What burns me, as a scientist, is that the "man-made global warming" theory is NOT supported by the past 40 years of data collection! And yet, even many so-called conservatives tacitly support it while condemning carbon-reduction initiatives. Instead of starting by saying, "Despite the un-supported "climate crisis", the efforts to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions will cause serious, negative, economic effects to our country", they leave out the fact that there IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS!
You would think people would start looking back at predictions about rising sea levels and such to see just how damn wrong they were. Al Gore comes to mind.
when the man-made global warming theory came out in the early '80s, I thought it was legit, but then started tracking the data. EPA had a report out in 1984?, where they predicted that in 30 years, the absolute minimum rise in global sea level would be 1 foot, and even thought 2 feet possible. I believe global sea level is the ultimate indicator of any significant global warming (beyond the established rate), and there hasn't been a significant increase in the rate of global sea level rise in the past 40 years, thus the reason to change from global warming/man-made global warming, to "climate change", to "climate crisis".
Seriously. I don't understand why they cede the premise. On a dozen different points, everything they say is wrong. More disasters? There haven't been: hurricane, tornadoes, floods, droughts, none of it occurs at a higher frequency. More severe? Nope. Rising sea levels? 0.3 mm/yr that has been going on since 1700ish isn't dangerous. The ice caps melting? Greenland's actually accumulating ice. So is Antarctica. And the Arctic sea ice extends just as far as it did when Al Gore first predicted it'd all be gone by 2014. Ocean acidification? Turns out its not killing the corals. The Great Barrier Reef is vibrant, and bleaching events are both common and recoverable on reefs. Sunscreen has a greater effect, which is why they now ban many commercial sunscreens for divers.
But, as you say, there is no climate crisis in the data.
I do wonder if they just don't want to fight the battle. If they start calling NASA climate frauds for making up fake surface temperature data, that's going to get spicy politically. This isn't a debate with easy to memorize talking points. You actually have to think, and perhaps politicians are too chicken to actually do the work?
I was at a red light the other day and noticed this guy to my right, glancing at me & looking antsy. It dawned on me that I'm always teasing my husband for thinking everyone at a light was trying to race him. But this guy was trying to race me. I drive a standard shift porsche cayenne so I slammed it into 1st and took off on the green. That dude SMOKED me. And it was a freaking tesla!
Nickel is no prize either, and widely used in "green" tech.. I think the image i was looking for has been taken down but I've seen some where there is a 1/2 mile dead zone around the plants. Here's an article from MN describing the issues with mining it.
https://www.startribune.com/measuring-the-risks-in-copper-nickel-mining/235804871/
They're going to make sure they sell us every last drip of lithium from those mines before better, more efficient, and less toxic solid state batteries hit the market.
It does highlight the elephant in the room with all renewable energy sources. They all use up a lot of land. We have what used to be a coal-fired power station in the UK that could be replaced in terms of energy output by about 200 square miles of mirrors. Windfarms usually require even more space than solar farms.
For instance, a windfarm that covered eight times the area of Texas could power the USA. Would that be acceptable?
You might want to check my calculations but I reckon that if hemp produces as much energy as ethanol and the figure I found of hemp producing 207 gallons per hectare is correct then we would need to plant about 22,000,000 square miles of hemp to satisfy US energy demand.
For reference, the area of the USA is less than 4,000,000 square miles.
I think we're realizing that no matter what we use, we will never be able to keep up with the demand. Instead of looking for new sources to produce more and more energy, we need to change our lifestyles before the Earth changes them for us.
This isn't a viable solution. What you just argued is the envirofascist argument, that Westerners must give up a Western lifestyle.
The world's food supply is dependent on energy use. It runs the Haber process to make nitrogen-based fertilizer. If we were to lose that, we'd lose the ability to feed about half the world's population. The reduction you're talking about comes with mass starvation on a scale humanity has never seen before.
Energy is used to run everything in our economy. Every time you see a computer or hear the world digital, all of that runs on energy. We don't make things by hand anymore and haven't for longer than I've been alive. You get rid of this and you destroy the information economy we depend on for prosperity. You get rid of hospitals' ability to operate. You get rid of our ability to mass produce things.
Now, keep in mind, this is what we will experience: total destruction of our way of life. But if you're one of the 3ish billion who make up half the world's population living at or below the real poverty line, the net effect to you is that if you survive the famine, you will be doomed never to ever live the kind of prosperous life that Westerners take for granted. We all go back to subsistence farming. And it won't be a peaceful transition. It'll look like social collapses always look, with warlords and organized criminal gangs (ie cartels) taking over to fill the power vacuum.
This is where we're headed with the Green New Nightmare and the Build Back Broke plan. This is what's going to happen. They're doing the "lifestyle change" right now in Europe. No hot showers. Highly limited AC/heating. It's not even scratching the surface. Factories are going to shut down first because they're private sector and the capital investment just won't be there. No one's talking about the data centers and the hospitals yet, but they will be. And while the famine will be manageable in year one, when there's no fertilizer for year 2 and 3, that's when things are going to get really spicy.
We're sitting on a literal sea of energy. We have access to cheap, reliable, nuclear energy, and we're told we must use neither of these technologies because green psychopaths want people to "adjust their lifestyles."
Difference is that I can't also use the same crop to use as materials for making houses.
So many things are made of plastic, which is made of petroleum, that it is laughable to suggest that hemp is a more useful product than petroleum.
Regarding making houses: asphalt shingle roofs, vapor barriers to keep out moisture, vinyl siding, wiring, plumbing, fixture coverings, lighting coverings, counter tops, flooring, just to name a few. ALL made from petroleum.
Petroleum occurs naturally within the Earth's crust, and the Earth will never stop producing it. We might use it up at a faster rate than the Earth can produce it, but so far there is no evidence that is actually happening.
Other than water, petroleum is easily the most useful natural product that man has to utilize.
I saw a news story the other day on OAN about illegal cartel weed grow ops in CA that were using a ton of water - hurting legit farmers. That would also be a good reason to ban it - at least in places that are too stupid to figure out how to actually get and use water (with a GIGANTIC ocean to their west).
My aunt developed Parkinson's after years of taking lithium for depression. Not a nice way to die.
What burns me, as a scientist, is that the "man-made global warming" theory is NOT supported by the past 40 years of data collection! And yet, even many so-called conservatives tacitly support it while condemning carbon-reduction initiatives. Instead of starting by saying, "Despite the un-supported "climate crisis", the efforts to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions will cause serious, negative, economic effects to our country", they leave out the fact that there IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS!
Imagine a person being so stupid that they actually believe that carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment!
Apparently, they flunked Biology 101: Study of Plants.
Seriously. No common sense. "A celebrity says it's bad so it must be bad!"
You would think people would start looking back at predictions about rising sea levels and such to see just how damn wrong they were. Al Gore comes to mind.
You misspelled ManBearPig.....
when the man-made global warming theory came out in the early '80s, I thought it was legit, but then started tracking the data. EPA had a report out in 1984?, where they predicted that in 30 years, the absolute minimum rise in global sea level would be 1 foot, and even thought 2 feet possible. I believe global sea level is the ultimate indicator of any significant global warming (beyond the established rate), and there hasn't been a significant increase in the rate of global sea level rise in the past 40 years, thus the reason to change from global warming/man-made global warming, to "climate change", to "climate crisis".
Seriously. I don't understand why they cede the premise. On a dozen different points, everything they say is wrong. More disasters? There haven't been: hurricane, tornadoes, floods, droughts, none of it occurs at a higher frequency. More severe? Nope. Rising sea levels? 0.3 mm/yr that has been going on since 1700ish isn't dangerous. The ice caps melting? Greenland's actually accumulating ice. So is Antarctica. And the Arctic sea ice extends just as far as it did when Al Gore first predicted it'd all be gone by 2014. Ocean acidification? Turns out its not killing the corals. The Great Barrier Reef is vibrant, and bleaching events are both common and recoverable on reefs. Sunscreen has a greater effect, which is why they now ban many commercial sunscreens for divers.
But, as you say, there is no climate crisis in the data.
I do wonder if they just don't want to fight the battle. If they start calling NASA climate frauds for making up fake surface temperature data, that's going to get spicy politically. This isn't a debate with easy to memorize talking points. You actually have to think, and perhaps politicians are too chicken to actually do the work?
This crisis lies in the magnitude of the lie.
Also in the fact that so much of high-level science is complicit in creating this global lie.
https://youtu.be/4LkMweOVOOI
But, but muh environment!
I was at a red light the other day and noticed this guy to my right, glancing at me & looking antsy. It dawned on me that I'm always teasing my husband for thinking everyone at a light was trying to race him. But this guy was trying to race me. I drive a standard shift porsche cayenne so I slammed it into 1st and took off on the green. That dude SMOKED me. And it was a freaking tesla!
This is proper, modern-day environmentalism. If it doesn't happen in the United States, out of sight/out of mind and consequently, "green".
So ENVIRONMENTAL!
Just makes me want to run out and buy a Tesla to virtue signal my grand care and concern for the
ENVIRONMENT!!!!
Nickel is no prize either, and widely used in "green" tech.. I think the image i was looking for has been taken down but I've seen some where there is a 1/2 mile dead zone around the plants. Here's an article from MN describing the issues with mining it. https://www.startribune.com/measuring-the-risks-in-copper-nickel-mining/235804871/
Wow. This is terrible. Damn.
Its okay. Its brown people's land so those dont count. Apparently.
And clearly on a different planet. Much like India and China. Who cares how much they pollute?
They're going to make sure they sell us every last drip of lithium from those mines before better, more efficient, and less toxic solid state batteries hit the market.
Using child labor, too. 🤬
When everything you believe is a lie. Just start there and its much simpler.
I decided to reverse search the image on tineye.com just see if it was real or not. It was real and here is some info and pictures. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/01/south-america-s-lithium-fields-reveal-the-dark-side-of-our-electric-future
Wen free energy tech released?
Why didn't I think of that? Elon Musk, boy genius.
Doesn’t it just piss you off! Hypocrites!
Take a look at some natural gas extraction sites. No, not the wind turbines, the smaller towers. How many can you make out?
Hahaha, funny. Since it is under the surface there must not be an issue, right?
Faggotry I say.
It does highlight the elephant in the room with all renewable energy sources. They all use up a lot of land. We have what used to be a coal-fired power station in the UK that could be replaced in terms of energy output by about 200 square miles of mirrors. Windfarms usually require even more space than solar farms.
For instance, a windfarm that covered eight times the area of Texas could power the USA. Would that be acceptable?
Hemp for victory is all I have to say.
Fuel, food, fun, health.. You name it, it does it.
It is banned lots of places for a reason.. And that reason is fighting liberty.
You might want to check my calculations but I reckon that if hemp produces as much energy as ethanol and the figure I found of hemp producing 207 gallons per hectare is correct then we would need to plant about 22,000,000 square miles of hemp to satisfy US energy demand.
For reference, the area of the USA is less than 4,000,000 square miles.
I think we're realizing that no matter what we use, we will never be able to keep up with the demand. Instead of looking for new sources to produce more and more energy, we need to change our lifestyles before the Earth changes them for us.
This isn't a viable solution. What you just argued is the envirofascist argument, that Westerners must give up a Western lifestyle.
Now, keep in mind, this is what we will experience: total destruction of our way of life. But if you're one of the 3ish billion who make up half the world's population living at or below the real poverty line, the net effect to you is that if you survive the famine, you will be doomed never to ever live the kind of prosperous life that Westerners take for granted. We all go back to subsistence farming. And it won't be a peaceful transition. It'll look like social collapses always look, with warlords and organized criminal gangs (ie cartels) taking over to fill the power vacuum.
This is where we're headed with the Green New Nightmare and the Build Back Broke plan. This is what's going to happen. They're doing the "lifestyle change" right now in Europe. No hot showers. Highly limited AC/heating. It's not even scratching the surface. Factories are going to shut down first because they're private sector and the capital investment just won't be there. No one's talking about the data centers and the hospitals yet, but they will be. And while the famine will be manageable in year one, when there's no fertilizer for year 2 and 3, that's when things are going to get really spicy.
We're sitting on a literal sea of energy. We have access to cheap, reliable, nuclear energy, and we're told we must use neither of these technologies because green psychopaths want people to "adjust their lifestyles."
No.
People are too materialistic to give up that life. Even people on this board care more about stuff than they do other people.
Difference is that I can't also use the same crop to use as materials for making houses.
So many things are made of plastic, which is made of petroleum, that it is laughable to suggest that hemp is a more useful product than petroleum.
Regarding making houses: asphalt shingle roofs, vapor barriers to keep out moisture, vinyl siding, wiring, plumbing, fixture coverings, lighting coverings, counter tops, flooring, just to name a few. ALL made from petroleum.
Petroleum occurs naturally within the Earth's crust, and the Earth will never stop producing it. We might use it up at a faster rate than the Earth can produce it, but so far there is no evidence that is actually happening.
Other than water, petroleum is easily the most useful natural product that man has to utilize.
GTFO with your hemp nonsense.
I saw a news story the other day on OAN about illegal cartel weed grow ops in CA that were using a ton of water - hurting legit farmers. That would also be a good reason to ban it - at least in places that are too stupid to figure out how to actually get and use water (with a GIGANTIC ocean to their west).
Lol you have had too much statism to drink. Go home and learn austrian economics.
Perfect. Just not in my neighborhood.
Mining normally doesn't completely eradicate entire ecosystems as battery mines or the installation of wind turbines does.
Tell me what other mining operations use child slaves and massive environmentally killing leach fields?
Oh none? Thanks.
Show me a mining operation in a typically exploited third world country and I will show you a mining operation that uses child slaves.