Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change and global warming



Page 1 of 212>
Climate change and global warming12-11-2019 20:22
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Why do we have climate change and global warming, overwhelmingly supported by the establishment?
Because China can produce cars at 1/4 the cost.
12-11-2019 22:44
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
You can't bomb China for producing cheap cars. But if it threatens life on the planet with Climate change, bombs away.
Scratch another competitor.
Anglo-American Free Trade 101.
Edited on 12-11-2019 23:16
12-11-2019 23:25
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
olyz wrote:
You can't bomb China for producing cheap cars. But if it threatens life on the planet with Climate change, bombs away.
Scratch another competitor.
Anglo-American Free Trade 101.


Can't think of even one Chinese made car in America. Although, there probably parts made in China on most of them...
13-11-2019 01:21
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
HarveyH55 wrote:
olyz wrote:
You can't bomb China for producing cheap cars. But if it threatens life on the planet with Climate change, bombs away.
Scratch another competitor.
Anglo-American Free Trade 101.


Can't think of even one Chinese made car in America. Although, there probably parts made in China on most of them...


The establishment is planning ahead.

However, you point out a happy compromise. China makes the parts and we assemble, if that would continue and the establishment would accept it. I don't think they will, the goal is global domination- "climate change" will not go away.
13-11-2019 01:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
HarveyH55 wrote:
olyz wrote:
You can't bomb China for producing cheap cars. But if it threatens life on the planet with Climate change, bombs away.
Scratch another competitor.
Anglo-American Free Trade 101.


Can't think of even one Chinese made car in America. Although, there probably parts made in China on most of them...


Mostly Taiwan and Japan. Toyota and Subaru, for example, get their electronics from Hitachi, a Japanese company. European cars tend to get their electronics from Bosch, based in Abstatt, Germany.

Companies like Ford and GM make their own switches, but tend to buy the rest of their computer gear from Hitachi and Sharp, both Japanese companies.

There is are Chinese made cars, made for the Chinese people. Also, Chinese manufacturers produce some Buicks and Fords for the Chinese people.

At this time, no cars manufactured in China are sold in the U.S.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-11-2019 01:23
13-11-2019 01:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
olyz wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
olyz wrote:
You can't bomb China for producing cheap cars. But if it threatens life on the planet with Climate change, bombs away.
Scratch another competitor.
Anglo-American Free Trade 101.


Can't think of even one Chinese made car in America. Although, there probably parts made in China on most of them...


The establishment is planning ahead.

However, you point out a happy compromise. China makes the parts and we assemble, if that would continue and the establishment would accept it. I don't think they will, the goal is global domination- "climate change" will not go away.

I have never seen any religion go away.

China makes very few parts that wind up in U.S. cars. Most of that comes from Japan and Taiwan, not China. Some of it also comes from South Korea.

European cars tend to use Bosch electronics for their electronic parts. That's based in Abstatt, Germany.

Even the rare earth magnets, used for the speaker systems and some electric cars in the motor, are manufactured by Japan (they buy the rare earth for those magnets from China though).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-11-2019 01:31
15-11-2019 22:46
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
"Climate Change" is the battle cry of the New World Order. With it you control the world's energy use. Disobedience implies that you are threatening the future of life on earth, and therefore any punishment is justified.
16-11-2019 02:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
olyz wrote:
"Climate Change" is the battle cry of the New World Order. With it you control the world's energy use. Disobedience implies that you are threatening the future of life on earth, and therefore any punishment is justified.


No one can control the world's energy use. The energy markets are free markets. You can't kill a free market. It's immortal, even if you drive it underground.


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2019 03:45
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
olyz wrote:
"Climate Change" is the battle cry of the New World Order. With it you control the world's energy use. Disobedience implies that you are threatening the future of life on earth, and therefore any punishment is justified.


Commercially available 'energy', like gas and electric, are cheap and convenient, but there are options. Controlling the commercially available, only opens up new markets for alternatives.
16-11-2019 03:49
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
The energy market is a free market?
1) You can only sell oil in dollars.
2) It's a free market for Russia and the United States who can shut off Western Europe, and anyone else who displeases them, like Iran, at will.
3) Saudi Arabia wouldn't dare sell oil to someone, or at a price, we didn't agpprove of.
4) Qaddafi acted as if it were a free market in oil. So did some South American governments which didn't last very long as a result.
5) In a free market, Western Europe could buy oil from Iran.

It is a free market in wind power. Good luck defending yourself with sailing ships and gliders against aircraft carriers and jets.
16-11-2019 03:49
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Whoops. Posted same thing twice.
Edited on 16-11-2019 03:52
16-11-2019 04:29
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
olyz wrote:
The energy market is a free market?
1) You can only sell oil in dollars.
2) It's a free market for Russia and the United States who can shut off Western Europe, and anyone else who displeases them, like Iran, at will.
3) Saudi Arabia wouldn't dare sell oil to someone, or at a price, we didn't agpprove of.
4) Qaddafi acted as if it were a free market in oil. So did some South American governments which didn't last very long as a result.
5) In a free market, Western Europe could buy oil from Iran.

It is a free market in wind power. Good luck defending yourself with sailing ships and gliders against aircraft carriers and jets.



You're a strange one. One thing that hurt Germany in WW II was having its supply lines disrupted. It's tanks were thirsty.
Your post was "off".
16-11-2019 05:46
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
olyz wrote:
The energy market is a free market?
1) You can only sell oil in dollars.
2) It's a free market for Russia and the United States who can shut off Western Europe, and anyone else who displeases them, like Iran, at will.
3) Saudi Arabia wouldn't dare sell oil to someone, or at a price, we didn't agpprove of.
4) Qaddafi acted as if it were a free market in oil. So did some South American governments which didn't last very long as a result.
5) In a free market, Western Europe could buy oil from Iran.

It is a free market in wind power. Good luck defending yourself with sailing ships and gliders against aircraft carriers and jets.


Guess I lucky to be an American..

I thought you were referring to the Climate Change folks push toward controlling energy, which won't happen. But like I said, if somebody does try, there are alternatives, and we humans are pretty good at making things better. Oil is cheap and plentiful, works real well, but it's not everything.
16-11-2019 09:28
LynLove
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
The effects of global warming may vary depending on geographic location. If the carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions continue to increase, then the earth's surface would be warmer, and more water would be evaporate, which could also increase precipitation.
16-11-2019 10:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
olyz wrote:
The energy market is a free market?

Yes it is
olyz wrote:
1) You can only sell oil in dollars.

That's wrong. You can sell in any currency. Iran, for example, sells its oil for gold.
olyz wrote:
2) It's a free market for Russia and the United States who can shut off Western Europe, and anyone else who displeases them, like Iran, at will.

We can't 'shut off' anyone. If we decide to not to sell them oil, someone else will sell them oil.
olyz wrote:
3) Saudi Arabia wouldn't dare sell oil to someone, or at a price, we didn't agpprove of.

We don't approve any prices of Saudi oil. They set their own price, just like everyone else.
olyz wrote:
4) Qaddafi acted as if it were a free market in oil. So did some South American governments which didn't last very long as a result.

A free market is not free oil.
olyz wrote:
5) In a free market, Western Europe could buy oil from Iran.

They do. They also buy oil from the United States, from Russia, from Scotland, from Canada, and from anyone else that sells oil.
olyz wrote:
It is a free market in wind power.

Yes it is a free market in wind power, but the price is higher than any form of power, joule for joule.
olyz wrote:
Good luck defending yourself with sailing ships and gliders against aircraft carriers and jets.

Gliders were effectively used in WW2 during the invasion of France. So are parachutes. However, you only bring these up to distract. Strawman fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-11-2019 10:28
16-11-2019 11:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
LynLove wrote:
The effects of global warming may vary depending on geographic location.
Define 'global warming'.
LynLove wrote:
If the carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions continue to increase, then the earth's surface would be warmer,
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth simply by being there. You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2019 17:27
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Iran can not sell it's oil for gold. That's what sanctions are all about. Any country that bought the oil would soon be faced with economic punishment and "democracy" riots.

How do you move significant amounts of oil? Fishing boats?
16-11-2019 18:56
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Once "climate change" is in effect world wide, we wll decide who does what with oil. "Climate change" is the battle cry of the NWO. Technical/scientific arguments are irrelevant except as a propaganda tool.
16-11-2019 19:49
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
olyz wrote:
Iran can not sell it's oil for gold. That's what sanctions are all about. Any country that bought the oil would soon be faced with economic punishment and "democracy" riots.

How do you move significant amounts of oil? Fishing boats?


The exactly the point of sanctions. When Iran quits playing with nuclear weapons, and allows inspection teams in to make sure they are out of the bomb business, the sanctions will be lifted. Well, maybe some, there still is their terrorist support. A lot of countries have nuclear weapons, but never use them for a reason. Unfortunately, it's expected that Iran has a reason to want to use them, or sell them to global terrorists.

It's the same deal with North Korea. Nobody actually uses Nuclear weapons, and nobody should. Warmongering countries can't be allowed to play with them. It's a significant threat, sanctions are just the first, gentler action. As the threat increases, there are more unpleasant options.
16-11-2019 20:16
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
What makes Iran war-mongering? Are they over here? Are they putting sanctions on us? Do other near-east countries have nuclear weapons? Are they sponsoring regime overthrow "Democracy" riots around the world?
Before Trump broke our agreement with Iran they were subject to nuclear inspections, and probably still are.
16-11-2019 20:38
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
olyz wrote:
What makes Iran war-mongering? Are they over here? Are they putting sanctions on us? Do other near-east countries have nuclear weapons? Are they sponsoring regime overthrow "Democracy" riots around the world?
Before Trump broke our agreement with Iran they were subject to nuclear inspections, and probably still are.


They didn't allow the inspections to happened, and they never stopped developing nuclear weapons. They've shot down two of our drones, the most recent wasn't over Iran airspace, expensive one too. They've attracted oil tankers, and a few other ships near their coast, but in international waters. They are prime suspects in the Saudi oil field drone attack recently. They have their hands in quite a few conflicts in the region as well. Obama's treaty was a bad deal, not sure what he was thinking.
16-11-2019 20:53
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
If we are going to proscribe the use of fossil fuels, why shoudn't other countries develop nuclear energy?
16-11-2019 21:22
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
olyz wrote:
If we are going to proscribe the use of fossil fuels, why shoudn't other countries develop nuclear energy?


Nuclear weapons, and nuclear power, are two very different things, different processes. Personally, I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons. They are weapons of final desperation. No country is going to uses them, until they get to a point where they just don't care what happens after. Anywhere you use them, will be useless for years, and take a lot of time and money cleaning up, for future use.
16-11-2019 21:29
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
If nuclear power used thorium instead of uranium things would be much better.
As i understand it, the military leaders wanted nuclear power to be produced using uranium because plutonium could be produced in the process. That is why thorium wasn't used as i understand it. Thorium's nuclear waste has a much shorter half life (although still extremely long) and it doesn't produce as much waste either.
16-11-2019 22:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
olyz wrote:
Iran can not sell it's oil for gold.

They sure can! And they do.
olyz wrote:
That's what sanctions are all about.

Sanctions have nothing to do with what you sell oil for. The United States tried to punish Iran for selling oil. They went to the gold standard (the only country that is right now) and the United States has no say anymore.
olyz wrote:
Any country that bought the oil would soon be faced with economic punishment and "democracy" riots.

Why? Oil is oil.
olyz wrote:
How do you move significant amounts of oil? Fishing boats?

Tankers or pipelines. What are you suggesting? Piracy by the United States?


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2019 22:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
olyz wrote:
Once "climate change" is in effect world wide,

Define 'climate change'.
olyz wrote:
we wll decide who does what with oil.

We can't.
olyz wrote:
"Climate change" is the battle cry of the NWO.

What 'New World Order'?
olyz wrote:
Technical/scientific arguments are irrelevant except as a propaganda tool.

No, they are quite relevant. They always will be.


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2019 22:53
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
"Climate change" is the change in the physical environment caused by human activity. If I strike a match, I have changed the climate. It is also a political mechanism for imposing your will on other people.

NWO. Global rule by money.
16-11-2019 22:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
HarveyH55 wrote:
olyz wrote:
Iran can not sell it's oil for gold. That's what sanctions are all about. Any country that bought the oil would soon be faced with economic punishment and "democracy" riots.

How do you move significant amounts of oil? Fishing boats?


The exactly the point of sanctions. When Iran quits playing with nuclear weapons, and allows inspection teams in to make sure they are out of the bomb business, the sanctions will be lifted. Well, maybe some, there still is their terrorist support. A lot of countries have nuclear weapons, but never use them for a reason. Unfortunately, it's expected that Iran has a reason to want to use them, or sell them to global terrorists.

A sanction simply means we don't buy oil from Iran. It doesn't stop someone else from buying that oil. Now if you want to start talking about blockades, piracy by the United States, and the like, that's a different thing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's the same deal with North Korea. Nobody actually uses Nuclear weapons, and nobody should. Warmongering countries can't be allowed to play with them. It's a significant threat, sanctions are just the first, gentler action. As the threat increases, there are more unpleasant options.

Bush has listed a couple, including the retaliatory use of nuclear weapons.

Warmongering countries include every country in the world, including the United States from time to time (usually because of liberals in Congress).

Nobody plays with nuclear weapons. They are not a toy. Even the United States, the only nation to invent and actually use nuclear weapons, never considered them so.

From Oppenheimer, to his team, to the decision by the President to use the Bomb, to the crews that flew the missions and dropped the Bomb, NONE of them considered the Bomb to be a toy or plaything.


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2019 22:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
olyz wrote:
What makes Iran war-mongering? Are they over here? Are they putting sanctions on us? Do other near-east countries have nuclear weapons? Are they sponsoring regime overthrow "Democracy" riots around the world?
Before Trump broke our agreement with Iran they were subject to nuclear inspections, and probably still are.


No. Iran broke the treaty, not Trump. Trump simply announced that the treaty was broken and would no longer honor it's part in it.

All countries are war mongering from time to time...even the United States.


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2019 23:00
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
We punish others if they try to buy oil from Iran. How does oil get out of Iran? Pick up trucks across the desert and fishing
Boats. The last oil tanker out of Iran didn't make it.
16-11-2019 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
HarveyH55 wrote:
olyz wrote:
What makes Iran war-mongering? Are they over here? Are they putting sanctions on us? Do other near-east countries have nuclear weapons? Are they sponsoring regime overthrow "Democracy" riots around the world?
Before Trump broke our agreement with Iran they were subject to nuclear inspections, and probably still are.


They didn't allow the inspections to happened, and they never stopped developing nuclear weapons. They've shot down two of our drones, the most recent wasn't over Iran airspace, expensive one too. They've attracted oil tankers, and a few other ships near their coast, but in international waters. They are prime suspects in the Saudi oil field drone attack recently. They have their hands in quite a few conflicts in the region as well. Obama's treaty was a bad deal, not sure what he was thinking.


That's presuming Obama was thinking!


Obama has always supported regimes like Iran. He's a socialist.


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2019 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
If nuclear power used thorium instead of uranium things would be much better.
As i understand it, the military leaders wanted nuclear power to be produced using uranium because plutonium could be produced in the process. That is why thorium wasn't used as i understand it. Thorium's nuclear waste has a much shorter half life (although still extremely long) and it doesn't produce as much waste either.


Military leaders didn't develop nuclear power.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-11-2019 23:06
16-11-2019 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
olyz wrote:
"Climate change" is the change in the physical environment caused by human activity. If I strike a match, I have changed the climate. It is also a political mechanism for imposing your will on other people.

NWO. Global rule by money.


What has imposing ones will upon another have to do with climate at all??
Striking a match does not change the climate. A desert climate is still a desert climate. A marine climate is still a marine climate. Nothing has changed.

Climate cannot change. Even if a desert is no more, a desert climate is still a desert climate.


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2019 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
olyz wrote:
We punish others if they try to buy oil from Iran. How does oil get out of Iran? Pick up trucks across the desert and fishing
Boats. The last oil tanker out of Iran didn't make it.


We don't rule the world. We cannot stop someone from buying oil from Iran.

Tankers comes out of Iran all the time. One was lost to an attack recently, along with another from Panama. The United States didn't attack. They went in search of the attackers and helped to rescue the crew.


The Parrot Killer
16-11-2019 23:21
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Climate change is the change in the state of the earths atmosphere: pressure, temperature, and composition at any point. Anything anything does changes the climate.
16-11-2019 23:35
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
ITN,
I didn't say military leaders developed nuclear power. They didn't.
Quit harassing me with your nonsense.

Try reading posts a time or two.
Edited on 17-11-2019 00:01
17-11-2019 07:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
olyz wrote:
Climate change is the change in the state of the earths atmosphere: pressure, temperature, and composition at any point. Anything anything does changes the climate.

We call that 'weather', not 'climate'.

Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
17-11-2019 07:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I didn't say military leaders developed nuclear power.

Yes you did.
keepit wrote:
They didn't.

So now you say the didn't? Which is it, dude?
keepit wrote:
Quit harassing me with your nonsense.

Try reading posts a time or two.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
17-11-2019 17:53
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
ITN,
I didn't say military leaders developed nuclear power. Check time stamp 21:29. It says military leaders "wanted", not "developed". The two words don't have the same meaning in the US. Also, the phrase "nuclear power" in the us means electricity generating power plants (land based) fueled by radioactive material. You're way too much work.
18-11-2019 00:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I didn't say military leaders developed nuclear power.

Yes you did.
keepit wrote:
Check time stamp 21:29. It says military leaders "wanted", not "developed". The two words don't have the same meaning in the US. Also, the phrase "nuclear power" in the us means electricity generating power plants (land based) fueled by radioactive material. You're way too much work.

No, you are trying to paint yourself out of the corner you are in.

I will assume at this stage that you are sorry for making such a stupid comment, and that you retract it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-11-2019 00:26
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Climate change and global warming:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact