0
1

[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I've been studying the environment for 30+ years. Was a player in the Earth Day crowd back before the internet. Back when Green Peace was something relevant. We were concerned for the future, and acted upon those concerns.

The predictions made then turned out to be wrong because the science upon which they were based was both flawed and manipulated. Extreme exaggeration is an understatement. Total bullshit is a more apt description. Careful review of global weather reveals no abnormalities whatsoever - global warming isn't there, and neither is climate change. It simply does not exist. The water levels have not risen, the ice quantities at both poles remain unchanged. Mountain Ice fields once in decline are now once again returning.

What does exist is a concerted global effort to introduce global carbon taxation, driven by some of the biggest financial players in the world, entirely for their own benefit. Given that this same group is entirely responsible for the salaries and career progress of nearly every climate scientist in the Western world it is certainly understandable that people as intelligent as scientists fully understand that going against the narrative is detrimental to their careers... because it very much is.

I, on the other hand, am not beholden to such interests, and am free to call it as I see it. Does this mean there are not all kinds of serious environmental issues that need to be dealt with? Of course it does not - there are many such issues, all of them extremely serious. Global Warming / Climate Change is simply not among them.

0
1

[–] justsayingmayne [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I understand the political motives behind the regulations, but what about the evidence that NASA has posted up on their website?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Is it just full of bunk data / falsified evidence? Is there a source that can accurately debunk these claims?

0
0

[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

There is a very active effort to present the case in a false light, and there are several solid sites that work to debunk these claims with actual scientific data. Once you see what is going on it all becomes fairly obvious after that.

Anyway - if you would like to learn a lot more about how it all works / the leading edge of what we really do know, then this link here is perhaps one of the better places to start - you may have to follow it for a while (I did) to get to where everything becomes clear - because they do cover a lot of ground. They update every morning 7:30 am EST. This is a big picture kind of place - and they include in their frequent analysis reports showing when other "credible" sources are in fact falsely reporting or misrepresenting the actual data.

I hope you find it as interesting as I do: http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

0
1

[–] kamtsa 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

By climate-change I presume you mean man-made-cathastrophic-global-warming since the climate always changes.

For starter, they are lying to us about the science being settled (see how the IPCC publish results of 50 different models instead of just one) and exaggerate the implications (see how the predictions are above actual data)

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image002_thumb5.jpg?w=602&h=340

Basically they politicized science and use it to create hysteria to drive specific policies but the American people don't fall for it http://climatechangedispatch.com/gallup-americans-still-rank-climate-change-as-low-priority-concern/

0
1

[–] JohnPaulJones 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The whole climate doesn't change strawman argument is getting old. Most people aren't denying anything rather questioning the validity of models, method, and impact. People are aware that climate change occurs however it is far from "settled science" as to what drives climate change and what the impacts of warming will be. There is some compelling research that solar cycles are significantly more important than CO2 emissions.

[edit] my comment from another thread

Argument from authority. That's all this boils down to. There is little predictive power in climatology. The same groups of people have continued to make predictions and they have continued to be wrong added on top of that all the data manipulation scandals. If this was really sound science, there predictions would come true and they wouldn't need to manipulate data. The fact that they can't predict anything with any real accuracy shows me that the science doesn't really have a firm understanding of what is going on yet or has been extended well beyond its realm of accuracy.

As far as the technical arguments. I am not a climatologist. I make no claim to be one, however until the community can do actual science (make accurate predictions and adapt technology to a useful end) I will continue to be extremely skeptical of their claims.

0
0

[–] justsayingmayne [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Do you have a reliable source for the claims that the evidence given to the public is wrong / inaccurate? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'd like to get my counter-info from places other than wordpress blogs :P

0
0

[–] JohnPaulJones 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

FFS google climategate this isn't a crazy argument this has been all over the news several times. It's not even a conspiracy theory.

0
1

[–] xenoPsychologist 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

i think theres one or more subverses for that topic. whatever they have posted there would probably explain better than i could. lets see here...

this and this are the ones i can think of off the top of my head.