If you needed further proof of impending disaster... (Phoenix: house, moving)

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Karl Lagos

Club of Rome, 1992 The First Global Revolution,
After the fall of the Soviet Union, In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

There are always people in the crowd who jump to a conspiracy theory! I see you are referring to this book! Lol https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2080366

Karl. Here is a book for you to read called "Suspicious Minds" which explains why you believe what you do. https://www.amazon.com/Suspicious-Mi...72915631&psc=1

"In the book: Suspicious Minds, Rob Brotherton decodes the psychology, history, and consequences of conspiracism, and delves into the research that offers insights into why so many of us are drawn to implausible, unproven and un-provable conspiracy theories. They resonate with some of our brain's built-in quirks and foibles, and tap into some of our deepest desires, fears, and assumptions about the world.

Conspiracy theorists do not wear tin-foil hats (for the most part). They are not just a few kooks lurking on the paranoid fringes of society with bizarre ideas about shape-shifting reptilian aliens running society in secret."

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by West Phx Native

and man has been on this planet for a microscopic amount of time, and of that amount of time, has been industrialized for a couple of hundred years, not long enough to change anything, and if you think that anything can be done by taxing people more, you are fooling yourself, of all the money spent so far, where are the improvements? wind farms? less than a 20yr life cycle, the blades are not recyclable, it takes more fuel and resources to build than any amount of electricity it could generate over it's design life. Electric cars? how many TONS of earth must be mined and processed to produce the batteries? and how about charging those batteries? how much coal or oil or natural gas must be burned to generate the power needed to charge the battery? oh and those batteries, not recyclable, and how about the car itself, Tesla, do you know how many get totaled every year because Tesla will not sell parts to repair them. How many can afford $50,000 for a car? other than my house, the largest single thing I bought is my plane, and it was $15,000. all my cars are old enough to drink and then some.

Without knowing it, you continue to use the Fallacy of Ambiguation technique. 1st, you tried to claim the Ozone hole was a scam, Al Gore false prediction (that no one believed), and acid rain was claimed to end the world, etc. Now your supposed proof discusses that "we cannot do anything about it". We agree, and we cannot control China or India. Mining Lithium to use in batteries to plug into a CO2-generating plant costing $50K/car is semi-idiotic. It's why I own a hybrid. But can't your brain think outside the box and understand there are solutions by using nuclear plants to charge MUCH less expensive and cheaper mined batteries like Sodium-Ion versions that are shipping for $11K an EV car?
See https://www.arenaev.com/11600_byd_se...-news-1624.php Much bigger $25K EV cars are on their way. Don't you realize with a little thought, blades CAN be recyclable https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/art...rbine%20blades.

Also, you need to stop reading your team's fake talking points. A 2016 study from Danish engineers looked at onshore and offshore turbines and wrote, "The energy payback time was found to be less than 1 year for all technologies." https://www.statesman.com/story/news...ld/8423146002/

Whatever your next argument, that doesn't change the fact that we add 38 metric tons of CO2 gasses into the atmosphere each year adds up over time. About 70% of the gasses get absorbed in the ocean. But the next concern is what happens when the surface of the ocean gets closer to saturation of CO2? After all, Florida measured 101 degrees surface water temperatures last year and it is bleaching the coral reefs. Now think: Is there a possibility that part of this is caused by man, all the while you and I have no control? read https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/ext...das-coral-reef The "blanket" of gasses that warms the earth is a mathematical integral that can be measured over time by NASA and others.

My POV is the truth probably in between both camps. 1st things 1st. Realize, that your understanding is incredibly biased. And the reality is that you don't have it all figured out. Neither do I. But your bias is shining through.

I think we can agree that people who want to get their way exaggerate the "facts." Simply understand human nature (on both sides) and put their statement into a filter. Google the opposite of what they say and you will be able to hear a counterargument. Then, decide accordingly. Or maybe, like Karl ^^ thinks, Big Gates is trying to control us!?

[waltcolorado]

Its a little disturbing that something we are experiencing and is only (and easily) explained by our burning of fossil fuel is being denied by so many folks. There is a lie going on. Is it all the scientists all over the world involved in some secret conspiracy somehow along with governments because they get more money and have now been doing this for over 40 years with no evidence to show this is happening.. or did the fossil fuel industry recognize early on that doing something about this problem would dig into their profits and eventually do damage to their industry?

From 2019 https://www.climaterealityproject.or...climate-action

The Fuel: Fossil Fuel Industry (climate change denial) Funding

In order to run, any machine needs fuel. In the case of this denial machine, that fuel is money – and lots of it. The source? A fossil fuel industry that desperately wants to prolong our dependence on its product.

Given that so many of the world’s most profitable companies produce oil, coal, or natural gas, it should be no surprise that these companies have plenty of "fuel" to keep the denial machine running.

To be exact, a 2019 Influence Map report found that “the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas majors (ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total) have invested over $1Bn of shareholder funds in the three years following the Paris Agreement on misleading climate-related branding and lobbying.”

