Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 5088
    MEMBERS
  • 133187
    MESSAGES
  • 61
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Climate Change farce...   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started 9/8/22 by WALTER784; 45950 views.
Msg 312 of 368
In reply toRe: msg 311
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-1

<...>With the world population sitting at 8,057,937,765, that would mean we only have to kill off 4,028,968,883 people to become carbon neutral! World Population Clock: 8.1 Billion People (LIVE, 2023) - Worldometer (worldometers.info)

Greenpeace co-founder: Achieving ‘net zero’ emissions means ‘at least 50% of the population would die’

Andreas Wailzer
Thu Aug 17, 2023 - 4:52 pm EDT

(LifeSiteNews) — Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore has said that achieving “Net Zero” carbon emissions globally would lead to “at least 50 percent of the population” dying. 
 
“If we actually did it, my point would be that if we actually achieve net zero, at least 50 percent of the population would die of hunger and disease,” Moore said in a recent interview with BizNewsTv. 
 
“And no doubt about it, because of just one thing, which is nitrogen-based fertilizer, which won two Nobel Prizes,” he continued. “One for developing the process of combining natural gas with nitrogen in the atmosphere to make ammonia. And the other one, the other Nobel Prize, was for the person who scaled it up to an industrial level.” 
 
Moore stated that “at least 50 percent of the population depends on nitrogen fertilizer for its existence today.”  
 
“And there’s people trying to ban it. And the Netherlands and Sri Lanka have already made these kinds of moves.” 
 
READ: Dutch farmers’ strategy to fight Net Zero policies may have evolved beyond protests 
 
“So it is truly a death wish in disguise,” he continued. “And the disguise is to save the earth. Which doesn’t need saving, particularly.” 
 
Moore mentioned the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its founder Klaus Schwab as being among the people who are pushing the “Net Zero” agenda, saying that “I think they are our enemies.” 
 
“Not just our enemies, but the Earth’s enemies.” 
 
READ: How the World Economic Forum response to ‘climate change’ is virtually the same as their COVID approach 
 
CO2 is good for the environment, Moore argues  
 
Moore argued that having higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere is beneficial for the environment because “life is made with carbon.” 
 
“They’ve created a false narrative about CO2, which is actually the staff of all stuff of all life,” he said. “It is the most essential part of life. That’s why organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon.”  
 
Moore furthermore asserted that life on earth could flourish with much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than the current 417 parts per million (ppm).  
 
“The life that is here now could flourish in 4000 ppm CO2, which is ten times what it is [now], even after we’ve put all this CO2 into it,” he said. “I don’t think that there [are] enough fossil fuels to get it back to 4000 [ppm] because most of it’s locked up in rocks, in limestone, and in chalk and marble and dolomite.”  
 
Moore expressed his discontent with framing fossil fuels as a “dirty” source of energy, since “putting CO2 back into the environment where it came from in the first place is one of the most important things that has happened in the history of life on Earth.” 
 
“It’s a stupid thing that they’ve been able to get away with calling fossil fuels dirty. Because our food is grown in dirt, it’s ‘dirty,’” Moore said regarding the way words are used to paint certain types of energy in a negative light. 
 
Making the case for nuclear energy 
 
Moore argued that the only way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels without many people starving would be to transition from so-called “renewables” like solar and wind to nuclear energy.  
 
He said that fossil fuels should be mainly used for heavy machinery like “tractors and farm machinery,” while most other things could be
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 313 of 368 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 312
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-1

They can say whatever they want to but it’s not practical.  I don’t see them lining up to be the first to die to save the planet, so until they are, they should back off and leave people alone.  I have no problem with people wanting to follow any crazy ideas on their own but when they try to compel others to behave as they want them to, they are going against the very principles of freedom in our country.  

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 314 of 368 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 312
Dee (DLAINEDEE)

From: Dee (DLAINEDEE)

Sep-1

Net Zero means death for the planet.  These people are psychopaths, dying for their cause is just fine as long as they take out no less then 6 billion of us.  The elite at the very top, they want to get the population down to 500 million.

They are banning fertilizer and nitrogen, which without those very little will grow.  They are blocking out the sun, which means nothing will grow.  Without co2 nothing will grow.  They are destroying farmers, and buying up their land, which in then end means mass starvation.

Depopulation at its finest.

 

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 315 of 368 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 313
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-1

Showtalk said...

They can say whatever they want to but it’s not practical.

Too many people don't realize that and still think that it's possible.

Whether they were brainwashed, provided with misinformation, too stupid to understand or just believe anything the liberal news media says... is unknown. Perhaps all of the above?!?!?, doesn't matter... but they still believe it.

Showtalk said...

I don’t see them lining up to be the first to die to save the planet, so until they are, they should back off and leave people alone.

CHUCKLE... Yep... the best way to lead is by example... LMAO... so get up there and show us all how to depopulate yourselves!!! (* SNORT *)

Showtalk said...

I have no problem with people wanting to follow any crazy ideas on their own but when they try to compel others to behave as they want them to, they are going against the very principles of freedom in our country.

I would say a good majority agree with you. Sadly however, the minority are the ones pushing this farce and the liberal news media are trying to make it bigger than what it is!

But it's all about depopulation. 

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 316 of 368 to Dee (DLAINEDEE)DLAINEDEE 
In reply toRe: msg 314
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-1

Yep... their goal is depopulation.

Sadly, very few realize it to be as real as it actually is!

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 317 of 368 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 315
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-1

If people believed that was the plan, it would not happen.  

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 318 of 368 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 317
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-1

That's why more and more people need to be taught the truth about it and stop calling depopulation a conspiracy theory!!!

FWIW

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 319 of 368 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 318
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-1

Something can be true and also a conspiracy.  Until the facts prove it true, it s a theory or a conspiracy depending on what it is.  It stops being a conspiracy if it’s proven true.  

  • Edited September 1, 2023 10:13 pm  by  Showtalk
 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 320 of 368 to Showtalkshowtalk 
In reply toRe: msg 319
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-4

More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, declare climate 'emergency' a myth

The global coalition of scientists say that politics and a journalistic frenzy has propelled a doomsday climate change hysteria. The signatories also ask other scientists to "address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming."

By Addison Smith
Updated: September 1, 2023 - 10:03am

UPDATE:  The version of the story published on August 29 overbroadly characterized the exact language of the declaration itself regarding "greenhouse gasses." It has been corrected.
 
A coalition of 1,609 scientists from around the world have signed a declaration stating “there is no climate emergency” and that they “strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy” being pushed across the globe. The declaration itself does not demonize carbon monoxide and does not discuss any harmful effect of other pollutants. The thrust of the declaration challenges the hysteria brought about by the narrative of imminent doom.
 
The declaration, put together by the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL), was made public this month and urges that “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific.”
 
CLINTEL is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. 
 
“Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures,” the declaration says.
 
Of the 1,609 scientists who have signed the declaration, two signatories are Nobel Prize laureates. The most recent to sign is Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. In an announcement from CLINTEL, Clauser is quoted as saying "Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists."
 
The underlying report that engendered the declaration lays out a series of statements challenging many of the common climate claims. For example, one of the most common claims – and repeated without question by many – is that the earth will soon pass "tipping points that will lead to catastrophic environmental damage, including dangerous sea level rise, entire species going extinct, and even greater suffering in many nations, especially the poorest."
 
The sense of immediate crisis has been repeated constantly by mainstream media, including The New York Times, which said flatly, "Earth is likely to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade."
 
In 2009, former vice president Al Gore famously predicted that "the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013." He later backtracked, according to Reuters, who said Gore was merely quoting other scientific reports. Gore had three years earlier published "An Inconvenient Truth" the subtitle of which was "The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It." A documentary film based on the book earned $24,146,161 in gross receipts that year.
 
Celebrity activist Greta Thunberg tweeted in 2018 – five years after Gore's doomsday prediction – that "climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." The Highland County Press reported that she deleted the tweet.
 
Last week, John Kerry, President Biden's "Special Presidential Envoy for Climate" spoke at a conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, saying that "scientists who have spent a lifetime tracking this human-made crisis described themselves as 'alarmed' and 'terrified.' As one said unequivocally, “we are now in uncharted territory.”
 
"So now, humanity is inexorably threatened by humanity itself—by those seducing people into buying into a completely fictitious alternative reality where we don’t need to act and we don’t even need to care," Kerry added.
 
The signatories to the CLINTEL declaration say that global warming is “far slower than predicted,” and that “inadequate models” often guide climate policy. 
 
The CLINTEL d
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Msg 321 of 368 to WALTER784WALTER784 
In reply toRe: msg 320
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-4

They will be cancelled and lose their jobs.

 
 ReplyToggle Dropdown
Keep Reading
TOP