'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'

mrttao

Well-known member

On Earth Day, we commonly hear dark predictions about the looming horrors of global warming (a typical example, "What is at stake [is] our ability to live on planet Earth," Al Gore).

Yet not so long ago the news media issued dire warnings about global cooling and a coming Ice Age. Consider these headlines:

• "The Earth's Cooling Climate," Science News, November 15, 1969.• "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age," Washington Post, January 11, 1970.• "Science: Another Ice Age?" Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.• "The Ice Age Cometh!" Science News, March 1, 1975.• "The Cooling World," Newsweek, April 28, 1975.• "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead," New York Times, May 21, 1975.• "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" International Wildlife July-August, 1975.• "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable," New York Times, September 14, 1975.• "Variations in the Earth's Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages," Science magazine, December 10, 1976.
Reporters told the public about global cooling in the same confident tone used in today's coverage about global warming, creating the strong impression that no reasonable person could disagree. Here are some examples:

"The evidence in support of these predictions [global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Cooling World"A study release last month by two NOAA scientists that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972." The Cooling World"Telltale signs are everywhere...the thickness of the pack ice...the southward migration of warmth-loving creatures like the armadillo..." Another Ice Age?"Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees." Another Ice Age?"The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind," The Ice Age Cometh!
Critics will say there was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the world was cooling, but that's not how the media reported it to the public. Similarly, today some scientists want to debate global warming and its possible causes, but the media presents global warming as a settled issue, not to be questioned. Since the reporting today about world climate is the opposite of what it was 30 years ago, it's ok to be skeptical about the worst predictions surrounding global warming.
 

mrttao

Well-known member

Washington state now teaches "climate change science" in schools...
With a focus on "emotions, not facts". also anti racism. because facts are racist apparently.

Instead of prioritizing rational thinking, the purportedly scientific curriculum argues that "we must learn to pay attention to our own emotions and those of other people."

The curriculum is part of an increasingly overt effort to replace the reasoned and objective scientific search for truth with emotion, political power, "community wisdom," and "authentic" data that prioritize equity over mere "technical assertions."

Developed in partnership with the Washington State Department of Health, the set of lessons is one example of how states are applying the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). In Washington State, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction oversees a program called "ClimeTime" that trains teachers to apply NGSS standards to "climate science learning standards."
 

Cherico

Well-known member

Washington state now teaches "climate change science" in schools...
With a focus on "emotions, not facts". also anti racism. because facts are racist apparently.

Im honestly surprised their going this hard this fast, kind of left wondering what will happen to these idiots when the pendulum swings.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Well, I feel that we should go on using fossil fuels as much as we like, because the Earth has an infinite supply... :)
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Fine have the enviro nuts live like the Amish. I can get behind that. As for me, civilization is fine.
Yet the odd thing is how if you look at them, they are mostly middle class city slickers.
It's not that they want to live like Amish, they want everyone else to live like Amish in a collective farm while they are the regional party leader. Because of course they are universally socialists.

And the whole base thinking about CO2 and its effects is rooted in the extreme green thought. According to which, any, even tiniest changes in Earth's biosphere are inherently bad, as they were done by humans, period. These fucks know that Earth cannot be some sort of eternal and static galactic museum of life "if not for those bloody humans", in few dozens millions of years most of life will be unrecognizable by evolution alone, assuming some stellar phenomenon doesn't wipe out most of it, and in a few billions the sun will change causing the Earth to fall out of the habitable zone, but by the power of self-hate or doublethink they don't care.
That's the core of the argument for muh CO2 obsession - the ideologically based inherent wrongness of human intervention in the state of the planet, no matter how small, hence for them there is no amount of damage to civilization they wouldn't be willing to inflict for the sake of limiting this corrupting touch.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
My favorite is when they wanted to literally use nukes to melt the ice caps to stop man made global cooling.

"we must act now! there is no time to lose! if we do not act immediately humanity is doomed!"
"The science is settled! there is scientific consensus! All scientists agree that we are doomed by man made global cooling"

The 1970s were wild
Remember, everyone on both sides of the climate "debate" has an agenda. A lot of the reeing is the result of "stop liking what I don't like" getting taken to eleven and routed through a megaphone with a side order of grift tossed in for good measure

Practically any "independant" scientific study will come to a conclusion compatable with the money's agenda because a) head researchers have bills to pay and b) not playing ball means the researcher doesn't get hired again.
 

Robovski

Well-known member
The evidence shows the climate changes over time and well before humans had any appreciable presence on this world, let aside an industrial one. Expecting everything to be the same forever is to deny reality, entropy is fundimantal, inveitable, and can at best only be temporarily resisted.
 

Bigking321

Well-known member
Honestly, I am completely OK with playing around and changing the environment. Within reason.

I want to experiment a little. See if we could improve things.

I think desert areas expanding are bad. I'd like to engage in some mild terraforming. Maybe lower a bit of mountain area to reduce rain shadows. Allow more clouds and moisture to come through instead of getting totally blocked.

Or lay some pipelines to release a small but constant supply of water on the other side of the mountains in the dry area. Bonus points if the water is sourced from the ocean so naturally occurring fresh water isn't depleted.

Plus engaging in land works that support water retention so when the rare rain does show up more of it is captured instead of draining away.

Maybe remake some of those enormous lakes that the soviets completely destroyed by rerouting and damming rivers.

Pretty sure that would drastically reduce the size and expansion of deserts. Probably refill some drained water tables as well.

No idea what it would cost. Probably a lot. Shrug.
 

ATP

Well-known member
The evidence shows the climate changes over time and well before humans had any appreciable presence on this world, let aside an industrial one. Expecting everything to be the same forever is to deny reality, entropy is fundimantal, inveitable, and can at best only be temporarily resisted.
When polish state was chrfistianed/966AD/ we have vineyards made here by monks.Something which is possible only now,but not before,let say,1980.

Polish rulers must have many factories to create mini global worming ! ;)
 

Allanon

Well-known member
The idea of getting rid of fossil fuel is a good one. Problem is once again idiots are going about it wrong.

I work and drive for farmers so I know there is no way they can afford to go and switch over overnight, and since they are Mennonites they are not keen on government programs. Most people cannot. This cannot be done quickly, it will take time and must be supported by affordable and suitable alternatives, like good battery technology for example. Imagine you run out of power instead of gas but someone can come along toting a battery, plug it into your car, and you can drive for some distance- just as if it was a can of gasoline or diesel for a regular vehicle. That would be practical.

We should have started this back in the 1970s during the OPEC oil embargo (I was there). Had we done so we would either be there 100% or at least mostly.

I myself am going off-grid as much as possible as soon as possible, and if those toroid experiments pay off, well! But it goes beyond "going green."

Have you seen the condition of America's infrastructure? Poorly maintained, rusting, crumbling, it is not being kept up. This means more and more problems down the road, and if those used panels and small windmill combined can at least supply running water, light, and refrigeration then at least I will be able to endure prolonged power outages. If YOU can do the same then by all means start doing so. Every time I walk down the road or through the cities I see how bad it is getting.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
The idea of getting rid of fossil fuel is a good one. Problem is once again idiots are going about it wrong.

The only part of your post I have an issue with.

Fossil fuels are a tool, and until we have a better one, we should keep using them. Solar, wind, batteries? Those, in general, are not better tools. More expensive, less capable, more poluting, and outside of single home levels, not reliable enough.


There are a number of options that can be used to replace the current grid setup. Nukes, hydro(in some places), and some potential ones like fusion. Some of those work right now. Some might work in the future. (Some might have been possible for some time, but current powers might have hidden them. That's possible.)



My big issue with all this stuff can be boiled down to one line. Don't destroy the roof unless you have a better replacement ready.


Every time I walk down the road or through the cities I see how bad it is getting.

Can't argue with that one. So much money being spent on bullshit, and they're neglecting the things that matter.
 

Allanon

Well-known member
I absolutely oppose nuclear power. There is no safe way to get rid of the waste, it still makes us dependent on corporations (I'm old enough to remember how we were promised that if we went nuclear no one would even have to pay for electricity), they are terrorist bait, and quite frankly the way things are today with incompetence and poor maintenance on the rise, well, that part is obvious.

There was a curious video about making solar cells from CDs. It is easy enough to try so when I can get some copper wire I'll try it. But absolutely those toroid tests are a must, if they do work then that will be fantastic.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
I absolutely oppose nuclear power. There is no safe way to get rid of the waste, it still makes us dependent on corporations (I'm old enough to remember how we were promised that if we went nuclear no one would even have to pay for electricity), they are terrorist bait, and quite frankly the way things are today with incompetence and poor maintenance on the rise, well, that part is obvious.

There was a curious video about making solar cells from CDs. It is easy enough to try so when I can get some copper wire I'll try it. But absolutely those toroid tests are a must, if they do work then that will be fantastic.
This is horribly ignorant.

1. nuclear reactors REDUCE the amount of radioactive on earth. not increase it. It is fuel, it gets SPENT.

2. Waste storage is a solved thing. You are eating up propaganda made by the neo feudalist hoaxers who want peasants to be poor and powerless.
It is not glowing green barrels. It is concrete blocks that are so thick as to not even emit out any radiation.

Also, just so you know, there are 2 tons worth of uranium dissolved in the ocean for every human living on planet earth.
And Uranium is not even close to the most common radioactive material on earth.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
I absolutely oppose nuclear power. There is no safe way to get rid of the waste, it still makes us dependent on corporations (I'm old enough to remember how we were promised that if we went nuclear no one would even have to pay for electricity), they are terrorist bait, and quite frankly the way things are today with incompetence and poor maintenance on the rise, well, that part is obvious.

There was a curious video about making solar cells from CDs. It is easy enough to try so when I can get some copper wire I'll try it. But absolutely those toroid tests are a must, if they do work then that will be fantastic.
Your knowledge of what can be done with the waste is pretty out of date. Modern nuke plants can recycle their waste.
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
you aren't gonna completely get rid of Fossil fuels with our current tech. it is just that efficient to use. especially in some environments. even if you had the tech to replace it you would still have areas and countries where replacing it is too expensive to do. if you want to reduce fossil fuels Nuclear power replacing it is the best available option for large scale energy production.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top