Jump to content

Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics


Mr King
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

if you quoted Dr King in a modern high school you'd be hounded out as a racist.

 

E5M's statement:

you may not

be interested in war but war may be interested in you should be mandatory reading for all politicians (and all citizens for that matter)

I went back to school some 25 years ago and during a study group I paraphrased the "content of character" passage. One of the bright eyed coeds in the group said, "That was beautiful." When I told them those words weren't mine, but that I was quoting MLK, words to the effect of "Racist" were uttered. Point being that particular passage of the Dream speech has been a sore point with Leftists since MLK uttered them nearly 60 years ago.

 

Of which the Reverend Martin Luther King quoted Jesus; John 8:31-32

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Pathetic indeed is the education of our youth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

God forbid they use their resources to support their business.

 

Seriously, the "anti climate change lobby"? There are actually many people in this world that don't buy the warmist (see how that works) line of BS but will gladly admit that the climate changes and has always changed. God forbid if a company expends money to help its business, particularly when the warmists are using their own big money "science" and regulatory mandates to put them out of business. We seem to be back to the free speech debate and how some speech is allowed and some isn't. [hint, that's not how it works] As the USSC ruled in Citizens United vs. FEC, money is speech and is protected.

 

Also, notice the article states "the documents do not include information on the size of the contributions". My guess is that the money spent on this was not the determiner on whether they declared bankruptcy or not.

 

And people wonder why we won't hand our freedoms over to our "betters" and choose to retain our 2nd amendment right to contest their apparent need to "do what's best for us" whether we want it or not. Every time we're told to shut up and do what we're told, we buy more guns and ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rogue Chinese factories damaging ozone with use of illegal gases

By Chris Ciaccia | Fox News

 

In May 2018, a startling study revealed that there was an "unexpected and persistent increase" of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere. At the time, scientists could not pinpoint the exact location of the polluting and ozone-depleting gas, but subsequent media reports suggested that the clues lead to a rural industrial town in China.

 

Now, a new study confirms that the rise in CFCs, to the tune of 7,000 metric tons, is indeed coming from northeastern China based on atmospheric observations.

"Here, using high-frequency atmospheric observations from Gosan, South Korea, and Hateruma, Japan, together with global monitoring data and atmospheric chemical transport model simulations, we investigate regional CFC-11 emissions from eastern Asia," the study's abstract reads. "We show that emissions from eastern mainland China are 7.0 ± 3.0 (±1 standard deviation) gigagrams per year higher in 2014–2017 than in 2008–2012, and that the increase in emissions arises primarily around the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei."

 

The abstract of the new study, which has been published in Nature, adds that the increase seen from the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei account for "a substantial fraction" to the tune of at least 40 to 60 percent in the rise of CFC-11 emissions; there was also no significant increase in CFC-11 emissions seen in any other East Asian country or other regions around the world where the data is available.

 

It's unclear what the economic cost of the new CFC-11 emissions would be, but a 2009 study suggested that future ozone pollution could result in $580 billion (in the year 2000) in annual health costs "and that mortalities from acute exposure will exceed 2 million."

 

Fox News has reached out to the Chinese Ministry of Ecology and Environment with a request for comment. According to a report in The New York Times, the Ministry was prepping answers to questions the Times sent it last week about its ongoing investigation.

 

Dr. Matt Rigby, the lead author of the study, said that the increase of CFC-11, which was widely used as a refrigerant and to make foam insulation prior to it being banned by the 1987 Montreal Protocol, was "unexpected" when he and his team started conducting their research.

 

"CFC-11 was used primarily in foam blowing, so we looked at estimates of the amount of CFC-11 that could be locked up in insulating foams in buildings or refrigerators that were made before 2010, but the quantities were far too small to explain the recent rise," Rigby said in a statement. "The most likely explanation is that new production has taken place, at least prior to the end of 2017, which is the period covered in our work."

 

Speaking with news.com.au, Rigby said the fact that the factories were producing CFC-11 in secret, aided by some local government officials turning a blind eye, "wasn’t entirely a surprise.”

 

The researchers have not yet been able to pinpoint where the other CFC-11 emissions are coming from.

 

"Our measurements are sensitive only to the eastern part of China, western Japan and the Korean peninsula and the remainder of the AGAGE network sees parts of North America, Europe and southern Australia," professor Sunyoung Park added in the statement. "There are large swathes of the world for which we have very little detailed information on the emissions of ozone depleting substances."

 

The ozone is part of the Earth's stratosphere and helps act as protection against the Sun's harmful ultraviolet rays.

 

After the initial 2018 study was presented, there were reports that international non-governmental organization Environmental Investigation Agency suspected Chinese foam factories of causing the wrongdoing. Chinese authorities later shut down some of these facilities, providing no further explanation, news.com.au added.

 

While the facts are concerning, it appears that certain members of the Chinese government are going to take positive action.

 

“They were concerned, it was clear I think ... that they were going to tackle this issue,” Paul Fraser, one of the study's co-authors, said in an interview with ABC radio by way of news.com.au. Fraser added that he had not yet seen any indication that China has started to reprimand the offending factories.

 

The 1987 Montreal Protocol was enacted after scientists disturbingly found a hole in the ozone over Antarctica and Australia in 1985. It was enacted by the United Nations Environment Program. Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said it was "[p]erhaps the single most successful international agreement to date" and it has been widely regarded as successful, with the ozone continuing to recover each year.

 

One hundred ninety-seven countries, including the U.S. under former President Ronald Reagan and China, are signatories of the Montreal Protocol.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/science/chinese-factories-damaging-ozone-illegal-gases

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all you do though. Buy more guns and more ammo. It's justifying hobby purchases whilst feeling you're actually doing something positive about a perceived problem. I've listened to 23 years of talk about how gun owners will kick off at the next infringement of their rights, but, in all that time there has been no organised armed resistance to encroaching tyranny. If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now given the amount of time, the huge number of gun owners (at least a few of which must combine sufficient paranoia with an ability to cooperate) and the level of provocation that's apparently so heartfelt. That it hasn't must tell you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all you do though. Buy more guns and more ammo. It's justifying hobby purchases whilst feeling you're actually doing something positive about a perceived problem. I've listened to 23 years of talk about how gun owners will kick off at the next infringement of their rights, but, in all that time there has been no organised armed resistance to encroaching tyranny. If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now given the amount of time, the huge number of gun owners (at least a few of which must combine sufficient paranoia with an ability to cooperate) and the level of provocation that's apparently so heartfelt. That it hasn't must tell you something.

 

The average person will just want to get along with their lives. They will put up with an amazing amount of BS and thuggery before they finally crack. One would hope that kind of response would be the LAST resort and not just your average Tuesday in a free nation. Most people know what crossing that line will mean to us all. Look at what Venezuela's people took before they said enough, only to realize they gave their power to do so away to the very government oppressing them. Now they're just fracked and have rocks and a few molotovs to fight their oppressors. Human nature.

 

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is not Venezuela, and no amount of AOCs is going to change that. Single payer health care and a Green New Deal is not going to change that.

 

Even Trump won't change that on the long run.

 

And its NOT because of Jeff buying more ammo. Its because of how our country was established, and the respect for and perception of legitimacy of our institutions. That is why Trump-like populists pose the greatest threat to our institutions, because they have an interest in degrading trust in their legitimacy.

Edited by Paul G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exxon-Mobil actually lobbies for a CO2 tax to avoid havong to deal with local regulations:

The Nobel Committee this year recognized the underlying theory by awarding its economics prize to Yale University’s William Nordhaus. His work proves “the most efficient remedy for the problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions would be a global scheme of carbon taxes that are uniformly imposed on all countries,” the committee said.
Many oil companies agree and have called for a global carbon tax instead of a patchwork of national, state and local regulations. Exxon Mobil took the considerable step last week of committing $1 million to lobby Congress for a carbon tax.

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Baby-boomer-are-stealing-from-Millennials-13302287.php

 

Also interesting is the rest of the article about how every president since Reagan has piled up debt onto more debt. And more tax cuts.

 

I know this won’t happen, though. Because unlike the World War II generation that paid down its debt, provided quality schools and built interstate highways, today’s elders don’t care what kind of mess they create for their grandchildren. They’re only interested in low taxes, cheap gasoline and letting their offspring pick up the bill.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Exxon-Mobil actually lobbies for a CO2 tax to avoid havong to deal with local regulations:

 

The Nobel Committee this year recognized the underlying theory by awarding its economics prize to Yale University’s William Nordhaus. His work proves “the most efficient remedy for the problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions would be a global scheme of carbon taxes that are uniformly imposed on all countries,” the committee said.

Many oil companies agree and have called for a global carbon tax instead of a patchwork of national, state and local regulations. Exxon Mobil took the considerable step last week of committing $1 million to lobby Congress for a carbon tax.

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Baby-boomer-are-stealing-from-Millennials-13302287.php

 

Also interesting is the rest of the article about how every president since Reagan has piled up debt onto more debt. And more tax cuts.

 

I know this won’t happen, though. Because unlike the World War II generation that paid down its debt, provided quality schools and built interstate highways, today’s elders don’t care what kind of mess they create for their grandchildren. They’re only interested in low taxes, cheap gasoline and letting their offspring pick up the bill.

 

 

 

Oh no...the obvious 'can't rein in spending' can't be mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all you do though. Buy more guns and more ammo. It's justifying hobby purchases whilst feeling you're actually doing something positive about a perceived problem. I've listened to 23 years of talk about how gun owners will kick off at the next infringement of their rights, but, in all that time there has been no organised armed resistance to encroaching tyranny. If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now given the amount of time, the huge number of gun owners (at least a few of which must combine sufficient paranoia with an ability to cooperate) and the level of provocation that's apparently so heartfelt. That it hasn't must tell you something.

"Current events for $200 Alex."

"BLM"

"what was the Bundy standoff?"

 

Frankly you can look at current events OR look at historical events. When do populations say enough is enough? The answer is "that's complicated".

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That's all you do though. Buy more guns and more ammo. It's justifying hobby purchases whilst feeling you're actually doing something positive about a perceived problem. I've listened to 23 years of talk about how gun owners will kick off at the next infringement of their rights, but, in all that time there has been no organised armed resistance to encroaching tyranny. If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now given the amount of time, the huge number of gun owners (at least a few of which must combine sufficient paranoia with an ability to cooperate) and the level of provocation that's apparently so heartfelt. That it hasn't must tell you something.

"Current events for $200 Alex."

"BLM"

"what was the Bundy standoff?"

 

Frankly you can look at current events OR look at historical events. When do populations say enough is enough? The answer is "that's complicated".

So who do you shoot first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the self professed expert here. Who would you shoot first? The citizens or the government officials acting outside of basic legal principles?

Do you go Jack Booted Thug on the citizens who you deem to be above their station or do you defend the citizens and the constitution you swore to defend and uphold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the self professed expert here. Who would you shoot first? The citizens or the government officials acting outside of basic legal principles?

 

Do you go Jack Booted Thug on the citizens who you deem to be above their station or do you defend the citizens and the constitution you swore to defend and uphold?

Yes I am in a profession of arms. I have an oath that I take deadly serious. I am sworn to obey all lawful orders. I also have a RUF that lays out a continuum of force.

 

I'm not the one here claiming they have the 2nd Amendment right to shoot people they disagree with politically, because they perceive they pose a threat to their rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nah, MLK just wanted his group at the top, just like everyone else.

 

Everyone is in competition with everyone else, for everything, all the time. Your skin is your uniform, whether you want it to be or not. And just because you aren't interested in war, doesn't mean war isn't interested in you. S/F...Ken M

I think he wanted his group to not be at the bottom, to not be second class citizens, to not be lynched. Uppity I know. Too much to ask of folks like you apparently. Your second statement proves that.

Actually, since the people MLK surrounded himself with turned out to be well described by E5M its reasonable to question what MLKs true feelings were. He did leave us with some wonderful speeches, though.

His dream seems hopeless now. Maybe things would have been different if he had lived.

Edited by Detonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the one here claiming they have the 2nd Amendment right to shoot people they disagree with politically, because they perceive they pose a threat to their rights.

So, you consider the men who emerged from Buckman Tavern on that fateful day in April 1775 to have been wrong in their actions and that they should have allowed the Redcoats to go about their orders?

 

Where does the Rubicon lie for you Paul?

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not the one here claiming they have the 2nd Amendment right to shoot people they disagree with politically, because they perceive they pose a threat to their rights.

So, you consider the men who emerged from Buckman Tavern on that fateful day in April 1775 to have been wrong in their actions and that they should have allowed the Redcoats to go about their orders?

 

Where does the Rubicon lie for you Paul?

The Regulars shot first. Violence escalates from there. The Colonies in 1775 are a long way from the United States in 2019. We have established, legitimate, Democratic institutions that have endured for two hundred and forty-three years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguably, true, we've not had the legislatures disbanded by the federal government. Would that be a portion of the rubicon for you?

Sure declaration of martial law with corrupt intent, dissolution of legitimate democratic representative government. Suspension of the bill of rights. All would qualify as tyrannical hostility towards the Constitution.

 

Political fractions do not reach that level as long as the foundational structure exists.

 

 

There exists multiple avenues of addressing grievances with the Federal Government. 1. Talk to the agency involved 2. Talk to your elected representative 3. Talk to the press 3. Get a lawyer.

Edited by Paul G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)

by Jeff Dunetz | Jun 10, 2019 | Climate

 

IMG_0159-1200x630.jpg

 

SHHHHHHHH!!! The National Park Service has quietly removed all the signs put up by the Obama administration that told visitors that the glaciers would “all be gone” by the year 2020 due to global warming… because… it’s 2019, and the glaciers are all still there and have been growing.

 

Glacier National Park quietly removed a sign at its visitor center saying the glaciers will disappear by 2020 which were originally placed because former President Obama believed the predictions pushed by the left’s climate change hypothesis.

