Sawfish <
[email protected]> Wrote in message:r
On 7/5/24 9:42 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> TT <[email protected]> Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 5.7.2024 klo 9.40:> https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/I trust Thunberg & Gore 100%. Free Palestine!Too bad
that actual data doesn't support emergence of climate catastrophe...-The Great Barrier Reef is stronger than ever-The number of strong tornadoes hasn't varied much since the 1970s-Number of tropical cyclones has decreased 13% since 1900-No material
increase in droughts in the USA between 1895-2020etc
https://youtu.be/2lseti5zvY0?t=360> Yes but there are individuals and full organizations that are> profiting from these fake theories and bad models and they got> big percentage of people fooled and
brainwashed.I think it's important to note that if climate change is a valid representation of what's currently happening, AND a group of people one does not like support publicizing this--yes, and exaggerating it to some degree to profit from it--do not
make the fact(s) of climate change invalid.It simply means that you don't like--will never like--those hyping it and coincidentally profiting from it.Where I'm coming from...Many times I've explained that my gut reaction was to oppose the ideas of
climate change. This is because a) I could see no change, myself, in *any* sense; and b) like many here, I loathe and despise the people who stridently try to nag me into knuckling under to their version of reality.I told myself that until I, objectively,
could identify changes that I, myself, could detect indisputably, I'd view it a lot like the Y2K thingie later turned out--much ado about almost nothing. That was right around the late 90s.Gradually I began to see small changes, isolated, no clear
trends. But all of them, were indeed consistent with an increase in temps.Then I saw images of mountain glaciers I'd known since childhood in CA, then later in Oregon. All instances were dramatically reduced, and I'm not talking about a short-term
natural variation. I mean 50-100% reductions.Hmmmmm....I noted that many of my upstairs rental units were getting intolerably hot more often than formerly and I gradually phased in some form of A/C over a period of 6-7 years. I would not do this if I
didn't feel that I had to to retain decent tenants. I'm a tightwad by nature.Then my own house required remediation. First an attic whole house fan around 2005, then room fans, and finally 2 years ago, A/C. I noted that many other homeowners were doing
this, and that up until the early 2000s, very, very few homes in PDX had cooling systems--just as unneeded as coastal property in CA.In point of fact I had never owned a property that had a cooling system of any kind until 2005.Then I noticed that all
the temp trends on Accuweather showed "warmer than average" on more days than not--with even record-setting temperature happened multiple times per summer, back to back, for maybe 4-5 years. In 2021 I endured 6 days in a row above 100, topping out at 116.
This is latitude 46 N, 60 miles from the cold Pacific. Tomorrow will break the record, which was set last year, for 06 July.Well before this point I got curious about the mechanics (physics) of the claimed climate change argument. This was maybe 2010. I
read as much stuff as I could and I determined that very much of it was sound.Bear in mind that I really *wanted* to find everything was bogus, made-up, so that the turds who were nagging would be wrong. But this exploration of the greenhouse gas
phenomenon, when it was first identified (early 1800s?) and repeated tested and verified (ever since then) convinced me that this is what would happen if greenhouse gases were introduced into a closed system. And that seems to me like what's going on.So
what we've got is a cyclical variation that would predict a decline in temp at the same time that the temperatures are increasing consistently (and by my own observation, they sure-as-shit are), the ppm of greenhouse gases is demonstrably up (consistent
with what would happen in the greenhouse gas model) and in the aggregate it looks to me like we're in a warming TREND. What's more we can see the probable cause of the trend (GH gases ppm), and unless these begin to drop or stabilize, all else being
equal, the trend will continue.Now add to that, by their own repeated harping and nagging, if we went ZERO emissions worldwide, right now, the warming would continue for 500-1000 years. They made this claim maybe 10-15 years ago.So, we're fucked for 500-
1000 years anyway. It doesn't matter any more except in theoretical degree, which in EVERY case is well over any known threshold of human experience.Now, I still hate and loathe the know-it-all doomsayers who, by great good luck actually stumbled onto a
serious and REAL threat, so that they could fulfill their miserable lives by kvetching (like that, skript?..;^) ) about it every minute of the day.But yep, it's there and happening, and yep they're exaggerating it to benefit their own position, and yep,
part of this is to make money off of it.And yep, I still don't like them.
It's an incredible hoax, the whole thing.
They succeed at it because people are so self-centered and arrogant.
People want to create history, or at least be part of it.
They want to see Grand Slam, supernova in the sky, first person X doing thing Y etc.
The hoax of climate change allows them to experience that. It suggests we could be part of something so big, important, responsible but also having a chance to do something.
Whites especially have this need to atone for their sins, not for something they actually did, quite often even beyond that, it's atoning for the sin of mere existing.
Christianity solved that for us, but atheists rejected Christianity so they're in search of something else.
But seriously, I understand even the emotional and existential stuff, but why do people think they're so important even when facts tell them otherwise?
Have they not checked temperatures in Roman era when people walked semi naked, then colder medieval age with more robes on them, even at same places e.g. Italy.
That alone is enough to realize temperature variations have existed throughout our recent, written history.
And you don't have to go back to ice age and primitive men, meaning humanity experienced even greater variation.
Stuff always happens. A volcano emits crazy amounts of CO2 I even forgot the exact details. But a good series of volcanos (which will happen eventually) will emit far more CO2 than our entire civilization. What then?
Greenland (hint) used to be green. Now it's frozen wasteland. Would it be horrible if it was green again?
Why?
Climate "change" is bad insofar when it happens rapidly hurting people, but nothing such happens really.
Solar cycles are of immense importance too, sun creates life on earth and creates conditions here. When you step aside and think further, we're on a tiny rock traveling at crazy speeds though space together with sun, our solar system, the curve of our
path is crazy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vQJez9iiS7Y
If CO2 is such a huge issue, plant more trees, period and don't talk at all about it. CO2 itself is not even a pollutant.
But they talk about it, instead of talking about real pollution. So at that point, when they don't mention microplastics in environment entering every living thing, messing with our body and system, but they talk about CO2, at that point i understand it'
s a malicious hoax.
Even if parts of it are true, if some facts now are there are maybe correct, the whole thing is a hoax and must be fully rejected.
Plastic waste, dangers of it, and and mining which is destroying entire natural habitats and hills and mountains are crushed down in pursuit of elements necessary for all that electric hoax shit.
Don't have to read it, just to make my point.
https://www.mining-technology.com/analyst-comment/lithium-mining-negative-environmental-impact/
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
