Climate Hoax

[ionel]

9 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Cry my a river. 

Billionaires keep dying with billions in the bank.

Data please! 

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

Data please! 

If by could be a lyric to a bob dylan song 

[Lipdrag]

13 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Cry my a river. There was never any value to be destroyed, just perceived value by investors with too much money.

Dude, let's unpack this.

"Never any value to be destroyed".  You are right that there never was any value in the idea (and consequent subsidies, quotas, fines, mandates, bans, etc) surrounding EVs. 

However, operational loses by companies in a specific quarter are not the equivalent of loss of stock value due to the betting pools known as the stock markets.  So, in fact, ACTUAL dollars were pissed away in an amazingly efficient manner.  I think it would be difficult to burn money as fast as these two companies lost it in the 90 days of the 3rd quarter.  Remember, losses have already taken out all of the revenue these companies generated so they actually spent very much more than these losses show.

I wholeheartedly agree that "investors with too much money" are not a very sympathetic group and I care not about their stock market returns for themselves.  However, the US and state government revenue sources (i.e. me, my children, grandchildren, et al) are subsidizing every phase of the loss to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.  To add insult to the injury:  it would be bad enough if we were simply wasting our own money but we are borrowing about 25% (and growing) of that loss which is an interest-bearing liability against my great-great . . . . grandchildrens' labor.

So, yes, crying rivers is a reasonable reaction to this farce.  Or, voting and acting sensibly.  

[ionel]

19 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Cry my a river.

Billionaires keep dying with billions in the bank.

 

10 hours ago, ionel said:

Data please! 

hmm ... crickets

Well let's think about this.  First rv says he doesn't believe in research rather he and a friend just figure it out over beer.  Maybe RL and rv are friends and both like beer?

If we looked at the data & math in aggregate would there be more wealth from all the billionaires or millionaires who die every year?  Sure we might need to take a 10 to 20 year average because not very many billionaires dying each year.  I'm sure Wkn has a data table, also pretty sure its millionaires.  Thus why aren't we more concerned with them?

Second, "billions in the bank" are billionaires really that stupid.  Again let's check with Wkn for his opinion on where they are hiding their money. 

But then look at all the money billionaires give away, pick a handful and just look at the specifics?  In contrast take a look at your favorite millionaires.  Look at Joe & Jill's tax return.  They are millionaires, Joe always claims to be a good catholic (whatever that means) yet they give practically nothing percentage wise to charity, wouldn't a good catholic give 10% to the church.  Bernie Sanders was recently railing about rich folks not doing enough for the poor.  Well Bernie is a millionaire he's got multiple houses like Joe.  They can't be in more than one house at a time.  Has either offered to rent their extra properties out to struggling immigrants at $0.01 on the $1?  Yeah I think not.

Third, even if you confiscated all billionaires wealth how would that solve climate change?

[RockLobster]

14 hours ago, ionel said:

Data please! 

Cool. Thanks for the response.

The data is that billionaires are dying. Need more data? It's right here...

• Google "billionaires who died in 2024" and then read
• Need more? Google "billionaires who died in 2023" and then read some more
• Adjust the google search to suit you, and then read more

You'll find that guys like Bernard Marcus, who passed about a week ago at 95, still had tons of money at the time of their passing. In other words, they had much more money than they were able to spend in their lifetime.

(Their money resided in financial institutions of one sort or another. Don't quibble about the word 'bank' - don't be a twit.)

The most important part here is that THE ABOVE IS NOT the topic of the thread or the topic of my post.

The thread is about Climate change.

The post I contributed was very specifically about climate change.

The "billionaires dying with billions in the bank" was clearly about personal excessive greed and lack of concern about the much bigger picture.

The big blue marble that we all live on and that none of us will be able to survive without. Not us, not our kids, not our great-great-great-grandchildren, and so on. 

We (collectively) have the resources to keep the planet healthy. Yet so many tend to piss the resources away as if the planet doesn't need our help.

As if the unending greed to fill our pockets will protect us from the trajectory to disaster we're currently on.

Many billionaires have their pockets overflowing - yet pass on without making a dent in what is really important.

[RockLobster]

10 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

Dude, let's unpack this.

"Never any value to be destroyed".  You are right that there never was any value in the idea (and consequent subsidies, quotas, fines, mandates, bans, etc) surrounding EVs. 

However, operational loses by companies in a specific quarter are not the equivalent of loss of stock value due to the betting pools known as the stock markets.  So, in fact, ACTUAL dollars were pissed away in an amazingly efficient manner.  I think it would be difficult to burn money as fast as these two companies lost it in the 90 days of the 3rd quarter.  Remember, losses have already taken out all of the revenue these companies generated so they actually spent very much more than these losses show.

I wholeheartedly agree that "investors with too much money" are not a very sympathetic group and I care not about their stock market returns for themselves.  However, the US and state government revenue sources (i.e. me, my children, grandchildren, et al) are subsidizing every phase of the loss to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.  To add insult to the injury:  it would be bad enough if we were simply wasting our own money but we are borrowing about 25% (and growing) of that loss which is an interest-bearing liability against my great-great . . . . grandchildrens' labor.

So, yes, crying rivers is a reasonable reaction to this farce.  Or, voting and acting sensibly.  

Dog. You're barking up the wrong tree. This thread is about climate change. See my post above.

[RockLobster]

4 hours ago, ionel said:

 

hmm ... crickets

Well let's think about this.  First rv says he doesn't believe in research rather he and a friend just figure it out over beer.  Maybe RL and rv are friends and both like beer?

If we looked at the data & math in aggregate would there be more wealth from all the billionaires or millionaires who die every year?  Sure we might need to take a 10 to 20 year average because not very many billionaires dying each year.  I'm sure Wkn has a data table, also pretty sure its millionaires.  Thus why aren't we more concerned with them?

Second, "billions in the bank" are billionaires really that stupid.  Again let's check with Wkn for his opinion on where they are hiding their money. 

But then look at all the money billionaires give away, pick a handful and just look at the specifics?  In contrast take a look at your favorite millionaires.  Look at Joe & Jill's tax return.  They are millionaires, Joe always claims to be a good catholic (whatever that means) yet they give practically nothing percentage wise to charity, wouldn't a good catholic give 10% to the church.  Bernie Sanders was recently railing about rich folks not doing enough for the poor.  Well Bernie is a millionaire he's got multiple houses like Joe.  They can't be in more than one house at a time.  Has either offered to rent their extra properties out to struggling immigrants at $0.01 on the $1?  Yeah I think not.

Third, even if you confiscated all billionaires wealth how would that solve climate change?

Your post here is just a whole bunch of stupid.

You're arguing toward me with a bunch of stuff I didn't say and you're doing it poorly.

I'm not saying you're stupid. I like many of your posts.

This is not one of your good posts.

[mspart]

This isn't one of yours.

mspart

[Lipdrag]

From today's liveblog of COP29 (global climate hoax meeting)

Two observations:

- What the heck are 67,000 people talking about together?  This isn't a meeting.  It is a Jim Jones Kool Aid drinking extravaganza.  The main difference is that Jones probably offered fewer prayers to false gods than the Climateer COPters.  They went to Azerbaijan to produce nothing but hot air.  How many of those attendees do you think traveled on their own money?  I bet most are there on the taxpayers' dime(s).  Millions and millions of them.

- The UK commits to cut 81% of emissions but it is not enough!!  The fact that it is not possible nor desirable nor will do anything useful for the planet is immaterial.  More is demanded.  Nothing less than a 181% cut is acceptable to commentators.  The finish line is when there exist no mammals to fart (I am guess fish and lizards and insects don't fart but cannot state that with absolute authority) thereby completely eliminating all UK greenhouse gas emissions.

[Lipdrag]

Oh boy!!!  Or, oh human!!!  The Climateer COPter reporting includes a complete brief of the gender (and possible lack thereof) of all the delegates!!!  This, of course, will help the planet survive my farting cows for several millenia longer than if the topic were not included:

[RockLobster]

11 hours ago, mspart said:

This isn't one of yours.

mspart

I think I'm communicating just fine.

What part do you have a problem with? If you'd like to contribute - then contribute. Speak up or stfu.

[mspart]

You just did it again RL.   You're a funny crustacean. 

mspart

[RockLobster]

14 hours ago, mspart said:

You just did it again RL.   You're a funny crustacean. 

mspart

You just did it again, jackass.

I'm in the business of communicating. You clearly do not want to communicate.

This is a problem on a forum where discussion and communication is the very point.

Read above to my posts that did those very things.

Make a point, communicate, say something useful, or STFU.

[Bigbrog]

7 hours ago, RockLobster said:

You just did it again, jackass.

I'm in the business of communicating. You clearly do not want to communicate.

This is a problem on a forum where discussion and communication is the very point.

Read above to my posts that did those very things.

Make a point, communicate, say something useful, or STFU.

If you truly believed in this sentiment, we most certainly wouldn't ever hear from you on here.

[mspart]

10 hours ago, RockLobster said:

You just did it again, jackass.

I'm in the business of communicating. You clearly do not want to communicate.

This is a problem on a forum where discussion and communication is the very point.

Read above to my posts that did those very things.

Make a point, communicate, say something useful, or STFU.

There you go again personally attacking.   I'm sorry you don't see it as a character flaw but it is.  It doesn't assist you in your attempt to communicate.   What comes across is rage, not information. 

mspart

[RockLobster]

20 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

If you truly believed in this sentiment, we most certainly wouldn't ever hear from you on here.

Right back at you.

[RockLobster]

17 hours ago, mspart said:

There you go again personally attacking.   I'm sorry you don't see it as a character flaw but it is.  It doesn't assist you in your attempt to communicate.   What comes across is rage, not information. 

mspart

I'm sorry that you're so soft and fragile that using the word 'jackass' would hurt you so deeply.

You must be a kind, kind soul.

Bless your heart.

... we last left the topic at dying billionaires and the dying planet. Please continue.

Edited November 15 by RockLobster

[Husker_Du]

Lobster, you know what happens when you constantly post idiotic, clearly partisan bs?

you lose all credibility. no one comes close to taking you seriously.

you're a drain on this board. 

[mspart]

7 hours ago, RockLobster said:

I'm sorry that you're so soft and fragile that using the word 'jackass' would hurt you so deeply.

You must be a kind, kind soul.

Bless your heart.

... we last left the topic at dying billionaires and the dying planet. Please continue.

It doesn't hurt me.   It hurts your credibility as Husker notes.   If you care, you would post effective communication rather than personally attacking people.   Why do I care?   Because I want civilized communication on these boards and you do not provide that when you attack people personally.    

mspart

[RockLobster]

15 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

Lobster, you know what happens when you constantly post idiotic, clearly partisan bs?

you lose all credibility. no one comes close to taking you seriously.

you're a drain on this board. 

It is a thread about the climate, but not a single thing I posted could be considered "clearly partisan bs" on this thread. Not a single thing. Just sincere discussion about the climate,

Your take is simply wrong. If we want to talk about credibility, just take the L here.

[jross]

Interesting 4 minutes

 

[Paul158]

56 minutes ago, jross said:

Interesting 4 minutes

 

Great observation. Unfortunately, the public rarely gets to see these types of studies.

[jross]

The previous video says...

Scientist created a very poor experiment.  In 1875, we have the lowest (coldest temperature) point in the last 10,000 years.  This is exactly the time when meteorological observations started.  Yes there is a global temperature increase in the 20th century.  But an increase from what? (the coldest temp in 10K years).  And this means that it will be very hard indeed to prove whether the increase of temperature in the 20th century was man-made or it's a natural variation.

This variable temperature over 110K years is interesting (see article).  Look at the linked photo below.

https://www.amnh.org/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/amnh/images/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/rose-center-for-earth-and-space/hall-of-planet-earth2/hope-illustrations/5.0_pc_ld3_whaticecoresrecord._graph/3335637-1-eng-US/5.0_pc_ld3_whaticecoresrecord._graph_wide_2040.png 
 

The selective "time" framing impacts the story we are told.

Do I think humans impact the climate?  yes.  Is it the worst threat to civilization in the next 100 to 1000 years?  nope

[red viking]

I laugh when I see these claims about temperature fluctuations over the past several thousand to millions of years. First of all, these natural fluctuations are WAY slower than what's currently happening. Secondly, climatologists are well aware of these and easily account for them in climate forecasts. However, since they are so much slower (over geologic timescales), they are not a significant factor compared to CO2. It's actually very simple. 

[red viking]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7575229/#:~:text=This period has started in,in the decade 2031–2043.

Putting man-made global warming aside, we are NOT in a warming period.