 

According to federal officials, several years in a row of high snowfall and cold temperatures totally obliterated a computer model that authorities relied on to claim that the glaciers would all be melted by 2020, Daily Caller reported.

 

Despite reality making a joke of the former computer model that made such a foolish forecast, the signs still hold to the global warming theme. The segment that once said the glaciers would for sure be gone by 2020 now reads, “When they completely disappear, however, will depend on how and when we act.”

 

The USGS still insists, “The overall picture remains the same, however, and that picture is that the glaciers all continue to retreat.”

 

The signage alteration was first noticed by climate writer Roger Roots who wrote last week, “As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020. The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources.”

 

“Almost everywhere, the Park’s specific claims of impending glacier disappearance have been replaced with more nuanced messaging indicating that everyone agrees that the glaciers are melting,” Roots added.

 

Dr. Roots explains how the government skews the truth:

A major flaw in the government’s ‘before’ and ‘after’ approach is the omission of precise calendar dates. Every Montanan knows that mountain glaciers grow for 9 months of the year and then melt for 3 months. Thus a picture of a glacier taken in June or July will always show the glacier much larger than will a photo taken in early September. Comparing one year (“circa 1952”) to another year (“2005’) can be highly manipulative. Only a year-by-year, date-by-date comparison of photos taken at the end of the melt season (generally around the second week of September) will establish whether a glacier is growing or shrinking.

 

This year (2018) it quickly became clear that the glaciers have grown substantially in recent years. A startling example is seen at the Jackson Glacier overlook on the Going-to-the-Sun Road. The government has erected a sign with two photos: (1) the Glacier in 1911; and (2) the Glacier in 2009. The display shows the Jackson Glacier melting away to perhaps 10 or 20 percent of its 1911 size. But visitors to the marker in 2018 are able to look up above in the distance and see that the Jackson Glacier has grown significantly since 2009. The Glacier’s growth may be as much as 30 or more percent since 2009.

Since September 2015 Roots has offered to bet anyone $5,000 that GNP’s glaciers will still exist in 2030, in contradiction to the reported scientific consensus. To this date, no one has taken him up on the bet—I certainly won’t.

 

The Daily Caller notes:

 

The total area of Glacier National Park covered in its iconic glaciers shrank 70% from the 1850s to 2015, according to USGS. Melting began at the end of the so-called Little Ice Age when scientists believe 146 glaciers covered the region, opposed to just 26 in 2019.

Glacial melting is nothing new, they have been receding before this country had a president and long before the global warming hypothesis became popular Let’s go back in history…take a look at this news article from 1952 which talks about different glaciers, claiming the ones in Norway and Alaska had already lost half their size:

 

ScreenHunter_2818-Sep.-01-05.01.gif

 

A look at the map below of Glacier Bay in Alaska, a popular site for Alaskan cruises, one can see where the glaciers are today vs. where they were at various points since back to about 1760 just before the American Revolution (and long before “climate change).” Unless Gen. Washington led the revolutionary army in SUVs, there was no problem with greenhouse gasses back then. In fact, if you look at the map, much of the melting took place before the 20th century. Perhaps Barack Obama believed that when Secretary of State William Seward negotiated the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, he put heaters inside the glaciers?

 

glacierbaymap.gif

 

In March of 2019, we learned a key glacier in Greenland is growing again after shrinking for several years, according to NASA.

 

“The Jakobshavn (pronounced YA-cob-shawv-en) glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) and thinning nearly 130 feet (almost 40 meters) annually,” the Associated Press reported. “But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience. Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.”

 

“That was kind of a surprise. We kind of got used to a runaway system,” said Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland ice and climate scientist Jason Box, the AP noted. “The good news is that it’s a reminder that it’s not necessarily going that fast. But it is going.”

 

Box added, “arguably the most important Greenland glacier because it discharges the most ice in the northern hemisphere. For all of Greenland, it is king.”

Here’s the bottom line— some glaciers in the U.S. are growing others are shrinking. If however, they were shrinking because the global warming hypothesis was correct, they would all be shrinking, that shrinkage would have started long after the 18th century, and the entire Arctic ice would also be shrinking. Per data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), and reported by NoTricksZone, that’s not happening either:

 

And now that it’s June 1st, with the Arctic melt season starting in earnest, it is a good time to check Arctic ice volume. Here as well we find an equally surprising trend. Instead of shrinking rapidly — as is often claimed by the .global warming by alarmist scientists and the click-sleaze media — Arctic sea ice volume has not shrunk in 13 years!

 

And when we look at Arctic sea ice volume each year for June 1st this decade and plot it, we get the following:

2019-volume-1-June-768x570.png

 

Lo and behold: the chart above shows that early June ice volume has trended up over the current decade.

 

https://lidblog.com/national-park-service-glaciers/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...