The Climate is always change, the debate is over the cause and consequences. Where there's no debate, there's no science.
There's evidence to support at least some of both sides points (or severity) on man-made Climate Change. There is no consensus, and science is skepticism not consensus. We need nuance, discussion, debate and enough intellectual curiosity to be open to answers that don't fit your preconceptions (Bias).
I don't care if people believe in, or disbelieve in AGW theory: there's evidence to support at least some of both sides points. I do care that we can't even talk about it, because so many people are 100% sure that anyone who doesn't agree with them is greedy, evil, uninformed, and destroying the planet. The truth is far more nuanced.
CO2 is causing the climate to warm, we’re near a tipping point: 97% of scientists say so. And the earth is doomed if we don’t accept carbon taxes, green energy and stop using fossil fuels immediately. The Green New Deal would be our salvation. Even free speech shouldn't apply to Climate change deniers, with efforts to arrest those scientists and pundits that disagree with the newspeak
Chicken Little (1842) threats of Malthusian Catastrophe (1798) and other doomsday cults, have used eminent local or global threats to get attention, money or control the weak minded.
In the 1970's the radical left decided that they could use the cover of environmentalism to further their Marxist agenda and Earth_Day was created to popularize ideas like Paul R. Ehrlich's discredited theory on The Population Bomb, or M King Hubber's Peak_Oil_Theory) all to terrorize the gullible into giving money and power to their hippie vision of Utopia.
This Watermelon environmentalism (Green on the outside, Red/Marxist on the inside), failed
in that they didn't change much, and their predictions predictions of doom and gloom have been proven wrong by history. What they succeeded at was hurting clean energy generation that worked (Nuclear Power), they got quite a bit of eco-terrorism, destroyed economies, called the other side "Science Deniers", advocated ending free speech and ruining lives and careers of anyone that knows more than them and thus disagrees with them.
Civility is a threat to our very existence. And anything they did, was justified because the future of the entire planet was at risk (in their puny minds). But their base are the folks who don't read/learn from the past. So being wrong hasn't stopped them from programming each subsequent generation.
It's worth a watch, or go throught he slides (tabs / articles) below.
A toastmaster speech I gave in 2009 on Climate Change
There is also a Documentary called The Climate Hustle (2016)While only OK, if a viewer isn't bored by the ground it covered, then they are not qualified to have an informed opinion.
Most Climate Skeptics I know, came to their position by being more informed than the other side. They understand the basics of CO2, where the entire Greenhouse Effect ranks in the list of Climate Forcing Factors, or the facts about our Climate History, Ocean Rise, Glacial Melt, and Hurricanes. Whereas I can't say the same for the other side. (To be fair, it's the 95% of vocal Climate Advocates that give the rest a bad name).
Anyone with a cursory understanding of the science (including Nobel laureates) recognizes that:
(a) the politicians/media are driving the narrative way beyond the Science
(b) the Science doesn't show what they claim
(c) There is no consensus, and if there was, it wouldn't be Science.
(d) Most scientists think Global Warming is likely to be good for humanity and life on the planet
(e) Most of what the Press/Public/Activists believes (or have convinced the gullible to believe) is exaggerated to the point of absurdity.
If you look at the actual Climate History, we are near a historical low in Temperature, CO2, and warming has historically been good for humanity. So it's a bit naive to think that this time they're right (and not overstating it).
Thus when we have a non-event like backing out of the Paris Climate Accord, even though it did couldn't have made the slightest difference in the actual climate, the seals have been trained to bark on cue.
The Meme's aren't very constructive (just humorously mocking the hypocrisy and ignorance of the loudest advocates). But if you the other side is comparing scientific skepticism to Holocaust denial, then all that's left is to mock them back.
I did a video of a toastmasters speech (2008-2009) on my views on Climate Change. I became curious and started researching as the things I was taught as a kid in the 70s were demonstrably wrong, and became more exaggerated and wrong throughout the 80s and 90s into the hysterics that many believe today.
What impacts the climate? Almost everything. The Earth's climate is constantly changing due to the following factors. Man impacts the weakest two. The greenhouse effect is the weakest part of radiative forcing, CO2 is on the weakest of the greenhouse gasses, Man contributes <3% of the CO2. In Science, everything is in dispute. Only the politicians and fools are sure.
Fake Science pretends that there's a tipping poing (400 ppm of CO2), which we cross the other day, which means 6-7° of more warming is coming, which will; destroy humanity, cook off the planet, flood our cities, and we're doomed. The historical record shows we had ice ages back when we had 5,000 ppm of CO2 or 12x the CO2 we have today, and instead of cooking off we cooled.
