All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Bobby Bucks]

Since the developing nations are not going to do anything, if Kerry is right it doesn't make any sense to throw our money away doing "something". The problem is overpopulation, the solution is to decrease the population of the earth down to a sustainable number, we are pushing 8 billion now, some environmentalists say the earth can handle anywhere from 700 million to 2 billion, I'd certainly rather spend my tax money on reducing the population through a worldwide eugenics program than waste it on something that is going to do no good. Back when I was in college in the early 50s they taught us that the world's biggest problem is lower intelligence women having more children than higher intelligence women. Somehow eugenics got a bad rap when Hitler adopted it, but Hitler was also the biggest promoter of a non-smoking policy and we have adopted that without attributing it to Hitler.

We're now in a period of reverse eugenics being enhanced considerably with subsidies and woe to anyone who doesn't applaud this system, or worse yet question it. To use their own favorite term, the question begs, is this sustainable?

 

[Meandering]

Follow the money,

Declining populations make for declining economies.

Suck enough money out of an economy, and the population will decline and/or migrate/immigrate.

Chase populations around the world as they migrate, those moves generate new business, boost economies,

 

[Randolph Kinney]

My take on the global warming mess, it started with the ending of the little ice age (circa 1850) and has nothing to do with CO2, much less CO2 emitted by humans as supported by government data. Sea levels rises, as Terrel points out, land masses rise when the weight of the ice disappears from them plus the runoff of meltwater into the sea.

Look at the graph of carbon by humans and tell me about temperature. Warming started in 1910 by government estimates, however, carbon by humans remains relatively flat until 1940.

The CO2 theory has been the radiative forcing is instantaneous with increases of CO2, no delay.

Global mean surface temperature change since 1880. Source:NASA GISS

Source: Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres R.J. (2015). Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2015.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Follow the money,

Declining populations make for declining economies.

Suck enough money out of an economy, and the population will decline and/or migrate/immigrate.

Chase populations around the world as they migrate, those moves generate new business, boost economies,

Suck enough income and standard of living out of the economy and you have the German situation with Hitler coming into power because of that. Radical politics comes from increasing misery with no solution.

 

[Meandering]

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

So,
If the earth responds very quickly to greenhouse gases, why are we not seeing "quick response" in "ten years"? In 1977 Jimmy Carter made the claim that pollution caused by humans was changing the climate.

Quick question here Pete, other than CO2 which is a naturally occurring gas, necessary to sustain all life on the planet, Can you name the other "greenhouse" gases and their natural origins?

Also,

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What is the answer here?
In the past Earth's climate changed because of "greenhouse" gas, or,

the earth's climate changed because of a change in the orbit?

And this is the biggie;
Are these independent scientists with no current or future financial interest in the studies, or interest groups involved?

Were these scientists selected by a Scientist Management Company (SMC) to isolate them from any pressure from interested parties and to take away their financial incentive to be scientists?

If not, maybe they were pressured to say something they might not say because they were coerced, and that's why there is so much double talk in these studies, including "likely caused by" along with "must have been caused by" instead of the more simply result of proof of findings; "is cause by".

And not to confuse you any future than necessary as I realize some of this requires thinking,

But if thousands of years ago the earth responded to greenhouse gas, and,
we were not an industrialized population thousands of years ago,
where did those gases come from,
and how do we stop them from coming back, when they did not involve us?



.

.

 

[Meandering]

Suck enough income and standard of living out of the economy and you have the German situation with Hitler coming into power because of that. Radical politics comes from increasing misery with no solution.

Suck enough income and standard of living out of the economy and you have the German situation with Hitler coming into power because of that. Radical politics comes from increasing misery with no solution.

Are you saying that restricting migrations, a lack of financial resources to migrate, a lack of countries willing to accept migrants, and tightly controlling passports hinders the ability to leave a country, coups them in, until they do crazy things?

Syrian refugees are returning to Syria as they have no place to go. Maybe they'll unify and **** at the same time and blow us into the next solar system - changing our climate.


.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Are you saying that restricting migrations, a lack of financial resources to migrate, a lack of countries willing to accept migrants, and tightly controlling passports hinders the ability to leave a country, coups them in, until they do crazy things?

Syrian refugees are returning to Syria as they have no place to go. Maybe they'll unify and **** at the same time and blow us into the next solar system - changing our climate.


.

No, i am not saying what you said. I am saying people like Hitler will come to power because of the increasing misery, in any country, including the U.S. Just wait and see the outcome of the 2016 election. Shocking that Trump has the public support offering his diagnosis of the problems and their causes.

Trump: 'Our Leaders Are Stupid... The Mexican Government Is Much Smarter'

Donald Trump On Climate Change: 'I Believe It Goes Up And It Goes Down'
"So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-global-warming_5601d04fe4b08820d91aa753


Donald Trump Ridicules ‘Naive’ Obama On Global Warming

Billionaire presidential candidate Donald Trump ridiculed President Obama for his emphasis on climate change, calling his remarks on the subject “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in the history of politics as I know it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...d-trump-ridicules-naive-obama-global-warming/


Trump has captured the "German anger leading to Hitler" in the American public. Trump has hit the public's button capturing their outrage with the same old crop of politicians promising the same as last time without results. Plus the fraud of climate change caused by human CO2 emissions.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The Rise of Trump

Donald Trump appears to have defied the media and the political status quo once again.

Following the terrorist killings in San Bernardino, California, Trump called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States. He was quickly denounced by President Obama, Hillary Clinton, most of his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination and most media outlets for establishing an unprecedented religious litmus test. Trump countered that we’re at war with radical Islamic terrorism and that his suggestion is just common sense. A sizable majority of Republicans – and a plurality of all voters – agree with Trump and support a ban on Muslim immigrants.

Just one-in-three voters (34%), however, give Obama good or excellent marks for his response to the mass shooting in San Bernardino.

In a speech to the nation Sunday night following the first major attack by radical Islamic terrorists on American soil in several years, the president outlined the measures being taken to fight the radical Islamic State group (ISIS), called for more gun control and cautioned against anti-Muslim bias. But 69% of voters think the San Bernardino incident is primarily a terrorism issue rather than a gun issue.

Meanwhile, belief among voters that the terrorists are winning the War on Terror is near its highest level ever in regular surveying since 2004.

Perhaps then it’s no surprise that at week’s end, belief among Republicans that Trump is their next likely presidential candidate is nearing a record level in our latest Trump Change survey.

Voters also are far more likely to think the media is biased against Trump than against his chief Democratic rival Clinton.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter

 

[Meandering]

“Unfortunately, Americans don’t react until there’s a crisis," Murray said. “They are going to have to freeze in the dark until our citizens realize what’s been done to them in the name of this global warming hoax" said Robert Murray in a Bloomberg interview.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...eptic-climate-critics-fume-as-talks-near-deal

 

[Meandering]

Not to be political, but,

I find the Trump phenomena very funny.

The people are supporting him and the establishment is freaking out. There is no special interest money to control what he says or does not say, so the more outrageous his speech, the more "the people" like him, the more the establishment slams him, and seeks other alternatives.

But really,

What would the world look like if all "the people" had equal access to electricity, internet, cars, computers, healthcare, safe food and water???? Would an abundance of intellectuals grow from this larger pool of healthy people? Would more capitalists grow from this larger pool of healthy people? How long can the top predators be sustained with a diminishing food supply?

.