Climate Change - Real or Not?

[AlphaMale!]

Where I grew up on the west coast El Niño is a 30 year cycle.
So, unfortunately there re a lot of young adults and adolescents who haven’t lived long enough to experience a single weather cycle and they think because there is a drought that means the rest of the world must be on fire, too.
There’s no doubt that carbon monoxide and other airborne contaminants have some effect on climate.
But, I believe most of the fear mongering gong on by the Left is targeted at young adults because they simply have never seen CA outside of a drought cycle due to their relatively short time on earth.
I’ve seen CA come out of years long drought patterns several times in my 54 years.
Their problem is failure to capture rainwater, so it just runs out to the ocean while they steal water from lake mead over the mountains in NV.
Also, India and China don’t give a fuck about global warming and they’re the biggest polluters so what can we do about that?
Nothing at all except place expensive restrictions and regulations on our own economy while they undercut us.
What good does that do?
And all of those electric vehicles with their cobalt batteries mined by child slave labor in the African Congo, no thanks.
It seems to me that the Green agenda is all about propping up certain industries that appear to be clean at home while they really pollute other parts of the world.
I guess if there’s no exhaust coming out of my tailpipes, then it’s okay that a child has to dig minerals out of the ground with his bare hands for a dollar a day so I can feel good about my environmental impact at home.
It’s all politically motivated nonsense to me.
A big game of smoke and mirrors.

 

[testboner]

“Climate Change” is predominantly the result of geoengineering / climate manipulation / weather warfare. Our weather / climate has not been fully natural for well over 100 years. It’s being increasingly, artificially manipulated just like EVERYTHING else system / global society wide.

https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA333462

http://www.weathermodification.com

https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu

https://weathermodificationhistory.com

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org...JQ1DI59a3fgvFnSJ1OU4nQ6mJYF_7hEcaAsimEALw_wcB

https://www.alachuacounty.us/Depts/...ontrol in 2030.pdf#page=22&zoom=auto,-267,679

 

[tommyguns2]

Yes climate change is real.... That being said, the real question is, how much of that change is caused by humans? No way to know for certain but scientists know climate has been changing thru the life of the planet. That we do know. IMO, the politicians that use it to push Green energy are merely trying to push their investments and make money. Or push for the companies that finance there campaigns. Get rid of lobbyists, get rid of the bullshit.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, the scientific community has prostituted itself in this area, and is yet one more example of the bastardization of genuine scientific inquiry. And yet another institution that has lost the confidence of the American public.

Always be on high alert when you hear someone argue "consensus." The scientific community (the real one) doesn't vote on science. There is no vote on whether gravity exists. Rather, observations are made, a hypothesis is formed, test and experiments are developed to put the hypothesis to the test, and data is collected to see whether the actual data supports the hypothesis. A healthy, critically thinking scientific community will then disseminate the test results and encourage others in the community to develop further tests and experiments to see if the earlier test results are reproduced and/or or support the initial hypothesis.

This is NOT what is occurring in the climate community. Research is funded almost exclusively by the gov't and gov't funded institutions. The climate researchers know who's paying the bills and what results the gov't wants. The "science" in this community is NOT open, and does not invite others to critique the methods used, does not invite others to reproduce the results. Rather, data is maintained privately, some climate data sets are completely ignored, and models that generate erroneous results continue to be employed. And those people in the community that stray from the "consensus" are attacked. There is nothing remotely science based about this approach. So when you're told to trust the science, ask some basic questions, and when answers aren't provided, you got your answer.

 

[Glycomann]

I agree with this. Unfortunately, the scientific community has prostituted itself in this area, and is yet one more example of the bastardization of genuine scientific inquiry. And yet another institution that has lost the confidence of the American public.

Always be on high alert when you hear someone argue "consensus." The scientific community (the real one) doesn't vote on science. There is no vote on whether gravity exists. Rather, observations are made, a hypothesis is formed, test and experiments are developed to put the hypothesis to the test, and data is collected to see whether the actual data supports the hypothesis. A healthy, critically thinking scientific community will then disseminate the test results and encourage others in the community to develop further tests and experiments to see if the earlier test results are reproduced and/or or support the initial hypothesis.

This is NOT what is occurring in the climate community. Research is funded almost exclusively by the gov't and gov't funded institutions. The climate researchers know who's paying the bills and what results the gov't wants. The "science" in this community is NOT open, and does not invite others to critique the methods used, does not invite others to reproduce the results. Rather, data is maintained privately, some climate data sets are completely ignored, and models that generate erroneous results continue to be employed. And those people in the community that stray from the "consensus" are attacked. There is nothing remotely science based about this approach. So when you're told to trust the science, ask some basic questions, and when answers aren't provided, you got your answer.

Pretty much this. Go against the narrative and lose your funding, be huranged in the public space and never work in your scientific discipline again. Does that sound like a system that seeks the answers closest to the truth? The last 4 years has been sooo revealing about so many things. People are waking up, some faster, some more slowly and some will never wake up at all.

 

[tommyguns2]

Here's a Wikipedia entry for the East Anglia "Climategate" fiasco. Wikipedia is generally pro climate change hysteria, and so they try their best to white wash the behavior, but even they can put only so much lipstick on this pig.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some money quotes:

An Associated Press review of the emails concluded that they showed scientists fending off critics, stating that "One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming", and mentioned ethical problems with this action due to the fact that "free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method". They cited a science policy expert as stating that it was "normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds"

The most quoted email was one in which Phil Jones said that he had used "Mike's Nature trick" when preparing a graph as a 1999 cover illustration for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in reconstructions based on tree-ring proxy data post-1960, when measured temperatures were actually rising. The "trick" was a technique to combine instrumental temperature record data with long term reconstructions, and "the decline" referred to the tree-ring divergence problem, which had already been openly discussed in scientific papers, but these two phrases were taken out of context by commentators promoting climate change denial,

The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with climate change denier websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t"

One entire topic not discussed in Wikipedia was the climate guys contacting the leading journals and pressuring them NOT to publish the work of dissenting researchers. Then when the dissenting researchers would dissent from the narrative, the climate bullies would tell people to ignore them because they aren't even published! Kind of a nice, closed loop system to prevent REAL scientific inquiry.

 

[Iron1]

I'm just a simple minded individual with little control over the world but when I have an option to take a stance on something I think in binary terms. To pick a stance I weigh the consequence of what would happen if it turned out to be the wrong one, what is the potential? Pretty typical risk:reward analysis.

If asked if I believe humans are contributing to global warming efforts, I'd have to agree with a caveat about how it's being addressed.

Batteries in their current form are not the answer. They're a good step in the right direction but the environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal in their current state is severe. On the other hand and while ignoring the glaring environmental impact of fossil fuels, one thing can't be overlooked; they are a finite resource. They will run out eventually. What is plan B once the well inevitably runs dry?

Fossil fuels don't have much of a future. Renewable energy is still in it's infancy but compared to fossil fuels, it's future is bright if they can figure out how to get it done properly.

The planet doesn't give a shit about any of this. It doesn't care if we continue to use fossil fuels or develop new sources of renewable energy. The planet will continue to exist in whatever state even if we poison it past our ability to live on it. For that reason I think it best we work towards preserving the planet we call home, we as a species can't afford to be wrong.

 

[Thrawn]

Real yes,
cause? who benefiting the most and how?
What does the looser loose?
Reason? Follow the money and follow the transfer of power/influence.

 

[Kluso]

I'm just a simple minded individual with little control over the world but when I have an option to take a stance on something I think in binary terms. To pick a stance I weigh the consequence of what would happen if it turned out to be the wrong one, what is the potential? Pretty typical risk:reward analysis.

If asked if I believe humans are contributing to global warming efforts, I'd have to agree with a caveat about how it's being addressed.

Batteries in their current form are not the answer. They're a good step in the right direction but the environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal in their current state is severe. On the other hand and while ignoring the glaring environmental impact of fossil fuels, one thing can't be overlooked; they are a finite resource. They will run out eventually. What is plan B once the well inevitably runs dry?

Fossil fuels don't have much of a future. Renewable energy is still in it's infancy but compared to fossil fuels, it's future is bright if they can figure out how to get it done properly.

The planet doesn't give a shit about any of this. It doesn't care if we continue to use fossil fuels or develop new sources of renewable energy. The planet will continue to exist in whatever state even if we poison it past our ability to live on it. For that reason I think it best we work towards preserving the planet we call home, we as a species can't afford to be wrong.

The problem is changing what the US does won’t help a dam bit as long as China, Russia and South America aren’t doing their part too. So until you get them on board we are only hurting ourselves and our economy. And I want to say there is so much oil in the earth that running out shouldn’t be a thought for hundreds of generations from my understanding. But don’t quote me on that. Pretty sure it’s just fear tactics. I’m not saying we shouldn’t conserve oil by making more efficient engines and appliances or engineer better emissions for them. IMO we should be using more nuclear power. But that’s just me.

 

[Glycomann]

There is buzz around hydrogen fuel cells. Basically it is a cyclic process with water and clean. I don't know a whole lot about it but engineer types I know, it's all the buzz along with fusion generators at small scale. they are also clean and basically form heavy helium which degenerates quickly giving off energy in the process. The technology is scalable and is only really about 10 years out. Folks I know at the grid and grid policy level are working these things out presently. Petroleum is more than an energy currency though as it is used in many forms of materials and drugs etc. So, at some level, petroleum and natural gas are here to stay. There are ways off of carbon based fuels but the problem is the politicians and elite classes are psycholic and have other ideas what to do with civilization to profit, control and manipulate in the meantime.

 

[tommyguns2]

while ignoring the glaring environmental impact of fossil fuels, one thing can't be overlooked; they are a finite resource. They will run out eventually. What is plan B once the well inevitably runs dry?

Fossil fuels don't have much of a future. Renewable energy is still in it's infancy but compared to fossil fuels, it's future is bright if they can figure out how to get it done properly.

Fair points, but let me respond as respectfully as possible. The environmental impact of fossil fuels? Well, how about the lack of horse dung in all the streets that was negatively affecting the water supply? Fossil fuels have done more to raise the standard of living and quality of life than just about anything else. It has allowed food to be shipped much more efficiently, greatly improving the diets of humans all over the planet. And has greatly improved productivity by allowing the transport of goods and human capital (workers) throughout the country. 150 years ago, it was not uncommon for a person born to never travel more than 50 miles from their place of birth their entire lives.

Fossil fuels will run out eventually. OK, so will the silicon needed to build the solar panels. Upon being consumed, a fossil fuel is gone. Upon the lifetime of a solar panel being spent (15 years or so), it gets chucked into a landfill. Same with large fiber resin wind turbines.

Renewable energy is still in its infancy. So are fossil fuels. The first oil well was drilled in PA in 1859! And look how fossil fuels have transformed the world. People dying of heat/cold/starvation, etc. has fallen dramatically over the past 150 years. Renewable energy gets none of the credit for that.

The environmentalists would have "us" (i.e., you and me, not them) go back 150 years to the good old days. Malnutrition, sickness, hot, cold, isolated, dealing with regular power blackouts, etc. But don't think for a minute that the elites like John Kerry won't still be flying around the world in their private jets.

 

[Iron1]

The problem is changing what the US does won’t help a dam bit as long as China, Russia and South America aren’t doing their part too. So until you get them on board we are only hurting ourselves and our economy. And I want to say there is so much oil in the earth that running out shouldn’t be a thought for hundreds of generations from my understanding. But don’t quote me on that. Pretty sure it’s just fear tactics. I’m not saying we shouldn’t conserve oil by making more efficient engines and appliances or engineer better emissions for them. IMO we should be using more nuclear power. But that’s just me.

You are correct and the root of the problem is greed. It's cheaper to do things using established technology than it is to blaze a trail into a new generation. The issue isn't the plastic straws at starbucks or running your heat a few degrees warmer in winter, it's the massive factories across the world putting out orders of magnitude more pollution in all forms than any other collective on earth. Many of which operate in areas of the world with little to no environmental oversight. That lack of environmental oversight is part of why businesses move to those areas in the first place. Until we stop incentivizing the destruction of our home world, the situation will only continue to get worse.

The movement to more renewable resources isn't going to happen overnight, it can't. We're not at a point where we have solutions to the existing problems of scale of manufacturing, infrastructure, implementation, etc.

 

[Iron1]

Fair points, but let me respond as respectfully as possible. The environmental impact of fossil fuels? Well, how about the lack of horse dung in all the streets that was negatively affecting the water supply? Fossil fuels have done more to raise the standard of living and quality of life than just about anything else. It has allowed food to be shipped much more efficiently, greatly improving the diets of humans all over the planet. And has greatly improved productivity by allowing the transport of goods and human capital (workers) throughout the country. 150 years ago, it was not uncommon for a person born to never travel more than 50 miles from their place of birth their entire lives.

Fossil fuels will run out eventually. OK, so will the silicon needed to build the solar panels. Upon being consumed, a fossil fuel is gone. Upon the lifetime of a solar panel being spent (15 years or so), it gets chucked into a landfill. Same with large fiber resin wind turbines.

Renewable energy is still in its infancy. So are fossil fuels. The first oil well was drilled in PA in 1859! And look how fossil fuels have transformed the world. People dying of heat/cold/starvation, etc. has fallen dramatically over the past 150 years. Renewable energy gets none of the credit for that.

The environmentalists would have "us" (i.e., you and me, not them) go back 150 years to the good old days. Malnutrition, sickness, hot, cold, isolated, dealing with regular power blackouts, etc. But don't think for a minute that the elites like John Kerry won't still be flying around the world in their private jets.

Fossil fuels are indeed incredible. The energy density in a petroleum molecule and how relatively easy it is to produce is unmatched. Fossil fuels built the entire world and raised up the standard of living for virtually everyone. I'm never going to argue that the use of fossil fuels was not vital to our success and development as a species. Like any success I'm suggesting we need a plan to manage that into the future and relying on a finite resource might not have the best long term viability. When I say long term viability I'm talking thousands of years. We've already existed on this planet for thousands of years and we should be planning to exist here for thousands more.

I don't buy into anything about willfully going back in time, its never going to happen nor do I believe that's what the main stream renewable energy movement is about. People will not accept it nor is it what I'm suggesting. People demand their modern amenities and they deserve a better quality of life than the generations that came before them. If the goal is to not live like we did back 150 years ago, wouldn't we be inclined to find an alternate energy source for when plan A inevitably runs dry? It seems like a this will become a self fulfilling prophecy. Turning away from the development of renewable energy is a commitment to living like we did before fossil fuels because we never bothered to invest in life beyond fossil fuels. That well will run dry, it's inevitable.

I would think that any red blooded earth-dweller who is concerned with securing a future for their clan would be interested in the development of a contingency plan if for no other reason than to NOT live like they did 150 years ago.

To me the investment into renewable energy doesn't take away from anything we achieved with fossil fuels, it's taking the baton and running with it.