Now pretend this guy has IQ of 200+. Studied researched Climate Change.. possible Scam last 10-12yrs.. And soul purpose is in helping man kind. Btw how do Rats benefit my child's future? :)
All from today...
ADKer Wrote:
PL, or anyone else, a question on the super cycle oil chart...if this is a corrective super cycle wave 2 ending somewhere in the range we're currently experiencing, that suggests oil will exceed $150 at some point (perhaps decades) in the future. Seems unfathomable with the anti-fossil fuel sentiment and the rise of EV's, but the one scenario that seems to make sense with the EW chart is a devalued USD where the price of commodities soar (if they remain priced in USD)....curious how others see this in the context of the super cycle chart. Thx.
PL wrote...
My personal theory is that EVENTUALLY the hysteria will end, and people will realize that trying to blame climate change on an increase of 1 part per 10,000 of a trace gas that quantum mechanics shows immediately re-radiates heat IN ALL DIRECTIONS (not just "back toward Earth" but also toward space; i.e. it doesn't cause global warming -- and even if it did, 1 part per 10,000 (100ppm) change is negligible) will be seen as the superstition (I'm 99.9% certain) it is, and fossil fuels will again be seen as more beneficial than harmful.
Response from FilmFlam..
I agree with that and I have another one for you. What if it turns out that the solar cycle and background radiation cloud thesis turns out to be accepted, which it should since it has correlations that go back millennia not just decades. And all of this time, people have become convinced that CO2 causes the earth to heat up. So, then all the MSM starts telling people that it looks like we are heading for decades or longer of declining earth temperatures. What are they going to do? They are going to scream for MORE CO2.
So, I do try to remember to watch the coal stocks because they will see it coming first, I am sure.
EDIT: But it's still pollution, so I don't think we can necessarily blast the world with CO2 and not hurt the oceans for
PL...
No, no, no, don't get me started on this, especially in this market. 
CO2 is the single most important food for ALL life on Earth. CO2 is plant food, and plants are at the bottom of the entire chain. It's NOT "pollution" -- that's propaganda that they've repeated so often that people now reflexively regurgitate it. CO2 is absolutely CRITICAL to maintain our biosphere. "Pollution" isn't mission critical, and CO2 is more important to this planet than oxygen.
The ideal level of CO2 for plants is 3-5 times current CO2 levels.
During the Cambrian Explosion, when the ancestors of ALL modern animal life came to be, CO2 levels were more than 10 TIMES current levels. Yet ocean life THRIVED.
There's a reason they refer to all sources of CO2 as "sequestered" CO2 -- because it came from the atmosphere in the first place! Life used it up, and locked it up. By re-releasing it, we renew the biosphere, allowing life to use it again. If there is a danger for "the planet," it's the 400 million year DECLINE in CO2. Not the tiny increase we may have brought about.
We are in a CO2 DROUGHT right now. Earth needs MORE CO2, not less.
I'd put up links and screenshots, but it will sidetrack me too much..
.............
When you have a few moments, give Patrick Moore a listen. He's a "rational environmentalist," which is what I consider myself (you've seen my photos and know I have a VERY deep appreciation and love of nature, particularly the ocean!) -- and he's one of the original cofounders of Greenpeace, not some "oil man" or something. I don't 100% agree with anyone, but I think he's a lot closer to the truth than most of the mainstream media (which ONLY trots out the most alarmist of the alarmists) these days.
youtube.com
..........
afarsid Wrote: You probably already know this, but to provide more context to readers I want to state that CO2 is only one variable of "climate". For example, I could make the case that the sea level today should be 25 meters higher because that's what they were the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today.
But that theory would be a flawed because there are so many other variables that go into the models, having both positive and negative feedback effects (ie solar activity, biodiversity, glaciers, arctic and water temps, sea levels, etc). These can be debated until the cows come home. IMO, the main thing for people to consider is if the "rate" of these variables/climate change can sustain the population we have today (ie waterfront cities, food consumption, etc)
PL..wrote..
Ya'll need to stop trying to drag me back into this.
To measure rate of change, we first need:
1. A reliable long-term GLOBAL historical temperature record. No such record exists. Period, end of argument.
2. There are only 265 complete temperature records since 1900 (which is only the blink of an eye in geological time anyway), most of them are in the United States (which is COOLING), with some in Australia and Europe. Most of Africa is blank for that time. Most of Asia is blank. Most of the Arctic is blank. Antarctica is blank. Those also happen to be the largest landmasses in the world. We have NO reliable ocean record before 1970, when most of our record consists of BUCKET MEASUREMENTS by private vessels using thermometers, some of which were only accurate to ONE DEGREE C -- yet we tell people we are tracking changes in "global temperature" to one-TENTH of a degree? What a joke.
3. If these agencies were honest, their historical records would display ERROR BARS. Yet they don't. Right there, you know they're doing politics, not science.
4. So WHAT "rate of change"? Based on WHAT? There's no record to establish or compare rate of change. I'm not asking you, because I know this isn't your argument, this is an argument you've been told by "experts." These experts are either not being honest, or they're blinded by confirmation bias..
Theirs much more if willing to listen...Question is. Why listen to those destroying lives?,Our children's future!
Because They offer free $hit and you don't have to work?.. Life is work btw
|
