The Global Warming Scam!

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
I did watch the videos you posted and do appreciate the guy going as far as doing his own experiments and not just talk. And I do agree the fukushima has been exaggerated, but my problem being is there hasn't been any long term studies on DNA damage from radiation. And especially how some genetic diseases, don't start to appear until after the 3rd generation of offspring. I'm worried about males sperm being mutated and causing problems to the the future gens. These types of studies are short term studies. I find alot of us are playing russian roulette not doing long term studies. And with all the cancer in the world we should be thinking about making this stuff safer. .I still don't see the logic in using nuclear power and taking even slight risk when we could just use hemp, which is extremely cheap to grow. You do know oil companies biggest competitor was the hemp business and that's why many believe they demonized cannabis and hemp? Especially when they used hemp oil to power the first car, the oil companies were determined to destroy it!
I have a question: if the first car was hemp-oil powered (not contesting or confirming) then how the EF could oil companies that didn't exist (where did they sell their oil?) get the political power to squash the plant that supplied the paper for the USA's founding documents?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
I skipped the first post and doc browns so forgive me if this was addressed.

Keep in mind the ice we have up north, and the permafrost is sealing away Methane, adding to this fear of no return in 12 years. (Note this is not fear mongering of doomsday where the life will end, but if nothing changes, this is at the point where our climate is going to have drastic shifts that will not change back to what we see now. This can mean areas are rendered uninhabitable be it due to changes in rain, to being submerged underwater on the coast.

From my understanding, it seems it was overestimated how much effect is happening now, but what about the future? Something recent I found
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/fears-that-ancient-methane-could-add-to-warming-may-be-unfounded/3008540.article
Yes. Most ocean bed methane release goes towards acidifying the oceans, which supports toxic algae and jellyfish while wiping out fish, coral, and crustaceans. Are you saying that toxic algae blooms and the death of the ocean's nurseries is less of an issue than atmospheric carbon levels?
 

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
Yes I think it sucks sounding like a broken record but at the same time you need to drop the condensing tone like your first post here. Our job is to at least people to question the propaganda they are presented, doing it your way in your first post is only going to have people backlash at you. We want people to recognize there is a problem, and doing so means you have to adjust to who you speaking to. You shut them off, it is less people willing to make changes. Being open and civil about the issue, you may get them to recolonize that is propaganda and make them think.

Did you notice I at least got them to recognize both sides are trying to make money off this some form or another? except the money being earned to fight global warming can be used to help the cause, not some rich cooperation get richer.
Good points. It takes many paths and many people. I'm working diligently to save the world using my limited skills: I happen to be able to, due to nothing I can be proud of, solve pretty much any problem I'm presented with. Not my fault. You. On the other hand, can socialize far better than I. It takes all kinds, and if I were you (or vice versa) then seriously, wouldn't it be more efficient if one of us died?
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I have a question: if the first car was hemp-oil powered (not contesting or confirming) then how the EF could oil companies that didn't exist (where did they sell their oil?) get the political power to squash the plant that supplied the paper for the USA's founding documents?
During the early 1900's Rockefellers were dominating the oil market something like hemp would been a big competitor for them. And yes that's why it's even more corrupt our constitution, money was printed on hemp paper and they dare to demonize it! During the 1920s and 30s hemp and cannabis were politically demonized. And yes using the mexicans and calling it marihuana. I believe also the potential for hemp based plastics also led to the prohibition of cannabis and was lobbied by the oil companies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
During the early 1900's Rockefellers were dominating the oil market something like hemp would been a big competitor for them. And yes that's why it's even more corrupt our constitution, money was printed on hemp paper and they dare to demonize it! During the 1920s and 30s hemp and cannabis were politically demonized. And yes using the mexicans and calling it marihuana. I believe also the potential for hemp based plastics also led to the prohibition of cannabis and was lobbied by the oil companies.
Excellent point, gnome. Everything always has at least two reasons for being: the subconscious driver and the conscious excuse. "This caused that" is almost invariably a preschool-level argument
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,013
Role
Diaper Lover
Baby Tyrant,
You must be young (I'm jealous). Vehicles approached 50mpg 50 years ago. There's been essentially no advance in MPG in half a century. Most all of the gains have been consumed by higher horsepower.

