What should we do about global climate change?

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

the insurance industry knows that climate change is real. Because they collect vast statistics on extreme weather, and it is happening more frequently.

i know this is not a popular belief, but i do believe the rapid rise in carbon emissions is a problem the world faces.

pollution is another problem

i like clean air. (and clean water)

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

believing in climate change doesn’t make me a liberal.

oil corporations are massive and have so much money. Much much more than green companies. If climate change is fake, oil companies would ensure that everyone knows climate change is fake so more ppl use oil!

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Blue Skies wrote:

i know this is not a popular belief, but i do believe the rapid rise in carbon emissions is a problem the world faces.

The air in Los Angeles is actually CLEANER than it was 30 years ago.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

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

look at how massive oil companies are! There are 6 oil corporations bigger than tech giant Apple.

Blue Skies wrote:

oil corporations are massive and have so much money.

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[RockmaninoffParticipant 1641]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

The effect of dumping BILLIONS of tons of extra CO2 into the air is real.

Okay, I misunderstood. I’m pretty sure I agree with you.

Keymaster wrote:

The air in Los Angeles is actually CLEANER than it was 30 years ago.

Excellent observation!

At the start of the industrial revolution, London was notoriously smoggy (likely smoggier than modern Shanghai). But people didn’t mind it, because it was better than freezing to death. Industrialization brought millions out of poverty and tripled life expectancy.

Before that, people used to burn logs in furnaces in their homes. Indoor pollution is almost always worse than outdoor pollution. But people did it anyway, because the value they got from it was better than the alternative (i.e., freezing to death).

Fossil fuels have drawbacks, but the alternative is a pre-industrial society (most of us would not be able to survive in such a society). Wind and solar cannot meet the energy needs of our current society. Hydro and nuclear could be good, but the left hates them just as much, if not more, than fossil fuels, and stops the construction of dams and power plants whenever they can.

". . . elle, suivant l’usage des femmes et des chats qui ne viennent pas quand on les appelle et qui viennent quand on ne les appelle pas, s’arrêta devant moi et m’adressa la parole"—Prosper Mérimée

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Rockmaninoff wrote:

But people didn’t mind it, because it was better than freezing to death. Industrialization brought millions out of poverty and tripled life expectancy.

Also an excellent point.

That goddam evil “patriarchy” huh.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[chirParticipant]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

chir wrote:

Not all scientists agree with climate change global warming. You think 1 or 2? No, over 31,000.

Sorry but that is complete bulls~~~. Thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you backstage:

Sorry did you bother to click the link or read the PDF? I doubt it. The link takes you to the global petition of scientists who, unlike you, prefer to not indulge in politically correct “right-speak”. “Settled Science” terminology is solely for the purpose of stifling argument through “shaming language”. (So feminist). If Scientists are not permitted to discuss, debate and argue hypotheses then you have gone from science to a cult.

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

[TheDudeAbidesParticipant 117]

Population of Earth: 7 billion +
You could kill yourself tomorrow or donate all your money and not affect “climate change”, “terrorism”, “globalism”, “human rights”, “deforestation” or anything else for that matter. Hint: the 6 billion NOT in the USA or Europe don’t give hoot about any of this.
All “problems” real or not, are an excuse for the global governments to make more laws, collect more taxes, hire more regulators, control the people even more – and to jet around to expensive “summits”.
You really want the government to get more involved with you life?
FYI the USA government itself is the biggest user of energy and biggest carbon producer in the world – do as we say not as we do!

[Anonymous 24]

Here is the thing about “Climate Change” for me-

Corporate influence is so far beyond reigning in the problem, if there is one, that whatever they want to happen, will. It is beyond my control. The U.S. Government does not operate in the best interest of it’s people, so why would one expect any good for the masses to come of it, or the planet for that matter, or countries filled with people that the U.S./Israel burns to the ground one after another…? You think these guys care about much other than the bottom line for the Corporate entities they serve? Part of Fascism is the merging of Corporations and State. Anything that comes from the State on this topic is to be highly distrusted in my view because whatever “fix” they prescribe will of course not hurt Corporate interests, but will lay the burden on the everyman, s~~~ I bet it is set up so that somebody PROFITS from this, likely the State. So, regardless of whatever the truth of the situation is, their solutions will be s~~~, therefore I can give two whole f~~~s about the situation from every angle. One f~~~ for the State, and one f~~~ for the Corporations. To even solve this problem, if there is one, would take a revolution. You would have to topple Corporate controlled Governments.

Good luck with that-

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

Anonymous wrote:

To even solve this problem, if there is one, would take a revolution. You would have to topple Corporate controlled Governments.

Good luck with that-

In that case:

– Stock up on canned food.
– Put your canned food in a good hiding place.
– Work on your combat skills. (This applies to both martial arts and shooting. You might also want to practice your sword skill in case you run out of bullets.)
– Don’t buy any property unless it is at least six meters above sea level.
– Prepare for the f~~~ing wasteland.

Here is something that I want to emphasize: The great extinction will wipe away most of civilization. It will also wipe away most of feminism because feminism cannot exist without civilization.

Ask yourself “Am I prepared for the wasteland?” Don’t ask yourself “Will global climate change create the wasteland?” That’s already been settled.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[OzguyParticipant 182]

Uintatherium wrote:

In summary, climate change is real. It is caused by humans and it is a big deal.

Weather it’s real or not-it’s a moot point. We as humans can’t do anything about it unless you want to try turning off the sun or stop breathing….accept it and move on to adaptation…
The good part is – is that I heard when Feminist reach a critical temperature they explode….I say keep the heat coming..!

[Anonymous 24]

Uintatherium wrote:

Ask yourself “Am I prepared for the wasteland?” Don’t ask yourself “Will global climate change create the wasteland?” That’s already been settled.

Settled where? I have seen no debates on T.V. over the last few years on the topic, just as I have seen none about wars we wage, or people we bomb with drones. The Government “settles” it, for you seems to be good enough, no thought necessary. Was there a Climate Summit I missed where they let all the scientists in for debate who opposed man made global warming theories? Also, Climate Change has been happening forever, when you leave out the “Man Made” part the words have very little meaning.

And if I wanted a Mad Max wasteland I would just move to one of the countries the U.S./Israel has burned to the ground. I don’t trust the State, if they are pushing it, it is likely s~~~.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Uintatherium wrote:

“Didn’t the climate change several times during prehistory?”
It certainly did, but these changes usually happened over millions of years. When the climate does change quickly, mass extinctions occur. This mass extinction has already begun.

Did you know it was warmer during the Roman era than it is today? Did you know the dark ages was a mini-ice age? I don’t know why you think changes in climate require millions of years, and during either of those periods we didn’t have nearly as many people on the globe, cars, or power plants.

TaxGuy wrote:

If you’re a tree hugging liberal you should want to take care of what mother nature gave you. If you’re a Bible thumping conservative you should want to take care of what God gave you.

It seems like we are arguing over two questions when the answer to both questions are the same.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. I think its ridiculous going all insane over climate change that was going on for millions of years before man kind existed, during the entire time man kind existed, and will continue to go on if man kind ever goes extinct.

At the end of the day I think we’d all agree if as a society we can move towards being cleaner, that is a good thing…I’m just tired of people trying to cause hysteria over climate change and their “solution” is to do dumb s~~~ like run cash for clunkers programs and subsidize (their friends) solar companies that go bankrupt a week after the subsidies dry up. P~~~ing away billions of dollars worth of tax payer money isn’t helping the situation, but unfortunately liberals tend to be too clueless to understand.

Keymaster wrote:

First it was “global warming”… and then when it actually got cooler, they couldn’t get funding any more so they started calling it “climate change”. Very convenient.

HEY IT’S HOTTER!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!! ”
HEY IT’S COLD!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!! ”

Yup…they tried to brainwash me when I was a kid about global warming. New York City was supposed to be 10 feet under the ocean right now…that didn’t happen. What has the ocean level changed in the last 20-30 years…some tiny amount measure in millimeters…and really how is this even accurately measured when we all know the earth’s tectonic plates are moving and ocean level is correlated to earth and moon’s relative position to each other.

As I got older and started to think for myself more, and it changed to climate change instead of global warming, I wrote it off as a total joke. It doesn’t matter what happens with the weather, the alarmists receiving billions of dollars in funding from idiot politicians simply claim its climate change. If any other science tries to push itself off as fact while not being able to be proven true or false, it is not accepted as a true science…why do people think the man made climate change farce is any different? If they came up with a model that was even 90% accurate I’d probably listen to them…but they have been wrong a hell of a lot more than they have been right, they just constantly keep changing their theory…even if we go into a cooling cycle that starts soon, they still won’t stop with their bulls~~~ or demanding government funds.

[BlacqueJacqueShellacqueParticipant 6890]

Climate Change for retards.

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

chir wrote:

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

chir wrote:

Not all scientists agree with climate change global warming. You think 1 or 2? No, over 31,000.

Sorry but that is complete bulls~~~. Thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you backstage:

Sorry did you bother to click the link or read the PDF? I doubt it. The link takes you to the global petition of scientists who, unlike you, prefer to not indulge in politically correct “right-speak”. “Settled Science” terminology is solely for the purpose of stifling argument through “shaming language”. (So feminist). If Scientists are not permitted to discuss, debate and argue hypotheses then you have gone from science to a cult.

Climate scientists rarely debate the existence of climate change nowadays. They did in the past. They kept getting the same answer. It’s real.

Climate Scientists aren’t trying to censor dissenting opinion. They already challenged the dissenters and won. It’s over.

Yeah … some scientists think that global climate change isn’t real … but most of them aren’t climate scientists. Most of the scientists who deny global climate change come from other fields. Furthermore, the guy from the Weather Channel who denies climate change knows nothing about climate science. He’s a TV personality. He just reads off the teleprompter.

Another Thing: Someone posted a Steven Crowder video in here. Since when is Crowder a reliable source? He’s just an unfunny excuse for a comedian.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[chirParticipant]

Well lets agree to disagree Uintatherium.

However I can agree that there is “Climate Change”. I say that the climate has changed throughout earths history and will continue to change until the earth is devoured by the sun in 4 or 5 billion more years.

What you are proposing is Anthropogenic Climate Change. (Humans did it) You say we are all headed to oblivion. I say our impact is negligible.

Natural sources of CO2 emitted account for 150 billion tons a year. Human sources are 2 – 6 billion tons a year. Ah but you say, that 2 – 6 billion tons is raising the CO2 content in the atmosphere!!! Yup it is. And the plants are LOVING it. Seems that the higher the CO2 content the faster and easier plants grow because the take up of CO2 is quicker. This of course means that the extra CO2 put out by us “dirty humans” is happily being taken up by plants and locked back into the environment and out of the atmosphere. STUPID PLANTS!!! How dare they interfere with our hysterical fear-mongering climate change narrative.

Then again I have seen real world example as the excel sheets I keep for my half acre garden have showed a .8% to 1% quicker growth due to my tracking and planning on planting and harvesting. I thought I was just awesome but it seems that it could also be due to more CO2. (but I still think I am an awesome gardener)

I see the hysteria about temperature rise. Then I see that NASA and NOAA have been fudging the numbers to meet political agendas.

The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.

Hansen’s recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940.

How can you base your arguments on data that has been “revised” from raw? The GOVERNMENT agency doing the revision has an agenda bias. Which is to promote hysteria and fear. Best ways to control the sheeple.

So lets agree to disagree.

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Uintatherium wrote:

Hi broz. Today I want to touch upon a subject that will undoubtedly be controversial here. Let’s talk about global climate change.

How about do something non-controversial and would actually be greatly approved of….. like push this s~~~ onto f~~~ing filthy India with the ganges river, Rio in Brazil, and f~~~ing Chinese air polution?

Oh right! You can’t take political advantage of the saps and their money! Silly me.

[RennieParticipant]

Big Boss wrote:

Uintatherium wrote:

Hi broz. Today I want to touch upon a subject that will undoubtedly be controversial here. Let’s talk about global climate change.

How about do something non-controversial and would actually be greatly approved of….. like push this s~~~ onto f~~~ing filthy India with the ganges river, Rio in Brazil, and f~~~ing Chinese air polution?

Oh right! You can’t take political advantage of the saps and their money! Silly me.

Or Russia, where the rivers flow with oil, it snows black(some places) and there are wide areas contaminated with extremely toxic rocket fuel from crashed spaceships.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

If this climate fearmongering nonsense keeps moving forward – this will be a great excuse to institute world government and worldwide taxation without resorting to more drastic measures like world war.
However, I’m afraid that secret geoengineering projects under the guise of saving the Earth will do exactly the opposite – exaggerate the problem to make people believe all of this taxation is justified. They’ll manufacture droughts, floods, tornadoes, steer hurricanes ashore, who knows what else they can do.
Weather weapons and geoengineering research have been around since Vietnam, but the sheeple are convinced this is a conspiracy theory so they’ll buy it hook line and sinker.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

Russky wrote:

Weather weapons and geoengineering research have been around since Vietnam, but the sheeple are convinced this is a conspiracy theory so they’ll buy it hook line and sinker.

That’s because it is a conspiracy theory.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[Author]

Posts