Former Climate Change Alarmist Reveals Corruption Within the Scientific Community (1 Viewer)

We are all fundamentally stupid and ignorant.
Thank you for acknowledging your position. I avoid being stupid and ignorant by sourcing information from informed people and making my own critical analysis of the credibility, rather than indulging in confirmation bias.
 
Somehow they managed to survive the disappearance of the ice sheet that covered large parts of the northern hemisphere.
That happened over a very long time. We are in the early stages of an incredibly rapid change.
 
Thank you for acknowledging your position.
You are welcome. See Jordan, he will open your eyes, you may even begin to the wisdom of the "stupid and ignorant" statement.

I avoid being stupid and ignorant by sourcing information from informed people

No, you don't. It is obvious from your replies that you are trapped in some sort of conspiracy theory. You have lost the ability of independent thought. You have an opportunity to discuss your views with some fantastic people on this forum, but persist in behaving in a troll-like manner.

Now where did I put that wooden mallet?
 
Thank you for acknowledging your position. I avoid being stupid and ignorant by sourcing information from informed people and making my own critical analysis of the credibility, rather than indulging in confirmation bias.
I think when it comes to an analysis of the credibility of something, people lean into their political ideology and hence it leads to a confirmation bias. For example, I presume you are less likely to go to Fox News and more likely to go to CNN to get information, given those two options. It helps to be as critical as possible, but we are all blinded by our own traps of thought. Humans are riddled with bias and to think we are the exception to the rule is probably another bias.

For me personally, I try to think from raw principles. I happen to lean towards a Conservative viewpoint, no doublt influenced by my upbringing and political views of my parents. But instead of following what the party line thinks, I think independently, but more often than not find it aligns to the Conservative viewpoint. But not on all issues, such as Covid lockdowns, masks etc.

I am sure the philosophers and psychologists have a lot to say about how we view the world. Do we have any say in it, or are our perceptions influenced through evolution and early upbringing?
 
My personal view is it will all get solved by tech in the not too distant future anyway. We have super-intelligent AI on its way, which will help us invent our way out of trouble.
I probably think that it will only be solved by some kind of improvement in knowledge - for example renewable energy so cheap that it just makes sense to go with battery technology and solar rather than ICE. I just can't see individuals agreeing that everyone is going to stop going on holiday and stop having children or that they should encourage their children not to have children.
 
I'm just back from Costa Blanca - regular temperatures of 30 degrees. Friend was in Seville yesterday 39 degrees. Average October temperature in Seville should be 26 degrees. Just anecdotal of course and I'm definitely aware that I have not studied the data consistently but charts that I keep getting presented with don't look good.
 
Last edited:
That happened over a very long time.
That was also a period of rapid change and in the greater scheme of things, it was less than a fraction of a second ago.

All i want is for you to just ask yourself - Why do they manipulate the data? If their case is real it is real.
 
I try to think from raw principles
I see it like @Galaxiom: You cannot equate earth history and human history (in this case the last 200 years with the start of industrialization from around 1830).

While earth's history only brings major changes in a long time lapse, but in our current perception (continental shifts, ice ages) it progresses quite slowly, the influence of humans on the earth is very dynamic and with exponential growth.
There used to be stagecoaches, now there are rockets. What does that tell you?
The rockets are no longer reserved for a few researchers; tourists will soon be traveling into space, to the moon and to Mars for their enjoyment.
It used to be a heroic act to climb Mt Everest, the highest mountain in the world, in a drastically life-threatening environment. Today, tourists, including the sick and old, are carted up after queuing at the foot of the mountain.
In just under six months, humanity uses up the resources that the earth can reproduce in a year. Western countries with their higher standards are much more “successful”; they don’t even need 3 months to do it.

People are successfully working on many fronts to deprive themselves of their own livelihoods. Of course not all people, but enough people.

So sooner or later (100 years, 200 years, 300 years, no one seriously thinks about a thousand years) people will ask themselves the question:
HOW, WHERE and WHAT OF WHAT will we live in the future?

For the universe and infinity, such a question is irrelevant; humans are just a momentary special configuration of stardust. But people could be interested in it. Ideologies, scientists, politicians and all other people can be measured by this.

But we are similar to the world in one way:
If another large asteroid crashes or the eruption of a supervolcano like Yellowstone, we have to counteract the unleashing of nuclear weapons in order to change the world in one fell swoop.
 
Last edited:
It is obvious from your replies that you are trapped in some sort of conspiracy theory.
Holding a conspiracy theory means believing that there has been a conspiracy to hide the truth. You are claiming that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a conspiracy of thousands of scientists and politicians. You are the one indulging in conspiracy theory, though technically, at best, it would be better described as an unsubstantiated hypothesis but in reality more of a conjecture.
 
The data is not being manipulated.

If we equate data to predictions the alarmist have a dismal record. I could list about 50 prediction over the last 60-70 years that have yet to materialize it's pathetic. And yet we are constantly being told we have to give up everything or else the sky is falling. This is a power / money grab pure and simple. You only have to watch what they do, not what they say.
 
we have to give up everything or else the sky is falling.
I was told that butter was bad for you. You need to switch to healthy margarine!

The first iterations of margarine were practically disgusting, we now have some made with olive oil which are passable.

Butter itself is no longer bad for you in fact it is considered good to consume fat as opposed to carbohydrates.

Lookup the Keto diet....
 
My local Costa ran out of butter last week and so had a croissant with jam and margarine instead. It reminded me of how good butter tastes compared to marge!
 
how good butter tastes

I may well have picked out the wrong example. I was aiming to make the point that these scientist's are asked by big business (deep pockets) to make a study on a particular thing, for example comparing butter against margarine and point out advantages and disadvantages, which are then used in their advertising to promote and demote features.

So the advert might say something like butter is bad for you and margarine is good for you based on tiny percentages of difference in their studies.

Strikes me that this is what has happened with climate scientists, they need the funding, so they are prepared to bend the rules to promote the message that the people paying them want.
 
so they are prepared to bend the rules to promote the message that the people paying them want
And what do you think: Is there more money in new technologies or in the old, established technologies?
Isn’t “continuing like this” more convenient than a change or even a restriction?
 
I may well have picked out the wrong example. I was aiming to make the point that these scientist's are asked by big business (deep pockets) to make a study on a particular thing, for example comparing butter against margarine and point out advantages and disadvantages, which are then used in their advertising to promote and demote features.
I got what you meant. I remember the advice too back in the day.
 
I'm not sure it's even a binary choice between 'natural' and 'manmade'. my emphasis is more is it cyclic or not.

all human beings suffer from the same lack of perspective when it comes to the potential of the existence of cycles that transcend the length of time periods we are used to tracking and therefore, comprehending.

thus are the climate alarmists correctly interpreting us as being near the end of one single trajectory, OR, are we somewhere in the middle of the first of a million cycles?

Answer: we have no idea, but a generation 100 removed might....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom