I find global warming "cute" because it's not only something the left gets excited about, but many people on the right and in libertarian spheres get excited about it too. Specifically, people on the right think it's all BS and libertarians think it's real and wonder how I (an otherwise rational, logical, empirical human being) don't believe in it.
Well, here (links to MP3).
The entire argument for global warming hinges on this convenient statistic that 97% of scientists believe in man-induced global warming. Only problem is that statistic is pure bunk and made up. Now the lesson to learn from this is one of when to ignore data and let pure, simple logic (not to mention cynicism in your fellow man) determine your position on different things.
If you just trusted your gut and looked at this global warming thing for what it was, it would have become very apparent that it was all a scam. It was just a racket.
You have:
1. Leftists at all levels of government creating a problem out of thin air
2. That the only solution is more government and taxes
3. Wherein the people who could determine if there was a problem were all compensated on there being a problem
4. With holes in research and methodologies, not to mention completely fabricated data
5. With predictions and computer models failing to predict the past and future
6. Oh, and yeah, don't forget about the "brand new religious" element that the mindless sheeple can follow where they can buy indulgences and give their meaningless lives "value" by claiming "they're going green."
The real story about the global warming hoax is just what a high percentage of the west's population is easy marks and fall for this huckster bullshit. That they lack such basic common sense to identify a scam like this, if not race to sop it up, shows just how far gone this society is and that it is going to get what it precisely deserves.
Regardless, my point is that this one was so obvious you didn't have to waste your time pulling data, pointing to research, and highlighting shoddy methodologies. All you had to say was "it's a scam and you're a dupe." Because in all honesty, people who believe in global warming choose to believe in it and will never be convinced otherwise. Alas, why waste your time or get riled up about global warming? It's just the newest state-endorsed religion for the sheep.
15 comments:
The thing that raised a red flag for me early on is the supreme arrogance that solely by the act of man the earth would boil, and solely by the act of man may it be saved.
Regardless of the data, that just screams arrogant bullshit.
Yep, and the "global warming" team is the same as the "ozone layer harmed by CFCs" team, they just changed their name after their previous victory 20 years ago and switched to a new scam.
In any case, science is antithetical to consensus. Science progresses by challenging said consensus, not the other way around.
> people who believe in global warming choose to believe in it and will never be convinced otherwise
You can't reason someone of a position who wasn't first reasoned into it, and reason and belief are orthogonal.
Truth
I'm 100% on this ... I've given up trying to argue it, and pretty much reverted to the "it's a scam and you're a dupe" line. Hopefully will at least get them to think.
The Leftists, Authoritarians and SJWs are one thing, but it's amazing to see how many (of the otherwise rational and reasonable people) swallow this BS hook, line and sinker!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QmkHr0W5Vk is the youtube version of this podcast.
Yeah, I find all discussions about global warming to be pointless - it's like debating religion.
Looking at human civilization, warmth has always been favorable. Cold is not. Development of agriculture was assisted by the end of the Younger Dryas, approximately 10,000 years ago. All of progress after that has hinged on the world being warmer (relatively speaking). More warmth (if actualized or simply modeled by expensive educated guessing), will be much more beneficial than bad. Cold = growing crops more difficult. Cold = having livestock more difficult. Warmth is the opposite.
While I understand the need for human shaming and need for keeping the human race in check, C02 has been improperly demonized. Plants, trees, and vegetation have all shown increased annual foliage due to increased carbon dioxide levels. The environmentalist movement that originated in the 70's spilled into the 90's where global warming became the newest fade to fight for. While I endorse the fight against unnecessarily slaughter of animals, polluting the oceans and air...C02 cannot be parsed in the same conversation. It is not the same thing and should not belong in the environmentalist fight (but alas it's too late). Side note: overpopulation and poverty is the worst thing in the world IMO.
The problem is...when you're a hammer you look for nails. When a hammer goes apeshit crazy, it starts thinking toothpicks are nails...then every little thing becomes a nail. It's a psychological disorder when one loses the ability to read, consider both sides, and come to a rational conclusion. Global warming (climate change) is not something worth fighting for...because you cannot stop the train of human development. It is our a part of our civilization's progressive cycle - at least until the next worldwide disaster: asteroid, ice age, or nuclear winter.
The best thing humans can do is not freak out...but change. If sea levels rise, great. Move away from the bleeping coast. Your city has too much air pollution? Move the bleep outta there. Your life so easy you have the luxury to freak out about imagined problems like global warming? Fight for something worthwhile: helping other humans. What a concept!
Besides...even if we attempted to counteract climate change...it wouldn't work anyway. The sun is in charge (solar cycles) - which affects the oceans (ocean cycles - el nino southern oscillation) - which affects the air. If you disregard temperature adjustments in the last century, all fluctuations can be correlated with ocean cycles, which change over the course of 15-30 years, e.g. Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The climate is going to do what it's going to do regardless of what some want.
This is coming from an ex-meteorologist who's studied climate for over 10 years. In the end, this fight comes down to socialistic policies that wish to penalize (errr tax) companies in the name of a righteous namesake. It has no intention of solving or improving the welfare of people. It's simply a fake money grab that unfortunately many of my fellow professors have latched onto in order to continue their careers out of cowardice to satisfy their government grant donors. Pathetic.
My favorite Global Warming breakdown is from Burt Rutan, amazing aerospace engineer: http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
My brain is going to need a new clutch from the gears clashing every time I read or see a show or commercial written with the presupposition of AGW. Then they start bitching about carbon dioxide, which would be a piss poor example of a greenhouse gas even if all this bravo sierra passed the basic sniff test. As far back as the 80s I'd just roll my eyes when they'd publish it in scientific journals.
http://freedompowerandwealth.com
It’s the typical illusion democracy creates in many – to thinkt the majority is right. That is BS. The tragedy is, that this kind of thinking has infected science. What we need is truth, not consensus.
I'd love to be able to ask P.T. Barnham for his take on AGW. One of the modern masters of hucksterism, Penn Gillette, agrees it's an obvious scam. When I first heard about AGW it seemed plausible to me, but I eventually overcame my unfortunate scientism and recognized the scam. Now I'm embarrassed that I ever thought it plausible.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=global+warming+chart&view=detailv2&&id=2F1C2DBC5055CA7101333A38177DEC8663A35C61&selectedIndex=0&ccid=56GSi2cp&simid=607996885458288742&thid=OIP.Me7a1928b6729dff7f05fc5d7bde3c14bH0&ajaxhist=0
That looks serious.... Wait look at the side of the graph. It is one degree.
every time anyone brings up this stuff i just throw these links at them and tell them to leave me alone;
http://www.lomborg.com/cool-it
http://www.thetreesolution.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_growing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_reflectivity_modification#Cloud_seeding_yachts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization Urea would work well for this too.
As for the ozone layer, the Russians designed a satellite to replenish it forever ago;
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/enellite.htm
If these problems are problems at all, they're fixable. The climate debate is simply the latest version of Malthusian-istic yearning people get when they're packed too densely; I often wish for an apocalypse on my commute.
Anyone who really believes in Climate Change should also be a huge booster of nuclear energy. If they're not, then they expose themselves as a fraud and a quack.
The science is "settled" that wind and solar power will not be able to replace the coal, oil, and natural gas cutbacks the Climatazis are demanding.
El Gipper
Post a Comment