My goal is to change that by doubling engine efficiency and halving rolling resistance and air resistance, resulting in a 200mpg large car that can run rings around a Lamborghini
Wow, I really had no clue we had that kinda MPG that long ago and as far as normal use in cars go; the only reason I could see needing more HorsePower than an average car for everyday uses would be if you lived in a state where there could be a lot of snow and you may need to go up hills; resulting in smaller cars with weaker engines unable to go over those snowy hills; of if it were a truck you were using to haul large amount of stuff (likely necessary for a Job or moving).

Otherwise extra HP seems like bragging rights; not really necessary but "hey my car has 800 HP isnt it soooooooo BadAss?" (Unless your job is track racing).

But yeah regardless of people Overexaggerting Global Warming, I think it is a major concern and people should stop acting against preserving the planet just to gain some profits?

Like they expect they will be dead before these problems come to fruition, so why should they care?
 

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
Wow, I really had no clue we had that kinda MPG that long ago and as far as normal use in cars go; the only reason I could see needing more HorsePower than an average car for everyday uses would be if you lived in a state where there could be a lot of snow and you may need to go up hills; resulting in smaller cars with weaker engines unable to go over those snowy hills; of if it were a truck you were using to haul large amount of stuff (likely necessary for a Job or moving).

Otherwise extra HP seems like bragging rights; not really necessary but "hey my car has 800 HP isnt it soooooooo BadAss?" (Unless your job is track racing).

But yeah regardless of people Overexaggerting Global Warming, I think it is a major concern and people should stop acting against preserving the planet just to gain some profits?

Like they expect they will be dead before these problems come to fruition, so why should they care?
Uh, "average power" is a moving metric. Folks don't notice that birds are rare because current people never have their skies darkened by a solid flock of passenger pigeons for hours. They talk about an average power vehicle today that would destroy a high powered vehicle of the 70s. That 45mpg car of the 70s had maybe 60hp (a guess) and took minutes and minutes to get to 65 mph. (Numbers inaccurate)

Shifting baselines is a serious danger. When you've never experienced normal nature how would you know that everything is collapsing?

It sucks to be old, but it brings a wider perspective
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,013
Role
Diaper Lover
I guess when I said Normal I meant like the average car you would see people driving, which is likely to be a cheap low HorsePower POS (weather it is an old one meant to last a short time frame or the cheapest Brand New Car you can buy; which still isnt cheap in the US (at least if you have to finance instead of just buying it) that would probably make for a good "Fair Weather Car" and not so much a car you could drive under almost any weather conditions (primarily though heavy snow and hills).

Of course you could also buy top of the line cars a few decades ago for anywhere from $3000-$3500 upwards of $5,000-$6,000 in the late 60s to early 70s and compared to today you had a higher wage and lower cost of living.

But regardless we shouldn't as a human race be putting money above our planet, this is particularly true for any of us with younger family members; you would want them living in a better future than where we are headed wouldnt you?

And it would probably scale back the rate of Global Warming if everywhere was easily accessible through public transportation, which isn't the case in a lot of The United States so less people would need to buy a car so the overall carbon footprint would be so much less.
 
Last edited:

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
I guess when I said Normal I meant like the average car you would see people driving, which is likely to be a cheap low HorsePower POS (weather it is an old one meant to last a short time frame or the cheapest Brand New Car you can buy; which still isnt cheap in the US (at least if you have to finance instead of just buying it) that would probably make for a good "Fair Weather Car" and not so much a car you could drive under almost any weather conditions (primarily though heavy snow and hills).

Of course you could also buy top of the line cars a few decades ago for anywhere from $3000-$3500 upwards of $5,000-$6,000 in the late 60s to early 70s and compared to today you had a higher wage and lower cost of living.

But regardless we shouldn't not as a human race be putting money above our planet, this is particularly true for any of us with younger family members; you would want them living in a better future than where we are headed wouldnt you?

And it would probably scale back the rate of Global Warming if everywhere was easily accessible through public transportation, which isn't the case in a lot of The United States so less people would need to buy a car so the overall carbon footprint would be so much less.
Yes, and I've dived deeper in the pool you describe, but today I've churned about all I can. Nothing you've said is glaringly wrong and I look forward to learning even more from you. Take care and good night
 

tiny

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,880
Role
Little
I used to be for global warming...
Sheesh! It's a bit cold here too, but that's a little extreme! :p

Global warming is also NOT supported by the independent scientist, only "POLITICAL SCIENTIST".
I did not state global warming is not happening...
So... global warming is a scam that independent scientists don't support... yet it is happening...?

Global warming is real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Arctic
 
Last edited:

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Sheesh! It's a bit cold here too, but that's a little extreme! :p




So... global warming is a scam that independent scientists don't support... yet it is happening...?

Global warming is real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Arctic
You need to reread my original post it's not a question of climate change is real or NOT. I'm challenging whats really causing climate change. I believe the real reason is increased solar activity from the sun. I believe the political scientist derailed the real cause to make money off taxing CO2. I'm in no way supporting pollution, oil companies, or Republicans. I'm very much for environmental issues. I just don't like politics twisting and perverting the real cause to gain profit over it, rather than solving the real problem.
 

Traemo

Est. Contributor
Messages
968
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Carer
Increased solar activity is a CONTRIBUTING factor, the real issue is the skyrocketed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with other greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases have the effect of blocking transmission and radiation of long IR (heat, basically). Yes, that means that a lower percent of solar IR gets in. That's not the issue, the problem is that lower and lower amounts of IR get back out, raising the planet's blackbody temperature. The thing to keep in mind here is that there's effectively an infinite supply of incoming solar energy (not actually true, but for all practical purposes here it is) but a finite quantity of stored heat. Do the math yourself, at a certain point the decreased input is more than offset by the decreased output.

The hole in the ozone layer is caused by a few things, the largest source ozone decomposition is actually UV radiation (no, it's not ionizing and y'all best learn the difference). This is actually a good thing, we want and need the ozone layer to absorb UV; and in the normal course of events the more ozone will be generated to replace what's "destroyed" by UV. The use of CFCs and related compounds created a secondary decomposition system, but one that didn't have any sort of regeneration involved decreasing the overall amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere. What most people don't realize is just little UV actually makes it to the planet's surface - the vast majority is absorbed in the upper atmosphere (like higher than planes usually fly). And without that protection . . . well, skin cancers would be the least of your worries.

The fission reactions in nuclear reactors can, in fact, be slowed down. You're right that, technically, they can't be turned off, but that has more to do with the impracticality of sticking moderators between every single atom of fuel. On the other hand, by using those same moderators, operators can radically slow the rate of triggered fission reducing the energy output of the pile to effectively natural nuclear decay. One of the issues with early reactor design was making it so that reactors would "fail" into the highest rate of energy production. This was, in part, one of the major causes of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (there were other, bigger problems here, but it was a factor). Any reactor designed and built in the last 30 years has the opposite philosophy - in the absence of power, coolant, etc, the reactor "fails" into "safe" condition. That is, the moderator elements are fully deployed into the core preventing as much fission as they possibly can.

tldr; greenhouse gases are the big problem, not solar activity - CFCs destroy ozone - modern nuclear reactors are safe and effective - ignorance is no excuse
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
414
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
My problem with nuclear energy is the core cannot be shut down. Especially after the fukushima nuclear meltdown and still to this today dumping radioactive material in the pacific ocean. I thing Hydro and magnetics sources power should be further researched. I mean hell we could burn Hemp oil at least to help with the transition away from the more dirty stuff. I mean the original car did run off it. And if it was grown organic, I don't see how burning it would release any toxic chemicals. It at least be cheaper and cleaner than coal or oil!
Not true for Gen 3 reactors, Fukushima was using a Gen 1 reactor and while it could still be shut down, human error played a large role in the plant going into meltdown, something which is almost impossible with Generation 3 reactors where the nuclear fission can be stopped at a moments notice. Hydro power will never work until you can get rid of the CO2 and Methane footprint.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
906
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Yes. Most ocean bed methane release goes towards acidifying the oceans, which supports toxic algae and jellyfish while wiping out fish, coral, and crustaceans. Are you saying that toxic algae blooms and the death of the ocean's nurseries is less of an issue than atmospheric carbon levels?
I am not sure, I just wanted get that information some light.
I did watch the videos you posted and do appreciate the guy going as far as doing his own experiments and not just talk. And I do agree the fukushima has been exaggerated, but my problem being is there hasn't been any long term studies on DNA damage from radiation. And especially how some genetic diseases, don't start to appear until after the 3rd generation of offspring. I'm worried about males sperm being mutated and causing problems to the the future gens. These types of studies are short term studies. I find alot of us are playing russian roulette not doing long term studies. And with all the cancer in the world we should be thinking about making this stuff safer. .I still don't see the logic in using nuclear power and taking even slight risk when we could just use hemp, which is extremely cheap to grow. You do know oil companies biggest competitor was the hemp business and that's why many believe they demonized cannabis and hemp? Especially when they used hemp oil to power the first car, the oil companies were determined to destroy it!
Keep in mind the biggest point of that analysis.

You are getting MORE radiation in airplanes then any effect of those plants even meltdowns, the most dangerous ones have sense to be a threat 8 days later. Natural occurrences like that black sand gives off more radiation then what has traveled though the waters from the meltdown. We could have more nuclear power but we don't because of the fears around them from not knowing information like this and the measures take place. To make sure you understand, what he is talking about with u238 (who says radioactive for millions of years, but because of that, it releases VERY slowly, so slow it does not really effect anything from the small amount, hence why the 8 day half life one is VERY dangerous during those 8 days. )

Then consider how he explained if you ate the MOST radioactive fish is the same as flying, and a lifetime dose can be comparable being an airline pilot. Then he notes normal bananas are more radioactive then the tuna found at fukushima.

Basically, these effects you are looking for, already exist from the natural formations like that black sand, flying, bananas, and the radiation your own body emits and comparing it to these power plants and meltdowns.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
906
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Yeah, AOC was right but made a rookie mistake. The world can't end, so that phrase is political self-harm. But yes, if we cruise along with business as usual for another decade or so the planet as we know it will be toast a number of years later. But hey, lots of stuff likes super hot environments. So unless you're a bigot (like me) who wants mammals and humans to thrive instead of thermophile's, drill, baby, drill
no she never said it would end in 12 years..
the news article I read she was CLEARLY, CLEARLY talking about the point of no return, it is the ALT RIGHT spinning her words to what you are saying here.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
414
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
To be honest, I don't think we'll be passed the PNR in 12 years, probably more like 80-100 years.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
906
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Good points. It takes many paths and many people. I'm working diligently to save the world using my limited skills: I happen to be able to, due to nothing I can be proud of, solve pretty much any problem I'm presented with. Not my fault. You. On the other hand, can socialize far better than I. It takes all kinds, and if I were you (or vice versa) then seriously, wouldn't it be more efficient if one of us died?
I am not sure how to answer that final question. But thanks for the comment about my ability to socialize.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
414
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
where did you get the information to draw this conclusion?
Better question would be where did the person who came up with the 12 year PNR limit get their information from for their conclusion? However where I got my information is primarily from keeping up with NASA, and I made my own conclusions from there.
 
Last edited:
Top