Creating this worldview came down to the faux-research and white papers of right-wing anti-environmental regulation think tanks. Groups like the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Heartland Institute, which are funded and often even created by fossil fuel companies, produce the “science” the machine shows the world to rationalize its actions.

As Kert Davies, director of the Climate Investigations Center noted, “you can definitely credit Exxon and Koch brothers' money for giving the think tanks the megaphone to keep climate science denial in the world.”

The Koch-funded think tank Heartland Institute is a prime example. One stunning step it’s taken is creating the NIPCC: a denier-scientist spinoff of the world-renowned IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). It’s got the official-looking acronym that could easily fool someone into thinking it’s a legitimate organization speaking for the scientific community. Only problem is – as The Government Accountability Project notes – it has no real legitimacy or science:

“The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.”

[Burning Madolf]

Back to Phoenix and the IMPENDING DISASTER. This is the type of action/issue that most solutions devolve into:
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...anopy-17365657

Grants, new programs, barely any follow through or follow up and within a year or two the money is gone and there's nothing to show for it (all my predictions).

Even if you agree that every climate change model is 100% accurate, nobody can prove that the so called remedies will do a damn thing.

[waltcolorado]

The CO2 put in the atmosphere each year remains there for a long time and it is unlikely we will be able to put much of a dent in the increases in CO2 levels or warming each year. Is it worth trying to slow down the planet warming? Im not sure but it seems worth trying. I also just dont like being lied to about what's going on.

Here is a little conspiracy theory of my own but it seems like the typical climate change denier has views on anything to do with energy alternatives to fossil fuel that they are bad or dont work. Coincidence, truth or was that opinion paid for by the fossil fuel industry over many years. Just have to point out that strong correlation with being opinions paid for by the fossil fuel industry to protect profits.

I rarely see this discussed because it doesnt go along with opinions paid for by fossil fuel industry but it seems at least some energy independence from fossil fuel is a good thing. Remember what happened a couple years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine. The big oil producers just have too much influence.

This link shows where countries rank in oil reserves https://www.worldatlas.com/industrie...y-country.html

The US is way down the list on reserves behind a bunch of countries that dont have our best interest in mind. I think alternatives to oil will be better for our security long term. We will still need fossil fuel.. cant get away from that but alternative energy sources even if they are slightly less cost effective (generally true) are a good idea.

[West Phx Native]

the thing is, the climate change zombies keep spouting the same thing, that man is destroying the world and only by taxing ourselves can we save it, and of course they have the "Science" to prove it. They don't like it when they are called out that all of their 10 year predictions of doom and gloom have not come true. As I pointed out in my earlier post, when I was in grade school, the scientists were saying we were heading into another ice age, I did not say that, the scientists did, and we were supposed to believe them, because well, they were the experts. well, all of their other predictions have not come true, yet the scientists said they would. So, I have seen 50 yrs of so called experts saying the planet was going to be destroyed 5 different times, yet it has not happened, not even a little bit. That is not a very good record, yet climate changers keep at it, saying the science backs up their claims, well, we have heard the same song and dance from them for 50 yrs and it is not getting any better.

[waltcolorado]

Some folks would rather get their climate science from an AM disc jock who is handed a script and the program underwritten by the fossil fuel denial marketing machine.

Or.. you might like to read? The first article looks at the accuracy of climate modeling back to the 1970's
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...odels-accurate

A few more for anyone who really wants to know what is going on with the accuracy of modeling

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...-do-come-true/

[waltcolorado]

I think at least one person here will find this interesting but here is a good summary of the year 2023

https://berkeleyearth.org/global-tem...port-for-2023/

Of particular interest is their breakdown of factors that have contributed to the warming in the last 10 years. The man made climate change (ie, mainly from CO2 inreases) is shown to the left side of the image and is a steady upwards slope (about .2C over 10 years). Many other periodic factors also influence the global temp and the the relitive amplitides are shown also over the last 10 years.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Burning Madolf

Back to Phoenix and the IMPENDING DISASTER. This is the type of action/issue that most solutions devolve into:
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...anopy-17365657

Grants, new programs, barely any follow through or follow up and within a year or two the money is gone and there's nothing to show for it (all my predictions).

Even if you agree that every climate change model is 100% accurate, nobody can prove that the so called remedies will do a damn thing.

So therefore don't try?

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by West Phx Native

When I was in grade school in the 70s, we were told we were heading into an ice age, because records PROVED the earth was cooling off
It didn't happen
We were told that the world would be destroyed by acid rain, they had the science to prove it
It didn't happen
We were told that the hole in the ozone layer would cause unto damage to the world
It didn't happen
al gore said in 10 years there would no more glaciers in the world
It didn't happen
Now when they tell us the earth is warming, and it doesn't or we have a major storm, it is no longer Global warming, because that is too specific, they call it climate change.
Well guess what, the climate has been changing since the dawn of time, and nothing man can do can change that. our time on this planet's time line would be no longer that a fleas fart.
one volcano pumps more sulfur and other gasses in a single burp,(btw, there are 47 erupting volcanos as of Dec 2023) than man has done in hundreds of years.