Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 20
    Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    The refrain you will undoubtedly hear is that "97% of all the world's climate scientists agree that humans are the greatest force driving climate change," and that statement is one big fat lie. That statistic comes from a single poll that was sent to a group of three thousand scientists who had peer reviewed papers about climate change. It turned out that only about 120 papers discussed the human contribution, and of those, only 79 responded, with 75 of them supporting the human induced theory. Now that's 95%, so even the 97% figure is a lie. The truth is that only 75 scientists were used as a representation of "all the world's climate scientists."

    By contrast, more than 34,000 climate scientists signed a letter to the UN, protesting that their climate change report greatly exaggerated the human effect on climate. That shows a much greater opposition to the hysteric claims of impending doom than support.

    Ask your professors if any of the accepted climate models have been verified by starting them 150 years back, to see if they accurately produce anything close to the current climate. To the best of my knowledge, no one has taken this validation step, which makes any model result extremely untrustworthy.

    During my military service, I participated in a study called the "Weather War." The purpose of the study was to determine what it would take to change local weather patterns to make them favorable to US military operations. We used validated meteorological models in our research. What we learned from the exercise was a mind bender: no matter how much material we dispersed (up to a million tons of particulates), the weather was unaffected, let alone long term climate. To illustrate, a category 5 hurricane unleashes the equivalent energy of a 250 megaton nuclear weapon (five times bigger than the biggest hydrogen bomb ever tested). We found that an attempt to break up such a weather event with a nuclear weapon would be counterproductive, possibly resulting in an increase of the storm's power by adding to the ocean thermal energy, which is the fuel that drives a hurricane.

    You might also ask your professors if even draconian measures (as proposed under the Paris Accord) to reduce the US carbon output would offset the carbon production of China, India, and all the developing countries, none of which were to be restrained. If they say yes, it's a bald faced lie. China is already the biggest producer of carbon emissions, and they are not required to do anything to reduce its production (which continues to climb) until 2030.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 3 months, 4 weeks ago
      Dr Z. Yes Yes.
      But in your para Ask your professors - this validation step has been done. Climate models using the Greenhouse proposition are useless at predictions, badly wrong. Some of the models using solar radiation are better.
      Available data sets are quite poor. For solar radiation, sun-spot activity is taken as the first indicator. Temperature records are both poor and hard to interpret, on top of that there has been widespread alteration of data, they call it homogenization, the real word is fraud. Some agencies have destroyed data sets of actual data replacing with adjusted data sets.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 4 weeks ago
        As you say, "Climate models using the Greenhouse proposition are useless at predictions, badly wrong." That's probably why the "validation" results are hard to find, because they don't support the hypothesis for human-driven climate change.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 4 weeks ago
      Your last paragraph reminds me of the "Kyoto Protocol." It was a 1997 international treaty/commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. My teacher told us the U.S. abandoned the treaty because China and India didn't sign it (which isn't true, they did sign it but they just don't follow it... I think). I fully support that decision. Why would we reduce GHG if the largest producers of them won't? Throughout the rest of the year, my peers complained about America's decision. Some even claimed they have clinical "anxiety" over it.

      The "Weather War" study sounds really interesting, along with the letter to the UN. Do you know if the letter is available to read online? I just looked it up but only articles supporting the global warming theory pop up.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 4 weeks ago
        Here's one list of climate scientists who disagree with the climate change hype: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 3 months, 4 weeks ago
          That is a good list -unexpected from Wikipedia.
          Comments:

          Susan Crockford, world expert on polar bears finds they are not dying off due to climate change.
          Judith Curry, Climatologist, started as believer, found the data did not fit what the scam said, now hounded as a denier.
          Richard Lindzen. Would be top of the rank in climate studies for experience and expertize. Going the 'wrong way' his name is now verboten.
          Ross McKitrick, exposed the Hockey Stick as fraud.
          Timothy Ball, said Mann belongs in State Pen not Penn State, fighting years of law suits. Vancouver BC court has ruled against Mann.
          Jennifer Marohasy, excellent exposes of data tampering by Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
          Murry Salby, sacked by his university while attending a conference, had his air fare canceled, for an anti-climate scam paper.
          Willie Soon, NYT tried to frame him for getting paid by 'big coal', he was not.
          John Christy, puts out satellite data which disagrees with land data that have been tampered with.

          More names worth noting:
          Brian Fisher, economist, his house was egged after he put costings on carbon policy measures proposed by Australia's opposition Labor Party.
          Peter Ridd, sacked by university for 'uncollegiate behavior' -he exposed fraud research that Australia's Great Barrier Reef is dying because of climate change, his protest upheld in court.
          Bjørn Lomborg economist, believes in carbon caused climate change, says that adaption (high cost) is cheaper than prevention (enormous cost). This threatens the gravy train so he is labeled a denier and there are campus protests when he may appear.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 3 months, 4 weeks ago
        Have a look at this:
        petitionproject.org
        31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. First signature is that of Edward Teller.

        To be fair there are eminent celebrities of the other opinion:
        Al Gore, Barbra Streisand, De Capricio, Barak Obama, UK's Prince Charles, politicians by the dozen, Hollywood actors and act.....s galore, scientists in government positions appointed as experts, a prolific contributor on this site who even when asked gives no sources for opinions, etc.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    Climate does change and it has done so for as far back in history as humankind has been able to examine.
    The effect that the actions of humankind have on climate is insignificant.
    "Global warming" is a term invented by politicians to loot and control humankind.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 4 weeks ago
      I'm currently taking an environmental science class and they unsurprisingly teach the antithesis of your perspective.
      My stepdad (whom I greatly respect) has the same view as you, except he believes certain industries (e.g. oil) are pushing the whole global warming theory. He compares it to the "save the trees, use plastic" movement that he claims existed when he was younger.
      I don't know what to believe! They give me "scientific data" that supports global warming theories but I keep hearing a completely different argument from respectable individuals like yourself.
      I plan to research "both sides" in the future. Anyways, thanks for sharing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 months, 4 weeks ago
        See: suspicious0bservers.org
        Ben also has a channel on youtube...it's free.
        Learn how the sun controls our climate and much more...then go teach your class the truth!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months, 4 weeks ago
          I'll check it out!

          Not sure about teaching my class though... Once we wrote questions and then anonymously answered them. A girl asked, "if global warming ended up being false, should we not have tried to address it?"
          I responded very vaguely but basically said, "Probably not, because all the taxes/"solutions" typically hurt citizens financially (like in France) and increase government regulation of the economy. We should try to address direct environmental issues like water pollution instead."
          She definitely did not like my opinion and proceeded to read it out to the class! I ended up having to explain my view in defense and used some real world examples. As expected, the real world examples were met with dead silence.

          In class we always have to give "solutions" to the issues. All the solutions are taxes, subsidies, etc.
          They never think about who ends up paying for it!

          Edit: Talked about global warming with a teacher this morning... they asked the same rhetorical question the girl did, so I gave the same answer. Unsurprisingly, they didn't have a response for it. I probably shouldn't say anything in the future since their questions are always rhetorical. They never want to hear a response. Why ask it then?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 months, 4 weeks ago
            I've often encountered the response "even it if's wrong, what's the cost of trying to address it". The most obvious answers is "thousands of lives lost".

            "Green energy" is raising the cost of heating homes and "fuel poverty" among the poor and elderly. People who can't afford the high cost of energy are keeping their houses cold.

            Of all the people who die from temperature related causes, about 5% die from extreme heat events, about 5% die from extreme cold events and 90% die from persistent cold. Persistent cold is dangerous, it degrades the immune system and causes disease.

            This is why periods of cold are times of disease and pestilence and periods of warm are called "golden ages" with more food, economic expansion and exploration. Cold is Bad. Warm is Good. (within reason, of course). Interestingly these cold and war periods do map to the sunspot cycles.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 months, 4 weeks ago
            Many run into the same problem...they don't want an answer and science itself refuses to look at natural cycles, even though they are self evident through geological history like clock work. Ben at Suspicious Observers and many honest scientist have investigated and relayed the forces behind these cycles...he is well respected in the "non-political" scientific community.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            " A girl asked, "if global warming ended up being false, should we not have tried to address it?""
            I do not understand her question. If you thought you had a malignant tumor, had it excised, and then found out it was not harmful, should you have had it removed? Of course not, if there were some way to know it wasn't harmful. If the best evidence was it was malignant cancer, though, of course it's right to remove it if it's operable.

            Like having an operation, we definitely should not needlessly avoid carbon emissions if they turn out (contrary to current understanding) to be harmless.

            The idea that we would avoid something that's productive for no reason is such a bizarre claim, the burden is on them to explain why. This does not sound like a scientific class.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 4 weeks ago
        I have not seen any scientific data supporting "global warming" that has not been proven to be a wild ass guess (computer model) based on assumptions that are not rational (having insufficient supporting empirical evidence.)
        If you find some, please post it. ;^)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months, 4 weeks ago
          I've been taught with the same evidence used in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," i.e. ice core carbon dioxide concentrations and atmospheric carbon dioxide readings. The majority of the time we are shown graphs with no information about the source so I'm highly doubtful as to whether they're credible.

          I'll try to find some haha :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 months, 4 weeks ago
            Carbon is only .03% of our atmosphere. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor.

            They always mix up climate with environment...the environment does not cause climate: weather patterns over a long period of time.
            Has government, crony politicians and unelected bureaucrats ruined our environment?...YEP!..but that has NOT changed the weather nor the climate.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Commander 3 months, 4 weeks ago
        Marcia Bjornerud: Timefulness is the title.
        She gives an insightful iteration of how geology is the record book for many of the things that affected life on this planet over periods of billions of years. She is candid and well studied. Empirical evidence and sources are noted in her authorship. Purchase the work. If you do not find it valuable I shall pay you twice price plus shipping to me.
        Make up your own mind instead of depending on the ignorant rhetoric of the unstudied minds of the average.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months, 4 weeks ago
          Just bought it, though I have a feeling you won't be needing to pay me back :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Commander 3 months, 4 weeks ago
            I'd really like to hear your insights afterward. After a 35 year career in manufacturing I'm beginning a new one of education on human relations, values formation and how conflicts, internal and external may be resolved. I've gone beyond The Objectivist's Ethics. I've also discovered that all one needs to be exposed to in metaphysical practicum may occur in not more than 40 hours.....then the integration begins. Quest-I-On or Quest-shun.....a choice....
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  3 months, 1 week ago
              I finally finished the book and did, in fact, find it valuable. I now have a lot more respect for geology and appreciated the evidence she cited. The most interesting part I found was the chapter concerning radiometric dating. I ended up falling down a rabbit hole on the internet trying the learn more! Nuclear physics is very interesting...

              I plan to check out opposing views, but at this point I agree with her stance on climate change (and am probably more pessimistic than she is). I especially want to research all of the natural sources of climate change that have been acknowledged and see how many different variables there truly are. On another note, I was very surprised she never brought up the topic of nuclear energy. I simply don't understand why nuclear power plants are being shut down, when they seem to only cause thermal radiation and are otherwise relatively safe.

              Also, I always thought science was a "closed-off field"; that I couldn't possibly enter the field because I'm not inventive enough. I planned to go into the medical field as a sort of compromise- because I still do enjoy math and science exponentially more than any other subject. The book changed my mind. There is still so much we don't know and hopefully a lot of room to be filled within the science community.

              Thank you for recommending the book!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Commander 3 months, 1 week ago
                You're welcome. Happy you found it substantive.
                This is not so much about the rhetoric of "Climate Change" as it is to how much long term trends and tendencies in CO sequestration, or lack thereof, affect sensitive life forms and then cascade as "domino" effect.
                The Krill population in Antarctica has been monitored for about 100 years. The Krill population is down about 90%. Polutions of many kinds might affect the numbers. The one thing we do know......humans are the only species of mass pollution sustained over centuries. If compared to a bacterium or virus.....way too similar. The film: The Global Brain" 1985, Peter Russel, imposed a stratospheric view of a large metro area over that of a cluster of cancer cells....hmmmmmm.
                Be cautious of the rhetoric encountered here. Things have degraded from objective interactions and explorations to expostulate of frustrations in many cases. Adding to divisiveness only fuels conflict......is that an oxymoron?
                Objective behavior is becoming less frequent here.
                I've an exploratory for you in mind. Care to take a shot at a re-write of The Declaration of Independence? I've been staring this down for about 2 years.....kinda fun!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  3 months, 1 week ago
                  Scientific studies and observations are becoming politicized, which only make rhetorical arguments more frequent. It's very unfortunate.

                  I would love to read that! I'll even read the original Declaration (which is something I should have done by now) so I have a good base of knowledge.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 3 months, 4 weeks ago
        Of course they teach you the opposite. The tragedy is that you have to parrot it in order to get good grades. A terrible crime committed against the thinking younger generation.

        There is no scientific data supporting climate change.

        If you do your research you will see the contradictions and manufactured evidence very early.

        I have scientific background and familiar with modeling in theory and practice. The models used by climate "scientists" (first by the UN body that came out with the "findings") are based on models, not actual data.

        The climate change movement is a useful tool for the left to regain control, most of it lost when communism failed in Europe and the Soviet Union.

        It is not by accident that the global left embraces climate change and keeps it as the primary goal in its agenda. Climate change and man made global warming are two different things, that the left bakes into one.

        Climate change is independent from human activities and it is happening during our times, as it has many times during the lifecycle of the Earth.

        Human made global warming is nonexistent to the extent the left is trying to make it a case for Armageddon.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 3 months, 4 weeks ago
          And back in the early 1970s scientists were oh so concerned about "Global Cooling" (i.e., the coming New Ice Age). When I was in junior high (okay, that alone dates me - they call it "middle school" now) in 1972, my parents bought me an encyclopedia set that came with a "Science Annual" you could buy every year. My 1972 Annual has articles in it describing the perils of Global Cooling (along with the other scare of the time, which was acid rain).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 4 weeks ago
        “I plan to research "both sides" in the future.”
        I don’t think it’s a thing that has sides. It’s like creationists who want to “teach both sides of the evolution controversy.” There’s no controversy, just science vs people post hoc rationalizing what that wish were true.

        There is a legitimate controversy about how to deal with it. It’s a tough problem because it’s hard to calculate the exact cost of emitting greenhouse gases. Scientists don’t know how much emissions contribute to global warming. Some of it is part of the natural cycle of deglaciation/glaciation. It’s even harder to figure out the exact costs of global warming.

        Working out the details is complicated by there being enormous political pressure to deny the problem because so much economic activity produces greenhouse gases. To make it even more complicated, politicians never let a crisis go to waste. The worst example is politicians wrapping a big green bow around socialistic policies in “the green new deal”.

        I tend to be optimistic, though. I don’t think politicians will exploit it any worse than any other issue that comes up. Carbon emissions per unit GDP are going down thanks to technology. The worse predictions of wars and deaths related to climate change won’t come true, I think, because the change will happen slow enough for people to react. People may invent geoengineering technology that not only stops climate change but allows us to alter climate in ways beneficial to human interests.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 months, 4 weeks ago
          Here's a clue for you: if they actually thought that emitting CO2 was going to "kill the planet" they wouldn't be closing nuclear power plants. They work 24/7 (unlike wind and solar) and have more than 50 years with the safest record of any power source -- including Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

          This is politics not science, there is very little science in this discussion -- mostly people pointing to a "consensus". For some reason the idea of a computer model has a mystique. If you say "my computer model shows" you are granted more credibility than if you say "my calculations show". In the latter case, people want to know the basis of your calculations. Both statements are essentially the same.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  3 months, 4 weeks ago
            I'm so glad you brought nuclear energy up. Ever since I learned about nuclear energy I've been extremely skeptical about anyone who believes in global warming. There is absolutely no way these politicians want to "save the planet," because nuclear power plants are disappearing left and right. We brushed right over it in my environmental science class- which is ridiculous. Oh but of course, we need to know about Chernobyl!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 months, 4 weeks ago
              The big argument against nuclear is that the nuclear waste -- which is relatively small -- has a long half life. On the other hand batteries use heavy metals which can be poisonous. Anyone know the half-life of an element?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                "The big argument against nuclear is that the nuclear waste"
                I saw a funny cartoon with two power plants arguing. The nuclear plant said to the coal fired plant, "oh yeah? Well there's no safe place to store your waste either!"

                "nuclear waste has a long half life."
                Many people wrongly think its having a long half life makes it more dangerous.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 3 months, 4 weeks ago
              Yet most all of the aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear powered
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  3 months, 4 weeks ago
                AND those nuclear powered air crafts only have to refuel every 20 years (if not longer)!
                Two months back some navy recruiters gave a presentation at my school and told us their ship needed a refuel every 50 years and produced around 1 trash can full of nuclear waste in that time span. Not sure if I remembered incorrectly or if it really is that efficient, but that just goes to show how nonsensical it is to reduce the use of nuclear energy.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 3 months, 4 weeks ago
                  It really is nonsensical. I would think that a land based nuclear plant would inherently be safer than a warship that gets bounced around by wealther, perhaps by missiles, and could sink pretty much anywhere (even in a relatively shallow harbor)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            " they wouldn't be closing nuclear power plants. They work 24/7 (unlike wind and solar) and have more than 50 years with the safest record of any power source -- including Chernobyl and Three Mile Island."
            We should be building more nuclear plants (not shutting them down) and developing nuclear technology. Everything has costs. If we want zero illness or death from any technology, we simply can't develop it. That goes for traditional cars, driverless cars, even IoT capabilities of an oven. Someone somewhere will be hurt by them.

