97% of scientists agree that climate change is... (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

Wait! Don't be so sure yet! John Kerry, Barack Obama...they are all at it, quoting this piece of evidence to bolster their claims about the dangers of climate change. Yet have you ever checked the voracity of this evidence? I'm sure you will have assumed it is true, because why would such prominant scientists and politicians put their reputations at risk by promoting fake news? Well, I ask you to watch the video below before you rely on this "evidence."

If you think the video is misleading, let us know here giving your reasons why. Or if you think the climate change scientists and liberal politicians have been lying to you, what makes you think that?

Misleading others through obfuscation of the underlying statistics and methodology, stretching what people said into what they didn't say is dishonest at best and downright dangerous at worse. A good question to ask yourself is that if many climate change scientists and politicians are repeatedly using some bogus evidence to support their claims, can you trust the rest of their narrative? I ask you, can you?

There is just one other thing for me to mention, since it came into my consciousness yesterday. There is a rampant cancel culture infecting the population, brought on by liberals., shaming and attempting to destroy others if your opinion is different to theirs. Is it a coincidence then that the climate change alarmists (mostly liberals) try to shame the climate change skeptics (mostly Republicans), by calling them deniers and therefore linking them to holocaust denial? Just a thought. Not that they are more interested in suppressing the scientific argument than hearing other opinions, because its all about the science isn't it?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Or if you think the climate change scientists and liberal politicians have been lying to you, what makes you think that?

Can't speak to the climate change scientists other than to say "follow the (grant) money." As to why ANY politician lies.... it is because s/he can.

 

[Steve R.]

Good video. It is a gigantic scam.

1. What is the optimal temperature for the Earth?
2. Claiming that "global warming" would be "devastating" is anthropocentric. Maybe other life on Earth would find a warmer climate beneficial.
3. Changing the operative phrase to "climate change" from "global warming" is a red flag that we are being scammed.
4. Many of those screaming the loudest for climate change regulations are themselves unwilling to modify their behavior to demonstrate compliance. One recent example, John Kerry and his private jet.
5. Proposed solutions tend to be both superficial and unrealistically minimize the negative consequence of complying with climate change mandates. For example, the focus of addressing global warming is CO2 emissions while neglecting other concerns like increased urbanization. Next, we are to give-up using fossil fuels but many then suffer increased "pain" because everything becomes more expensive.
6. Population management. If you believe that people cause global warming, then it would naturally follow that you need to reduce the number of people in the world. Very few people ever point that out. Another scam indicator. The green advocates of today only promote superficial "painless solutions" that will never really solve the problem. The world population for now is expected to peak in 2055 at about 8.7 billion people. The current world population is around 7.8 billion.
7. Population management continuation. Standard of living and government regulations. Basically, the more people you have, the more each person competes for resources. That also means more government regulations to allocate and distribute those resources. Much of the world has a lower standard of living than the US. That translates into a lower per capita carbon footprint for the poor nations. Everyone should have a higher standard of living, unsuprisingly that would mean an increased carbon footprint -> screaming global warming!!! Of course, some will claim that we can achieve certain, as yet undiscovered, technological advances that would allow rich countries to reduce their carbon footprint while allowing poorer countries to increase their standard of living while keeping the worlds carbon footprint "equal". For now that is speculation. There are already proposals for marginally reducing our standard of living. But they have not received too much press. To sum things up, how much of your standard of living are you willing to give-up to minimize global warming?

 

[AccessBlaster]

It's not about an existential threat, it about global dominance and control. With their proxies in the media and the classrooms their message magically becomes fact. Irrespective of the their dire predictions that have yet to materialize after 30 years of banging their fists.

Now we have the great reset, Global Warning version 2.0 > Covid-19.

 

[NauticalGent]

The figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure...

 

[Steve R.]

Not a particularly good article. But it has the "correct" messaging headline and constitutes a recent coincidental follow-up to this thread. Unfortunately, in this era of "global warming" promoted by the radical left, the only culprit that can be blamed are those evil "green house" gases. Most of the "global warming" alarmists do not seem comprehend that "green house" gases are what humans produce as a by-product of simply living.

Environmentalist says overpopulation is chief threat to planet​

 

[Isaac]

Not a particularly good article. But it has the "correct" messaging headline and constitutes a recent coincidental follow-up to this thread. Unfortunately, in this era of "global warming" promoted by the radical left, the only culprit that can be blamed are those evil "green house" gases. Most of the "global warming" alarmists do not seem comprehend that "green house" gases are what humans produce as a by-product of simply living.

Environmentalist says overpopulation is chief threat to planet​

And that's a very interesting point actually, because when I was growing up, "population control" and "over-population" etc. etc. etc., were chief topics of interest, and were always present in the context of climate concerns, global warming, world hunger, whatever.

I'm not sure I'm studied up enough to even present an opinion on that, but it's interesting that -- as an issue, generally speaking -- I just never hear about it any more. To sum up, it always seemed like if we could get people in certain countries to have smaller sized families, and convince Europeans to just have families period! - things might get more balanced out.

But we seem to have moved on to other ways of controlling climate change, and I'm not entirely sure why.
Now I'm sure population control isn't a total non-issue, I'm just saying I have my ears perked up on all political and social issues, and I personally never hear about it any more - compared to a few decades ago.

 

[Steve R.]

But we seem to have moved on to other ways of controlling climate change, and I'm not entirely sure why.
Now I'm sure population control isn't a total non-issue, I'm just saying I have my ears perked up on all political and social issues, and I personally never hear about it any more - compared to a few decades ago.

The reason is that many advocates on a wide variety of issues simply avoid realpolitik solutions. They only focus on a few points that the the gullible public will unthinkingly accept. As a general example having nothing to do with the environment, a "war on poverty". No one in their right minds would be opposed to that. Next, the ersatz "solutions", must have "no pain" (no self-sacrifice or negative behavior modifications) for the general public and must be far enough into the future so that the advocates will never have to answer any embarrassing questions or suffer the consequence of any program that they proposed which failed.

Another subtle thought. The "wars" have to be fought against an ethereal "enemy". A war on CO2 emissions fits that concept as a "solution" to global warming. However, if we start speaking of something concrete, like limiting family size, many will find that too close to "attacking" them and they will take it personally. We unfortunately live in a society were realpolitik are considered "offensive" and "impractical".

 

[Pat Hartman]

More CO2 = More trees. I think the tree cover in Connecticut is heavier now than it was in the 17th/18th centuries when the early settlers were clearing trees to build farms. We're down to random "truck" farms around the state that serve their local towns. Our local farm closed a couple of years ago. They're renting the fields to neighbors for personal farming plots. I really miss their butter n sugar (small white and yellow kernels) corn and tomatoes. My husband and I used to make meals of corn and tomatoes in August when the corn came in. We still have one small apple orchard though. They raise mostly McIntosh apples which are my favorites. They grow mostly in New England and Eastern Canada and are hard to find elsewhere since they don't travel well.

Amazon.com : Corn, BI-Color, Butter N Sugar, Heirloom, 99+ Seeds, A Bicolor Delight : Garden & Outdoor

Amazon.com : Corn, BI-Color, Butter N Sugar, Heirloom, 99+ Seeds, A Bicolor Delight : Garden & Outdoor

www.amazon.com