no such thing as global warming - by humans

[Jasper]

Nova polar extremes

visits various glaciers and saw 400 o2 spike in 2016.
800,000 years this never happened. :ohwell:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/polar-extremes/

good vid

[SATAN]

:facepalm

[Jasper]

:facepalm

why this dumb fvck ?

[Chick Stern]

What ice cores show is that never has the world experienced such a large increase in temperature, in such a short time frame

[Jasper]

What ice cores show is that never has the world experienced such a large increase in temperature, in such a short time frame

co 2

[Back In Shape]

What ice cores show is that never has the world experienced such a large increase in temperature, in such a short time frame

In the last 800k years. The world certainly has experienced much more extreme temperature fluctuations in it's history. 800k years is the blink of an eye in the life of the Earth. Life crawled out of the oceans 400 million years ago. It's also odd that scientists can't come to an agreement the last time the arctic was ice free in the summer. Some say 15,000 years ago, 130,000 years ago some think 2.6 million years ago

[Nanners]

What ice cores show is that never has the world experienced such a large increase in temperature, in such a short time frame

https://imgs.search.brave.com/_k4z5s8yfzv1VLNvkKeq0uuRe4lGJRE4Sr3HilPa3To/rs:fit:480:240:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL2VzcXVp/cmV1ay5jZG5kcy5u/ZXQvMTYvNDYvNDgw/eDI0MC9sYW5kc2Nh/cGUtMTQ3OTIwNjg2/NC1kb25hbGQtdHJ1/bXAtd3JvbmcuZ2lm.gif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

https://imgs.search.brave.com/yUuEyhO7ujfNHQuD0O5x5c7XY69h6NxKe-Hbfv75EEM/rs:fit:540:241:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9nZW9s/b2d5LnV0YWguZ292/L3dwLWNvbnRlbnQv/dXBsb2Fkcy9pY2Vf/YWdlczIuZ2lm.gif

[Jasper]

https://imgs.search.brave.com/_k4z5s8yfzv1VLNvkKeq0uuRe4lGJRE4Sr3HilPa3To/rs:fit:480:240:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL2VzcXVp/cmV1ay5jZG5kcy5u/ZXQvMTYvNDYvNDgw/eDI0MC9sYW5kc2Nh/cGUtMTQ3OTIwNjg2/NC1kb25hbGQtdHJ1/bXAtd3JvbmcuZ2lm.gif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

https://imgs.search.brave.com/yUuEyhO7ujfNHQuD0O5x5c7XY69h6NxKe-Hbfv75EEM/rs:fit:540:241:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9nZW9s/b2d5LnV0YWguZ292/L3dwLWNvbnRlbnQv/dXBsb2Fkcy9pY2Vf/YWdlczIuZ2lm.gif

you obviously did not watch my video. :facepalm

[SATAN]

https://imgs.search.brave.com/_k4z5s8yfzv1VLNvkKeq0uuRe4lGJRE4Sr3HilPa3To/rs:fit:480:240:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL2VzcXVp/cmV1ay5jZG5kcy5u/ZXQvMTYvNDYvNDgw/eDI0MC9sYW5kc2Nh/cGUtMTQ3OTIwNjg2/NC1kb25hbGQtdHJ1/bXAtd3JvbmcuZ2lm.gif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

https://imgs.search.brave.com/yUuEyhO7ujfNHQuD0O5x5c7XY69h6NxKe-Hbfv75EEM/rs:fit:540:241:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9nZW9s/b2d5LnV0YWguZ292/L3dwLWNvbnRlbnQv/dXBsb2Fkcy9pY2Vf/YWdlczIuZ2lm.gif

:facepalm

[Nanners]

you obviously did not watch my video. :facepalm

Maybe I would have bothered to watch your video if I was actually responding to your post, but I am responding to the moron who falsely claimed that the world has never experienced such a large increase in temp in such a short time frame.

https://i.ibb.co/CMXbGjF/dryas.jpg

During the Younger Dryas, the avg global temperature dropped by ~15F in a matter of decades, then about a thousand years later the avg temp skyrocketed ~20F within a couple of years. These climate change events took place about 12k years ago, a time when humans existed on the earth and managed to survive despite having none of the technology we have today.

To put those climate swings in context, the avg global temps have increased by about 1.5 degrees since the start of the industrial revolution, and even the most dire predictions about global warming say that temps will only rise by a grand total of 2 or 3F by 2100. To put things further into context, the avg global temp was higher during the "medival warm period" than it is today.

[SATAN]

:facepalm

[Nanners]

:facepalm

Yeah, that what I was expecting you would say.

Like a typical lib, you have no evidence of your own, and you are incapable of refuting or even acknowledging any of the scientific facts that contradict your position... but thats fine because its not about science, its about emotion (primarily fear, which has been weaponized against obedient libs like you by the very mainstream media you love so dearly). I guess its no surprise that these people have been so effectively conditioned into believing that global warming will end civilization despite never seeing any evidence for this claim... these are the same people who think covid is scary (a disease that only "kills" old people who were already dying), no wonder they are shaking in their boots whenever the weather heats up or theres a storm.

[bladefd]

Instead of arguing on the forums with a bunch of non-climatologists, why don't you take a course and learn for yourself all of the reasoning behind what the effects would be of a few degrees of fluctuation (we are talking Celsius and not Fahrenheit - keep that in mind). A few degrees Celsius can have a drastic impact on agriculture, animal life, water levels in parts of the world with low altitude, storms, etc. Something like 70% of the world's people lives around the oceans/rivers/lakes. And yes, humans are responsible for pumping all this co2 into the atmosphere but let's not forget about methane and no2. We pump ton of these green house gasses every day through our human activities.

So what if there have been climate warming in the past? This one we humans are leading. Nothing changes that fact. This will not end civilization, but it will make life more difficult for our kids and future generations. So what if there was global warming 20,000 years ago? We were still traveling folks back then and it was naturally caused. This one is not naturally caused and we could exacerbate it much more & we don't know what it could do to nature. We don't know the limits. We also keep destroying entire forests, habitats, plants while blowing fossil fuels endlessly into the atmosphere, oceans, etc. We don't know the limit so we have to be tread carefully. It's not just about the temperatures but so much more. Temperatures are a small piece of the puzzle.

[Jasper]

there was a study made in 1900 of the water level next to the statue of liberty. It is now (right now) 18 inch's higher .

[Nanners]

there was a study made in 1900 of the water level next to the statue of liberty. It is now (right now) 18 inch's higher .

link?

[FultzNationRISE]

Instead of arguing on the forums with a bunch of non-climatologists, why don't you take a course and learn for yourself all of the reasoning behind what the effects would be of a few degrees of fluctuation (we are talking Celsius and not Fahrenheit - keep that in mind). A few degrees Celsius can have a drastic impact on agriculture, animal life, water levels in parts of the world with low altitude, storms, etc. Something like 70% of the world's people lives around the oceans/rivers/lakes. And yes, humans are responsible for pumping all this co2 into the atmosphere but let's not forget about methane and no2. We pump ton of these green house gasses every day through our human activities.

So what if there have been climate warming in the past? This one we humans are leading. Nothing changes that fact. This will not end civilization, but it will make life more difficult for our kids and future generations. So what if there was global warming 20,000 years ago? We were still traveling folks back then and it was naturally caused. This one is not naturally caused and we could exacerbate it much more & we don't know what it could do to nature. We don't know the limits. We also keep destroying entire forests, habitats, plants while blowing fossil fuels endlessly into the atmosphere, oceans, etc. We don't know the limit so we have to be tread carefully. It's not just about the temperatures but so much more. Temperatures are a small piece of the puzzle.

Yeah, all this is true.

Which is why I've been asking for years why we keep industrializing heavily populated third world countries at the expense of the environment.

The answer is for the sake of billionaire profits, but you never wanna take the discussion in that direction, because you'll be shunned by "the woke" whose agenda is inculcated BY the billionaire 1%, yet who nevetheless represent your best chance of social belonging, so you refuse to question their motives.

You'll just keep bleeting "climate change, climate change" the way you've been instructed, without questioning the hypocrisy of woke politicians and CEOs who gave you the talking point to begin with. You're a lagger, a socially outcast dweeb trying to keep up with whatever group will take you, and you repeat whatever dogma you think will lead to a reward, even if it's nonsensical or dead-end logic. If the outcome of a discussion will result in you questioning your leaders, you will simply abandon it. You're a true NPC. A robot.

This is essentially the destiny of all humanity's weak, and the source of all its leaders' power.

[bladefd]

Absolutely, developing countries need to do their share too. Specifically China, India, Brazil. The reason why they don't is because they seek cheap sources of energy to sustain their massive populations. China has the economic power to push away from coal so there is no excuse why they don't. India, Brazil I understand don't have the economy/gdp to sustain their populations without using lots of coal and natural gas (India especially with like 1.25 billion people but weak economy/low gdp).

As for industrialization, third-world countries are able to bribe off the government to look the other way with environmental laws. India and China both have environmental laws, but the officials are easy to bribe. The laws are also pretty lax. Those 2 things allow folks to pollute waste into rivers and lakes and land. Stuff like that mixed with child labor & paying pennies per hour of work in horrendous conditions allows the cost of industrialization to be very cheap. Nobody in the developed world can compete with that. Not unless if you allow child labor, pennies of pay per hour, low factory standards, weak environmental laws, and allowing bribery out in the open with no repercussions. That is a fact.

[Charlie Sheen]

Absolutely, developing countries need to do their share too. Specifically China, India, Brazil. The reason why they don't is because they seek cheap sources of energy to sustain their massive populations. China has the economic power to push away from coal so there is no excuse why they don't. India, Brazil I understand don't have the economy/gdp to sustain their populations without using lots of coal and natural gas (India especially with like 1.25 billion people but weak economy/low gdp).

As for industrialization, third-world countries are able to bribe off the government to look the other way with environmental laws. India and China both have environmental laws, but the officials are easy to bribe. The laws are also pretty lax. Those 2 things allow folks to pollute waste into rivers and lakes and land. Stuff like that mixed with child labor & paying pennies per hour of work in horrendous conditions allows the cost of industrialization to be very cheap. Nobody in the developed world can compete with that. Not unless if you allow child labor, pennies of pay per hour, low factory standards, weak environmental laws, and allowing bribery out in the open with no repercussions. That is a fact.

You ignored his main point: Green Energy requires metals that are mined in poor developing nations.

That's the hidden cost of green energy. Billionaire corporations come in to these poor countries mine out the resources and leave behind an economy crushed with debt and a polluted ecosystem.

[Off the Court]

Literally everything is for "profits" that's how capitalism works.

Even in charity work there are financial incentives. But that doesn't make it all a sham.

[FultzNationRISE]

Literally everything is for "profits" that's how capitalism works.

Even in charity work there are financial incentives. But that doesn't make it all a sham.


Bush spending billions of taxpayer dollars to pump Big Pharma's AIDS drugs into Africa has nothing to do with capitalism. It is corruption disguised as morality. Americans didnt vote for their money to be used that way, and as usual most were completely apathetic about it anyway. Those who did raise an eyebrow would have immediately been called a racist by soyboy establishment lapdogs like rrr3.

Weak people are easily convinced to see their weakness as a virtue. And that's how they're convinced to remain weak, and thus easily exploited.

[Nanners]

You ignored his main point: Green Energy requires metals that are mined in poor developing nations.

That's the hidden cost of green energy. Billionaire corporations come in to these poor countries mine out the resources and leave behind an economy crushed with debt and a polluted ecosystem.

Riddle me this - if mining for "green" resources is so bad for the environment, why does CNN only blame climate change on meat eaters and white people?

[FultzNationRISE]

You ignored his main point: Green Energy requires metals that are mined in poor developing nations.

That's the hidden cost of green energy. Billionaire corporations come in to these poor countries mine out the resources and leave behind an economy crushed with debt and a polluted ecosystem.

Exactly.

If we hadn't turned every corner of the planet into industrialized consumers, the need for green energy in the first place would be far less significant.

[Off the Court]

Bush spending billions of taxpayer dollars to pump Big Pharma's AIDS drugs into Africa has nothing to do with capitalism. It is corruption disguised as morality. Americans didnt vote for their money to be used that way, and as usual most were completely apathetic about it anyway. Those who did raise an eyebrow would have immediately been called a racist by soyboy establishment lapdogs like rrr3.

Weak people are easily convinced to see their weakness as a virtue. And that's how they're convinced to remain weak, and thus easily exploited.
We don't use American tax dollars on anything, we print up what we want and then collect taxes to ease inflation.

But tell me, what is that you want rrr3 and all the soyboys to do about it? Get on the internet and post about it?

[FultzNationRISE]

We don't use American tax dollars on anything, we print up what we want and then collect taxes to ease inflation.

But tell me, what is that you want rrr3 and all the soyboys to do about it? Get on the internet and post about it?

Youre arguing semantics (not surprisingly), the bottom line is the government made a unilateral decision to achieve its own aims through the public treasury. Most Americans wouldnt have approved such a policy if given a choice and a rational explanation of the consequences. The decision was made strictly for the sake of Pharma executives and the banks invested in them.

Anyway I won't argue at length with you, because I know youre a troll looking to play devil's advocate no matter what I say, and you'll happily do so all day long if I indulge you. But I wont.

[FultzNationRISE]

Funny enough a study was recently done at Princeton that demonstrated the incredible degree of disconnect between what policies the public supports, and what Congress actually does.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6w9CbemhVY


There's basically.... zero correlation :lol

The government just brazenly does whatever it wants regardless of public sentiment.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, because the public comprises many, many incompetent individuals. Obviously there's incompetence among lawmakers as well, but the average IQ among the public is undoubtedly dwarfed by the average Congressional IQ.

So... basically it's just life. Smart, strong people rule. Weak people do nothing and cry.

Foreva and eva.

[bladefd]

You ignored his main point: Green Energy requires metals that are mined in poor developing nations.

That's the hidden cost of green energy. Billionaire corporations come in to these poor countries mine out the resources and leave behind an economy crushed with debt and a polluted ecosystem.

Well, fossil fuels can be found everywhere ofc. Rare metals cannot be found anywhere. It's cheaper to mine rare metals in developing countries for all of the reasons I gave in my post above so ofc the developed countries would swoop in. It's capitalism.

Anyways, green energy across its life cycle can be used, recycled, and reused. Fossil fuels cannot be recycled and reused (single time use, dirty as hell). Just look at the new tesla battery. You manufacture it, it will last a million miles (that is what? 30-40yrs?), then it can be recycled & reused for other needs. That single battery might give you a century of usage whether it's in a car early on or reused for electricity storage as part of the electric grid. There are a bunch of companies out there trying to 100% recycle a EV battery of all rare metals so that is also around the corner for beyond reusage. Wind turbines I don't think require rare metals except for batteries if they are not connected directly to the electric grid. Wind turbines can last for decades.

[Charlie Sheen]

Riddle me this - if mining for "green" resources is so bad for the environment, why does CNN only blame climate change on meat eaters and white people?

I don't know about CNN.

Disruption to the local economy and the environment are the 2 greatest factors in the displacement of people from these countries.

Where are these people supposed to go? US doesn't want them. I think it's fair to assume nearly everyone in this country who votes for more affordable housing will vote against it being built in their neighborhood.

California is facing a similar crisis in the Central Valley. The Gov is talking a nice game about conservation, but he's barely got anything to say on protecting the livelihood of the farmworkers. Where are those people supposed to go when the local economy can no longer support them?

My point wasn't who was to blame for climate change, but I was trying to illustrate to blade that the people paying the highest costs for these "green" initiatives are the people who can least afford it. It isn't as simple as saying, the technology is available, everyone should switch to solar panels and electric cars.

[Nanners]

I don't know about CNN.

Disruption to the local economy and the environment are the 2 greatest factors in the displacement of people from these countries.

Where are these people supposed to go? US doesn't want them. I think it's fair to assume nearly everyone in this country who votes for more affordable housing will vote against it being built in their neighborhood.

California is facing a similar crisis in the Central Valley. The Gov is talking a nice game about conservation, but he's barely got anything to say on protecting the livelihood of the farmworkers. Where are those people supposed to go when the local economy can no longer support them?

My point wasn't who was to blame for climate change, but I was trying to illustrate to blade that the people paying the highest costs for these "green" initiatives are the people who can least afford it. It isn't as simple as saying, the technology is available, everyone should switch to solar panels and electric cars.

They arent supposed to go anywhere, theyre supposed to stay in their homes

[SATAN]

There's quite a bit of push back against actually doing anything to address climate change lately.

Lame. :rolleyes:

[FultzNationRISE]

There's quite a bit of push back against actually doing anything to address climate change lately.

Lame. :rolleyes:


This is because of the way it is framed. Neo-lib regulatory ideas are presented by politicians and investors as the only possibility for saving humanity from extinction within the next 6 years (or however AOC put it). Brainless bandwagon drones at the grassroots level think they will receive some kind of reward in academia, or middle management, or the welfare department, or whatever avenue theyre pursuing for their own advancement, if they jump on board and bleet the sheepspeak. You are one of these people. The pushback is merely against the unilateral decision making and coercive application.

Most people are in favor of environmental conservation. If you frame it in a neutral way, it's overwhelmingly supported. Politicians know what they're doing. They know desperate idiots like you who need somewhere to belong will support their agenda if they make it seem like you're instantly better than 50% of people (which in reality you arent) if you shout "#ImWithScience!" and just automatically support whatever 'the smart people' higher up the ladder decree, as you aim to publicly appear smart yourself by extension.

Maybe spend a little less time on alt accounts and a few more hours at the gym each week, and you might not feel like such a weak dependent shmuck whose existence is pain.

:confusedshrug:

[SATAN]

Cool narcissism and ego, bro. The fact you think you're smarter than everyone else is hilarious. Comes across like a teenager who just discovered some particular websites.

[999Guy]

What effect do you think burning trillions upon trillions of gallons of gas is having?

You think that it does nothing to this planet? What do you think it is, healthy?

Come on now think critically

[SATAN]

Who are you talking to?

[Jasper]

Funny enough a study was recently done at Princeton that demonstrated the incredible degree of disconnect between what policies the public supports, and what Congress actually does.




There's basically.... zero correlation :lol

The government just brazenly does whatever it wants regardless of public sentiment.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, because the public comprises many, many incompetent individuals. Obviously there's incompetence among lawmakers as well, but the average IQ among the public is undoubtedly dwarfed by the average Congressional IQ.

So... basically it's just life. Smart, strong people rule. Weak people do nothing and cry.

Foreva and eva.


Bingo --- this has been the issue for decades and it's like this is all we have to work with lol
This is the number 1 reason why our country is in disarray.

Last I heard a government is supposed to govern the people with the peoples ideas. Not the other way around.