Jump to content

Is climate change just another religion?


Recommended Posts

  • 3 years later...
2 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

 

Climate change doesn't exist? Has anyone seen any world news in the last few years?

It is hilarious to what lengths people go to explain things away. 

The earth is a disc by the way...

The earth is round in shape, not a disc.

Anyway, Ruining Americas economy because Americans don't want to pay for more expensive products from over regulated American pollution controlled companies is what's wrong here.

They would rather buy cheaper made products from Amazon that are made in China, which doesn't give one rat crap about pollution or using slave labor to make said cheap products.

We can never counteract the pollution China and other unregulated pollution emitting countries are pumping out with our Green new deals.

We've spent trillions since Al gore cried about it while flying in his jet and what has happened, nothing.

It's like pissing into the wind, but why let a crisis go to waste ?

We are our own worst enemy.

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shoots100 said:

The earth is round in shape, not a disc.

Anyway, Ruining Americas economy because Americans don't want to pay for more expensive products from over regulated American pollution controlled companies is what's wrong here.

They would rather buy cheaper made products from Amazon that are made in China, which doesn't give one rat crap about pollution or using slave labor to make said cheap products.

We can never counteract the pollution China and other unregulated pollution emitting countries are pumping out with our Green new deals.

We've spent trillions since Al gore cried about it while flying in his jet and what has happened, nothing.

It's like pissing into the wind, but why let a crisis go to waste ?

We are our own worst enemy.

  

You know how much energy the average American uses per capita? We could definetely lead by example. The other option is to not g.a.f.,which is pretty widespread.

I do agree that we are our own worst enemy and the bill will eventually have to be paid,by all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason people who have analytical minds are not on board with "climate change oppression", is because nobody has yet been able to supply any PROOF, scientific or otherwise, that anything we spend billions on will have any real effect on the climate.

Plus, if most of the other countries of the world are not held to the same oppressive mandates, and are even encouraged to ignore them, nothing positive will result from oppressive American regulations.

When looked at without a jaundiced eye, it appears to be a huge wealth transfer scheme, and the fact that leftists are the ones pushing it, gives that idea even more credibility.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The reason people who have analytical minds are not on board with "climate change oppression", is because nobody has yet been able to supply any PROOF, scientific or otherwise, that anything we spend billions on will have any real effect on the climate.

Plus, if most of the other countries of the world are not held to the same oppressive mandates, and are even encouraged to ignore them, nothing positive will result from oppressive American regulations.

When looked at without a jaundiced eye, it appears to be a huge wealth transfer scheme, and the fact that leftists are the ones pushing it, gives that idea even more credibility.

 

Maybe leftists care a little more about the future? 

As far as proof goes,it is a pretty basic equasion. Less carbon in the atmosphere= better. 

Wealth transfer from big oil to big solar?

Or we can just keep doing what we are doing, seems to be working well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

Maybe leftists care a little more about the future?

Yes, You may have something there, actually!! Because the health of the environment is there #1 priority, it appears theyve discovered the solution: destroy humankind, then the bunnies and the deer can rule the earth!!  :D

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

Yes, You may have something there, actually!! Because the health of the environment is there #1 priority, it appears theyve discovered the solution: destroy humankind, then the bunnies and the deer can rule the earth!!  :D

 

It isn't an all or nothing situation. The way we are living is a cancer to this planet. It doesn't have to be that way though, we could try to follow some of nature's laws...

We are not separate from nature and can only ignore it for so long.

Long term prognosis is we will be gone and the planet may recover,or maybe not.

It is quite remarkable how much we managed to fuck it up in a couple of hundred years though. Seems like the bill is coming due.

Edited by BowmanMike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

The way we are living is a cancer to this planet. It doesn't have to be that way though, we could try to follow some of nature's laws...

I dont necessarily disagree with what youre saying, but I would ask you: what do you propose then? What do you mean by "Follow natures laws"? Does that imply abandoning ALL of technology and going back to living in thatched roof huts? Its a sincere question, btw as there are environmental wacko extremists who advicate for that , you know- but conveniently, not for them , of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

I dont necessarily disagree with what youre saying, but I would ask you: what do you propose then? What do you mean by "Follow natures laws"? Does that imply abandoning ALL of technology and going back to living in thatched roof huts? Its a sincere question, btw as there are environmental wacko extremists who advicate for that , you know- but conveniently, not for them , of course.

Our Top 10 Cartoon Cars of All Time - OnAllCylinders

There's no free lunch with the "green energy" we have now. Not saying they shouldn't be used but they aren't the final solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

It isn't an all or nothing situation. The way we are living is a cancer to this planet. It doesn't have to be that way though, we could try to follow some of nature's laws...

We are not separate from nature and can only ignore it for so long.

Long term prognosis is we will be gone and the planet may recover,or maybe not.

It is quite remarkable how much we managed to fuck it up in a couple of hundred years though. Seems like the bill is coming due.


I can agree that humans are slowly trashing the earth but I am also slowly trashing my living room carpet just by using it by living in my house. The major greenhouse gas that is claimed to cause climate change from fossil fuels is carbon dioxide. High carbon dioxide level are great for plants and that is why it is pumped into greenhouses for some very high profit plants. Why would we now with the earths expanding population want to slow the production of food growth potential. What we need to do is stop turning food crops in to fuel. Now If you are trying to get the thruway garbage cleaned up by the able-bodied people already getting tax dollars I say it’s a great plan and a great place to start. 
https://www.npr.org/2008/02/07/18784732/study-ethanol-worse-for-climate-than-gasoline

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it the current plan by those who say they care more than everyone else, is to tax us all at much higher rates?

Maybe if they could make a credible case that would solve the problem, people would buy it.  But they haven't been able to do that.  So, when the people don't buy it, they want to force it on everyone at the point of a gun.

Why is it that all of the plans the left has for everyone to live buy, has to be forced on everyone at the point of a gun? 

You know what they call people who try to force their will on everyone else?  Tyrants.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 9jNYstarkOH said:


I can agree that humans are slowly trashing the earth but I am also slowly trashing my living room carpet just by using it by living in my house. The major greenhouse gas that is claimed to cause climate change from fossil fuels is carbon dioxide. High carbon dioxide level are great for plants and that is why it is pumped into greenhouses for some very high profit plants. Why would we now with the earths expanding population want to slow the production of food growth potential. What we need to do is stop turning food crops in to fuel. Now If you are trying to get the thruway garbage cleaned up by the able-bodied people already getting tax dollars I say it’s a great plan and a great place to start. 
https://www.npr.org/2008/02/07/18784732/study-ethanol-worse-for-climate-than-gasoline

there is plenty of food to feed the world,it is not being distributed because of profits. 

you usually have better post than this one...pretty ridiculous twist on the benefits of co2. I am aware of the biology involved. At the same time that extra co2 makes trees grow faster but the lumber is crap compared to trees harvested over 100 years ago. Fast growth does not equal quality. 

Too many people on the planet anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BowmanMike said:

there is plenty of food to feed the world,it is not being distributed because of profits. 

you usually have better post than this one...pretty ridiculous twist on the benefits of co2. I am aware of the biology involved. At the same time that extra co2 makes trees grow faster but the lumber is crap compared to trees harvested over 100 years ago. Fast growth does not equal quality. 

Too many people on the planet anyway...

66 million years ago co2 level where 4 times higher than today. What year have you decided is the gold standard at which we should gauge the climate? Why did you pick said year? Too many people on the planet is a bold statement, how do you believe we should reduce the population? Fast growth in lumber may not equal quality but I was talking about food growth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, 9jNYstarkOH said:

66 million years ago co2 level where 4 times higher than today. What year have you decided is the gold standard at which we should gauge the climate? Why did you pick said year? Too many people on the planet is a bold statement, how do you believe we should reduce the population? Fast growth in lumber may not equal quality but I was talking about food growth. 

Eh,maybe you are right. @Shoots100 has a point too,humanity as a whole is never going to get their stuff together to avert whatever is going to happen,so we might as well go full steam ahead and have a good time doing it. 

Let the kids and their kids deal with it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Millions of years ago, deserts were jungles and jungles were deserts.

Mankind had/has nothing to do with the climate changing.

Mankind is killing Mankind, not the planet.

The planet will be here long after mankind has destroyed itself and turned our remains into fossil fuel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to argue and debate about how we should react to climate change (who should do what, what should the government do etc) that's totally fine and honestly pretty healthy.

If you want to deny climate change you're now in a very, very small minority. Even some of the most vocal deniers have now agreed that it's real. How we should react should be how some of you approach this discussion. Denying it makes you look pathetically ignorant, especially when many of you are getting your facts from youtube. 

sincerely, an environmental engineer. 

Edited by Belo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BowmanMike said:

Eh,maybe you are right. @Shoots100 has a point too,humanity as a whole is never going to get their stuff together to avert whatever is going to happen,so we might as well go full steam ahead and have a good time doing it. 

Let the kids and their kids deal with it...

It’s hard to see your perspective if you are not willing to answer questions. Now I agree the climate is changing but also know it has changed a lot in millions of years even before humans. Do humans cause climate change yes but at what levels and what should we do about it is the question.

