The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal.

[packs]

Whether or not you believe in climate change I always have a hard time understanding what it is about clean living that makes people so angry? What is so wrong about wanting a planet without an insane state-sized garbage patch in the middle of the ocean? Is there something wrong with clean drinking water? What's so bad about recycling? Or cleaning up the air? These are honest questions. I'm not looking to antagonize.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by packs

Whether or not you believe in climate change I always have a hard time understanding what it is about clean living that makes people so angry? What is so wrong about wanting a planet without an insane state-sized garbage patch in the middle of the ocean? Is there something wrong with clean drinking water? What's so bad about recycling? Or cleaning up the air? These are honest questions. I'm not looking to antagonize.

Well said!!

And Cliff, reading from the outside, it appeared Mike's posts were directed at Irv. I think.

[irv]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Ok, you got me Irv. That article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming is a hoax. Great research on your part and some mighty fine critical thinking. Mighty fine critical thinking. Increasing CO2 in greenhouses to improve the plants' growth totally disproves global warming. Totally and absolutely disproves global warming. Astounding critical thinking. As I was telling someone the other day ... SQUIRREL!

I knew you wouldn't see it, again.

Like I mentioned before, it is all clearly laid out right before your eyes but if you are having trouble connecting the dots then I can't help you,,,, but I will, reluctantly, try one last time.

Do you not see, right from the get go from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to everything in between to current day, has all been designed to gut hook, manipulate and fool you into believing Man Made Global warming?
That should be clear to see that everything about this movement is politically and monetarily motivated, nothing more. Gut hook the masses into believing a false feel good story that tugs at the heart strings and then just sit back and watch the money roll in.
Hire some celebrities, have a child spokesperson like Greta to convince and brainwash our youth, convince the POTUS, and whoola, when the public sees those types getting behind the movement, it becomes a guaranteed cash flow as the sheep, that are incapable to think for themselves, will buy in 100% guaranteed. Nothing but a big !@#$% lie! Did you watch the movie right to the very end, even through the credits? You should as it clearly shows Al Gore's "real" intentions behind his pandering.

Originally Posted by packs

Whether or not you believe in climate change I always have a hard time understanding what it is about clean living that makes people so angry? What is so wrong about wanting a planet without an insane state-sized garbage patch in the middle of the ocean? Is there something wrong with clean drinking water? What's so bad about recycling? Or cleaning up the air? These are honest questions. I'm not looking to antagonize.

I believe in Climate change, it's the false/fake narrative that is behind it that I don't agree with.

The earth has always changed and it always will, and that is natural climate change and no matter how much money we throw it, nothing will ever stop that from happening. It's like throwing money at volcanoes or dropping a sacrificial virgin down into one expecting them to stop erupting. It's insanity.

Those things above you speak of, I also agree with. I think we could do a much better job controlling what is dumped in our lakes, oceans and streams but that has zero to do with Global warming and everything to do with pollution, where I've said from the get go, that is where our attention should be focused rather on the false belief that CO2 is bad, but there is no money in that, is there?

Since the beginning of this movement nothing has ever come true, not one, that they've claimed is going to kill us, including we only have 12 yrs left, which they been spewing for over 20 yrs now, maybe longer?

We are coming out of an ice age and the earth is still developing, changing all the time and there is nothing we can do about it.

I have a hard time understanding, when the earth was once covered in ice, how people don't think of that and question how that ice melted long before man was on this planet???
Numerous and numerous studies, testing, core samples, real science has proven over and over again how the earth once was and how it is continuing to change.

Today's scam/hoax uses computer modelling, where any type of info can be inputted, deleted, manipulated and manufactured and people gobble that nonsense right up!

Michael Mann, the famous "Hockey Stick" graph guy tried to sue someone who questioned his findings/science but because he wouldn't disclose or show how he concluded that, was thrown out of court.
If that doesn't alone make you question the motives behind his cause and the whole movement, then nothing will.

[packs]

I'm sorry but you lose me in your dissection of the history of Earth's climate. The Ice Age was brought on by natural disasters that forced debris into the air. The Ice Age ended when that debris cleared. There was nothing cyclical about the Ice Age.

It is beyond fact that changes in the temperature of the Earth have devastating consequences. It is beyond fact that the oceans are rising. It is beyond fact that the ice caps are melting. Why does it bother you that people want to do all they can to reverse these issues? Whether or not it will be successful is another issue. But what about the attempt makes people angry? Surely we all agree air and water quality and the overall quality of the Earth has degraded over the last 200 years. Surely we all agree that human behavior is the cause. Don't we?

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm sorry but you lose me in your dissection of the history of Earth's climate. The Ice Age was brought on by natural disasters that forced debris into the air. The Ice Age ended when that debris cleared. There was nothing cyclical about the Ice Age.

It is beyond fact that changes in the temperature of the Earth have devastating consequences. It is beyond fact that the oceans are rising. It is beyond fact that the ice caps are melting. Why does it bother you that people want to do all they can to reverse these issues? Whether or not it will be successful is another issue. But what about the attempt makes people angry? Surely we all agree air and water quality and the overall quality of the Earth has degraded over the last 200 years. Surely we all agree that human behavior is the cause. Don't we?

No we don't.

Like I mentioned, the earth/climate has always changed and it always will whether we are on this planet or not. To think otherwise is just foolish.
Imo, once one educates themselves, it should be crystal clear that during our very very short time on earth, geologically speaking, we have had very little effect on how our climate has and will continue to change.
Those things you speak of all fodder for the alarmist movement where they use whatever means/lies they can to convince us we are the ones responsible for the climate changing.

[Cliff Bowman]

I absolutely agree that 7.6 billion people on Earth is a huge problem and is unsustainable, but the 63 million people who voted for the Orange Meanie are just a small fraction of that total and are a very small part of the problem.

[packs]

Originally Posted by irv

No we don't.

Like I mentioned, the earth/climate has always changed and it always will whether we are on this planet or not. To think otherwise is just foolish.
Imo, once one educates themselves, it should be crystal clear that during our very very short time on earth, geologically speaking, we have had very little effect on how our climate has and will continue to change.
Those things you speak of all fodder for the alarmist movement where they use whatever means/lies they can to convince us we are the ones responsible for the climate changing.

You don't think the industrial revolution has had any negative effects on the climate? It is your opinion that the pre and post industrial environments are the same?

The question (in my mind) has never been does the climate change naturally. The question has always been is our behavior causing those changes to become more extreme. I really don't understand how someone could view the Earth as suffering no ill effects after the age of industry. The agents we pump into the air every day are agents we know to be life threatening to ourselves. Doesn't it stand to reason that these actions are not inconsequential when it comes to the Earth at large?

[Republicaninmass]

Isnt projected to get much cooler now?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by irv

No we don't.

Like I mentioned, the earth/climate has always changed and it always will whether we are on this planet or not. To think otherwise is just foolish.
Imo, once one educates themselves, it should be crystal clear that during our very very short time on earth, geologically speaking, we have had very little effect on how our climate has and will continue to change.
Those things you speak of all fodder for the alarmist movement where they use whatever means/lies they can to convince us we are the ones responsible for the climate changing.

Irv, you're right. The idea that all environmental events are 'one time' examples related entirely to the period where they occur, is nonsense. It's also ironic that some people feel that emergency changes in behavior must be made today for the good of future mankind, when the problems they describe are cyclical and future mankind will end up in the same boat regardless how their ancestors behave. Tthere are exceptions of course, but in general we just aren't as important as we might need to believe.

A hundred years from now such extremists will be gone, so future mankind has that going for them.

[ALR-bishop]

"Mankind is such a mystery. How can we ever fully understand mankind. Perhaps the best way to understand mankind is to study and analyze the word itself....mankind. It is a word made up of two smaller words.....mank and ind. But what do these two words mean ? No one knows. It is a mystery...just like mankind itself"... Jack Handey

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by irv

I believe in Climate change, it's the false/fake narrative that is behind it that I don't agree with.

^ This. The world heats up, the world cools down. It has from the beginning of time and it will forever continue to do so. It's a natural cycle.

In the 1970s, they tried to tell us the world was getting colder and we would all freeze to death. It failed. That generation had more sense.

So, they thought they would try to approach it from the opposite angle and tell the next generation that we would all die of heat. That generation bought into the lies, but fortunately there were enough of the older generation that the lies got dispelled.

Now, they've changed the terminology from global warming to climate change to make it sound more believable.

It's really sad that people are buying into this.

[packs]

You don't believe the world is heating even though the ice caps are melting? I think we can agree there is risk in rising sea levels. Whether or not someone is lying about the cause, if there are things we can do to slow rising seas, why wouldn't we do them? I'm just not understanding what there is to be against when it comes to living clean. Even if you don't agree with a specific methodology for living clean, what is there to be against in theory? How could living on a cleaner planet make things worse?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't believe the world is heating even though the ice caps are melting? I think we can agree there is risk in rising sea levels. Whether or not someone is lying about the cause, if there are things we can do to slow rising seas, why wouldn't we do them? I'm just not understanding what there is to be against when it comes to living clean. Even if you don't agree with a specific methodology for living clean, what is there to be against in theory? How could living on a cleaner planet make things worse?

Yes I believe the world is heating up. But I also believe it will cool back down. It's a cycle. And yes, I also believe in living clean (although we may have different ideas about what that means).

[irv]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Isnt projected to get much cooler now?

Yes, the overall temp of the earth/planet has decreased the last few years, not increased, but that has been seen throughout history through core samples, carbon dating and other real scientific means.

A temp increase from 1850 to 2012 showed an increase of 0.8 degrees C or 1.2 degrees F. Hardly anything to be worried/concerned about but of course if you look at the Global warming alarmists graphs, they show a huge spike, up trend just like Michael Mann's hockey stick. Fear mongering once again!
These Climate epochs have been happening forever but are rarely, if ever, talked about by the global warming alarmists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...limate_history

Originally Posted by packs

You don't believe the world is heating even though the ice caps are melting? I think we can agree there is risk in rising sea levels. Whether or not someone is lying about the cause, if there are things we can do to slow rising seas, why wouldn't we do them? I'm just not understanding what there is to be against when it comes to living clean. Even if you don't agree with a specific methodology for living clean, what is there to be against in theory? How could living on a cleaner planet make things worse?

Who actually says the ice caps are melting, and if they are, what conclusive evidence is there that this normal fluctuation of melting/growth is caused by man?

Curious, are you referring to Iceland's glaciers? If so, ever wonder why they don't tell you about the numerous volcanoes that are lying underneath them that erupt occasionally/often, that melt whole glaciers and cause massive flooding and damage? Is that caused by man?
http://www.plateclimatology.com/unde...climate-change

You realize these glaciers also reform/grow back occasionally as well? Ever heard any talk about that by the global warming alarmists?
Were you aware of the silent removal of signs that read "Glaciers will be all gone by 2020 due to MMGW" at Glacier National Park? Geez, it looks like their computer models were wrong again.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/07/n...cier-warnings/

I could go on and on here with false claims that the alarmists have made over the years, like New York will be under water by 2000, Florida will be gone/sunk due to ocean rise of 2 meters or more, no more polar bears, no more coral reefs, etc, but I think you should get the point? They are all fake/fear mongering schemes to keep the sheep convinced and dedicated to the cause.
"IPA Senior Fellow Dr Jennifer Marohasy presents this short film which allows Australians to see for themselves that claims that the Great Barrier Reef is in crisis are not true"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqFF...ggKE5j-0NUaNJM

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

In the 1970s, they tried to tell us the world was getting colder and we would all freeze to death.

Who's "they?" Not the scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0...8FA33&index=37

An excellent paper in the American Meteorological Society (2008)

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...2008BAMS2370.1

A couple highlights:

"One way to determine what scientists think is to ask them. This was actually done in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the eastern United States. "Collectively," the 24 eminent climatologists responding to the survey "tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling" (National Defense University Research Directorate 1978)."

A survey was done on literature published in the '70s. The survey looked for "papers projecting climate change on, or even just discussing an aspect of climate forcing relevant to, time scales from decades to a century." It found 71 papers. "The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming." The other 20 were neutral. Six times as many scientists in the '70s were predicting warming versus cooling.