Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By "acting in lockstep" I am not referring to any organized conspiracy. I am referring to the existential fact that all climate scientists are leftist-collectivists in varying degree, and politics colors science. The two cannot be extricated.
Especially when their funding and existence comes from leftist-collectivist sourcing, and the only way to keep the money coming is to sell a narrative of panic and impending doom and destruction. Can you imagine what would happen to climate science welfare grants if the conclusion was: "everything seems to be basically OK"?
Notice that climate scientists do not offer science. They offer radical armageddonism, and "solutions" to the "problem" based on models and hypotheticals and speculations. Models that cannot predict the weather 3 days out. And those solutions take the form of redistribution of wealth, oppressive taxation, stifling regulation, bigger and bigger government, and open contempt for capitalism and individual rights.
In other words, when a mob of collectivists gets together implicitly as a profession to sell a narrative of extinction combined with tax and social policy to combat it, we have to be very careful. And when that mob proposes massive redistribution of wealth (THEFT), and sets up shop in the United Nations and attempts to translate that theft on a global scale, then the entire profession must now be considered problematical.
Climate scientists could care less about climate. What they really care about is social justice. What they really hate is capitalism. The entire field is debauched and disgraced. Climate science is political science. Climate science should now be taught in university structure under the umbrella of The Humanities, where all the other leftist-collectivist swine swim in their slop.
You couldn't tell a scientist from a bowling ball. You obviously get your ideas from the radical alt right. Climate science is science as rigorous as all other science with answers that are important for the health of our ecosystem.
By "acting in lockstep" I am not referring to any organized conspiracy. I am referring to the existential fact that all climate scientists are leftist-collectivists in varying degree, and politics colors science. The two cannot be extricated.
And most (all?) climate change deniers are conservatives. And support the fossil fuel industry. And don't want anything to affect their bottom line.
Quote:
Especially when their funding and existence comes from leftist-collectivist sourcing, and the only way to keep the money coming is to sell a narrative of panic and impending doom and destruction. Can you imagine what would happen to climate science welfare grants if the conclusion was: "everything seems to be basically OK"?
And conservative policitian's funding/general GOP funding comes from fossil fuel, fracking, coal, and other industries that depend on discrediting climate change. Can you imagine what would happen to these industries if everyone agreed climate change needs to be addressed to the best of our ability?
Quote:
Notice that climate scientists do not offer science. They offer radical armageddonism, and "solutions" to the "problem" based on models and hypotheticals and speculations. Models that cannot predict the weather 3 days out. And those solutions take the form of redistribution of wealth, oppressive taxation, stifling regulation, bigger and bigger government, and open contempt for capitalism and individual rights.
There is a big difference between weather and climate. Climate can be tracked for long time periods and easily accessible scientific data shows a strong correlation between the industrial age and increasing temperatures. If you want to disbelieve such proof, that is your right. But don't expect everyone else to drink the fossil-fuel driven Koolaid and disbelieve scientists all over the world. Or do you claim that, for example, European scientists are funded by "leftist/collectivist sourcing"? How about Japanese? Australian?
Quote:
In other words, when a mob of collectivists gets together implicitly as a profession to sell a narrative of extinction combined with tax and social policy to combat it, we have to be very careful. And when that mob proposes massive redistribution of wealth (THEFT), and sets up shop in the United Nations and attempts to translate that theft on a global scale, then the entire profession must now be considered problematical.
And when the fossil fuel industry gets together and heavily funds/influences political elections to make sure those who support them are elected, it is extremely problematic.
Quote:
Climate scientists could care less about climate. What they really care about is social justice. What they really hate is capitalism. The entire field is debauched and disgraced. Climate science is political science. Climate science should now be taught in university structure under the umbrella of The Humanities, where all the other leftist-collectivist swine swim in their slop.
The fossil fuel industry and those who support them couldn't care less about the climate. All they are interested in is profit and to hell with the environment, air quality, water quality, and quality of life. The problem is, their BS is going to affect everyone, not just themselves.
I somewhat got into this thread as I was trying to understand "human caused climate change" a little better and its been interesting also seeing some of the "human reaction" to an "idea" like this.
CO2 is very interesting to me. I recently learned that CO2 molucule is is a dipole as is water and that creates unique properties. Water has an extremely high dielectric constant because it is a dipole and and CO2 is very good at absorbing infrared radiation also because of being a dipole.
CO2 is very basic to life on the planet. Plants use CO2 and water and sunlight energy to synthesize forms of glucose that the plant uses as energy for its life functions. In the process of creating the glucose, plants release oxygen and are largely responsible for both creating and maintaining the oxygen in the atmosphere.
Animals then consume plants along with oxygen for thier life sustaining energy and exhale the CO2 back into the atmosphere.
So over time (many millions of years) fossil fuel is created from plants and ties up CO2. The planet goes on with a balance between plants and animals exchanging CO2 and Oxygen along with natural exchanges between the atmosphere, land and the ocean. The balance goes up and down with natural variations such as sun energy, orbital variations or volcanic activity. CO2 may not drive the variations but since it is a greenhouse gas, it acts as a magnifier for the natural variations that occur.
Then along humans come and discover the energy tied up in fossil fuel and this creates an unprecedented population bloom all allowed by energy tied up in fossil fuel. This is all done in a very short period of time.
Well.. that burning of fossil fuel releases CO2 back into the atmosphere that is different than the previous balance. In the large time frame of things, we have a step function of CO2 in a system that previously oscillates but has some balance also. I cant help but think there has to be some impact from that step function. So.. I have been trying to understand this better recently.
Well.. Climate science is a complex subject and honestly I came into this not trusting conservative blogs. My recent study has reinforced that.
Since I and not a climate scientis (I am a retired analog MSEE), I had to find an expert that I trust and in searching and also reading a lot of links in this thread found the expert that I am going to believe at the moment.
So apparently a couple cities in California have some sort of law suit involving gas and oil companies for damages that have happened or are likely to occur due to human induced climate change. I find this pretty much complete BS as anyone who either heats or cools a home, drives a car (gas or electric), has lights on at night is as responsible for any climate change as the oil and gas companies. Likely the cities hired expert witness on human induced climate change which Im sure based on some of the somewhat "interesting" discussion here will be taken as biased. However, one of the guest experts is Professor Myles Allen (Univertity of Oxford) Professor Myles Allen - Environmental Change Institute - University of Oxford and has been invovled with the IPCC since the 1990's.
Anyhow, Professor Myles Allen had put together a presentation for the judge (likely given under oath) on human induced climate change. He then turned this into a series of five segments that can be watched on youtube. I have posted those links earlier in this thread and have gone through them myself anytime I have needed to fact check. Well.. CO2 is the dominant green house gas, the rise in concentration has increased the energy in the the earths atmosphere. Natural temperature cycles make telling what the impact of our rising CO2 atmosphere concentration more difficult but dig into the details and it looks like it does. As time goes on and concentrations increase and these guys are right, the CO2 driver for global warming will become more dominant over the natural cycles and more obvious to measure. Im fairly sure we will not be able to do anything about all of this (it is way easier to get into this situation than to get out - I think pretty much only solved by less humans on the planet) so I guess if we live for a while longer, we will get to see.
This is a link to the page regarding this law suit and the origination of that presentation. Like I said before, I think a law suit over fossil fuel climate change is completely BS..But I think the five segment presentation is very much worth taking the time to watch.
No, we are not better off relying on “climate†scientists. They have proven to be in ideological lockstep, and form their own echo chamber. “Peer reviewed†climate science is “echo chamber†produced climate science. Climate science as a discipline is debauched and disgraced, with rampant armageddonism and attempted panic induction ruling the day.
Now, even if climate scientists were to actually go back to being real scientists, which is a big if, and even if some of their silliness were accidentally proven to be true, another big if, the result would be the same: We are not abandoning industrial progress. We are not redistributing our wealth to payoff the third world not to develop, we are not rolling back the use of fossil fuels, we will not tolerate excessive oppressive carbon taxes whose effect is to destroy human advancement and prevent the pending industrial revolution of the world’s backward societies.
So my advice to climate “scientists†is to start thinking about adaptation. That is where we need innovation and new ideas. Not regressing to the Dark Ages.
Climate change will do what it will do. It is our job to observe reality, not climate science models which are useless, and adapt to reality, not armageddonist speculation.
Just remember anyone with "DC" in their screen name is a Statist, and Globalist, so bear that in mind. Totally agree with the above, btw.
Just like the oceanographic scaremongers crying about the warmer water temperatures killing off the coral reefs. If they are dying nearer the equator, then they are likely thriving nearer the poles. But they never show that, even if it is happening. It makes too much sense.
This is such a ridiculous statement. There are no coral reefs near the poles.
"Coral reefs are located in tropical oceans near the equator. The largest coral reef is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The second largest coral reef can be found off the coast of Belize, in Central America. Other reefs are found in Hawaii, the Red Sea, and other areas in tropical oceans."
Climate change will do what it will do. It is our job to observe reality, not climate science models which are useless, and adapt to reality, not armageddonist speculation.
Please explain how the earth's climate has been changing for billions of years, long before the "Paris Accords" came into play.
We have very little control over what is going to happen. We are going to have to improvise, adapt, and overcome the changing earth. Don't you liberals get it???
And most (all?) climate change deniers are conservatives. And support the fossil fuel industry. And don't want anything to affect their bottom line.
And conservative policitian's funding/general GOP funding comes from fossil fuel, fracking, coal, and other industries that depend on discrediting climate change. Can you imagine what would happen to these industries if everyone agreed climate change needs to be addressed to the best of our ability?
There is a big difference between weather and climate. Climate can be tracked for long time periods and easily accessible scientific data shows a strong correlation between the industrial age and increasing temperatures. If you want to disbelieve such proof, that is your right. But don't expect everyone else to drink the fossil-fuel driven Koolaid and disbelieve scientists all over the world. Or do you claim that, for example, European scientists are funded by "leftist/collectivist sourcing"? How about Japanese? Australian?
And when the fossil fuel industry gets together and heavily funds/influences political elections to make sure those who support them are elected, it is extremely problematic.
The fossil fuel industry and those who support them couldn't care less about the climate. All they are interested in is profit and to hell with the environment, air quality, water quality, and quality of life. The problem is, their BS is going to affect everyone, not just themselves.
The closest thing I've ever seen to climate change "deniers" are leftists who think if they tax us enough and tell us how to live our lives that somehow the climate won't change anymore. The climate has been changing ever since the planet formed an atmosphere and will continue to do so.
You were right about the data being easily accessible anyway. So the Roman, the medieval, and Minoan warm periods, not to mention the Holocene climate optimum all of which were warmer than it is now were natural climate variation, but this time the warming is 100% human caused?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
