Why You Should Never Believe The Global Warming Hoax And Alarmism

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: face23785

It really lays waste to the entire premise of CO2/warming being catastrophic regardless of who or what causes it.

And add in the CO2 Spikes out of the Earths Atmosphere removing energy the whole capturing energy theory is put to rest.

That NASA study i can reference again.
coldclimatechange.com...

NASA says that CO2 is a coolant not a warming gas. One part of NASA is now in conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere. NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) are two substances playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface tending to cool not heat.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Grenade



It's absolutely sick that in the modern age with modern technology and resources we still use the threat of starvation, homelessness and sickness as the primary motivator to get people to work.

So, you are ok with people sitting on their ass bitching about having nothing when the do have a roof, food and the basics?

That I am not ok with personally.


I think we have just about hit the limit to % people with their hand out against the % people working now. I am sure we could take the Hollywood salaries and do something cool with them but the middle class people who don't make enough to live very well are making too much to get assistance. They are struggling to not be in foreclosures. Some do say screw it Uncle Sugar , USA can pay for my lifestyle. Some have too much pride to be that person for long.
ETA
We were very poor and upper middle class type rich and poor again. I received a decent education thru aid and scholarships for most of my college funding and have had a decent career with my degree. But I struggle to do things financially like the Griswald family in Nat Lampoon movies. Only we don't blow a lot for any reason but taking the kids places or being with family wherever they live. Not enough $ for big things like minks and huge vacations but enough to be able to enjoy life and save for retirement.

a reply to: Justoneman

Is like you ignored everything I've said, as well as my addressing all this, the welfare trap, and how welfare plus abysmally low wages trap people.

I'm getting sick and tired of people reading only small sections of my posts and ignoring the #ing rest and taking everything out of context ignoring the #ing whole of the message.

Half the reason people are not working is because people like your ass are too busy being perfectly happy that people at the bottom are screwed into either no life in exchange for the same thing they'd get sitting on their ass, or sitting on their ass.

If low level jobs, which are the only jobs most people can do, and make up most jobs available paid better than welfare, almost no one would be sitting on their ass because working would actually be #ing worth something.

a reply to: Puppylove

That was your comment I just concentrated on it for a reason. I am not that person you think.

Logic says people who don't HELP THEMSELVES who can are a burden on themselves and the rest of us. Truly, you can see that with your welfare trap comment being correct. I wasn't ignoring that point and apologize if you took it that way.

Low level jobs are never intended to be careers is the main problem. People who don't find a path to improve their game are going to have to reevaluate if they wish to work at a job like that for life or do something about it. We all start at the bottom one way or another. Choices are what brings people to their situation most of the time. We help those that can't help themselves is my motto. We encourage those who can should be all our thinking.

Dire Straits sang it " I should've learned to play the guitar, I should've learned to play them drums..Oh that aint workin'. Thats the way you do it. Let me tell you them guys aint dumb".

a reply to: Justoneman

Most of the worlds jobs are low level, which means no matter what, most of the worlds population by necessity must fill these jobs, anyone who pretends otherwise is blind to reality. Stop pretending like everyone can "level up" in the work force, it's completely dishonest and absurd as a point of view. So sick of the, "never meant to be a career" claim bull#. It's an excuse to not pay anyone anything for the majority of the only jobs that exist.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

So you have no idea? It's probably the guy from your OP.

Oh, I know who he is (hence the reason I asked what he has to do with anything, rather than who he is). I was pointing out your non-sequitur about his test driving lifts for me (who you presume to be old, for some reason).

...said the guy posting another thread for his flock of anti-climate alarmists.

You seem to have poor grasp of logic. Rather than refute the fact that captain genius brown made a horribly incorrect prediction, followed by many other people in his "field" making similarly horribly wrong predictions (because you can't, it happened), you've resorted to posting more horribly wrong predictions as if you are proving something. In a way, you are, you are proving that you are going to continue falling for the same trick over and over.

Are you going to look into the facts now, coming up with a detailed reply?

A detailed reply to what exactly? You seem to be operating under the pretense that you've provided a rebuttal. You have not. Furthermore this thread is not about the science of climate change (which I would utterly dismantle you in a debate about) but rather it is about the continued alarmism by the CAGW community, which always fails to come to fruition anywhere near their specified time frames.

And I'm the clown who knows what an ad hominem fallacy looks like.

Apparently not. An ad-hom requires a genuine discussion to be ongoing at the time. At no point has your discussion been genuine. It's just been non-sequitur, straw men, distractions, and false assumptions.

Are you not entertained

No more than I am when dismantling the other NPC's arguments around here.

a reply to: Puppylove

No, most of the worlds jobs are mid level. By the very definition. Yes, there are plenty of mid level jobs to go around.

o sick of the, "never meant to be a career" claim bull#.

You think mcdonalds cashier is a career? Hardly. However there are plenty of careers in fast food. Mostly management. If you stick around for a year or two and you have a pulse, you'll likely find yourself in a management position. Speaking from experience.

a reply to: Justoneman

The statement in your link : "“greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun"

Shows the guy has no clue what he's talking about. Blocking "harmful rays", and reducing how much sunlight gets through are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT discussions.

"Harmful rays" means stuff that can give you cancer, and only makes up a very tiny percentage of the overall amount of radiation that comes from the Sun.

This guy is just parroting stuff he heard and didn't understand, which was probably quoted to him entirely out of context from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone who. .......heard it from the gravevine.




The reason Climate Change isn't a huge mystery for me is because I studied actual physics in college, including thermal dynamics. I actually understand the process, including a lot of things about how heat transfer systems work in general, which I certainly would NOT know if I hadn't learned it from my professors.

I shall try and summarize, because once you know the basic system, you can more accurately tell who is telling you something on the level, and who is just blowing smoke up your a$$.


1) - Radio waves, infrared, and light are all the same thing. A radio wave is just really low frequency light. Light is just a super high frequency radio wave.

2) - All hot objects emit radio/light at some frequency. The hotter they are, the more they emit, and the higher the frequency. The Sun is so hot it emits radio/light at a frequency you can see.

3) - The Earth emits JUST AS MUCH radio/light as it receives. Most of the radio/light the Earth emits is at a lower frequency than sunlight, though. The reason this happens is because sunlight heats up the Earth, and then once the Earth is warm, it emits radio/light due to being a warm object.

4) - An object at "thermal equilibrium" is one which emits the same amount of radio/light as it receives. All objects naturally reach thermal equilibrium, because if they aren't emitting as much radio/light as they receive they will just keep getting hotter until they are hot enough to emit more.


Once you understand those four things, the next step is pretty straight forward.

A greenhouse gas is a gas which lets the high frequency radio/light emitted by the sun through, but which blocks or reflects the low frequency light emitted by the warm Earth. (It is possible for a chemical to be completely transparent to one frequency, but block another entirely.)

If the Earth's ability to emit radio/light is impaired, it will get hotter until it is hot enough to emit more.


So there are a couple things you can understand from this:

1) - The Earth's temperature isn't going to go insane. The oceans aren't going to boil or anything crazy like that. But its equilibrium temperature could rise a few degrees and that would mess up some places' climates.

2) - Greenhouse gases clearly make the world hotter. But it is not because they let more sunlight through. It's because the let less low frequency radio/light from the Earth out.

3) - Greenhouse gases may indeed block some of the frequencies of light that cause cancer. The problem is that they block EVEN MORE of the Earth's radio/light from getting back out into space. It's not a question of doing one thing perfectly. It's a question of doing one thing MORE THAN the other. It's like if you have a business that is losing more money than it makes. That doesn't mean your business is making zero dollars. It's just making less than it spends.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Grenade

We don't need equality of outcome, risk and success should be rewarded. All we need is for where one starts to be upgraded from abject poverty so that any work can be a reward rather than simply removing base suffering.

It's absolutely sick that in the modern age with modern technology and resources we still use the threat of starvation, homelessness and sickness as the primary motivator to get people to work.

Actually no, it's worse than that, we actually do to some degree provide food and medical care, and shelter to the non working, we just also make the base jobs less enticing than not working, causing people on hard times to feel trapped and not try to better themselves.

Our welfare system is a trap because jobs refuse to treat their lowest paid employee as anything other than chattel, and our government refuses to help anyone as soon as their making money anywhere close to what welfare benefits supplied making that work worthless unless a person works absurd hours and multiple jobs just to begin to do a little better than welfare was providing.

People need to be able to stop scrambling just to get their head above water so that they can begin to benefit in an actually positive rewarding way. Work needs to become a rewarding experience that people want to do because they are rewarded for it, and not simply to avoid some kind of hardship or suffering.

The trouble is, as technology increased, so did the population.

But the resources didn't increase. (And most of the technologies we've developed don't extend them nearly enough to make up for the population disparity.)

So work has taken the place of warfare, as a way for the overly numerous population to "fight" over scarce natural resources.

Consider for example Honduras. Its population grew 40% between the year 2000 and now. 19 years, they go from 6.5 to 9.1 million. That's stupidly insane.

No amount of technology is EVER, in your wildest dreams, going to be able to keep up with a population growth rate that large. There's not the faintest hope of it.

But people just keep misinterpreting the Abrahamic texts, and convincing themselves that "god wants" them to breed like rabbits (or locusts) and consume all the world's resources in a few generation's time.

100% of the problem is just that. I would say 99.9999999999999 %, but really, I'd need a whole page of .000000000000 followed by a 1 to represent the amount of problem that is attributable to other causes.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Most factory jobs barely allow a person to live any better than McDonald's these days. Where are all these mid level jobs you're talking about that anyone can do? Why are so many people with degrees stuck working # jobs if there are so many great jobs out there. Open your eyes, the middle class is almost nonexistent now.

Global Warming is nothing more than a great big CON to trick people into believing that there are valid reasons for us to pay more fines, more tax money and whatever else they can possibly steal from you.

If they wanted to, say fix the planet ( Once again I bring it up), they would have to enforce a law or create an PAndemic to reduce the current population but this will never ever happen because it will damage the economy.

You should stop using plastic! Use public transport! do this! do that! reduce your carbon footprint!
How about stop breeding?

I've worked at a few concrete plants myself... What they don't tell you or want you to know is that for every tonne of cement produced there is over just over one tonne equivalent of CO2 released. a lot more than your car! and we use cement for more than just houses.

A lot of good the Paris agreement is going to do when houses are continuously being built for the never-ending populace.
a CON.

a reply to: Puppylove

Most factory jobs barely allow a person to live any better than McDonald's these days.

Wow. Now if that isn't ignorance on parade I don't know what is.

The mean wage for a restaurant employee is $22k/yr. The mean wage for manufacturing jobs is around $43k.

Where are all these mid level jobs you're talking about that anyone can do?

There are currently around half a million unfilled manufacturing jobs. Link

Why are so many people with degrees stuck working # jobs if there are so many great jobs out there.

Because they got worthless degrees. They were misguided by society and probably their parents. We don't need more historians or business administrators. Yet those are two of the most popular degrees. You can go to school and get HVAC certified in as little as 4 months. Do you know what an HVAC tech makes? 50k/yr is the average. With four months of schooling. Not only that, the debt you come away with is minimal. Especially compared to the income you make.

Open your eyes, the middle class is almost nonexistent now.

What do you think the middle class is? Because it looks like the middle class is doing quite well to me.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I'd like to see what statistics were used to get those numbers on factory work cause I know how easy these statistics are to manipulate.

I've worked in many factories in three states and most of the people there worked on the ground floor and didn't get paid much more the 10 dollars an hour in most cases up to maaaaaybe 15 if they were there a long time and worked an undesireable shift. I'm talking about the ground floor basic worker that takes up the overwhelming majority of factory workers.

I suspect these statistics don't include the temps that make up the majority of workers on the ground floor based on the technicallity they technically work for their respective temp agencies and not the factories themselves, thus artificially skewing the numbers towards only counting the specialized workers and much smaller number lucky enough to be hired in. I also wonder if overtime pay averaged over time is added to pad those numbers.

a reply to: Puppylove

I'm sure it varies by industry. The steel industry pays decent as does the semiconductor industry. I'm not sure about others. I know at one time the auto industry paid outrageous amounts of cash. The manufacturing companies I've worked for haven't made much use of temp workers unless they absolutely had to. But our experiences are obviously quite different.

The last place I worked, the lowest paid person on the production floor made right around $20/hour. None of them had degrees at all. But there wasn't much head room. The highest paid in that group was probably around $26/hr and they had been there for probably 15 years.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I worked at a couple car part factories, they paid a bit better than others, I also suspect different states and cost of living makes a difference too. 22 dollars wouldn't be # in some places in California. The factories paid better in Ohio than Virginia where I was.

There's a lot of variables which is why I'm not a huge fan of statistics. We can likely if looking hard enough and using different statistic sources both prove everyone is over and underpaid at the same time if we wanted.

originally posted by: StrangeQuark96
Global Warming is nothing more than a great big CON to trick people into believing that there are valid reasons for us to pay more fines, more tax money and whatever else they can possibly steal from you.

I'm not going to disagree that the people pushing the movement are mostly using it as a con, but moving your opinion all the way to the extreme of assuming 100% of all the science behind the issue is 0% informative. All a con.

That's pretty extremist.

Truth is usually more moderate than that.

If they wanted to, say fix the planet ( Once again I bring it up), they would have to enforce a law or create an PAndemic to reduce the current population but this will never ever happen because it will damage the economy.

You should stop using plastic! Use public transport! do this! do that! reduce your carbon footprint!
How about stop breeding?

I've worked at a few concrete plants myself... What they don't tell you or want you to know is that for every tonne of cement produced there is over just over one tonne equivalent of CO2 released. a lot more than your car! and we use cement for more than just houses.

