Is Climate change total nonsense?

ZeusAres42

Sharky said:

@Akhenaten

True Believers have morphed into a band of religious fanatics and their beliefs are now based more on faith than on science. As you already know, debating religious fanatics is generally fruitless.

Do you have any objective and empirical evidence to back up this bold assertion? Or is it just the way you feel? Whatever your answer if we assume your proposition is true then we also have to assume that more than four thousand scientists in roughly 72 countries are part of some fanatic religious cult that forms their conclusions based on pure faith. We could then even assume that these scientists that are part of this fanatic religious cult might even form churches where they pray that AGW would go away and have faith that it will go away in their prayers.  

Note that this is your argument; not mine. It's the most probable logical progression from your own proposition. And you can't disagree with these assumptions or you would be contradicting yourself.

Akhenaten

@Sharky
Yeah, we even have living examples of Marxism in action - China, North Korea and Russia. These countries are miserable countries to live in with low wages, poor living conditions and virtually no freedom of speech. Yet, this is exactly what these clowns want our countries of free speech and good life style to turn into. It's the false promise of a paradise that never arrives. That's the carrot that the deceitful Marxist dangles in front of the delirious donkey to keep them marching forward to the cliff edge and over.

Sharky

@ZeusAres42

Have you read Red Hot Lies, Christopher Horner's 2008 book which finely details the deception, manipulation and outright lies of the AGW crowd? It's almost hard to believe the sheer number of instances where the "scientists" involved in the AGW hoax utilized comically bad tactics to collect falsified data obviously designed to exaggerate the temperatures recorded. For instance, recording devices were located in close proximity to barbecue grills, in the middle of inner city heat islands and in the middle of large, asphalt parking lots. When the USSR collapsed, their recording stations shut down so their input into calculating "global" temperatures were omitted over a period of years. Tell me, Zeus, how do you think omitting temperature recordings from the former USSR affected "global" temperature calculations? 

How much have you read about Climategate and the East Anglia University conspiracy to manipulate and disseminate falsified data? You remember "The Hockey Stick" and "Hide the Decline", right? The worst part about that telling embarrassment was their laughable attempt to cover up their malfeasance and lies by recruiting "peers" to investigate and clear them of wrongdoing. It really doesn't do much to prop up one's faith in peer review. 

We have spent the last 25+ years listening to the likes of Al Gore telling us that various years- all long since past- were "tipping points" or "points of no return". Our coastlines were all supposed to be inundated by now. Hurricanes were to be so numerous and powerful that they'd tear our coastal cities to shreds. The polar ice caps are supposed to be long gone. The Himalayan glaciers were to have been in the Indian Ocean at least a decade ago. Which of those things have happened, Zeus? I can't say for certain but I don't recall the AGW crowd ever turning up a computer model whose predictions actually proved correct. If this is "science", well, things are not looking good for its future. 

Why the breathless hyperbole and fear-mongering if all of this is so firmly based in science, which, after all, means it can all be proven? Why the photoshopped pictures of polar bears stranded on faraway ice floes? Why must we witness those same polar bears falling from the sky and dying gruesome deaths as they hit the ground in AGW propaganda commercials? Why have I, personally, never had a True Believer give me a straight answer when I ask which is more consequential to global climate- solar cycles or human CO2 emissions? Why the hateful shrieks of "DENIER!" every time someone questions the validity of the AGW theory or notices that it pretty much never produces the horrors it is supposed to?  

I can tell you why, Zeus. It's because this isn't about global warming, climate change or even Earth science. This is ALL about economics and politics. Fortunately, you don't have to take my word for it. You can read through the quotes from the people closest to the genesis of this scam to find out why it is SO important to them that it not be allowed to die a dignified death like other failed scientific hypotheses have when they've flamed out. 

The following are excerpts from an article in Forbes magazine by Larry Bell published February 5, 2013:

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

I can continue with these kinds of quotes from people who are just as, or more, fervent "believers" than you, Zeus, but I think you get the point. I urge you to look up and read the entire Forbes article, as it also details a lot about the flawed, manipulated and falsified "science" backing the AGW political movement. 

"True Believers" are the people who have blindly accepted the litany of phony "science" and faked data and doomsday propaganda they've been fed on a near daily basis for decades. School children have been taught this drivel as if it's gospel and it's no wonder they buy into it considering the fervor and the supposed staked involved. Ironically, the people who hatched, nurtured and disseminated this hoax and scam are the ones who know full well how much deception is involved and what it's really all designed to accomplish. I hope you now understand why I likened the movement to a massive band of religious fanatics or cult members. It's all playing out almost exactly like it does for those groups. The "faith" is now unshakeable. 

Hope you have a good weekend. Personally, I am hoping for some weather warm enough to merit a trip to the beach. So far, it's mid-June and it's been a little too chilly to sit out there. I don't remember Al Gore predicting that in An Inconvenient Truth. 

ZeusAres42

Sharky said:

@ZeusAres42

Have you read Red Hot Lies, Christopher Horner's 2008 book which finely details the deception, manipulation and outright lies of the AGW crowd? It's almost hard to believe the sheer number of instances where the "scientists" involved in the AGW hoax utilized comically bad tactics to collect falsified data obviously designed to exaggerate the temperatures recorded. For instance, recording devices were located in close proximity to barbecue grills, in the middle of inner city heat islands and in the middle of large, asphalt parking lots. When the USSR collapsed, their recording stations shut down so their input into calculating "global" temperatures were omitted over a period of years. Tell me, Zeus, how do you think omitting temperature recordings from the former USSR affected "global" temperature calculations?

This just reminded me of a comedy sketch played by Sasha Cohen Baron where he played Ali G and was interviewing a CIA contractor where he tried to tell him how a movie proved the moon landings were faked. However, that was a comedy, intended to be humorous.

Anyway, no I have not read the book but I am familiar with the Author who is a lawyer by training and gets funded by big coal.

All in all, this doesn't really constitute as a high level of evidential support for your previous claim which was that climate change scientists are a religious cult that only come to their conclusions based on blind faith.

Sharky said:

How much have you read about Climategate and the East Anglia University conspiracy to manipulate and disseminate falsified data? You remember "The Hockey Stick" and "Hide the Decline", right? The worst part about that telling embarrassment was their laughable attempt to cover up their malfeasance and lies by recruiting "peers" to investigate and clear them of wrongdoing. It really doesn't do much to prop up one's faith in peer review.

Pretty much everything you say here is nothing short of old conspiracy theories that have already been refuted:

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

Sharky said:

We have spent the last 25+ years listening to the likes of Al Gore telling us that various years- all long since past- were "tipping points" or "points of no return". Our coastlines were all supposed to be inundated by now. Hurricanes were to be so numerous and powerful that they'd tear our coastal cities to shreds. The polar ice caps are supposed to be long gone. The Himalayan glaciers were to have been in the Indian Ocean at least a decade ago. Which of those things have happened, Zeus? I can't say for certain but I don't recall the AGW crowd ever turning up a computer model whose predictions actually proved correct. If this is "science", well, things are not looking good for its future.

There is a load of misinformation about the likes of Al Gore and other stuff. See here for the valid scientific information:

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm

Are glaciers growing or retreating?https://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

Sharky said:

Why the breathless hyperbole and fear-mongering if all of this is so firmly based in science, which, after all, means it can all be proven? Why the photoshopped pictures of polar bears stranded on faraway ice floes? Why must we witness those same polar bears falling from the sky and dying gruesome deaths as they hit the ground in AGW propaganda commercials? Why have I, personally, never had a True Believer give me a straight answer when I ask which is more consequential to global climate- solar cycles or human CO2 emissions? Why the hateful shrieks of "DENIER!" every time someone questions the validity of the AGW theory or notices that it pretty much never produces the horrors it is supposed to? 

Firstly, there is no denying that some people of the public (mostly NOT scientists btw) do exaggerate things in the media, however, the fact is that mostly whatever is being shown in the media is no evidence to suggest that the science of AGW is wrong. Also, the media is unreliable in regards to most scientific issues; my advice would be to get the information straight from the horse's mouth - the actual science itself. I will also contend that the media regardless of their political beliefs are notorious for confusing the public about science issues.  This is either intentional due to political biases or unintentional due to a lack of scientific understanding.  This bit here of mine also applies to your last bit about questioning the horrors that are supposed to happen which by the way rests on misinformation, and I will pay you to complement that the possible reason for this is because of a lack of scientific understanding as well.

Sharky said:

I can tell you why, Zeus. It's because this isn't about global warming, climate change or even Earth science. This is ALL about economics and politics. Fortunately, you don't have to take my word for it. You can read through the quotes from the people closest to the genesis of this scam to find out why it is SO important to them that it not be allowed to die a dignified death like other failed scientific hypotheses have when they've flamed out.

Now, here is where you go completely off the rails. Apart from asserting the incorrect claim that AGW has been disproven you have also presented a false proposition that when you follow it down a continuum it can only lead to an absurd conclusion also given your previous claims in previous posts that is. However, all I am going to do here is point out that while there does exist scientists that are somewhat politically and financially influenced this is insignificant to the amount of research being done by thousands of scientists all across the globe, many of which will share both conservative and liberal views based on the balance of probability of such a large number. Furthermore, just because a scientist is either conservative or liberal is irrelevant to the validity of scientific research. Scientific research can't be undermined or discredited purely on the bases of their political circumstances.  

 

Sharky said:

I can continue with these kinds of quotes from people who are just as, or more, fervent "believers" than you, Zeus, but I think you get the point. I urge you to look up and read the entire Forbes article, as it also details a lot about the flawed, manipulated and falsified "science" backing the AGW political movement.

I may look at that at as time permits. However, given the number of sources of misinformation you have presented so far on this issue, I will conjecture that you say here will likely be the same.

Sharky said:

"True Believers" are the people who have blindly accepted the litany of phony "science" and faked data and doomsday propaganda they've been fed on a near daily basis for decades. School children have been taught this drivel as if it's gospel and it's no wonder they buy into it considering the fervor and the supposed staked involved. Ironically, the people who hatched, nurtured and disseminated this hoax and scam are the ones who know full well how much deception is involved and what it's really all designed to accomplish. I hope you now understand why I likened the movement to a massive band of religious fanatics or cult members. It's all playing out almost exactly like it does for those groups. The "faith" is now unshakeable.

Firstly, I would just like to clarify that my position is that due to the high degree of evidential support behind the science of AGW then on the balance of probability it most likely is happening. Secondly, I'd have to contend that the opposite of you're saying here is the actual truth. And the reason being is that you have presented here with nothing but conspiracy theories that lack any degree of evidential support; it's those conspiracy theories that rest on faith. The science of AGW, on the other hand, rests upon a high degree of objective and empirical evidential support.

