What Finally Convinced Me About Global Warming Lies

I've heard various arguments on both sides of the argument for years. There may have been some rooted bias in me because I was told by the Canadian education system growing up that Global Warming was a thing and it would profoundly affect our futures. The mainstream media has persisted this for years. Specialists and scientists interviewed on CBC News and CBC Radio have insisted it to be true. But for several years I've also heard arguments made from the other side, between intelligent individuals I've known and through alternative media. They say global warming is a scam, that such warnings of a devastated future are alarmist and absurd. I've been told straight by trusted media figures and their expert guests for many years now that the whole of the science community believes in global warming, but for those corporate-paid scientists who lie because of industry investments (progress over science.) I had zero faith in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's claims that it was BS. He had zero credibility with me. I stayed open-minded on the subject but leaned more toward what I was being told by the old and familiar (and 'trusted') sources. Well, that and Canada's north is melting! Hard to deny climate change all together.


This interview with Fox News features an experienced and celebrated expert who lays it out in a simple and well-articulated way. The temperature IS rising, but is far below the estimation of the global warming crowd. This video is from 2018 but it still applies obviously. Thanks to Night Star for bringing this to my attention.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

You're welcome.

I have been looking at various sources and didn't quickly go with the doom and gloom stuff. I thought that was a very interesting video and knew that you would as well.

So the 45% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is a direct result of anthropogenic activity, mostly burning fossil fuels will not have consequences?

The rate is also increasing, in my lifetime that value maybe 100%+. Only those ignorant of science will argue this is not significant.

a reply to: jrod
Now CO2 has been higher in the past and has been lower in the past. Don't know what caused it to up or down.

However, you must know what optimum amount of CO2 in the atmospere is???

Right now the earth is loving the amount of CO2 and greened by 14 %

www.nasa.gov...

I guess that is bad too?

a reply to: Night Star

It's a great video, Night. Eye-opening.

originally posted by: jrod
So the 45% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is a direct result of anthropogenic activity, mostly burning fossil fuels will not have consequences?

The rate is also increasing, in my lifetime that value maybe 100%+. Only those ignorant of science will argue this is not significant.

Is that why children are terrified that if they don’t do something in 12 years the world will end ?

The dogma being preached to our youth nullifies any good you may or may not have in your position .

Come to the light .

Or at least complain about the fear tactics being used.

Global warming and Jones town are both bad jokes because they’re fear cults . I just hope global warming doesn’t have a similar punchline .

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod
Now CO2 has been higher in the past and has been lower in the past. Don't know what caused it to up or down.

However, you must know what optimum amount of CO2 in the atmospere is???

Right now the earth is loving the amount of CO2 and greened by 14 %

www.nasa.gov...

I guess that is bad too?

Like this? Sure looks like a rhythmic cycle of the warming of the planet Earth to me.

Data from the ice-core samples collected at the Vostock station in Antarctica.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Exactly Krakatoa

Temperatures fluctuating with a time lag of about 800 years for fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 following temperature fluctuations.?

Of course, now its man-made so it must be bad, bad, bad

Sorry folks, I guess we need to burn about 14 % of the earths new greenery, cause that grew in response to man's bad bad bad CO2 and must be bad bad bad as well. The poisoned fruit must not fall far from the poisoned tree

Stop planting all trees immediately!

This video is a good one too.



I don't consider myself an expert in climate change but I realize that we are manipulated by all sorts of interests and agendas. I fell once for Al Gore's "truth". Since nothing proved to be true I'd rather be cautious this time around.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod
Now CO2 has been higher in the past and has been lower in the past. Don't know what caused it to up or down.

However, you must know what optimum amount of CO2 in the atmospere is???

Right now the earth is loving the amount of CO2 and greened by 14 %

www.nasa.gov...

I guess that is bad too?

Like this? Sure looks like a rhythmic cycle of the warming of the planet Earth to me.

Data from the ice-core samples collected at the Vostock station in Antarctica.

Full disclosure, that graph was posted by me in this thread back in 2013 almost to the day.
Global Warming Slowdown Is Not Good News

It's a great thread, and has lots of good and sourced data and discussion. Not like the doom porn we see all too often these days about this topic.

a reply to: WhiteHat

That is a really good video and a fine example in unemotional logical thinking!

I looked up Bjorn Lomberg and found a video from him

How to Make the World a Better Place

www.youtube.com...

Maybe listening to these videos will make the discussion off of its current path and on to problem solving

I'm older and have lived through many "scares" so I'm always skeptical. For me the thing that pushed me to doubt global warming was the scientists were caught lying. Even recently the hockey stick guy would not reveal his method or data in court. Then there was the East Anglia e-mails. If the data was strong then they wouldn't need to lie. And now because of their lies I can't trust any of the data from now on.

a reply to: jrod

Did you watch the video in the OP? What is your opinion on the Russian model as opposed to the others? Or are you just here for propaganda?

originally posted by: jrod
So the 45% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is a direct result of anthropogenic activity, mostly burning fossil fuels will not have consequences?

The rate is also increasing, in my lifetime that value maybe 100%+. Only those ignorant of science will argue this is not significant.

