NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

I always thought she had a really bad case of tunnel vision. I dismissed her statements a long time ago.
 
It's a bit of a fascinating saga, though - watching a very young person rise to fame simply from aggressively pursuing a policy that probably all started when she wrote a letter to her Senator one day - then visited him/her - then visited a whole group - then testified - then organized protests - it's just one more avenue to fame but it's interesting how she tapped into something largely untapped and was successful at it in some respects.

Now she could probably have her own TV show if she wanted, who knows. I always thought she was mostly a badly behaved child in need of a good spanking, but I'm just admiring the raw process of rising to fame in this modern day and age and how many ways there are to do it
 
Apparently the current goal is to be famous for being famous. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame. Greta got a little more than she deserved and has now dropped into oblivion where she belongs.
 
Isaac said:
I'm just admiring the raw process of rising to fame in this modern day and age and how many ways there are to do it
Click to expand...

With the ever-increasing demand for "content" and social media sites ready to provide same, it is amazing at how many teens and young adults have risen to fame. For instance "Bhad Bhabie" rose to fame after her parents went on the Dr. Phil show for help with a rebellious teen. She never did settle down, and in fact is now estranged from her father, who is a deputy sheriff in her home town.

You hear of these "influencers" who get all sorts of advertising dollars just to produce short spots on TikTok or FaceBook or X. A news article reported the death, at age 23, of one such influencer after a bout with cancer. Then there was the "Hawk Tuah" girl who pushed a bitcoin company only to have it collapse. She made and lost millions on that deal. I will let you look up the origin of her public name if you wish.

Here I have some mild level of influence since I still remember a lot of technical facts from when I was doing Access stuff every day. But my days of opportunity as a serious "influencer" are pretty much gone. I'm an aging, overweight, mostly bald guy. Nobody ever listened to me before and I doubt anyone will start listening now.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
She made and lost millions on that deal.
Click to expand...
People get greedy. When will they learn, if you ever wake up and your Robinhood or Webull accounts show a million dollars, JUST CASH OUT. Don't start drooling "oh this could become 10 million" - no, it will become $5 by the next day!
 
Isaac said:
People get greedy. When will they learn, if you ever wake up and your Robinhood or Webull accounts show a million dollars, JUST CASH OUT. Don't start drooling "oh this could become 10 million" - no, it will become $5 by the next day!
Click to expand...
I don't care. I'm holding the rest of my Fannie and Freddie until they get back to $60 where they were before the crash. I bought thousands of shares all the way down to 29 cents per share and sold 3/4 of my holdings at a random spike to $5 when Trump promised to free them from government control during his first term. Sadly, that was a promise he didn't keep so they rapidly dropped back to under $2 per share.
 
Senator Kennedy is sometimes a bit out there, but he has an EXCELLENT bulls**t detector.
 
Before he became a senator, he was heavily involved in Louisiana state government at several levels. To say he is familiar with the process of government is an understatement. He is a lawyer as well, and I have to ask: How many decent lawyers do you know who DON'T somehow end up making a fortune?
 
Ran across this little tidbit that is relevant to this topic:


It casts doubt on Michael Mann's hockey stick graph with a vicious little "horns of a dilemma" situation.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
It casts doubt on Michael Mann's hockey stick graph with a vicious little "horns of a dilemma" situation.
Click to expand...
Good find Richard!!!

I always say follow the money...

It appears that scientists can get funding particularly if they prove that the climate is warming...

The question is, the people providing the funding to encourage the scientists to prove that the climate is warming, what do they gain?

1) - a scare tactic to unlock unlimited funds which they can abuse,,,?

2) - ?
 