Lastly, yes I do think I now understand why you have likened AGW to a religious cult movement. This is most likely because you lack an adequate understanding of how science actually works, no idea what consensus is, and no idea about the scientific method used by all natural sciences such as physics, biology, chemistry, etc as well as climate science. If you do however have a sufficient understanding of science then you're not only lying to others; you're also lying to yourself, which probably has something to with cognitive dissonance or some other psychological factor. That being said, if you did have a sufficient understanding of how science works and valued it as well as valued reason and logic then you probably wouldn't be said what you said in the first place.

Further reading:

Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0002764213477096


Clarifying anti-reflexivity: conservative opposition to impact science and scientific evidence
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/2/021001/pdf



Making Sense of Climate Change Denial |

Cognitive Dissonancehttps://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Thank you and you too enjoy the rest of the weekend and have a good week too.

Sharky

@ZeusAres42

I appreciate your concern for my cognitive skills but I urge you not to waste time concentrating on other peoples' supposed shortcomings in that regard. Your own inability to recognize how spectacularly the "science" of AGW has flamed out and collapsed is what should concern you, especially when I have provided to you, in their own words, the principles of the AGW movement admitting that they have no proof and it's not really about climate or the environment. I can't really think of any other scientific theory or hypothesis in history that has so diligently and enthusiastically been researched in hopes of providing proof. And despite the zeal, there hasn't been the slightest bit of progress on the part of the thousands of "scientists" involved in turning up that proof. Sorry to break the news to you but consensus doesn't cut it in science. If you disagree, tell us what other theory or hypothesis has been deemed "settled science" based on consensus rather than proof. That is not how science works.  

ZeusAres42

Sharky said:

@ZeusAres42

I appreciate your concern for my cognitive skills but I urge you not to waste time concentrating on other peoples' supposed shortcomings in that regard. Your own inability to recognize how spectacularly the "science" of AGW has flamed out and collapsed is what should concern you, especially when I have provided to you, in their own words, the principles of the AGW movement admitting that they have no proof and it's not really about climate or the environment. I can't really think of any other scientific theory or hypothesis in history that has so diligently and enthusiastically been researched in hopes of providing proof. And despite the zeal, there hasn't been the slightest bit of progress on the part of the thousands of "scientists" involved in turning up that proof. Sorry to break the news to you but consensus doesn't cut it in science. If you disagree, tell us what other theory or hypothesis has been deemed "settled science" based on consensus rather than proof. That is not how science works. 

Firstly, cognitive dissonance is not a cognitive defect. And if you actually took the time to read the psychology link I posted you would have realized that and maybe understood the relevance. We're all susceptible to cognitive dissonance by the way; it's just the way the human brain works. Here's an example from the psychology link:

Acquire new information that outweighs the dissonant beliefs.

For example, thinking smoking causes lung cancer will cause dissonance if a person smokes.

However, new information such as “research has not proved definitely that smoking causes lung cancer” may reduce the dissonance.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

In the same way, if a person works in the oil industry, has a relative in it, or has strong political beliefs that are in conflict with the science information then a lot of the times they will acquire information such as “research has not proved definitely that AGW is happening." Even though they will support other science where there is no conflict; this is cognitive dissonance.

Moreover, let's get away from the word "proof" that you tend to use a lot. This is very anti-scientific speaking. I've never used the word "proof" in this debate once or "settled science" for that matter. I have used evidence however and there are lots of it for AGW, even more so than for the moon landings. In regards to proof vs evidence this might shed some light on the matter:

Proof vs. Evidence

Another word that is commonly misused (sadly, sometimes even by scientists, who should know better) is "proof". What "proof" means in everyday speech:
In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea. Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics.https://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

Now, I will ask again the following as you still haven't really answered:

Do you have any empirical and objective evidence, and what degree of that evidence to you have to support your propositions that are:

1. AGW believers are all part of some religious fanatic cult that comes to their conclusions based on blind faith.
   
2. AGW is all about politics and economics.
3. AGW is a hoax, scam, fraud, etc.
   
4. AGW is a far-left, communistic/ Marxist movement. 
   

Sharky

@ZeusAres42

After signing off this morning, I thought about your previous response periodically throughout the day. It dawned on me that you had off-handedly dismissed Christopher Horner's book based on the facts that, 1) he's a lawyer, and, 2) he has been funded by the coal industry. First, his training as a lawyer has no relevance to our argument. His book is decidedly not an attempt to add to or detract from the science of global climate. Red Hot Lies is a thoroughly researched and documented history and expose of the chicanery, manipulation, hyperbole, propaganda and lies used by leftist globalists to prop up the failed AGW theory. No advanced degrees in science are required to expose corruption. Second, if we are going to strike from the record anything anyone says about AGW based on who funds them, then we are going to have a huge problem with the scientists of academia who promote the theory. Seeing how they are almost fully dependent on the very politicians (like Al Gore- a lawyer whose post-political career has been funded by the phony carbon credits 'industry') who demand that AGW remains center stage to be used to frighten an ignorant populace into sacrificing their standard of living to promote a political ideology based on lies, I would say that their position is now far more compromised than Horner's ever was. Also, your arguments concerning Horner are the same, tired and worn out tactics the left has been using for decades to denigrate and besmirch anyone who dares to question their dogma. 

Speaking of tired and worn out tactics, your answer regarding Climategate and the EAU scandal are even more Clintonesque than your Horner response. You say the scandal is "old conspiracy theories that have already been refuted". Again, consider the source of those supposed refutations. And, as we have learned from the Clintons and the Obamas, calling a scandal "old news" or pretending that it never happened does not make the facts of the matter disappear. Mann and Hansen were caught red-handed conspiring to manipulate and falsify data; of that there is no doubt. The fact that they got some of their buddies to say, "no, they didn't" does not exonerate them in any way nor does it change the fact that they were ginning up data to embellish their position. It never ceases to amaze me how tenacious and diligent the left are when it comes to supporting their own corruption by circling the wagons and repeating "nothing to see here" to the whole world, even when the evidence is clear and irrefutable. What does surprise me is the number of people who are eager to continue accepting the protestations of innocence from clearly guilty people just because of their social standing. 

Let me be clear, Zeus, I not only believe in climate change, I have lived through it and experienced it firsthand. I need no one to tell me that this was a colder planet when I was a child. I also don't need anyone to tell me that when my parents were children, the Earth was as warm as it was in the 1990's. Climate changes and nothing that we do or don't do is going to make it stop, much less imposing confiscatory taxation and international wealth redistribution.

It is an insulting and despicable tactic used by the left to label AGW skeptics as "climate deniers" or to act as if none of us have the slightest cause for skepticism or evidence that the AGW movement is a hoax. What I dispute and what I feel is being utilized for political gain is the greenhouse gas theory. The percentage of global atmospheric CO2 emitted by humans is minimal and it is not a particularly effective greenhouse gas in the first place. Global temperatures have risen .8 degrees C in the last 140 years, hardly the stuff of doomsday predictions. There is nothing to suggest that world governments have any tools at their disposal that will "solve" climate change, especially when the world's two largest polluters are routinely dismissed from any "solutions".

If AGW proponents want everyone to sign on to their efforts and lend their full support, all they need to do is steer the conversation away from the doomsday predictions we've endured for 25 years and announce that they want to launch a massive, coordinated campaign to mitigate pollution of all kinds as rapidly as possible using all available means without crippling the world economy. Support would be nearly universal and instantaneous. What's so difficult about that? 

As for your questions, I suppose that I could research and present far more empirical and objective evidence that discredits the premise behind AGW and the climate change "crisis". However, this is clearly a waste of time when you have already refused to accept anything I gave you on 6/15. Your Alinskyite tactics are standard and predictable. You will obviously accept nothing that I present; all of it will be either "old news", "conspiracy theories that have been debunked" or collected from sources that you reject because, well, you reject them. My answers are below and they are not based on anything that anyone else has to say. They are based on my considerable experience conversing with AGW proponents online and in person for the last 20 years. If they don't meet your standards, I really don't care. They meet the standard of truth.

1. Not everyone who buys into the AGW movement is a True Believer but there are many whose reaction to any stated doubts or skepticism verges on revulsion, ridicule and outrage, much as if their religion had been attacked. Legitimate evidence that compromises the science of AGW or the people who promote it is unacceptable and dismissed without discussion. Your yourself have reacted in this way during our exchange. You will have to pardon me for likening these reactions to those of religious fanatics or cult members. 

2. I gave you numerous quotations from people who are revered in the AGW movement who have admitted that this is more about changing our socioeconomic model than it is about climate or the environment. I'm not sure what more you need than those peoples' own admissions. Are you contending that they didn't say these things or that the quotes are not what they really meant? 

3. How many predictions need to fail? How many computer models need to go off the rails? How many people need to be caught falsifying data and corrupting the methods used to collect it? Why does the movement need to rely on propaganda and PR and scare tactics and indoctrinating children if the science is so rock solid? Why are the only proposed "solutions" all based on grand schemes of global wealth redistribution instead of massive, coordination pollution control measures? It seems to me that if anyone has a problem with denial, it's people who can't answer these questions. 

4. See #2 and #3. Only socialists/communists would be interested in using this "crisis" for political gain. Why do you think the debate is split perfectly by political ideology?  



 

 

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42


Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.




The email in question - 

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Conclusion - Yeah, I can see this decline is not about real temps. lol

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42


Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.




The email in question - 

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Conclusion - Yeah, I can see this decline is not about real temps. lol

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42


Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.




The email in question - 

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit 
School of Environmental Sciences 
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email 

Conclusion - Yeah, I can see this decline is not about real temps. lol

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42


Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.




The email in question - 

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit 

Conclusion - Yeah, I can see this decline is not about real temps. lol

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42


Mann manipulated data in ways both large and small. Mann's Nature trick was to splice proxy data to 1980 with instrumental data after 1980 to calculate the smoothed value.
This was different trick to brute deletion of adverse data as in IPCC diagram.

Sharky

As fun as it is to debate this issue, I understand that it's fruitless. The AGW proponents have most of the scientific community firmly on their side, although it is not and never has been the often-repeated "97%". Despite the fact that these scientists have repeatedly failed to predict global climate events accurately for a couple of decades now based on their findings, they remain steadfast and unshakeable in their assertions that we are rapidly approaching the dreaded "point of no return" when climate change will become unstoppable and assure a horrible death for us all. Never mind that the "tipping point" has been predicted, reached, discarded and extended repeatedly for the last two decades. Pay no attention to horrific winters all over the globe setting record low temperatures. They, too, are caused by AGW, we're told; trust us! Forget that there are scientists and journalists worldwide who are exposing the incompetence, corruption and dishonesty of organizations like the IPCC. They aren't credible, we're told, and they can't be trusted because they aren't scientists or they are in bed with Big Oil! You can no more win an argument with hardcore members of the AGW crowd than you could if you tried telling fundamentalist Christians or Muslims that their holy books are full of nonsense.

It seems as if this argument will get settled when we experience our next solar minimum and the real controller of Earth's climate, the Sun, demonstrates that mankind has an extremely limited effect on climate and certainly no control over it. Of course, at that point, a new generation of climate scientists will begin bleating about 1970's-style global cooling and how we're all going to die from that instead. Things do change but they just keep going around and around. 

 

ZeusAres42

@Sharky

You seriously undermine your position when you resort to being derivative, dismissive for no good reason, and especially when you say things like "Climate Scientists are all a bunch of religious fanatics.' it is becoming very apparent that You  have no idea what you're talking about. Indeed, this debate with you is futile.

ZeusAres42

Akhenaten

Apparently religions have monetary benefits which outweigh the illogical consequences.

Sharky

@ZeusAres42

ZeusAres42 said:

@Sharky

You seriously undermine your position when you resort to being derivative, dismissive for no good reason, and especially when you say things like "Climate Scientists are all a bunch of religious fanatics.' it is becoming very apparent that You  have no idea what you're talking about. Indeed, this debate with you is futile.

This is ironic coming from a person who, 1) knows nothing about me, and 2) dismissed an entire post of mine (where I basically shredded your entire position) basing the dismissal on the same ridiculous arguments the left uses incessantly despite their having no merit whatsoever.

It's sad that you and your compadres are so blind to the power mad corruption of leftist politicians and the lengths they'll go to to attain and retain power. I imagine you are one of those who believes that Hillary Clinton is a squeaky clean, qualified leader who is just the victim of a mass right-wing conspiracy, That is not knowing what you're talking about. 

Please don't feel that the debate is futile, though. You will actually learn something if you'll only open your mind, which is clearly closed at the moment. 

And, Zeus, can you please find for me where I stated that "Climate Scientists are all a bunch of religious fanatics"? Let me help; no, you can't, because I didn't. Misquoting and misrepresenting other peoples' positions  undermines your own. You may want to keep that in mind going forward. You're welcome. 

billbatard

@Akhenaten It is my sincere belief that climate change is scientific fact only americans reject these fact proven conclusions https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

John_C_87

@billbatard ;
If you are saying that the science theory is fact can you help locate then mathematic proof that science has set as a new law of physics?

billbatard

Pretty much been proven a scientific fact who denies this anymore but people that believe in lizard people ?https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Sharky

@billbatard

Is that the new standard; "pretty much been proven a scientific fact"? Where do you folks come up with these gems? For the record, anything that has "pretty much" been done, has NOT been done. When you're talking about proving scientific facts, it REALLY has not been done. 

Sharky

@ZeusAres42

Hey, Zeus, a quick question; do you agree with AOC that mankind has 12 years to act on climate change or we're finished? You know, "this is our World War II" and all that? 

ZeusAres42

@Sharky

Sharky Said:
"You can no more win an argument with hardcore members of the AGW crowd than you could if you tried telling fundamentalist Christians or Muslims that their holy books are full of nonsense."

Sharky Said:

"True Believers have morphed into a band of religious fanatics and their beliefs are now based more on faith than on science."

Didn't misquote anything.

Sharky said:

@ZeusAres42

ZeusAres42 said:

@Sharky

And, Zeus, can you please find for me where I stated that "Climate Scientists are all a bunch of religious fanatics"? Let me help; no, you can't, because I didn't. Misquoting and misrepresenting other peoples' positions  undermines your own. You may want to keep that in mind going forward. You're welcome. 

The quotes of yours above in your complete own words also have to apply to the climate scientists. Otherwise, you're contradicting yourself.  You cannot say that "True believers have morphed into a band of religious fanatics and their beliefs are based on faith, and then turn round and imply you didn't mean climate scientists; doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is either your position or it isn't. Please make your mind up and that might help you go forward. You're welcome.

And the fact that CYDharta and Akhenaten will vote or say anything is a great argument or a fallacy is just frivolous. 

Btw, on a somewhat side note, I am not interested in reading essays. If you feel you have to write more than a page's worth of words to answer simple questions then you're probably debating something completely different than what I am.

Sharky

@ZeusAres42

Thanks, Zeus. Maybe in the future it would be better if you didn't use quotation marks when you decide to misquote someone. At least then you'll have plausible deniability. Claiming "Didn't misquote anything" after putting quotation marks around something I never said is frankly just silly. Of course you did. 

As for True Believers including all climate scientists, well, that's your supposition, not mine. I understand that there are lots of climate scientists out there doing good, valid work. I think many or most of them probably believe that we are going to face consequences that none of them can guarantee or even reasonably assure. That doesn't make them True Believers. The True Believers who behave like religious fanatics are the ones who categorically reject ANY argument or criticism of the AGW theory or its proponents regardless of evidence and then proceed to attack people with legitimate questions and doubts. 

What about the 12- year deadline for action, Zeus? Are you onboard with AOC's claim? And while you're answering questions, maybe you can get around to these ones I posed earlier that you ignored:

- Why can't climate scientists generate a computer model that proves accurate? GIGO?
- If the science is so strong and sure, why does the movement consistently resort to fear-mongering, propaganda, indoctrination of children and Alinskyite tactics? 
- How does the movement explain the litany of horrific doomsday predictions that have utterly failed to materialize? 
- Since scientists and their political allies have repeatedly and inaccurately predicted 'end of days' scenarios for centuries, why should we suddenly believe they're getting this one right? 
- Why do ALL "solutions" to climate change necessarily involve wealth redistribution on a massive, global scale? Wouldn't investment in pollution mitigation technologies be more logical and effective? 

I'm not actually here simply to answer your questions, Zeus, although I have no problem with you asking them. I have accumulated a wealth of knowledge concerning the AGW movement over many years and I firmly believe the entire issue has been hijacked for strictly political purposes. I'll speak out on it all as I see fit. if you don't like my posts, no one is forcing you to read them. 

John_C_87

- Why can't climate scientists generate a computer model that proves accurate? GIGO?
My argument here is Time a computer does not have a realistic mathematic understanding of time as a linear position. The reasons for this is almost all people do not understand the distance time divides is the Earths equator. It does this by using the sun's motion across the sky, a compass, a sexton, and horizon.

Ever see a couple argue after becoming lost?

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87

The current fact as far as I am aware of is that no scientist has generated any computer model that can prove anything as completely accurate. But they do give you clues as to what's going on. 

Furthermore, as I said before, it's not the job of scientists to "prove" things.  When they test a hypothesis they obtain evidence that either supports it or rejects it.

What's more, is that the current fact of today in regards to specifically humans contributing to the current climate change cycle is that there is more evidence in favor of it than that which rejects it.

ZeusAres42

A fallacious argument often posed by many people of the public that reject the AGW science and even some creationists for that matter is called the Galileo gambit.

Examples

”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then in a surprisingly high number of cases it turns out you're still wrong." —Quietuus[1]


It is freakishly common among creationists and   global warming denialists  alike against the "evil scientific consensus". Examples include: Chris Woollams of CANCERactive blogging as "Galileo Galilei"A global warming denial site calling itself The Galileo Movement

Problems “”The chief problem with the Galileo gambit is the failure to understand the difference between a well-established scientific law and religious dogma. —Steven Novella
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit#Examples

Exceptions to this fallacy are extremely rare in the modern day, and it really doesn't make for a good argument supporting the position that AGW is all wrong, a hoax, fraud, etc.

John_C_87

ZeusAres42 said:

@John_C_87

The current fact as far as I am aware of is that no scientist has generated any computer model that can prove anything as completely accurate. But they do give you clues as to what's going on. 

Furthermore, as I said before, it's not the job of scientists to "prove" things.  When they test a hypothesis they obtain evidence that either supports it or rejects it.

What's more, is that the current fact of today in regards to specifically humans contributing to the current climate change cycle is that there is more evidence in favor of it than that which rejects it.

We agree to be as truthful as we understand. The mathematic proof behind climate change and human climate manipulation are not the same goal in testing and discovery.

To understand time and how it is connected to this solar system by the distance of solar time is measured by the area around the sun as a mathematic rational constant. This is simply not translated mathematically to any computer yet. Rights Reserved.

The argument is not made clear because of the chosen basic principle not by any truth, facts, or duration both are held together .

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@John_C_87

The current fact as far as I am aware of is that no scientist has generated any computer model that can prove anything as completely accurate. But they do give you clues as to what's going on. 

Furthermore, as I said before, it's not the job of scientists to "prove" things.  When they test a hypothesis they obtain evidence that either supports it or rejects it.

What's more, is that the current fact of today in regards to specifically humans contributing to the current climate change cycle is that there is more evidence in favor of it than that which rejects it.

We agree to be as truthful as we understand. The mathematic proof behind climate change and human climate manipulation are not the same goal in testing and discovery.

To understand time and how it is connected to this solar system by the distance of solar time is measured by the area around the sun as a mathematic rational constant. This is simply not translated mathematically to any computer yet. Rights Reserved.

The argument is not made clear because of the chosen basic principle not by any truth, facts, or duration both are held together .

Could you explain what you mean by this in simple terms please as I am not sure I understand what you mean? Thanks.

John_C_87

A science theory is basically a word problem presented by science. A mathematical proof is not like a legal proof in relationship the evidence it is written in relationship to science theory, there are several types of mathematic proofs that can be written.

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

A science theory is basically a word problem presented by science. A mathematical proof is not like a legal proof in relationship the evidence it is written in relationship to science theory, there are several types of mathematic proofs that can be written.

I am sorry but I still have no idea what you're talking about and fail to see the connection to this current debate. 

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;

Just wondering if you knew.

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

Just wondering if you knew.

Wondering if I knew what?

John_C_87

ZeusAres42 said:

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

Just wondering if you knew.

Wondering if I knew what?

How a mathematic proof may work with any theory of human climate manipulation also known as possible climate change.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;

"For all temperature that is changed there exists a motion of that temperature as reading. "

Science as a United State can best prove that a human method can change temperature as a level measured in heat simply by moving any amount of cold substance as mass.

Sharky

• Climate Bombshell: Audit Exposes IPCC Data as ‘Careless and Amateur’

https://principia-scientific.org/climate-bombshell-audit-exposes-ipcc-data-as-careless-and-amateur/

"The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set has found it to be so riddled with errors that it is effectively useless.

HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change” and as the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.

But according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world."

Of course, this audit received practically zero coverage by MSM outlets all over the world because it only added to the mounting evidence that the AGW theory is not only fatally flawed, it is being propagated by inept and corrupt individuals with a massive political agenda. The actual temperature data used by the IPCC to sell the AGW theory has been so carelessly collected and catalogued that it isn't credible at all. It certainly cannot be used to justify spending trillions of dollars to combat a phantom problem that can't even be demonstrated to exist.

The details of the article are shocking. How something like this can go largely unreported is an indictment of the world press as a whole. And any attempt to discredit John McLean would be absurd seeing that he had previously been consulted by the IPCC as an advisor.   

ZeusAres42

An individual's personal beliefs whether they be political or religious in nature is insignificant and irrelevant to the scientific factual information being obtained via the scientific research being done over the world. 

ZeusAres42

An individual's personal beliefs whether they be political or religious in nature is insignificant and irrelevant to the scientific factual information being obtained via the scientific research being done over the world. 

ZeusAres42

Absolute brilliant video in my opinion here with a scientist talking about common issues regarding climate change. "Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says lawmakers and the media cherry pick scientific papers to reinforce political ideals on climate change and says it's irresponsible to create public policy while ignoring the scientific community's consensus."

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

@Sharky
Yeah, we even have living examples of Marxism in action - China, North Korea and Russia. These countries are miserable countries to live in with low wages, poor living conditions and virtually no freedom of speech. Yet, this is exactly what these clowns want our countries of free speech and good life style to turn into. It's the false promise of a paradise that never arrives. That's the carrot that the deceitful Marxist dangles in front of the delirious donkey to keep them marching forward to the cliff edge and over.

The idea of loss of freedom of speech is not true the nations you describe all have restrictions on the method at which a grievance can be filed and this has little to do with the freedom of speech. America as the United States has a inalienable constitutional right in filing grievance with each other without military intervention. This is in truth what you are saying about North Korea, United Soviet Republic, and China. They do not share this liberty as a way of justice.

Akhenaten

@John_C_87

Yeah, sure, you can lodge a grievance in China, Russia and North Korea but you would do better to go commit suicide and save them the trouble of disposing of you. 

billbatard

@Akhenaten To think this , your head must be firmly buried in the sand

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

@John_C_87

Yeah, sure, you can lodge a grievance in China, Russia and North Korea but you would do better to go commit suicide and save them the trouble of disposing of you. 

You may misunderstand a question that was never asked of you? The freedom of speech has nothing to do with a person filing a grievance with another person publicly. The freedom of speech address such things as a lawyer having the Constitutional right to mirandize a person in a civil argument to provide a common defense in constitutional principle. This is because of the assigned cost and applied self-value of words in a Court of law.

John_C_87

Sharky said:

@ZeusAres42

Hey, Zeus, a quick question; do you agree with AOC that mankind has 12 years to act on climate change or we're finished? You know, "this is our World War II" and all that? 

To address an issue of basic principle here about united state. In truth, as part of a much larger whole truth, time does not matter in how it is applied to a beginning of human effort as people have started and really all that is taking place is those efforts are ignored. This may be in part to the fact any efforts are not having an effect because the described cause is wrong. 

While in truth about humans and War, World War III may have been World War II and World War II never ended as we call it a Drug War now. Which in basic principle the Drug War can just be call a World Civil War, W.C.W. I, and World War III is not a numbered War at all and is a Chemical World War. Making the Drug War a Cold Chemical World War. C.C.W.W. as I do not believe it is just civil. There would have been War program given out during the intermission as to keep track, had there been an intermission to this War???

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

Sharky said:

@ZeusAres42

Hey, Zeus, a quick question; do you agree with AOC that mankind has 12 years to act on climate change or we're finished? You know, "this is our World War II" and all that? 

I've heard many people of the public and media sources coming up with claims about the world even ending in 12 years and other crazy things. However, I've never actually come across any credible scientist that has ever said the world is going to end in 12 years, etc.

Of course, reframing what's actually said makes it much easier for the opposition to defend. But they're not really defending anything that was originally said.

TKDB

Yes, climate change, is nonsense.

The earth is going to evolve, weather wise, how it always has.

At its own leisure, and all humanity can do, is either adapt, or deal with the consequences of not adapting?

ZeusAres42

@Sharky

I seemed to have missed some of the things you said and so I would like to start again a line of discourse with you. In regards to your very first post after reading it more in depth, I find there are actually things that I think are plausible. However, there is some stuff that you said which I am not so sure about. So I've just quoted that for now.

Based on my observations of the AGW issue and the debate surrounding it over the last 30 years, it is clear that the global political left have seized upon the issue for political gain. While no one can discount or discredit all of the scientific findings on the issue, there have been far too many instances where the issue has been callously exploited to advance leftists' quest for power and control.

Would you mind elaborating on what the political left has to gain and the control and power they're after regarding the AGW issue?

People on the left frequently cite "scientific consensus" as proof of their hypothesis. No one ever seems to explain when "scientific consensus" became proof of anything, let alone an acceptable way to reach a conclusion using the scientific method. If "scientific consensus" is so compelling, why has the left resorted to a three-decade, non-stop barrage of hyperbole, propaganda, fear-mongering and outright lies to support their claims? Why have the predictions of their many computer models flamed out so spectacularly and repeatedly? Why have so many AGW proponents been quoted, saying openly that the climate change issue is NOT really about climate at all but about changing the socio-economic model used by the entire planet? And finally, why have those same AGW proponents relied almost exclusively on wildly ramped-up government control and massively higher taxes as their only "solution" to the problem?

It has become obvious to open-minded and well-informed observers that the climate change issue is being exploited to consolidate power and control and to divert trillions of dollars into the pockets of people who support the leftist power base. One need look no further than the Democrat Party, Al Gore, Tom Steyer, Elon Musk and the entire Silicon Valley.  

Would you mind elaborating on the reasons for how you've come to this conclusion too? 

Thanks.

ZeusAres42

ZeusAres42 said:

If climate change is a political game like you said played by communist governments then surely the same argument could be made that the rejection of climate change is played by fascist/far-right governments?

FYI, what I did here is what is known as "reductio ad consequentia." This is not a fallacy; what it is is an invitation to think about the opposite consequent of what one has proposed.

And it doesn't matter if the premises are true or false the rule of the opposite "consequent rule" still applies.

Basically, the point is that if one has this view on one side of the political spectrum then I think it is plausible to consider that someone of the opposition will have a similar kind of viewpoint that they hold about the other side.

Sharky

@ZeusAres42

Hi, Zeus. Sure, I'd be happy to elaborate on both points. 

Leftist governments uniformly seek increased control over the lives of their constituents through Big Government initiatives. Their challenge is to package these policy positions as compassionate, caring programs that inevitably improve peoples' lives. Since their target audience usually includes large numbers of the middle and lower classes and corresponding numbers of people who are either politically disengaged or uninformed, their job is somewhat easier. This is why the Democrats in the US compete with each other to see who can offer the most "free stuff". Short-sighted people eat these promises up, since the massive tax increases necessary to fund the programs will ostensibly not affect the target audience directly. 

Climate change- both the actual science and the resulting political issue- presents a huge opportunity for the leftists of the world. First, it's a global issue, so the interested governments can collude to use the issue to their advantage, advancing globalism and having world-wide consequences; think Paris Climate Accords. Second, the issue directly involves some of the largest and most lucrative multi-national corporations in the world, putting trillions of dollars on the line and potentially putting much of that money at the disposal of the governments involved in "solving" the problem. Thirdly, the issue can be demagogued to frighten the masses into believing that their very lives are in imminent danger. If and when the issue is played correctly, the populations will enable the governments to hobble the corporations, empowering political elites and enabling them effectively to confiscate and redistribute money in unprecedented sums. Rather than concentrating on technological solutions to pollution mitigation, leftist governments will invariably target profits, free markets and capitalism in general. It's a very neat and convenient way for the world's Marxists to undermine the capitalist systems that dominate the world's economy and ironically, it will have little, if anything, to do with climate science. 

One of the hallmarks of the Obama Administration and other Democrat governments has been their tendency to pick and choose winners and losers in the private sector, especially during times of crisis. FDR's Administration did the same thing with the New Deal, twisting the arms of corporate bigwigs when they were down by demanding compliance and cooperation with federal interference in the free market. There's a great story about FDR trying to get Henry Ford to comply with the New Deal "Blue Eagle" program, ending with Ford telling Roosevelt to "shove that chicken up his ", or words to that effect. Of course, leftists despise huge oil companies and will seize any opportunity fo stifle them or take their profits. Conversely, "green" companies are feted and showered with endless tax breaks and government assistance to stay competitive with traditional businesses; think Tesla, wind farms, solar panel manufacturers, etc. The CEOs of these companies are never vilified or demonized as are CEOs of traditional businesses, rather they are made instant millionaires and billionaires, insulated from the normal slings and arrows that the left reserves for rich, fat cats. The climate change issue presents unprecedented opportunity for leftists to 'mold' the economy in the shape they would like it to be.

Because the climate change issue presents so much potential and opportunity for the left to shape the world in their own vision- their primary, overarching goal- the approaches and techniques employed to promote their political and economic "solutions" have become progressively more alarmist, drastic, urgent, hyperbolic and insulting. This has occurred even as the evidence supporting the AGW theory has been slowly but surely eroding. We are entering the third decade of failed predictions, failed computer models and questionable "science" surrounding the global warming scare. The simultaneous, breathless Chicken Little- act from the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the looney left in Hollywood does not help the credibility of the movement. 

Sorry for the "essay"! My thoughts tend to get a little wordy. I'd try being more concise but I'm an old dog and that would be a new trick for me. 

John_C_87

ZeusAres42 said:

John_C_87 said:

Sharky said:

@ZeusAres42

Hey, Zeus, a quick question; do you agree with AOC that mankind has 12 years to act on climate change or we're finished? You know, "this is our World War II" and all that? 

I've heard many people of the public and media sources coming up with claims about the world even ending in 12 years and other crazy things. However, I've never actually come across any credible scientist that has ever said the world is going to end in 12 years, etc.

Of course, reframing what's actually said makes it much easier for the opposition to defend. But they're not really defending anything that was originally said.

The irony here is science does not have a mathematic consensuses on a measurement of time, show how would a claim in an unreliable measurement matter...……….Just saying you need a clock that works to have a scientific race to the end of time.