The Man-Made-Climate-Change-Lie

a reply to: sean

Listen we don't need the science lesson. We've all heard it thousands of times at this point.

I'd like to see you disprove the paper in this article since you seem to be an "expert"...

I get it I'm all for protecting the environment. But that's not what this is about. It's about extracting taxes from poor people in rich nation's and giving it to rich people in poor nation's. The Paris Accord was a clear testimony to that...

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: sean
It's about extracting taxes from poor people in rich nation's and giving it to rich people in poor nation's.

Seems like they are paying hush money, as the riches were built through industrialization in a ecologically unsustainable way.
For developing nations to have the same expectations for the quality of life enjoyed in 1st world, It would be a disaster. Not being able to burn coal places a serious cap on progress. The left is collecting hush money from the right, in order to keep things as they are.

a reply to: JAY1980 Sorry if you feel offended. I wanted go into more detail of that for people that don't know how complex global warming is. I agree TAX is not a solution and it won't make any impact. The governments think the solution to everything is TAX. We really have no idea where, or if the money is actually going into fixing the problem or just lining the inside of a politicians jacket. There is no time for TAX or procedures, policy and BS politics talks that go on for decades. If you have a kid drowning you jump in right away to save them with an automatic response action. Global warming is nearing that 911 emergency level. The gap is closing fast.

originally posted by: JAY1980

I'd like to see you disprove the paper in this article since you seem to be an "expert"...

Would be more interesting to see someone, with knowledge of the subject, defend it. Plenty of people on WUWT slammed it at the time.

I think they even referenced their own unpublished papers as supporting evidence ...... !


btw if AGW were really a hoax to raise taxes (or anything else), then why leave it so long? The US President was briefed on the subject in the 1960s - the US Coal and Oil industry knew all about it back then too.

originally posted by: sean
a reply to: JAY1980 Sorry if you feel offended. I wanted go into more detail of that for people that don't know how complex global warming is. I agree TAX is not a solution and it won't make any impact. The governments think the solution to everything is TAX. We really have no idea where, or if the money is actually going into fixing the problem or just lining the inside of a politicians jacket. There is no time for TAX or procedures, policy and BS politics talks that go on for decades. If you have a kid drowning you jump in right away to save them with an automatic response action. Global warming is nearing that 911 emergency level. The gap is closing fast.

100% Right about the 1st half of this reply IMO.

Dead wrong on the other issue of man can fix the Earths Temps, at least at our level of ability all we can do is make it worse with unintended consequences. We can't take the word of proven data falsifiers for fact can we?

It is not man it is the Magnetic pole movement and the entire Solar System is showing signs of change never witnessed by our society.

ETA

Weather Control anyone?

Washington, D.C., city council member Trayon White Sr. landed himself in quite a media storm after he posted a video to his Facebook page last Friday in which he explained that snowfall in March was part of a "climate control" conspiracy orchestrated by the Illuminati.

There are things going on that you/many don't know. There are layers like an onion of the lies they are using to manipulate the masses to believe they are innocently grabbing this power and raising funds that do feather their nests.

a reply to: Justoneman

It's not like the change would happen over night. Yes, it's easier to break things than fix them. All I am saying is that our billion cars on the road and industrial pollution is being directly contributed to open air atmosphere and that impacts things greatly in many ways. What is the cost of not stopping our pollution Is probably what I should ask? What is the cost of trying? We lose nothing and gain everything.

We can still have electric cars and innovation and more efficient batteries to increase distance and less battery drain under loads. There is huge advancement coming right around the corner in batteries that is going to change a lot. Just not sure if we can hold out that long. All these weird changes going on we need to keep our eye on Yellow Stone. That's a beast we really don't want to wake up. If Yellow Stone pops it's cork we're all doomed.

a reply to: sean

Yep let's invest in new technologies not old.

a reply to: EvanJordan

Wow nice speech but I knew you were a bot!

It's a massive, planned out lie. Look at historical temperatures which prove Earth is in the same temperature range as ever before now.

That's the real evidence. Not some film with a chunk of ice falling into the Ocean, which is completely normal, and always happens. New ice builds up, older ice breaks off. Who knew?!?

a reply to: sean

What is the cost of not stopping our pollution Is probably what I should ask? What is the cost of trying? We lose nothing and gain everything.

How is it possible to have this exactly backwards and not realize it?

The cost of not stopping our pollution is zero, it is exactly what we have been doing. The cost of no change is nothing. The cost of trying (ergo the cost of change) is bankrupting the global economy. So if we do nothing mass death from climate change, right? If we do something, mass death because the economy worldwide collapses. It's sixes.

We can still have electric cars and innovation and more efficient batteries to increase distance and less battery drain under loads.

Those batteries you use to power them are much bigger pollutant than cars. The molecular structure of oil is really quite something. The amount of energy it holds and the relative safety and lack of pollution caused by it (compared to the amount of energy it creates) is astounding.

There is huge advancement coming right around the corner in batteries that is going to change a lot. Just not sure if we can hold out that long.

Is it less than 10,000 years away? Yeah? Then we can hold on.