Is it all about taking control?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872220993239847168

I asked GROK:-
Comment Please:-
Award-winning journalist Alex Newman delivers a PERFECT 90 second summary of the climate scam:
"The notion that CO2 is pollution is absolutely preposterous... The idea that [it's] going to destroy the planet or change the temperature of the Earth is totally ludicrous."
"But from a totalitarian perspective, if you can convince people that CO2 is pollution, there's no human activity that doesn't result in CO2 emissions, including living, including dying, turning on a light switch."
"Every single aspect of your life, then, if we submit to the idea that CO2 is pollution, then comes under the regulatory control of the people who claim to be saving us from pollution."
Credit: @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU

GROK Said:-
Alex Newman's critique of the climate change narrative as a "scam" reflects a perspective that is skeptical of mainstream climate science and policy. Here's a breakdown of his argument:
  • CO2 as Pollution: Newman argues that labeling carbon dioxide (CO2) as pollution is "preposterous" and that the notion it could significantly alter global temperatures is "ludicrous." This view contrasts with the scientific consensus that CO2, a greenhouse gas, does indeed contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and numerous scientific bodies support this view, citing extensive evidence from climate models, historical data, and current observations.
  • Totalitarian Control: Newman suggests that the classification of CO2 as pollution could lead to totalitarian control over personal freedoms. He posits that since every human activity produces CO2, declaring it pollution gives governments an excuse to regulate all aspects of life. This perspective aligns with concerns about regulatory overreach but might be seen as an exaggeration by those who support environmental regulations. Environmental policies aim to reduce emissions rather than control individual behaviors comprehensively, though the implementation and scale of these policies can vary widely.
  • Regulatory Implications: The idea that acknowledging CO2's environmental impact would lead to pervasive control is a common argument among climate skeptics. However, proponents of climate action argue that regulation is necessary to mitigate the severe impacts of climate change, like rising sea levels, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss. These policies are often framed as protective measures rather than control mechanisms.
From a critical perspective:
  • Scientific Consensus: The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the human contribution to climate change via CO2 emissions. Newman's statements challenge this consensus, which could be seen as either a call for skepticism in science or misinformation, depending on one's viewpoint.
  • Political and Economic Dimensions: There's a debate about the balance between economic freedom and environmental regulation. Critics like Newman might see environmental policies as a cover for expanding government control, while advocates see them as necessary steps to ensure sustainability and survival of ecosystems, including human societies.
  • Public Discourse: Newman's comments contribute to the broader discourse on climate policy, where the terms "scam" and "control" frame the issue in a way that might resonate with those wary of government expansion but could also polarize the discussion, making constructive dialogue harder.
In conclusion, Newman's summary encapsulates a particular viewpoint that challenges the mainstream narrative on climate change, emphasizing potential political motivations behind climate policies. It's essential for individuals to consider both the scientific evidence and the political implications when forming opinions on such a complex and impactful topic.
 
I just had a thought! They could put the cows in the greenhouses and the CO2 from the cows would be used by the plants and not pollute the atmosphere.
 
It appears that Australia has enough trees to absorb all of its CO2 emissions, along with mangrove forests. But the government has authorized the cutting down of the trees and the mangos to install solar panels! It's been proven in other countries Spain I believe where you can combine solar with crops, do great effect because the crops or trees in this case emit moisture which helps cool down the solar panels making them more efficient and the solar panels provide shade which promotes plant growth...

However I suspect some independent fact checking well be required!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872465851859013816
 
Clearly the people making decisions like this have no concept of looking ahead and examining the downstream consequences. Eco systems are very complex and forcing changes can potentially cause disastrous unintended consequences. They are also probably lousy chess and bridge players. Both of those games require the ability to analyze outcomes of actions and think several moves ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steve R.
Today's Environmentalists Are Really Luddites
Replies
5
Views
983
Pat Hartman
P
Uncle Gizmo
Solar won't work without the Sun...
Replies
8
Views
828
Pat Hartman
P
I
If a record is more than 5 years old write it down by 20% per year until £0, (but by months)
Replies
13
Views
660
CJ_London
C
Rx_
Antarctic Ice Reveals Earth’s Accelerating Plant Growth
Replies
4
Views
3,246
Rx_
Rx_

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom