Hurricane Seasons, Erosion, Rising Seas, Sinking Land Mass

[Big Tyme]

Yes 5 million gallons of crude oil in the ocean is perfectly okay. How about all these toxic batteries, solar panels and windmill graveyards? You know tainting our water system? Or what about all the birds they kill? The animal habitat they are destroying? On top of all of that it’s not even practical. At what cost should we all pay to make you feel better about yourself?

Now you're worried about the whales and birds?!? Since you did not attach numbers to your claims, I will just ignore those.

[Big Tyme]

Some people like to live in fear. Remember in the 70's we were gonna experience another ice age? From global cooling to global warming to generic climate change. They just keep moving the goalpost of fear. Remember, our beloved climate czar, Al Gore, said we would be underwater by 2015. Just another control mechanism. Nothing more.

Sea levels are rising. I am not sure what point you are attempting to make

[CajunVic]

That is the sound of moving goalposts!! No not THOSE subsidies! Typical

. . .

[CrazyCajun]

Now you're worried about the whales and birds?!? Since you did not attach numbers to your claims, I will just ignore those.

No, Im not the one claiming to be an environmental savior. I’d be a lot more willing to listen if they would cut the bullsht and just admit they want to get rich, like oil rich than trying to tell me this is about saving the environment. Again, not sure what part of this bring a scam you don’t understand. I worked on a windmill project off the east coast that was shutdown by environmentalists bc of the impact on the sea life. It was very clear, very early on the project that the goal was to get as much of the money allotted by the government as possible. That was it, how much of this pie can we get. When bringing up ideas, concerns or more efficient ways to do things they didn’t want to hear it, how do we get the money.

[CajunNation]

It's understandable to have concerns about terms like "consensus," "reputable," and "anthropogenic" in discussions about complex topics like climate change. These terms can be viewed as deniable because they represent scientific conclusions that may challenge preconceived beliefs or ideologies. Can you expand here on your thoughts?

"Consensus" can be wrong and can change too often to warrant civilization ending governmental policies.

"Reputable" is in the eye of the beholder. 51 National Security "experts" wrote a consensus that was a lie not too long ago that changed History, but they were deemed reputable. Many entities cashed government checks to do research that was based on the Hockey Stick graph lie, but they were reputable.

Aside from Global Thermonuclear War, anthropogenic climate change is at worst a lie and at best amounts to nothing compared to the Earth's natural processes or the Sun cycles.

[CajunNation]

Sea levels are rising. I am not sure what point you are attempting to make

If you focus on the last 150 years, you miss the entire story.

Clean air. Clean water. Feed the poor. This should be our focus.

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.jpg

[fpc4life99]

"Consensus" can be wrong and can change too often to warrant civilization ending governmental policies.

"Reputable" is in the eye of the beholder. 51 National Security "experts" wrote a consensus that was a lie not too long ago that changed History, but they were deemed reputable. Many entities cashed government checks to do research that was based on the Hockey Stick graph lie, but they were reputable.

Aside from Global Thermonuclear War, anthropogenic climate change is at worst a lie and at best amounts to nothing compared to the Earth's natural processes or the Sun cycles.

So you're suggesting that unless a belief or understanding remains static, it shouldn't be considered worthy of exploration? Can you provide a few examples where unchanging beliefs have always been absolute truths throughout history?

While I understand that perceptions of credibility can vary, entities like NASA are typically recognized for their rigorous scientific research and data analysis. Should we disregard such organizations entirely, or is there a way to scrutinize information without dismissing reputable sources altogether?

As for climate impacts, do you believe that human activities have no impact on the environment whatsoever? Should all environmental changes be categorized as purely natural phenomena?

[Big Tyme]

If you focus on the last 150 years, you miss the entire story.

Clean air. Clean water. Feed the poor. This should be our focus.

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.jpg

Agreed.
The issue with this graph is that the Y is too big. Let's find a graph that shows less than a 20 meter interval. A 1 meter rise would be a major issue.

[CajunVic]

So you're suggesting that unless a belief or understanding remains static, it shouldn't be considered worthy of exploration? Can you provide a few examples where unchanging beliefs have always been absolute truths throughout history?

While I understand that perceptions of credibility can vary, entities like NASA are typically recognized for their rigorous scientific research and data analysis. Should we disregard such organizations entirely, or is there a way to scrutinize information without dismissing reputable sources altogether?

As for climate impacts, do you believe that human activities have no impact on the environment whatsoever? Should all environmental changes be categorized as purely natural phenomena?

1. NASA made it to the moon, so at least that end result was actually accomplished

2. While we all know that innovation takes TIME and MONEY, at some point, when there are no tangible results, then reality says it must be evaluated for a scam . . .

. . . that is where I am with clean energy efforts . . . it is about TIME for MONEY to run out from the gubment . . .

[CajunVic]

Agreed.
The issue with this graph is that the Y is too big. Let's find a graph that shows less than a 20 meter interval. A 1 meter rise would be a major issue.

. . . so you are saying that was graphed into importance . . .