Climate Change

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The amount of energy the sun puts into the Earth makes our power output look like a candle to a volcano.

The Gulf of Mexico alone recieves between 8 and 15 trillion watts per day from the Sun.

This drives ocean currents. Nothing man can do can drive ocean currents or stop them.

Norway, Sweden and Finland only came out of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago. The land there is still rising from compression caused by 2 mile thick ice sheets. Greenland is still in the last ice age. The glaciers there are melting and will melt no matter what humans do or do not do. We should not allow the climate-cult to cry wolf over this.
 
Nothing man can do can drive ocean currents or stop them.
I bet you a dollar, if we could pool all the bullshit that the demoncraps have uttered with their verbal diarhhea, collect all the hot air from the blue states and then add the negative intelligence of the larger part of the blm movement into a big pot and dump it into the Gulf Stream we could effectively create a new pile of radioactive shit to circulate around the globe and create a new species of monster with a voracious appetite for free stuff, the ability to burn itself up and laugh at it self in a mirror at the same time...
You can't fix stupid...
 
Their last song and dance was "Oh no, the CFCs are permanently depleting the ozone we have to ban Freon or we're all going to fry from radiation". And after wreaking havoc on the HVAC industry and making it impossible for people to refill the Freon in their cars, the ozone mysteriously recovered long before it was supposed to.
So they found a new tune "Oh no, CO2 is causing global warming we have to ban internal combustion engines and coal power plants". Before they even finished with that tune they started the "Oh no, cows are farting methane and destroying the planet, we have to get rid of cows" chorus.
They are so predictable... 🙄
 
Their last song and dance was "Oh no, the CFCs are permanently depleting the ozone we have to ban Freon or we're all going to fry from radiation". And after wreaking havoc on the HVAC industry and making it impossible for people to refill the Freon in their cars, the ozone mysteriously recovered long before it was supposed to.
So they found a new tune "Oh no, CO2 is causing global warming we have to ban internal combustion engines and coal power plants". Before they even finished with that tune they started the "Oh no, cows are farting methane and destroying the planet, we have to get rid of cows" chorus.
They are so predictable... 🙄
I understand the skepticism . . . but you raise another question.

I understand that a conversion to renewable energy will be horribly expensive, and further regulations constraining business and personal liberty is antithical to personable liberty . . . and all over something that is not proven.

However . . . what about the Cold War? We spent increadibly huge amounts of money on the space race, nuclear weapons, military buildup, espionage, and so forth . . . and all because the Soviets might nuke us.

There was no absolute proof that the Soviets were just waiting for the slightest excuse to nuke the entire world into a radioactive Stone Age. The mere suspicion that the Soviets might do so was enough justification to restructure our military, economy, and so forth.

Is there not a double-standard here? Why is suspicion enough to justify the Cold War, while we need absolute proof before committing to renewables for climate change?

Please not that I'm not saying that there isn't corruption in the ranks of climate change activism . . . I only wish to see if anyone else perceives a double-standard here?

P.S. This argument is not original with me. Carl Sagan had made these points before.
 
I understand the skepticism . . . but you raise another question.

I understand that a conversion to renewable energy will be horribly expensive, and further regulations constraining business and personal liberty is antithical to personable liberty . . . and all over something that is not proven.

However . . . what about the Cold War? We spent increadibly huge amounts of money on the space race, nuclear weapons, military buildup, espionage, and so forth . . . and all because the Soviets might nuke us.

There was no absolute proof that the Soviets were just waiting for the slightest excuse to nuke the entire world into a radioactive Stone Age. The mere suspicion that the Soviets might do so was enough justification to restructure our military, economy, and so forth.

Is there not a double-standard here? Why is suspicion enough to justify the Cold War, while we need absolute proof before committing to renewables for climate change?

Please not that I'm not saying that there isn't corruption in the ranks of climate change activism . . . I only wish to see if anyone else perceives a double-standard here?

P.S. This argument is not original with me. Carl Sagan had made these points before.
War is an emergency, climate change is not. Climate change isn't going to kill anyone, it will merely cause the slow relocation of some over a time span of centuries. Also, like Ben Shapiro questioned... what would you tell the less civilized countries that burn dung (very carbon intensive) as their only fuel source? Should they stop? What about China and the other countries who will not follow suit? Are we expected to pick up their slack (or soot) too?

Take a quick pause and look up what research has shown for past temperatures and CO2 levels during inter-glacial periods. What do the ice cores tell us? That this happens over and over and over on this planet, and it has not only been happening since long before industrialization, but that when it has, the temperature has risen far more than it has so far (as have the CO2 levels). How can you (or anyone) tell the difference between us causing global warming or us merely accelerating the onset of the next interglacial period which is due to happen anyhow? You cannot. Nobody can. And FYI, this planet has seem far more time with little to no ice than it has with ice, so get used to that idea.

The real problem here is that mankind decided to base the standard for CO2 levels on the preindustrial level which happens to be on par with one of the many low points in Earth's CO2 history. They are not going by Earth's average CO2 levels, they are going by preindustrial times which was already at a very very low point. What does that tell us? They just want to stop the earth from doing what it has been doing for 4.55 billion years. End of story.

Now, just for fun, get on google earth, head over to Bermuda, and count the number of million dollar homes with big swimming pools mere feet above sea level that will be filled with salt water when the polar ice caps melt (again). Those are the people who have convinced you to stop the ice from melting. Nobody will die from a sudden biblical flood. Only rich people dumb enough to invest it wet real estate will suffer. So let them!
 
I understand the skepticism . . . but you raise another question.

I understand that a conversion to renewable energy will be horribly expensive, and further regulations constraining business and personal liberty is antithical to personable liberty . . . and all over something that is not proven.

However . . . what about the Cold War? We spent increadibly huge amounts of money on the space race, nuclear weapons, military buildup, espionage, and so forth . . . and all because the Soviets might nuke us.

There was no absolute proof that the Soviets were just waiting for the slightest excuse to nuke the entire world into a radioactive Stone Age. The mere suspicion that the Soviets might do so was enough justification to restructure our military, economy, and so forth.

Is there not a double-standard here? Why is suspicion enough to justify the Cold War, while we need absolute proof before committing to renewables for climate change?

Please not that I'm not saying that there isn't corruption in the ranks of climate change activism . . . I only wish to see if anyone else perceives a double-standard here?

P.S. This argument is not original with me. Carl Sagan had made these points before.

Non sequitur
 
War is an emergency, climate change is not. Climate change isn't going to kill anyone, it will merely cause the slow relocation of some over a time span of centuries. Also, like Ben Shapiro questioned... what would you tell the less civilized countries that burn dung (very carbon intensive) as their only fuel source? Should they stop? What about China and the other countries who will not follow suit? Are we expected to pick up their slack (or soot) too?

Take a quick pause and look up what research has shown for past temperatures and CO2 levels during inter-glacial periods. What do the ice cores tell us? That this happens over and over and over on this planet, and it has not only been happening since long before industrialization, but that when it has, the temperature has risen far more than it has so far (as have the CO2 levels). How can you (or anyone) tell the difference between us causing global warming or us merely accelerating the onset of the next interglacial period which is due to happen anyhow? You cannot. Nobody can. And FYI, this planet has seem far more time with little to no ice than it has with ice, so get used to that idea.

The real problem here is that mankind decided to base the standard for CO2 levels on the preindustrial level which happens to be on par with one of the many low points in Earth's CO2 history. They are not going by Earth's average CO2 levels, they are going by preindustrial times which was already at a very very low point. What does that tell us? They just want to stop the earth from doing what it has been doing for 4.55 billion years. End of story.

Now, just for fun, get on google earth, head over to Bermuda, and count the number of million dollar homes with big swimming pools mere feet above sea level that will be filled with salt water when the polar ice caps melt (again). Those are the people who have convinced you to stop the ice from melting. Nobody will die from a sudden biblical flood. Only rich people dumb enough to invest it wet real estate will suffer. So let them!

Good answer. I was just going to say one is unnecessary bullshit and the other is necessary bullshit.
 
War is an emergency, climate change is not. Climate change isn't going to kill anyone, it will merely cause the slow relocation of some over a time span of centuries. Also, like Ben Shapiro questioned... what would you tell the less civilized countries that burn dung (very carbon intensive) as their only fuel source? Should they stop? What about China and the other countries who will not follow suit? Are we expected to pick up their slack (or soot) too?

