Net Zero.... eeek

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
Did you look at the date??????
TIME
June 24, 1974 12:00 AM EDT

Back then it looked a lot different to now!!!!!

It's you that has a problem with time. half a century out of date.

Yes the date of publication is precisely the point. Today's scare campaign is often tomorrow's recognition of nonsensical globalist propaganda.

Time has proven the globalist propaganda of 1974 to be utter nonsense.

We sent men to the moon in 1969, but you seem to believe that we didn't know much about climate in 1794? LOL

And as far as computer modelling for "climate change" goes, most of the past claims based upon modelling have been proven wrong over time. like the hysterical claim published in the BBC in 2007/8 about the arctic summer sea ice being gone by 2012.

As for Wikipedia, their homepage confirms that it is not a reliable source of information.

These types of dead-set certain responses support my opinion that those who accept almost without question, the globalists claim about "anthropogenic climate change" exhibit behaviours akin to cult members.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

peacenlove said..

Yes the date of publication is precisely the point. Today's scare campaign is often tomorrow's recognition of nonsensical globalist propaganda.

Time has proven the globalist propaganda of 1974 to be utter nonsense.

We sent men to the moon in 1969, but you seem to believe that we didn't know much about climate in 1794? LOL

And as far as computer modelling for "climate change" goes, most of the past claims based upon modelling have been proven wrong, like the claim, published in the BBC in 2007/8 about the arctic summer sea ice being gone by 2012.

As for Wikipedia, their homepage confirms that it is not a reliable source of information.

Brother, the 1974 article, which I only skimmed through, I don't recall the journalist writing that scientists are overwhelmingly unanimous that the earth is cooling. There were some quotes attributing the cooling pattern to possible solar cycles or carbon blocking the sun. It read like it was written to pad out a slow news month.

People love speculation. Trump blames the recent plane and helicopter crash on the democrats.

I didn't make the claim about any consensus. I said, that it proves globalist propaganda to be bull dust yet again. Time is a publication known for it's globalist propaganda. Since the globalists, like those at the WEF, UN, IMF and World Bank are known to tell us plebs how to live while they indulge in the finest fruits of the earth, i thought it would have interest to all who value each soul equally.

I guess it's one of the reasons' for Time Magazine's death.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

There was a fairly large group of experts worldwide concerned the Y2K computer bug was going to be an issue.

You agree that climate change is real. It's debatable whether humans are causing it or not.

On one side there is a range of scientific evidence that humans are contributing on the other side we have the some carbon producing industry experts saying - nothing to see here.

Nothing wrong with being skeptical of experts motivation.

The three relationship 'experts' on MAFS are hopeless.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

There was a fairly large group of experts worldwide concerned the Y2K computer bug was going to be an issue. Governments Business military all spent billions on a problem that wasn't really a problem. The experts didn't know or were cashing in.

I love it when people show their ignorance in this particular case. Clearly you didn't work in the field.

So let's get this right...

1. Experts were concerned that there was going to be a problem with the changeover of Y2K, so they spent a bundle of money trying to fix the issues.

2. It wasn't really a problem as demonstrated by very few issues being experienced.

Does this not seem logical to you?

Heck, if you were in charge of that as a project you would be pretty proud of the result. What would you expect? That people spend a bunch of money on a problem and it is still is as bad a problem as it would have been without spending money to solve it?

That's just nuts.

Hmmm.... I knew my tyre was worn badly and due to blow out sometime soon. I replaced the tyre and there was no blow-out. Damn, I think I just wasted my money

Blind faith Carantoc - that's how many people can misread the most clear English and statements to confirm their particular biases and excuse their defence of the system's propaganda machine.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

fangman said..
Brother PNL did you actually read the article, or it did it just pop in your daily feed of malarkey? To quote the second paragraph:
" As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."
Yep. Pretty well nailed it.
To suggest the article is about global cooling alone is a poor misinterpretation of the piece and reminiscent of the PcD/PM33 playbook.

Aw come-on Seriously fangyman ? You can do better than that.

The title was Another Ice Age and the next words immediately after the summary you quote were:

However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Are you really saying the bold type there has "really nailed it" as well ? Or you chosing to ignore that part ?

I don't agree with what I think P&L is saying, but that particular article is in Time Magazine and it is promoting the notion that the world may be heading for another ice age. Saying it is anything else seems poor misinterpretation of the piece and reminiscent of the PcD/PM33 playbook

How much further does one need to quote :

Telltale signs are everywhere - from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7?? F.......

Such a high level of malarkey you could pop it with two minute noodles and make a proper meal of it.
The title of the piece should be a giveaway. Well, to be exact, the punctuation in the title. Specifically, the great big question mark at the end. This is not a piece about definitive global cooling. It is a piece about the uncertainty of climate change that existed in 1970's.
But since we are cherry-picking, how much further does one need to quote:
" ...As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.
...Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate."
The journalist attempts to present both sides of an argument at a time when climate science modelling was in its infancy. Again, to try to present this article as a piece on global cooling is a misrepresentation.

Select to expand quote

fangman said..

peacenlove said..
Blind faith Carantoc - that's how many people can misread the most clear English and statements to confirm their particular biases and excuse their defence of the system's propaganda machine.

Thanks heavens brother that people don't just re-post whatever arrives in their social media echo chamber and try to pass that off as truth rather than propaganda.

Yeah. Thankfully i have zero social media accounts. It certainly promoted free thinking and wide reading in my case at least.

Question is, is STB social media, or just piffle?

Select to expand quote

hardpole said..
From

fediscience.org/@ZLabe/113925936631086109

The different seasonality and trends in the magnitude of monthly temperature anomalies since 1940 for the Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, Arctic and Antarctic.

- Now with data showing all months in 2024 -

Graph for Southern Hemisphere.

I notice upon reading the Overview that it makes no mention of any removal of heat bias from heat island effect of large cities, which is the largest contributor to the false global temperature trends reported by the Climate Change Cult.

Maybe i missed something. Maybe the heat island data is excluded here somewhere: confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/How+to+download+ERA5

So long as the heat island effect continues to be included - and deliberately so, conclusions drawn are unreliable.

For example Paris on an "ordinary" day +5deg C.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
On Net Zero:

Aussie firms pissed off.

dailysceptic.org/2025/02/03/food-firms-revolt-against-net-zero-over-australias-energy-crisis/

Oh wow, I haven't seen a source this high on quackery since PM33.
mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-sceptic-bias/

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

There was a fairly large group of experts worldwide concerned the Y2K computer bug was going to be an issue. Governments Business military all spent billions on a problem that wasn't really a problem. The experts didn't know or were cashing in.

I love it when people show their ignorance in this particular case. Clearly you didn't work in the field.

So let's get this right...

1. Experts were concerned that there was going to be a problem with the changeover of Y2K, so they spent a bundle of money trying to fix the issues.

2. It wasn't really a problem as demonstrated by very few issues being experienced.

Does this not seem logical to you?

Heck, if you were in charge of that as a project you would be pretty proud of the result. What would you expect? That people spend a bunch of money on a problem and it is still is as bad a problem as it would have been without spending money to solve it?

That's just nuts.

Hmmm.... I knew my tyre was worn badly and due to blow out sometime soon. I replaced the tyre and there was no blow-out. Damn, I think I just wasted my money

What problem, there was no problem, that's the point. We all got told there was a problem and spent billions and nothing happened, not because we spent billions but because there was no problem.

Heck, If I was in charge of project to fix a problem that didn't exist I would probably pretend it did as well, lest I lose my project. As for being proud, I'm not sure that's appropriate.

Fang, shame you've dismissed the concerns of Australian companies and workers so easily, simply to construct an opinionated attack on the messengers.

So are you claiming there's a conspiracy between The Australian, The Daily Skeptic and Australian companies and workers with genuine grievances about the cost of damaging Net Zero policies?

Or are you actually going to take these grievances seriously and stop crapping on about media outlets?

Are you happy to pay far more for energy and products to fund "Net Zero"?

I can only do my best to bring it back to "Net Zero" in Australia, have presented genuine grievances of Australian industry, and all you've done is complain about who's writing the story.

Well done. The workers and consumers will be thankful that you've done as programmed - attack the messengers.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
Fang, shame you've dismissed the concerns of Australian companies and workers so easily, simply to construct an opinionated attack on the messengers.

So are you claiming there's a conspiracy between The Australian, The Daily Skeptic and Australian companies and workers with genuine grievances about the cost of damaging Net Zero policies?

Or are you actually going to take these grievances seriously and stop crapping on about media outlets?

Are you happy to pay far more for energy and products to fund "Net Zero"?

I can only do my best to bring it back to "Net Zero" in Australia, have presented genuine grievances of Australian industry, and all you've done is complain about who's writing the story.

Well done. The workers and consumers will be thankful that you've done as programmed - attack the messengers.

Really? I have said nothing remotely similar to what you are trying to pin. Berating me with lowbrow tabloid tactics just makes your post sound like a 2GB fanboy.
What I would suggest is that if your 'messengers' have a documented history of lying and presenting a skewed view to suit their own business interests, why would you trust them to tell you the truth?

BTW: It seems that only half of respondents (total approx 2000 )in the latest research by the University of Canberra feel 'The Australian' is trustworthy.
apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2024-06/apo-nid326816_5.pdf
Page 112 is where the trust in news report starts.
I guess the other half are buying it for the Sport and Entertainment pages.

Based on some interesting recent interaction here on the "Net Zero" agenda, I'm going to author and define a new phrase to describe what seems to be afflicting many of the Climate Change Cult faithful, and here it is in all it's triggering glory:

Climate Derangement Syndrome

Similar to Trump Derangement Syndrome, Climate Derangement Syndrome (CDS for short), is grounded on cognitive dissonance (an ability to simultaneously hold two competing ideas as true), and thus allows the sufferer to avoid rational and calm debate on the subject of climate variability and "Net Zero" political ideologies, even when based on facts. CDS allows and actively directs the sufferer, with or without their knowing, to denounce any views and public media that they disagree with, even if factual, provided they can find a dodgy website bias checker or dodgy fact checker website, or so-called "expert" nobody, to do for them what they have been programmed to do - which is to vilify those free thinking souls interested in a genuine discussion based on the evidence and the facts. No active thinking required here.

For example, prior to the last Federal election, the winning party promised, as a policy platform, when they had assumed office to implement a "Net Zero" policy agenda whilst simultaneously reducing energy prices. The Climate Cultists suffering CDS cheered their dear leaders. Meanwhile, the skeptical critical thinkers amongst us, who have seen this all before and know it's a load of nonsense and propaganda, warned that prices would in fact significantly increase. The obvious truth is that these policies together with anti-competitive behaviour since privatisation, have directly contributed to extreme price increases that have transformed our country form a low cost energy, semi-industrialised nation to a high cost energy national where doing any business reliant on energy prices is becoming very costly - pushing prices up for all consumers at the till.

Essentially, a false scarcity caused by damaging public policy, has led to significant upward pressure on prices. No other explanation makes any sense, except to the CDS sufferer who buys nonsensical political rhetoric day after day like cheap milk.

Anyone claiming to be struggling, like Australian Industry, its workers, consumer groups and consumers who point out this obvious hypocrisy are automatic targets for the robot citizens defending the stench of "Net Zero" public policy and its widening trail of wreckage on the economy, on business and most of all, on the once beautiful natural and rural environments being defaced and trashed by it's megalomaniacal technocratic ugliness and hardness.

Nothing remotely environmentally sensitive or conservative about trashing our economy that harms mankind, defacing the environment with wind turbines that can't run over 22knots, cheap Chinese solar panels that only work when the sun shines and fail regularly, and slave labour mines in poor nations to dig up cobalt and lithium for the borgesoise.

?si=C51zooyyxEmJRaDw

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
Elon Musk had read the writing on the wall for battery powered cars, and has announced the phasing in of reverse electrolysis water powered engine tech to replace unsustainable environmentally damaging lithium batteries at some point.

Musk sees the writing on the wall:

This is the funniest thing you have posted!
Thank you for posting a shining example of all the things I have been suggesting people be wary about. Welcome to the world of fact checking before you post the latest Youtube video in your echo chamber.

That's probably a bit harsh, maybe you were just posting this ironically, because otherwise it would look as though your trusted and reliable sources that don't need fact checking, have lead you up the garden path.

verafiles.org/articles/fact-check-elon-musk-did-not-announce-launch-of-water-powered-car-engine

www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/nov/12/facebook-posts/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-did-not-announce-a-water-power/

Perhap check Elon's xitter account where he announces this breakthrough and while you are there you might want to check Elon's new Hydrogen fuel cell car. Oh wait, that's a scam too.

Am I enjoying myself too much right now. Yes brother I probably am.