trash is just unseemly... That said, people that live around it, everyday, don't appear to have much of a problem with it...

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I've lived in Salt Lake now for 15 years. Much of the western part of the country is desert. You can't keep growing the populations of places like Utah, Arizona and Vegas and not expect there to be issues. It's been my biggest concern about the growth of greater Salt Lake City.

---

Agreed - to me, the most provable man-driven climate impact is development in naturally dry areas.

I've been to Phoenix / Chandler and driven that whole area, and it's just mind numbing how many homes / businesses are there - you just drive on and on amd on, and it is developed. That water / power has to drawn from elsewhere and just seems like will never catchIs this actual climate change, or is it just misuse/mishandling of resources

---

---

Well, clearly its the latter. But that is why i termed it man-driven climate impact. I don't know if it changes the day-in, day-out climate, but it most certainly impacts the results of the climate. But when you put down that much concreted on a desert, then you're sucking that much water out of the ground, and changing what God has created there....it can't be good.


To me, a similar example -- Hurricane Harvey in Houston. Stalled out and dropped 40+ inches of rain over several days. Terrible flooding. Now, i have no idea if climate change caused the storm. We've always had hurricanes (that area suffered the most deadly ever in Galveston 100 years ago).
And if that area had been left to the swamps and bayous that it was 200 years ago, all that rain would have had recourse. Instead, its now a concrete jungle with development where it just shouldn't be.
So now you have a huge climate impact -- hurricane produces catastrophic flooding in great part because human development destroyed what God intended with run off.

---

I guess that's my question regarding "climate change" arguments. Many arguments discuss the events that cause "catastrophic damage." But, if we build more stuff then there is more stuff to destroy.

I 100% believe that things are changing. I'm not convinced it's all on man. Our planet goes in cycles. Studies that go beyond the last 500-1000 years show this.

I do believe our environment needs help. I'm more worried about trash in our oceans and other waterways. These are the things that bother me. I'm of the opinion that our environment needs a cleansing and that is something we can have a bigger quicker impact on.

---

I'm with you on that. I do think there is a man-made element, but our measurements are somewhat limited in relation to other micro-cycles. And to me, the more immediate threat is the every day water/air we come into contact with.

I went on a mission trip last summer to Honduras. Every part of the country could use a cleanse (when you're poor and trying to get by, trash just doesn't matter as much, i guess)
But on our fun day, we went to this beach resort called La Ensenada. At the entrance, the planned layout was beautiful, with waterways with piers and people stand up paddleboarding with homes on the water, etc.
In reality....when we crossed over these canals, they were clogged with every kind of rubbish you could imagine.

Multiply that across the country, many of the waters serving as sources of drinking / cleaning for people....and you can see why illness, etc.

I do think this is one area where US has really improved. Nowhere near perfect, but our waterways are much cleaner now. I think people want to be able to use them, want to be able to recreate, fish, swim, etc.

---

I think most people care about trash all over the place. I remember seeing cigarette buts everywhere, on the streets. That bothered me, immensely. I'm not sure how to deal with this selfish act.

We should have continuous cleaning of our country; however, other countries need to be accountable to their own. Regarding Climate Change, I'm not bought in at all. Too many changes in the name of the crisis for me to… just believe it. Call me simple minded.

---

I'd amend your 1st para to add the qualifier "in developed countries". As my example about Honduras -- go to poor countries (and away from the beach-front resorts), and you'll see issues

As for climate change, I don't think there is any doubt that it is occurring. Now, is it man affected? Is it too short a period of time to know if it is a usual trend in the billions of years of earth age, or a real issue? I have my opinions, but thats all they are.

But three examples:
1) Tornado alley has shifted from TX/OK/KS -- the plains -- to the Southeast up thru KY, OH, etc. A noticeable tick downwards in the plains and upwards in the SE. But realistically, we only have ~150 years of knowledge about this...so is this just a trend back to the norm, or a blip, or what?

2) Polar Ice cap -- NASA measurements suggest in coverage, thickness, and average ice age, all significant reductions since 1980s. Again, is this a normal cycle over a 40 year period versus the billions of years of earth?

3) Glacier National. Significant glacier reduction since the 1850s, from 130 to 20-something. Other areas have seen similar reduction. Is this a normal trend over hundreds/thousands of years, or has the acceleration been enhanced?

Certainly the doom-n-gloom forecasts of well known tourism spots under the water by 20xx and all that cast a negative view of those who suggest global climate change...but I don't think there is any doubt its occurring.
I'm just not sure if its normal, or enhanced, and while I think we should always consider the environment in all of our legislative and business decisions, that it shouldn't be the overwhelming driver that it sometimes is today.*

**Or if it is, it should be localized -- meaning, I can fully understand why the SW states would apply much more consideration of water table impacts on whether to allow more development to occur, for example, than what authorities in the Carolinas might do.

---

Chem there are studies out there that have come from the polar ice samples that show evidence of these trends going back several hundred thousand years. The trends show we're on the upward end of a warming trend with a cold downfall looming. The problem with current pro "climate change" models are that they only focus on the last few hundred years.

Again as we know, you can shape any study to fit the narrative you want to produce. So, take it for what it's worth.

---

I agree to the extent that our measurements are taking a view of 200 years versus millions.
And that stories can be spun in multiple ways. As I said, I think caution has to be given to creating legislation driven by this data in a vacuum.
But purely my opinion.....you pump out the amount of CO2 we do now with the WW population growth over the past 10, 20, 50 years....it HAS to affect something. Its ultimately a fixed formula of inputs and outputs....and we've drastically changed the amount of inputs.

---

Many of the folks that are against this climate change model, agree that there is an effect of man made carbon output, but that the effect on our climate is negligible.

I'm going to use SLC as an example of where my head is at. Air quality is a huge talking point out here. We have a thing called inversion here and it happens because we live in a bowl in the valley. It happens in the winter and it's basically an absence of weather. There is no wind or anything to circulate the air and all the normal pollutants get trapped in the bowl.

When this happens, the air gets mucky and ugly and sticks around for a few days until a weather system comes along and blows it out and clears the air. During this time, the climate change group screams and yells about how big of an issue it is. We get 15-20 days of it per year. The rest of the year is beautiful.

Now, if you talk to folks born and raised here, it was a lot worse in the 70's and 80's when everything was coal burning and cars weren't as clean. They say it could be weeks and sometimes months of crappy air during the winter. But, the population now is 2-3 times what it was at those times.

Manufacturing is cleaner in this country than ever and cars are cleaner than ever, despite a growth in population. Despite all of this in SLC, local government is pushing an inland port that will bring more and more diesel trucks to the valley. So, is it important or not? Or is it only important when the economics matter?

That's why I'm more worried about the trash build up in our environment. That is something we can better control and vastly help our planet we live in.

---

three takeways from that. (and I agree...these are the type of reasonable discussions that SHOULD be happening...not the overly sensitively reactions on either extreme that seem to dominate the topic

1) there is no doubt that people / media seize on a 1-2 day occurrence and try to say THAT is a sign. Well, it may be. Or it could be that its the same thing that happens a couple of x a year for 100000 years.

2) no doubt -- changes already enacted about coal emissions and other such have helped tremendously from back in the 70s -- those smog pictures from the western cities that get the stale weather at times of the year.....so much better now. But....those are result of legislation that drove reduction.

3) the scenario you paint about the decision SLC to make on inland port --- fjobs / $$ vs environmental impact -- shapes every local decision to be made nowadays, rightly so. Seems, to your point -- within boundaries established at the federal level, it shoudl be up to the locals to decide what they value more.

**as a guy who loves the water, I'd prefer not to have a port in my town. But they can bring some serious jobs

I'm sure all of our climate change friends are driving electric cars and not using an air conditioner at their homes right Chem?

PackFansXL said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/great-barrier-reef-defies-doomsday-predictions/

Quote:

---

The headlines were dire: "Half of the Great Barrier Reef's corals have been killed by climate change," CBS News reported in October 2020.

Bleaching of the reef's corals is "getting more widespread," the New York Times reported earlier that year. A Vice headline in 2017 promoting David Attenborough's Blue Planet II documentary said, "the Great Barrier Reef will die this century," while National Geographic predicted an earlier demise for reefs around the globe: "Coral reefs could be gone in 30 years."

It became almost common knowledge that the Great Barrier Reef was assuredly doomed, the victim of a warming climate, rising ocean temperatures, and increasingly acidic water.

Then, in early August, the authoritative Australian Institute of Marine Science released a new report on the 1,400-mile natural wonder. Two-thirds of the reef its northern and central regions are showing record levels of coral cover. The southern region is also showing high levels of coral cover. The AIMS report was hardly a portrait of a dying ecosystem.

While the news may have been shocking to those who have been relying on the mainstream media for their information, it was no surprise to Peter Ridd, a marine geophysicist in Australia who has been studying the Great Barrier Reef since the mid 1980s. Ridd, 62, has long been a prominent voice dissenting from the chorus of reef doomsayers and what he describes as "the usual scaremongers" predicting the reef's impending death.

---

---

so a follow up (and maybe its addressed in the article). But is it possible the GBR, or portions of it, were in risk of dying off? And that action by local authorities to reduce human contact, to reduce certain agents that impacted the reef, etc, produced a benefit.

Like the bison population -- you have an treasure animal basically extinct, but efforts to provide protective homes in the YNP region has now allowed them to be gain significant #s in the wild?
Identified an issue (same w/bald eagle), took action, now have positive result of species flourishing?

I think it is much easier to see the effects of protection measures regarding mammals than it is the GBF. There is nothing in the article attributing the recovery to any anthropogenic measures. Ridd believes all this is just natural cycling with portions of the GBF under some form of stress in any given year and other areas recovering.

Quote:

---

The Great Barrier Reef is "one of the most fluctuating ecosystems on earth," marked by boom and bust cycles that can sometimes last a decade or more, Ridd said. Hurricanes or tropical cyclones in Australia can wipe out large swaths of coral in a matter of hours or days. And a prolonged El Niño climate pattern, like the one that occurred in 201617, can bathe coral in bathtub-warm water, leading to mass bleaching events. But over the course of a decade or so, the coral grows back.

The AIMS report noted the resiliency of the Great Barrier Reef and explained that over the last year it has experienced low levels of acute stress, with no severe cyclones and a decreased number of outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish, which feed on coral.

---

Chem, can you see the entire article or is it behind the paywall?

Over the last twenty years, the argument has transformed from whether climate change is real to whether climate change is influenced by civilization to how significant the effects are going to be. The first two questions are no longer questions. You can certainly debate the third, but man, those aren't dice I want to roll (although I think we already have). We're already seeing increasingly frequent temperature records and droughts and sea level rise. The barrier reef news is great, but how long does that last before the next big bleaching event happens? What about the state of all the other reefs around the world?

One thing that worries me a little is reaching some sort of inflection point where the changes go from somewhat steady to suddenly increasing. I've read or seen where permafrost is now starting to melt in the northern latitudes and that this releases methane. Methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so there's the potential to amplify what we're already dealing with by just staying where we are now.

Anyway, I don't know if I'll be around long enough to have to deal with any of the big effects, but my kids might.

CLASSIC!!!😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/4qulSfqN10

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) August 18, 2022

Just gonna leave this here...

SLC is one of those cities situated a days drive from most of the western part of the country. So you have FedEx and Amazon battling to see who can have the most buildings in the greater Salt Lake area.

I find it funny that all of the local PR is centered around "Carpool... Drive Less... use Public Transportation." But, I've had conversations with people from the University of Utah that have studied this. In Utah, people driving is not even in the top 5 of reasons for the air quality.

Another thing that is interesting, when the inversion clears out, the first part of the valley to start getting mucky is the north end, closest to downtown. Guess what's there? The fuel refineries, the airport, and smelter from the mining on the west side mountains. But, we should dibs less, right?

I go back to what you said about the impact of regulation. It's been positive, and I think all industries should strive to continue to limit their output. But, I just don't see the justification of the overreaction of fear mongers that are getting rich off of these green decisions that are being forced on us.

We should be moving to greener applications of energy. But, just like everything advancement in our history, the free market will take us there when the technology is available and works.

Steve Videtich said:

---

SLC is one of those cities situated a days drive from most of the western part of the country. So you have FedEx and Amazon battling to see who can have the most buildings in the greater Salt Lake area.

I find it funny that all of the local PR is centered around "Carpool... Drive Less... use Public Transportation." But, I've had conversations with people from the University of Utah that have studied this. In Utah, people driving is not even in the top 5 of reasons for the air quality.

Another thing that is interesting, when the inversion clears out, the first part of the valley to start getting mucky is the north end, closest to downtown. Guess what's there? The fuel refineries, the airport, and smelter from the mining on the west side mountains. But, we should dibs less, right?

I go back to what you said about the impact of regulation. It's been positive, and I think all industries should strive to continue to limit their output. But, I just don't see the justification of the overreaction of fear mongers that are getting rich off of these green decisions that are being forced on us.

---

In this era of multiple news channels looking for time slots to fill, and special interest groups looking for speakers to come speak to their groups -- for the highlighted section, the folks who scream loudest can become very wealthy as consultants and such! Its a cottage industry.

Of course, this is true for every single major political battle these days.

ETA: Couple years ago, family drove from SLC airport to West Yellowstone. Frankly, one of the more beautiful interstate drives I've ever taken -- beautiful farmland for so much of trip (granted, I'm not sure I'd ever seen so many of the big drive irrigation systems to make it look so green).

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

SLC is one of those cities situated a days drive from most of the western part of the country. So you have FedEx and Amazon battling to see who can have the most buildings in the greater Salt Lake area.

I find it funny that all of the local PR is centered around "Carpool... Drive Less... use Public Transportation." But, I've had conversations with people from the University of Utah that have studied this. In Utah, people driving is not even in the top 5 of reasons for the air quality.

Another thing that is interesting, when the inversion clears out, the first part of the valley to start getting mucky is the north end, closest to downtown. Guess what's there? The fuel refineries, the airport, and smelter from the mining on the west side mountains. But, we should dibs less, right?

I go back to what you said about the impact of regulation. It's been positive, and I think all industries should strive to continue to limit their output. But, I just don't see the justification of the overreaction of fear mongers that are getting rich off of these green decisions that are being forced on us.

---

In this era of multiple news channels looking for time slots to fill, and special interest groups looking for speakers to come speak to their groups -- for the highlighted section, the folks who scream loudest can become very wealthy as consultants and such! Its a cottage industry.

Of course, this is true for every single major political battle these days.

ETA: Couple years ago, family drove from SLC airport to West Yellowstone. Frankly, one of the more beautiful interstate drives I've ever taken -- beautiful farmland for so much of trip (granted, I'm not sure I'd ever seen so many of the big drive irrigation systems to make it look so green).

---

I played golf several years ago with Mike Quick in a tournament. He was doing some football announcing at the time. I remember something he said then, that I think applies in today's political climate.

"You don't have to know what you're talking about, you just have to sound like you know what you're talking about."

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

SLC is one of those cities situated a days drive from most of the western part of the country. So you have FedEx and Amazon battling to see who can have the most buildings in the greater Salt Lake area.

I find it funny that all of the local PR is centered around "Carpool... Drive Less... use Public Transportation." But, I've had conversations with people from the University of Utah that have studied this. In Utah, people driving is not even in the top 5 of reasons for the air quality.

Another thing that is interesting, when the inversion clears out, the first part of the valley to start getting mucky is the north end, closest to downtown. Guess what's there? The fuel refineries, the airport, and smelter from the mining on the west side mountains. But, we should dibs less, right?

I go back to what you said about the impact of regulation. It's been positive, and I think all industries should strive to continue to limit their output. But, I just don't see the justification of the overreaction of fear mongers that are getting rich off of these green decisions that are being forced on us.

---

In this era of multiple news channels looking for time slots to fill, and special interest groups looking for speakers to come speak to their groups -- for the highlighted section, the folks who scream loudest can become very wealthy as consultants and such! Its a cottage industry.

Of course, this is true for every single major political battle these days.

ETA: Couple years ago, family drove from SLC airport to West Yellowstone. Frankly, one of the more beautiful interstate drives I've ever taken -- beautiful farmland for so much of trip (granted, I'm not sure I'd ever seen so many of the big drive irrigation systems to make it look so green).

---

I played golf several years ago with Mike Quick in a tournament. He was doing some football announcing at the time. I remember something he said then, that I think applies in today's political climate.

"You don't have to know what you're talking about, you just have to sound like you know what you're talking about."

---

100%.
And to extend it....or just say something that you may not even believe in, but something that lots of other folks will!

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

SLC is one of those cities situated a days drive from most of the western part of the country. So you have FedEx and Amazon battling to see who can have the most buildings in the greater Salt Lake area.

I find it funny that all of the local PR is centered around "Carpool... Drive Less... use Public Transportation." But, I've had conversations with people from the University of Utah that have studied this. In Utah, people driving is not even in the top 5 of reasons for the air quality.

Another thing that is interesting, when the inversion clears out, the first part of the valley to start getting mucky is the north end, closest to downtown. Guess what's there? The fuel refineries, the airport, and smelter from the mining on the west side mountains. But, we should dibs less, right?

I go back to what you said about the impact of regulation. It's been positive, and I think all industries should strive to continue to limit their output. But, I just don't see the justification of the overreaction of fear mongers that are getting rich off of these green decisions that are being forced on us.

---

In this era of multiple news channels looking for time slots to fill, and special interest groups looking for speakers to come speak to their groups -- for the highlighted section, the folks who scream loudest can become very wealthy as consultants and such! Its a cottage industry.

Of course, this is true for every single major political battle these days.

ETA: Couple years ago, family drove from SLC airport to West Yellowstone. Frankly, one of the more beautiful interstate drives I've ever taken -- beautiful farmland for so much of trip (granted, I'm not sure I'd ever seen so many of the big drive irrigation systems to make it look so green).

---

I played golf several years ago with Mike Quick in a tournament. He was doing some football announcing at the time. I remember something he said then, that I think applies in today's political climate.

"You don't have to know what you're talking about, you just have to sound like you know what you're talking about."

---

100%.
And to extend it....or just say something that you may not even believe in, but something that lots of other folks will!

---

Chem, that's the typical politician..

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

SLC is one of those cities situated a days drive from most of the western part of the country. So you have FedEx and Amazon battling to see who can have the most buildings in the greater Salt Lake area.

I find it funny that all of the local PR is centered around "Carpool... Drive Less... use Public Transportation." But, I've had conversations with people from the University of Utah that have studied this. In Utah, people driving is not even in the top 5 of reasons for the air quality.

Another thing that is interesting, when the inversion clears out, the first part of the valley to start getting mucky is the north end, closest to downtown. Guess what's there? The fuel refineries, the airport, and smelter from the mining on the west side mountains. But, we should dibs less, right?

I go back to what you said about the impact of regulation. It's been positive, and I think all industries should strive to continue to limit their output. But, I just don't see the justification of the overreaction of fear mongers that are getting rich off of these green decisions that are being forced on us.

---

In this era of multiple news channels looking for time slots to fill, and special interest groups looking for speakers to come speak to their groups -- for the highlighted section, the folks who scream loudest can become very wealthy as consultants and such! Its a cottage industry.

Of course, this is true for every single major political battle these days.

ETA: Couple years ago, family drove from SLC airport to West Yellowstone. Frankly, one of the more beautiful interstate drives I've ever taken -- beautiful farmland for so much of trip (granted, I'm not sure I'd ever seen so many of the big drive irrigation systems to make it look so green).

---

I played golf several years ago with Mike Quick in a tournament. He was doing some football announcing at the time. I remember something he said then, that I think applies in today's political climate.

"You don't have to know what you're talking about, you just have to sound like you know what you're talking about."

---

100%.
And to extend it....or just say something that you may not even believe in, but something that lots of other folks will!

---

Chem, that's the typical politician..

---

Well, to be fair I think every politician who rises to power is this way. No exceptions.

But I was referring more to the talking heads on TV/media outlets. Particularly the ones who become famous for their outspoken observations on stuff. This includes sports, for example, beyond just politics.

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

SLC is one of those cities situated a days drive from most of the western part of the country. So you have FedEx and Amazon battling to see who can have the most buildings in the greater Salt Lake area.

I find it funny that all of the local PR is centered around "Carpool... Drive Less... use Public Transportation." But, I've had conversations with people from the University of Utah that have studied this. In Utah, people driving is not even in the top 5 of reasons for the air quality.

Another thing that is interesting, when the inversion clears out, the first part of the valley to start getting mucky is the north end, closest to downtown. Guess what's there? The fuel refineries, the airport, and smelter from the mining on the west side mountains. But, we should dibs less, right?

I go back to what you said about the impact of regulation. It's been positive, and I think all industries should strive to continue to limit their output. But, I just don't see the justification of the overreaction of fear mongers that are getting rich off of these green decisions that are being forced on us.

---

In this era of multiple news channels looking for time slots to fill, and special interest groups looking for speakers to come speak to their groups -- for the highlighted section, the folks who scream loudest can become very wealthy as consultants and such! Its a cottage industry.

Of course, this is true for every single major political battle these days.

ETA: Couple years ago, family drove from SLC airport to West Yellowstone. Frankly, one of the more beautiful interstate drives I've ever taken -- beautiful farmland for so much of trip (granted, I'm not sure I'd ever seen so many of the big drive irrigation systems to make it look so green).

---

I played golf several years ago with Mike Quick in a tournament. He was doing some football announcing at the time. I remember something he said then, that I think applies in today's political climate.

"You don't have to know what you're talking about, you just have to sound like you know what you're talking about."

---

100%.
And to extend it....or just say something that you may not even believe in, but something that lots of other folks will!

---

Chem, that's the typical politician..

---

Well, to be fair I think every politician who rises to power is this way. No exceptions.

But I was referring more to the talking heads on TV/media outlets. Particularly the ones who become famous for their outspoken observations on stuff. This includes sports, for example, beyond just politics.

---

Also, throw in the do called "intellectuals" that receive government grants to do a study or write a paper. Then they are help to as experts, "See... they said so in this paper!"

dogplasma said:

---

Over the last twenty years, the argument has transformed from whether climate change is real to whether climate change is influenced by civilization to how significant the effects are going to be. The first two questions are no longer questions. You can certainly debate the third, but man, those aren't dice I want to roll (although I think we already have). We're already seeing increasingly frequent temperature records and droughts and sea level rise. The barrier reef news is great, but how long does that last before the next big bleaching event happens? What about the state of all the other reefs around the world?

One thing that worries me a little is reaching some sort of inflection point where the changes go from somewhat steady to suddenly increasing. I've read or seen where permafrost is now starting to melt in the northern latitudes and that this releases methane. Methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so there's the potential to amplify what we're already dealing with by just staying where we are now.

Anyway, I don't know if I'll be around long enough to have to deal with any of the big effects, but my kids might.

---

HORSE ****.

The argument is STILL that it's 100% a lie. If you think people like me have budged one inch you're crazy. I don't believe one word of these far Left Marxist global warming tard lunatics. I've known it's all a fraud from day one, going back 15-20 years ago. It's a false pretext to push their communist agenda - to shut down the economy, tax us to death, deliberately attempt to lower human population expansion, and lower our standard of living, and in general make us all impoverished serfs easier to control by a Marxist tyrannical State.

https://instagr.am/p/Chfulf-OVOq

https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/08/18/scientists-professionals-world-no-climate-emergency/

100's of scientists around the world jointly declare there is no climate emergency...............whatever that might mean to each of us.

it had been SCRUBBED from the internet.........more censorship. Shouldn't that alarm us.

Werewolf said:

---

https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/08/18/scientists-professionals-world-no-climate-emergency/

100's of scientists around the world jointly declare there is no climate emergency...............whatever that might mean to each of us.

it had been SCRUBBED from the internet.........more censorship. Shouldn't that alarm us.

---

As I assume you may have seen as well as I have, a lot of people in the "truther"/conspiracy community have been talking (posting videos, etc) over the last few days focusing on how Google and other Big Tech companies have drastically altered their search engines, so that in most cases they now no longer even bring up any "conspiracy"-related links in a "standard" search result.

For instance, if you search "9/11 false flag" in Google, it will tell you at the top of the page that there are "8,280,000" search results. But if you scroll through the pages of the results, you can only go to page 17 of the results before it stops. So with 10 results per page, it's only showing you about 170 results. And almost all of those results are links to Establishment Lamestream faux "news" sites with articles promoting the official narrative.

Of course, we already knew that Google and other Big Tech companies were altering their search engines to suppress "conspiracy" content and to promote the Establishment propaganda that they call "authoritative sources". But I remember years ago doing Google searches, and you could scroll for well over 50 pages of results, and probably much more. Now they are outright preventing you to even be able to find all of these other websites.

This is very disturbing, obviously, because by altering the search engines like this, they are preventing everyone, and especially people who are new to the "conspiracy" viewpoint, from even being able to discover that there are alternative viewpoints on all of these subjects.

Clearly, we are going to have to use and promote alternative search engines out there that provide real search results, and not rigged phony "searches" that only promote communist Establishment propaganda and censor those telling the truth.

OK guys, here's the next big lie linked to the climate change hoax that you must believe. They're now saying that this "unexplained" rise in heart attacks isn't being caused by the covid mRNA vaxx poison, or the rise in obesity which is caused by unhealthy processed food loaded with toxins.

No...of course, all these heart attacks are being caused by "climate change".

Don't you see? This is why climate change is going to kill us all, as Al Gore and the "scientists" have been warning us. Because climate change causes EVERYTHING -- obesity, heart attacks...whatever. Anything bad that happens...you just blame it on the non-existent "global warming".

"The world we live in right now is not a very hospitable environment for the heart." https://t.co/vTE1IbLXRI

— ABC News (@ABC) August 20, 2022

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/08/18/scientists-professionals-world-no-climate-emergency/

100's of scientists around the world jointly declare there is no climate emergency...............whatever that might mean to each of us.

it had been SCRUBBED from the internet.........more censorship. Shouldn't that alarm us.

---

As I assume you may have seen as well as I have, a lot of people in the "truther"/conspiracy community have been talking (posting videos, etc) over the last few days focusing on how Google and other Big Tech companies have drastically altered their search engines, so that in most cases they now no longer even bring up any "conspiracy"-related links in a "standard" search result.

For instance, if you search "9/11 false flag" in Google, it will tell you at the top of the page that there are "8,280,000" search results. But if you scroll through the pages of the results, you can only go to page 17 of the results before it stops. So with 10 results per page, it's only showing you about 170 results. And almost all of those results are links to Establishment Lamestream faux "news" sites with articles promoting the official narrative.

Of course, we already knew that Google and other Big Tech companies were altering their search engines to suppress "conspiracy" content and to promote the Establishment propaganda that they call "authoritative sources". But I remember years ago doing Google searches, and you could scroll for well over 50 pages of results, and probably much more. Now they are outright preventing you to even be able to find all of these other websites.

This is very disturbing, obviously, because by altering the search engines like this, they are preventing everyone, and especially people who are new to the "conspiracy" viewpoint, from even being able to discover that there are alternative viewpoints on all of these subjects.

Clearly, we are going to have to use and promote alternative search engines out there that provide real search results, and not rigged phony "searches" that only promote communist Establishment propaganda and censor those telling the truth.

---

yes, of course that problem is across the entire spectrum of actual truthful information. If you'll internet search the 2020 Pennsylvania POTUS election results - for instance - you'll find much effort made to discredit the fact that more people voted in Pa than there are registered voters, etc.........snopes etc too.

Somehow we as Americans need to come together on the enemy........it is not D vrs R.........its Nationalist Americans versus the NWO globalist elite who frantically work to enslave all of humanity.

https://instagr.am/p/Chp9e-ssasq


https://dnyuz.com/2022/08/24/california-to-ban-the-sale-of-new-gasoline-cars/

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON California on Thursday is expected to put into effect its sweeping plan to prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, a groundbreaking move that could have major effects on the effort to fight climate change and accelerate a global transition toward electric vehicles.

"This is huge," said Margo Oge, an electric vehicles expert who headed the Environmental Protection Agency's transportation emissions program under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. "California will now be the only government in the world that mandates zero-emission vehicles. It is unique."

