Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

a reply to: smkymcnugget420

I'm afraid I still don't get you guys argument. As I started earlier, global warning is a sideline that our government and big business ( one and the same thing) use to detract from the fact that the argument is really about their responsibility to clean up behind themselves, which they don't want to do because it's expensive. And by not only latching onto the issue but defending their side you are supporting their freedom to discard any responsibility for their actions. As I pointed out earlier, there are numerous non climate examples of the destructive results of our massive co2 productions, as well as our general disregard for the environment. Big business had shown again and again that it cares nothing for the people who's lives are destroyed in these companies pursuit of profit.

I too was there in the 70's and saw the pollution. I remember the pictures of LA with smog so thick you couldn't see the whole city from the hills. Now, most if not all the pictures of LA are bright, the air isn't so thick you could cut it with a knife, and it looks dare I say....pleasant.

Today is much better.

Doesn't stop China though. Beijing is the new LA from the 70's.

That being said, I do not believe in Climate Change being man made. I believe we have aggravated it, but I also believe we can't do anything about it. We are p[powerless to stop it. We can't put aside our petty differences for anything let alone something as massive as trying to stop the sun.

We have a gigantic nuclear furnace that's cyclic in the center of our solar system. The suns cycles are both small like the 11 year sun spot activity cycle, as well as larger and longer cycles. They've been saying for years that there is warming going on all over the solar system. Earth is not immune to that.

Yes, others have said that it's not true.

Isn't science fun? Always 2 or 3 camps arguing the same data to support their own hypothesis.

That being said, I think the best thing that we can do as individual countries is plan for the worst. If there is one thing human history has taught us, the one constant to the human condition, is that we will NEVER all agree on something. And the higher the population, the less likely agreements will ever be made.

Like the leading scientists have been saying recently, the future of the human race can only be ensured by colonizing other planets. Earth will do what it will, and we should be ready in case it does.

The behavior of mankind negatively affecting the climate with out sacrifice is the oldest cattle prod to control a civilization that's ever been done; and has always been done.

The same people who follow and place their faith in the religion of Global Cooling, then Global Warming, and now generic Climate Change are the same people that believed the village experts that recommended virgins to be thrown into the volcano to prevent the coming drought.

It's a form of societal control that touches a very human aspect everyone has, and that is the ego. We naturally want to believe that we are in control. When bad weather happens, we naturally want to believe that it is because we are out of control and therefore control must be applied to prevent further negative weather patterns. It is man's ego that is ingrained in all of us that makes this type of control possible. We are all born with it; and those who do not recognize it are the easily targeted followers of purveyors of such control mechanisms.

This is why many of these people that harp on and on about how we need to sacrifice conveniences in order to prevent Climate Change also deride the Judeo-Christian philosophy. Judeo-Christian philosophy tells you that you are born with an ego that will hinder your own growth and that it's only through self reflection and effort that you can ever unchain yourself from that very natural egocentricity. You don't control the weather, something very powerful and inexplicable controls the weather and you will be judged by your actions towards others; not your carbon footprint or your lack of offering virgins to be thrown into the lava.

Climate Change is a religion. The scientists are priests of that religion. If church and state are separate, you can not levy taxes based on the beliefs of that religion. That would be like demanding new taxes on red meat during lent or banning pork in all restaurants. These religious zealots pandering this faith in this pseudo-science are nothing but hypocrites that are blinded by their own hypocrisy.

The only climate change deniers are the ones pandering to the Climate Change religion. To them, the climate should always be the same. They ignore the fact that the Earth has been much much hotter than it is today. They ignore the fact that the Earth has been much much cooler than it is today. They ignore the fact that the Earth will one day be hotter again and it will one day be cooler again. They ignore that the climate changes. They deny it. They hunker down in ego and say "It must be us that cause the Earth to warm or the Earth to cool!".

Like a priest saying it is the sins of man that caused Katrina, these zealots proclaim, "It is our treatment of the Earth that caused Katrina! It is our lack of sacrifice, our lack of giving up cars, electricity, and plastic that caused ice to melt!".

