Humans CANNOT change the climate of a planet

[DogOnPorch]

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

Being pro-environment is being Fascist? Ok, we know where you are coming from.

But you never addressed the facts I raised except to say nah nah boo boo

Prices for gas and oil WILL GO UP as supply declines, but you clearly are under the impression gas and oil are infinite

You COULD if you were so inclined research other sources of energy that is under exploration such as 

https://justenergy.com/blog/why-alternative-energy-sources-are-future/

BUT you won't even look at anything that offers alternatives, you rather blather about people being Fascists because they have a different point of view than you do

AND IF your kids really did learn anything in school ask them, or look it up yourself, what happens when you pump more carbon than the Earth naturally produces into the atmosphere, I mean seriously, this is basic science 101

BUT you won't.

Snowflake...I've researched this to death over the last few years and ya know...nothing I've ever read convinces me that this new religion is nothing more than a carbon copy of the old religions. Control by fear and threats. It will be hundreds of years...perhaps thousands...before this planet runs out of oil. I expect that by then, you and I will be long gone and man will have found a different source of energy.

If you Greenies really want the cooperation of people like me, who actually question things that sound fishy, and are not OK with the current artificial elevation of fossil fuel prices, then take you fingers off of the panic button and stop trying to destroy the primary source of energy we HAVE NOW. As I have said...over and over...I am not opposed to different power sources. I am vehemently opposed to making our current source taboo and way too expensive, just so a gaggle of Greenies can think they're saving the bloody planet.

[Rebound]

20 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/02/16/why-wind-turbines-in-cold-climates-dont-freeze-de-icing-and-carbon-fiber/amp/

[Nationalist]

29 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Go fill up a balloon with Carbon Monoxide and take a few puffs.  Cause carbon and oxygen can’t hurt you, right? 

Do you try to be so...silly? Or does it come naturally to you/

[Rebound]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Snowflake...I've researched this to death over the last few years and ya know...nothing I've ever read convinces me that this new religion is nothing more than a carbon copy of the old religions. Control by fear and threats. It will be hundreds of years...perhaps thousands...before this planet runs out of oil. I expect that by then, you and I will be long gone and man will have found a different source of energy.

If you Greenies really want the cooperation of people like me, who actually question things that sound fishy, and are not OK with the current artificial elevation of fossil fuel prices, then take you fingers off of the panic button and stop trying to destroy the primary source of energy we HAVE NOW. As I have said...over and over...I am not opposed to different power sources. I am vehemently opposed to making our current source taboo and way too expensive, just so a gaggle of Greenies can think they're saving the bloody planet.

Hey, You! Pay Attention:

Petroleum is a COMMODITY 

The price of petroleum is set GLOBALLY

 

If the Saudis raise oil prices, the Americans raise them too. If the Saudis lower oil prices, Americans lower them. That’s how a commodity market works. There’s nothing more to “research.” Tucker Carlson can’t “teach” you more than that. OPEC sets global oil prices. America does not and cannot produce enough oil to counter OPEC’s power in setting oil prices.  

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Do you try to be so...silly? Or does it come naturally to you/

You’re the one who said Carbon can’t harm us.  

[Nationalist]

Just now, Rebound said:

Hey, You! Pay Attention:

Petroleum is a COMMODITY 

The price of petroleum is set GLOBALLY

 

If the Saudis raise oil prices, the Americans raise them too. If the Saudis lower oil prices, Americans lower them. That’s how a commodity market works. There’s nothing more to “research.” Tucker Carlson can’t “teach” you more than that. OPEC sets global oil prices. America does not and cannot produce enough oil to counter OPEC’s power in setting oil prices.  

When the POTUS and assorted world leaders, declare war in fossil fuels, the price goes up.!

But I have to admit having a good chuckle watching addled old Joe beg these Arabs.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

You’re the one who said Carbon can’t harm us.  

Really? I said carbon can't harm us?

Where? Show me that quote...or go home.

[DogOnPorch]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/02/16/why-wind-turbines-in-cold-climates-dont-freeze-de-icing-and-carbon-fiber/amp/

 

Clearly incorrect as shown.

[SNOWFLAKE]

16 hours ago, Nationalist said:

But hey...you could always try to make thought a punishable offense...

You DO know what a strawman argument is, right?

[Nationalist]

Just now, SNOWFLAKE said:

You DO know what a strawman argument is, right?

I do.

But thought is already a punishable offence so ya...there's that.

[Rebound]

43 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Clearly incorrect as shown.

