Social The hypocrisy of climate change activists.

[Whippy McGee]

The debate has been settled amoung 99% of the scientists. There’s the 1%. Show me peer reviewed papers

That's been long ago debunked. Don't say that. You look like a fool.

 

[iwannabeadored]

you deal with whatever fantasy solutions you have, dont make me pay for it.

it's your religion, not mine.

and before you respond, I have an electric car, I use solar, and I have a powerwall, so I am virtuous .

here's one for ya

"A recent study in Adelaide, Australia, found that tree canopy cover and, to a lesser extent, grass cover decreased local daytime surface temperatures by up to 6 C during extreme summer heat conditions."

for your inner karen, plant your ass some trees in your neighborhood.

My point exactly. Until something effects the ultra right wing personally it doesn’t matter

 

[chardog]

My point exactly. Until something effects the ultra right wing personally it doesn’t matter

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Because there seems to be a debate among scientists on the matter.

Science Under Attack

In a previous post , I showed how submarine volcanic eruptions don’t contribute to global warming, despite the release of enormous amounts of explosive energy. But they do contribute to regional climate change in the oceans, such as marine heat waves and shrinkage of polar sea ice, explained a

www.scienceunderattack.com

It's a good write up and it's difficult to believe that an increase in volcanic activity wouldn't have an impact.

I'm sure an increase in volcanic activity would have an impact, why do you think there has been an increase?

 

[Whippy McGee]

I'm sure an increase in volcanic activity would have an impact, why do you think there has been an increase?

That's a good question. It's likely way above my knowledge base. If I had a few theories it would be:

• More water due to melting glaciers may add additional pressure to underwater geothermal formations. Popping a giant zit... lol I know it's wacky, but water weighs a shit ton. It doesn't explain the underlying reason for Global Warming if this is the case, just the acceleration of it.
• Earth's Core and geological physics... I should ask a gal I've worked with for over 15 years, she's a Prof of Geology at Cal State Fullerton and a few other local JC's. I will reach out to her, she's working from home, so I don't get the conversations we used to have. She likely has a far more plausible explanation.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

That's a good question. It's likely way above my knowledge base. If I had a few theories it would be:

• More water due to melting glaciers may add additional pressure to underwater geothermal formations. Popping a giant zit... lol I know it's wacky, but water weighs a shit ton. It doesn't explain the underlying reason for Global Warming if this is the case, just the acceleration of it.
• Earth's Core and geological physics... I should ask a gal I've worked with for over 15 years, she's a Prof of Geology at Cal State Fullerton and a few other local JC's. I will reach out to her, she's working from home, so I don't get the conversations we used to have. She likely has a far more plausible explanation.

Have you thought about how many volcano eruptions it would take to raise the Ocean temps 1 deg C?

The heat capacity of water is approximately 4.18 J/g C. The total mass of the oceans is around 1.332 × 10^21 gm

4.18 J/g C × 1 x (1.332 × 10^21 g) = 5.57 × 10^21


Mount St Helens was predicted at 1.7 x 10 ^18 joules of heat
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24964328#:~:text=In the Mount St.,1018 divided by 32,400 seconds

5.57 × 10^21 J / 1.7 x 10 ^18 J

= 3,276 Mt St Helens type eruptions in the past 60 years


No way on Earth that we missed that LOL

 

[terrapin]

If you have not seen this interview with this scientist and are a Global Warmist, perhaps information you've not been exposed to may adjust your views?



In the end, his claim is that "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is caused by pulls from other celestial bodies on Earth causing slight variations in our orbit and relation to the Sun. He says if you pulled all the temperature measuring stations from cities and kept only those in rural areas that we see little to no warming in the periods of Global Warming freak out. He's done the Math. He's presented tons of papers that have no dispute to his Math and findings. He's a serious scientist that should be heard out.

