Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’

C

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Rest Of Earth’s Inhabitants Vote To Phase Out People By The Year 2040




NEWARK – In a move that has been expected by everyone other than humans for quite some time, the rest of life on Earth today voted to do what has to be done to save the planet, deciding in a unanimous decision to phase out people over the next 20 years.
The consensus was reached at the 3,487,562,490th annual global convention for multi-cellular organisms – an event that humans have been invited to but have yet to attend; citing an obscure religious text that they believe provides them with dominion over everything, but which is unrecognized by the rest of the planet’s co-occupants.
“I will not lie,” said a large bear, rising in the small hotel conference room just outside of Newark, New Jersey, which the flora and fauna have had to rent the past few years after finding their natural habitats decimated by the preternaturally destructive people.
“The surplus of garbage and warmer winters have been nice. But I can no longer lick a creek without tasting the mercury, and even now my bowels contain parts of a large yogurt container, three pairs of Ray Bans, a Nokia, and a small figurine I believe was originally meant to resemble the popular television character ‘Peppa Pig,’ but now just looks like a very large wad of gum with legs.
“In any event,” the bear continued, after biting into a complimentary donut. “My home has been logged, my rivers dammed, and my photo taken – badly I might add – without my permission. The people must go. I speak for all bears. As well as our cousins the raccoons, who were unable to attend this year’s meeting due to being deeply embedded in the human tribe, awaiting the order to eat all of the people’s car keys, thus beginning the end of their species.”


More: https://outabouter.com/2019/04/11/r...nts-vote-to-phase-out-people-by-the-year-2040
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,824
113
Low Earth Orbit
MHz said:
You don't need a tractor when all the implements are now self propelled with each wheel having it's own motor and battery banks are also modular
Click to expand...
Propelled by a hydraulic orbital and a diesel or gasoline engine no battery pack to f'ck with. Works great.
 
MHz

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Twin_Moose said:
See something else for you to get on, you got it all figured out anyway
Click to expand...
That would we assume we don't kill ourselves first. We won't be going back to 1/4 section farmers all joining together to feed the world. Farms are factories when looked at on Wall St and that is where the decisions are made.

North America was settled with a lot of people and hand tools, South Africa was a few people and a factories that produced farm machinery. Which version do you think the stock holders in the EU prefer??
 
MHz

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
petros said:
Propelled by a hydraulic orbital and a diesel or gasoline engine no battery pack to f'ck with. Works great.
Click to expand...
Until the refinery breaks down or delivery problems crop up. Think 2119 and bots are the new farmers as well as all factory workers.
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
MHz said:
Until the refinery breaks down or delivery problems crop up. Think 2119 and bots are the new farmers as well as all factory workers.
Click to expand...
There don't be any farmers. The Bots will have killed us all off by then and there will be no further reason to farm.

Petroleum might come back, though, after decades of obsolescence. Bots don't need cheap food but they need cheap lubricants.
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,338
1,799
113
COFFEE HOUSE

What David Attenborough’s climate change show didn’t tell you

Ross Clark
20 April 2019
The Spectator



Given the reception that awaited Richard Madeley when he ventured last week that David Attenborough is “not a saint, just a broadcaster” – something which is evidently true, though I haven’t formally checked with the Vatican – one delves into this subject with some intrepidness. Nevertheless, great documentary-maker though he may be, Attenborough cannot be allowed to get away with the propaganda element of his latest piece, his documentary Climate Change: The Facts which went out on Thursday evening.

Before I get going, don’t even bother thinking of calling me a climate change denier in the pockets of oil companies, or whatever. I am happy to accept the observable facts: the carbon dioxide content of the air has climbed substantially from under 300 parts per million (ppm) to 400 ppm over the past century, that temperatures have increased by 0.1 Celsius per decade over the past century, and that global sea levels are rising by an average of 3 mm a year. These are enough of a concern in themselves. There is every reason why we should be acting to phase our fossil fuels as soon as is practically possible without causing harm to the global economy – something which would itself have devastating impacts on living standards.

But what I won’t let go is this growing practice – which is lazy at best and quite often born of scurrilous motives – of trying to link every adverse weather event to climate change. In this, Attenborough’s documentary was a masterclass. It wasn’t so much what he was saying as that he resorted to the same trick used by Al Gore and many others who have made films on the subject – running a discourse on climate change against footage of devastating hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters. While Attenborough did say on a couple of occasions during the film that it was not possible to link any particular weather event to climate change he must know how viewers – especially sensitive, younger ones are going to ingest it. He will have succeeded in planting the idea in many thousands if not millions of minds that every time we have a storm, a flood, a wildfire or anything else, we are watching climate change in action.

