|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 29, 2021 10:51:45 GMT
The greenhouse gas theory is sound, and my anecdotal experience suggests that the mainstream consensus about human-cause global warming is likely accurate. But, follow the money: the fact that there are no open commercial Arctic sea routes is indicative of an Orwellian memory hole. 20 years ago the claim was that the Arctic ice was melting, but, that's proven false, and there was a very little publicized scandal about a sudden revision in actual NOAA data sometime in the mid-late '00's that's impossible to find anything on now.
The bottom line is that the alarmist predictions about climate change are driven by software simulations. The form of these simulations is very similar to the one's that were claiming that we'd have millions dead of covid by the summer of '20, and that led Cumo to panic about hospital beds, killing thousands of the elderly stuck in homes that were forced to accept covid patients. In some cases, the sources of the covid and climate models are actually the same.
My suspicion is that the climate models aren't about climate at all, that climate change is really about control over the energy industry. Why else take all these measures to kill the American fossil fuel industry when we're no longer the largest polluter? Why is there no apparent concern in these international agreements about the pollution from China and India? In a wider context, why is the 2nd largest world economy still treated as an "emerging" or "developing" economy by the international complex of aide and agencies such as the World Bank?
yes. I also see a moralistic aspect too. For example, my friends are big into the climate change stuff, they're not particularly progressive, in fact some voted conservative....but climate change is a concern for them. And guess what, John Kerry at the Davos convention a couple of days ago announced that America was on board with the 'Reset', and says taking action in regard to climate change is central to the reset. And I'm not saying the crisis isn't real...I really don't know enough about it to comment on that. I just know that the corporate aristocracy will use whatever situation they can to consolidate their position, and of course part of that requires controlling public opinion. Doesn't surprise me about Kerry, no, not at all, and the moves the Biden administration are taking are just as aggressive, if not more, as the most bitter of right-wing pundits predicted. As far as the moral aspect is concerned, what I notice is that the environmentalists all seem to view humanity as a problem, which is a grim and dangerous outlook for our leaders to have. It's also related to how the dominant secular culture has seemed to become obsessed with shame since twitter started gaining momentum .. and yet, in each of these cases, both the environmentalist and cancel cultures, there seems to be zero self-awareness about how they're just re-playing the worst parts of the Christian shame-scripts that their cultural roots rebelled against and moved away from. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 13:51:34 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 14:00:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 29, 2021 17:08:25 GMT
Yup, agreed.
50 years of failed doomsday, eco-pocalyptic predictions; the so-called ‘experts’ are 0-50
"Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.
More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited."
Loving the list, thanks for posting it. But in the interest of balance, the mainstream narrative on ozone depletion was that banning/restricting CFC's fixed the problem, and at the rate they predicted - although my understanding is that the initial thoughts on the polar gaps have been modified by the possibility that they are at least partially natural.  My understanding is that the acid rain thing was true as well and it took some remediation of midwest emissions to mitigate it -- but then again, all of these perceptions are sourced from the same academia and media that is currently clearly out of control with propaganda. Yeah, this climate issue gets a little tricky....fact is, humans have NOT been great stewards of the planet by any means....it's important when filtering out the falsities to not go too far and deny the facts. LOL....good to luck to all of us on that one, hey?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 29, 2021 17:12:09 GMT
What's your take on the shutdown of the Keystone pipeline? The greenhouse gas theory is sound, and my anecdotal experience suggests that the mainstream consensus about human-cause global warming is likely accurate. But, follow the money: the fact that there are no open commercial Arctic sea routes is indicative of an Orwellian memory hole. 20 years ago the claim was that the Arctic ice was melting, but, that's proven false, and there was a very little publicized scandal about a sudden revision in actual NOAA data sometime in the mid-late '00's that's impossible to find anything on now.
The bottom line is that the alarmist predictions about climate change are driven by software simulations. The form of these simulations is very similar to the one's that were claiming that we'd have millions dead of covid by the summer of '20, and that led Cumo to panic about hospital beds, killing thousands of the elderly stuck in homes that were forced to accept covid patients. In some cases, the sources of the covid and climate models are actually the same.
My suspicion is that the climate models aren't about climate at all, that climate change is really about control over the energy industry. Why else take all these measures to kill the American fossil fuel industry when we're no longer the largest polluter? Why is there no apparent concern in these international agreements about the pollution from China and India? In a wider context, why is the 2nd largest world economy still treated as an "emerging" or "developing" economy by the international complex of aide and agencies such as the World Bank?
Very well said....you appear to be really well educated on all this (politics too) on a level that far exceeds my knowledge....I feel you're giving me a crash course of most pertinent facts to know on all this stuff....with a nice dose of balance added....which is of course, very important. Thanks.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 29, 2021 17:23:43 GMT
The greenhouse gas theory is sound, and my anecdotal experience suggests that the mainstream consensus about human-cause global warming is likely accurate. But, follow the money: the fact that there are no open commercial Arctic sea routes is indicative of an Orwellian memory hole. 20 years ago the claim was that the Arctic ice was melting, but, that's proven false, and there was a very little publicized scandal about a sudden revision in actual NOAA data sometime in the mid-late '00's that's impossible to find anything on now.
The bottom line is that the alarmist predictions about climate change are driven by software simulations. The form of these simulations is very similar to the one's that were claiming that we'd have millions dead of covid by the summer of '20, and that led Cumo to panic about hospital beds, killing thousands of the elderly stuck in homes that were forced to accept covid patients. In some cases, the sources of the covid and climate models are actually the same.
My suspicion is that the climate models aren't about climate at all, that climate change is really about control over the energy industry. Why else take all these measures to kill the American fossil fuel industry when we're no longer the largest polluter? Why is there no apparent concern in these international agreements about the pollution from China and India? In a wider context, why is the 2nd largest world economy still treated as an "emerging" or "developing" economy by the international complex of aide and agencies such as the World Bank?
yes. I also see a moralistic aspect too. For example, my friends are big into the climate change stuff, they're not particularly progressive, in fact some voted conservative....but climate change is a concern for them. And guess what, John Kerry at the Davos convention a couple of days ago announced that America was on board with the 'Reset', and says taking action in regard to climate change is central to the reset. And I'm not saying the crisis isn't real...I really don't know enough about it to comment on that. I just know that the corporate aristocracy will use whatever situation they can to consolidate their position, and of course part of that requires controlling public opinion. Very much agree with the 'moralistic' aspect relative to the climate stuff. As I'm sure you've seen also, it plays heavily into the Covid dealy too...all that virtue signalling is enough to make one a little naseous.
I was wondering how you felt about some of the specifics proposed by the World Health Forum, most specifically the idea that: You will own nothing and you will be happy. In the past I thought that was pretty close to what you were yourself proposing as an utopian sort of idea of how we could bring balance to the world...also abolishing the current Capitalistic system for one that was more 'communal'....sounds to me anyway that what you were proposing back then was quite similar to what the Great Reset proposes.....am I wrong about that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 29, 2021 17:29:15 GMT
You'd have much more to go on than mere 'feeling' if you'd actually read the links/articles I'm posting in support of my opinion. Grandstanding. Are you for or against open debate here, in the media, online, in social groups, etc, regarding Covid, politics, climate change, or do you believe as many seem to that freedom of speech on these issues must be limited?
A good, balanced discussion below, if you happen to be interested, on how big tech is Censoring the Covid debate:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 18:17:14 GMT
Are you for or against open debate here, in the media, online, in social groups, etc, regarding Covid, politics, climate change, or do you believe as many seem to that freedom of speech on these issues must be limited?
A good, balanced discussion below, if you happen to be interested, on how big tech is Censoring the Covid debate:
I wouldn't call this open debate here. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that nonsense. You've got what, nine members here? Malcontents that couldn't get along with people on spiritualteachers and were kicked off the board? Why? Because you're always right, and everyone else is wrong? Laughable. As I mentioned recently, Trump was shocked he was elected to the office of the presidency. half of the voters in this country were, too. But the nightmare is over, and I'm pretty sure there's a price to be paid for what's taken place in this country the past 4 years. Trump knows it, too. But, he made the choice. Defend away. |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 29, 2021 18:17:49 GMT
Notice how the author blames the BF war on the overthrow of Gaddafi .. who, exactly was responsible for that? The displacement by war is a horrible thing, which of our recent leaders was the least pro-war?
The article is an emotionally wrenching read because of the suffering it documents. But why do you believe the premise, that the author never questions, and states as fact, that these climate changes will happen at the rate and to the extent that the simulations predict, especially in the face of how wrong they've been in the past? Isn't possible that these people have been playing on your emotions? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 18:29:15 GMT
Notice how the author blames the BF war on the overthrow of Gaddafi .. who, exactly was responsible for that? The displacement by war is a horrible thing, which of our recent leaders was the least pro-war?
The article is an emotionally wrenching read because of the suffering it documents. But why do you believe the premise, that the author never questions, and states as fact, that these climate changes will happen at the rate and to the extent that the simulations predict, especially in the face of how wrong they've been in the past? Isn't possible that these people have been playing on your emotions?I don't think so, no. You're the one entertaining something within yourself using that lame-assed response. Or maybe you're just watching too much Fox News, maybe? Nixon- Reagan-Bush-Trump...... puhleeeaze. This country is going nowhere.... |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 29, 2021 18:32:01 GMT
Loving the list, thanks for posting it. But in the interest of balance, the mainstream narrative on ozone depletion was that banning/restricting CFC's fixed the problem, and at the rate they predicted - although my understanding is that the initial thoughts on the polar gaps have been modified by the possibility that they are at least partially natural. My understanding is that the acid rain thing was true as well and it took some remediation of midwest emissions to mitigate it -- but then again, all of these perceptions are sourced from the same academia and media that is currently clearly out of control with propaganda. Yeah, this climate issue gets a little tricky....fact is, humans have NOT been great stewards of the planet by any means....it's important when filtering out the falsities to not go too far and deny the facts. LOL....good to luck to all of us on that one, hey? Well, you know, I think that as a species it's quite remarkable that we've actually noticed that we can have a large scale impact, pretty much the first time it started to happen. Most human pollution and environmental damage is localized - flora and fauna suffer, but the humans actually suffer as well, mostly the worst as well. The doom and gloom and scorn and shaming about it is the unconscious monkey mind gone wild.
But yeah, it doesn't do any good to deny the facts in dialogs about these topics, even when the conversant doesn't do you the same courtesy, in return.  |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 29, 2021 18:33:55 GMT
Notice how the author blames the BF war on the overthrow of Gaddafi .. who, exactly was responsible for that? The displacement by war is a horrible thing, which of our recent leaders was the least pro-war?
The article is an emotionally wrenching read because of the suffering it documents. But why do you believe the premise, that the author never questions, and states as fact, that these climate changes will happen at the rate and to the extent that the simulations predict, especially in the face of how wrong they've been in the past? Isn't possible that these people have been playing on your emotions?I don't think so, no. You're the one entertaining something within yourself using that lame-assed response. Or maybe you're just watching too much Fox News, maybe? Nixon- Reagan-Bush-Trump...... puhleeeaze. This country is going nowhere.... It was Secretary of State Clinton who bragged about pulling down Gaddafi, and while it might have been condescending for me to ask you that question, you've kind of confirmed the premise with your emotionally-laden attempt to insult.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 18:48:41 GMT
I don't think so, no. You're the one entertaining something within yourself using that lame-assed response. Or maybe you're just watching too much Fox News, maybe? Nixon- Reagan-Bush-Trump...... puhleeeaze. This country is going nowhere.... It was Secretary of State Clinton who bragged about pulling down Gaddafi, and while it might have been condescending for me to ask you that question, you've kind of confirmed the premise with your emotionally-laden attempt to insult. You, and Figs, and enigma have been insulting anyone who disagrees with your triumvirate for two weeks. What should I make of that? As a result, I really don't see your triumvirate as teachers. It's more like- malcontents. I suspect it has much to do with your sources of information. You have no solutions. Children separated from their parents. No solution. Climate change. No solution. You, figs, and enigma insult your intelligence in just about every post you respond with. You're not teachers. You're malcontents. And, yes, you've all become condescending. Nothing to learn from there. |
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 29, 2021 18:51:54 GMT
The greenhouse gas theory is sound, and my anecdotal experience suggests that the mainstream consensus about human-cause global warming is likely accurate. But, follow the money: the fact that there are no open commercial Arctic sea routes is indicative of an Orwellian memory hole. 20 years ago the claim was that the Arctic ice was melting, but, that's proven false, and there was a very little publicized scandal about a sudden revision in actual NOAA data sometime in the mid-late '00's that's impossible to find anything on now.
The bottom line is that the alarmist predictions about climate change are driven by software simulations. The form of these simulations is very similar to the one's that were claiming that we'd have millions dead of covid by the summer of '20, and that led Cumo to panic about hospital beds, killing thousands of the elderly stuck in homes that were forced to accept covid patients. In some cases, the sources of the covid and climate models are actually the same.
My suspicion is that the climate models aren't about climate at all, that climate change is really about control over the energy industry. Why else take all these measures to kill the American fossil fuel industry when we're no longer the largest polluter? Why is there no apparent concern in these international agreements about the pollution from China and India? In a wider context, why is the 2nd largest world economy still treated as an "emerging" or "developing" economy by the international complex of aide and agencies such as the World Bank?
Very well said....you appear to be really well educated on all this (politics too) on a level that far exceeds my knowledge....I feel you're giving me a crash course of most pertinent facts to know on all this stuff....with a nice dose of balance added....which is of course, very important. Thanks. Very kind of you figs, thank you. These interests have been life long. My interest in science was founded on lapsed Catholic parents so I went looking for God where it seems to me most of the mainstream elite thinks they've found God these days. My interest in politics is inherited also, and I can trace that back to colorful and tragic ancestor stories.
My climate change knowledge is actually very casual and thin, comparatively speaking. An Inconvenient Truth put it on my radar. I remember getting interested (and alarmed) and following an NOAA web page that purported to track the Arctic ice cap. They posted data, and an animated gif that showed a representation of the ice retreating and advancing by season. The images seemed to reflect that there were open areas of water free of ice near the Arctic coastlines, so that got me curious about the possible use of them for shipping lanes. The news stories at the time (Truth came out in '06, and I recall following this story in '07-'09) were hitting the panic button about the Arctic ice and breathlessly predicting that the Northwest and Northeast passages would soon be open and ice-free for months at a time each year.
At some point, that web page suddenly disappeared from the NOAA site, and I remember tracking down why at the time: there was some sort of systemic error in the sensor data that had led them to grossly underestimate the extent of the Arctic ice in the data they'd been presenting. They only discovered that by flying missions to observe and confirm what they thought the sensors were reporting. I went looking for those stories a few years later, and at the time, I could tell that google had conveniently dropped the indexing of the topic, but hadn't associated it with Orwellian memory holes at that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by muttley on Jan 29, 2021 19:01:58 GMT
It was Secretary of State Clinton who bragged about pulling down Gaddafi, and while it might have been condescending for me to ask you that question, you've kind of confirmed the premise with your emotionally-laden attempt to insult. You, and Figs, and enigma have been insulting anyone who disagrees with your triumvirate for two weeks. What should I make of that? As a result, I really don't see your triumvirate as teachers. It's more like- malcontents. I suspect it has much to do with your sources of information. You have no solutions. Children separated from their parents. No solution. Climate change. No solution. You, figs, and enigma insult your intelligence in just about every post you respond with. You're not teachers. You're malcontents. First off, I don't claim to be a teacher, and actually welcome the moniker of malcontent, as I see the current cultural milieu as inviting dissatisfaction. - but it's all relative man, nothing that pollutes my inner pond, if you know what I mean.
Our perceptions of our dialog are very different. I've consciously refrained from interjecting myself into your dialogs with E' or figs, can you link me to where I have, to any substantial degree? I also don't recall insulting you, but could easily generate a list of your insulting posts as long as my arm.
Now, I will admit, as I already have, that what I'm writing can be considered condescending, and given how we've been able to connect over the years, I truly regret that. Yes, you and I use different sources of information, and yes, I've written some opinions about yours that could be considered insulting, but I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting CNN, MSNBC, The Times, etc ...
Your negative opinions about my sources of information don't move me, as they're not about me, and I have no emotional investment in them. |
|
