Climate Change

[GaRp58]

Biden says Germans will only have to shiver until global warming kicks in and heats their houses.

That will keep the Oktoberfest and the bier cold for a while, but how will they bake their pretzels???

 

[Schattentarn]

That will keep the Oktoberfest and the bier cold for a while, but how will they bake their pretzels???

Beer and pretzels are such racist foods. The Germans know they have to stop eating these things after The Reset.

 

[Schattentarn]

Almost all scientists agree that man-made climate change is a real thing.

Well, not really. 5:39 min. video
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MYEUR20Y2MDJ/

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

Politics and Crazy Politics sometimes merge. Biden has pressured Scholtz unto cutting off the Nordstream 2 pipeline. Biden says Germans will only have to shiver until global warming kicks in and heats their houses. And while waiting for that to happen, Russia goes bankrupt.

Just another part of WEF’s plans to drastically reduce the world’s population down to one billion or less.

So far they have implemented these plans to kill us:

Covid 19
Vaxx for Covid 19 (kills or removes ability to procreate)
Remove access of drugs that Cure Covid 19
Reduce Fertilizer so less crops able to be grown
Reduce oil production to cause food prices to soar
Taken steps to Crash 1st World economies
Clog up and slow down distribution of food with new laws

 

[Dostoyevsky]

Lol, the only "scientists" who deny man-made climate change are those who are financed by the oil companies. THEY are the paid liars.

That's just silly. Would you include Freeman Dyson in that? Most of the geologists on the planet? Scientists like Peter Ridd? Many who are speaking out are retired and have no funding from anywhere. Those that have jobs keep quiet so they can keep their jobs, (or get fired for speaking out like Peter Ridd). And it wouldn't matter anyway. The first thing to understand about science is that it doesn't matter who 'believes' a hypothesis or 'denies' a hypothesis, or how many scientists believe or deny it, or who finances them. If a million pieces of evidence support a hypothesis and a million scientists believe it, and one piece of evidence proves the hypothesis wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. Period.

If the hypothesis were correct there ought to be correlation throughout the history of this planet showing that CO2 has been the driver of climate. There is no such evidence. Usually there is no correlation at all -- CO2 can be in the 1000s of ppm during ice ages for example; CO2 can be going down when temperatures are going up and vice versa; in the interglacials, such as the one we're in, CO2 rise lags behind the temperature rise by hundreds of years. There was good correlation from 1980 to 2000 -- a period of 20 years in 4.5 billion years. There has been no correlation since. You just have to read old newspapers from a hundred years ago to see it's a nonsense. If the hypothesis were correct there would be good correlation throughout the earth's history, and it simply isn't there.

Nobody denies that the greenhouse effect exists, but it is only one of around 200 factors that affect the climate. Most of these factors are not included in the computer 'models', and there are numerous other greenhouse gases besides CO2 anyway. All the so-called 'evidence' comes from computer 'models' that have proved a total failure, because computer models are not meant to be used to make predictions -- they're essentially a bunch of equations with guesses in them, good for comparisons but hopeless as tarot cards. Nobody denies that the climate is changing either. Of course it's changing, that is the only constant about climate. It changes. You are right to prep for that. We all need to prepare for whatever changes the climate throws at us.

 

[David SB]

just wait until they start outlawing private ownership of acreage.... in the name of climate change so that all farmable land is controlled and managed by gubbermints in the name of the collective good... it's for the children dontcha know

 

[Schattentarn]

Just another part of WEF’s plans to drastically reduce the world’s population down to one billion or less.

So far they have implemented these plans to kill us:

Covid 19
Vaxx for Covid 19 (kills or removes ability to procreate)
Remove access of drugs that Cure Covid 19
Reduce Fertilizer so less crops able to be grown
Reduce oil production to cause food prices to soar
Taken steps to Crash 1st World economies
Clog up and slow down distribution of food with new laws

It is true and really just that simple.

 

[Schattentarn]

That's just silly. Would you include Freeman Dyson in that? Most of the geologists on the planet? Scientists like Peter Ridd? Many who are speaking out are retired and have no funding from anywhere. Those that have jobs keep quiet so they can keep their jobs, (or get fired for speaking out like Peter Ridd). And it wouldn't matter anyway. The first thing to understand about science is that it doesn't matter who 'believes' a hypothesis or 'denies' a hypothesis, or how many scientists believe or deny it, or who finances them. If a million pieces of evidence support a hypothesis and a million scientists believe it, and one piece of evidence proves the hypothesis wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. Period.

If the hypothesis were correct there ought to be correlation throughout the history of this planet showing that CO2 has been the driver of climate. There is no such evidence. Usually there is no correlation at all -- CO2 can be in the 1000s of ppm during ice ages for example; CO2 can be going down when temperatures are going up and vice versa; in the interglacials, such as the one we're in, CO2 rise lags behind the temperature rise by hundreds of years. There was good correlation from 1980 to 2000 -- a period of 20 years in 4.5 billion years. There has been no correlation since. You just have to read old newspapers from a hundred years ago to see it's a nonsense. If the hypothesis were correct there would be good correlation throughout the earth's history, and it simply isn't there.

Nobody denies that the greenhouse effect exists, but it is only one of around 200 factors that affect the climate. Most of these factors are not included in the computer 'models', and there are numerous other greenhouse gases besides CO2 anyway. All the so-called 'evidence' comes from computer 'models' that have proved a total failure, because computer models are not meant to be used to make predictions -- they're essentially a bunch of equations with guesses in them, good for comparisons but hopeless as tarot cards. Nobody denies that the climate is changing either. Of course it's changing, that is the only constant about climate. It changes. You are right to prep for that. We all need to prepare for whatever changes the climate throws at us.

Earth's climatic fluctuations have to be seen through the lens of geologic time. Within the last 3 million years, the Pleistocene, the age of ice, we have been warmer (and colder) than present many times. If we were colder, then we warmed up and we did this long before **** sapiens. So, earth has natural mechanisms both for losing and retaining heat. These will work whether the warming is caused naturally or if it is man-made so the issue of man-made global warming is moot.

CO2 is just a part of the oxygen cycle which is a completely natural system. At times earth has had more CO2 than present and we were warmer. One theory is they uplift of the Indian Continental Plate from the seabed exposed billions of tons of calcium carbonate from dead diatoms on that seabed which now formed the Himalaya Mountain chain. This calcium carbonate was still able to absorb additional CO2 from rainwater (CO2 was dissolved in that rainwater). This was the early Asian Monsoon. So much CO2 was removed from the atmosphere in this way that the earth went into the first ice age.

 

[user 6208]

All of the religious-like cults on the left which the minions follow are just Communist nonsense designed to convince the minions to live in poverty and anger.

The poverty hasn't come yet because they haven't succeeded, but they sure live in anger. Those who swallow Communist propaganda are Narcissists and Narcissists are natural tyrants.

 

[Schattentarn]

All of the religious-like cults on the left which the minions follow are just Communist nonsense designed to convince the minions to live in poverty and anger.

The poverty hasn't come yet because they haven't succeeded, but they sure live in anger. Those who swallow Communist propaganda are Narcissists and Narcissists are natural tyrants.

They want us to live in a world in which technology solves nothing and we have to go back to a primitive existence.

 

[DrHenley]

They want us to live in a world in which technology solves nothing and we have to go back to a primitive existence.

Only for the "unwashed masses." The elites will have every technological advantage known to man. Still fly around in private jets, eat caviar and foie gras, and laugh their ***** off at the stupid morons that put them in power.

 

[GaRp58]

Till the next asteroid lands in the middle of davos and takes them all by surprise?????

 

[Schattentarn]

German Green Party rethinks nuclear power. (its about time)

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...-to-rethink-nuclear-power-shutdown/ar-AAUoYpj

 

[bill harrell]

I don´t understand why so many of you don´t believe in climate change. I see climate change as at least one of the top 5 reason to start prepping.

Because I think it it afflicted. You think pretty highly of yourself when you feel you can completely control the ecosystem. Just my opinion. But , likewise whether or not someone preps for whatever reason they will be the ones accountable for their choices. Just me thinking.