Very difficult to take the video seriously when Tucker Carlson is the one doing the interview since we know he's an absolute liar and a hack and admittedly didn't expect anyone to believe what he said when he was on Fox News because it was so obvious it wasn't true.

And like politics. This is another area where I just don't have enough knowledge to analyze what this person is saying. If he's telling the truth, they are not funded by any organizations that have special interests. In fact, he says they don't want funding from anybody so they can be completely independent on that. Sounds like a really good thing.


But also scientism and the religion of scientism has brainwashed tons of people into believing absurd things that we know are not backed by data at all and so I wouldn't be surprised if something this major turned out to be bs...

But I should add that I live in a big city and it has terrible terrible pollution from cars and I just think we should get off of fossil fuels as much as humanly possible for other reasons anyway.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Very difficult to take the video seriously when Tucker Carlson is the one doing the interview since we know he's an absolute liar and a hack and admittedly didn't expect anyone to believe what he said when he was on Fox News because it was so obvious it wasn't true.

And like politics. This is another area where I just don't have enough knowledge to analyze what this person is saying. If he's telling the truth, they are not funded by any organizations that have special interests. In fact, he says they don't want funding from anybody so they can be completely independent on that. Sounds like a really good thing.


But also scientism and the religion of scientism has brainwashed tons of people into believing absurd things that we know are not backed by data at all and so I wouldn't be surprised if something this major turned out to be bs...

But I should add that I live in a big city and it has terrible terrible pollution from cars and I just think we should get off of fossil fuels as much as humanly possible for other reasons anyway.

I will watch a CNN interviewer or MSNBC if they have a compelling guest. Your disqualification of a Scientist because of who interviewed him is silly. I could see people like you discounting Coprenicus, because the state/MSM didn't back him.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Chocolate Could Vanish in 30 Years Because of Climate Change​

Ein Beitrag von Joe McCarthy
2. Januar 2018

Chocolate bars, chocolate chips, chocolate ice cream — in 30 years these delicious treats may be no more.
That’s because climate change is making the habitat for cacao trees uninhabitable, according the US National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency.

If global temperatures increase by more than 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2.1 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels, which they’re projected to do, then cocoa could simply become too hard to grow.

It’s not the rise in heat that will drive the extinction of these plants, according to NOAA. Instead, it’s the decline in rainfall and humidity. As more moisture is drawn from soil in the decades ahead because of rising temperatures, it’s unlikely that rainfall will increase in proportion to make up for the loss.

Global Citizen campaigns on the Global Goals, which call for effective climate action. You can take action on this issue here.

Cocoa beans are finicky. They can really only grow in what is known as the “chocolate belt,” a span 20 degrees above the equator and 20 degrees below the equator, where temperatures are high, light is abundant, and precipitation is heavy, according to Amano Chocolate.

These conditions are already changing in some of the world’s top chocolate producing countries like the Ivory Coast, Ghana, and Indonesia, and it’s leading to a decline in production.

Around 90% of cocoa is grown by small subsistence farmers who often do not have the means for adaptation and are sometimes driven to abandon their farms when their plants fail, according to Hardman Agribusiness’ general director Doug Hawkins who spoke with the Daily Mail.

The looming chocolate shortage is further affected by global demand. The average Western consumer consumes 286 chocolate bars a year, according to Hardman Agribusiness, which requires 10 cacao trees worth of raw materials.

Demand in developing countries like China and India is also increasing, Hardman Agribusiness notes, so as the global production of chocolate declines, demand keeps rising.

According to NOAA, it’s unlikely that enough other regions will become suitable for coffee production in the future to meet demand. But there could be a way to keep chocolate in supermarkets everywhere even if climate change continues to get worse.

Genetic modification technology could help cacao trees survive in changing conditions, according to Business Insider.

Researchers are currently working to develop cacao plants that are more drought- and heat-resistant. They’re using a gene-editing enzyme known as CRISPR to precisely alter the DNA of cacao plants, Business Insider reports.

If this technology makes it to farmers within the chocolate belt, then they may be able to continue harvesting the beloved cocoa bean in the decades ahead.

And then people can keep eating their 286 chocolate bars a year.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/de/content/chocolate-climate-change-extinct-gmos/

- That's it. I am turning a Rudo!
Chocolate or riot!

 

[terrapin]

I will watch a CNN interviewer or MSNBC if they have a compelling guest. Your disqualification of a Scientist because of who interviewed him is silly. I could see people like you discounting Coprenicus, because the state/MSM didn't back him.

I watched the whole thing and found it interesting but Tucker Carlson is a despicable liar and has no credibility and never will have any..

But also just generally speaking, your post doesn't really seem like a response to mine which was somewhat sympathetic to the scientist's positions!!

 

[fedorthegoat777]

We could reduce emissions and with 1 or 2 good size volcanic eruptions we would be right back to where we started.

We need to reduce volcanoes.

Just put some cement in the openings, that will do it.

 

[syct23]

Just put some cement in the openings, that will do it.

I think we concluded that a nuke was the only and best option to put an end to volcanic emissions.

But I’m still researching the use of permanent markers. I understand there is a possibility of being able to redirect the path of an entire hurricane with the stroke of a single marker.

 

[PhitePhan]

Chocolate Could Vanish in 30 Years Because of Climate Change​

Ein Beitrag von Joe McCarthy
2. Januar 2018

Chocolate bars, chocolate chips, chocolate ice cream — in 30 years these delicious treats may be no more.
That’s because climate change is making the habitat for cacao trees uninhabitable, according the US National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency.

If global temperatures increase by more than 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2.1 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels, which they’re projected to do, then cocoa could simply become too hard to grow.

It’s not the rise in heat that will drive the extinction of these plants, according to NOAA. Instead, it’s the decline in rainfall and humidity. As more moisture is drawn from soil in the decades ahead because of rising temperatures, it’s unlikely that rainfall will increase in proportion to make up for the loss.

Global Citizen campaigns on the Global Goals, which call for effective climate action. You can take action on this issue here.

Cocoa beans are finicky. They can really only grow in what is known as the “chocolate belt,” a span 20 degrees above the equator and 20 degrees below the equator, where temperatures are high, light is abundant, and precipitation is heavy, according to Amano Chocolate.

These conditions are already changing in some of the world’s top chocolate producing countries like the Ivory Coast, Ghana, and Indonesia, and it’s leading to a decline in production.

Around 90% of cocoa is grown by small subsistence farmers who often do not have the means for adaptation and are sometimes driven to abandon their farms when their plants fail, according to Hardman Agribusiness’ general director Doug Hawkins who spoke with the Daily Mail.

The looming chocolate shortage is further affected by global demand. The average Western consumer consumes 286 chocolate bars a year, according to Hardman Agribusiness, which requires 10 cacao trees worth of raw materials.

Demand in developing countries like China and India is also increasing, Hardman Agribusiness notes, so as the global production of chocolate declines, demand keeps rising.

According to NOAA, it’s unlikely that enough other regions will become suitable for coffee production in the future to meet demand. But there could be a way to keep chocolate in supermarkets everywhere even if climate change continues to get worse.

Genetic modification technology could help cacao trees survive in changing conditions, according to Business Insider.

Researchers are currently working to develop cacao plants that are more drought- and heat-resistant. They’re using a gene-editing enzyme known as CRISPR to precisely alter the DNA of cacao plants, Business Insider reports.

If this technology makes it to farmers within the chocolate belt, then they may be able to continue harvesting the beloved cocoa bean in the decades ahead.

And then people can keep eating their 286 chocolate bars a year.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/de/content/chocolate-climate-change-extinct-gmos/

- That's it. I am turning a Rudo!
Chocolate or riot!

That’s a click bait article filled with a bunch of weasel words. “Climate change” sells, unfortunately.

