Seeing as how no one wants to do what it REALLY takes.
I guess purported climate change really isn't all that important, eh?
- Thread starter soonerinlOUisiana
- Start date
I’m confused. I thought Obama single handedly stopped climate change in its tracks. Wasn’t the ocean supposed to rise so high that the east coast would be under water? Well it never happened. So obviously we owe a huge debt of gratitude to our climate change savior, the right honorable Barack Obama. This OP is so “yesterday!”Seeing as how no one wants to do what it REALLY takes.
They can double their co2 output with zero repercussions in the Paris grift.
Democrooks (with only token resistance from republicvnts) don’t seem to be happy unless the USA is being made to serve as some foreign villainous country’s bitch. They wanted unilateral disarmament in the 80s. They want us dependent on camel jockeys for energy. And they’d love nothing more than to cripple US industry with regs from which the Chinese would be exempt. I guess the concept of “America First” just isn’t woke enough.
Denver's 2020 first freeze was earliest on record. Some NASA scientists tell me we're in a Solar minimum. I haven't read a word about it in Amerikan Pravda and Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News hasn't told me. The Warmists want to control us and hit our check books. Nothing more.
Excellent summation; fossil fuels, etc. nothing more than "smoke" and mirrors for a false narrative.
We can't blame Exxon, Briggs and Stratton for the Mars warming. Sun maybe? JimmyBob gets it. Laughing Boy does not.
Go ahead and laugh, fatfvck. It’s about all you’re good for.
Serious request. It would be helpful, and I would be interested to see someone post in plain English (no links please) the ultimate motives of the people you all believe are pushing climate change policy.
The climate scam is one of the easiest to follow the money.
I’m all for cleaning the ocean.
We can probably do better than round’up which is literally everywhere.
And there is plenty of dough thrown at the problem, it just never gets where it can make a difference.
Like the Clintons and Haiti, 1.8B for us, 200MM for you.
I’m all for cleaning the ocean.
We can probably do better than round’up which is literally everywhere.
And there is plenty of dough thrown at the problem, it just never gets where it can make a difference.
Like the Clintons and Haiti, 1.8B for us, 200MM for you.
I appreciate that, and certainly get the concept of follow the money, but help me understand the actual steps by which they will benefit financially, and who they are that can pull these kinds strings world wide.
Who are these '11,000 Concerned Scientists'?
By Casey Plunkett
Academics and scientists are yet again issuing "consensus" statements on climate change. In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel. Citing a "moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to "tell it like it is," they've published the paper "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency." In dystopian tone, they've issued a demand for Earth's population to "be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity."
With the disclaimer that I'm just a layman who resides in "flyover country," who are these "11,000 Scientists," and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter? Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields — their expertise isn't inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won't teach a graduate-level course in biology, a podiatrist won't perform open heart surgery, and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology, or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link — so I looked.
In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of "experts" who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could not care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change — let alone allow him to tell me how to live my life.
This raises the question: "Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?" Perhaps they know that this is faux science? The climate is a complex dynamic that science don't fully understand, let alone predict. Nonetheless, radical, statist elements of society continue to advocate economy-destroying actions — taking lemmings over the cliff with them.
At family gatherings in the upcoming holiday season, when annoying in-laws cite "scientific consensus" on man's effects on climate change, expose their ignorance and the irrelevance of these doomsday papers with an analogy. Advise them to seek out the consensus opinion of a group of chemists, linguists, and data scientists if they believe they tore a rotator cuff or have concerns with an asymmetrical mole they've discovered.
Academics and scientists are yet again issuing "consensus" statements on climate change. In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel. Citing a "moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to "tell it like it is," they've published the paper "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency." In dystopian tone, they've issued a demand for Earth's population to "be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity."
With the disclaimer that I'm just a layman who resides in "flyover country," who are these "11,000 Scientists," and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter? Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields — their expertise isn't inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won't teach a graduate-level course in biology, a podiatrist won't perform open heart surgery, and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology, or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link — so I looked.
In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of "experts" who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could not care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change — let alone allow him to tell me how to live my life.
This raises the question: "Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?" Perhaps they know that this is faux science? The climate is a complex dynamic that science don't fully understand, let alone predict. Nonetheless, radical, statist elements of society continue to advocate economy-destroying actions — taking lemmings over the cliff with them.
At family gatherings in the upcoming holiday season, when annoying in-laws cite "scientific consensus" on man's effects on climate change, expose their ignorance and the irrelevance of these doomsday papers with an analogy. Advise them to seek out the consensus opinion of a group of chemists, linguists, and data scientists if they believe they tore a rotator cuff or have concerns with an asymmetrical mole they've discovered.
Thanks for the non-link, but, even putting aside the serious flaws with that write up, it doesn’t address my question as to motive.
How did the Clintons make money in Haiti?
Thats all out there for you and walks you through everything you asked.
Easy, the motives are driven by the cult like and slavish adherence that allows so many "scientist" to vouch for that which they have no special education or training. This is about power, likability, killing off hydrocarbon industry and MONEY with a hefty dose of hypocrisy.
At their base politicians are attention whores and when they find a subject/policy with which to herd people to a common cause , they then embrace said subject/policy for adulation and a very broad following which includes taking money.
Do you think if conservatives/republicans were woke global warming enthusiast that the media wouldn't hammer them for every private jet ride, every mansion and all the money being made off this nonsense?
What exactly do you see as flaws in the article sba?
Presented with the skill of 2012Bearcat. Factual and elementary. Even Dave should understand. Well done.
Adherence to what? What’s in it for the scientists to deliberately misrepresent?
What about this debate grants power? It’s not like climate change has ever been a deciding issue for even close to a decisive number of voters in any election.
Why? Just out of spite? Because they just don’t like Oklahoma and Texas? Forgive but that’s pretty far fetched and would be irrational behavior.
Now, big money as a motivation for some people isn’t far fetched at all. Happens all the time. Except... who is making big money on this? I’m talking global, statist-cabal type money... SOROS-type money [yikes! it’s scary just to type his name!]. Isn’t one of the tenets of the anti-climate change side that all of these renewable power sources are big losers that aren’t financially viable? How many of them have gone bankrupt? How many billions of investment have been lost? If money was the motivation, couldn’t these billions just have been used to buy and control much of the existing (and already viable) energy producers....... instead of a spent a multi-decade, Rube Goldberg plan to initiate a public relations campaign by scientists to bring down one of the most entrenched industries in the planet only to replace it with technology that doesn’t exist yet and may or may not even work?? That sounds like a bad plan to make money.
Just for starters, the author disqualifies scientists in relevant fields just because they don’t contain the word “climate” (I’m deliberately over simplifying). The author is correct that a linguist’s opinion (if that was in fact the only credential of an actual signee, which I’m skeptical of) has no relevance to the topic, but the opinions of ecologist, biologist and zoologist sure do.
Moreover, just because they have superfluous signees, doesn’t address the substance of the paper signed by the admittedly qualified signees.
Adherence to what? What’s in it for the scientists to deliberately misrepresent?
When you talk about scientist, especially university type scientist their life blood is grants. Signing a document lends credibility to your street creds even if you don't believe the "science." Back in university town, your a pariah if you don't tow the liberal line and can lead to all sorts of issues up and down the line. Further out, your adherence to this dogma is like belonging to a giant club of enlightened people.
I once had the opportunity to speak with an operations VP at an energy conference in Australia. The beer/wine/whiskey was flowing freely. Started talking to the gentleman about MMGW and he let me know that he thinks is all BS and the reason their corporation always includes messages about CO2 reduction and going green is that they would be excoriated by the press and the government if they didn't "project" believe in this nonsense. For him on a more personal scale, he wants to become operations president and possibly CEO in the future. He said that goal/dream would be gone were he to come out against this efforts and messaging.
What about this debate grants power? It’s not like climate change has ever been a deciding issue for even close to a decisive number of voters in any election.
For the time being and with respect to other parts of the world, power comes from the government, for instance the EU. Not sure how much you travel but if you go to many European countries they are all about getting rid of CO2 producing machines and animals. Have had similar conversations with people as the above, but less higher on the food-chain and nearly to the person it is the same tale.
When your government has the power to give money away to people who believe in some theory, that is power. When your government decides that by the year 2525 (great song by Zager & Evans btw) everyone will be driving electric cars that is power albeit, coercive power but power non the less.
Why? Just out of spite? Because they just don’t like Oklahoma and Texas? Forgive but that’s pretty far fetched and would be irrational behavior.
I personally have no idea why people would want to strangle the O&G industry. My guess is because they allegedly commit offenses against mother earth, pollute, don't pay taxes, are evil corporations and what ever else one can think of. I lay part of the problem back on these corporations because they haven't done shit to educate people just what does and doesn't contain hydrocarbons in their life.......from the tennis shoes they wear to the electronics they use and beyond.
I think there is also a "hip" factor involved in all this. If you love European culture and want to ingratiate yourself to that culture better be on the MMGW bandwagon, cause if your not tough crap. The more rubbish these people think the US is, the more they will denigrate the US and our customs to ingratiate themselves to world government and people.
Now, big money as a motivation for some people isn’t far fetched at all. Happens all the time. Except... who is making big money on this? I’m talking global, statist-cabal type money... SOROS-type money [yikes! it’s scary just to type his name!]. Isn’t one of the tenets of the anti-climate change side that all of these renewable power sources are big losers that aren’t financially viable? How many of them have gone bankrupt? How many billions of investment have been lost? If money was the motivation, couldn’t these billions just have been used to buy and control much of the existing (and already viable) energy producers....... instead of a spent a multi-decade, Rube Goldberg plan to initiate a public relations campaign by scientists to bring down one of the most entrenched industries in the planet only to replace it with technology that doesn’t exist yet and may or may not even work?? That sounds like a bad plan to make money.
Big money is made by speaking fees, donations to your non-profit and business fees such as carbon taxes.
Since this is mostly a liberal gig, there is no way many of these people (not all by any means) will lay out their own cash to purchase then destroy a mutli-national corporation that provides billions in tertiary tax revenue, employees thousands upon thousands of people. There are simply too many hurtles from stock holders, to governments to communities that would never allow that to happen and if say one of these idiots bought a giant energy company, who would still believe them about MMGW? No, its easier to paint your adversaries as less caring than you.
When a cool off begins, they will find some other "cause" and have no shortage of supporters and adherents to rally for the cause.
Am always reminded of PT Barnum's saying..."there's a sucker born every minute," I don't think there are any shortage of suckers and it cuts both ways political ideology wise.
Just for starters, the author disqualifies scientists in relevant fields just because they don’t contain the word “climate” (I’m deliberately over simplifying). The author is correct that a linguist’s opinion (if that was in fact the only credential of an actual signee, which I’m skeptical of) has no relevance to the topic, but the opinions of ecologist, biologist and zoologist sure do.
Moreover, just because they have superfluous signees, doesn’t address the substance of the paper signed by the admittedly qualified signees.
Fair enough, but I'm still skeptical of say an ecologist professing to have a through understanding of climate (even more so of an OB-GYN), climate norms/non-norms and so on. In fact some could use MMGW as a crutch to validate studies they have performed. If I'm an acclaimed scientist my specialty is my specialty all my studies revolve around that discipline and I'm a bit leery of lending my opinions on something that isn't my discipline, but my signature that is more in line with my "belief" and not my discipline.
If you look at all the doomsday predictions from the "climate activists" not a dam one has come true. There is an article from the NYT (circa 1929) that was claiming the same things that are claimed now...ice caps disappearing, temperatures warming , islands being flooded etc etc.
Outside of what we have written.......my belief has always been that there is no need to put people on "skeptics" list for voicing their opinions, if you have a sound argument for your belief great if you have a counter argument thats great as well but a "skeptics" list is abusive and reeks of denying a possibility outside your own belief. Same with indoctrinating young children in school, which is even more grotesque than a "skeptics" list.
Lastly, my biggest issue with this whole canard is exactly what the cartoon depicted at the very first of this thread. The burden is disproportional put on western countries while not holding anyone else to accountability.
When you talk about scientist, especially university type scientist their life blood is grants. Signing a document lends credibility to your street creds even if you don't believe the "science." Back in university town, your a pariah if you don't tow the liberal line and can lead to all sorts of issues up and down the line. Further out, your adherence to this dogma is like belonging to a giant club of enlightened people.
I once had the opportunity to speak with an operations VP at an energy conference in Australia. The beer/wine/whiskey was flowing freely. Started talking to the gentleman about MMGW and he let me know that he thinks is all BS and the reason their corporation always includes messages about CO2 reduction and going green is that they would be excoriated by the press and the government if they didn't "project" believe in this nonsense. For him on a more personal scale, he wants to become operations president and possibly CEO in the future. He said that goal/dream would be gone were he to come out against this efforts and messaging.
What about this debate grants power? It’s not like climate change has ever been a deciding issue for even close to a decisive number of voters in any election.
For the time being and with respect to other parts of the world, power comes from the government, for instance the EU. Not sure how much you travel but if you go to many European countries they are all about getting rid of CO2 producing machines and animals. Have had similar conversations with people as the above, but less higher on the food-chain and nearly to the person it is the same tale.
When your government has the power to give money away to people who believe in some theory, that is power. When your government decides that by the year 2525 (great song by Zager & Evans btw) everyone will be driving electric cars that is power albeit, coercive power but power non the less.
Why? Just out of spite? Because they just don’t like Oklahoma and Texas? Forgive but that’s pretty far fetched and would be irrational behavior.
I personally have no idea why people would want to strangle the O&G industry. My guess is because they allegedly commit offenses against mother earth, pollute, don't pay taxes, are evil corporations and what ever else one can think of. I lay part of the problem back on these corporations because they haven't done shit to educate people just what does and doesn't contain hydrocarbons in their life.......from the tennis shoes they wear to the electronics they use and beyond.
I think there is also a "hip" factor involved in all this. If you love European culture and want to ingratiate yourself to that culture better be on the MMGW bandwagon, cause if your not tough crap. The more rubbish these people think the US is, the more they will denigrate the US and our customs to ingratiate themselves to world government and people.
Now, big money as a motivation for some people isn’t far fetched at all. Happens all the time. Except... who is making big money on this? I’m talking global, statist-cabal type money... SOROS-type money [yikes! it’s scary just to type his name!]. Isn’t one of the tenets of the anti-climate change side that all of these renewable power sources are big losers that aren’t financially viable? How many of them have gone bankrupt? How many billions of investment have been lost? If money was the motivation, couldn’t these billions just have been used to buy and control much of the existing (and already viable) energy producers....... instead of a spent a multi-decade, Rube Goldberg plan to initiate a public relations campaign by scientists to bring down one of the most entrenched industries in the planet only to replace it with technology that doesn’t exist yet and may or may not even work?? That sounds like a bad plan to make money.
Big money is made by speaking fees, donations to your non-profit and business fees such as carbon taxes.
Since this is mostly a liberal gig, there is no way many of these people (not all by any means) will lay out their own cash to purchase then destroy a mutli-national corporation that provides billions in tertiary tax revenue, employees thousands upon thousands of people. There are simply too many hurtles from stock holders, to governments to communities that would never allow that to happen and if say one of these idiots bought a giant energy company, who would still believe them about MMGW? No, its easier to paint your adversaries as less caring than you.
When a cool off begins, they will find some other "cause" and have no shortage of supporters and adherents to rally for the cause.
Am always reminded of PT Barnum's saying..."there's a sucker born every minute," I don't think there are any shortage of suckers and it cuts both ways political ideology wise.
Just for starters, the author disqualifies scientists in relevant fields just because they don’t contain the word “climate” (I’m deliberately over simplifying). The author is correct that a linguist’s opinion (if that was in fact the only credential of an actual signee, which I’m skeptical of) has no relevance to the topic, but the opinions of ecologist, biologist and zoologist sure do.
Moreover, just because they have superfluous signees, doesn’t address the substance of the paper signed by the admittedly qualified signees.
Fair enough, but I'm still skeptical of say an ecologist professing to have a through understanding of climate (even more so of an OB-GYN), climate norms/non-norms and so on. In fact some could use MMGW as a crutch to validate studies they have performed. If I'm an acclaimed scientist my specialty is my specialty all my studies revolve around that discipline and I'm a bit leery of lending my opinions on something that isn't my discipline, but my signature that is more in line with my "belief" and not my discipline.
If you look at all the doomsday predictions from the "climate activists" not a dam one has come true. There is an article from the NYT (circa 1929) that was claiming the same things that are claimed now...ice caps disappearing, temperatures warming , islands being flooded etc etc.
Outside of what we have written.......my belief has always been that there is no need to put people on "skeptics" list for voicing their opinions, if you have a sound argument for your belief great if you have a counter argument thats great as well but a "skeptics" list is abusive and reeks of denying a possibility outside your own belief. Same with indoctrinating young children in school, which is even more grotesque than a "skeptics" list.
Lastly, my biggest issue with this whole canard is exactly what the cartoon depicted at the very first of this thread. The burden is disproportional put on western countries while not holding anyone else to accountability.
Last edited:
Curious which behavior changes cause you the greatest pain? Driving more advanced/efficient cars? Using cleaner fuels to power electrical generation? In real terms how does a green energy harm you? If you want to talk economics, what are the actual costs that you bear?
The destruction of the self-sufficient class in the USA. It’s all about giving us the shaft. Saw it during the Cold War. Seeing it with the climate change hoax. Seeing it with the Chicom-19 hoax. And seeing it with the BLM/Profa riots. They’re at war with the eeeeeeeevil bourgeoisie.
Reasoned and fair response. I obviously disagree on these points, but worth the read.
It’s a wonder you can sleep at night with all these boogie men throughout history coming to get you.
And yet you haven’t refuted what I said. I sleep quite well, because I know we’ll beat your asses into the earth every time you come at us.
Any response since knoblock didn't even try?
You say man is contributing to the warming of the earth. But you can't really say by how much and you can't really define a baseline measure of what that warming truly is even minus the effects of humankind. But then you say there's a crisis and we must modify our behavior because we are having a detrimental effect. But you can't define or measure what those effects are and how much man plays a part in them.
Rich and compelling. I feel like I was there.
I don’t imagine you were hoping for computer models. And I won’t pretend to be an authority.
I'll say it again. Denver's 2020 first freeze was earliest on record. Some NASA scientists tell me we're in a Solar minimum. Not a peep from Amerikan Pravda. Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News hasn't said a word. Weather hasn't cooperated with the Warmists for about the last 15 years although they shout to us it has.
Last 5 years "hottest on record?" Select data from concrete jungles with large populations.
Last 5 years "hottest on record?" Select data from concrete jungles with large populations.
sba...do you read much about MMGW? I'll trade book ideas with you; I'll give you a title of one that disputes MMGW and you give me one that is pro MMGW.
Out of curiosity where did you get the stat above?
Can’t say that I have a book recommendation to offer. Happy to look into one from you (no promises, though). That figure came from NOAA. My point in providing it was not to say ‘this is the definitive impact of humans and it’s beyond discussion’, but rather just to point out that scientists don’t seems to be baffled by the question (regardless of whether they are within two-tenths of a degree of the actual number or not).
I would start with "Apocalypse Never" by M. Shellenberger and or "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change" by Vincent Gray (its a bit older).
Let me pose a question to you, do you believe the earth can warm (or cool) regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels?
Here’s one they’ve been beating us over the head with for 20 years. Gotta ask, why was the earth so “hot” 2,000 years ago? Sport utility chariots?
phys.org
The 20th century was the hottest in nearly 2,000 years, studies show
Two new studies show that the 20th century was the Earth's warmest period recorded in 2,000 years of the planet's record.
I'll have to look it up because I can't remember what it's called. The Roman something. The Mediterranean was about 3.6 F warmer when the Roman Empire folded than today.Here’s one they’ve been beating us over the head with for 20 years. Gotta ask, why was the earth so “hot” 2,000 years ago? Sport utility chariots?
The 20th century was the hottest in nearly 2,000 years, studies show
Two new studies show that the 20th century was the Earth's warmest period recorded in 2,000 years of the planet's record.
During one of the games today I saw an ambitious Ford commercial (claimed they’ve always embraced change, right) that claimed all their vehicles will be electric powered by 2035 so maybe @david fatass is on to something. Doubtful
This is exactly what I was talking about above....can bet your ass the CEO and on down don't believe that crap they are just parroting the line so everyone will "feel" good about FORD and their efforts. No chance in hell they will completely re-tool their whole line and go electric in basically 13 years. When this whole electric car deal falls on its ass whichever company decided to keep producing gas guzzlers will be very happy and their stock holders will be ecstatic!
Exactly where do all these people think ALL this electricity will come from?
