-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
- Thread starter TychoMonolyth
- Start date
There isn't going to be a ceremony admitting the failure of medicine, which is linked to fossil fuels (made from) and the entire caste system (not entirely identical but similar the world over). Money and guns from oil oppress people at the expense of everyone unless counting the elite of course who seem most content to destroy. I have worked for, or I should say with or around many doctors and apparently neither of us were listening to each other. The stuff in pills is poison, and anti-vaccine people have a valid point. I did not feel that way at least so strongly a few years ago. This is not a joke because I have read immunology books. Would it be more authoritative to say I wrote one? Work on my grammar or phrasing a little maybe hire someone so it doesn't sound odd or 'anti-vax' something like that to the masses? However my sum conclusion up to this point is what stress and goes on in Babylon life is no good. As too much junk food or cigarettes will shorten one's life, the rec legal market if grown with fossil fuels it's getting too similar to fast food chains. There is a need to recognize the land and sustainable farming, not the influx of fossil fuel large scale micro-grows that rely on greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible instead of human effort. As in - it's a race, here this is winning, burn up the whole planet before anyone catches on. What motivates someone to do that makes you wonder.
Last edited:
St. Phatty
Active member
At this point the people are so addicted to fossil fuels, the oil companies could start focussing a lot of their R&D on renewable fuels, and it wouldn't change a lot.
Renewable fuels like Peanut Oil & Scotch Broom extract are very interesting. But if everybody forced themselves to stop consuming fossil fuels, they would find themselves very cold or very hot, very hungry, and very thirsty.
American society is built very thoroughly on low-cost energy, which most of the time, renewables are not.
Climate deniers lose bet, won't pay $10k!
https://climatecrocks.com/2018/10/1...youre-not-surprised-that-they-wont-pay-right/
https://climatecrocks.com/2018/10/1...youre-not-surprised-that-they-wont-pay-right/
There's fuel sources everywhere and plenty of ways that humans can harness them. Look at who's running the government and it's plain why we're still burning coal and oil.
How much energy did Kilauea release in it's eruptions? Combine volcanic energy with the constant winds and surf and you've got all the energy you need. Yet Hawaiians spend billions each year to haul oil to their islands and burn it. I've heard plans for Hawaii to go 100% renewable by 2045 but we'll see.
Look at how much food we throw away. And how much heat a compost pile makes. Hell they even have machines that use humans as batteries. Oh wait that was the Matrix but you get my point. There's energy everywhere on earth. It's what form you choose to build the infrastructure around and harness. The problem is the resistance from the status quo if we switch to bacteria or earth produced energy.
Of course a source like fermentation is going to produce C02. The difference is the stuff that gets fermented would be part of the earth's cycle of life as opposed to plants and animals that were sequestered under the earth millions of years ago.
They'll say it'll be cost prohibitive to switch but that's at the start. Switching 20 years from now will cost hundreds of times more. And waiting until we have to will cost more then we can pay.
How much energy did Kilauea release in it's eruptions? Combine volcanic energy with the constant winds and surf and you've got all the energy you need. Yet Hawaiians spend billions each year to haul oil to their islands and burn it. I've heard plans for Hawaii to go 100% renewable by 2045 but we'll see.
Look at how much food we throw away. And how much heat a compost pile makes. Hell they even have machines that use humans as batteries. Oh wait that was the Matrix but you get my point. There's energy everywhere on earth. It's what form you choose to build the infrastructure around and harness. The problem is the resistance from the status quo if we switch to bacteria or earth produced energy.
Of course a source like fermentation is going to produce C02. The difference is the stuff that gets fermented would be part of the earth's cycle of life as opposed to plants and animals that were sequestered under the earth millions of years ago.
They'll say it'll be cost prohibitive to switch but that's at the start. Switching 20 years from now will cost hundreds of times more. And waiting until we have to will cost more then we can pay.
St. Phatty
Active member
If you ever use your mouth to get a suction flow going on a tank 100 feet uphill from you - .e.g to power a generator, be very careful.
If you're still holding on when the full force of 100 feet of pressure gets to your mouth ... well let's just say your insides were not build to withstand that kind of pressure.
If they ever make a movie about Preppers, that would be a gory/grisly & possibly entertaining scene.
Energy doesn't matter so much as Concentrated Energy, and Temperature & Pressure DIFFERENCES.
If you're still holding on when the full force of 100 feet of pressure gets to your mouth ... well let's just say your insides were not build to withstand that kind of pressure.
If they ever make a movie about Preppers, that would be a gory/grisly & possibly entertaining scene.
Energy doesn't matter so much as Concentrated Energy, and Temperature & Pressure DIFFERENCES.
DTOM420
Member
I guess a lot of you would call me a climate denier but I’m really not. I think I’m more in the middle. I believe we’ve had an impact (I have zero doubt of that) but I doubt that the impact is as severe as the loudest climate change promoters are claiming. Is it lost on anyone here that this debate mirrors all the other debates in our country? It’s all about the extremes. It’s like people suddenly understand the old phrase, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” and have decided to employ that adage in their ‘cause de jure.‘ The true deniers, who claim man hasn’t effected anything defy common sense but, to be fair, they are a kind of natural reaction to the hyperbolic claims that have been put forth by the “global warming” proponents since day one. I know this is a HOT topic with folks but step back for a second and imagine we were talking about something else....something that you didn’t feel strongly about. I’m trying to get away from the strong feelings you might have and at least get you to understand the thinking on the other side. It’s not to convince anyone to change their mind, here; but maybe if we could understand each other’s position and RESPECTFULLY disagree we could find the common ground needed to achieve some modicum of positive change.
So imagine there was an issue that arose tha DIDN’T really peak your interest (for whatever reason) and some very well known people started saying the world was going to end and they started quoting some scientific predictions of an impending doomsday; complete with specific catastrophic events by specific dates. Kind of like what happened to cannabis in the 1930’s. Then, imagine that this caused a sense of absolute paranoia in some, resulting in massive funding being made available to university scientists who, previously scratched out just enough grants to keep their tiny departments open each year. Suddenly, these heretofore obscure scientists are the talk of the town and they have a lot of people sitting on the edges of their seats waiting on the results of scientific results to start rolling in. Now that I’ve set the stage and hopefully you still are trying to keep an open mind, let’s continue. What type of results would you expect to start rolling in? What happened when the same scenario that I layed out occurred with cannabis? How many scientists, faced with a funding tree or cash cow, are going to come back with an answer like, “Yeah, sorry folks, it turns out we were wrong and there’s definitely something there but, while it’s something we ought to work on, it’s not a doomsday scenario like ‘Joe Blow’ said;” much less, “Oops, we were wrong. Our bad!” OF COURSE they wouldn’t come back and say that. How many would, even if it was the truth. Who wants to go back to a closet office and an underfunded lab and general parking for their 15 year old Yugo after having a dedicated spot by the front door experiencing how massive grants can change your life. Who wants to fade back into obscurity after a stint in the limelight? It’s simple human nature. The outcome of the initial studies was a foregone conclusion. Then, try to imagine how this wouldn’t lead to a mad rush to jump on the gravy train.
Now, you’ll notice I said nothing about the validity of the scientists’ findings. That’s irrelevant to the point I’m making here. My point is about the PERCEPTION of the results; and the need to understand why some people might not agree with a certain “scientific” theory, regardless of its popularity in the scientific community. Keep in mind, Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and some of his other theories flew in the face of scientific theory at the time. It took a long time for science and mathematics to admit they had been wrong all this time and that someone in the minority was correct. Maybe if we can grasp an understanding of this, it’ll help us RESPECTFULLY disagree. Science is by no means infallible (history proves it) because it’s made up of humans with the same desires and weaknesses as those in any other profession - greed, avarice, desire for fame, narcissism, etc. We place an awful lot of faith in “science” when it suits our personal beliefs but deny it when it doesn’t. We ALL do it. Until pretty recently, the scientific community was pretty well lined up against cannabis as well. Keep in mind, people love railing against “big pharma” but that industry IS science. It’s fueled by scientists, guided by scientists and, for the most part, run by scientists who hire businesspeople to make the most from their research. It’s the holy grail for many many scientists - a discovery that will make them wealthy beyond dreams and go down in history.
A full-on denial that climate change has and is occurring is just silly. 100%! But, so is (IMO) the absolute blind faith acceptance of all things the scientific community puts forth regarding climate change. Remember that these scientific experts and all their studies and models said that most of the eastern seaboard of the US would be under water by now.
We are headed for catastrophe far quicker with the polarization in this country (and the world) than we are from any other issue. I don’t know what caused this shift to the dark corners and whether the ‘silent majority’ is still out there; but if we continue to take extreme positions (you name the subject) and be unwilling to bend or open minded enough to understand the opposition, we’re going to tear ourselves apart. Maybe that’s what some want but I suspect they’re really in the minority. This ‘my way or the highway’ attitude that exists in today’s debates HAS to end. This thread is so full of mocking and direct attacks on opposing viewpoints that it’s scary. Goodness, if a bunch of stoners can’t even respectfully disagree and discuss differing opinions and conflicting science, how on God’s green earth are we ever going to fix anything?
So imagine there was an issue that arose tha DIDN’T really peak your interest (for whatever reason) and some very well known people started saying the world was going to end and they started quoting some scientific predictions of an impending doomsday; complete with specific catastrophic events by specific dates. Kind of like what happened to cannabis in the 1930’s. Then, imagine that this caused a sense of absolute paranoia in some, resulting in massive funding being made available to university scientists who, previously scratched out just enough grants to keep their tiny departments open each year. Suddenly, these heretofore obscure scientists are the talk of the town and they have a lot of people sitting on the edges of their seats waiting on the results of scientific results to start rolling in. Now that I’ve set the stage and hopefully you still are trying to keep an open mind, let’s continue. What type of results would you expect to start rolling in? What happened when the same scenario that I layed out occurred with cannabis? How many scientists, faced with a funding tree or cash cow, are going to come back with an answer like, “Yeah, sorry folks, it turns out we were wrong and there’s definitely something there but, while it’s something we ought to work on, it’s not a doomsday scenario like ‘Joe Blow’ said;” much less, “Oops, we were wrong. Our bad!” OF COURSE they wouldn’t come back and say that. How many would, even if it was the truth. Who wants to go back to a closet office and an underfunded lab and general parking for their 15 year old Yugo after having a dedicated spot by the front door experiencing how massive grants can change your life. Who wants to fade back into obscurity after a stint in the limelight? It’s simple human nature. The outcome of the initial studies was a foregone conclusion. Then, try to imagine how this wouldn’t lead to a mad rush to jump on the gravy train.
Now, you’ll notice I said nothing about the validity of the scientists’ findings. That’s irrelevant to the point I’m making here. My point is about the PERCEPTION of the results; and the need to understand why some people might not agree with a certain “scientific” theory, regardless of its popularity in the scientific community. Keep in mind, Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and some of his other theories flew in the face of scientific theory at the time. It took a long time for science and mathematics to admit they had been wrong all this time and that someone in the minority was correct. Maybe if we can grasp an understanding of this, it’ll help us RESPECTFULLY disagree. Science is by no means infallible (history proves it) because it’s made up of humans with the same desires and weaknesses as those in any other profession - greed, avarice, desire for fame, narcissism, etc. We place an awful lot of faith in “science” when it suits our personal beliefs but deny it when it doesn’t. We ALL do it. Until pretty recently, the scientific community was pretty well lined up against cannabis as well. Keep in mind, people love railing against “big pharma” but that industry IS science. It’s fueled by scientists, guided by scientists and, for the most part, run by scientists who hire businesspeople to make the most from their research. It’s the holy grail for many many scientists - a discovery that will make them wealthy beyond dreams and go down in history.
A full-on denial that climate change has and is occurring is just silly. 100%! But, so is (IMO) the absolute blind faith acceptance of all things the scientific community puts forth regarding climate change. Remember that these scientific experts and all their studies and models said that most of the eastern seaboard of the US would be under water by now.
We are headed for catastrophe far quicker with the polarization in this country (and the world) than we are from any other issue. I don’t know what caused this shift to the dark corners and whether the ‘silent majority’ is still out there; but if we continue to take extreme positions (you name the subject) and be unwilling to bend or open minded enough to understand the opposition, we’re going to tear ourselves apart. Maybe that’s what some want but I suspect they’re really in the minority. This ‘my way or the highway’ attitude that exists in today’s debates HAS to end. This thread is so full of mocking and direct attacks on opposing viewpoints that it’s scary. Goodness, if a bunch of stoners can’t even respectfully disagree and discuss differing opinions and conflicting science, how on God’s green earth are we ever going to fix anything?
St. Phatty
Active member
Europe actually uses compost/ biomass heating to heat water & buildings.
America wasn't smart or honest enough, to step away from the technologies promoted by the corporate interests that run its show.
St. Phatty
Active member
Every degree above 80 degrees F is serious sh.t.
That's related to how the recent hurrican picked up energy travelling over the Gulf west of Florida (surface temps were about 84 F) and hit the coast as a Cat 4+.
I was looking for the thread where people started talking about the fire in Ventura.
Ever heard of the Hanford nuclear lab in Washington ?
There is something similar in the Ventura fire, the Santa Susana lab, which has a lot of terrible distinctions.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...ie=UTF8&mid=1HacmM5E2ueL-FT2c6QMVzoAmE5M19GAf
/\ Fire Footprint
https://www.google.com/maps/place/S...6b990c38478a4!8m2!3d34.2319335!4d-118.6960651
/\ Santa Susana Field Lab, on Alfa, Bravo, & Test Area Roads, next to Skyline.
The problem lab is entirely within the footprint of the Woolsey fire.
Military contractors that run labs for the government have one specialty: Fraud. Northrop Grumman, for example. The prime contractor for Santa Susana might be Boeing, they got a big facility a few miles to the North.
Given the history of the problem lab & the inability of the US government to level with the US people, and the recent prevailing winds (from the Northeast) –
* if I had family in the area I’d move them upwind of the smoke by 100+ miles. Then wait 6 months while it begins to be sorted out.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Wow. 100 miles might not be far enough. Maybe it's time to go east.
Stinkhorn123
Active member
Carbon Farming?
JakeMacLeodWbE1
New member
Wow, this is a really cool article. But unfortunately now, many people have stopped paying attention to this, although the problem has not disappeared. Every day our planet is polluted more, which provokes the growth of human deaths.
JayHolloway
New member
The issue gets worse each day. That's frightening.
It was hotter the last few days than I have ever seen in the 35 years I have lived here...
Record low temperatures in South Australia for August.
The issue of climate change is actually very tough. The glaciers are melting, the temperature is rising. I was recently in Dubai - and it was hotter then few yeras ago. No plants other than cactus can survive in such climate. It is good that they have money, but there are poor countries that are losing their harvest each year due to the temperature. It's really scary. Recently I real a lot about it at xxxxxxxxxand notice that carbon dioxide emissions are growing exponentially every year and the temperature on the planet is constantly rising. I think that at such moments it is difficult to deny climate change on the planet.
Last edited by a moderator:
you didn't, you posted here in 2018, nothing's changed. they're still are saying hottest ever and claiming it is because of those damned fire breathing combustion engines and what we power them with.
they (in this thread) have even stooped so low as to claim CO2 weighs 20lbs for every gallon of gas burned by combining it with O2...that would make O2 mostly responsible for heating the atmosphere over the entire planet by a marginal degree in temperature. bollocks! that sleight of hand don't resonate with the informed few who know the real reason it's hot/cold.
wait...isn't this a pressing problem? nah, because orange man bad...wait till we get progressives to implement taxes that crush everyones lives, then the real problems will be revealed.
they (in this thread) have even stooped so low as to claim CO2 weighs 20lbs for every gallon of gas burned by combining it with O2...that would make O2 mostly responsible for heating the atmosphere over the entire planet by a marginal degree in temperature. bollocks! that sleight of hand don't resonate with the informed few who know the real reason it's hot/cold.
wait...isn't this a pressing problem? nah, because orange man bad...wait till we get progressives to implement taxes that crush everyones lives, then the real problems will be revealed.
St. Phatty
Active member
https://katu.com/news/local/gov-brown-addresses-destructive-oregon-wildfires-on-wednesday
Gov. Brown strayed into talking about Climate Change in her Wednesday webcast about the fires in Oregon.
It didn't start becoming a BIG problem until Tuesday morning, when the wind started.
Now Oregon has the same problem California usually gets in October.
Brown was doing so good - until she "went there".
I have no problem talking about climate change, but I think it's important not to mix metaphors in a public discussion.
It tends to obfuscate, not illuminate.
Gov. Brown strayed into talking about Climate Change in her Wednesday webcast about the fires in Oregon.
It didn't start becoming a BIG problem until Tuesday morning, when the wind started.
Now Oregon has the same problem California usually gets in October.
Brown was doing so good - until she "went there".
I have no problem talking about climate change, but I think it's important not to mix metaphors in a public discussion.
It tends to obfuscate, not illuminate.
