Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Date Joined: May 12, 2024 12:37:18 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2022 15:38:36 GMT -5
But it IS
|
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Dec 30, 2022 13:13:08 GMT -5
I wonder how "green energy" will heat our homes? A furnace requires fossil fuels to burn, not solar panels or windmills. BTW Kerosene is very expensive and it's hard to find many stores are sold out, not that long ago kerosene was dirt cheat now it's about $15.00 a gallon.
|
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Dec 30, 2022 13:21:42 GMT -5
No i never said that but it seems important to you to characterize that way. So carry on I just think you believe a lot of big oil propaganda. Not your fault, they spend millions spreading it. I am not 100% in agreement with all the greenies but logically it just makes sense to shift to cleaner, renewable energy. Science will prevail with better and better options are just around the corner. A change needs to happen slowly, over decades Biden wants to change overnight by making fossil fuels so expensive people would be forced to buy 'green energy' and it's not ready to replace anything. Fossil fuel use will never go away they it will always be needed. China is building 80 more coal plants and so is India, and they don't use any "scrubbers" on their smoke stacks and they are exempt from any climate change agendas/accords the two most polluting nations. Even so, if China was not exempt they would not follow any climate accord anyhow they will do as they wish. Where is the funding coming from for the greenie push? some evidence points to Russia and other nations that want to bring down the western nations by attacking their energy supply. Follow the money,'green energy' is making many people rich. Instead of raising the cost of fossil fuels to force people to use 'green energy' they should lower the cost of 'green energy' to the level of fossil fuels. Make being 'green' cheap! |
|
|
Date Joined: May 20, 2022 16:28:37 GMT -5
|
Post by apple on Dec 30, 2022 15:53:32 GMT -5
I don't understand why homes, especially in warmer places, are not built at least with passive solar requirements.
|
|
|
Date Joined: Oct 11, 2011 19:28:34 GMT -5
|
Post by romaniprincess on Jan 1, 2023 15:52:05 GMT -5
In the first place the 99.9% figure (actually 97%) is NOT genuine. It was arrived at on the basis of a tiny sample of queries to which the MAJORITY of those questioned didn't answer. Out of those who did over half were either unsure or had no opinion. All THOSE respondents were binned from the 'poll' and only the positives and negatives included. In any other field of life except this quasi-religious nut cult that would be considered FRAUD. Now as to CO2. Believe it or not CO2 is ESSENTIAL to life on earth and particularly to plant life. Without it photosynthesis can't happen and plants and flowers (and probably almost any other life on earth) would die. The historical records DON'T support the claims about C02. The climate has been HOTTER than it is now with NO contribution from fossil fuels. In fact, strangely, many of the years with the HIGHEST C02 emissions also showed the LOWEST global temperatures. So there's NO invariant correlation between CO2 and global temperature. There IS an invariant correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. The climate has NOT been changing because of CO2 - it's been changing because of solar activity. Try reading the astrophysicists talking about the coming Maunder Minimum. I'm all in favour of conservation, recycling, lessening our dependence on fossil fuels and so on. But I DON'T go along with the hysterical and dishonest LIES of the ecofascists. Their agenda is to deliberately impoverish people (well, except themselves; they're hypocritical to the nth degree.) Don't be fooled by their lies any more than by the apologists for the Exxon Valdez fan club Mafia. You've made a lot of unsupported and incorrect claims here. The consensus does exist and there is plenty of proof that it does. realitydrop.org/myths/85Yes, CO2 is necessary for plants to use to produce oxygen. No one disputes that. realitydrop.org/myths/11The historical records DO support a definitive connection between CO2 and temperature increases. And yes, it was much hotter in the past pecisely because there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. It didn't come from humans but from other sources. The current warming trend is not due to solar activity. realitydrop.org/myths/22I and my husband have been researching this subjecct for years. I suggest you do the same. The historical records DON'T suggest an invariant link between global temperature and CO2 but they DO suggest one between solar activity (over which we have no control.) And by the way according to satellite data (which can't be faked) the global temperature HASN'T increased for 8 years now. Just as some people have a vested interest in fossil fuels so others do in green energy. Don't be naive enough to see the 'greens' as holy angels. As far back as the 1970s (before I was even born) Jonathan Porritt admitted that one of the long term aims of the green movement was genocide. And if you study astrophysicists you find the threat of an approaching Maunder Minimum being predicted. But ecology isn't a science any more; it's a religion. |
|
|
Date Joined: Oct 11, 2011 19:28:34 GMT -5
|
Post by romaniprincess on Jan 1, 2023 16:00:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Date Joined: May 20, 2022 16:28:37 GMT -5
|
Post by apple on Jan 1, 2023 16:57:47 GMT -5
Ya so tell me again why moving towards renewable energy is bad...
|
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Jan 2, 2023 11:03:46 GMT -5
I and my husband have been researching this subjecct for years. I suggest you do the same. The historical records DON'T suggest an invariant link between global temperature and CO2 but they DO suggest one between solar activity (over which we have no control.) And by the way according to satellite data (which can't be faked) the global temperature HASN'T increased for 8 years now. Just as some people have a vested interest in fossil fuels so others do in green energy. Don't be naive enough to see the 'greens' as holy angels. As far back as the 1970s (before I was even born) Jonathan Porritt admitted that one of the long term aims of the green movement was genocide. And if you study astrophysicists you find the threat of an approaching Maunder Minimum being predicted. But ecology isn't a science any more; it's a religion. Again, you are just making unsupported claims. Do you have links to actual data? I looked up the Maunder Minimum and learned that many scientists believe this will have a negligible effect on global temperatures. And I am a greenie and I certainly do not support genocide!  The Solar Maunder Minimum is a trigger for those "Little Ice Ages" and we had one a few hundred years ago, it all runs on cycles. |
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Jan 2, 2023 11:17:13 GMT -5
The Climate Alarmists just work on hype and false science and don't look at history. I studied the climate myself since around 1988 as a hobby, I have a folder and collected data since that time and I found no global warming."Climate Change" is real since the Earths climate is always changing- but "Climate Change" not real in the political way that "Climate Change" is used today.
Heres some interesting stuff about the Earths ever changing climate- The Sahara Dessert is dry today it's one of the driest places on Earth, but every 20,000 years it becomes wet and full of lakes then it goes dry again. Under the Sahara Dessert is a vast water supply from the past wet seasons. In about 10,000 more years the Sahara dessert will become wet again. The time frame when going from wet to dry takes about 200 years, as the wet season is slowly fazed out. So in utter words, when the wet season ends it'll take another 200 years for the Sahara Dessert to become bone dry again and stay that way for another 20,000 years which in human life terms is a massive amount of time.
The cause of the change is a wobble in Earths spin when the Earth wobbles one way the rain belt moves south and the Sarah Dessert goes bone dry, when the wobble shifts back the other way in 20,000 years the rain belt moves north making the Sarah Dessert wet & lush.
|
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Jan 3, 2023 16:15:12 GMT -5
sauerkraut, you are free to publish a scientific paper on your conclusions subject to rigorous peer review  No, I'm just a regular guy and more or less do it as a hobby since it's a subject I'm interested in. It's no secret that the Sahara Dessert switches from dry eras to wet eras in 20,000 year cycles. The Earths climate always changes in cycles. |
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Jan 4, 2023 12:55:16 GMT -5
Here's something else that ya don't hear global warmers/climate changers talk about- the 1938 New York Hurricane (September 21st, 1938) it killed almost 500 people the hurricane also ran up the east coast into New England, it was a storm for the record books, but today it's forgotten, it's never mentioned the 1890's also had some whopper Hurricanes,"climate change" was not even a gleam in Al Gores eye back then.
The Galveston 1900 hurricane was worse than Katrina.
|
|
|
Date Joined: Mar 14, 2016 18:48:07 GMT -5
|
Post by Springschick on Jan 4, 2023 13:14:17 GMT -5
Here's something else that ya don't hear global warmers/climate changers talk about- the 1938 New York Hurricane (September 21st, 1938) it killed almost 500 people the hurricane also ran up the east coast into New England, it was a storm for the record books, but today it's forgotten, it's never mentioned the 1890's also had some whopper Hurricanes,"climate change" was not even a gleam in Al Gores eye back then. The Galveston 1900 hurricane was worse than Katrina. Unlike you, most people live in the present and look to the future. You seem to prefer to dwell on the past. |
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Jan 4, 2023 13:59:51 GMT -5
Here's something else that ya don't hear global warmers/climate changers talk about- the 1938 New York Hurricane (September 21st, 1938) it killed almost 500 people the hurricane also ran up the east coast into New England, it was a storm for the record books, but today it's forgotten, it's never mentioned the 1890's also had some whopper Hurricanes,"climate change" was not even a gleam in Al Gores eye back then. The Galveston 1900 hurricane was worse than Katrina. Unlike you, most people live in the present and look to the future. You seem to prefer to dwell on the past. History repeats. If you don't know history you don't know what to expect in the future, plus most everything in nature runs on cycles, look at the past cycles be it sun spots or hurricane cycles. Volcanos erupt every so many years. The Sariah Dessert has a 20,000 year climate cycle between wet & dry eras. Know yer history and you'll know the future. |
|
|
Date Joined: Nov 15, 2022 19:45:02 GMT -5
|
Post by Justbec on Jan 4, 2023 14:07:27 GMT -5
Unlike you, most people live in the present and look to the future. You seem to prefer to dwell on the past. Those who ignore the past tend to repeat it's mistakes. I enjoy history and researching the past. And sauerkraut, is right, it often repeats its self. |
|
|
Date Joined: Mar 14, 2016 18:48:07 GMT -5
|
Post by Springschick on Jan 4, 2023 14:34:05 GMT -5
Unlike you, most people live in the present and look to the future. You seem to prefer to dwell on the past. Those who ignore the past tend to repeat it's mistakes. I enjoy history and researching the past. And sauerkraut, is right, it often repeats its self. So, weather is repeatable history? How so? Learning from the past is one thing. Living in it and ignoring the present and future is another. |
|
|
Date Joined: Nov 15, 2022 19:45:02 GMT -5
|
Post by Justbec on Jan 4, 2023 14:46:12 GMT -5
So, weather is repeatable history? How so? Learning from the past is one thing. Living in it and ignoring the present and future is another. You don't think by studying past weather patterns and storms we can't learn anything? |
|
|
Date Joined: Mar 14, 2016 18:48:07 GMT -5
|
Post by Springschick on Jan 4, 2023 15:35:13 GMT -5
So, weather is repeatable history? How so? Learning from the past is one thing. Living in it and ignoring the present and future is another. You don't think by studying past weather patterns and storms we can't learn anything? Yes, and I think that we have and have implemented that knowledge to the point where that information is a footnote, but no longer relevant. |
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Jan 5, 2023 13:07:31 GMT -5
Those who ignore the past tend to repeat it's mistakes. I enjoy history and researching the past. And sauerkraut, is right, it often repeats its self. So, weather is repeatable history? How so? Learning from the past is one thing. Living in it and ignoring the present and future is another. The climate runs on cycles. Even the sun has solar cycles with sunspots ever 11 years and there are cycles inside cycles. There are active hurricane years and years with hurricane lulls. Warm eras and cold eras. Ice ages come & go. BTW there is a cycle when life seems to be exterminated from Earth in the past 540 million years Earth had 5 mass extinction events, something like every 120 million years like clockwork life seems to get wiped out. There are many theories one is a dark rouge planet or a 'brown' star that has long orbits and disturbs the asteroids in the Orit cloud every time it passes thru them sending the asteroids in toward the sun and inner solar system. No one is sure why or how it happens only that it happens on a regular basses. It must be remembered that we can learn only from the past we cannot learn anything from the future, all mistakes we learn from are mistakes we did in the past not future. |
|
|
Date Joined: Mar 14, 2016 18:48:07 GMT -5
|
Post by Springschick on Jan 5, 2023 13:08:33 GMT -5
So, weather is repeatable history? How so? Learning from the past is one thing. Living in it and ignoring the present and future is another. The climate runs on cycles. Even the sun has solar cycles with sunspots ever 11 years and there are cycles inside cycles. There are active hurricane years and years with hurricane lulls. Warm eras and cold eras. Ice ages come & go. BTW there is a cycle when life seems to be exterminated from Earth in the past 540 million years Earth had 5 mass extinction events, something like every 120 million years like clockwork life seems to get wiped out. There are many theories one is a dark rouge planet or a 'brown' star that has long orbits and disturbs the asteroids in the Orit cloud every time it passes thru them sending the asteroids in toward the sun and inner solar system. It must be remembered that we can learn only from the past we cannot learn anything from the future, all mistakes we learn from are mistakes we did in the past not future. Already addressed this. |
|
|
Date Joined: Dec 29, 2022 22:16:23 GMT -5
|
Post by RichardInTN on Jan 6, 2023 7:23:20 GMT -5
I'll stick with what the other 99.99% of climate scientists agree is happening. There are three undeniable facts in this debate: 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2. Humans have been dumping tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere since we began to burn fossil fuels. 3. The climate has been changing in direct correlation with that. And the things we need change need to change anyway. Fossil fuels are not an unlimited resource. Even if your 99.99% figure was right (it's not, the percentage that gets bandied about is "97%") that "agreement" doesn't mean squat if everyone that agrees is wrong. I like to tell this little story about "97% right"... Once upon a time, there was a marching band. One day the marching band was performing and everyone was in perfect synchronization... except one kid. One spectator nudged another and said (pointing at the kid)"Look at that poor kid, he's out of step...". The other spectator looked back and said,"you are mistaken. I wrote the music that they are playing... and I can tell you that he's the only one that's actually in step." |
|