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/california-blackouts-have-begun-thank-green-energy/

Quote:

---

A punishing heat wave in California has triggered rolling blackouts and brownouts. But don't blame climate change. This crisis is largely due to the state electric grid's overreliance on unreliable green energy in a time of record energy demand.

This week, the operating agency of state's power grid advised Californians to "be ready for potential rotating power outages" as electricity demand spiked while power supplied by wind and solar went offline.

That timing isn't a coincidence. California has aggressively shut down more reliable nuclear, coal, and natural-gas power plants to boost demand for solar and wind farms, which naturally stop working later in the day just as electricity demand tends to peak. This policy to promote green energy has tremendously damaged California's electrical grid, placing the state at serious risk of unintentional mass blackouts to go with the current rolling ones.

Things have gotten so bad that California governor Gavin Newsom had to proclaim a state of emergency and temporarily reactivate the very conventional power plants he'd previously worked so hard to shut down. Naturally, Newsom put the blame for this on global warming, rather than his own policies that created the problem.

A U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) investigation found that there is a "significant risk" of electricity in the United States becoming unreliable because wind and solar simply aren't reliable. To function, power grids require demand to exactly match supply, which is an enormous problem for variable wind and solar power. Power demand is relatively predictable, and conventional power plants, such as nuclear and natural gas plants, can adjust output accordingly, as they put out a steady and predictable supply of electricity.

In contrast, conservatives favor allowing the market to decide which energy you use. The U.S. has followed a fairly conservative policy in this area, over the screaming objectives of progressives, yet U.S. energy-related carbon emissions are falling rapidly. They're now 14 percent lower than they were in 2005, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). This happened because of the transition from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas a free-market solution.

Let's compare this with a more-progressive policy. Germany is building solar and wind power as fast as possible while closing nuclear reactors and attempting to wean itself off Russian gas. Yet emissions are still rising. And all of Germany's subsidies and support for green energy have sharply increased power prices, with the average German paying $312 per megawatt hour of electricity in July 2022. In contrast, the average American will spend less than half of that, paying $146 per megawatt hour in 2022, according to the EIA.

Moreover, wind and solar have already damaged the power grids of Germany and California. Germany paid wind farms $548 million in 2016 to switch off production in order to prevent damage to the country's electric grid.

So despite Germany spending hundreds of billions of dollars boosting solar and wind, its emissions are rising while power gets more expensive.

---

Austin, TX is not far behind in this lunacy.

PackFansXL said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/california-blackouts-have-begun-thank-green-energy/

Quote:

---

A punishing heat wave in California has triggered rolling blackouts and brownouts. But don't blame climate change. This crisis is largely due to the state electric grid's overreliance on unreliable green energy in a time of record energy demand.

This week, the operating agency of state's power grid advised Californians to "be ready for potential rotating power outages" as electricity demand spiked while power supplied by wind and solar went offline.

That timing isn't a coincidence. California has aggressively shut down more reliable nuclear, coal, and natural-gas power plants to boost demand for solar and wind farms, which naturally stop working later in the day just as electricity demand tends to peak. This policy to promote green energy has tremendously damaged California's electrical grid, placing the state at serious risk of unintentional mass blackouts to go with the current rolling ones.

Things have gotten so bad that California governor Gavin Newsom had to proclaim a state of emergency and temporarily reactivate the very conventional power plants he'd previously worked so hard to shut down. Naturally, Newsom put the blame for this on global warming, rather than his own policies that created the problem.

A U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) investigation found that there is a "significant risk" of electricity in the United States becoming unreliable because wind and solar simply aren't reliable. To function, power grids require demand to exactly match supply, which is an enormous problem for variable wind and solar power. Power demand is relatively predictable, and conventional power plants, such as nuclear and natural gas plants, can adjust output accordingly, as they put out a steady and predictable supply of electricity.

In contrast, conservatives favor allowing the market to decide which energy you use. The U.S. has followed a fairly conservative policy in this area, over the screaming objectives of progressives, yet U.S. energy-related carbon emissions are falling rapidly. They're now 14 percent lower than they were in 2005, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). This happened because of the transition from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas a free-market solution.

Let's compare this with a more-progressive policy. Germany is building solar and wind power as fast as possible while closing nuclear reactors and attempting to wean itself off Russian gas. Yet emissions are still rising. And all of Germany's subsidies and support for green energy have sharply increased power prices, with the average German paying $312 per megawatt hour of electricity in July 2022. In contrast, the average American will spend less than half of that, paying $146 per megawatt hour in 2022, according to the EIA.

Moreover, wind and solar have already damaged the power grids of Germany and California. Germany paid wind farms $548 million in 2016 to switch off production in order to prevent damage to the country's electric grid.

So despite Germany spending hundreds of billions of dollars boosting solar and wind, its emissions are rising while power gets more expensive.

---

Austin, TX is not far behind in this lunacy.

---

Last time I was there...... sadly, it's about to be Portland/Seattle South.......

Unfortunately, that's true. We have had a big tussle over public camping laws going unenforced. Progressives lost when they opposed cleaning that up and enforcing that law was put to the public in a city wide preposition. Things are looking much better on that front.

We do still have a massive increase in crime due to the city council directive reducing police funding.

The public utility has been forced to sell off much of their power generation so the city can brag about relying on wind and solar. This of course makes the grid far less stable and reliable, drives up costs, and ultimately taxes because they have to pay for the lost revenue from shutting down the cash cow power plants. It's like they are using "shopping math" to govern a large city. Politics aside, that shopping math link is gold. Turn on the volume and listen to the exchange between husband and wife. LOL!!!!1!

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

SLC is one of those cities situated a days drive from most of the western part of the country. So you have FedEx and Amazon battling to see who can have the most buildings in the greater Salt Lake area.

I find it funny that all of the local PR is centered around "Carpool... Drive Less... use Public Transportation." But, I've had conversations with people from the University of Utah that have studied this. In Utah, people driving is not even in the top 5 of reasons for the air quality.

Another thing that is interesting, when the inversion clears out, the first part of the valley to start getting mucky is the north end, closest to downtown. Guess what's there? The fuel refineries, the airport, and smelter from the mining on the west side mountains. But, we should dibs less, right?

I go back to what you said about the impact of regulation. It's been positive, and I think all industries should strive to continue to limit their output. But, I just don't see the justification of the overreaction of fear mongers that are getting rich off of these green decisions that are being forced on us.

---

In this era of multiple news channels looking for time slots to fill, and special interest groups looking for speakers to come speak to their groups -- for the highlighted section, the folks who scream loudest can become very wealthy as consultants and such! Its a cottage industry.

Of course, this is true for every single major political battle these days.

ETA: Couple years ago, family drove from SLC airport to West Yellowstone. Frankly, one of the more beautiful interstate drives I've ever taken -- beautiful farmland for so much of trip (granted, I'm not sure I'd ever seen so many of the big drive irrigation systems to make it look so green).

---

I played golf several years ago with Mike Quick in a tournament. He was doing some football announcing at the time. I remember something he said then, that I think applies in today's political climate.

"You don't have to know what you're talking about, you just have to sound like you know what you're talking about."

---

100%.
And to extend it....or just say something that you may not even believe in, but something that lots of other folks will!

---

Chem, that's the typical politician..

---

Well, to be fair I think every politician who rises to power is this way. No exceptions.

But I was referring more to the talking heads on TV/media outlets. Particularly the ones who become famous for their outspoken observations on stuff. This includes sports, for example, beyond just politics.

---

Also, throw in the do called "intellectuals" that receive government grants to do a study or write a paper. Then they are help to as experts, "See... they said so in this paper!"

---

Ah, yes, the infamous Appeal to authority fallacy…..it's been the favorite of the global warming mob for decades. More recently, we've witnessed it's popularity with pandemic exaggerators as well.

Not sure if this video has been posted....very informative and concerning at the same time.

LOL!! I survived the Ice Age from the 70's and the depletion of the ozone layer from the 80's.....


What is next lefties??? If they ever were exposed on MSM they'd never win a damn dog catcher election.

BBW12OG said:

---

LOL!! I survived the Ice Age from the 70's and the depletion of the ozone layer from the 80's.....


What is next lefties??? If they ever were exposed on MSM they'd never win a damn dog catcher election.

---

We also survived the North Pole ice cap completely melting in 2014, just as Al Gore predicted it would!! That resulted in Florida and all low-lying coastal areas being totally flooded with water!! It was absolute carnage. The polar bears almost went extinct, because they can't swim!!

This is SERIOUS folks!!! It's not preposterous fear mongering! It's not Marxist clowns spouting more lies!! It's really gonna happen!!! We're all gonna die if we don't pay the Elites (via the Gubbamint) trillions in new taxes!!

I mean, yeah, these Satanic communist Leftist scum want us all to die anyway....but just believe them!! They actually care about you!! They just want you to abort all your children to "save the earth" and shut down human activity and growth by phasing out oil and gas, shutting down 30% of farms and banning raising cows and livestock, and having us all eat bugs. Our ruling uber-elite communist overlords like George Soros, Klaus Schwab and the Rothschilds are humanitarians who love you!!

not worth it...

Climate change is called seasons..

The Paris Climate Accord:

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

I've lived in Salt Lake now for 15 years. Much of the western part of the country is desert. You can't keep growing the populations of places like Utah, Arizona and Vegas and not expect there to be issues. It's been my biggest concern about the growth of greater Salt Lake City.

---

Agreed - to me, the most provable man-driven climate impact is development in naturally dry areas.

I've been to Phoenix / Chandler and driven that whole area, and it's just mind numbing how many homes / businesses are there - you just drive on and on amd on, and it is developed. That water / power has to drawn from elsewhere and just seems like will never catchIs this actual climate change, or is it just misuse/mishandling of resources

---

---

Well, clearly its the latter. But that is why i termed it man-driven climate impact. I don't know if it changes the day-in, day-out climate, but it most certainly impacts the results of the climate. But when you put down that much concreted on a desert, then you're sucking that much water out of the ground, and changing what God has created there....it can't be good.


To me, a similar example -- Hurricane Harvey in Houston. Stalled out and dropped 40+ inches of rain over several days. Terrible flooding. Now, i have no idea if climate change caused the storm. We've always had hurricanes (that area suffered the most deadly ever in Galveston 100 years ago).
And if that area had been left to the swamps and bayous that it was 200 years ago, all that rain would have had recourse. Instead, its now a concrete jungle with development where it just shouldn't be.
So now you have a huge climate impact -- hurricane produces catastrophic flooding in great part because human development destroyed what God intended with run off.

---

I guess that's my question regarding "climate change" arguments. Many arguments discuss the events that cause "catastrophic damage." But, if we build more stuff then there is more stuff to destroy.

I 100% believe that things are changing. I'm not convinced it's all on man. Our planet goes in cycles. Studies that go beyond the last 500-1000 years show this.

I do believe our environment needs help. I'm more worried about trash in our oceans and other waterways. These are the things that bother me. I'm of the opinion that our environment needs a cleansing and that is something we can have a bigger quicker impact on.

---

I'm with you on that. I do think there is a man-made element, but our measurements are somewhat limited in relation to other micro-cycles. And to me, the more immediate threat is the every day water/air we come into contact with.

I went on a mission trip last summer to Honduras. Every part of the country could use a cleanse (when you're poor and trying to get by, trash just doesn't matter as much, i guess)
But on our fun day, we went to this beach resort called La Ensenada. At the entrance, the planned layout was beautiful, with waterways with piers and people stand up paddleboarding with homes on the water, etc.
In reality....when we crossed over these canals, they were clogged with every kind of rubbish you could imagine.

Multiply that across the country, many of the waters serving as sources of drinking / cleaning for people....and you can see why illness, etc.

I do think this is one area where US has really improved. Nowhere near perfect, but our waterways are much cleaner now. I think people want to be able to use them, want to be able to recreate, fish, swim, etc.

---

I think most people care about trash all over the place. I remember seeing cigarette buts everywhere, on the streets. That bothered me, immensely. I'm not sure how to deal with this selfish act.

We should have continuous cleaning of our country; however, other countries need to be accountable to their own. Regarding Climate Change, I'm not bought in at all. Too many changes in the name of the crisis for me to… just believe it. Call me simple minded.

---

I'd amend your 1st para to add the qualifier "in developed countries". As my example about Honduras -- go to poor countries (and away from the beach-front resorts), and you'll see issues

As for climate change, I don't think there is any doubt that it is occurring. Now, is it man affected? Is it too short a period of time to know if it is a usual trend in the billions of years of earth age, or a real issue? I have my opinions, but thats all they are.

But three examples:
1) Tornado alley has shifted from TX/OK/KS -- the plains -- to the Southeast up thru KY, OH, etc. A noticeable tick downwards in the plains and upwards in the SE. But realistically, we only have ~150 years of knowledge about this...so is this just a trend back to the norm, or a blip, or what?

2) Polar Ice cap -- NASA measurements suggest in coverage, thickness, and average ice age, all significant reductions since 1980s. Again, is this a normal cycle over a 40 year period versus the billions of years of earth?

3) Glacier National. Significant glacier reduction since the 1850s, from 130 to 20-something. Other areas have seen similar reduction. Is this a normal trend over hundreds/thousands of years, or has the acceleration been enhanced?

Certainly the doom-n-gloom forecasts of well known tourism spots under the water by 20xx and all that cast a negative view of those who suggest global climate change...but I don't think there is any doubt its occurring.
I'm just not sure if its normal, or enhanced, and while I think we should always consider the environment in all of our legislative and business decisions, that it shouldn't be the overwhelming driver that it sometimes is today.*

**Or if it is, it should be localized -- meaning, I can fully understand why the SW states would apply much more consideration of water table impacts on whether to allow more development to occur, for example, than what authorities in the Carolinas might do.

---

Chem there are studies out there that have come from the polar ice samples that show evidence of these trends going back several hundred thousand years. The trends show we're on the upward end of a warming trend with a cold downfall looming. The problem with current pro "climate change" models are that they only focus on the last few hundred years.

Again as we know, you can shape any study to fit the narrative you want to produce. So, take it for what it's worth.

---

I agree to the extent that our measurements are taking a view of 200 years versus millions.
And that stories can be spun in multiple ways. As I said, I think caution has to be given to creating legislation driven by this data in a vacuum.
But purely my opinion.....you pump out the amount of CO2 we do now with the WW population growth over the past 10, 20, 50 years....it HAS to affect something. Its ultimately a fixed formula of inputs and outputs....and we've drastically changed the amount of inputs.

---

Many of the folks that are against this climate change model, agree that there is an effect of man made carbon output, but that the effect on our climate is negligible.

I'm going to use SLC as an example of where my head is at. Air quality is a huge talking point out here. We have a thing called inversion here and it happens because we live in a bowl in the valley. It happens in the winter and it's basically an absence of weather. There is no wind or anything to circulate the air and all the normal pollutants get trapped in the bowl.

When this happens, the air gets mucky and ugly and sticks around for a few days until a weather system comes along and blows it out and clears the air. During this time, the climate change group screams and yells about how big of an issue it is. We get 15-20 days of it per year. The rest of the year is beautiful.

Now, if you talk to folks born and raised here, it was a lot worse in the 70's and 80's when everything was coal burning and cars weren't as clean. They say it could be weeks and sometimes months of crappy air during the winter. But, the population now is 2-3 times what it was at those times.

Manufacturing is cleaner in this country than ever and cars are cleaner than ever, despite a growth in population. Despite all of this in SLC, local government is pushing an inland port that will bring more and more diesel trucks to the valley. So, is it important or not? Or is it only important when the economics matter?

That's why I'm more worried about the trash build up in our environment. That is something we can better control and vastly help our planet we live in.

---

three takeways from that. (and I agree...these are the type of reasonable discussions that SHOULD be happening...not the overly sensitively reactions on either extreme that seem to dominate the topic

1) there is no doubt that people / media seize on a 1-2 day occurrence and try to say THAT is a sign. Well, it may be. Or it could be that its the same thing that happens a couple of x a year for 100000 years.

2) no doubt -- changes already enacted about coal emissions and other such have helped tremendously from back in the 70s -- those smog pictures from the western cities that get the stale weather at times of the year.....so much better now. But....those are result of legislation that drove reduction.

3) the scenario you paint about the decision SLC to make on inland port --- fjobs / $$ vs environmental impact -- shapes every local decision to be made nowadays, rightly so. Seems, to your point -- within boundaries established at the federal level, it shoudl be up to the locals to decide what they value more.

**as a guy who loves the water, I'd prefer not to have a port in my town. But they can bring some serious jobs

---

You mean like the house that fell into the Atlantic in OBX and it was immediately tied to climate change? Not the fact that OBX is a group of barrier islands that travelled over 50,000 feet since they were created just 50,000 years ago.

Or a lake drying up in a desert...

A lot of our "issues" are a result of decisions being made to build things in places where they should never have been built, thinking we could combat mother nature. It has nothing to do with Climate Change.

A very inactive hurricane season so far, which is not the expectation. Is that climate change?

You would think the people would have learned by now that the experts (in which the left relies on) know less than they think they do.

They exist in a black and white world, the reality is mother nature is nuanced and we don't understand more than a little bit.