Take a quick pause and look up what research has shown for past temperatures and CO2 levels during inter-glacial periods. What do the ice cores tell us? That this happens over and over and over on this planet, and it has not only been happening since long before industrialization, but that when it has, the temperature has risen far more than it has so far (as have the CO2 levels). How can you (or anyone) tell the difference between us causing global warming or us merely accelerating the onset of the next interglacial period which is due to happen anyhow? You cannot. Nobody can. And FYI, this planet has seem far more time with little to no ice than it has with ice, so get used to that idea.

The real problem here is that mankind decided to base the standard for CO2 levels on the preindustrial level which happens to be on par with one of the many low points in Earth's CO2 history. They are not going by Earth's average CO2 levels, they are going by preindustrial times which was already at a very very low point. What does that tell us? They just want to stop the earth from doing what it has been doing for 4.55 billion years. End of story.

Now, just for fun, get on google earth, head over to Bermuda, and count the number of million dollar homes with big swimming pools mere feet above sea level that will be filled with salt water when the polar ice caps melt (again). Those are the people who have convinced you to stop the ice from melting. Nobody will die from a sudden biblical flood. Only rich people dumb enough to invest it wet real estate will suffer. So let them!
I didn't say that I buy into all of the climate change hype. I was only exploring an idea in the spirit of open-mindedness.

I still think renewable energy is the way to go even if global warming is nonsense.

With renewable energy . . . we can reduce oil consumption, and--perhaps--put more distance between us and the volatile Middle East.

I suspect that the best way to go is to use renewable energy to synthesize synthetic gasoline from renewable energy sources (synthetic gasoline can be made, but is much more expensive than natural gasoline).

Synthetic gasoline can be carbon neutral if it comes from renewable materials.

My beef with oil is that the profits are used to finance terrorism. If we become carbon neutral, then we can tell all of those religious fanatics where they can stick their oil, and maybe we won't need to be involved militarily in that part of the world.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECDgQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1wSfj9vE4c7thZ_mBnn4F0[/URL]
 
My beef with oil is that the profits are used to finance terrorism. If we become carbon neutral, then we can tell all of those religious fanatics where they can stick their oil, and maybe we won't need to be involved militarily in that part of the world.
Then, the war will be over lithium, cobalt, platinum etc.. Wars today are not over oil, they are over the most demanded resource ~ which at the moment, happens to be oil.
 
I have a better plan. Keep the oil, just stop taking 3,000lbs of car with you every time you need to go to town for 10lbs of groceries. I understand needing to haul gravel, pull the excavator, supply stores with food, big trucks are a necessity, but not everyone needs to take 10x their cargo weight with them on every trip ~ and we have the materials to fix that problem safely.

I'll be playing with a side-by-side idea using bicycle parts this summer. Not sure if I will go with a small gas motor or solar panels/battery on a lightweight trailer. Probably going with gas...
 
I didn't say that I buy into all of the climate change hype. I was only exploring an idea in the spirit of open-mindedness.

I still think renewable energy is the way to go even if global warming is nonsense.

With renewable energy . . . we can reduce oil consumption, and--perhaps--put more distance between us and the volatile Middle East.

I suspect that the best way to go is to use renewable energy to synthesize synthetic gasoline from renewable energy sources (synthetic gasoline can be made, but is much more expensive than natural gasoline).

Synthetic gasoline can be carbon neutral if it comes from renewable materials.

My beef with oil is that the profits are used to finance terrorism. If we become carbon neutral, then we can tell all of those religious fanatics where they can stick their oil, and maybe we won't need to be involved militarily in that part of the world.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECDgQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1wSfj9vE4c7thZ_mBnn4F0[/URL]
I’m done with openmindness. Trump already demonstrated we can distance ourselves from foreign oil without reducing our oil usage. My gov makes me license and insure every vehicle I own and put on the roads that I already paid for while I can only drive one at a time. I pay for the roads, license and insurance for the whole year but I only use the roads about 15 min a day, never need the license and pray I never need the insurance. I’m licensing and insuring one huge gas guzzling truck and I crank that mother 10 minutes before I get out of the store cause I like it cool when it’s hot outside. The day I have to own a battery truck is the day I mount a 20kw diesel generator in the bed and roll coal down the road charging batteries and passing dead Teslas waiting in line for a charge. You can buy that artificial gasoline, pay for all that battery R&D, megatons of dead battery e-waste disposal and charge with an electric grid that barely keeps the AC running. I’ll drive my jacked up 4D 4WD gas super duty to town for a taco and sweet tea using nothing less than the drive through window. Too many coverups from lame stream media. I’m not buying it. Leftist want to care about the environment, stop lying about everything else.
 
Is there not a double-standard here? Why is suspicion enough to justify the Cold War, while we need absolute proof before committing to renewables for climate change?
My beef with oil is that the profits are used to finance terrorism. If we become carbon neutral, then we can tell all of those religious fanatics where they can stick their oil, and maybe we won't need to be involved militarily in that part of the world.
Hi Kevin, first, I think there is no such thing as double standards on different subjects. On same or near-same subjects, yes. Example:
A person is against capital punishment, meaning, no death penalty for a serial murderer with 37 people dead...
THE SAME person is for abortion.............killing is killing. You CANNOT be against killing, but, decide who shall be killed!!
OK? Hopefully explained well enough to not incur repurcussions in eternity...
Now, double standards for the climate or war or terrorism? Can you be against CO2 but still drive a car? Can you be against climate controls but still eat a steak? Can you be against polluting the air with exhaust fumes from diesel motors...but say it is ok to pollute the air with the diesel fumes from the generator CHARGING YOUR ELECTRIC CAR??
Can you be against war, but it is OK to work at General Dynamics or Northrup...Can you be against war, but it is ok if the war is in Iraq, Cosovo or Ukraine and NOT AT YOUR DOORSTEP??
Terrorism? Who decides Who is a terrorist?? Those in Afghanistan fighting against RUSSIA in the eighties were "FREEDOM FIGHTERS"!! The exact same people fighting against US Marines...are now TERRORISTS???
Those who fought against a autoritarian government from England were PATRIOTS...those fighting against an autoritarian government from Wash, DC are domestic terrorists. (although they were fighting against the "terrorists" in Afghanistan who wanted to fight against the government in "Wash, DC"!!)
These are double standards in many peoples books, but in My Book; that is self-centered, liberal, leftist, marxist propaganda against the true patriots of today....
Double standards must, itself be defined before it can be said about certain things. Your intelligence quotient states the same thing, but the info being funneled into your realm is overloading you following your heart and not your mind my friend. Remember, you are smarter than 98% of the earthly population and must remain above their level but without looking down upon them....live free, Gary
 
Why do you want carbon neutral? Commercial growers increase co2 to 1200ppm. It produces better and more crops. Humans can’t survive well if co2 is much below 200ppm. And they have no problems in the greenhouse environments with the increased levels.

Our world population needs more food. Not even debatable. Higher CO2 will give us the ability to feed more people. Who could be against that? Well, besides the WEF/NWO whose goal is to kill billions…
 
Fly on the wall in an eco-grief support group meeting:

Karen: "I went outside the other day and it looked like there was snow covering my car."
Ken: "How do you know it was snow, maybe it was ash from the planet burning."
Karen: "It was all white and cold"
Ken: "Ash can be cold, and white too."
Karen: "Yes you are right, I must have just imagined it was snow, which we know is a thing of the past because of global warming."
Ken: "Quite right. Feeling better now?"
Karen: "Yes, thank you so much."
 
LOL. 😆 For sure! Now California is getting hit with storm after storm of rain. They do need the water though.

My father, whose family were farmers in the US for over 300 years, used to tell me that nature seeks balance. If you have a very cold winter, you either had a hotter than normal summer the year past or can expect one in the coming year or two. Same with rain/snow. It all balances out in the end.
 
LOL. 😆 For sure! Now California is getting hit with storm after storm of rain. They do need the water though.
Yep and it’s a mess.
297C106E-DB58-4C41-99DF-24F717A92641.jpeg

Friends house overlooks a reservoir. They were all happy that it was filling up. Unfortunately they didn’t realize that it is part of the Hech Hetchey system and water is piped from the Sierras.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top