Climate Hustle

YT1

NO LONGER A MEMBER
Mar 15, 2011
1,974
0
36
#1
The left are absolutely freaking out about Palin calling out a mechanical engineer (Bill Nye) for lecturing us about climate change. Even Jimmy Kimmel has got in on the act. I've always liked Jimmy and found him fairly apolitical until recently. His ridiculous diatribe regurgitating all the usual fallacies really turned my stomach. Jimmy Kimmel and Scientists on Climate Change - YouTube Now my state's asinine attorney general has joined forces with several other states AG to seek punishment for those who question the climate change hustle. This is the opposite of science morons!
 

YT1

NO LONGER A MEMBER
Mar 15, 2011
1,974
0
36
#3
Anthropogenic Global Warming is not the damn Holocaust. The hustle is the theory of AGW being lauded as absolute unapproachable fact, so let's wreck our entire economy to atone for our first world sins.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,952
408
83
44
VA
#8
1. The climate is always changing (be it generally very slowly) and has done so since well before the human "virus" came along.
2. The climate models have a 0.0% success rate thus far, despite many attempts to make them appear otherwise.
3. Climate change law is about control, not the planet.
4. For an indicator on just how seriously the "experts" take their own theory, refer to the lifestyle of climate change prophet number 1 - Al Gore.
 

YT1

NO LONGER A MEMBER
Mar 15, 2011
1,974
0
36
#9
Yup, when politicians and actors stop flying in private jets I will find them a little more credible.
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,705
259
83
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
#10
I don't deny climate change. And I don't think we should be cavalier about pollution and protecting the environment.

BUT, all the doomsday crap that's supposed to take place when things heat up by 2-degrees is a bunch of scare-tactic nonsense. The idea that we should wreck our economy for the sake of the environment, when 97% of the others on the planet are going to completely ignore any rules and agreements seems short-sighted.

Add to that, our regulations are ridiculous. We've made cars pollute 94% less than they did 40 years ago. Yet most new regulations focus on passenger car emissions and fuel mileage. We could eliminate 100% of the remaining auto emissions, and it would pale in comparison to what large trucks, heavy equipment, fleet vehicles and other exempt vehicles put out daily. Watch one semi or dumptruck coal-roll every time he steps on the gas, and he's putting out the same emissions as 150 cars.

As a species, we are so fucking dumb. Imposing stupid rules on ourselves rather than actually attacking the real problems.
 

Videoviper

illuminati
Officer Club
Aug 15, 2012
5,047
69
48
Behind a camera watching you!
#11
:tinfoil:

OK let's rant.


A lot of Global Warming Info is just BS, & it bothers me because if this info was put up against the same standards as say medical drug treatments, it would be slapped down & tossed out. With the FDA equivalent saying come back when you have some real statistics to back up your data.

Basically the 95% of scientists say...line is equivalent to alligators in the NY sewer system.

Now I am not saying the temperature is NOT changing because it it. Whether this is part of a natural cycle (One longer than we can track) or not is debatable. Most of the time on Earth, has not been hospitable to human life.

The general idea that cars create the pollution is not entirely truthfull either, as a car's daily Carbon emissions is not much more than the 8 hour a day camp/over fire, that most of civilization used to cook their food & keep warm for the last 10,000+ years

But in the last 100+ years what has changed? Well we developed wireless communication, Radio TV & cell phone. In the 20th century Radio & TV were fairly limited (4-5 TV stations + some local Radio stations) nothing complex or harmful.

However in the late 80s to 90s Cables stations went from 30 - 500. (They broadcast from their origin point to the cable sat companies who then rebroadcast those signals) What does this mean? We are pumping lots on extra energy (aka heat) into the atmosphere & as a result warming the atmosphere.

Why don't we hear a lot about this? Well if someone said, this TV station I am talking on is actually hurting/cooking the people listening, it would simply not be aired.

Plus the very idea that everyone should turn off or not use their cell phones is an argument that simply will not be heard. Right now you could litterly be exposed to 1000's of cell phone signals radiating your body.
Signals that did not exist 100 years ago.

Global Warming PR is based on blaming the big bad Oil & energy companies because they are easy targets. Faceless bad guys who release that average person of the personal responsibility that they have for Global Warming Heaven forbid that you turn off your personal wireless internet connection while away at work or when not needed.



**************:tinfoil::tinfoil::tinfoil::tinfoil:**************

What to rip their argument apart? All these technologies wireless/cars/lifestyle are 100% sustainable IF you address the actual problem that absolutely no one wants to go on record as saying

population - There are currently 7 billion people in this world, the Green house argument is that the Earth can support 13 billion, however if you are truly honest at 7 billion is fairly obvious there are to many people. High population areas (Cities, most 1st world countries in general) are fairly dependent on prepared foods as they are NOT sustainable. Most of us can not grow enough food for just ourselves. Double the population in 1 generation & you can see we have a real problem.

History shows that natural disasters, war & disease has created a balance between sustainability & population, But with better healthcare, weather forecasting & other advancements these factors have allowed population to grow.

I am not saying we should limit population, but any solution along these lines is not good, & ultimately does hurt us as a whole.

As a result there is no real solution, at least not one people will admit

--Crazy rant over
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
423
83
S.E. Mich :(
#12
I don't doubt even a little bit that the problem is our vehicles. The introduction of them completely corresponds with global warming. The more cars, the more GW. Same can be said with population. More population, more vehicles, be it passenger or commercial, more GW.

Problem is, big oil AND their government protectors have solutions, but it's not at all profitable for big oil.

As always, "It's all about the money.".
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,952
408
83
44
VA
#14
We have not warmed for more than a decade now. What warming has happened in the past century was due to our exit from the little ice age. The sun and volcanic activity have a far greater global warming effect than anything mankind has ever or will likely ever do. A fair number of real scientists working within their actual field of study (including the founder of The Weather Channel) see the sun going into a natural cooling cycle so it is more likely that the earth will cool than warm over the next century. This is actually more likely to harm humanity than warming (less warm, less food production, more harsh winters). Oh, and CO2 is a bi-product of global temperature rises more than a cause. This all comes from real scientists (not those with vested political interests) and not Al Gore or Leo Decaprio.

And yes, India and China more than cancel anything the bleeding hearts here in the US and Europe try to do anyway.
 

YT1

NO LONGER A MEMBER
Mar 15, 2011
1,974
0
36
#15
I don't doubt even a little bit that the problem is our vehicles. The introduction of them completely corresponds with global warming. The more cars, the more GW. Same can be said with population. More population, more vehicles, be it passenger or commercial, more GW.

Problem is, big oil AND their government protectors have solutions, but it's not at all profitable for big oil.

As always, "It's all about the money.".
It's a seemingly logical theory...that has no basis in empirical replicable science. :tinfoil:
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,877
321
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#16
We have not warmed for more than a decade now. What warming has happened in the past century was due to our exit from the little ice age. The sun and volcanic activity have a far greater global warming effect than anything mankind has ever or will likely ever do. A fair number of real scientists working within their actual field of study (including the founder of The Weather Channel) see the sun going into a natural cooling cycle so it is more likely that the earth will cool than warm over the next century. This is actually more likely to harm humanity than warming (less warm, less food production, more harsh winters). Oh, and CO2 is a bi-product of global temperature rises more than a cause. This all comes from real scientists (not those with vested political interests) and not Al Gore or Leo Decaprio.

And yes, India and China more than cancel anything the bleeding hearts here in the US and Europe try to do anyway.

Agreed. The smog just makes it unbearable to breathe and that comes from vehicles, not from cellphones and satellite dishes.

I do hope we jump on the solar bandwagon as hard as China has and switch to electric cars, just not to save the planet. I want to switch for the same reason I switched from real cigarettes to an ecig. It doesn't make everything smell like shit and it's much more efficient at it's given job even if it does seem queer at first. I can't wait until fusion breaks thru and makes our electric dreams reality.
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,705
259
83
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
#17
I want to hit solar and all the other alternate sources hard, no only for environmental reasons, but geopolitical ones as well. Nothing would be nicer than to tell the saudis and the other camel fuckers to pour all the oil on their cornflakes b/c we don't need it.

Those places would be third-world before morning.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,877
321
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#18
We could be pretty much oil independent today if we were nit selling our shale on the market. If we stopped buying Saudi oil, then China would buddy up to them just like they have with the entire continent of Africa. China is definitely playing the long game when it comes to energy and resources. The tiger is building strength while we pander to lobbyists and squabble in a gridlocked congress. I feel the ultra rich know we are a sinking ship and are just trying to extract as much money as they can from the people before we go down. Internation corps could give two shits about our country when they look at the Earth as a singular marketplace.
 

Videoviper

illuminati
Officer Club
Aug 15, 2012
5,047
69
48
Behind a camera watching you!
#19
I wasn't saying cars don't pollute, It just one of many causes, but if you can't boil down the hate into one clean sentence then the media doesn't hear it.

Most GW BS is directed at the big bad evil companies, because they are easy to blame but in the end if we are not dealing with real causes than we don't get real solutions.

This is what I hear:

I don't like gas - But I won't give up my car.

I don't like paying for electricity - So pay 10 years worth of electricity bills to get solar only to find out you are still paying a electricity bill. (You use power at Night)

I think everyone should use public transportation - But I don't live or work anywhere near a bus/train station & I will fight like hell if they bring one into my neighborhood & drive down property values when "Insert whoever group" move into the area.

Let's fine people who don't use X technology that meets a certain standard - It is commonly know X technology will not be available for another 5-10 years

Everyone should recycle - But they only collect certain types of materials if they are already sorted, on every 3rd Thursday of the month before 6:00am if you have the town pass & then they will collect it & toss it in the landfill because "To many people recycle"

--rant over
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,877
321
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#21
Especially with the recycling. You pay a fee to recycle and then they throw it away anyways.

We should not change our habits, we shoukd just put all effort into how those habits are powered. We are getting so damn close to fusion!

As far as solar goes, Tesla sells batteries for your home that charge during the day and run your house/charge your car overnight.
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,705
259
83
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
#22
As far as solar goes, Tesla sells batteries for your home that charge during the day and run your house/charge your car overnight.
While I'm sure those could be rigged to adapt to a solar system, it was my understanding that the Tesla batteries were primarily for load smoothing, i.e. using the battery during peak times when power is expensive and then charging during off-peak hours. The whole point was to lower bills by not using utility power at the same time as everyone else.

I know the tesla batteries are large, but I'd bet that a system that could power every part of my house for 12 hours would be absurdly large/expensive. Peak times, sure, but not half a day.

At some point, I will install some solar, as it continues to get cheaper, and incentives will get favorable enough. I refuse to put it on my roof; having built my own house, I will not put 100 penetrations in that 3/4" decking. Not going to happen. I have a lot of land though, and if I'm not trying to go off the grid, I could conceivably just put the panels far from my house and put the power back into the grid. At that point, there is no compelling reason to have the panels co-located with my house.

When we built the house, we installed a geothermal heat pump, so all my HVAC is done via heat exchange with water instead of outside air. It's beautiful, as the tax breaks make it cheaper than a conventional system to install, my monthly bill is stupid-low, and there is no outside air handler to make noise all the time. Plus the warranty is double that of a conventional unit. I know they aren't for everyone, but anyone that has the space for a well and plenty of water available, it's the bees knees.
 
Aug 22, 2011
237
7
18
#23
I want to hit solar and all the other alternate sources hard, no only for environmental reasons, but geopolitical ones as well. Nothing would be nicer than to tell the saudis and the other camel fuckers to pour all the oil on their cornflakes b/c we don't need it.

Those places would be third-world before morning.
What he said !
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
423
83
S.E. Mich :(
#31
Buy a fleet! Chop down every tree in sight! Pull every bush! Leave all your gas powered things running 24-7! Breed more! F$#@ it! :lmao:

I think we'll be dead before it's an issue. Though, I think that's always been the case.
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,705
259
83
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
#32
I think we can all agree that this country will be better off with Florida underwater. My only regret is that the change won't happen suddenly enough to drown that armpit of a state. They'll slowly migrate back north and invade the true south. I might run for governor and propose a wall....

And I don't care if it gets 2-degrees warmer. As long as it gets cold enough that TN is still uninhabitable for gators, I'm good.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,952
408
83
44
VA
#36
The real issue (as I understand it) is the direct coupling of CO2 concentration with temperature change. Yes, there is a correlation, but there is no proven causation. The climate alarmists insist that because there was potentially a higher concentration of CO2 when the earth was believed to have been warmer, the CO2 was the culprit, and that we must be forced to stop anything that produces CO2 or everybody dies in 12 years!!!1!1!.

Meanwhile, with such long time duration, subjective (some would say inept) interpretation of data and outright agenda, many are skeptical, particularly when very competent scientists and climatologists have argued that the CO2 was actually a byproduct of the warming, not the cause. And, with there being a serious level (despite the BS claims of "settled science") of uncertainty, why should the developed nations of the world stop forward progress because of being hamstrung by oppressive regulations and, oh yeah, pay them to tell us we have to?

Oh, and I believe in climate change. It happens all the time (usually due to solar mins and maxes, huge volcanic events and other such global events). We are just not nearly as responsible or able to do anything about it as the (opportunist) alarmists claim.
 
Likes: G.I.*EDDIE