Support us at Patreon

Politics Climate Hysteria Debunked Yet Again ....

Then he should show scientific evidence relating to the Sth West region of the main Island
 
Nancy said:
Then he should show scientific evidence relating to the Sth West region of the main Island
Click to expand...

You are no doubt closer to this area than me, and I am no expert, but sea level rises the same everywhere, if it rises faster in the samoa islands, then there is clearly another factor. I found this article that explains that the sinking of the Samoa islands, a real disaster in the making no doubt, is more due to tectonic reasons than ocean rise.

The authors found that, because of the Samoan Islands' placement around the fault zone, each island is responding differently. In Samoa, for example, tectonic shifting now pushes the island both horizontally and vertically at equal rates, according to the study. The American Samoa island, however, now moves mostly in a vertical direction, sinking into the Earth in a geological phenomenon known as subsidence, at a rate twice as fast as Samoa.
Click to expand...

phys.org

Earthquake in 2009 intensified American Samoa's rising sea levels

The 2009, magnitude-8.1 Samoa earthquake dealt a great deal of damage to the Samoan Islands: Tsunami waves as high as 14 meters (46 feet) wiped out multiple villages, claiming nearly 200 lives and severely damaging water and electrical systems.
phys.org phys.org
 
", as tectonic movement can greatly influence the rate that sea levels rise, and should be considered in addition to climate-induced changes."

It appears to be a combination of both. Seems we're screwed either way.
 
Current Govt was going to plant a billion trees to offset international carbon credit bill. They are currently going after farmers with a tax for methane and its tens of billions we have to pay Paris accord.
If the world embarks on this there will be the great green depression.
They just can't burn up this proposed amount of carbon based money and not have an economic disaster.
I honestly regret making comments at the Aussies that our laws were better.
 
Last edited:
primer said:
Current Govt was going to plant a billion trees to offset international carbon credit bill. They are currently going after farmers with a tax for methane and its tens of billions we have to pay Paris accord.
If the world embarks on this there will be the great green depression.
They just can't burn up this proposed amount of carbon based money and not have an economic disaster.
I honestly regret making comments at the Aussies that our laws were better.
Click to expand...

Yep , it's all offset . Recycle your plastic bottles then jet off on 5 foreign holidays a year . That's the plan as far as I can see. A " carbon credit bill " is just a bye word for how can we financialize the environment .
 
A reforestation scheme is actually one of the less stupid ideas the hysterics have come up with.

What's always amazed and concerned me is that both camps in this debate seem to think it's impossible to accept climate change as a fact (which it is), but disagree on the counter-measures. For instance, maybe we could've had built fusion reactors by now if all that money thrown shady solar electricity firms had been used to finalize the research.

On a lighter note, I wouldn't mind if we got another year without a summer right about now.
 
That is a good idea if it doesn't encroach on the food supply. Farms getting turned into trees because of carbon credits. There was a downturn in the 80s when many acres nearly arable type land was turned into trees. These have all been ripped out now and re-replaced by cows but they way they do it wrecks the soil layers for ever. They pretty much turn it upside down.
 
The biggest threat to the planet's forests is the soy plant. Entire countries worth of trees have been cut down to make way for soy bean farming, so that environmentalist dipshits in Europe and North America may fuel their cars with "clean fuel" or drink an alternative to milk that doesn't involve "animal cruelty".
 
The same people who were telling me (for 2 1/2 years) that Trump is a Russian Spy/Nazi/leader of a white supremacist death cult. That I can keep my Doctor, health plan and my health insurance premiums will go down. Who tell me a baby in utero is not human and whose every prediction of catastrophic Global climate change has been wrong have developed a trust issue with me. Oh I believe in climate change. The Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and so on and so forth. Most definitely.
 
You're pretty much the opposite to that Greta broad then. She says that if you don't buy into her every word, you're a climate change denier. You, on the other hand, are basically suggesting only they who believe in all that other shyte you've mentioned believe in climate change.

And yet the situation is fairly simple. There is a climate change; it's observable and it's significant enough to warrant thorough consideration. The real question is: Is it man-made?

The strong correlation between human industrial activity (or rather human overpopulation) and the recent period of climate change seems to suggest as much.

Now, a correlation is not a causation. However, by scientific standards it's quite reasonable to link – in the abscence of other, more compelling causes – a potential explanation to the observed effect, for nothing happens without a cause.

Or to use a more practical example: If someone who's been a chain smoker for their entire life comes down with lung cancer at the age of 60, there is an infinitesimal possibility their condition was in fact not caused by decades of inhaling cyanide but by spontaneous cell mutation. That is not a reasonable assumption, though.

More importantly, the assumption that science makes instead does abide by the very logic unopposed by anyone unless politics or religion come into play. The principles of climatology are the principles of physics and chemistry in general. Objecting to the logic that says that climate change is influenced by man means objecting to the logic that makes our airplanes fly or our drugs effect a cure. So far, there is – quite frankly – nothing to discuss.

It is only beyond this point that things start to get murky.

These are some of the great many questions that climatology cannot answer:
How big is humanity's apparent impact on natural climate change?
Does our apparent ability to speed up natural climate change inevitably mean we have the ability to slow it down as well?
How is the climate going to look like in 50 or 500 years, and how would it be going to look like 50 or 500 years from now without humanity's presence on the planet?
Is the reduction of CO2 and CH4 truly the most effective way to influence the climate?
Is it ethical to tell people what they may eat or how many children they may have?

And, my personal favourite:
Why do we need to avert that which would have had taken place regardless, probably just slower? Why is it e.g. that the glaciers disappearing now is a problem whereas their inevitable disappearance within a few hundred years seemed to bother no one?

Or in other words: Shouldn't we try to adapt to a changing climate rather than wasting time and money trying to prevent a change that would've had come anyway, albeit later?

Climatologists who do not acknowledge their inability to give definitive answers to these questions or who don't want to leave the decisions to the democratic institutions are activists not scientists. But those activist types exist in every discipline; they're not intrinsic to sciences that research climate change.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to use two of my favorite words. Flabbergasted and flummoxed. Because of what Blackcat said. I remember the first dire Earth Day predictions of world disaster in 1973 and as a 16 year old kid it scared the S**t out of me. I think back then it was overpopulation and we were all going to be dead by the 1980s because there would not be enough food. Why is anyone surprised there is doubt? It's an incredible complex phenomena, all of their predictions have been wrong and climate change has been an integral part of Earth's history from the get go. Then there's the trust issue...
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Mordoror said:
Nothing.
It seems too late. The inertia of GH gases is decades and there is no political will nor technological means to convert our fossil energy based civilisation.
What we can do is mitigate the forecoming disasters (plant more trees instead of turning our lands into mineral concrete jungles, use train transportation instead of hundred of trucks, make more efficient engines, paint houses white, stop monoculture water wasting crops , promote and develop public transportation.... but even for that it is too few too late.
To be honest i am not overly optimistic
We can expect social issues about migration, water, energy, clean air, overpopulation.
Worse that what we have seen in the past 10y
Those were only the premisses
Click to expand...

Overpopulation is the key to all of present and next future problems.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Why do we not wear carbon dioxide inflated clothing in winter? I feel ignorant in my wool shirt I clearly need a carbon dioxide puffer jacket.
Along with the minuscule amount of carbon dioxide is the minuscule sea rise is going to wipe out that Welsh village over night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
military advertising
Back
Top