the earth has always been,and it is no recent thing.

Also, people call it global warming and say the temperature it is killing the planet. So what is the ideal temperature? No scientist has been able to answer that question apparently. They have theories, but that's all they are, and all their theories have been proven wrong so far.

How can l take these political scientists (paid to be pushers of pseudoscience) seriously when they sweep so many facts under the carpet. It simply won't do Rambo. I want honesty and integrity, but so many lack it these days. The science is so corrupted now. The honest ones are getting sacked for speaking out. Why? Because there is an agenda.
 
Some interesting observations.


Background info
Solar power to power state = need them everywhere to get enough power, but energy intensive to build, and other major disadvantages. Unreliable power supply so coal fired power stations will need to be cranked up on demand thereby using even more power than normal (apparently).

Wind power to power state = need them everywhere to get enough power, but energy intensive to build, and other major disadvantages. Only have a short lifespan before needing to be replaced again. Unreliable power supply so coal fired power stations will need to be cranked up on demand thereby using even more power than normal (apparently).

Coal fired power station = only need a handful to get enough power. Very reliable power.

Here is the more interesting thing to look at.

The main point

A handful of coal fired power stations around the state. The natural landscape largely remains in tact.
Coal power station.jpg

Countless numbers of wind farms built all over the state. Countless habitats and plant life destroyed to make room for these things. The landscape is no longer natural....it is covered with monstrosities that are energy intensive to build.
Wind Farms.jpg

Countless numbers of solar farms built all over the state. Countless habitats destroyed and plant life to make room for these things. The landscape is no longer natural....it is covered with monstrosities that are energy intensive to build.
Solar farms.jpeg
This is a the craziness that happens when humans stray from the plan. They end up doing more harm than good and make natural landscapes no longer natural. This is what our landscapes will look like if green laws come into being. We won't have much green and natural landscapes anymore, we will have miles and miles of metal and manmade materials covering the land. They need a lot of these things to give us the power needed.

It's not normal!!!
 
Last edited:
One of my all time favourite videos where climate change scientists have a discussion.
www.youtube.com

Four Climate Scientists Destroy Climate Change Alarmism

Four climate scientists destroy the anthropogenic global warming myth in response to the Global Climate Action Summit.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

CO2 is at one of the lowest levels in Earth's history right now.
Much of the ice melted in the 1920's and predictions were that coastal regions would be under water.

Rambo, l will address the Mountain Top Removal issue another day.
 
The Shooman said:
Rambo, l will address the Mountain Top Removal issue another day.
Click to expand...
we don't have to shooey because it won't end well for you and i'll just get angry. i appreciate that you have your point of view and that can just be good enough for the both of us.
 
Wow Rambo, l am shocked to read this "won't end well for you and i'll just get angry ". No need to worry, l won't write anything else in this thread ever again. I only wanted to have a discussion, l never wanted anyone getting angry. l never wanted to ruffle your feathers.

I think it is time l did something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom