# Global Warming: Thirty Years Of Hype, Hysteria & Hullabaloo



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

Pt 2
*Celebrities Are Our Leaders*
It wasn’t long before a politician made an Oscar-winning documentary film about global warming. That the film was saturated with errors and made laughable predictions did not matter. Global warming had to be as frightening as the film portrayed, otherwise the politician-turned-actor hosting it would not have looked so serious.

It wasn’t just politicians. Important people the world over were warming to the coming heat. Actors, musicians, pastors, people famous for being famous, chefs, novelists, school teachers, bureaucrats, activists, academics in such widely varying fields as sociology to psychology, and of course lawyers and news readers. Oh, plus a handful of physical scientists (most kept their heads down).

When celebrities speak, we listen. Even if they’re wrong in the details, that so many elites knew global warming was on its way was sufficient and convincing evidence something had to be done.

*Nine Most Terrifying Words*
That something was government. More and larger government. The government took up this challenge and did what it did best: it spent money. Lots of it. Soon, every major grant-reliant scientific association, no matter how tenuous its connection to atmospheric physics, issued official statements on how horrible global warming was going to be—once it got here.

Researchers ran to their computers and offered “studies” shhowing global warming was going to cause an increase in mosquitoes and a decrease in polar bears. Ambulance rides were going to become more frequent in Australia. Prostitution would flourish in the Pacific. Fish were going to grow to abnormal size and clean out the oceanic grocery story. Fish were going to shrink to cope with the heat.

As I have long said, if the animal bit, stung, poisoned or was ugly, global warming was going to cause more of them. But if the beast was photogenic, cute, or delicious, global warming was going to devastate them. Numbers Watch compiled an _enormous partial_ list of everything that was going to go wrong when global warming showed up.

Yet that global warming would have increased the frequency of warm summer afternoons and would produce richer and more abundant crops (by eating the extra carbon dioxide) was not welcome news. When economist Bjorn Lomborg suggested that even at its worst global warming would be easily coped with, he was scientifically lynched. When a team of four scientists (of which I was one) suggested we’d only see maybe 1 degree of warming, and not the four, five, six or more claimed by the Consensus, the establishment turned into _Lost In Space’s_ Dr Smith.

*The Great Stall*
Amidst all the marches, protests, dire warnings of “tipping points”, announcements of “record” heat (in very short periods of time), and cries of climate “denial” something funny happened. The temperature stopped cooperating with climatologists’ models.

Scientists said the mercury had nowhere to go but up. The atmosphere disagreed. A fundamental tenet of science is that its theories must match reality. When reality differs, the theory is wrong. Scientists in control of the Consensus knew they were in deep kimchi, but they were loathe to admit their critics’ points.

Then some wag hacked the emails of Consensus scientists. They spoke of using tricks and hiding declines in temperatures. They boasted of political prowess in keeping peers from publishing skeptical views. Climategate revealed scientists to be as backbiting, manipulative, hateful, suspicious, and cocky as, well, politicians.

Doubt in global warming grew. Yet it was realized that if global warning was not a problem, then it didn’t need a solution. But the solution was too intoxicating to abandon.

*Neither Hot Nor Cold*
Enter “climate change.” Global warming became like that movie where the lady on the train vanishes, and where everybody claimed never to have seen her. Climate change, not global warming, was always the real worry.

This was a brilliant move. The earth’s climate was never static; it is _impossible_ that it should ever be static; therefore, it will _always_ change. When anything bad happened, which was certain, it was climate change. When anything good happened, it was _Look! Squirrel!_ Every ill and misfortune could once again be blamed on lack of government.

Wouldn’t you know it, though. The atmosphere again refused to cooperate! Oh, sure, there was the occasional hurricane or drought to keep things spicy. But on the whole it was nice outside. And nobody would ever admit being nice outside was because of climate change. Climate change by definition brought only evil.

*Finis*
Here we are, thirty years after the klaxon, and life is better, or at least no worse, as far as environmental conditions are concerned. Whatever trouble we had from global cooling, or rather global warming, was not that bothersome. We discovered there are plenty more pressing problems to worry about.

The boorish behavior of activists, the endless hectoring of politicians, the realization what shutting off fossil fuels really meant, the whopping pile of failed predictions, all that and more, killed global warming as a cause.

The undead corpse of global warming is animated now only by the hopes of a handful of true believers.

Smarter activists see the futility of climate change and have begun the work of metamorphosing the cause into something grander.

The seeds for this growth were planted in the Paris “climate” accord, which called for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “climate justice.”

All that was missing was transgender “rights”. But don’t worry. That’s being taken care of, too. William M. Briggs


----------



## eightwt (May 11, 2017)

Concisely well said.


----------



## FlyBy (Jul 12, 2013)

Heretic.


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

A nice alternative view. William Briggs writes good fiction for the Federalist web site/blog and radio show with undisclosed funding for the site founded in 2013. One of the founders has been accused of plagiarism.


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

"Everybody complains about the weather - but nobody ever does anything about it" That was the old saw - and pretty basic.. until politicians found the issue (call it "global warming" or wait, "climate change" )... I forgot... add "sea level rise" to their mournful prophecies...

Surprise, surprise (as old Gomer Pyle used to say...).

The truth of the matter is that our climate has never been stable - not since the planet's formation (ask geologists who can see the record in the rocks we stand on... ). Our climate will always be getting warmer or cooler - but usually at a rate that's so much slower than the timespan of ordinary human lives.

That won't stop the folks that want to use the issue to get all of us paying more to our governments (particularly those countries that are relatively well off..). "Developing countries" (what a laugh since China and India are included in that category...) will ignore any constraints whatsoever in their headlong race to be the top dog. The amount of pollutants and sheer environmental damage they're currently causing make our efforts to clean up meaningless, literally.

It's enough to give old P. T. Barnum a laughing fit - if he were still around.


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)




----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

It was 36 here in south Texas this morning at 8am with sleet and snow flurries and will be in the mid 20’s tomorrow morning...that’s not global warming.


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

I won't worry about global warming for two reasons:
1. It may or may not be a thing.
2. If we allow for a moment that it is a thing, and humans are significantly impacting it, there isn't anything we can do about it. Nobody is going to revert to a Neolithic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Even if we take draconian measures in the west to curb "greenhouse gas" emissions, do you think China, India and South America are going to? Is the exploding population of Africa going to build massive wind farms to raise conflict free coffee beans or some other equally wistful idea? Not gonna happen, friends. Let's start with fixing the water flow of the glades and stop dumping fertilizer and poop in the lagoon. Big enough tasks for the time being.


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> It was 36 here in south Texas this morning at 8am with sleet and snow flurries and will be in the mid 20’s tomorrow morning...that’s not global warming.


You are correct, one day or a week is not global warming.

Since you are all experts here I guess the following link is a moot post
https://climate.nasa.gov/


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2018)

Allow me to interject... 
for those of you that are so concerned with global warming that you want to regulate and/or ban farting here is a suggestion!
Start buying only American made products! We have plenty of strict environmental policies for manufacturing here so American made products are substantially better for the environment.
That means no Smartphones, tablets, tv’s, chart-plotter, depth finder, ipilot, most rods/reels/accessories, and this list goes on for miles. So if your that concerned, think big picture please! So we’ve regulated our own American companies to the point of not being able to manufacture here, but we continue to buy from over seas where there are no regulations and some how that makes it better for you when the “greenhouse” gasses are coming from the other side of the globe! Pull your heads out of the sand, what happens to the environment in China is affecting us here. Be American, buy American, save the planet!


----------



## EasternGlow (Nov 6, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> It was 36 here in south Texas this morning at 8am with sleet and snow flurries and will be in the mid 20’s tomorrow morning...that’s not global warming.


??? It's late Fall/early Winter, what might one expect?? It's not July.

BTW it's 85 degrees and raining right now in south florida. Does that mean anything to you for a concept so broad such as global warming?

Instantaneous weather reports that are appropriate for a season don't mean anything. Even ones that are not quite typical (which is what I suspect you're going to say), don't really mean anything. This is a long term deal here. I always laugh when people say "look how cold it is!" from Minnesota in January.


----------



## EasternGlow (Nov 6, 2015)

Boatbrains said:


> Allow me to interject...
> for those of you that are so concerned with global warming that you want to regulate and/or ban farting here is a suggestion!
> Start buying only American made products! We have plenty of strict environmental policies for manufacturing here so American made products are substantially better for the environment.
> That means no Smartphones, tablets, tv’s, chart-plotter, depth finder, ipilot, most rods/reels/accessories, and this list goes on for miles. So if your that concerned, think big picture please! So we’ve regulated our own American companies to the point of not being able to manufacture here, but we continue to buy from over seas where there are no regulations and some how that makes it better for you when the “greenhouse” gasses are coming from the other side of the globe! Pull your heads out of the sand, what happens to the environment in China is affecting us here. Be American, buy American, save the planet!


Sounds like a start!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

EasternGlow said:


> ??? It's late Fall/early Winter, what might one expect?? It's not July.
> 
> BTW it's 85 degrees and raining right now in south florida. Does that mean anything to you for a concept so broad such as global warming?
> 
> Instantaneous weather reports that are appropriate for a season don't mean anything. Even ones that are not quite typical (which is what I suspect you're going to say), don't really mean anything. This is a long term deal here. I always laugh when people say "look how cold it is!" from Minnesota in January.


Where do you live? I’ve been in Texas almost 4 decades and it’s no hotter than it was in the 80’s. What’s up with the smartass comment? I know what season it is.


----------



## EasternGlow (Nov 6, 2015)

Florida. I just don't understand why people say it's cold during a time of year when it's supposed to be cold. How does that support non-global warming?


----------



## EasternGlow (Nov 6, 2015)

And you're right, a little unnecessary on my part. My B.


----------



## Scrather (Mar 12, 2018)

EdK13 said:


> Here we are, thirty years after the klaxon, and life is better, or at least no worse, as far as environmental conditions are concerned. Whatever trouble we had from global cooling, or rather global warming, was not that bothersome. We discovered there are plenty more pressing problems to worry about.


Wildfires. 43 dead in one a few days ago.
The Great Barrier Reef - about 50% die off.
Rocky Mountains - hundreds of thousands of acres of forests destroyed by forest pests.

These problems worry me. 

Climate change also worries the USA military:
Since January 2017, 18 senior officials at the U.S. Defense Department (DoD) have raised concerns about, and recommended actions to address, the security implications of climate change, both due to its effect on military infrastructure, readiness and operations, and its broader geostrategic implications for the United States.

This includes Secretary of Defense, James Mattis; Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul J. Selva; Secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer; Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Joseph Lengyel; Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment (IE&E), Lucian L. Niemeyer; Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, R.D. James; Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations, Energy, and the Environment, Phyllis L. Bayer; Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, and Energy, John Henderson; Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Glenn Walters; Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Bill Moran; Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, General Stephen Wilson; Army Vice Chief of Staff, General James McConville, AFRICOM Commander General Thomas D. Waldhauser, Air Force Director of Civil Engineers, Major General Timothy Green, nominee for NORTHCOM/ NORAD Commander, General Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy, Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment, Alex Beehler, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, General Robert McMahon. The DoD also produced a survey report on the matter in January 2018.

Why wouldn’t I save energy and money by using LED bulbs? Why not look at where I can reduce my fossil fuel use and still do the things I like doing? That’s one reason in fact that I really like Microskiff...it’s a big difference from my old 12 gph 200hp Suzi. And you know what? I hope you are right and those of us that believe it is a problem are wrong. But based on the data I’ll be putting my wish to get a Dodge with a sweet Cummins in it on hold. And I think it is fantastic that Texas is the number one wind energy state in the nation. And I’m fine with minimizing the hard earned dollars I send to to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela buying fuel.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2018)

Scrather said:


> Wildfires. 43 dead in one a few days ago.
> The Great Barrier Reef - about 50% die off.
> Rocky Mountains - hundreds of thousands of acres of forests destroyed by forest pests.
> 
> ...


Well, that big Cummins is a safer bet for the environment that the smallest gasser car on the streets so go agead and get ya one! 
All that info but ya didn’t know diesels are cleaner than gas...
Climate change is real and I don’t think that’s being disputed, what is being disputed is the fact that we humans think we have any say over the matter!


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)




----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

That is, as they say, subject to change as per the points and levels of the population and the degree to which its a high trust society.


----------



## Scrather (Mar 12, 2018)

The Cummins gets better mileage which unfortunately (for me) is very different from being cleaner, but I appreciate the encouragement! The NOx and particulates of diesel are way worse than gas. In terms of climate change being human caused, ive spent near thirty years cleaning up human caused environmental contamination so it is easy for me to look at the data and conclude that yes, there is natural variation but not near enough to explain what’s happening and how fast it is happening. I don’t miss my gas guzzler outboard and like I said I don’t usually wish to be wrong but in the case of climate change it would make me very happy to be wrong! Tight lines!


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

So your saying NOx is worse than co as far as our environment goes??? And the particulate that pretty much ends up on the ground and back into the earth where it came from is worse than the crap gasoline produces? Please educate me as I am just an uneducated mechanic and builder!


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

Let’s not forget that gasoline produces NOx also!


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2012)

Isn't it illogical to worry about converting to LED bulbs and then burn fuel to tow a boat to the ramp and then cruise around burning still more fuel?

The problem is that everyone wants easy solutions to hard problems. LED bulbs are easy and feel good, but the fact is that easy isn't going to solve the problem, only distract from taking serious, effective action.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

Vertigo said:


> Isn't it illogical to worry about converting to LED bulbs and then burn fuel to tow a boat to the ramp and then cruise around burning still more fuel?
> 
> The problem is that everyone wants easy solutions to hard problems. LED bulbs are easy and feel good, but the fact is that easy isn't going to solve the problem, only distract from taking serious, effective action.


I use led because of the low amp draw and longevity of them but I am a dirty conservative lol! You make a great point Vertigo!


----------



## Scrather (Mar 12, 2018)

Basically any reduction in fossil fuel use reduces the problem, so why not? Just because my action doesn’t eliminate the whole problem isn’t going to stop me from taking action. I like diesels, I’ve owned diesels, I’ve worked on diesels. I read the science and make my decisions and decided that for the 1% of the time I actually need to tow I can’t justify owning one. As far as illogical goes sport fishing takes the cake and fly fishing, which I love, is just plain nuts, almost as illogical as spending a whole bunch of time and money turning a rusty hunk of metal back into a truck.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

Scrather said:


> Basically any reduction in fossil fuel use reduces the problem, so why not? Just because my action doesn’t eliminate the whole problem isn’t going to stop me from taking action. I like diesels, I’ve owned diesels, I’ve worked on diesels. I read the science and make my decisions and decided that for the 1% of the time I actually need to tow I can’t justify owning one. As far as illogical goes sport fishing takes the cake and fly fishing, which I love, is just plain nuts, almost as illogical as spending a whole bunch of time and money turning a rusty hunk of metal back into a truck.


I can agree with this! I wasn’t arguing the reason, I’m just what I’d call a diesel advocate I suppose. Even made my own fuel for a while before buying my little place, might start again though... I love the smell of french fries! And I’m not talkin bout’ bio, I burn straight heated veg!


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

yobata said:


> You are correct, one day or a week is not global warming.
> 
> Since you are all experts here I guess the following link is a moot post
> https://climate.nasa.gov/


Anyone else bother to read the current facts and data instead of giving opinions on global warming?


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2012)

Politicians pander to the believers on one side or the other of the climate debate and since politicians control grant money, grants go to scientists who will do research that will validate what ever facts the grantors desire. Today, climate science is so politicized it's hard to know what to believe. In the words of my favorite uncle, "I believe I'll have another beer."


----------



## Edfish (Jan 4, 2013)

When someone titles a thread like this, I lean towards the assumption they are more interested in shouting their opinion than open-minded discussion or looking for information. Lots of internet space for folks' opinions, but also lots of important work to do.


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

Scrather said:


> Basically any reduction in fossil fuel use reduces the problem, so why not? Just because my action doesn’t eliminate the whole problem isn’t going to stop me from taking action. I like diesels, I’ve owned diesels, I’ve worked on diesels. I read the science and make my decisions and decided that for the 1% of the time I actually need to tow I can’t justify owning one. As far as illogical goes sport fishing takes the cake and fly fishing, which I love, is just plain nuts, almost as illogical as spending a whole bunch of time and money turning a rusty hunk of metal back into a truck.


I was under the impression that modern diesels produced fewer emmissions than gas? Is that not the case?


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

Edfish said:


> When someone titles a thread like this, I lean towards the assumption they are more interested in shouting their opinion than open-minded discussion or looking for information. Lots of internet space for folks' opinions, but also lots of important work to do.


Give a shout out to Briggs and critique the substance sometime. If that's your thing. Open mindedness and Science in the same bed. Is that Scientism I or II?
Here is more for the interested to ponder. https://stream.org/noaa-whistleblower-claims-global-warming-data-improperly-adjusted/


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

SomaliPirate said:


> I was under the impression that modern diesels produced fewer emmissions than gas? Is that not the case?


Except for VW diesels, think its true.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

SomaliPirate said:


> I was under the impression that modern diesels produced fewer emmissions than gas? Is that not the case?


Yes but not if I get a hold of one and delete all that treehugger crap so it puts out some real torque and horsepower. All that nonsense is a joke.


----------



## Scrather (Mar 12, 2018)

Diesel = lower CO2 emissions but higher NOx and particulate emissions. That is a broad generalization and specific comparisons will of course vary. VW put huge investment towards cleaning the emissions but ultimately were not able to engineer a solution that didn’t sap a lot of power from their engines and so they went down that slippery slope and committed their enormous fraud. The fraud also involved their Audi and Porsche brands, and also led to the discovery that other auto makers were also cheating. The VW NOx emissions were 40 times larger than they claimed for their engines. VW has now pivoted to major investment in electric cars. I’m very curious to see the pickup Tesla is promising, although it will be out of my price range.


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

and while the "civilized world" is wringing its hands and doing everything possible to clean up their emissions... The rest of the world is too busy just trying get three meals a day - and maybe, just maybe improve their living standards. The last thing the "third world" is concerned with... is pollution and all the other ills that the modern world has spawned. In fact, if I remember correctly all those well meaning climate accords - specifically exclude the places where most of the emissions are coming from... 

One hundred years ago places like London were so badly polluted that it definitely affected life span on average. That sort of stuff is still occurring in developing countries.... I think emission standards are a good thing - but I don't think that our standards mean much when the rest of the world is barely getting by (if you can call it that...).


----------



## GullsGoneWild (Dec 16, 2014)

lemaymiami said:


> One hundred years ago places like London were so badly polluted that it definitely affected life span on average. That sort of stuff is still occurring in developing countries.... I think emission standards are a good thing - but I don't think that our standards mean much when the rest of the world is barely getting by (if you can call it that...).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

Going back to a previous debate about "settled science" and climate change dogma that's risen in the politicized scientific and media communities...

Focus on this quote if you take the time to read any of the posting linked below:
_"Most commentators appear to have been content to rely on what was said in the press release. *However, being a scientist, I thought it appropriate to read the paper itself, and if possible look at its data, before forming a view.*"

https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/_

And if you don't bother reading it...here is the conclusion:

*CONCLUSIONS*
_The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming.

Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected.

Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.

But perhaps that is too much to hope for._


----------



## Scrather (Mar 12, 2018)

I wouldn’t base a personal conclusion in a field as broad as climate science on one or two or ten flawed papers out of the many thousands that have been published. But thanks for linking to Dr. Curry, she is impressive. 

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

Climate skeptics have seized on Curry's statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry.

When scientists translate statistical jargon into comprehensible language, they necessarily oversimplify it, giving the impression of glossing over nuance. The public gets cartoon versions of climate theories, which are easily refuted.


----------



## crboggs (Mar 30, 2015)

Scrather said:


> I wouldn’t base a personal conclusion in a field as broad as climate science on one or two or ten flawed papers out of the many thousands that have been published. But thanks for linking to Dr. Curry, she is impressive.


There was a previous discussion where some of us here on the board debated "settled science" and the impact of climate change dogma in academic and political circles. This was simply an example of why I argued strenuously that science is never settled and that its dangerous to assume that it is. Its a good example of how a vast majority took the results at face value and didn't exercise strenuous peer review because the conclusion of the paper supported and potentially favored / furthered that same dogma. A self fulfilling prophecy...if you will...

Dr. Curry left her position at Georgia Tech because she felt science was being co-opted. Her open letter is a good read. I only really know about her because I'm a GT grad and her resignation was discussed in GT circles. She's not the type you normally hear about in mainstream channels...as she doesn't always support the narrative...


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)




----------



## topnative2 (Feb 22, 2009)

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/09/scientist-sea-level-rise-alarmism/


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

My favorite new breathless topic being tried out on local PBS radio.... “climate migration”... The thesis is that large population movements will occur over time after climate changes - as though they just discovered this possibility after all of human history points to this having always been the case since our species first was able to follow game animals or move to places that were warmer or had more water...

I find myself laughing (it’s better than crying...).


----------



## topnative2 (Feb 22, 2009)

I gotch a question:

If the icebergs melt and there be more water would that mean more rain on da land and, if there be more rain , would that not lower the water levels and make the desserts green again??? 
I be meaning to asked thet question for a wee while? I thunk that et would mean more waterfront property which would be good for the real estate folks and the tax bases for the guberment.


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

One of the most promising areas for archaeology these days.... is underwater villages and other important places where people lived hundreds and thousands of years ago... Kind of makes you wonder since current forecast (always 30 to 50 years away...) -very conveniently fail to mention all things that happened long before “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever the current catch phrase is today or tomorrow (or whenever...).


----------



## mtoddsolomon (Mar 25, 2015)

Is nobody concerned that the EARTH IS FLAT????


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

Here's "science".


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2019)




----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

and of course... after all is said and done - "climate change, climate emergency, global warming, etc." is still a lot more about politics than science...


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

The moon landing was a hoax


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)




----------



## jasonrl23 (Jul 27, 2009)

lemaymiami said:


> One of the most promising areas for archaeology these days.... is underwater villages and other important places where people lived hundreds and thousands of years ago... Kind of makes you wonder since current forecast (always 30 to 50 years away...) -very conveniently fail to mention all things that happened long before “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever the current catch phrase is today or tomorrow (or whenever...).


One of my favorites recently is the forest discovered a quarter mile in the gulf off of Alabama. A hurricane uncovered it a few years back. Perfectly preserved, not caused by man, but does point out that the ocean has been rising for a while.


----------



## jasonrl23 (Jul 27, 2009)

lemaymiami said:


> My favorite new breathless topic being tried out on local PBS radio.... “climate migration”...
> 
> I find myself laughing (it’s better than crying...).


Im hedging my bet that another Maunder Minimum is on the way. Nasa warned of it with little coverage from the media.

Explains a lot of the extreme winter weather. This year will be bad. Next year will be worse. If we see an extended pause, Florida property values are going to sky rocket.


----------



## MSG (Jan 11, 2010)

Wow - must be another conspiracy story- the 90 plus percent of the scientific community agreeing must be out to get us - and this from a group that is supposed to supportive of the environment


----------



## MSG (Jan 11, 2010)

oh - even more news just today form the United Nations - again - must be a giant worldwide conspiracy - you guys can't possibly believe this???? Really??? How is it possible - are we really in a day and age when facts and agreement by the vast majority of the scientific worldwide community doesn't matter. Will you continue to believe the 1 percenters - does that make any sense??


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

MSG said:


> oh - even more news just today form the United Nations - again - must be a giant worldwide conspiracy - you guys can't possibly believe this???? Really??? How is it possible - are we really in a day and age when facts and agreement by the vast majority of the scientific worldwide community doesn't matter. Will you continue to believe the 1 percenters - does that make any sense??


It's ok you have your opinion so can you answer how the Sahara desert became so dry if the water is rising, because it was once under water?

I don't disagree with all of the banter but I am skeptical as the timeframes being used are a big as a pimple on a ducks azz in the big scheme.


----------



## MSG (Jan 11, 2010)

my final word on this post - over 90% of scientists around the world agree - this is a crisis. If all the experts generally agree, then why should you try to justify it with loopholes? If they are correct and we do not do anything - we are in big trouble. If they are wrong and we still do something about it - we are no worse off. Which one of these sounds like the safe bet???


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

MSG said:


> my final word on this post - over 90% of scientists around the world agree - this is a crisis. If all the experts generally agree, then why should you try to justify it with loopholes? If they are correct and we do not do anything - we are in big trouble. If they are wrong and we still do something about it - we are no worse off. Which one of these sounds like the safe bet???


I would argue that it doesn't matter either way because nobody is going to voluntarily go back to a neolithic way of life. The developing world is going to continue to burn fossil fuels and produce plastic for the foreseeable future. Good luck telling China to stop eating meat, making plastic straws, driving cars etc. Everybody just calm down and go fishing. Maybe we will be snook fishing off Montauk, maybe not.


----------



## FlyBy (Jul 12, 2013)

MSG said:


> over 90% of scientists around the world agree - this is a crisis.


False.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

MSG said:


> my final word on this post - over 90% of scientists around the world agree - this is a crisis. If all the experts generally agree, then why should you try to justify it with loopholes? If they are correct and we do not do anything - we are in big trouble. If they are wrong and we still do something about it - we are no worse off. Which one of these sounds like the safe bet???


This is a blatant lie! Explain this
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11...d-to-hiding-from-climate-thuggery-in-germany/

In an attempt to explain it, a little understanding might help

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ay-your-freedom-of-speech-or-we-wont-be-free/


----------



## Scrather (Mar 12, 2018)

Ok Dicknut, you keep accusing people, including me, of lying. Let me say you, and your two masters degrees have their pants on fire lol. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-hear. Go ahead, keep quoting a lawyer with $200,000 in funding from the Koch brothers as your climate expert. Ok boomer?


----------



## BobGee (Apr 10, 2019)

FlyBy said:


> False.[/QUOTE
> Real


----------



## Kevin Booker (May 25, 2016)

Why are people so scared of science? It’s so silly that people just refuse to accept the facts of science but put there faith in stuff that’s unsound. Don’t get vaccinated, causes Autism, earth is not getting hotter because of us, it’s just natural, etc.


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)

People don't fully trust science because it can be tainted by someone's agenda.


----------



## Frank Ucci (Jan 20, 2019)

Here's an interesting website for those interested in historic sea level trends from locations around the world. Most locations are recording a rise in sea levels of around 3/4 of an inch every 10 years. (Be advised that I've been cautioned by "experts" in the field, that these numbers are not reliable and that advanced computer modeling predicts a much more devastating trend.) Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents


----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)

MSG said:


> my final word on this post - over 90% of scientists around the world agree - this is a crisis. If all the experts generally agree, then why should you try to justify it with loopholes? If they are correct and we do not do anything - we are in big trouble. If they are wrong and we still do something about it - we are no worse off. Which one of these sounds like the safe bet???





Kevin Booker said:


> Why are people so scared of science? It’s so silly that people just refuse to accept the facts of science but put there faith in stuff that’s unsound. Don’t get vaccinated, causes Autism, earth is not getting hotter because of us, it’s just natural, etc.


Maybe just maybe there is an agenda for the advancement of their precious "one world order" re: Bush senior constantly referred to the "inevitability" of the advent of the one world order. Climate change happens, it always has, and always will. Liars can and will lie about the numbers. Vaccines DO contain Thimerosal in multi-dose vial configuration, and do contain may hundreds of percent greater neurotoxins than are considered safe for adults. Many kids have been irreparably damaged by vaccines. Anyway, back to "climate change". 16-year old girls getting hysterical in public about the ruinous effects of humans on the climate are just more propaganda i.e. "tell a big enough lie often enough and people will believe it" is true. Scientists can be bought and paid for, thru the threat of losing their jobs and funding for the scientific "research" if said research does not toe the line so to speak and reflect what "they" want the numbers to say...

*For example, CO2 is a natural component of air, and is also taken by all plant life on earth, while plant life gives off O2 in return so maybe we could focus on a useful and possible solution of just restoring the worlds rain forests that have been decimated?* Which would then go much farther towards realistic measures to measurably enhance nature's ability to actually remediate egregious attacks on the environment? Maybe get all the nations of the world to stop nuclear arms proliferation and testing? How much damage has been done with that non-sense? So why is it that IF there REALLY IS a major life-threatening problem with global warming, does not the world get together to do something constructive about it? Kyoto protocols are just barn-storming bullshit. 

One thing for sure: if the only nation-state on the planet is the US of A getting involved in tax boon-doggles to fix "global warming" or "climate change" and China + all the other polluters do not do anything at all to correct their issues, there will be no benefit to be realized except of course, the agenda of the globalist elite will be served once again. Care to go back to the stone age? That is what it would take to completely erase any effect man has upon the environment.


----------



## Kevin Booker (May 25, 2016)

commtrd said:


> Maybe just maybe there is an agenda for the advancement of their precious "one world order" re: Bush senior constantly referred to the "inevitability" of the advent of the one world order. Climate change happens, it always has, and always will. Liars can and will lie about the numbers. Vaccines DO contain Thimerosal in multi-dose vial configuration, and do contain may hundreds of percent greater neurotoxins than are considered safe for adults. Many kids have been irreparably damaged by vaccines. Anyway, back to "climate change". 16-year old girls getting hysterical in public about the ruinous effects of humans on the climate are just more propaganda i.e. "tell a big enough lie often enough and people will believe it" is true. Scientists can be bought and paid for, thru the threat of losing their jobs and funding for the scientific "research" if said research does not toe the line so to speak and reflect what "they" want the numbers to say...
> 
> *For example, CO2 is a natural component of air, and is also taken by all plant life on earth, while plant life gives off O2 in return so maybe we could focus on a useful and possible solution of just restoring the worlds rain forests that have been decimated?* Which would then go much farther towards realistic measures to measurably enhance nature's ability to actually remediate egregious attacks on the environment? Maybe get all the nations of the world to stop nuclear arms proliferation and testing? How much damage has been done with that non-sense? So why is it that IF there REALLY IS a major life-threatening problem with global warming, does not the world get together to do something constructive about it? Kyoto protocols are just barn-storming bullshit.
> 
> One thing for sure: if the only nation-state on the planet is the US of A getting involved in tax boon-doggles to fix "global warming" or "climate change" and China + all the other polluters do not do anything at all to correct their issues, there will be no benefit to be realized except of course, the agenda of the globalist elite will be served once again. Care to go back to the stone age? That is what it would take to completely erase any effect man has upon the environment.


I don’t think it’s about going back to the Stone Age, think it is about not accelerating the natural process and upsetting the balance. It’s like saying that fresh water always flows into the ocean so it has nothing to do with the algae blooms. In the 20 years that I’ve been fishing Florida’s coasts, there’s been a ridiculous level of degradation and water quality and seagrass. Is this just natural? There are a lot of components that are contributing to the issue. Deforestation is a major part of the problem. As are things like nuclear testing. I don’t think you can dismiss the fact that these countries and corporations have had a MAJOR impact on the environment.


----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)

Well of course big sugar is at the root of the destruction of the everglades, but there is more than that: excessive population growth, and bought-paid-for politicians. That kind of thing is so blatantly obvious but seemingly beyond the ability of regular people to try to get fixed. Big money always carries a big stick. That is the kind of issue that 16 year old morons should be screaming about. For that matter, where is the outrage against all the chem-trails that are being sprayed on all of us daily?!?


----------



## 7WT (Feb 12, 2016)

Don't forget that Florida is the 3rd largest producer of phosphate in the world- the other three are countries: China, Morocco and 4th Russia. Florida contributes over 25% (US:32 million metric tons) of the worlds phosphate per year, 75% of US fertilizer! For every ton there are 5 tons of radioactive waste stored above ground. Radioactive water is pumped back into the aquifers-nice! not to mention millions and millions of gallons of radioactive water pouring into phosphate generated sink holes, abandoned phosphate mines (Piney Point-Tampa bay)and their leaching pollutants all owned by Mosaic- the worlds largest Phosphate company with corporate headquarters in Tampa.


----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)

Wow did not know about those phosphate producers. Sounds like a perfect recipe for disaster right there. Big sugar + big phosphate? Shit you guys are screwed. Ever suspect there is a major corporate conspiracy to rape burn and pillage? Well its just like that.


----------



## Kevin Booker (May 25, 2016)

Mosaic rules the roost over there. Mega Corp.


----------



## FlyBy (Jul 12, 2013)

If that statement is true someone or some organization identified, located, and polled EVERY scientist in the world. How likely is that?
I see a lot of posts concerning pollution on this thread. Let's not confuse pollution with global warming. Pollution is a real problem.


----------



## Kevin Booker (May 25, 2016)

It is a huge problem. Like you said it’s hard to believe that there’s a global conspiracy of that magnitude in the scientific community.


----------



## FlyBy (Jul 12, 2013)

Kevin Booker said:


> It is a huge problem. Like you said it’s hard to believe that there’s a global conspiracy of that magnitude in the scientific community.


Yeah, the "consensus" argument is a Democrat talking point and demonstrably untrue.


----------



## 7WT (Feb 12, 2016)

I don't know about global conspiracy- a lot simpler than that: money or to make it complicated, profit regardless of consequences


----------



## Snakesurf (Jun 18, 2019)

If you believe the current media, then you are an idiot. On February 15, 1898, the USS Maine exploded in the Havana Harbor. Although there was no evidence that the Spanish were responsible, yellow newspapers such as William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal whipped Americans into frenzy by claiming that Spain's "secret infernal machine" had destroyed the battleship. Soon after, the easily influenced President McKinley declared war, sending troops not only to Cuba but also to the Philippines, Spain's sprawling colony on the other side of the world. The point is they will make up a story if there is none; so they have something to report. If you wanted government money in your college departments, NASA and whatever then you had to call it research into global warming.

The real problem with all of this is that it is taking the public eyes off the real problem, "Global populations", there are just too many people on the habitable land of the planet. There is going to be too many people in the near future and they need a solution. I am not going to speculate or predict but you can come up with a pretty good conclusion and I don't think anyone is going to be wrong. Homosexuals don't reproduce along with advanced societies that will soon be replaced by religious theologies and third world country refugies that will "out breed them". The truth is cruel and it is going down right now in front of you. Global warming ain't shit.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

The world needs and people will get extra nasty if reasonably affordable power isn’t available and that need is only going to continue to grow. With all the digital everything and information storage, all that requires tremendous amounts of electricity. Rising middle classes in China, India and other places just burn more fossil fuels to do what people with more money do, buy stuff, take trips, etc. 

It’s completely delusional to think all those always on power needs are going to be met with non-CO2 emitting renewables. If CO2 is what the science says, world output needs to be cut in half to just stay at break even levels. And with the trend away from Nuclear power, just forget about falling CO2. 450 ppm CO2 is baked into the numbers. We will be there in 15 +/- years. We will all get to see if the CO2 is really the devil. 

Non-CO2 emitting power generation, power for transportation, the science just isn’t there yet, especially with the current Nuclear generation being largely phased out. 

We are all stuck with fossil fuels whether we like it or not, but setting aside the CO2 issue, there’s the whole other science of how much recoverable fossil fuels remain? 200 years? 300, 400 years what’s the number. Surely the number isn’t infinite. What then when oil, natural gas, and coal is all but gone? A better way to pull hydrogen from water or the air? Nuclear fusion reactors? Some crazy good and cheap batteries for storing solar power? 

If we have to move cities for rising seas, that can be done. We really have no problem growing enough food. I really doubt a Hot as the Triassic world is anything that will defeat humanity. 

Having a serious power shortage, that’s something that could really bring humanity to its knees. Handing over the keys to the kingdom to the “enlightened elites”, that’s truly frightening. Aside from the multitude of sincere people concerned about climate change, most of the people making the most noise over it only really want your money and your power. They look to curtail any individual freedoms to benefit some collective new order these elites have invested in where they call the shots. 

The conspiracy of the new world order set to dominate every aspect of everything, all the time, and their sinister desire to reduce the vast majority of mankind to serfdom is far more of a potential calamity than whatever Climate change does or doesn’t dole out.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Snakesurf said:


> If you believe the current media, then you are an idiot. On February 15, 1898, the USS Maine exploded in the Havana Harbor. Although there was no evidence that the Spanish were responsible, yellow newspapers such as William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal whipped Americans into frenzy by claiming that Spain's "secret infernal machine" had destroyed the battleship. Soon after, the easily influenced President McKinley declared war, sending troops not only to Cuba but also to the Philippines, Spain's sprawling colony on the other side of the world. The point is they will make up a story if there is none; so they have something to report. If you wanted government money in your college departments, NASA and whatever then you had to call it research into global warming.
> 
> The real problem with all of this is that it is taking the public eyes off the real problem, "Global populations", there are just too many people on the habitable land of the planet. There is going to be too many people in the near future and they need a solution. I am not going to speculate or predict but you can come up with a pretty good conclusion and I don't think anyone is going to be wrong. Homosexuals don't reproduce along with advanced societies that will soon be replaced by religious theologies and third world country refugies that will "out breed them". The truth is cruel and it is going down right now in front of you. Global warming ain't shit.


This guy gets it, glad some of you are awake! Subversion is their weapon.


----------



## slewis (Sep 8, 2015)

Snakesurf said:


> If you believe the current media, then you are an idiot. On February 15, 1898, the USS Maine exploded in the Havana Harbor. Although there was no evidence that the Spanish were responsible, yellow newspapers such as William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal whipped Americans into frenzy by claiming that Spain's "secret infernal machine" had destroyed the battleship. Soon after, the easily influenced President McKinley declared war, sending troops not only to Cuba but also to the Philippines, Spain's sprawling colony on the other side of the world. The point is they will make up a story if there is none; so they have something to report. If you wanted government money in your college departments, NASA and whatever then you had to call it research into global warming.
> 
> The real problem with all of this is that it is taking the public eyes off the real problem, "Global populations", there are just too many people on the habitable land of the planet. There is going to be too many people in the near future and they need a solution. I am not going to speculate or predict but you can come up with a pretty good conclusion and I don't think anyone is going to be wrong. Homosexuals don't reproduce along with advanced societies that will soon be replaced by religious theologies and third world country refugies that will "out breed them". The truth is cruel and it is going down right now in front of you. Global warming ain't shit.


----------



## 7WT (Feb 12, 2016)

In the early 1970's I took a course called Euthenics most of which discussed the worlds population explosion. Paul Erhlicks The Population Bomb was one of the books we read. That was 1974. He was right of course in principle. Most people then poo poo'd it. Today perhaps the same with global warming. I don't disagree with a lot of the conversations here regarding control and world orders or irresponsible media. But I also see and recognize certain facts. For me in the 1070's I recognized the population problem/crisis. Today I recognize acidification of the oceans as a consequence of CO2 other and "global warming" as the real and deadly culprit. Can we avert the acidification. Sure. Will we? Let me know.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...9ac4c8-9552-11e9-956a-88c291ab5c38_story.html

World population will peak at about 11 billion by 2100 if not sooner. Most regions have falling birth rates and I bet sub Saharan Africa will eventually get in line with the trend. As education increases, birth rates generally fall.


----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)

CO2 bad science. Nonsense. Look up in the sky and observe the massive chem-trails being sprayed every day everywhere. You cant hardly see a photograph in any media anymore that does not show chemtrails in the sky (if sky is in the image duh). 

So all you CO2 doom-and-gloomers please explain how the rabid bought-and-paid for focus on CO2 does not align with covert yet blatantly obvious military jets spraying these damned chemtrails on us 24-7-365? Which the gov denies they are doing to this day? Sometimes, it really is necessary to skeptically call out the official narrative and question the BS they are spewing. Rest assured, you can ALWAYS follow the money trail and get to the truth. Here's a great question: How DID humans manage to survive during the entire history without chemtrails being sprayed and knowledge of the evil CO2 scourge that will kill us all? I mean, all plant life on earth DID take in CO2 and give off O2 as a result of photosynthesis correct? Kinda like it STILL WORKS TO THIS DAY RIGHT? So exactly when pray tell was it that CO2 became a doomsday compound? And is it a stretch to then surmise that maybe the rampant abuse of the eco-systems of the entire planet in general and the rain forests deforestation in particular MAYBE have a little more to do with climate change than the enlightened elite would have you believe, and that furthermore, any supposed increase might then be a result of -not the cause of- the observed degradation of world eco-systems? 


FlyBy said:


> If that statement is true someone or some organization identified, located, and polled EVERY scientist in the world. How likely is that?
> I see a lot of posts concerning pollution on this thread. Let's not confuse pollution with global warming. Pollution is a real problem.


Nah nothing to see here sheeple. Move along, but buy into the false science bullshit first. After all, deranged idiot 16 yo girls gotta know WTF they're going off about right? Right.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

CO2, even at 410ppm plus, is still near the lows for the earth considering geologic time. Life thrived at 1,500ppm and there aren’t likely enough recoverable fossil fuels to reach that level. 
During the recent ice age, CO2 dropped to 180ppm. 150ppm is the minimum for most plant life. Talk about a near disaster, 30 ppm from the end of plant life on earth. CO2 has been sequestered by natural processes, the burying of plant and animal life for 100s of millions of years, we’ve just brought up some of that sequestered carbon and got it back into the atmosphere where it once was. 
There’s never been a static CO2 level or an unchanging global climate. Life forms adapt or perish to whatever the new regime is.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

No one has ever been on the moon, there’s no global warming other than a normal cycle, the seas aren’t rising...that’s all you guys need to know. Trauma based mind control. Don’t buy into it. Go fishing and pick up your trash.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Scrather said:


> Ok Dicknut, you keep accusing people, including me, of lying. Let me say you, and your two masters degrees have their pants on fire lol. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-hear. Go ahead, keep quoting a lawyer with $200,000 in funding from the Koch brothers as your climate expert. Ok boomer?


Sorry scathie another one of your FAKE stories as your link educates no one!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

It was chilly here today but I thought we would get a blast of heat from the rocket going up. I guess we will have to wait until tomorrow.

I am skeptical of the science models because they are only comparing the pointed end of the pin in the big picture. Once upon a time this planet was nothing but molten lava but somehow cooled down enough to allow life forms to exist. Now they are saying mankind is heating it up again.

The alarmists have been wrong for 50 years already. The father of the recent alarm Al Gore predicted the world would end in a decade last century.

If 3 out of 4 dentists recommend Crest, don't you think Crest would have 75% market share?


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

Both sides, the climate skeptics and the climate alarmists, are really arguing about the wrong thing. 

If the skeptics are right and nothing particularly serious or awful is in store from the 2.5-3 ppm increase in CO2 per year in the air, then let’s keep on keeping on until the fossils run out completely, whenever that is. 10-11 billion people, whatever the number tops out at, are going to need a lot of power then so whoever is around at the time better hope someone has figured out how to power everything when petroleum, natural gas, and coal are essentially gone. 

The alarmists cry about how the science on climate is so very dire and CO2 output must be cut to pre-industrial levels, but then give us nothing or very little as far as anything practical or workable to replace the absolutely mandatory and ever increasing need for power. As if wind, solar and hydroelectric are even close to filling in the gap. And half or more of the climate nuts hate wind and hydroelectric. Nuclear, out of the question. The world is about to end in 12 years, but don’t dare even bring up nuclear power, you know that awful source that’s killed dozens. 

No, their solution is to just shut it all down, air travel, ship and OTR transportation, invest in green, build solar capacity that covers the land mass of medium sized countries, massive tax hikes to pay for it all. An electric grid doesn’t work that relies mainly on wind and solar. There are already big problems here in Texas with a grid that gets around 15 percent of power from wind. Sometimes, the wind doesn’t blow and then there isn’t enough other spare capacity to meet the shortfall. Sorry, your life saving surgery has been canceled today, there’s no power. 

Half measures are the worst. CO2 keeps rising and you wreck the economy with idiotic power rationing and production plans. The worst of both worlds. But we must try, they say, it’s too important. This virtue signaling is going to get us all killed. 

Either we go all in, shut it all down, reduce CO2 output by something like 60% to begin dropping the number and try to get by in 18th century world or we keep on keeping on and get some sensible science on how to power all the stuff that needs powering.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

The sky is falling


----------



## Net 30 (Mar 24, 2012)

Sounds like the government officials in Monroe County take this threat a lot more serious than the non-believers on this thread.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-keys-deliver-hard-message-131505781.html


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)

I believe it would be much cheaper to berm off that 3 mile stretch of road and pump the water out than to raise the road. New Orleans pumps daily, mostly troublefree.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Net 30 said:


> Sounds like the government officials in Monroe County take this threat a lot more serious than the non-believers on this thread.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-keys-deliver-hard-message-131505781.html


So just because these government officials believe it it is true? Have you not caught on to the bullshit these officials spew yet?


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

commtrd said:


> Look up in the sky and observe the massive chem-trails being sprayed every day everywhere. You cant hardly see a photograph in any media anymore that does not show chemtrails in the sky (if sky is in the image duh).
> 
> So all you CO2 doom-and-gloomers please explain how the rabid bought-and-paid for focus on CO2 does not align with covert yet blatantly obvious military jets spraying these damned chemtrails on us 24-7-365?


I saw one today when SpaceX launched









and four came off this 4 engine plane!









don't be fooled, these are god's chem trails!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

yobata said:


> I saw one today when SpaceX launched
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Keep living with a closed mind and believing all the bullshit that’s being fed to you. I’m just speculating but bet you also believe we’ve been to the moon and JFK wasn’t a ******.


----------



## Net 30 (Mar 24, 2012)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> So just because these government officials believe it it is true? Have you not caught on to the bullshit these officials spew yet?


Sorry Dude. I choose to believe the hundreds of scientists, climatologists and environmentalists I've met during my life vs Breitbart and the other whacky conspiracy loonies out there. 

My god.....now it's chemtrails and phony moon landing conspiracies? That's some crazy shit.


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Keep living with a closed mind and believing all the bullshit that’s being fed to you. I’m just speculating but bet you also believe we’ve been to the moon and JFK wasn’t a ******.











My mind is protected by the Electro Fluxo 3000


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Net 30 said:


> Sorry Dude. I choose to believe the hundreds of scientists, climatologists and environmentalists I've met during my life vs Breitbart and the other whacky conspiracy loonies out there.
> 
> My god.....now it's chemtrails and phony moon landing conspiracies? That's some crazy shit.


Typical response, good luck with that.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

yobata said:


> I saw one today when SpaceX launched
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See, I told you guys yesterday we would have to wait one more day for it to heat up from the rocket fire.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Net 30 said:


> Sounds like the government officials in Monroe County take this threat a lot more serious than the non-believers on this thread.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-keys-deliver-hard-message-131505781.html


Sound like government officials in Monroe counties are pussies and are afraid to questions about information being rammed down their throats.

Also, the people with the deck 18 feet above the water are overly dramatic. The boards that got dislodged are from a direct hit of a hurricane, not rising water.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

Stories like the one in Monroe county, FLA or the recent historic flooding in Venice, Italy will likely be more common as the years flow by. Yes, it seems rather dumb to try to dump millions of taxpayer money into a roadway serving just a few people, as it appears to be in the Monroe county story. 

But it’s no good wringing hands over or gnashing one’s teeth. CO2 is now at Pliocene levels and things were much warmer then and the sea levels much higher. So if CO2 levels do actually correlate to global temperatures and global temperatures determine sea levels then plenty of places will be flooding over the next few decades as more glacial ice in Greenland and Antarctica melts. 

There’s no changing CO2 levels. They certainly aren’t going to decrease. Now, it’s just what will be the annual increase, 2 or 3 ppm. Take it seriously or not, the ships, trucks, and airplanes, the Air conditioners, the computer servers, the computer cloud, do you really think that’s all just going to grind to a halt? Give me a freaking break. Talk about delusional. Explain how that stuff all gets run without huge amounts of CO2 output production. You can’t, because it isn’t possible with the current technology and without a huge increase in reliance on nuclear power. 

The science on CO2 is either a bunch of cr*p or there’s actually something to it. 

It won’t be anyone’s fault if the CO2 science is right because there really isn’t anything remotely ready to go other than nuclear power. If anyone is to blame, it’s the people behind the disinformation propagated on Nuclear power and the weird fear of Nuclear power that so many buy into.


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

We’ve never been to the moon? Somebody tell these guys.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100413-apollo15-LRRR.html

Chem trails? 

Rising sea levels? As long as the glaciers over rock don’t melt, right? That’s how ice floats, when frozen it displaces more volume than liquid water - but when ice melts over land...

Global warming is too politically charged, but you nay sayers please explain to me the difference in isotopic carbon to convince me otherwise. Be nice, I don’t want to fight, but am willing to learn.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Don’t believe everything you see on a screen. I mean, you can if you want.


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Don’t believe everything you see on a screen. I mean, you can if you want.


I don’t....at least I think so. Lol.


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)




----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/10/28/the-electric-grid-in-the-digital-age/

A little perspective on electric power and where it comes from, things that work and don’t work.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Probably smart to Google the author Mark Mills and his background before reading the link directly above. And while you’re at it, the political bias of National Review. A ton of red flags here. Koch Bros/big oil think tank propaganda.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

https://www.desmogblog.com/mark-p-mills

*Background*
Mark Mills has been President of Digital Power Group since 2001 and operates the website Tech-Pundit.com. He is a Faculty Fellow at the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a Strategic Partner at Cottonwood Venture Partners, an investment firm focused on technological advancements in oil and gas production.


----------



## southerncannuck (Jun 27, 2016)

Dpreston said:


> Probably smart to Google the author Mark Mills and his background before reading the link directly above. And while you’re at it, the political bias of National Review. A ton of red flags here. Koch Bros/big oil think tank propaganda.


 What? Are you implying that the world’s biggest money making business would stoop so low as to employ propagandists to sow confusion?


----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)

Chemtrails are not rocket engine exhaust, jet engine contrails, but ARE covert US military operations aimed at climate geoengineering. One would necessarily need to have the presence of mind to look up in the sky every day of the year and ask yourself "Why is it that the majority of the days, there are jets flying at very high altitudes, spraying these substances that stay suspended in the air for many hours, slowly diffusing, such that there is no way this a jet contrail"? Why do we never hear or read one single thing about this? Yet obviously much money is being spent by some entity (US gov) to perpetuate this consistent spraying by military aircraft? What are they spraying? Are there any long-term systemic consequences as a result of this program? 

*This is not a conspiracy theory. There are several legitimate questions that can and should be asked, zero coverage of this program in any mass media, and there are a lot of answers available to those who would actually do some research.*

Now there are those who frequent internet forums who are lazy and inclined to buy into whatever the popular sewage stream is from the mass media on any given 5 minute time period. Fair enough. However, IF one cares about their health and well-being, and is inclined to actually observe what IS happening, AND then to actually dig into an issue for themselves, there is much information available from scientifically accredited and vetted sources. Unfortunately Joe Sixpack, with head buried firmly up his own goat-smelling butt, can see no further than the latest worthless sit-com on TV. Then make snidely remarks about those who actually do think for themselves.

Wake up people. Ask questions and do your own research. Maybe there REALLY IS something nefarious going on with the non-stop spraying of substances on all of us that we are not being told.


----------



## southerncannuck (Jun 27, 2016)

commtrd said:


> Chemtrails are not rocket engine exhaust, jet engine contrails, but ARE covert US military operations aimed at climate geoengineering. One would necessarily need to have the presence of mind to look up in the sky every day of the year and ask yourself "Why is it that the majority of the days, there are jets flying at very high altitudes, spraying these substances that stay suspended in the air for many hours, slowly diffusing, such that there is no way this a jet contrail"? Why do we never hear or read one single thing about this? Yet obviously much money is being spent by some entity (US gov) to perpetuate this consistent spraying by military aircraft? What are they spraying? Are there any long-term systemic consequences as a result of this program?
> 
> *This is not a conspiracy theory. There are several legitimate questions that can and should be asked, zero coverage of this program in any mass media, and there are a lot of answers available to those who would actually do some research.*
> 
> ...


I was an enroute air traffic controller for 30 years. I can tell you with certainty that there are no high altitude planes buzzing around spraying the planet for nefarious purposes.


----------



## LowHydrogen (Dec 31, 2015)

Jesus, this thread is something. Have you guys never slept through a science class.... I did, and still managed to retain a little. Vapors condensing at low pressure or low temps is not new and the govt didn't make it happen. Careful, if it's cold outside I bet the car in front of you will be spraying you with a effing CHEM-TRAIL!!!  ahhh run for the hills. Holy SHIT my Coke can is producing chemicals to control my mind right here in front of me, my beer did it last week and I just thought it was sweating from being tired, good thing I stumbled across this thread!

Airline people can't get bags from point A to point B, you think they could organize and execute a widespread, complex "spraying" operation, to impart mind control, human population growth, whatever else... If so, it's obviously not working, because you guys figured it out. The population is growing like crazy, and nobody is following the mind control. LOL

Also @Megalops quit being a sheep dude, Ice does not displace more than water, the govt put icebergs there to trick you into thinking that! They actually SINK, how else could they have hidden the part that sank the Titanic! See it all makes sense when you really think about it.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

Dpreston said:


> Probably smart to Google the author Mark Mills and his background before reading the link directly above. And while you’re at it, the political bias of National Review. A ton of red flags here. Koch Bros/big oil think tank propaganda.


Setting aside whether or not CO2 is the major problem (it likely is a problem as the science strongly suggests), how do you propose to generate all the power necessary plus fuel the all the ships, airplanes, trucks, etc. that the world runs on?

Supply a link to a study or some evidence that it can be done and get the CO2 emissions to the levels required to lower the numbers and I’ll gladly read and consider the evidence.


----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)

southerncannuck said:


> I was an enroute air traffic controller for 30 years. I can tell you with certainty that there are no high altitude planes buzzing around spraying the planet for nefarious purposes.


OK. I guess my eyes have been lying to me for several years then. I LOOK up into the sky and see these jets flying at extremely high altitudes, with white stuff coming out of their ass end, that is not coming out of the engines. AND this stuff stays suspended in the air for many hours at a time, AND it clearly diffuses slowly AND this diffusion IS NOT clouds, since most of the time there is NO CLOUD COVER AT ALL. Because they tend to spray heaviest after cold fronts, when there will be a high pressure behind the low, and it is near flat calm, and the sky is totally clear. If they are spraying in the summer, they will invariably choose days when the isobars are spaced very far apart. 

Now, if there WAS a covert operation going on (there is) would the government just come out and announce that?


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Don’t ever question anything, especially if is comes from someone wearing a lab coat, they are always correct! They’re working on global warming right now, don’t bother them.


----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)




----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)

Just a very small sampling of chemtrail images.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

People afraid of contrails or believe everything can run off a solar panel...the world might really be doomed.


----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)

OK now. For Mr. Air Traffic Controller: Please explain this to everyone. And IF 9-11 could have happened on a day when they conveniently scheduled aircraft invasion scenario response training, on the very day that 9-11 happened, couldn't they be spraying chemtrails and NOT under the control of air traffic controllers? Because this shit IS obviously happening.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Mankind is fucked because people are closed minded and believe everything they are told and see on their screens. Most of you are quick to call people conspiracy theorists but refuse to think for yourself and question anything. Just leave it to the experts, they have gotten us this far...what’s right is wrong and wrong is right. The subversion is almost complete.
All you have to do is review Microskiff and other boat forums and see how people are easily swayed into believing what they read is true with little or no first hand experience with it. People have been told so many times and read so many times that three blade props are speed props and four blade props are for holeshot that they believe it’s true. Same with immediately thinking adding a tunnel to a skiff makes it draft 2-3” more and knocks off 5-7mph. Anyone running a tunnel is tearing up more grass than a guy trying to save 1/8” of draft with a non tunnel and trenching grass flats with their prop. It amazes me...just keep believing what you read guys.


----------



## TexasSightcaster (Apr 4, 2019)

Don’t worry guys, i looked into it and it turns out they’re just trying to keep the mosquitoes under control.


----------



## southerncannuck (Jun 27, 2016)

I’m waiting for an anti vaxxer to chime in


----------



## jimsmicro (Oct 29, 2013)

I duno how I get drug into these insane threads but it's like a train wreck and I can't look away. Debating climate change deniers now days is akin to arguing with this dude above about chemtrails, or attending a "global" conference about how the earth is flat. A waste of breath.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

The sky is falling, the earth is heating up, better get out your snorkels. Trauma based mind control is working on most of you. Some of us are waking up. I’m out!


----------



## commtrd (Aug 1, 2015)

Absolutely correct. Just because a bunch of ate-up dickheads say it aint so it aint so. Look up in the sky. Next time yall see a bunch of chemtrails that stay up in the air for the next 8 hours, ask your super smart self "Why is it that jet contrail is staying there for the whole day, and BTW it is also diffusing and darn it, jet contrails (exhaust which is water vapor mostly) just does not do that"? Yeah you're right: it is obviously just mosquito control. Oh wait: it's just not happening at all! Just because it can be clearly seen day after day. Yeah that's it. And vaccinations never caused one single case of autism due to mercury poisoning. Next I suppose some Brainiac will say that Florida losing the everglades is not because of big sugar or over-population. And chump is obviously behind every bad thing that this country has ever done, while Obama was the savior. Right. You guys are just purely fucking amazing. I have learned so much from reading this non-sense. So is the earth really flat? Well I have to say I doubt it, just from observation at 40k feet but ya know cannot trust what you see at all. Guess I need to check with what the mo-rons have to say because well, yall obviously know every fucking thing there is to know. Obviously.


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)

The jets are replenishing the ozone


----------



## TexasSightcaster (Apr 4, 2019)

The mosquito thing was clearly a joke. Here’s where my skepticism with the whole chemtrail theory lies, if the government is poisoning us, aren’t they poisoning themselves? Don’t we live under the same sky, and breath the same air? Or are they walking around with oxygen tanks attached to them 24/7? You can believe what you want, truthfully, I couldn’t care less, but calling other people morons because they don’t agree with you, well that sounds a lot like a play from the lefts handbook.
As far as vaccines go, that’s another subject altogether. Andrew Wakefield, as it turns out, was paid by law firms who wanted to establish evidence that vaccines had hurt their children, so he started the whole modern “anti vax” movement (in a nut shell). Turns out, all the studies he did could never be duplicated and his paper to the British General Medical Center was retracted. There was a ton of evidence he falsified data to support his theory...etc. He ended up in disgrace and moved to my home town of Austin, Tx of all places. Now, the good that came from all this was that it got so much attention that vaccines were actually studied and improvements were made. So although Thimerosal (preservative that contains mercury) was deemed safe, it was reduced or even eliminated altogether from vaccines. So now, you can opt for the “preservative free” flu shot thanks to all this drama.

So, in a nut shell, “chemtrails” aren’t actually for mosquito control, and vaccines aren’t going to give your kids autism, but they will keep them from getting measles and mumps.


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

Hopefully this will protect me from the chemtrails.


----------



## LowHydrogen (Dec 31, 2015)

Megalops said:


> Hopefully this will protect me from the chemtrails.
> 
> View attachment 105920


Better lay off the draft beer and pickled eggs if you're gonna wear that rig. Dangerous!


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

Good grief, this thread may have become more entertaining than Go Mr. Prez.

The chem trail conspiracy theory is a show stopper!!


----------



## Net 30 (Mar 24, 2012)

I heard the gas causing the Chemtrails is actually coming out the asses of Big Foot, Yetis and Swamp Apes.


----------



## Scrather (Mar 12, 2018)

Orvis and Tibor have obviously invested in mind control spray. It is making me spend money on stuff that i dont need and which makes it harder to catch fish. The smell of bacon also makes me do stuff i wouldnt normally do, like be willing to wash dishes.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Dpreston said:


> https://www.desmogblog.com/mark-p-mills
> 
> *Background*
> Mark Mills has been President of Digital Power Group since 2001 and operates the website Tech-Pundit.com. He is a Faculty Fellow at the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a Strategic Partner at Cottonwood Venture Partners, an investment firm focused on technological advancements in oil and gas production.


You truly have an agenda! Calling you out!

In this post you are denouncing this guy as a biased scientist with alterior motives. 

In your post you want us to take your link as gospel and tried to shame me for questioning the link and your agenda.

I had a suspicion of your agenda when you posted the BS crap but it is so clear now and you don't even have a clue so far as to what I am talking about.

I'll spell it out so you can understand.

You tell us to believe the scientists who work for private money that the Everglades is in trouble and authors are God like beings. Then only one day into the future you say that the guy by the name of Mills is a bad guy who needs to be watched and discredited at all costs.

The God like scientists you worship are on the payroll of some sort of a quasi government organization by the name of National Academy of Sciences.

I know you want to get to the ending and a happy one at that. Hold on grasshopper because here it comes.

Mark Mills is a scientist with the exact same organization that you worship!

You have some esplainin to do!

If I am understanding you correctly Mills is a bad guy because he works with the Koch brothers and not Soros? Is this the case? You are not on his side of this scientific study and therefore it must be denounced at all costs?

Any way you slice it the organization I questioned and you tried shaming me has you completely snowballed and your BS agenda has never been brighter.

As many have stated this is the result when people are fed a line of shit and they are not capable of thinking rationally for themselves. They are not capable of listening to or gathering information from both sides of the story and make a responsible decision so they become sheep in a wolves world.


----------



## jasonrl23 (Jul 27, 2009)

BassFlats said:


> The jets are replenishing the ozone


Ha. I actually have a ozone machine for my house. Excellent way to control allergens.


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Dude you are out of your mind. Not even going to try to respond to that mess.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Dpreston said:


> Dude you are out of your mind. Not even going to try to respond to that mess.


Be specific. Who are you responding to?


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

Does it matter?


----------



## Dpreston (Oct 16, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Be specific. Who are you responding to?


In reference to Duck post directed at me above.


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

The lib billionaire behind chemtrails


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

Art Bell popularized the ChemTrail theory


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

N


yobata said:


> Art Bell popularized the ChemTrail theory


Nice Tool drop! You know the way to my heart.


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

Whiskey Angler said:


> N
> 
> 
> Nice Tool drop! You know the way to my heart.


I just recently found this although it was done many years ago


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

How dare you - You vill do as I says 






*hypocrite*
noun
hyp·o·crite | \ ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit \
*Definition of hypocrite*
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


----------



## Scrather (Mar 12, 2018)

I think grown men that call young girls names have insecurity issues. There are better ways to disagree with a young person.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2012)

Scrather said:


> I think grown men that call young girls names have insecurity issues. There are better ways to disagree with a young person.


What Trump actually tweeted. No names were called. “Greta must work on her anger management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!”

Greta Theunberg has been diagnosed with with Asperger's syndrome, OCD and selective mutism. The poor child is a puppet of radical leftist parents. Those leftists who have chosen to take advantage of Greta in service of their own agenda are the ones who have issues.


----------



## Scrather (Mar 12, 2018)

Vertigo, I was in no way referring to Trump in my post, it was the name calling of a young girl that goes on here. As far as her being a puppet what I have read is it is something she came up with on her own.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Scrather said:


> Vertigo, I was in no way referring to Trump in my post, it was the name calling of a young girl that goes on here. As far as her being a puppet what I have read is it is something she came up with on her own.


Do you believe everything you read?


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

It’s been done before. Also research her father’s history. Wake up. I post this before.


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

Scrather said:


> I think grown men that call young girls names have insecurity issues. There are better ways to disagree with a young person.


You libs are so predictable. An ugly little leftist runs around all over the world spouting crap that you agree with and you figure out reasons why people shouldn't say anything against her. But let a Covington Catholic kid stand somewhere with a smirk on his face and you guys are ready to kill him.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

That’s the trickery at work.


----------



## BobGee (Apr 10, 2019)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Do you believe everything you read?


Smack brings up a good point. I’m not brave enough to single out anyone’s post on this thread as being particularly looney, but I think we all should consider this: when you are on the internet, listening to AM radio, etc. remember that not everyone’s expertise is equal. There’s a big difference between trained, experienced scientists doing real, peer-reviewed science that’s published in refereed journals and junk science. Be careful and make sure you understand which you’re listening to.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

BobGee said:


> Smack brings up a good point. I’m not brave enough to single out anyone’s post on this thread as being particularly looney, but I think we all should consider this: when you are on the internet, listening to AM radio, etc. remember that not everyone’s expertise is equal. There’s a big difference between trained, experienced scientists doing real, peer-reviewed science that’s published in refereed journals and junk science. Be careful and make sure you understand which you’re listening to.


5 groups own and control all media. It’s just like the products we all use. Many are made in the same factory and re-branded. These media venues all recieve the same agendas to push and just word it a little differently. Start looking more closely.


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

First minute or so of this speaks to what smack is saying.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

paulrad said:


> First minute or so of this speaks to what smack is saying.


Even if they watch it they probably won’t get it. That makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up...


----------



## makin moves (Mar 20, 2010)

Do we even know if she has autism or is that part of the pity plan. Feel bad for at the same time not being able to criticize her. She is a puppet like that victim David Hogg.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

makin moves said:


> Do we even know if she has autism or is that part of the pity plan. Feel bad for at the same time not being able to criticize her. She is a puppet like that victim David Hogg.


Looks more like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to me but I’m just secondary to an RN...


----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

makin moves said:


> Do we even know if she has autism or is that part of the pity plan. Feel bad for at the same time not being able to criticize her.


Well she wouldn't be the (((first))) to play that game!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Scrather said:


> I think grown men that call young girls names have insecurity issues. There are better ways to disagree with a young person.


She is nothing more than a social puppet for the exact reason you made this comment.

People who speak out against a person like this will be called some sort of ~ist.

By the way, what kind of scientific education has she had to suddenly become the worlds foremost expert?


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

paulrad said:


> You libs are so predictable. An ugly little leftist runs around all over the world spouting crap that you agree with and you figure out reasons why people shouldn't say anything against her. But let a Covington Catholic kid stand somewhere with a smirk on his face and you guys are ready to kill him.


And that Covington kid is going to become rich, very rich simply because of the blinded agenda.

Go Nicholas!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

paulrad said:


> First minute or so of this speaks to what smack is saying.


Case and point. Either people glossed over your link or watched it and are so blind it still didn’t sink in...


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

To me, the WaPo is dictating to story and the liberal media is just rebroadcasting and the Dems scramble to play the role spewed by the paper.

Normally life happens and then it is reported on based on facts. Now the story is written with zero facts, only op-ed's, and life tries to act out the narrative.

CNN's viewership is at all time lows and shrinking. Whatever story is written in the WaPo in the morning is played relentlessly all day.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

DuckNut said:


> To me, the WaPo is dictating to story and the liberal media is just rebroadcasting and the Dems scramble to play the role spewed by the paper.
> 
> Normally life happens and then it is reported on based on facts. Now the story is written with zero facts, only op-ed's, and life tries to act out the narrative.
> 
> CNN's viewership is at all time lows and shrinking. Whatever story is written in the WaPo in the morning is played relentlessly all day.


Tavistock Institute


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...pany-disputes-greta-thunbergs-seatless-claim/


----------



## Miragein (Aug 21, 2015)

DuckNut said:


> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...pany-disputes-greta-thunbergs-seatless-claim/


Have a question--some of you guys just finished stating the media is biased and has an agenda. Ok, fine -- but, yet you post stories/meme's that back your views that are in fact doing the very same thing you are speaking out against. Is it ok because your source leans pro right/Trump? Can't have it both ways.

I won't get into it again how dangerous to our democracy it is that this administration attacks negative press as fake news, and is being perpetuated in this thread...


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

Any and all press is biased in some direction or way. That's always been true and certainly true today. The idea of the Free Press and constitutional protections for the Free press is that one particular bias doesn't become an official arm of the Government as it is in Totalitarian States like the PRC. I think any President is well within his constitutional authority to push back with his commentary against a biased press. The previous president, BHO, pushed back against Fox News and others.

There has never been an unbiased press. It's an impossibility as only so much information can be put forth at any one time so things get excluded or included based on the particular viewpoints of the decision makers in the various news outlets.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Here’s a pdf to gloss over. It may have been grabbled already but it’s better than Wikipedia

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1838&context=mjil


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

Snapshot from the latest big climate meeting. Quotes taken from the article.

https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...limate_conference_ends_in_failure_110499.html

“Asked what probability they’d ascribe to meeting the 1.5-degree target, one of the emissions-gap authors said that he preferred not to pose the question. If he answered it, people would conclude that the goal is impossible, and give up. Speaking two years before the Paris climate conference, Yvo de Boer, former executive secretary of the UN climate convention, was more candid. “*The only way that a 2015 agreement can achieve a 2-degree goal is to shut down the whole global economy,” he said.”*

“Global emissions have risen at an average of 1.5% a year over the last ten years, pausing in 2016 but resuming the upward trend in 2017. Emissions have now reached a new record, with no sign yet of a peak. *The underlying driver is the strong economic growth of non-OECD economies, which have grown at more than 4.5% a year, compared with only 2% a year for OECD members*.”


----------



## jasonrl23 (Jul 27, 2009)

Miragein said:


> Have a question--some of you guys just finished stating the media is biased and has an agenda. Ok, fine -- but, yet you post stories/meme's that back your views that are in fact doing the very same thing you are speaking out against. Is it ok because your source leans pro right/Trump? Can't have it both ways.
> 
> I won't get into it again how dangerous to our democracy it is that this administration attacks negative press as fake news, and is being perpetuated in this thread...


I think one of the most dangerous things is “a source said”.

No accountability for the author, enables deceitful writing, and is protected. Any news agency can create an illusory truth because of this.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Miragein said:


> Have a question--some of you guys just finished stating the media is biased and has an agenda. Ok, fine -- but, yet you post stories/meme's that back your views that are in fact doing the very same thing you are speaking out against. Is it ok because your source leans pro right/Trump? Can't have it both ways.
> 
> I won't get into it again how dangerous to our democracy it is that this administration attacks negative press as fake news, and is being perpetuated in this thread...


To answer your question I need to ask you a question as well. Can you not see the drool on a particular party's chin when they talk about impeachment? The same party that said they would be impeaching that MF'er the day he was sworn in. Schiff and Pelosi have both stated they have been working on this for 2 1/2 years. 

The agenda is to me is to remove the republic and replace it with a dictator. To remove the very freedoms that made America the greatest country in the world. These same freedoms created the wealthiest people and the entire list of Democrat candidates want to take that away from the people who worked so hard to achieve. Never forget, money IS freedom.

Yes, I think Trump is an egotistical buffoon and some times I shake my head at his delivery process but I never question his America first policy. I fully support immigration if it is done legally and through the proper context and premise. I also believe we need to recruit immigrants not just the ones that show up in a caravan.

How's this for an agenda to remove a duly elected President? A 2 1/2 year agenda is going to continue. A cast of actors in search of the script.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...dless-of-senate-outcome/ar-BBY3yFj?li=BBnb7Kz


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)

Well said Ducknut.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar..._embraces_grade-school_juvenility_104008.html


“The worst case involves the fossil fuel industry, which is vital to our lives and prosperity – while under constant and intense pressure from environmentalists. Energy advocate Alex Epstein notes:

The industry never explained the value of energy and why fossil fuels are superior sources of energy. In fact, the industry is constantly out there saying, "We're not against wind and solar, we're for all of the above, we're in the middle of an energy transition," etc. That's why I always stress when I talk to people (a) that low cost, reliable energy is indispensable to human flourishing and (b) that the fossil fuel industry is uniquely good at creating it. People need both of those points.

Epstein is right: Companies should stop fearing the cool media kids scaremongering and start reminding the people who count – their customers -- of the full value they offer.”


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

karstopo said:


> https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar..._embraces_grade-school_juvenility_104008.html
> 
> 
> “The worst case involves the fossil fuel industry, which is vital to our lives and prosperity – while under constant and intense pressure from environmentalists. Energy advocate Alex Epstein notes:
> ...


I thought the Clintons suicided him? 
On a serious note...oil and natural gas are superior sources of energy but methods to capture it could be much better.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> I thought the Clintons suicided him?
> On a serious note...oil and natural gas are superior sources of energy but methods to capture it could be much better.


Absolutely. Way too much energy goes out the stack.

Nuclear is still the cheapest.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

DuckNut said:


> Absolutely. Way too much energy goes out the stack.
> 
> Nuclear is still the cheapest.


If that is truly what’s going on behind all that concrete. Only a few truly know. My father worked at the power plant in Wadsworth for almost 18 years. I got to go to work with him a few times growing up.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If that is truly what’s going on behind all that concrete. Only a few truly know. My father worked at the power plant in Wadsworth for almost 18 years. I got to go to work with him a few times growing up.


There is also a loss of energy when it is transmitted.


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If that is truly what’s going on behind all that concrete. Only a few truly know. My father worked at the power plant in Wadsworth for almost 18 years. I got to go to work with him a few times growing up.


I worked on a greenfield nuclear project, UF6 centrifuge facility, and constructions and startup costs are astronomical compared to other fuel processing or generation stations. There is a lot of hold points (downtime) and QA/QC material tracking costs that inflate the initial building costs of these facilities. Couple that with all the expensive engineered safe-fall and redundancy systems, and ultimately you have a VERY expensive facility that ultimately could never stop the prime hazard - the decay of nuclear material.

Bill Gates and his team were making some great progress towards a generating method that relied primarily on depleted uranium (although I think the startup process did require a limited amount of enriched (decaying) uranium), which removes a lot of the risk of exposure to decay/radiation. If the generation process has a problem, the worst-case, the power shuts off.

Nuclear, as a broad term, is a great source of energy and I believe will be the future, we are just currently using the dangerous process of fission, and have not yet been successful in other nuclear processes (fusion or TerraPower/Bill Gates TWR technology).


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)

Dilithium crystals is the future power resource.


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

BassFlats said:


> Dilithium crystals is the future power resource.


Googled it...I'm intrigued


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)

Whiskey you are obviously not a Trekie


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

BassFlats said:


> Whiskey you are obviously not a Trekie


I am not. I instantly saw the Trek references once I googled it, and I went red in the face....but then, I kept reading and saw that Dilithium and its use a s a fuel is not completely fictional and there is actually active research being done to asses its viability as a fuel.


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)

Wait. What. Star Trek is fiction


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

BassFlats said:


> Wait. What. Star Trek is fiction


Star Trek is real, and George Takei is a straight man.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Bill Gates wants our females sterile and lesbian. Eugenics is his deal. Lower the population of the earth so elites like him can maintain their 40,000 square foot homes.


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Bill Gates wants our females sterile and lesbian. Eugenics is his deal. Lower the population of the earth so elites like him can maintain their 40,000 square foot homes.


You can't possibly be serious. That man may have his good traits and bad traits, as do we all, but the amount of resources (massive amounts of money and time) that he has given to help people around this world is unmatched.

Smack, I have no doubt that you have provided for family and friends, and had a positive impact on a lot of people around you in your life, so please, don't be so naive as to discredit such a brilliant and generous man as Gates just for the hell of it.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

@Whiskey Angler, do some research on Melinda and you might get a clearer picture. 

There is a lot of good they are doing and some not so good. More interesting is they are targeting 3rd world countries.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

DuckNut said:


> @Whiskey Angler, do some research on Melinda and you might get a clearer picture.
> 
> There is a lot of good they are doing and some not so good. More interesting is they are targeting 3rd world countries.


Their organization got busted for administering free vaccines that were sterilizing women in Africa. You can’t believe everything you read but that one is a fact. He also has a speech where he is showing his formula for eugenics based on how much a human consumes versus what they produce. Basically stating that there are too many warm bodies not producing and consuming resources. Look it up, it’s him in flesh and blood discussing it with a powerpoint presentation and everything. Never mind, I did the work for you. Lowering the world’s population through vaccines.


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Their organization got busted for administering free vaccines that were sterilizing women in Africa. You can’t believe everything you read but that one is a fact. He also has a speech where he is showing his formula for eugenics based on how much a human consumes versus what they produce. Basically stating that there are too many warm bodies not producing and consuming resources. Look it up, it’s him in flesh and blood discussing it with a powerpoint presentation and everything.



I’ll honestly look more into what y’all have mentioned. Without doing any further research, I’ll guess that any sterilization cause by the vaccines was unintended, as are many side effects when administering new or old drugs.

When you do big things, you make big mistake. Who do y’all see as a more respectable person who is spending money and time to better the world?

I’m not sure I would categorize the analysis of resources vs human consumption as eugenics.

I made a post a while back ago, that tends to agree with a position concerned with populations vs global resources. It’s not ill will, it’s just basic science. Eventually (and maybe not too far off) the population will increase to a point where basic resources and the technology to produce and manage resources cannot keep up. The result will be more war, more poverty, more illness. In the post I’m back referencing, I mentioned that the most important thing that humans can be doing right now is food production research, energy generation research, and space travel research.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Whiskey Angler said:


> I’ll honestly look more into what y’all have mentioned. Without doing any further research, I’ll guess that any sterilization cause by the vaccines was unintended, as are many side effects when administering new or old drugs.
> 
> When you do big things, you make big mistake. Who do y’all see as a more respectable person who is spending money and time to better the world?
> 
> ...


So what the fuck is a man with a 40,000 square foot home, private jets etc know about efficiency of resources? That he deserves it and others don’t. Elitist


----------



## Miragein (Aug 21, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Their organization got busted for administering free vaccines that were sterilizing women in Africa. You can’t believe everything you read but that one is a fact.


Man, is there a conspiracy theory you guys don't believe in? You guys are the MS wack pack!


----------



## Miragein (Aug 21, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> So what the fuck is a man with a 40,000 square foot home, private jets etc know about efficiency of resources? That he deserves it and others don’t. Elitist


Hmmm--right you are--let alone run a country!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Miragein said:


> Hmmm--right you are--let alone run a country!


You’re a moron, don’t quote my replies. I’m surprised I haven’t put your ass on the ignore list.


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> So what the fuck is a man with a 40,000 square foot home, private jets etc know about efficiency of resources? That he deserves it and others don’t. Elitist


I think he knows more than all of us...from what I’ve seen, he’s of above average intelligence.


----------



## Miragein (Aug 21, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> You’re a moron, don’t quote my replies. I’m surprised I haven’t put your ass on the ignore list.


Now, that's funny!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Whiskey Angler said:


> I think he knows more than all of us...from what I’ve seen, he’s of above average intelligence.


So that gives him a pass to determine what the rest of the world does? That’s like making it ok for the guy that makes the most money in a neighborhood control what the rest of the homeowners do there. What does that sound like to you?


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> So that gives him a pass to determine what the rest of the world does? That’s like making it ok for the guy that makes the most money in a neighborhood control what the rest of the homeowners do there. What does that sound like to you?


I see your spin...let me spin it back your way. It sounds like your saying that regardless of the fact that he used his brilliance to make a fortune so large that he could donate away most of it and still afford a 40k Sqft house, he should instead just live in a house the same size as the rest of ours and not be considered elite or rewarded. What does that sound like to you? (Maybe a touch of socialism?)


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Whiskey Angler said:


> I see your spin...let me spin it back your way. It sounds like your saying that regardless of the fact that he used his brilliance to make a fortune so large that he could donate away most of it and still afford a 40k Sqft house, he should instead just live in a house the same size as the rest of ours and not be considered elite or rewarded. What does that sound like to you? (Maybe a touch of socialism?)


I couldn’t care less about how much he makes or how big his houses are. What you are pursuing here is the elite determining what is good for the planet and the rules do not apply to them due to their wealth? It’s nothing new but the fact that you are defending that mindset is disturbing. Judging by a few of your other posts I thought you might be more intelligent than that or at least less gullible. We know where we stand now so there us no need to continue the back and forth.


----------



## MariettaMike (Jun 14, 2012)

With more and more DC politicians and MS members stating their opinions as facts, its no wonder people are confused. Its like the dumb leading the dumber.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/nuclear-energy/

Andrew Yang understands the potential of Nuclear power, not that he’s going to be the nominee, although, he would be infinitely better than any of the other potential top polling democrat nominees. 

BTW, do people really allow the animated Television show “The Simpson’s” influence their positions on anything? Cause that’s one reason Andrew Yang mentions on his campaign site on why Nuclear power gets a bad rap.


----------



## anytide (Jul 30, 2009)

Ice is melting....you adopt a polar bear now for just $19 month.


----------



## Charles Hadley (Jan 20, 2019)

My 


Smackdaddy53 said:


> So that gives him a pass to determine what the rest of the world does? That’s like making it ok for the guy that makes the most money in a neighborhood control what the rest of the homeowners do there. What does that sound like to you?


Hoa! Lmfao


----------



## Charles Hadley (Jan 20, 2019)

Charles Hadley said:


> My
> 
> Hoa! Lmfao


Sorry, MY HOA!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

MariettaMike said:


> With more and more DC politicians and MS members stating their opinions as facts, its no wonder people are confused. Its like the dumb leading the dumber.


Case and point...don’t be a dumbass and rely on what you see on Microskiff, any media (definitely not social media) or what you read or see coming from politicians on your television or any screen to base your beliefs on. Think for yourself and question things instead of just taking the “professionals” word for it.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Charles Hadley said:


> Sorry, MY HOA!


That’s not one person, it’s a group of hoity toits trying to be in charge of something.


----------



## Charles Hadley (Jan 20, 2019)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> That’s not one person, it’s a group of hoity toits trying to be in charge of something.


Yes,that's how its supposed to be,but there is always that one mf'er that feels he is above all!


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2012)

Here's an interesting read: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...a_living_explanation_of_the_left__142054.html


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)




----------



## paulrad (May 10, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> Here's an interesting read: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...a_living_explanation_of_the_left__142054.html


It might be an interesting read, but Dennis Prager is a gatekeeper. His role is to establish limits on what is acceptable thought on the right. His goals and interests and loyalties are not the same as most right leaning Americans. Ben Shapiro, Jonah Goldberg, Jordan Peterson are the same. National Review? Same. Fox News? Same. Really anyone that is supposedly on the right, that rises to prominence and great success, should be viewed with suspicion. How were they allowed to rise to stardom within a system that is apparently against them?? If they're not banned from Twitter, Facebook, and YT at this point, then ask yourself why. The answer is generally because they pose as being on the right, but they're actually in the pocket of their masters on the left.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2012)

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Regardless of your opinion of Dennis Prager, the ideas presented in the article are worth consideration.


----------



## MariettaMike (Jun 14, 2012)

The Matrix is real. Take the red pill.


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

Quick, let’s all of us put on our aluminum foil hats...

I learned long ago that no political group (even the ones I mostly agree with...) has a corner on virtue... You should listen to each side then make up your mind which to follow- and which to laugh at...

I haven’t belonged to any political party since the days of Jimmy Carter but you can be sure my views are somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun...


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

What’s going on under our noses has nothing to do with climate change, aliens or mind reading. It has to do with trauma based mind control and the root values were instilled in all of us and our parents long ago. If you stop reading all the media bullshit and stop believing everything a lab coat tells you you might make it. Start questioning things, researching, analyzing everything with an open mind and you will be amazed you didn’t see the social construct we live in sooner. It goes way back, well before the day any of us were born unless some of you are several thousand years old.
Here’s to 2020 and seeing things clearly.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

MariettaMike said:


> The Matrix is real. Take the red pill.


Probably more real than you would like to believe.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

There’s definitely a lot of groupthink going on. People pushing agendas, left and right. 

Personally, I’m for preserving as much freedom and liberty and rights as the founding fathers intended and the US constitution calls for. Of course, both of those are also under heavy attack these days, the former for being flawed human beings, like all of the rest of humanity that ever lived, and the latter for being no longer relevant to these post-modern times. 

Things are changing. The People’s Republic of China is ascendant. That means very bad things for all freedom loving people. The PRC is worming and investing their way into ever corner of the globe and into prominent positions in every important institution worldwide. The PRC has a major beef with the western world for past wrongs and for being passed by over 500 years of western progress. The communist party of China values are not anything like values we know and love. 

Unfortunately, the USA is losing, has lost some of its mojo of old. Europe has been on and off life support since WWII and has never been all in on the Freedom and Liberty thing anyway. 

I don’t want egg heads in lab coats compelling me by force of law not to eat beef or have a grill or Xi Jinping watching my every move and arresting my preacher but these kinds of things and far worse are being called for or done by the totalitarian loving, holier than thou, power hungry types all over the world. 

Like it or not, the climate change movement has a bunch of these hateful creatures subverting anything constructive or achievable in favor of raw power and money grabs.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

It’s making it’s way into our fishing too. This shit has to stop.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> It’s making it’s way into our fishing too. This shit has to stop.
> View attachment 109036
> View attachment 109038
> View attachment 109040


Good thing it was printed in the news paper...body else saw it.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Check out Wednesday 2:30-4:00pm 

https://www.sabaypartnership.org/manager/wp-content/uploads/SABP-Conference-Program.pdf


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> It’s making it’s way into our fishing too. This shit has to stop.
> View attachment 109036
> View attachment 109038
> View attachment 109040


Regarding the highlighted quote: "The issue of climate change and sea level rise has so many potential ramifications."

I understand the debate and questioning of to what extent human industry affects climate change, but are you also questioning whether plastic pollution affects our natural resources, and whether sea level changes impacts society and natural resources?

Whether sea level changes are strongly or weakly correlated with human society, I would think that most would agree that sea-level change trends affect our natural resources (as well as unnatural resources).


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

@Whiskey Angler 
I can't speak for Smack but I will give you my perspective. I disagree with the entire label of "climate change".

I have not read any research relating to this that convinces me it is real. All of the data is of recent times and a 10 or 20 year look back is not an accurate assessment of the big picture.

For example: Earth was once upon a time was a ball of molten lava. It has been cooling ever since. It went from 4,500 degrees to a frozen plant and man had not yet invented factories.

So what caused it? To me a study of 10 years is a fad and completely useless as a research topic when the earth is billions of years old. Scientists have documented proof and it is accepted there have been 5 major ice ages on planet earth and man has only been around for one of them.

If you compare this year to last year, it is too small of a period. Take the data from 10,000 year increments and you might have something to realistically compare.

But then you have the arduous task of defining what caused the earth to warm us out of each of the ice ages - or is it just the cycles of the earth?


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Whiskey Angler said:


> Regarding the highlighted quote: "The issue of climate change and sea level rise has so many potential ramifications."
> 
> I understand the debate and questioning of to what extent human industry affects climate change, but are you also questioning whether plastic pollution affects our natural resources, and whether sea level changes impacts society and natural resources?
> 
> Whether sea level changes are strongly or weakly correlated with human society, I would think that most would agree that sea-level change trends affect our natural resources (as well as unnatural resources).


Don’t take my post out of context. Here’s the link and time I post earlier that you didn’t bother reading. “Ongoing and emerging” isn’t “possibly happening at a later time”. Read what’s highlighted in green. It’s bullshit. Just more scare tactics to get people to freak out and think the fishery is in dire need of help due to climate change and rising sea levels. Their data is just as skewed as all the other nonsense organizations like NASA push. It’s lies. There is no sea level rise.


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Don’t take my post out of context. Here’s the link and time I post earlier that you didn’t bother reading. “Ongoing and emerging” isn’t “possibly happening at a later time”. Read what’s highlighted in green. It’s bullshit. Just more scare tactics to get people to freak out and think the fishery is in dire need of help due to climate change and rising sea levels. Their data is just as skewed as all the other nonsense organizations like NASA push. It’s lies. There is no sea level rise.
> View attachment 109184


Easy fido, I was just asking about your position on the matter.


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

DuckNut said:


> @Whiskey Angler
> I can't speak for Smack but I will give you my perspective. I disagree with the entire label of "climate change".
> 
> I have not read any research relating to this that convinces me it is real. All of the data is of recent times and a 10 or 20 year look back is not an accurate assessment of the big picture.
> ...


I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that climate change _does not_ exist. Of course it does, and as you have just described, it has changed with very significant degrees through atmospheric warming and cooling cycles.

I also think it would be unreasonable to argue that these significant atmospheric warming/cooling cycles have no effect upon sea-levels and a subsequent effect on coastal habitats.

The controversy is not focused on whether climate change exists, and sea levels fluctuate, but instead on to what degree human industry or presence has a undesirable effect on the state of our atmosphere.

The itinerary and article that @Smackdaddy53 shared did not make mention of the cause of the climate change, but merely that the climate change and sea levels may impact our coastal environments.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Whiskey Angler said:


> I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that climate change _does not_ exist. Of course it does, and as you have just described, it has changed with very significant degrees through atmospheric warming and cooling cycles.
> 
> I also think it would be unreasonable to argue that these significant atmospheric warming/cooling cycles have no effect upon sea-levels and a subsequent effect on coastal habitats.
> 
> ...


The degree human industry has had on the climate is a very poor reference because the length of time is a pimple on a ducks ass compared to how long earth has had climate which is habitable.

This is like saying tomorrow afternoon will be warmer than tonight and that is caused by global warming.

Once again I do not believe there is climate change because of my previous stated reasons. And when you say "climate change and sea levels may impact our coastal environments" is exactly what the alarmists want. They have zero evidence and it is perpetuated by the media machine. It is a hoax.

Which one of these headlines is even remotely accurate as they all can't be warming twice as fast?










Do a search of "warming twice as fast" or "warming faster than average" and you will see all the headlines of hocus pocus.


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

DuckNut said:


> The degree human industry has had on the climate is a very poor reference because the length of time is a pimple on a ducks ass compared to how long earth has had climate which is habitable.
> 
> This is like saying tomorrow afternoon will be warmer than tonight and that is caused by global warming.
> 
> ...


Nevermind.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

I’ve been launching at the same few ramps in my frequent areas for over 30 years and still have to back the trailer in the ramp to get my tires wet unless there is a crazy bull tide from prevailing SSE winds or a storm in the gulf. There is no crazy sea level rise, I don’t need any googan scientist telling me so, I can gauge for my self. I’m not the only one that knows it’s propaganda either. They might be able to fool people that get salty once a year but lots of the coastal natives know what’s going on. 
What are they going to do, haul in fill dirt and build up the coast? They’re doing that already with all these waterfront homes that still get wiped out when real hurricanes hit. I might go check this out and see what these people are planning on doing other than just trying to scare people and report back if my schedule is open then.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

The truth about the earth is that it is 4.5 billion years old and mankind has been around for a sliver of that time and we’ve only been interested in the climate for a sliver of a sliver. 

What’s also true is that mankind has mined and extracted vast deposits of hydrocarbons derived from countless organisms that once lived on the earth or in the seas over hundreds of millions of years. 

CO2 that was once in the atmosphere got incorporated in these organisms over the eons and locked away in underground deposits that have now been brought up to the surface, burned and some of the CO2 is once again in the atmosphere. 

What consequences does that measurable CO2 increase have for climate? It’s not unreasonable to draw comparisons to earlier epochs with higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher temperatures and theorize that the climate would be driven by those levels, the levels of CO2 where the atmosphere is today. 

Could there be other things going on with the Earth now as compared to earlier periods? Sure, maybe something about the earth is fundamentally different now than then. What about the sun, the biggest driver of climate? If anything, the sun is putting out a little more radiation, heat, than it was hundreds of millions of years ago. 

People aren’t crazy for concern about the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 and Methane, even if these are tiny percentages of the all the gases that make up the mix. 

People aren’t nuts either for questioning the motives behind some of the power grabbing, freedom ending, economy wreaking proposals that promise to mitigate the issue, if in fact it is a major, global emergency, game over issue it’s often made out to be, as much of the science suggests. 

