None of the Apocalyptic predictions for the Climate Have Come True

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (101 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 6 months ago

    According to the Washington Examiner, None of the Apocalyptic predictions about the climate and the environment have come true.  These are predictions that are recent and some that are decades old.

    Why are they always wrong?

    “Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today,” said the analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute shared with Secrets.
    “None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true,” it added.
    The report cites 30 predictions made by experts, government scientists, and global leaders, including former Vice President Al Gore and Britain’s Prince Charles.

    Some examples:
    1967 — Stanford University expert Paul Erlich predicted “time of famines” in 1975.
    1971 — A top NASA expert predicted an “ice age” by 2021.
    1988 — It was predicted that the Maldives would be under water by last year.
    2008 — Gore said the Arctic would be free of ice by 2013.
    2009 — Charles said there was just 96 months left to save the world.

    Report from Competitive Edge Institute
    https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea … redictions


    Article from Washington Times
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash … 9YMI4zYzRY

    1. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Eventually one of them will be right!

      Just wait and see!



      https://hubstatic.com/13586024.jpg

      1. PrettyPanther profile image83
        PrettyPantherposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Manipulated Time Cover on Climate Recirculates

        Eventually, someone will be right, but apparently not you.  lol

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Well I'll be... … I got snookered!

          1. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            At least you own up to it.  :-)  I don't think I've posted something fake on Hubpages, but I have been fooled elsewhere.  II rarely  post memes for that reason, but if I do, I check them out first.

        2. DoubleScorpion profile image77
          DoubleScorpionposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          The cover on the right is correct Apr 2006...The one on the left, the closest I can find is from Apr 2007 "The global warming survival guide."

          Although there is something from Jan 1977 "The Big Freeze"

      2. profile image0
        Onusonusposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        The fear mongering used to be about global cooling, then they switched to global warming. now they say climate change to get our money and our votes. That way they can spread fear no matter which way the weather changes.

    2. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I really wish people would be more discerning in their reading and their assumptions. Take this sentence, for example:

      "Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster..."

      So the scope of this article, by its own admission, is limited to "modern doomsayers". I don't really know who those people are, but my guess is that the vast majority of doomsayers on any subject are never right. Fringe people on any subject are almost never correct.

      Conversely, I bet you I could easily write an article with the headline: "Good climate scientists accurate about climate predictions..." and provide plenty of evidence to prove that my select group of climate scientists made accurate predictions.

      Ultimately, if we all lack the intellectual curiosity to question the premise of the things we are reading, we are indeed doomed.

      The science about climate is pretty irrefutable (hottest years on record over and over again, CO2 in the atmosphere rising; etc.). These are just facts. Now, what they may mean for the future... I guarantee you that every prediction of a definitive nature will be wrong. General predictions can be right, but there will always be somebody around to point out the vast number of incorrect guesses about events that haven't happened yet.

      1. tsadjatko profile image60
        tsadjatkoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        “Conversely, I bet you I could easily write an article with the headline: ‘Good climate scientists accurate about climate predictions...’ and provide plenty of evidence to prove that my select group of climate scientists made accurate predictions.”

        LOL Really? Well why has no one done that? Have at it if you think it can be done - it can’t, that’s Mike’s whole point! Their predictions are never right and when they aren’t, as time always tells, they just make more predictions further into the future until nobody making the predictions will even be alive to see them not come true!
        Lol

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          I don't trust government scientists predictions who money comes from fossil fuel companies.
          Any more than FDA schedule one for Marrijanna and on all cannabis too.

          If 97% scientists do the worst job at predicting global warming than  any kind of other professional feild in the world.
          Or
          All scientists got together and created a great conspiracy just for the hell, since no bonus money in it for them.

          What are the % chances of either one working out for scientists to be untitled....................the

          stupidest professionals in the world.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            "I don't trust government scientists predictions who money comes from fossil fuel companies."

            Do you trust government scientists whose money comes from manufacturers of solar cells?  The development/construction of windmills or any other "renewable" resource?  Those that make a living off of climate change (usually while burning tons of fossil fuels themselves)?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image74
              Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              The hold idea is to use natural energy like windmills , solar, geo Thermo and dozens others to get off of fossil fuels or fracking oil and gas.  The technology is already here. It's the political corruption, oil companies and banker will to be greedy dirty killers. They don't want smaller operations of natural energy to complete at all.

    3. peterstreep profile image78
      peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      haha, you still want to convince people that the Climate Crisis is a hoax!!!

      Spoiller: Elvis is dead.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Okay, so, for the sake of argument Climate crisis is real.

        Now what?

        Are YOU willing to sacrifice everything you use every day that comes from petroleum products? That would include computers, smart phones, roads, vehicles (no just to power them, but to make the hoses, tires, electronic products, paint, glass) and much, much more.

        What are YOU willing to sacrifice to save the planet?

        1. peterstreep profile image78
          peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Good question Readmikenow,
          It’s a huge problem. But there are a lot of things we can do.
          First. Stop eating beef. Thats not to difficult. It should make a huge impact if we stoped eating beef.
          Plant trees.
          Use more solar power and wind power.
          Don't buy plastic bags.
          Re–use things
          Eat more organic food (its healthier too)
          These are the things I do.
          Of course you can always find things we use or do which are not good for the environment but if you stop trying you’ve lost already.
          You can always fingerpoint to somebody saying, but he is not doing anything for the environment either, so why should I but that is not an argument.
          Everybody can do something. But ignoring the elephant in the room is foolish and becomes irresponsible.

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            I see your point.

            Can we agree none of this will change the world'd dependence on petroleum?  Solar and wind can only proved a very tiny portion of the world's energy needs. 

            People will still want cell phones, computers, roads to drive on, buildings etc.  There isn't a way to replace petroleum products.  There isn't a mass manufacturing method that doesn't come with problems.

            How many people do you know are willing to give up all of the products made from petroleum products?  How many are willing to live without the benefit of mass manufacturing  that provides clothes, cars, the food we eat being transported from farmer to processing plant to store shelves and so much more?

            Stop and think in a day how completely dependent you and everyone else is on petroleum products.  From the cup you had your coffee, to the coffee, to the creation of the waste container.  All were transported, grown and displayed with products made from petroleum.

            I think it is much bigger than not eating beef or using plastic.  It sounds good but ...IF climate change is caused by man, there is NO realistic solution to it.  None.  Short of crashing every economy in the world and having people live like in the stone ages, I don't see a real and workable solution to it.

            Many people talk, but those who really think about it and understand the world economy realize the scope of change being requested is beyond impossible.

            Climate change is no longer science.  It has become a social and political view.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image74
              Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              One example out of a million of them.

              Henry Ford made a car and fuel totally made from hemp. The fuel was cleaner and 25% cheaper than gasoline use throughout the southwest of US. The plastic on the car was stronger than steel. David Rockefeller banned both the hemp car and fuel.

              I build tiny houses 1/10 the cost of a regarlar house, totally made out of natural materials. I built 4 tiny houses in third world countries. Two in Canada, but after 15 years pioneering in North America, they stop me.

              North America will soon be left out in the dust over natural products overseas.

              Lately, I finally I won out legally, to build a tiny house community, due to overwhelming homelessness in eastern Canada. The way I build them will be the first step for American kind and first step of beating out corporatism corruption.

              1. Live to Learn profile image79
                Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                The average person will only live in a tiny house if forced to, economically.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image74
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Most houses are unaffordable causing the house to own you. About 50% of home owners are single. Youth and seniors are most troubled for a housing. Most are one paycheck from homeless and most will consider a tiny house

                  About 20 million North Americans live in trailers most are toxic rust buckets. They leaks in tens years with an R7 insolation. A few million homeless live in a garages, storages, in cars or Vans, in tents, on the street, couch surfers. My tiny houses would a castle for them.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image79
                    Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    I'm not against tiny houses. But, let's be realistic. A tiny house in a city is going to be unaffordable just because of the real estate costs. Homeless people can't afford an apartment. Much less any size house.

                    Being single does not mean a person wants to live in a tiny space. They may do it in a big city, but they aren't going to forever.

                    Trailers are dangerous. But, a trailer is dangerous because a poor person cannot afford upkeep. Costs for tiny houses are comparable to costs for a trailer. Anyone living in an old trailer lives in it because they don't want to, or can't, invest in a new one.

                    I hear the homeless are balking at the idea Trump floated of getting them off the streets into affordable government housing. That problem is not going to be solved by tiny houses far removed from the streets of San Francisco. As a matter of fact, no problem with a lack of affordable housing in major cities will be solved by tiny houses.

            2. peterstreep profile image78
              peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Hi ReadMikeNow,

              - "Climate change is no longer science.  It has become a social and political view."
              The Climate Breakdown is proven by science. It is not a thing you believe in or not.
              You can have different opinions of how to solve it. That's the political view. But climate crisis denial is not the solution but part of the problem.

              - "How many people do you know are willing to give up all of the products made from petroleum products?"

              I recently found a photo where I was smoking in a plain while travelling to New York!!!
              Millions of people have given up smoking because laws where made not to smoke in public buildings etc.
              The same thing can be done with meat and plastics. Make meat thrice as expensive and make it a luxury product as it used to be. It will make a huge difference if everybody only eat meat once a week instead of every day.
              Ban plastic, just like asbestos.
              It is not impossible it is only the political will to do so.
              The US spends 650 Billion $ on the military yearly. This is more then China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, India, United Kingdom and Germany COMBINED!!!
              Imagine what you could do with the money if you would cut the spending in half!!! You will still spent more then the number two on the list China.
              So the money is there. The problem is solvable. The only thing that lacks is the political will.
              And if politicians are not willing to do things, then we citizens have to start doing things.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                "So the money is there. The problem is solvable. The only thing that lacks is the political will."

                I disagree.

                You've not answered the question about production, petroleum products, crashing of the world's economy and more.  To do anything you would have to get every country in the world to agree and in the realm of reality, THAT will never happen. 

                If anybody is willing to take the time to read about climate science, they should be willing to read about the world economy. 

                Again, there is NO workable solution.  I don't think it's right when people single out the United States.  If it is GLOBAL climate change, one nation or even a few won't matter. 

                Ban plastic?  So, what are you going to use to replace all the plastic parts on your computer, smartphone, cars, televisions, etc. etc. etc.  Then you wipe out the plastic industry and that has a huge negative impact on the tax base, and employment.  More unemployed people and less tax revenue.  Not a good idea for anybody.

                My problem with most people who claim climate change is a fact don't seem to comprehend the enormity or the economic impact of what they ask to change it. 

                If Climate Change is established science, then there not being a realistic workable solution to it is also a fact.

                Remember, like a wise man once said "Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about."

                1. peterstreep profile image78
                  peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  I gave you a couple of answers.
                  The problem is big and can not be answered by just one action.
                  We could use less plastic
                  We could eat less meat.
                  We could use less pestisides
                  We could buy less consumer products
                  There are many things we could do today, without waiting for politicians to make laws.
                  These are things we can do personally.
                  To work on solution against the climate breakdown it will have an economic impact. But who says it is negative. It can be a huge opportunity for lots of companies. During the years products come, become obsolete and go, replaced by better products.
                  We used cotton bags, then we started to use plastic bags, now we use plastic bags made from degradable plastic. Products change. This is not a bad thing. It's a good thing called innovation and it happens all the time.
                  So why not change the products so they become more environment friendly? There is a huge market to be filled. Don't see it negative but as a positive force.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    "We could use less plastic
                    We could eat less meat.
                    We could use less pestisides
                    We could buy less consumer products"

                    You are absolutely right.

                    We "could." But as someone who has been in this world and traveled around the world I can tell you, some people in the United States may sign on for this, but around the world, there are more people than you realize who won't do anything.  That is reality.

                    Climate change is a Global problem.  NOT just a United States problem.  You would have to change the habits of people on a worldwide scale. I find that almost impossible.

                    Ever been to a third world country? Most of them don't care about anything other than surviving the day. Many people in these countries wouldn't care at ALL if what they were doing was harming the climate as long as they had enough to survive.  Not live, survive. 

                    "To work on solution against the climate breakdown it will have an economic impact. But who says it is negative. It can be a huge opportunity for lots of companies. During the years products come, become obsolete and go, replaced by better products."

                    Again, you are 100 percent correct.

                    The problem is not the products BUT the materials and processes used to make them.  This is where petroleum plays a huge role and always will.  Think about the process it takes to make most products.  Think about all over the world and how many countries have MUCH lower manufacturing standards than the United States.  In many of these countries they only focus is on making money.  Nothing you or I can say or will change their minds.

                    "So why not change the products so they become more environment friendly? There is a huge market to be filled. Don't see it negative but as a positive force."

                    Again, you are spot on.  The reality of consumerism is that products will be made to meet demand.  When there is a profit motive to make these products, they will be made.  You can't just produce products and hope people purchase them.  You are right in that it will change, as business always changes. 

                    Still, I don't see any of this having a huge impact on the change in the climate.  Is there an example where climate has changed for the better when man has changed his ways?  If there was, it would probably inspire many people.

    4. erorantes profile image61
      erorantesposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Good evening Mister Ken Burgers. I read on the news papers. I watched the news on TV. I watched a lot of YouTube videos that people showed in different parts of the world. For example, Bahamas and some parts in the United States Of America a few tornados, floods, hot weather and cold weather was catastrophic. I know; it has nothing to do with the article in the Washington Post, but at some extent some bad things are happening around the world as a consequence of the climate changes. I invite you to see on YouTube some catastrophic moments , so you can see with your own eyes. What, I am writing is true. Have a good night and sleep good.

  2. Castlepaloma profile image74
    Castlepalomaposted 6 months ago

    Why not fire whitehouse staff for willful  ignorance of the world's greatest threat to humanity. Natural Environment is the only thing that almost every countries agree upon. Health is wealth first for us and the planet. 

    Al Core stated about the possibility of a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013.  Tourist ships travel every where in Arctic in the summer.

    Charles issue a stark warning that nations have "less than 100 months to act" to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.
    It was not the end of the world. He would not know that date, yet still life expectancy has lowered for the first time in modern human history according to my own study's of history and biology organism.

    Charles says we need to tackle global warming is more urgent than ever,  even in a Global recession. That is true and happening now.

    If you find 96% human and livestock being the mass weight for total manmal is normal or only 4% of wildlife mammal mass weight a not a disater. I don't know what normal is.  When people allow 75% trees removed from earth or 90% of big fish gone from the oceans, they are heartless. When two in every female and three in every male will get some foam of cancer and made chemo and radiation as the main cure. That is Apocalyptic to me.

  3. Castlepaloma profile image74
    Castlepalomaposted 6 months ago

    Why not fire whitehouse staff for willful  ignorance of the world's greatest threat to humanity. Natural Environment is the only thing that almost every countries agree upon. Health is wealth first for us and the planet. 

    Al Core stated about the possibility of a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013.  The first commercial cargo ship to have sailed through the Northwest Passage was SS Manhattan in August 1969. Now many tourism ships travel every where in Arctic in the summer.

    Charles issue a stark warning that nations have "less than 100 months to act" to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.

    It was not the end of the world. Charles would not know that date, yet still life expectancy has lowered for the first time in modern human history according to my own study's of history and biology organism.

    Charles says we need to tackle global warming is more urgent than ever,  even in a Global recession. That is true and happening now.

    If you find 96% human and livestock being the mass weight for total manmal is normal or only 4% of wildlife mammal mass weight a not a disaster. I don't know what normal is.  When people allow 75% trees removed from earth or 90% of big fish gone from the oceans, they are heartless. When two in every female and three in every male will get some foam of cancer and made chemo and radiation as the main cure. That is Apocalyptic to me.

  4. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 6 months ago

    I would like to know what predictions by those predicting climate disaster have come true.  Anybody?  Yes, in the 1970s we were told were going to face another ice age.  Nobody freaked out about it like today.

    So, were are the correct climate disaster predictions?  I'll take some from the early 2000s.  There have been several.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

      To answer your question in regard to the examples you have given, none of them have come to fruition.

  5. profile image0
    RTalloniposted 6 months ago

    Thought you might like to see these items:

    https://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/c … tened.html

    https://people.com/health/climate-chang … al-health/

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/1 … -epidemic/

    It is a terrible injustice, even criminal, to manipulate and use children to promote this agenda. I hope parents will start saying no more for their children. To unnecessarily  frighten children is beyond belief, telling us the left will stop at nothing to get to their real goal behind the climate change movement. Money and power is behind all the double-standard lies.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      If you want talk about criminal and manipulate fear tactics. Flip on the news and hear about horrific terrorists attack everyday. Mostly set off by false flags no doubt.

      Lighting kills 8 times more than terrorists do. Some Government corporation will use environment fear tactics also, to gain more tax dollars. For most part natural environment damages and poverty kill more people than anything.

      The top 10 ways to die on planet earth is diseases related, almost invisible pollution area in our water, air, fires, earth everywhere is being large Corporation toxic waste free for all.

      There are natural disaster happen around the world in single events in the hundreds of thousands. Many of the large mammal and most of large cats in the world, live in captivity.

      We drop the ball with environment as hippies. I personally will be educated and training our youth for lower stress level of the environment by being able to take action, rather than corporation politics sitting on their tuffs thinking of more ways to kill more people and gain money.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        "Lighting kills 8 times more than terrorists do."

        Terrorists took some 3,000 lives less than 20 years ago.  We have NOT lost 24,000 people to lightning in the succeeding 20 years all combined.  Is this some of those manipulated fear tactics?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          If you divide 3,000 terrorists, into 24,000 Lighting dose that not come out to be 8 time more. For floods and fires it's alot more. Only 104 Americans have been claimed to be kill by Muslims terrorists the last 18 years. The 9/11 is very debatable as an flase flag inside job.

          More military intelligence facts.

          American soldiers die by suicide than combat; the number of veterans committing suicide is astronomical and under-reported). So you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.

          -So why do it, US has only won in two wars wail being at wars 93% of the time since birth 1776.

          The CDC says that some 80,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive alcohol use. So you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.

          -Alcohol often gives them these criminal ideas to go to war.

        2. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Wilderness

          About those authorities against tiny house living. I can't imagine any two better solutions for the economy, environment and our physical health than tiny house communities and cannabis. I challenge anyone to give me two other better ideas than these two.
          And No....exaggerations.

          From a grassroots entrepreneur perspective, a two party dictatorship is ridiculous they are deeply a broken system

          As the first sand and snow professional 45 years ago til today. You learn how to bend the rules all to hell. As for weed growing, I can talk about it today because it's legal after 95 years of being Illegal. Too bad for offenders lock up more than the violent criminals who rape murder and moleste kids, with no pardons for weed offenders is showing hypocrisy again.

          Getting the first Government grant for 2 years building tiny houses in BC Canada. I found out why Tiny houses can't be built on trailers like in the US. Minimum size house has to be 1200 sq ft or 400 sq ft. in a regular size house backyard. This is a grey area for North America. Like weed the Feds schedule it #one, meaning no useful purpose and dangerous. Even though it is the best known medicine for 10,000 years. Check history of Marrijanna 101. Avoid the biggest killers tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs.

          Fed law can force tiny houses to move on like Illegal homeless people, most tiny house owners are aware of this great grey gap. Some local authorities will try to bend the laws to help.

          I dealt with a shotgun, police trying to give me a criminal record, mysterious building and tiny houses set on fire.. County inspector threat and fines. Then finally I sold out to save my skin.

          Coming this spring I will be the first of 4 groups government legally to build a tiny house community in all of Canada. After 15 years the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Sorry for venting so much.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            Better for the environment and perhaps the economy are tremendous apartment complexes complete with commercial and even light industrial built in.  Less total energy consumed, less land required, maybe even easier recycling.  I'm talking a complex of a square mile or more, 20 or 30 stories high, with an occupancy in the tens of thousands.

            I wouldn't care to live in one, but then I wouldn't care to live in a tiny house, either.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image74
              Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              My tiny house community only need an hour's drive exist to 100,000s population rural.

              The operations  beats apartment & small housing pros & cons easily. Starting with by far most important issue affordable dwelling. Tiny is 1/10 the price.  Aircrete hemp anti fire, anti mold, anti begs and many others. It's 1/10 the cost and 1/5 the weight of apartment concrete. Tinyhouse much superior concrete to stiff concrete boxes. Of which both are mostly made of..

              Smaller houses would be a better investment than apartments.

              Disadvantages with Apartments renter or buyers

              * Average condo or Apartment owners move average every 8 years
              * Some travel just to get out of the apartment.
              *Apartment noise and traffic.
              * Number of tenants using the amenities
              *Lack of Control, too many laws,  no ownership of the land. Increase mataince dues.
              *landlord can enter, inspect apartment, less privacy. 
              * landlords strict rules about interior paint colors and fine violations for a lot of things.
              *Unruly Neighbors.
              * Often cockroaches or bed begs
              * Low income community is only as peaceful as its tenants & rules.
              * Often weaker community than even suburbia
              *Leasing Issues or dues
              restriction
              * Forms of leasehold property rights for specific lease durations, eviction or termination,  possible until  lease ends.
              Rights or nots roommate or a pet.
              *lease  can increased upon renewal.
              *No Ownership Benefits
              Like opportunity to claim tax deductions. Building lack increase in value and equity.
              Low cost apartments often a view of road, parking lot or another ugly box blocking veiw.

              1. hard sun profile image87
                hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                There are environmental advantages to stacked up apartments, as Wilderness mentioned. It seems many of the problems you state here or more related to how the apartments are run.

                Would it be possible to build apartment complexes with aircrete? I've seen some beautiful complexes with green roofs, etc.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image74
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this
                  1. Castlepaloma profile image74
                    Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    I once was interested in this style of building back in 1967. It turn out it was a failure long term.

                    I do see stacking up to two can add some benefits. Yet, It is complicated enough adding additional units to your tiny house. More higher levels at low costs housings required alot more expensive for equipment.

                    Something to explore when I get rich and famous again.

  6. Live to Learn profile image79
    Live to Learnposted 6 months ago

    Don't worry. It's coming. Obama bought a house right on the edge of the ocean so he can let us know when the apocalypse starts. He's like the climate apocalypse equivalent to judge Rutherford.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Nothing good will come out of a two party dictatorship. Obama broke a record for wars and before he got started he was given a Nobel Peace prize.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image91
        Ken Burgessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Things that make you go ….hmmmmmmmmmmm.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          You would be surprised on how many others think like me.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image91
            Ken Burgessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            I don't think I would be, I have spent enough time outside the U.S. to understand many non-Americans are far more aware of what is going on in the world, and how corrupt American leadership is, than the typical American.

            I was after all, part of that boot on the world's neck, or I was part of American diplomacy at work, for more than a dozen years, depends on one's perspective.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image74
              Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              If you love what you do and your not harming anyone, then my hat is off to you. 

              Your much better at  diplomacy than I . I  dream for a living and live a alternative healthy lifestyle.  Been told, especially from Americans, I am too honest to a fault.

              We may have a closer perspective than you think.

  7. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 6 months ago

    Actually, 50 years ago, everyone was worrying about the next and overdue ice age. Our carbon dioxide is preventing that. Who knew. big_smile

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      It was way colder when I was growing up. In fact I had to stop my snow sculpture business due too much warm weather. When the odd extreme cold day came along people would say, see there is no global warming.

  8. hard sun profile image87
    hard sunposted 6 months ago

    https://www.newscientist/article/dn1164 … the-1970s/

    Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

    I earned a degree in meteorology and climatology in 2002. The trends that the mainstream science community were predicting then are turning out to be true. And, there's no way scientists have time to conspire to create such a hoax. If you know many scientists, you understand how passionate they are for finding the truth in their fields.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      About 97%of scientists say humans are responsible for global warming; The other 3% could be dumb or pay off from people like Trump or large corporations.

      Thank dog for honest science.

  9. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 6 months ago

    I am looking forward to your next forum post titled, “Are we sure the Earth isn’t flat.”

    1. Live to Learn profile image79
      Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      roll

  10. Kathleen Cochran profile image79
    Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago

    No shame in admitting a mistake.  I'd encourage you to rely on more reliable sources.

  11. hard sun profile image87
    hard sunposted 6 months ago

    Since virtually all of the things that contribute to climate change, also emit various other pollutants, which we can very clearly see, and feel, the results of (mercury, NOx, SOx, etc.) why is this even an issue? Why can't we just agree that we need to move on from these dirty energy sources and products? While we may not have the perfect energy source yet, we have much much better alternatives that would leave our planet, and our species, much more healthy.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Agreed,

      Makes you wonder why the media doesn't do more to point out why EVs would be a good thing... actually it doesn't, they need the revenues from all those Auto Ads, Tesla doesn't do Ads, but GM does.

      The media has had one of the biggest, and most critical, news stories to cover this past month.  And they barely mentioned it:
      https://me.mashable.com/culture/6711/th … a-coverage

      Gotta have that "New Green Deal" to save the planet... but can't be bothered to make the #1 story of the day, every day until its stopped, the burning of the Amazon Forest at record setting rate.

      I don't watch our MSM news, bloviating self aggrandizing talking heads, but if I did, they would make me puke in disgust.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image90
        Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        That certainly explains a lot...

      2. hard sun profile image87
        hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, good point. EVs could be huge for air quality especially in urban areas and places directly downwind from them. They are even better when powered with cleaner energy sources such as wind turbines, but they cause cancer now, lol.

        Also, we don't hear much about gas lawnmowers:

        "According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a new gas powered lawn mower produces volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides emissions air pollution in in in one hour of operation as 11 new cars each being driven for one hour." https://www.peoplepoweredmachines.com/f … onment.htm

        I use a mower with no engine and an electric weed eater on my typical sized city lot/garden area.

        I find myself reading MSM now and then as I don't really watch live TV. I did read some about the Amazon, but you'd think it would be bigger news...getting dirt on Trump with the Ukraine thing is more important--and that may turn out worse for Biden than Trump.

        My confidence in MSM has greatly diminished. They take hearsay and run with it before getting the facts, and lead us all down unproductive paths with their story choices. I see the propaganda machine even with things like the anti-Kratom push..which is 100% ridiculous, but I won't get into that here, lol. --  I think we can still find some good reporting here and there though.

    2. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      It actually means the entire world would have to move away from dirty energy sources.  That is NOT realistic. So, again, feel good words and no workable solutions.

      1. hard sun profile image87
        hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        It is realistic...it's just not going to happen overnight. There are solutions, and there will be more solutions in the future. The alternative is continue to pollute until the planet is uninhabitable.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          It is?  Any proof?

          Please answer this question.  Is there an example where climate has changed for the better when man has changed his ways?  If there was, it would probably inspire many people.

          So, also, there have been periods in the earth when there was climate change AND there were no humans.  THIS is a fact.  So, how did this happen without humans?

          1. hard sun profile image87
            hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            There are examples of climate changing for the betterment of man you just have to google them and find a reliable source. I wasn't even speaking on climate though.

            The same goes for proof of technologies beyond coal and oil...google. Here's a good place to start though: https://www.nrel.gov/research/learning.html

            As batteries improve it will get even easier. I cannot prove that technologies will get better, but, um...this is what's happened throughout human history

            I think you know that the issue is how much humans change the climate not whether or not climate has natural variability. Milankovitch cycle, etc

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              "There are examples of climate changing for the betterment of man you just have to google them and find a reliable source."

              I don't believe there is such a thing.

              Again, do you grasp how much of our daily lives involve products made from petroleum?  One of them is plastics.  This involves smart phones, computers, glass, televisions, cables, tires, hoses, roofing materials, roads, sidewalks, etc. etc. etc. 

              You are not going to get rid of petroleum any time soon.  Will technology improve, sure, but until then what?

              At least we agree Climate change is a natural part of the cycle of the earth. 

              If places get warmer, is it because of of man?  Might not be since climate change happens with or without man. 

              Can man change it?  Again, no proof.

              It has simply become a political football.

              1. hard sun profile image87
                hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                As I stated, we are not going to blink our eyes and be rid of ALL oil, natural gas-based products. I understand these things...as I studied them as part of my master's in Environmental Management.

                So, your argument is this: Since we cannot make it perfect, we do nothing about any of the environmental/health problems that our technologies bring us?

                As has been stated over and over here, we look to scientists for proof. If you don't trust them, I can't help you. Also, my argument is too much attention is paid to climate and not enough to the other..VERY CLEAR health/envrionment problems we have from technologies.

                We began truly understanding, and witnessing, these things since at least back in 1948 in Donora, Pennsylvania.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image74
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  HardSun

                  If the people from planet Toxic win.

                  I got a plan B in Colomobia in starting operation, we could use a good man.

                  1. hard sun profile image87
                    hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Ha...My wife is an excellent horticulturist who would love that experience. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but unfortunately it seems much more likely now then just ten years ago when it looked like more nations would come together and take real action on these matters...like the US.

    3. peterstreep profile image78
      peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Good question.
      I think that it has to do with money, power, mentality and the incompetence of change.
      As Mike pointed out. The world is running on oil at the moment. And the companies who are connected with the oil industry don't want to change this power position. So they fight against the new technologies. They fight against the truth with the media sewing doubt about the climate crisis. This is what the tobacco industry did for years.
      But just like the coal industry became obsolete, so will the oil industry become obsolete. New energy resources are developed and already on the market.
      Just to give an example from here in Spain. For years the government taxed solar power for those who lived in the cities and could get electricity by the grid. With the result being that solar energy was more expensive then normal electricity. Nobody used solar.
      Spain could have exported solar energy to France (which uses mainly nuclear energy). No, it did not as the government was ruled by oil and gas companies.
      Today there isn't a tax on solar any more and people start to use it as an alternative more and more. Spain has a lot of sun hours so it makes sense.
      But it demonstrates that it is a fight between the old oil empires and the new ones.
      It's a fight between Donald Trump against Greta Thunberg. The dinosaur and the future. The dinosaurs are in power but they are afraid of what is coming. They know too, that the world is changing, and most rednecks know instinctively. That's why the world is in turmoil. Machismo against feminism. White supremacy against cultural diversity. Isolationism and nationalism against global connectivity. There are a lot of forces at work today.
      And the big question is : In what kind of world do we want to live in.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image74
        Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Tax on Tobacco is 12%. Just Imported taxed solar energy into the US is 30%.

        Meaning the worst drug in the world that's killing more people than aids, wars and all drugs combined is less sin taxed than solar. Everything keeps coming up backwards.

        Why do so many Americans love a two party dictorship? Is way beyond me.

      2. hard sun profile image87
        hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Yep. It always comes back to money. The state in which I live had some solid net-metering laws until the most recent Republican governor decided to make it a priority to end them. Now, you can put any amount of energy into the grid and all you get is a waiver of fees and such. Used to, the energy companies had to pay you market rate for that energy...seems fair. But, we deal with energy monopolies with tremendous lobbying powers.

        Much of the US is at least decent for solar power, and I would love to run on all panels with maybe a small wind turbine. But, with upfront costs, it's just not going to happen right now. I will certainly do this when I'm able to downsize .With several deep cycle batteries, it won't be too difficult.

        However, it should be cheaper now. Coal and oil are still subsidized way too much. This paragraph is very telling:

        "The best way to compare solar energy and fossil fuels without subsidies is to examine global energy prices. Consider this: global coal prices have historically averaged $0.06 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Until the past decade, no alternative energy resource came close to rivaling that price. Fossil fuel steam averages around $0.05 cents/kWh and small scale natural gas can go as low as $0.03 cents/kWh"

        https://news.energysage/solar-energy-vs-fossil-fuels/

        It's not easy to push out those with the means to get things done especially in the States, with our lax lobbying laws.

        As to your big question. It baffles me that so many have been played by the lobbyists into arguing that we should simply continue to destroy our planet. Where I grew up, many people are actively trying to keep a solar PV farm from coming in just outside of town as they fear the metals leaching from the panels into their water. "Grassroots" efforts start with thing like a phone call from an astroturfing company with a name like "Citizens for the Betterment of People and the Planet." What they don't tell you, is the group just started when the lobbying company spoke with coal industry reps who are paying for the effort.

        There are risks of environmental harm with any known energy source, but those risks are not ANYWHERE near equal. Lobbying tactics are underhanded and effective.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          My solar unit cost $3,500 powers my 200 square foot tiny house and work shop for $350 in batteries for the year. Lucky my genius neighbor sold a kit. He generates a huge solar plant cheaper than local hydro running on coal.

          Jet stove, oven and house heater like the linked honey do aircrete to you. Cost just travel in free scrap wood, takes one Fourth of wood to burn.  Live in zone 4 like times it gets 45 below. Back up propane used just a couple of times.Gas generator for laundry and higher voltage power tools at times. Also passive heating from 2 pane glass windows. Attrached four season growing food greenhouse for air freshest, extra heat and air
          flow. Freezer most expensive gas $300 a year. Solar is expensive to buy yet much cheaper to run.

          Actually built an eco artificial system in Toronto inside a sick building to bring it back to health.

          Man on Mars living on a spaceship. Concept of growing potatoes for oxygen and food from human sh_t.
          Microgreens grow twice a week from 2 trays, would worked way easier  on Mars.

          Microgreens also sell for $20 to $40 a pound at farmer markets, Lighting is no problem. Ducks are twice the nutrition than chickens for eggs and meat. More fun and easier to raise, electric fence dose the trick.

        2. peterstreep profile image78
          peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          What would happen if solar power became cheaper the oil or coal?
          People would own their own resources. Now that’s dangerous!
          Governments/the ruling class can’t have it that the plebs become more independent.
          So the powers that be make us dependent on the resources they control.
          The internet was a dangerous thing in the beginning too. Now its a means to control people. (Personal advertisement preferences etc.)
          Most laws are made to control you and to protect the ruling class.
          A personal example.
          We live completely off the grid on the countryside in Spain. I’m Dutch, my wife English. She needs a European passport to be able to work properly in the EU. and with the Brexit coming up she will loose all her European rights (working without Working permit, European healthcare, she will need a Visa to visit other European countries etc.)
          Now, we are married, so you would think that’s easy peasy...nope.
          As we have to deliver tons of official papers to proof that we are living together. Which we do, but in a house where the postman never comes, without official energy or water bills, etc. Its tough to find those papers..
          This independency is a nightmare for governments to work with.
          So I guess they rather want to drown us in oil and suffocate us in coal then to give us our own control over energy resources.

          1. hard sun profile image87
            hard sunposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            --some great incite here on how governments flail when people are more self-sufficient. Unfortunately, at least in the US, if solar becomes cheaper than coal it will likely still be grid-dominated solar as that will be how the laws  are set up. Only the ones that have the means and/or the drive will ever get off the grid.

          2. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            "People would own their own resources. Now that’s dangerous! Governments/the ruling class can’t have it that the plebs become more independent. So the powers that be make us dependent on the resources they control."

            You are SO right on this one.

            In the United States, people have been put in prison for collecting rain water.  Rain water.  I asked an attorney how does the government control something that falls from to earth from the sky.  It is against the law in about a dozen US states to collect a natural resource like rain water. I still can't comprehend the reasonong.  ALSO, there has been more than one incident where people in the United States have lived fine without public utilities for years...and government officials have told them the "have" to get public utilities because it is too dangerous for them to live as they have lived for years.  People have been removed from property they owned because they refused to get public utilities.  You have shown me how governments are the same all over the world.

            Spain is a beautiful country.  I go there whenever I go to Europe.  Have you ever been to Mallorca?  I've had so many good times there.

            Hope your situation with your wife works itself out some how for the best.

            1. lobobrandon profile image89
              lobobrandonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Mike is your account hacked? You've for once said something meaningful.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                If you can't be nice, move on, I can do without your comments.

            2. Castlepaloma profile image74
              Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              In Bolivia, the natives had a long water war with the government & water corporation that claimed all water rights, including rain.

              Then they charged for water more than what most people could afford meaning they would all mostly die or be imprisoned. The natives people over threw the Government and water corporation.

              I believe in capitalist system, not Centro corporationism

            3. peterstreep profile image78
              peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks Mike.. (The Brexit thing is completely nuts...but that's a different subject)
              Now that's a strange and disturbing story. Getting fined for collecting rainwater!
              We do it all the time, as water is precious and we want to use all the water we can get for the vegetables and garden..
              In Holland you can have solar power but you have to be connected to the grid and give the solar power back to the grid.You won't pay for what you generate yourself but you aren't independent either.

              Yes,  they will try to control the resources. Huge Solar farms is the way to go I guess. If you have a big dessert you can monetize it... In Morocco they started to do this, something Spain could have done years ago..(thought..invest in the Nevada desert....wouldn't it be great if Saudi Arabia was one big solar panel instead of one big oil bubble )
              In Spain they start to organize in such a way as well. You may use solar power but connected to a grid.
              As I'm living in a place where there is no grid I am allowed to have my own energy resources. (Sun panels)
              (I had a wind turbine too but it flew from the roof during a tornado...)

              I haven't been to Mallorca (I live near Valencia) But there is lot's to discover in Spain.

      3. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Solar (and wind) power IS more expensive in my area.  Perhaps because a majority of our power is hydro, but it is more expensive than what we already have.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          I lived in Creston BC for three years, that just above your city. The problem in that area is high Hill and tall trees, hard for sun solar and wind to get at. The trick is to find an area more exposure to the sun then it's Ok. Wind turbines is more of a challenge. In Saskatchewan has the best sun overall in Canada. An 8 acres solar set up, is the best system I have ever seen. That was my neighbor system actually cheaper than coal. Saskatchewan Wind were too strong, Manitoba blows and BC sucks.

  12. erorantes profile image61
    erorantesposted 6 months ago

    You are so fortunate to live in the mountains. You really have a nice treat.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, warm mountains area like Creston and cool oceans beaches like some spots on Western Vancouver island are the most beautiful places ever and love living there.
      Although sometimes, I end up in the ugly cities mainly for earning money.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)