Alan Jones explaining the big issue on climate change "Carbon" dioxide.

Has anyone noticed how the media calls it "carbon" instead of its real name "carbon dioxide" [a ploy to fool the masses] pic.twitter.com/sq0BXJ79jp

— Chris 🇦🇺 Same name on Bastyon & Gab (@cm677427) March 27, 2023

dogplasma said:

---

You've clearly got time in your hands (pun intended), so here's a suggestion: Go read those Time articles in your post - they're (almost) all available on line - and report back on what they're really about. Was it a pending ice age … the 70's energy crisis … one really cold winter in the US during the energy crisis?

While you're at it, see if you can find that issue about living with the coming ice age. April 1977. (Spoiler alert: You won't find it.)

---

dogplasma said:

---

You've clearly got time in your hands (pun intended), so here's a suggestion: Go read those Time articles in your post - they're (almost) all available on line - and report back on what they're really about. Was it a pending ice age … the 70's energy crisis … one really cold winter in the US during the energy crisis?

While you're at it, see if you can find that issue about living with the coming ice age. April 1977. (Spoiler alert: You won't find it.)

---

dogplasma said:

---

You've clearly got time in your hands (pun intended), so here's a suggestion: Go read those Time articles in your post - they're (almost) all available on line - and report back on what they're really about. Was it a pending ice age … the 70's energy crisis … one really cold winter in the US during the energy crisis?

While you're at it, see if you can find that issue about living with the coming ice age. April 1977. (Spoiler alert: You won't find it.)

---

Quote:

---

The global discussion about climate change has become quite hysterical. Some 60 percent of people living in the rich world think it is likely to bring an end to humanity. This is not only untrue; it is also harmful, because fear makes people embrace bad policies and ignore many other urgent challenges facing the world.

1. Hurricanes
The hurricanes of 2022 were close to unprecedented but only in their weakness. Globally, 2022 had the second-weakest batch of hurricanes in the era of satellite data (beginning in 1980). Moreover, despite what we hear, hurricanes have not been getting stronger globally. The average energy per hurricane has remained constant in the satellite era.

2. Heat and Cold
One of the most publicized effects of climate change is deaths caused by rising temperatures, especially during heat waves. Cold kills eight times as many about 4.5 million people annually. As temperatures rise, cold will kill fewer people.

3. Polar Bears
The newest data, referenced in the latest report from polar-bear-specialist researchers, show that polar-bear numbers are increasing, not decreasing. We should remember that polar bears survived the last interglacial period, 130,000 to 115,000 years ago, when it was significantly warmer than it is now. But the bigger point is this: Numbers are up because the polar bear used to be heavily hunted. Beginning in 1976, a partial hunting ban protected the bears better, and the populations recovered.

4. Fire
We can add wildfires to the list of natural disasters that are overhyped in climate coverage. Back in the early 1900s, about 4.2 percent of land worldwide burned every year. A century later, that figure had dropped to almost 3 percent. Human ingenuity gets the credit for the decrease: People have moved fire from hearths to power stations, converted untamed land into protected farms, and become well-off enough to afford fire suppression and forest management.

5. Not What Matters for Malnutrition
Malnutrition deaths are forecast to decline rapidly over the next three decades, in part because of increasing crop yields. Economic development is the main reason malnutrition will decline dramatically: More families will be able to buy food.

6. Fewer Deaths from Climate
In 2022, fewer than 11,000 people died across the entire world from all these climate-related events. We went from half a million deaths to 11,000. Why? Because we have more resources and better technology, and hence people are more resilient. We are safer than ever.

7. Renewables since 1800: Not Going Net-Zero
Heating, transport, and vital industrial processes account for much more energy use than does electricity generation. This means solar and wind deliver just 1.9 percent of the global energy supply. And electricity is the easiest of these components to decarbonize: We haven't yet made meaningful progress toward greening the remaining four-fifths of global energy. To fulfill the promises made in the Paris climate accords, the United Nations says, annual reduction by 2030 would have to be eleven times what we managed to achieve when the world ground to a halt during the Covid lockdowns.

8. Cost of Going Net-Zero
It would be fantastically expensive. Just the additional cost of low-emission assets and infrastructure would be $5.6 trillion annually. That is more than one-third of the global annual tax intake.

In Summary

Global warming is real, but it is not the end of the world. Indeed, the world's only climate economist to win the Nobel Prize in economics estimates that if we do nothing, the cost of climate change will be equivalent to a loss of about 4 percent of GDP by the end of the century.
This is certainly not nothing. But remember that by the end of the century, the U.N. itself, in its middle-of-the-road scenario, estimates that the average person in the world will be about 450 percent as rich as the average person is today.

Economic research overwhelmingly shows that the best way to address climate change is not by asking everyone to be colder and poorer. This hardly works in the rich world, and certainly not in the world's poorer places.

Instead, we need to do what America does best: invest in innovation. Humanity has long relied on innovation to solve big problems. We didn't solve air pollution by forcing everyone to stop driving but by inventing the catalytic converter, which drastically lowers pollution. We didn't slash hunger by telling everyone to eat less but through innovations of the third agricultural revolution, which enabled farmers to produce much more food.

---

dogplasma said:

---

A gotcha moment, or calling out misinformation created to intentionally mislead and trick people - call it whatever you want. I didn't mean to embarrass, but if you're going to post something outrageous then I feel like a snarky response shouldn't be unexpected.

That one in particular rubs the wrong way and I only replied because it simultaneously: Presents BS as fact (the Photoshopped Time cover), presents misleading info (headlines seemingly related but not related to the point), perpetuates a myth (that global cooling was some sort of scientific consensus from the 70's), and subtly takes a shot at legit journalism all at the same time - a quad-fecta! Anyway, you can have the thread back - I've said my peace.

---

dogplasma said:

---

A gotcha moment, or calling out misinformation created to intentionally mislead and trick people - call it whatever you want. I didn't mean to embarrass, but if you're going to post something outrageous then I feel like a snarky response shouldn't be unexpected.

That one in particular rubs the wrong way and I only replied because it simultaneously: Presents BS as fact (the Photoshopped Time cover), presents misleading info (headlines seemingly related but not related to the point), perpetuates a myth (that global cooling was some sort of scientific consensus from the 70's), and subtly takes a shot at legit journalism all at the same time - a quad-fecta! Anyway, you can have the thread back - I've said my peace.

---

caryking said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

A gotcha moment, or calling out misinformation created to intentionally mislead and trick people - call it whatever you want. I didn't mean to embarrass, but if you're going to post something outrageous then I feel like a snarky response shouldn't be unexpected.

That one in particular rubs the wrong way and I only replied because it simultaneously: Presents BS as fact (the Photoshopped Time cover), presents misleading info (headlines seemingly related but not related to the point), perpetuates a myth (that global cooling was some sort of scientific consensus from the 70's), and subtly takes a shot at legit journalism all at the same time - a quad-fecta! Anyway, you can have the thread back - I've said my peace.

---

Dog, did Time ever call for a coming global cooling?

---

dogplasma said:

---

Not in those articles they didn't. In fact, in the Jan. 1977 article it says this: "Whatever the cause of current [cold] weather patterns, they cannot yet be related to any of the long-range cooling - or warming - trends foreseen by scientific Cassandras." So, the nugget of truth behind the "science told us there was going to be an ice age" myth is that global cooling was indeed a theory among some scientists back then, but it was nothing remotely like the consensus you have with global warming today. Could there have been some news article somewhere saying it was going to happen? I guess, but it wasn't in Time magazine as far as I can tell.

---

From 4chan to international politics, a bug-eating conspiracy theory goes mainstream https://t.co/U2LAPN2HbW

— NPR Politics (@nprpolitics) April 3, 2023

PackFansXL said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2023/04/17/life-after-climate-change/

Quote:

---

The global discussion about climate change has become quite hysterical. Some 60 percent of people living in the rich world think it is likely to bring an end to humanity. This is not only untrue; it is also harmful, because fear makes people embrace bad policies and ignore many other urgent challenges facing the world.

1. Hurricanes
The hurricanes of 2022 were close to unprecedented but only in their weakness. Globally, 2022 had the second-weakest batch of hurricanes in the era of satellite data (beginning in 1980). Moreover, despite what we hear, hurricanes have not been getting stronger globally. The average energy per hurricane has remained constant in the satellite era.

2. Heat and Cold
One of the most publicized effects of climate change is deaths caused by rising temperatures, especially during heat waves. Cold kills eight times as many about 4.5 million people annually. As temperatures rise, cold will kill fewer people.

3. Polar Bears
The newest data, referenced in the latest report from polar-bear-specialist researchers, show that polar-bear numbers are increasing, not decreasing. We should remember that polar bears survived the last interglacial period, 130,000 to 115,000 years ago, when it was significantly warmer than it is now. But the bigger point is this: Numbers are up because the polar bear used to be heavily hunted. Beginning in 1976, a partial hunting ban protected the bears better, and the populations recovered.

4. Fire
We can add wildfires to the list of natural disasters that are overhyped in climate coverage. Back in the early 1900s, about 4.2 percent of land worldwide burned every year. A century later, that figure had dropped to almost 3 percent. Human ingenuity gets the credit for the decrease: People have moved fire from hearths to power stations, converted untamed land into protected farms, and become well-off enough to afford fire suppression and forest management.

5. Not What Matters for Malnutrition
Malnutrition deaths are forecast to decline rapidly over the next three decades, in part because of increasing crop yields. Economic development is the main reason malnutrition will decline dramatically: More families will be able to buy food.

6. Fewer Deaths from Climate
In 2022, fewer than 11,000 people died across the entire world from all these climate-related events. We went from half a million deaths to 11,000. Why? Because we have more resources and better technology, and hence people are more resilient. We are safer than ever.

7. Renewables since 1800: Not Going Net-Zero
Heating, transport, and vital industrial processes account for much more energy use than does electricity generation. This means solar and wind deliver just 1.9 percent of the global energy supply. And electricity is the easiest of these components to decarbonize: We haven't yet made meaningful progress toward greening the remaining four-fifths of global energy. To fulfill the promises made in the Paris climate accords, the United Nations says, annual reduction by 2030 would have to be eleven times what we managed to achieve when the world ground to a halt during the Covid lockdowns.

8. Cost of Going Net-Zero
It would be fantastically expensive. Just the additional cost of low-emission assets and infrastructure would be $5.6 trillion annually. That is more than one-third of the global annual tax intake.

In Summary

Global warming is real, but it is not the end of the world. Indeed, the world's only climate economist to win the Nobel Prize in economics estimates that if we do nothing, the cost of climate change will be equivalent to a loss of about 4 percent of GDP by the end of the century.
This is certainly not nothing. But remember that by the end of the century, the U.N. itself, in its middle-of-the-road scenario, estimates that the average person in the world will be about 450 percent as rich as the average person is today.

Economic research overwhelmingly shows that the best way to address climate change is not by asking everyone to be colder and poorer. This hardly works in the rich world, and certainly not in the world's poorer places.

Instead, we need to do what America does best: invest in innovation. Humanity has long relied on innovation to solve big problems. We didn't solve air pollution by forcing everyone to stop driving but by inventing the catalytic converter, which drastically lowers pollution. We didn't slash hunger by telling everyone to eat less but through innovations of the third agricultural revolution, which enabled farmers to produce much more food.

---

---

dogplasma said:

---

caryking said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

A gotcha moment, or calling out misinformation created to intentionally mislead and trick people - call it whatever you want. I didn't mean to embarrass, but if you're going to post something outrageous then I feel like a snarky response shouldn't be unexpected.

That one in particular rubs the wrong way and I only replied because it simultaneously: Presents BS as fact (the Photoshopped Time cover), presents misleading info (headlines seemingly related but not related to the point), perpetuates a myth (that global cooling was some sort of scientific consensus from the 70's), and subtly takes a shot at legit journalism all at the same time - a quad-fecta! Anyway, you can have the thread back - I've said my peace.

---

Dog, did Time ever call for a coming global cooling?

---

Not in those articles they didn't. In fact, in the Jan. 1977 article it says this: "Whatever the cause of current [cold] weather patterns, they cannot yet be related to any of the long-range cooling - or warming - trends foreseen by scientific Cassandras." So, the nugget of truth behind the "science told us there was going to be an ice age" myth is that global cooling was indeed a theory among some scientists back then, but it was nothing remotely like the consensus you have with global warming today. Could there have been some news article somewhere saying it was going to happen? I guess, but it wasn't in Time magazine as far as I can tell.

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Anybody else seeing these stupid cheesy advertisements on YouTube all the time (starting in the last few weeks) promoting electric vehicles, saying crap like "there's an EV for you"? The ads are not by any particular auto maker, but just some generalized advertisement promoting "EVs" as being "good" because "you are fighting climate change".

The communists are really starting to go hard with this promotion of EVs. It all ties in to all these Leftist governments (eg, state of California, the European Union, etc) passing laws recently where they are going to ban sales of gas-powered vehicles by around the year 2030 or 2035 -- which, I'm sure, is being driven by the Paris Agreement or some other overarching agenda coming down from the communists running the United Nations.

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Anybody else seeing these stupid cheesy advertisements on YouTube all the time (starting in the last few weeks) promoting electric vehicles, saying crap like "there's an EV for you"? The ads are not by any particular auto maker, but just some generalized advertisement promoting "EVs" as being "good" because "you are fighting climate change".

The communists are really starting to go hard with this promotion of EVs. It all ties in to all these Leftist governments (eg, state of California, the European Union, etc) passing laws recently where they are going to ban sales of gas-powered vehicles by around the year 2030 or 2035 -- which, I'm sure, is being driven by the Paris Agreement or some other overarching agenda coming down from the communists running the United Nations.

---

caryking said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

caryking said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

A gotcha moment, or calling out misinformation created to intentionally mislead and trick people - call it whatever you want. I didn't mean to embarrass, but if you're going to post something outrageous then I feel like a snarky response shouldn't be unexpected.

That one in particular rubs the wrong way and I only replied because it simultaneously: Presents BS as fact (the Photoshopped Time cover), presents misleading info (headlines seemingly related but not related to the point), perpetuates a myth (that global cooling was some sort of scientific consensus from the 70's), and subtly takes a shot at legit journalism all at the same time - a quad-fecta! Anyway, you can have the thread back - I've said my peace.

---

Dog, did Time ever call for a coming global cooling?

---

Not in those articles they didn't. In fact, in the Jan. 1977 article it says this: "Whatever the cause of current [cold] weather patterns, they cannot yet be related to any of the long-range cooling - or warming - trends foreseen by scientific Cassandras." So, the nugget of truth behind the "science told us there was going to be an ice age" myth is that global cooling was indeed a theory among some scientists back then, but it was nothing remotely like the consensus you have with global warming today. Could there have been some news article somewhere saying it was going to happen? I guess, but it wasn't in Time magazine as far as I can tell.

---

Dog, you do realize that people have a distrust in scientist that, wave a flag, of end game disasters?

Now, I've never read any of the so-called doomsday global cooling or global warming theories. In fact, I've become skeptical when the name changed to climate change. These doomsday purveyors lost me as they now can claim anything with such a broad naming.

Now, here comes my radical thinking… man can't destroy the earth! The earth is in the hands of God! In fact, before the earth gets too warm or cool, Jesus will come back! So, I don't worry too much about that stuff; rather I worry about the cultish people that try and play God.

---

dogplasma said:

---

caryking said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

caryking said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

A gotcha moment, or calling out misinformation created to intentionally mislead and trick people - call it whatever you want. I didn't mean to embarrass, but if you're going to post something outrageous then I feel like a snarky response shouldn't be unexpected.

That one in particular rubs the wrong way and I only replied because it simultaneously: Presents BS as fact (the Photoshopped Time cover), presents misleading info (headlines seemingly related but not related to the point), perpetuates a myth (that global cooling was some sort of scientific consensus from the 70's), and subtly takes a shot at legit journalism all at the same time - a quad-fecta! Anyway, you can have the thread back - I've said my peace.

---

Dog, did Time ever call for a coming global cooling?

---

Not in those articles they didn't. In fact, in the Jan. 1977 article it says this: "Whatever the cause of current [cold] weather patterns, they cannot yet be related to any of the long-range cooling - or warming - trends foreseen by scientific Cassandras." So, the nugget of truth behind the "science told us there was going to be an ice age" myth is that global cooling was indeed a theory among some scientists back then, but it was nothing remotely like the consensus you have with global warming today. Could there have been some news article somewhere saying it was going to happen? I guess, but it wasn't in Time magazine as far as I can tell.

---

Dog, you do realize that people have a distrust in scientist that, wave a flag, of end game disasters?

Now, I've never read any of the so-called doomsday global cooling or global warming theories. In fact, I've become skeptical when the name changed to climate change. These doomsday purveyors lost me as they now can claim anything with such a broad naming.

Now, here comes my radical thinking… man can't destroy the earth! The earth is in the hands of God! In fact, before the earth gets too warm or cool, Jesus will come back! So, I don't worry too much about that stuff; rather I worry about the cultish people that try and play God.

---

Yeah, I get there's particular distrust around climate science because it's been politicized. Still, that doesn't give license to just make **** up like in that meme above. That's doing exactly what people are accusing the other side of doing! LOL at the irony there.

I don't think global warming is doomsday, as in the end if mankind. But we're setting ourselves up for some big and potentially costly impacts and changes. It's a big experiment using the entire earth. It might not be as bad as some think, and it might be worse than some think. I think we're beyond stopping/fixing it like we've mostly done with the ozone hole (a major win for science, btw), so now we're into mitigation and innovation.

---

Anyone surprised that the global warming agenda and the covid-19 Hoax are 2 sides to the same scam? pic.twitter.com/O412WVxFpa

— UnJabbed Male 🇬🇧 MyBodyMyChoice (@crouchendcom) April 7, 2023

Quote:

---

The Biden administration is reportedly planning to propose some of the most stringent automobile pollution rules in the world, which are meant to drive up sales of electric vehicles to ten times their current level so that up to 67 percent of new cars sold in the U.S. are electric vehicles by 2032.

The proposed limits on tailpipe emissions will be brought by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with EPA administrator Michael Regan making the announcement on Wednesday in Detroit, Michigan, according to people familiar with the situation who spoke to the New York Times. The EPA requirements are expected to ensure that electric vehicles constitute between 54 and 60 percent of all new cars sold in the United States by 2030, with that number rising to 64 to 67 percent of new car sales by 2032, the sources added.

This figure would represent a huge jump in electric cars for the United States, given that only 5.8 percent of vehicles sold last year were all-electric, the report noted. Additionally, the new rule would be the federal government's most aggressive so-called climate regulation.

Meanwhile, the European Union has enacted rules regarding vehicle emissions that are expected to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles entirely by 2035. Canada and Great Britain have also proposed similar rules to Europe's.

But the new regulations will pose big challenges for automakers, as many of them are already struggling with creating electric vehicles.

---

Quote:

---

If you disagree with the premise that limiting your meat consumption is the only way to save the world, advocates of a meatless future insist that no one is arguing for that sort of thing. That's just rank paranoia.

---

Quote:

---

Your steak has been turned into a "culture-war issue" by the people who notice and, most importantly, resent this effort to impose new cultural standards on the public from above. The prosecutors of the culture war are the conservatives, whose "darker fantasies aren't just about threats to a dietary staple but about threats to the liberty, bodily integrity, and masculinity of American men," they write. Remember, it's the conservatives here who have lost touch with reality.

---

The world has woken up to the Climate Scam

Yesterday, for a second day in a row, #ClimateScam was trending on Twitter. Here are some of the top tweets revealing the climate scam.https://t.co/StD9ZvFuk0 pic.twitter.com/Dx476zOaoW

— Stan Voice of Wales (@StanVoWales) April 19, 2023

OUR GAY COWBOYS ARE HERE pic.twitter.com/naRlN4nHrn

— elly (@wizardjarin) April 26, 2023

NEW – ABC News Explains How 'Cloud Seeding' is Being Used to Modify Weather Across the U.S.

"There are currently 42 cloud seeding projects across the American West...They fly right into the storm and send microscopic [silver iodide] particles into the clouds...The federal… pic.twitter.com/pL37nzcGkI

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) April 20, 2023