The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal.

[2dueces]

That is absolutely a must see. Amazing what the people have been led to believe.
I guess they do it to feel good about themselves while all the have to do is follow the money. Thank you so much for posting. I doubt I’ll get any of my Eco friendly
Friends to watch it but I can now have an argument about all of it. Extremely informative.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

That is absolutely a must see. Amazing what the people have been led to believe.
I guess they do it to feel good about themselves while all the have to do is follow the money. Thank you so much for posting. I doubt I’ll get any of my Eco friendly
Friends to watch it but I can now have an argument about all of it. Extremely informative.

The most amazing thing about it is that it was made by a lifelong leftist who has bought into everything about climate change and how evil fossil fuels are and despises those on the other side, but he has seen through the lies about renewable green energy and how it is often more harmful than coal, the billionaires who are taking advantage of it and also those in positions of authority who know what's going on and are purposely looking the other way.

[irv]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

That is absolutely a must see. Amazing what the people have been led to believe.
I guess they do it to feel good about themselves while all they have to do is follow the money. Thank you so much for posting. I doubt I’ll get any of my Eco friendly friends to watch it but I can now have an argument about all of it. Extremely informative.

You're welcome.

Like you, I hope everyone watches it, even non believers in the global warming/green energy hoax/scam.

When you think of it, these @#$%^ will stoop to no level in order to make money.

Start with a big lie that will get everyone, (or most) on board, with Global warming because they know the vast majority will support it when they claim our lives are hanging in the balance and we must act now or else.
Paint up, tell a bunch of lies with fake data, skewed computer modelling, and some scary pictures.
Get, fund, or invent some climate alarmist/environment sites who will also back/support what you're spewing.
Hire some celebrities, well known's, crooked politicians, to help and you have the perfect fake narrative/recipe just to sit back and watch the money roll in all under the guise of saving the planet and everyone's lives.

Like you, I am also having a hard time getting some to watch it, which isn't surprising, but as they say, it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone they have been fooled.

Like I mentioned in that other thread, people need to do research themselves before trusting any media sources today as the fake news, even from MSM, is at an all time high this day and age.

I sure hope those believers, who watch this documentary, who believe in this global warming/climate change/green energy nonsense, will think twice before jumping on board with the next hoax that comes along.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

The most amazing thing about it is that it was made by a lifelong leftist who has bought into everything about climate change and how evil fossil fuels are and despises those on the other side, but he has seen through the lies about renewable green energy and how it is often more harmful than coal, the billionaires who are taking advantage of it and also those in positions of authority who know what's going on and are purposely looking the other way.

Yep, and even some former climate alarmists/crusaders who have also now seen the light have done a 180 or an about face.

Hopefully this documentary goes viral, as, imo, it needs to to at least put this further destruction of the earth that this movement is causing, on hold.

My wife or son haven't watched it yet but I know it will sicken them, as will it my son's girlfriend, who, without knowing 100% for sure, also believes in the green movement.

I never personally believed in the movement but I had no idea it was this bad, or what was truly/fully going on.

[earlywynnfan]

while this was very well done and though-provoking, I don't think we need to go out and hug our local coal mine owner, either! Pointing out that alternative energy sources aren't pure doesn't wipe the sh*t stains off oil and gas.

[irv]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

while this was very well done and though-provoking, I don't think we need to go out and hug our local coal mine owner, either! Pointing out that alternative energy sources aren't pure doesn't wipe the sh*t stains off oil and gas.

I think you are missing the point, Ken? What we were all told and fed and basically lied to about was that green energy was much more cleaner and much more earth friendly, which, as they show in the documentary, is nothing close to being true, and in fact much worse as they proved with using bio mass.

When the anti coal movement was in full progress, we were all fed lies about how dirty it is and how destructive it was to extract it. Like you seen, mining and destroying the earth has now increased because they are now mining for more minerals and the mining for coal has never stopped.

Nothing but a big lie, the whole movement, and every part of it all disguised as a feel good story that we are stopping global warming and saving the planet.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by irv

I think you are missing the point, Ken? What we were all told and fed and basically lied to about was that green energy was much more cleaner and much more earth friendly, which, as they show in the documentary, is nothing close to being true, and in fact much worse as they proved with using bio mass.

When the anti coal movement was in full progress, we were all fed lies about how dirty it is and how destructive it was to extract it. Like you seen, mining and destroying the earth has now increased because they are now mining for more minerals and the mining for coal has never stopped.

Nothing but a big lie, the whole movement, and every part of it all disguised as a feel good story that we are stopping global warming and saving the planet.

No, I think I got the point: none of this is "clean." I would just like to see a comparison showing how much of a toll on the earth is taken when comparing solar to wind to coal to gas. Unfortunately, I don't know if there's anyone we could trust to do a legit comparison.

What I was saying is let's not forget, coal is godawful on the environment, not matter how bad everything else is. My family traces its roots to the hills of West Virginia, and my grandmother watched the coal miners lop the tops off all the hills, dumping them into the valleys, to get the coal.

As for biomass, I am going to be 100% honest and say I didn't know that was still a thing! I remember it being the "next big thing" during the Bush years (I believe?), especially using corn, or maybe that was for alternative fuel?? But it wasn't a very long time before stories started coming out showing that we'd have to take every corn plant grown and dedicate it to fuel to pay off. That was the last I heard of that crap.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by irv

You're welcome.

Like you, I hope everyone watches it, even non believers in the global warming/green energy hoax/scam.

When you think of it, these @#$%^ will stoop to no level in order to make money.

Start with a big lie that will get everyone, (or most) on board, with Global warming because they know the vast majority will support it when they claim our lives are hanging in the balance and we must act now or else.
Paint up, tell a bunch of lies with fake data, skewed computer modelling, and some scary pictures.
Get, fund, or invent some climate alarmist/environment sites who will also back/support what you're spewing.
Hire some celebrities, well known's, crooked politicians, to help and you have the perfect fake narrative/recipe just to sit back and watch the money roll in all under the guise of saving the planet and everyone's lives.

Like you, I am also having a hard time getting some to watch it, which isn't surprising, but as they say, it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone they have been fooled.

Like I mentioned in that other thread, people need to do research themselves before trusting any media sources today as the fake news, even from MSM, is at an all time high this day and age.

I sure hope those believers, who watch this documentary, who believe in this global warming/climate change/green energy nonsense, will think twice before jumping on board with the next hoax that comes along.

Totally agree. Here's how I frame it, using stats everybody agrees with, and math so simple everyone can understand:

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 parts per million
Of that, about 5% is attributable to humans (20 parts per million)
Since India and China won't play, any effort to reduce CO2 will only deal with perhaps half of that (10 parts per million)
The most aggressive climate proposals are to cut CO2 emissions by 25% (2.5 parts per million)

Does anybody really believe reducing CO2 by 2 and one half parts per MILLION would dramatically change the climate?

CO2 isn't poison- it is required for all plant life (trees, grasses, plants, vegetables, algae, etc.) Trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.

[irv]

Solar minimum/maximum and other anomalies like gravitational pull that the global warming alarmists never talk about nor is it being taught in schools.

Nah, this won't have an effect on the earths climate.

https://www.livescience.com/61716-su...l-warming.html

https://bgr.com/2020/05/18/solar-min...-sun-activity/

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Totally agree. Here's how I frame it, using stats everybody agrees with, and math so simple everyone can understand:

You start strong then devolve into misinformation with crooked framing.

Originally Posted by Mark17

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 parts per million

Good start. The 2018 worldwide average CO2 level was 407.4 ppm.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Of that, about 5% is attributable to humans (20 parts per million)

Begin the descent. A total WAG number. What is the source of this? Do you realize that at the beginning of the industrial revolution (around the mid-1700s) the concentration was about 280 ppm. That’s an increase of 127 ppm over a 270 year period. How do you know that only 20 ppm of that 127 ppm increase was to due human activity?

Originally Posted by Mark17

Since India and China won't play, any effort to reduce CO2 will only deal with perhaps half of that (10 parts per million)

Total nonsense. There are so many things wrong with that one statement, I don’t know where to begin. But I’ll try.

First: In picking China (9.3 giga tons (GT)) and India (2.2 GT) you picked the countries with the highest and third highest total CO2 emissions in 2017. You left out the country with the second highest total CO2 emissions (4.8 GT). The country with the second highest total CO2 emissions had more than twice the total of India, yet you chose India as a country that “won’t play.” Why is that? Is it because the U.S. is number 2?

Second: In using total CO2 emissions per country as your metric, you are totally missing the point of the agreement that you claim China and India “won’t play” with. The agreement is supposed to allocate reductions in a fair manner. Therefore, it considers CO2 emissions per person. In looking at it this way, China drops to number 12 (6.5 tons per person) and India to number 20 (1.6 tons per person). Who’s number one you ask? Saudi Arabia (16.1 tons per person). Why didn’t you name them as a non-player? Why didn’t you name Australia (number 2 at 15.6 tons per person), Canada (number 3 at 14.9 tons per person), U.S. (number 4 at 14.6 tons per person), or South Korea (number 5 at 11.7 tons per person)?
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/eac...-co2-emissions

Third: India is playing. They’re actions are compatible with keeping a limit on temperature growth to less than 2 degrees C. Whose actions aren’t you ask? Of the countries listed above, Australia and Canada are insufficient. China and South Korea are highly insufficient. Saudi Arabia and U.S. are critically insufficient. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/

Fourth: In 2017, an estimated 36.1 GT of CO2 were released into the atmosphere. China and India were responsible for (simple math – ((9.3 GT + 2.2 GT)/36.1 GT) 31.8 % of that. But yet, you attribute 50% of the problem to them? That’s bad math.

Originally Posted by Mark17

The most aggressive climate proposals are to cut CO2 emissions by 25% (2.5 parts per million)

More nonsense based on bad assumptions and bad math.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Does anybody really believe reducing CO2 by 2 and one half parts per MILLION would dramatically change the climate?

False argument. Show me one article that says reducing CO2 levels by 2.5 ppm would dramatically change the climate. We’ve seen an increase of 127 ppm over the last 270 years. The climate hasn’t changed “dramatically.” It is changing though.

Originally Posted by Mark17

CO2 isn't poison- it is required for all plant life (trees, grasses, plants, vegetables, algae, etc.) Trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.

Again, where to begin? Let’s go with an analogy.
Did you know that 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide is deemed as immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)? Let’s say you could obtain $1,000,000 by entering a room with 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide in it. Let’s further say that someone said they could reduce it by 0.5 ppm before you went in. Would your response be, “No need, trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.”?

It’s perfectly fine not to agree with climate change. I don’t understand people who don’t agree with it, but it’s okay. What I don’t understand is, if the only why to support your denial of climate change is with misinformation, bad math, bad science, and illogical reasoning, how reasonable is your denial?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

You start strong then devolve into misinformation with crooked framing.

1. Good start. The 2018 worldwide average CO2 level was 407.4 ppm.

2. Begin the descent. A total WAG number. What is the source of this? Do you realize that at the beginning of the industrial revolution (around the mid-1700s) the concentration was about 280 ppm. That’s an increase of 127 ppm over a 270 year period. How do you know that only 20 ppm of that 127 ppm increase was to due human activity?

Source: https://www.dailysignal.com/2009/03/...lobal-warming/

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.


3. Total nonsense. There are so many things wrong with that one statement, I don’t know where to begin. But I’ll try.

Fourth: In 2017, an estimated 36.1 GT of CO2 were released into the atmosphere. China and India were responsible for (simple math – ((9.3 GT + 2.2 GT)/36.1 GT) 31.8 % of that. But yet, you attribute 50% of the problem to them? That’s bad math.

If we agree that China and India take 31.8% off the table, and add in all the other countries that likewise won't agree to a CO2 reduction treaty (I'm not sure who that includes, maybe some of the countries you mentioned, maybe the middle east, countries in South America, etc.) I am estimating we get to about 50% of man-made CO2 emissions that would not be part of a climate change accord. But let's not quibble; let's say only the 31.8% is off the table, leaving 68.2% that could be reduced. That's 13.64 Parts Per Million.

4. False argument. Show me one article that says reducing CO2 levels by 2.5 ppm would dramatically change the climate. We’ve seen an increase of 127 ppm over the last 270 years. The climate hasn’t changed “dramatically.” It is changing though.

How aggressive would CO2 reduction need to be then? If we agree a 25% reduction (3.41 Parts Per Million, using our new number) is a drop in the bucket, would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% (7 PPM?) Would that do it? Or would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions more than 50%? Seriously, and I'd LOVE to have you respond to this - what percentage of our CO2 emissions need to be reduced in order to solve this perceived problem?

Again, where to begin? Let’s go with an analogy.
Did you know that 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide is deemed as immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)? Let’s say you could obtain $1,000,000 by entering a room with 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide in it. Let’s further say that someone said they could reduce it by 0.5 ppm before you went in. Would your response be, “No need, trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.”?

Ridiculous analogy. CO2 is not a poison; quite the opposite. It is an inert gas required for all life. We exhale it with every breath. All green vegetation requires it, and therefore, all life, right up the food chain.

It’s perfectly fine not to agree with climate change. I don’t understand people who don’t agree with it, but it’s okay. What I don’t understand is, if the only why to support your denial of climate change is with misinformation, bad math, bad science, and illogical reasoning, how reasonable is your denial?

I am doing my best to use accurate information, math, and logical reasoning. As for the "science," I grew up at a time when scientists were warning about global cooling, so I know from experience they can be wrong. And the dozens, if not hundreds, of gloom and doom predictions that never came true reinforce this.

.

[irv]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Irv, do you read the articles you link to? If so, what's your point?

The first article says:
"But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown."

The second article says:
"There has historically been speculation regarding whether a particularly deep and extended solar minimum called the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s contributed to the Little Ice Age, which was a period of colder-than-average temperatures across both North America and Europe, but the evidence is weak. It’s more likely, some scientists suggest, that the temperature dip was linked to volcanic activity rather than a quiet solar period. Overall temperatures are believed to have dropped just 1 degree on average during that mini “ice age.”"

Again, what's your point?

I'm sorry you have a hard time figuring things out, Mike. The purpose of those links was to show you something that is never talked about when it comes to climate change/global warming.
Everything they spew is about man this, man that, when the truth is, many factors outside of our control affect the climate, but of course, none of that is ever talked about.
The links are from alarmist sites who are disputing and downplaying what some real scientists are talking about because it goes against their narrative/agenda.

As you will notice with my bolds, nothing is ever certain but rather just guesses. Just like the way it has always been. "12 years to save the planet", "NY city will be under water", "the great lakes will be dried up", "no more polar bears", "no more glaciers", "rain forests gone", "mass extinction", the list goes on and on and on and not one thing has ever come true, ever.

Alarmists, like the bold above, use words like maybe, likely, we're not sure, could, might, etc, and the sheep lap that right up as fact rather than recognize those words are just guesses, speculation and conjecture.

One would think, after decades of getting things wrong, one would open their eyes and say, wait a minute, you clowns have been spewing this crap forever but nothing has ever come true. But no, I guess the sheep, who are incapable of thinking for themselves, can't see that so they just keep on believing what they are fed because it fits their narrative and continues to feed their brainwashed belief system.

Curious, Mike, what are your thoughts on the record breaking cold spring that many places had this year? Is that all part of global warming as well? I know the alarmists say it is all connected and that we shouldn't even consider those temps we seen, but I'm curious on your thoughts?
"Record Cold Spring at Several Locations"
https://www.weather.gov/abr/coldspring
https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/04/...-cold-weather/
https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/articl...navik_nunavut/
https://www.freshdaily.ca/news/2020/...pring-weather/

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.

You seem to be saying that since CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are so low, it can't be a problem. Yet, I showed you how a minuscule change in concentration can have drastic consequences. You blew that off because CO2 isn't a poison. It may not be a poison but it does help trap heat in the atmosphere. Therefore, any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will result in more heat being trapped in the atmosphere. I'm sure even you won't deny that.

And linking to an article by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about won't help your case. How do I know he doesn't know what he's talking about? "And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions." Really? CO2 in the atmosphere is typically talked about in terms of concentration in parts per million by volume (ppmv). CO2 emissions are typically talked about in tons per year. So he's saying, of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, humans cause a percentage of the tons per year of CO2 emissions. What does that even mean? It's just something that someone thinks sounds good. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Mark17

let's say only the 31.8% is off the table, leaving 68.2% that could be reduced. That's 13.64 Parts Per Million.

More very bad math. If I understand what you're saying, you seem to be sticking with the 20 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're then taking that times a supposed 68.2% reductions in CO2 emissions and coming up with 13.64 ppm. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Mark17

How aggressive would CO2 reduction need to be then? If we agree a 25% reduction (3.41 Parts Per Million, using our new number) is a drop in the bucket, would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% (7 PPM?) Would that do it? Or would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions more than 50%? Seriously, and I'd LOVE to have you respond to this - what percentage of our CO2 emissions need to be reduced in order to solve this perceived problem?

The Paris Climate Agreement's goal was limit CO2 emissions so that the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not cause a 2 degrees C temperature rise above the pre-industrial average temperature. The ultimate goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C. The plan was to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide by 20%. Yep, 20%. Each country was to come up with their own goals. The US pledged (and has since withdrawn) to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions to 17% of 2005 emission levels by 2020. We further pledged to reduce GHG emissions to 26-28% of 2005 emissions by 2025. From what I read, the pledges came up short and scientists thought the reduced CO2 emissions would result in a 2.5 or 2.7 C (I forget which) increase in the average world wide temperature.

And no, I don't agree with any of your math. Like the article you cite, you throw numbers around recklessly without regard to their units or to their relationship.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Ridiculous analogy. CO2 is not a poison; quite the opposite. It is an inert gas required for all life. We exhale it with every breath. All green vegetation requires it, and therefore, all life, right up the food chain.

No, it was in response to you saying "reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.” Tiny numbers do matter. And in regard to your love of CO2 and how good it is, you do realize that it can kill you, right? It might take a concentration of about 10%, but it can kill.

Originally Posted by Mark17

I am doing my best to use accurate information, math, and logical reasoning. As for the "science," I grew up at a time when scientists were warning about global cooling, so I know from experience they can be wrong. And the dozens, if not hundreds, of gloom and doom predictions that never came true reinforce this..

Go back and read an earlier post (I think around 49) where I address the highlighted myth.

Finally, some facts to chew on.

Consider the atmosphere like a bank. You put money in the bank, it will increase unless you take some out. We put CO2 in the atmosphere, it will increase unless some is taken out. And yes, some is taken out. It has been estimated that approximately 40% is taken up by plants, the oceans, etc. Therefore, of the estimated 36.1 GT emitted in 2017, 21.6 GT actually stayed in the atmosphere. It is still there today along with the 2018, 2019, 2016, 2015, etc emissions. Based on the weight of the atmosphere, 1 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to about 7.8 GT of CO2. So, the CO2 concentration increased 2.7 ppm based on net 2017 emissions (21.6 GT/(7.8 GT/ 1 ppm)). This is a little higher than the average ppm increase over the last decade, 2.3 ppm per year. So we're not off by much. So consider an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere of more than 2 ppm each and every year. Nothing to worry about?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by irv

Solar minimum/maximum and other anomalies like gravitational pull that the global warming alarmists never talk about nor is it being taught in schools.

Nah, this won't have an effect on the earths climate.

https://www.livescience.com/61716-su...l-warming.html

https://bgr.com/2020/05/18/solar-min...-sun-activity/

Irv, do you read the articles you link to? If so, what's your point?

The first article says:
"But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown."

The second article says:
"There has historically been speculation regarding whether a particularly deep and extended solar minimum called the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s contributed to the Little Ice Age, which was a period of colder-than-average temperatures across both North America and Europe, but the evidence is weak. It’s more likely, some scientists suggest, that the temperature dip was linked to volcanic activity rather than a quiet solar period. Overall temperatures are believed to have dropped just 1 degree on average during that mini “ice age.”"

Again, what's your point?