A cute segment of the ole Captain's audience is young Millennials who are libertarian/free market types, but actually believe in the global warming tripe. I find in amusing in that they obviously have the independent thought to see through their teachers' BS and politicians' BS when it comes to economics, but then fully and whole heartedly believe the exact same liars when it comes to the environment.
So let me help the yoots out there and point out two things that may at least make you want to QUESTION your indoctrinators the next time they say "climate change" is real (and "by the way, vote for more social security")
#1. Laurent Fabius, France's foreign minister said we have "500 days to avoid climate change chaos!" Only problem is that was 504 days ago and counting.
#2. While the baby boomer teacher caste was brainwashing my generation about the ozone layer (yeah, you don't remember that because it proved to be another leftist bogus scare tactic), they were also trying to scare everybody saying there was going to be "peak oil" and that we'd run out of oil by 2015.
Only problem is we haven't. Matter of fact there's a glut of it on the market right now.
I intend on doing a more indepth video about why I don't believe in global warming because there is a significant contingent of my readers who are genuinely curious, as well as intellectually honest about it. And so a reasoned and truth-hunting discussion will be had on it. But I did want to point out the horrible track record these environmentalists have about predicting such things. And not only their bad track record, but also how long they've been with us, in our midst lying to the young, the intellectually weak, and the politically motivated.
Please, apply the exact same critical thinking you used to unbrainwash yourself from your socialist indoctrination. You owe yourself that much.
34 comments:
People have been freaking out about peak oil since 1909.
Don't forget articles in Time Magazine and Newsweek during the early 70s touting the dangers of global cooling and the new ice age.
I haven't really researched the topic enough to know what I believe, but I'm inclined to believe they're liars about this. If they weren't, you would think they would go about convincing people rationally through scientific evidence rather than through brainwashing like they do. You can't get away from assertions that it is going on.. you would think it might be a part of science textbooks if it is a scientifically discovered and measured phenomena, but you've also got references to it in what seems like every other textbook as well.
Considering also that people who merely question it are instantly maligned and yeah, it does seem like there is at least something wrong. If it is true, they should be able to back up its truth with reason and evidence, rather than just calling names.
Add Y2K, the hole in the ozone layer, radon in basements and of, course, global cooling to the list of things people tried to tell us were going to kill us all if we didn't take action NOW!
Here's some NEW, FRESH, ammo for your debunking global warming video. This alone should convince any rational person that man made global warming is a myth.
http://dcgazette.com/gotcha-math-discovery-in-the-climate-change-models-will-change-everything/
Because your free-market Millennial readers have learned about and understand economics, but have neither learned about nor understand the various hard sciences that would lead them to question the conventional "wisdom" about catastrophic anthropogenic climate sadness (CACS), they suffer from the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. They understand all the errors in their collectivist teachers' attempt to tell them that there are six fingers on each hand of a normal human in economics, then assume that, when it comes to CACS, their teachers must surely be honest and completely lacking an agenda.
In regards to the Global Warming "crisis", as our favorite InstaPundit is fond of saying "I'll believe there's a crisis when the people who tell me there's a crisis start acting like there's a crisis."
Climate science can pay well though. With government grants, it's possible to hire your spouse and children and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars for part time work.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/20/update-leader-of-effort-to-prosecute-skeptics-under-rico-paid-himself-his-wife-1-5-million-from-govt-climate-grants-for-part-time-work/
"I intend on doing a more indepth video about why I don't believe in global warming"
---------------------
Here might be a good place to start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
The best thing about this video is that he's not trying to persuade us global warming is a hoax (he's actually a proponent) BUT he's still showing us every reason in the world to believe that it is a hoax.
And NOW they have an ad hoc explanation for the tree ring data post 1960 pointing to a decline.
The answer: 'global dimming'! The idea is that OTHER kinds of air polution have been choking off sunlight in northern hemisphere since 1960 causing tree rings to mimic the slower growth effects of cooling.
In other words human activity is causing global warming and here's our hockey stick to prove it.
But if there's any data that doesn't agree with our graph then guess what?
It's ALSO the fault of human activity!
Exactly like a leftoid. If they don't get the outcome they want then it's the fault of evil white men doing something.
Math may solve the problem. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thp-1227555674611
To get you started:
• “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
Kenneth Watt, ecologist
1970
• “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
George Wald, Harvard Biologist
1970
• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
1970
• “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
1970
• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
1970
• “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
1970
• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
1970
• “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
• “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Life Magazine
January 1970
• “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
It's often said that 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming, I mean here's one article:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
And we know science is probably as logical and reasonable as we can get, which this strengthen's the left's argument a lot. I don't want to believe in global warming, but I have to be intellectually honest as well and have to acknowledge that 97% of scientists believe it exists. How do you address this?
I do hope that you are clear on one thing, however: The climate does change. Sometimes the temperature goes up (there have been periods on earth without glaciers) and temperatures go down (ice ages). All those things happen naturally with or without humans.
Let us not forget "the coming ice age" of 1975. Some of the ice age proponents then became global warming boosters twenty years later. Well, a professor has to write papers or lose his job.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age
In response to Jay believing the old 97% line, (if everyone believes it, it must be true!)
Firstly Jay, stop being lazy and do some homework yourself before you start demanding others explain things for you. A simple google search on "97 consensus debunked" yields some great articles. The best, and always the best on thsi topic, are whatsupwiththat and joanne nova:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/97-climate-consensus-denial-the-debunkers-debunked/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-a-0-3-consensus-not-97/
As for this comment, Jay:
"And we know science is probably as logical and reasonable as we can get"
No, no it's not. That's the problem. Science was long ago hijacked for political and social reasons. It no longer holds weight. Put it this way, every time you read something that says a "study" or a "paper" or my personal favorite a "peer weighted journal" proves something, your very own personal bullshit detector should start immediately flashing.
Every damn time.
Jay
That it is often said does not make it true.
Every study that used to back the 97% figure has been fundamentally flawed. There are several flaws, but the one common to all is that they do not distinguish between "some human influence through CO2, no hazard" and "man-made CO2 dominant in temperature, likely catastrophe". Both points of view are counted by these studies as supporting the "consensus", which of course they broadly do.
However the first clearly does not support the CAGW hypothesis, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming which is that supported by environmentalists and politicians, and in public by a small cabal of climate "scientists"*. It is probably the opinion of most sceptics, certainly all prominent sceptics I know of.
So what they are saying is that 97% of scientists agree with either alarmist environmentalists or mainstream sceptics. That is a statistic with no meaning whatever.
For a full critique of the 97% studies, check out this document from the Friends of Science http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
Skeptical Science is a propaganda website that is one of the worst named on the internet, in that it rejects both sceptical thought and science.
"And we know science is probably as logical and reasonable as we can get"
That does not mean any one group of scientists is logical or reasonable. Nor does it mean there is any science behind climate catastrophism.
* I use quote marks for a good reason. Science must be (1) capable of being disproven and (2) repeatable and checkable by a third party. Given that these people claim global warming causes warming, cooling, increased precipitation and increased drought in the same region and same season of different years, and given that they ignore three lines of empirical evidence against he hypothesis they do not follow (1). Given that they intentionally hide their data and code specifically in order that others cannot repeat their work to check it they are not following (2). Therefore they are not scientists, and not doing science.
Anonymous following the money:
Don't forget that in one year working for NASA James Hansen earned $1.6m illegally from speaking engagements and consulting. Such outside earnings linked to work for the federal government must by federal law be given prior, written approval, Such approval was neither sought nor given.
James Hansen was probably the single most important person starting the panic. It is he who used stage management, shutting windows and switching off the air conditioning to make a congressional hearing in June hot, as a dishonest tactic to sell this junk.
He has left NASA and now works as a professional activist, and has been arrested several times.
If the solution to any 'crisis' is to screw you out of more money via taxes, you know its BS. If GW were real, why mess around collecting obscene taxes for using fuel or flying around? Why not just ban those things?
Maybe this find will make it into the next IPCC report:
Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes
The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=81bb2fd3-63f1-476f-b0be-f48c0dc90304
'It's often said that 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming, I mean here's one article: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
And we know science is probably as logical and reasonable as we can get, which this strengthen's the left's argument a lot. I don't want to believe in global warming, but I have to be intellectually honest as well and have to acknowledge that 97% of scientists believe it exists. How do you address this?'
The argument I heard against this was basically that it was cherry picked data. It's not 97% of all scientists, it's 97% of some of the respondentsof a questionnaire. Something like 10,000 were sent out and 2,000 came back. They selected 100 of the 2000 and 97 of those believed in climate change.
I am not sure on the figures, maybe someone else knows, but basically, it's selective data.
Ozone depletion is/was real. The reason you don't hear about it anymore is because effective regulation of CFC's has fixed the problem and the ozone hole is now closing. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-05/07/ozone-hole
Neighbor: "Cappy, your house was burning down but I called the fire department and they put it out."
Cappy: "Because my house is still standing, reports of fire were clearly bogus leftist scare tactics."
Malthusians are always, always wrong. Totalitarian malthusians are always vile and wrong.
I hate to break this to you, Tom, but blaming the ozone "hole" on CFCs was just more of their lies. Have you ever bothered to take a look at the chemical composition of CFCs? If you did, you would note that they are heavier than nitrogen in its normal N2 state. As such, it does not RISE on its own. And if CFC concentrations in the upper atmosphere were high enough to cause problems, you would not be able to properly leak-check an AC system down here on the ground. But there is indeed an ozone hole. So what causes it? First of all, I would point you to GOES-West and UARS at the time of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. GOES shows the cloud coming out of the volcano into the upper atmosphere, and UARS shows the ozone level dropping to zero everywhere that cloud advances. Guess what? Volcanic eruptions tend to include large amounts of sea water. And one of the constituents of sea water is methyl chloride. Guess what? That IS lighter than N2. And it DOES destroy ozone. And a volcanic eruption throws it RIGHT UP INTO THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE. Of course, since most volcanoes are not in Antarctica, it takes a while for the upper atmosphere winds to carry it down there and drive the "ozone hole" that they choose to measure. But if you bother to track volcanic eruptions, you can find damn good relations between how many of them occur in any year, and how big the ozone hole is the FOLLOWING year.
I am very unhappy to see that people who don't fall for the "jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel" are still willing to fall for similar cons such as ozone and CFCs.
Tom
Not necessarily, at least according to NASA ...
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-ozone-hole-was-exaggerated-as-a-problem.aspx
To me that looks really like politics rather than science. Just like CAGW.
Peak CHEAP is probably true though.
Hi Captain - graph in link shows no global warming for 18 years - graph is of satellite temperatures - give those global warming pussy hypocrites hell!:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cold_winter_ignored_but_one_hot_day_and_alarmist_jon_faine_cuts_loose/
Other resources here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
Satellite data incontrovertibly confirms no global warming for past 18 years. See graph of satellite date here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cold_winter_ignored_but_one_hot_day_and_alarmist_jon_faine_cuts_loose/
IPPC head admits pause in warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/
Give those warmist pussy hypocrites both barrels Captain!
I have read that there are 7 levels of consensus, of which the 3 top ones are added up to make the 97%. Well the only ones with absolute quantification are #1 and #7, which #1 had ~0.9% while 7 had 0.2% with #4 taken out, still 4.5x greater even when the 0.9% is when a third of the papers were thrown out due to not actually fitting the definition. And this comparison only gets worse if we selectively add #2 and #6 together at the same time, and then #3 and #5. So while there are no proofs out there, I would say it's more probable that global warming is man made. With that said, I will also acknowledge the scientists do have their own biases and tend to be more liberal so they may skew studies so that it fits their initial hypothesis (Which is more likely to be in the liberal side). Still, even then, 4.5x being conservative.
Check out Dr. John Christy of University of Alabama Huntsville. Saw him speak about 5 years ago at an environmental law conference in Arkansas. He makes many cogent arguments based upon the actual temperature data in context as opposed to just saying that because the surface temperatures are higher, there is anthropogenic global warming. He does a great job of breaking down the data. Here is an older lecture he gave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMc8XRw226A
He was a respected climate scientist, but once he published data contradicting the narrative, he was ostracized by the establishment for not supporting the dominant narrative. He is now a "climate change skeptic."
Just in time:
Senator Cruz grills the President of the Sierra Club:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
Jay
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! Did you even read the link I sent? Have you actually seen critiques of that utterly crap paper?
Of the seven levels* you are right that only two are absolute quantification.
However you are first wrong that there are 97% in the top three for a couple of reasons, the main being that a huge proportion of the papers were rejected as being not relevant. Given that some of those in your vaunted 97% were psychology papers or even public surveys, and most of category #3 were papers not addressing the veracity of the consensus but simply written under the assumption that it is true to include those and reject others is simply cherry picking. So either include all the papers left to one side or remove category #3 to the side along with anything irrelevant in #2.
More importantly you are not recognising what the "consensus" is claimed to be. That is that climate change is primarily caused by man-made CO2 and is likely to be a serious hazard, an hypothesis often labelled CAGW. Note that actually the serious hazard is if 80-90% of warming from the late 1970s to the late 1990s was man-made, so even level #1 papers do not claim this. However the 50% is the IPCC figure; note that IPCC AR5 does not imply serious harm from warming.
That means categories #2 and #3 of your list are meaningless. They will of course contain some papers supporting the CAGW hypothesis, also papers opposing it with nothing to indicate in what proportions. As I have said before the dispute is not over whether man will have an influence. It is over how much, so papers not quantifying do not fall on either side of the debate.
On the other hand categories #5 and #6 do clearly oppose the idea of CAGW, so they should be included. Quantification of the opposition is not relevant.
The final problem with the 97% is that papers were also mischaracterised. A large proportion of category #1 should not have been there (over 25% if I remember rightly; feel free to look it up). Some of those should have been in #6 or even #7 but others simply did not quantify so belonged in #2 or #3.
Which fact brings us to the most serious problem with the paper: it was fraudulent.
The paper stated categorically that the papers studied were categorised by independent volunteers. However these were all members of a sort-of-secret forum run by an activist website owned by one of the authors, Cooke. Not only were they not independent of opinion, explaining the obvious miscategorisation, but they were found to have discussed some of the abstracts on the forum, so they were not even independent of one another. So that vitally important statement in the paper was a lie - and the paper therefore fraudulent.
* For those not familiar with the paper it claimed to split a set of peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate into 7 categories:
#1 Explicitly endorse AGW as causing >=50% of late 20th-century warming
#2 Explicitly endorse AGW, unquantified
#3 Implicitly endorse
#4 Neutral
#5 Implicitly oppose
#6 Explicitly oppose, unquantified
#7 Explicitly oppose, quantified
Personally, Aaron, as a chemist working in the field of environment, I would be very careful before attacking a subject where ecological-fanaticism and pseudo-religious-conservatives on the other side and especially our politicians are mixing everything.
There is a gulf between the environmentalist activists and scientists. Just as there is a difference between pseudo-religious people and true priest who are dedicated to their community.
raymondsebas (twiter account)
Sébastien
There is no gap between environmental activists and "scientists" supporting the CAGW hypothesis on the climate issue. Many scientists are activists (Hansen has been arrested more than once) and up to AR4 activist literature was used by the IPCC.
"There is a gulf between the environmentalist activists and scientists." - Sébastien Raymond
There is no gulf between the environmentalist activists and the climate junk-scientists, which is most so-called "climate scientists". You may want to claim that there are many honest "climate scientists", but until they start coming out an declaiming the overwhelming fraud perpetrated by their fellow fraudsters, they will all be tarred with the same brush for being complicit in the crime. That is just the way it is Sebastien. Climate science isn't even a respected field anymore. They are all bullshit artists and nothing more.
Global warming is real. We have the data points that show the earth is getting warmer. However with questions like - our we the cause, can we stop or reverse the process, or what are the long term future consequences - the leftist media and "scientists" make up complete bullshit. It's impossible to know any of that with scientific certainty.
Post a Comment