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/ancient-deepsea-shells-reveal-66-million-years-of-carbon-dioxide-levels/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Belo said:

If you want to argue and debate about how we should react to climate change (who should do what, what should the government do etc) that's totally fine and honestly pretty healthy.

If you want to deny climate change you're now in a very, very small minority. Even some of the most vocal deniers have now agreed that it's real. How we should react should be how some of you approach this discussion. Denying it makes you look pathetically ignorant, especially when many of you are getting your facts from youtube. 

sincerely, an environmental engineer. 

These are the same experts that can't tell us what the weather will be with certainty in 24 hours using the latest radar, but anyone that doesn't take their word as bible for what they predict is going to happen years and decades from now is considered ignorant ?

No one is claiming the climate doesn't change, just that mankind is to blame for it and that boatloads of money will make severe climate change dissipate.

The fact is that US Pollution regulations have been around for decades being guided by the top climate experts in the field, yet the climate conditions have been getting worse.

Since the issue isn't getting better, Is it ignorant to follow the guidance of these experts blindly anymore ? 

 

Edited by Shoots100
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Shoots100 said:

These are the same experts that can't tell us what the weather will be with certainty in 24 hours using the latest radar, but anyone that doesn't take their word as bible for what they predict is going to happen years and decades from now is considered ignorant ?

No one is claiming the climate doesn't change, just that mankind is to blame for it and that boatloads of money will make severe climate change dissipate.

The fact is that US Pollution regulations have been around for decades being guided by the top climate experts in the field, yet the climate conditions have been getting worse.

Since the issue isn't getting better, Is it ignorant to follow the guidance of these experts blindly anymore ? 

 

You lost me when you stated that a meteorologist and a climate scientist was the same profession.

Thank you for proving my point on ignorance. I could go on and on about how measuring of carbon in our atmosphere and historical data trends are vastly different from predicting which cloud will go where, but I doubt it would matter to you.

If you'd like to have a discussion, I'd be interested in your profession and education first and then we can continue.

toodles 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

Too many people on the planet anyway...

This is the most revealing statement about the left's climate change agenda.

Forget about fossil fuels, recycling and aerosol cans.  This is what every environmental activist will tell you is the major problem facing the environment.  The more people on earth, the more pollution in the atmosphere.

It is a factual belief, I admit, but the solutions preferred are not being discussed.  Abortion is supported by most climate change activists.  I would expect that.  But, I have also been told voluntary euthanasia has become the #6th leading killer of people in Canada today.  Apparently people who have reached a certain old age are not being treated for certain diseases like cancer, because they are not expected to survive cancer.  Also, people who feel life isn't worth living for chronic medical issues, or even financial insecurity can opt for it.

A Canadian Forces veteran seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and a traumatic brain injury was "inappropriately" offered medical assistance in dying, spurring an investigation.

The federal government says the MAID program -- first passed in 2016 following a 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada -- is intended for people with a "grievous and irremediable condition." Mental illnesses are currently excluded, patients must be at least 18 years old and two independent health professionals have to approve the request after receiving informed consent.

Bill C-7, which received royal assent in March 2021, expanded access to MAID by repealing an eligibility provision that required "a person's natural death be reasonably foreseeable." This led to an influx of participants; the program's third annual report found "10,064 MAID provisions reported in Canada, accounting for 3.3% of all deaths in Canada" in 2021.

So, with this type of thing becoming normal, how can we not see the desire for population control?  That makes it an agenda of death inside the climate change agenda.  Can you imagine what the consequences of allowing the government to control the population could be?

Remember when they laughed at those who said ObamaCare would have "Death Panels"?  Guess it wasn't such an off the wall belief after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is people have a tendency to look at things as if they exist in a bubble and doing one thing is going to be the answer to all the problems. The electric car is a perfect example. 

Electric Cars put out zero emissions: But the production of the materials for the car put out tons of emissions, power generation produces tons of emissions. We don't have a power grid or power generation system that can handle everyone going to an electric car. Upgrading those systems would produce even more emissions. Do we know if there is actually a net reduction in emissions? And even if there was, you start the changes at the power generation end, then upgrade the grid then move to the end user. 

If people were serious about reducing emissions, there would be more talk about nuclear power generation. or producing items in countries that don't have horrible emissions and pollution issues (like China at nearly 30%) 

The US accounts for less than 15% of the world's emissions. We have continuously cut emissions for decades while other countries have increased emissions. (back to the bubble) Even if we cut our emissions to 0% (which is not possible), if the rest of the world doesn't cut emissions there is going to be very little change. And this is assuming the humans are causing a major negative effect on the planet. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...