Leftist politicians are still trying to push the MMGW Hoax. It's a political scam to redistribute wealth.

[sealybobo]

does he use his lights or radio or heater/air conditioner? You're clueless.

I think he does. I'll have to ask him. Perhaps right before he gets there he runs out and has to switch over to gas reserve? I'll get back to you on this.

 

[jc456]

I think he does. I'll have to ask him. Perhaps right before he gets there he runs out and has to switch over to gas reserve? I'll get back to you on this.

it's insane the design is that the radio, heater/air and lights are used right off the battery charge and not some alternator. fking strange.

 

[Mac-7]

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE CLIMATE. IT IS ABOUT THE BIGGEST POLITICAL SCAM IN HISTORY.




In short, our liberal politicians in the US and around the world are running the biggest scam in history in order to bankrupt the US and transfer wealth to "developing" countries like China.


That's right, the biggest polluter on the planet by far, China, qualifies for the latest handout Biden announced this week. Please tell me the science behind that.

Please look at the MMGW Cult track record:

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True​

Current climate predictions can be terrifying if you don't know about the previous dire climate claims that amounted to nothing.


If you’re under 50, there’s a good chance you’re expecting to see climate change create chaos and death in your lifetime. Scientists and pundits seem so certain we’re headed for global collapse and their predictions can be terrifying—especially if you’re young enough not to remember the last dozen times they predicted imminent collapse and were wrong. In each case, claims of impending environmental disaster were backed by allegedly irrefutable data and policymakers were encouraged to act before it was too late.

Global Cooling​

The Prediction: Top climate specialists and environmental activists predicted that “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and 1970 would result in a world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 ... about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Bitter winters and floods from “delayed typhoons” would trigger massive drops in food production, followed by widespread famine.

The Prophecies:

• Newsweek Magazine’s "The Cooling World" Peter Gwynne April 28, 1975
• Time Magazine’s “A New Ice Age?” April 28, 1974
• BBC’s Nigel Calder International Wildlife magazine, 1975
• Betty Friedan in Harper’s magazine, 1958
• University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1974

What Actually Happened: Global cooling trends didn’t continue unabated, and temperatures stabilized. Within a few years, the same alarmists were predicting a life-threatening rise in temperatures, presaging many of the same dire effects on plant and animal life. Those new predictions were continually revised as their “near certainty” collided with the truth year after year, but prophets seem unchastened by their abysmal historical accuracy. Newsweek issued a correction to the 1975 article in 2006.

The Great Die-Off​

The Prediction: More women having babies in the developing world was expected to exceed the “carrying capacity” of the earth, experts were certain. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supply we make,” Ehrlich said. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [1970-1980].” Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” This would lead to “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

The Prophecies:

• Paul Erlich, The Progressive, Earth Day 1970
• The Population Bomb, 1968 Bestseller

What Actually Happened: Motivated by the urgent call for population control and fears of famine, India and China performed millions of forced abortions and sterilizations. But the number of people at risk of starvation dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent globally as genetically modified seeds and advances in irrigation improved crop yields. Far from the Great Die-Off, the global population nearly doubled while agricultural capacity soared and rates of starvation plummeted. Ehrlich’s star has continued to rise, though his signature predictions were nonsense, and now holds an endowed chair in Population Studies at Stanford. The millions scapegoated by his fear-mongering have not fared as well.

Pollution Particle Clouds​

The Prediction: Ecologists and environmentalists claimed that the buildup of nitrogen, dust, fumes, and other forms of pollution would make the air unbreathable by the mid-1980s. They predicted all urban dwellers would have to don gas masks to survive, that particle clouds would block the majority of sunlight from reaching earth, and that farm yields would drop as dust blotted out the sun.

The Prophecies:

• Ecologist Kenneth Watt
• Life Magazine, 1970
• Newsweek Magazine, 1970
• Science News, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization, 1975

What Actually Happened: When these doomsayers were pronouncing the imminent death of our atmosphere, the rate of air pollution had already been falling for most of the world, usually in the absence of dedicated policy changes. Developments like air filtration, as well as an overall decline in household pollutants (like the smoke from cooking with coal or wood) greatly reduced the health risks of the particles that remained. Increased adoption of fossil fuels and electricity grids, rather than traditional stoves, accelerated the improvements.

75 Percent of Species Will Go Extinct​

The Prediction: Alleged experts in biology and zoology predicted that of all species of animals alive in 1970, at least 75 percent would be extinct by 1995. They blamed human activities like hunting and farming for shrinking wild habitats and cited pollution and climate change as key drivers of the new extinctions. Paul Ehrlich claimed “[By 1985] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct."

The Prophecies:

• Sen. Gaylord Nelson, Look Magazine
• Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute
• The Sinking Ark 1979, Oxford biologist Norman Myers

What Actually Happened: You may have noticed that earth has not lost three-quarters of its 8.7 million species, and indeed total biomass continues to grow. 99 percent of all species that have ever existed are already extinct, and natural rates of extinction predict we might lose anywhere from 200 to 2,000 species per year without any human intervention. Since 2000, we’ve identified fewer than 20.

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism. Before we make unprecedented sacrifices to fight a climate phantom, let’s review the credibility of claims that the end is near—but really, this time.

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism.

fee.org

Now for a prediction that will come true, leftists will come into this thread whining and crying about the source without being able to refute any of the facts contained in this OP.

More to come........

Everything you and critics of the man made global warming doomsday hoax are saying is true

But a majority of the worlds population is not listening

They have been fed the lie for so long that they dont question it and just go along with any crazy idea the greenies come up with

 

[jc456]

Everything you and critics of the man made global warming doomsday hoax are saying is true

But a majority of the worlds population is not listening

They have been fed the lie for so long that they dont question it and just go along with any crazy idea the greenies come up with

the programming is succeeding because the more you report the lie, the more people will begin to listen and to turn off opposing information that is true. The elites know what they're doing. Our minds are better to see the lie.

 

[francoHFW]

well when people travel, hotels do not have that convenience of charging while you sleep. Again, the point you're missing is that using the car's heater/ air conditioner, radio and lights drains milage off the total listed. It's poorly designed. how fking stupid.

That's why Democrats are spending billions on EV infrastructure. Of course during trump no thought of the future or anything else except garbage propaganda and trying to get in good with Putin so he can become a Moscow oligarch lol...

 

[Orangecat]

I'm starting to realize you guys make up a certain demographic. Usually white, blue collar, not doing well in life, been told it's because of gays and immigrants. Christians, which means you'll believe anything authority tells you. Deplorables.

What you've constructed there is called a "straw man", bigot.

 

[francoHFW]

Everything you and critics of the man made global warming doomsday hoax are saying is true

But a majority of the worlds population is not listening

They have been fed the lie for so long that they dont question it and just go along with any crazy idea the greenies come up with

the GOP base are the only people in the entire world they don't believe in man-made global warming, brainwashed functional moron. Try reality.

 

[Orangecat]

Maybe not in your lifetime but soon every car will be battery run. No more gas cars.

Not in our lifetime?
No one cares what the vehicles of the distant future use for fuel.
You're a buffoon.

 

[jc456]

That's why Democrats are spending billions on EV infrastructure. Of course during trump no thought of the future or anything else except garbage propaganda and trying to get in good with Putin so he can become a Moscow oligarch lol...

to do anything would require tripling the size of the power grid first!!! Who's running with that?

Oh, and charge times is insufficient for reality

 

[sealybobo]

it's insane the design is that the radio, heater/air and lights are used right off the battery charge and not some alternator. fking strange.

They should only give a car like that out to someone who's going to be driving low miles.

What you've constructed there is called a "straw man", bigot.

Strawman, gaslighting. What's the other one you guys bring up when you're losing the argument?

 

[sealybobo]

Not in our lifetime?
No one cares what the vehicles of the distant future use for fuel.
You're a buffoon.

No one cares what the vehicles of the future use? I think you are wrong stupid. Multi Billion dollar corporations care. Your hero Elon Musk cares.

 

[Orangecat]

Strawman, gaslighting. What's the other one you guys bring up when you're losing the argument?

Concession accepted, stinkypoopoo.

 

[Orangecat]

I think you are wrong stupid.

Learn to use commas, you illiterate imbecile.

Your hero Elon Musk cares.

He's not a hero of mine. Straw man much?

 

[sealybobo]

Learn to use commas, you illiterate imbecile.

I love you too Orangecat.

Back to the subject. Redistributing wealth. How do you think we can help the people at the bottom? I don't think we can anymore. When we try, it causes inflation. So blue collar need to take care of themselves. Organize, unionize, quit and go get a better job, go back to school. There is nothing politically that can be done to help the poorest of the poor aside from social programs. We can't raise minimum wage. It just causes inflation.

The people in the middle, we get raises. Cost of living raises. When the economy is bad it's tough to get better pay but right now, companies are giving raises and if you are willing to go look for a new job, you can make more than you do now even after factoring in inflation.

So now, in a good economy, is your chance. But you better hurry because the Feds are trying to slow down the economy. Soon it will be an employers market. You republicans love that stupid.

 

[Orangecat]

I love you too Orangecat.

Sorry, not interested. I like women.

Redistributing wealth. How do you think we can help the people at the bottom?

Via individual acts of charity.

So now, in a good economy, is your chance. But you better hurry because the Feds are trying to slow down the economy. Soon it will be an employers market. You republicans love that stupid.

Stupid is thinking that you need to rely on someone else to give you a raise.

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry, not interested. I like women.

Via individual acts of charity.

Stupid is thinking that you need to rely on someone else to give you a raise.

I do. My boss. If he's a dick I don't get a raise.

My brother and I agree with you on giving charity. We give charity to people who work. So if you wait on me at Tim Horton's or at a restaurant, I tip good. We consumers did overtip during the pandemic and I believe that practice is still happening.

So if someone needs help/money, go get a job where tips are involved. I'll help you out there. Not when you stand on the street corner with a sign.

 

[sealybobo]

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE CLIMATE. IT IS ABOUT THE BIGGEST POLITICAL SCAM IN HISTORY.




In short, our liberal politicians in the US and around the world are running the biggest scam in history in order to bankrupt the US and transfer wealth to "developing" countries like China.


That's right, the biggest polluter on the planet by far, China, qualifies for the latest handout Biden announced this week. Please tell me the science behind that.

Please look at the MMGW Cult track record:

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True​

Current climate predictions can be terrifying if you don't know about the previous dire climate claims that amounted to nothing.


If you’re under 50, there’s a good chance you’re expecting to see climate change create chaos and death in your lifetime. Scientists and pundits seem so certain we’re headed for global collapse and their predictions can be terrifying—especially if you’re young enough not to remember the last dozen times they predicted imminent collapse and were wrong. In each case, claims of impending environmental disaster were backed by allegedly irrefutable data and policymakers were encouraged to act before it was too late.

Global Cooling​

The Prediction: Top climate specialists and environmental activists predicted that “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and 1970 would result in a world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 ... about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Bitter winters and floods from “delayed typhoons” would trigger massive drops in food production, followed by widespread famine.

The Prophecies:

• Newsweek Magazine’s "The Cooling World" Peter Gwynne April 28, 1975
• Time Magazine’s “A New Ice Age?” April 28, 1974
• BBC’s Nigel Calder International Wildlife magazine, 1975
• Betty Friedan in Harper’s magazine, 1958
• University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1974

What Actually Happened: Global cooling trends didn’t continue unabated, and temperatures stabilized. Within a few years, the same alarmists were predicting a life-threatening rise in temperatures, presaging many of the same dire effects on plant and animal life. Those new predictions were continually revised as their “near certainty” collided with the truth year after year, but prophets seem unchastened by their abysmal historical accuracy. Newsweek issued a correction to the 1975 article in 2006.

The Great Die-Off​

The Prediction: More women having babies in the developing world was expected to exceed the “carrying capacity” of the earth, experts were certain. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supply we make,” Ehrlich said. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [1970-1980].” Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” This would lead to “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

The Prophecies:

• Paul Erlich, The Progressive, Earth Day 1970
• The Population Bomb, 1968 Bestseller

What Actually Happened: Motivated by the urgent call for population control and fears of famine, India and China performed millions of forced abortions and sterilizations. But the number of people at risk of starvation dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent globally as genetically modified seeds and advances in irrigation improved crop yields. Far from the Great Die-Off, the global population nearly doubled while agricultural capacity soared and rates of starvation plummeted. Ehrlich’s star has continued to rise, though his signature predictions were nonsense, and now holds an endowed chair in Population Studies at Stanford. The millions scapegoated by his fear-mongering have not fared as well.

Pollution Particle Clouds​

The Prediction: Ecologists and environmentalists claimed that the buildup of nitrogen, dust, fumes, and other forms of pollution would make the air unbreathable by the mid-1980s. They predicted all urban dwellers would have to don gas masks to survive, that particle clouds would block the majority of sunlight from reaching earth, and that farm yields would drop as dust blotted out the sun.

The Prophecies:

• Ecologist Kenneth Watt
• Life Magazine, 1970
• Newsweek Magazine, 1970
• Science News, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization, 1975

What Actually Happened: When these doomsayers were pronouncing the imminent death of our atmosphere, the rate of air pollution had already been falling for most of the world, usually in the absence of dedicated policy changes. Developments like air filtration, as well as an overall decline in household pollutants (like the smoke from cooking with coal or wood) greatly reduced the health risks of the particles that remained. Increased adoption of fossil fuels and electricity grids, rather than traditional stoves, accelerated the improvements.

75 Percent of Species Will Go Extinct​

The Prediction: Alleged experts in biology and zoology predicted that of all species of animals alive in 1970, at least 75 percent would be extinct by 1995. They blamed human activities like hunting and farming for shrinking wild habitats and cited pollution and climate change as key drivers of the new extinctions. Paul Ehrlich claimed “[By 1985] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct."

The Prophecies:

• Sen. Gaylord Nelson, Look Magazine
• Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute
• The Sinking Ark 1979, Oxford biologist Norman Myers

What Actually Happened: You may have noticed that earth has not lost three-quarters of its 8.7 million species, and indeed total biomass continues to grow. 99 percent of all species that have ever existed are already extinct, and natural rates of extinction predict we might lose anywhere from 200 to 2,000 species per year without any human intervention. Since 2000, we’ve identified fewer than 20.

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism. Before we make unprecedented sacrifices to fight a climate phantom, let’s review the credibility of claims that the end is near—but really, this time.

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism.

fee.org

Now for a prediction that will come true, leftists will come into this thread whining and crying about the source without being able to refute any of the facts contained in this OP.

More to come........

A world hurtling toward a frighteningly hot future is driving interest in geoengineering — unproven, controversial technologies with a sci-fi flavor that could temporarily freeze global warming in its tracks but not solve the underlying problem.

Why it matters: Ethical, geopolitical and practical considerations must be wrestled with regarding solar radiation management, or SRM — the most discussed and researched method of geoengineering.

State of play: Geoengineering, which refers to deliberate interference with the climate to try to counteract global warming impacts, may be the ultimate climate tech Band-Aid capable of temporarily covering up global warming.

• But it remains controversial because of geopolitical worries, climate justice and equity concerns, long-term climate change risks, and other considerations.
• Plus, SRM, which involves injecting tiny particles known as sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect incoming solar radiation, would also only mask global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels.
• Only steep emissions cuts and, ultimately, carbon removal can bring global warming in check.

Driving the news: With the world on course to overshoot the Paris Agreement's temperature limits, geoengineering could be used to cap global warming until the technology is available at scale to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

• More severe climate disasters, such as deadly heat waves and flooding, could push developing countries to demand the use of geoengineering for their very survival, according to Janos Pasztor, a climate scientist and veteran diplomat who leads the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative.
• Solar radiation management could accomplish this in theory, though by altering weather patterns it could also cause harm to some countries and ecosystems.
• Pasztor brought up the hypothetical example of a geoengineering-related disruption of the South Asian monsoon, in a way that harms India but benefits China, two countries with a heavily militarized border.

That means it is highly unlikely that an individual country or billionaire (even someone like Elon Musk, who already possesses rockets) can unilaterally pursue SRM, according to sevenleading experts who spoke with Axios.

• This is because implementing it would require a constant stream of aerosols to be delivered. Otherwise, the world could warm up suddenly, with potentially devastating consequences.
• Successful deployment of SRM would require a fleet of jets or balloons, and at least tacit approval of some of the world's most powerful nations, Pasztor said.

Zoom in: Currently, several groups of scientists, diplomats, researchers and other experts are working in parallel to think through geoengineering research and possible deployment. None has the imprimatur of an official agency, however.

• The Carnegie group is seeking to put a geoengineering discussion on the agenda at the U.N. General Assembly in September.
• Meanwhile, at Harvard University, a research group is seeking to conduct limited tests of SRM technology, while also studying the legal and ethical ramifications of geoengineering.
• A panel of experts working under the auspices of the American Geophysical Union, a U.S.-based global scientific society, is seeking to craft a code of ethics for geoengineering research for the first half of next year.
• And still another entity, comprising former heads of state and seasoned diplomats, is studying geoengineering governance. Known as The Global Overshoot Commission, it is headed by Pascal Lamy, the former head of the WTO.

Between the lines: Although much of the attention in the press and scientific community has focused on the risks associated with geoengineering, such as its potential effects on crops and precipitation patterns, there are also risks to not pursuing it, Pasztor told Axios.

• If deploying SRM can limit the severity of the temperature overshoot, a decision not to enlist such technology could be viewed as risky.
• “There are risks if we do SRM ... but there are also very large risks if we reject SRM and allow the planet to continue warming,” said Andy Parker, founder and CEO of The Degrees Initiative.

What to watch: Decisions made by governments or other entities in the next decade may determine whether geoengineering is pursued as part of an approach to tackling climate change.

• Multiple possibilities are on the table, including a worldwide moratorium on geoengineering research and implementation, and finding a suitable government forum, such as the U.N., to oversee its deployment.

The bottom line: “Society needs to come to terms with thinking about the unthinkable,” Pasztor says. In other words, a dystopian future may require dystopian responses.

Geoengineering nears decision point as global warming worsens

Hacking the planet is closer and more fraught than you might think.

www.axios.com

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry, not interested. I like women.

Via individual acts of charity.

Stupid is thinking that you need to rely on someone else to give you a raise.

Do you like women? Then why don't you give them the right to choose?

 

[Orangecat]

I do. My boss. If he's a dick I don't get a raise.

Be your own boss, if you're competent enough.

 

[Orangecat]

Do you like women? Then why don't you give them the right to choose?

You seem to be confusing me with someone else.
I'm in no position to give out rights.
Regardless, I'm a pro-choice person.
If you want to kill your offspring in the womb, have at it. The only caveat being: Your orgasm, your bill.