This clip is a must watch for all people interested in the global warming agenda.
If it doesn't brighten up your day then nothing will, well apart from an ever rising planet temperature haha

If you look closely at the "climate change" agenda, you can see what the deep state is really trying to accomplish.

They know full well the planet won't be wiped out by it, but rainfall will drop off leading to a massive shortage of fresh water, and drop in food production.

They also know full well it can't be stopped at this point.


So what are they really trying to accomplish?


When the food wars start, they are trying to get themselves into a position where they can live fat and happy while the rest of the world endures the shortages.

The most important part of that: Make sure the public doesn't own any guns.

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: sean

Listen we don't need the science lesson. We've all heard it thousands of times at this point.

I'd like to see you disprove the paper in this article since you seem to be an "expert"...

I get it I'm all for protecting the environment. But that's not what this is about. It's about extracting taxes from poor people in rich nation's and giving it to rich people in poor nation's. The Paris Accord was a clear testimony to that...

The simple fact the paper was not submitted for peer review is proof enough. They knew they'd be called out.

"The oceans" don't make a net contribution to CO2 over time. You understand the difference between "gross" and "net", right?

In order to make a net contribution, the emitted CO2 would have to come from somewhere. But where? When we release CO2 from fossil fuels we know where it is coming from.

We also know the only way to make a net reduction is for a plant to absorb CO2 and then when it dies the plant must somehow get buried so that it doesn't decompose.

It's not super complicated. The only people who say it is are the ones trying to sell you a false cure.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Another Climate change thread - but now you're on board?

Who didn't see that coming? :-)

The fear is real, and if you think we can do this without government you're crazy. You'll pay taxes for roads - but not a dime to work on the kind of infrastructure changes we're going to need to get through this?

It's like watching a light bulb turn on in slow motion. Someday you're actually going to get this - when that happens I imagine you'll write a thread claiming you discovered climate change and you'll give us your plan

I eagerly await that thread

:-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

i don't think anyone really believes the climate isn't changing (or that it hasn't always changed).

I think the issue is two fold:

- it comes with a tax scheme that focuses on individuals, mostly in nations who already have pretty low carbon contributions. It ignores the power that billion dollar multinational corporations and militaries have to bypass those carbon taxes. Close to 70% of all emissions come from those multinationals and military sources. To people who are salty about taxes already, it just looks like another way to step on the little guy
- its framed incorrectly for consumption. Its not "man made climate change". Its "we need to improve our relationship with the environment". Millions of crabs dying on remote islands from microplastics, turtles with straws up their nose, mercury in our water (hell, we have cities that can't drink their water), it goes further than carbon.

The approach is wrong. And it doesn't help that its political, with "science denier" being hurled around as if insults ever won people over.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

its framed incorrectly for consumption. Its not "man made climate change". Its "we need to improve our relationship with the environment".

Semantics. Better marketing is not going to make the truth any more palatable

Tex - this is happening

We're past the point of what's fair. This is a full blown emergency. We can either get on board - together - internationally, democratically - including free enterprise and capitalism. Or, we can drag our feet and let things play out how they inevitably will play out. And it's not going to be pretty

Is that fear mongering? Do you actually need some sugar with your facts? Can you not imagine how badly things might go?

Maybe we can forestall the things people most fear - like worldwide totalitarianism. There's money and jobs to be made if we do this right

Millions of crabs dying on remote islands from microplastics, turtles with straws up their nose, mercury in our water (hell, we have cities that can't drink their water), it goes further than carbon.

I don't know how to spring this on you - I'll try to be gentle. If we don't deal with climate issues first, the horrors that will follow will make all that seem like nothing

But, since we're on the environment - none of these things can be done without regulations. They're dismantling the EPA as fast as they possibly can. You should check it out if you're really interested

Sorry my friend - this cannot be pollyannaed up. Calling people climate deniers is honest, and I know you're not a snowflake

Optimistically (which ain't been easy) I do see that people are coming around. But, the truth is - most people can't handle the truth. Least of all me

ETA: there really is no reason we can't cleanup the environment and tackle the problems that climate change will bring at the same time

Also, man made climate change is a fact. Calling it something different doesn't change the fact that we are behind the problem. I'm not going to have that argument here - there really is no point. People choose to believe what they want to believe. That becomes more apparent every day

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

It simply is not so Spira. Just not so.

Too much has been proven here on ATS. CO2 for one thing has been shown to escape the atmosphere and take the heat with it. What we have is what BFFT is saying. It is focused on the wrong things.

Plastic is a bigger concern. Lead in our water. Uranium in the Detroit River. Those are real problems.

CO2 is NOT. Did you notice the temp are -50 all over Eastern Europe to Kamchatka? CO2 is higher ever recorded but those are way to low Temps to be from a Melting Glacier, case closed on that part. Record Low temps for Nov and we are talking by a lot.

a reply to: Justoneman

They want economic change, not change to actual things like pollution that might better everyone.

It's a power grab using fear, intimidation to get it.

a reply to: Justoneman

But you make me laugh

:-)

a reply to: DBCowboy

They want economic change, not change to actual things like pollution that might better everyone. It's a power grab using fear, intimidation to get it.

If you want real change for the health of our environment - you should check out what the current administration is doing on that front