Lets all remember al gore....in 2006, shall we?

[ding]

Simple people want simple answers. Poverty causes crime, whites are racists, government steals money, the President is a criminal (take your pick there of which one), the MIC runs everything, Communism and Socialism work, yadda-yadda-yadda. I see all of those and more as largely children who see everything in only black and white.

So of course many flock to "CO2 is bad and will kill the planet". Simple answer. Of course, none can really come up with a solution. Such as how we are going to support a population of almost 8 billion people without the output of CO2 and other gasses.

Of course, most would also be horrified to learn that I believe the only way to reduce that to a negligible number is to reduce the human population back to 19th century levels. No more than around a billion people.

See why I laugh whenever people call me a "denier"? That is actually my belief. And eventually it likely will happen. We dodged the bullet with COVID, but eventually a much more lethal virus will break out, and likely cut the population of the planet in half. With no other predators, disease is the most likely way the planet will cull our numbers.

So I guess I am a denier that things are only going to get a hell of a lot worse, and it will require the deaths of 7/8 of the population to return CO2 to a manageable number. Of course, that culling will also have the effect of the survivors moving to better farmland, and the deforestation of the rainforests will end. And likely within two generations will be approaching their largest size since pre-history.

My money is on WWIII.

 

[Mushroom]

My money is on WWIII.

War can be good at killing people, but not in the numbers needed to bring the population back to what is healthy for the planet.

Historically, that had always been by disease much more than by war.

Case in point, the bloodiest war until the modern era was the Reconquista. And in that and the aftermath (including the Inquisitions", the death toll was only around 7 million people.

That is barely a drop in the bucket to the Black Death, which killed around 200 million. Or the European diseases that killed over 50 million Indians in the Americas in the 16th century. Even the death toll of all of WWII (just over 50 million) is nowhere near enough.

No, my bet is on disease. That is natures way of culling out excess numbers when starvation does not do it. And we see it in all species, not just humans. Populations get too high, most times the animals will starve. If that is not enough, normally disease follows.

We really did didge the bullet with COVID. It was about a virulent as the Spanish Flu was, but only caused a fraction of the number of deaths. If we had actually had a repeat of Spanish Flu, the total number of deaths would not have been the less than 7 million that we had, but over 70 million. And heaven help us if some viral version of yersinia pestis ever makes an appearance. That disease literally wiped out half the population of the planet.

In 1300, the global population was around 360 million. By 1400 almost 50 years after bubonic plague had largely died off, that had finally risen to around 350 million. The only time in over 7,000 years of population numbers that there was a decrease from one decade to the next. Not even WWII did that, as even with as many had died in that conflict, the population was around 100 million more when it ended than when it began.

 

[Crick]

Remember when many of the exact same people were looking at the exact same data, and claiming that humans were causing a new ice age to start?

I am, that was the claim they were making 50 years ago, when we were having record cold snaps in much of Europe and the US.

You think there're no new data in the last 50 years? You think mainstream science went along with the "new ice age" nonsense? Were you under the impression that Paul Ehrlich was a climatologist?

Then it became warming when things then got hotter a decade or so later. Then it just became "climate change", because it then went down again, breaking their predictions.

What mainstream predictions do you believe 'broke'?

The climate has always changed, it always will.

Well, what the heck was I thinking? Forget I ever mentioned it. "Hey JOE!!! Why the F didn't you tell me climate's always changing?!?!? Got me standing out here like some sort of fool!!!... sheeEEESH!!!"

And does anybody even remember what this thread is actually about?

The text explains if pretty well. New computer modeling of the Arctic ice extents suggested there was a chance it would hit zero in the Summer of 2014. Gore reported that to the Copenhagen Climate Conference. How does that dove in with anything else you've said this thread?

I'd say he was right when he first said it. We're fucked

Exactly how well have any of those "predictions" aged?

Exactly how many of them are misquotes, distortions and lies? Gore had enough science experience to phrase everything as possibilities, just as they came to him from actual scientists. And why are you wasting time in this thread? Gore is not a scientist. Talking about Gore isn't talking about science and I thought that was all you wanted to do here?

 

[Crick]

Aerosols were supposedly enlarging a hole in the ozone layer and potentially freezing the planet.
It gave us products and commercials like this…

Aerosols using several varieties of chlorolfluorocarbons as a propellant WERE destroying the Ozone Layer. Destroying the Ozone Layer allows a damaging level of ultraviolet light to come through. It will warm the planet, not cool it

Have you ever heard of the Montreal Protocol?

 

[Crick]

War can be good at killing people, but not in the numbers needed to bring the population back to what is healthy for the planet.

Historically, that had always been by disease much more than by war.

Case in point, the bloodiest war until the modern era was the Reconquista. And in that and the aftermath (including the Inquisitions", the death toll was only around 7 million people.

That is barely a drop in the bucket to the Black Death, which killed around 200 million. Or the European diseases that killed over 50 million Indians in the Americas in the 16th century. Even the death toll of all of WWII (just over 50 million) is nowhere near enough.

No, my bet is on disease. That is natures way of culling out excess numbers when starvation does not do it. And we see it in all species, not just humans. Populations get too high, most times the animals will starve. If that is not enough, normally disease follows.

We really did didge the bullet with COVID. It was about a virulent as the Spanish Flu was, but only caused a fraction of the number of deaths. If we had actually had a repeat of Spanish Flu, the total number of deaths would not have been the less than 7 million that we had, but over 70 million. And heaven help us if some viral version of yersinia pestis ever makes an appearance. That disease literally wiped out half the population of the planet.

In 1300, the global population was around 360 million. By 1400 almost 50 years after bubonic plague had largely died off, that had finally risen to around 350 million. The only time in over 7,000 years of population numbers that there was a decrease from one decade to the next. Not even WWII did that, as even with as many had died in that conflict, the population was around 100 million more when it ended than when it began.

I think you're ignoring the advances in medicine between 1918 and 2020.

 

[ding]

War can be good at killing people, but not in the numbers needed to bring the population back to what is healthy for the planet.

Historically, that had always been by disease much more than by war.

Case in point, the bloodiest war until the modern era was the Reconquista. And in that and the aftermath (including the Inquisitions", the death toll was only around 7 million people.

That is barely a drop in the bucket to the Black Death, which killed around 200 million. Or the European diseases that killed over 50 million Indians in the Americas in the 16th century. Even the death toll of all of WWII (just over 50 million) is nowhere near enough.

No, my bet is on disease. That is natures way of culling out excess numbers when starvation does not do it. And we see it in all species, not just humans. Populations get too high, most times the animals will starve. If that is not enough, normally disease follows.

We really did didge the bullet with COVID. It was about a virulent as the Spanish Flu was, but only caused a fraction of the number of deaths. If we had actually had a repeat of Spanish Flu, the total number of deaths would not have been the less than 7 million that we had, but over 70 million. And heaven help us if some viral version of yersinia pestis ever makes an appearance. That disease literally wiped out half the population of the planet.

In 1300, the global population was around 360 million. By 1400 almost 50 years after bubonic plague had largely died off, that had finally risen to around 350 million. The only time in over 7,000 years of population numbers that there was a decrease from one decade to the next. Not even WWII did that, as even with as many had died in that conflict, the population was around 100 million more when it ended than when it began.

Albert Einstein said that he didn't know what weapons would be used to fight WWIII but that WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones. I tend to agree with that.

 

[sealybobo]

TikTok - Make Your Day

www.tiktok.com

Well, there's Lonnie he says with one of the last slivers of the great glacier and of course....."within the decade there will be more snows of Kilimanjaro."



For those who buy into the notion as lobbied by democrats and rinos who believe tiktok is spying on us but not FB or YouTube, or Instagram, or snapchat or any of the other Silicon Valley Google people who's lunch is being eaten by tiktok add money.


Lol


Kilimanjaro recently

Glaciers on top of Kilimanjaro

youtube.com

Republicans admit we are entering a mini ice age. Despite that fact

Earth Shattered Global Heat Record In 2023 And There's More Bad News To Come

January 2024 is on track to be so warm that for the first time a 12-month period will exceed the 1.5-degree threshold, per the European climate agency.

www.huffpost.com

I'd say Al Gore was right.

Plus, we have implemented a lot of green technology since Gore said that. If we didn't, we'd be in much worse shape right now. And we still are in bad shape because Republicans won't go along. It's like Covid. Hard to get it under control when Republicans won't wear masks, get vaccinated or social distance

 

[ding]

Republicans admit we are entering a mini ice age. Despite that fact

Earth Shattered Global Heat Record In 2023 And There's More Bad News To Come

January 2024 is on track to be so warm that for the first time a 12-month period will exceed the 1.5-degree threshold, per the European climate agency.

www.huffpost.com

I'd say Al Gore was right.

Plus, we have implemented a lot of green technology since Gore said that. If we didn't, we'd be in much worse shape right now. And we still are in bad shape because Republicans won't go along. It's like Covid. Hard to get it under control when Republicans won't wear masks, get vaccinated or social distance

Where ever could they have gotten that idea.

 

[sealybobo]

Where ever could they have gotten that idea.

View attachment 886646

What idea?

 

[ding]

What idea?

That the planet will experience glacial temperatures.

 

[sealybobo]

That the planet will experience glacial temperatures.

And that bothered you that he wanted to go green? Weird.

 

[ding]

And that bothered you that he wanted to go green? Weird.

Politicians don't bother me one way or the other. I'm not a cheer-leading sheep like you.

 

[sealybobo]

Politicians don't bother me one way or the other. I'm not a cheer-leading sheep like you.

You caucus with conservatives/republicans. White, rich, religious, unapologetically a hypocrite about many things. I get you.

 

[Papageorgio]

You caucus with conservatives/republicans. White, rich, religious, unapologetically a hypocrite about many things. I get you.

White rich like Biden, Gates, Buffett and a host of others. Please spare me the BS, the Democrats are rich white guys, the Democrats are the party of the rich.

 

[Crick]

White rich like Biden, Gates, Buffett and a host of others. Please spare me the BS, the Democrats are rich white guys, the Democrats are the party of the rich.

Republicans are the friends of the rich. Democrats are the friends of the poor.

U.S. "1%" Is More Republican, but Not More Conservative

The wealthiest 1% of Americans -- those in households earning $500,000 or more annually -- lean more Republican than the rest of the public, 57% vs. 44%, but are mainstream in their basic ideology. The greatest difference between the wealthiest 1% and everyone else, however, is education.

news.gallup.com

 

[Papageorgio]

Republicans are the friends of the rich. Democrats are the friends of the poor.

U.S. "1%" Is More Republican, but Not More Conservative

The wealthiest 1% of Americans -- those in households earning $500,000 or more annually -- lean more Republican than the rest of the public, 57% vs. 44%, but are mainstream in their basic ideology. The greatest difference between the wealthiest 1% and everyone else, however, is education.

news.gallup.com

A new WA voice calls out Democrats as the party of the rich, from within

Washington has three of the nation's richest congressional districts — all represented by Democrats. The only two below the median household income are Republican.

www.seattletimes.com

Democrats being party of the rich could cost them 2024 election

A growing body of research shows wealthier Americans flocking to the Democratic Party. The working class, meanwhile, has been forgotten.

www.newsweek.com

In reality Congress, who are the rich, make laws for the rich. So, Democrat or Republican, they work for the rich, not average Americans.

 

[Crick]

A new WA voice calls out Democrats as the party of the rich, from within

Washington has three of the nation's richest congressional districts — all represented by Democrats. The only two below the median household income are Republican.

www.seattletimes.com

Democrats being party of the rich could cost them 2024 election

A growing body of research shows wealthier Americans flocking to the Democratic Party. The working class, meanwhile, has been forgotten.

www.newsweek.com

In reality Congress, who are the rich, make laws for the rich. So, Democrat or Republican, they work for the rich, not average Americans.

You seem to have slipped off your previous contention awfully quickly. Tell me what basic problem concerns you with regard to wealth. Where were you going with these posts?

 

[Papageorgio]

You seem to have slipped off your previous contention awfully quickly. Tell me what basic problem concerns you with regard to wealth. Where were you going with these posts?

I was replying to seals, read what he said. I was replying to his false allegations.

Both party’s, as I have said for years, works for the rich.

 

[Crick]

I was replying to seals, read what he said. I was replying to his false allegations.

Both party’s, as I have said for years, works for the rich.

The rich work for the rich, the powerful work for the powerful. There are rich and powerful on both sides of the aisle but as my link shows, there are more rich on the right side of the aisle than the left and I think an examination of the two party's platforms will show a clear difference between their separate approaches to the wealthy and the poor. It wasn't a democrat who came up with trickle-down economics or the idea that tax cuts will increase government revenues.

 

[Papageorgio]

The rich work for the rich, the powerful work for the powerful. There are rich and powerful on both sides of the aisle but as my link shows, there are more rich on the right side of the aisle than the left and I think an examination of the two party's platforms will show a clear difference between their separate approaches to the wealthy and the poor. It wasn't a democrat who came up with trickle-down economics or the idea that tax cuts will increase government revenues.

Whatever you need to believe, the rich, which is 99% of Congress is rich works for the rich, the power goes with the money. I wouldn’t vote for Biden nor Trump, both terrible embarrassments for our country. If neither party can put up a good candidate then don‘t expect me to vote for either. I will continue voting for the best candidate, not the lesser of two evils.