Obviously you did not read the article, therefore you cannot know whether it or correct or not. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Rebound

[Rebound]

16 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Errr...

The planet and the life on it are carbon based. The planet actually makes carbon. But we're to believe we're all going to die...from carbon.

 

There’s your quote. Yes, carbon can kill is. Try breathing in a bag of carbon monoxide and report the results.  

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

15 minutes ago, Rebound said:

There’s your quote. Yes, carbon can kill is. Try breathing in a bag of carbon monoxide and report the results.  

Not to stick my toes back in this coo coo clock again but there is an issue with what you are saying

Carbon is a element all by itself and is in fact the basis for life on this planet.

Oxygen is a element all by itself and what humans need to breath to survive and has other uses, like fire. 

Carbon Monoxide is a product of most pollution producing industries and IS in fact harmful and poisonous and harmful to the environment, humans and life in general.

I am aware this is splitting hairs here but I have been called foolish for not splitting far less obvious hairs in this very thread.

So carbon ok oxygen ok carbon monoxide bad.

[ironstone]

21 hours ago, Aristides said:

Who are these people? Not scientists. The director has a doctorate in history.

I'll follow real scientists at NASA

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3002/sea-level-101-part-two-all-sea-level-is-local/

You do that.? I would also remind you that NASA scientists are not infallible.

NASA’s Own Data Discredits Its Predictions of Antarctic Doom - The New American

A Brief History of Fantastically Wrong Climate Change Predictions

The modern environmentalist movement began in earnest in 1970, when activists founded Earth Day as a way to call attention to the ways in which man-made climate change was destroying the planet.

Then, as now, those activists claimed a scientific consensus about just how devastating the impact of climate change would be, yet for 45 years now, scientists (not activists, scientists) have been consistently wrong in their doomsday predictions.

Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day said before the first Earth Day in 1970 that “the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Not to be outdone, Life Magazine reported that same year that “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, the celebrated author of The Climate Bomb, wrote in 1971 that "by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1975 Newsweek ran a now-infamous article entitled “The Cooling World,” which cited several climate scientists in concluding that “the central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

Global famine was a popular prediction in the 70’s.  North Texas State professor Pete Gunter summed up the prevailing sentiment when he wrote in “The Lving Wilderness” that by “by the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

In 1986, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congressthat “global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

Two years later, Dr. Hansen told an interviewer that in 20 years, the area below his New York City office would be completely changed, most notably that “the West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

Even the great Carl Sagan predicted in 1990 that “the planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

That same year, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer with The Environmental Defense Fund wrote:

By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.

As recently as the last decade, both Dr. Hansen and Peter Wadhams, the head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge, believe “that the Arctic is likely to become ice-free...as early as 2015.”

That’s actually two years later than Al Gore predicted in 2007,2008, and 2009, when he cited what he called a scientific consensus to claim that the North Pole would be “ice free by 2013.” 

That’s good, because Pentagon scientists sure weren’t in 2003, when their report“An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security” warned that within 10 years, “it was not implausible” that parts of California would be flooded, parts of the Netherlands would be uninhabitable, and an unprecedented rise in hurricanes, tsunamis, and tornadoes would spark wars across the globe as people fought for increasingly scarce resources. 

Not to be outdone, scientists with the United Nations Environment Programme warned in 2005 that man-made global warming would so decimate coastal areas as well as the Caribbean and Pacific islands that there would be upwards of 50 million “climate refugees by 2010.”

Of course, none of these scientific predictions—from Earth Day straight through today—have ever actually been right, but more predictions keep coming...along with more admonitions that the science is settled. 

[ironstone]

21 hours ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

I was hoping when I joined this forum I wouldn't meet such monumental stupidity, but apparently it is universal.

Wind and solar are NOT the only alternative sources BEING currently explored. Let's be clear, oil and gas are finite. As the supply diminishes the cost for oil and gas will increase.

A simple search of the internet would inform you what other resources there are. Example:

https://justenergy.com/blog/why-alternative-energy-sources-are-future/

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/alternative-energy-sources

Making simplistic statements without actually doing any research is the refuge of a simple mind. Sorry if that sounds like an insult, but you walked right into it.

Umm wait a minute...you talk about the science but at the same time you're part of the group that happens to believe that gender is fluid and that there are in fact dozens or perhaps hundreds of genders. Is that left-wing science?

Didn't mean to trigger you SNOWFLAKE. 

I'm all for new energy sources that will be reliable and affordable. An all of the above scenario. Let's learn from the mistakes of California and Europe.