A lot of good the Paris agreement is going to do when houses are continuously being built for the never-ending populace.
a CON.

And that's the part that's the con.

Honduras went from 6.5 million to 9.1 million from the year 2000 to the year 2019. There is no amount of "mass transit" that is going to mitigate the footprint of a population growth that large.

It ends up in a caravan, marching up North to demand that a nation who's people are making wiser decisions to bail them out (with no intention of making better choices later on, either. Just demanding a free bailout.)




Point is, the con is on both ends.

1) - Selling us a fake solution.

2) - Agitating the condition that has caused the problem, so it keeps getting worse.

The reason is clear: the worse the situation gets, the easier it is to sell a fake remedy to a desperate public.

Kind of like if a montebank were selling you a cure for arthritis, and they make sure to lace the "cure" with a bunch of salt, and have you drink it down with alcohol. Your pain gets worse, and you want more cure.


www.arthritis.org... 5whLxLzCDZxMElLZRPVZ04WuaTwE0le7ywDN9hd5JirBNavQZcxRoC540QAvD_BwE

You can have real arthritis, and be offered a fake cure.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Lumenari

Notice something?
source

I noticed something.
I noticed that you posted completely irrelevant data to the entire debate on global warming.
Nobody is arguing that the Earth is not warming - or at least very few.
The debate is about the cause and effect.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: StrangeQuark96
Global Warming is nothing more than a great big CON to trick people into believing that there are valid reasons for us to pay more fines, more tax money and whatever else they can possibly steal from you.

I'm not going to disagree that the people pushing the movement are mostly using it as a con, but moving your opinion all the way to the extreme of assuming 100% of all the science behind the issue is 0% informative. All a con.

That's pretty extremist.

Truth is usually more moderate than that.

If they wanted to, say fix the planet ( Once again I bring it up), they would have to enforce a law or create an PAndemic to reduce the current population but this will never ever happen because it will damage the economy.

You should stop using plastic! Use public transport! do this! do that! reduce your carbon footprint!
How about stop breeding?

I've worked at a few concrete plants myself... What they don't tell you or want you to know is that for every tonne of cement produced there is over just over one tonne equivalent of CO2 released. a lot more than your car! and we use cement for more than just houses.

A lot of good the Paris agreement is going to do when houses are continuously being built for the never-ending populace.
a CON.

And that's the part that's the con.

Honduras went from 6.5 million to 9.1 million from the year 2000 to the year 2019. There is no amount of "mass transit" that is going to mitigate the footprint of a population growth that large.

It ends up in a caravan, marching up North to demand that a nation who's people are making wiser decisions to bail them out (with no intention of making better choices later on, either. Just demanding a free bailout.)




Point is, the con is on both ends.

1) - Selling us a fake solution.

2) - Agitating the condition that has caused the problem, so it keeps getting worse.

The reason is clear: the worse the situation gets, the easier it is to sell a fake remedy to a desperate public.

Kind of like if a montebank were selling you a cure for arthritis, and they make sure to lace the "cure" with a bunch of salt, and have you drink it down with alcohol. Your pain gets worse, and you want more cure.


www.arthritis.org... 5whLxLzCDZxMElLZRPVZ04WuaTwE0le7ywDN9hd5JirBNavQZcxRoC540QAvD_BwE

You hit the nail on the head - we're being sold fake solutions.
Actually not just being sold - but FORCED to adopt solutions that hurt society in other ways and don;t actually have an impact...all whilst some very few people get very rich.

It is estimated that Govts around the world are now spending $500bn a year of our tax payer money on fighting climate change. It's having almost no effect whilst we are still being beaten over the head and having our lives micromanaged in the process.

The actual solutions are not profitable for the right people, hence they are not talked about.
For example, if rising CO2 levels as we are told represents the underlying cause, then why are we not hearing daily about artifical trees? They already exist and can replicate the effect of 1000 natural trees. Basically a CO2 scrubber - technology that has been around for a while. I know of one university that already has one on top of their scence building. According to the scientist there, we'd need 200 million of them to take enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to REDUCE Co2 by 2ppm per year WITHOUT THE NEED TO CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE. Problem solved.
Cost : well with mass production probably only $1000. So just $200bn to completely solve the problem. In fact, these things look like aircon units. The cost could be absorbed by the consumer market and installed in homes.

How hard could it be for science to come together and develop a commercial version of a CO2 scrubber unit for homes?
Won't happen at scale, though, because the people who want to get rich of the climate change hoax wouldn't profit enough - and most importantly they would not be able to use the climate change hoax to control our lives.