Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

Barnardot

@Bogan ;No need to worry about the pubic getting apathetic because we know what happened when the left wing wing clowns got in power in Russia, China, Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cambodia, and we will never let that happen again.

Well this is right. Weather they are left wing or right wing there still exstreamist clowns who have absolute power and answer to no one. And the pubic there are apathetic mainly because they are oppressed by the goverments there. But look at Hong Kong. They had enough freedom before the China clowns took over but the people are not apathetic at all. They are revolting. Against the hard line clowns in China dicktating to them exactly how to live there lives.

Bogan

Bogan

Bogan

jack

Bogan said:

No need to worry about the pubic getting apathetic because we know what happened when the left wing wing clowns got in power in Russia, China, Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cambodia, and we will never let that happen again.

Hello Bogan:

Can't debate somebody who is SOOOO misinformed.

excon

Bogan

@jack ;   Can't debate somebody who is SOOOO misinformed.

Can't debate against morons.  

ZeusAres42

Climate change deniers disturb me. I wonder how they are going to react when reality finally catches up with them. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Don't know, but they've seem to have shifted from denial to 'yeah it happens but all our pollution doesn't effect anything'. Not sure if that's progress or not?

Barnardot

@Bogan @ZeusAres42 @Factfinder @Jack And any one who has more than half a brain will notice that some one with half a brain chooses to manipulate the truth by quoting half an article that the Thundberg chick was quoting from an extreme site that has been removed. And her next word just happened to be However.

Does the person with half a brain care to write the rest of the article after the word However? Other wise every one here is going to think that he is trying to be misleading again?

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 ;Climate change deniers disturb me. I wonder how they are going to react when reality finally catches up with them. 

Quiet right there. The sad thing is that deniers like Half Brain @Bogan like any denialer is going to blame it on something else. Like derr the lead melting on my roof is due to the cyclic change that happens every 1000 years. Its got nothing to do with red necks like me roaring around in my V8 pickup and burning heaps of rubber doing burn outs so I can pick up some loose chicks.

Factfinder

LOL You do have a way with words. Hope you don't get tired of me saying that. @Barnardot

What I want to know is, it appears @Bogan is from Australia if I read another thread right, so that's cool, but why the passionate interest in American politics? 

MayCaesar

Climate science is probably the worst topic in the world to discuss with non-scientists. I have never had anything good come out of it, and even the most sane and impartial people overall tend to turn into ideological zombies the moment someone mentions word "climate".

Seriously, I have played devil's advocate and claimed that Hitler did everything right as an experiment, and even that discussion turned out more productive than anything I have ever discussed with anyone on climate science - short of a small number of physicists who actually grasped the processes in question, rather than repeating what their favorite politician told them on TV.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Yeah I know. Problem is there are scams that's true. And there are countries who want to fleece the wealthier ones, that's true, but we still need to change our source of energy, and stop creating and dumping plastics. That is also true. If the yoyos in office can't approach this without side deals, payoffs and special interest concessions, then we need new yoyos! That is true.

Barnardot

@Factfinder ;What I want to know is, it appears @Bogan is from Australia if I read another thread right, so that's cool, but why the passionate interest in American politics? 

Who knows really. Really I think he idolzes the far right US politics and the Red Neck way of life. But I reckon he can stay where he is . The last thing we need is for dysfunctional half brain s immigrating here. 

Bogan

@ZeusAres42 ;      Climate change deniers disturb me. I wonder how they are going to react when reality finally catches up with them. 

Open border exponents, Defund the Police types, and multiculturalists disturb me.     In Europe and in the USA, reality has already caught up with them.  

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Factfinder

There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Let's look at Cook:

A sample of scientists whose papers were used were asked if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

For example:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bogan

There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change.

Okay, who was the person or organisation which conducted this mythical poll?      How was it conducted?      How many "scientists" were polled?   Every scientist in the world, or just a  representative example?     If a representative example, how big was the representative example?      How many scientists are there in the world?        Was it a secret ballot ?     Or, was it possible, even probable, that any negative statement made about climate change could be made public and therefore a danger to a scientists continued career as a scientist?     

My belief is, that this so called "97% consensus" is just a myth.    It is a fabrication.     It is hard to get 97% consensus about anything.     It is just another B-S argument trotted out by the Alarmist side to try and justify their failing ideology.

Factfinder

@Bogan

 "I accept that human induced CO2 emissions could contribute to global warming.    So, I have no objection in governments attempting to cut back on CO2 emissions." 

Can you elaborate on these two statements you made previously?

ZeusAres42

Factfinder said:

@ZeusAres42

Don't know, but they've seem to have shifted from denial to 'yeah it happens but all our pollution doesn't effect anything'. Not sure if that's progress or not?

@Factfinder

That reminds me of a thing in argumentation called epistemically loaded language. For example, "Evolution is just a theory" - This is what we would call an epistemic downplower. On the other hand, "evolution is a fact" is an epistemic up-player. I don't know if their acceptance of it at least happening is much progress considering the denial is now on the severity of it with a lot of people. Also, for want of a better word than denial, I guess we could call this rationalization, at least with several people. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Yeah people need to be justified in the opinions they hold thus the temptation to think primarily within party lines. It has a reassuring element about it that appeals to one or two issue mindsets. Like your point on evolution. Typical proponent of Christianity believing in creationism will almost always need to reject evolution, then upon more people self identified as christian speaking from one party's platform more often then the others platform, that typical christian will then feel compelled to vote along the formers party line without no understanding what there voting for. All because they believe in creation and reject evolution. And this is because they feel a reaffirming sense of validation for their creationism beliefs. Apply that phenomenon over all the issues of our time and we have nothing; but an over devotion to party and the neglect of a nation, that is all that is left. Doesn't explain it all and of course say, not everyone does votes according to beliefs on a single issue. But enough do to hinder progress to a slow crawl. We as a people must come together and iron our differences out as a people first, and a party second. Just not sure that happen. Have we gone passed the point of no return? Has America seen her best days behind us? Time will tell.

Bogan

@Factfinder ;   Can you elaborate on these two statements you made previously?  

No wuckers.  (that is an "Australianism"        Climate change happens every thousand years or so.    Our present warming period just happens to be right on schedule, and every government money seeking climate scientist knows that for a fact.     However, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it is feasible that CO2 MIGHT contribute to raising temperatures within our present warming cycle.   

That being the case, and mindful of what is at stake, I do not object to governments allocating funds for research that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. 

What I do object too, is self seeking scientists and governments considering that AGW is a foregone conclusion, and taxing the public with ever higher taxes and charges, to chase what may well be just another scientific fantasy, like the Global Cooling scare in the 1970's. 

On 16th of October, 2008, the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation it has ever passed in British history, committing the UK to cut emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds.   On that very day it snowed in London in October, for the first time since 1934.  $400 billion pounds in the UK alone?    Somebody is sure making big money out of this farce.

        

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder ;   Can you elaborate on these two statements you made previously?  

No wuckers.  (that is an "Australianism"        Climate change happens every thousand years or so.    Our present warming period just happens to be right on schedule, and every government money seeking climate scientist knows that for a fact.     However, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it is feasible that CO2 MIGHT contribute to raising temperatures within our present warming cycle.   

That being the case, and mindful of what is at stake, I do not object to governments allocating funds for research that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. 

What I do object too, is self seeking scientists and governments considering that AGW is a foregone conclusion, and taxing the public with ever higher taxes and charges, to chase what may well be just another scientific fantasy, like the Global Cooling scare in the 1970's. 

On 16th of October, 2008, the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation it has ever passed in British history, committing the UK to cut emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds.   On that very day it snowed in London in October, for the first time since 1934.  $400 billion pounds in the UK alone?    Somebody is sure making big money out of this farce.

        

Do you understand that we can measure pollutants ie green house gasses in the atmosphere? And that there are more gases then co2 coming from the worlds emission systems? If you do not accept these two basic realities then you will never understand the underlining truth of climate change. Data retrieved from ice cores tell us at no time in history has green house gases doubled in the relatively short span since the industrial revolution. No one wants to take our toys away. We just need to find a sustainable source of energy. Again, google a pic of city sacked in smog and know we can't just have an attitude of indifference. Yes charlatans exist, so we remove them from the process and work towards preserving our planet as best we can? Do you have a problem with that?

Bogan

Factfinder quote   Do you understand that we can measure pollutants ie green house gasses in the atmosphere? And that there are more gases then co2 coming from the worlds emission systems? If you do not accept these two basic realities then you will never understand the underlining truth of climate change.

 I understand that “the underlying truth” of climate change is that the planet warms and cools, warms and cools, in roughly 1000 year cycles, and that this FACT is mostly geared to the sun’s cyclical output.    Our present warming period is right on schedule.   Previous warming (and cooling) periods could in no way be attributed to human activity, and every damned climate scientist on planet earth knows all of this.

Factfinder quote      Data retrieved from ice cores tell us at no time in history has green house gases doubled in the relatively short span since the industrial revolution.

Data retrieved from ice cores clearly show two things.     The first is that for 600 million years, the proportion of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere has (with a few spikes caused by volcanic activity) declined to the point that if it had continued, all plant life on earth would have choked to death.     The same ice cores which tracked the hills and valleys of CO2 proportions in earth’s atmosphere, could find no co relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.     There were times when CO2 went up, and temperatures went down.     And times when CO2 went down, and temperatures went up.

 

Factfinder quote  No one wants to take our toys away. We just need to find a sustainable source of energy.

That is funny, that is.       Here in Australia, the Greens Party was started by a homosexual named Bob Brown, who rallied support to stop a hydro electricity project.      Recently Bob retired to his country estate, and he was up to his old tricks again when he opposed a wind farm being sited near his property.     You just can’t win with the anti everything brigade.    They just oppose everything that normal people support, just to show how “different” they are.

 

Factfinder quote     Again, google a pic of city sacked in smog and know we can't just have an attitude of indifference. Yes charlatans exist, so we remove them from the process and work towards preserving our planet as best we can? Do you have a problem with that?

 Look ma-a-a-ate.    I have lived through a time when so many “end of times” ideologies have come and gone, that I am immune to the idea of any more.      I lived through “the Population Bomb” where it was opined that millions of people were going to starve to death, and there was nothing that governments could do about that.     I lived through “acid rain”.    I lived through “global cooling”.    I lived through “the oil crisis”.    I lived through “ozone depletion.”    I lived through “the Millenium bug.”      It seems to me that every ten years or so, some fool will dream up another “end of times” scenario which scares the sheet out of people who have a Chickenlittle mindset.

Bogan

Factfinder

@Bogan

So your response is to state what I said and ignore it? Because you trust no one and no science, only the doctrine you choose to plaster the board with. And you have no understanding of the issue other than your indoctrination. Well, at least you're honest.

Bogan

.@Factfinder quote     So your response is to state what I said and ignore it? 

I stated what you said and I diminished it in the light of my own knowledge

Factfinder quote    Because you trust no one and no science,   

I can appreciate that academics are leftists and that woke scientists see nothing wrong with using the great respect that the public does have for science, to legitimize their woke ideology,    Both history and science is being compromised by leftists, and if you like, I will give you verifiable examples of that.

Factfinder quote     And you have no understanding of the issue other than your indoctrination. Well, at least you're honest.

I would reverse that and say that you are the one who is indoctrinated?      For many years, I had no opinion at all on the subject of Human Induced Global warming.     I would observe exchanges on the debate sites I visited but I gave no opinion.     Then one week I had time off from work so I decided to watch every video on youtube advocating the for and against case.       I did so with a completely open mind, and i would decide for myself which side was telling the truth. 

What struck me first, is how professional and slick the alarmist sites were, using lots of dramatic imagery and even including evocative music to reinforce dramatic claims.    It was clear to me that these sites were lavishly funded.   The presenters on these sites usually had a professorial delivery, implying that superior people just knew that their arguments were right.    The Sceptic sites were completely different.     Often they were very amateurish productions where one person tried to explain his position, as well as attacking the arguments of the alarmists.     The sceptics usually focused upon presenting logical arguments and supporting them with matching imaged evidence.    What I found compelling, is that they often dissected the arguments of the alarmists and proved to me that the alarmist arguments were simply illogical.       One example of that was Mann's infamous "Hockey Stick Graph" which was even printed in school textbooks, but which is obviously a fabrication since it did not bother to even include the Little Ice Age.     Another site, picked apart John Kerry's graph which he presented to a classroom full of doe eyed students, which supposedly "proved" that CO2 caused global temperature rises.     The sceptics swatted that one down very effectively, too,

The sceptic sites conformed to what little knowledge I had about previous climate changes within known human history for the last 5000 years.     Human history has always been effected by naturally and regularly recuring climate change.   So, after giving both sides a fair go in explaining their cases, I am convinced that the sceptics are the ones who are telling the truth.     Everything I have read or watched since that decision, has reinforced that position.     I have presented the case for climate skepticism on debate sites and routinely run rings around my opponents.   My opponents knowledge is usually based entirely upon half remembered slogans, and the common belief that they are showing how smart they are, by advocating for a cause which supposedly "smart" people support.

Barnardot

@Bogan ;My belief is, that this so called "97% consensus" is just a myth.    It is a fabrication. 

May be it is a myth but it is a fact that some one here posts made up newspaper articles from scam extreme websites that are being continually closed down. Do you know who that was?

maxx

Chapter.1_FINAL.indd (ipcc.ch) @Factfinder

Bogan

@maxx ;    Hiya Maxx.    Long time no see?

maxx

yeah, covid, or rsv or both. been a killer. the cough just wont go away @Bogan

Factfinder

@Bogan

Actually what you described in your search is commonly found in propogandist sites, and they're typically not professional at all, easy to spot. Might I suggest maintaining that open mind you held in the beginning of your search and seek more data from links like @maxx provided?

@Bogan, I've criticized leftists scams in the past as well. However I never abandoned the reality of what we're doing to the planet. Yes, the left loves to tax and spend, don't think they even deny that anymore. They're more into trying to justify it more these days. And yes, climate change among many other things they will not hesitate to spend other peoples money on grandiose schemes without a thought. That's true. And it's right to be critical of some of their extreme practices. I've made the point in the past that it's wrong the way they're willing to straddle our children and our children's children with theirs, and by default, our debts today. Now if that's immoral, then how can leaving a depleted planet be moral? Before you dismiss that question and me as an alarmist, think about the changes and the pollution we see with our eyes today and what true science tells us about, with an open mind. I agree with @just_sayin, we would need lots of civilian oversight in addressing climate change, aimed at allowing the experts work in a neutral environment. Keeping it our of the hands of political hacks.

Bogan

@Factfinder

Factfinder quote      Actually what you described in your search is commonly found in propogandist sites, and they're typically not professional at all, easy to spot. Might I suggest maintaining that open mind you held in the beginning of your search and seek more data from links like @maxx provided?

 On an impartial assessment of the validity of which side was right, my opinion was that the sceptic side made sense, while the alarmist side was full of all sorts of logical holes that the sceptic sites had no trouble poking holes in.      If you believe in the alarmist position, then you yourself are doing a very poor job of convincing me that I am wrong.   Your main premise in your last post was that I was just brainwashed.  

 

Factfinder quote    @Bogan, I've criticized leftists scams in the past as well.

 To your credit, you have.    All you need to do now is to realise that this Human Induced Climate Change farce is just another self seeking power grab scam.   .      Despite having governments, academia, celebrities, and the media on your side, your side just happens to be losing.   The primary reason for that, is because for thirty years, your side has been making all sorts of “end of times are imminent ” predictions which never eventuated.     When somebody claims to be an expert in a particular field of science, and then makes all sorts of predictions based upon their supposedly “expert” scientific knowledge, which always turns out to be laughingly inaccurate, then you can hardly blame ordinary people for concluding that they do not have a single, solitary clue about what they are talking about.

 

Factfinder quote      However I never abandoned the reality of what we're doing to the planet.

 When I was a kid, the population of earth was 3.5 billion.    Today it is 8 billion and rising exponentially.     The biggest threat to continued human existence is unchecked population growth.    All of that increase comes from third world sheetholes where they have never abandoned the idea that having lots of kids is a great idea.    Since advanced societies would have negative population increases except for legal and illegal immigration, it sure looks to me that creating and maintaining advanced societies is the way forward for the human race.   Because if the third world does not start thinking straight, the traditional population limiters of starvation, war, and disease will do it for them.     Think of it as human beings being the virus killing the old earth, and covid-19 and Ebola being the earth’s anti bodies.       Here in Australia, the Greens Party became an offshoot of the now defunct ZPG Party.  (Zero Population Growth Party) and that sort of thinking will do a lot more for the environment than building endless wind turbines and knocking down coal fired power stations. 

 

Factfinder quote        Yes, the left loves to tax and spend, don't think they even deny that anymore. They're more into trying to justify it more these days. And yes, climate change among many other things they will not hesitate to spend other peoples money on grandiose schemes without a thought. That's true. And it's right to be critical of some of their extreme practices. I've made the point in the past that it's wrong the way they're willing to straddle our children and our children's children with theirs, and by default, our debts today. Now if that's immoral, then how can leaving a depleted planet be moral? Before you dismiss that question and me as an alarmist, think about the changes and the pollution we see with our eyes today and what true science tells us about, with an open mind. I agree with @just_sayin, we would need lots of civilian oversight in addressing climate change, aimed at allowing the experts work in a neutral environment. Keeping it our of the hands of political hacks.

 I would assess you as an intelligent opponent with reasonable views.    Which is almost unique on this debate site which is full of double digit IQ hecklers, and little else.     There are only half a dozen contributors on this site which are worth debating against and I would include you in that category.      It must really embarrass you that people like Barnadot, Jack, Openminded (a misnomer if ever there was one), Dreamer, and Dee agree with your position on this topic?

 In an interview  Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, of the IPCC, co-chair of working group 3, November 13, 2010, he said this. 

 "We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.....   One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.    This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

  I agree with Dr Endenhofer, this has little to do with the environment.    It is simply a tactic by a bunch of One World Government dreamers, overpaid international chair warming bureaucrats, neo Marxists, public service empire builders, left wing teachers federations, self aggrandising publically funded scientists, vegans and other kooks, extreme green environmentalists, sensation seeking shock/horror media people, self interested corporations, and now, an ever growing class of usually well off educated elitists, to whom virtue signaling and class identification is everything, to panic the public that they all despise into finally accepting a totalitarian government of their own caste's worldview, to control the lives of The Great Unwashed, and to redistribute the wealth of the advanced nations to the dysfunctional nations.

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

Factfinder quote      Actually what you described in your search is commonly found in propogandist sites, and they're typically not professional at all, easy to spot. Might I suggest maintaining that open mind you held in the beginning of your search and seek more data from links like @maxx provided?

 On an impartial assessment of the validity of which side was right, my opinion was that the sceptic side made sense, while the alarmist side was full of all sorts of logical holes that the sceptic sites had no trouble poking holes in.      If you believe in the alarmist position, then you yourself are doing a very poor job of convincing me that I am wrong.   Your main premise in your last post was that I was just brainwashed.  

 

Factfinder quote    @Bogan, I've criticized leftists scams in the past as well.

 To your credit, you have.    All you need to do now is to realise that this Human Induced Climate Change farce is just another self seeking power grab scam.   .      Despite having governments, academia, celebrities, and the media on your side, your side just happens to be losing.   The primary reason for that, is because for thirty years, your side has been making all sorts of “end of times are imminent ” predictions which never eventuated.     When somebody claims to be an expert in a particular field of science, and then makes all sorts of predictions based upon their supposedly “expert” scientific knowledge, which always turns out to be laughingly inaccurate, then you can hardly blame ordinary people for concluding that they do not have a single, solitary clue about what they are talking about.

 

Factfinder quote      However I never abandoned the reality of what we're doing to the planet.

 When I was a kid, the population of earth was 3.5 billion.    Today it is 8 billion and rising exponentially.     The biggest threat to continued human existence is unchecked population growth.    All of that increase comes from third world sheetholes where they have never abandoned the idea that having lots of kids is a great idea.    Since advanced societies would have negative population increases except for legal and illegal immigration, it sure looks to me that creating and maintaining advanced societies is the way forward for the human race.   Because if the third world does not start thinking straight, the traditional population limiters of starvation, war, and disease will do it for them.     Think of it as human beings being the virus killing the old earth, and covid-19 and Ebola being the earth’s anti bodies.       Here in Australia, the Greens Party became an offshoot of the now defunct ZPG Party.  (Zero Population Growth Party) and that sort of thinking will do a lot more for the environment than building endless wind turbines and knocking down coal fired power stations. 

