2020 Elections

[SOL]

[/quote]
I totally agree climate alarmism is a huge problem. I'm reading a book called apocalypse never that's written by a former climate dude and he makes the point beautifully. Also, my daughter, who is a Phd at MIT in mechanical engineering told me... pretty much the way to get your research project funded is to tie it in some way to climate change. Doesn't matter if you're a biologist or a physicist. And I think that is true - if you follow the money it makes sense that scientists are LOOKING for climate change and there WILL be confirmation bias in the scientific community.

I really wish there were a way these issues were debated in a way understandable to layman. I resisted that climate change is happening and finally grudgingly admitted it probably is and it is probably caused by man because so many scientists seem so damn sure. I do TRY to believe science and much smarter dudes than me believe it's true so I have to at least try to respect their point of view.

My standard argument (rather than try to debate whether it's happening) has become: If you insist climate change is happening and is caused by man because "science" then the next words out of your mouth better be "nuclear". Because if your solution is wind & solar or carbon tax or EVs you just lost your scientific credibility with me. I'm not saying solar and wind can't be part of the solution. But as A recent WSJ article stated, the overwhelmingly obvious answer to give renewable energy to the world on the scale it needs is nuclear https://www.wsj.com/articles/only-nucle ... 1547225861
[/quote]

Everything is pre-planned by the top elite players, the shadowy players you never see but one can see their movements if one is bias-free. The best way to deal with this is to understand what will be will be. The idea is not to fight trends for trends are unstoppable whether they are good or bad and from the 4th level perspective, there is no such thing as good or bad unless they involve going against cosmic laws and most top players never go against cosmic laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdhAfMor9BM

Life just is, humans are the ones that add colour to any situation

[buzz]

I am not a climate change believer, but I picked up Bill Gate's book on the impending climate change disaster to understand from an observer point of view and to see how to profit from it . Bill clearly states that wind and solar alone will not solve the problem. From his viewpoint, to have a net zero carbon footprint requires nuclear. I am sure he will get his green community to follow and his investment in nuclear will payoff. He is invested into this company - TerraPower https://www.terrapower.com/, which promises small scale nuclear plants. Worth following.

[AstuteShift]

I am not a climate change believer, but I picked up Bill Gate's book on the impending climate change disaster to understand from an observer point of view and to see how to profit from it . Bill clearly states that wind and solar alone will not solve the problem. From his viewpoint, to have a net zero carbon footprint requires nuclear. I am sure he will get his green community to follow and his investment in nuclear will payoff. He is invested into this company - TerraPower https://www.terrapower.com/, which promises small scale nuclear plants. Worth following.

He has been relentless with his marketing, however I’m wondering when will the top shadow players chop off his head. So far Bezos stepped down and Buffet is too old for anything. Elon is just another popular version of Gates but even he will experience pain.

[a_p]

Seems to me that arguing climate change isn't caused by humans is like arguing that smoking isn't detrimental to health. And it's been argued plenty. People were saying that it's just some X factor, possibly genetic, that predisposes people to like smoking AND cause all those health problems. So it's correlation, you see, not causation...

Vested interests will pull out every stop to try and protect their bottom line, including everyone's favorite approach of pushing absence of evidence for evidence of absence, or giving counter examples like: look, my grandma smokes and she's 105.

The changes that we're introducing to the environment are MASSIVE. Global temperature shift that used to take a million years, took place in 150 years.
So the burden of proof is on those who are introducing the changes to prove that it's not affecting climate, rather than the other way around.

And yes, the planet has been much hotter before, you know, before there were any coastal cities, and before we had population and economies that are so fragile that any slight tip can cause a global crisis.

[Eric]

Global temperature shift that used to take a million years, took place in 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

[SOL]

most people might not like to hear this, but humans have an innate nature to take something beautiful and destroy it. So how do you resolve this, well like the markets the planet will adjust, It is said that 99% of all species are extinct. If that is true it's just a matter of time before Mother Nature starts to deal with pesky humans.

The joke is that humans think they can take out mother nature, she has been here for billions of years just as this planet has.

Another thing nobody talks about is population control. The poorest of the poor have more children than the richest of the rich, it makes no sense, but if strict birth control measures were introduced, this one single development would have the largest impact on global warming. Plot a chart and see how the planet became more polluted as the number of humans started to rise. There will be a reset and mother nature will win, so it's up to humans to fix things or be taken care of. AI is gaining traction very fast, so our replacements could be here faster than most expect and then global warming will be a non-event


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiBzbY-Gz0o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sP291B7SCw

[Alykin]

How does one ignore the multitude of measurements showing arctic avg temps up, ice caps melting and sea levels rising, jet streams becoming less stable? Low coastal city streets are flooding at high tide more often now than when they were built.

There's money on both sides of the argument, but I can't imagine the majority of scientists can be bought out given it's a field that attracts those that like to learn and experiment, not just make money. Faulty data can lead to faulty conclusions, but that fixes itself with more measurements over time and it appears that the extreme cycles are getting more so, not less.

It's debatable how much human activity has impacted the climate, but the earth is ever changing and it seems to be in a stage of accelerated change, at least from a planet's timescale perspective. To ignore it seems folly, but it's also human nature to need to experience the pain first before adjusting to reduce it. There's too many people who haven't personally had to much trouble as a result of it yet, so we continue on as is.

I don't necessarily think we should be trying to stop or reverse it, but if we can pave entire regions and level thousands of miles of forests, I think humans can find ways to reduce extreme climate events as well given our resourcefulness. We also need to understand how much will things change and what preparations can we make (individuals and entire cities, varies by location) to best survive and thrive through it over the next centuries/millennia, while making reasonable efforts to stabilize things to give us more time to make said preparations.

Of course there aren't enough people who think beyond their own personal gain and making investments as a society is fairly difficult in times of prosperity, especially when the ones with power don't want to deal with it.

[a_p]

The joke is that humans think they can take our mother nature, she has been here for billions of years just as this planet has.

Nobody wants to "take" mother nature, but what some people want to do is stop making it sick. Bacteria can infect a body and feed until the body can't sustain it anymore and dies. Then bacteria will die with it. And body will rot and feed some worms. So things will continue one way or the other, if you can call that "winning".

Another thing nobody talks about is population control. The poorest of the poor have more children than the richest of the rich, it makes no sense, but if strict birth control measures were introduced, this one single development would have the largest impact on global warming.

wow... this this soooo far off base... lower half of population by income produces no more than 15% of pollution. Bottom poorest 1 billion - 1%. First and second world countries are responsible for almost all of it.

You have to understand why poorest countries have many kids. They don't need strict birth control. They need to be lifted out of poverty and they will *choose* to have 2 kids that go to school rather than 6 to fetch water from a well 3 miles away and gather twigs for a fire to cook dinner on.

And another funny thing. Look at the videos related to this overpopulation video, by Hans Rosling.
If extreme poverty is ended in a few decades, population just won't grow, so there's no need to panic about overpopulation.

[stefk]

The changes that we're introducing to the environment are MASSIVE. Global temperature shift that used to take a million years, took place in 150 years.

That is brainwashing propaganda, the facts say another story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B8ll ... 8d_warming

You never heard of the bolling allerod warming? It happened 14000 years ago, we are very far from millions of years. Global warming of 7 grades in one decade !!!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B8ll ... 3%B8d).jpg

on the chart, the abscisse is in thousand years not millions. The vertical curves show massive global warming in decades, not in millions years, it happened during bolling allerod period and younger dryas period. Now, we are in the holocene, the little waves in the curve of the holocene is what you call massive temperature shift !!!!!!

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

You never heard of Milankovitch cycles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc-ZJKayhWo

Can you imagine the man acting against the eccentricity, the obliquity and the precession to fight against the climate changes?

[SOL]

wow... this this soooo far off base... lower half of population by income produces no more than 15% of pollution. Bottom poorest 1 billion - 1%. First and second world countries are responsible for almost all of it.

You have to understand why poorest countries have many kids. They don't need strict birth control. They need to be lifted out of poverty and they will *choose* to have 2 kids that go to school rather than 6 to fetch water from a well 3 miles away and gather twigs for a fire to cook dinner on.

And another funny thing. Look at the videos related to this overpopulation video, by Hans Rosling.
If extreme poverty is ended in a few decades, population just won't grow, so there's no need to panic about overpopulation.

I see I only posted half what I wrote. This is what happens when you multi-task. I am finishing the market update and typed my comments in Word and then cut and pasted them but I only posted half of what I wrote.

I will post the other half later as its on a different computer. However, on the surface without the other half some of what I posted looks harsh, so let me post the other half before putting me in front of the firing squad lol

However, the rest of the post will elaborate on what poor means and in what context it was used. Also how when the poor make it they don't necessarily help their relatives. I have seen this time and time again.

I am also not fully sold on the idea that Man is causing most of the global warming effects because the Sahara was once lush and green and now its a desert. There are many theories out there one of which is the magnetic pole effect, etc, etc . Again, depending on how the data is used one can use it say Man is causing global warming and vice versa.

In the end what stands clear is that Man is generally selfish and is only concerned with his welfare regardless of the damage it might inflict on his fellow men. There are good people but the bad far outnumber the good

[AstuteShift]

Anything pushed out by the media is usually rubbish and a detriment to your health and well being

They manipulate numbers, lie threw their teeth and are whores for money.

Personally this global warming crap is nonsense and is just covering the demand destruction process to allow the currency wars to continue

[a_p]

The changes that we're introducing to the environment are MASSIVE. Global temperature shift that used to take a million years, took place in 150 years.

That is brainwashing propaganda, the facts say another story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B8ll ... 8d_warming

You never heard of the bolling allerod warming? It happened 14000 years ago, we are very far from millions of years. Global warming of 7 grades in one decade !!!!!!!

Oh my... alright then... so I concede that I remembered a graph that was zoomed out hundreds of millions of years, so fluctuations that span thousands weren't as obvious.
My main point, however, still stands, but sure, let's all pile on that inaccuracy in order detract from that main point...lol

Yeah, bolling allerod, that's an exact type of special case I was talking about - smoking 105 year old grandma. There were special conditions, such as volcanic activity that warmed the oceans. Do we have that now?

It's funny how you're readily accept that scientists can detect these events and connect them to causes 14K years ago by looking at isotopes, but scientists that study environment right now?... well they are full of shit.

And I didn't call the temperature change massive, I said the changes we're introducing to atmosphere are massive. I guess I should have spaced those two sentences out for those who see red and charge without paying attention.

You never heard of Milankovitch cycles?

Somehow you still don't realize that these cycles are 2 orders of magnitude larger than the period where we experienced the temperature change.

And where in this cycle are we? Do you know?

Eccentricity is in the middle, closest to circular - least impactful to seasonal swings.
And obliquity, is also in the middle, and tilting away from the sun for next 10K years, which means the poles are getting less and less sun. Yet they are melting faster and faster.

It's great you can make all these references, but would be even better if you actually understood what bearing they have to the point of discussion.


And I will repeat one more time. No one may be able to prove right now beyond the shadow of doubt that our emissions are causing climate change, but absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

The point is that it's extremely plausible that we are causing it, and you can't keep your head in the sand and discount it as a coincidence, because if you're wrong, later generations will pay dearly for it.

[a_p]

Anything pushed out by the media is usually rubbish and a detriment to your health and well being

They manipulate numbers, lie threw their teeth and are whores for money.

Personally this global warming crap is nonsense and is just covering the demand destruction process to allow the currency wars to continue

Just out of curiosity. What kind of evidence would you require to accept that we are likely cause of climate change? And from who?

Your whores for money argument works exactly against you. Who's got more? Currently entrenched fossil fuel/cement/steel/farming industry or researchers working off of charity money or minuscule government grants.

[AstuteShift]

Anything pushed out by the media is usually rubbish and a detriment to your health and well being

They manipulate numbers, lie threw their teeth and are whores for money.

Personally this global warming crap is nonsense and is just covering the demand destruction process to allow the currency wars to continue

Just out of curiosity. What kind of evidence would you require to accept that we are likely cause of climate change? And from who?

Your whores for money argument works exactly against you. Who's got more? Currently entrenched fossil fuel/cement/steel/farming industry or researchers working off of charity money or minuscule government grants.

It’s a non event, all that matters is to follow the money. The FED and its friends determine what’s next and as a trend player, you only follow that bottom line.

Governments, scientists and media in general are just puppets, it’s amusing they’re pushing this agenda only to cause more demand destruction for the on going currency war

It will be even more earth shocking when the masses are hooked up to their pleasure pods and hooked up to VR and drugs.

Humans are the biggest virus on this planet, and controlling the pleasure phase is one of the key agenda while at the same time not causing a revolution.

It’s freaking genius strategy, pleasure is way more powerful than fear and this kills two birds with one stone. Follow the top players not the punching bags

So what can you do? Who do you trust?

Follow the money and capital. The trend is the only friend I trust and everything else is a foe

It may be insane but honestly who cares really what I think.

Feel free to join the masses but joining them is a recipe for disaster nor should you feel sorry for them. In the end no one has been able to wake them up and I doubt anyone can anytime soon

[Eric]

Your whores for money argument works exactly against you. Who's got more? Currently entrenched fossil fuel/cement/steel/farming industry or researchers working off of charity money or minuscule government grants.

Have you ever looked at it from the other side? What would happen if collectively "Science!" all said: "There's no global warming problem."?