The Climate Crisis is a global scam

[User]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

CATO is a privately owned think tank, and I don't trust their information.  They're owned by an explicitly anti-government agency that has its hands in the oil industry.

Facts are facts. CATO has its bias in how they present them on various issues. They are not "anti-government" either. They are a quasi Libertarian organization that promotes more limited government and more freedom and liberty.

If we are going to cast aspersions on funding sources, than pretty much all of so-called Climate science is funded by organizations/governments with a political motive and those in those fields only get the funding they do by pushing another OMG Climate Change is bad angle. 

[Legato]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Back up that it's a risk? Do I really need to? It's obvious the temperatures are increasing.  Even if you don't think carbon is 100% the cause, as most scientists and people do, then something is happening. And obviously negative effects could be in store.  That's the back-up.

2. John Stone provided the example. You would have to ask him where he got it. But that's an example of a risk anyway. And an example, according to him, of an impact that's happening now. 

You can even be a climate change denier and accept that there's a risk of some kind, and that there is something happening.

Examples seem to extremely evasive .

Water loss due to over use and fracking, did you even read what was said.

This has been said many times...the climate always has, is and always will continue to change.

[Legato]

30 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You are truly one of the most stunned SOB's I've ever seen (listened to).... Congrats.

Little Sally The Clown needs to get her word in....  

yes you did, you happy now?

[LinkSoul60]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

yes you did, you happy now?

I'm always happy.  Thanks for asking... 🤡

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Legato said:

1. Examples seem to extremely evasive .

2. Water loss due to over use and fracking, did you even read what was said.

3. This has been said many times...the climate always has, is and always will continue to change.

1. You're having a basic misunderstanding of risk. You don't need to have had something happen at all in order to define a risk. 

2. No, I didn't read it.

3. That statement is meaningless. It equates to saying people die all the time so why should I wear a seat belt? I hate analogies but that saying really is brainless.

Edited March 9 by Michael Hardner

[User]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. You're having a basic misunderstanding of risk. You don't need to have had something happen at all in order to define a risk. 

No... but there is also a matrix assessing the probability of risk, the costs to mitigate, and the costs if not mitigated. 

Just because there is a risk doesn't mean it's bad, really bad, or worth trying to prevent and/or mitigate. 

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. That statement is meaningless. It equates to saying people die all the time so why should I wear a seat belt? I hate analogies but that saying really is brainless.

Well... that is still not a great analogy. The point of saying the climate changes is just that. It is an observation to counter the "climate change" narrative that climate change is bad. The point is that regardless of anything humans do or have done, the climate changes. 

 

[Deluge]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Doesn't have to be a crisis, only needs to be a risk.  POTENTIAL impacts aren't certain but they could be huge.

Any "crapping on the economy" equals single digit drag on GDP,  ie you're being hyperbolic.

I'm sorry, Mike, but you people've had over 100 years to convince the world that the Earth is going to kill us for our insolence. 

It's time to move on - humanity has outgrown the moonbats. 

[Goddess]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If I find you a real site that explains how climate change has been slowed, will you acknowledge that?  Will you pick that up and put it with the opinions that you already have?  Because oftentimes I put a lot of effort... Like say 15, 20 or 30 minutes... Into making a case and providing some points for something. And the person just dismisses them. 

I understand.  I find myself having to do the same thing here too many times.  You don't have to, not because I would ignore it, I most certainly read everything people go to an effort to cite, especially when I've requested it.

But I have already read quite a lot from both viewpoints.

Here's the thing with assessing climate risk.  Anyone can find studies and reports that say whatever their preferred narrative is.  And I feel there is too much priority given to "models".  Not just with climate assessment, I find these models to be extremely unreliable.  And the GIGO theory holds a lot of water for me.  And who is paying for the studies and reports.  I also know that most models are most often, "worst case scenarios".  And that those worst-case scenarios rarely occur.

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

for people to acknowledge that there's a risk.

I used to work in risk management, so I understand quite a bit about how risk management works.  It involves not just identifying risks, but also assessing what the chances are of that risk actually occurring.  A risk may be very consequential - life on earth could end type thing - but if the risk of it happening is 0.00001%, how much time, effort and money should go into that risk as opposed to risks that may actually occur.

I think the majority of people believe in taking care of our earth and being proactive with pollution, the environment and that sort of thing.

I think where the climate cult has lost a lot of us is:

• Scaring everyone into a "drop everything and only focus on this one thing", the whole "We're all gonna die!  Crisis!  Crisis!" lighting their hair on fire and demonizing anyone who wasn't lighting their hair on fire, to the detriment of programs that would have actually benefitted both the environment and humanity.
• Shoveling trillions of dollars on if's, maybe's potentially's, possibly's, might's.
• Blaming everything on "climate change".
• The large amount of money that was earmarked for climate that has "disappeared" and the total lack of accountability in where that is going.  That reeks of SCAM.

My feeling is that we've sunk waaaaaay too much time, money and stressed everybody out over this, and it hasn't been worth it.

Instead of spending time, effort and resources on finding better energy sources, better agriculture plans, better management of resources......it mostly all went into the pockets of billionaires, destabilizing energy grids and making energy way costlier (which it claimed it was going to make energy cheaper) and tanked the economies of a lot of countries.

Edited March 9 by Goddess

[Reg Volk]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Back up that it's a risk? Do I really need to? It's obvious the temperatures are increasing.  Even if you don't think carbon is 100% the cause, as most scientists and people do, then something is happening. And obviously negative effects could be in store.  That's the back-up.

2. John Stone provided the example. You would have to ask him where he got it. But that's an example of a risk anyway. And an example, according to him, of an impact that's happening now. 

You can even be a climate change denier and accept that there's a risk of some kind, and that there is something happening.

The climate is always changing. No one is denying that.  This whole smear "Climate change denier" is just sooo dumb....as dumb as you'd have to be to think that mankind is somehow affecting the weather. It's like the alarmists think that there are evil sky fairies flying around up there making hurricanes more deadly or something.  Just complete nincompoops.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why should I have to?

Cuz if you can't why are we even talking about this?

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't make a claim about Juno. I made a claim about true North. When I went to look for it it had shut down or something.

 

CATO is a privately owned think tank, and I don't trust their information.  They're owned by an explicitly anti-government agency that has its hands in the oil industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

True North was re-named Juno News.

It is fair game to follow the money for all sides in the climate change debate. There is probably a lot of funding out there for anyone to say the 'right' thing. More alarmism>more research grants?

https://www.maciverinstitute.com/perspectives/the-end-has-been-nigh-for-more-than-50-years-now

Even 'peer reviewed' research should be taken with a grain of salt these day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As8h2ZCfIPs&t=5s

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I understand.  I find myself having to do the same thing here too many times.  You don't have to, not because I would ignore it, I most certainly read everything people go to an effort to cite, especially when I've requested it.

But I have already read quite a lot from both viewpoints.

Here's the thing with assessing climate risk.  Anyone can find studies and reports that say whatever their preferred narrative is.   

But the rigorous sources point towards fe consensus, that's as good as we can do.

I took 5 minutes to find a source, but I didn't read it myself. 

This will have to do for both of us. Cheers. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6018

Rate of global warming projected to decline under current policy

And the economic studies actually put the impacts and investment required a lot lower than the media would tell you.  That's because it's in no one's interest to calmly explain the situation.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, ironstone said:

1. True North was re-named Juno News.

2. It is fair game to follow the money for all sides in the climate change debate.  

1. The website says it went away. And Juno news seems to be more balanced than the other. 

2. Sure, except nobody works for free. Including legitimate scientists. Yet people say scientists get paid to reinforce the consensus, and they're just wrong.  Anu scientist who found an alternative would be a world famous hero.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This will have to do for both of us. Cheers. 

Thank you for doing that.

 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And the economic studies actually put the impacts and investment required a lot lower than the media would tell you.

Not sure about that.  I checked a lot of different sources and they all say the same thing.  Climate spending will increase exponentially.  And orgs like UN and WHO will require it. 

I'm also going by how much has been wasted and "disappeared" in the past, not so much future "investments".  It seems the Net Zero crowd is losing support and I hope that continues before we're all broke.  And dead.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, ironstone said:

True North was re-named Juno News.

It is fair game to follow the money for all sides in the climate change debate. There is probably a lot of funding out there for anyone to say the 'right' thing. More alarmism>more research grants?

https://www.maciverinstitute.com/perspectives/the-end-has-been-nigh-for-more-than-50-years-now

Even 'peer reviewed' research should be taken with a grain of salt these day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As8h2ZCfIPs&t=5s

 

Peer review has been many times proven to be almost useless to be perfectly blunt. Three scientists prove this not that long ago when they published three papers that literally peer reviewed and published and were completely made up and were pretty obviously not legit with even a casual look, but the headlines were great.  I can't remember all three right now but it was stuff like "study of dogs and dog park proves gender is non binary" or the like.  They did it SPECIFICALLY to show that peer review has become useless as their papers should NEVER have passed peer reviews. But if they're politically correct sounding they can with no problem. 

 

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, ironstone said:

We have heard lots of dire predictions for a very long time now.

Notable Climate Change Predictions That Didn't Come True

Over the past 50 years, various climate change predictions have been made, some of which have not materialized as expected. Here are a few notable examples:

Prediction	Original Year	Expected Outcome	Current Status
Global cooling trend	1970s	Significant global cooling due to aerosol emissions.	Global temperatures continued to rise.
Malthusian scenario on food shortages	1970s	Massive famine by the 2000s due to population growth.	Technological advancements increased food production.
Sea-level rise predictions	1980s	Up to 1 meter (100 cm) rise by 2000s.	Sea-level rise is occurring but is lower than predicted.
Ice-free Arctic summers	2000s	Arctic summers free of ice by 2013-2015.	Arctic ice extent remains, though declining.
Doom-and-gloom scenarios of coastal city flooding	1980s-2000s	Major cities like New York and Miami to be underwater.	Coastal flooding is a concern but not to the predicted extent.

You just destroy your credibility by posting about "global cooling" which was NEVER endorsed by climatologists.

And you don't even understand what caused the the cooling trend and why it stopped because you never bothered to learn the SCIENCE.

It's really quite simple: particulate pollution like that from diesel exhausts cause cooling, and cleaning up that mess stopped it.

Do you understand now?

[Reg Volk]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

 

Do you understand now?

we get it Robo - man made climate change is a scam.

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, Goddess said:

1.  Climate spending will increase exponentially.   

1. Really? I've never seen anyone, no legitimate source, state that.

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, Reg Volk said:

we get it Robo - man made climate change is a scam.

You got BUPKIS from a senile old man.

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

But the rigorous sources point towards fe consensus, that's as good as we can do.

Concensus... in what? The Concensus that everyone loves to tout is little more than a study of all published materials on climate change that show most of those publishing on the subject do so from the standpoint that man-made climate change is happening. 

That doesn't mean there is such a broad consensus on:

Risk
Costs
Solutions

 

[Legato]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You're having a basic misunderstanding of risk. You don't need to have had something happen at all in order to define a risk. 

2. No, I didn't read it.

3. That statement is meaningless. It equates to saying people die all the time so why should I wear a seat belt? I hate analogies but that saying really is brainless.

The risk statement was yours, therefore you must be  misunderstanding the misunderstanding and is therefore your problem.

Then please read it.

A factual statement is never meaningless. If you don't understand the statement then at least make some attempt to form an understanding. In that regard, responding with an analogy is also meaningless.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Really? I've never seen anyone, no legitimate source, state that.

So what are the sources you're looking at suggesting?

Trudeau certainly had promised to keep increasing the carbon tax by double and triple, Carney's saying he will be raising his, what are your numbers

Oh dear, did i just magically go back on 'ignore' again once i asked you a difficult question? What surprise timing! 

[Barquentine]

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No. Equating those who dont buy the whole climate excuse for trashing the economy, with "flat earthers" is irrelevant and childish.

Like I said, you didn't get it. Scientific fact deniers, otherwise known as id!ots!

[John Stone]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that certainly worked for Justin Trudeau supporters didn't it   

Somewhat of a side note, have you actually ever met a flat earther? I mean I hear they exist, and every once in awhile you'll see somebody on the internet making claims or doing a stupid video but I have to wonder if they're not just doing that for the LOLs. I feel like we're constantly talking about this group of people but I'm not sure there are more than maybe like seven people who have mental health issues who actually believe this and the rest of it is this weird meme that has taken on a life of its own   

Some people continue to claim the Earth is flat.

For them scientific proof to the contrary is a lie – doctored.

It isn’t simply the shape of the spaceship tho; it is about distrusting anything/everything,  official – the scientific  community, the medical community ………. indeed any government institution. 

Politically, it is about grooming the  distrust and exploiting it.

Flat earth, measles, vax,  climate change, 9/11, Germans bombing  Pearl, Elvis alive on Mars, elections,   all follow the game plan; groom distrust. …………. the ethernet is the global leverage.

A disingenuous political hack (all to a more or less degree) objective is to destroy societal norms.

Oh yeah, climate change is real, vax saves lives and Elvis is not alive on Mars. 

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

Like I said, you didn't get it. Scientific fact deniers, otherwise known as id!ots!

And your "scientific fact" might be?