The real hoax of climate change

With the Green New Deal and more Politicians screaming climate change while they live in their big houses, fly around on private jets, watch flat screen TV's while being Chauffeured around in gas guzzling SUV's, it's been the hot topic for Democrat nominees.

This is partly about Politics because it's Politicians and Hypocrite Celebrities driving the issue, but mostly about the issue in general.

Is Climate Change in whole or in part a hoax?

I would say Climate Change is real but the hoax in this is if we give all of our money to Governments and let them totally control our lives, they would be able to change the climate. That's just utter nonsense and it's sad so many people by into this.

If the Apocalypse is really upon us, why isn't Al Gore living in a Tiny home or being pulled around by a rickshaw? Why isn't AOC talking on a flip phone, eating lettuce and scrapping energy draining tech? Why didn't the Celebrities say let's hold the Oscars in a tent and everybody will pull up to the event in a horse and carriage instead of gas guzzling SUV's and Limos?

I'm being facetious on some level but these are real questions because their telling us we're facing the end of humanity as we know it but they're not changing their behavior. They just want a behemoth sized Government that's even bigger than the current behemoth to control every aspect of other people's lives.

There was a study that showed these global warming models are flawed.

Climate Change: Global warming is "settled science," we hear all the time. Those who reject that idea are "deniers." But as new evidence trickles out from peer-reviewed science studies, the legs beneath the climate change hypothesis — that the earth was doing just fine until carbon-dioxide spewing human beings came along — is increasingly wobbly.

A new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience purports to support action by global governments to reduce carbon dioxide output in order to lower potential global warming over the next 100 years or so. But what it really does is undercut virtually every modern argument for taking radical action against warming.

Why? The study admits that the 12 major university and government models that have been used to predict climate warming are faulty.

www.investors.com...

Astronomers who predicted weather patterns on Titan were surprised when these predictions were wrong.

Scientists searching for signs of seasonal storms on Titan have finally found the smoking gun. A slick shimmer spotted on the north pole of the Saturnian moon is the first evidence of rainfall in the hemisphere - the start of summer in the north.

It's the evidence astronomers have been waiting years to see, since Cassini's arrival in Saturn's orbit all the way back in 2004.

"The whole Titan community has been looking forward to seeing clouds and rains on Titan's north pole, indicating the start of the northern summer, but despite what the climate models had predicted, we weren't even seeing any clouds," said physicist Rajani Dhingra of the University of Idaho.

After carefully poring over Cassini's output, the team finally found what they were looking for in an image snapped on June 7, 2016. The picture came courtesy the spacecraft's Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (VIMS) instrument, which can peer through Titan's thick, hazy atmosphere to the surface below.

According to their analysis, the region is the result of methane rainfall onto a rough, pebble-like surface, likely followed by a period of evaporation. It's the first evidence of summer rain on Titan's northern hemisphere.

This rain was predicted, but scientists had expected to see it earlier in the season, based on theoretical models, especially since the northern hemisphere is where most of the moon's lakes and oceans are located.

"Summer is happening. It was delayed, but it's happening. We will have to figure out what caused the delay, though."

www.sciencealert.com...

Wouldn't it be wiser to let AI with the latest deep learning algorithms give us insight into climate change before we give over our lives to corrupt Politicians to save the Planet? What was said in the previous article deserves repeating.

A new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience purports to support action by global governments to reduce carbon dioxide output in order to lower potential global warming over the next 100 years or so. But what it really does is undercut virtually every modern argument for taking radical action against warming.

Everybody should be able to agree that we want lower carbon dioxide outputs and more research into green technology, but this debate is dominated by radical hypocrites who live off of all the fruits of Capitalism but feel they're so morally superior that it's okay for them to live in mansions and fly private jets but everyone else needs to be controlled.

This is the real hoax of climate change. If we just give most of our wealth and control of our lives to Governments they can change the climate. Why would anyone fall for such nonsense?

a reply to: neoholographic

Everybody should be able to agree that we want lower carbon dioxide outputs and more research into green technology, but this debate is dominated by radical hypocrites who live off of all the fruits of Capitalism but feel they're so morally superior that it's okay for them to live in mansions and fly private jets but everyone else needs to be controlled.

This is the real hoax of climate change. If we just give most of our wealth and control of our lives to Governments they can change the climate. Why would anyone fall for such nonsense?

There is no logic in what governments are doing.......

Many years ago there was talk of getting rid of the sprays on products such as

hairspray, deodrants, polish etc and go onto pump sprays, well that never

happened ..... then for years they tried pushing diesel instead of petrol cars

and look where that went!!

Where I live parking is very expensive, and now they are talking about entrance

tolls to go into the city (cleaning the air ) which will stop people going into the

city so shops will suffer from smaller footfalls and less spending, so profits will

fall further.

*Clean air and bankruptcy*

They want to make up their minds its just another way of screwing the people

Climate always changes through time. Earth warms up and cools down. The question that people argue about is whether the current state of climate change is man made. Most scientists believe it is. Certainly in my lifetime the climate where I live has, and is changing.

a reply to: neoholographic



Ummm...of course climate change is real...who doesn’t believe that...?

The question should be...is “Anthropogenic Global Warming”...real...






YouSir

Hmmmm.... I live in North Carolina. What happened to winter ? Did I miss it ? It's already spring again, daylight savings. Will they tax that too ?

Hoax is not the word i would use. Conspiracy to defraud is more accurate IMO.

I have no doubt climate change is real, as it has been happening for, literally, billions of years, for a variety of reasons. An erupting super volcano, a large asteroid impact, or simply a cyclical change in the suns output can change the climate for tens of thousands of years.

The planet has gone from extremes of snowball earth, to no glaciation at all.

Is the burning of fossil fuels (a term i believe inaccurate) having an effect? Probably, but to what extent? I don't believe anyone knows with certainty, or even a high degree of accuracy.

I'm not a climate scientist, but when unproven computer simulations, and manipulated data is being used, I see huge red flags.

Do we, as a species need to stop polluting our atmosphere? Absolutely we do. With the course of technology today, I believe solar energy, as well as other developing tech, will greatly diminish the damage we are currently doing.

I have absolutely zero faith in government emtities to lead the way in an efficient, cost effective manner, regardless of what the problem is.

originally posted by: Plotus
Hmmmm.... I live in North Carolina. What happened to winter ? Did I miss it ? It's already spring again, daylight savings. Will they tax that too ?

Yea, if it would stop raining for a few days, I could get a break from MUD! I'm just glad I have a woman who makes me sammiches and sweeps the floor after me. If I had to clean up after myself, I'd end it all.

originally posted by: paraphi
Climate always changes through time. Earth warms up and cools down. The question that people argue about is whether the current state of climate change is man made. Most scientists believe it is. Certainly in my lifetime the climate where I live has, and is changing.

I would take issue with your "most scientist" statement. It greatly depends on who you ask, and whether they have a stake in the answer. I have read critiques of some of those studies, pointing out that very few of the scientists are climate experts, and even less have been allowed to study the raw, unaltered data for themselves. If that is truly the case, how would they know?

There are also many that say yes, the CO2 levels are changing some, but attribute it to other possible causes.

a reply to: neoholographic

Government wants more control, more power.

In order to do that, they chose climate change as the vehicle to obtain that power.


Imagine a small volcanic island. The village elders want power. They "say" that if the villagers give the elders all their beads and trinkets, the elders will make it an offering to the volcano god so that it doesn't erupt.

If the volcano doesn't erupt? Then the elders will say that they saved the village.

If the volcano erupts? Then the villagers didn't give enough.

We are now the villagers.

I have never heard a good explanation for why "Hide the decline" is not abject fraud. Riddle me this: WHY did scientists feel the need to HIDE a trend line that suggested the OPPOSITE of what they wanted us all to believe? And of all things, this particular trend line measured tree ring growth back into medieval times, a "proxy" which is the ONLY thing that "proved" temperatures were rising compared to hundreds of years ago.

a reply to: schuyler

Thanks for that simple demonstration of how they are "playing" with the data.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Plotus
Hmmmm.... I live in North Carolina. What happened to winter ? Did I miss it ? It's already spring again, daylight savings. Will they tax that too ?

Yea, if it would stop raining for a few days, I could get a break from MUD! I'm just glad I have a woman who makes me sammiches and sweeps the floor after me. If I had to clean up after myself, I'd end it all.

Mmmmmm.... grill cheese.

a reply to: neoholographic


In a word : NARCISSISM

Extreme narcissism.

" I am so (self) important, look at me, look at me ! I am SAVING the PLANET ! Look at how good/superior I am"

That is precisely what is going on, FACTS be damned.


The SUN controls the weather, not some sex grabbing failed VP or some 85 iQ ex-barmaid politician.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: neoholographic


In a word : NARCISSISM

Extreme narcissism.

" I am so (self) important, look at me, look at me ! I am SAVING the PLANET ! Look at how good/superior I am"

That is precisely what is going on, FACTS be damned.


The SUN controls the weather, not some sex grabbing failed VP or some 85 iQ ex-barmaid politician.

85? You are a generous person.

If you don't believe there is continuously fast ecocide then you are denying basic facts, and that is not the political science we need "Green Capitalism" nonsense

I am talking about the ignorance of denying the basic facts of ecocide

a reply to: schuyler

WHY did scientists feel the need to HIDE a trend line that suggested the OPPOSITE of what they wanted us all to believe?

Why do you feel the need to completely misrepresent the data? Even though it was explained to you a couple of years ago. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your chart on the left shows actual observations of temperatures, the one on the right shows tree ring proxies for temperatures in central England, not "global temperatures." Why are you continuing to post the same disinformation you did two years ago? The actual data shows a close correspondence between observations and the tree ring proxies until around 1960 when the tree ring data went wonky. It no longer matched actual observations, which showed a trend of increasing temperatures. "Hiding the decline" meant to account for the decline in correspondence between observations and the proxy because using the width of tree rings in central England doesn't work.

www.nature.com...
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

No data was hidden. It was and always had been readily available.

originally posted by: paraphi
Climate always changes through time. Earth warms up and cools down. The question that people argue about is whether the current state of climate change is man made. Most scientists believe it is. Certainly in my lifetime the climate where I live has, and is changing.

Completely false.

Proven to be false over and over and over and over... but yet people believe it anyways.

Most cite the Cook report... the mythical "97% of scientists agree" hogwash.

Legates’ study, published in the journal Science and Education, found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950.

41 out of 11,944 is not "most" scientists.

It is actually called "damn few".

A link to help you break out of the lie you've been told...

97 Articles Refuting to 97% Concensus

Knowledge is power!!!

I actually agree with most of what you said.

However we have to remember that climate science itself is still not an exact science. Most, if not all we know of it is based on models. Models that themselves are inaccurate because the science behind them aren't correct.

a reply to: Phage

Are you saying none of the data has been altered, in any way, to support their arguement?

a reply to: Lumenari

Proven to be false over and over and over and over.

Please, provide that proof.

41 out of 11,944 is not "most" scientists.

No one claimed it is. Including Cook. If you had actually read his paper you would know this.

97 Articles Refuting to 97% Concensus

Seems that the vast majority are blogs and industry related entities. Seems they too, misrepresent what Cook's study actually purported to show.


But you know Cook isn't the only one who has conducted such a study?
science.sciencemag.org...
www.ossfoundation.us...