 

Factfinder quote        Yes, the left loves to tax and spend, don't think they even deny that anymore. They're more into trying to justify it more these days. And yes, climate change among many other things they will not hesitate to spend other peoples money on grandiose schemes without a thought. That's true. And it's right to be critical of some of their extreme practices. I've made the point in the past that it's wrong the way they're willing to straddle our children and our children's children with theirs, and by default, our debts today. Now if that's immoral, then how can leaving a depleted planet be moral? Before you dismiss that question and me as an alarmist, think about the changes and the pollution we see with our eyes today and what true science tells us about, with an open mind. I agree with @just_sayin, we would need lots of civilian oversight in addressing climate change, aimed at allowing the experts work in a neutral environment. Keeping it our of the hands of political hacks.

 I would assess you as an intelligent opponent with reasonable views.    Which is almost unique on this debate site which is full of double digit IQ hecklers, and little else.     There are only half a dozen contributors on this site which are worth debating against and I would include you in that category.      It must really embarrass you that people like Barnadot, Jack, Openminded (a misnomer if ever there was one), Dreamer, and Dee agree with your position on this topic?

 In an interview  Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, of the IPCC, co-chair of working group 3, November 13, 2010, he said this. 

 "We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.....   One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.    This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

  I agree with Dr Endenhofer, this has little to do with the environment.    It is simply a tactic by a bunch of One World Government dreamers, overpaid international chair warming bureaucrats, neo Marxists, public service empire builders, left wing teachers federations, self aggrandising publically funded scientists, vegans and other kooks, extreme green environmentalists, sensation seeking shock/horror media people, self interested corporations, and now, an ever growing class of usually well off educated elitists, to whom virtue signaling and class identification is everything, to panic the public that they all despise into finally accepting a totalitarian government of their own caste's worldview, to control the lives of The Great Unwashed, and to redistribute the wealth of the advanced nations to the dysfunctional nations.

I understand your conclusion based on the dramatic production aspect of the alarmist videos you refer to. Hence my propogandist retort. Perhaps I jumped the gun on alluding to your "doctrine" though. Perhaps? 

Do you realize that here in America it was the left who brought up over population as an argument for abortion? Of course their argument was debunked but that didn't stop roe v wade from passing. Anyway, you can read for yourself here: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/november/december-2022/valuable-people-debunking-myth-overpopulation#:~:text=One of the most popular,human action and economic progress how the overpopulation argument has been debunked. Hollywood chimed in with an episode of Star Trex where the enterprise encounters a planet where there is standing room only. LOL

I would submit "my side" in no way reflects alarmist propaganda.

I'm not embarrassed at all that the users you mentioned agreeing with me on this issue. It is an example of how we can look past party affiliation and understand the facts surrounding any given issue. We can not continue to deplete resources and pollute the planet without consequences. 

I agree with findings of Dr. Endenhofer back in 2010. Problem is that doesn't absolve us from neglecting our planet. 

Bogan

Factfinder quote   I understand your conclusion based on the dramatic production aspect of the alarmist videos you refer to. Hence my propogandist retort. Perhaps I jumped the gun on alluding to your "doctrine" though. Perhaps? 

I wondered which side was correct in the climate debate and I had no preconceptions about that.      I watched every “for” and “against” youtube video on that subject with an open mind.     My conclusion was that the sceptics were right.      Despite the fact that the alarmist sites were the “dramatic” ones using modern advertising techniques to “sell the product”, their arguments seemed spurious to me.   This was especially so because the amateurs on the sceptic sites delighted in picking apart the alarmist arguments, and proving to me that they were not just wrong, but in some cases deliberately fraudulent.

 One example of that was Michael Manne’s infamous “hockey stick graph” which was used on the front cover of the very first IPCC report, and is still being used in school textbooks today to indoctrinate school children into this new religion.      Anyone who has any knowledge of history can see that, true to left wing propaganda techniques, the offending data of the Little Ice Age was air brushed right out of the Hockey Stick picture.  

 

 It is the alarmist side which uses fear and intimidation to promote their cause.    The infamous “climategate” emails proved this when one email from the head of the East Anglia Climate Research Institute discussed with a colleague about sacking a climate scientist named “Sayers” who they suspected did not support the alarmist position.     

One claim by alarmists is that their scientific research must be correct because it is “peer reviewed”.     But in Australia, a scientist named Professor Paul Ridd from Queensland University, was sacked for "peer reviewing" a "scientific report" on the effects of climate change on the Barrier Reef, and criticizing the scientific methodology used.     Canadian Zoologist Mary Crockford, who is the world’s authority on polar bears, completely disproved the Alarmist claim that Polar Bears were all drowning.     She was sacked from her job for proving the alarmists wrong.   Professor Judith Curry was initially lauded by the alarmist side when her research proved that climate change was supposedly real.     She was “peer reviewed” by another scientist who criticized the accuracy of the data she used to present her case.    Because Judith Curry is a real scientist, she checked this data she had used to make her claim, and found out that it was fraudulent.    She then retracted her own research paper and is now on the sceptic side.     Judith Curry has said that while the alarmist side is lavishly funded by governments around the world, no government has given any research money to skeptics.

