The climate propaganda

The goal of the propaganda is to make people accept poverty and starvation as a "solution".

AI and the banks' increase of debt will soon collapse the global economy and lead to massive unemployment. Some of those in power hope that people will accept death and starvation (small carbon footprint) as a "greater good" without protesting.

"We are living in one of the coldest periods in all of Earth’s history."

The political left will be the ones most severely affected yet they’re the ones who buy into the lies.

jop7 said:

"We are living in one of the coldest periods in all of Earth’s history."

View attachment 67579375

Click to expand...

Which is good because we also have about the lowest sea level in history. During the periods in your chart, sea levels ranged from similar to now, to over 100 meters higher than now do to no ice caps. Your thinking that your chart means that warming is not a problem is laughable. Are you that ignorant of the topic, or did you just buy into propaganda that you wanted to believe?

Redress said:

Which is good because we also have about the lowest sea level in history. During the periods in your chart, sea levels ranged from similar to now, to over 100 meters higher than now do to no ice caps. Your thinking that your chart means that warming is not a problem is laughable. Are you that ignorant of the topic, or did you just buy into propaganda that you wanted to believe?

Click to expand...

You're probably a mad "scientist" funded by the government to block out the sun. Why try to fix something that isn't broken you lunatic?

jop7 said:

You're probably a mad "scientist" funded by the government to block out the sun. Why try to fix something that isn't broken you lunatic?

Click to expand...

No, I am just someone pointing out the flaw with your chart and premise. Why can you not address the point I made?

Redress said:

No, I am just someone pointing out the flaw with your chart and premise. Why can you not address the point I made?

Click to expand...

I did, but you didn’t get it.

Redress said:

No, I am just someone pointing out the flaw with your chart and premise. Why can you not address the point I made?

Click to expand...

As soon as I saw the opening comment I knew this was someone to avoid trying to have a "discussion" with because he is one of those will just accuse you of being a "lunatic". Fly by.

jop7 said:

You're probably a mad "scientist" funded by the government to block out the sun. Why try to fix something that isn't broken you lunatic?

Click to expand...

Watch your mouth.

Redress said:

Which is good because we also have about the lowest sea level in history. During the periods in your chart, sea levels ranged from similar to now, to over 100 meters higher than now do to no ice caps. Your thinking that your chart means that warming is not a problem is laughable. Are you that ignorant of the topic, or did you just buy into propaganda that you wanted to believe?

Click to expand...

The sea level will rise and fall no matter what we humans do! Achieving NetZero CO2 emissions will not change how the climate and sea levels are moving.

Sorry Jop7. I do not buy into your silly narrative. I see it as an anti-AGW activist viewpoint with no knowledge guiding it. My viewpoint is that the whole idea started as a valid concern, but morphed into a life of its own where everyone involved befitting from it does so for money, power, or prestige.

Thank-you however for showing the people here what a real "denier" looks like. There are those of us here who are against the AGW scare who are called "deniers" when we actually understand the science of it.

There are both natural and man cause changes. The largest natural change has to do with us coming out of the Maunder Minima. According to the proxy data we have, the sun was quiet from sometime in the 1600's or earlier. I forget when that started without looking it up again. It started being active again at 1713 by our proxy data. The sun then had it's maximum peak in 1958. The solar acclivity and thermal inertia of the ocean has this causing the earths temperature to peak at 2004, if it would be the only variable to change. But other variables, mostly by us, have modulated this time period of 2004 to later, and we may still be warming by human activity. Though it is not by as much as the fearmongers would have us believe. Coming out of the maunder Minima probably accounts for half or more of the warming we see per the IPCCC since 1750.

I have no doubt that the acceleration of ice melt is caused by us. Sea level has been still rising for the last 10,000 or more years since coming out of out last ice age, but at a slow rate. We have probably tripled this rate of melting. Our contribution is mostly soot, reducing the albedo (reflective value) of ice. As the ice absorbs more sunlight, it melts faster. Soot is a product of burning fossil fuels, but the pundits like to limp it all together and say we need to reduce CO2 emissions. We can still burn fossil fuels without generating soot and other pollutants, and that is what we need to do rather than stop making more greenhouse gasses.

The observed temperature changes we see are corrected to give us a global temperature change. there is no way this can be accurate enough to know how much we have really warmed. I am one who highly disputes the accuracy as the corrections are simply impossible to have any reasonable accuracy. I say we are not warming as much as claimed, but it is actually possible we are warming more than claimed.

Cities and heat threats to the population is absolutely real. The UHIE (urban heat island effect) from studies indicate that this phenomena is as much as 10 C (18 F) compared to what the area would be undisturbed by us. Nearly all global monitoring stations are within the influence of our land use change we do because of population centers. As we cap off more of the land with concrete, asphalt, and building, we have less rainwater being absorbed for later evaporation cooling. All the water channeled into storm sewers is less for this later cooling.

I see the added greenhouse gasses, specifically CO2 as beneficial to the planet. The ecosphere loved the extra plant food.

Like Gran Mal points out, watch your language. Read the forum rules,. Since you appear to be a perfect example of what a real denier is, I would hate to see you suspended or banned.

jop7 said:

"We are living in one of the coldest periods in all of Earth’s history."

View attachment 67579375

Click to expand...

This doesn't matter going that far back. the tectonic plates are more stable today than in those past years. Only about the last 800,000 years matter.

Redress said:

Which is good because we also have about the lowest sea level in history. During the periods in your chart, sea levels ranged from similar to now, to over 100 meters higher than now do to no ice caps. Your thinking that your chart means that warming is not a problem is laughable. Are you that ignorant of the topic, or did you just buy into propaganda that you wanted to believe?

Click to expand...

I don't think it is quite 100 meters, but what you say is absolutely true otherwise. When we were in the last ice age, the sea level was more than 130 meters lower. We have civilizations under water that we may never see signs of as most would have also been next to rivers and now covered in silt.

Look at the structures under water in the Mediterranean. Since these are not river flows to the ocean, they still remain.

Redress said:

No, I am just someone pointing out the flaw with your chart and premise. Why can you not address the point I made?

Click to expand...

He is a true denier, like I am accused of being. He will have no intelligent answers. He is just an indoctrinated person like anyone else who believe in cult like reasoning.

jop7 said:

I did, but you didn’t get it.

Click to expand...

What you showed is information from past proxy data, with no valid reasonable explanations. Try again.

SNOWFLAKE said:

As soon as I saw the opening comment I knew this was someone to avoid trying to have a "discussion" with because he is one of those will just accuse you of being a "lunatic". Fly by.

Click to expand...

I like this. You guys dislike what I say, but here is an example or what a denier actually looks like.

Some may worry about the sun dying in billions of years, but it's still madness to experiment with it today in an attempt to extend its life. Instead of worrying about that, we should be extremely concerned about what happens when the financial system collapses. That was the point of the post. The financial system is dying, and they want to replace it with one that involves much more surveillance including tracking personal carbon emissions. Carbon as money. A fascist system.


"Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) sheds light on the WEF’s plan to use the "climate crisis" as an excuse to roll out personal carbon allowances, linked to digital ID."

jop7 said:

Some may worry about the sun dying in billions of years, but it's still madness to experiment with it today in an attempt to extend its life.

Click to expand...

I have never heard of such moronic attempt. Who are you getting this from? Link please.

jop7 said:

Instead of worrying about that, we should be extremely concerned about what happens when the financial system collapses. That was the point of the post. The financial system is dying, and they want to replace it with one that involves much more surveillance including tracking personal carbon emissions. Carbon as money. A fascist system.

Click to expand...

This will likely never happen. Too many people see the carbon credit schemem for what it is, though Al Gore has got quite rich from it. But atvthe same tokme, se fpeaks and is activelyb involvced in the climate scam.

jop7 said:

"Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) sheds light on the WEF’s plan to use the "climate crisis" as an excuse to roll out personal carbon allowances, linked to digital ID."

Click to expand...

Trust the people as a whole to be stupid, but not that stupid. Do you think such a thing would ever happen?

Well, this surely is a tough choice.
Who do I believe?

The vast majority of the world's scientists who show climate change is a problem?
Or one rando on a forum who has a couple of graphs and zero credentials?

Maybe I should sit on this for a few days as it's just so hard to decide.

Peter said:

Well, this surely is a tough choice.
Who do I believe?

The vast majority of the world's scientists who show climate change is a problem?
Or one rando on a forum who has a couple of graphs and zero credentials?

Maybe I should sit on this for a few days as it's just so hard to decide.

Click to expand...

Your "vast majority of the scientists" only show that because research grants are at least 200:1 in favor of the AGW scare, over reality.

Lord of Planar said:

Your "vast majority of the scientists" only show that because research grants are at least 200:1 in favor of the AGW scare, over reality.

Click to expand...

Oh yes those poor, poor oil companies up against these fat cat scientists and their massive grants.

How can impoverished companies like BP or Exon hope to compete against that?
It's not like they're using the exact same playback as the tobacco industry did to try and disprove a link between smoking and cancer.
Nope, not even slightly.

jop7 said:

The goal of the propaganda is to make people accept poverty and starvation as a "solution".

AI and the banks' increase of debt will soon collapse the global economy and lead to massive unemployment. Some of those in power hope that people will accept death and starvation (small carbon footprint) as a "greater good" without protesting.

Click to expand...

Peter said:

Oh yes those poor, poor oil companies up against these fat cat scientists and their massive grants.

Click to expand...

I see you believe the propaganda. Why should the oil companies not benefit from selling fossil fuels as long as we need them? They never made any claims like I do. I see you love the lies and propaganda you read.

Peter said:

It's not like they're using the exact same playback as the tobacco industry did to try and disprove a link between smoking and cancer.
Nope, not even slightly.

Click to expand...

There is no comparison. Only a fool thinks so.

jop7 said:

You're probably a mad "scientist" funded by the government to block out the sun. Why try to fix something that isn't broken you lunatic?

Click to expand...

You lunatic?

Lord of Planar said:

Your "vast majority of the scientists" only show that because research grants are at least 200:1 in favor of the AGW scare, over reality.

Click to expand...

The conspiracy has many tentacles.