GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Der Fuhrer Klaus Schwab is running that show
Why constantly bring up Nazism and der Fuhrer when discussing things like this? All it does is cloud the issue. It's no different than Leftists calling the Far-Right Nazis because they want to ban anything that isn't straight, white, male and Christian. Hyperbole is one thing, but stuff like that shuts down all intelligent conversation. Isn't there a way to say you disagree that doesn't make you sound like the very people you claim to despise? Aren't we above this crap?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
EV's are inevitable. They are the future, no matter what anyone thinks it's happening. We either develop the tech now, on our own or we WILL be buying it from China. Which would you rather have? America will be behind....AGAIN. Buying the future from someone else, AGAIN, all because we're stubborn and we have to politicize everything. Our freedom and capitalism will be the very rope that hangs us due to hubris and a lack of humility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
You are correct in the Totalitarian nature of the WEF and it’s current trajectory of driving political policy. It’s a proper classic Politburo modelled in the classic sense.
Answerable to no one but itself, and has no regard for National citizens priorities.

Watch the speech and see that the priorities outlined by Klaus are what the EU us persuing.

At some point, this organisation is going to be declared hostile to the United States
I know it's really shallow minded of me, but I don't live in Europe, not caring as much what they do when we can't get our own fecal matter together or pay attention to one topic long enough to do something about it.......squirrel!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
you better pay attention to how many of your political candidates have been to their ‘young leaders’ 5 year boot camp before you vote.
Oh please. Stop sounding like the Right-wing villain from all those environmental disaster movies.

I'll vote on the side of the future every time, regardless of party. I have NO party affiliation, I'm pro-America not pro-Republican or pro-Democrat. Country before Party. A little inconvenience for me might lead to a better life for my grandkids. America can't afford political candidates that live in the past. Why make America great again when we can make America Better Now...and Tomorrow?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Definitely. It's easy to say, "Zero? You can't reach zero!"

Of course you can't, but it doesn't matter. It's just like M. Barra's zero, zero, zero goal. Of course they are impossible goals to attain, but that doesn't mean they are a wrong idea. If you pick a goal of a certain reduction (50%, 25%, whatever) that IS achievable, once you reach it, you quit,. Because you've reached your goal.

If your goal is unachievable, it just becomes a "direction" to move in. And it never ends, because you always WANT to improve it, to get closer to zero.
I totally agree. I remember when America tried to improve itself, when polluting was seen as wrong and it was one of the many "American duties" we had to not trash the place. Now, if you DON'T dump your old motor oil on the ground you're a Socialist. When did it become politically motivated to pick up after yourself or not poison the water table? We politicize trash for Pete's sake. Ugh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Pure uninformed conjecture

In other words fake news - you don’t know what you’re taking about. Eg three record ‘one in a hundred year events’ in the last 4 months..

This on top of last years record bushfires, ie where rainforest which hasn’t burned for 1,000 years, did
That is what happens when you get your facts from talking heads. They're going to keep sticking their collective heads in the sand....or their bums....either way they will be on the wrong side of the future. Does your country politicize everything like ours, to the point where facts have a side (or as some people call them when they don't like what they hear, "alternative facts") and discussions shut down?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
I am still waiting for the climate zealots to tell us what the Earths temperature is supposed to be and what the climate is supposed to be, I want them to tell us what was the climate and temperature was in Oregon (where I live) when north America was part of Laurasia or do the climate zealots only believe climate change started when humans started using oil.
Firstly, no one is saying what the Earth's temperature should be, just that as it warms, the ice will melt which adds to sea levels, that newly introduced fresh water changes the density and temperature of sea water which causes ocean currents slow, they stop transporting warmer temperatures from the Equator to the hemispheres which then cool since they only get heat from the sun. This is what caused the Ice Age. There are plenty of scientific papers you can read on this and what the temperature was in Oregon when the North American plate was part of Laurasia/Pangea...but would you believe them?

Climate change has always existed, no one has said that Humanity caused climate change, but we have affected it. To deny that the Industrial Age did not contribute to climate change is crazy. We've known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over 100 years (1856, by Eunice Foote). I don't understand the choice of not believing the science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
I find it fascinating that this post quickly called someone a denier ‘of the science’ while at the same time admitting that global temperature has always fluctuated, simply based on 200 years of study for a planet that has been here for a really long time.

Now, perhaps some mistake climate politics as science. The two are separate issues. The politics of climate are the attempt to use a phenomenon we barely understand to bring about global political and economic control over humanity at the expense of the nation state and national sovereignty.

It might be political science, but it certainly not science In the traditional understanding of evidence based study of phenomena.

We still awaiting the coming ice age from the 1970’s climate studies.
Context matters. I know that's a hard concept for some to grasp, but in the context of the post I stated that of course climate change has always existed, but I also stated that humanity has affected it. THAT is the science in question. THAT is the science I can't fathom why people don't get, the science that shows that we CAN and DO affect climate. Climate and weather are two different things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
That's conflicting. The higher warmth melts the ice, making more water, disrupting the ocean currents (which, by the way are mostly driven by the Earth's rotation) which cools the higher latitudes, causing an ice age, which would make more ice form, reducing water levels, making less warmth. This sounds like a feedback loop.

In addition, another feedback loop: Clouds. When the planet heats up, melts more ice, creates more surface area of water. That plus the higher temps cause more evaporation, causing more general cloud cover, which does two things; lowers the amount of the sun's heat (reflected off the clouds) but these same clouds also hold in more heat from being radiated out into space. I'm not sure which side "wins" this battle.

The climate is an extremely complicated thing.
It is a feedback loop, at least according to the articles I've read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Just give up your V8 and charge your cars for a long-time using wind power. Then vote to take more yobs to southeast Asia to end racism and save the whales, not from the Japanese whalers, but from your V8, you. Then all will be well, as long you keep the orange man away.
Actually....the Republicans during the Reagan Era gave tax breaks to companies that outsourced jobs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
For all of your blather, you make one thing abundantly clear. That is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Of the many things that you and your fellow climate change deniers don't get is that the body of scientific knowledge changes. You whine that "scientific goal posts" have moved over the past 50 years. Let is leave aside the fact that there is no such thing as a "scientific goal post" in this sense. Scientific knowledge increase exponentially. Over the past 50 years, scientific and technical knowledge has doubled multiple times. Another way to measure scientific knowledge is to count the numbers of articles published by scientists each year. In 1970, that number was about 300 thousand. In 2020 some 50 years later, that number is about 2.5 million. Many of these papers confirmed the results published earlier. A few of them contradicted earlier publications. Most of them were new results.

It never ceases to amaze me that you people have convinced yourselves that scientists are in the business of telling the poor uninformed how to live their lives. They are not. Scientists in academia are in the business of securing grant awards to maintain their labs and to support their students. Holding on to their jobs is no small goal in this regard. Scientists in government do much much of the same type of work as their colleagues in academia--in certain agencies that is. In mission-oriented agencies like NASA, they work for years if not decades to ensure the success of each mission. Scientists in industry are working to ensure that their employers have the knowledge and technology to remain competitive. There was a time when many industrial scientists engaged in much of the same type of work as their academic and governmental colleagues.

In my earlier post, I said that you people never ever post information from scientific journals to support your assertions. Now, you have posted a phrase of your own creation, "scientific goal posts," followed by incoherent babbling. You assert, but you do not support your position. One of your favorite assertions is that scientists at some time in the mythical past claimed that the planet was suffering from global cooling. Scientists live in the present and work toward the future. Even if the consensus of scientific opinion had been that the planet was threatened by global cooling, that has not been the consensus opinion for several decades now. Science does not allow updated information veto the best knowledge currently available. That said, I don't know where you were 50 years ago, but I do know where I was. I was a college student who was taking notice of the fact that my environment was subtly warming.
Very good post!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Oh, please:rolleyes: Fauci has been around since the Reagan Administration. The American Right reveals itself when it asserts that a man who rose to prominence as a Presidential Advisor to the Gipper owes his prominence to the Left. Does this mean that Ronald Reagan was some kind of libtard?

No, you hate Fauci because the Orange Man grew to hate him. But the Orange Man hates just about anyone and everyone who knows more than he. That's nearly everyone.
Man, I forgot to bring popcorn to this tennis match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Look, I have no interst in Bernal American politics but even a five second google on that story got this…..

Fauci wore his mask on his chin in multiple images from Nationals Park stadium on Thursday after he threw out the opening pitch of the Yankees-Nationals game. The infectious diseases expert, celebrated by President Trump’s critics for his willingness to fault the US pandemic response, was seen sandwiched shoulder-to-shoulder between two other people in the virtually empty stadium.
Yes, and the pandemic has declared "over" and is now endemic. This photo proves nothing, really, but yes, let's threaten his life and try to discredit him for doing his job. Let's act like only the other side is hypocritical. Do I think he's a saint? That he's perfect? No, absolutely not. I do however feel that he did his job to the best of his abilities (even though he ignored the AIDS epidemic), despite the uncertainty of the virus.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top