 Curry’s observation in itself is an important point.   In 2010,  31,478 US scientists publicly put their names on a petition saying that they do not accept HIGW.   If that number of US scientists alone did that, then the science is definitely not settled.     It is a pretty funny “science” when there is a serious division of scientific opinion on a subject of immense importance to the public, and only one side of the debate gets financed by the government?    C'mon Factfinder.   You say that you can understand left wing duplicity, yet here is a sterling example, right under your nose, but you refuse to see it because you wish it was true?

 Lastly, it is the alarmist side which sees no problem with fudging the figures to make historical data conform to their new, world saving ideology.    Here in Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) got caught red handed fudging the historical record.   They had published data “proving” that climate change was happening in Australia using the statistics kept by numerous weather stations on properties all over Australia.    This data is very significant as Australia was one of the first countries in the world to have such a nation wide program recording daily climate data.      The scam was revealed when the ancestors of the families on remote properties who had been recording data for many decades, checked their ancestors hand written records, and discovered that the BoM was lying.

 

Factfinder quote       Do you realize that here in America it was the left who brought up over population as an argument for abortion?

Then it was a good argument.

 

Factfinder quote     Of course their argument was debunked but that didn't stop roe v wade from passing.

As I understand the furore over Roe versus Wade, all the US Supreme court did was to rule that abortion laws were a state responsibility, not a Federal one.

 

Factfinder quote       ….how the overpopulation argument has been debunked.

Nobody ever “debunked” it to me.

 

Factfinder quote       I would submit "my side" in no way reflects alarmist propaganda.

I would not accuse you of doing it yourself.     But from my perspective, the alarmist case is illogical because it deliberately ignores, and in some cases air brushes away, known historical facts.     Some of it’s data is just plain potty (Manne’s Hockey Stick Graph).     It uses fear and intimidation to promote it’s agenda.    And it sees nothing wrong with fudging the figures to get a desired outcome.

 

Factfinder quote      I'm not embarrassed at all that the users you mentioned agreeing with me on this issue.

 Well, you should be.    Because if the double digit IQ people, the same rude and offensive hecklers who are so du-mb that they can not debate their way out of wet paper bag, support your position, then the time has come to re assess your position.

 

Factfinder quote       It is an example of how we can look past party affiliation and understand the facts surrounding any given issue. We can not continue to deplete resources and pollute the planet without consequences. 

 Whereas in the long term you are right, exactly where we are in terms of depleting resources is open to debate.     I lived through a time when ‘The Oil Crisis” was flavour of the month among lefties, and their “experts” all agreed that the world would run right out of oil by 2000.     Just like climate change, when the “experts” get proven wrong, they just put their capitalism smashing theory back a few decades and keep chirping the same message.    

Factfinder

@Bogan

Well overpopulation is a debate for another time. Point is we're a long way off from "standing room only" yet you see it as something more urgent than climate change. We may be along way off from resource depletion but you don't really believe we need to act at all, that it will fix itself. Total reversal of logic. That and it doesn't matter about the scams. I've already addressed that and offered a logical approach but you still talk about them and not clime change. Whether or not we run out soon, or centuries from now isn't the point. The point is to try and leave the planet better off by committing to seek real solutions. I see nothing wrong with not polluting the earth or the atmosphere. I'm not talking about the charlatans and getting ripped off. I know about their schemes and I am not afraid to call them out. Like Biden and his attempt to force people out of their good gas cars for inferior ev's. We were not ready for that for many reasons. Still, to keep polluting and pretend we aren't causing damage is bad. Stop polluting and rationally work towards renewable energy is good. Have you ever thought of it this way: the longer we resist doing anything to correct our course, the longer the scum who exploit the situation will be in business? 

Bogan

Western people today are very mindful of the environment.     Everybody today is a greenie.     Fifty years ago people did not care about the environment at all,    There has been a paradigm shift in the thinking of ordinary people.       I don't think that air pollution today in western societies is any big deal anymore.     Nobody is talking about acid rain anymore because mandatory pollution controls on industries have pretty well fixed all of that.    So too, cars are now using cleaner fuels, nobody uses leaded fuels anymore.    Particulate filters on deiseal engines and catalytic converters on petrol engines have also greatly reduced air pollution.     Restrictions on CFC use has apparently fixed the hole in the ozone layer because nobody whines about that anymore.    CO2 is plant food and agronomists talk about "the greening of the earth" as increased CO2 levels foster global plant growth.

The question was, Climate change, fact, scam, or both.?"      My opinion is that it i  scam.    Actually, it is more than that.  It is a Trojan Horse for any number of self appointed busybodies who have puritanical mindsets, to display their supposedly superior morality and mark them indelibly as superior people.        

Factfinder

Bogan said:

Western people today are very mindful of the environment.     Everybody today is a greenie.     Fifty years ago people did not care about the environment at all,    There has been a paradigm shift in the thinking of ordinary people.       I don't think that air pollution today in western societies is any big deal anymore.     Nobody is talking about acid rain anymore because mandatory pollution controls on industries have pretty well fixed all of that.    So too, cars are now using cleaner fuels, nobody uses leaded fuels anymore.    Particulate filters on deiseal engines and catalytic converters on petrol engines have also greatly reduced air pollution.     Restrictions on CFC use has apparently fixed the hole in the ozone layer because nobody whines about that anymore.    CO2 is plant food and agronomists talk about "the greening of the earth" as increased CO2 levels foster global plant growth.

The question was, Climate change, fact, scam, or both.?"      My opinion is that it i  scam.    Actually, it is more than that.  It is a Trojan Horse for any number of self appointed busybodies who have puritanical mindsets, to display their supposedly superior morality and mark them indelibly as superior people.        

@Bogan

I can see those alarmists have done more damage to this important issue than the good they first purposed. The fact that you are talking about improvements that enacting pollution control has done is encouraging however. All isn't lost. Scammers be dammed!

 I say it's both fact and scam. Fact because even with the improvements we made, it is impossible to depend on combustion engines and motors to power our vehicles and industry without continuing to dump pollutants on the ground, air and sea. For instances the catalytic converter you refer to, well that doesn't "fix" anything. It converts carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide. True, co2 is good for plants but as your own internal biological environment will tell you, too much of anything will kill. Not to mention other gases that are emitted. So in this specific case alone we can see that we helped some and we've masked some of the issue, but far from fixed it. We haven't even addressed the by products we as a society have become dependent on like plastics that big oil produces. Imagine the pollutants manufacturing plants across the land produce along with those products while the products themselves are contributing to pollution. China despite going to climate summits decided to take your approach some years back. They felt it was more important to surpass America's economic might so they doubled down on oil being the driver of their economy. And they did achieve their economic goals, temporarily. But back when they last held the summer Olympics they began to see the error of their ways. The event was almost canceled because Beijing was so smoggy you wouldn't have been able to see or breathe. They acted desperately to get the smog bearable. Including shutting down manufacturing during the height of the problem and restricting passenger vehicles being on the road for personal reasons. 

Scam: Well you're quite aware of that truism. All the fleecing attempts and propogandists lies have made it extremely hard to approach moving forward with serious discussions that can offer real solutions being purposed. I would love to see them all get what's coming to them. I see them as the vial creatures they are. Don't you doubt that for a minute. I'm 100% with you where they're concerned. 

Bogan

The human race, thanks to the inventiveness of the west, has made more progress in the last 200 years than in the preceding 200,000.     The levels of prosperity in the western world, and in the Asian world which largely accepted the western style of life, is unprecedented in human history.       All of this was largely fueled by fossil fuels.      I find it odd that you want to demonize the very source of our prosperity?   There are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels in the immediate future.    Electric cars and bikes in particular have become a joke.     Apartment buildings are refusing to allow them to be garaged because of the fire risk, and insurance companies are refusing to insure them for the same reason.   Nobody wants to buy the damned things.   Either we keep using fossil fuels while looking for viable alternatives, or we all have to leave our cities and go back to subsistence farming.   That is not going to happen.   Whatever problems we have with pollution caused by fossil fuels has so far been manageable and will stay that way.

 Human Induced Climate Change is a scam dreamed up by Davos style dreamers who are usually rich academics who love to strut and preen their ego’s by portraying themselves as the saviors of the world.     It became fashionable, because so many other groups of self aggrandizing people saw it as an opportunity to increase their own power and economic standing.    It is an elitist concept dreamed up by elitists and promoted by elitists.     And if history tells us anything, it is that the elites from every race, creed, and culture will always try to create hierarchical political systems with themselves at the top.    That is really what this “climate change” hysteria is all about. 

Factfinder

Bogan said:

The human race, thanks to the inventiveness of the west, has made more progress in the last 200 years than in the preceding 200,000.     The levels of prosperity in the western world, and in the Asian world which largely accepted the western style of life, is unprecedented in human history.       All of this was largely fueled by fossil fuels.      I find it odd that you want to demonize the very source of our prosperity?   There are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels in the immediate future.    Electric cars and bikes in particular have become a joke.     Apartment buildings are refusing to allow them to be garaged because of the fire risk, and insurance companies are refusing to insure them for the same reason.   Nobody wants to buy the damned things.   Either we keep using fossil fuels while looking for viable alternatives, or we all have to leave our cities and go back to subsistence farming.   That is not going to happen.   Whatever problems we have with pollution caused by fossil fuels has so far been manageable and will stay that way.

 Human Induced Climate Change is a scam dreamed up by Davos style dreamers who are usually rich academics who love to strut and preen their ego’s by portraying themselves as the saviors of the world.     It became fashionable, because so many other groups of self aggrandizing people saw it as an opportunity to increase their own power and economic standing.    It is an elitist concept dreamed up by elitists and promoted by elitists.     And if history tells us anything, it is that the elites from every race, creed, and culture will always try to create hierarchical political systems with themselves at the top.    That is really what this “climate change” hysteria is all about. 

I have not demonized fossil fuels. And I've acknowledged the fact fossil fuels is what drove our economy. At the same time I also acknowledge we need to prepare to move on from them. But that's the way change always happens. The need is first presented with accompanying data generally detailing why change must occur and what the consequences are if they don't. There is always resistance, false claims from both sides, and money changing hands. But eventually lies get exposed, truths become accepted, opportunity for devils exploiting the situations dwindle, and change is made. Progress will happen and it won't be because of indifference, it will be because of will. At which point does the one who only sees the negative side of an issue more prominently, become the hysteric they so often only choose to alarm the rest about?  

