Former Climate Change Alarmist Reveals Corruption Within the Scientific Community (2 Viewers)

[Galaxiom]

Climate change doesn't bother me. As I'm a pensioner, I'll be dead before (or if) things get bad. The next generation will deal with it.
Col

Yep. That is exactly why so many older people couldn't care less and so many of the younger generations are in despair about a bleak future. The failure to act despite knowing what is happening will be seen by the people of the future as the greatest social atrocity in history conducted by a greedy self-obsessed generation who gathered wealth and refused to be responsible.

 

[ColinEssex]

Are you sure you want to phrase it that way? According to the world renowned climate expert, AOC, the world will end in 2031. You will last, I hope until then

I won't, I've got a dodgy ticker, I smoke and drink. To the relief of many here, I could go anytime. Anyway, re climate change, I reckon nothing untoward will happen while I'm about, so not my problem.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

So it's scientific to put you and Neanderthals (typical inhabitants of the ice edge) on the same level in terms of their abilities?

It makes as much sense as saying that present day humans are 100% responsible for the tiny increase we've seen over the past 50 years. You are completely discounting the possibility of ANY natural cause. Somehow, prior to 50 years ago ALL climate change was caused by natural systems but now you are willing to believe that humans are 100% the cause of any climate change in the present. Really? When there are 4 billion years of history to look back on, you pick a miniscule period of time and say, during this time period humans caused 100% of the change we are seeing. How is that possible? How is that science? Do you still believe the earth is flat? That was only debunked a few hundred years ago. Our science is pretty good and getting better but we are not even close to being able to point a finger and say "x" caused the ice sheets to melt in a very short period of time 10,000 years ago because the average temperature went up 10 degrees. People today cannot possibly be 100% to blame for anything, except perhaps pollution, when there is no way they could have caused any of the thousands of previous climate swings in the past 4 billion years. Something caused them. We certainly didn't. We've only recently discovered the K-T boundary (and have already renamed it) and are trying to figure out why we don't find dinosaur bones in the boundary layer. Newer theories posit that the dinosaurs died out before the mega meteor hit the Yucatan rather than because of it. Should we stifle those opinions?

 

[AccessBlaster]

The result of a scientific study depends entirely on where its funding comes from....

 

[ColinEssex]

Scientific theories are pure speculation of what happened 10,000 or 100,000 or a million years ago.
It'll be the same speculation when they look at the meteorite dust and then announce how the universe was formed, total rubbish and a total waste of money. Who the hell cares?
Pat is quite right in her post.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

Pat is quite right in her post.

Wait, what?

 

[Galaxiom]

Do you still believe the earth is flat? That was only debunked a few hundred years ago.

Absolute nonsense. The myth that our ancestors believe Earth was flat was promulgated by idiotic writers quite recently. Ancients knew Earth was spherical thousands of years ago.

 

[Galaxiom]

We've only recently discovered the K-T boundary (and have already renamed it) and are trying to figure out why we don't find dinosaur bones in the boundary layer.

Conditions for fossilisation are quite rare. The K-T boundary lay would be unlikely to be intact in locations having conditions that promote fossilisation.

Besides, the K-T boundary lay is between one and five millimetres thick. Dinosaurs wouldn't fit very well would they.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Moreover, that rapid change was most likey caused when a sudden increase in carbon dioxide levels (on the scale of the change humans have made in the past several decades) resulted in multiple positive feed back cycles raising the temperature over several centuries.

So, this can happen naturally Why is THIS event caused 100% by humans? The four most recent spikes have been higher than the current spike and seem to have grown at a steeper slope. How do you know we aren't at the top and on the way down? Sure looks like the curve is bending down. The previous low was also the lowest low in a million years. Does that mean anything? How do you KNOW that a slightly warmer earth isn't good for humanity? A temperature spike is what got us out of the dark ages. What is the optimum temperature for the planet? How can you assume that a land bridge between North and South America is "normal"?

Looks like the "scientists" want to take the last 100,000 years which is ~ .000025% of the total earth history and say that represents the norm. I'm all about models but this seems to take after the one created early in 2020 that predicted that COVID would have a 10% mortality rate. That sent the world into a tizzy, destroyed lives, killed people, and destroyed businesses but big Pharma and the great Dr Faucci got really rich. It was an immense transfer of wealth and this is the same scam. Turns out that COVID is around the mortality rate of a bad flu so closer to .19%. Off by FIFTY times. I haven't seen any apologies yet. Even the hurricane models can't get the paths or strength correct yet although they are improving. You're willing to bet the world on this? I say we concentrate on pollution. That makes a real day to day difference in people's lives and will probably do far more to solve the "problem" than all the draconian measures currently being proposed to "fix" the unfixable.

 

[moke123]

I say we concentrate on pollution.

Me too. Lets concentrate on Air Pollution.

 

[Galaxiom]

The four most recent spikes have been higher than the current spike and seem to have grown at a steeper slope.

Anyone who would post that graph and make those comments in relation to the current discussion of climate change really doesn't have a clue. I suggest you take a look at the scale of the X axis and contemplate the location of the warming in the last fifty years, then explain your mistake.

 

[Cotswold]

Totally agree with everything Judith said. It is refreshing to know that not everyone is brainwashed. I will probably buy the book if I can’t convince the county library to buy it! Have to say that I almost believed the Gulf Stream and El Nino, propaganda but couldn’t understand just how they claimed it was suddenly to change. This sort of thing can only get worse with AI.

One thing is certain, the earth’s climate has never been constant. We have had maybe three ice ages with mile deep ice covering part of Europe and North America. Before and during the Roman occupation of Britain the climate was warmer and more temperate. The sea level was also lower. From 9 th century we experienced several mini ice ages and colder than the 18 th century onwards. So we have been warming and cooling for centuries before the industrial revolution.

Whilst the climate dictators want us to stop driving. They never demand that everyone should switch off their iPhone.
JustStopOil never demands that Apple should shut down their servers to save the world.
Governments aren’t telling Musk not to create more CO2 building another 300 satellites, launching them and then switching on thousands or servers to operate from them.
Climateers aren't demanding the huge number of Google servers should be shut down
Amazon and others are happy to use an unimaginable amount of power for its systems and sees nothing wrong in the inefficient distribution of goods using millions of small vans. Nobody says stop using Amazon to save the world.
Gas boilers today are incredibly efficient but we are being encouraged to throw them out at huge expense and replace them with a less efficient system. It is madness. I refuse to do it. ( I don't deal with Amazon either )

Some of the projections of doom have been:
By 2013 London will be under water
Prince Charles - we only have 100 months to save the world
NASA 2009: The NYC West Side Highway will be under water by 2029
Claiming the arctic will be ice free: Al Gore said by 2013, NASA said by 2018

There have been so many predictions, all about as accurate as the Y2K computer disaster was supposed to be. I recall they were also "experts".

The Al Gore-mless’s and Greta Thumbrains just require we accept what they say as fact without providing any facts. If you write computer software it has to be 100% correct. If you are a climateer you don’t need to be right about anything. Just tell a good tale and shout.

 

[Jon]

Science works when honest researchers do honest research and are allowed to publish said research without being cancelled.

This.

 

[Jon]

Yep. That is exactly why so many older people couldn't care less and so many of the younger generations are in despair about a bleak future. The failure to act despite knowing what is happening will be seen by the people of the future as the greatest social atrocity in history conducted by a greedy self-obsessed generation who gathered wealth and refused to be responsible.

Yet these same young people will probably not care about things that happen in the future when they themselves become old.

 

[Jon]

When science gets hijacked by politics, it becomes polluted and corrupt. If Democrats think human caused climate change is real and Republicans take a different stance, you know that it is entirely about politics. The problem as I see it is that the Democrats position is that they will do all they can to silence, cancel and ruin scientists on the other side of the isle. Republicans on the other hand say, "Let us debate this." The Democrats just want an echo chamber, incentivised by fame and fortune. The Republicans want open scientific debate as it always used to be.

If the positions were reversed, I would call out Republicans. For me, it is less about which political party you support, but more about good science that fosters progress rather than being stifled through fear of retribution.

 

[ebs17]

It would be a fairly simple science to determine how much fossil fuel was produced and sold each year. A look at the last 200 years is enough.

If you consider it possible (there are studies and scientists who speak for and against it, and money and purchase are available on both sides) that the resulting CO2 makes an additional contribution to the existing global warming (@Pat Hartman Of course not alone and 1:1), then you can draw conclusions from it.

There are many more aspects that could be considered (or denied):
- the role of modern agriculture - humus degradation or creation
- the destruction of peatlands, which are enormous C reservoirs
- the burning of forests in order to generate agricultural land or building land for speculative real estate.
- Sealing of surfaces: A concrete surface becomes hotter than a meadow and radiates more heat. It does not absorb any water and cannot subsequently cool through the evaporation of the water it absorbs.
- Overuse of areas: Where there used to be forests and grassland, today there are often steppes and deserts, man-made.

People change their environment: Egypt, as an ancient advanced civilization, was known as an important grain producer. An advanced culture can only develop and sustain itself if nutrition is not a serious problem. Today Egypt is a large importer of grain for various reasons and, for example, is very affected by the war in Ukraine and a lack of deliveries.
Carthage (modern-day Tunisia) was also a granary for the Roman Empire.
If you look at things like this in fast motion, they can become clearer to some people.

If you look at Earth from space at night, you can see almost all of the coastlines and most of the continents illuminated. This is available for free? How simple do you have to think to believe something like that?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Science is whatever "governments" needs it to be. If you need a magic bullet theory, science is right there to provide lt. If you need a bat in a wet market theory, science is happy to postulate it. If you disagree, science will be used to censor you. Science and governments work hand in hand to manipulate the masses.

 

[jdraw]

When science gets hijacked by politics, it becomes polluted and corrupt. If Democrats think human caused climate change is real and Republicans take a different stance, you know that it is entirely about politics. The problem as I see it is that the Democrats position is that they will do all they can to silence, cancel and ruin scientists on the other side of the isle. Republicans on the other hand say, "Let us debate this." The Democrats just want an echo chamber, incentivised by fame and fortune. The Republicans want open scientific debate as it always used to be.

If the positions were reversed, I would call out Republicans. For me, it is less about which political party you support, but more about good science that fosters progress rather than being stifled through fear of retribution.

I agree with your "science gets hijacked by politics, it becomes polluted and corrupt". And would add that peer reviewed science is what many of us expect, and was often the norm. But now, peer-reviewed has become edited/revised via peer scientists and then final edit/omissions/censored and reported by big pharma/funders with a heavy dash of politics.

 

[ebs17]

When you talk about money and science and politics: The energy companies are also quite financially strong and want to continue to earn a lot and a lot more money in the future. A “keep it up” and even faster, higher, further also has fat financial support. Burning taps (fracking) and blighted nature reserves - whatever. The right to freedom in one's own actions and earning money is more important.

 

[Pat Hartman]

There are many more aspects that could be considered (or denied):
- the role of modern agriculture - humus degradation or creation
- the destruction of peatlands, which are enormous C reservoirs
- the burning of forests in order to generate agricultural land or building land for speculative real estate.
- Sealing of surfaces: A concrete surface becomes hotter than a meadow and radiates more heat. It does not absorb any water and cannot subsequently cool through the evaporation of the water it absorbs.
- Overuse of areas: Where there used to be forests and grassland, today there are often steppes and deserts, man-made.

That is the POINT. There is no ONE cause so there is no ONE solution. Farmers in America created the dust bowl in Texas and Oklahoma a hundred years ago due to poor farming practices which were "best practices" at the time. They just didn't work on the prairie. This caused dust storms that even enveloped east coast cities. It forced a huge displacement of humans and most of them went west to California which leads to more horrific stories. Read "The Grapes of Wrath" and keep your hankies handy. Land management became much more robust after this and the problem has been fixed by replanting prairie grasses and even the simple practice of alternating crops. But as others have said, politics is now interfering with science.

Humans do need to be conscious of the damage they cause. They do need to reduce their pollution. They do need to reduce their carbon footprint. But none of that means that they are the proximate cause for climate change. That is where politics have entered into this. If climate change is a natural occurrence, which you should know it is since we have ample evidence of climate change prior to the advent of humans, there is no money to be made. Therefore, certain political interests need to make it problem that only they know how to solve and their solution is good for them but not so good for the rest of us. The way you can tell this is by the effort put into stifling anyone who disagrees with the "humans caused the problem" view. They start by calling people who question the conclusion that humans are the proximate cause of "climate change" "climate deniers" which is of course ridiculous since no one denies climate change. So you should at least come up with a better name to call us.

Cities are heat sinks. What is the solution - don't let people congregate. That is not feasible so we need to make cities better. There are so many ways to do this like adding green space on rooftops. Of course the building has to be designed to hold the weight so retrofits are not always possible. When new homes are built in the suburbs, make the driveways checkerboards so they are not all concrete. This works best in climates without snow. Add rainwater capture systems on every home and use the water for irrigating the lawn and flushing the toilet. Use solar shingles for the roof. Many of these things would be readily implemented. People want to do the right thing but sometimes they need a little nudge. Instead of laws forcing solar installations, how about tax abatements to help pay off the extra cost. As with everything, the cost comes down with mass use. Keep in mind that the power companies spend a lot of lobbying money so the benefits of home solar are diminishing because home solar cuts into the power company profits and politicians can be bought. Connecticut is an outstanding example. 30 years ago the lobbyists convinced our legislature that divesting the electricity delivery companies from the generating facilities would save consumers money by using the "free market". However, when it comes to electricity, there isn't actually a "free market" because you don't have the option of walking away and not buying as you do with shoes. Duh!!! So what happened. The legislators were paid enough to not think about the unintended consequences. Big companies like Sikorsky get to negotiate their rates but you and I have to choose from what is offered. So, yes, we do get to chose but somehow our end user price just keeps going up and up. But, there was one town in CT that actually owned the power plant and so the people in that town pay at least 30% less than the rest of us. Before divestiture, they paid a little less than the rest of us but the gap has widened.

Plastic is the bane of humanity. It never dies. It is a miracle substance and it is a curse. People need to be weaned off of single use plastic. If you use bottled water, you shouldn't be buying it in single serve bottles. All those bottles end up in a land fill. Buy gallon bottles and if you take them with you, use reusable containers or save a few of the single serves you bought and reuse them so you can toss when you're out. Don't use baggies for stuff you put in your own refrigerator. Use glass or reusable plastic containers. Save the baggies for when you take stuff out and don't want to bother with the empties. Little things done by everyone eventually make a difference.

So, call me a stupid name but don't for a minute think that I am unaware of problems and don't care about my environment.