Science, REAL science, doesn't promote decisions based upon suppositions like you just stated. It relies upon data. Not only that, it relies upon data collection methods that are approved to be done in a scientific manner and can be reliably repeated. That is where there is a lack of candor in the IPCC data models. Enough of a discrepancy that combined with the recent revelations of mishandling, falsifying of data, and manipulation of collection methods plays into the justified doubt about the resulting conclusions made based upon that tainted data.

It could be the reason the models have deviated from the latest data readings of reality.

Very good video. I do not believe in the global carbon agenda because it is deception.

I do however believe that we have to conserve and that we have to quit poisoning the earth which lowers the ability of microbes and plant life to reuptake the carbon and process it correctly. All of the polution, whether it comes from factories or chemicals sprayed on the crops is inhibiting mother earths ability to sustain our and the other plant and animals ability to live on the planet.

We should not be flying all over the place, we should not be going on big cruises or shipping things around the world. We should not be poisoning the environment. We should make toasters to last twenty five years and make good toast all the time. We should be building refrigerators to be efficient and also to last a long time, the self defrost function energy use is removed from the efficiency standards, those self defrosting/demoisturizing functions incorporate heating elements which are not considered in efficiency. We need to defrost our freezers ourselves, also food in a non-self defrost freezer lasts way longer and does not get freezer burned as easily. We must stop wasting food, and we must stop spraying chemicals as much as we do into fields that hurt our environment.

I am an old school environmentalist, I love trees and the woods, I love wildlife and my beef that eats the grasses in the fields. I do not like the taste of pesticides and herbicides on my food, I grew up on a farm, I know that taste well from being with my dad spraying the fields. I know he died of brain cancer, something probably caused by spraying DDT. I have the genes which limits detox of organophosphates and am at risk, that probably is the reason I think that most commercial foods smell and taste bitter and smell like the stuff in those fifty five gallon drums we sprayed on the fields. I do not taste that in the organic cabbage, carrots, celery, and lettuce. I also taste a similar chemistry in most of the flour, so have switched to organic now and things taste better.

I try not to waste and I try not to buy things I do not need, I try to fix things if I can instead of replacing them. I try to buy things that the creation of destroys the environment. I do not feel guilty, I do not have much of an environmental impact anymore. I have only flown in a jet trip three times in my life, two of those were from a round trip business meeting. The other was from flying down to pick up my uncle and his stuff to come back home with his car.

I think that the climate agenda they are pushing is just a scam, if they were addressing everything I talk about without trying to tax the hell out of people I would be supporting their cause. They are convinced that raising the price will curb buying of unnecessary things, but they still want us to waste money and are not going to deter us from buying things and services we do not need. One trip for one person to California and back from here uses more fuel per person than we burn in our car for the whole year. Yet that is subsidized by government policy and deals between the airlines and the oil companies, they sell to them at cost, we pay all the profits buying gas to go to work.

I hate deception and deception plagues our country and most of the European countries.

originally posted by: jrod
So the 45% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is a direct result of anthropogenic activity, mostly burning fossil fuels will not have consequences?

The rate is also increasing, in my lifetime that value maybe 100%+. Only those ignorant of science will argue this is not significant.

Show me your observational data justifying the increase percentage you quote.
Show me the modeling parameters that directly attribute any increase in atmospheric CO2 to anthropogenic activity
Show me the model results that predict an accelerating rate of increase as you suggest.
I spent too many years editing & correcting scientific papers full of shoddy assumptions, lax methodology and poorly constructed hypotheses due to the influence of funding $ for predetermined research results.
The Canadians recently exposed that their cilmate science models deleted 100 years of real historical data in favor of estimates that better fit their (prepaid predetermined result) research models.
Show me some more ignorance. Bring it on.

ganjoa

a reply to: rickymouse

Well said, kudos. I feel the same. I do not like to have someone lie to me, then tax me for it, while they pay no heed to that same rhetoric and/or are immune from it.

We do need to conserve, and be smart about how we go about being stewards of our environment. However, taxing people $$$ for living is not the answer. Especially when those benefiting from that tax $$$ are flaunting it in everyone's faces as they jet around the world to "talk" about solutions. I'll believe it when one of the Climate Change leaders takes a slow boat to Europe and back with hundreds of others, shares the same cheap hotel room to save the expansion of real estate and destruction of the environment, sharing a bathroom to conserve water, and lives in a modest home that they are making energy efficient.

Walking the walk speaks more to me than talking the talk.

a reply to: Krakatoa

What he said. They lost me at "massaging the data".

Let us for a moment, set aside the validity of the research in question and proceed to the more immediate and relevant questions:
WHAT is a carbon tax/surcharge going to do to relieve climate threats?
WHERE does the money go?
WHO gets control of the money?
HOW would such a scheme result in tangible benefits in terms of climate (as opposed to wealth redistribution)?

What am I missing here? How's this system supposed to work?

ganjoa

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

And other than the fact that the Earth was much much hotter millions of years before industry and pickup trucks, if global warming was real, big banks wouldn't loan billions out to people building mansions and hotels and condos on beaches.