And become a religion. The reason I say that is this one chart, this one bit of data, disproves global warming. That's it. It's over. It's done. I don't care what anybody else says because the globe isn't warming. It would be like having video footage of Jesus saying, "Hey, you know this whole son of god thing and salvation and heaven and hell and everything? Yeah, it was just a joke."
BUT
you just know, deep in the recesses of your brain that it won't matter. People would still follow Christianity just as they will global warming.
Why?
Because the adherents of all religions participate not primarily for the cause or nobility of the religion or any actual belief. They participate because it gives their otherwise meaningless lives meaning. It fills a hole desperate for purpose. It makes them feel like they're part of a team and gives them something to rally around rather than work hard to provide people in society something genuine to rally around. It's a club, it's a sports team, it's watching the Kardashians.
And I for one, eagerly await what the consequences are for their children as they chart the course of the future based on lies.
i'm also a skeptic on global warming; i think the sun is the primary driver and co2 isnt squat, but my opinion also doesnt mean squat.
ReplyDeletehowever, a point the warmist cult doesnt seem to like to get out is the warming that has occurred and the realistic projections are actually good for the growth of plants that can be used as food. if the planet actually cools a few degrees, it would have such a determinal affect on the food supplies; that wars over food and mass starvation could become reality.
You are probably already aware of the Michael Mann's (climate mullah extraordinaire) lawsuit against Mark Steyn for daring to ridicule the climate orthodoxy:
ReplyDeletewww.steynonline.com/6403/im-gonna-quash-that-mann-right-out-of-my-hair
Actually, for a large part of their claims, you didn't need that chart. The basic physics of CO2 retention of heat tell us that you'll only get about ~1 degree C warming for each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. 1 degree C is nothing, and for each doubling of CO2, the incremental warming actually decreases, it's logarithmic. It's like adding more blankets around something that doesn't generate its own heat, and expecting each additional blanket to increase the amount of heat sunlight you retain. Everyone knows this doesn't happen, instead the object being blanketed just hits an equilibrium and stops, same with CO2, same with any black body in space, you hit a relative equilibrium between the energy thrown at you, your ability to retain it, and your ability to emit it.
ReplyDeleteNo, their ideas rested on the increased warming from CO2 somehow starting a chain reaction where other gasses were released in large amounts and creating amplification of the warming. The problem is that there's no evidence that this has ever happened in the history of the earth. In fact CO2 was ~100x more plentiful in the atmosphere than it is now, there was no runaway process of heat retention. In fact the trees loved just it based on the geological data.
If you look at their own ice core data, you see that we're in an interglacial period of a persistent ice age, their own data indicates that the earth is more likely to cool to the point of ice covering most of the northern hemisphere again, rather than the opposite where we'll all be somehow sitting beachfront in Alaska. Yet somehow, everyone should be afraid of letting more CO2 into the air, and anyone who disagrees is a denier.
What's really sad is how many really smart people are lulled into believing the bullshit. Thunderf00t on Youtube believes this crap, an otherwise very bright individual who correctly points out bullshit. I just got finished watching episode 12 of the new Cosmos, and apparently global warming is such a concern, that Neil Degrasse Tyson felt the need to tell us all how we're destroying our planet.
In a perfect world, people who claim to be authorities on a topic, would have infinite time to research said topic. We don't live in that world, so be your own expert wherever you can.
I cannot wrap my brain around the global warming issue. Whether it's true or not, I don't particularly care. But what powerful group is pushing the issue? It's politically incorrect to deny global warming, meaning that some powerful group or groups have something to gain from it. I highly doubt they care about the environment enough to make it such a big deal.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain this to me? What is the ultimate agenda behind global warming? I consider myself a smart person, but I'm stumped on this one.
People would still follow Christianity just as they will global warming.
ReplyDeleteNot every person, only the most radical ones. Sabbatai Zevi attracted crowds claiming to be the Messiah. When he was discovered to be a fraud, almost everybody abandoned him (but not everybody).
If global warming was generally known to be false, only the fanatics would keep on believing in it. The problem is that the fanatics keep the information about the fraud from spreading.
People would still follow Christianity just as they will global warming.
ReplyDeleteNot every person, only the most radical ones. Sabbatai Zevi attracted crowds claiming to be the Messiah. When he was discovered to be a fraud, almost everybody abandoned him (but not everybody).
If global warming was generally known to be false, only the fanatics would keep on believing in it. The problem is that the fanatics keep the information about the fraud from spreading.
Linked in the comments to the post linked in this blog:
ReplyDeleteGreenland Ice Core Temperature History (10,000+ years)
http://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
Oh foolish one, nothing disproves global warm... I mean climate change. In fact, everything and anything proves climate change. Nothing can falsify climate change siense.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, egalitarians want to stop research into the differences in male and female brains, because the findings contradict their precious blank slate dogma....
ReplyDeletehttp://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/06/hide-difference.html
Party of science? Eh, not so much.
There will be at least a couple of generations of people pissing on the graves of their parents, grand parents and great grand parents.
ReplyDeleteI resent that I am part of the generation of fools that bring this horse shit to life.
"What is the ultimate agenda behind global warming? I consider myself a smart person, but I'm stumped on this one."
ReplyDeleteIt is AGENDA 21 ... you can google it ... it's up on line to read if you have the patience and the stomach. In short it is a tool to return the population of earth to a global feudal system ... no more middle class, no more capitalism, no more freedom, no more individual rights and last but not least ... dramatic population reduction.
I think that covers it ... glad to help.
There is something going on. Google chemtrails global cooling. They've been spraying this stuff in California for 20 years....
ReplyDeleteI wrote this simple 3-part quiz on global warming back in 2005 (originally sent as an e-mail to Pournelle's "Chaos Manor"). If necessary I could probably re-create all the links with the supporting data, but I won't bother right now. Don't cheat; the answers are below.
ReplyDelete1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?
2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B) Absorber of carbon dioxide?
3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?
Answers:
1. Water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect (this comes directly from the dot-gov agency NOAA, although they don't publish that any more). Carbon dioxide is less than 2% of the total effect, with methane taking up most of the balance, and other gasses responsible for the remainder. But all we EVER hear about is CO2.
It used to be that all of the comparative warming contribution graphs used to note, "Water vapor not included", since if you did include water vapor nothing else showed up on the bar charts. But the warmist religious fanatics have forced them to stop carrying that note, saying that everybody knows it.
2. The U.S., with it's vast forests (more now than in pre-Columbian times) and farmlands is a net ABSORBER of CO2...as opposed to Europe and Japan, which are net emitters.
3. Let's see...they were raising crops of oats in Greenland, planting oak trees for the future generations, and the Icelandic/Viking explorers were calling what is now the chilly area of Newfoundland "Vinland" because of the grapes which grew there. It's an era referred to as the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in old climate textbooks, and was followed by the spread of Black Plague (the fleas of the rats taking advantage of the warmer climate to spread to northern Europe). That period was followed by what used to be referred to as the "Little Ice Age", in which England saw snow in areas never before seen, and the River Thames froze quite solidly on a regular basis. That period ended in the early/middle 1700's, and we've been in a warming trend ever since. Mann's infamously-forged "hockey-stick" doesn't even blip global temperatures in that entire era.
When an eco-fanatic that I'm talking to fails the first question, I have to enquire why they feel that they are entitled to demand legislation on a technical topic of which they have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about.
GW was always a scam. As soon as anyone agitates for government rectification of alleged issue via more tax revenue and regulations that do the same, you know it is a fraud.
ReplyDeleteIf the world governments run by the elite were serious about this issue, then airline flights would have been phased out. Feds should have stopped lending money for more empty home construction, a 5 year plan mandating some percentage of food should be grown locally thus saving more energy, shutdown energy wasting water and amusement parks, and I'm sure there are other ideas.
Even Al does not believe his BS. He has a beach front home in CA and jets to TED conferences where other SWPL's fret over the fate of the planet but never do anything concrete like turning off the AC or heat or no refrigeration, stop using electricity or grow their own food, or moving in with some stinky homeless people to consolidate resources under one roof. No, they are too good for that.
I was expecting a chart with how many climate scientists are funded by the government.
ReplyDeleteCompare GW to religion and you'll see plenty of parallels:
ReplyDelete1) Indulgences? Check. You can pay for a "carbon offset" (i.e. plant a tree) to absolve the sins of your SUV.
2) Demonization of non-believers? Check.
3) Original sin and offer of salvation if you repent and accept Jesus, erm I mean GW as your Lord? Check.
4) Eternal damnation for non-believers? Check.
5) Accepted canon? Check.
Do I need go on? It's obviousl