            Even if greenhouse gases did not cost costly global warming, we should still develop nuclear. Given the potential costs of global warming, we should have starting building more nuclear power long ago.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 4 weeks ago
          You make an important point. Regardless of the cause, climate does go through epic cycles of change, but slowly. Humans are good at adapting, which is why we've survived so long.

          While I'm a skeptic regarding how much human activity is a driver of changing climate, I support many of the efforts to reduce air pollution that cleans up urban centers. It's the hysteria demanding radical, costly uprooting of our economic base that I object to.

          I think many of us in the Gulch need to be a little less abrupt in our up/down votes. You and I are often on opposite sides of an issue, but this post I considered a thoughtful, balanced discussion, and voted you up.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Commander 3 months, 4 weeks ago
          I recommended "Timefulness" by Marcia Bjornerud to qhrjk. She does not participate in the rhetoric. A reason-abled iteration of the discoveries stored in the geology of our planet.
          I filled in all kinds of "gaps" in my understanding of planetary history and the indices that precede and record climatological occurrence.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months, 4 weeks ago
          Forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject:

          Even if the two proposed arguments aren't equal in validity, I do think it's worth investigating both sides.
          If I reach the same conclusion as you and believe the global warming theory is a sham (which I'm highly inclined to believe), then I want to know who's specifically pushing that agenda and why they are. Is it being pushed by government officials or certain businesses? Both? Who would reap the benefits?

          That's what I intend to research and I think it's important to do so. There are definitely sides. It's the value of the two arguments that aren't equal in weight- and that's what I want to verify.

          Also, I'm not very optimistic about future political exploitation. If the global warming theory is being shoved down my generation's throat and it turns out to be wrong- I can't even imagine what the next wave of politicians will be like :')
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            "If I reach the same conclusion as you and believe the global warming theory is a sham"
            I think I may have written it confusing. I think global warming is a serious problem. I wouldn't call any scientific theory a sham.

            "I want to know who's specifically pushing that agenda and why they are."
            I believe it's simple. Many human activities, tens of trillions of dollars of economic activity, in some way contribute to global warming. So there is enormous political pressure to reach the desired conclusion that the activities do not have significant indirect costs. With motivated reasoning, you can start with any desired conclusion and find evidence to support it. Despite all this, the evidence is overwhelming human activities cause global warming, which will be costly. How much they cause it and how costly are still unclear.

            What's more, people are now using the problem as an excuse to sell socialism. I can't imagine being a scientist working in a field with so much political nonsense flying around it.

            "There are definitely sides. It's the value of the two arguments that aren't equal in weight- and that's what I want to verify."
            I see what you're saying if you define "sides" loosely.
            It's what people who want to keep studying ESP and alien visitation say. Why not keep looking into both sides of the controversy? Why be closed minded? Scientists have studied ESP and alien visitation and found they do not happen. It would take extraordinary evidence now to show one of them is happening.

            "If the global warming theory is being shoved down my generation's throat and it turns out to be wrong"
            If it's wrong, it will be like how we found fat isn't bad for you. I ate margarine in the 80s thinking it was more healthful than butter. The latest evidence is butter is more healthful. It's unlikely we'll find human activities don't contribute to global warming, but weirder things have happened. It won't cause a political crisis. For issues to politicize with pseudoscience, there is still anti-vax, GMO fear, and the idea homeopathy is in any way real but is suppressed by "big pharma". Plus there will be new politically-driven pseudoscience we can't even think of.

            Despite the steady stream of nonsense in the world, people around the world are becoming more educated, standards of living are increasing, respect for people's rights is increasing, and violence from crime and war are decreasing. I think those trends will continue.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
              One note I completely disagree with you on is “if it turns out wrong it will be like how we found out fat isn’t bad for you”.

              The motivation for that campaign was health, and a little economic power to health-food providers, and the consequence was a minor economic inconvenience to those that chose to believe it.

              The motivation for CO2 is power (my assertion, but detracts none from the rest). As long as the solution is voluntary, you are right. However, these are not the solutions being proposed. The solutions are massive, economic restrictions, regulations and socialist programs subsidizing fundamentally inferior technology. This is not a Roseanne Rosannadana “never mind” moment, and the fundamental reason I oppose the assertions regarding CO2 and AWG which are 1) unproven and 2) fundamentally, technically wrong from a greenhouse gas standpoint, which all scientists in the community know, but will not educate the masses, because though true, it takes away from the “campaign”.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
                Finding out global warming isn't as bad as we thought would indeed be more valuable than finding out dietary fat isn't bad for you.

                Reality, of course, doesn't care what benefits us. The evidence is what it is. Its a bizarre form of wishful thinking to imagine a conspiracy where reality is what you and I wish rather than what the scientific evidence shows. It's like people who say scientists are conspiring to hide evidence that homeopathy is real.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
              I understand your argument a lot better now haha...

              I'm definitely biased and favor the opposing side of the global warming theory, however I'm glad to see a different opinion in this thread. I do think there would be negative consequences if the global warming theory is proven wrong. That is, financial issues because of taxes, poor investments, an increase in social division, etc.

              I wish I had a definitive stance on the issue but I don't, mainly because I haven't looked into it yet. However, I'm curious as to what evidence you are specifically referring that support the global warming theory.
              Apologies for misunderstanding your original comment.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                "I do think there would be negative consequences if the global warming theory is proven wrong."
                It's unlikely that such a major part of geology would be found wrong, but it's likely that parts of it will. I don't see new information as causing a problem. Science seeks new information.

                Global warming is a net cost, i.e. a bad thing. If it turned out human activities didn't affect it or that the costs of global warming would be minimal, this would be an unambiguously positive discovery. I suppose it would be bad for people seeking to exploit it politically, but they'll find something else. Things change faster than you think. In the 80s I thought we were due for another war between major powers, probably a world war, probably way more devastating than the past two, and way more costly than global warming. It hasn't happened (knock on wood), and life goes on. Something like that will happen with global warming. Maybe we find out it's not as bad as we thought. Maybe we find technology to stop emitting carbon, to absorb carbon already emitted, or to offset the effects of carbon. The problem will go away, and human nature will find new things to be fired up about.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  3 months, 1 week ago
                  I just finished reading the book 'Timefulness' by Marcia Bjornerud, which discussed geology and connected human activities to climate change. With the evidence that was cited, human accelerated global warming seems very plausible. I am curious nonetheless about the natural sources of climate change (e.g. the Milankovitch cycles) and want to learn more about one of her proposed solutions: peridotite. Peridotite is an igneous rock that is mainly found in Earth's upper mantle and reacts with carbon dioxide to form magnesite and quartz. There are some places in Earth's crust (Oman, Cyprus, etc.) where peridotite can be used; one study even suggested the rock in Oman could sequester 1 gigaton of carbon per year. It's pretty amazing.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 months, 4 weeks ago
          Grand Solar Minimums, (maunder minimum was the last one (a 400 year natural cycle)
          Turns out magnetic pole reversals happen in a natural cycle also; 12,000 years or so.

          Mankind can't cause it and can't prevent it either...prepare or bend over and kiss yourself goodby.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    Another problem I have with this,
    Most of us have a little expertise in the kind of science that would be required to show proof of why the climate changes the way it does. What most of us can do is look at how the different sides use their expertise to examine the data to determine facts, to reach their truth.
    Real science requires methodically following the scientific method to any conclusion. Any side that rejects or does not use the scientific method should be suspect. Any side they cannot provide their methods of how they collected all raw data to their conclusion, should be suspect. Any side that actively refuses to look at opposing data or hear opposing viewpoints, or considers these “too dangerous”, should be suspect.
    Many times determining what is true can be hard, but determining what is false can be easy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 months, 4 weeks ago
      The actual science is complex. However, there are some shortcuts that laymen can use in evaluating whether someone is doing good science or not.

      1. If you say "the science is settled", you are not doing science. Have you ever heard anyone say "the science of gravity is settled"?

      2. Real science requires skeptical critique. Real scientists want their work to be studied. If you call the people who disagree with your conclusions "deniers" to equate them to Holocast deniers, you aren't doing science.

      3. Real science is not done by polling scientists.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    The climate changes - it cools and it warms. This the same on all planets to different degrees and extremes. The fact that many scientists had to form consensus rather than come to a conclusion based on empirical evidence makes the issue of man impact on the environment suspect. The Gore scheme and the rest of the political maneuvering that always ends up in more taxation and less liberty based on falsified data make the entire argument crap..real or not. If it were real there would be definitive proof and no one would have to embellish things (lie) to assure their funding and prominence.

    My 2 bits.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    Two suggestions I would make.

