Climate change speech

[Rainger99]

Excellent talk on climate change. It is from the Oxford Union Society debates on January 12, 2023.

https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo

[threeonemiles@outlook.com]

Excellent talk on climate change. It is from the Oxford Union Society debates on January 12, 2023.

https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo
Excellent speech. Konstantin Kisin is speaking the truth. Sadly, speaking the Truth is now called hate speech.

[Bay Kid]

Global cooling, global warming, ahh just call it climate change. Send your money to save the world as they get on their jets and in their limos to preach what we are doing wrong.

It's all about the money.

[manaboutown]

Somebody sent me a link to that speech. I watched it twice. He is correct.

[Taltarzac725]

Excellent talk on climate change. It is from the Oxford Union Society debates on January 12, 2023.

https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo

The title for that link is -- Konstantin Kisin | This House Believes Woke Culture Has Gone Too Far - 7/8 | Oxford Union

[Taltarzac725]

Excellent talk on climate change. It is from the Oxford Union Society debates on January 12, 2023.

https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quhtqsxdCG0

This is one of climate change. Konstantin Kisin Viral Speech About Global Warming And Climate Control

[Taltarzac725]

I watched that. A lot of over-generalizations and poor logic.

[Keefelane66]

If it’s a debate where are the other opinions presented. It does sound good if it supports one beliefs

[Taltarzac725]

If it’s a debate where are the other opinions presented. It does sound good if it supports one beliefs

It is basically an appeal to emotion with little reasoning behind it. Only the poor can solve the Global Warming problem and especially those with no indoor plumbing. Right? How does that follow? It is almost like the comedian is pulling our leg as the reasoning is so out of Alice in Wonderland.
LOL.

[Bill14564]

It is basically an appeal to emotion with little reasoning behind it. Only the poor can solve the Global Warming problem and especially those with no indoor plumbing. Right? How does that follow?

That isn't what I took away from it, neither the appeal to emotion or that only the poor can solve Global Warming.

What I heard is that the countries that will need to make changes to solve global warming are the poorest of the countries. These countries need energy in order to survive but don't have the money to afford the luxury of clean energy. Because they are poor they will have to make the choice of putting food on the table and surviving or buying into clean energy. It is defies logic to think that they will choose clean energy over survival.

The solution then is not to whine about the England or the US doing more and it is not to expect China or Russia or Central America to give up on fossil fuels or force them to do that. The solution is not to sit and complain but to research and develop inexpensive clean energy sources.

That's what I took away from the video.

[Taltarzac725]

That isn't what I took away from it, neither the appeal to emotion or that only the poor can solve Global Warming.

What I heard is that the countries that will need to make changes to solve global warming are the poorest of the countries. These countries need energy in order to survive but don't have the money to afford the luxury of clean energy. Because they are poor they will have to make the choice of putting food on the table and surviving or buying into clean energy. It is defies logic to think that they will choose clean energy over survival.

The solution then is not to whine about the England or the US doing more and it is not to expect China or Russia or Central America to give up on fossil fuels or force them to do that. The solution is not to sit and complain but to research and develop inexpensive clean energy sources.

That's what I took away from the video.

They are doing that all over the world. Looking for solutions to the pressing problem of global warming for people in all countries.

Still think that the comedian is following Jonathan Swift and proposing absurd
solutions.

[Rainger99]

If it’s a debate where are the other opinions presented.

As requested, if you want the other opinions, see the Oxford Union’s YouTube channel.

I will say the arguments are presented far more eloquently at Oxford than in most other forums.

OxfordUnion - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/@OxfordUnion/videos)

[Bill14564]

They are doing that all over the world. Looking for solutions to the pressing problem of global warming for people in all countries.

Still think that the comedian is following Jonathan Swift and proposing absurd
solutions.

Is throwing soup and flour on art part of looking for solutions to the pressing problem of global warming?

I just re-watched the video for the third time. The ONLY solution I heard presented was to work and to build and to create a source of energy that is not only clean but is cheap. Our opinions clearly differ because that doesn't seem absurd to me.

[JMintzer]

That isn't what I took away from it, neither the appeal to emotion or that only the poor can solve Global Warming.

What I heard is that the countries that will need to make changes to solve global warming are the poorest of the countries. These countries need energy in order to survive but don't have the money to afford the luxury of clean energy. Because they are poor they will have to make the choice of putting food on the table and surviving or buying into clean energy. It is defies logic to think that they will choose clean energy over survival.

The solution then is not to whine about the England or the US doing more and it is not to expect China or Russia or Central America to give up on fossil fuels or force them to do that. The solution is not to sit and complain but to research and develop inexpensive clean energy sources.

That's what I took away from the video.

^^^ What he said^^^

[Taltarzac725]

Is throwing soup and flour on art part of looking for solutions to the pressing problem of global warming?

I just re-watched the video for the third time. The ONLY solution I heard presented was to work and to build and to create a source of energy that is not only clean but is cheap. Our opinions clearly differ because that doesn't seem absurd to me.

They are doing that. Working on cheap solutions along with many others.

[graciegirl]

If it could be fixed. It would be fixed.

[Taltarzac725]

If it could be fixed. It would be fixed.

Global warming is a very large problem which is not subject to easy solutions. Climate Prize – The Wilkes Center for Climate Science & Policy (https://wilkescenter.utah.edu/funding-opportunities/climate-prize/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=climateprize&utm_content=solutionsandpolicy&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlue65oPQ_AIVLxvUAR16PQyTEAAYASAA EgLcWfD_BwE)

Climate Solutions | Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability (https://earth.stanford.edu/research/climate-solutions)

There are many universities and such looking for solutions though.

[Boomer]

I read the books and also listen to Freakonomics podcasts. There was one about how calling it Climate Change has hurt the cause. That name has turned into a buzzword for division.

The Freakonomics guys wondered why they didn’t just call it pollution. Everybody understands that.

Boomer

[ithos]

When there are major disagreements among the most esteemed professionals on highly technical issues such as Covid and Global Warming, there is one litmus test the works every time.

The side that has to resort to intimidation, destroying careers, squelching the dissemination of opposing views on social media and vilification of those who disagree are wrong because they are unable to make a compelling case based on time tested scientific protocols.

[OhioBuckeye]

Everybody has their opinion on this, mine is, there were 130 glaziers in 1890 & 130 years later there’s still 130 glaziers. The only way they’re so-called climate change can be fixed is if one country gets the whole world to go along with them, 1 country can’t fix it. Beside Mother Nature can’t be paid. Climate change goes thru these changes every 100 years. So if nobody believes my theory that’s OK because Al Gore made hundreds of millions trying to fix Climate Warming & guess what they still think our ice caps are still melting & oceans are rising. I’m not here to argue just telling you what I think!

[amexsbow]

Just like Al Gore and all the "scientists" who predicted a catastrophic sea rise...BUNK.

Don't these people remember the old tale " The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

They all have an agenda, and it is not for the good of all.

[waterflower]

Nikola Tesla had all the technolgy needed to live in a healthy world. People had more respect for jp morgan & g.e. who hid all his work.

[joelfmi]

Excellent speech. Konstantin Kisin is speaking the truth. Sadly, speaking the Truth is now called hate speech.
Don't believe everything that is on so called climate change.

[Whitley]

Is China, the Worlds second largest economy and home to the most billionaires, still considered a poor developing country?

[rsimpson]

They are doing that. Working on cheap solutions along with many others.

But, what you are not saying, or admitting to, is that they (climate scary people) are TEARING DOWN existing energy sources BEFORE the new technologies are available. Ruining our (US) economy and lifestyles while China, India, Central American make NO CHANGES to their responsible and larger impacts, is ludicrous. Electric Cars are a joke - batteries are worse for the planet than fossil fuels. etc. etc. Develop real energey solutions, not solar/wind where the elites are skimming billions of dollars.

[rmd2]

Is China, the Worlds second largest economy and home to the most billionaires, still considered a poor developing country?

Yes it is because the majority of people live a life of poverty and starvation while the top persons of the CCP are fat and happy. This is what you get with communism/socialism.

[DAVES]

Excellent talk on climate change. It is from the Oxford Union Society debates on January 12, 2023.

https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo

My view. Climate change, like it or not we are all forced to listen to the endless chatter. I do not share the same view as most. I've actually taken tests. In terms of seeing relationships, I am in the 99.9999999 percentile. I am also in the roughly 5% of people who cannot be hypnotized.
Truth it is sometimes frustrating and I need to remind myself they are truly blind to it.

The words are changing. It was GLOBAL WARMING and is now CLIMATE CHANGE. Shocking perhaps to some. Roughly 45-50 years ago the concern was global COOLING. Lacking was Al Gore to make a personal fortune causing a global panic. What does Al Gore do? He has a huge home, burns fuel like crazy to tell others they should, they must............. Global Warming is now Climate Change. REALITY, climate has always been and always will be changing.
I recall a class trip to the NY Museum of natural history. On display they had a huge cross section of an ancient redwood. On the rings they had marked events in history. They also showed different rates of growth due to weather differences over the years.

Truth, I do the best I can. The US has dramatically reduced our CO2 production. We have also shipped our manufacturing overseas.

[DAVES]

Global warming is a very large problem which is not subject to easy solutions. Climate Prize – The Wilkes Center for Climate Science & Policy (https://wilkescenter.utah.edu/funding-opportunities/climate-prize/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=climateprize&utm_content=solutionsandpolicy&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlue65oPQ_AIVLxvUAR16PQyTEAAYASAA EgLcWfD_BwE)

Climate Solutions | Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability (https://earth.stanford.edu/research/climate-solutions)

There are many universities and such looking for solutions though.

People dare not see reality. Each person produces pollution, CO2, or whatever people scream is the cause of climate change. Actually mans cause of climate change-if that is reality. The US our population was 180 million people it is now 350 million.
China, actually tried to limit population growth but could not.

Far as universities. Al Gore, king of global warming PANIC. Al's professor stated they had a grant to prove global warming. Had they not found global warming the grant would dry up so they tweaked the numbers. I can honestly SCREAM my CO2 is way down. That would be true. OOPs I am retired and no longer producing anything.

[Rainger99]

A lot of climate change experts claim that it is an "existential threat."

Why do some people call climate change an “existential threat”? | MIT Climate Portal (https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-some-people-call-climate-change-existential-threat)

“There is a genuine possibility that within the coming century, we will hit temperatures that are deeply incompatible with the continued existence of human life."

If the experts truly thought that climate change would cause the end of human life, I wouldn't think that they would fly around the world in private jets to attend climate change conferences.

Even if I thought that the modern world - gas cars, gas furnaces, air conditioning - would kill everyone, I am not sure that most people would want to go back to a 19th century life style.

[Tvflguy]

The moment I read the title I mentally tuned out. Personally I get angst and anger and agitated when thinking about this never-ending money pit for Special Interests. I’d better stop before…..

[jimjamuser]

That isn't what I took away from it, neither the appeal to emotion or that only the poor can solve Global Warming.

What I heard is that the countries that will need to make changes to solve global warming are the poorest of the countries. These countries need energy in order to survive but don't have the money to afford the luxury of clean energy. Because they are poor they will have to make the choice of putting food on the table and surviving or buying into clean energy. It is defies logic to think that they will choose clean energy over survival.

The solution then is not to whine about the England or the US doing more and it is not to expect China or Russia or Central America to give up on fossil fuels or force them to do that. The solution is not to sit and complain but to research and develop inexpensive clean energy sources.

That's what I took away from the video.
Speaking of developing inexpensive, clean, and extensive quantities of energy - that is what Oliver Stone gave a speech about at Davos today. He said that the oil and gas industries of the world have used propaganda to convince many people that Nuclear Energy is dangerous. He contends that it is NOT and is safe and refutes the lie that it is DANGEROUS.
......And I believe that the US, Europe, and China as the BIGGEST countries hold the KEY to preventing further climate change and the small rural poor people are NOT the leaders, but RATHER the VICTIMS of Climate Change. Also, the populations in both the Uber Rich countries and the poor countries BOTH need to practice better BIRTH CONTROL in order to prevent Global Warming from spiraling out of control. ......meanwhile back in the US of A....

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

There is no "solution" to "global warming." or to Climate Change. Or whatever catch-phrase you wish to assign to it this week. People who are trying to "solve" it, are not right in the head. People who insist that it isn't happening, or that it's not a big deal, and therefore no one should do anything other than continue to consume fossil fuels at a rate unheard of in the 1950's, are equally not right in the head.

There is a finite amount of fossil fuels on this planet. They're called fossil fuels because they don't regenerate. Just like if you chip a tooth, it won't grow back. You'll have to replace it with something else. Resin, porcelain, metal. And as with fossil fuels - when it runs out, you'll have to have something replacing it. Solar, wind, water, ethanol, etc.

Better we at least TRY to get it start now, so that some day - assuming the human race still exists, our great-great-great-grandchildren will have heat in the winter, AC in the summer, hot water, electricity, etc.

Once upon a time back in the 1950's some of you were taught in scout camp to leave the place as good or better than you found it. Maybe some of you have forgotten that lesson, or never cared about it. That's unfortunate. Some folks care. You don't have to give up your gas-powered golf cart and I know I'm not ready to give up mine, either.

But being AWARE of the needs of our planet, the thing that we are borrowing from the generations to follow ours, is important. Making an effort to not waste - why use styrofoam plates when you can use paper plates? Styrofoam comes from fossil fuel sources (petroleum). Paper comes from renewable sources (trees, and in some areas bamboo).

Support companies that offer these alternatives, whether by buying from them, or recommending them to others, or both.

Climate change isn't just about heating and illuminating your house with oil/gas/wood/solar. It's about doing whatever we can, within our budgets and within our personal means, to preserve what we have as long as we can. Even if the inevitable happens and the planet dies (which planets do, it's part of the cycle of life), we'll know that we, as a species, made some attempt to help ourselves while we were around.

[jimjamuser]

There is no "solution" to "global warming." or to Climate Change. Or whatever catch-phrase you wish to assign to it this week. People who are trying to "solve" it, are not right in the head. People who insist that it isn't happening, or that it's not a big deal, and therefore no one should do anything other than continue to consume fossil fuels at a rate unheard of in the 1950's, are equally not right in the head.

There is a finite amount of fossil fuels on this planet. They're called fossil fuels because they don't regenerate. Just like if you chip a tooth, it won't grow back. You'll have to replace it with something else. Resin, porcelain, metal. And as with fossil fuels - when it runs out, you'll have to have something replacing it. Solar, wind, water, ethanol, etc.

Better we at least TRY to get it start now, so that some day - assuming the human race still exists, our great-great-great-grandchildren will have heat in the winter, AC in the summer, hot water, electricity, etc.

Once upon a time back in the 1950's some of you were taught in scout camp to leave the place as good or better than you found it. Maybe some of you have forgotten that lesson, or never cared about it. That's unfortunate. Some folks care. You don't have to give up your gas-powered golf cart and I know I'm not ready to give up mine, either.

But being AWARE of the needs of our planet, the thing that we are borrowing from the generations to follow ours, is important. Making an effort to not waste - why use styrofoam plates when you can use paper plates? Styrofoam comes from fossil fuel sources (petroleum). Paper comes from renewable sources (trees, and in some areas bamboo).

Support companies that offer these alternatives, whether by buying from them, or recommending them to others, or both.

Climate change isn't just about heating and illuminating your house with oil/gas/wood/solar. It's about doing whatever we can, within our budgets and within our personal means, to preserve what we have as long as we can. Even if the inevitable happens and the planet dies (which planets do, it's part of the cycle of life), we'll know that we, as a species, made some attempt to help ourselves while we were around.
I use paper plates. I EVEN wash the paper plates and use them twice if food is NOT too caked on them. I wash glass and ceramic glasses and cups also. I would NOT ever have a dishwasher in the house, but I will use a stove and a microwave. That is pretty SMALL potatoes and just personal choice when it compares to the BIG picture of Global Warming. People need to be aware of what they are doing. For example, many people like to sport fish. You can do it from a lake bank or from a row boat and have a pretty good time and have a SMALL environmentaL FOOTPRINT. Some people feel that they NEED a 200-horsepower boat to RACE out into the Gulf to supposedly get to the Best fishing areas. There is something IRONIC about fishing that way. To have the BEST sport fishing on the planet you need to have HEALTHY Coral Reefs - like the ones in say (?) 1950 which you could walk to in MIAMI right offshore. Today to get to a reasonable reef you need to go 20 miles offshore and be over a reef 200 feet down. What's ironic is the CO and CO2 fumes from the 200 hp engine are what is KILLING the reefs and making them harder to reach and FURTHER offshore.

I would submit that the most increase in the heating blanket in the upper atmosphere has been caused by engines burning fossil fuel. So, whatever an INDIVIDUAL could do to DECREASE their use of internal combustion engines would be the MAIN answer to improving Global warming. Electric vehicles (of ALL kinds) are better than ICE vehicles because the point of origin for electrical energy is a single large energy EFFICIENT power plant with scrubbers on their exhaust. Whereas, ICE vehicles are EACH inefficient and polluting.
.......That IS why the answer for an INDIVIDUAL is to transport themselves by bicycle, Ebike, E golf cart, E car, and
E truck. E-vehicles are simple compared to ICE vehicles, easy to repair, lighter, lower center of gravity, and will with increased production......be less costly......all while giving off less pollution and allowing Mother Earth to return to a healthier environment for people.........and for saving Polar bears and preventing the wholesale vanishing of species from the planet that is going on RIGHT NOW at a terrible RATE.

[Byte1]

I am not concerned about how much oil we have in the U.S. and how many years before we consume it all. I've read that we have enough to last at least 500 years, if that information is correct. If we do not have an alternative fuel for energy by then, oh well. We know that combustion engines can operate on other fuels produced by organics such as corn, etc. But, in 500 years surely someone can come up with another form of energy.
So, then we talk of pollution. That is a good subject and one that we have been addressing for a long time. We have substantially cleaned up our air since I was a child. I haven't been to a major city in a long time that has had the viability limitations and breathing difficulty (in the U.S.) that we had when I was a child. Steps in the right direction. Pat ourselves on the back for that.
Climate change? Historical data suggests that the climate has always changed, hot to cold to hot to cold again. What makes folks so arrogant to suggest that they had ANYTHING to do with changing our climate? The climate has changed without the existence of mankind and will continue to change after man is gone. The only climate change that I can see man contributing to is the cost of living now is harder on us than it was in the past, due to someone else taking our money to use to support useless research that has absolutely no benefit to us. Does anyone think that by taking away one's livelihood and/or lowering our standard of living, it's going to make us more willing to accept something that "experts" say will have an effect on us in a couple centuries? Oh yes, some supposed celebrity "experts" declare the world will end in ten years or so. If so, why worry about changing? Personally, I have not read anything that really supports the idea that man has or can change the temperatures of the world, other than temporarily using a nuclear detonation to cause a "nuclear winter." Showing the existence of man thus warmer weather patterns is like saying the increase in fast foods has decreased the population of deer in the world. I have even heard crazies suggest that global warming has caused colder winters. When will the crazies suggest that climate change is causing a lowering of mankind's population? Perhaps we will become extinct because it will become too hot for reproduction? Crazy?
Some sensible folks have suggested that we do research new forms of energy but that we do not ban existing forms before we discover new methods that are financially viable. Common sense idea? How about ideas like revisiting forms of mass transit?
No one disputes the term "Climate Change." But, the debate is whether or not man is responsible or not. I believe that the climate will change whether or not man exists. I read the debates, but have yet to be convinced. Just because someone has credentials, does not make that person 100% accurate 100% of the time.

[jimjamuser]

If it could be fixed. It would be fixed.
Not if it threatened the current energy mammoths like oil and gas. They will kick and scream like insane Banshees...........and they have the lobbying money to shut up rival energy systems.

[jimjamuser]

Everybody has their opinion on this, mine is, there were 130 glaziers in 1890 & 130 years later there’s still 130 glaziers. The only way they’re so-called climate change can be fixed is if one country gets the whole world to go along with them, 1 country can’t fix it. Beside Mother Nature can’t be paid. Climate change goes thru these changes every 100 years. So if nobody believes my theory that’s OK because Al Gore made hundreds of millions trying to fix Climate Warming & guess what they still think our ice caps are still melting & oceans are rising. I’m not here to argue just telling you what I think!
Oceans ARE RISING ! tHAT IS A MEASURABLE fact. That IS not EVEN in question. Every scientist knows that. In order to get to a solution, you 1st define the problem, then 2nd you agree on the KNOWN FACTS. Then you can begin to talk about a SOLUTION. I can't take anyone seriously that can't get past step 1, and also can't be pretty much in agreement on step 2........KNOWN FACTS.
.......Another Fact is that CO2 and CO are forming a heat blanket in the upper atmosphere.
.........Fact.......Glaciers are breaking off into the ocean and that IS why the ocean level are rising.
.........Coral reefs are dying - due to increased CO@ and CO levels.
.........The oceans are trying to absorb the extra CO2 and CO from internal combustion engines because there are not enough plants to absorb it all that is produced by the vehicles of an increasingly over-populated planet.........note FACT the Amazon Rain Forest is currently being burned down to support more cattle. Which is a sad joke at many levels. It shows how shortsighted and greedy humans can be. They are going to hurt humanity all around the globe just to HELP out a few greedy uber creeps in Brazil.
........The Amazon Rain Rorest is called by scientists, "the lungs of planet Earth".

[jimjamuser]

Just like Al Gore and all the "scientists" who predicted a catastrophic sea rise...BUNK.

Don't these people remember the old tale " The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

They all have an agenda, and it is not for the good of all.
Recent Hurricane Ian is proof (right in our backyard) that the ocean levels are higher and the Gulf water temperature was at RECORD levels. That's why hurricane IAN was so humongously BIG and dangerous and record costly. What do people thing is going to happen NEXT summer. I would NOT be Nostradamus when I predict that there will be MORE KILLER hurricanes hitting Florida.
.......I saw a sign the other day on I-75 as I left Georgia heading south ....Welcome to Florida .....make sure you brought some life preservers.

[jimjamuser]

Is China, the Worlds second largest economy and home to the most billionaires, still considered a poor developing country?
China is over-populated and that makes them dangerous. The US profit-hungry corporations outsourced the US middle class to become the Chinese middle class. Now they will turn on us and we DESERVE IT for stupidity. Excess world population means excess pollution, which means excess world problems.

[jimjamuser]

Yes it is because the majority of people live a life of poverty and starvation while the top persons of the CCP are fat and happy. This is what you get with communism/socialism.
Actually, China embraced the parts of Capitalism that worked for them. How they have taller skyscrapers than we do and their middle class was increasing before they flubbed up their response to Covid. And the US middle class was disappearing due to tax changes and propaganda against labor unions.

[jimjamuser]

A lot of climate change experts claim that it is an "existential threat."

Why do some people call climate change an “existential threat”? | MIT Climate Portal (https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-some-people-call-climate-change-existential-threat)

“There is a genuine possibility that within the coming century, we will hit temperatures that are deeply incompatible with the continued existence of human life."

If the experts truly thought that climate change would cause the end of human life, I wouldn't think that they would fly around the world in private jets to attend climate change conferences.

Even if I thought that the modern world - gas cars, gas furnaces, air conditioning - would kill everyone, I am not sure that most people would want to go back to a 19th century life style.
Actually, if we go past a non-returnable threshold for Global Warming most animal species will go extinct and humans could tumble back into the 14th century. ......... riding horses and wearing armor.

[JMintzer]

Actually, if we go past a non-returnable threshold for Global Warming most animal species will go extinct and humans could tumble back into the 14th century. ......... riding horses and wearing armor.

Will we get Dragons back? Because I really want a dragon...

[JRcorvette]

Climate Change is all Hogwash! It is all about your MONEY!

[golfing eagles]

Will we get Dragons back? Because I really want a dragon...

"Seriously misunderstood creatures, dragons are"

[golfing eagles]

I think the last several posts may be longer than the speech they refer to :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Some people's "facts" are just flat out wrong, as well as exhibiting faulty cause-effect reasoning. Using ONE, yes a SINGLE storm (weather event) as an example does not reflect a 100,000 year CLIMATE change cycle.

And yes, ocean levels are rising, they have been rising for the last 23,000 years, again, showing that human beings have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. In the last 120 years ocean levels have risen 6-8 inches. Actually, the biggest rise occurred between 21,000 BC and 11,000 BC-----432 feet, yes FEET, not INCHES. But before those easily panicked get frightened, Florida won't be partially underwater for another 25,000 years. Also, remember that the 432 foot rise followed a similar fall in ocean levels during the last period of glaciation due to water getting sequestered in glaciers and ice caps.

Bottom line: I think I'll have a thick juicy steak tonight, comforted by the FACT that one less cow is farting. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

No one disputes the term "Climate Change." But, the debate is whether or not man is responsible or not. I believe that the climate will change whether or not man exists. I read the debates, but have yet to be convinced. Just because someone has credentials, does not make that person 100% accurate 100% of the time.

1. People DO dispute the term, there are people (and media "sources") that insist that Climate Change is a hoax, and isn't happening at all.

2. That is not "the" debate. There is no singular debate. There are a couple of debates going on:
a) whether climate change is a concern at all (see #1 - climate deniers)
b) whether humans have *contributed* to it (not whether we are responsible for it).
c) if a) and b) are true, then what, if anything, can we do to slow down OUR part in it?

The first step in fixing any problem is to identify the problem and confirm that it is, in fact, a problem.

Climate change is a problem.
Human civilization is a contributing factor to the problem.
Humans -can- make changes to reduce their contribution.

Those are things that some folks consider factual. Others consider a global conspiracy. When the two come together and agree on the truth of the matter, then the human race will be able to do something, if something is necessary or even possible.

In the meantime, those of us who DO believe that it's a problem, that we are contributing to it, and that we /can/ make changes to reduce our contribution, should at least try to make some changes.

[golfing eagles]

1. People DO dispute the term, there are people (and media "sources") that insist that Climate Change is a hoax, and isn't happening at all.

2. That is not "the" debate. There is no singular debate. There are a couple of debates going on:
a) whether climate change is a concern at all (see #1 - climate deniers)
b) whether humans have *contributed* to it (not whether we are responsible for it).
c) if a) and b) are true, then what, if anything, can we do to slow down OUR part in it?

The first step in fixing any problem is to identify the problem and confirm that it is, in fact, a problem.

Climate change is a problem.
Human civilization is a contributing factor to the problem.
Humans -can- make changes to reduce their contribution.

Those are things that some folks consider factual. Others consider a global conspiracy. When the two come together and agree on the truth of the matter, then the human race will be able to do something, if something is necessary or even possible.

In the meantime, those of us who DO believe that it's a problem, that we are contributing to it, and that we /can/ make changes to reduce our contribution, should at least try to make some changes.

Here we go again.

1) In the long term, "climate change" is a problem----after all, in 25,000 years NY City will be under 400 feet of water, and 50,000 years after that it will be under 2 miles of ice. So yes, it is a problem, assuming humans aren't extinct in that time frame, in which case it might be a problem for cockroaches to deal with.

2) IF, and it's a big IF human civilization is a contributing factor, it is miniscule at best. This is not withstanding the assertion by another climate change "believer" that cow farts are the biggest problem. Maybe cows will still be around in 25,000 years. To those who "believe", in anthropomorphic global warming (along with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy), explain how human civilization has caused 23,000 years of global warming to the tune of approximately 8 degrees F. Did we use the wrong kind of wood fire to cook our mastodon and saber tooth tiger meat in our caves???? Did Fred Flintstone's SUV only get 8 mpg??? Or do they just want to harp on how the ONE latest hurricane reflects 100,000 years of climate change? Give us a break from delusional thinking.

3) Of course we can reduce our "contribution", but keep in mind half of nothing is still nothing. But by all means let's spend the proposed 100 TRILLION dollars to try.

[B-flat]

Here we go again.

1) In the long term, "climate change" is a problem----after all, in 25,000 years NY City will be under 400 feet of water, and 50,000 years after that it will be under 2 miles of ice. So yes, it is a problem, assuming humans aren't extinct in that time frame, in which case it might be a problem for cockroaches to deal with.

2) IF, and it's a big IF human civilization is a contributing factor, it is miniscule at best. This is not withstanding the assertion by another climate change "believer" that cow farts are the biggest problem. Maybe cows will still be around in 25,000 years. To those who "believe", in anthropomorphic global warming (along with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy), explain how human civilization has caused 23,000 years of global warming to the tune of approximately 8 degrees F. Did we use the wrong kind of wood fire to cook our mastodon and saber tooth tiger meat in our caves???? Did Fred Flintstone's SUV only get 8 mpg??? Or do they just want to harp on how the ONE latest hurricane reflects 100,000 years of climate change? Give us a break from delusional thinking.

3) Of course we can reduce our "contribution", but keep in mind half of nothing is still nothing. But by all means let's spend the proposed 100 TRILLION dollars to try.

Well said!

[jimjamuser]

Will we get Dragons back? Because I really want a dragon...
You can buy a Dragon Ship today and find some friends to row REAL fast around Lake Sumter. Maybe even use a natural gas tank to shoot fire out of its mouth. happy trails, happy lake trails.
.........Maybe that puppy dog could swim in front on a rope and provide some needed propulsion. But, watch out for alligators without a sense of humor.

[jimjamuser]

Climate Change is all Hogwash! It is all about your MONEY!
Hogwash....one of my FAV modern terminologies.

[jimjamuser]

I think the last several posts may be longer than the speech they refer to :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Some people's "facts" are just flat out wrong, as well as exhibiting faulty cause-effect reasoning. Using ONE, yes a SINGLE storm (weather event) as an example does not reflect a 100,000 year CLIMATE change cycle.

And yes, ocean levels are rising, they have been rising for the last 23,000 years, again, showing that human beings have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. In the last 120 years ocean levels have risen 6-8 inches. Actually, the biggest rise occurred between 21,000 BC and 11,000 BC-----432 feet, yes FEET, not INCHES. But before those easily panicked get frightened, Florida won't be partially underwater for another 25,000 years. Also, remember that the 432 foot rise followed a similar fall in ocean levels during the last period of glaciation due to water getting sequestered in glaciers and ice caps.

Bottom line: I think I'll have a thick juicy steak tonight, comforted by the FACT that one less cow is farting. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Please, please DON'T eat while thinking about flatulence - it is bad for the digestive tract. And I see that we ALL are in agreement about the FACT that ocean level is RISING - a step in the right direction, baby steps are GOOD. Now, to EXPAND a little on that fact, scientists that measure the YEARLY rise (we are talking about MAN'S pollution forming an upper atmospheric blanket.......in the time period of recent years, NOT geological time)......These SCIENTISTS are WORRIED by the RAPID RISE in just the last 2 YEARS.

We all know the popular song.......It takes a WORRIED scientist to sing a WORRIED Global Warming song
.......I'm worried NOW, but I might be dead soon....like the planet

Incidentally, in the Milwaukee Centinel Newspaper recently scientists are WORRIED that ONLY 3% of the lake is frozen.......the least in DECADES. This is expected to cause a large disruption in the lake and land ecosystem there !

[jimjamuser]

1. People DO dispute the term, there are people (and media "sources") that insist that Climate Change is a hoax, and isn't happening at all.

2. That is not "the" debate. There is no singular debate. There are a couple of debates going on:
a) whether climate change is a concern at all (see #1 - climate deniers)
b) whether humans have *contributed* to it (not whether we are responsible for it).
c) if a) and b) are true, then what, if anything, can we do to slow down OUR part in it?

The first step in fixing any problem is to identify the problem and confirm that it is, in fact, a problem.

Climate change is a problem.
Human civilization is a contributing factor to the problem.
Humans -can- make changes to reduce their contribution.

Those are things that some folks consider factual. Others consider a global conspiracy. When the two come together and agree on the truth of the matter, then the human race will be able to do something, if something is necessary or even possible.

In the meantime, those of us who DO believe that it's a problem, that we are contributing to it, and that we /can/ make changes to reduce our contribution, should at least try to make some changes.
OK, yes, good post. The 1st step in SOLVING a problem IS to identify clearly what that problem IS. I would like people to realize the PROBLEM happens each time the ignition KEY to a Infernal Combustion Engine is turned on. Or a gas lawn mower is STARTED. Now I know that people, especially older folks that are set in their ways, will NOT immediately trade their ICE engine vehicle (car, truck, or golf cart) on an E-VEHICLE.

I know that ! But I SIMPLY would like more people to realize that for people and animal species to continue to live on this planet Earth in a civilized and peaceful manner in the FUTURE - that today we must, (AT LEAST) recognize the correlation between fossil fuel vehicles and a deteriorating planet and SOME potentially really BAD outcomes for HUMANS !!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Here we go again.

1) In the long term, "climate change" is a problem----after all, in 25,000 years NY City will be under 400 feet of water, and 50,000 years after that it will be under 2 miles of ice. So yes, it is a problem, assuming humans aren't extinct in that time frame, in which case it might be a problem for cockroaches to deal with.

2) IF, and it's a big IF human civilization is a contributing factor, it is miniscule at best. This is not withstanding the assertion by another climate change "believer" that cow farts are the biggest problem. Maybe cows will still be around in 25,000 years. To those who "believe", in anthropomorphic global warming (along with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy), explain how human civilization has caused 23,000 years of global warming to the tune of approximately 8 degrees F. Did we use the wrong kind of wood fire to cook our mastodon and saber tooth tiger meat in our caves???? Did Fred Flintstone's SUV only get 8 mpg??? Or do they just want to harp on how the ONE latest hurricane reflects 100,000 years of climate change? Give us a break from delusional thinking.

3) Of course we can reduce our "contribution", but keep in mind half of nothing is still nothing. But by all means let's spend the proposed 100 TRILLION dollars to try.
Some folks missed their calling and would make wonderful lobbyists for my fav.......the oil and gas industries.

And did I mention that a couple of days ago Oliver Stone was at Davos trying to help out planet Earth by pointing out that Nuclear Power Plants are NOT dangerous like the oil and gas industry has spent the BIG BUCKS to convince Americans of that. I may have forgotten to mention that ?

[golfing eagles]

Some folks missed their calling and would make wonderful lobbyists for my fav.......the oil and gas industries.

And did I mention that a couple of days ago Oliver Stone was at Davos trying to help out planet Earth by pointing out that Nuclear Power Plants are NOT dangerous like the oil and gas industry has spent the BIG BUCKS to convince Americans of that. I may have forgotten to mention that ?

I pretty much also remembering commenting that Oliver Stone was my go to guy for factual, unbiased information (not) :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl;

[golfing eagles]

Please, please DON'T eat while thinking about flatulence - it is bad for the digestive tract. And I see that we ALL are in agreement about the FACT that ocean level is RISING - a step in the right direction, baby steps are GOOD. Now, to EXPAND a little on that fact, scientists that measure the YEARLY rise (we are talking about MAN'S pollution forming an upper atmospheric blanket.......in the time period of recent years, NOT geological time)......These SCIENTISTS are WORRIED by the RAPID RISE in just the last 2 YEARS.

We all know the popular song.......It takes a WORRIED scientist to sing a WORRIED Global Warming song
.......I'm worried NOW, but I might be dead soon....like the planet

Incidentally, in the Milwaukee Centinel Newspaper recently scientists are WORRIED that ONLY 3% of the lake is frozen.......the least in DECADES. This is expected to cause a large disruption in the lake and land ecosystem there !

Oh, yes---that "rapid" rise of 3.9 mm. Get your kayak out :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Now, if you can show me year by year data for the last 23,000 years and that the last 2 years are the largest rise in that time, then you'd have something. Unfortunately, Fred Flintstone didn't have an accurate ruler and the clay tablet he inscribed those numbers upon have crumbled. But since ocean levels rose 432 feet from 21,000 to 11,000 BC, I'd bet there were many, many years with an ocean rise of greater than 3.9 mm, again, all without the internal combustion engine.

BTW, which scientists????? Would those be the ones dependent upon government grants, journal acceptance of their articles, and university tenure to survive???? Yep, I thought so.

And I assume that the Milwaukee paper is referring to Lake Michigan having the lowest percentage freeze in decades. Which means there were previous decades with even less freezing.

[jimjamuser]

Oh, yes---that "rapid" rise of 3.9 mm. Get your kayak out :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Now, if you can show me year by year data for the last 23,000 years and that the last 2 years are the largest rise in that time, then you'd have something. Unfortunately, Fred Flintstone didn't have an accurate ruler and the clay tablet he inscribed those numbers upon have crumbled. But since ocean levels rose 432 feet from 21,000 to 11,000 BC, I'd bet there were many, many years with an ocean rise of greater than 3.9 mm, again, all without the internal combustion engine.

BTW, which scientists????? Would those be the ones dependent upon government grants, journal acceptance of their articles, and university tenure to survive???? Yep, I thought so.

And I assume that the Milwaukee paper is referring to Lake Michigan having the lowest percentage freeze in decades. Which means there were previous decades with even less freezing.
Well one of us is going to be correct and the other, NOT so correct. I HOPE that I am the NOT CORRECT person, because that would be better for humanity. But, who is correct will probably RESOLVE itself in about 10 years - I hope I live that long. Next summer is NOT that far away and should shed some light on this potential dilemma. .........Last summer had fires ALL over the West and 2 VERY large, costly, and deadly hurricanes here in Fl. I am betting that this coming summer will bring more hurricanes to Fl. and BIG problems to other parts of the US. Ca. got some needed snowpack recently, but I believe that I saw that some parts of Ca. are still in a drought. Lots of peeps in Ca. are going to be needing water and A/C this coming summer. And since the mudslides washed away many plants needed for grown cover, can new grown cover grow up this spring enough to hold the soil on hills and
topsoil needed for crops.....I would be CURIOUS to know what someone of great stature thinks would be the OPTIMUM population of the US. Have we PAST it? Is 360 million people about right? Or there is NO OPTIMUM, just whatever? Just let it KEEP climbing?

[jimjamuser]

The important part of the Milwaukee Article IS that their state scientists are WORRIED about the effect of a WARMER winter on the area ecosystem. The small % of ice only confirms the warmer problem. Just like here in Fl. and worldwide the dying coral confirms the WARMER problem. Also, the high and going higher levels of CO2 in the ocean water. There are a lot of RECENT trends and that IS what I am concerned about.

[jimjamuser]

When Googling "ice cover on the Great Lakes", a person can find that Jan 2023 will have a record LOW amount of ICE. This will lead to increased evaporation and falling water levels. The record low ice is a measure of Global Warming and could lead to problems with the fish population of the great lakes and other ecologically bad changes.

[JMintzer]

Some folks missed their calling and would make wonderful lobbyists for my fav.......the oil and gas industries.

And did I mention that a couple of days ago Oliver Stone was at Davos trying to help out planet Earth by pointing out that Nuclear Power Plants are NOT dangerous like the oil and gas industry has spent the BIG BUCKS to convince Americans of that. I may have forgotten to mention that ?

IIRC, the "No Nukes" protests, trying to stop nuclear energy were NOT funded by oil & gas corporations... It was the "peace, love and granola" lobbyists... And that is still true, to this day...

BTW, I've been touting the new "safe" nuclear power plants for some time now. They are the only way we'll be able to power your beloved "E-(insert every single mode of transportation here) vehicles"...

That, or we all get one of these:

https://live.staticflickr.com/3086/3179332336_af74e4db3a_b.jpg

[JMintzer]

When Googling "ice cover on the Great Lakes", a person can find that Jan 2023 will have a record LOW amount of ICE. This will lead to increased evaporation and falling water levels. The record low ice is a measure of Global Warming and could lead to problems with the fish population of the great lakes and other ecologically bad changes.

Actually, it said "near" the lowest level, but why quibble over facts?

[rsimpson]

When Googling "ice cover on the Great Lakes", a person can find that Jan 2023 will have a record LOW amount of ICE. This will lead to increased evaporation and falling water levels. The record low ice is a measure of Global Warming and could lead to problems with the fish population of the great lakes and other ecologically bad changes.
Were you measuring ice back 11,600 years ago, too?

[jimjamuser]

IIRC, the "No Nukes" protests, trying to stop nuclear energy were NOT funded by oil & gas corporations... It was the "peace, love and granola" lobbyists... And that is still true, to this day...

BTW, I've been touting the new "safe" nuclear power plants for some time now. They are the only way we'll be able to power your beloved "E-(insert every single mode of transportation here) vehicles"...

That, or we all get one of these:

https://live.staticflickr.com/3086/3179332336_af74e4db3a_b.jpg
Who doesn't love MR. Fusion .......which actually was in the news recently about a lab-controlled breakthrough amounting to getting more energy out than put in for the 1 st time. But still, a long way to go.
...... But, neither of us nor anyone can say for SURE that the Oil and Gas industry did NOT fund anti-nuke rallies either DIRECTLY or by using anti-nuke propaganda. The Oil and Gas industry has some SMART covert operators that may have infiltrated the anti-nuke movement. They have the money and the motivation to hire the BEST covert operators. And they have been excelling at PROPAGANDA for as long as we have been alive. They are the industry that gets paid for NOT DRILLING.....pretty special......no ??????
.....Oil and gas practically owns one TV channel that can convince Americans that black is white.

And believe it or don't ......we can actually agree about your 2nd paragraph about the safety of nuclear energy plants. And I also twice pointed out that Oliver Stone made that point at Davos (anyone can google that). And some poster badmouthed Oliver Stone. Well, he would HAVE to be a pretty sharp "cookie" to be able to have directed and produced some of the top films ever produced. I bet he is EVEN smarter than me. But, more IMPORTANTLY, Davos just does not just let any old "wineo" come in out of the street and speak to the greatest businessmen on the planet. Oliver Stone is a legendary intellect that has a GOOD point to make and deserves a seat at the table with the TOP THINKERS of our time !!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Actually, it said "near" the lowest level, but why quibble over facts?
Actually one sentence I saw said near record. But, in another paragraph or maybe an article it was stated that because it was well into JANUARY that it is about impossible that 2023 will not be a record.
.....But, it is GREAT that yourself and maybe others looked up the % of ICE because it is another (of many) proofs that the planet has warmed to record levels in the past 8 years. Contrary to what one poster claims. And another keeps believing that I am talking in Geological centuries, when in fact I am talking about real-time, right now, when CO2 is not able to be taken in by the amount of plants on earth and the upper atmosphere is acting like a blanket and setting records for HEAT on Earth. Somehow, I am having difficulty getting my point across. I can understand that some people may NOT care. And some people may have a different opinion, but what I don't understand is why after I have put out so many different FACTS, why my statement of those facts is attacked ??????

[jimjamuser]

Were you measuring ice back 11,600 years ago, too?
I don't understand how THAT is relevant, when today the scientists in Michigan are the ones believing that it is important this year and recently.

[Rainger99]

If climate change is an existential threat to the planet, what is the solution?

If everyone in the world bought an electric car, would that solve the problem?

There are about 1.4 billion cars in the world and only 19% are in the US. These cars have to be plugged into an electric outlet.

The power plants providing that energy aren’t emission-free; even in California, 60% of electricity came from burning fossil fuels in 2015, while solar and wind together made up less than 14%.

If we have electric cars, aren’t we still burning the fossil fuels to power the electric cars? We just do it earlier.

And how many of the 1.4 billion car owners can afford an electrical car?

[jimjamuser]

If climate change is an existential threat to the planet, what is the solution?

If everyone in the world bought an electric car, would that solve the problem?

There are about 1.4 billion cars in the world and only 19% are in the US. These cars have to be plugged into an electric outlet.

The power plants providing that energy aren’t emission-free; even in California, 60% of electricity came from burning fossil fuels in 2015, while solar and wind together made up less than 14%.

If we have electric cars, aren’t we still burning the fossil fuels to power the electric cars? We just do it earlier.

And how many of the 1.4 billion car owners can afford an electrical car?
I covered that next to last ? in a prior post. It is EASIER to clean up 1 LARGE STATIONARY power plant than a bizzillion in- FER-nal Combustion Vehicles accelerating and decelerating around town.

I also covered the last ? in a prior post. Electrical vehicles are simpler to design, build, maintain, and fuel than gas vehicles. They also have a lower center of gravity so the accelerate quicker and they ROLL OVER with more difficulty, especially golf carts. So, this SIMPLICITY will, over time and more production, lead to LESS costly and more reliable vehicles. Plus it does NOT take a Nostradamus to realize that E-Vehicles are the FUTURE.
.......But, this Nostradamus is predicting that he will have to repeat a similar post for the next 5 years
........and to all a goodnight ......

[Byte1]

My great-grandfather used a horse powered wagon to go to town for supplies. One day, a local businessman confronted him telling him that if he would just purchase a motorcar(truck) the town wouldn't have to put up with his horses' manure in the street. He was told that his horse manure was a blight on the environment. In those days, combustion engines smoked and made enough noise to frighten livestock. A hundred and fifty years later, we have the (what I label) "Screamers" that predict the end of the world due to combustion engines. I've been told that I should purchase an 'lectric car to save the world. Suggestion: mind your own business and quit worrying about man's extinction that MIGHT occur in a thousand years. Man's been using fossil fuel for thousands of years, since the discovery of fire and we are still around. As a matter of fact, we have a larger population than ever. Don't worry about new ways to produce energy because private industry is always progressing. Just don't allow the Gov. to dictate how we "MUST" change because they do not have a clue. Their only motivation is money in their pockets at the expense of the citizens. Private industry has always been the real motivator for progress.

[golfing eagles]

I covered that next to last ? in a prior post. It is EASIER to clean up 1 LARGE STATIONARY power plant than a bizzillion in- FER-nal Combustion Vehicles accelerating and decelerating around town.

I also covered the last ? in a prior post. Electrical vehicles are simpler to design, build, maintain, and fuel than gas vehicles. They also have a lower center of gravity so the accelerate quicker and they ROLL OVER with more difficulty, especially golf carts. So, this SIMPLICITY will, over time and more production, lead to LESS costly and more reliable vehicles. Plus it does NOT take a Nostradamus to realize that E-Vehicles are the FUTURE.
.......But, this Nostradamus is predicting that he will have to repeat a similar post for the next 5 years
........and to all a goodnight ......

Tell that to the residents of Chernobyl or Fukushima.

[golfing eagles]

I don't understand how THAT is relevant, when today the scientists in Michigan are the ones believing that it is important this year and recently.

Again, which scientists? I'll bet it is those who are dependent on government grants, university tenure and acceptance of published articles to feed their families.

And why do they do this----let's cite a 1967 essay by Chomsky:

"Still, let’s reflect on Chomsky’s method. Here were half a dozen of America’s best and brightest, the people daily interviewed on TV, the minds quoted in the media, the people given the grants and the awards, the celebrated geniuses of the age.

Chomsky proved them all to be ruling-class hucksters willing to tell any lie to protect themselves and their friends. The essay remains as a clarion call for intellectuals to stop with the nonsense, the careerism, the coverups: in short, he said, stop serving the ruling class with such slavish obeisance. He didn’t persuade them (he knew he would not) but at least a generation of students and citizens, upon reading his mini-treatise, had the scales fall from their eyes to see these people for what they were doing. "

Sadly, there are those that continue to believe and quote these irresponsible charlatans.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

OK, yes, good post. The 1st step in SOLVING a problem IS to identify clearly what that problem IS. I would like people to realize the PROBLEM happens each time the ignition KEY to a Infernal Combustion Engine is turned on. Or a gas lawn mower is STARTED. Now I know that people, especially older folks that are set in their ways, will NOT immediately trade their ICE engine vehicle (car, truck, or golf cart) on an E-VEHICLE.

I know that ! But I SIMPLY would like more people to realize that for people and animal species to continue to live on this planet Earth in a civilized and peaceful manner in the FUTURE - that today we must, (AT LEAST) recognize the correlation between fossil fuel vehicles and a deteriorating planet and SOME potentially really BAD outcomes for HUMANS !!!!!!

You /cannot/ "solve" the "problem" of climate change by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. You just can't.

Fossil fuels are the #1 ingredient of most plastics on this planet. There are other plastics that don't use fossil fuels, but oil is the #1 source of most plastic. Your computer monitor, your keyboard, your cell phone case, the buttons on your shirt, the hard tips of your shoelaces, the lining of your running shoe soles, most likely your windowshade, your lanai windows and screens. Your plumbing pipes are likely PVC, which is made with natural gas and salt as the main ingredient. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel.

Using the assumption that climate change a) exists and b) is a problem, you have to accept that it cannot be solved. It will never revert back to the time before it was a problem. That just flat out won't ever happen, unless there's another ice age. So you need to stop trying to tackle the problem with the notion that it can be solved. It can't.

The ONLY thing we can do, as a species, about the assumed problem of climate change, is to reduce our contribution to it. Energy-efficient structures, ADDING alternative renewable fuels to our existing use of fossil fuels to reduce our 100% reliance on them, for example.

Reducing pollution, more eco-friendly use of our waterways - maybe get rid of speed boats entirely. Reducing sport-fishing and encouraging fishing for food instead. We have entire species of animals on the verge of extinction, and they are important parts of OUR food chain. Without them, WE suffer. So we need to do whatever we can, within our means, to prevent that extinction.

What am I doing to that end? My flower and herb beds use no pesticides or chemical fertilizers at all. They attract honeybees and other pollinators, which can thrive and not spread poison from my soil to their nests and hives. I don't kill bugs outside my house, only inside it. I try to walk or ride my bike to the postal station instead of driving. It's a tiny little nothingburger of something I can do to help. But if everyone on the planet added their own tiny little nothingburger, the problem might take a few hundred years longer to become a catastrophe.

[Rainger99]

I will believe climate change is an existential threat when the Davos people start meeting on Zoom.

Private jet emissions quadrupled as 1,040 planes flew in and out of airports serving Davos during the 2022 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting.

Look at what we do - not what we say!!!

[jimjamuser]

My great-grandfather used a horse powered wagon to go to town for supplies. One day, a local businessman confronted him telling him that if he would just purchase a motorcar(truck) the town wouldn't have to put up with his horses' manure in the street. He was told that his horse manure was a blight on the environment. In those days, combustion engines smoked and made enough noise to frighten livestock. A hundred and fifty years later, we have the (what I label) "Screamers" that predict the end of the world due to combustion engines. I've been told that I should purchase an 'lectric car to save the world. Suggestion: mind your own business and quit worrying about man's extinction that MIGHT occur in a thousand years. Man's been using fossil fuel for thousands of years, since the discovery of fire and we are still around. As a matter of fact, we have a larger population than ever. Don't worry about new ways to produce energy because private industry is always progressing. Just don't allow the Gov. to dictate how we "MUST" change because they do not have a clue. Their only motivation is money in their pockets at the expense of the citizens. Private industry has always been the real motivator for progress.
Actually, if we remember back to the 40s, 50s, 60s - we innovated because the US University system had MANY RESEARCH scientists employed. There were MANY Federal GRANTS for basic RESEARCH. Also, the space program and the race to the moon provided USEFUL, practical products like VELCRO.........That was the Federal Government DOING the innovating, NOT industry.
.........This basically changed in the 1980s when it was decided that the Federal Government was giving away too much MONEY to the Universities. Also about the same time as portrayed in the movie about "greed is good" - the best and the brightest (and the believers in money) of the College Graduates ORBITTED toward Wall Street.

That is the way I remember the History from 1940 onward. Private Industry has NOT been the prime innovator throughout History. As a matter of fact ......industrial GIANTS have often held back innovation. For example, the railroad TYCOONS - they had to be broken up.The oil and gas industry conned the Federal Govenment into paying it to drill long after the reason for the payments had evaporated. Today the oil and gas industry has MEGA lobbyists PREVENTING any meaningful change. And they have been fighting against E-vehicles and E-bikes. Also, look at Facebook, which simply buys up the competition. As does most of the Silicon Valley corporations. The Federal brought these monopolistic Corporations before Congress, but the CEOs of those companies DAZZLED the CongressPeople who did NOT have the capacity to UNDERSTAND them - much less to regulate them. And now currently we have this unmanageable internet mess of a DARK WEB that is seriously threatening US basic liberty and Capitalism itself.

Not ALL, BUT MANY......INDUSTRIAL Corporations are actually INNOVATING, but they are innovating GREED for themselves, not benefits for you and I.

[jimjamuser]

Tell that to the residents of Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Actually, I knew that someone would bring this up. Those were old-generation nuclear plants. And the Japanese plant was located in a vulnerable location. Today the US's biggest aircraft carrier is powered by a somewhat small nuclear reactor. And the same with submarines. That is what Oliver Stone presented at Davos to the world's pre-eminent business people. Also, I am sure that gas and even coal power plants have had accidents. And as the Chinese found out the hard way, coal burning causes air pollution detrimental to human health. And as I have said before, the pollution drifts upward and ends up causing Global Warming of the type that is increasing at a dangerous rate for the last 8 years.

[jimjamuser]

Again, which scientists? I'll bet it is those who are dependent on government grants, university tenure and acceptance of published articles to feed their families.

And why do they do this----let's cite a 1967 essay by Chomsky:

"Still, let’s reflect on Chomsky’s method. Here were half a dozen of America’s best and brightest, the people daily interviewed on TV, the minds quoted in the media, the people given the grants and the awards, the celebrated geniuses of the age.

Chomsky proved them all to be ruling-class hucksters willing to tell any lie to protect themselves and their friends. The essay remains as a clarion call for intellectuals to stop with the nonsense, the careerism, the coverups: in short, he said, stop serving the ruling class with such slavish obeisance. He didn’t persuade them (he knew he would not) but at least a generation of students and citizens, upon reading his mini-treatise, had the scales fall from their eyes to see these people for what they were doing. "

Sadly, there are those that continue to believe and quote these irresponsible charlatans.
OK, I will Google Chomsky and I will do that simply because it seems to mean a lot to yourself and I ADMIRE the emotional commitment to your hypothesis.

[jimjamuser]

You /cannot/ "solve" the "problem" of climate change by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. You just can't.

Fossil fuels are the #1 ingredient of most plastics on this planet. There are other plastics that don't use fossil fuels, but oil is the #1 source of most plastic. Your computer monitor, your keyboard, your cell phone case, the buttons on your shirt, the hard tips of your shoelaces, the lining of your running shoe soles, most likely your windowshade, your lanai windows and screens. Your plumbing pipes are likely PVC, which is made with natural gas and salt as the main ingredient. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel.

Using the assumption that climate change a) exists and b) is a problem, you have to accept that it cannot be solved. It will never revert back to the time before it was a problem. That just flat out won't ever happen, unless there's another ice age. So you need to stop trying to tackle the problem with the notion that it can be solved. It can't.

The ONLY thing we can do, as a species, about the assumed problem of climate change, is to reduce our contribution to it. Energy-efficient structures, ADDING alternative renewable fuels to our existing use of fossil fuels to reduce our 100% reliance on them, for example.

Reducing pollution, more eco-friendly use of our waterways - maybe get rid of speed boats entirely. Reducing sport-fishing and encouraging fishing for food instead. We have entire species of animals on the verge of extinction, and they are important parts of OUR food chain. Without them, WE suffer. So we need to do whatever we can, within our means, to prevent that extinction.

What am I doing to that end? My flower and herb beds use no pesticides or chemical fertilizers at all. They attract honeybees and other pollinators, which can thrive and not spread poison from my soil to their nests and hives. I don't kill bugs outside my house, only inside it. I try to walk or ride my bike to the postal station instead of driving. It's a tiny little nothingburger of something I can do to help. But if everyone on the planet added their own tiny little nothingburger, the problem might take a few hundred years longer to become a catastrophe.
I agree with the INTENT of what you are saying. I wish everyone realized that animal species are vanishing at a HORRIBLE rate. AND extinct .....NEVER reverses. I may differ in that I feel SOME optimism when I read about things like the Oliver Stone deal of his going to Davos. He IS a busy, important individual who is using his MEGAPHONE to do the right thing for HUMANITY. I do NOT have the same megaphone, so some might say that I should NOT get excited, rock the boat, or BOTHER to type stuff out that only a few people will EVER see.
........I think of it more like a little HOBBY that allows me to IMPROVE my writing and allows me to stay current on News events and what is important to this environment........Village never Never Land.

I agree that it would be better to save our fossil fuels for use in plastics than to just BURN them up. It would probably be better to make as many things out of wood that you could instead of plastics because of the waste accumulation going on at landfills.
......I agree that people each doing little things for the environment like supporting honey bees is very VIRTUOUS.
.......I never believed that the way things ARE has ANY UNCHANGEABLE relationship to the way things SHOULD BE. Life is about constant change.......and the change is happening MORE rapidly with each year.
.......I see a near FUTURE (next 5 years) where many, many MORE people (even old ones here in La la Land) will be trading in their IC engine vehicles for E-vehicles, for E-carts, E-3 wheelers, and for E-bikes. It is starting to trend that way right NOW. Imagine bicycling and you come to a steep hill, what could be nicer than to get a little E-boost up that hill.......better commuting.
........And I could see the oil and gas industry losing its grip on peoples' thinking and people leaning toward electric production from CLEANER sources like Nuclear, wind solar, or WHATEVER the future brings. And the FUTURE is closer than we think.......like about 5 years.
.........OH yes......about your herb garden.......always remember the garden advice........"a thyme in time saves nine"

[jimjamuser]

I will believe climate change is an existential threat when the Davos people start meeting on Zoom.

Private jet emissions quadrupled as 1,040 planes flew in and out of airports serving Davos during the 2022 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting.

Look at what we do - not what we say!!!
I would agree to a certain extent and it reminds me that MY personal idol .....Greta Thunberg traveled from Sweden (I think) aboard a boat powered by sails and solar energy. It took her awhile, but she is young and TIME is on her side. It probably would NOT be the BEST thing for the WORLD if Oliver Stone traveled that SAME way....SLOWLY.
..........Oliver Stone is at the PEAK of his productive and artistic life so I don't think if we voted on having him fly or take a slow boat, that the majority would NOT want him to fly. The SAME can be said for Presidents, Congress people, Generals, sports stars, etc. In the future, maybe they can take aircraft and boats powered by Fusion engines and there will be nothing to complain about.

[JMintzer]

Who doesn't love MR. Fusion .......which actually was in the news recently about a lab-controlled breakthrough amounting to getting more energy out than put in for the 1 st time. But still, a long way to go.
...... But, neither of us nor anyone can say for SURE that the Oil and Gas industry did NOT fund anti-nuke rallies either DIRECTLY or by using anti-nuke propaganda. The Oil and Gas industry has some SMART covert operators that may have infiltrated the anti-nuke movement. They have the money and the motivation to hire the BEST covert operators. And they have been excelling at PROPAGANDA for as long as we have been alive. They are the industry that gets paid for NOT DRILLING.....pretty special......no ??????
.....Oil and gas practically owns one TV channel that can convince Americans that black is white.

And believe it or don't ......we can actually agree about your 2nd paragraph about the safety of nuclear energy plants. And I also twice pointed out that Oliver Stone made that point at Davos (anyone can google that). And some poster badmouthed Oliver Stone. Well, he would HAVE to be a pretty sharp "cookie" to be able to have directed and produced some of the top films ever produced. I bet he is EVEN smarter than me. But, more IMPORTANTLY, Davos just does not just let any old "wineo" come in out of the street and speak to the greatest businessmen on the planet. Oliver Stone is a legendary intellect that has a GOOD point to make and deserves a seat at the table with the TOP THINKERS of our time !!!!!!

Does the saying "Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while" ring a bell? He'a a "legendary intellect"? Bwahahaha! He's a bit of a lunatic conspirascy theorist...

That's Oliver Stone... Being a movie producer, or an actor, for that matter means nothing other than you can produce movies or act...

And now you're going with the oil & gas industry "infiltrated the anti-nuke movement???

I gotta' give you credit. You do continue to "jamuse" me! :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[JMintzer]

Actually one sentence I saw said near record. But, in another paragraph or maybe an article it was stated that because it was well into JANUARY that it is about impossible that 2023 will not be a record.
.....But, it is GREAT that yourself and maybe others looked up the % of ICE because it is another (of many) proofs that the planet has warmed to record levels in the past 8 years. Contrary to what one poster claims. And another keeps believing that I am talking in Geological centuries, when in fact I am talking about real-time, right now, when CO2 is not able to be taken in by the amount of plants on earth and the upper atmosphere is acting like a blanket and setting records for HEAT on Earth. Somehow, I am having difficulty getting my point across. I can understand that some people may NOT care. And some people may have a different opinion, but what I don't understand is why after I have put out so many different FACTS, why my statement of those facts is attacked ??????

No, I just don't believe that one year (much like one big hurricane) proves anything... It's obvious that you do believe those "non-scientific" stats...

[JMintzer]

I covered that next to last ? in a prior post. It is EASIER to clean up 1 LARGE STATIONARY power plant than a bizzillion in- FER-nal Combustion Vehicles accelerating and decelerating around town.

I also covered the last ? in a prior post. Electrical vehicles are simpler to design, build, maintain, and fuel than gas vehicles. They also have a lower center of gravity so the accelerate quicker and they ROLL OVER with more difficulty, especially golf carts. So, this SIMPLICITY will, over time and more production, lead to LESS costly and more reliable vehicles. Plus it does NOT take a Nostradamus to realize that E-Vehicles are the FUTURE.
.......But, this Nostradamus is predicting that he will have to repeat a similar post for the next 5 years
........and to all a goodnight ......

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CrispEnchantingCapybara-size_restricted.gif

[JMintzer]

I would agree to a certain extent and it reminds me that MY personal idol .....Greta Thunberg traveled from Sweden (I think) aboard a boat powered by sails and solar energy. It took her awhile, but she is young and TIME is on her side. It probably would NOT be the BEST thing for the WORLD if Oliver Stone traveled that SAME way....SLOWLY.
..........Oliver Stone is at the PEAK of his productive and artistic life so I don't think if we voted on having him fly or take a slow boat, that the majority would NOT want him to fly. The SAME can be said for Presidents, Congress people, Generals, sports stars, etc. In the future, maybe they can take aircraft and boats powered by Fusion engines and there will be nothing to complain about.

Stone hasn't directed a non-conspiracy movie in 20 years...

He went off the deep end decades ago...

And here's what your idol does when she's alone...

"Plastics"...

https://cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/5LOX3UZEOBT6SZXLANECBVHB3U.jpg

[Tvflguy]

But, what you are not saying, or admitting to, is that they (climate scary people) are TEARING DOWN existing energy sources BEFORE the new technologies are available. Ruining our (US) economy and lifestyles while China, India, Central American make NO CHANGES to their responsible and larger impacts, is ludicrous. Electric Cars are a joke - batteries are worse for the planet than fossil fuels. etc. etc. Develop real energey solutions, not solar/wind where the elites are skimming billions of dollars.


++++ to all you said. Perfectly said. Thank you.

[golfing eagles]

OK, I will Google Chomsky and I will do that simply because it seems to mean a lot to yourself and I ADMIRE the emotional commitment to your hypothesis.

Yep, he means a lot to me. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: Never heard of him until my brother in law sent me that link a week ago.

[jimjamuser]

Does the saying "Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while" ring a bell? He'a a "legendary intellect"? Bwahahaha! He's a bit of a lunatic conspirascy theorist...

That's Oliver Stone... Being a movie producer, or an actor, for that matter means nothing other than you can produce movies or act...

And now you're going with the oil & gas industry "infiltrated the anti-nuke movement???

I gotta' give you credit. You do continue to "jamuse" me! :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Gad dam happy to Jamuse somebody.......Now Oliver Stone MUST have SOME credibility with SOMEone in order to be invited to speak at Davos. I didn't get an invitation, maybe it got lost in the mail. Regardless of Mr. Stone's qualifications for speaking there.......He DID speak there and I agree with him that the recent modern version of Nuclear Energy has great potential to REDRESS the major problems of Global Warming (species extinction being only one small problem) Coal mining causes injuries and hurts the environment. Gas pipes leading to residential homes are notorious for leaking. Gas stoves have exploded from time to time and caught homes on fire. In the past, there was a large oil pipe rupture spilling oil throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
.......So basically, ALL types of energy have the POWER to produce destruction. After all, they have POWER which can NOT be perfectly functioning at ALL times.

[jimjamuser]

Does the saying "Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while" ring a bell? He'a a "legendary intellect"? Bwahahaha! He's a bit of a lunatic conspirascy theorist...

That's Oliver Stone... Being a movie producer, or an actor, for that matter means nothing other than you can produce movies or act...

And now you're going with the oil & gas industry "infiltrated the anti-nuke movement???

I gotta' give you credit. You do continue to "jamuse" me! :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Hey, I just thought of something, I may write to Oliver Stone and suggest that he get a script written and direct a movie about how the Gas and Oil industries paid subversive agents to embed themselves within the anti-nuke and anti-oil spill radical lefty wing-nuts. Maybe Greta Thunberg IS a DOUBLE-agent. Oh boy.......the plot thickens. Maybe I will even write that book......that will keep me busy, out of trouble, and off the pages of TOTV for a year. But, I might be missed.....or NOT.

[golfing eagles]

Hey, I just thought of something, I may write to Oliver Stone and suggest that he get a script written and direct a movie about how the Gas and Oil industries paid subversive agents to embed themselves within the anti-nuke and anti-oil spill radical lefty wing-nuts. Maybe Greta Thunberg IS a DOUBLE-agent. Oh boy.......the plot thickens. Maybe I will even write that book......that will keep me busy, out of trouble, and off the pages of TOTV for a year. But, I might be missed.....or NOT.

Or maybe write that book and produce the movie about cow farts---oops, I mean burps :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[jimjamuser]

Stone hasn't directed a non-conspiracy movie in 20 years...

He went off the deep end decades ago...

And here's what your idol does when she's alone...

"Plastics"...

https://cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/5LOX3UZEOBT6SZXLANECBVHB3U.jpg
Please, it is NOT nice to pick on poor, little Tunnybergie. Always RESPECT your non-elders. In the photograph's right front foreground, it looks like a corrugated PAPER coffee cup. The mustard and ketchup containers on the left are plastic, but they probably belong at the table on that train. She can't arbitrarily throw them out, can she? And she is eating bananas to help prevent poverty in the southern hemisphere. (how thoughtful). So, my conclusion is still.......you GO, Greta girl.

[jimjamuser]

But, what you are not saying, or admitting to, is that they (climate scary people) are TEARING DOWN existing energy sources BEFORE the new technologies are available. Ruining our (US) economy and lifestyles while China, India, Central American make NO CHANGES to their responsible and larger impacts, is ludicrous. Electric Cars are a joke - batteries are worse for the planet than fossil fuels. etc. etc. Develop real energey solutions, not solar/wind where the elites are skimming billions of dollars.
As to E-vehicles being a "joke" and E-batteries "being worse for the planet than fossil fuel".....that MAY OR MAY NOT be true - regardless, battery technology is in the Model T - type early days of development. They will, in coming years get lighter, stronger, available everywhere, produce more current, and will probably be recyclable into new, refreshed batteries. I read a story on a NEW battery concept with an air dielectric between the + and - plates. Development will accelerate just like an E-vehicle can accelerate far quicker than an in-fer-nal combustion antique vehicle. See all those pistons STRUGGLING to go up and then down, while the E-vehicle engine is SMOOTHLY turning in a circle.

Saudi Arabian officials themselves have stated that they will run out of OIL in 20 YEARS. So, what do you think that will do to the price of oil and a gal of gasoline? Gas could become so expensive that ICE vehicles become LAWN ornaments. Meanwhile, electric vehicles' prices will be down and electric energy will be generated by CLEAN, SAFE nuclear reactors, or even some new, better technology.

[jimjamuser]

Yep, he means a lot to me. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: Never heard of him until my brother in law sent me that link a week ago.
Maybe Noam Chomski will become my NEW idol and replace Greta Thunberg.

[Byte1]

As to E-vehicles being a "joke" and E-batteries "being worse for the planet than fossil fuel".....that MAY OR MAY NOT be true - regardless, battery technology is in the Model T - type early days of development. They will, in coming years get lighter, stronger, available everywhere, produce more current, and will probably be recyclable into new, refreshed batteries. I read a story on a NEW battery concept with an air dielectric between the + and - plates. Development will accelerate just like an E-vehicle can accelerate far quicker than an in-fer-nal combustion antique vehicle. See all those pistons STRUGGLING to go up and then down, while the E-vehicle engine is SMOOTHLY turning in a circle.

Saudi Arabian officials themselves have stated that they will run out of OIL in 20 YEARS. So, what do you think that will do to the price of oil and a gal of gasoline? Gas could become so expensive that ICE vehicles become LAWN ornaments. Meanwhile, electric vehicles' prices will be down and electric energy will be generated by CLEAN, SAFE nuclear reactors, or even some new, better technology.

Ever heard of the "rotary engine?" Hmmm, haven't heard much of it lately.
"run out of oil in 20 years?" America is supposed to have another 500 years worth. Ever heard of ICE being fueled by used fast food oil? Ever heard of fuel made from corn? Sugar?
Battery powered cars. Yes, they have been around for over a hundred years. Don't you think that if they were so great that they would be more popular by now? I suppose "some" folks believe that the oil industry conspiracy would be that great amounts of money is being used to subdue electric car exploration?
Maybe electric power will replace ICE but it's rather stupid to ban ICE before electric power is a plausible replacement. And that is exactly what is being attempted, banning a reasonable mode of transportation to be replaced by inadequate pie in the sky ideas. Replacing the horse pulling a wagon with a goat is not considered improving ones ability to travel. All we are doing right now is attempting to take away the low income populations' ability to travel to their places of employment, shopping and medical appointments. Electric vehicles are out of the low income populations' grasp.

[jimjamuser]

Ever heard of the "rotary engine?" Hmmm, haven't heard much of it lately.
"run out of oil in 20 years?" America is supposed to have another 500 years worth. Ever heard of ICE being fueled by used fast food oil? Ever heard of fuel made from corn? Sugar?
Battery powered cars. Yes, they have been around for over a hundred years. Don't you think that if they were so great that they would be more popular by now? I suppose "some" folks believe that the oil industry conspiracy would be that great amounts of money is being used to subdue electric car exploration?
Maybe electric power will replace ICE but it's rather stupid to ban ICE before electric power is a plausible replacement. And that is exactly what is being attempted, banning a reasonable mode of transportation to be replaced by inadequate pie in the sky ideas. Replacing the horse pulling a wagon with a goat is not considered improving ones ability to travel. All we are doing right now is attempting to take away the low income populations' ability to travel to their places of employment, shopping and medical appointments. Electric vehicles are out of the low income populations' grasp.
I already covered the idea in that last sentence. Bottom line E-vehicles are here to stay. Just look out your window at the E-bike and E-golf carts go by. It is just the beginning. E-vehicles will decrease in price as MORE people buy them. As more people WANT them ........more companies will SUPPLY them. The companies compete on price and the price goes DOWN. That is just a LAW of business.

Agreed that it would NOT be a good idea to replace ICE vehicles before an adequate supply of E-vehicles is being manufactured. Maybe you are referring to California, which is seeking to STIMULATE the evolution and trend toward E-vehicles by passing legislation.........I don't know the details of it......just at (SOME) date in the future (maybe 2035 or 40) they will REQUIRE all NEW vehicles sold in Ca. to be ELECTRIC. They are NOT banning ICE vehicles from operating in Ca. They are merely doing what GOOD government SHOULD do........shoving / motivating people toward ACCEPTANCE of NEW and better ideas. They have experts that can read the FUTURE somewhat better than the "man on the street". Sort of like Social Security and the Affordable Care Act, which were GREAT for American older and low-income people, but were initially considered too PROGRESSIVE to be functional. Those are examples of the government LEADING America into a better future.

[JMintzer]

Gad dam happy to Jamuse somebody.......Now Oliver Stone MUST have SOME credibility with SOMEone in order to be invited to speak at Davos. I didn't get an invitation, maybe it got lost in the mail. Regardless of Mr. Stone's qualifications for speaking there.......He DID speak there and I agree with him that the recent modern version of Nuclear Energy has great potential to REDRESS the major problems of Global Warming (species extinction being only one small problem) Coal mining causes injuries and hurts the environment. Gas pipes leading to residential homes are notorious for leaking. Gas stoves have exploded from time to time and caught homes on fire. In the past, there was a large oil pipe rupture spilling oil throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
.......So basically, ALL types of energy have the POWER to produce destruction. After all, they have POWER which can NOT be perfectly functioning at ALL times.

Yes, he has "credibility" among the globalists at Davos... And apparently with you... To the rest of the sane world, the a whacky conspiracy theorist...

And you're correct. EVERYTHING as an element of risk. Windmills kill large birds. Birds that you and I would be jailed for killing.

Solar farms not only cook birds, they raise the global temperature, adding to your dreaded "Global Warming"...

[JMintzer]

Hey, I just thought of something, I may write to Oliver Stone and suggest that he get a script written and direct a movie about how the Gas and Oil industries paid subversive agents to embed themselves within the anti-nuke and anti-oil spill radical lefty wing-nuts. Maybe Greta Thunberg IS a DOUBLE-agent. Oh boy.......the plot thickens. Maybe I will even write that book......that will keep me busy, out of trouble, and off the pages of TOTV for a year. But, I might be missed.....or NOT.

I'm sure he'll get right on it...

[JMintzer]

Please, it is NOT nice to pick on poor, little Tunnybergie. Always RESPECT your non-elders. In the photograph's right front foreground, it looks like a corrugated PAPER coffee cup. The mustard and ketchup containers on the left are plastic, but they probably belong at the table on that train. She can't arbitrarily throw them out, can she? And she is eating bananas to help prevent poverty in the southern hemisphere. (how thoughtful). So, my conclusion is still.......you GO, Greta girl.

You conveniently ignored the PLASTIC food containers, the PLASTIC bowl and the PLASTIC bag that holds the "processed" bread she's eating...

Oh, and the "coffee" cup? Didn't you hear? Coffee Beans are now bad for the environment... She should be ashamed!!!

"Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages in the world — but the surge in demand is threatening the environment. In the last 30 years, growing demand for coffee has led to a 60% increase in production, and has posed a myriad of threats to the environment, according to the International Coffee Organization."

[JMintzer]

As to E-vehicles being a "joke" and E-batteries "being worse for the planet than fossil fuel".....that MAY OR MAY NOT be true - regardless, battery technology is in the Model T - type early days of development. They will, in coming years get lighter, stronger, available everywhere, produce more current, and will probably be recyclable into new, refreshed batteries. I read a story on a NEW battery concept with an air dielectric between the + and - plates. Development will accelerate just like an E-vehicle can accelerate far quicker than an in-fer-nal combustion antique vehicle. See all those pistons STRUGGLING to go up and then down, while the E-vehicle engine is SMOOTHLY turning in a circle.

Saudi Arabian officials themselves have stated that they will run out of OIL in 20 YEARS. So, what do you think that will do to the price of oil and a gal of gasoline? Gas could become so expensive that ICE vehicles become LAWN ornaments. Meanwhile, electric vehicles' prices will be down and electric energy will be generated by CLEAN, SAFE nuclear reactors, or even some new, better technology.

You're off by a more than a power of 10...

"Saudi Arabia has proven reserves equivalent to 221.2 times its annual consumption. This means that, without Net Exports, there would be about 221 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)."

Missed it by -that- much...

[JMintzer]

Ever heard of the "rotary engine?" Hmmm, haven't heard much of it lately.
"run out of oil in 20 years?" America is supposed to have another 500 years worth. Ever heard of ICE being fueled by used fast food oil? Ever heard of fuel made from corn? Sugar?
Battery powered cars. Yes, they have been around for over a hundred years. Don't you think that if they were so great that they would be more popular by now? I suppose "some" folks believe that the oil industry conspiracy would be that great amounts of money is being used to subdue electric car exploration?
Maybe electric power will replace ICE but it's rather stupid to ban ICE before electric power is a plausible replacement. And that is exactly what is being attempted, banning a reasonable mode of transportation to be replaced by inadequate pie in the sky ideas. Replacing the horse pulling a wagon with a goat is not considered improving ones ability to travel. All we are doing right now is attempting to take away the low income populations' ability to travel to their places of employment, shopping and medical appointments. Electric vehicles are out of the low income populations' grasp.

Prezactly!

[JMintzer]

I already covered the idea in that last sentence. Bottom line E-vehicles are here to stay. Just look out your window at the E-bike and E-golf carts go by. It is just the beginning. E-vehicles will decrease in price as MORE people buy them. As more people WANT them ........more companies will SUPPLY them. The companies compete on price and the price goes DOWN. That is just a LAW of business.

Agreed that it would NOT be a good idea to replace ICE vehicles before an adequate supply of E-vehicles is being manufactured. Maybe you are referring to California, which is seeking to STIMULATE the evolution and trend toward E-vehicles by passing legislation.........I don't know the details of it......just at (SOME) date in the future (maybe 2035 or 40) they will REQUIRE all NEW vehicles sold in Ca. to be ELECTRIC. They are NOT banning ICE vehicles from operating in Ca. They are merely doing what GOOD government SHOULD do........shoving / motivating people toward ACCEPTANCE of NEW and better ideas. They have experts that can read the FUTURE somewhat better than the "man on the street". Sort of like Social Security and the Affordable Care Act, which were GREAT for American older and low-income people, but were initially considered too PROGRESSIVE to be functional. Those are examples of the government LEADING America into a better future.

You completely ignore the inadequacies of the power grid to handle all of these new e-vehicles...

And don't get me started on the "affordable care act". There is NOTHING affordable about it... Nor does it provide better care...

[jimjamuser]

Yes, he has "credibility" among the globalists at Davos... And apparently with you... To the rest of the sane world, the a whacky conspiracy theorist...

And you're correct. EVERYTHING as an element of risk. Windmills kill large birds. Birds that you and I would be jailed for killing.

Solar farms not only cook birds, they raise the global temperature, adding to your dreaded "Global Warming"...
True that black solar panels would raise the surrounding temperature. But, they would certainly raise it less than COAL would in China. Now would solar panels raise it more or less than the use of natural gas at power plants. ICE vehicles would be the worst because their pollution goes to the upper atmosphere and provides a HEAT blanket. so, ICE vehicles would BOTH give off HEAT AND hurt the upper atmosphere, whereas the Solar Panels would only give off heat.
........And yes that is CORRECT about windmills. Everything has a DOWNSIDE. The trick is to get the system with the most positives and the minimum negatives.

[jimjamuser]

You're off by a more than a power of 10...

"Saudi Arabia has proven reserves equivalent to 221.2 times its annual consumption. This means that, without Net Exports, there would be about 221 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)."

Missed it by -that- much...
I can't believe it. This IS SO OBVIOUS. Saudi Arabia EXPORTS the majority of the OIL that it pumps out of the ground. At the current rate that Saudi Arabia SELLS to the world .....they ONLY have 20 years worth. How can I be doubted??????
It is MEANINGLESS how long their OIL would LAST if ONLY they consumed it.

This brings up the point that probably the US should never again export its OIL because it should keep it in the bank (the ground) to use for medicines and some for plastics.........although I would prefer more use of things like wood bowls and furniture instead of plastics.

[jimjamuser]

Prezactly!
Prezactly confusedacgtly IMO mis Amigo.

[jimjamuser]

You're off by a more than a power of 10...

"Saudi Arabia has proven reserves equivalent to 221.2 times its annual consumption. This means that, without Net Exports, there would be about 221 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)."

Missed it by -that- much...
My IQ may be off by a power of 10, but it is on the plus side.

[jimjamuser]

You completely ignore the inadequacies of the power grid to handle all of these new e-vehicles...

And don't get me started on the "affordable care act". There is NOTHING affordable about it... Nor does it provide better care...
And someone is ignoring the principle of PROGRESS and modernization of that aforementioned electrical grid. And NOW we are BACK to everyone's fav......Oliver Stone, who was CONVINCING the world's business peeps that NUCLEAR Energy can be safe AND supply all the vast quantities of electricity needed for ALL those VERY EFFICIENT E-VEHICLES of OUR FUTURE !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Aces4]

You completely ignore the inadequacies of the power grid to handle all of these new e-vehicles...

And don't get me started on the "affordable care act". There is NOTHING affordable about it... Nor does it provide better care...

Agreed.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I'm still wrapping my mind around the fact that some of you, who present yourselves as intellectuals - have never heard of Noam Chomsky til this thread.

As Kelly Bundy says, "The mind wobbles."

[Aces4]

Did anyone read about the wind turbine that collapsed and broke in half this past week. They claimed that shouldn’t have happened.

[JMintzer]

True that black solar panels would raise the surrounding temperature. But, they would certainly raise it less than COAL would in China. Now would solar panels raise it more or less than the use of natural gas at power plants. ICE vehicles would be the worst because their pollution goes to the upper atmosphere and provides a HEAT blanket. so, ICE vehicles would BOTH give off HEAT AND hurt the upper atmosphere, whereas the Solar Panels would only give off heat.
........And yes that is CORRECT about windmills. Everything has a DOWNSIDE. The trick is to get the system with the most positives and the minimum negatives.

Correct. And right now, those are ICE vehicles...

[JMintzer]

I can't believe it. This IS SO OBVIOUS. Saudi Arabia EXPORTS the majority of the OIL that it pumps out of the ground. At the current rate that Saudi Arabia SELLS to the world .....they ONLY have 20 years worth. How can I be doubted??????
It is MEANINGLESS how long their OIL would LAST if ONLY they consumed it.

This brings up the point that probably the US should never again export its OIL because it should keep it in the bank (the ground) to use for medicines and some for plastics.........although I would prefer more use of things like wood bowls and furniture instead of plastics.

Yes, wooden bowls that harbor bacteria and cause your food to spoil much faster... Glass is better...

[JMintzer]

And someone is ignoring the principle of PROGRESS and modernization of that aforementioned electrical grid. And NOW we are BACK to everyone's fav......Oliver Stone, who was CONVINCING the world's business peeps that NUCLEAR Energy can be safe AND supply all the vast quantities of electricity needed for ALL those VERY EFFICIENT E-VEHICLES of OUR FUTURE !!!!!!!!!!!!

Amazing that you actually think that Oliver Stone's brilliant mind came up with that solution...

[MorTech]

Actually Richard Feynman and Niels Bohr did.

[jimjamuser]

I'm still wrapping my mind around the fact that some of you, who present yourselves as intellectuals - have never heard of Noam Chomsky til this thread.

As Kelly Bundy says, "The mind wobbles."
Semi-guilty as charged. Prior to this thread (and still) I VAGUELY remember the name (because his is a unique name, very cool). I believe someone said on a post that Chomski was in the news around 1965. At that time most of my reading activities were from a subscription to Time magazine. The Vietnam war occupied most of the articles that I wanted to stay on top of.......also scientific developments.
.......So, I confess I never read any in-depth article about Mr. Chomski. At that time, I was more curious about characters like Tesla, Warren Zevon, President LBJ, Hollywood movies, Electrical Engineering, solid-state calculus, differential equations, Lunar and space science, dog training, dog breeding books, pheasant hunting, bow hunting, hunting pronghorn antelope with a bow, ballistics and gun magazines, sports car characteristics, auto repair, playing high-level basketball, reading tennis books, scuba diving, running in 10-mile races, riding motorcycles and reading about them, lifting weights, drinking, and general carousing.

So basically, at that time, I was NOT too interested in philosophy (although as a young person, I admired Socrates .....mind AND body) or metaphysical concepts. Basically, I was NOT an intellectual, I thought of myself as a pseudo-intellectual.........and STILL do. However, I forgot that I read a book on hypnosis and then was able to hypnotize some friends, but I got scared and stopped when I had much trouble having one come OUT, a scary situation.
......NOI an intellectual.......that's my life story and it has no glory.
.......Got to go now......got to Chomski on some breakfast.

[golfing eagles]

Semi-guilty as charged. Prior to this thread (and still) I VAGUELY remember the name (because his is a unique name, very cool). I believe someone said on a post that Chomski was in the news around 1965. At that time most of my reading activities were from a subscription to Time magazine. The Vietnam war occupied most of the articles that I wanted to stay on top of.......also scientific developments.
.......So, I confess I never read any in-depth article about Mr. Chomski. At that time, I was more curious about characters like Tesla, Warren Zevon, President LBJ, Hollywood movies, Electrical Engineering, solid-state calculus, differential equations, Lunar and space science, dog training, dog breeding books, pheasant hunting, bow hunting, hunting pronghorn antelope with a bow, ballistics and gun magazines, sports car characteristics, auto repair, playing high-level basketball, reading tennis books, scuba diving, running in 10-mile races, riding motorcycles and reading about them, lifting weights, drinking, and general carousing.

So basically, at that time, I was NOT too interested in philosophy (although as a young person, I admired Socrates .....mind AND body) or metaphysical concepts. Basically, I was NOT an intellectual, I thought of myself as a pseudo-intellectual.........and STILL do. However, I forgot that I read a book on hypnosis and then was able to hypnotize some friends, but I got scared and stopped when I had much trouble having one come OUT, a scary situation.
......NOI an intellectual.......that's my life story and it has no glory.

Good reason not to have known Chomsky. My excuse is that I was 5 years old at the beginning of 1965 and therefore not "an intellectual"

[jimjamuser]

I'm still wrapping my mind around the fact that some of you, who present yourselves as intellectuals - have never heard of Noam Chomsky til this thread.

As Kelly Bundy says, "The mind wobbles."
That was really a good place for a Kelly Bundy quote...........KUDOS

[jimjamuser]

Yes, wooden bowls that harbor bacteria and cause your food to spoil much faster... Glass is better...
Good point, yes glass would be best and not throw-away as much as plastic bowls and cups. Thank you for pointing that out.

[jimjamuser]

Good reason not to have known Chomsky. My excuse is that I was 5 years old at the beginning of 1965 and therefore not "an intellectual"
Oh, I am SURE that you were very cute and cuddly at age 5. And maybe you had a toy 3 iron to practice with.

[golfing eagles]

Oh, I am SURE that you were very cute and cuddly at age 5. And maybe you had a toy 3 iron to practice with.

1 iron :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
maybe someone else had a toy Karl Marx doll

[Whitley]

I use paper plates. I EVEN wash the paper plates and use them twice if food is NOT too caked on them. I wash glass and ceramic glasses and cups also. I would NOT ever have a dishwasher in the house, but I will use a stove and a microwave. That is pretty SMALL potatoes and just personal choice when it compares to the BIG picture of Global Warming. People need to be aware of what they are doing. For example, many people like to sport fish. You can do it from a lake bank or from a row boat and have a pretty good time and have a SMALL environmentaL FOOTPRINT. Some people feel that they NEED a 200-horsepower boat to RACE out into the Gulf to supposedly get to the Best fishing areas. There is something IRONIC about fishing that way. To have the BEST sport fishing on the planet you need to have HEALTHY Coral Reefs - like the ones in say (?) 1950 which you could walk to in MIAMI right offshore. Today to get to a reasonable reef you need to go 20 miles offshore and be over a reef 200 feet down. What's ironic is the CO and CO2 fumes from the 200 hp engine are what is KILLING the reefs and making them harder to reach and FURTHER offshore.

I would submit that the most increase in the heating blanket in the upper atmosphere has been caused by engines burning fossil fuel. So, whatever an INDIVIDUAL could do to DECREASE their use of internal combustion engines would be the MAIN answer to improving Global warming. Electric vehicles (of ALL kinds) are better than ICE vehicles because the point of origin for electrical energy is a single large energy EFFICIENT power plant with scrubbers on their exhaust. Whereas, ICE vehicles are EACH inefficient and polluting.
.......That IS why the answer for an INDIVIDUAL is to transport themselves by bicycle, Ebike, E golf cart, E car, and
E truck. E-vehicles are simple compared to ICE vehicles, easy to repair, lighter, lower center of gravity, and will with increased production......be less costly......all while giving off less pollution and allowing Mother Earth to return to a healthier environment for people.........and for saving Polar bears and preventing the wholesale vanishing of species from the planet that is going on RIGHT NOW at a terrible RATE.

How is washing a paper plate after use, to use again then discard, better then using a ceramic/porcelain plate?

[golfing eagles]

How is washing a paper plate after use, to use again then discard, better then using a ceramic/porcelain plate?

My guess is that he thinks he will reverse 23,000 years of global warming driven by the power of the sun and changes in the Earth's axis by not using 2 quarts of hot water:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Of course, that paper plate will go to Ocala and get burned, adding to his fear of the dreaded CO2

[Byte1]

I already covered the idea in that last sentence. Bottom line E-vehicles are here to stay. Just look out your window at the E-bike and E-golf carts go by. It is just the beginning. E-vehicles will decrease in price as MORE people buy them. As more people WANT them ........more companies will SUPPLY them. The companies compete on price and the price goes DOWN. That is just a LAW of business.

Agreed that it would NOT be a good idea to replace ICE vehicles before an adequate supply of E-vehicles is being manufactured. Maybe you are referring to California, which is seeking to STIMULATE the evolution and trend toward E-vehicles by passing legislation.........I don't know the details of it......just at (SOME) date in the future (maybe 2035 or 40) they will REQUIRE all NEW vehicles sold in Ca. to be ELECTRIC. They are NOT banning ICE vehicles from operating in Ca. They are merely doing what GOOD government SHOULD do........shoving / motivating people toward ACCEPTANCE of NEW and better ideas. They have experts that can read the FUTURE somewhat better than the "man on the street". Sort of like Social Security and the Affordable Care Act, which were GREAT for American older and low-income people, but were initially considered too PROGRESSIVE to be functional. Those are examples of the government LEADING America into a better future.

Like I said before, EVs have been around since the 1800's. Looks like the world decided that ICE vehicles were more viable as a mode of commute. How's that EV idea coming along after two hundred years? You mentioned E-bikes and golf carts? Sorry, but they ain't in the same category as REAL transportation.
Hope you are NOT serious about the ACA and SS. Our gov. has already proven that they are totally inept at ANY business management. Case in point, the USPS. Social Security? Sorry, but that is in no way as efficient as privately managed investments.
But, we were not speaking of pie in the sky ideas that always seem to go over like a lead balloon when it comes to gov. management. We were speaking of the evolution of personal transport. I am sure that EV's may hold a "warm" spot in the future, but in the past two hundred years, they have certainly not become the popular or affordable mode of personal transport. Now, if you wish to suggest mass transit such as what is available overseas, I might agree with the idea of our country investing in it. However, in other countries taxes have to be levied to have the gov build the infrastructure. And then taxes for subsidizing travel/commuting for the average citizen.
Like it has been mentioned many times before on here, in order to have a system able to handle the massive drain of electricity power in this country, it's going to cost billions/trillions of power plant expansion. Now we have to consider the increase in HEAT and what it will do to the "climate." Science Fiction is a great past time, but pragmatic thinking is required for sensible and logical progress.
And surely you do not believe that our current problem with inflation is not related to the increased price of oil in this country due to closing down the pipeline, taxes and other related focusing on forcing American citizens to move to inadequate solar, wind and battery power? Someone is sure making a lot of money off of the ignorance of our citizens.

[Byte1]

"I would NOT ever have a dishwasher in the house, but I will use a stove and a microwave. "

Hmm, I believe that a dishwasher uses less water than washing dishes by hand. Tip: if you are truly sincere about saving the world, use the heat package in MRE meals. No fire used, so less pollution. Don't even need to use "paper plates" either. Just eat the meals out of the packages.

[ex34449]

I don't consider myself to be a doom and gloomer but... the world simply cannot sustain us all, as we are. The damage that we have already done is irreversible. The climate is changing. It's been doing that for far longer than we have been on this earth but the level of pollution, ecological damage that we have brought on this earth simply cannot be un done.
How long will it be before we create something that kills at a rate, faster than we can invent a cure? Well, that's already been created.
.
We've taken a ball of life we call earth and turned her into a toilet that we've already flushed. No one to blame but ourselves and there's no such thing as un flushing. We just all haven't landed in the cesspool yet.

[Whitley]

I'm still wrapping my mind around the fact that some of you, who present yourselves as intellectuals - have never heard of Noam Chomsky til this thread.

As Kelly Bundy says, "The mind wobbles."

Other than to a few old marxist hippies he isn't that important of a figure anymore.

[jimjamuser]

1 iron :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
maybe someone else had a toy Karl Marx doll
Oh Yes, treasure the memories of MY special "Kuddly Karl" doll. I hear that some kids had a Joseph "Joyful Joey" McCarthy doll. They were too expensive, my parents could NOT afford a "JOEY" for me.

[jimjamuser]

How is washing a paper plate after use, to use again then discard, better then using a ceramic/porcelain plate?
Not better than a ceramic plate, BUT MUCH, MUCH better than a plastic plate for the environment.

[jimjamuser]

My guess is that he thinks he will reverse 23,000 years of global warming driven by the power of the sun and changes in the Earth's axis by not using 2 quarts of hot water:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Of course, that paper plate will go to Ocala and get burned, adding to his fear of the dreaded CO2
Good guess, but actually since the plates are paper, which comes from wood, which is a RENEWABLE RESOURCE - I can simply bury them close to my tree roots and thus feed the tree. And most people wash ceramic dishes in an automatic dishwasher, which uses lots of electricity (and makes the A/C waste electricity) AND lots of phosphates and other carcinogens. Chlorine in detergent is toxic to aquatic life. A partial list of problem ingredients in dishwater and laundry soap consists of phosphates, chlorine, dye, fragrance, dioxane, and everyone's FAV........drum roll, please.....FORMALDEHYDE !

[jimjamuser]

Like I said before, EVs have been around since the 1800's. Looks like the world decided that ICE vehicles were more viable as a mode of commute. How's that EV idea coming along after two hundred years? You mentioned E-bikes and golf carts? Sorry, but they ain't in the same category as REAL transportation.
Hope you are NOT serious about the ACA and SS. Our gov. has already proven that they are totally inept at ANY business management. Case in point, the USPS. Social Security? Sorry, but that is in no way as efficient as privately managed investments.
But, we were not speaking of pie in the sky ideas that always seem to go over like a lead balloon when it comes to gov. management. We were speaking of the evolution of personal transport. I am sure that EV's may hold a "warm" spot in the future, but in the past two hundred years, they have certainly not become the popular or affordable mode of personal transport. Now, if you wish to suggest mass transit such as what is available overseas, I might agree with the idea of our country investing in it. However, in other countries taxes have to be levied to have the gov build the infrastructure. And then taxes for subsidizing travel/commuting for the average citizen.
Like it has been mentioned many times before on here, in order to have a system able to handle the massive drain of electricity power in this country, it's going to cost billions/trillions of power plant expansion. Now we have to consider the increase in HEAT and what it will do to the "climate." Science Fiction is a great past time, but pragmatic thinking is required for sensible and logical progress.
And surely you do not believe that our current problem with inflation is not related to the increased price of oil in this country due to closing down the pipeline, taxes and other related focusing on forcing American citizens to move to inadequate solar, wind and battery power? Someone is sure making a lot of money off of the ignorance of our citizens.
Everybody knows that OIL price is a very LARGE part of the current INFLATION. And STREET CARS in many American cities have run on electrical energy and electrical motors since probably about 1900. Remember "a Street Car Named Desire"?

[JMintzer]

Good reason not to have known Chomsky. My excuse is that I was 5 years old at the beginning of 1965 and therefore not "an intellectual"

Pffft... I was 7 and read Chomsky religiously... In fact, I did my 1st grade thesis on him... :1rotfl:

And what's the deal on "Warren Zevon" in 1965? He had one minor hit (as a duo) in '66 and didn't make a name for himself until '75...

[JMintzer]

1 iron :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
maybe someone else had a toy Karl Marx doll

I call BS...

"Even God can't hit a 1 iron"

- Lee Trevino

[golfing eagles]

Everybody knows that OIL price is a very LARGE part of the current INFLATION. And STREET CARS in many American cities have run on electrical energy and electrical motors since probably about 1900. Remember "a Street Car Named Desire"?

I'd tell you the cause of our current inflation, but I'd get a "time out"

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Semi-guilty as charged. Prior to this thread (and still) I VAGUELY remember the name (because his is a unique name, very cool). I believe someone said on a post that Chomski was in the news around 1965. At that time most of my reading activities were from a subscription to Time magazine. The Vietnam war occupied most of the articles that I wanted to stay on top of.......also scientific developments.
.......So, I confess I never read any in-depth article about Mr. Chomski. At that time, I was more curious about characters like Tesla, Warren Zevon, President LBJ, Hollywood movies, Electrical Engineering, solid-state calculus, differential equations, Lunar and space science, dog training, dog breeding books, pheasant hunting, bow hunting, hunting pronghorn antelope with a bow, ballistics and gun magazines, sports car characteristics, auto repair, playing high-level basketball, reading tennis books, scuba diving, running in 10-mile races, riding motorcycles and reading about them, lifting weights, drinking, and general carousing.

So basically, at that time, I was NOT too interested in philosophy (although as a young person, I admired Socrates .....mind AND body) or metaphysical concepts. Basically, I was NOT an intellectual, I thought of myself as a pseudo-intellectual.........and STILL do. However, I forgot that I read a book on hypnosis and then was able to hypnotize some friends, but I got scared and stopped when I had much trouble having one come OUT, a scary situation.
......NOI an intellectual.......that's my life story and it has no glory.
.......Got to go now......got to Chomski on some breakfast.

Chomsky, not Chomski. And it's Professor, not Mister. He was a Professor at MIT when I went to college up the street at Emerson back in the early 1980's. My claim to fame re: Chomsky - he put a $1 bill in my guitar case when I was performing in Harvard Square once.

[sounding]

Excellent talk on climate change. It is from the Oxford Union Society debates on January 12, 2023.

https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo

Agree, great video. He points out the fraud and hypocrisy in today's climate alarmism. Today's non-stop media blitz of climate misinformation is creating unnecessary climate fear, when in fact, today's climate is much better than when CO2 levels were much lower. Much of this alarmism was created by Carl Sagan with his misguided "runaway greenhouse affect" theory on Venus. This unfortunate Sagan legacy will be reviewed at the Weather Club's February meeting ... The Villages Weather Club (https://www.theweatherclubvillages.com/)

[jimjamuser]

Chomsky, not Chomski. And it's Professor, not Mister. He was a Professor at MIT when I went to college up the street at Emerson back in the early 1980's. My claim to fame re: Chomsky - he put a $1 bill in my guitar case when I was performing in Harvard Square once.
OK, Professor Chomsky - I will always remember that. And a dollar was probably worth about $2.50 in today's dollars. Sounds like he was a "man of the people". If he taught at MIT then that by itself makes him my hero. I believe in education and especially top University education. I will read about him.

[jimjamuser]

Pffft... I was 7 and read Chomsky religiously... In fact, I did my 1st grade thesis on him... :1rotfl:

And what's the deal on "Warren Zevon" in 1965? He had one minor hit (as a duo) in '66 and didn't make a name for himself until '75...
Nice that someone mentioned MY FAV.....the great legend Warren Zevon. Someone else mentioned 1965, I was talking about his whole superb and wonderous career. Most remember his "Werewolves of London" which was over-played. I got tired of hearing that because it was just a throwaway novelty song. The novelty-type songs were BIG back then and made many people the BIG bucks.
......He had some more substantial songs (not hits). My personal FAV was, "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner" ........That one was way COOL, just unique and extraordinary. Next, I would rate, "Send Lawyers, Guns,
and Money". Next, "He's Just an Excitable Boy". Next, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful, Me". Next, "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead".
.......They all have "catchy titles".

[jimjamuser]

I call BS...

"Even God can't hit a 1 iron"

- Lee Trevino
I believe that Arnold Palmer could. But, then he was God-like and well-liked and from a beautiful small city located in God's country.

[sounding]

Here we go again.

1) In the long term, "climate change" is a problem----after all, in 25,000 years NY City will be under 400 feet of water, and 50,000 years after that it will be under 2 miles of ice. So yes, it is a problem, assuming humans aren't extinct in that time frame, in which case it might be a problem for cockroaches to deal with.

2) IF, and it's a big IF human civilization is a contributing factor, it is miniscule at best. This is not withstanding the assertion by another climate change "believer" that cow farts are the biggest problem. Maybe cows will still be around in 25,000 years. To those who "believe", in anthropomorphic global warming (along with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy), explain how human civilization has caused 23,000 years of global warming to the tune of approximately 8 degrees F. Did we use the wrong kind of wood fire to cook our mastodon and saber tooth tiger meat in our caves???? Did Fred Flintstone's SUV only get 8 mpg??? Or do they just want to harp on how the ONE latest hurricane reflects 100,000 years of climate change? Give us a break from delusional thinking.

3) Of course we can reduce our "contribution", but keep in mind half of nothing is still nothing. But by all means let's spend the proposed 100 TRILLION dollars to try.

Ditto ... Golfing Eagles for President.

[jimjamuser]

Agree, great video. He points out the fraud and hypocrisy in today's climate alarmism. Today's non-stop media blitz of climate misinformation is creating unnecessary climate fear, when in fact, today's climate is much better than when CO2 levels were much lower. Much of this alarmism was created by Carl Sagan with his misguided "runaway greenhouse affect" theory on Venus. This unfortunate Sagan legacy will be reviewed at the Weather Club's February meeting ... The Villages Weather Club (https://www.theweatherclubvillages.com/)
And in March they are going to take a field trip and explore Venus.

[jimjamuser]

Ditto ... Golfing Eagles for President.
Double Ditto.....GE for President............of the Villages Weather Club.

[sounding]

And in March they are going to take a field trip and explore Venus.

The Weather Club does not do field trips. It just takes trips to explore data, such as this one showing how the oceans are cooling -- which parallels the atmosphere's 7-year cooling trend.

[Taltarzac725]

The Weather Club does not do field trips. It just takes trips to explore data, such as this one showing how the oceans are cooling -- which parallels the atmosphere's 7-year cooling trend.

Temperature graph misrepresented to deny climate change | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misleading-climate-change-graph-418146648172)

Not so fast!

[Two Bills]

The Weather Club does not do field trips.

Far too hot! :smiley:

[jimjamuser]

Temperature graph misrepresented to deny climate change | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misleading-climate-change-graph-418146648172)

Not so fast!
Well, that settles it - drop the mike - the debate is OVER. Someone on this FORUM has been lying through his growing bigger Pinocchio nose. Let us just HOPE that there will be NO more polluting us with misinformation and weird 4th-grade graphs. They have been exposed.

[sounding]

Temperature graph misrepresented to deny climate change | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misleading-climate-change-graph-418146648172)

Not so fast!

There's nothing fast about it -- just simple cooling. Look at the last few years (7 for atmosphere and 10 for oceans) to see the slight cooling trend. The AP is famous for climate alarmism and data misinformation. The Weather Club exposes all this fraud -- continuing next month with Carl Sagan's fake runaway greenhouse affect on Venus.

[Bill14564]

Temperature graph misrepresented to deny climate change | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misleading-climate-change-graph-418146648172)

Not so fast!

Thank you for posting this!

[JMintzer]

Nice that someone mentioned MY FAV.....the great legend Warren Zevon. Someone else mentioned 1965, I was talking about his whole superb and wonderous career. Most remember his "Werewolves of London" which was over-played. I got tired of hearing that because it was just a throwaway novelty song. The novelty-type songs were BIG back then and made many people the BIG bucks.
......He had some more substantial songs (not hits). My personal FAV was, "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner" ........That one was way COOL, just unique and extraordinary. Next, I would rate, "Send Lawyers, Guns,
and Money". Next, "He's Just an Excitable Boy". Next, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful, Me". Next, "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead".
.......They all have "catchy titles".

"Enjoy Every Sandwich"...

[JMintzer]

I believe that Arnold Palmer could. But, then he was God-like and well-liked and from a beautiful small city located in God's country.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/58/66/8a/58668a745e52ce3981b741b7d6ef2527.jpg

[sounding]

Far too hot! :smiley:

It's too hot in China too ... Mohe: China's northernmost city records coldest day ever | CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/china-mohe-record-low-temperature-intl-hnk/index.html)

[Two Bills]

It's too hot in China too ... Mohe: China's northernmost city records coldest day ever | CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/china-mohe-record-low-temperature-intl-hnk/index.html)

Probably warmest year ever in UK.

96611

[sounding]

Excellent talk on climate change. It is from the Oxford Union Society debates on January 12, 2023.

https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo

Excellent review of the "climate change speech" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o0bPYPJA9I

[sounding]

Probably warmest year ever in UK.

96611

That's very true -- for those who believe the world began in 1884. For those who study legitimate climate change, there are numerous studies showing just the opposite. Here's just one ... Ancient Greenland was much warmer than previously thought (https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ancient-greenland-warmer-previously-thought.html)

[Bill14564]

That's very true -- for those who believe the world began in 1884. For those who study legitimate climate change, there are numerous studies showing just the opposite. Here's just one ... Ancient Greenland was much warmer than previously thought (https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ancient-greenland-warmer-previously-thought.html)

Not sure what your point is. From the article (you have to read past the headline to find this):

There is one caveat. Well-known changes in Earth's orbit caused warming during the early Holocene and Last Interglacial periods. Today, warming stems from man-made sources and is happening much faster than warming during those interglacial periods. That means there is a chance that Earth might not respond to current-day warming in the same way.

"Past climate is our best analog for future warming, and our results hint that land at these very high latitudes in the Arctic may warm even more than predicted in the coming century," Axford said. "But nothing in Earth's past is a perfect analog because what's happening today is totally unprecedented."

[golfing eagles]

Not sure what your point is. From the article (you have to read past the headline to find this):

There is one caveat. Well-known changes in Earth's orbit caused warming during the early Holocene and Last Interglacial periods. Today, warming stems from man-made sources and is happening much faster than warming during those interglacial periods. That means there is a chance that Earth might not respond to current-day warming in the same way.

"Past climate is our best analog for future warming, and our results hint that land at these very high latitudes in the Arctic may warm even more than predicted in the coming century," Axford said. "But nothing in Earth's past is a perfect analog because what's happening today is totally unprecedented."

Interesting. Totally wrong, but interesting.

From 21,000 BC to 11,000 BC the average global temperature rose 7 degrees F, much faster than recent weather records indicate for the last 120 years

In addition, during the same time period, ocean levels rose 432 feet. In the last 120 years those levels rose 8 inches. This is a current rate of 6.7 inches/century as opposed to 4.32 feet/century. So much for human activity causing warming or ocean levels to rise.

What's "unprecedented" is the media and government hype over a myth

[fdpaq0580]

And in March they are going to take a field trip and explore Venus.

Don't know if it would be called a field trip, but they are definitely "trippin'".

[sounding]

Not sure what your point is. From the article (you have to read past the headline to find this):

There is one caveat. Well-known changes in Earth's orbit caused warming during the early Holocene and Last Interglacial periods. Today, warming stems from man-made sources and is happening much faster than warming during those interglacial periods. That means there is a chance that Earth might not respond to current-day warming in the same way.

"Past climate is our best analog for future warming, and our results hint that land at these very high latitudes in the Arctic may warm even more than predicted in the coming century," Axford said. "But nothing in Earth's past is a perfect analog because what's happening today is totally unprecedented."

Wow ... love the word unprecedented. Kind of like the unprecedented growth of legalized hunting of hundreds of polar bears each year, unprecedented global human longevity, unprecedented global crop yields, and the unprecedented lack of reporting of the current 7-year cooling trend.

[golfing eagles]

Don't know if it would be called a field trip, but they are definitely "trippin'".

You no longer can take a "field" trip, since the word field was banned by the USC social work college as "racist". You may however call it a "practicum trip":1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Bill14564]

Interesting. Totally wrong, but interesting.

From 21,000 BC to 11,000 BC the average global temperature rose 7 degrees F, much faster than recent weather records indicate for the last 120 years

In addition, during the same time period, ocean levels rose 432 feet. In the last 120 years those levels rose 8 inches. This is a current rate of 6.7 inches/century as opposed to 4.32 feet/century. So much for human activity causing warming or ocean levels to rise.

What's "unprecedented" is the media and government hype over a myth

???

From your numbers, the temperature rose approximately 0.07 degrees fahrenheit per century. The data I can find shows the temperature rising at about 1.4 degrees fahrenheit per century since 1880 (about 2 degrees total).

I searched on "temperature rise over last 120 years" to find the data I used, what did you use to find data that showed much less than a 0.07 degree increase?


Discussing sea level rise will take more time than I am willing to spend. Some data points I found:
- The 432ft rise was from 21,000 years ago to about 3,000 years ago
- At the end of the 432 ft rise the seas were at their current level which means there was a great deal more ice to melt in those 18,000 years than there is now
- While 8" over 120 years seems correct it is important to know that half of that was over the last 30 years indicating the rate of sea level rise is increasing
- The seas will not rise another 432 ft (not enough ice) but at a rate of more than one foot per century and increasing, sea level rise could be a big problem not too long from now

[fdpaq0580]

You no longer can take a "field" trip, since the word field was banned by the USC social work college as "racist". You may however call it a "practicum trip":1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

"Practicum" sounds nasty to me. Like some body part one should not mention in polite company. I ban it in favor of "journey of investigation".

[jimjamuser]

Not sure what your point is. From the article (you have to read past the headline to find this):

There is one caveat. Well-known changes in Earth's orbit caused warming during the early Holocene and Last Interglacial periods. Today, warming stems from man-made sources and is happening much faster than warming during those interglacial periods. That means there is a chance that Earth might not respond to current-day warming in the same way.

"Past climate is our best analog for future warming, and our results hint that land at these very high latitudes in the Arctic may warm even more than predicted in the coming century," Axford said. "But nothing in Earth's past is a perfect analog because what's happening today is totally unprecedented."
Great post......there IS more to an article than the headline, especially scientific articles. Seems that some people quote only what agrees with their point of view. And I would like to know the WHY behind the spreading of misinformation. One thing.....I notice is that the older demographics-types here in TV Land seem to respond well to propaganda that they are getting from SOME source. I also wonder WHAT source?

[fdpaq0580]

Great post......there IS more to an article than the headline, especially scientific articles. Seems that some people quote only what agrees with their point of view. And I would like to know the WHY behind the spreading of misinformation. One thing.....I notice is that the older demographics-types here in TV Land seem to respond well to propaganda that they are getting from SOME source. I also wonder WHAT source?

I bet you could make a really good guess.

[sounding]

???

From your numbers, the temperature rose approximately 0.07 degrees fahrenheit per century. The data I can find shows the temperature rising at about 1.4 degrees fahrenheit per century since 1880 (about 2 degrees total).

I searched on "temperature rise over last 120 years" to find the data I used, what did you use to find data that showed much less than a 0.07 degree increase?


Discussing sea level rise will take more time than I am willing to spend. Some data points I found:
- The 432ft rise was from 21,000 years ago to about 3,000 years ago
- At the end of the 432 ft rise the seas were at their current level which means there was a great deal more ice to melt in those 18,000 years than there is now
- While 8" over 120 years seems correct it is important to know that half of that was over the last 30 years indicating the rate of sea level rise is increasing
- The seas will not rise another 432 ft (not enough ice) but at a rate of more than one foot per century and increasing, sea level rise could be a big problem not too long from now

Sea level rise is not a problem for those who study past climates -- which shows seas naturally go up and down. History shows that those who choose to live in Mother Nature's sand box (the seashore) during sea level rise will eventually suffer. Here's more on climate history ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folh5yyFyl8

[golfing eagles]

???

From your numbers, the temperature rose approximately 0.07 degrees fahrenheit per century. The data I can find shows the temperature rising at about 1.4 degrees fahrenheit per century since 1880 (about 2 degrees total).

I searched on "temperature rise over last 120 years" to find the data I used, what did you use to find data that showed much less than a 0.07 degree increase?


Discussing sea level rise will take more time than I am willing to spend. Some data points I found:
- The 432ft rise was from 21,000 years ago to about 3,000 years ago
- At the end of the 432 ft rise the seas were at their current level which means there was a great deal more ice to melt in those 18,000 years than there is now
- While 8" over 120 years seems correct it is important to know that half of that was over the last 30 years indicating the rate of sea level rise is increasing
- The seas will not rise another 432 ft (not enough ice) but at a rate of more than one foot per century and increasing, sea level rise could be a big problem not too long from now

Well, whether it be a 10,000 or 18,000 year period to rise 432 feet, I'm sure in those 100-180 centuries there were periods where the rise was more in a 30 year period than the other 70, which of course means that an increase in the rate of rise was followed by a decrease. Again, we are talking hundreds of thousands of year cycles over the last 4 1/2 million years of the current ice age. The last 30 years is not reflective of anything---we simply don't have enough data over a long enough period to know.

[Two Bills]

That's very true -- for those who believe the world began in 1884. For those who study legitimate climate change, there are numerous studies showing just the opposite. Here's just one ... Ancient Greenland was much warmer than previously thought (https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ancient-greenland-warmer-previously-thought.html)

As you base your whole cooling argument on this thread on 7 years of 'DATA, 200+ years of records showing the opposite, would seem to me, to make your claim somewhat shaky.

[sounding]

Great post......there IS more to an article than the headline, especially scientific articles. Seems that some people quote only what agrees with their point of view. And I would like to know the WHY behind the spreading of misinformation. One thing.....I notice is that the older demographics-types here in TV Land seem to respond well to propaganda that they are getting from SOME source. I also wonder WHAT source?

From "experts" of course ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6BjSkuYPQw

[golfing eagles]

As you base your whole cooling argument on this thread on 7 years of 'DATA, 200+ years of records showing the opposite, would seem to me, to make your claim somewhat shaky.

Likewise, 200 years of records vs. 4 1/2 million years of the current ice age make that claim "shaky" as well.

[sounding]

As you base your whole cooling argument on this thread on 7 years of 'DATA, 200+ years of records showing the opposite, would seem to me, to make your claim somewhat shaky.

What's to argue? The data shows the last 7 years of (atmospheric and oceanic) temperatures shows slight cooling. It's called data, which shows CO2 is NOT a control knob. So ... why the 7-year cooling trend?

[Bill14564]

What's to argue? The data shows the last 7 years of (atmospheric and oceanic) temperatures shows slight cooling. It's called data, which shows CO2 is NOT a control knob. So ... why the 7-year cooling trend?

Temperature graph misrepresented to deny climate change | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misleading-climate-change-graph-418146648172)

And also post #67 (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2178150-post67.html) on the other thread.

[Two Bills]

Likewise, 200 years of records vs. 4 1/2 million years of the current ice age make that claim "shaky" as well.

4 1/2 million years?
Now we are going back before even my time!
200 years of records still beats 7 to show a trend in my book.
The planet is getting warmer without a doubt. Even in my short time in the world, the climate has changed.
Man made?
I lean on the 'not' side in that argument, but the jury is still out on that discussion, and none of the opinionated on TOTV will ever hear the official verdict.

[sounding]

4 1/2 million years?
Now we are going back before even my time!
200 years of records still beats 7 to show a trend in my book.
The planet is getting warmer without a doubt. Even in my short time in the world, the climate has changed.
Man made?
I lean on the 'not' side in that argument, but the jury is still out on that discussion, and none of the opinionated on TOTV will ever hear the official verdict.

Why the 7-year cooling trend?

[Bill14564]

Why the 7-year cooling trend?

Temperature graph misrepresented to deny climate change | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misleading-climate-change-graph-418146648172)

And also post #67 (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2178150-post67.html) on the other thread.

...

[sounding]

...

Thanks. Hopefully that will also be discussed at the next Weather Club meeting, where Carl Sagan's wacky claim about runaway greenhouse warming on Venus will be revealed ... The Villages Weather Club (https://www.theweatherclubvillages.com/)

[Byte1]

Just curious, how does one attribute the ocean's warming due to underwater volcanoes, to mankind? Are we also responsible for erupting volcanoes? Years ago, I accidentally wandered onto a military website that kept readings on equipment located at the poles that measured polar ice thickness. According to the information provided by the instruments, the ice was melting from the bottom, not the top. Experts suggested that the ocean was warming due to under water volcanoes. Not sure if anyone(military) was making large sums of money for their "research" so the information from the military may have been less accurate....;)

[jimjamuser]

Don't know if it would be called a field trip, but they are definitely "trippin'".
It's a one-way trip so they are taking lots of Bettle Albums and songs like, "Day Trippen".

[jimjamuser]

Wow ... love the word unprecedented. Kind of like the unprecedented growth of legalized hunting of hundreds of polar bears each year, unprecedented global human longevity, unprecedented global crop yields, and the unprecedented lack of reporting of the current 7-year cooling trend.
That can't be correct about high crop yields in total because the war in the Ukraine has stopped the export of wheat. And the Ukraine HAD BEEN contributing about 40% of the world's supply. That's why parts of Africa are starving and its inhabitants are moving northward to TRY to get into Europe. Same, same for parts of South America migrating North to the US and Canada. This would NOT be happening were it NOT for Global Warming which IS man-made and causing BIG problems. But, why believe what your lying eyes are telling you (like pictures of migrants crossing the Rio Grande) when you can believe what the lying local Weather Wackos (The WW's) are spouting. Pick a side !!!!!
.....Note......post # 136 proved CONCLUSIVELY who to believe.

[jimjamuser]

Wow ... love the word unprecedented. Kind of like the unprecedented growth of legalized hunting of hundreds of polar bears each year, unprecedented global human longevity, unprecedented global crop yields, and the unprecedented lack of reporting of the current 7-year cooling trend.
As far as hunting goes......more people have had to do survival hunting because of losing jobs because of the Global Pandemic. Also, GIANT Chinese fishing fleets have been overfishing the oceans. And on TOP of that many fish species DEPEND on smaller fish that USED to be abundant on coral reefs before the coral began dying after the ocean water contained TOO MUCH CO2.........because the Earth's terrestrial plants have been cut down and can NOT contain ALL the CO2 produced by increased populations of humans that require IC engines to dominate their lives. E-bikes and Electric lawnmowers anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

[jimjamuser]

You no longer can take a "field" trip, since the word field was banned by the USC social work college as "racist". You may however call it a "practicum trip":1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
That hit the wall and "practicumly" bounced.

[jimjamuser]

???

From your numbers, the temperature rose approximately 0.07 degrees fahrenheit per century. The data I can find shows the temperature rising at about 1.4 degrees fahrenheit per century since 1880 (about 2 degrees total).

I searched on "temperature rise over last 120 years" to find the data I used, what did you use to find data that showed much less than a 0.07 degree increase?


Discussing sea level rise will take more time than I am willing to spend. Some data points I found:
- The 432ft rise was from 21,000 years ago to about 3,000 years ago
- At the end of the 432 ft rise the seas were at their current level which means there was a great deal more ice to melt in those 18,000 years than there is now
- While 8" over 120 years seems correct it is important to know that half of that was over the last 30 years indicating the rate of sea level rise is increasing
- The seas will not rise another 432 ft (not enough ice) but at a rate of more than one foot per century and increasing, sea level rise could be a big problem not too long from now
I read about that concern about the world's sea level rising relatively RAPIDLY in recent years. We can just look to MIAMI where on high tide and certain lunar phases the base of Miami skyscrapers have seawater and also the nearby roads. And seawater is NOT VERY helpful to concrete.

[jimjamuser]

As you base your whole cooling argument on this thread on 7 years of 'DATA, 200+ years of records showing the opposite, would seem to me, to make your claim somewhat shaky.
The Weather Club meets right before the Flat Earth Club so people can get a double dose of ...................? I think that Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner is a member in good standing at each club.

[sounding]

Just curious, how does one attribute the ocean's warming due to underwater volcanoes, to mankind? Are we also responsible for erupting volcanoes? Years ago, I accidentally wandered onto a military website that kept readings on equipment located at the poles that measured polar ice thickness. According to the information provided by the instruments, the ice was melting from the bottom, not the top. Experts suggested that the ocean was warming due to under water volcanoes. Not sure if anyone(military) was making large sums of money for their "research" so the information from the military may have been less accurate....;)

The Villages Weather Club mentions this issue repeatedly, because climate alarmists won't touch this subject -- it's too hot. Here's 2 reasons ...
1. Arctic volcanoes ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_a0exADJtk
2. Antarctic volcanoes ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raR5YgFcIQQ

[sounding]

The Weather Club meets right before the Flat Earth Club so people can get a double dose of ...................? I think that Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner is a member in good standing at each club.

For those not familiar with the Flat Earth club, here's the Weather Club website ... The Villages Weather Club (https://www.theweatherclubvillages.com/) ... it is open to all Villagers. Not only does membership grow following each presentation, requests for presentations outside the Villages are also growing -- even as far as the University of Florida at Gainesville.

[golfing eagles]

I read about that concern about the world's sea level rising relatively RAPIDLY in recent years. We can just look to MIAMI where on high tide and certain lunar phases the base of Miami skyscrapers have seawater and also the nearby roads. And seawater is NOT VERY helpful to concrete.

I guess you didn't read the comparison of the recent century's rise of 6.7 inches vs the average century rise of 4.32 FEET from 21,000 to 11,000 BC. So, easy question: Which is more rapid and which is more recent. A cigar if you get the answer right:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Bill14564]

I guess you didn't read the comparison of the recent century's rise of 6.7 inches vs the average century rise of 4.32 FEET from 21,000 to 11,000 BC. So, easy question: Which is more rapid and which is more recent. A cigar if you get the answer right:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Another question is are the numbers are correct?

21,000 to 3,000 will make a difference

The surface area of the ice to be melted makes a difference

6.7 should be closer to 8 or 9

4 inches in the last 30 years is much greater than 8 inches in the last century

The surface are of the oceans matter. The volume of water to raise the sea level 4 inches in the last 30 years would have raised them how much if the depth was 100 ft less?

[sounding]

I read about that concern about the world's sea level rising relatively RAPIDLY in recent years. We can just look to MIAMI where on high tide and certain lunar phases the base of Miami skyscrapers have seawater and also the nearby roads. And seawater is NOT VERY helpful to concrete.

Easy solutions. Remove the moon (to eliminate tides) and stop building were we know the oceans have been rising for the past 350 years -- and will continue to rise until Mother Nature says it's time for the next Ice Age. But don't worry, Obama has 2 sea-side mansions, who will no doubt prevent the seas form rising any further.

[jimjamuser]

I guess you didn't read the comparison of the recent century's rise of 6.7 inches vs the average century rise of 4.32 FEET from 21,000 to 11,000 BC. So, easy question: Which is more rapid and which is more recent. A cigar if you get the answer right:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
The only time I have been interested in 11,000 BC was for 2 old movies about that time period. One had some foxy-loxie hot female movie star in it......It's only redeeming value.

[jimjamuser]

I guess you didn't read the comparison of the recent century's rise of 6.7 inches vs the average century rise of 4.32 FEET from 21,000 to 11,000 BC. So, easy question: Which is more rapid and which is more recent. A cigar if you get the answer right:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
And smoking is bad for your health. ALL the good Doctors will tell you that.

[jimjamuser]

Easy solutions. Remove the moon (to eliminate tides) and stop building were we know the oceans have been rising for the past 350 years -- and will continue to rise until Mother Nature says it's time for the next Ice Age. But don't worry, Obama has 2 sea-side mansions, who will no doubt prevent the seas form rising any further.
News flash......... I am in agreement with the CONCEPT that it is a terrible idea to build near an ocean coastline. In Oregon, they have a law against building within 1/2 mile of the ocean. I would go for 3 miles if I were in charge.

[sounding]

The only time I have been interested in 11,000 BC was for 2 old movies about that time period. One had some foxy-loxie hot female movie star in it......It's only redeeming value.

Unfortunately they don't teach climate change in schools anymore, because the data shows temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher in the past.

[sounding]

News flash......... I am in agreement with the CONCEPT that it is a terrible idea to build near an ocean coastline. In Oregon, they have a law against building within 1/2 mile of the ocean. I would go for 3 miles if I were in charge.

The key against hurricane flooding is to stay above 30 feet above sea level, because large Cat 5 storms can raise seas up to 30 feet. And even then, you need to account for high tides -- and of course slow sea level rise. Then when the next Ice Age starts, it will be a free-for-all to buy up new land as the seas go down 400 feet.

[Byte1]

So, once again how can man prevent volcanoes from erupting? Perhaps, human sacrifices? How did "man" cause Pompeii? Was it the lack of human sacrifices? How about the eruptions in Hawaii or the Philippines? I am not going to argue/debate the rising and lowering of the oceans, but I am interested in how anyone can be arrogant enough to think that mankind is instrumental in changing the climate. Was Earth meant to last forever? Is there any reason to care whether or not Earth is still here after the eventual extinction of man? If the oceans rise ten feet in our lifetime, would we really do anything other than move further in land? New Orleans has a lower elevation than the water bordering it. What do we do? We build walls and pump the water out of the city. Does that make sense when there is so much more land mass in the country? Is this how man fights climate change?
Climate change is a naturally recurring cycle and until someone can give me evidence that mankind has influenced the rotation of climate cycles, I will consider it arrogant to think that we can change it in any way. Maybe we can push our moon away from Earth and change the strength of tides?
Sorry, but I am not concerned with a few inches of coastline loss in my lifetime. Do I care about the future of mankind and the loss of land mass in our country? Nope, because I will be dust for a long time as will my children and grandchildren way before there is any threat to man's existence in this world. So, once you all figure out how to change the weather, please raise the temps in the mountains up North, because I miss the mountains but hate cold weather. A year round average of 75-85 degrees would suit me just fine. And stop planting so many flowering plants because pollen is much worse than carbon emissions on my breathing.

[jimjamuser]

So, once again how can man prevent volcanoes from erupting? Perhaps, human sacrifices? How did "man" cause Pompeii? Was it the lack of human sacrifices? How about the eruptions in Hawaii or the Philippines? I am not going to argue/debate the rising and lowering of the oceans, but I am interested in how anyone can be arrogant enough to think that mankind is instrumental in changing the climate. Was Earth meant to last forever? Is there any reason to care whether or not Earth is still here after the eventual extinction of man? If the oceans rise ten feet in our lifetime, would we really do anything other than move further in land? New Orleans has a lower elevation than the water bordering it. What do we do? We build walls and pump the water out of the city. Does that make sense when there is so much more land mass in the country? Is this how man fights climate change?
Climate change is a naturally recurring cycle and until someone can give me evidence that mankind has influenced the rotation of climate cycles, I will consider it arrogant to think that we can change it in any way. Maybe we can push our moon away from Earth and change the strength of tides?
Sorry, but I am not concerned with a few inches of coastline loss in my lifetime. Do I care about the future of mankind and the loss of land mass in our country? Nope, because I will be dust for a long time as will my children and grandchildren way before there is any threat to man's existence in this world. So, once you all figure out how to change the weather, please raise the temps in the mountains up North, because I miss the mountains but hate cold weather. A year round average of 75-85 degrees would suit me just fine. And stop planting so many flowering plants because pollen is much worse than carbon emissions on my breathing.
I have given EVIDENCE before but to NO avail. Some people will never change their minds despite what Scientific experts have to say because they have made up their minds. And they MUST feel somehow that they know more than Scientists that have gone to school on the subject at a graduate, masters, and Ph.D. level.
......But, here goes for the umpteenth time.....
......If you go to Google or Wikipedia and put in, "Surveys of Scientists' views on Climate Change". You can find that in 2016 there is a 97% consensus that humans are causing recent Global Warming.
.........In a 2021 study, the consensus was more than 99%.

I have done my part to improve general local understanding of this subject. It has become clear to me that many in TV Land do NOT believe in SCIENTISTS. And they are getting their understanding from some form of propagandistic mind-control that is rolling in from their TVs or very unusual media. I am REALLY saddened about the decrease in knowledge among my fellow TV Landers.......really saddened!

[golfing eagles]

I have given EVIDENCE before but to NO avail. Some people will never change their minds despite what Scientific experts have to say because they have made up their minds. and they MUST feel somehow that they know more than Scientists that have gone to school on the subject at a graduate, masters, and Ph.D. level.
......But, here goes for the umpteenth time.....
......If you go to Google or Wikipedia and put in, "Surveys of Scientists' views on Climate Change". You can find that in 2016 there is a 97% consensus that humans are causing recent Global Warming.
.........In a 2021 study, the consensus was more than 99%.

I have done my part to improve general local understanding of this subject. It has become clear to me that many in TV Land do NOT believe in SCIENTISTS. And they are getting their understanding from some form of propagandistic mind-control that is rolling in from their TVs or very unusual media. I am REALLY saddened about the decrease in knowledge among my fellow TV Landers.......really saddened!

And how many times have I made it clear that those scientists are bought and paid for by government grants, university tenure and journal publishers. And even that consensus is closer to 80%.

[golfing eagles]

So, once again how can man prevent volcanoes from erupting? Perhaps, human sacrifices? How did "man" cause Pompeii? Was it the lack of human sacrifices? How about the eruptions in Hawaii or the Philippines? I am not going to argue/debate the rising and lowering of the oceans, but I am interested in how anyone can be arrogant enough to think that mankind is instrumental in changing the climate. Was Earth meant to last forever? Is there any reason to care whether or not Earth is still here after the eventual extinction of man? If the oceans rise ten feet in our lifetime, would we really do anything other than move further in land? New Orleans has a lower elevation than the water bordering it. What do we do? We build walls and pump the water out of the city. Does that make sense when there is so much more land mass in the country? Is this how man fights climate change?
Climate change is a naturally recurring cycle and until someone can give me evidence that mankind has influenced the rotation of climate cycles, I will consider it arrogant to think that we can change it in any way. Maybe we can push our moon away from Earth and change the strength of tides?
Sorry, but I am not concerned with a few inches of coastline loss in my lifetime. Do I care about the future of mankind and the loss of land mass in our country? Nope, because I will be dust for a long time as will my children and grandchildren way before there is any threat to man's existence in this world. So, once you all figure out how to change the weather, please raise the temps in the mountains up North, because I miss the mountains but hate cold weather. A year round average of 75-85 degrees would suit me just fine. And stop planting so many flowering plants because pollen is much worse than carbon emissions on my breathing.

Sorry, but human sacrifice won't work here. After all, we would have to sacrifice a virgin, and at least according to the author of "Leisureville", we a fresh out of those. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[JMintzer]

I have given EVIDENCE before but to NO avail. Some people will never change their minds despite what Scientific experts have to say because they have made up their minds. And they MUST feel somehow that they know more than Scientists that have gone to school on the subject at a graduate, masters, and Ph.D. level.
......But, here goes for the umpteenth time.....
......If you go to Google or Wikipedia and put in, "Surveys of Scientists' views on Climate Change". You can find that in 2016 there is a 97% consensus that humans are causing recent Global Warming.
.........In a 2021 study, the consensus was more than 99%.

I have done my part to improve general local understanding of this subject. It has become clear to me that many in TV Land do NOT believe in SCIENTISTS. And they are getting their understanding from some form of propagandistic mind-control that is rolling in from their TVs or very unusual media. I am REALLY saddened about the decrease in knowledge among my fellow TV Landers.......really saddened!

And, for the umpteenth time, that 97% stat has been thoroughly debunked...

But keep bangin' that drum!

[jimjamuser]

And, for the umpteenth time, that 97% stat has been thoroughly debunked...

But keep bangin' that drum!
Well, it is OVER 99% in the 2021 study to be more precise. And I am being told to believe a non-scientist over my lying eyes that see the same thing every time that I Google it. I guess Google and ALL the world's scientists have formed some sort of EVIL cabal to prevent the earth's inhabitants from learning the TRUTH......... that Global Warming does NOT exist and these dastardly lies can be corrected if we just listen to a few people at our local TV Land that know more than the combined wisdom of All the earth's scientists. Wow, how could I have ever DOUBTED YOU GUYS?
........AND SO THAT must ALSO mean that my local and state weather people must have been wrong when they said that the Gulf of Mexico water had been at a record high temperature this summer. WOW, they also must have been in on the disinformation campaign by the EVIL Cabal. And the country of Australia must be in on the lies, when they say that the coral on the great barrier reef are dying. What an enormous plot. And hurricane IAN did NOT CAUSE the most damage for a hurricane to the US, EVER. Wow, those lies just go on and on.
.......I am SO VERY glad that we have experts here in TVLand to help me understand all this confusion. And I bet that there really has NOT been an increase in CO2 in seawater in recent years.
........I am so relieved that I won't have to worry about Fl summer being too hot, I can save on A/C costs. And Fl or the US won't have ANY KILLER hurricanes this summer and autumn. Golly gee whiz, Batman, I am so relieved !!!!!

[JMintzer]

Well, it is OVER 99% in the 2021 study to be more precise. And I am being told to believe a non-scientist over my lying eyes that see the same thing every time that I Google it. I guess Google and ALL the world's scientists have formed some sort of EVIL cabal to prevent the earth's inhabitants from learning the TRUTH......... that Global Warming does NOT exist and these dastardly lies can be corrected if we just listen to a few people at our local TV Land that know more than the combined wisdom of All the earth's scientists. Wow, how could I have ever DOUBTED YOU GUYS?
........AND SO THAT must ALSO mean that my local and state weather people must have been wrong when they said that the Gulf of Mexico water had been at a record high temperature this summer. WOW, they also must have been in on the disinformation campaign by the EVIL Cabal. And the country of Australia must be in on the lies, when they say that the coral on the great barrier reef are dying. What an enormous plot. And hurricane IAN did NOT CAUSE the most damage for a hurricane to the US, EVER. Wow, those lies just go on and on.
.......I am SO VERY glad that we have experts here in TVLand to help me understand all this confusion. And I bet that there really has NOT been an increase in CO2 in seawater in recent years.
........I am so relieved that I won't have to worry about Fl summer being too hot, I can save on A/C costs. And Fl or the US won't have ANY KILLER hurricanes this summer and autumn. Golly gee whiz, Batman, I am so relieved !!!!!

The 99% number is wrong, ass well.

What that number means is that 97% (or 99%) of the scientists REFERRED to papers claiming climate change, possible only in their footnotes. NOT that they agreed with the findings...

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes "common knowledge" to the uneducated...

No, as to your feeble attempt to draw conclusions from my statement about the 97/99% number? It's what you do.

News readers read what is put in front of them. I can show you videos of multiple talking heads repeating the EXACT SAME WORDS in an incorrect talking point. It happens all the time... Unfortunately, the gullible fall for it...

[fdpaq0580]

Well, it is OVER 99% in the 2021 study to be more precise. And I am being told to believe a non-scientist over my lying eyes that see the same thing every time that I Google it. I guess Google and ALL the world's scientists have formed some sort of EVIL cabal to prevent the earth's inhabitants from learning the TRUTH......... that Global Warming does NOT exist and these dastardly lies can be corrected if we just listen to a few people at our local TV Land that know more than the combined wisdom of All the earth's scientists. Wow, how could I have ever DOUBTED YOU GUYS?
........AND SO THAT must ALSO mean that my local and state weather people must have been wrong when they said that the Gulf of Mexico water had been at a record high temperature this summer. WOW, they also must have been in on the disinformation campaign by the EVIL Cabal. And the country of Australia must be in on the lies, when they say that the coral on the great barrier reef are dying. What an enormous plot. And hurricane IAN did NOT CAUSE the most damage for a hurricane to the US, EVER. Wow, those lies just go on and on.
.......I am SO VERY glad that we have experts here in TVLand to help me understand all this confusion. And I bet that there really has NOT been an increase in CO2 in seawater in recent years.
........I am so relieved that I won't have to worry about Fl summer being too hot, I can save on A/C costs. And Fl or the US won't have ANY KILLER hurricanes this summer and autumn. Golly gee whiz, Batman, I am so relieved !!!!!

(Psst. You are correct. The deniers are wrong. Their cult will find any obscure, misleading, or invented phony facts or use any convoluted false logic to avoid having to face and accept the truth. They can't handle the truth. Reality of the worlds health as a result of human overpopulation and habitat destruction should be of great concern to everyone. But the deniers won't break step with their dogma. They will stay the course and never, ever take an honest look at, or honestly evaluate anything that doesn't support the cult agenda. They will never run out of arguments because they can make it up as they go along.
Don't be down hearted. Don't dispare. There are more like you, who know and try to spread truth. Many,many more.
Just thought you should know.)

[fdpaq0580]

ass well.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes "common knowledge" to the uneducated...

News readers read what is put in front of them. I can show you videos of multiple talking heads repeating the EXACT SAME WORDS in an incorrect talking point. It happens all the time... Unfortunately, the gullible fall for it...

OMG! My thoughts, exactly.

[JMintzer]

Well, it is OVER 99% in the 2021 study to be more precise. And I am being told to believe a non-scientist over my lying eyes that see the same thing every time that I Google it. I guess Google and ALL the world's scientists have formed some sort of EVIL cabal to prevent the earth's inhabitants from learning the TRUTH......... that Global Warming does NOT exist and these dastardly lies can be corrected if we just listen to a few people at our local TV Land that know more than the combined wisdom of All the earth's scientists. Wow, how could I have ever DOUBTED YOU GUYS?
........AND SO THAT must ALSO mean that my local and state weather people must have been wrong when they said that the Gulf of Mexico water had been at a record high temperature this summer. WOW, they also must have been in on the disinformation campaign by the EVIL Cabal. And the country of Australia must be in on the lies, when they say that the coral on the great barrier reef are dying. What an enormous plot. And hurricane IAN did NOT CAUSE the most damage for a hurricane to the US, EVER. Wow, those lies just go on and on.
.......I am SO VERY glad that we have experts here in TVLand to help me understand all this confusion. And I bet that there really has NOT been an increase in CO2 in seawater in recent years.
........I am so relieved that I won't have to worry about Fl summer being too hot, I can save on A/C costs. And Fl or the US won't have ANY KILLER hurricanes this summer and autumn. Golly gee whiz, Batman, I am so relieved !!!!!

You keep talking about Ian, what about all the other "killer" hurricanes that never strike land? That's what happens to most of them... Did you know that there were 14 named storms last year? 8 of them were hurricanes.

How many of them struck land? You have no idea, but you keep beating the "Ian the KILLER Hurricane" drum...

Oh, and what's this? 2022's hurricane season was LOWER than expected?

But that's unpossible! Everyone knows hurricanes are getting more frequent. Ian proved that, right? WRONG...

2022 Atlantic hurricane season ends, breaking the six-year streak of above-normal seasons - WUFT News (https://www.wuft.org/news/2022/11/30/2022-atlantic-hurricane-season-ends-breaking-the-six-year-streak-of-above-normal-seasons/)

And Australia's Barrier reef? It's actually GROWING...

They've just had the LARGEST amount of growth in the last 36 years...

Parts of Australia'''s Great Barrier Reef show highest coral cover in 36 years | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/parts-australias-great-barrier-reef-show-highest-coral-cover-36-years-2022-08-04/)

Yes, this past summer was hotter than normal. But the summer of 2021 was milder than normal... Go figure...

[JMintzer]

OMG! My thoughts, exactly.

Then stop falling for it! :D

[golfing eagles]

Well, it is OVER 99% in the 2021 study to be more precise. And I am being told to believe a non-scientist over my lying eyes that see the same thing every time that I Google it. I guess Google and ALL the world's scientists have formed some sort of EVIL cabal to prevent the earth's inhabitants from learning the TRUTH......... that Global Warming does NOT exist and these dastardly lies can be corrected if we just listen to a few people at our local TV Land that know more than the combined wisdom of All the earth's scientists. Wow, how could I have ever DOUBTED YOU GUYS?
........AND SO THAT must ALSO mean that my local and state weather people must have been wrong when they said that the Gulf of Mexico water had been at a record high temperature this summer. WOW, they also must have been in on the disinformation campaign by the EVIL Cabal. And the country of Australia must be in on the lies, when they say that the coral on the great barrier reef are dying. What an enormous plot. And hurricane IAN did NOT CAUSE the most damage for a hurricane to the US, EVER. Wow, those lies just go on and on.
.......I am SO VERY glad that we have experts here in TVLand to help me understand all this confusion. And I bet that there really has NOT been an increase in CO2 in seawater in recent years.
........I am so relieved that I won't have to worry about Fl summer being too hot, I can save on A/C costs. And Fl or the US won't have ANY KILLER hurricanes this summer and autumn. Golly gee whiz, Batman, I am so relieved !!!!!

One might consider removing the erroneous, insane and woke filters from their google search engine :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[nick demis]

Check out talks by John Shewchuk if you want facts instead of bias politics.

[Taltarzac725]

Check out talks by John Shewchuk if you want facts instead of bias politics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/_climatecraze

These do not look like facts. Just the opposite.

[Taltarzac725]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

I would expect NASA wants to get the facts as they are sending people into the upper atmosphere.

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/)

[golfing eagles]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

I would expect NASA wants to get the facts as they are sending people into the upper atmosphere.

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/)

Of course, what NASA knows and what NASA tells us may be two vastly different things. Remember who funds NASA.

[fdpaq0580]

Of course, what NASA knows and what NASA tells us may be two vastly different things. Remember who funds NASA.

Oh, oh! Don't shine the light on the conspiracy or our reptilian overlords may come abduct you. 😉

[Taltarzac725]

Oh, oh! Don't shine the light on the conspiracy or our reptilian overlords may come abduct you. 😉

There is no conspiracy about admitting Global Warming. Now there is one about denying it. Snake oil sales people and their ilk seem to be the driving force. People making money off if it.

[golfing eagles]

There is no conspiracy about admitting Global Warming. Now there is one about denying it. Snake oil sales people and their ilk seem to be the driving force. People making money off if it.

There is no debate about global warming. The Earth has been warming for the last 23,000 years, as it has done 44 previous times in the last 4 1/2 million years. The debate is whether or not human activity has anything to do with it. Given the time frame, and considering we have only burned fossil fuels for the last 200 years, the obvious conclusion is NO. My question is (will be), when the Earth cools again, as it has done 44 times prior in the same 4 1/2 million years, will that also be the fault of human activity?

In addition, there need not be any "conspiracy" to hide the truth that anthropomorphic climate change is a myth. People and organizations will simply say and do what is in their own self-interest, which in this case is to go along with the current political climate agenda, even though they know it is a lie.

[sounding]

Of course, what NASA knows and what NASA tells us may be two vastly different things. Remember who funds NASA.

NASA corrupts temperature data just like NOAA does ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWBZhd5Yc2g

[Bill14564]

There is no debate about global warming. The Earth has been warming for the last 23,000 years, as it has done 44 previous times in the last 4 1/2 million years. The debate is whether or not human activity has anything to do with it. Given the time frame, and considering we have only burned fossil fuels for the last 200 years, the obvious conclusion is NO. My question is (will be), when the Earth cools again, as it has done 44 times prior in the same 4 1/2 million years, will that also be the fault of human activity?

In addition, there need not be any "conspiracy" to hide the truth that anthropomorphic climate change is a myth. People and organizations will simply say and do what is in their own self-interest, which in this case is to go along with the current political climate agenda, even though they know it is a lie.

There have been clouds in the skies since the earth began. The debate is whether or not human activity has anything to do with it. Given the time frame and considering we have only burned fossil fuels for the last 200 year, the obvious conclusion is the human activity DOES NOT contribute to the smog in California.

The debate is not whether the earth is warming (well, except for sounding who only accepts it occasionally and even then argues that it is cooling), the debate is whether human activities are accelerating the warming. "the truth that anthropomorphic climate change is a myth" is an opinion shared by some and not a fact. The fact is that some large percentage of published science shows human activity *DOES* contribute to warming. Another fact is climate change deniers have concocted some elaborate conspiracy theories to dismiss the published science rather than producing papers that dispute it.

[golfing eagles]

There have been clouds in the skies since the earth began. The debate is whether or not human activity has anything to do with it. Given the time frame and considering we have only burned fossil fuels for the last 200 year, the obvious conclusion is the human activity DOES NOT contribute to the smog in California.

The debate is not whether the earth is warming (well, except for sounding who only accepts it occasionally and even then argues that it is cooling), the debate is whether human activities are accelerating the warming. "the truth that anthropomorphic climate change is a myth" is an opinion shared by some and not a fact. The fact is that some large percentage of published science shows human activity *DOES* contribute to warming. Another fact is climate change deniers have concocted some elaborate conspiracy theories to dismiss the published science rather than producing papers that dispute it.

No, the obvious conclusion is that analogy sucks. What does smog---fog and low lying clouds contaminated by smoke/air pollution--- have to do with naturally occurring pure water vapor that forms clouds? And what does any of that have to do with global warming?

The equivalent analogy would have been : (IF) Smog has come and gone 45 times in the past 4 1/2 million years, then clearly it has nothing to do with human activity.

[Bill14564]

No, the obvious conclusion is that analogy sucks. What does smog---fog and low lying clouds contaminated by smoke/air pollution--- have to do with naturally occurring pure water vapor that forms clouds? And what does any of that have to do with global warming?

The equivalent analogy would have been : (IF) Smog has come and gone 45 times in the past 4 1/2 million years, then clearly it has nothing to do with human activity.

Smoke/air pollution increasing the density of the naturally occurring clouds and CO2 and other greenhouse gases contributing to an atmospheric shield that may be increasing the rate of naturally occurring warming. Yeah, nothing similar there.

Again, except for sounding, the debate is not about the fact of warming. The debate is about human activities causing an increase in the rate of warming. The argument for seems to be based on science and data while the argument against seems to be based on denial and conspiracy.

I don't know which is more correct, I only know which is more convincing.

[sounding]

No, the obvious conclusion is that analogy sucks. What does smog---fog and low lying clouds contaminated by smoke/air pollution--- have to do with naturally occurring pure water vapor that forms clouds? And what does any of that have to do with global warming?

The equivalent analogy would have been : (IF) Smog has come and gone 45 times in the past 4 1/2 million years, then clearly it has nothing to do with human activity.

Ditto. If climate alarmism was true, then we would not be in a 7-year cooling trend, and there would be no need for Gore to on childish rant ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pReLPjXgBs

[golfing eagles]

Smoke/air pollution increasing the density of the naturally occurring clouds and CO2 and other greenhouse gases contributing to an atmospheric shield that may be increasing the rate of naturally occurring warming. Yeah, nothing similar there.

Again, except for sounding, the debate is not about the fact of warming. The debate is about human activities causing an increase in the rate of warming. The argument for seems to be based on science and data while the argument against seems to be based on denial and conspiracy.

I don't know which is more correct, I only know which is more convincing.

I don't know either, nobody does and that has been my point all along. We simply don't have enough data over a long enough period of time to draw any conclusions. Some posters want to extrapolate the last 120 years, some 30 years, some 7 years and the worst outlier is extrapolating one single hurricane. But even at 120 years all we are talking about is WEATHER, not CLIMATE.

Is human activity responsible for the last 23,000 years of global warming---obviously not, only a fool would think so.
Is current human activity increasing the rate of warming? MAYBE, but again the data hasn't been collected for long enough. The worst is that our scientists know this is inadequate data but since they must either "publish or perish, they publish. What do they publish? What the powers that be want to hear. I would not want to be a climatologist who applies for a federal grant to fund his study on the premise that human activity does not affect global warming at all. Two words describe that endeavor-----APPLICATION DENIED. Nor would I want to be on the faculty of a major university applying for tenure but be a so-called "climate change denier"---again, APPLICATION DENIED. On the other hand, if you propose a grant for a study showing that humans have altered the planet's temperature so drastically that the sky is falling (or perhaps on fire like Irwin Allen's movie of "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"), then they will hand you money hand over fist and laud you as the greatest climate scientist that ever lived. Can anyone spell B-I-A-S???????

[Bill14564]

I don't know either, nobody does and that has been my point all along. We simply don't have enough data over a long enough period of time to draw any conclusions. Some posters want to extrapolate the last 120 years, some 30 years, some 7 years and the worst outlier is extrapolating one single hurricane. But even at 120 years all we are talking about is WEATHER, not CLIMATE.

Is human activity responsible for the last 23,000 years of global warming---obviously not, only a fool would think so.
Is current human activity increasing the rate of warming? MAYBE, but again the data hasn't been collected for long enough. The worst is that our scientists know this is inadequate data but since they must either "publish or perish, they publish. What do they publish? What the powers that be want to hear. I would not want to be a climatologist who applies for a federal grant to fund his study on the premise that human activity does not affect global warming at all. Two words describe that endeavor-----APPLICATION DENIED. Nor would I want to be on the faculty of a major university applying for tenure but be a so-called "climate change denier"---again, APPLICATION DENIED. On the other hand, if you propose a grant for a study showing that humans have altered the planet's temperature so drastically that the sky is falling (or perhaps on fire like Irwin Allen's movie of "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"), then they will hand you money hand over fist and laud you as the greatest climate scientist that ever lived. Can anyone spell B-I-A-S???????

Backed up with data or simply theory?

As I mentioned a while ago, it is interesting (to me at least) how similar that argument is to those made by the COVID deniers and vaccine deniers. If you wanted money from the government then you had to be pro-vaccine and all studies/reports/data/proof of alternative treatments (Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin) were censored so it is no wonder that only studies in support of the mRNA vaccines were published. Yes, I know, that is because the experts in the field understand virology and epidemiology and the science should be left to them. I suspect the degreed climatologists might feel the same way.

[Whitley]

4 1/2 million years?
Now we are going back before even my time!
200 years of records still beats 7 to show a trend in my book.
The planet is getting warmer without a doubt. Even in my short time in the world, the climate has changed.
Man made?
I lean on the 'not' side in that argument, but the jury is still out on that discussion, and none of the opinionated on TOTV will ever hear the official verdict.

not going to take a side, but following your view what do you propose be done?

[Whitley]

One might consider removing the erroneous, insane and woke filters from their google search engine :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

How would One know what to think then?:shocked: I guess one could always watch the View.

[Whitley]

https://mobile.twitter.com/_climatecraze

These do not look like facts. Just the opposite.

Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM).
Member: CO2 Coalition.
Lt Col, USAF Retired, Advanced Weather Officer.
Creator of the RAOB Program.

Seems qualified. I mean, he is no Greta Thunberg, but he is qualified to have a voice.

[Two Bills]

not going to take a side, but following your view what do you propose be done?

As I said, there is no doubt the climate is changing.
My 'opinion' is it is a natural change, not man made.
Can I prove it? Of course not, any more than any other opinion.
What do I propose should be done?
Get on with the remaining years I have left.
Doesn't hurt to clean the environment along the way, which has been done since I was a kid.
Air pollution, river cleanliness, car emissions etc are a thousand times better in the 80+ years I have lived, yet enough will never be enough for the fanatics.

[Whitley]

As I said, there is no doubt the climate is changing.
My 'opinion' is it is a natural change, not man made.
Can I prove it? Of course not, any more than any other opinion.
What do I propose should be done?
Get on with the remaining years I have left.
Doesn't hurt to clean the environment along the way, which has been done since I was a kid.
Air pollution, river cleanliness, car emissions etc are a thousand times better in the 80+ years I have lived, yet enough will never be enough for the fanatics.

Sounds reasonable to me. The US seems to be moving in the right direction. We have more forestland now that we did 100 years ago. Let's keep moving in the right direction.

[jimjamuser]

(Psst. You are correct. The deniers are wrong. Their cult will find any obscure, misleading, or invented phony facts or use any convoluted false logic to avoid having to face and accept the truth. They can't handle the truth. Reality of the worlds health as a result of human overpopulation and habitat destruction should be of great concern to everyone. But the deniers won't break step with their dogma. They will stay the course and never, ever take an honest look at, or honestly evaluate anything that doesn't support the cult agenda. They will never run out of arguments because they can make it up as they go along.
Don't be down hearted. Don't dispare. There are more like you, who know and try to spread truth. Many,many more.
Just thought you should know.)
Thanks, I have given it a good old "college try" and I have no serious megaphone. I feel a little like the main lady in the movie "Aliens" when she asks, "Have IQs fallen recently here on Earth".

[golfing eagles]

Thanks, I have given it a good old "college try" and I have no serious megaphone. I feel a little like the main lady in the movie "Aliens" when she asks, "Have IQs fallen recently here on Earth".

I have often wondered why climate change advocates are so unwilling to admit that we just don't know enough, or have enough long term data to know for sure.
I suspect it is because their fearless leaders---the ones with an agenda----send forth their minions to "spread the word" like good little woke soldiers, ignorant of what they are espousing or the true purpose of this nonsense. Or maybe they have an inkling, but are hoping to get a few crumbs off the table of the masters who stand to rake in trillions on this fraud they are perpetuating on the world.

[jimjamuser]

One might consider removing the erroneous, insane and woke filters from their google search engine :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
"WOKE", now that IS a cute word. I have been hearing that used a lot "in the potholes of their minds". I wonder....if an Englishman was WOKE, would he/she be a WOKE / BLOKE known to STROKE and SMOKE COKE while he would GLOTE about the prowess of his GOAT that was known to EMOTE from an island REMOTE and in the sun, they would SOAK ?
Truthfully, I say unto you......the world needs to WOKE up to the REALITIES of Global Warming and the associated human population increases...... before we-all WOKE up back into a neanderthal era. We will be using our rusting 7 and 9 irons to fight off the coyotes and wolves that are the only other creatures surviving !

[golfing eagles]

"WOKE", now that IS a cute word. I have been hearing that used a lot "in the potholes of their minds". I wonder....if an Englishman was WOKE, would he/she be a WOKE / BLOKE known to STROKE and SMOKE COKE while he would GLOTE about the prowess of his GOAT that was known to EMOTE from an island REMOTE and in the sun, they would SOAK ?
Truthfully, I say unto you......the world needs to WOKE up to the REALITIES of Global Warming and the associated human population increases...... before we-all WOKE up back into a neanderthal era. We will be using our rusting 7 and 9 irons to fight off the coyotes and wolves that are the only other creatures surviving !

Wow---you're a poet and didn't knowit.

and we're more likely to be fighting off cockroaches than wolves.:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[jimjamuser]

Smoke/air pollution increasing the density of the naturally occurring clouds and CO2 and other greenhouse gases contributing to an atmospheric shield that may be increasing the rate of naturally occurring warming. Yeah, nothing similar there.

Again, except for sounding, the debate is not about the fact of warming. The debate is about human activities causing an increase in the rate of warming. The argument for seems to be based on science and data while the argument against seems to be based on denial and conspiracy.

I don't know which is more correct, I only know which is more convincing.
Good post.

[jimjamuser]

not going to take a side, but following your view what do you propose be done?
Simple ......buy an E-bike and an Electric car. WE have been talking about that starting 8 pages ago.

[jimjamuser]

Sounds reasonable to me. The US seems to be moving in the right direction. We have more forestland now that we did 100 years ago. Let's keep moving in the right direction.
How is it that the US has more forestland than "ever" after the whole West burned down for the last 2 years? Maybe we have a lot of forestlands, but only the seeds left over from the fire are starting to grow. And last I heard plant seeds do NOT remove much CO2 from the atmosphere.

[golfing eagles]

Simple ......buy an E-bike and an Electric car. WE have been talking about that starting 8 pages ago.

Actually, the best independent climatologists state that if humans have any effect on the climate, it is simply to delay the next period of glaciation by about 5,000 years, and even that is mainly due to the rise of agriculture in Asia starting about 8,000 BC. So by fighting "global warming", you are hastening the glaciers. Personally, I'd rather put on # 700 sunblock and bask on my new beachfront property here in The Villages than be crushed by 2 miles of ice.

[jimjamuser]

I have often wondered why climate change advocates are so unwilling to admit that we just don't know enough, or have enough long term data to know for sure.
I suspect it is because their fearless leaders---the ones with an agenda----send forth their minions to "spread the word" like good little woke soldiers, ignorant of what they are espousing or the true purpose of this nonsense. Or maybe they have an inkling, but are hoping to get a few crumbs off the table of the masters who stand to rake in trillions on this fraud they are perpetuating on the world.
I hope some people are getting paid as oil and gas lobbyists because they are certainly working hard to spread those, "greater tidings of joy".

[jimjamuser]

Wow---you're a poet and didn't knowit.

and we're more likely to be fighting off cockroaches than wolves.:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
If the roaches start evolving larger to the size of wolves and then both wolves and humans are toast.

[jimjamuser]

Actually, the best independent climatologists state that if humans have any effect on the climate, it is simply to delay the next period of glaciation by about 5,000 years, and even that is mainly due to the rise of agriculture in Asia starting about 8,000 BC. So by fighting "global warming", you are hastening the glaciers. Personally, I'd rather put on # 700 sunblock and bask on my new beachfront property here in The Villages than be crushed by 2 miles of ice.
I am more interested in E-Vehicles than Paleontology.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I am more interested in E-Vehicles than Paleontology.

Until they make AFFORDABLE electric vehicles that can go from here to South of the Border on a single charge, I'll stick with my gas-powered car. Right now I believe Tesla is the only company that makes long-distance e-vehicles and the Model S tops out at just under 400 miles, for $95,000. Also I'd much prefer relying on a gas golf cart, in an area like this where you can lose electricity for an hour if the wind's blowing the wrong way (I have never experienced SO many outages in my life). I can take my golf cart around 200 miles before I need more gas, and that's around 3-4 weeks.

Using 5 gallons of gas every 3-4 weeks is a reasonable use of gasoline, in my opinion. It takes me around that long to need a fill-up in my car, as well, except when I drive to my parents' house every other month. Also reasonable.

A way to REDUCE gas use is to INCREASE car-pooling options for businesses, increasing electric-powered bus service in and out of more populated areas, giving tax breaks for businesses that are located in or near populated areas and provide bicycle racks (such as supermarkets, fast food joints, and so on).

No one should feel shamed for owning a gas fueled vehicle. But we can all contribute to a more ecologically-friendly use of them.

[Taltarzac725]

If the roaches start evolving larger to the size of wolves and then both wolves and humans are toast.

New dinosaur-age cockroaches discovered - Big Think (https://bigthink.com/life/ancient-cockroaches/)

Cockroaches have been around a long time but the science of them looks to be in a jumble. Just how long have they been around? 300 million years? Longer? Shorter. Cockroach Facts: 10 Facinating Facts about Roaches (https://www.pestworld.org/news-hub/pest-articles/fascinating-cockroach-facts/)

It does not look like they were ever that big.

[sounding]

I am more interested in E-Vehicles than Paleontology.

As you requested ...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

As you requested ...

Manipulative, and unsubstantiated. Here's the actual article: Norwegian Shipping Company Bans Electrified Vehicles Over Fire Fears | Carscoops (https://www.carscoops.com/2023/01/norwegian-shipping-company-bans-electrified-vehicles-over-fire-fears/)

It's not that the risk is too great for EVs. But rather - the company is better able to put out fires caused by gasoline, rather than EV, hydrogen, or hybrids. In addition, the ship that sank had both EVs and gas-powered vehicles on board, and the cause of the fire that sank it was not determined to be EVs, specifically.

[sounding]

Manipulative, and unsubstantiated. Here's the actual article: Norwegian Shipping Company Bans Electrified Vehicles Over Fire Fears | Carscoops (https://www.carscoops.com/2023/01/norwegian-shipping-company-bans-electrified-vehicles-over-fire-fears/)

It's not that the risk is too great for EVs. But rather - the company is better able to put out fires caused by gasoline, rather than EV, hydrogen, or hybrids. In addition, the ship that sank had both EVs and gas-powered vehicles on board, and the cause of the fire that sank it was not determined to be EVs, specifically.

I have no problem with those who want to buy experimental cars -- I just have a problem with freedom loving people being forced to subsidize those purchases -- and making poorer people poorer.

[jimjamuser]

Until they make AFFORDABLE electric vehicles that can go from here to South of the Border on a single charge, I'll stick with my gas-powered car. Right now I believe Tesla is the only company that makes long-distance e-vehicles and the Model S tops out at just under 400 miles, for $95,000. Also I'd much prefer relying on a gas golf cart, in an area like this where you can lose electricity for an hour if the wind's blowing the wrong way (I have never experienced SO many outages in my life). I can take my golf cart around 200 miles before I need more gas, and that's around 3-4 weeks.

Using 5 gallons of gas every 3-4 weeks is a reasonable use of gasoline, in my opinion. It takes me around that long to need a fill-up in my car, as well, except when I drive to my parents' house every other month. Also reasonable.

A way to REDUCE gas use is to INCREASE car-pooling options for businesses, increasing electric-powered bus service in and out of more populated areas, giving tax breaks for businesses that are located in or near populated areas and provide bicycle racks (such as supermarkets, fast food joints, and so on).

No one should feel shamed for owning a gas fueled vehicle. But we can all contribute to a more ecologically-friendly use of them.
Here are 2 things that MOST people don't know about Electrical motors in general - they turn in a circular motion - unlike gas motors that have pistons that FLAIL up and down BEFORE they can get energy turned into circular motion by an inefficient thing called a flywheel and a fluid or disc clutch
........Most vehicle gas motors use up and down pistons (VW and Porshe used to use horizontal pistons), which make their center of gravity higher than electrical motors which have a lower center of gravity and their batteries are lower and also help keep the center of gravity low. A low center of Gravity is desirable for EVERYTHING that a vehicle (car, truck, or golf cart) does - makes for better accelerating and decelerating (also helped by braking force by the motor acting as a generator) (Prius does that also). Low center allows a vehicle to corner better.
........Low center of gravity is especially important to Golf Carts.........because we ALL know how many of them roll over.......and imagine how many more roll over in hilly northern states. Farm tractors have a high center of gravity and we know how much they roll over. Riding lawnmowers would have a lower center of gravity if Electric. The E-Advantages are numerous and massive.
...........The bottom line is that E-vehicles have so MANY engineering advantages and they will come down in price with more PRODUCTION. The bottom line is that in 5 to 10 years there will NO LONGER be debate and you and I and everyone in the 1st world countries will be OWNING E-vehicles. Gas ICE will slowly phase out.

[sounding]

Here are 2 things that MOST people don't know about Electrical motors in general - they turn in a circular motion - unlike gas motors that have pistons that FLAIL up and down BEFORE they can get energy turned into circular motion by an inefficient thing called a flywheel and a fluid or disc clutch
........Most vehicle gas motors use up and down pistons (VW and Porshe used to use horizontal pistons), which make their center of gravity higher than electrical motors which have a lower center of gravity and their batteries are lower and also help keep the center of gravity low. A low center of Gravity is desirable for EVERYTHING that a vehicle (car, truck, or golf cart) does - makes for better accelerating and decelerating (also helped by braking force by the motor acting as a generator) (Prius does that also). Low center allows a vehicle to corner better.
........Low center of gravity is especially important to Golf Carts.........because we ALL know how many of them roll over.......and imagine how many more roll over in hilly northern states. Farm tractors have a high center of gravity and we know how much they roll over. Riding lawnmowers would have a lower center of gravity if Electric. The E-Advantages are numerous and massive.
...........The bottom line is that E-vehicles have so MANY engineering advantages and they will come down in price with more PRODUCTION. The bottom line is that in 5 to 10 years there will NO LONGER be debate and you and I and everyone in the 1st world countries will be OWNING E-vehicles. Gas ICE will slowly phase out.

The EV shadow -- ... Here's What It Takes To Recycle 1 EV Battery - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Sj5hI_IiQ7A)

[jimjamuser]

New dinosaur-age cockroaches discovered - Big Think (https://bigthink.com/life/ancient-cockroaches/)

Cockroaches have been around a long time but the science of them looks to be in a jumble. Just how long have they been around? 300 million years? Longer? Shorter. Cockroach Facts: 10 Facinating Facts about Roaches (https://www.pestworld.org/news-hub/pest-articles/fascinating-cockroach-facts/)

It does not look like they were ever that big.
That reminds me that dolphins also seem to have sprung up suddenly in prehistoric time scales. Now I remember that back from college so, no one jump to hissy fits if that has changed .....I am just throwing it out for anyone that is interested in researching it. That is my disclaimer and I am sticking to it.

[jimjamuser]

As you requested ...
A big "F" deal because obviously battery technology is going to improve. Remember that some US cities banned automobiles because they backfired and scared horses. Life is a SERIES of progressive steps. What am I .......teaching grade schoolers?

[jimjamuser]

I have no problem with those who want to buy experimental cars -- I just have a problem with freedom loving people being forced to subsidize those purchases -- and making poorer people poorer.
An E-bike would make poor people richer because they could commute further and thus have a greater AREA to hunt for a better job ........as opposed to being confined to walking or a standard bike.

[golfing eagles]

I am more interested in E-Vehicles than Paleontology.

But if you were familiar with the latter, you wouldn't want the former.

[sounding]

An E-bike would make poor people richer because they could commute further and thus have a greater AREA to hunt for a better job ........as opposed to being confined to walking or a standard bike.

This is all a diversion from the single most important question ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE6rAWcjTyw

[JMintzer]

How is it that the US has more forestland than "ever" after the whole West burned down for the last 2 years? Maybe we have a lot of forestlands, but only the seeds left over from the fire are starting to grow. And last I heard plant seeds do NOT remove much CO2 from the atmosphere.

Many trees REQUIRE fire to reproduce, thus replenishing and improving the forests...

How Trees Survive and Thrive After A Fire - National Forest Foundation (https://www.nationalforests.org/our-forests/your-national-forests-magazine/how-trees-survive-and-thrive-after-a-fire)

[Taltarzac725]

That reminds me that dolphins also seem to have sprung up suddenly in prehistoric time scales. Now I remember that back from college so, no one jump to hissy fits if that has changed .....I am just throwing it out for anyone that is interested in researching it. That is my disclaimer and I am sticking to it.

Evolution of Dolphins - microbewiki (https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Evolution_of_Dolphins)

Their knowledge base changes with new discoveries and the like.

Same with Global Warming except it is moving to the future with changes in the environment which need hypotheses and sound reasoning based on those facts. And the introduction over the past however years with computer data about the weather.