It’s all going to play out as it is anyway as there’s no practical way to drop these CO2 concentrations for decades at least and they will likely keep rising for the foreseeable future. 

Andrew Yang, the Democrat presidential candidate, makes some sense with his nuclear bridge, but there’s zero chance of him becoming POTUS. And the rest of the world has to be on board anyway. 

Nuclear is very low carbon (nothing is zero since there’s always something carbon emitting with anything people do) and Nuclear can produce a lot of power with a tiny footprint in a relatively short time span, and do it without destroying the economy.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

karstopo said:


> The truth about the earth is that it is 4.5 billion years old and mankind has been around for a sliver of that time and we’ve only been interested in the climate for a sliver of a sliver.
> 
> What’s also true is that mankind has mined and extracted vast deposits of hydrocarbons derived from countless organisms that once lived on the earth or in the seas over hundreds of millions of years.
> 
> ...


And all this is what they want you to believe is fact with very little actual evidence other than bullshit statements like “it’s complicated” when asked to prove any of it. Just like sending rovers to Mars when nothing has ever made it out of lower earth orbit and according to our lead astronaut Don Pettit they destroyed the technology used in 1968 to go to the moon and it’s too painful to replicate not to mention all of the telemetry footage was lost...hell NASA can’t even produce an actual high definition photo of the earth from space, only doctored images. What does that tell you? 
This is the nonsense that has been instilled in everyone since birth and it’s all a construct to keep us little people doing our jobs and minding our business. Just keep producing and leave the space travel and energy production to the elite.
You are correct about us being here for just a sliver of time unless it’s just a continuous loop.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

If your predictions are wrong, then maybe your theories are as well.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/2004-climate-apocalypse-prediction-bites-the-dust/


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Oooops!

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...glitch-reveals-greta-thunburgs-father-posting


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)

Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)




----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

DuckNut said:


> View attachment 117172


Oh they can change the weather too.


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Oh they can change the weather too.






Here they are, changing the weather. And on a commercial airliner no less!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

yobata said:


> Here they are, changing the weather. And on a commercial airliner no less!


That’s only one part of the equation. People can laugh it up but weather manipulation has been going on since at least 1940.


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> That’s only one part of the equation. People can laugh it up but weather manipulation has been going on since at least 1940.


I know! Here, in 1969, they created wind on the moon!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

yobata said:


> I know! Here, in 1969, they created wind on the moon!


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> View attachment 117228


The 3rd guy from the left in a white shirt is Ted Cruz's father, seen here plotting with Oswald to assassinate America's first gay president who wrote the screenplay for the moon landing!


----------



## Snakesurf (Jun 18, 2019)

Here it is a nutshell (abbreviated version):

Despite what you think there is a slight increase in the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere in the last 20,000 years or more. Is it man made? No, it is not man made but yes man plays a small part as well as every organism on the planet. Is there an increase in carbon in the atmosphere? Yes.

The Earth rotates around the sun in irregular elliptical orbits as the whole solar system travels through space. If the orbit was perfectly round the earth would lose its ability to maintain orbit and collide into the sun. This causes periods of global warming and cooling. This has been happening for about 4 billion years.

During periods of global cooling there is a decrease in biological life on the planet. Carbon and so-called greenhouse gasses are at a minimum in the atmosphere. During global warming; animals (including humans) begin to thrive on the earth as do plants. Animal produce Co2 and methane gasses (greenhouse gas) because they breath and fart. Plants take in Co2 and make oxygen through photo synthesis during the daylight hours. But, at night there is no photo synthesis and dead plants rot and produce methane gasses (all the time). Basically, all life in some way produces waste gasses that are the cause of carbon in the atmosphere.

If we got rid of all the livestock, industry and cars then we still would be producing the so-called greenhouse gasses because life will thrive in warmth even without any humans on the planet. If you want to delete carbon in the atmosphere, then you will have to kill all living organisms on the planet.

An autistic brain washed little girl does not have the solution to global warming nor does any politician or scientist. They want your money and they will destroy our economy (if that is what takes) to get it and gain power. This is just a way to install socialist globalism and give the government complete control over our lives from birth to death.

It has always fascinated me how half the people in this country want to let the government rule every aspect of their lives.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

All the space bullshit we think we know is fabricated by NASA and everyone just goes along with it. They don’t know shit either, they know some things but what they feed the public is a crock. There’s not one real image of the earth from space and this organization gets how much funding a day??? They can’t afford a camera capable of taking at least one real photo of earth from space? The images we see are from low earth orbit or the telescope Sophia that are shot from an airplane.


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> All the space bullshit we think we know is fabricated by NASA and everyone just goes along with it. They don’t know shit either, they know some things but what they feed the public is a crock. There’s not one real image of the earth from space and this organization gets how much funding a day??? They can’t afford a camera capable of taking at least one real photo of earth from space? The images we see are from low earth orbit or the telescope Sophia that are shot from an airplane.


Yes, all of these are clearly fake! And even though some of these "photos" are released by Japan or China, we know that the one thing that the government is really good at is organizing a vast international conspiracy!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

China got busted trying to pass off space footage with footage shot underwater. You can see the bubbles. This isn’t 1968 any more, technology can bust these fake videos because it’s not shown on a black and white television with no way to play it back, break it down and analyze the footage. It goes deeper than space too. 
I know folks are wondering what space has to do with global warming...it has everything to do with it because the same people creating these false flag social constructs are the ones controlling media and are data mining every aspect of our lives. It’s about control.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2020)

Sorry @Smackdaddy53, I gotta go with Fred Randell on the space thing!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

yobata said:


> Here they are, changing the weather. And on a commercial airliner no less!


That is the Chinese government sharing the Coronavirus. Snopes confirmed it


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ity/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/

A story of conspiring


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

yobata said:


> Yes, all of these are clearly fake! And even though some of these "photos" are released by Japan or China, we know that the one thing that the government is really good at is organizing a vast international conspiracy!


Hey @yobata i think I can see your house!


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

Snakesurf said:


> Here it is a nutshell (abbreviated version):
> 
> Despite what you think there is a slight increase in the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere in the last 20,000 years or more. Is it man made? No, it is not man made but yes man plays a small part as well as every organism on the planet. Is there an increase in carbon in the atmosphere? Yes.
> 
> ...


Can you please explain the difference in isotopic carbon ratio in the atmosphere?


----------



## BassFlats (Nov 26, 2018)

Wait,what. Santa Claus isn't real!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

MSG said:


> You guys are truly amazing. I am shocked to hear some of the opinions here. Not believing climate science is like believing in Santa Claus. I can’t possibly imagine being so devoid of the ability to hear and process logic. The ability to rationalize anything you want is truly on display, regardless of facts and overwhelming evidence.


It’s a cycle, nothing more. Have a great day and don’t let the fact that other people have an alternative opinion than yours ruin it.


----------



## karstopo (Nov 28, 2019)

There are so many tracks going on here with Climate Change. 

One is the science and the science overwhelmingly theorizes it’s happening and at least some of the data backs up the theories and climate modeling, but then science has been wrong before about things in the past and the data we are getting might be influenced by other things beyond mankind adding a bunch of CO2 and other gases to the atmosphere. 

Another thing that could be even and likely is more dangerous than a world that is actually warming are the people seeking power or are already in positions of power who make dire claims and then promise solutions that aren’t in fact anything close to solutions and are instead a massive power and money grabs and reordering of society to favor the collective to the degree of extinguishing all personal liberties and freedoms. For them, they are disguising their desire for world wide totalitarianism as solutions to climate change. 

Figure out how to keep everything powered up and running and cut CO2 output by 50-60% and you will be on to something. None of the money/power/freedom grabbers ever propose a solution that has a snowballs chance in hell of working because that’s not what they want. They want to destroy the system as it is and remake the world. Climate change is just a convenient vehicle to scare enough people to giving up the keys to the kingdom. 

Climate change is scary if the climate prediction models are close to accurate. A world without sufficient energy to run all there is to run is perhaps even more scary. The most scary thing is a world with unabated climate change and massively insufficient power and energy to make it all work and that’s exactly what we will get with plans like the New Green Deal. 

First rule is that the lights must always stay on, then any solutions to lower CO2 must work from that rule. No shutting down oil and gas energy on wishes and hopes and promises like what is being proposed. Have an equivalent power source up and running, then turn off the fossil fuels. Figure out how to run ships, planes, OTR trucks, personal vehicles, etc without CO2 emitting power sources. 

Wind, solar, fine use some of that, but if you think there’s a reliable way to do everything and power everything with more than a fractional contribution from those sources you are just naive. How are you going to get the rest of the power, the 75-85% that is needed and can’t be done with the non-CO2 renewables? Answer that and your are the genius if the day. 

Someone or ones will have to figure it out before too long. How long do you really think the fossil fuels will last? 300 years? 500? It’s all simply animals and plants and plankton buried over the millennia but there were never infinite animals and plants or plankton or infinite carbon on earth.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2012)

We can't stop it from raining, but we can build a roof to keep us dry. 

The problem I see with most climate activists is that their total concentration is on stopping the rain. No consideration is given to preparing to stay dry in the deluge they forecast. Stopping climate change is an impossible task, but dealing with changes is something that mankind is quite capable of.

On the subject of moon landings: There is a huge body of evidence independent of NASA, including verification from recent Japanese and Chinese endeavors that demonstrates the fact that man has walked on the moon. You can prove it for yourself if you have the bucks to buy a laser rig and bounce a signal off the retroreflectors left on the moon. Many commercial, research and educational institutions bounce lasers off these reflectors every day. Then there's the moon rocks. Astronauts brought back a whopping 382 Kg of moon rock that were shared with 185 different countries around the world. Labs in these countries subjected these rocks to just about every test known, all of which confirmed the rocks were of lunar origin. (see glass spherules) It is possible to deny all this evidence, just as leftists will deny Trumps economic success. There's an unfortunate trait in us humans. Once we get an idea, we tend to defend it to the death, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


----------



## topnative2 (Feb 22, 2009)




----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> We can't stop it from raining, but we can build a roof to keep us dry.
> 
> The problem I see with most climate activists is that their total concentration is on stopping the rain. No consideration is given to preparing to stay dry in the deluge they forecast. Stopping climate change is an impossible task, but dealing with changes is something that mankind is quite capable of.
> 
> On the subject of moon landings: There is a huge body of evidence independent of NASA, including verification from recent Japanese and Chinese endeavors that demonstrates the fact that man has walked on the moon. You can prove it for yourself if you have the bucks to buy a laser rig and bounce a signal off the retroreflectors left on the moon. Many commercial, research and educational institutions bounce lasers off these reflectors every day. Then there's the moon rocks. Astronauts brought back a whopping 382 Kg of moon rock that were shared with 185 different countries around the world. Labs in these countries subjected these rocks to just about every test known, all of which confirmed the rocks were of lunar origin. (see glass spherules) It is possible to deny all this evidence, just as leftists will deny Trumps economic success. There's an unfortunate trait in us humans. Once we get an idea, we tend to defend it to the death, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


Everything you just post is false and has been proven false.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2012)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Everything you just post is false and has been proven false.


In that case, everything you post is 100% true.

Think about it.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> In that case, everything you post is 100% true.
> 
> Think about it.


We can agree to disagree, it’s not a big deal. I’ve done a ton of research on these subjects and just believing what NASA releases to the public is ignorant because they contradict themselves repeatedly. We don’t have to get into it, you wouldn’t believe it anyway.


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

Anyone have Global Warming Beaver Invasion on their 2020 apocalypse bingo card? I did not.
I think the NY Post is playing around...


----------



## loganlogan (May 8, 2020)

EdK13 said:


> Anyone have Global Warming Beaver Invasion on their 2020 apocalypse bingo card? I did not.
> I think the NY Post is playing around...


I'm a big fan of the beaver. Somehow I never get tired of beavers.


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)




----------



## jonterr (Mar 24, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> It’s a cycle, nothing more. Have a great day and don’t let the fact that other people have an alternative opinion than yours ruin it.


Wait
U don’t think US went to the moon?


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

jonterr said:


> Wait
> U don’t think US went to the moon?


Nope. And I have no reason to justify it to you or anyone else. We can’t even get a fucking election right or strong cell signal anywhere in 2020 but you think we went to the moon a quarter of a million miles away in 1968 and the astronauts spoke in real time with JFK from there? Do you know what escape velocity is? Research that...Keep believing the bullshit! I don’t want or need a reply, just do some research and NOT based on the NASA website.


----------



## jonterr (Mar 24, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Nope. And I have no reason to justify it to you or anyone else. We can’t even get a fucking election right or strong cell signal anywhere in 2020 but you think we went to the moon a quarter of a million miles away in 1968 and the astronauts spoke in real time with JFK from there? Do you know what escape velocity is? Research that...Keep believing the bullshit! I don’t want or need a reply, just do some research and NOT based on the NASA website.


Whoa
Just messing with u😀


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

jonterr said:


> Whoa
> Just messing with u😀


Irritable today, the cold weather has my equipment on the fritz. 
Research “escape velocity” and tell me how you think a human could survive it for any length of time and then ponder if in 1968 the technology to even propel anything that fast for any length of time would be possible. It’s interesting.


----------