 

[dirtypablo]

lol... I work with some Scientists from our national labs off an on. You'd be surprised that some of them have actually said this out loud only to have their peers do a full Linda Blair head spin when the words come out of their mouths. I was at lunch in Idaho last year with some when they started debating. It was funny to witness uber geeks go at it... in the nicest of ways. The best was two of them both on the Global Warming side of it arguing because one said it was settled, even though they agree on the big picture.

When it comes to the big picture understanding - that the climate is warming radically due to human greenhouse gas emissions, it's absolutely settled - this isn't even remotely debatable. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either completely ignorant to the state of the science on the topic, or is being paid to say otherwise.

 

[dirtypablo]

Have you thought about how many volcano eruptions it would take to raise the Ocean temps 1 deg C?

The heat capacity of water is approximately 4.18 J/g C. The total mass of the oceans is around 1.332 × 10^21 gm

4.18 J/g C × 1 x (1.332 × 10^21 g) = 5.57 × 10^21


Mount St Helens was predicted at 1.7 x 10 ^18 joules of heat
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24964328#:~:text=In the Mount St.,1018 divided by 32,400 seconds

5.57 × 10^21 J / 1.7 x 10 ^18 J

= 3,276 Mt St Helens type eruptions in the past 60 years


No way on Earth that we missed that LOL

The absolute insanity that these guys will conjure up to avoid admitting the reality of a basic principle of physics that has been understood for well over a hundred years is truly astounding.

 

[dirtypablo]

He's presented tons of papers that have no dispute to his Math and findings. He's a serious scientist that should be heard out.

Lol, wut. Every paper he's written on the subject has been widely discredited by the scientific community as full of either mistakes or complete misunderstandings of climate science. He's a hack who uses the fact that he works at a facility connected to Harvard to get his name out. He's done absolutely nothing noteworthy in the science world. That's not even getting in to the fact that he's received millions from the fossil fuels industry.

Michael E. Mann, an assistant professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, attacked the study in language unusually blunt for a scientist. “I believe it is the mainstream view of just about every scientist in my field that I have talked to that there is little that is valid in that paper,” he said. “They got just about everything wrong.”

https://www.chronicle.com/article/storm-brews-over-global-warming/

 

[dirtypablo]

Here's a list of the authors of the latest IPCC report on climate change. I don't see Leo, Taylor Swift, Kerry or Gore anywhere in the mix. Just because you get your news and worldviews from pop culture doesn't mean everyone else does as well.

Authors — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[James Eagle]

you know what these retards don't know?

the actual fear is global cooling. what do we all breathe? where does it come from? plants breathe in CO2, they exhale O2, they scrub the carbon and consume it to grow. when temps drop for too long, no plants survive. with no O2 produced, and no vegetation to feed animals, humans die very quickly. this is the problem with dealing with retards

 

[jx820]

No, you and I, would be hypocrites if we started demanding that cell phones stop being used while posting from a phone.

To be very clear I kinda do feel that way. I don't think manufacturers should be made to create products without human suffering as an ingredient and I think we the consumer should behave to bear that cost. But until that's a regulation I'm going to buy a Samsung with the human exploration discount because I'm a hypocrite.

We're naturally selfish, greedy, undisciplined, monster's about some things.

I know with 100% certainty that plastic grocery bags are completely unnecessary, disproportionately environmentally destructive, and that I eat like a pound of micro plastics a year as a direct result of that kind of wasteful use. But I hate not having them. Every time I check out I'm pissed. And I'd never have willingly done without.

 

[mon]

Depending on who you ask, climate change is either real, or fake; a very serious issue, or not a big deal; responsible for everything from forest fires to strong storms and will be the cause of our extinction or, this has all happened before and the earth was much hotter in the Permian period, Jurassic, and five million years after the K-T extinction (what killed the non-avian dinosaurs).

I believe it is real, but I also study a lot of prehistoric periods/animals and have a serious infatuation with many prehistoric animals (Gorgonopsids/marine reptiles/giant crocodilomorphs (Deinosuchus/Purrosaurus/Sarchosuchus)/entelodonts/livyatan/pretty much every Pleistocene mammal). Anyways, I nerd out over this stuff. So, due to my interest in these topics, I am knowledgeable about times that the earth was much hotter, dryer, more greenhouse gases, more radiation from the sun, so much oxygen that we couldn’t survive, etc. I am aware that the climate is cooler than it has been during some of those times, but recognize that it is changing more rapidly(over a period of 100 years va a million years).

So, assuming one believes that climate change is a very serious problem, what can we do to reverse it or at least slow it down? Some say alternative fuel sources are the answer while others point to our dependence upon beef as one of the single biggest contributors to climate change through an increase in bovine farts and deforestation in order to graze all these cattle.

Climate activists block traffic, cut your tires, tell you to eat bugs, fake and engineered meat, they vandalize art and chain themselves to various structures-all based upon the words of celebrities who live lavish and carbon heavy lifestyles and think it’s ok because they can donate money to ease their conscience.


The answer, however, definitely doesn’t lie by following the orders of our elite climate defenders like Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bill Gates, or Taylor Swift. Greta Thurnberg, while extremely annoying and hideous, actually does seem to walk the walk(vegan, climate educator, and sails instead of flying when possible).

These extremely wealthy global warming alarmists have a bigger carbon footprint than all of sherdog combined. So, let’s look at some of the hypocrisy of these elite “good for thee but not for me” pricks. This list is not in order and I picked and chose the celebrities I wanted to highlight-some because of the huge hypocrisy and others because I simply don’t like them.

1. Taylor Swift. Besides being a prolific serial dater and all around slut, T. Swift is also one of the biggest hypocrites on this list. She owns a private jet-on which she logs more miles than just about anyone else in the world. She’s also the inspiration for this thread.

I read earlier today that she has sent a cease and desist letter to a college student that tracks her and other celebrities private jets. This student, 21 year old Jack Sweeney, uses public information to track Swift’s private jet and reports on it on his Reddit blog. Swift’s lawyers sent him this letter ordering him to stop posting this information because it causes Swift to live in a constant state of fear because she worries that a stalker intent on doing her harm, may use this list to plan an attack upon her despite the fact that the entire offensive line of the Kansas City chiefs will surround and protect her like she’s Patrick Mahomes(damn, am I sick of my feed blowing up with her and her fuck-toy of the moment, Travis Kelce, whirlwind romance).

Swift’s jet logged an insane amount of flight time and she is considered the worst climate celebrity by many lists.

“Racking up a total of 170 flights since January, Taylor's jet has amassed a vast 22,923 minutesin the air – 15.9 days. Quite a large amount considering that she is not currently touring.

Taylor's jet has an average flight time of just 80 minutes and an average of 139.36 miles per flight. Her total flight emissions for the year come in at 8,293.54 tonnes, or 1,184.8 times more than the average person's total annual emissions. ”

Her defense? Her press team released a statement that not all of those flights were Swift. She often loans her jet out to friends, which makes her not responsible for the dinosaur sized carbon footprint because even though it’s her jet, she’s not the one onboard every single time. Swift calls climate change “horrific” and one of the worst issues facing the world today and something has to be done. She offsets her carbon footprint by “buying carbon credits” So, I guess it’s all right that she took a 100 mile 30 minute flight to attend a football game.

2. Oprah Winfrey placed ninth on the list. She often has climate activists on her shows and has articles in her magazine about what we can do to limit our own carbon footprint.
"The future of life as we know it is being determined by everything we're doing—and not doing. Now," Winfrey wrote in the post that called on protecting the environment.
The report said her private jet emitted an estimated 3,493.17 tonnes of carbon dioxide this year through a total of 68 flights, or "499 times more than the average person's total annual emissions."

Not to be outdone by T. Swift, Oprah logged a 14 minute flight on her private jet on a 74 mile journey from Van Nuys CA to Santa Barbara.

3. Al Gore. Mr. “An inconvenient truth” himself that is probably personally responsible for sounding the climate alarm bells that turned many on this list into climate change “activists.” He claims he uses his farm to experiment with better ways to grow crops. His farm is attached to his land in which a 10,000 square foot house sucks in more energy than a small town and one month to heat/cool/light/ power/ and warm his heated outdoor pools, is more than the annual footprint of hundreds of people. His annual power usage is more than six families usage for ….21 years. The cost to heat his pools is more than six families annual consumption. He had a $30k bill in 2006.

“Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.”

He also personally profits from oil and has proposed laws that punish companies and countries that are the biggest offenders. He has a 300 million non profit that uses satellites and other tools to measure where the greenhouse gases are coming from. Basically, he’s spying on the world.

4. Leonardo DiCaprio. Mega movie star. Climate change champion. And giant fuckkng hypocrite. He gave the opening speech at the 2014 UN conference as a peace ambassador for climate change. He probably took a private jet to attend. Though he does occasionally fly commercial air and he doesn’t own a personal jet, he is often spotted boarding private jets and yachts.

“
When the actor took home the Oscar for best actor in 2016, he said in his acceptance speech, “Climate change is real, it is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species, and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating.”

He added: “We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this.”

On the eve of COP26 in late October, he also tweeted, “The climate crisis is here. #COP26 must be a turning point to protect people and the planet. Leaders, the world is watching and urging you to rise to this moment. There’s no time to lose. #ActNow.”

While DiCaprio has claimed to be a “CarbonNeutral citizen,” for years his critics have noted his extensive use of private jets to travel the world.

In 2014 he reportedly rented the world’s fifth largest yacht owned by a UAE oil tycoon, to watch the World Cup in Brazil.

In 2016 he was branded a “climate hypocrite” after Page Six exclusively revealed he took a private jet from Cannes, France, to New York to accept an environmental award — and then immediately flew straight back from New York to France on another jet for the model-packed glitzy Cinema Against AIDS gala for the charity amfAR — where he gave a speech.

I like Leo and all, and he has some kick-ass movies (the departed is one of my favs) though he looked bloated and I didn’t much like killers of the flower moon, but he’s another rich, entitled celebrity that tells us to watch our carbon footprints but he stalks through the thinning forests like Bigfoot.

5. Jay-Z and Beyonce. Not going into too much detail here with jay and bey, though jay has the 4th largest carbon footprint and bey is no slouch either. They are billionaires. They also urge people to eat a plant based diet to reduce their damage to the ecosystem and it just so happens they have their very own plant based food company.

I will get into some more detail about other climate hypocrites in a bit, I just wanted to get the ball rolling here with a few. Basically, these twats want us to suffer and make sacrifices while they are living high on the hog and using as much fossil fuels as they want, each in their own wasteful and meaningless occupations. They just throw a few million at the problem to make them “carbon neutral.”

Coming up, bill gates, Steven Spielberg, John Kerry, and others










https://weareyard.com/insights/worst-celebrity-private-jet-co2-emission-offenders

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...awyers-sent-to-her-flight-tracker/ar-BB1hUEub

I could debate the speed of climate "change" outside the boundaries of natural but it's pointless with such a well written op.

Whats got me fucked is either the absolute stupidity or support of the depopulation agenda.
There's eriously so much video and information where these brazen sociopaths state exactly what they want to do and 5/8ths of the population will say "I'm sure they didn't mean it like that", 2/8ths will honk "you're a conspiracy theorist " (while secretly agreeing people need to be culled, not them of course).

Well said and fuck those cunts and their purple circle.




While mainly focused on the last 3 years this has excellent information on the eugenics history and support of our "betters"