And of course that is fine if they want to believe that. They have a right to religion. But they have no right to force the tenants of that religion on those who don't want to follow or place faith in that religion. To declare that the Earth is warming or cooling because of mankind, and not the sun or other natural variables, requires faith. It simply does. It requires faith that science is ready to make such a declaration. You can call me a heretic if you believe in this new age religion. In two hundred years their "Earth science" today will be equated to the "medical science" of two hundreds years ago when scientists thought that bleeding someone was a good way to fix a head cold. We now know that two hundred years ago the prayers of Christians were more effective at combating illness than sciences proven effects of bleeding at the time; just like two hundred years from now Christian prayers will have been just as a well served remedy to Climate Change than anything they offer now.

The Earth's climate will change. Sea levels will rise. Sea levels will fall. Islands that are here today will be under water later, just as new islands will be formed.

Like all other religions, the Climate Change Church is solely about control, power, and influence. Like all other religions, its followers trumpet its religion's "discoveries" as if they are fact that is grounded in a logic that is undeniable. Like the Crusaders, Jihadists, and Warriors that came before them, they are willing to enforce their faith on all the masses of the world and cry heresy at the first sign of dissent. The vocabulary has changed, but the same need for control is the same. They don't say Bible. They don't quote Surat chapter 9 verse 128 in the Quran. Instead, they quote Al Gore in minute 33 of an Inconvenient Truth.

It's time to separate the Climate Change Church from the State.

a reply to: grandmakdw

not sure what state you live in, or rock you live under. I can look out my window and see the climate has changed. There isn't a single flower, bush or insect in my area that thinks any of this weather is normal. And of course it's not. Nothing stayes the same forever. Nothing is constant. People saying they don't believe that the climate is changing is like saying they don't believe the passage of time exists. That all those clocks out there are a hoax because some of them read different time. Use your actual eyes and ears, step away from the laptop, computer, cell phone whatever and snap out of the virtual plugged in world and into the real one. The one where lush states are drying up like california.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Kali74

The thing is though, this information has been around for sometime now in the internet age. To continually use the "scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's" argument is silly when the information is now accessible.

It doesn't matter that access to archived science papers has been around for a while now on the internet.

The fact is that the media propaganda of the day was telling us that the planet was cooling, as claimed by some scientists (their words not ours)... whether that was 2 scientists, 20 scientists, or 200 scientists matters none. There were at least some scientists who made these claims, and that's what we got fed by the media.

If it was overhyped, how the hell were we supposed to know that ? We the people could not take any recourse to investigate whether it was true or not because we didn't have access to the published sciences claiming otherwise back in those days.

To state that this short-lived media frenzy didn't occur because we now have public access to archived science papers that claim otherwise is an exercise in attempting to link two things that have no relevence with each other.

When people state that scientists were making claims of a cooling world, that's the truth. Some scientists were... and the media jumped all over it because the global warming panic hadn't made its public debut yet.

10 years later (give or take), global warming became the new public outcry.

Why are you caught up on what you knew back then? Change is supposed to come with new information.

why is the past preventing you from taking in the knowledge available now?

originally posted by: Snarl
Anyone else note the irony of his report being filed on 9/11? LOL

I'm with you, Granny. There is no 'real' climate change going on. It's just people wanting to talk about something in a way that makes that something seem important.

The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!! ... is probably not taught in school anymore.

so, you will be buying property in Florida? or the Maldives islands?...good luck with that

a reply to: grandmakdw>>> I've pretty much written off global warming/ climate change as a hoax. That's not to say that the climate isn't in flux and may be getting cooler or warmer short term or long term. I just don't think those who want so desperately to have us believe it have any credibility. The fact is its all about money. Companies with business interests make money saying it isn't getting warmer and companies who stand to make money say it is getting warmer. And they both line up paid experts to try to convince us one way or the other. I say screw them both. But I know you can't trust the government very much and they push global warming so I probably think their analysis is compromised and tainted the most. And I don't think we can really do much about it either way. But I wish actual real environmental causes would come back to the forefront. Clean water, limiting pollution and stopping GMO. But that wouldn't make anybody any money and would cost the wrong people money. Right now, we're the ones who are supposed to pay, not the richest 1%.

a reply to: Dutchowl

You are so right. The money making scheme that is called Global Warming

and is being used as an excuse to micromanage the everyday lives of people by governments

is crowding out the old fashioned enviornmental sensible approach to
actually having clean water, clean water isn't important if dirty water does not contribute to global warming
and it pushes aside the #1 most important world wide health issue today.

obsession with global warming is also leading to innane responses, like
cutting down the number of cows because their farts "contribute to global warming"
while ignoring the air in China that is so bad people must limit their time outdoors
and children can no longer play outdoors in many cities,
instead the "global warming" crowd focuses on farts
and electric cars (which actually have a much larger carbon footprint due to the massive amount of electricity they use which is produced in electric plants with very high carbon footprints)

and so it goes.

