Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure it can be done, but if it can be done it would require an end to personal freedom. And I think that is what the rulers are planning.
I personally think that our species damages the earth with toxic substances, and maybe that causes dangerous climate change. I do not think it is helpful to be in denial about this and pretend it's all a lie just because you don't want to believe it.
ON THE OTHER HAND -- it is pretty silly to think forcing Americans to drive electric cars will make a difference. People all over the world will keep driving whatever they want. The rich will keep flying all over the place on jets. No one will give up their air conditioning voluntarily.
The WHOLE WORLD would have to be under some kind of central control. And whatever power could manage to take that control would have to be militarily unbeatable. And don't think they would stop at forcing environmental policies. Why would they stop at that? An absolute world ruling power could do whatever the heck it wants, with no restraints.
So this is what I think we could be heading for. And I don't see any solution, really.
I don't know that our rulers are plotting against us. Frankly, I don't think they plan beyond getting to keep office through the next election. As for forcing us to electric cars, I'm fairly certain gas prices will do that without politicians getting their hands dirty.
Actually our very presence on the planet, given our refusal to reduce our reproductive rates, is enough to destroy the climate. Between deforestation, exhalations, and flatulence we've been depleting our atmosphere for over a hundred years. Coupled with our destructive mining/drilling, our wastes, and destruction of wild habitat, we are pretty devastating.
I don't know that our rulers are plotting against us. Frankly, I don't think they plan beyond getting to keep office through the next election.
Your second sentence is probably right.
And for the rulers who keep ruling against the will of the people (i.e. Democrats), this means that they have no choice but to plot against us, trying to find ways to fool us into believing they are doing what we want them to. And then do the opposite after the votes are counted. A prime example of this is the Democrats' behavior before and after the 2020 election.
So, basically you’re saying that the two most impactful and important technologies responsible for modern civilization … energy and transportation, are the true problems contributing to climate change.
So, let’s just do away with modern civilization for most people, but let’s not worry about the private jets, since they are such a minuscule contributor? Right?
Hopeless ….. we are surrounded by minds so filled with nonsense, the prognosis for the future is hopeless.
The reality is, even the “greenhouse effect” itself is a faulty, unproven theory, yet most have accepted it as though it’s an established fact. But it’s not an established fact at all, but just another cockamamie story from the climate clown show.
The great irony of this is the fact that real greenhouses often inject CO2 into the greenhouse to facilitate greater plant health and growth. Hahahaha. You can’t make this stuff up.
So, here we are, a planet run by a small group of eugenicists, who think the infestation of useless eaters on the planet have grown too large, and 90% need to go bye bye. That in a nutshell is “Climate Change” and all of the BS stories associated with it.
Sadly, we do have way too many humans who are stupid enough to be cheerleaders for the program meant to eliminate them.
You don't want to face it, but we can't go on this way.
The reality is, even the “greenhouse effect” itself is a faulty, unproven theory, yet most have accepted it as though it’s an established fact. But it’s not an established fact at all, but just another cockamamie story from the climate clown show.
They are basing their hysteria on the fact that having more CO2 in the atmosphere, causes higher temperatures for the amount of energy the sun puts into the air.
And they are completely ignoring that corollary fact that having more CO2 in the atmosphere, causes the atmosphere to reflect more radiant energy coming from the sun, back into outer space, and thus cooling the air.
Which effect do you think is more dominant? And why?
The goal is not to keep CO2 emissions flat, but to reduce them to as close to zero as possible.
You do not want CO2 emissions to be "as close to zero as possible" because plants and trees need the CO2 to create oxygen...
Also, to be "as close to zero as possible", would that not also require every mammal being extinct, given that each and every one of us breathes out CO2?
Even if Western CO2 emissions have remained flat, we are still dumping huge quantities of it into the atmosphere, essentially running an open ended experiment on how long we can get away with that.
The goal is not to keep CO2 emissions flat, but to reduce them to as close to zero as possible.
but that is physically impossible.... the biggest releaser of CO2...our oceans,.. along with the permafrost/glaciers, and decaying plants/trees, which also cause methane
humans not producing co2, wont change the natural cycle of the climate, or the warming that happens in an interglacial period.
They are basing their hysteria on the fact that having more CO2 in the atmosphere, causes higher temperatures for the amount of energy the sun puts into the air.
And they are completely ignoring that corollary fact that having more CO2 in the atmosphere, causes the atmosphere to reflect more radiant energy coming from the sun, back into outer space, and thus cooling the air.
Which effect do you think is more dominant? And why?
How do you know the models don't take that into account? I am going to assume the scientists doing the modeling are reasonably smart, and take the retention and reflection aspects of CO2 into account.
You do not want CO2 emissions to be "as close to zero as possible" because plants and trees need the CO2 to create oxygen...
Also, to be "as close to zero as possible", would that not also require every mammal being extinct, given that each and every one of us breathes out CO2?
Trees and plants existed long before industrial CO2 emissions existed. They don't really need help from our emissions.
As close to zero as possible excludes emissions from living creatures. I thought that was obvious. Apparently not.
good, since China is the largest CO2 emitter....by a long shot....start there
We don't control China. We only control us. Or are you arguing that as long as China spews CO2 in huge quantities, it's OK for us to do so as well? Sort of like "that chemical plant up the river is dumping a lot more dioxin in the river than us, why do we have to stop?".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
