Date Joined: Apr 30, 2020 17:59:21 GMT -5
|
Post by mikemarshall3 on Mar 7, 2023 11:05:44 GMT -5
People continue (either through simple confusion, as a result of brainwashing or deliberate deception) to confuse WEATHER with CLIMATE. Weather is constantly changing and is measured on a rapid basis. Climate change can ONLY be monitored over a period of time (30 years being the generally accepted minimum) The constant attempt to conflate weather with climate is frankly infuriating. In years to come I strongly believe that future generations will look upon the 'climate change/global warming' cultists as being exponents of a pseudo-science every bit as much as we now look upon phrenology - an outdated superstition. That would be awesome! See that is the thing about accepting the evidence for climate change. There is no downside. If we somehow got it all wrong so much the better. We are just pushing to make changes we have to make anyway due to dwindling fossil fuel supplies. But if the climate change deniers are wrong and succeed in stalling those changes then the effects of climate change will be even more drastic. Sadly, there certainly is a downside to the positions of the climate change advocates. The result of their policies are already becoming clear in many places - increasing poverty, decreased mobility, decreased opportunity, economic downturns, the increasing use of child labour to mine rare metals, increasing paranoia and brainwashing particularly among the young. To say nothing of forcing people (tradesmen, for instance) who have to drive cars, vans or lorries to spend thousands 'upgrading' their vehicles. Many of them will be forced out of business altogether in the pursuit of this net zero madness. But I am not opposed to reducing reliance on fossil fuels nor am I against developing green technologies. What I am against is making the poor poorer and plunging the JAMS (just about managing) into poverty. I am against increasing isolation, reducing opportunity and the other downsides I mentioned in the previous paragraph. And I worry about the needless haste with which unproven and frequently more environmentally damaging technologies are being forced upon people.
|
|
Date Joined: Oct 11, 2011 19:28:34 GMT -5
|
Post by romaniprincess on Mar 7, 2023 15:53:23 GMT -5
|
|
Date Joined: Apr 30, 2020 17:59:21 GMT -5
|
Post by mikemarshall3 on Mar 7, 2023 17:22:52 GMT -5
Sadly, there certainly is a downside to the positions of the climate change advocates. The result of their policies are already becoming clear in many places - increasing poverty, decreased mobility, decreased opportunity, economic downturns, the increasing use of child labour to mine rare metals, increasing paranoia and brainwashing particularly among the young. To say nothing of forcing people (tradesmen, for instance) who have to drive cars, vans or lorries to spend thousands 'upgrading' their vehicles. Many of them will be forced out of business altogether in the pursuit of this net zero madness. But I am not opposed to reducing reliance on fossil fuels nor am I against developing green technologies. What I am against is making the poor poorer and plunging the JAMS (just about managing) into poverty. I am against increasing isolation, reducing opportunity and the other downsides I mentioned in the previous paragraph. And I worry about the needless haste with which unproven and frequently more environmentally damaging technologies are being forced upon people. But again those changes need to be made and the sooner the better. Because if we keep consuming oil at the rate we are (not even factoring in increased future demand) we will run out in about 50 years. This means we need to start coming up with solutions that can extend that period because we are not in a position to completely phase out fossil fuel use yet. This will include redesigning our cities and revamping our infrastructure to lessen the need for private automobiles and that will take time to do. Change for the sake of change or change too hastily introduced can be for the worse as well as the better. As so much of the 'green' technology either does not work, does not work well, relies too heavily on rare metals and is less efficient and in some cases MORE polluting than fossil fuels it is always best to proceed cautiously. Nuclear energy could solve the entire problem but of course the ecofascists are hostile to the very idea. The main reason Germany became so reliant on Russian gas and oil was because of the Greens hostility to nuclear power. If you live in rural areas cars are virtually essential. If you are a tradesman a van is virtually essential. All that the 'green' agenda will do is impoverish people, raise unemployment, crash small business and isolate people. It is anything but in the interest of the majority of people to force them down that road and only benefits the capitalists who benefit financially from the products involved or other sinister cabals whose hidden agenda is to exploit and oppress the people. I imagine (this is my experience in Britain too) that you are not used to being opposed from a left-wing rather than a right-wing political perspective. Nevertheless there are others of similar political persuasions to myself who feel the same and regard the green agenda as being an attack on the poor and the working classes.
|
|
Date Joined: Apr 30, 2020 17:59:21 GMT -5
|
Post by mikemarshall3 on Mar 8, 2023 18:16:47 GMT -5
This is one of the many differences between politics in America and those in Britain and Europe.
In our part of the world hostility to extreme green policies cuts right across the political spectrum.
Even more fundamentally, in Britain and Europe globalisation is opposed overwhelmingly by the political left. We see it as an example of oligopoly and ruthless capitalism deliberately impoverishing the poor and exploiting and oppressing the working classes.
And the whole green agenda targets the poor directly by robbing them of mobility through the assault on cars, robbing them of the chance to be successful tradespeople by robbing them of their vans, compelling them to fit expensive 'green' technology that is expensive, inefficient (particularly in the case of wind and solar power), and attempting to keep the Third World countries poor and in subjection and debt to the wealthy nations in perpetuity.
We see it as a conscious capitalist conspiracy to impoverish and ultimately enslave the ordinary people of the world. My wife and I have been on every anti-globalisation protest held in London and not a SINGLE demonstrator on those marches was on the political right. Every one of them was a left-winger, many of them being anarchists.
In our opinion the fight against ecofascism is a fight against the far right and capitalist oligarchs and we believe that THEY are the prime movers in the net zero madness, the 15-minute city nonsense (which effectively imprisons people in ghettos) and the attempts to force people to find more expensive ways of heating their homes.
On your final paragraph I would like to ask how realistic you imagine it would be for plumbers, electricians, carpenters and builders to cycle, walk or use public transport to carry out their work. We recently had to replace our boiler and the plumber obviously needed a van to carry the parts and tools he needed. We also had to have our guttering replaced and again the men who fixed it obviously needed a van for the same purpose.
So apart from the fundamental immorality of the green agenda it is also totally impractical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Date Joined: May 13, 2024 14:40:24 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2023 10:16:41 GMT -5
This is one of the many differences between politics in America and those in Britain and Europe. In our part of the world hostility to extreme green policies cuts right across the political spectrum. Even more fundamentally, in Britain and Europe globalisation is opposed overwhelmingly by the political left. We see it as an example of oligopoly and ruthless capitalism deliberately impoverishing the poor and exploiting and oppressing the working classes. And the whole green agenda targets the poor directly by robbing them of mobility through the assault on cars, robbing them of the chance to be successful tradespeople by robbing them of their vans, compelling them to fit expensive 'green' technology that is expensive, inefficient (particularly in the case of wind and solar power), and attempting to keep the Third World countries poor and in subjection and debt to the wealthy nations in perpetuity. We see it as a conscious capitalist conspiracy to impoverish and ultimately enslave the ordinary people of the world. My wife and I have been on every anti-globalisation protest held in London and not a SINGLE demonstrator on those marches was on the political right. Every one of them was a left-winger, many of them being anarchists. In our opinion the fight against ecofascism is a fight against the far right and capitalist oligarchs and we believe that THEY are the prime movers in the net zero madness, the 15-minute city nonsense (which effectively imprisons people in ghettos) and the attempts to force people to find more expensive ways of heating their homes. On your final paragraph I would like to ask how realistic you imagine it would be for plumbers, electricians, carpenters and builders to cycle, walk or use public transport to carry out their work. We recently had to replace our boiler and the plumber obviously needed a van to carry the parts and tools he needed. We also had to have our guttering replaced and again the men who fixed it obviously needed a van for the same purpose. So apart from the fundamental immorality of the green agenda it is also totally impractical. In America, the people attending anti-globalization protests are also leftists. It wasn't until the rise of right wing populism (aka trumpism) that the right took up this banner as well. As a leftist myself I totally agree that globalization is "an example of oligopoly and ruthless capitalism deliberately impoverishing the poor and exploiting and oppressing the working classes", in fact, a kind of neo-colonialism. But the left here (rightly) sees that as a separate issue from the green agenda. Because it is the globalists, the mulitnational corporate oligarchy, that opposes environmental protection and measures to fight climate change. No one here is assaulting the ownership of cars. They are just looking at phasing out gasoline powered ones. As I already stated that is not feasible and as you know creates a new set of problems. Private ownership of cars really IS the issue to address but I am not in favor of banning that at all but rather for making reliance on them less necessary. I think I already said that for the groups you mention cars and trucks will continue to be necessary. It's being done economically, have you seen the price disparity between equal size vehicles ?
|
|
Date Joined: Apr 30, 2020 17:59:21 GMT -5
|
Post by mikemarshall3 on Mar 9, 2023 11:05:40 GMT -5
This is one of the many differences between politics in America and those in Britain and Europe. In our part of the world hostility to extreme green policies cuts right across the political spectrum. Even more fundamentally, in Britain and Europe globalisation is opposed overwhelmingly by the political left. We see it as an example of oligopoly and ruthless capitalism deliberately impoverishing the poor and exploiting and oppressing the working classes. And the whole green agenda targets the poor directly by robbing them of mobility through the assault on cars, robbing them of the chance to be successful tradespeople by robbing them of their vans, compelling them to fit expensive 'green' technology that is expensive, inefficient (particularly in the case of wind and solar power), and attempting to keep the Third World countries poor and in subjection and debt to the wealthy nations in perpetuity. We see it as a conscious capitalist conspiracy to impoverish and ultimately enslave the ordinary people of the world. My wife and I have been on every anti-globalisation protest held in London and not a SINGLE demonstrator on those marches was on the political right. Every one of them was a left-winger, many of them being anarchists. In our opinion the fight against ecofascism is a fight against the far right and capitalist oligarchs and we believe that THEY are the prime movers in the net zero madness, the 15-minute city nonsense (which effectively imprisons people in ghettos) and the attempts to force people to find more expensive ways of heating their homes. On your final paragraph I would like to ask how realistic you imagine it would be for plumbers, electricians, carpenters and builders to cycle, walk or use public transport to carry out their work. We recently had to replace our boiler and the plumber obviously needed a van to carry the parts and tools he needed. We also had to have our guttering replaced and again the men who fixed it obviously needed a van for the same purpose. So apart from the fundamental immorality of the green agenda it is also totally impractical. In America, the people attending anti-globalization protests are also leftists. It wasn't until the rise of right wing populism (aka trumpism) that the right took up this banner as well. As a leftist myself I totally agree that globalization is "an example of oligopoly and ruthless capitalism deliberately impoverishing the poor and exploiting and oppressing the working classes", in fact, a kind of neo-colonialism. But the left here (rightly) sees that as a separate issue from the green agenda. Because it is the globalists, the mulitnational corporate oligarchy, that opposes environmental protection and measures to fight climate change. No one here is assaulting the ownership of cars. They are just looking at phasing out gasoline powered ones. As I already stated that is not feasible and as you know creates a new set of problems. Private ownership of cars really IS the issue to address but I am not in favor of banning that at all but rather for making reliance on them less necessary. I think I already said that for the groups you mention cars and trucks will continue to be necessary. Again, America is different from Britain and Europe. Almost every issue is polarised along partisan lines in a way that just does not happen over here. People of all political persuasions take different views on abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender and ecological issues. Unfortunately the US has become trapped in an inflexible tick-box mindset where leftists simply cannot understand that is perfectly consistent to take 'right-wing' positions on any or all of these issues WITHOUT thereby 'becoming' right-wing or abandoning the general leftist policies. Here and in Europe the people protesting and demonstrating against the enforcement of 'green' policies are around 70% on the political left. As I said in an earlier post, the roots of the modern 'ecology' movement are in Nazi political philosophy so it is hardly surprising that its modern advocates show the same callous disregard for human life and welfare. Jonathan Porritt, the first leader of what was then called the Ecology Party but is now the Green Party, admitted in the 1970s that the ultimate 'goal' of his movement was genocide. He admitted that he WANTED millions of people to die and that he WANTED to reduce most people to a subsistence level. This remains the ultimate goal of the ecofascists who sadly have come to dominate modern environmentalism. Their intention is to impoverish and enslave the world and for all their posturing they are as repellent and immoral as the Nazis who inspired them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Date Joined: May 13, 2024 14:40:24 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2023 13:20:24 GMT -5
It's being done economically, have you seen the price disparity between equal size vehicles ? I'm not in the market currently. I know cars in general have become more expensive due to the pandemic. I also know electric vehicles are still way more expensive than conventional ones. What do you mean by "equal size vehicles"? Comparable in all aspects of use, passenger count, load capacity etc. A family of four would need at minimum a vehicle that would fit them all. Quite the price disparity between gas and electric in price for similar vehicles. I'm not including outrageous price of battery replacement either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Date Joined: May 13, 2024 14:40:24 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2023 23:29:30 GMT -5
Comparable in all aspects of use, passenger count, load capacity etc. A family of four would need at minimum a vehicle that would fit them all. Quite the price disparity between gas and electric in price for similar vehicles. I'm not including outrageous price of battery replacement either. So that nullifies your argument that electric vehicles are being forced on people. You seem to have forgotten the mandates that are coming into effect soon.
|
|
Date Joined: Oct 26, 2021 18:21:44 GMT -5
|
Post by Rusty on Mar 9, 2023 23:38:53 GMT -5
Fyi all I see is electric vehicle ads on tv and social media. I fall into a weird category, a Democrat who loves fossil fuel. Nothing new for me. AND... I can't wait to get back to church!😮
|
|
Date Joined: Oct 26, 2021 18:21:44 GMT -5
|
Post by Rusty on Mar 9, 2023 23:40:51 GMT -5
Goodnight Sunny Dazers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Date Joined: May 13, 2024 14:40:24 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2023 23:58:41 GMT -5
I'm hitting the hay too.
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Mar 10, 2023 12:02:16 GMT -5
Global warmin' is all political and it's gotta be the biggest hoax being played on the worlds population, as for melting poles, at one time the pole were totally ice free, so we're actually colder than what we should be, perhaps ice free poles is the normal Earth climate and we need to warm up. Biden is giving tons more money in the green new deal while taxing oil, coal & gas- the fuel we need to heat out homes.
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Mar 10, 2023 12:07:01 GMT -5
I'm no scientist but never saw a winter here so mild with only a few inches of snow. Only roughly 3-4 days all winter in the single digits. The winter of 1888 was very mild hardly any snow in the N.E. then on march 11, 1888 a big blizzard hit New York and parts of the N.E. It happens - earth's climate is always changing. There were other mild years it depends on the 'El-'Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean. Today it's all political so science is tossed out the window, today every weather event is tied to "climate change" they blame the cold and snow in California on climate change, they blame the warm weather in the south east on climate change, too much rain, floods, droughts, too much snow too little snow it's all climate change. Today we don't have a single weather event that is not related to climate change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Date Joined: May 13, 2024 14:40:24 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2023 7:24:30 GMT -5
It's just the bad weather that relates to AGW according to the religion.
If it's a string of good weather like we've been having the last ten years or so, then it's nature of course.
Even checked our drought map from the NWS, nope, nothing.
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Mar 13, 2023 11:12:27 GMT -5
I bought a school book called "World Geography" at a local thrift store for 49 cents it's the teachers edition it's dated 1983 and in the book there is no mention of global warming or climate change, it talks of CO2 being a good thing, a few mentions about an ice age. Global Warming/climate change was not even a gleam in the eye of Al Gore back then. It had not yet been invented. Contrast that to a school book of today with a whole chapter on climate change & global warming. They are calling the flood of refugees "Climate Refugees"
|
|
Date Joined: Oct 11, 2011 19:28:34 GMT -5
|
Post by romaniprincess on Mar 13, 2023 14:58:26 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Date Joined: May 13, 2024 14:40:24 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2023 20:05:37 GMT -5
I bought a school book called "World Geography" at a local thrift store for 49 cents it's the teachers edition it's dated 1983 and in the book there is no mention of global warming or climate change, it talks of CO2 being a good thing, a few mentions about an ice age. Global Warming/climate change was not even a gleam in the eye of Al Gore back then. It had not yet been invented. Contrast that to a school book of today with a whole chapter on climate change & global warming. They are calling the flood of refugees "Climate Refugees"I guess the narrative is changing. (bolded) Not that long ago it used to be that the US interfered with their countries, forcing them to flee here for economic reasons.
|
|
Date Joined: Sept 16, 2012 13:59:47 GMT -5
|
Post by sauerkraut on Mar 15, 2023 10:51:42 GMT -5
The next issue seems to be plastic in our oceans and it's the USA who will have to do something about that, the other nations don't care. The problem is China has been dumping large amounts of plastic waste into our oceans for years and they are still doing it. The result? California bans plastic straws to save the ocean.
As for Canada, they are very closely tied with Britton & the UK, even though Canada and the USA have alot in common- the provinces of Canada have alot of power in what goes on inside them but the Prime Minister is the ruler of it all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Date Joined: May 13, 2024 14:40:24 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2023 7:50:55 GMT -5
I hit a pay wall when trying to read the article, I was interested. I have a heat pump that works quite well, but do live in a warmer latitude. N-36.383740
|
|