The global climate goes in cycles that have absolutely nothing to do with mankind.
All we have to do is look at geology
and ice core samples
to see that there were ice ages
and extremely warm periods of time
during which there were no humans at all on the planet.

Climate change is old news, millions and millions of years of old news
so old that man didn't even exist when the first
series of global warmings took place.

I see both your argument and raise you a third, there is nothing either of the two side can do to avert or contribute to climate change. Futile arguments for or against have no value because change is an effect of time, whether it he attitude or lifestyle. If history of man has taught us nothing more, it has taught us that it is far easier and far more lucrative to destroy than create. You can not change the nature of man who will at all cost feel his(or her) self serving ego centric need to fulfill desire, that desire being the basis for which we all do what we do and why we do it. Greed, happiness, fulfillment, hatred and a dozen other societal flaws of character. Those that tout the desire to help other feed their own sense of self fulfillment with the gratitude of their victims, and those that harm others feed their sense of empowerment over others.

So I say stop pretending it's not all about making yourself feel better about contributing no matter what your side, because eventually this world will have no people in it. Like the Roman empire nothing stands forever and change is inevitable despite good intentions.

Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.
James Inhofe

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CranialSponge

Unless you plan on living about 50,000 years, you're good.
The CO2 we've already added to the atmosphere has caused a delay in the cooling game.

The fact that this year we are seeing the greatest amount of sea ice in Antarctica in recorded history tells us a lot of ice has been melting that wasn't melting before, so the earth is warming no matter what we suggest.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CranialSponge

Unless you plan on living about 50,000 years, you're good.
The CO2 we've already added to the atmosphere has caused a delay in the cooling game.

So it is going to cool ??

We need a way to regulate the game.

This latest phase of the AGW game was a way to satisfy the needs of those who were getting NOWHERE in the fight to free up technology and have a better way of life on the planet, by replacing the energies they have with trying to fight their own neighbors, on things they previously agreed upon.

We need not to have Ultra Rich Power Groups controlling everything, but yet they still are, even easier now, and the AGW crowd feels included, they should really feel DELUDED, because they are just as powerless as before.

Only realization of Science and Religions being totally minted and CONTINOUSLY controlled from the same mindset, are going to get anything past theory and into the LETS DO THIS stage.

Since we all can see a polluted stream or air, the crowd that says "never let a crisis go to waste", appear to be taking advantage of the sensational aspect of pollution.

It always was about manipulation to line someones pockets on both sides of this equation. Big business is now essentially wanting to be good stewards of the land in places where the people demand clean air and water with a big boost from the now overreaching EPA. They want to be good neighbors these days to keep their own kids safe from pollution. However, we do see some like Apple Inc have moved a lot of their polluting factories to China. I think because the government over there is slow to save the population for whatever sinister reason; Plus Apple and others know they can bring cheap goods to corner the market. Yes the EPA here in America does require changes that cost them money so they pass it on. But the system really works as we all share the cost and breath easier for it.

Phage is continuing to ignore the success of the Hydrogen powered car, For which, I have a thread about one car a college built with the help of Nissan and drove it across America to prove it worked and Phage debated me on it yet still presents the by now very lame talking points from proven data manipulators. This technology avoidance and money laundering to friends in high places is the tip of the iceberg, pun intended. We have 'safe nuclear reactors' that aren't being built while unsafe ones are being operated in several areas prone to high Earthquake events. I find that creepy.

Meanwhile it is apparent that "radical Islamist", Whahibists (sp?) are using oil money to wage Jihad and we have a way to stop using oil instead of continually feeding those monsters who clearly want us living in the 7th century AD. I see dots that connect that we should all take notice. This 'plan' is being played out on the world scene and has a bad ending for all if we keep paying for the oil. Ideas are there but the very ones claiming man is creating too much CO2 have lots of excuses IMHO to just pay a carbon tax. Does anyone see how the startup companies of green energy have taken money as they go bankrupt and use it to pay the executives of the company? That is criminal and we see it over and over that our government puts big money up and lets them walk away with money they clearly did NOT earn.

a reply to: grandmakdw

My brother in law PhD. eprints.soton.ac.uk...

Climate change is actually a lot worse than you think.
Sealevels are rising much more.
whereas is was believed that 2mm rise was average we can now see that 6mm is more accurate.

Someone once said 'ignorance should be painful', and while I don't agree, if it were true there'd be a lot of folk posting here in agony right now....

Why is it people choose to accept/ignore scientific data and opinion only when it suits/benefits them?

A more important question is when did science become consensus over imaginative challenge? Of you so called scientists, who has thought to challenge the findings to formulate your own theory? If past scientists had stopped challenging the consensuses of the day we would not have many of the theories, technologies and advancents we have today. Science has become a religion of conformity rather than a breeding ground for free thought and discovery.
But please keep fighting the same old battle, keep filling your bible with the consensus of conformity. New ideas and modes of thought have no place in today's religion of science, especially when it comes to climate change, real or contrived.

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
A more important question is when did science become consensus over imaginative challenge? Of you so called scientists, who has thought to challenge the findings to formulate your own theory? If past scientists had stopped challenging the consensuses of the day we would not have many of the theories, technologies and advancents we have today. Science has become a religion of conformity rather than a breeding ground for free thought and discovery.
But please keep fighting the same old battle, keep filling your bible with the consensus of conformity. New ideas and modes of thought have no place in today's religion of science, especially when it comes to climate change, real or contrived.

The problem lies with laymen using nothing but their imagination and feelings to allow them to think they know better than the actual people in the field....

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
A more important question is when did science become consensus over imaginative challenge? Of you so called scientists, who has thought to challenge the findings to formulate your own theory? If past scientists had stopped challenging the consensuses of the day we would not have many of the theories, technologies and advancents we have today. Science has become a religion of conformity rather than a breeding ground for free thought and discovery.
But please keep fighting the same old battle, keep filling your bible with the consensus of conformity. New ideas and modes of thought have no place in today's religion of science, especially when it comes to climate change, real or contrived.

The problem lies with laymen using nothing but their imagination and feelings to allow them to think they know better than the actual people in the field....

The problem lies with science not having any imagination. Some of our greatest accomplishments thought out history were contrived by philosophers and lay people.

Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn't exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again. As soon as you have an idea that changes some small part of the world you are writing science fiction. It is always the art of the possible, never the impossible.
Ray Bradbury

Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable, and although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable, solutions are not.

Isaac Asimov


Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
The problem lies with science not having any imagination. Some of our greatest accomplishments thought out history were contrived by philosophers and lay people.

Did lay folk and philosophists land a man on the moon? a probe on an asteroid?

Or were those scientific concepts debunked by someone with an imagination?

(did you mean to say contrived?)

Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn't exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again. As soon as you have an idea that changes some small part of the world you are writing science fiction. It is always the art of the possible, never the impossible.
Ray Bradbury

Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable, and although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable, solutions are not.

Isaac Asimov

Nice quotes but they don't exactly reflect reality (some ideas inevitably become a reality, but the vast majority do not) and neither person is using nothing but their imagination and feelings to contradict current scientific findings are they?

originally posted by: pikestaff

originally posted by: pexx421
Ok. So what you are saying is that the us, which has the 6% of the world's scientists that disagree with man-made climate change, is involved in a conspiracy to make people buy into said climate change, while at the same time being the only nation in the world to deny it exists, to refuse to strict reductions, while simultaneously profiting grandly from business practices that continue to pollute and contribute to said climate change. How shockingly clever of them.

Judith Curry, a climatologist, says that the 'consensus' just isn't true, the 'reporter' who wrote the original article 'sexed it up' as the Brits say, there is no consensus.

Of course she says that. She's paid by big oil to be a contrarian.