Bob, I stand corrected. And my apologies to you for jumping to conclusions. That does not change my opinion that the people that are making these claims about the horrors of global warming are not themselves acting on those claims. Maybe they need to burn massive quantities of fossil fuels to warn everyone about the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels - I don't know. But it's ludicrous on the face of it.
At one time I was into the causes of long term climate change. You bump into among other things the Milankovitch Cycles (see Wiki), which predict what one would expect to be coming. Thing is, the human burning of fossil fuels is a much greater driver than any particular Milankovitch cycle. Normally, the Milankovitch cycles would be driving us cold at this time, but the burning of fossil fuels is a much larger driving factor. It is like a human tugging in one direction and a bulldozer in the other. The bulldozer wins.
But few if any are aware of Milankovitch, let alone the other lesser factors that the few pros debate. They tend to believe what they want to believe without bothering to learn the science.
It has recently come to light that environmental organisations operating within the European Union have, to a large extent, been a cover for Russian lobbying aimed at weakening the EU economically and making Member States dependent on Russian energy resources.
These so-called environmental organisations have focused their activities on three main objectives: fighting against the development of nuclear energy, fighting against energy production from fossil fuels extracted within the EU, including through fracking, and promoting so-called green energy (including solar and wind) at the expense of the previous two.
Today, in the face of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it is clear that Russia’s machinations have effectively made a large number of Member States dependent on raw materials from Russia. Countries such as Germany do not agree with the imposition of an embargo on Russian raw materials, arguing that there are no alternatives.
The head of one of the world’s leading groups of democratic nations has accused Russia of undermining projects using hydraulic fracturing technology in Europe.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), and former premier of Denmark, told the Chatham House thinktank in London on Thursday that Vladimir Putin’s government was behind attempts to discredit fracking, according to reports.
Rasmussen said: “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations - environmental organisations working against shale gas - to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”
In 2014 – the same year Russia annexed Crimea – then-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that Russia was covertly working to undermine European and U.S. fossil fuel production.
Three years later, in 2017, Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Randy Weber (R-Texas) sent a lengthy letter to then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin making a similar accusation. Importantly, their letter connected some of the dots highlighting Russia’s covert efforts to fund various environmental organizations that were trying to limit or end U.S. hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for shale gas and oil.
The media and Democrats mostly shrugged their collective shoulders at these allegations. They were far too busy trying to prove the now-discredited Russian-Trump election collusion to be bothered with a more plausible Russian-environmental activist collusion.
A new report from a parents’ group reveals that Beijing has been investing heavily in American schools. Titled “Little Red Classrooms,” the report finds that China has pumped more than 17 million dollars into various K-12 schools in 34 states and even in Washington, D.C. And many of these schools are similarly located close to military bases. What exactly is going on here?
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; - Exodus 20:5
An odd tangent. We may not currently be going through the first fall of civilization due to greenhouse gasses. Bronze Age civilization definitely happened. At one point there were a string of civilizations in the Mediterranean. The Egyptian pyramids, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the Colossus of Rhodes were a few of the memorable things built during that time. Some push the Eye of Africa (or Richat Structure) as Atlantis, another power to the west. Some emphasize an image carved in the side of an Egyptian temple showing the Sahara as green and thriving during that time.
It ended abruptly. Droughts hit the area. The Sea Peoples invaded from the west causing many nations of the time to fall. While the Egyptians finally defeated the Sea Peoples, the droughts cut their population and ended the time of pyramid building. They never returned to their period of greatness.
There is no doubt that this happened.
Some blame the people of the Americas. They had just got into agriculture by fire. The easy way to clear land was to burn the forest. The result was a sudden surge of CO2 resulting in global climate change. As a result, nations around the Mediterranean suffered droughts. The desperate folk to the west Mediterranean became the Sea Peoples and began invading the desperate folk to their east. All fell. With the exception of Carthage for a time, they never regained primacy. The next wave of civilization moved north, with much later Greece, Alexander the Great and Rome taking over in turn.
Can such a scenario repeat? Can large tracts of land become uninhabitable? Will currently uninhabitable lands such as Siberia and Canada become destinations, with all the problems we currently are having with immigration growing much worse? The events of the long ago Bronze Age haunt many people, or at least myself, with regards to current climate change. The Pentagon evaluation of climate change causing future security problems gets underlined. It is a plausible worst case at least.
It’s a tangent studied by people interested in ancient history rather than an every day focus, but explains my willingness to anticipate disaster happening again. Ignoring headlines doesn’t seem prudent.
Warm temperatures create flourishing of food, human civilization, and mostly due to increasing population.
What do the sickos want? Depopulation. It's that simple.
All leftist and greeny policies are designed for the detriment of humans. That's why it is so sad that people believe in them, including some on this board, who are really lost.
Warm temperatures create flourishing of food, human civilization, and mostly due to increasing population.
What do the sickos want? Depopulation. It's that simple.
All leftist and greeny policies are designed for the detriment of humans. That's why it is so sad that people believe in them, including some on this board, who are really lost.
It's a fact that more people die from cold than heat!
Warm temperatures create flourishing of food, human civilization, and mostly due to increasing population.
What do the sickos want? Depopulation. It's that simple.
All leftist and greeny policies are designed for the detriment of humans. That's why it is so sad that people believe in them, including some on this board, who are really lost.
It's a fact that more people die from cold than heat!
And more people are murdered in shopping malls and flash mob than freeze to death in the winter.
Heart attack hospitalisations at record level since pandemic
Record numbers of people have been hospitalised with heart attacks in the wake of the pandemic, official figures show.
On Tuesday, health chiefs will launch a campaign urging those with symptoms to seek help, with fears that too many cases are being detected too late.
The new figures for England show that more than 84,000 patients were admitted to hospital because of a heart attack in 2021/22 – a rise of more than 7,000 in a year.
It follows warnings that heart deaths have risen by more than 500 a week since the first lockdown, with a fall in the numbers prescribed vital medication amid struggles to access GP care.
Health officials are afraid that people are still failing to come forward, adding to the collateral damage caused by the pandemic.
Heart attack hospitalisations at record level since pandemic
Record numbers of people have been hospitalised with heart attacks in the wake of the pandemic, official figures show.
On Tuesday, health chiefs will launch a campaign urging those with symptoms to seek help, with fears that too many cases are being detected too late.
The new figures for England show that more than 84,000 patients were admitted to hospital because of a heart attack in 2021/22 – a rise of more than 7,000 in a year.
It follows warnings that heart deaths have risen by more than 500 a week since the first lockdown, with a fall in the numbers prescribed vital medication amid struggles to access GP care.
Health officials are afraid that people are still failing to come forward, adding to the collateral damage caused by the pandemic.
Yet again there are crickets about something I've understood since the beginning.
Notice how when you get the big things right, silence. Make random price predictions about an asset that you always told people to hold long term (will be right about that too) and are "wrong" on those, and you suck. lol
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times.
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; - Exodus 20:5
