GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post Reply
User avatar
gnosis12
The Journey begins
The Journey begins
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:45 am

GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by gnosis12 »

Climate change: COP26 ambitions met with skepticism after week one
The slew of commitments announced so far, touch a vast sphere of the climate crisis. From a pledge by more than 100 countries to end deforestation by 2030 to a commitment by over 40 countries to phase out the use of coal, and a pact to cut the world’s methane gas emissions by 30% by the end of the decade, the initiatives point to heightened urgency of the climate crisis.

Yet, there are no fines or penalties imposed for countries who don’t live up to their promises. Enforcement is largely voluntary. In the case of deforestation, critics point to a 2014 deforestation pledge as proof of the challenges of implementation. That agreement called for the practice to be halved by 2020, and eliminated altogether by 2030. Neither has been successful.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/climate- ... 17254.html

I will start this debate by stating that COP is going to be a colossal failure. Asia continues to build Coal-based power plants at a record pace, while here in the west we chase Solar and wind. A good option as Sol mentioned in the last update would be to use New technologies to reduce emissions in both Coal and Natural gas-powered plants. And Nuclear is another good option for the time being
User avatar
Cinnamon
Junior
Junior
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:11 pm

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by Cinnamon »

I remember reading an article last year where they posted old headlines from the New York times stating that NYC would be flooded due to global warming. A host of articles were published in the 60's and yet nothing happened. One article stated that the sea would rise 50 feet all but drowning NYC out. For the most part i think the global warming storyline pushed by the media and governments is false and they are only pushing this narrative so they can line their pockets with even more cash.

Earth has gone through such cycles before and it will continue to do so in the future long after we are all gone.

Reality would sell far fewer newspapers. Yes, global warming is a problem, but it is nowhere near a catastrophe. The IPCC estimates that the total impact of global warming by the 2070s will be equivalent to an average loss of income of 0.2-2% – similar to one recession over the next half-century. The panel also says that climate change will have a “small” economic impact compared to changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance.

And while media showcase the terrifying impacts of every hurricane, the IPCC finds that “globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in [hurricanes] to human influence.” What’s more, the number of hurricanes that make landfall in the United States has decreased, as has the number of strong hurricanes. Adjusted for population and wealth, hurricane costs show “no trend,” according to a new study published in Nature.

Another Nature study shows that although climate change will increase hurricane damage, greater wealth will make us even more resilient. Today, hurricanes cost the world 0.04% of GDP, but in 2100, even with global warming, they will cost half as much, or 0.02% of GDP. And, contrary to breathless media reports, the relative global cost of all extreme weather since 1990 has been declining, not increasing.

Perhaps even more astoundingly, the number of people dying each year from weather-related catastrophes has plummeted 95% over the past century, from almost a half-million to under 20,000 today – while the world’s population has quadrupled.

Meanwhile, decades of fearmongering have gotten us almost nowhere. What they have done is prompt grand political gestures, such as the unrealistic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that almost every country has promised under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In total, these cuts will cost $1-2 trillion per year. But the sum total of all these promises is less than 1% of what is needed, and recent analysis shows that very few countries are actually meeting their commitments.

In this regard, the young protesters have a point: the world is failing to solve climate change. But the policy being pushed – even bigger promises of faster carbon cuts – will also fail, because green energy still isn’t ready. Solar and wind currently provide less than 1% of the world’s energy, and already require subsidies of $129 billion per year. The world must invest more in green-energy research and development eventually to bring the prices of renewables below those of fossil fuels, so that everyone will switch.

In the Western world, decades of climate-change exaggeration have produced frightened children, febrile headlines, and grand political promises that aren’t being delivered. We need a calmer approach that addresses climate change without scaring us needlessly and that pays heed to the many other challenges facing the planet
https://www.newtimes.co.rw/opinions/ove ... al-warming

Great article to read as it highlights how those that control the textbooks, and other forms of media can push forth any narrative they seek.



Geologists and paleontologists have found that, in the last 100 million years, global temperatures have peaked twice. One spike was the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse roughly 92 million years ago, about 25 million years before Earth’s last dinosaurs went extinct. Widespread volcanic activity may have boosted atmospheric carbon dioxide. Temperatures were so high that champsosaurs (crocodile-like reptiles) lived as far north as the Canadian Arctic, and warm-temperature forests thrived near the South Pole.

Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. Compared to most of Earth’s history, today is unusually cold; we now live in what geologists call an interglacial—a period between glaciations of an ice age. But as greenhouse-gas emissions warm Earth’s climate, it's possible our planet has seen its last glaciation for a long time

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... -ever-been

The Global Warming Scam by vincet gray

This is a great book to read. He is a scientist with decades of experience
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets ... m_Gray.pdf




https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets ... m_Gray.pdf
User avatar
deepthinker
The Journey begins
The Journey begins
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:45 pm

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by deepthinker »

Man-Made Climate Change Does not Exist!



https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/ ... n-data.pdf

Another Interesting read. The book is by Piers Corbyn and I posted some info from another site on him below
  • Piers Corbyn argues that Man-made Global Warming caused by CO2 is “nonsense”. Instead, he argues that “In the long run CO2 levels are an EFFECT NOT A CAUSE of changes in Climate / temperatures,” and that it is the sun that drives climate.
    He challenges whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global Warming scam Vs evidence-based science.
    Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction long range (months and years ahead) forecasts. He has a First class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College. He has published numerous peer-reviewed academic papers ranging from meteorology to cosmology and galaxy formation and has presented at many international conferences.
https://readingunidebating.wordpress.co ... not-exist/
User avatar
Yodean
Jeidi
Jeidi
Posts: 2685
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:02 pm

"Woman-made" climate change

Post by Yodean »

On balance, at the current juncture, some of the hypotheses involving grand solar minimums, shifting of the Earth's magnetic poles, etc. make a lot more sense to me as the main determinants of global climate change than "Woman-made" climate change (the Woke is not going to like the term "man-made" in the future, I suspect).

In other news, traditional Western medicine is increasingly being utilized as a tool for propaganda and control of the Herd by the PTBs (Powers That Be):

*****

For the first time in his 10 years as a physician, the ER doctor picked up his patient’s chart and penned in the words “climate change.”

“It's me trying to just ... process what I'm seeing. We're in the emergency department, we look after everybody, from the most privileged to the most vulnerable, from cradle to grave, we see everybody. And it's hard to see people, especially the most vulnerable people in our society, being affected. It's frustrating.”

At the same time, Merritt says he hoped another family physician would read the chart, and one day, consider drawing a straighter line between their patients’ health and climate change.


https://www.timescolonist.com/bc-news/b ... ge-4723540

*****

Oy vei, here we go ...
Buy Fear, Sell Euphoria. The Neonatal Calf undergoes an agonizing birthing, while the Bear falls into hibernation.
User avatar
Eric
Advanced
Advanced
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:58 am

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by Eric »

Environmentalism is a cult no different from the BranchCOVIDians. Global warming is an invisible, all-powerful boogeyman, luckily "I will make myself like the most high"... I have the power to stop the invisible all-powerful boogeyman...If I just recycle my Taco Bell sauce packets!

For the last 50 plus years we have been 7-15 years away from certain death from the all-powerful boogeyman.
-FOMOing in is how the masses loose their asses.
-"forget bitcoin, focus on your balls......." -Stefk
-Misinformation: noun, information that is true and correct and might lead people towards freedom and autonomy instead of tyranny and slavery.
User avatar
AstuteShift
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 1083
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:24 pm

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by AstuteShift »

Eric wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:12 pm Environmentalism is a cult no different from the BranchCOVIDians. Global warming is an invisible, all-powerful boogeyman, luckily "I will make myself like the most high"... I have the power to stop the invisible all-powerful boogeyman...If I just recycle my Taco Bell sauce packets!

For the last 50 plus years we have been 7-15 years away from certain death from there all-powerful boogeyman. Hitler used environmentalism to control people too.
It’s just another reason to tax and polarize. Eventually all fads fade into the dust bin of time
User avatar
chippermon
Junior
Junior
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:36 pm

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by chippermon »

I know, right? This whole thing is pure genius. Don't miss the point here everyone. Remember. Coat tails. I just love Al Gore. Do a quick search. Looks like his fund is up to 36 Billion now. NICE! The masses love him.
User avatar
deepthinker
The Journey begins
The Journey begins
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:45 pm

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by deepthinker »

Al Gore’s $36 Billion Fund Sees New Urgency to Cut Off Oil Money

Five years. That’s roughly how much time the investment universe has left to stop feeding capital to greenhouse-gas emitters before it’s too late, according to the co-founder of Generation Investment Management LLP.

David Blood, a long-time top executive at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s asset-management unit before starting an investment fund with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore more than 15 years ago, says that efforts over the past two decades to fight climate change are “not going to be enough.”

“The urgency of the challenge will require us to think differently around capital allocation,” Blood said in an interview. “And we don’t have 15 years or 18 years to get there. We have probably five years.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -oil-money

It's total hogwash. They have been pushing this end of the world B.S storyline forever. It's amazing the masses don't wake up to this con. Al Gore reminds me of a cobra. No matter how hard you try it's impossible to trust that snake. If i had to choose I would take my chances with the Cobra as opposed to Gore. His name Gore says it all.
User avatar
Triplethought
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 891
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:45 am

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by Triplethought »

I agree with what everyone here is saying. While it is "possible" and maybe even probable that mans activity has increased CO2 levels and that seems to have raised temperatures 1 degree c the ramifications it simply doesn't represent the catastrophe the press seems to tell everyone it does. CO2 levels have been historically much higher and plants grow much better at higher levels. We are entering a warming period and ice is gonna melt no matter what we do.
Current atmospheric levels of CO2 (400ppm) are much lower than 500 million years ago (3000-9000ppm).
User avatar
stefk
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:49 pm

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by stefk »

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

The ancient Romans benefited from a warm period. It was very positive for them, there were no cars, no factories, no planes, no industrial fumes, global warming was a positive period.


https://www.netzerowatch.com/roman-warm ... new-study/

"""This climate phase corresponds to what is known as the ‘Roman Climatic Optimum’ characterised by prosperity and expansion of the Empire, giving warmth and sunlight to crops.

Roman Climatic Optimum, a phase of warm stable temperatures across much of the Mediterranean heartland, covers the whole phase of origin and expansion of the Roman Empire.

The greatest time of the Roman Empire coincided with the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the Mediterranean.
After the Roman Period, a general cooling trend developed in the region with several minor oscillations in temperature.

The climate then transitioned from wet to arid conditions and this could have marked the decline of the golden period of the Roman Empire after AD 500. ""

......................................................................................

https://www.moneymuseum.com/en/archive/ ... slbox=true

However, the climate cooling had a negative impact on the king of France and his neck, and the necks of a lot of nobles.......

Greta, keep cool, no stress no panic, relax, a warming period if there is one, is not so bad......
« To plant a garden is to believe in tomorrow »
– Audrey Hepburn
User avatar
outof thebox
Junior
Junior
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:42 pm

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by outof thebox »

I don't agree with everything the author of this site posts, but I have to admit he provides a lot of salient information regarding the global warming hoax

For this ridiculous bit of Fake News / Fake Science vomit about the recent floods in Europe, notice how Sulzberger trotted out four horses from the Slimes stable of sedition in order to produce it. The illusionist's trick here is to convey a sense of importance and urgency by listing a mini-mob of reporters ("reporting from" four different cities in Europe) in the byline: Melissa Eddy, Jack Ewing, Megan Specia & Steven Erlanger. Oooh. This must be serious!

Let's analyze and "debunk" ™ some of this commie crap that (((they))) are passing off as "settled science" ™ these days.

The Commie Quartet: Days before roiling waters tore through western Germany, a European weather agency issued an “extreme” flood warning after detailed models showed storms that threatened to send rivers surging to levels that a German meteorologist said had not been seen in 500 or even 1,000 years.
Rebuttal: How exactly do you all know that? Could it be that the flood levels which "had not been seen in 500 or even 1,000 years" were "not seen" because people living so many centuries ago had neither the technology nor the interest in recording the exact levels? There are, however, manual flood markings, made on buildings worldwide over the course of the past 500 years, which blatantly contradict this statement. (here)

The Commie Quartet: Extreme downpours like the ones that occurred in Germany are one of the most visible signs that the climate is changing as a result of warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Rebuttal: What do libtards always say when the temps are colder than "normal?" Ah yes -- I remember now: "You are mistaking weather for climate." Extreme downpours are nothing new. There's probably not a week that goes by without someplace on Earth --- including spots on the vast unpopulated oceans -- being deluged. It's only when a populated area gets hit that it is newsworthy.

The Commie Quartet: Studies have found ......
Rebuttal: Those three words are almost always a rhetorical indicator of incoming bullshit.

The Commie Quarter: ... that they are now happening more frequently.
Rebuttal: And there it is. Smell it?

Such heavy rainfall events are actually NOT happening "more frequently." If they were, the Commie Quartet would surely have published a 500-year graph based on data. Where is the chart for us to "peer review?" But these flood events are, however, being hyped-up "more frequently" by Fake News. That's the illusion.

The Commie Quartet: ... for a simple reason
Rebuttal: And what may that be?

The Commie Quartet: A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, generating more, and more powerful, rainfall.
Rebuttal: Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute! I could swear I've heard somewhere before that "studies have shown" that Global Warming ™ is causing more droughts. Oh yes... here it is, and here, and here and here. Ya know, these crackpot "scientists" really need to make up their minds. Are we getting more rain due to GWCC, or less?

The Commie Quartet: The floods that cut a wide path of destruction through Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands this week were virtually unheard-of, according to meteorologists and German officials.
Rebuttal: Actually, such floods were not "virtually unheard of" -- and many more worse floods pre-date the modern era of a more industrialized world. Have a look at the list of the top 15 known floods in history. NOT ONE of them is recent -- (here)

And in that area of Europe, specifically, the St. Felix Day Flood of 1530, for example, washed away much of the Netherlands while killing as many as 100,000 people! The St. Marcellus Grote Mandrenke (Great Drowning of Men) Storm of 1362 wiped out entire Dutch, British and German towns as well, killing at least 25,000.​ More recently -- but long before heavy industry and universal car ownership really got going -- the 1910 Great Flood of Paris caused the Seine River to rise EIGHT METERS above its usual level. Don't you "elite journalists" even know how to Google? Or is it that you don't want to?

https://www.realhistorychan.com/anyt-07192021.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIJCGQzCiU&t=187s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zul0BuO8A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lHzjXO49eE
If you don't fight today, someone will knock you out tomorrow
User avatar
Tobeornot
The Journey begins
The Journey begins
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:41 am

Green energy could be dirty and vice versa

Post by Tobeornot »

It's not so much the subject matter of this article, but rather, the idiotic term "clean energy" in the headline which calls for a strong rebuttal. You see, in the upside-down world of Marxism / Globalism, the "dirty energy" produced by coal, oil and natural gas is actually "green" because the CO2 which they emit is a NATURAL ELEMENT NEEDED FOR SUSTAINING LIFE ON EARTH. Deceptively referred to as "carbon," it is CO2 which nourishes plants and trees. Conversely, what commies and libtards call "clean energy" can be very dirty and anti-environmental in ways that most people have never paused to think about because most people do not think (too much work).

Mainly, there are 4 ways in which "Clean Energy" is actually "Dirty Energy" and truly anti-environmental.


CO2 is CLEAN and GREEN energy! Back to 5th grade, boys & girls:
Photosynthesis the process by which green plants use sunlight to synthesize foods from CARBON DIOXIDE and water. Photosynthesis generates oxygen as a byproduct.

* Cobalt Mining

Cobalt is an essential element for the lithium batteries that, among other uses, power Elon Muskrat's electric cars and store energy from solar panels and wind mills. Cobalt residue reaches the environment through air-borne dust, surface water / rivers, and, supposedly, even radioactivity from mining areas. As even the proponents of Green Energy acknowledge, particles emitted during the cobalt mining consist of emissions which may cause nausea, heart problems, and thyroid damage. Oh, and the mining process requires a lot of "dirty energy." Having said that, we are not opposed to the extraction of Cobalt for better batteries, but, like any other form of mining, it too has its environmental downside.

* Solar Panel Pollution

The problem of millions and millions of solar panel requiring disposal is a ticking time-bomb that will explode into reality within the next decade or two. The panels do not last forever and are very difficult to recycle. In time, and even long before obsolescence, pollutants such as lead or cadmium wash out of the fragments of solar modules.

From: Forbes Magazine (May 23, 2018):

"Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. 'Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,' notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. 'However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.'”

Air contaminants stick to the surfaces of solar panels, preventing light from reaching the solar cells. They can be quite expensive to clean.

* Windmill Pollution

When fully functional, windmills are a noisemaker and an eyesore -- an ugly blot on otherwise pristine landscapes. But it is when these metallic monstrosities become obsolete (like when government subsidies run out, or they blow up) that the environmental degradation really begins. Over the decades, an estimated 15,000 non-recyclable windmills (and counting) have been left to rot across America alone.

Turbine blades are mostly made with fiberglass or carbon fiber heated together with resin. The final product has be light, to combine into a material that is light and yet strong enough to withstand the elements of nature. Consequently, the monsters are very difficult to recycle. At the end of their working life, the big blades have to be buried underground.

* Windmill Bird Slaughter

With special government permission, an estimated 4,000 Bald Eagles, America's symbol, are being "wind-o-causted" by these turbines of terror each year. If any of us mere peasants were to inadvertently kill a single one of these magnificent and rare creatures, we'd be facing hefty fines and jail time!

The Wall Street Urinal, in an article titled, "An Ill Wind: Open Season on Bald Eagles," reported:

"A 2013 study estimated that wind turbines killed about 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds (including 83,000 raptors) in 2012 alone. But wind capacity has since increased by about 24%, and it could triple by 2030. 'We don’t really know how many birds are being killed now by wind turbines because the wind industry doesn’t have to report the data,' says Michael Hutchins of the American Bird Conservancy. “It’s considered a trade secret. .... golden eagles, which are rarer than bald eagles and are being whacked by wind turbines in far greater numbers." (here)

* Those numbers are surely greater today.

*****************

All in all, good old fashioned coal, oil and natural gas are, ironically, actually more environmentally compatible than much of this "green" garbage which the New World Order crime syndicate is imposing on the world. Add this to the long list of crimes for which these people need to be executed.

Ugly, inefficient, noisy and non-recyclable metallic monsters.

https://www.realhistorychan.com/anyt-11232021.html
Live today or die tomorrow
User avatar
MarkD
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 773
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:15 pm

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by MarkD »

Nancy Pelosi is buying an oceanfront home in Florida! After bilking the country for decades she is leaving Cali and retiring in a tax friendly state. LMAO.
"You can observe a lot just by watching"
Yogi Berra

“The best lies always contain a grain of truth”
Joakim Palmkvist
User avatar
SOL
Power VS Force
Power VS Force
Posts: 3267
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:32 am

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by SOL »

MarkD wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:47 pm Nancy Pelosi is buying an oceanfront home in Florida! After bilking the country for decades she is leaving Cali and retiring in a tax friendly state. LMAO.
Nancy Pelosi should have been put to pasture a decade ago. When you elect a retard to power it means that at least 81% of those in the province are brain dead. Viva La California,
When the words short term appear under any post; the same conditions listed in the Market update under the short term category apply

The end is always near; its the beginning and how you live each moment that counts the most
User avatar
Budge
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:13 am

Re: GLobal Warming Argument. Valid or Invalid?

Post by Budge »

SOL wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:36 pm
MarkD wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:47 pm Nancy Pelosi is buying an oceanfront home in Florida! After bilking the country for decades she is leaving Cali and retiring in a tax friendly state. LMAO.
Nancy Pelosi should have been put to pasture a decade ago. When you elect a retard to power it means that at least 81% of those in the province are brain dead. Viva La California,
Letter from John Maynard Keynes to Duncan Grant:

“You have not, I suppose, ever mixed with politicians at close quarters. They are awful… their stupidity is inhuman….”
..whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..
Post Reply