If you are going to present a film called Climate Change: the Facts the very least you should be doing is, well, presenting the facts. Well here they are, in two of the areas which made up such a hefty part of the film: wildfires and hurricanes. Are wildfires increasing? They are according to Attenborough. One of the scientists who takes part in the programme, Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, goes as far as to say there has been a “tripling in the extent of wildfires in the Western US”. He is not specific about his evidence for this claim, nor said over what timeframe wildfires are supposed to have trebled, but it is not a fair assessment of the data collected by the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA). This shows no upwards trend in the number of wildfires in the US over the past 30 years. Take another way of measuring wildfires – the acreage burned, in figure two of this data – and there is an upwards trend since the 1980s. Look at the state-by-state data (figure three) and, if you are very selective and take the case of Idaho, you could even say the acreage burned has trebled in the past 30 years.

But then again, go back further, to the 1920s, and you see that both the number of US wildfires and acreage burned in them has plummeted.

That is nothing to do with the climate – more down to firefighters getting better at tackling fires. But that reduction in wildfires – which, after all, were occurring naturally long before Europeans arrived in the US – has brought with it a problem: deadwood is not being cleared out at the rate which it used to be. As a result, when a wildfire does take hold, it tends to be a more powerful fire, which is one reason large acreages tend to get burned when fires do take hold. That was a large part of the debate which followed the wildfires in California last November.

But I know what will have entered the heads of many of Attenborough’s viewers: that wildfires are being caused by climate change and that is that.

The same will be true for hurricanes. If you are child, for whom hurricanes are a novel phenomenon, watching the film will have given you the impression that hurricanes are pretty much a function of man-made climate change. A voiceover, indeed, makes the claim that climate change is causing ‘greater storms’. But again, the data on cyclone activity in the Atlantic, Gulf and Mexico and Caribbean does not support that idea. Figure one shows a very slight upwards trend in the number of hurricanes occurring in these waters but a flat or perhaps slightly downwards trend in the number of hurricanes making landfall in the US. There are two other methods of measuring hurricane activity which are used by the EPA. The first, the accumulated cyclone index (figure two) shows no obvious trend over the past 70 years. The second, the ‘power dissipation index’ shows an upwards spike in the early years of this century, followed by a reversion to mean since then.

Nor do the projections – bearing in mind all the uncertainties inherent in them – suggest any great increase in hurricanes in future. According to the modelling by the US Geophysical Laboratory the frequency of storms will not increase with climate change. There may be a 10 – 15 per cent intensity in rainfall associated with hurricanes and a 10 per cent increase in wind speeds, but only once global temperatures had risen by a further degree Celsius.

Not that this seems to prevent documentary-makers like Attenborough resorting to footage of houses being demolished by winds and lorries being blown off bridges to show the supposed climate change we are already experiencing.

It is little wonder that terrified kids are skipping school to protest against climate change. Never mind climate change denial, a worse problem is the constant exaggeration of the subject. I had thought David Attenborough would be above resorting to the subtle propaganda which others have been propagating, linking every adverse weather event to climate change. But apparently not.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/what-david-attenboroughs-climate-change-show-didnt-tell-you/
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
EagleSmack said:
De Blasio: Glass skyscrapers ‘have no place on our Earth’
http://nypost.com/2019/04/22/de-blasio-glass-skyscrapers-have-no-place-on-our-earth/
“We are going to introduce legislation to ban the classic glass and steel skyscrapers that have contributed so much to global warming,” de Blasio said.
“They have no place in our city or our Earth anymore.”
Liberals want to ban steel and glass now.
*snicker*
Click to expand...
Wait a couple of hundred years when the glass and big chunks of them fall so regularly that the centers of our big cities becone uninhabitable. It costs a lot more to safely demolish a huge skyscraper than to build it in the first place but we ignore that part and fob the problem off to our children's children's children.
 
darkbeaver

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Curious Cdn said:
Wait a couple of hundred years when the glass and big chunks of them fall so regularly that the centers of our big cities becone uninhabitable. It costs a lot more to safely demolish a huge skyscraper than to build it in the first place but we ignore that part and fob the problem off to our children's children's children.
Click to expand...
No it wil be followed by the greater scam. Planet Scamlot. Fukkin Germans.



Fukkin right THE gERMANS, WHEN will somethging be done,questionmark,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom