American non(science)sense

[heisenberg]

If you have any question on whether or not I believe in Climate Change, the answer is a resounding YES! My issue is with those who think Man is either accelerating, influencing, changing, speeding up or doing anything at all which has a GLOBAL impact. It just is not true, and nothing we can do will stop it. So, there should not be people making money on the promise of stopping climate change, making it go slower or reversing it. Governments want to tax people for contributing to something they have no control over. That is like charging people for air because they will "breathe it all".

So you think that some how miraculously, the earth has pumped an extra 400 ppm of CO2 in the air? You think it's some sort of global conspiracy to make us pay more? If that was the case, why hasn't there been tax reformed passed yet? Better yet, why did Exxon Mobil, who know that what they were doing was wrong and them pumping CO2 in the air would cause the temperature of the earth to rise, not disclose it until now? You are right that it maybe too late to stop climate change as it is already here, but that doesn't mean that can't do anything to reduce the damage caused. You claim that people are making money from it.From where? Who is making this money? You are right that there the research needs to stop at one point and it will once we have ways of combating climate change, but most of these people who do these research also help finding reversing the damages and to tackle climate change. What do you want these people to do instead? Live on the street?

 

[YJ02]

no tax raise for this because there is far more money to make in sales for "global CC disaster preparedness" and crappy home owner solar systems among other things

also, driving this agenda causes sales in other areas to rise or fall..like tourism

tell ppl some now pristine coast, little visited now, is threatened and tourism increases

also, have some more beach erosion in places like Long Island and Jersey among others, then real estate developers can start asking more money for places inland and devalue the coastal properties and grab them up cheap

THIS IS NOT ABOUT IT "not happening" it is about capitalistic exploitation of a global issue. A bit like how the prices of everything go up (despite measures to stop it) just prior to a hurricane or snowstorm hitting

It is the adage of "never let a disaster go to waste" exploited to the max for profit and control (corps get the profit govts get more control via regulation)

Its just that the scale of this is much bigger and the message of it being "man made" so well crafted for so long, that the guilt factor-which causes many ppl to act ("hey I did my part I bought a Prius" or whatever product to alleviate the guilt some ppl feel or try to make others feel)) is high up through to low earth orbit!

Getting people to feel guilty THEN tell them there is a way for them to feel less guilty by paying or doing some other act is another form of blackmail

this exploitation of facts is one of the ultimate in "american (or any other nation) non science-sense".

Just because it is being done by the less expected types (versus creationist bible thumpers, hillbillies,etc) doesn't make it anything different. Exploited and "edited" science is non science.

 

[Rac80]

those would have been "humans" of the pre neanderthal type--the 'great apes' hadn't even evolved yet by then

our predecessors were about 15-20 million yrs ago

of course, that leaves plenty of room for some Centaurians or Orions or Rigellians...

Hey don't forget the Saurians… (re: ST:V Distant Origin)

 

[Overmind One]

So you think that some how miraculously, the earth has pumped an extra 400 ppm of CO2 in the air?

Nothing "miraculous" about it. And just as a comparison, cattle and other bovines and cud chewing animals contribute far more CO2 to the atmosphere than Man does. Where did the CO2 come from during the Eocene era (56 to 33.9 million years ago)? The Eocene was the warmest period of earth. This is what it looked like then globally. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/history_of_the_earth/Eocene

Note the ice caps and coastal regions:

You think it's some sort of global conspiracy to make us pay more? If that was the case, why hasn't there been tax reformed passed yet? Better yet, why did Exxon Mobil, who know that what they were doing was wrong and them pumping CO2 in the air would cause the temperature of the earth to rise, not disclose it until now?

Exxon Mobil had nothing to do with any global temperature rise, and neither do any of the other oil companies, coal companies or any company. It has nothing to do with anything Man is doing anywhere on earth. That is the point.

You are right that it maybe too late to stop climate change as it is already here, but that doesn't mean that can't do anything to reduce the damage caused. You claim that people are making money from it.From where? Who is making this money?

Carbon Credits are an entire currency based in the manmade climate change scam. The Toyota Prius and all electric cars earn these credits for Toyota, Tesla, Ford, whomever. There are tax credits for solar, companies are fined for emissions (who gets the money?), people all over are raking in cash. Useless, unemployable "climatologists" make a living on foisting this nonsense on philanthropists and universities with the promise of "fixing" the climate. They managed to get you on board, how much more would they have to say or do to convince you to part with a "donation"?

You are right that there the research needs to stop at one point and it will once we have ways of combating climate change, but most of these people who do these research also help finding reversing the damages and to tackle climate change. What do you want these people to do instead? Live on the street?

You CAN'T combat climate change. Can you beat up rain by punching it in the sky? You can't reverse it, and we should not even be trying to reverse it. It is a natural process. The damages are caused by structures we build in areas where change is most apparent, like coastal cities, along rivers (all rivers change their courses naturally over the eons), we are in the way. The way to deal with it is to find ways to accommodate it and adjust with it.

 

[Rac80]

Nothing "miraculous" about it. And just as a comparison, cattle and other bovines and cud chewing animals contribute far more CO2 to the atmosphere than Man does. Where did the CO2 come from during the Eocene era (56 to 33.9 million years ago)? The Eocene was the warmest period of earth. This is what it looked like then globally. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/history_of_the_earth/Eocene

Note the ice caps:
View attachment 34243

You think it's some sort of global conspiracy to make us pay more? If that was the case, why hasn't there been tax reformed passed yet? Better yet, why did Exxon Mobil, who know that what they were doing was wrong and them pumping CO2 in the air would cause the temperature of the earth to rise, not disclose it until now?

Exxon Mobil had nothing to do with any global temperature rise, and neither do any of the other oil companies, coal companies or any company. It has nothing to do with anything Man is doing anywhere on earth. That is the point.



Carbon Credits are an entire currency based in the manmade climate change scam. The Toyota Prius and all electric cars earn these credits for Toyota, Tesla, Ford, whomever. There are tax credits for solar, companies are fined for emissions (who gets the money?), people all over are raking in cash. Useless, unemployable "climatologists" make a living on foisting this nonsense on philanthropists and universities with the promise of "fixing" the climate. They managed to get you on board, how much more would they have to say or do to convince you to part with a "donation"?



You CAN'T combat climate change. Can you beat up rain by punching it in the sky? You can't reverse it, and we should not even be trying to reverse it. It is a natural process. The damages are caused by structures we build in areas where change is most apparent, like coastal cities, along rivers (all rivers change their courses naturally over the eons), we are in the way. The way to deal with it is to find ways to accommodate it and adjust with it.

You know college profs get a lot of money studying "Cow Flatulence" and how to reduce it right?

I admit I am still wondering how someone attached "Shrimp on a treadmill " study to global warming! {

 

[Overmind One]

You know college profs get a lot of money studying "Cow Flatulence" and how to reduce it right?

I admit I am still wondering how someone attached "Shrimp on a treadmill " study to global warming! {

Yep. They give dumb grants like that here in California every year. This one in 2018 in California was worth $213K to it's "scientists".

https://nypost.com/2018/05/15/california-scientists-given-213k-to-study-cow-farts/



That grant should pay the rent, pay off that Prius, buy a lot of kale and vegan spareribs and cauliflower steaks, and blue hair dye. And can you imagine the Facebook likes and Pinterist snaps?

 

[Overmind One]

those would have been "humans" of the pre neanderthal type--the 'great apes' hadn't even evolved yet by then

our predecessors were about 15-20 million yrs ago

of course, that leaves plenty of room for some Centaurians or Orions or Rigellians...

Perhaps it was not completely frozen over? Canada is partially frozen over, and millions of people live there.

 

[YJ02]

Perhaps it was not completely frozen over? Canada is partially frozen over, and millions of people live there.

say polynesian type ppl got there as it is widely presumed they got to the islands they are on now, easter island and south america, something would have happened to either wipe them out or cause them to leave

like, it got much colder..yeah, the "other" type of climate change

lot to potentially find under that ice

 

[YJ02]

Hey don't forget the Saurians… (re: ST:V Distant Origin)

the saurians were awesome--their queen had some personality issues though

 

[heisenberg]

Yep. They give dumb grants like that here in California every year. This one in 2018 in California was worth $213K to it's "scientists".

https://nypost.com/2018/05/15/california-scientists-given-213k-to-study-cow-farts/

View attachment 34245

That grant should pay the rent, pay off that Prius, buy a lot of kale and vegan spareribs and cauliflower steaks, and blue hair dye. And can you imagine the Facebook likes and Pinterist snaps?

Those grants are paid to do the study. They don't drive ferraris and fancy cars. The only ones that get rich are the celebrity scientists who only hold basic degrees or associated degrees in science but they are mainly an advocate for a change. Real scientists do the shit because they are good at it.

These guys

 

[heisenberg]

Nothing "miraculous" about it. And just as a comparison, cattle and other bovines and cud chewing animals contribute far more CO2 to the atmosphere than Man does. Where did the CO2 come from during the Eocene era (56 to 33.9 million years ago)? The Eocene was the warmest period of earth. This is what it looked like then globally. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/history_of_the_earth/Eocene

Note the ice caps and coastal regions:

View attachment 34243

Jesus christ! Whether it's fossil fuels, having cows or animals, that is still caused by us. Nature didn't have these many cows but our intervention is what caused the balance to go out of whack which is caused by us. We are the source of all the destruction of this planet earth because it's a closed loop system we are in.

Exxon Mobil had nothing to do with any global temperature rise, and neither do any of the other oil companies, coal companies or any company. It has nothing to do with anything Man is doing anywhere on earth. That is the point.

It's no use trying to get through to you. Mobil KNEW that them burning fuel would affect the climate.

Carbon Credits are an entire currency based in the manmade climate change scam. The Toyota Prius and all electric cars earn these credits for Toyota, Tesla, Ford, whomever. There are tax credits for solar, companies are fined for emissions (who gets the money?), people all over are raking in cash. Useless, unemployable "climatologists" make a living on foisting this nonsense on philanthropists and universities with the promise of "fixing" the climate. They managed to get you on board, how much more would they have to say or do to convince you to part with a "donation"?

Right, and how do you suppose you give people incentives and deterrents then? To some it doesn't work, just like how laws don't work on certain human beings, but for the most part it's better than nothing. I wish that everything was free.

Oh and science is forever changing and our understanding of the world we are in and the universe we are in will continue to grow because it enriches are curosity. Science does not stop. It continues to search for the best answers out there. At the moment, given the data we have, climate change is pointing towards us as the culprit.

You CAN'T combat climate change. Can you beat up rain by punching it in the sky? You can't reverse it, and we should not even be trying to reverse it. It is a natural process. The damages are caused by structures we build in areas where change is most apparent, like coastal cities, along rivers (all rivers change their courses naturally over the eons), we are in the way. The way to deal with it is to find ways to accommodate it and adjust with it.

You can reverse it but we have to let nature do it. The best way for climate change to be fixed is for us to go. Simple as that.

 

[YJ02]

Jesus christ! Whether it's fossil fuels, having cows or animals, that is still caused by us. Nature didn't have

You can reverse it but we have to let nature do it. The best way for climate change to be fixed is for us to go

Again, with the leftist or whatever it is "-ist", MMCC belief that humans are somehow alien to the planet

we ARE a part of nature
'

the Dinosaurs-all types in the various ages of their existence did some damage to the planet too..nature "got rid" of the

that is, the climate and conditions changed for their survival at various times throughout their existence. Each time they could not adapt so they died.

<<of course, there was probably at least one "extra terrestrial" extinction event that they could have not adapted too-the asteroid impact>>

we are capable of adapting and we will in a rational., non money grabbing way eventually.

 

[Overmind One]

Jesus christ! Whether it's fossil fuels, having cows or animals, that is still caused by us. Nature didn't have these many cows but our intervention is what caused the balance to go out of whack which is caused by us. We are the source of all the destruction of this planet earth because it's a closed loop system we are in.

Really? Then please explain how the climate became so warm in the Eocene era that only the North pole had ice?

It's no use trying to get through to you. Mobil KNEW that them burning fuel would affect the climate.

Prove that. Prove that any oil company or any company at all affected the climate. Anywhere on earth.

Right, and how do you suppose you give people incentives and deterrents then? To some it doesn't work, just like how laws don't work on certain human beings, but for the most part it's better than nothing. I wish that everything was free.

Oh and science is forever changing and our understanding of the world we are in and the universe we are in will continue to grow because it enriches are curosity. Science does not stop. It continues to search for the best answers out there. At the moment, given the data we have, climate change is pointing towards us as the culprit.

That is all new data, fabricated by manmade climate change cons whose goal is to collect money from anyone they can. Unless you are going to use empirical science and verified data, nah you won't "get through" to me about any of this. I have already done my own research and I have read the data they present. Flawed does not begin to describe it.

You can reverse it but we have to let nature do it. The best way for climate change to be fixed is for us to go. Simple as that.

You CAN'T reverse it. It is a cycle, and Man is not a god. He cannot control the climate. Manmade climate change belief is more similar to the primitive beliefs that deities had to be appeased to make it rain, stop floods and prevent eruptions of volcanoes than it is modern science.

 

[Rac80]

Those grants are paid to do the study. They don't drive ferraris and fancy cars. The only ones that get rich are the celebrity scientists who only hold basic degrees or associated degrees in science but they are mainly an advocate for a change. Real scientists do the shit because they are good at it.

These guys

REEEEEAAALLLLLY??? I know a few professors I would like to introduce you to. Hubby's major prof had a HUGE very nice home for just him and his wife (they also had a maid & housekeeper) - and that was BEFORE he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (2010)! He gets a great salary and gets a large number of research grants per year from which he skims off the cream at the top, before he pays his students, etc.

 

[heisenberg]

Really? Then please explain how the climate became so warm in the Eocene era that only the North pole had ice?

This is where understanding of science people always get it wrong. They see one thing and then try to find a similar pattern with another. It's like the God dellusion. If we can't explain the origin of life or the missing evolution, it must have come from "God".
Also, no where in my argument have I denied cyclical changes to the climate. All I have pointed out is that we are ACCELERATING this process that hasn't been seen before as far back as we go when we dig the fossils from the ground. They know this by finding Carbon Isotopes from the ground and then comparing it to the atmosphere. Oil is also a very energy dense molecule and very complex. That is why it has a lot of energy and when you burn stuff with a lot of energy in it, it is going to produce a lot of toxic waste. This is basic chemistry. Oil is made through decaying marine life and plants through heat and pressure.

Prove that. Prove that any oil company or any company at all affected the climate. Anywhere on earth.

Prove what? You mean Exxon Mobil knew? I just did. One Source wasn't enough? Here, is the study done at Harvard. Not enough? Here is the study to the papers. Hard to tell if you are really being serious here or just trolling man. I know it's the internet and I know you don't mean any malice intent, but I sometimes wonder if climate change sceptics are just clever trolls in disguise because they are either bored and just like toying people over the internet because it's entertainment for them.

That is all new data, fabricated by manmade climate change cons whose goal is to collect money from anyone they can. Unless you are going to use empirical science and verified data, nah you won't "get through" to me about any of this. I have already done my own research and I have read the data they present. Flawed does not begin to describe it.

Your methodology is broken. You are delusional like the calorie counting people out there.

You CAN'T reverse it. It is a cycle, and Man is not a god. He cannot control the climate. Manmade climate change belief is more similar to the primitive beliefs that deities had to be appeased to make it rain, stop floods and prevent eruptions of volcanoes than it is modern science.

View attachment 34248[/QUOTE]
I never said that man was "god" but our affect is destroying the climate.

 

[YJ02]

ok so i know i may be making "simpleton" posts on this

BUT those objections to the MMCC theory that I put up are very,very basic and I would like to see someone argue against it

like:

Humans ARE a part of nature

like any part of nature, there are flaws. there are inconsistencies and portions-whether in the one organism or group of organisms itself, or an issue with that organ. functioning in harmony WITH nature

there are elements in nature that also contradict or straight out 'undo' nature in on effort to improve its own standing and quality of life WITHIN nature

Humans are one of these organisms; we are organic to nature and though we may do some harm to nature and the natural order, we could never "destroy" nature in any final manner


So, try and defend why we humans "have to go". Explain how we are 'alien' to nature.

but, i expect no answer that actually addresses this; it is the tact of the MMCC faithful --- it is their new "religion" after all. Blind faith and on a 'sacred mission' to save the earth--- to either ignore the question or, obfuscate the point, or, attack the source of the argument or the person presenting it.

 

[Overmind One]

This is where understanding of science people always get it wrong. They see one thing and then try to find a similar pattern with another. It's like the God dellusion. If we can't explain the origin of life or the missing evolution, it must have come from "God".
Also, no where in my argument have I denied cyclical changes to the climate. All I have pointed out is that we are ACCELERATING this process that hasn't been seen before as far back as we go when we dig the fossils from the ground. They know this by finding Carbon Isotopes from the ground and then comparing it to the atmosphere. Oil is also a very energy dense molecule and very complex. That is why it has a lot of energy and when you burn stuff with a lot of energy in it, it is going to produce a lot of toxic waste. This is basic chemistry. Oil is made through decaying marine life and plants through heat and pressure.

The bolded is false. Please provide evidence that Man is having ANY affect on the GLOBAL climate. Not the local climate like smoggy cities and sooty towns near coal firing plants. but the GLOBAL climate. You can't, and neither can anyone else. This means "accelerating" too. Please prove it or direct me to the proof. And I do not mean some activist created video or pretty animated PowerPoint presentations. I prefer journals and scientific publications. Actually, I have already read most of that. There is no empirical proof of Man's effect on the GLOBAL climate. The Eocene had no cars and people did not burn fossil fuels on the scale we have today. How did it get so hot that only the North Pole had significant ice?

Prove what? You mean Exxon Mobil knew? I just did. One Source wasn't enough? Here, is the study done at Harvard. Not enough? Here is the study to the papers. Hard to tell if you are really being serious here or just trolling man. I know it's the internet and I know you don't mean any malice intent, but I sometimes wonder if climate change sceptics are just clever trolls in disguise because they are either bored and just like toying people over the internet because it's entertainment for them.

You are doing the trolling. You keep making claims about Man "accelerating" climate change, "reversing" and "slowing" it. Man can do none of those things. You can keep making the claim thousands of times per day, make signs, get a tattoo, whatever, and the facts will be the same: Man is NOT able to affect the global climate change cycle. Even massive eruptions of volcanoes have limited effects. Sure, you can make LOCAL changes like limiting gas burning and diesel burning vehicles, reducing factory emissions, etc. The result will be cleaner LOCAL air, less soot and dirt settling on homes and cars and living things like plants and animals and people. I lived through that sort of remediation here in California. But as California's air cleared, the air in Beijing and Brazil did not also change, because manmade climate change is not GLOBAL, only LOCAL.

Your methodology is broken. You are delusional like the calorie counting people out there.

Watch it...you are inviting a far more honest assessment of your statements here than I have been willing to say because I am being courteous. You are not being courteous. Do you really want me to go there? My methodology is not broken. The data stands on its own without needing me to read it or you to argue against it. It is just raw data. You are clearly unfamiliar with it or you would not be tossing bones and apples and virgins into the pit trying to appease the Climate Change gods and stop the earth from continuing the climate change cycle it has been doing for millions of years.

I never said that man was "god" but our affect is destroying the climate.

By saying that, you imply that Man can control the global climate (by destroying it). We can't destroy the global climate. We cannot control it or change it or reverse it or make it take on any particular state. It is independent of anything Man is doing or has done.

This whole Climate Change hat trick began around 2007, and became a global scam in 2008. This was published in 2009:


They are still at it. BILLIONS are being made.

 

[heisenberg]

ok so i know i may be making "simpleton" posts on this

BUT those objections to the MMCC theory that I put up are very,very basic and I would like to see someone argue against it

like:

Humans ARE a part of nature

like any part of nature, there are flaws. there are inconsistencies and portions-whether in the one organism or group of organisms itself, or an issue with that organ. functioning in harmony WITH nature

there are elements in nature that also contradict or straight out 'undo' nature in on effort to improve its own standing and quality of life WITHIN nature

Humans are one of these organisms; we are organic to nature and though we may do some harm to nature and the natural order, we could never "destroy" nature in any final manner


So, try and defend why we humans "have to go". Explain how we are 'alien' to nature.

but, i expect no answer that actually addresses this; it is the tact of the MMCC faithful --- it is their new "religion" after all. Blind faith and on a 'sacred mission' to save the earth--- to either ignore the question or, obfuscate the point, or, attack the source of the argument or the person presenting it.

It's our intervention is what I am talking about good lord. The earth is a perfectly calibrated closed loop system.I don't follow this religion or faith as you call it. I view science objectively. I see the evidence in front of me and reach a conclusion.

 

[Lord Ba'al]

ok so i know i may be making "simpleton" posts on this

BUT those objections to the MMCC theory that I put up are very,very basic and I would like to see someone argue against it

like:

Humans ARE a part of nature

like any part of nature, there are flaws. there are inconsistencies and portions-whether in the one organism or group of organisms itself, or an issue with that organ. functioning in harmony WITH nature

there are elements in nature that also contradict or straight out 'undo' nature in on effort to improve its own standing and quality of life WITHIN nature

Humans are one of these organisms; we are organic to nature and though we may do some harm to nature and the natural order, we could never "destroy" nature in any final manner


So, try and defend why we humans "have to go". Explain how we are 'alien' to nature.

but, i expect no answer that actually addresses this; it is the tact of the MMCC faithful --- it is their new "religion" after all. Blind faith and on a 'sacred mission' to save the earth--- to either ignore the question or, obfuscate the point, or, attack the source of the argument or the person presenting it.

Humans are no longer a part of nature. Only if we all go back to foraging and hunting could we again be considered as such.

 

[YJ02]

Humans are no longer a part of nature. Only if we all go back to foraging and hunting could we again be considered as such.

everything we do use or exploit, create,etc ARE ALL from nature

we dont create things we use "from nothing"

just because we are, so far, the most developed 'item' in nature doesn't mean that some how all those things that nature has given us and we have discovered (HELLO SCIENCE AND DISCOVERY!! So its ok for science, et al in the theory of, but everything we have done in the execution of the use of those discoveries is bad?)

No matter how much more we develop and evolve nature will ALWAYS BE SUPREME TO US and could knock us back centuries or millenia in development and culture,etc AT ITS WHIM

just look at how 'knocked back' any place is after nature's minor tumults like hurricanes and earthquakes. if nature really got to it, we could lose nearly everything we have

and when i say nature i am also including all things natural on and off the planet

We cannot destroy the planet but it can destroy us