Could "climate change" be a trick for one world government?

Post Reply New Topic

/\And you can't assume it won't.

Yes.

My assumption is that the best way to find out is to look at past history when it has been warmer. It seems that in a great many cases, warmer means more precipitation. Of course, there can be some who get less, too.

The best forecasts I've seen for the US is that the area running from Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and on up will get about the same. Most of the land to the east of these states are projected to get a little less rain and most of the land to the west of these states will get more rain. Much of California has been projected to see about 15% more rain with Global Warming.

And that appears to match with history as well. Remember that the Anasazi people were able to do well in their southwestern cliff dwellings until they had to move by drought that hit as the world cooled down into the Little Ice Age.

But yeah. Instead of using your brain and looking at the past to see what the future will be like, just ignore facts and listen to the panic.

One woman I know used to say:

When in Trouble
Or in Doubt
Run in Circles
Scream and Shout.

In other words, panic.

I do look at the facts ,and the facts say climate change is man made.Even if there was a slim chance that it isn't,what's wrong with clean energy,phasing out coal,cleaning up the water and holding polluters accountable?
Nothing wrong with clean air and water and I think that's something we can all agree on.

There is nothing magical about the current sea level, true: if not for the fact that many of our civilization major cities are built near the coast as it's good for commerce.
Guess you see nothing wrong at seeing major commercial hub like New York, or major historical cities like Venice, be submerged and having to rebuilt a LOT of homes and infrastructures.

On a side note to what I said earlier - government, particularly bureaucrats, love big government solutions - ie. it's full employment for them - and so it's only natural that they'd have big government solutions for everything.

That doesn't make global warming a hoax but I'd also argue that it's not particularly unique in how government tries to expand its powers. A certain story comes to mind recently, from before the UK election, where Theresa May had the brilliant idea of combating terrorism by banning data privacy in the UK. Its tempting to laugh until you realize she was serious.

Look up the word semantics. Weather is global too. You know.

There is no way to guarantee that these near sea level cities will stay above sea level. There is nothing magical about the current sea level -- it just happens to be the sea level today. The sea level a few thousand years ago was something like four to eight feet higher. The sea level of fifteen thousand years ago (i.e. before the start of the Holocene), it was about 100 yards lower. During the Eemian -- the previous warm period about 115,000 years ago -- sea level was something like fifteen feet higher than today, if I remember correctly.

The fact is that the climate changes and there is very little that we can do about it. The best we can do is hope that it is a climate that supports life to every extent possible -- and that is a warmer climate.

Furthermore, the rise in sea level is slow. Forget that stupid movie that has New York flooded all of a sudden -- that isn't going to happen. Figure maybe one to two feet per century. That is slow enough that we can try to do something about it.

Sure, if we see sea level rise by five feet over the next three centuries, it will be expensive to deal with that. Some places would have to be abandoned. It's not as big a deal as it would seem because the buildings we are building these days aren't going to stay around anywhere near that long anyway. At some point, we would merely start building further inland and abandon low lying areas as they fill up. Another idea for something like New York City is to build a dike to keep the water out. Put in locks and the ships and boats can go through the locks when entering or leaving the waterways around New York City.

There is no reason to panic.

I figure it is partly man-made and partly natural. Nobody really knows how much of which. In either case, it is good for us.

As for clean energy, phasing out coal, cleaning up the water, and holding polluters accountable, you aren't talking about Global Warming -- you are talking about a Green Agenda. Cleaning up the water has zero to do with Global Warming.

Pollution may have a little to do with Global Warming -- but to counter it. It's possible that the only real thing we can do to counter Global Warming is to pollute more so that we reduce the amount of sunlight striking the Earth.

As for clean energy, I have no objection to building more nuclear plants. It always strikes me as extremely hypocritical for people to complain about our use of fossil fuels and then oppose nuclear energy. Things like wind generators and solar panels aren't going to solve our energy problems. The only way those are even profitable at all is because of tax credits -- take away the tax credits and nobody could afford to even put those in.

One wind farm near me is being taken down. Why? Because the company owning it isn't making enough money to take advantage of the tax credits. It's cheaper for them to take the entire windfarm down than to keep it running in hopes that they start making more money in their core businesses later.

Another windfarm near me is being taken down, too, but I haven't heard a reason for that one. I do know that they have stopped repairing anything. The last time I drove through it, the turbines on three wind turbines had broken off and the cowling enclosing the generator of another wind turbine had caught fire and burned up. As for the rest of the turbines, none were turning even though it was a fairly ideal day for wind turbines.

Apparently some companies will leave their turbines running to generate electricity when they have nobody to buy the electricity because they make their money on the tax credits, not selling electricity.

There are dams, but one major problem is that they tend to silt up. There is also geothermal, but those aren't available for much of the country.

As far as cutting the use of fossil fuels, that's going to happen anyway. There are fewer and fewer major discoveries of new oil fields. Those that are being found aren't nearly as large as what we used to see. The one bright spot is the use of fracking to get more natural gas.

We've already mined much of the readily accessible coal in the world. I don't remember the estimates for how long before we reach Peak Coal, but the estimated times are not that long. There's a good chance for Peak Coal by the middle of the century.

Also, we are developing more and more technology to clean up the burning of fossil fuels. The plants today in the US are far cleaner than what we used to have.

Guess who is building coal plants as fast as they can and not doing much to clean up the CO2? China.

In any event, the CO2 that we release is going to go down because of all this. Want to cut our use of fossil fuels faster? Build more nuclear plants to provide a cost effective alternative to using them.

I hear your concerns for communism/socialism and a one world government. But i don't think marxists will take over anything more than a single block or country any time soon.

I am currently studying environmental science and i can tell you that even though there is a lot of 'doom and gloom' propaganda surrounding climate change and global warming, the reports are accurate and we are definitely changing the climate in ways that are way outside of what you would consider 'natural occurrences'.

For instance the Great Barrier Reef off the East coast of Australia has already been negatively impacted by carbon emissions. More carbon in the ocean has bleached the coral and interrupted the symbiotic relationship between the coral and it's algae partner.
With more carbon in the oceans the acidity has also changed, as the ocean absorbs about 1/4 of all the carbon released.

Carbon is also considered a greenhouse gas which keeps the earth insulated. But with a thicker layer of carbon, and other greenhouse gases, this is warming the earth because the suns rays aren't deflected as efficiently.

That is not the point. Weather is short term atmospheric conditions in a local area while climate is long term patterns of global average temperatures. Again, basic science. Then again, what should I expect from someone who thinks people who don't cheerlead for Trump are "Satanic"?

I'd like to add that 'climate' is generally the patterns of weather of a period of 30 years or so

Ah yes...

https://parodyproject.com/parody-sound-of-silence/

“Climate” is based on “weather” data.

Really?



WHAT???

You just went from one non-sequitur to the next.

Alternate fuels exist.



What the Hell?

First of all, the global elites are trying to supress climate science because oil giants are part of the global elite. When you have the power to start wars by funding warmongering politicians, you are part of the global elite. Most climate scientists aren't wealthy enough to manipulate elections through lobbying.

Second, the third world is heavily divided and full of civil wars. They don't have one government.

Third, most of the countries that heavily use alternative sources of fuel are Scandinavian countries. Those countries have a fantastic standard of living. They aren't third-world countries.



What?

It's possible to prevent the destruction of the environment without eliminating human liberty.

Imagine if I used this sort of logic against you. "If we let Christians rule the world, they will restrict all human liberty in order to maintain total global control and then everyone will die! It will be like Franco's Spain all over again!"

Your post is full of cheap-ass, emotionally loaded terms designed to make people panic and obstruct rational thought. I know emotional manipulation when I see it, and it just makes me pissed.

Your post was barely even coherent. You just created surrealism without even trying.

I think the whole thing is moot because cleaner, such as electric cars etc are happening anyways as a result of inevitable progress. 20 years from now internal combustion cars won't be on the road any longer and so on.