all 13 comments

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yeah reading threads and articles about climate change for almost a decade now... it is something to be concerned about but we're also approaching "boy who cried wolf" territory with all the "We're all going to die soon" haranguing in order to get money and participation.

Meanwhile the actual biggest polluters are the US military and largest global companies, not individuals. But we're made to feel the most guilty as individuals, when any real solution would mostly come from these organizations changing their behavior.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don’t mean to descend the pyramid, but who’s giving the companies money to continue their practices?

We must hold man accountable for the actions of mankind, otherwise we will be lost.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We are but only because if we do not pay our taxes we will be detained and if we refuse detainment, shot on our own property which is probably owned by a bank.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The question isn't "who is giving them money to do this" because what they are doing is already profitable.

The question is "Who is paid to look the other way when companies break the law in ways the are profitable to them?" and I think the answer is government regulatory agencies, many of which are "bought out" by the companies they're supposedly overseeing, a process called "regulatory capture".

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yup, they always claim the layperson is at fault.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It is not only the greenhouse effect, wich by the way isn't useful for a plenty of plant organisms. There is less rain to fall, so the plants that are still growing in the heat will die, too. And there is more: A lot of insects can't survive the change, but are the main source for feeding a lot of other creatures that will die then, too. The whole food chain is about to collapse and we can't hide from that, since we are still part of it. The end of the world (as we used to know the world) is in fact happening right now. It is a process that takes a time from our point of view, since we are just little bugs on the surface on this planet. As seen from above, it is all already lost.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I used to believe most everything you just stated.

However, I had not been notified that global warming stopped in the 97, and had been remarkably stable since then. "Man made global warming" literally stopped happening in 97.

Co2 has continued to dramatically rise since then (if you believe that parts per million can be considered dramatic increase). However, there has been no significant change in temp (for instruments that can't be tampered with). For 22 years...

If CO2 was a climate forcing factor, then we should see a linear increase in temp relative to the CO2 levels.

Fortunately, this hasn't been observed.

What has been observed are increases in climatologists climate model severity for future outcomes. These models have exploding with devastating predictions, that are far beyond anything were seeing in reality.
They are also routinely pushing out their predictions to start today, and severely occur in roughly 30 years. Yesterday's 30 year away impending doom, is 30 years in the future's impending doom. We were suppose to be underwater in 2020. These models are hoaxes.

All mathematical models are bad, but some models are useful.
Meaning that no model ever truly represents what is happening in reality, but some models are useful and can predict outcomes with reasonable reliability.

If a model cannot reliably predict outcomes, then it is worse than useless. These models exacerbate bad decisions.

The use of this type of pseudoscience modeling could be called "the garbage in, garbage out conjecture".

Current "climate models" have nothing to do with actual physical reality.

I haven't seen any strong evidence that CO2 is a climate forcing factor.

Curiously, the sun is treated as if it is continuously and uniformly stable. We know this can't be possible, because we have observed that other stars have tremendous activity.
Yet, we never discuss changes in the sun in terms of it's impact on the climate/weather.

As seen from above, it is all already lost.

Nothing is lost, yet.

There is a perfectly rationale reason for the continued use of these bogus models.
IMO the reason for this is actually much worse than the "global warming" threat.

[–]DrStrangelove 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Good breakdown, thank you. I was 100% onboard the global warming hysteria train since middle school (mid 90's) until it magically became the only socially acceptable opinion sometime in the last decade or so. I recently made the faux pas of hinting at my growing skepticism to my arm-chair liberal friends/family and might as well have clubbed a baby seal with a plutonium swastika... yet I'm the only one of the bunch who commutes to work on a bicycle.

[–]roc 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Temperature records are still being broken frequently, the climate has not stopped warming in 1997:

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Temp records are broken all the time.

Also, thanks for including that land-ocean graph on the link you provided.

The climate modelers were so desperate to maintain the appearance of temp increases that they fraudulently started combining the ocean temps, because they're unverifyable by fact checkers.
Major climate scientists have even refused to provide data for review (upon request), because they knew that the "models" and the "data" would be dismantled for the sham that they are.

Notice that they only added in the ocean data, when the climate warming stopped.
Crucially, the CO2 levels continue to increase in the air, and the air isn't continuing to warm.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I appreciate the insightful discussion.

I believe the main point argument has run its course and I share the same beliefs as you. My reasoning is: if half the world was on fire hundreds of millions of years ago, and also covered in a sheet of ice many times, it’s hard to think that a single species taking sludge out of the ground and burning it would have any effect.

I’d like to steer the conversation towards the motive behind advocating for climate action. This was briefly mentioned by you and I recently formed my own belief on it.

My belief is that I don’t need a final conclusion proving or disproving mankind’s effect on the climate. There are plenty of reasons to pursue the “solutions” to climate change. Such as: eliminating unaesthetic piles of trash floating in the ocean and harnessing energy that will outlast humans (renewables). I agree that any man purposefully skewing research to further his business is undoubtedly evil. But there’s is good in this world as well. Whether climate change is man’s fault or not, our “solutions” will be beneficial to us either way.

Have you driven a Tesla? It’s fucking insane. It feels like a cloud but handles like a saw blade. I’m a gear head myself, and it pains me to admit electric beats combustion. It’s also worth noting that the oil wells will one day run dry, with no efficient lab alternative. This is not the case for renewables. You and I know renewable technology is still primitive, but the wind will always blow as the sun shines. I see no harm in companies profiting from the fruits of their products. I see harm in false information leading to a sense of impending doom.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I believe the main point argument has run its course

Most of the activity currently happening is useful. Such as:

  • Renewables
  • Recycling
  • Pollution/contamination reduction
  • Energy improved efficiency.
  • Etc.

These are all value added activities, and should be encouraged.

I’d like to steer the conversation towards the motive behind advocating for climate action.

The negative activity is the climate change hoax that has hijacked the environmental movement.

It's being used to advance the UN Agemda 21.
It's easily the greatest social engineering scheme ever deployed in history, and it's already being rolled out.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

See, earth hasn't only have to deal with climate change due to human expansion, the human also produces a lot of poison everyday that causes a lot of problems and not only the land empires are suffering from it, but the empires of the sea as well. Think about Fukushima - just because they paid money to make the topic disappear from the media, it doesn't mean the topic was over. They never tell you what the main reasons for the desaster is. Toxic industrial and medical waste or the relevance of breeding, feeding and slaughtering livestock animals are the biggest factors for the bad state of the environment, but are never ever mentioned in the media about that topic. Funny, they even stopped to blame cars since it came out that they really make a great factor as well. Climate change is just a summed up result from all the damage caused by the human behaviour, especially the further progressing cutting down of the rainforests plays a major role as long as our planetary position in the cosmos does not change dramatically. The current great extinction of species is definitely not caused by the solar flare over our heads, but by inorganic waste made by the human and, of course, especially through the massive disappearance of habitats and feeding grounds. Many animals out there starve to death or are forced to plunder people's garbage bins because they can no longer find their natural food. Also, most plants can't reproduce themselves without the appropriate insects, that includes most of our food plants as well. The extinction of these insects (half caused by human waste, half caused by climate change) will lead to a total catastrophe, so that people in their cities will starve to death, too. That these insects are struggling with extinction right now is a huge problem. More and more it becomes predictable that in the not so far future, the last children of mankind will climb along through the ruins of what we once used to call our civilisation, irradiated, scruffy, slummy, neglected and half-starved, heavily fighting for the last bits of poisonous food in the most violent wars that this world has ever seen.