Popular German physicist Harald Lesch about Trumps Knowledge

a reply to: LABTECH767

I am sorry Lumenari I have to tell you the simple truth is that Climate Change by human activity is a real phenomena including Global Warming, regional climate change through deforestation and industrial activity as well as habitation and of course pollution.

It's nice to have a religion, something you can believe in, something that cannot really be proven but you believe in a higher power.

I get that.

Don't think that you and yours are going to get to the point where you are going to take money out of my pocket to support your religion though.

Climate change has nothing to do with the climate anymore... I hope you got that memo from the leaders in the climate change industry.

Because that's what they say.

AGW is nothing more than a global redistribution of wealth, to paraphrase them.

It's Lenin's wet dream... a control mechanism that the State can use to determine and define how you live, what you eat, what you drive, what you pay.

I don't personally think that it's going to work in America.

Since they have been pushing this particular means of control since the 1980's and no matter how they scream and rave about it, it hasn't gotten any traction.

15% of normal America cares about it... the only real bump they have gotten in public opinion is 25% of Democratic voters in the 25-35 range.

So you can try real hard and type up big word walls to justify it....

But it's never going to gain enough traction politically to go anywhere.

And it shouldn't.

Because it's BS.

10 years from now look at what you just posted and I bet you will be ashamed.

As you should be.

a reply to: Lumenari

Oh I have a religion Lumenari it's called Christianity, Climate change is based on observable empirical science - it is not therefore a religion (unlike my religion which is from my perspective KNOWING that god is there and having faith) BUT I shall warrant that for some people belief in a particular model can outweigh the fact's be that some climate change adherents or indeed some anti climate change adherent's.

The fact is that Climate does change and humanity DOES contribute in a way that does not happen in nature to that change.

Not only has humanity released carbon stores from coal and oil that have been locked away and out of atmospheric circulation for millions to hundreds of millions of years BUT humanity has topped that by creating gas and other atmospheric pollutants that simply do not exist in nature but now do and YOU are breathing them in every day even if you live in some seemingly pristine wasteland, as well as that you might like to know you are also probably breathing in what is called micro plastic particles mostly released by plastic incinerators a recent study shocked scientists when they found these particles in recent antarctic snow deposits.

I believe in humanity which mean's the last thing I espouse is some elitist moron's attempt to twist climate crisis (which I will also say I thoroughly believe was milked by those disreputable fellows for there own financial benefit) use of climate to justify a mass murder of humanity, on the contrary I believe rather we need to espouse new technology's, cleaner energy and better farming techniques to not only allow our population to grow exponentially BUT to make that greater population of human's both able to live in harmony with nature and to in fact better harness that nature to our own benefit, I believe nature is a garden and nature need's a gardener (as GOD intended by the way not to # all over his creation) which is supposed to be us, not that I myself and much of a gardener but you catch my meaning.

The problem is that the real climate science is being denied by people on ground's of economic's and in fact they are starting to sound more and more like flat earthers in there denial which is sad and paint's them as moron's (not that I am calling flat earthers moron's you understand but I don't agree with them) BUT while climate change is real there are also extreme element's on the climate change side of the argument whom have some pretty nefarious beliefs and are if anything far worse than the climate change - flat earther - skeptics as they espouse idea's such as culling humanity and yes they do exist.

And to throw a spanner in the whole work's there are a raft of crook's that have made mega buck's from carbon point's scheme's, milking your tax money for there own bank account's - all in a perfectly legal framework but that neither makes there activity's ethical or correct.

a reply to: Nothin

Am very slow writing posts, and usually do read all comments before posting.
Should probably have the thread in a secondary tab to be updated before hitting the 'post' button.

No worries. it happens.

Maybe you're just having a chuckle when you post, and am unable to get your sense of humour?

The crack about ice cubes was a joke. My humor can be very dry sometimes.

It's all good.

TheRedneck

a reply to: LABTECH767

Climate change is based on observable empirical science

There is observable empirical evidence, and there is understanding of said observable empirical evidence. The two are not always symbiotic.

The local area here is warming, on average. I did my own study on it. Yep, adjusted mean to remove seasonal variances shows an increase in temperatures since 1950. That is observable empirical evidence.

However, it's not linear. It appears to be sinusoidal, as in a cycle. That's hard to verify, since the wavelength appears to be longer than I have data for, but it does seem to indicate such. I need to do more examination of the data to be sure. But if the trend is indeed cyclical, it cannot be caused by carbon dioxide and not only are all the theories wrong as to why it is happening, but the solutions are useless. That's an attempt to understand the observable empirical evidence.

Do you see the difference now?

As to the religious reference, might I point out that the Bible tells us that, as Christians, the world is not our home. We are told to maintain faith and not faint from fear. Yet you do seem to have another religion which goes against that teaching: the church of Global Warming. That's the one where Jim Hansen is Pope, Al Gore is a prophet, and the faithful flock around them, certain that the world will end in a fiery flood any day now as was foretold in the Holy Book An Inconvenient Truth.

The parallels between Christianity and this new church are quite interesting.

As a fellow Christian, might I suggest you take a moment and look at those parallels. You are being indoctrinated into a cult, just as surely as the followers of Jim Jones were. They were believers in Christianity, until they were convinced to follow a different path, without even realizing it was a different path.

TheRedneck

a reply to: oloufo

Notice it says"Popular" to gain attention from sheeple,some paid off liberal shill with a bit of knowledge but little in self esteem,a MSM dream

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Freeborn

Agreed, it however tragically funny if you just sit back and watch the lemming's run off there cliff.
Lemming' are not suicidal they follow a herd instinct running to a land that no longer exists were there ancestors long ago once found fresh food when there population had depleted the stock's available to them, the parallel's are obvious.

Sorry to go slightly off-topic, but that's a myth.

It was popularised by a 1950's Disney 'documentary' whose makers were struggling for good footage of wildlife.

In that old documentary where you see the lemmings 'jumping to their deaths', what you are actually seeing is a bunch of lemmings that have been round-up into a lorry and tipped over a cliff for your 'education' and entertainment.

Fake news Mk1., 'gotta love Disney,........

a reply to: LABTECH767

about 60 percent of atmospheric CO2 was emitted by natural sources but that still left about 40 percent form human activity.

Actually...

The atpmosphere contains 750 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 29 GT

- that's per year.

skepticalscience.com

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: oloufo

Notice it says"Popular" to gain attention from sheeple,some paid off liberal shill with a bit of knowledge but little in self esteem,a MSM dream

Blablabla. He is a serious scientist and all he had to say based on facts. I like him. He is serious, exact and without any idiology in his back, just a guy with more knowledge as you and me.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: oloufo

So some German guy with a bunch of schooling thinks Trump is dumb.

I'm a guy with a lot of schooling AND nice calves.

Does that make me better?

he never said trump is dumb.

a reply to: oloufo

They just don't understand in Europe not everything is left or right. Many parties seems to have its advantages.
Harald Lesch is not connected with any party in Germany and even if, thankfully our scientists value science without politics.

a reply to: oloufo

He is serious, exact and without any idiology in his back

Dude, did you even listen to the clip? This guy has enough ideology on his back to make him stooped!

Serious... I'll give you that. Seriously confused.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Peeple

They just don't understand in Europe not everything is left or right.

This ain't about left or right... it's about fantasy or reality.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Lumenari


I'm going with the vast majority of actual climate change scientists who say that man-made global climate change is BS.

LOLWUT?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: oloufo

They just don't understand in Europe not everything is left or right. Many parties seems to have its advantages.
Harald Lesch is not connected with any party in Germany and even if, thankfully our scientists value science without politics.

I guess we don't have the same "politics as sport" mentality. It's not "our side is right at all costs". Most people are conservative on some things, liberal on others and left wing on the rest. Just like the real world.

To us, the idea that climate change is a political issue, or vaccines, is silly. We don't have a "fairness doctrine" that gives equal weight to facts and opinions. We don't have astroturf activist groups sending billions on talking notes for us to parrot at each other.

I say we don't. We are starting to have and it still looks pretty stupid to the rest of us.

Then again, we have a very different history. Many of us have survived life in a fascist state so we know what it looks like, how it starts. We are still raw enough to see the anti-semitic overtones in the George Soros conspiracy nonsense.

Or maybe we get a distorted view of the US from websites like these, just as they get a distorted view of us.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No it is about ideology. It's kind of fun if I read your 2 posts, you say so yourself.

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity
Fake news Mk1., 'gotta love Disney,........

You know what else you can think ol' Walt for? Climate change as a method to force people into metropolitan zones. Walt had this idea that in the future people would live in these giant metropolitan zones that would make it easier to control how people lived, where people could go, and what people should breed. This was Walt's idea for the city of tomorrow, his future of the world, his model of eugenics. Check out some history of "Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow" or EPCOT (aka Progress City)
From: theguardian.com

Progress City is surprisingly in step with current ideas of urban planning. With it, Walt Disney intended to right the wrongs he perceived in Los Angeles: too many cars, no pedestrian access, no civic centre, characterless modern architecture. Progress was a garden city of concentric rings, three miles wide. At its centre stood a 30-storey hotel surrounded by a compact indoor retail and business district, air-conditioned against the Florida humidity. Around that was a green belt with schools and leisure facilities, then a ring of low‑density suburbs, with industrial parks beyond. The roads were all underground. The primary means of getting around would be public transport: a monorail, a system of people movers, and walking. He redubbed it the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow: Epcot.

Smarter still was Walt Disney’s idea of how the city would operate: he would invite corporations to test their products on its citizens. If General Electric was developing a new microwave oven, for example, one would be put in every Epcot home for real‑world testing. Visitors would come to see what the city of the future looked like. “It will always be in a state of becoming,” he explained in a promotional film. “It will never cease to be a living blueprint of the future, where people live a life they can’t find anywhere else in the world.”

But really it was all about power. From the same link;

The only downside to Disney’s utopia was the governance. Disney would own everything, and Epcot citizens would only be permitted to live there for up to a year, after which they would have to move on. Thus, nobody would ever acquire voting rights and subvert Disney’s programme. Disney also cut a favourable deal with the Florida authorities, Gennawey explains. “They could go ahead and build a nuclear power plant or an airport without the permission of the state of Florida. They have rights within that property that are generally greater than those of most counties in the US.”
For better or worse, Epcot never came to pass. Disney’s utopianism died with its master in 1966, and no one else had the stomach to build his dream city. Rather than the city of the future, Epcot became another theme park, more like a corporate-sponsored World’s Fair. The only surviving vestige of Disney’s prototypical community is the Disney-owned town of Celebration, Florida, a surreally twee place whose orderliness has drawn comparisons to Ira Levin’s novel The Stepford Wives.

His model city was a test bed he wanted to use as a master plan for the cities of America, then the world. Walt wanted to use the issue of the environment as a tool to force people into these EPCOT modeled cities and control every aspect of the lives of its citizens. This whole nonsense about climate change as the "great terror" can be attributed to him.

The truth is now muddled in political gains, followers’ mantras, and cultist chats. Is the clime changing? Of course, it is, it always has. Is it man’s fault? Only to the extent that man believes he changed it. One volcano can dump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then all of mankind’s burning of stuff, the flauta of insects and animals exceed the output of humans by a large degree, but none of any of this matter since people can be made to believe that they can reverse it? This German Scientist, Bill Nye, and Al Gore are all just talking heads. When was the last time any of these guys tried to force China, India, and any place that wasn’t a western society into "being cleaner"?

Yep ... gotta love that Walt guy.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
This is what the Germans call a scientist? If this is the best they have, we're going to have to reword the Polish jokes into German jokes...

I donno, man. They got the US to the moon. Now you're hitch-hiking off the Russians.
Just sayin' eh?

a reply to: Peeple

That's the point. Ideology is not science, and it is also not reality.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

That was when they had scientists that knew what science was.

This dude don't.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's not what I meant. The ideological question is do you trust science.