AntiRioter

Bogan said:

Hullo, Mr Factfinder.       My reading of history tells me that the earth's climate warms and cools, warms and cools, in roughly in 1000 year cycles.     !000 years ago was the Medieval Warm period.     !000 years before that, the Roman Warm Period.     1000 years before that, the Egyptian Warm Period, which followed the Assyrian Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period.     Our present warming cycle is called "The Modern Warm Period" and it just happens to be right on schedule.     Not only that, but every damned climate 'scientist planet earth knows it.      So no, I am not saying that the climate does not change, just that since the previous warming periods can not be "blamed" (actually, they were very beneficial to the human race) on cars and coal fired electricity power stations, then the present warming period can not be "blamed" on it either. 

My reading of history also warns me about how the elites (and psychopaths) of the world always want to stay at the top and treat the hoi polloi as their peasant resource.    We live in a time when the new power mad  aristocrats are the educated elitists who make up a large part of our public services.   Human Induced Climate Change is just a scam dreamed up by one world fantasists who dream of a borderless world ruled by international educated elitist like themselves.      Scaring the peasants into paying ever higher taxes, by claiming that if they do not, the world is going to end in the year 2000, (put back to 2016, put back to 2035), is the name of the game.          

No aspect of what you've said is accurate at all. 1000 year cycles? Sheesh; go ahead kiddo, find any evidence to support that and cite it. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Climate Change is "real"...the Climate is cyclical and it changes and the Earth heats and the Earth cools but the false premise that man induces changes in the climate via a carbon footprint is the substance of fools, globalists, Progressives, Democrats, Marxists, seeking control, power, wealth, through deception.

Bogan

Just in case you have not noticed, the same ratbags marching around, and jumping up and down about Human Induced Climate Change, are the same ones supporting HAMAS, Defund the Police, and here in Australia, abolish Australia Day.   

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Climate Change is "real"...the Climate is cyclical and it changes and the Earth heats and the Earth cools but the false premise that man induces changes in the climate via a carbon footprint is the substance of fools, globalists, Progressives, Democrats, Marxists, seeking control, power, wealth, through deception.

We have measured our carbon foot print. We've measured it's increase from the beginning of the industrial age till now. And compared it to past millennia. There has been twice the increase in green house gases in that 150 yrs than all of the past has ever seen. There are various methods of knowing this. We may not know the extent of our activities may have or for how long. Time will tell. But there can be no action without a reaction, kinda a physics thing. Also we need to find a renewable source of energy anyway, very much a physics thing. So what's wrong with preparing when we have time to do so? I dislike fools, globalists, Progressives, Democrats, Marxists, seeking control, power and to fleece our wealth too. So we exclude them if that's their primary agenda. No one say we must cow down to them. You really believe when you look at a city sacked in smog we are not having some affect?

Factfinder

Bogan said:

Just in case you have not noticed, the same ratbags marching around, and jumping up and down about Human Induced Climate Change, are the same ones supporting HAMAS, Defund the Police, and here in Australia, abolish Australia Day.   

Incase you haven't noticed, even the left is starting to say we need to fund the police. And biden is bombing hamas supporters funded by iran. I beg you @bogan do not make me defend liberals! YUCK. In order for sane policies to prevail we must remain in reality. I do not know that much about australia beyond the fact they have one of the worlds most diverse animal populations in the world. Don't you think that should be protected? The science of climate change is very real despite political hysterics that usallly grab the headlines. As I said before, we can ditch the charlatans and still seek better options in meeting our energy needs.

Barnardot

@maxx ;yeah, covid, or rsv or both. been a killer. the cough just wont go away

Wel I hope you get better.

If you eat heaps of garlic every day it will go away. And so will your friends.

Barnardot

@AntiRioter @Bogan ;No aspect of what you've said is accurate at all. 1000 year cycles? Sheesh; go ahead kiddo, find any evidence to support that and cite it. 

You shouldnt really be encouraging the resident half brainer. As he all ways does he is going to search down the most extreme made up nonsense that he can. He has been caught so many times for posting AI videos and fake newspaper clippings. No aspect of what he ever says is accurate at all. Oh Except for his name.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Man's carbon foot-print as no significant impact on the weather...never has, never will. It's all a scam.

https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/public/Submissions-2021/mail-submissions-2.pdf

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Man's carbon foot-print as no significant impact on the weather...never has, never will. It's all a scam.

https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/public/Submissions-2021/mail-submissions-2.pdf

And a city so smothered in smog that one can't breathe is illusion, right? Climate change is science, not politics. Really, a mail in site? Ten years old no less.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; SMOG is not climate change...SMOG is pollution...a specific area affected....man-induced climate change is a globalist hoax advocated by the naive and the deceived.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; SMOG is not climate change...SMOG is pollution...a specific area affected....man-induced climate change is a globalist hoax advocated by the naive and the deceived.

And how many 'specific areas' does it take before green house gases (pollution) begin affecting global eco systems?