 

[DrHenley]

It takes a lot of hubris to believe you can stop the climate from changing. It's been changing since the beginning of time.

 

[Mountain Dragon]

Till the next asteroid lands in the middle of davos and takes them all by surprise?????

This asteroide preferably hits Davos very exactly in the center or it may will let me know before. Switzerland isn't that big and i won't die with the WEF-guests.
Thanks.

 

[bill harrell]

??????? Hold on , I'm still catching up...Hubris? That's a new one on me. But I like it.

 

[user 6208]

The amount of energy the sun puts into the Earth makes our power output look like a candle to a volcano.

The Gulf of Mexico alone recieves between 8 and 15 trillion watts per day from the Sun.

This drives ocean currents. Nothing man can do can drive ocean currents or stop them.

 

[DrHenley]

??????? Hold on , I'm still catching up...Hubris? That's a new one on me. But I like it.

The word came from the ancient Greeks meaning "Overweening presumption that leads a person to disregard the divinely fixed limits on human action in an ordered cosmos"

In Greek mythology it's what got the Greek gods mad at people, resulting in the gods intervening. Greek mythology is full of stories about hubris causing dire consequences.

 

[Proud Prepper]

??????? Hold on , I'm still catching up...Hubris? That's a new one on me. But I like it.

I use Hubris at least once a week. There's so many in our governments that are full of it.

 

[Schattentarn]

The amount of energy the sun puts into the Earth makes our power output look like a candle to a volcano.

The Gulf of Mexico alone recieves between 8 and 15 trillion watts per day from the Sun.

This drives ocean currents. Nothing man can do can drive ocean currents or stop them.

Norway, Sweden and Finland only came out of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago. The land there is still rising from compression caused by 2 mile thick ice sheets. Greenland is still in the last ice age. The glaciers there are melting and will melt no matter what humans do or do not do. We should not allow the climate-cult to cry wolf over this.

 

[GaRp58]

Nothing man can do can drive ocean currents or stop them.

I bet you a dollar, if we could pool all the ******** that the demoncraps have uttered with their verbal diarhhea, collect all the hot air from the blue states and then add the negative intelligence of the larger part of the blm movement into a big pot and dump it into the Gulf Stream we could effectively create a new pile of radioactive **** to circulate around the globe and create a new species of monster with a voracious appetite for free stuff, the ability to burn itself up and laugh at it self in a mirror at the same time...
You can't fix stupid...

 

[GaRp58]

"Overweening presumption that leads a person to disregard the divinely fixed limits on human action in an ordered cosmos"

Which can also be described as the difference between stupidity and intelligence......
INTELLIGENCE HAS ITS LIMITS.................

 

[Buttoni]

This article Mike Adams published today reaffirms what I have felt all along about "Climate Change" and those espousing it. Siegel is spot on IMHO.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-05-04-co2-has-almost-nothing-do-with-climate.html

 

[DrHenley]

Their last song and dance was "Oh no, the CFCs are permanently depleting the ozone we have to ban Freon or we're all going to fry from radiation". And after wreaking havoc on the HVAC industry and making it impossible for people to refill the Freon in their cars, the ozone mysteriously recovered long before it was supposed to.
So they found a new tune "Oh no, CO2 is causing global warming we have to ban internal combustion engines and coal power plants". Before they even finished with that tune they started the "Oh no, cows are farting methane and destroying the planet, we have to get rid of cows" chorus.
They are so predictable...

 

[Kevin L]

Their last song and dance was "Oh no, the CFCs are permanently depleting the ozone we have to ban Freon or we're all going to fry from radiation". And after wreaking havoc on the HVAC industry and making it impossible for people to refill the Freon in their cars, the ozone mysteriously recovered long before it was supposed to.
So they found a new tune "Oh no, CO2 is causing global warming we have to ban internal combustion engines and coal power plants". Before they even finished with that tune they started the "Oh no, cows are farting methane and destroying the planet, we have to get rid of cows" chorus.
They are so predictable...

I understand the skepticism . . . but you raise another question.

I understand that a conversion to renewable energy will be horribly expensive, and further regulations constraining business and personal liberty is antithical to personable liberty . . . and all over something that is not proven.