[robosmith]

18 minutes ago, ironstone said:

You do that.? I would also remind you that NASA scientists are not infallible.

NASA’s Own Data Discredits Its Predictions of Antarctic Doom - The New American

A Brief History of Fantastically Wrong Climate Change Predictions

The modern environmentalist movement began in earnest in 1970, when activists founded Earth Day as a way to call attention to the ways in which man-made climate change was destroying the planet.

Then, as now, those activists claimed a scientific consensus about just how devastating the impact of climate change would be, yet for 45 years now, scientists (not activists, scientists) have been consistently wrong in their doomsday predictions.

Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day said before the first Earth Day in 1970 that “the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Not to be outdone, Life Magazine reported that same year that “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, the celebrated author of The Climate Bomb, wrote in 1971 that "by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1975 Newsweek ran a now-infamous article entitled “The Cooling World,” which cited several climate scientists in concluding that “the central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

Global famine was a popular prediction in the 70’s.  North Texas State professor Pete Gunter summed up the prevailing sentiment when he wrote in “The Lving Wilderness” that by “by the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

In 1986, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congressthat “global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

Two years later, Dr. Hansen told an interviewer that in 20 years, the area below his New York City office would be completely changed, most notably that “the West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

Even the great Carl Sagan predicted in 1990 that “the planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

That same year, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer with The Environmental Defense Fund wrote:

By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.

As recently as the last decade, both Dr. Hansen and Peter Wadhams, the head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge, believe “that the Arctic is likely to become ice-free...as early as 2015.”

That’s actually two years later than Al Gore predicted in 2007,2008, and 2009, when he cited what he called a scientific consensus to claim that the North Pole would be “ice free by 2013.” 

That’s good, because Pentagon scientists sure weren’t in 2003, when their report“An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security” warned that within 10 years, “it was not implausible” that parts of California would be flooded, parts of the Netherlands would be uninhabitable, and an unprecedented rise in hurricanes, tsunamis, and tornadoes would spark wars across the globe as people fought for increasingly scarce resources. 

Not to be outdone, scientists with the United Nations Environment Programme warned in 2005 that man-made global warming would so decimate coastal areas as well as the Caribbean and Pacific islands that there would be upwards of 50 million “climate refugees by 2010.”

Of course, none of these scientific predictions—from Earth Day straight through today—have ever actually been right, but more predictions keep coming...along with more admonitions that the science is settled. 

Of course NONE of ^these predictions were definitive declarations (like “it was not implausible”), and not all were even scientists. And ALL of them were based on the premise of NO mitigating actions, which has NOT been true. 

Right NOW, the war in Ukraine is being fought over "scarce resources" because Putin wants to steal Ukraine's gas reserves off the Crimean coast.

Sometimes alarmist claims are necessary to get NEEDED attention. ?

 

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Umm wait a minute...you talk about the science but at the same time you're part of the group that happens to believe that gender is fluid and that there are in fact dozens or perhaps hundreds of genders. Is that left-wing science?

Didn't mean to trigger you SNOWFLAKE. 

I'm all for new energy sources that will be reliable and affordable. An all of the above scenario. Let's learn from the mistakes of California and Europe.

Do you believe the mental component of gender is NOT at least somewhat "fluid"?

Given the spectrum of human sexual activity, there seems to be an enormous amount of evidence it IS.

[Aristides]

24 minutes ago, ironstone said:

You do that.? I would also remind you that NASA scientists are not infallible.

NASA’s Own Data Discredits Its Predictions of Antarctic Doom - The New American

A Brief History of Fantastically Wrong Climate Change Predictions

The modern environmentalist movement began in earnest in 1970, when activists founded Earth Day as a way to call attention to the ways in which man-made climate change was destroying the planet.

Then, as now, those activists claimed a scientific consensus about just how devastating the impact of climate change would be, yet for 45 years now, scientists (not activists, scientists) have been consistently wrong in their doomsday predictions.

Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day said before the first Earth Day in 1970 that “the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Not to be outdone, Life Magazine reported that same year that “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, the celebrated author of The Climate Bomb, wrote in 1971 that "by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1975 Newsweek ran a now-infamous article entitled “The Cooling World,” which cited several climate scientists in concluding that “the central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

Global famine was a popular prediction in the 70’s.  North Texas State professor Pete Gunter summed up the prevailing sentiment when he wrote in “The Lving Wilderness” that by “by the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

In 1986, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congressthat “global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

Two years later, Dr. Hansen told an interviewer that in 20 years, the area below his New York City office would be completely changed, most notably that “the West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

Even the great Carl Sagan predicted in 1990 that “the planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

That same year, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer with The Environmental Defense Fund wrote:

By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.

