The Right Side of the News

Or the people that have them and are making 10%+ on the investment. Like me.

The same way I'd have proposed to deal with the problem of slavery in 1860. Let whoever wants to volunteer to deal with it in their own lives do it, and let new technology gradually phase it out. Electricity, nuclear, and possibly wind and solar will be more economically feasible in 50 more years than fossil fuels, as fossil fuels get more scarce.Gasoline engines, new machinery technology, and civilized increased public pressure would have had slavery dropping state by state until 1900, when it would have been completely gone, and 600,000 men and a million horses and mules would have still been alive. If climate change fanatics don't slow their arrogance down, it's going to happen again. More urgent to have a course of action on getting increasing, unsustainable debt under control.

Because we have no concept of a power-hungry government magically stopping at only taking "some" liberty and money.

quote:

---

The same way I'd have proposed to deal with the problem of slavery in 1860. Let whoever wants to volunteer to deal with it in their own lives do it, and let new technology gradually phase it out. Electricity, nuclear, and possibly wind and solar will be more economically feasible in 50 more years than fossil fuels, as fossil fuels get more scarce.

---

In other words you don’t care about the outcome - you just don’t want anything to inconvenience you. If it means that too little is done, too late then you don’t care.

quote:

---

Gasoline engines, new machinery technology, and civilized increased public pressure would have had slavery dropping state by state until 1900, when it would have been completely gone, and 600,000 men and a million horses and mules would have still been alive. If climate change fanatics don't slow their arrogance down, it's going to happen again.

---

The civil war started because the slave states wouldn’t let go of slavery. Not because of a crusade to eliminate it.

quote:

---

More urgent to have a course of action on getting increasing, unsustainable debt under control.

---

Then I guess you had better vote Democrat. The Republican policy has been to increase the debt. As Trump has done.

"Some" yes, not constantly increasing. Yes, in different ways in different territories, so that they can be compared with each other, and the best way can be decided by those who are still deciding, or are considering changing something. It's not the same as FEDERAL decisions. California, Illinois, and New York (state) are three of the biggest population losers in recent decades.Just a moment... Those are both among the very few things authorized by the Constitution as being the responsibility of the Federal government. That's nice, but it's not specific about anything. Here's something that's specific;

quote:

---

10th Amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

Not very well followed today, but the Federal governments powers are actually supposed to be limited to only those things spelled out in the Constitution. The states, or the people, are supposed to take it from there. The only real way to consult the people is by ISSUE VOTES, something that is seldom done today. We're pacified into thinking that it's okay for Congress to determine what people want.

And my answer, yes. Now I would ask you to answer one loaded question from me since I answered yours. That question is; Is the U.S. $22 trillion in debt? That would depend on what the definition is of the "basic issue". If the basic issue is creating fear, scaring the public into giving up significant liberty and money, it's much easier when instances of warmth, cold, wind, storms, fires, and whatever else they can dream up is used, as compared to using only -warmth-, as a fear factor. I know, it's a big secret. I'm the one that's been asking about it, and I get no answers. Why can't it be discussed now? Why do we have to wait until the next Democrat president declares a national emergency, and be surprised who gets slammed first? I'd like to discuss actions, it's the climate change alarmists who are demanding actions, I'm not. I'd expect them to lay them out, not try to hide them unless of course, they're afraid to lay them out because of political backlash. I'm not talking about vague, political honey, I'm talking about nuts-and-bolts action, like federal emissions tests for cars, tests for heavy trucks, tests for off-road farm and construction equipment, tests for small engines, on and on. Mandated scrapping of useful, privately owned equipment. Closing energy plants, driving energy costs up. Are you okay with the government seizing your car? Will you use the new technology even if you can't afford it? Borrow money to get it? Since California has it's current financial mess, is losing population, and has a serious homeless problem, no.

The guy in the picture you posted in Message 4127 was referring to today's Democrats. It was a lie.

California financial mess? Please do tell.

actually I think it was a triple postEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Double post.Percy, happened when I was posting from my phone. Since there is lag on cell connection I hit post twice.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Capitalism is the ONLY THING that goes along with liberty and limited government, that is the basis of U.S. foundings. THAT MESSAGE WASN'T DIRECTED AT YOU. It was to Theodoric, who asked me what I was referring to in my mention of "the text of the Constitution and intent of the framers", so that he could destroy me. I showed him, with a link, and he sputtered with rage, called me names, claimed to be referring to later amendments, the Constitution as of 2020, and destroyed me. He didn't need your help!

What was causing that?? Too many model T's? With no consideration to the countries who have benefitted greatly from U.S. technology and innovation, without paying anything for it? There is more to be done in that regard, but France and Sweden seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. Working on it and researching it seems like it could be a lot less painful than destroying lives and businesses in the U.S. So the climate never has changed much since the beginning of time up until about 100 years ago, when humans started burning fossil fuels? Climate change alarmists accusing others of fear mongering. You cannot make this stuff up.

I can do that!

quote:

---

Ordinary people like me don't understand climate science, but we can spot cheating a mile away. Without the assistance of a complicit Western media in burying multiple indisputable cases of outright scientific fraud, man-made global warming theory would have been blown out of the water years ago.

​

One of the most brazen instances of inexcusable scientific misconduct is documented by photographic evidence gathered during a three-month investigation by a veteran meteorologist. As reported by Dr. David Evans, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) placed hundreds of official global warming thermometers in locations entirely unsuitable for gathering natural temperatures:
Adjacent to hot engines of parked vehicles
On asphalt-covered roofs
Near hot exhaust vents of air conditioning units
On heat-retaining airport tarmacs and paved parking lots
Next to heat-retaining rock formations and brick buildings
Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so every artificial upward nudge creates a deceptive picture of actual temperatures. To avoid artificially elevated readings, NOAA's own official site location standards require that thermometers be placed at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface, and in a level, open area with natural ground cover. Those standards were clearly subverted, and every voter should demand to know why.

​

No supporter of man-made global warming theory who sees the photographs in the PDF linked to above — all of which have been downplayed, or outright ignored, by the complicit Western media — can fail to ascertain that the theory they support is being kept on life support by scientific fraud.

​

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public
As reported in Forbes, the following unguarded statement was made by one of the climate crisis industry's loudest drum-beaters, the late Dr. Steven Schneider, lead author of numerous alarming U.N. climate reports and former professor of climatology at Stanford:

​

We need broad-based support to capture the public's imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

​

In other words, one of the climate crisis lobby's most loyal sycophants told his like-minded colleagues that they not only must conceal evidence that casts doubt on global warming theory, but also craft their research in dishonest ways designed to create terror in the minds of a trusting public. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that dishonesty and concealment of contrarian views have no place in legitimate science.

​

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions
As reported by Fox News, a 2015 report published in the journal Nature Climate Change compared 117 computer model projections during the 1990s with the amount of actual warming that occurred. Of the 117, only three were roughly accurate, while 114 over-estimated the recorded warming. (The lopsided results suggest that those doing the modeling may have been guilty of using an unscientific technique known as garbage in, garbage out.) On average, the computer models predicted twice as much warming as that which actually occurred.

​

The wildly inaccurate predictions reported by Nature Climate Change were not alone. In a terrifying May 11, 1982 prediction trumpeted in the Western media, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) decreed that an environmental "tipping point" was closing in: "Earth faces environmental disaster as final as nuclear war by the end of this century unless governments act now." That bone-chilling assessment was seconded seven years later, in July 1989, by another senior U.N. climate official, Noel Brown, who warned: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by 2000." When that tipping point came and went 19 years ago, others were concocted, including one by NASA scientist Dr. James Hanson, who declared in January 2009, "President Obama has just four years to save Earth." As one frantic tipping point after another falls by the wayside, a new one is invented, each of which is breathlessly reported by the complicit Western media.

​

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history
In serving as willing propagandists for the climate crisis industry, Western media portray every severe weather event as the "worst ever," which they are now doing regarding the drought in the Southwestern U.S. and the flooding caused by Hurricane Florence. What the alarmists try to hide from voters at all costs are inconvenient parts of Earth's climate history, such as these:

​

Ancient mega-droughts were infinitely worse than anything people living in modern times have seen. Example: Around the year 850 AD, a mega-drought in what is now the Desert Southwest lasted a staggering 240 years, and that catastrophic climate event was preceded a half-century earlier by another mega-drought that lasted 180 years. Absent that kind of information, it's no wonder so many otherwise intelligent Americans have been conned into believing that the current drought is the "worst ever."

​

The Great Hurricane of 1780 killed 20,000 people in the Caribbean. On Sept. 8, 1900, a Cat-4 hurricane obliterated the island of Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 10,000 residents. In 1927, weeks of heavy rains along the Mississippi River caused flooding that covered 27,000 square miles, leaving entire towns and surrounding farmland submerged up to a depth of 30 feet and displacing 640,000 people, from Louisiana to Illinois. The Yangtze River flood of 1931, one of the deadliest single events in human history, was responsible for a death toll estimated at 3.7 million.
Hurricane Florence and the flooding it caused were unquestionably devastating. But the worst ever? You decide.

​

You won't hear a peep about past ecological disasters in the debate over global warming. The climate crisis industry conceals inconvenient parts of Earth's climate history that undermine its "worst ever" claims.

​

Bottom line: Listed above are four reasons — I have many more — why I will bet my life that "climate change" is a flat-out hoax.

---

https://www.americanthinker.com/...ge_is_a_flatout_hoax.htmlNeed more?, there is plenty more.Climate Change Is A Hoax Climate Change Hoax Exposed - Cal ThomasThe Great Global Warming Hoax | 'Knowledge is Power' – better-management.org reveals invaluable informationPage not found | The Freedom PubDidn't get this from a google search, google is run by liberals, so much is covered up. I got the above from a yahoo search, there's plenty more.

As I understand it, yes it is. Worse than that, the current administration has elected to run the debt up at an even higher rate than it was being run up. You say "warmth". At some level of CO2 in the atmosphere it is no longer "warmth" it is catastrophe. It is pretty clear now that Florida is a gonner. The whole state. Gone! The is the simple, sure consequence of continuing to add CO2. The timing is still far from sure but it has already started. There are answers suggested all over the place. Why aren't you reading about them. As I noted one answer is to rush the conversion to electric cars. I will stretch my budget to do that as my part.
The governments of the world can do their part by, for one thing, stopping trillions is subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The first emissions tests for cars came in because the air was becoming more and more poisonous. Are you saying you want those rules removed? As we've learned more we see more is needed. If I am poisoning my neighbors then yes, cars that are the worst offenders have to go. That has been true here for some decades now and cars are taken off the road if they are too dirty. Though the rules are not, yet, taking CO2 into account. I will either use cleaner technology or, if I can't afford it then I can't drive. It would be immoral to do otherwise and, as I said, I am aware that I am immoral every time I start the engine. What, exactly, does any of that have to do with the air being cleaner in LA than it was decades ago? It can't be that you are advocating poisoning people over money. No one would do that.

So, totally disconnected from reality.Your reply had no connection to my message.