GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
Come off it. The EU is merely reaffirming a decision that it made several years ago.
You clearly did not watch Der Fuhrer's annual address to the politburo

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?
Führer is a German word meaning "leader" or "guide"
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
Who do you think that you are addressing?
Klaus is making his speech to party organs and setting the political policy agenda for the next year. This is totally in your face, and open for everyone to see it.
WEF is not even a treaty organization. Why does its leader address government and industry leaders like this, and just like that, they go and vote as he instructs them?

To get to your question
Who do you think that you are addressing?
Is that you Comey? How is life since you left the FBI?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
The historical context is He-who-shall-not-be-named, and I can't imagine that you weren't trying to reference that totalitarianism.
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 is pursuing.

At some point, this organisation is going to be declared hostile to the United States
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
Indeed. And the tired argument of - until we all do something, no one should do anything - is nothing more than the classic race to the bottom. Facile beyond belief

Always good to see these (ahem) internationally respected amateur-expert climatologists here on GMI 👍
Hair Nose Head Eyebrow Smile

I live with the straw binary alphabet they them he she we us cat people that like to destroy the environment
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!!
you better pay attention to how many of your political candidates have been to their ‘young leaders’ 5 year boot camp before you vote.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
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?
I just said that you pay attention to the political affiliations of those you are considering to vote for.
I have come to the conclusion that WEF is not acting in my or my families best interest. If you believe Klaus Schwab and his bots are there to serve your interests, by all means, vote for that future. But I will oppose it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
Maybe Earth nurtured conditions for humans to evolve to a point where we as humans would create internal combustion engines that used refined oil to increase Co2 levels in the atmosphere for a purpose we are not yet aware of.
We were told about peak oil, that never happened, the oceans we’re supposed to rise, but beach property prices went up and NASA, Airforce, Space force , Navy are all expanding their ocean front space ports…

Now, I was awaiting NASA’s move to Wyoming and Colorado due to rising oceans…

Jeez, should I buy something in Wyoming so that I will be a beach cottage owner next to wide eyed AOC?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
So mistaken.

In my state, residents near the Gulf Coast are now being evacuated because homes that they moved intro 40 years ago are now perpetually underwater. It is not only my home state and it is not only in the United States. Within the United States, numerous Government agencies at the state and Federal level are working like Trojans to address the effects of global climate change. One major consequence of global climate change is rising sea levels. The US Department of Defense has numerous military bases on the coasts of the US and other nations around the globe. These bases will be submerged by rising sea levels in just a few decades. If the Pentagon cannot find ways to stem the tide, then its endangered military bases will have to be moved.
There is the Netherlands the US can learn from on reclaiming land from the Sea. perhaps we could even make more land
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
Queensland last month..
View attachment 66429
You know the worst loss of life happened in June 1852 when massive flooding on the Murrumbidgee River swept away most of the town of Gundagai, leaving just three houses standing. Eighty-nine people were killed, more than third of the population. The town was later rebuilt on higher ground. I believe this was due to global cooling at the time before the climate council.

Worked well for New Orleans!

Oh, wait....
You certainly know the flood of 1849 as the most destructive flood known in New Orleans. A breach in the levee on the east bank of the Mississippi 18 miles above New Orleans did immense amount of damage, inundating the city for 48 days. Another flood the following year convinces the federal government to grant monies to build a continuous levee system that fell into disrepair following years of poor maintenance by successive (ahem).. a certain political party that represents the region....

Subsequent global cooling due to a reduction in miles driven in V8's caused concerns of a possible ice age in the 1970's prompting the echo kids of the 1980's to call for a concerted effort to increase sales and incentives of high displacement engines to families across the globe, despite looming peak oil according to 'the science' at the time, science deniers

But we do need to stop the cows from causing all those emissions...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 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.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
Oooh you quickly GOOGLED up through your right-wing ‘opinion pieces’ and now you’ve become my effing local expert. Good work Sherlock!

I’ve lived on the Murrumbidgee since 1972 but you suddenly know better, right? Well done little man!
The beauty of the world wide web. I did not 'GOOGLE' I 'BINGED' Since you want to speak to the 'global climate' what makes you qualified to speak to the planet, and I not qualified to speak to Murrumbidgee in the mid 1800's? 1972 was after the town moved to higher ground...due to global cooling....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
M
Among the many tactics employed by climate change deniers is to fixate on "failed predictions" made by interested laymen rather than the actual state of the science. It is remarkable to see many "failed predictions" on the list above to be problems that we have been dealing with for years. But, of course, your list comes from the American Enterprise Institute, hardly a science organization.

Probably the one the really grinds my gears is the inclusion of Super Hurricanes! on the list. Have you been living under a rock? Hurricane season runs from June 1 to November 30. Historically, hurricanes are been most numerous at the end of summer to early fall. However, we are now seeing more storms, more powerful storms, and storms that develop over a broader swath of the calendar. I almost forgot--we see hurricanes in regions of the country that were unheard of when I was a kid.

Traditionally, hurricanes were storms that US residents in the Gulf South and Florida dealt with. Hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey--not Mississippi--New Jersey! Now northern states like New Jersey and New York face the real risk of hurricanes. Back in the day, the worst risk to states in Mid-Atlantic and points north were the remnants of hurricanes that had devastated Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi.

In 2020, we face so many hurricanes that we ran out of primary names. We had to use Greek letters. Hurricane Zeta was the third of three devastating hurricanes that struck Louisiana. I have friends there who were without power for months. Many were without power and water for protracted periods of time.

This is the year 2022. It is still very early in the hurricane season. However, the tropics are already active. For the first time in my memory, I saw a Pacific low pressure system cross Central America/Mexico into the Gulf of Mexico to form a tropical storm. It did not form a hurricane until the storm crossed over Florida into the Atlantic Ocean.

That AEI list is just part of a political screed to you. These are not threats that you understand. The victims are not people that you know. So why not?

Have fun.
So, tell us, what happened to peak oil, now, Even Somalia and Sudan, Uganda produce their own oil. Saudi Arabia uncover a lot more oil, and apparently, nitrogen is good for plants.

You see, you entangle your science with the politics. Then you cannot see when you are being played.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 Posts
So you think that recitation of facts is being played? This explains why you people never ever post links to governmental or academic scientific websites on climate change.
I think science is science, politics is politics.
When politics politicize science, we all suffer.
we barely understand how the Globe regulates it’s temperatures, is it good to be environmentally friendly in how we live, of course it is.

Should we give up National sovereignty and liberty for an evolving study of global climate No.

You claim to be objective, yet you denied all the facts about Scietific goal posts moving about over the last 50 years to achieve political goals.

If you don‘T weigh that into your analysis, you are a fact denier.
You really would have to think it’s mental illness? It’s too delusional not to be. Notice too the extreme levels of hatred, pointedly in this instance towards a prominent Doctor figure...

Clearly the individual feels impotent and frightened at his perceived loss of control over his existence, thus his attempt at reassurance through self identifying into a pack of similarly obsessed trumpian nutjobs
A common thread amongst all political ideologies that commit genocide is first and foremost, dehumanising people it considers a threat to its political goals.

Right now, we have witnessed a dehumanising of Trump and anyone who agrees with his political positions, be it trade,foreign policy, or domestic industrial policy.

I find it difficult to see good will in anyone that participate’s in dehumanising fellow citizens
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,494 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.
I know you consider yourself as ‘understanding’ the science.

yet you seem not to grasp the very basic concept that Science and politics are two separate lanes.

No one is ‘opposed to science’


What people are opposed to is the politicisation of science and using it as a pretext to curtail liberty and centralise ppower amongst global elites, specifically the world economic Forum Politburo.

Is this too difficult to comprehend?
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top