However . . . what about the Cold War? We spent increadibly huge amounts of money on the space race, nuclear weapons, military buildup, espionage, and so forth . . . and all because the Soviets might nuke us.

There was no absolute proof that the Soviets were just waiting for the slightest excuse to nuke the entire world into a radioactive Stone Age. The mere suspicion that the Soviets might do so was enough justification to restructure our military, economy, and so forth.

Is there not a double-standard here? Why is suspicion enough to justify the Cold War, while we need absolute proof before committing to renewables for climate change?

Please not that I'm not saying that there isn't corruption in the ranks of climate change activism . . . I only wish to see if anyone else perceives a double-standard here?

P.S. This argument is not original with me. Carl Sagan had made these points before.

 

[MNwr786]

I understand the skepticism . . . but you raise another question.

I understand that a conversion to renewable energy will be horribly expensive, and further regulations constraining business and personal liberty is antithical to personable liberty . . . and all over something that is not proven.

However . . . what about the Cold War? We spent increadibly huge amounts of money on the space race, nuclear weapons, military buildup, espionage, and so forth . . . and all because the Soviets might nuke us.

There was no absolute proof that the Soviets were just waiting for the slightest excuse to nuke the entire world into a radioactive Stone Age. The mere suspicion that the Soviets might do so was enough justification to restructure our military, economy, and so forth.

Is there not a double-standard here? Why is suspicion enough to justify the Cold War, while we need absolute proof before committing to renewables for climate change?

Please not that I'm not saying that there isn't corruption in the ranks of climate change activism . . . I only wish to see if anyone else perceives a double-standard here?

P.S. This argument is not original with me. Carl Sagan had made these points before.

War is an emergency, climate change is not. Climate change isn't going to kill anyone, it will merely cause the slow relocation of some over a time span of centuries. Also, like Ben Shapiro questioned... what would you tell the less civilized countries that burn dung (very carbon intensive) as their only fuel source? Should they stop? What about China and the other countries who will not follow suit? Are we expected to pick up their slack (or soot) too?

Take a quick pause and look up what research has shown for past temperatures and CO2 levels during inter-glacial periods. What do the ice cores tell us? That this happens over and over and over on this planet, and it has not only been happening since long before industrialization, but that when it has, the temperature has risen far more than it has so far (as have the CO2 levels). How can you (or anyone) tell the difference between us causing global warming or us merely accelerating the onset of the next interglacial period which is due to happen anyhow? You cannot. Nobody can. And FYI, this planet has seem far more time with little to no ice than it has with ice, so get used to that idea.

The real problem here is that mankind decided to base the standard for CO2 levels on the preindustrial level which happens to be on par with one of the many low points in Earth's CO2 history. They are not going by Earth's average CO2 levels, they are going by preindustrial times which was already at a very very low point. What does that tell us? They just want to stop the earth from doing what it has been doing for 4.55 billion years. End of story.

Now, just for fun, get on google earth, head over to Bermuda, and count the number of million dollar homes with big swimming pools mere feet above sea level that will be filled with salt water when the polar ice caps melt (again). Those are the people who have convinced you to stop the ice from melting. Nobody will die from a sudden biblical flood. Only rich people dumb enough to invest it wet real estate will suffer. So let them!

 

[DrHenley]

I understand the skepticism . . . but you raise another question.

I understand that a conversion to renewable energy will be horribly expensive, and further regulations constraining business and personal liberty is antithical to personable liberty . . . and all over something that is not proven.

However . . . what about the Cold War? We spent increadibly huge amounts of money on the space race, nuclear weapons, military buildup, espionage, and so forth . . . and all because the Soviets might nuke us.

There was no absolute proof that the Soviets were just waiting for the slightest excuse to nuke the entire world into a radioactive Stone Age. The mere suspicion that the Soviets might do so was enough justification to restructure our military, economy, and so forth.

Is there not a double-standard here? Why is suspicion enough to justify the Cold War, while we need absolute proof before committing to renewables for climate change?

Please not that I'm not saying that there isn't corruption in the ranks of climate change activism . . . I only wish to see if anyone else perceives a double-standard here?

P.S. This argument is not original with me. Carl Sagan had made these points before.

Non sequitur

 

[Proud Prepper]

War is an emergency, climate change is not. Climate change isn't going to kill anyone, it will merely cause the slow relocation of some over a time span of centuries. Also, like Ben Shapiro questioned... what would you tell the less civilized countries that burn dung (very carbon intensive) as their only fuel source? Should they stop? What about China and the other countries who will not follow suit? Are we expected to pick up their slack (or soot) too?

Take a quick pause and look up what research has shown for past temperatures and CO2 levels during inter-glacial periods. What do the ice cores tell us? That this happens over and over and over on this planet, and it has not only been happening since long before industrialization, but that when it has, the temperature has risen far more than it has so far (as have the CO2 levels). How can you (or anyone) tell the difference between us causing global warming or us merely accelerating the onset of the next interglacial period which is due to happen anyhow? You cannot. Nobody can. And FYI, this planet has seem far more time with little to no ice than it has with ice, so get used to that idea.

The real problem here is that mankind decided to base the standard for CO2 levels on the preindustrial level which happens to be on par with one of the many low points in Earth's CO2 history. They are not going by Earth's average CO2 levels, they are going by preindustrial times which was already at a very very low point. What does that tell us? They just want to stop the earth from doing what it has been doing for 4.55 billion years. End of story.

Now, just for fun, get on google earth, head over to Bermuda, and count the number of million dollar homes with big swimming pools mere feet above sea level that will be filled with salt water when the polar ice caps melt (again). Those are the people who have convinced you to stop the ice from melting. Nobody will die from a sudden biblical flood. Only rich people dumb enough to invest it wet real estate will suffer. So let them!

Good answer. I was just going to say one is unnecessary ******** and the other is necessary ********.

 

[Kevin L]

War is an emergency, climate change is not. Climate change isn't going to kill anyone, it will merely cause the slow relocation of some over a time span of centuries. Also, like Ben Shapiro questioned... what would you tell the less civilized countries that burn dung (very carbon intensive) as their only fuel source? Should they stop? What about China and the other countries who will not follow suit? Are we expected to pick up their slack (or soot) too?

Take a quick pause and look up what research has shown for past temperatures and CO2 levels during inter-glacial periods. What do the ice cores tell us? That this happens over and over and over on this planet, and it has not only been happening since long before industrialization, but that when it has, the temperature has risen far more than it has so far (as have the CO2 levels). How can you (or anyone) tell the difference between us causing global warming or us merely accelerating the onset of the next interglacial period which is due to happen anyhow? You cannot. Nobody can. And FYI, this planet has seem far more time with little to no ice than it has with ice, so get used to that idea.

The real problem here is that mankind decided to base the standard for CO2 levels on the preindustrial level which happens to be on par with one of the many low points in Earth's CO2 history. They are not going by Earth's average CO2 levels, they are going by preindustrial times which was already at a very very low point. What does that tell us? They just want to stop the earth from doing what it has been doing for 4.55 billion years. End of story.

Now, just for fun, get on google earth, head over to Bermuda, and count the number of million dollar homes with big swimming pools mere feet above sea level that will be filled with salt water when the polar ice caps melt (again). Those are the people who have convinced you to stop the ice from melting. Nobody will die from a sudden biblical flood. Only rich people dumb enough to invest it wet real estate will suffer. So let them!

I didn't say that I buy into all of the climate change hype. I was only exploring an idea in the spirit of open-mindedness.

I still think renewable energy is the way to go even if global warming is nonsense.

With renewable energy . . . we can reduce oil consumption, and--perhaps--put more distance between us and the volatile Middle East.

I suspect that the best way to go is to use renewable energy to synthesize synthetic gasoline from renewable energy sources (synthetic gasoline can be made, but is much more expensive than natural gasoline).

Synthetic gasoline can be carbon neutral if it comes from renewable materials.

My beef with oil is that the profits are used to finance terrorism. If we become carbon neutral, then we can tell all of those religious fanatics where they can stick their oil, and maybe we won't need to be involved militarily in that part of the world.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECDgQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1wSfj9vE4c7thZ_mBnn4F0[/URL]