Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Beatle Bum
- Start date
Great clip except it isn't expert ignorance; it's greed. The entire climate change premise is based solely on the notion so many experts agree. Just like other recent events driven by experts, turns out all the experts driving discussion are all paid. Just as bad, anyone opposing them are professionally destroyed.
Those leaked emails from years ago should be plastered everywhere. It shows beyond a shadow of doubt they fixed the results and even had a hard time doing it
No one wants to hear climate change is not an existential threat. No one wants to hear government cannot change the weather. No one wants to hear economic policies are not related to climate change.
The real money is in the perpetuation of fear.
The real money is in the perpetuation of fear.
Some people learned zero from the pandemic. It's really sad to see how easily weak minds are taken over by government propaganda.
That's why nuclear is the enemy. A solution to the posited problems is their worst nightmare. They need the carrot on the stick to drive the policies they want, which are only barely related to the states goal
The lockdown argument was nothing more than a recycled climate change argument. It was literally the exact same thing. The difference is lockdown was much more effective because it was a more immediate threat and was pitched as temporary
Last edited:
By Joshua Holland on Bill Moyers site....lol. Why not just come out and say this is a left leaning column by a left wing nut on the site of a George Soros backed extremist.
The $45B spent on climate change last year would have gone a long way towards helping the border invasion, law and order/police dept's, food banks, homeless crisis, inflation.....you know....stuff that actually matters on a daily basis.
Always the same response from the climate deniers. No facts, just attack the source, and color an issue that is purely scientific, with politics.You mean like the article you posted? If you don't like the politics then stop bringing the politics. Pretty simple.
Joshua Holland was a senior digital producer for BillMoyers.com and now writes for The Nation. He’s the author of The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything Else the Right Doesn’t Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America) (Wiley: 2010), and host of Politics and Reality Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @JoshuaHol.
Joshua Holland was a senior digital producer for BillMoyers.com and now writes for The Nation. He’s the author of The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything Else the Right Doesn’t Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America) (Wiley: 2010), and host of Politics and Reality Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @JoshuaHol.
Whether you like it or not, the source matters. If you don't like people looking into their history, who pays them and for what and challenging that then maybe you never intended to help solve the issue because you enjoy trying to play the who's right or wrong game, instead.
There's nothing political about the subject that's the point.
The fact that members of one political party support the science and some (but not all) of the other don't doesn't change anything. If anyone want's to post articles written by climate deniers with known political opinions that's perfectly fine. Having political views of any type doesn't disqualify an article from being posted here unless they are political articles in which case we have a separate thread where that's allowed.
Oh, there is. To deny that is denying political science.
Pass....we see where supporting the science got us w/ covid.
“The science is settled” and “Trust the consensus.”
Definitely things that people who support science say.
Definitely things that people who support science say.
Don’t you wish that were true? If true, we would be on the verge of a nuclear revolution in this country, instead of having the political narrative keep us from nuclear. If true, we would acknowledge that data is parsed through for the worst case projections for politicians and news media to harp. If true, we would not have politicians and news media constantly speaking about climate change for every fire, hurricane, and political policy. If true, we would speak regularly of the positives associated with warming. If true, scientists who disagree with the political narrative would not be regularly demeaned. If true, we would never have spoke about carbon credits. If true, we would not have monster home owning jet setters telling us how we need to change our lives. If true, we would not be lying to people about only having EVs in 2030 or demeaning fossil fuels. We would have a common sense approach to energy.
It would be nice if that were actually true.
“Only those who have the most to gain from using climate change to radically transform society have the ability to discern the truth.”
I’m only a lay person when it comes to logical thinking but I believe I detect a problem with your post. Perhaps you can, too.
Someone explain how a hurricane evolves due to climate change/global warming, versus the Biden-esque liberal take of "we are seeing more natural disasters due to cg/gw" (which we aren't)
Tell me how it happens, and then explain if this is what caused hurricanes 50-100 years ago.
Tell me how it happens, and then explain if this is what caused hurricanes 50-100 years ago.
By climate deniers, you mean those that think human efforts are the largest threat to a possible temperature increase when in fact nothing significant is going on?
Since you seem to like circular arguments and you like golf….do you think science has advanced the game of golf?
It’s really weird to read someone state this is not political when that is all their side has made it since the issue became popular. The very first move was an attempt to redistribute wealth in the name of this issue. The overwhelming politicization of the issue is good evidence that they don’t truly believe what they are promoting. Manipulation through fear has always been a powerful political weapon.
It anyone who challenges the theory because you actually have a brain and can't make sense of a bunch of BS that gets spewed about impacts but never see anything come to fruition. But I'm from Kentucky.
I think you may be conflating policy with issue itself. Temperature maps, and greenhouse gas monitoring equipment isn't red or blue. So the issue itself is purely a scientific one. The polices that address it like those you mentioned above, or even the question as to if it should be addressed at all, are political in nature, so there's no disagreement there.
I don’t think I am the one who conflated the issues. This was a political money grab from the beginning and, as stated, evidence that very few people actually see this as an existential threat.
When one side wants to keep pumping $40B into said issue, then it really doesn't sit well given there are countless more important issues that are real time.
A political money grab has nothing to do with the amount of Co2 levels in the atmosphere, or the historic recording of ocean temperatures. The number of people who see it as a threat or not has nothing to do with the scientific reality, regardless of what you believe. It is what it is.
...of which there isn't a soul on earth that can define the above in terms of if it is bad or not....and if so, how bad, and what will it do to us, and when?
Again, the fact that this has been politicized and made into a money grab is actually evidence that the people so engaged do not buy the “existential threat” claims made. It’s that claim and the political machinations that stand upon that claim that most people push back against, not the science. And yet, they are called “science deniers” by people who push the “existential threat” fear line.
The earth is greening. That will be good for food production. Less people die from heat than from cold. These are good points that would be promoted by people just interested in the science, yet no climate change proponent in this thread mentions such facts. That evinces the political nature of this thread and the issue.
The amount of CO2 levels in the atmosphere do not warrant basically bankrupting the country over. That's everyone's point. I am all for taking action to make earth a better place for the future, I am just not in for basically prioritizing spending above things that matter to peoples life right now. You believe what you want to believe and we will believe what we want to believe, but there are a lot more people starting to question it now than there have been in the past for the same reasons we have all outlined many times.
All you global warming alarmists need to (1) learn from your Covid alarmist counterparts and (2) be pissed at your Covid alarmist counterparts for being so goddam good at the grift that it set your business back decades.
Here you guys have been working for decades, from global cooling alarmism, to global warming, to anthropogenic global warming, to climate change all in the name of taxations and elimination of individual Liberty for US citizens.
Then the Covid grifters come along and completely disrupt your grift industry. Show as many politicians as you have in the grift, nothing beats big pharma money.
They stole your “science is settled” ********, but they had the money and power to make sure that science was settled and that anyone who disagreed didn’t just lose out on government grants, but had their careers and lives ruined.
And frankly, they picked a much better boogeyman in the flu than you guys did in battling the sun. People like the sun.
Here you guys have been working for decades, from global cooling alarmism, to global warming, to anthropogenic global warming, to climate change all in the name of taxations and elimination of individual Liberty for US citizens.
Then the Covid grifters come along and completely disrupt your grift industry. Show as many politicians as you have in the grift, nothing beats big pharma money.
They stole your “science is settled” ********, but they had the money and power to make sure that science was settled and that anyone who disagreed didn’t just lose out on government grants, but had their careers and lives ruined.
And frankly, they picked a much better boogeyman in the flu than you guys did in battling the sun. People like the sun.
---
That's the late astronomer Carl Sagan, BTW.
In any event, I think he was saying the public was ignorant about matters of science & technology & coupled with "experts" & their (hidden) agendas, could lead to disastrous events. I concur with you, however, about money being at the heart of a lot of this.
Sagan was saying to be skeptical of those in power then.
He would not want you to be skeptical of his work, beliefs, or political party then or now.
I can still remember him making the rounds before the 1990 gulf war. Saddam was threatening to set Kuwait oil wells on fire. Sagan was preaching the doomsday of the Year without Summer if the US pushed Saddam too far.
Sagan was the expert and it was just going to happen.
Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan says Saddam Hussein's orders to torch Kuwaiti oil wells, if carried far enough, could unleash smoke clouds that would disrupt agriculture across South Asia and darken skies around the world.
"You need a very small lowering of the average temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere to have serious consequences for agriculture," Sagan said.
It isn't surprising because it's old news. Hurricanes and floods were always excluded, along with many other disasters.
Insurance rates are going up because of theft related losses due to certain jurisdictions refusing to enforce existing laws.
You are really the most gullible poster on this board. The others are acolytes who just promote their "team", but you actually believe everything you read in the trash articles your algorithm feeds you
We've experienced a hot summer this year.
Lock downs/mask mandates are starting again in areas of New York, and California. They are preparing for next years election.
Not to mention that data was manipulated and emails from those manipulating it were brought out for everyone to see.