As recently as the last decade, both Dr. Hansen and Peter Wadhams, the head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge, believe “that the Arctic is likely to become ice-free...as early as 2015.”

That’s actually two years later than Al Gore predicted in 2007,2008, and 2009, when he cited what he called a scientific consensus to claim that the North Pole would be “ice free by 2013.” 

That’s good, because Pentagon scientists sure weren’t in 2003, when their report“An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security” warned that within 10 years, “it was not implausible” that parts of California would be flooded, parts of the Netherlands would be uninhabitable, and an unprecedented rise in hurricanes, tsunamis, and tornadoes would spark wars across the globe as people fought for increasingly scarce resources. 

Not to be outdone, scientists with the United Nations Environment Programme warned in 2005 that man-made global warming would so decimate coastal areas as well as the Caribbean and Pacific islands that there would be upwards of 50 million “climate refugees by 2010.”

Of course, none of these scientific predictions—from Earth Day straight through today—have ever actually been right, but more predictions keep coming...along with more admonitions that the science is settled. 

The timeline is off but the predictions are definitely becoming true. Major drought this year in the west coast rain forest. No rain for 100 days. Today the Fraser Valley has the worst air quality in the world because of smoke from forest fires. In October when we normally get over 100 MM of rain.

[herbie]

I resurched it. On the computer. On those sites not owned by MSM. Let me post anuther meme as proof... everybody knows windmills are no good, ask any Dutch person

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

There’s your quote. Yes, carbon can kill is. Try breathing in a bag of carbon monoxide and report the results.  

First of all...CO carbon monoxide. 1 part carbon and 1 part oxygen.

Sugar can kill. Hell oxygen can kill. But running around yelling "carbon kills" with a mouth that is carbon based...is just fear porn.

I often wonder...what must it be like, to be afraid of everything?

Carbon

The Rona

Russians

Religion

Police

Hell half the population. 

And every button Libbies push...comes with a giant pricetag. Almost as if...Libbies hate our world and the humans on it.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Nationalist

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

First of all...CO carbon monoxide. 1 part carbon and 1 part oxygen.

Sugar can kill. Hell oxygen can kill. But running around yelling "carbon kills" with a mouth that is carbon based...is just fear porn.

I often wonder...what must it be like, to be afraid of everything?

Carbon

No one said we need to be afraid of Carbon. CO2 can make this planet uninhabitable. Just look at Venus where the atmosphere is something like 90% CO2. Hot as hell.

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

The Rona

A lot of people did not take precautions from COVID are dead.

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Russians

You can move to Russia if you're not scared. I hear they're kidnapping men off the street for conscription NOW.

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Religion

Religion is only a concern when you don't have FREEDOM FROM IT.

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Police

Police have guns and SOME use them wantonly to KILL. Better be scared of that, esp if you're black in the South. 

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Hell half the population. 

You mean the half who are trying to destroy democracy here. Well it's really only about 30% of ADULTS.

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And every button Libbies push...comes with a giant pricetag. Almost as if...Libbies hate our world and the humans on it.

OTC, "libbies" mean to save our world from LONGER TERM catastrophe and current  mega-droughts and mega storm damage.

I hear the heat waves are moving North, maybe British Columbia is in the cross-hairs.

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

19 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Police have guns and SOME use them wantonly to KILL. Better be scared of that, esp if you're black in the South. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

Looked this up to try and argue that point, and well crap.

[Jedi_Master_Tallyn]

What a novel concept someone posting something that disproves their argument you would think they cared more about the truth than being right.

[SNOWFLAKE]

19 hours ago, ironstone said:

Umm wait a minute...you talk about the science but at the same time you're part of the group that happens to believe that gender is fluid and that there are in fact dozens or perhaps hundreds of genders. Is that left-wing science?

Didn't mean to trigger you SNOWFLAKE. 

I'm all for new energy sources that will be reliable and affordable. An all of the above scenario. Let's learn from the mistakes of California and Europe.

First of all you have NO clue what my philosophy is on genders. 2nd - your snide comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A classic case of whataboutism:

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”.
https://flaglerlive.com/176623/whataboutism-explained/

3rd, I will gladly debate anyone who wants to debate the climate situation but won't bother with rebutting anyone who wants to present themselves as an ass. So don't expect another reply from me.