President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#35,001
#35,001
McDad said:
My mother was told in high school in the late 40s there was only 30 years supply of oil remaining. I was told the same in middle school in the early 80s.

We been predicted to:
Freeze
Burn
Starve
Drown
Die from super bacteria
Die from UV radiation
Die from nuclear war
Die from acid rain
Experience super Hurricanes

Anybody fretting over climate change simply enjoys anxiety.
Click to expand...
It's like the boy who cried wolf story never existed. Scare tactics (and let's not pretend all sides don't practice such tactics where applicable) have long, loooong been a means to leverage wealth and power. The Climate Catastrophe is one of the biggest since it's truly global in it's scope. At the top it's littered with people that have that "Don't look at my wealth and my yachts and private airplane miles...listen to what I say when messing with how you lot make it through life beneath us." bit going on.

I've posted this before but it's something that's stuck with me for years now and while climate was the focus at the time it's hardly limited to that application.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

Michael Crichton
 
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol, CobbVol, McDad and 2 others
#35,005
#35,005
Buddy’s Bandit said:
OK, I always have this question and I fail to receive an answer. It has been proven the Artic used to be a tropical forest. If so, what caused it to freeze?

I find it very hard to believe man has anything to do with the our global environment when you see the vastness of our universe.

How many times do we have to exist beyond Al Gore’s (and others ) projections before we understand we have little to do with the climate? It is too vast!
Click to expand...
I have herd theories that a huge meteorite struck earth causing dust to block out sunlight allowing the earth to freeze. I think it was supposed to have altered earth's rotational I honestly don't know. I've explored in the desert of Bahrain, were there has been no water in recorded history and found drift wood.

As for vastness of universe,earth is a speck of dust in our universe. I do believe trapped gasses has caused a warming of earth. How would it have no affect?

When you talk of alarmist, don't leave out Larry Flint. I read a hustler article in the early 80s warning of man-made climate change. I only read the articles never looked at pictures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#35,009
#35,009
hndog609 said:
It's like the boy who cried wolf story never existed. Scare tactics (and let's not pretend all sides don't practice such tactics where applicable) have long, loooong been a means to leverage wealth and power. The Climate Catastrophe is one of the biggest since it's truly global in it's scope. At the top it's littered with people that have that "Don't look at my wealth and my yachts and private airplane miles...listen to what I say when messing with how you lot make it through life beneath us." bit going on.
Click to expand...
there is also a good bit of them who have pushed more of the commercial response to CC that we have today.

Before Obama there was a big emphasis on going back to local architectural trends to reduce energy demands. There was a lot of "tech" and developments happening that would have drastically reduced the impact of humans with the existing tech we had. Didn't require rare earth metals from China, or fancy technology the user could never fix, and focused on individual responses.

that wasn't enough, they had to commercialize the response. they had to push a one size fits all response, get rid of FF, and go to solar/wind. it was a terrible approach. first because it got the government involved, and secondly that type of one size fits all approach was never going to be efficient, or appropriate everywhere thus limiting its implementation.

there were some terribly simple straight forward approaches that got left at the wayside in order to push solar panels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad, SlipKidVol and hndog609
#35,010
#35,010
swampfoxfan said:
Improvement ? only a maga is stupid enough to vote for a felon and pedophile.

77 million didn't vote for Trump. Probably 20 million of those voted against Kamala Harris.
And now regret it.
Click to expand...
At minimum the cognitive state of your President has improved from the last guy.

The other improvements are most likely what has you triggered.

How did your son do on the girls track team last spring?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz
#35,015
#35,015
swampfoxfan said:
The scientific community agree climate change is real and is adversely affecting the world. Warming oceans will reclaim many islands, one island off the coast of Maryland will disappear withing 25 years, everyone will loose their homes.
Scientist credit trapped greenhouse pollution as the cause. Big oil of course disagrees.
Click to expand...

Lol. The ones paid agree with the government’s fear mongering version. Most everyone else realize it’s something that’s happened for 4.5 billion years. Should we do more to minimize pollution? Of course. As for the island thing, we heard the same s**t 25 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, SlipKidVol and dovervolz
#35,016
#35,016
C-south said:
Lol. The ones paid agree with the government’s fear mongering version. Most everyone else realize it’s something that’s happened for 4.5 billion years. Should we do more to minimize pollution? Of course. As for the island thing, we heard the same s**t 25 years ago.
Click to expand...


The guy is typing inside of his house while triple face diapered up thinking he will never catch a cold again. If he hasn't figured that out yet, no amount of sane people talking to him is going to help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc, SpaceCoastVol, dovervolz and 1 other person
#35,017
#35,017
swampfoxfan said:
Do you deny that the climate is changing? Polar ice fields are not melting? That some islands are losing a foot of beach per year due to rising seasons?
Click to expand...
This is part of the problem. It's telling a slanted story.

www.nasa.gov

Arctic Sea Ice Near Historic Low; Antarctic Ice Continues Decline - NASA

Arctic sea ice retreated to near-historic lows in the Northern Hemisphere this summer, likely melting to its minimum extent for the year on Sept.11, 2024,
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov

The historic low via satellite was 1.3 million in 2012. At the end of 2024 we were at 1.6. Do you ever hear about that increase? Or do they always just phrase the study to only show change as decreases?

Antarctica is similar. 2024 was a decline over the highs from '21 to '23, but still considerably higher than the low in 2012.
www.theguardian.com

Antarctic ice has grown again – but this does not buck overall melt trend

Study shows ice sheet gained mass from 2021 to 2023, due to extreme snowfall that was also an effect of climate crisis
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The issue with all of this is we presume that whenever we started measuring these things it was "normal", and thus any change is going away from that "normal". Which may not be the case. Maybe we started recording data at a local "high" and we are just returning to average.


As far as the land loss that is a relative thing. Overall we are still gaining. Some islands are losing, but more are gaining. Again we like to pretend that when we started paying attention is exactly how it was before humans messed anything up. That simply isn't the case. The world was changing long before we figured out fire.

It is extreme hubris to presume that we are the drivers of the change we are seeing today. We certainly have an impact, but it's not the difference in environmental apocalypse vs "normal". "Normal" was always a point in time, not some set truth that humans ruined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, USF grad in TN, McDad and 1 other person
#35,020
#35,020
You guys good with Trump getting the jet when he leaves office? He's putting something like $900 million in renovations into the jet that YOU'RE going to be paying for. I mean, I know this doesn't approach the level of scandal that Joe faced when his brother paid back a personal loan of a few thousand dollars.

 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and swampfoxfan
#35,024
#35,024
swampfoxfan said:
Do you deny that the climate is changing? Polar ice fields are not melting? That some islands are losing a foot of beach per year due to rising seasons?
Click to expand...

I agree that the climate is changing, it's has always been in flux since the Earth was formed (created). Climate is and has never been static, mans impact on the Earths climate has been negligible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN, Vol8188, SpaceCoastVol and 3 others
#35,025
#35,025
hndog609 said:
It's like the boy who cried wolf story never existed. Scare tactics (and let's not pretend all sides don't practice such tactics where applicable) have long, loooong been a means to leverage wealth and power. The Climate Catastrophe is one of the biggest since it's truly global in it's scope. At the top it's littered with people that have that "Don't look at my wealth and my yachts and private airplane miles...listen to what I say when messing with how you lot make it through life beneath us." bit going on.

I've posted this before but it's something that's stuck with me for years now and while climate was the focus at the time it's hardly limited to that application.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

Michael Crichton
Click to expand...
Excellent post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top