    One: Read Michael Crichton's work State of Fear. It is all the more impressive given that Crichton did extensive research on each of his books before writing them. His initial book was going to be how climate change was destroying the planet, but as he began to research it, he found out (and cites in the book) how the data has been perverted to support the current narrative. What is also interesting is that prior to his untimely death, Crichton was an outspoken opponent of devoting government resources to "fight" global warming. Instead he advocated that that money be used to improve African infrastructure and control disease. His death was passed off as a non-event, but it has always caused me to wonder if it really was from natural causes.

    Two: Check out this more comprehensive model of the warming/cooling cycle: https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo. This is real science that doesn't deny the real patterns identified but adds many more which have been ignored - and which make all the difference.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  exceller 3 months, 4 weeks ago
      I read all of Crichton's books. His fiction had appeal because - as you said - they were based on rigorous research. That probably came from his training as a physician.

      I was also skeptical of his untimely passing. It came out of the blue.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    About a decade ago I made a discovery in my own work that cemented my position that the "government science institute" can't be trusted. People like to cherry pick and believe them for this, but not for that. But, if you actually study a science firsthand and apply basic reasoning you'll see they're full of s*%t...

    I've been summoned again this week to meet with one of our state assembly members to educate him at his office on something. Always interesting to see the eyes open wide and the notes being taken when I talk. Then, if they are honest at all, the question comes, "Can you provide studies to support this?" I say, "How high do you want them stacked?..."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    A big problem,Too much of this idea of “climate change” acts like a polarized religion not an actual science. There are the faithful believers who become crusading warriors of the cause, and then there are the deniers who dare question the faith, thus must be excluded.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    See: suspicious0bservers.org and agenda 2030 on youtube.
    It ain't warming and we are about to enter a 400 year cycle called: The Grand Solar Minimum or Little ice age as it was called the last time: Maunder Minimum.

    However, we have bigger problems we all should be working on to survive; a 12,000 year cycle; Magnetic pole reversal and a probable micro nova from the sun...it seems we have a global civilizationl reset on a fairly regular basis...not many survives last time...remember the flood?
    See a 23 part series on Earth Catastrophe Cycle on the Observers site.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Roland_Porter 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    Climate change is and always has been real. It's a natural process spanning millennia.
    The notion that humanity is having any meaningful impact on it is farfetched at best, tyrannical at worst.
    That said, if climate change ever does begin to threaten mankind's existence, we should have contingencies in place that allow us to survive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    I have a number of problems with this. Here’s one,
    The claim is that mankind is the greatest cause of “climate change.” What if mankind was removed, what would be the effect? Would the climate still change? What if just all the volcanos were removed? How about taking out just the sun?

    So is mankind really the greatest cause, or just something that can be more easily controlled? Then ask how and who would control all of mankind? How would they do it?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Russpilot 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    My thoughts are that there are a whole lot of lemmings in the world who are too ignorant to look for themselves and ask if the climate has changed in their eyes. Are vast amounts of land being swallowed by the oceans? Is the fact that it is still snowing in some parts of the country proof that the world is getting hotter at an unprecedented rate? What do your own lyin' eyes tell you? But that sort of rational thought is beyond the brainwashed masses.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  pixelate 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    "Climate Change" as advertised by the MSM and state-purchased scientists, is a pile of bunk.
    The 97% consensus is garbage and has been debunked:
    The Cook study of climate paper abstracts and its resultant 97% consensus has been roundly discredited.
    The online climate survey by Doran, et. al, with its coincidental 97% results, when looked at mathematically, has similarly been trashed. DrZarkov99 offers elaboration.
    When 20+ years of IPCC reports slowly remove any notion of the existence of the Medieval Warm Period -- the premise of which would invalidate the necessity for AGW, you just have to know that something aside from Science is taking place.
    When 95% of all greenhouse gasses consist of water vapor, and you cannot put a tax on water vapor ... and life-giving CO2 is labelled a pollutant, then you need to be assured that something is rotten at the very core of the Great Climate Change Fraud.
    When children are used as tools to further the notion that Climate Change, as the result of man-made use of fossil fuels, is changing or otherwise damaging the Climate, then know that you are dealing with Climate Charlatans.
    When you have 250,000 wind turbines, around the world, that directly change the climate via parasitization of surface convective air currents and nobody from the Union of Concerned Communists, er, Scientists, is even bothering to wave a flag, then you can be assured that Climate Change alarmism is merely a ruse for the implementation of Global State Control over all things that might affect the Climate
    "Climate Change" as advanced by The State is easily the largest scam in recent history.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bill54 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    Several years ago the far left picked up on the sackcloth movement of "The End is Near" we are ruining the planet movement and pushed it into the center spotlight of their disinformation movement. It evolved into the "Green New Deal" we hear from the lips of the permanently unhappy. The Earth will abide.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    The communist Maurice Strong a Rockefeller patsy and the UN’s
    Technocracy cult leader passed the torch to his jester Al Gore in the late 90’s. Crushing the US and NWO is the goal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    It's not just climate change. The entire environmental movement has been nothing but one Chicken Little after another since its formation in 1950. Its only real principle has always been to oppose all the acts of progress and production that make life better -- especially in the US and the West.

    I would be very surprised if the whole thing doesn't turn out to be a project by "globalists" and the UN to deliberately retard the advanced countries until the Chinese, Hindi, and/or Africans can dominate the world by sheer overpopulation. If their favorite philosopher Malthus tells us anything it is that we should have refused to permit that to happen 50 years ago, and now that it is starting to come to fruition we had better prepare to fight a nuclear war or civilization is doomed -- not by eco-catastrophe but by the horde of Marching Morons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    1) CO2 as a direct greenhouse gas is completely incapable of causing the asserted effect. Not even close, and all climate scientists know this.
    2) This fact is obscured from the mainstream, almost with nationalistic or military effort.
    3) Few/no green advocates support the only immediately viable solution to the CO2 challenge, nuclear power. It is ready and safe right now.

    Therefore with the facts, obfuscation and ready solution ignored, I conclude this is a power grab, not physics, not one bit different than the promises of communism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  BostonTEA 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    IF it is real, why do the scientists pushing it have to go back 180 years and change the temperatures - up some years, down others - to make it look like there was more warming, and that there was NOT a pause in the last 30 years?
    https://realclimatescience.com/2015/1...
    From my own review (real NASA / GISS site data, well as 'real' as it gets):
    Boston 2011 : https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...
    Boston 2015+ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...

    So it seems like if falls under the category of "Man Made UP Global Warming."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 3 months, 4 weeks ago
      Interesting. Nice catch. Fudging the data can fool some of the people some of the time.

      Actually, estimating a planetary temperature is not easy even with highly calibrated digital instruments of today, which were only available in any quantity after ca 1990 (side note: maybe the famous hockey stick is only an artifact of digital tech supplanting older analog tech). I don't think anyone can say with a straight face what the planetary temperature exactly was in the 19th century and anything before the invention of a decent thermometer is nothing more than an extrapolation of a supposition of guess.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    We have been listening to the same gloom and doom prophecy for nearly fifty years now, the early seventies, each with a different scenario but all with a timetable that has come and gone with no appreciable shift in the climate. First we were headed to an ice age, then it was Dante's Inferno on Earth, the it was just CHANGE, how ingenious since the climate has been changing for billions of years. It was warmer between @ 900 to 1300 than predicted for our future and then it was the end of the dark ages, the Renaissance occurred. All should be taken with a grain of salt. How could the same data (past history of the climate) be able to produce two opposed predictions? The daily weather forecasts leave much to be desired so why is the 12, 50 or 100 year predictions any more accurate.
    We learned that the computer model, no longer invoked, provided the same answer no matter the information fed into it, it was fixed. Any one who disagreed with the 'consensus' (science is never based on consensus but empirical evidence) was chastised and labeled a denier. I do believe the climate changes but it is a natural phenomenon while only man has the audacity to think he can do anything about it!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dutchmanii 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    Not once have I heard or read the mention of all the active volcanoes contribution. I mean there are over 1500 active volcanoes on earth at this time and if you have ever been close to one of them you would know what I mean. I read somewhere in the past that Mt. Etna in Sicily produces more CO2 in one year than all the automobiles since invented.. Not once do you hear of accounting for this.

    I do believe it is all a bunch of hooey. Yes CO2 is needed by plant life and they help us out with O2 replacement, pretty good balance for the world if you ask me. Not one mention of the Methane that is given off naturally from the oceans, and swamps, and believe it or not some rivers especially in Africa produce a ton of methane. NO where do you hear them mention those points.

    Something to think about.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    I believe the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. But do I believe man has an effect on climate? The answer is no. Maybe
    miniscule if any. The sun, earthquakes, volcanos etc have any major impact. They are much mightier than man. So far. Just my two cents.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bassboat 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    The same big government moochers said that we were entering an ice age in the 70's. Now we are entering into a devasting increase in temperature. It's all about taxing the sheep and power. They couldn't win a debate with a debate winning machine. I rest my case.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo