Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Politics & Religion
  Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 10)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 42 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42 
Previous Page | Next Page
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Carbon dioxide hysteria by olejoedad
Started on: 12-09-2022 03:51 PM
Replies: 1658 (19635 views)
Last post by: cliffw on 03-22-2024 08:42 AM
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post03-29-2023 11:37 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Man, there sure are a LOT of "accidents" since demoncraps took over...

https://www.zerohedge.com/m...methanol-smashes-dam

[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 03-29-2023).]

IP: Logged
Mickey_Moose
Member
Posts: 7494
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 143
Rate this member

Report this Post03-29-2023 01:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Mickey_MooseClick Here to visit Mickey_Moose's HomePageSend a Private Message to Mickey_MooseEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post03-29-2023 01:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Waste from discarded electronics (especially consumer electronics) has long been a problem.

These articles that were just posted describe the challenges ahead.

I don't think it would be realistic to expect that all the problems associated with End Of Life for solar panels would have been solved before the expansion of the solar panels industry.
IP: Logged
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post03-29-2023 04:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Do ya think it's scam.

The "green movement" is a giant money making scam, always has been.

https://www.naturalnews.com...-scam-operation.html
IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22527
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post03-29-2023 07:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Waste from discarded electronics (especially consumer electronics) has long been a problem.

These articles that were just posted describe the challenges ahead.

I don't think it would be realistic to expect that all the problems associated with End Of Life for solar panels would have been solved before the expansion of the solar panels industry.



I don't think it's common for people to throw away the panels... usually someone who already has solar... that has invested that money, will often just upgrade them. The solar company doing the work will almost always take the old photovoltaic panels and recycle them because in many cases they can be reconditioned.

The thing I'm concerned about is not solar panels... but the wind farms. They produce more waste, and cost more overall than they produce in return. In the end, the government basically subsidizes them.

When I drive through Texas, there are 10s of thousands of windmills. They do what they do, but it's a huge expense. A single Gen-3 or Gen-4 nuclear power plant would eliminate the need for probably half of those, and would literally be powered by the leftover 1970s and 1980s waste from the Gen-1 and 2 power plants.
IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 35768
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 294
Rate this member

Report this Post03-29-2023 09:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-29-2023).]

IP: Logged
Wichita
Member
Posts: 20656
From: Wichita, Kansas
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 326
Rate this member

Report this Post03-30-2023 05:06 AM Click Here to See the Profile for WichitaSend a Private Message to WichitaEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
The left's rage against nuclear power is one of the tragedies of insane anti-science policies, one of many, brought to existence.

The clawback of 50-years of technological progress is just sad, because they misplaced Climate Shift, away from science to a political weapon to gain control over agenda and tax grifting.

But we deserve the politics we get. So let's continue to enrich rent seeking leftists at the expense of everyone else.

IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22527
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post03-30-2023 07:37 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Wichita:

The left's rage against nuclear power is one of the tragedies of insane anti-science policies, one of many, brought to existence.

The clawback of 50-years of technological progress is just sad, because they misplaced Climate Shift, away from science to a political weapon to gain control over agenda and tax grifting.

But we deserve the politics we get. So let's continue to enrich rent seeking leftists at the expense of everyone else.



Completely agree. Whenever you see responses to nuclear power on say, Twitter or anywhere else... and it's NOT a bot, the responses are totally asinine. They are so confident about that which they are so absurdly wrong about... saying that they don't want a Hiroshima or Nagisaki... like... really? Do you not recognize the difference between a nuclear power plant and an atomic bomb? And then they brag about being so well educated and intelligent because they have a bachelors degree in a totally worthless program from some **** school no one has ever heard of.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post03-30-2023 09:13 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Here's a guy who seems not at all optimistic about the prospects for Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors.


 
quote
Michael Barnard is a member of the Advisory Boards of electric aviation startup FLIMAX, Chief Strategist at TFIE Strategy and co-founder of distnc technologies. He spends his time projecting scenarios for decarbonization 40-80 years into the future, and assisting executives, Boards and investors to pick wisely today. Whether it's refueling aviation, grid storage, vehicle-to-grid, or hydrogen demand, his work is based on fundamentals of physics, economics and human nature, and informed by the decarbonization requirements and innovations of multiple domains. His leadership positions in North America, Asia and Latin America enhanced his global point of view. He publishes regularly in multiple outlets on innovation, business, technology and policy. He is available for Board, strategy advisor and speaking engagements.


"Shoveling Money Into Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Won’t Make Their Electricity Cheap"
 
quote
Wrights Law isn’t going to save the deep inefficiencies of SMRs. As I pointed out two years ago, the world tried tiny commercial nuclear reactors in the 1960s and 1970s, they were too expensive.
Michael Barnard for CleanTechnica; March 28, 2023.
https://cleantechnica.com/2...r-electricity-cheap/

Does he look like a "raging against nuclear" Leftist? A leader of the anarchistic Occupy Fission movement?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-30-2023).]

IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22527
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post03-30-2023 09:27 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Here's a guy who seems not at all optimistic about the prospects for Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors.

"Shoveling Money Into Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Won’t Make Their Electricity Cheap"
Michael Barnard for CleanTechnica; March 28, 2023.
https://cleantechnica.com/2...r-electricity-cheap/

Does he look like a "raging against nuclear" Leftist? A leader of the anarchistic Occupy Fission movement?




Yes, but Rinse... who's even concerned about small nuclear power plants? We have many dozens of them already in service and they work perfectly fine. They are in the majority of our air craft carriers and deep sea submarines. But that's what they're better designed for.

This is a fairly liberal video, but decent enough to explain things...




The video is a little bit behind when it comes to the tech, even though the video is a year old. China is already building Gen-4 nuclear power plants (which we designed)... so people are already doing it.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-30-2023).]

IP: Logged
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post03-30-2023 10:41 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Yet ANOTHER train "accidentally" flies off the tracks and of course it just happens to be carrying toxic materials, but totally not "suspicious" at all.

https://www.foxbusiness.com...acuations-small-town

[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 03-30-2023).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post03-30-2023 11:04 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Ethanol and corn syrup.
IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 19334
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 103
Rate this member

Report this Post03-30-2023 11:35 AM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Ethanol and corn syrup.

...on the rocks, with a twist.

IP: Logged
Wichita
Member
Posts: 20656
From: Wichita, Kansas
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 326
Rate this member

Report this Post03-30-2023 01:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for WichitaSend a Private Message to WichitaEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Climate Shift

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 03-30-2023).]

IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 35768
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 294
Rate this member

Report this Post03-30-2023 04:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Ethanol and corn syrup.


The corn syrup was just an unintended casualty of war against gooberment intelligence.

rinselberg, have you researched how much more [color=green]Global Warming[/green] is added above your house by adding ethanol to gasoline ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-30-2023).]

IP: Logged
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post03-30-2023 04:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Why would he do that?

He only knows what "science" says to know.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post03-30-2023 04:22 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

The corn syrup was just an unintended casualty of war against gooberment intelligence.

rinselberg, have you researched how much more Global Warming is added above your house by adding ethanol to gasoline?

I've never said that I was onboard with the programs or policies that incentivize farmers to grow the corn that's used to produce the ethanol that's blended into gasoline.

I've never said that every idea, project or policy that is promoted as "green" or that is promoted as "climate friendly" is actually a good thing.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-30-2023).]

IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post04-01-2023 02:42 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
The 10 most significant greenhouse gases, ranked in order from most to least, in terms of their accumulative planet-warming effect:
  1. Water vapor
  2. Carbon dioxide
  3. Methane
  4. Nitrous Oxide
  5. Ozone
  6. Trifluoromethane or "fluoroform"
  7. Hexalfuoroethane
  8. Sulfur Hexafluorid
  9. Trichlorofluoromethane
  10. Perfluorotributylamine and Sulfuryl Fluoride (a two-way tie for the 10th slot in the Greenhouse Gases "batting order")

This is a nice little summary, from Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D., at ThoughtCo., and it's fairly recent... January, 2020. Each of the greenhouse gases is described very briefly in plain language and accompanied by a thoughtfully chosen photograph or image.

https://www.thoughtco.com/w...enhouse-gases-606789

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-01-2023).]

IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 35768
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 294
Rate this member

Report this Post04-01-2023 08:18 AM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
The 10 most significant greenhouse gases, ranked in order from most to least, in terms of their accumulative planet-warming effect:
  1. Water vapor
  2. Carbon dioxide
  3. Methane
  4. Nitrous Oxide
  5. Ozone
  6. Trifluoromethane or "fluoroform"
  7. Hexalfuoroethane
  8. Sulfur Hexafluorid
  9. Trichlorofluoromethane
  10. Perfluorotributylamine and Sulfuryl Fluoride (a two-way tie for the 10th slot in the Greenhouse Gases "batting order")



I will give you a B- for that effort. It is weak.

Give us a scale. Give us a number.

If you would have taken more time to discern that hulla baloo, you would see that they only rated the percentage of water vapor. Why does it vary ? From 36% to 70% ?
36% ? What an interesting number.

Did you know, China is the #1 emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. 36%. The United States emits 11%. China and other countries are using more and more carbon dioxide. Using more and more fossil fuels.

Yet, your Green Cult seeks to force us at wallet point to start using world polluting electric vehicles, , .

Why does your hulla baloo not give facts ? Even allergy reports gives us ppm of the different "trigger" substances.

Is the CO2concentration .02%, like queers ? Like lesbians ? Like the transgender ? Like the bi sexual ? Gay ?

IP: Logged
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post04-01-2023 09:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
He's probably searching frantically to find quotes from "climate scientists" to parrot.

People like him have no thoughts of thier own, they exist in a "hive mind" (like the Borg), he must post your questions to the "collective" and wait for an appropriate response.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post04-01-2023 10:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Fitz301:

He's probably searching frantically to find quotes from "climate scientists" to parrot.

People like him have no thoughts of thier own, they exist in a "hive mind" (like the Borg), he must post your questions to the "collective" and wait for an appropriate response.

I guess "Fitz" is the first person to have ever said "I don't believe in the urgency, or even the priority for the world as a whole, including national governments, to take steps that are intended to reign in greenhouse gas-driven global warming." The first person to have said that, in those or similar words. Because "Fitz" is a man who truly has thoughts of his own. He couldn't possibly have been influenced by anyone else's revealed words on this topic.

Maybe he's been conducting his own research. Reviewing various meteorological records, and monitoring a small weather station that he's installed outdoors, next to his abode.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post04-01-2023 10:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Told you he was a mindless tool... ^^^
IP: Logged
Patrick
Member
Posts: 36251
From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Registered: Apr 99


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 458
Rate this member

Report this Post04-01-2023 10:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PatrickSend a Private Message to PatrickEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Fitz301:

He's probably searching frantically to find quotes from "climate scientists" to parrot.


Yeah, it's ridiculous to be searching for data when it's so much easier to simply say it's all bullsh!t. I honestly don't know why rinselberg wastes his time trying to educate some of you guys. It's like trying to warn the dinosaurs of an upcoming end-times asteroid impact.

But to give this thread some needed levity... I present the following meme, with my last comment in mind.



I believe it's a Ford Mustang which was leaving an intergalactic Cars & Coffee.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-02-2023).]

IP: Logged
MidEngineManiac
Member
Posts: 29566
From: Some unacceptable view
Registered: Feb 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 297
User Banned

Report this Post04-01-2023 11:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for MidEngineManiacSend a Private Message to MidEngineManiacEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
1st of all, Patrick.

Thats a Ford. Yes it can be a fun ride, but just like the 2nd cousin dont let dad catch ya doing it !!

and second...


[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 04-01-2023).]

IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post04-02-2023 09:27 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Why is CO2 or carbon dioxide such a "big deal", when it comes to the planet-warming greenhouse effect?

"How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?"
MIT Climate Portal; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; February 19, 2021.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask...trap-heat-atmosphere

This is a brief article—just a few paragraphs. If you've been active on this forum in any of these "climate change" or "global warming" conversations, this "one" is definitely for you!

I learned something from this article that I didn't know about, before.


Greenhouse gases "by the number"

If you assign the number "1" to carbon dioxide for its greenhouse effect, on the basis of a single molecule, methane is a "25", which means that a single methane molecule has 25 times more "greenhouse" than a single carbon dioxide molecule. Nitrous oxide is "298". The fluorinated greenhouse gases are even higher... sulfur hexafluoride is "22,800".

The reason that carbon dioxide is so important, compared to these other greenhouse gases, is its abundance in the atmosphere; its persistence in the atmosphere; and the fact that humans cause many times more carbon dioxide emissions, on a per molecule basis, than any of the other greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere from human activities and processes.

"Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and the Greenhouse Effect"
https://climatechange.lta.o...e-greenhouse-effect/


Two more easy (and concise) primers on the subject.

"Basics of the Carbon Cycle and the Greenhouse Effect"
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/carbon_toolkit/

"Explained: Greenhouse gases"
David L. Chandler for the MIT News Office; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; January 30, 2017.
https://news.mit.edu/2017/e...reenhouse-gases-0130


Don't be this meme. Don't be the "guy" who doesn't know the difference between an iceberg and a glacier.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-02-2023).]

IP: Logged
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post04-02-2023 07:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 35768
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 294
Rate this member

Report this Post04-04-2023 10:02 AM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fitz301:

https://www.americanthinker...ols_the_climate.html[/QUOTE ]

rinselberg's critical thinking skills are not very good. Because he doesn't want to challenge what he's been told. He believes what they told him to believe reading articles which claim his beliefs are true.

Logic is not his long suit. He will never read something which challenges his views.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post04-04-2023 10:31 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Logic is not his long suit. He will never read something which challenges his views.

That's "rich".

Maybe I scrolled through it. Maybe I have some thoughts or questions about it. Maybe it's in the back of my mind to "drill down" on one or more points that were raised in this article.

Maybe it just doesn't seem important for me (as judged by me) to do or say anything more about it right now.
IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 35768
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 294
Rate this member

Report this Post04-04-2023 10:51 AM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Maybe ? Probably not.

There is a lot in the article which should convince you your thoughts have been wrong.

IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 35768
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 294
Rate this member

Report this Post04-04-2023 11:15 AM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

cliffw

35768 posts
Member since Jun 2003
Government policies should be based on factual data, not predictions especially since the dire predictions from the last 100 years have been completely wrong.

First they called it Global Warming. It was easy for the sheep to believe their wild claims as most people have seen an ice cube melt. Why did they change Global Warming to Climate Change ?

All of the Climate Change's wild claims have been predicted for the sheeple, without one shred of factual data to explain how it can happen. Not one of those wild claims have been proven to be true.
Again, (you will need to use logic) how is two degrees going to make a rat's azz ? The temperature varies that much between Bandera and San Antonio, 40 miles. The temperature varies 10 to 30 degrees between Texas and Michigan. No one is dying. Crops are growing.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2023).]

IP: Logged
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post04-04-2023 12:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
It's called "climate change" now, as I've explained in a earlier post, so that nobody can challenge it.

People could refute "global warming", very easily btw, mostly because it wasn't getting warmer anywhere on the globe and people started to notice.

So they came up with "climate change", because who can argue the climate doesn't change? It does. And has been since the Earth had an climate.

The con artists work in symantics, all con artists do to convince their "mark(s)" that the information their being expected to believe is true, basically "the information I'm about to reveal it true, and here's a bunch of reasons why" then they let loose on a tirade of buzzwords and "facts", some of which are based in truth (because most lies are based on some bit of truth), and others that are complete fabrications, because who can prove otherwise, they prepared graphs. Because they're "scientists, and everyone knows scientists would NEVER lie" (except about anything and everything, if there's enough grant money involved).

And those who are open to the lie, and want to believe (because it may line up with something they "suspected", or something they heard at one time by someone in a position of "authority"), will believe. Even if it goes against their own observations, which become skewed to fit the lie they heard, and they start to rationalize and justify it in their own mind, that's when it becomes true to them. (this also happens to explain the "transgendered", but that's another topic altogether).

The same happened with the "scamdemic", those in positions of "authority" changed the names of the common cold and influenza to "covid19".

And those who were open to "the lie", fell for it.

Why do you think they were able to get nearly the entire world to wear masks so easily? Because the majority of people, believed the lie, those who were "on the fence" took their cues from the rest of the sheep, and because of most people's need for "acceptance from their peers", they followed suit and did the same.

And then they completed the con by convincing their marks (the ignorant of the world), that everything they said was true and for the marks own good (all cons generally involve playing on the marks well being, even if it's against their better judgement), to follow their orders if they wanted to "live", because any deviation from their orders would result in a horrible death (which they reported in horrific detail, and of course were NOT TRUE), to really sell the con.

People began to rationalize it, justify it, and because they were fed a steady stream of propaganda on the "glass teat" (aka, television), of people allegedly dropping dead in the streets, ER's being reported as "overflowing with the sick and dying" (which was a lie), everybody was dying from "covid19" (the buzzword), even people who died from other reasons were listed as "covid19" deaths.

Got shot in the head and died? Covid19.
Had a heart attack and died? Covid19.
Got into an accident and were killed? Definitely covid19.

These are the "examples" used to scare the mark and used to say "see we told you, death numbers are through the roof, and if you don't want to die too, you better do as we say" (convincing the marks it was for their own good).

And then came the reason for the con, to get people to take poison, aka the "vaxxine", for an ailment that, turns out, WAS the seasonal cold and flu rebranded and wasn't nearly as "deadly" as they claimed.

Why do you suppose there were nearly ZERO deaths from influenza during the height of the "covid" con?

Where did the common cold and flu go? Are they saying that "covid19" CURED the cold and flu?

Which leads us back to "climate change (aka, globull warming)", these terms are no longer scary to most because they've heard them a better part of their lives.

Their control over people was waning, time to "up the ante", time move on to the next phase of the con job.

The reason behind the "scamdemic" was to get people to take their poison, by choice, by the marks own hand, freely, to make them think they did it to save others, to be "heroes". And also freeing the perpetrators of any and all responsibility for mass murder and genocide/

And why?

To depopulate the planet all in the name of "climate change", to "save" mother Earth. The ultimate "sacrifice" in the name of "science", and the marks would know they saved the world.

And those who remain, that didn't fall for the CON, will be controlled by the powers that be for all time.

Or so they think...

[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 04-05-2023).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post04-04-2023 12:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
"This graphic explains why 2 degrees of global warming will be way worse than 1.5"
David Roberts for Vox; October 7, 2018.
https://www.vox.com/energy-...grees-climate-change


The meaning of "two degrees"... it does not mean that each day, everywhere, is just mildly warmer than before.

On top of that, these references to "two degrees" are two degrees (warmer) Celsius, which is 3.6 degrees (warmer) Fahrenheit.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-04-2023).]

IP: Logged
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post04-04-2023 01:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
And there's "...the graphs" to "prove the con".

What does it prove?

All it proves is that somebody can draw graphs.



And here's a drawing of Garfield, does that prove Garfield is any more or less "real"?
IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 35768
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 294
Rate this member

Report this Post04-04-2023 01:53 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
"This graphic explains why 2 degrees of global warming will be way worse than 1.5"
David Roberts for Vox; October 7, 2018.
https://www.vox.com/energy-...grees-climate-change


Are you always bamboozeled by bullzhit ? Are you trying to bamboozel me ?
Why was not the graph you posted in that article ?

Graph ?

 
quote
Originally posted by Fitz301:
The con artists work in symantics, all con artists do to convince their "mark(s)" that the information their being expected to believe is true, basically "the information I'm about to reveal it true, and here's a bunch of reasons why" then they let loose on a tirade of buzzwords and "facts", some of which are based in truth (because most lies are based on some bit of truth), and others that are complete fabrications, because who can prove otherwise They prepare graphs. Because they're "scientists, and everyone knows scientists would NEVER lie" (except about anything and everything, if there's enough grant money involved).


Of course you the Greenies claim they have facts. They make wild claim predictions of future outcomes (with the necessary scare factor). Yet, there is no data, year by year, decade by decade, century by century, of the amount of past devastation to the Earth. In none of the categories that your article included.
They have a projected models, , of future devastation. Not mentioning not one of the projected models they claimed has come true.

 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

The meaning of "two degrees"... it does not mean that each day, everywhere, is just mildly warmer than before.


What does it mean ?

 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
On top of that, these references to "two degrees" are two degrees (warmer) Celsius, which is 3.6 degrees (warmer) Fahrenheit.


That Celsius claim you make is more smoke and mirrors. It is made by the IPCC, who use the metric system. Converted from our claims. Remember, we invented Global Warming.

By the way, where does the IPPC's budget money come from ? Break it down.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2023).]

IP: Logged
Fitz301
Member
Posts: 318
From: Nunyabizness, Abu Dabi
Registered: Nov 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

User Banned

Report this Post04-04-2023 02:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fitz301Send a Private Message to Fitz301Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
No kidding.

He always posts "facts, figures & graphs" about the CON, let's see graphs about how much money these so-called "scientists" are receiving and where this money is actually going?

More importantly, where is this money coming from, and by whom.

[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 04-04-2023).]

IP: Logged
MidEngineManiac
Member
Posts: 29566
From: Some unacceptable view
Registered: Feb 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 297
User Banned

Report this Post04-04-2023 03:32 PM Click Here to See the Profile for MidEngineManiacSend a Private Message to MidEngineManiacEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Well, I guess we are just going to have to give up all personal transportation and kill all the animals because....you know, methane and CO2. They fart and burp and it's offensive so I'm told.

Coconuts just wont do it. I want a Percheron. Anybody got a watermelon or 2 handy ???

[youtube]http://twitter.com/TAftermath2020/status/1643276322746306561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/youtube]

(Yes, thats sarcasm)
IP: Logged
MidEngineManiac
Member
Posts: 29566
From: Some unacceptable view
Registered: Feb 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 297
User Banned

Report this Post04-04-2023 03:33 PM Click Here to See the Profile for MidEngineManiacSend a Private Message to MidEngineManiacEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

MidEngineManiac

29566 posts
Member since Feb 2007
Well, I guess we are just going to have to give up all personal transportation and kill all the animals because....you know, methane and CO2. They fart and burp and it's offensive so I'm told.

Coconuts just wont do it. I want a Percheron. Anybody got a watermelon or 2 handy ???



(Yes, thats sarcasm)

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 04-04-2023).]

IP: Logged
cliffw
Member
Posts: 35768
From: Bandera, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 294
Rate this member

Report this Post04-04-2023 10:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for cliffwSend a Private Message to cliffwEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
That's "rich".

Maybe I scrolled through it. Maybe I have some thoughts or questions about it. Maybe it's in the back of my mind to "drill down" on one or more points that were raised in this article.

Maybe it just doesn't seem important for me (as judged by me) to do or say anything more about it right now.


 
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Maybe ? Probably not.

There is a lot in the article which should convince you your thoughts have been wrong.


It may not be evident to you, but, you can not convince us of your Gawds scam, without ...

We have always tried to convince you of your "proof" being flawed. Yet, you can not even make a weak challenge to our logic to your beliefs.


IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 13769
From: Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 216
Rate this member

Report this Post04-05-2023 02:21 AM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote


Here's a guy who seems not at all optimistic about the prospects for Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors.







Here's a guy who is a poseur that has ZERO formal education or credentials in nuclear power.

Just the kind of "expurt" that Leftists love.



Really makes Todd's point for him....how timely.

 
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Completely agree. Whenever you see responses to nuclear power on say, Twitter or anywhere else... and it's NOT a bot, the responses are totally asinine. They are so confident about that which they are so absurdly wrong about... saying that they don't want a Hiroshima or Nagisaki... like... really? Do you not recognize the difference between a nuclear power plant and an atomic bomb? And then they brag about being so well educated and intelligent because they have a bachelors degree in a totally worthless program from some **** school no one has ever heard of.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-05-2023).]

IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post04-05-2023 08:53 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post


Royal Meteorological Society on YouTube

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-05-2023).]

IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 42 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42 
next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock