10 years ago it bugged me (I am somewhat vain) but now... I could care less. I'm liking the idea about yelling at kids to get off my lawn, turn that damn music down and no skateboarding!
I block. But after time will unblock . I believe all people deserve a 2nd chance. In real life I don't hang out with stupid people, why would I do so online?
Recently I called out a poster I knew from another site as to if they are ill (I suspected Alz due to their age. He was saying HORRIBLE, EVIL things), This person didn't act like the person I previously knew. Far from it. Having done so I was called out by small minded people for being passive/aggressive. The person who called me passive/aggressive didn't know that I was actually VERY UPFRONT in my questioning the guy's mental stability (I was not even sure if it was still the same guy I knew). I had to block the interferer because she not only didn't know my previous relationship with that person, but she was sticking her 'opinions' into my interrogative, and starting to side track the reasons for my questioning. She was distracting at the very least.
After blocking her I was able to actually carry on a conversation with this other person and either he had become mentally ill in the past 5 years or this was NOT the person I knew after all or rather a multiple account holder.
Eventually I got the person to confess the truth and delete their account. Unfortunately I had to block a few people who kept getting in the way until I was able to confirm my suspicions.
Now that its water under the bridge.. I unblocked them.
Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "drastic measures to cut carbon emissions" which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to "remake the U.S. economy" would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn't even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings. To put AOC's "drastic measures" in perspective — based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies: “During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.” Which leads the scientists to state further: “Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.
The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect." In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity. The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team: We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature. This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations.
A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic climate change" after a series of studies. “During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.
You do realize OP that Global Warming is an excuse to tax EVERY CITIZEN on their carbon 'footprint'.
I know from reading your posts that you are not religious so you'll really like the origin of the Climate change TAX.
It is based on the Medieval CATHOLIC sin tax.
Example... You could sin as bad as you wanted too … yes even MURDER.... IF you paid a sin tax to the church. The sin tax amount would be based on how bad your sin was. This allowed the pious RICH to lord over the poor, and gave incredible wealth to the Pope and Catholic church.
The same with the global warming tax. You can globally warm as much as you want... as long as you paid the tax into the exchange. This allows the rich corporations to do whatever they want (they can afford it) and you and I will have to count our energy consumption daily. It will create another marketplace for the elite to sell those credits on an exchange to the common man and get rich. Those who get in on the exchange early (or rather set up the exchange) FILTHY RICH!
Do you really think those at the top care about climate change? Or getting richer?
MustangWriter Forum Posts (1,762)
So... Do you really think you are free?