Climate Change

[Stosh]

31 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Not illegals but the indigenous population (Pueblo) that have been here for up to 1000 years as well as the Spanish Conquistadors and Mexicans ( settled in what is presently the U.S.) at least a century before Jamestown) in which their descendants are the majority of the population. 

 

When you stated those "brown people." 

Sorry , the phrase brown people isn't insulting ,, unless you feel its insulting to have your dark skin mentioned , and that wouldn't make any sense , since you were the one who mentioned it !  

 

Don't you know the Demographics of your own state ! 

Santa Fe Demographics

According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Santa Fe was:

• White: 84.83%
• Other race: 7.79%
• Two or more races: 3.01%
• Native American: 2.05%
• Asian: 1.31%
• Black or African American: 0.88%
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.14%

Nearly 1 in 10 New Mexico residents is an immigrant, while one in nine residents is a native-born U.S. citizen with at least one immigrant parent.

 

Wait ! You have so many illegals , they are the majority of the population now ! 

Guess you need that question reinstated on the census too !

Edited July 10, 2019 by Stosh

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

 

I am with Void on this in that he as well as I have been presenting evidence. I could care less about your slanted two question test!

 

Thank you for your response.

 

You have presented evidence that man made climate change will lead to human extinction yet are unwilling to go on record as stating that you support forced wealth confiscation or nuclear power to combat the crisis. Therefore you either don't care about human extinction or don't believe the crisis is existential.

[ralis]

17 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Sorry , the phrase brown people isn't insulting ,, unless you feel its insulting to have your dark skin mentioned , and that wouldn't make any sense , since you were the one who mentioned it !  

 

Don't you know the Demographics of your own state ! 

Santa Fe Demographics

According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Santa Fe was:

• White: 84.83%
• Other race: 7.79%
• Two or more races: 3.01%
• Native American: 2.05%
• Asian: 1.31%
• Black or African American: 0.88%
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.14%

Nearly 1 in 10 New Mexico residents is an immigrant, while one in nine residents is a native-born U.S. citizen with at least one immigrant parent.

 

Wait ! You have so many illegals , they are the majority of the population now ! 

Guess you need that question reinstated on the census too !

 

This data contradicts.

 

Hispanic is 53.6%. in Santa Fe NM

 

http://www.city-data.com/city/Santa-Fe-New-Mexico.html

[ralis]

I am done with this thread given that it has been derailed into the subject of so called racial classification, conspiracy theories and anti-science!

[Stosh]

11 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

This data contradicts.

 

Hispanic is 53.6%. in Santa Fe NM

 

http://www.city-data.com/city/Santa-Fe-New-Mexico.html

Hispanic isn't a race, and its not the same as Pueblo self identification.

And if deteriorates into racial categorization , you can look right at yourselves for that responsibility. 

[ralis]

27 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Hispanic isn't a race, and its not the same as Pueblo self identification.

And if deteriorates into racial categorization , you can look right at yourselves for that responsibility. 

 

Will you stop it. I never mentioned race, but culture, evolutionary adaptation in that the amount of melanin in the majority of the population is what I said! Leave me alone or I will report you to the admin!

Edited July 10, 2019 by ralis

[joeblast]

42 minutes ago, ralis said:

I am done with this thread given that it has been derailed into the subject of so called racial classification, conspiracy theories and anti-science!

you always run away when substantive things are mentioned, par for the course

have a bright & shiny day ralis

[MooNiNite]

One of the issues regarding the Earth's health that iv been annoyed with is the destruction of forests for receipts.

Many food restaurants in the US print 600 receipts a day and end up throwing away most of them. 

[MooNiNite]

They haven't evolved to the point of asking if the customer wants the receipt before printing it.

[Stosh]

50 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Will you stop it. I never mentioned race, but culture, evolutionary adaptation in that the amount of melanin in the majority of the population is what I said! Leave me alone or I will report you to the admin!

I am just responding to what you are writing to me ,

You said you were done with the thread, you arent , and so that was false.  

You tried to label me as a racist, and I am not folding under the crap accusation.  

 Now again you try to gaslight , this is what you said. 

 

"Not illegals but the indigenous population (Pueblo) that have been here for up to 1000 years,  as well as the Spanish Conquistadors and Mexicans ( settled in what is presently the U.S.) at least a century before Jamestown) in which their descendants are the majority of the population. " 

 

Descendants are of genetic lineage , hereditary characters like skin color are genetic,  that is NOT culture, its biology. 

The thing you fail to do is recognize that you are the one making the racial assumptions , you are imbuing the production of Co2 as being a racial war, and you are defending deforestation on racial grounds.

 

All you really had to do was admit that it was inappropriate to tie the two things together and preferentially blame the west. That's all , no biggie. I wouldn't even ask for the apology I deserve , I would just let it slide. 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Stosh

[ralis]

Don't bother addressing any responses to me since most of you are on ignore.

[Stosh]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

Don't bother addressing any responses to me since most of you are on ignore.

I'm not sure I could , since I don't think I would see your posts in the first place.

[Lost in Translation]

I think this thread is quite illuminating.

 

We have one camp who believe that climate change is an existential threat to all life on the planet, yet are unwilling to endorse the draconian measures needed to combat the threat. This is akin to someone yelling that their house is on fire while continuing to sit on the couch and watch television.

 

We have another camp who express uncertainty about the existential nature of the threat, and whom are, in turn, regarded as anti-science, ignorant,  or simply hate filled.

 

This is often how the pattern unfolds when progressive ideologies are challenged. The crisis is severe enough to vote Democrats into office, but not severe enough to do anything about it once elected. It's all a sham...

 

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

Oh, and don't forget about raising taxes and imposing new regulations (which often contain fees). It's severe enough to warrant that, of course.

[joeblast]

48 minutes ago, ralis said:

Don't bother addressing any responses to me since most of you are on ignore.

[Stosh]

I was watching a Frontline episode , and found it strange to hear them rewriting history , that , the cold war was an outgrowth of the space race.  For the younger crowd , that may seem plausible. The reason is , that by kicking out the struts which frame events and attitudes , people tend to lose track of what 'true' and 'normal' are. There are those leftists who want to gain power by creating threat and aiming blame. But its really just fact that we do not know what the world will be like warmer, if that is happening , what is responsible , or if it will be good. 

How could we find out ?

rule 1) stop lying 2) admit what is true 3 ) commit to cooperate regardless of whether we are deemed correct or not. 

I watched some neat clips on de- desertification , rejuvenation of depleted land , well, a reasonable person figures that it would be a good thing regardless of whether it was a CO2 sink , lets start with that . 

 

Would it really be so horrible for 1% of GDP from everybody be directed at a random beneficiary country for a cycle? End a disease , fix an earthquakes destruction , build a hydroelectric dam yadda yadda. 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Stosh

[voidisyinyang]

9 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

Here's a proof to determine whether a person really believes that climate change is the #1 issue facing the world today.

 

Given: Man-made Climate Change poses an existential threat to life on Earth as we know it.

 

1) Are you willing to declare martial law, suspend civil liberties, confiscate wealth and force citizens to go without the conveniences of modern civilization (cars,airplanes,household climate control,access to electricity) to combat this crisis? (Yes/No)

No because Mother Nature is more powerful - she's taking revenge better than any human laws could.

 

Quote

2) Are you willing to invest in nuclear energy, despite the known long term issue with radioactive waste containment, in order to halt the immediate threat posed by CO2? [This is analogous to a person who is starving and you offer him food, but the food may give him diabetes in 10 years. Without the food he will be dead in a week, so it's pointless to refuse]. (Yes/No)

 

When you say "invest" - you mean the reason why the US military killed 200,000 people in the Philippines in the 1890s? We didn't do it to "save" democracy nor did we do it to stop communism. The historical record is quite clear - the US military did that genocidal attack as an "investment" and the concern was that if the US military didn't do it, then Germany would do it. So it was just a race to the "bottom" as an "investment." You might even say that it's Doggie-Style instead of face-to-face female oxytocin love. Modern humans are very much like male chimpanzees on their rape-warmongering routine, in contrast to Bonobos.

 

Anyway to get back to "investments" - oh nuclear energy.... So as long as you don't care that the uranium miners are dying from cancer....

 

Uranium Miners (1) - NIOSH Study Summary - CDC

 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html

Quote

We found strong evidence for an increased risk for lung cancer in white uranium miners. We expected about 64 deaths, but found 371. This means we found ...

https://oem.bmj.com/content/71/Suppl_1/A112.3

Quote

Between 1954 and 2007, a total of 8572 deaths were observed, and of these 2809 were due to cancer, including 1246 lung cancer deaths. There were 4151 incident cancers, including 1285 lung cancers, observed.

 

The federal government is cleaning up a long legacy of uranium mining within the Navajo Nation — some 27,000 square miles spread across Utah, New Mexico and Arizona that is home to more than 250,000 people. Many Navajo people have died of kidney failure and cancer, conditions linked to uranium contamination.Apr 10, 2016

Quote

One of the study's findings: 27 percent of the participants have high levels of uranium in their urine, compared to 5 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.

ok now let's consider the claim of nuclear not being a big carbon or global warming source:

Quote

the generation of nuclear power causes the discharge of significant emissions of greenhouse gases as well as hundreds of thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year. It also requires huge and unjustifiable government subsidies including protection against catastrophic accidents to make it attractive to investors. In addition, and most disturbing, there’s the real threat of an attack against any of our 103 nuclear power plants in blowback retaliatory response to hostile US acts against other nations in the past,

so nuke power is basically part of military socialism.

Quote

it requires a vast infrastructure, called the nuclear fuel cycle, which uses huge and rapidly growing amounts of fossil fuels. Each stage of the cycle contributes to the problem starting with the largest and unavoidable energy cost to mine and mill uranium fuel which requires fossil fuel to do it. It continues with the problem of what to do with the mill tailings produced in the uranium extraction process that require great amounts of these greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate when this process is undertaken as it always should be. Other steps in the nuclear fuel cycle also require the use of fossil fuels including the conversion of uranium to hexafluoride gas prior to enrichment, the enrichment process, and the conversion of enriched uranium hexafluoride gas to fuel pellets. In addition, nuclear power plant construction, dismantling and cleanup at the end of their useful life require large amounts of energy. But the process and problems don’t end there. The contaminated water that cools the reactor core must be dealt with, and the enormous problem of radioactive nuclear waste handling, transportation and disposal/storage remains unresolved.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer-by-helen-caldicott/2908

 

Quote

If you answer No to either of the questions above then I must conclude that you really don't believe that man made climate change is an existential threat, and thus you are using the specter of climate change as a boogeyman to push your progressive agenda.

 

The progressive agenda also promoted eugenics at the same time that sanitation became progressive.

No - Progressive politics is still based on Western civilization - sorry.

I promote the original human culture - the San Bushmen.

Edited July 11, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

I promote the original human culture - the San Bushmen

 

 

Using western technology to do so

ya I guess makes sense

 

 

mmm no internet here,,,,

 

why not live by what you promote,,,,just say "later" and go out to live with them.

 

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

I promote the original human culture - the San Bushmen.

 

Thank you for your response. Your position appears to be that we should eliminate modern civilization entirely, allowing untold millions or billions to die in the process, in order to prevent climate change from killing us. Do I read you correctly?

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

When you say "invest" - you mean the reason why the US military killed 200,000 people in the Philippines in the 1890s?

 

Um, no. By "invest" I mean "build more nuclear power plants so that we have more, and cheaper power." With more power - and cheaper power - industry will be better able to grow and thus provide the jobs and innovations needed to drive our civilization forward, thus improving the lives of everyone.

 

"A rising tide lifts all boats."

  -- John F. Kennedy

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rising_tide_lifts_all_boats

 

 

[Stosh]

17 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

Here's a proof to determine whether a person really believes that climate change is the #1 issue facing the world today.

 

Given: Man-made Climate Change poses an existential threat to life on Earth as we know it.

 

1) Are you willing to declare martial law, suspend civil liberties, confiscate wealth and force citizens to go without the conveniences of modern civilization (cars,airplanes,household climate control,access to electricity) to combat this crisis? (Yes/No)

 

2) Are you willing to invest in nuclear energy, despite the known long term issue with radioactive waste containment, in order to halt the immediate threat posed by CO2? [This is analogous to a person who is starving and you offer him food, but the food may give him diabetes in 10 years. Without the food he will be dead in a week, so it's pointless to refuse]. (Yes/No)

 

If you answer No to either of the questions above then I must conclude that you really don't believe that man made climate change is an existential threat, and thus you are using the specter of climate change as a boogeyman to push your progressive agenda.

 

Q1)

I would be willing to take some unpopular measures to make a difference in the state of the planet without needing further evidence, however the initial actions like re-forestation , wouldn't really be so problematic. 

Q2)

There is use of fossil fuels in the production of nuclear energy - it may be on the order of magnitude per kilowatt- and so , It doesnt solve the issue. Reforestation would do a huge amount of good , besides sequestering CO2.  

 

Lets try to insert that into the public consciousness, and get across the threshold of actually Doing it.

Plant a freekin tree in your yard. Ban political fundraising , pass term limits. 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Stosh

[joeblast]

11 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

The progressive agenda also promoted eugenics at the same time that sanitation became progressive.

No - Progressive politics is still based on Western civilization - sorry.

 

you're basically conflating banksterism with the entirety of western civilization.  granted, much of which was indeed shaped by banksters and their warped minds and policies.  but make no mistake, the banksters' wish for humanity is perpetual debt enslavement whereby the elite and their progeny are allowed to live immensely rich, work and worry free lives - and those NICK-A'S over there (the plebes) are all going to pay for it.  progressivism is the ideology of this bankster enslavement.

 

there's certainly plenty enough good ideas in western civilization that they all do not need to be tossed out because banksters have been fucking humanity for...pretty much all of recorded history, in some fashion or another, some group or another - but this latest crop that's been at it these past 400 years is especially dangerous, and they are the ones who came up with this perverted thinking called progressivism - its the perfect mindset to make people discard the traditions of their forefathers and submit to the new global order.

 

 

10 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Thank you for your response. Your position appears to be that we should eliminate modern civilization entirely, allowing untold millions or billions to die in the process, in order to prevent climate change from killing us. Do I read you correctly?

once the tech is there, yeah, then the georgia guidestone numbers are about all the banksters will need to support their lavishness.

 

dont think all them extraordinarily massive piles of coffin liners that fema piled up were for nothin.  Hillary was the process going into overdrive, and when the sun gets sleepy in the later 2020s, that was the perfect time to agenda 2030 the planet.

Edited July 11, 2019 by joeblast
you fkn butthurt report loser

[Stosh]

"The new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat.

It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

'In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,' said Zharkova. 

'Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. 

'We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum''

[Stosh]

It just means that we will have an uptick in cosmogenic isotope production , don worry. 

[joeblast]

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

It just means that we will have an uptick in cosmogenic isotope production , don worry. 

oh no, I was just playing taps for AGW   because if that theory is correct, then by 2040 we will absolutely see the carbon dioxide catastrophe conjecture long since laughed out of academia