The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Biggest scam of the last fifty years.

You got it, Cliff. I've never believed in Global Warming, other than the natural course of the planet, which, of course, is still developing and changing all the time. So much skewed info, lies, made up stories, etc, all designed to fleece your pockets and all under the false pretense we are helping to save the planet.

I think of the worldwide protests by our brainwashed youth, those that hate Trump because he didn't buy in with the Paris accord. The list goes on and on, which makes me even more mad knowing that they will likely get away with all of this. Al Gore, President Obama, our moron in charge up here, The Sierra Club, Bill Nye, David Suzuki and a lot of celebrities. All liars and all getting filthy rich off of it.

Originally Posted by todeen

My old hippy friend is a conspiracy theorist. He is anti big government, anti big business, anti establishment, and believes individuals are idiots (for the most part). But he always seems to cite relevant data whether it's about green energy, vaccines, or climate change. He believes climate change is overrated, its an idea overrun by the establishment to sell green energy. He has nothing nice to say about Greta Thunberg - he thinks she is a complete tool of the establishment.

He believes in the science behind a lot of good ideas, but then points to the big money that bankrolls most research. When your primary donor is the Koch brothers, it's hard to release authentic information that tells the truth of the research committed. He says research, even by the federal govt, is always airbrushed to distort what was really discovered.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I can relate to your friend 100%. There are just too many questions and lies, let alone all the predictions that never came true, that should make everyone say, wait a minute, but no, as soon as you question any of them, you are quickly labeled/called a denier, a racist, a moron and a whole host of other things. With President Obama saying the science is settled, they don't even want to have a friendly/constructive debate as they, like a lot of people, because of who they are and not what they know, people automatically think they are correct. Some people are incapable of critical thinking anymore. Just blindly trust those in charge like good sheep and trust all the fake news.

Originally Posted by bnorth

I have never understood mixing ethanol into gasoline. In every vehicle I have ever owned when I use the 10% ethanol blend I get 10% lower MPG.

And I believe 15% is coming soon, if it hasn't already?? The 10% is bad enough but the 15% and higher can cause major engine damage as has been proven, especially in the marine industry as it is hygroscopic, (absorbs moisture) and can cause engine seizures and all sorts of other damage to fuel systems.

I hope this vid goes viral and gets a lot of mainstream coverage to expose the hypocrites who are actually doing far more damage to this planet than what they said they were doing.

An article in our paper this morning, which I was glad to see.

" “Everywhere I encountered green energy it wasn’t what it seemed, ” Gibbs says early in the film.

He explains why wind and solar power, electric vehicles, ethanol, biomass and biofuels cannot exist without fossil fuel energy and are environmentally destructive.""

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...nergy#comments

[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.

.

[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?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by irv

Absolutely! It is much easier telling someone something they want to hear rather than telling them something they don't.

And sometimes, no matter what you tell someone they hear only what they want to hear.

For instance, someone could make a movie that says the planet is in grave danger and the best way to solve the problem is through population control and less material consumption. To bolster this talking point, they denigrate green energy by attacking the people behind green energy and showing waste associated with making green energy. They conveniently do not discuss the waste associated with the production of other forms of energy, the malfeasance of people behind the other forms of energy, and the fact that solar panels, for instance, will generate a net reduction in CO2 emissions versus non-renewable sources of energy. Nor do they claim that climate change is a hoax. They think it is a real and present danger.

Yet, some people will see the movie and go about ranting

Originally Posted by irv

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.

Originally Posted by irv

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.

Originally Posted by irv

You got it, Cliff. I've never believed in Global Warming, other than the natural course of the planet ---

See what I mean, no matter what you tell someone they hear only what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by irv

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.

Kind of like if someone were talking about the corona virus and says the following –

Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control.”

Feb. 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”

Feb. 10: “Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”

Feb. 26, “Because of all we’ve done, the risk to the American people remains very low. … When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done."

March 6: “I think we’re doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down … a tremendous job at keeping it down.”

March 7, “Anyone who wants a test can get one”

March 15: “This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something that we have tremendous control over.”

March 17: “This is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”

Apr. 7: “But you have to understand, I’m a cheerleader for this country. I don’t want to create havoc and shock and everything else”

If someone did that, would that make you ?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

And sometimes, no matter what you tell someone they hear only what they want to hear.

For instance, someone could make a movie that says the planet is in grave danger and the best way to solve the problem is through population control and less material consumption. To bolster this talking point, they denigrate green energy by attacking the people behind green energy and showing waste associated with making green energy. They conveniently do not discuss the waste associated with the production of other forms of energy, the malfeasance of people behind the other forms of energy, and the fact that solar panels, for instance, will generate a net reduction in CO2 emissions versus non-renewable sources of energy. Nor do they claim that climate change is a hoax. They think it is a real and present danger.

Yet, some people will see the movie and go about ranting





See what I mean, no matter what you tell someone they hear only what they want to hear.



Kind of like if someone were talking about the corona virus and says the following –

Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control.”

Feb. 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”

Feb. 10: “Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”

Feb. 26, “Because of all we’ve done, the risk to the American people remains very low. … When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done."

March 6: “I think we’re doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down … a tremendous job at keeping it down.”

March 7, “Anyone who wants a test can get one”

March 15: “This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something that we have tremendous control over.”

March 17: “This is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”

Apr. 7: “But you have to understand, I’m a cheerleader for this country. I don’t want to create havoc and shock and everything else”

If someone did that, would that make you ?

I was wondering when Mr. TDS would show up .

[irv]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

And sometimes, no matter what you tell someone they hear only what they want to hear.

Wow, I had no idea that some would take this global warming alarmism exposure so hard? But then again, when it comes from someone they looked up to almost god like status, I can see that being a tough pill to swallow.

Sad, that MM is trying to tell you, like him, that you have been duped/lied to, and yet you still don't want to accept that info.

In my opinion, he is doing you a favor, helping you, but because you are so deeply entrenched in your believes now, you refuse to change your viewpoints, even though the scam/hoax is clearly laid out right in front of you for you to clearly see.

Tell me, Mike, if CO2 is so bad then why do they pump 3-4 times of what we currently breath into greenhouses throughout the world?
Have you done any research/critical thinking on your own, or do you just believe/listen to those that think like you and what MSM or people in power tell you?
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by irv

Tell me, Mike, if CO2 is so bad then why do they pump 3-4 times of what we currently breath into greenhouses throughout the world?
Have you done any research/critical thinking on your own, or do you just believe/listen to those that think like you and what MSM or people in power tell you?
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm

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!

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by irv

Wow, I had no idea that some would take this global warming alarmism exposure so hard?

Okay, let's see if I can dumb this down enough for you and Cliff to understand. You claim the movie says global warming is a hoax. I say it doesn't. Watch it again. When it gets to the part where they say or even hint that global warming is a hoax, pause the movie. Note the time of the movie. Come back here and let us all know at what time in the movie they say, imply, or hint that global warming is a hoax. You can prove me wrong.

The movie does not say global warming is a hoax. Prove me wrong.

[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.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Okay, let's see if I can dumb this down enough for you and Cliff to understand. You claim the movie says global warming is a hoax. I say it doesn't. Watch it again. When it gets to the part where they say or even hint that global warming is a hoax, pause the movie. Note the time of the movie. Come back here and let us all know at what time in the movie they say, imply, or hint that global warming is a hoax. You can prove me wrong.

The movie does not say global warming is a hoax. Prove me wrong.

You are deflecting. It has nothing to do with if global warming is real or not. The film shows the deceit, greed, and outright lies of millionaires/billionaires Gore, Steyer, Bloomberg, Branson, the Koch Brother, Van Jones, Blood, and others who are using the pipe dream of solar and wind, which are a joke and just a feel good ruse, when in reality the vast majority of their ‘green energy’ is clear cutting beautiful forests. They know what’s going on with biomass and how it is in many ways more damaging than coal and fossil fuels and are looking the other way and profiting off of it. They are all scumbags. Where did I say anything about whether global warming is a hoax? What I said is what the left is doing about it is a scam.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Kind of like if someone were talking about the corona virus and says the following –

Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control.”

Feb. 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”

Feb. 2: "“There's really no need to panic and avoid activities that we always do as New Yorkers.”

Feb. 7: "We're telling New Yorkers: Go about your lives, take the subway, go out, enjoy life..."

Feb. 10: “Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”

Feb. 10: "This disease, even if you were to get it, basically acts like a common cold or flu. And transmission is not that easy."

Feb. 26, “Because of all we’ve done, the risk to the American people remains very low. … When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done."

March 2: "We know that there is currently no indication that it's easy to transmit by casual contact. There's no need to do any special anything in the community. We want New Yorkers to go about their daily lives - ride the subway, take the bus, go see your neighbors."

March 6: “I think we’re doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down … a tremendous job at keeping it down.”

March 7, “Anyone who wants a test can get one”

March 15: “This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something that we have tremendous control over.”

March 17: “This is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”

Apr. 7: “But you have to understand, I’m a cheerleader for this country. I don’t want to create havoc and shock and everything else”

If someone did that, would that make you ?

You missed a few, but I added them into your timeline (all made by NYC officials). If you like, I can post the video that shows these and more?

Edited to add: And let's not forget the Tweet from the WHO on January 14th.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You missed a few, but I added them into your timeline (all made by NYC officials). If you like, I can post the video that shows these and more?

Edited to add: And let's not forget the Tweet from the WHO on January 14th.

Hey David, thanks for the response. Finally someone is actually responding to the topics raised and not going off about since CO2 is good for plants in greenhouses global warming can't be true.

Yes, mistakes were made early on by everyone. Primarily due to a lack of information. But as information came in, what were the responses? The WHO tweet you posted was on Jan. 12. On Jan. 23 WHO issued the following statement:

"The initial source of 2019-nCoV still remains unknown. However, it is clear the growing outbreak is no longer due to ongoing exposures at the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan; as in the last one week, less than 15% of new cases reported having visited Huanan market. There is now more evidence that 2019-nCoV spreads from human- to- human and also across generations of cases."

On Jan. 24, WHO issued the following:

"New epidemiological information reinforces the evidence that the 2019-nCoV can be transmitted from one individual to another. During previous outbreaks due to other coronavirus (Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)), human to human transmission occurred through droplets, contact and fomites, suggesting that the transmission mode of the 2019-nCoV can be similar. The strategic objectives of the response are to interrupt the transmission of the virus from one person to another in China, to prevent exportation of cases from China to other countries and territories, and to prevent further transmission from exported case if they were to happen. This can be achieved through a combination of public health measures, such as rapid identification, diagnosis and management of the cases, identification and follow up of the contacts, infection prevention and control in healthcare settings, implementation of health measures for travellers, awareness raising in the population, risk communication."

So, on Jan 24 WHO was advising rapid identification, diagnosis and management of the cases, identification and follow up of the contacts, infection prevention and control in healthcare settings and awareness raising in the population, risk communication. Stick that in the timeline and then compare what was said after that.

I can't defend what NY health officials were saying as late as March 2 (maybe even later), but I do wonder where they were getting their information.

A few more things to ponder:

Prominent US public health adviser Dr Anthony Fauci appeared on Sunday (Apr 12) to confirm a bombshell New York Times report which said he and other Trump administration officials recommended the implementation of physical distancing to combat the coronavirus in February, but were rebuffed for almost a month.

CNN host Jake Tapper asked if Fauci thought “lives could have been saved if social distancing, physical distancing, stay-at-home measures had started [in the] third week of February, instead of mid-March”.

“It’s very difficult to go back and say that,” Fauci said. “I mean, obviously, you could logically say, that if you had a process that was ongoing, and you started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives. Obviously, no one is going to deny that."

On Apr 19, Trump talking about the lives he saved with his China travel restrictions: “It could have been billions of people if we had not done what we did.”

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

And sometimes, no matter what you tell someone they hear only what they want to hear.

For instance, someone could make a movie that says the planet is in grave danger and the best way to solve the problem is through population control and less material consumption. To bolster this talking point, they denigrate green energy by attacking the people behind green energy and showing waste associated with making green energy. They conveniently do not discuss the waste associated with the production of other forms of energy, the malfeasance of people behind the other forms of energy, and the fact that solar panels, for instance, will generate a net reduction in CO2 emissions versus non-renewable sources of energy. Nor do they claim that climate change is a hoax. They think it is a real and present danger.

Yet, some people will see the movie and go about ranting





See what I mean, no matter what you tell someone they hear only what they want to hear.



Kind of like if someone were talking about the corona virus and says the following –

Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control.”

Feb. 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”

Feb. 10: “Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”

Feb. 26, “Because of all we’ve done, the risk to the American people remains very low. … When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done."

March 6: “I think we’re doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down … a tremendous job at keeping it down.”

March 7, “Anyone who wants a test can get one”

March 15: “This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something that we have tremendous control over.”

March 17: “This is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”

Apr. 7: “But you have to understand, I’m a cheerleader for this country. I don’t want to create havoc and shock and everything else”

If someone did that, would that make you ?

Here is Post 22, I don't see anything that addresses what the movie or the thread is about: greed, destruction, deceit.

[Cliff Bowman]

I am absolutely convinced that you and people like you see Climate Change as a way of punishing, weakening, and controlling the people that you hate, the ones that voted for The Orange Meanie. There 7.6 billion people on earth and you are obsessed with 63 million of them. Do I believe that everything is fine on this planet of 7.6 billion people and that there aren't changes that must be done? Absolutely not. But what you and others like you see Climate Change as are two things, to gain more power and become even more wealthy, and in your particular case to use it as a tool against those that you have a hatred for. The photo is of your hero trying to get onto the wrong private jet, I guess if you fly on one every day you lose track of which one is yours.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I am absolutely convinced that you and people like you see Climate Change as a way of punishing, weakening, and controlling the people that you hate, the ones that voted for The Orange Meanie. There 7.6 billion people on earth and you are obsessed with 63 million of them. Do I believe that everything is fine on this planet of 7.6 billion people and that there aren't changes that must be done? Absolutely not. But what you and others like you see Climate Change as are two things, to gain more power and become even more wealthy, and in your particular case to use it as a tool against those that you have a hatred for. The photo is of your hero trying to get onto the wrong private jet, I guess if you fly on one every day you lose track of which one is yours.

If you are "absolutely convinced" that this is to punish any single person, you are absolutely wrong. Climate change was an issue long before "The Orange Meanie" came along and will continue to be long after he's gone.

How in the world do you equate my thinking that we are adversely affecting the earth's climate to it's because i want "to gain more power and become even more wealthy." Please explain how I can get more power and wealth from thinking we are adversely affecting the earth's climate. Although honestly, I have no interest in more power but I wouldn't mind more wealth so I can get the '52 Topps Mantles that I want.

Furthermore, how is my thinking that we are adversely affecting the earth's climate equate to me using "it as a tool against those that I have hatred for." What does that even mean? Using my thoughts as a tool??

Lastly, I don't have hatred for you or for the people who voted for "The Orange Meanie." Do you hate everyone who doesn't agree with you on every subject? That's the only way I can fathom why you "spew" such nonsense. And I don't hate you for that, but I do pity you for it.

Tell you what, since you've gone off the deep end and I seem to be causing you much pain and anguish with math, science, and logic, I'll leave this thread for now and let you and Dale get back to your circle jerk fest. Happy?

Baaa!! Baaa!!

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Here is Post 22, I don't see anything that addresses what the movie or the thread is about: greed, destruction, deceit.

"For instance, someone could make a movie that says the planet is in grave danger and the best way to solve the problem is through population control and less material consumption. To bolster this talking point, they denigrate green energy by attacking the people behind green energy and showing waste associated with making green energy. They conveniently do not discuss the waste associated with the production of other forms of energy, the malfeasance of people behind the other forms of energy, and the fact that solar panels, for instance, will generate a net reduction in CO2 emissions versus non-renewable sources of energy. Nor do they claim that climate change is a hoax. They think it is a real and present danger."

If you don't see the text in bold as being about the movie, you're blind.