Global Warming is over.

[Kershaw]

Daily Mail and Washington Times? Lol.

Might as well check what Cosmo thinks as well.

[mbonder]

i thought it was about the climate?
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/w...ng-capitalism/

Did anyone actually read this? The quote that is being used as the "smoking gun" is this one:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

Somehow this has gotten transformed into "destroy capitalism".

Someone explain how you can read the first statement and then come out with the second.

[BraveUlysses]

Are you new here? George is a shameless liar and that's about the extent of the effort he puts into his posts

[mbonder]

I try to stay out of this sub forum because it sucks you in like a black hole for hours on end, but I'm not new here, just bored at work and figured I'd have some fun.

[gwb72tii]

The alarmists are in denial. Nothing will ever open their eyes.
The source reporting the news shouldn't matter, the news should matter.
And when you have an insider beyond reproach telling you flat out NOAA lied about the pause and global sea temps perhaps you might want to know?
Ah, I'm a romantic. I believe in things like integrity. My bad.

Same with the UN. Actual quotes telling you the agenda is not the climate.
Never mind, it wasn't reported on a "reputable" blog like skepticalscience. What a joke.

You alarmists remember "climate gate", hiding data, destroying emails, subverting FOI requests? Nothing is enough, is it?

And skeptics are the deniers. Pot calling the kettle black.

[BraveUlysses]

you should start a blog because you're really just using this forum a soapbox instead of an opportunity for discussion

:rofl: "I believe in things like integrity." :rofl:

[gwb72tii]

you should start a blog because you're really just using this forum a soapbox instead of an opportunity for discussion

:rofl: "I believe in things like integrity." :rofl:

Sorry brave, I'll limit my posts to 140 characters so you can follow along.

[Wschnitz]

George mate, you are pretty much repeating what they play on Conspiracy Theory sites and shows like Info Wars. All credibility is gone here.

[BraveUlysses]

Sorry brave, I'll limit my posts to 140 characters so you can follow along.

Even less content, that will help you make your case

[mbonder]

I'd actually like to believe that the statement that I quoted above is meant to mean that in order to better control the global climate you need to be more selective with the global economy. This is why there is the reference to changing economic development.

Some of this is just simple economics, the cheapest way to produce anything is usually the dirtiest for the environment. So if you look at the beginning of the industrial age, factories would spew smoke into the air and filth into the rivers. Eventually the waterway ecosystems died and people realized something had to be done to stave off total destruction of a vital resource, water. And so it cost more to produce your product because you couldn't just dump the filth in the river, but there was an added benefit to doing it the cleaner way and so the cost increase was justified and everyone agreed to follow suit for the better of humanity.

What they are talking about now is doing something similar. Changing the economic climate to push for cleaner solutions to production, this is actively steering economic development, similar to my example with the rivers, except now it's directed at air pollution not water pollution. Unfortunately, the results of water pollution were readily apparent with fish and water mammals dying and washing up on shore as well as drinking supplies no longer being viable. Atmospheric pollution isn't as visible and so there is the push back against the idea that dumping chemicals into the air isn't going to create problems.

Nothing here is about destroying capitalism, it's about directing it so that everyone benefits.

[nando]

Also Obama is here to steal all your guns!!!!!1

(still waiting for Obama to follow through with that - it was a campaign promise right? Somebody check Briebart).

[ForcedFirebird]

Any thoughts on the "blob"?

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-massive-blob-of-abnormal-conditions-in-the-pacific-has-increased-ozone-levels

[BraveUlysses]

interesting read

[E30 Wagen]

https://qz.com/953614/california-produced-so-much-power-from-solar-energy-this-spring-that-wholesale-electricity-prices-turned-negative/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo

I love hearing news of alternative forms of energy succeeding and I'm a big believer in the potential of solar energy.

[Massive Lee]

If every house could supply a portion of its own electrical consumption by using solar panels, that would help. But I don't think that a house can have enough solar panel surface to feed air conditioning for a day. And in California, I am sure that AC uses a big percentage of power consumption.