Not clouds

[deducer]

Impressive Jim.
And speaking of the IPCC, they happen to be in the news themselves today.....

"Saudi Arabia has successfully lobbied for a major climate change report to be scrubbed from international negotiations on limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C.
The Saudis led a loose coalition of oil-producing nations, including the US, Russia and Iran, that objected to the science behind the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The report emphasized the need to keep warming down to 1.5C as a matter of survival for many countries and called for drastic action to reach this goal, with the whole world needing to hit zero emissions by 2050.
However, as a result of the Saudi-led intervention, this landmark report was blocked from formal climate talks at Bonn this week. This will substantially weaken its influence on future policy.

The final UN report had just five watered-down paragraphs on IPCC findings, explaining that they were based on the “best science available” without including more concrete information on how countries should reduce emissions targets. "

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...e-change-report-removed-un-bonn-a8979201.html

Pretty self-explanatory, isn't it?

If this "major climate change report" was full of fudged data, driven by political agenda, or otherwise falsified, then why block it outright, instead of calling it out for what it is?

Why doesn't Saudi Arabia, a country drowning in oil money, give a little money to independent scientists or researchers to debunk this report? Should be easily done, rather than a draconian block.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[deducer]

Smoke and mirrors, media theater and general hysteria aside, remember this interesting article that wasn't on the 6:00 news? Things are seldom as they seem.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

Great article. So good I want to quote from it in case people didn't see it:

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

This is why we got out of the Paris Climate Accord. We all need to ask why our "media" wants us to believe this was good for us, wailed like Hitler was on the march again in the form of Trump, and never told us what the real goal was.

The "Ministry of Truth" at work...

This is an opined article.

That responding to climate change would choke economic growth is complete fiction.

It would actually create millions and millions of new jobs, as outlined in the "Green New Deal" program, as we begin the conversion from depending on foreign oil, to sourcing energy right on our own soil.

It would more than make up for the millions of jobs being shipped out of the country by major corporations who would rather pay someone in Indonesia 35 cents an hour, rather than a honest wage in America.

 

[deducer]

Believe it or not, most people could grow enough in a 32x60 high tunnel greenhouse. Heirloom seeds are still available and do not have the terminator gene in the so they will grow from saved seeds.

I believe that greenhouses as a means of food production is the future- not just because of climate change, but because of overpopulation. Greenhouses are a much more efficient way of producing food in very little space.

Holland's Sustainable Farming

 

[sdcfia]

I believe that greenhouses as a means of food production is the future- not just because of climate change, but because of overpopulation. Greenhouses are a much more efficient way of producing food in very little space.

Holland's Sustainable Farming

The future is already here in Russia and has been for several years.

https://www.greenhousesforum.com/en/

 

[deducer]

The future is already here in Russia and has been for several years.

https://www.greenhousesforum.com/en/

Hopefully it will take hold here, on an industrial scale. A greenhouse substantially reduces footprints on the environment and virtually eliminates the use of pesticide and other unwelcome chemicals. Best of all, our fruits and vegetables would be hours away, instead of days or weeks, and from halfway around the globe. This again would create a great deal of jobs.

And it would greatly eliminate (wait for it) pollution caused by transportation of said products. And it would reduce the amount of trucks clogging the highways and roads.

 

[wrmickel1]

This is an opined article.

That responding to climate change would choke economic growth is complete fiction.

It would actually create millions and millions of new jobs, as outlined in the "Green New Deal" program, as we begin the conversion from depending on foreign oil, to sourcing energy right on our own soil.

It would more than make up for the millions of jobs being shipped out of the country by major corporations who would rather pay someone in Indonesia 35 cents an hour, rather than a honest wage in America.

Deducer

Who’s gonna Pay for the Millions of New Jobs, Capitalism or Communism in your Green Deal.
Greenhouse are nothing New, So who’s gonna Pay 5 bucks a pound for tomatoes, 1 can grow them for pennies.



Wrmickel1

 

[sdcfia]

Hopefully it will take hold here, on an industrial scale. A greenhouse substantially reduces footprints on the environment and virtually eliminates the use of pesticide and other unwelcome chemicals. Best of all, our fruits and vegetables would be hours away, instead of days or weeks, and from halfway around the globe. This again would create a great deal of jobs.

And it would greatly eliminate (wait for it) pollution caused by transportation of said products. And it would reduce the amount of trucks clogging the highways and roads.

The problem I don't believe has been solved is the growing of grains, which are by far the major food staples in the northern hemisphere and require millions of acres. If the temperature profile drops only a couple degrees, growing seasons diminish and some crops are lost. If yields are diminished enough, people begin to starve in greater numbers. Russia and northern Europe have lost significant crops the past couple years due to cold weather.

 

[Owassokie]

It's not me who doesn't compromise- it's nature. I'm not in this to win some sort of debate, I'm just stating facts.

Herein lies the problem. You've picked sources to educate yourself, no doubt some of it propaganda and determined it all to be "facts". Now you hear information that contradicts these "facts" and you have no interest in considering the possibility the facts haven't all been determined by the sources you read. I know you said you're not trying to win an argument but that's what it feels like as I read this discussion.

If a person was truly interested in bringing awareness to "climate change", they would steer clear of the phrase because it's been used as a political tool for years. Your approach is to get people to admit "climate change" when you know they don't acknowledge it in the way it's being propagated. I think most people believe there are changes in the climate but have zero interest in using 'the phrase' because of all the propaganda.

To be fair, I feel there's propaganda on the other side of this argument as well, inspired by politics.

 

[deducer]

Deducer
Who’s gonna Pay for the Millions of New Jobs, Capitalism or Communism in your Green Deal.

If this country could bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion to reward them for their recklessness and fraudulent activities that led to the 2007 crash, and furthermore lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy wrecked by Wall Street (source: Bloomberg news) then we sure as heck can finance the GND.

I always get a kick out of people who scream socialism when it comes to health care or climate change (e.g., funding the GND) but do not object when it happens to Wall Street.

 

[azdave35]

If this country could bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion to reward them for their recklessness and fraudulent activities that led to the 2007 crash, and furthermore lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy wrecked by Wall Street (source: Bloomberg news) then we sure as heck can finance the GND.

I always get a kick out of people who scream socialism when it comes to health care or climate change (e.g., funding the GND) but do not object when it happens to Wall Street.

object ?...lol..we had no choice in the matter...wall street was getting bailed out whether we liked it or not

 

[PotBelly Jim]

This is an opined article.

That responding to climate change would choke economic growth is complete fiction.

It would actually create millions and millions of new jobs, as outlined in the "Green New Deal" program, as we begin the conversion from depending on foreign oil, to sourcing energy right on our own soil.

It would more than make up for the millions of jobs being shipped out of the country by major corporations who would rather pay someone in Indonesia 35 cents an hour, rather than a honest wage in America.

That's your criticism? That the author opined about jobs? No comment on the IPCC being exposed for what they are, political tools of petty dictatorships? Whose aim is to use environmental policy as a bludgeon to reduce competition from stable regimes to their failed regimes?

Dependency on foreign oil has always been a choice, not a necessity. News flash for those that get their news from The Ministry of Truth: The US is now the largest producer of oil and gas in the world, is reducing emissions, and is ramping back up to challenge technical dominance by other nations in regards to renewables. Funny how that happened.

How is shipping jobs overseas any different than the IPCC trying to use environmental policy to encourage growth outside of the developed nations? It's the same thing, brought to us by the same people.

 

[PotBelly Jim]

Herein lies the problem. You've picked sources to educate yourself, no doubt some of it propaganda and determined it all to be "facts". Now you hear information that contradicts these "facts" and you have no interest in considering the possibility the facts haven't all been determined by the sources you read. I know you said you're not trying to win an argument but that's what it feels like as I read this discussion.

If a person was truly interested in bringing awareness to "climate change", they would steer clear of the phrase because it's been used as a political tool for years. Your approach is to get people to admit "climate change" when you know they don't acknowledge it in the way it's being propagated. I think most people believe there are changes in the climate but have zero interest in using 'the phrase' because of all the propaganda.

To be fair, I feel there's propaganda on the other side of this argument as well, inspired by politics.

Exactly. The whole debate is a philosophical one. Or political. Doesn't matter which, the only thing that really matters is it's not a scientific one.

I'm skeptical of it all. I don't see any evidence of massive AGW. I also don't think we're going into an ice age. Both use cherry-picked data.

While this has been an interesting discussion, personally I think I'll get back to the LDM now. Carry on, Amigos!

 

[Owassokie]

"Which is why they are terrified", and especially of the solutions to climate change which is going to be a great equalizer- instead of getting power from a fossil fuel plant 1,000 miles away, you'll get it right from your rooftop in the form of solar power. What we do as far as mode of transportation and what we do with energy isn't going to change, only the source of that energy is going to change from fossil fuel to electric, and again right from your rooftop, free from any grid.

The transformation is going to generate millions upon millions of jobs as we wrest control from a tiny consortium that has perfected a monopoly on oil.

Can't make a monopoly of the sun, it's everywhere.

If this happens, it will be at the whim of the biggest monopoly....government. It's not cost effective. You will pay more. There will be ZERO freedom from monopoly...just a change in title. Jobs will not be generated...just transformed. The difference is we (America) will pay more for energy and we'll go further in debt as a country. This utopian dream doesn't exist in any reality.

Deducer said:Which is why they are terrified
They'er terrified because if politicians convince enough people like you that the government knows best, their business will evaporate.

Deducer said:Can't make a monopoly of the sun, it's everywhere
Someone like you could have said the same thing about coal or gas or oil back when it was first used as energy. Harnessing the suns energy can be monopolized, just like any other source of energy. The energy has to be captured, converted, and certainly regulated. Worse yet, because capturing it is not cost effective in comparison to fossil fuels, it will first be monopolized by the growing government and then likely, big business.

 

[Owassokie]

If this country could bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion to reward them for their recklessness and fraudulent activities that led to the 2007 crash, and furthermore lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy wrecked by Wall Street (source: Bloomberg news) then we sure as heck can finance the GND.

I always get a kick out of people who scream socialism when it comes to health care or climate change (e.g., funding the GND) but do not object when it happens to Wall Street.

I'm by no means a fan the "bailout" but something was always going to happen once the bubble had been created. The alternative would have been continued economic ruin. Instead of being mired in economic ruin, all us "haves" get to complain about the "have mores".

Serious question...If lower and middle class families were all millionaires, would we complain about the 1%er billionaires?!?

 

[deducer]

That's your criticism? That the author opined about jobs? No comment on the IPCC being exposed for what they are, political tools of petty dictatorships? Whose aim is to use environmental policy as a bludgeon to reduce competition from stable regimes to their failed regimes?

Dependency on foreign oil has always been a choice, not a necessity. News flash for those that get their news from The Ministry of Truth: The US is now the largest producer of oil and gas in the world, is reducing emissions, and is ramping back up to challenge technical dominance by other nations in regards to renewables. Funny how that happened.

How is shipping jobs overseas any different than the IPCC trying to use environmental policy to encourage growth outside of the developed nations? It's the same thing, brought to us by the same people.

Jim,

It's an editorial, not an article.

I'm not sure I understand why the IPCC would have ulterior motive to encourage growth outside of the developed nations while "stunting" American growth, when the response to climate change will provide explosive growth to the economy of this country, pretty much on par with what China is doing, by employing millions of people into transforming how this country extracts its energy. Oil industry has long since peaked, while renewable is just scratching the surface in regard to potential.

 

[deducer]

Herein lies the problem. You've picked sources to educate yourself, no doubt some of it propaganda and determined it all to be "facts". Now you hear information that contradicts these "facts" and you have no interest in considering the possibility the facts haven't all been determined by the sources you read. I know you said you're not trying to win an argument but that's what it feels like as I read this discussion.

If a person was truly interested in bringing awareness to "climate change", they would steer clear of the phrase because it's been used as a political tool for years. Your approach is to get people to admit "climate change" when you know they don't acknowledge it in the way it's being propagated. I think most people believe there are changes in the climate but have zero interest in using 'the phrase' because of all the propaganda.

To be fair, I feel there's propaganda on the other side of this argument as well, inspired by politics.

Exactly. The whole debate is a philosophical one. Or political. Doesn't matter which, the only thing that really matters is it's not a scientific one.

I'm skeptical of it all. I don't see any evidence of massive AGW. I also don't think we're going into an ice age. Both use cherry-picked data.

While this has been an interesting discussion, personally I think I'll get back to the LDM now. Carry on, Amigos!

There are always going to be people, parties, or organizations that misuse or abuse crises for personal or financial gain. I do not deny that "alarmists" have given this thing a bad name, and that the "alarmist" approach is a poor model to work with.

This doesn't and shouldn't detract from the fact that climate change is a real phenomenon.

If it were up to me, I would have framed the entire thing as an opportunity for this country to stay on the cutting edge of technology, and thus remain the leading economy of the world as our technology would filter down to the other developed countries.

England was slow, and resistant to convert from coal to oil, in the 1890's and this cost them their premiere economic status, allowing Germany to score a strategic economic coup by getting to the Middle East first, seizing concessions to oil fields, via the Berlin-Baghdad railway. The geographic position of the Ottoman agreement coup was vital because it was a much shorter, overland route. This gave them a jump start in vastly improving how their war fleet was fueled, and overnight the German economy achieved world-leading status.

And I think I've shown that climate change is not a "political tool" because the current administration has made it extremely difficult for scientists to keep speaking out about climate change, yet they still do. This particular point has been ignored in this debate, thus far.

 

[deducer]

I'm by no means a fan the "bailout" but something was always going to happen once the bubble had been created. The alternative would have been continued economic ruin. Instead of being mired in economic ruin, all us "haves" get to complain about the "have mores".

American homeowners were ruined.

Wall Street was bailed out, million of homeowners were not bailed out from predatory mortgages. They lost their homes.

And to add salt to the wound, the banks that were bailed out, went right back to foreclosing on millions of homeowners.

Serious question...If lower and middle class families were all millionaires, would we complain about the 1%er billionaires?!?

That actually used to be the case; there was a solid middle class but it no longer exists.

All the money has now gone to the top 1% which owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of America.

The rise in income inequality is mirroring what happened in the roaring 20's, right before the great crash of 1929.

All of what's happening today has happened at some point or another in history, to many a civilization and countries, including the fabled Greek civilization, and the resultant outcome has never been good.

As the saying goes, if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Perhaps I am wrong, but aren't Coniferous forests actually designed by nature to use fire for clearing and reseeding?

 

[Owassokie]

American homeowners were ruined.

Wall Street was bailed out, million of homeowners were not bailed out from predatory mortgages. They lost their homes.

And to add salt to the wound, the banks that were bailed out, went right back to foreclosing on millions of homeowners.




That actually used to be the case; there was a solid middle class but it no longer exists.

All the money has now gone to the top 1% which owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of America.

The rise in income inequality is mirroring what happened in the roaring 20's, right before the great crash of 1929.

All of what's happening today has happened at some point or another in history, to many a civilization and countries, including the fabled Greek civilization, and the resultant outcome has never been good.

As the saying goes, if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Regarding the bailout... Some homeowners were ruined...many were bailed out. Some businesses were ruined...many bailed out. There's things I wish would have been done different but just focusing on one aspect doesn't help the cause.

You stated "That actually used to be the case; there was a solid middle class but it no longer exists."

We have a very solid middle class and I don't care about the articles people can link stating otherwise. Many American's have a perception issue. Not including the mentally ill and unfortunate situations with children, the poorest among us live above what I would consider poverty level. All those enslaved by the government handouts....I would consider them poor but NOT because of their lack of housing, food, transportation, entertainment etc.... Think of the poorest people you know. Now compare their lifestyle to how people lived in the early 1900's. Are they truly poor? The issue is the standard of "middle class" changed because everyone is chasing the lifestyle of the 'have mores'. Most countries would not consider anyone in America poor.

For the record, my reference to "those enslaved" are the millions of American's in some way subsidized or on welfare who have the ability to work but lack the will, desire, or dignity to push back into the workforce. I recognize not everyone on welfare has the ability to work. But I also know several who have convinced themselves they are not fit to work but are really just too scared to give up the benefits. It's truly sad.

 

[azdave35]

Regarding the bailout... Some homeowners were ruined...many were bailed out. Some businesses were ruined...many bailed out. There's things I wish would have been done different but just focusing on one aspect doesn't help the cause.

You stated "That actually used to be the case; there was a solid middle class but it no longer exists."

We have a very solid middle class and I don't care about the articles people can link stating otherwise. Many American's have a perception issue. Not including the mentally ill and unfortunate situations with children, the poorest among us live above what I would consider poverty level. All those enslaved by the government handouts....I would consider them poor but NOT because of their lack of housing, food, transportation, entertainment etc.... Think of the poorest people you know. Now compare their lifestyle to how people lived in the early 1900's. Are they truly poor? The issue is the standard of "middle class" changed because everyone is chasing the lifestyle of the 'have mores'. Most countries would not consider anyone in America poor.

For the record, my reference to "those enslaved" are the millions of American's in some way subsidized or on welfare who have the ability to work but lack the will, desire, or dignity to push back into the workforce. I recognize not everyone on welfare has the ability to work. But I also know several who have convinced themselves they are not fit to work but are really just too scared to give up the benefits. It's truly sad.

most of the people i know that lost their houses did so because of their own stupidity.....they had a house worth 150k that suddenly shot up to 500k so the first thing they did was get a loan on their overinflated house and buy a bunch of toys...boats..hot rods...atv's....and when they market crashed they had to pay a 500k mortgage on a house that was only worth 100k...so they went bankrupt and stuck the bank with the note...smart people didn't lose their houses in 2008...just the idiots did