Any time someone points to a weather event and claims "Climate Change", you can immediately write them off as a kook that either doesn't understand the Climate, or as a polemic that is trying to dupe the gullible leftists. Weather is what happens today, Climate is what happens over hundreds (or thousands) of years.
Historically, CO2 does not correlate well with the climate, it has never CAUSED warming, the Earth had iceages and 10x our current CO2, and warm spells with far less. CO2 averaged over twice current levels for the last 3M years and never had a "tipping point". Most of the CO2/Temp rise was BEFORE Man started putting out significant amounts of CO2 (pre-1950s).
Science is skepticism. If someone isn't a skeptic, then they're not a scientist: they're a politician or an advocate (zealot). While we should attack arguments and not people, you can look at the pool of some of the biggest advocates for a cause, and their claims and bonafides, and see how they stack up.
Consensus/popularity is politics, Science is skepticism (and proof). The "97% Scientific Consensus" for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), is done by fools or liars. The actual consensus is surprisingly small, the studies that say otherwise are embarrassingly bad, and there's a much stronger consensus that IPCC and the media are misleading the public.
They say if your only tool is a hammer, then all problems look like nails. Well if your only tool is a hammer and sickle, all solutions look like authoritarian marxism. You can tell how much the Climate Activists care about the environment, by the exceptions they make; opposing Nuclear energy, allowing private jets, excluding China/India from treaties, and so on.
Some Sites and Articles debunking common climate "truths", that aren't so true, or at least not very proven. Skepticism is Science, Consensus is Politics. These offer evidence. If activists can't refute it, and attack the source instead of the arguments, then they aren't Scientists, they're polemics/activists/frauds.
Climate Predictions (quotes) on Cooling, Warming, Earthday, Deadlines, Pollution and Sea Ice. Someday they'll be right, on something. But today is not that day, tomorrow is not looking good. Those of us that weren't born yesterday, and know how to work a search engine, can guage future predictions based on the success rate of past ones.
Science is skepticism. If someone isn't a skeptic, then they're not a scientist: they're a politician. The point isn't who is on this list, but who isn't. Anyone dismissing Nobel laureates and Career Scientists on this list, had better have the facts (not just the pedigree) to back it up. If they don't, they are the deniers, polemics or cult followers.
The Coral Reefs are dying, and it must be due to Global Warming. End of days are upon us, the only cure is Socialism. Then when we find they're recovering and this is a natural cycle, media silence. The reefs have likely come and gone since the earth had 20x the CO2 that it does today, and was much warmer (or cooler). The planet is not balanced on a razorblade.
Many downplay the Global Cooling craze of the 1970's, but it was a real, large and popular movement based on the "Scientific Consensus" of the day, and was sensationalized by the media. When the temp trends flipped, they flipped too: same cause, same cure -- man is to blame, we need Marxism to save us. So says the Marxists and their flock.
The Climate scarists want people to believe every natural disaster is not an act of God or chance, but because of plastic straws or mankind. The science doesn't back that up. Hurricanes (or Cyclones/Typhoons) have been trending down in size and intensity, and weren't caused by Global Warming anyways.
science is skepticism, these memes make fun of FakeScience (those that detest skepticism). Memes aren't fair and balance -- but they do point out the irony (hypocrisy) of those pretending they have the moral high ground.
Environmentalists like to re-release predictions about how everything is environmentally worse, because the oceans are warming more than they previously thought. The problem is that is junk. Global Warming is supposed to warm the air first. If the Ocean is warming more than the air, it means that AGW is wrong (or at least the causes are).
A question I often ask, is if I can point out anything that the other side doesn't know, is why? If we were having an honest discussion, then the best way to address that, is to present the other sides strongest arguments, then refute it. Why then has the AGW not done that, and gone with exaggerations, constructs and ad hominem's instead?
Skepticism is the best of the isms. It is critical thinking, it is science (the scientific method), and vise versa. Question everything, doubt what you're told, look for the other side of the story, or as Ronald Reagan put the Russian proverb, "doveryai no proveryai" (Trust but verify). If someone is not skeptical of what they are told, and won't question or consider facts that don't support their view, that doesn't make them a bad person: but they're not a practicing person of science, logic, reason or critical thinking. If they can't accept their biases or that truth, then they're not a self-aware person.
The Left Lies When the truth disagrees with your agenda, you can grow (change) or lie. The left usually chooses the latter.
Main Page The root of all evil... and the home page for this website.