MLD Woody Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 24 minutes ago, Jax said: Some people theorized it was round doesn't mean it was widely accepted or that people still didn't think otherwise. Even today we have flat earthers. The circumference of the earth was calculated by the Greeks... Of course morons exist today. Flat earth. Anti vaxx. Climate deniers. Young earth creationists. Their existence doesn't disprove the actual experts. The actual science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 25 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: another article woodpecker will ignore one way or another: https://energycentral.com › c › cp › 500-climate-scientists-write-un-there-no-climate-emergency 500 Climate Scientists Write To UN: There Is No Climate Emergency A group of 500 esteemed scientists and professionals in climate science have officially notified the United Nations that there is no climate crisis and that spending trillions on a non-problem is 'cruel and imprudent'. This letter will not make it into national or global media, nor will it cause the UN to change ********************************************** Interesting in the comments, by the author: (will woodpecker be too cowardly to admit it?) ********************************************** " Noam Mayraz on Nov 18, 2019 Bob, from your statement above I am guessing that the is called 'Energy Central' is actually 'Energy Left'. how could CO2, which is heavier than air go to to the greenhouse and cause a climate change? Stating that mankind energy, including CO2, Mathane and others exceeded the sun's equal gases is absurd in my mind, defining gravity and related natural occurrences. Try googling "Red Berta Spills the Green Beans." You guys have a leftist agenda. Shame on all y'all. You do not understand power generation, renewable energy and/or the grid reliability and quality nor the climate. Noam Mayraz, PE. " https://www.desmog.com/2019/09/06/climate-science-deniers-planning-coordinated-european-misinformation-campaign-leaked-documents-reveal/ "Of the 400 signatories, only a handful have a background in climate science, with the majority being writers, engineers and geologists with no direct expertise in the field." Again, another example of you list of experts not being anything close to what you think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 20 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: Like I have said for years - the whining about CO2 llevels - but the UN and others NEVER TALK ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF MILLIONS OF ACRES of RAIN FORESTS. Plants use CO2 as food. Therefore, wouldn't it be valid to stop the destruction of millions of acres of rain forests? But no, the reason they dramatically scream about mmgw is political, and redistribution of wealth. THAT is why they don't give a damn about those millions and millions of rain forests being destroyed. Rising CO2 levels? STOP the destruction of those millions of rain forests. STOP paving every single area developers can find with asphalt etc. ********************* you know, if "mmgw is a crisis" ..... *********************** https://www.nationalgeographic.org › media › amazon-deforestation-and-climate-change Amazon Deforestation and Climate Change - National Geographic Society 1 day agoDestruction of the rain forest in Brazil has decreased from about 19,943 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) per year in the late 1990s to about 5,180 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) per year now. Moving forward, the major challenge will be fighting illegal deforestation. Join Gisele Bundchen when she meets with one of Brazil's top ... https://www.nationalgeographic.com › environment › article › deforestation Why deforestation matters—and what we can do to stop it Dec 7, 2022As the world seeks to slow the pace of climate change, preserve wildlife, and support more than eight billion people, trees inevitably hold a major part of the answer.Yet the mass destruction of ... https://climate.mit.edu › explainers › forests-and-climate-change Forests and Climate Change | MIT Climate Portal Forests and Climate Change. Forests cover about 30% of the Earth's land surface. As forests grow, their trees take in carbon from the air and store it in wood, plant matter, and under the soil. If not for forests, much of this carbon would remain in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the most important greenhouse gas ... https://www.unep.org › news-and-stories › story › heres-what-happens-if-world-loses-its-rainforests You're a moron The UN absolutely talks about deforestation https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/heres-what-happens-if-world-loses-its-rainforests https://www.un.org/esa/forests/documents/un-strategic-plan-for-forests-2030/index.html But I know this is nothing more than one of your catchphrases at this point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 Nothing new has been presented here. None of you are changing your mind. Enough money is out there from oil and gas, etc to prop up BS "think tanks" to pump out inaccurate information that politicians and political entities can point to and keep their base in line, allowing them to line their pockets. The science is clear. The consensus is clear. It doesn't matter how many geologists that used to work at Shell signed some petition. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibleedbrown Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 On 5/9/2024 at 12:10 AM, MLD Woody said: I'd like to agree with you, I'd like to think that's the case, but we have people like cal and his posts above that kill that belief for me. An individual recycling and making a compost pile is great, but it won't make any real impact. Oil and gas companies invested in and pushed the narrative of personal responsibility around the environment and climate change. Why? To direct the attention away from them. They've known for decades the damage they're causing but short term profits beat long term (next generations) damage. These large corporations, those that stand to gain from the status quo, will funnel money into right wing think tanks, which produce "reports" that right wing media rolls with. No topic on this board has seen a higher level of fake experts touted than climate change. A personal favorite of cals being a list of "scientists" from 15 years ago that I could be on... Another angle being not a fake expert, but the complete misinterpretation of actual climate research and studies. Basically every time I've taken the time to dig into the mountain of links cal or someone else vomits up the claims can be debunked in a few minutes. But the problem is there is so much misinformation (actual misinformation, not "news that trump doesn't like" misinformation) out there that regular people just see the headlines and don't do any digging. Even if debunked later those readers are long gone. Look at what Girls posted. Public polls on climate change. I'm not surprised less people care. I imagine it's along party lines too since the issue has been politicized. I don't really care what the public thinks on this matter though, most are scientifically illiterate. We're a country that is hostile to actual expertise and we'll suffer as a result. I’m falling a bit behind on the conversation here, but these “reports” you referenced and the subsequent messaging that seems to be directed at and echoed by conservatives is why l spoke up. To me it seems like it’s painting an unfavorable and inaccurate picture of their true stance on environmental issues. Attempts to discredit climate change is one thing, but it’s extending to messaging that shows a derogatory attitude towards green practices in general. And the greater problem is it’s not leaving any room to get any positive messaging out there that they’re not as anti-environment as they would seem. l think it’s costing them votes. I also don’t discount the personal responsibility stuff. Imo a person who personally invests their own time and resources into this stuff is more inclined to support our collective investment in it, and they bring to the table ground roots know-how on it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan1 Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 2 hours ago, MLD Woody said: Nothing new has been presented here. None of you are changing your mind. Enough money is out there from oil and gas, etc to prop up BS "think tanks" to pump out inaccurate information that politicians and political entities can point to and keep their base in line, allowing them to line their pockets. The science is clear. The consensus is clear. It doesn't matter how many geologists that used to work at Shell signed some petition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibleedbrown Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 On 5/9/2024 at 10:59 AM, FY56 said: I've always perceived (and maybe wrongly) climate change and the environment as two different issues. Everyone wants clean air and water. After all it was Nixon that established the EPA. I don't think it had anything to do with climate change. Having said that, they can be linked...less auto pollution= cleaner air = less Co2 emissions, except today as it pertains to cars, the emphasis is on climate change. There's been more than enough demands on automakers to produce efficient cars and restrict air pollutants. Republicans are perceived anti-environment because the environment is at the bottom of their priorities. The economy is at the top. The majority favor expanding drilling, obviously that makes them anti-environment too. Well, what a surprise, it turns out they do care after all. And as you presumed, there is some common ground. Republicans also favor more solar power and wind turbines. The majority also favor carbon capture technology. Now that sounds interesting. By a 58% to 42% margin, Republicans say expanding production from fossil fuel sources like oil and gas is a greater priority for the country than expanding renewable sources like wind and solar. Not bad. Republicans’ views of climate change, energy issues | Pew Research Center Republicans support expanding fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Burning fossil fuels for energy is the source of most U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Climate scientists have urged countries to rapidly reduce their reliance on fossil fuel energy while transitioning to renewable sources to help limit the rise in Earth’s temperature. Among Republicans, large shares back increasing the production of fossil fuel sources: 73% favor more offshore oil and gas drilling and 68% favor more hydraulic fracturing. At the same time, comparable shares of Republicans support renewable energy production, including more solar power farms (70%) and more wind power (60%). In addition, two-thirds said they favor building more nuclear power plants, according to a June 2023 survey. Much of this makes sense to me, and the statistics you provided don’t surprise me. I perceive climate change as simply a motivating factor, meaning if you subscribe to it you are more likely to support green energy type stuff like solar and wind and buying hybrids and stuff like that. It also seems clear to me that conservatives who don’t subscribe to climate change are basically doing a variation of the same things by supporting green energy things. Obviously a different motivating factor that leads to similar results. And l suspect all but the most militant of green energy proponents acknowledge that we still need to rely on fossil fuels while also exploring green energy resources. Your line about the economy being the republican's’ main thing resonated with me, but my next thoughts turned to how investing in green energy would help in that area. There’s plenty of support for it and plenty of jobs that can be created with both goals in mind. You mentioned Nixon started the EPA, and it was Teddy Roosevelt who started the national parks. There’s ample examples of when conservatives were also the conservationists and l think could be again. Climate change doesn’t have to be a fortress that needs to be conquered. Just hitch a ride in Cal’s Prius and drive around it and win some rightfully deserved votes in the process. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted May 10 Author Report Share Posted May 10 I think your view on it is too realistic but good. The problem is I don't think we have an honest picture of the problem and without that we can't have any honest solutions yet. I think everyone knows we have to be making an impact in some manner. Is the co2 a threat or a drop in the ocean? I'm too tired right now to list all the things. Gore was caught grifting the climate scene and when things didn't even come close to what he said it was apparent to not only us but others that could use the same thing for their own reasons, be it money or power. So is there some misinformation from man made climate change, sure, but both sides are putting it out there and like I said before, follow the actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 5 hours ago, MLD Woody said: Of course morons exist today. Flat earth. Anti vaxx. Climate deniers. Young earth creationists. You forgot to mention pregnant men. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan1 Posted May 10 Report Share Posted May 10 1 hour ago, Canton Dawg said: You forgot to mention pregnant men. Pecker is a clown. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FY56 Posted May 11 Report Share Posted May 11 3 hours ago, Canton Dawg said: You forgot to mention pregnant men. And Biden voters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 11 Report Share Posted May 11 12 hours ago, MLD Woody said: You're a moron The UN absolutely talks about deforestation https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/heres-what-happens-if-world-loses-its-rainforests https://www.un.org/esa/forests/documents/un-strategic-plan-for-forests-2030/index.html But I know this is nothing more than one of your catchphrases at this point Articles in the net don't mean they talk about it in the media. Like they do talk and whine about Israel, but not hamas. Like they talk about redistribution of wealth, but they don't talk about china and india. But it is heartening that they have a couple of websites that bring it up. I've talked about it for many years before 2017. So not knowing about a couple of websites makes somebody a moron? You can't be civil in your attempts to "take part" in discussions because you don't know much of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibleedbrown Posted May 11 Report Share Posted May 11 6 hours ago, Jax said: I think your view on it is too realistic but good. The problem is I don't think we have an honest picture of the problem and without that we can't have any honest solutions yet. I think everyone knows we have to be making an impact in some manner. Is the co2 a threat or a drop in the ocean? I'm too tired right now to list all the things. Gore was caught grifting the climate scene and when things didn't even come close to what he said it was apparent to not only us but others that could use the same thing for their own reasons, be it money or power. So is there some misinformation from man made climate change, sure, but both sides are putting it out there and like I said before, follow the actions. I’d like to think it’s realistic and good. Nothing to lose and something to gain? How important is an honest picture of the problem? It seems to me both sides are proactively working towards a common solution despite different motivations. What’s wrong with receiving recognition for those efforts? I don’t really get angry with politicians for making gobs of money plying their schtick. Trump included. Gore stumbled in to a schtick that resonated with a lot of people, me included. Conservationism is a good cause. I want my kids and grandkids and your kids and grandkids to inherit the same chance that we had on this rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickers Posted May 11 Report Share Posted May 11 47 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said: I want my kids and grandkids and your kids and grandkids to inherit the same chance that we had on this rock. I want that too without the fear mongering by the left.. And do it with common sense technologies... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibleedbrown Posted May 11 Report Share Posted May 11 28 minutes ago, nickers said: I want that too without the fear mongering by the left.. And do it with common sense technologies... Yeah thanks for summarizing that in one and a half sentences. There’s weird shit at play suggesting otherwise. Reject the weird shit. Say no to weird shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickers Posted May 11 Report Share Posted May 11 1 minute ago, Ibleedbrown said: Yeah thanks for summarizing that in one and a half sentences. There’s weird shit at play suggesting otherwise. Reject the weird shit. Say no to weird shit. Right on , Dude! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 11 Report Share Posted May 11 8 hours ago, calfoxwc said: Articles in the net don't mean they talk about it in the media. Like they do talk and whine about Israel, but not hamas. Like they talk about redistribution of wealth, but they don't talk about china and india. But it is heartening that they have a couple of websites that bring it up. I've talked about it for many years before 2017. So not knowing about a couple of websites makes somebody a moron? You can't be civil in your attempts to "take part" in discussions because you don't know much of anything. Cal ... The website you "didn't know about" is fucking UN.org You have no idea what the UN actually does or doesn't say. You only know what Red State and other right wing media reports. That's the point. That's the foundation of every misinformed post and thought you've ever had on here and yet you still don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 11 Report Share Posted May 11 1 minute ago, MLD Woody said: Cal ... The website you "didn't know about" is fucking UN.org You have no idea what the UN actually does or doesn't say. You only know what Red State and other right wing media reports. That's the point. That's the foundation of every misinformed post and thought you've ever had on here and yet you still don't get it. I never saw it when I was looking a few years ago, stupidass. I know a lot about the fraud by the UN. I even talked about a whole book on the corruption in the UN. I have posted so many links to sources, and you say I'm misinformed? You run your mouth to sound intelligent, but wow, you are extremely lost in the honesty dept. Look, it isn't anyone else's fault, if you are gay/trans/whatever - you don't have to bitch demeaningly at every single poster that doesn't say the stuff you are addicted to. How do you "work for a living" at your "job" and hang out on the internet all day? I'm a retired computer guy, and none of us would ever do that. I'm guessing a relative owns the company you "work" for ? lol You really do need to grow up as a human being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted May 11 Author Report Share Posted May 11 9 hours ago, Ibleedbrown said: I’d like to think it’s realistic and good. Nothing to lose and something to gain? How important is an honest picture of the problem? It seems to me both sides are proactively working towards a common solution despite different motivations. What’s wrong with receiving recognition for those efforts? I don’t really get angry with politicians for making gobs of money plying their schtick. Trump included. Gore stumbled in to a schtick that resonated with a lot of people, me included. Conservationism is a good cause. I want my kids and grandkids and your kids and grandkids to inherit the same chance that we had on this rock. You are assuming they care about the environment or so called 'man made warming''. That's why you're view is too realistic. Being honest matters because you have to know the problem in order to fix it correctly. Such as, what is the correct temperature of the earth? How are you deciding this? You assume too much co2 is bad but if they are lying or exaggerating, co2 could be harmless or even needed. It wasn't that long ago they were concerned about an ice age. So then we have to trust these experts blindly because of science but what if we trusted them when they predicted an ice age? They were experts then as well. Gov't doesn't exist to make gobs of money. They exist to serve and are paid with our tax money. To be in gov't is to be honored to serve, you take pride in your country and you are doing your part to contribute. Some areas you need a livable wage, but it's all transparent and approved from boards and what not. When they make gobs of money then it's you as the consumer or tax payer that's getting screwed over. When they have a shtick, or a corrupt grift, then tax payers are being harmed in some way. If you want to make gobs of money then become an entrepreneur or enter wall street. Otherwise you're using your gov't position to influence and take lobby 'brides' and that in the end effects the tax payer. But hey, after gov't sure unless they're using their influence to affect policies that affect us. Gores shtick isn't harmless, he fear mongered the masses and generated 'experts' that needed funding to research his shtick. As woody says, Gore doesn't count because he isn't a climatologist expert. Neither is Biden or anyone else in gov't, but you guys fall in line with all regards to man made global warming. So by woodys logic, we shouldn't listen to anyone in gov't because none of them are experts in fields they are making policies on. Anyways in all seriousness, we need honesty to even know if there is a problem let alone on how to change it. Even then just by using common sense, it's not something that needs changed tomorrow, the climate is like a huge cruise ship, you have time to change it's direction, it's not a speed boat racing towards the docks at blazing speed. So when anyone in gov't wants to force changes tomorrow you know they're full of shit. You want to make changes that matter so you do the research, share that for debate and slowly implement it over time and there will be less resistance because you took the time, shared the info for debate and was transparent the whole time. That's different than woodys way where you just know better than anyone else, force solutions you don't need and call people names when they question it. On top of making these changes tomorrow, the alarmist people don't even do the things they are telling you to do to save the planet. It's a joke. You're forcing tax payers to buy EVs in the next decade when you haven't even converted your gov't vehicles or your personal vehicles to EV. - Dumbass cult Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted May 11 Author Report Share Posted May 11 Oh yeah, it's a little chilly this morning, I'm going to go drive around a bit and warm it up outside! 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibleedbrown Posted May 12 Report Share Posted May 12 On 5/11/2024 at 10:18 AM, Jax said: You are assuming they care about the environment or so called 'man made warming''. That's why you're view is too realistic. Being honest matters because you have to know the problem in order to fix it correctly. Such as, what is the correct temperature of the earth? How are you deciding this? You assume too much co2 is bad but if they are lying or exaggerating, co2 could be harmless or even needed. It wasn't that long ago they were concerned about an ice age. So then we have to trust these experts blindly because of science but what if we trusted them when they predicted an ice age? They were experts then as well. Gov't doesn't exist to make gobs of money. They exist to serve and are paid with our tax money. To be in gov't is to be honored to serve, you take pride in your country and you are doing your part to contribute. Some areas you need a livable wage, but it's all transparent and approved from boards and what not. When they make gobs of money then it's you as the consumer or tax payer that's getting screwed over. When they have a shtick, or a corrupt grift, then tax payers are being harmed in some way. If you want to make gobs of money then become an entrepreneur or enter wall street. Otherwise you're using your gov't position to influence and take lobby 'brides' and that in the end effects the tax payer. But hey, after gov't sure unless they're using their influence to affect policies that affect us. Gores shtick isn't harmless, he fear mongered the masses and generated 'experts' that needed funding to research his shtick. As woody says, Gore doesn't count because he isn't a climatologist expert. Neither is Biden or anyone else in gov't, but you guys fall in line with all regards to man made global warming. So by woodys logic, we shouldn't listen to anyone in gov't because none of them are experts in fields they are making policies on. Anyways in all seriousness, we need honesty to even know if there is a problem let alone on how to change it. Even then just by using common sense, it's not something that needs changed tomorrow, the climate is like a huge cruise ship, you have time to change it's direction, it's not a speed boat racing towards the docks at blazing speed. So when anyone in gov't wants to force changes tomorrow you know they're full of shit. You want to make changes that matter so you do the research, share that for debate and slowly implement it over time and there will be less resistance because you took the time, shared the info for debate and was transparent the whole time. That's different than woodys way where you just know better than anyone else, force solutions you don't need and call people names when they question it. On top of making these changes tomorrow, the alarmist people don't even do the things they are telling you to do to save the planet. It's a joke. You're forcing tax payers to buy EVs in the next decade when you haven't even converted your gov't vehicles or your personal vehicles to EV. - Dumbass cult I am assuming most everyone cares about the environment, that is true. l still believe that. Nothing presented here leads me to believe otherwise. Not necessarily climate change. Much of what you wrote makes sense and clarifies some things for me. I get it, and it’s an understandable response. Resentment is at play here. Resentment for Al Gore and democrats and their pushy car salesman approach. I suppose we all get to decide how much we allow that resentment to drive what we put out there. I think there’s more common ground than not though, and l think it’s something worth building on. Your cruise ship analogy was a good one, an acknowledgement that we should be proactive, maybe just not as proactive as Al Gore thinks we should be. Why isn’t that message being broadcast loud and clear? My suspicion is that climate change has become such an albatross chained to environmental causes that it’s preventing us from exploring that common ground. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 12 Report Share Posted May 12 I would NEVER own a stupid prius. That makes me want to go drive our 50 HP John Deere Diesel around for a half hr. It was 56 degrees when we sat out and watched the Northern Lights. Last night, it was raining, so I will have a campfire tonight to warm up the globe and make it too warm for woodpeckers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.