Climate Change Is Extremely Political And Agenda Serving, Unfortunately It Is Also True

[Ps37]

On 5/27/2023 at 8:28 AM, The Barbarian said:

Again, if you trust deniers and weird political and cultural bloggers instead of the science, you're going to be constantly fooled like this. 

 

Quote

https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley

Quote

https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley

 

I see.  Blogs work for you, not so much for me.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Ps37

[The Barbarian]

Again, if you trust deniers and weird political and cultural bloggers instead of the science, you're going to be constantly fooled like this. 

9 hours ago, Ps37 said:

I see.  Blogs work for you, not so much for me.

Science blogs work for me.  Your cultural blogs failed you.    That's how it always works for scientific issues.

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Ps37]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Again, if you trust deniers and weird political and cultural bloggers instead of the science, you're going to be constantly fooled like this. 

Science blogs work for me.  Your cultural blogs failed you.    That's how it always works for scientific issues.

 

Quote

And you just linked us to newspapers, magazines and other non-scientific sources, along with some actual scientific comments that have since been verified.

 

With the above in mind, I looked at some of the sources you cited:

 

Wikipedia:

Quote

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

The central policy of inviting readers to serve as authors or editors creates the potential for problems as well as their at least partial solution. Not all users are scrupulous about providing accurate information, and Wikipedia must also deal with individuals who deliberately deface particular articles, post misleading or false statements, or add obscene material. Wikipedia’s method is to rely on its users to monitor and clean up its articles. Trusted contributors can also receive administrator privileges that provide access to an array of software tools to speedily fix Web graffiti and other serious problems.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wikipedia

 

The Atlantic:

Quote

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/climate-change-nyc-floods/543708/

The Atlantic is an American magazine and multi-platform publisher. It features articles in the fields of politics, foreign affairs, business and the economy, culture and the arts, technology, and science.^[3]

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

 

 

Sixthtone:

Quote

https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1006652

Sixth Tone is a state-owned English-language online magazine published by Shanghai United Media Group.^[1][2]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Tone)

 

Scienceblogs:

Quote

https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley

A writer at the New York Times Magazine reviewed the incident and commented, "ScienceBlogs has become Fox News for the religion-baiting, peak-oil crowd."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceBlogs

 

From the References section of ScienceBlogs wikipedia entry:

 

This month Seed magazine decided to introduce a new blog to its ScienceBlogs department, called Food Frontiers. It was sponsored by PepsiCo and was to be written by their scientists. Less than a day later Seed shut the blog down – before a word of substance had been posted – because of a backlash from its readers and other ScienceBloggers.

That's how easy it is for the bloggerati to hound out undesirable opinions. This is a shameful response from nearly all parties involved. Suppression of free speech is never acceptable, no matter who is being censored or who is calling for it. That prominent science writers aided such suppression is even more problematic – and, in my opinion, even cowardly. But worst of all, because of this, ScienceBlog commenters, science journalists and bloggers everywhere missed an unprecedented opportunity.

Why can't people – from both the left and the right – learn that the solution to "undesirable" speech is not suppression, but freedom of expression? This lesson, seemingly, must be made time and time again. Worse still, those positioned to understand this best are too often the first to cave in to trivial fears.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/20/pepsico-scienceblog-bloggerati

 

A corporate-sponsored blog has no place in ScienceBlogs. It can't be taken seriously and drags down the legitimate blogs by association. If this blog is not closed prompty, I hope the other blogs leave ScienceBlogs as quickly as possible. Shame on you. Shame on the ScienceBlogs management.

There won't be a scrap of honest opinion expressed over there that isn't filtered and vetted by cautious editors before making it online, and it will all toe the Pepsi line. It's going to be boring. It's going to blur the line between blog content and advertising. It's going to be bloodless dull blogging that will diminish the Scienceblogs brand.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/jul/07/scienceblogs-blogging-pepsi

 

While the science community reacted with indignation and shock this week over ScienceBlogs' decision to publish a blog on nutrition written by food giant PepsiCo, I was unsurprised. I've been here before with Seed magazine, owners of the ScienceBlogs network.

Crystal clear. It seems I had to run my articles past the ads department. In more than a decade working in the industry, I had never come across such a blatant disregard for editorial independence.

My motivation for telling this tale is that some people think that the ScienceBlogs fiasco has been a lot of fuss about nothing – that Seed is just trying to make a buck and went about it in a rather naive way, and the scientists who left the site are blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Journalism is a small, inter-dependent industry. Science journalism, like every specialism, operates in a particularly small world and I know that by telling this story, my colleagues may close ranks behind Seed. But in return for all the times we journalists ask others to blow the whistle and expose corruption, I know I must be willing to do the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/jul/09/seed-editorial-independence-scienceblogs

 

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, let's take another look...

From the American Meteorological Society Journal, debunking the "scientists predicted cooling" hoax:

 

Per capita carbon by nation...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-land-use-per-capita

Climate deniers faked a magazine cover "predicting cooling"

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-time-magazine-global-climate-fabricated-cover-944714514495

Here's another denier magazine hoax I hadn't heard of before:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/time-magazine-cover-global-cooling/

Here's one on the hoax I originally mentioned.

https://factcheck.afp.com/misleading-meme-includes-doctored-time-magazine-cover

At some point, you'll need to come to terms with the real world.

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by The Barbarian

[JasperWalls11]

What makes Climate Change kind of joke are the things that are blamed as being the cause for Climate Change:  Racism, terrorism, patriarchy, capitalism, etc.  Jane Fonda is the latest one to jump on this.  She said that that we would not have Climate Change if we didn't have white men.  Jane Fonda blames ‘white men,’ ‘racism’ for climate change: ‘Arrest and jail’ (msn.com)

Then you have people like Bernie Sanders and AOC who are, perhaps two of the worst advocates for Climate Change who think that Socialism is the cure via the "Green New Deal." Don't get me started Greta Thunberg.

Then you have people like John Kerry who jets around the world in a private jet putting out more pollution into the air along with his elitist cohorts in a day than anyone driving a car, and yet want to tell me that me and my car are the biggest threats to the environment.  I am supposed to eat bugs "for Climate Change" while the elitists dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. After all, Climate Change consciousness is for the peasants. 

The hypocrisy is astounding.  They're not dumb.  They know they are being hypocritical. That's not lost on them.  But that's fine.  It works for them.  They don't really care about the environment.  They care about controlling and manipulating you through a myth that you are the problem, and the earth would be better off if you were not white, and if you eat grass and bugs and live without air conditioning . Kerry and his peers will always be at the top of the food chain.  They know that.  And they know that they can be hypocritical and there is nothing the proletariat can do about it.  

[The Barbarian]

On 5/31/2023 at 4:10 PM, Ps37 said:

With the above in mind, I looked at some of the sources you cited:

Notice all of those have themselves cited scientific research.

On 5/31/2023 at 4:10 PM, Ps37 said:

Why can't people – from both the left and the right – learn that the solution to "undesirable" speech is not suppression, but freedom of expression?

It seems that the extremists keep confusing criticism with "suppression."

 

[The Barbarian]

On 6/2/2023 at 8:06 AM, JasperWalls11 said:

What makes Climate Change kind of joke are the things that are blamed as being the cause for Climate Change:  Racism, terrorism, patriarchy, capitalism, etc.  Jane Fonda is the latest one to jump on this.  She said that that we would not have Climate Change if we didn't have white men.  Jane Fonda blames ‘white men,’ ‘racism’ for climate change: ‘Arrest and jail’ (msn.com)

And even if that actually was true, it wouldn't affect the reality of climate change even a tiny bit.    I get that you don't like some people.   But reality is still what it is.   Climate change is a fact because the data show that it is a fact.    It's warming up rapidly, at a time when the Earth should be cooling off (solar minimum).

As as you just learned, the great majority of climatologists knew this as far back as the 1970s.

Spend more time on the data and less time on Jane Fonda; you'll do better.

 

[Ps37]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Notice all of those have themselves cited scientific research.

It seems that the extremists keep confusing criticism with "suppression."

 

 

I suppose one's level of skepticism determines their faith in the notion that placing anything under the aegis of "science" renders it always and everywhere pure, unadulterated, and beyond the influence and corruption of the regime under which it serves.

 

I imagine that from 1933-1945 "science deniers" were not well-tolerated.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/35038223

 

I choose to remain skeptical.

 

Others are (still, as far as I know) free to make their own choices.

[ChristB4us]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And even if that actually was true, it wouldn't affect the reality of climate change even a tiny bit.    I get that you don't like some people.   But reality is still what it is.   Climate change is a fact because the data show that it is a fact.    It's warming up rapidly, at a time when the Earth should be cooling off (solar minimum).

As as you just learned, the great majority of climatologists knew this as far back as the 1970s.

Spend more time on the data and less time on Jane Fonda; you'll do better.

 

The real question is;  what is the actual cause of climate change?  

I doubt science will ever consider that the earth may be heading back to what it once was before the Biblical global flood;  that greenhouse environment, but with the mist gone that covered the whole earth, .......which means our efforts to prevent it is a joke.

Indeed, when God is coming to judge the earth with a fiery calamity, that "heat" will be around for the rest of the world for the duration of the great tribulation.

Look at this promise for those coming out of the great tribulation.

Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. 16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. 17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Was that a subtle hint for what is coming on the earth?  This is certainly a hint.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.  28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. 29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

So all this "climate change" is God warning us that He is coming soon.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Ps37 said:

I suppose one's level of skepticism determines their faith in the notion that placing anything under the aegis of "science" renders it always and everywhere pure, unadulterated, and beyond the influence and corruption of the regime under which it serves.

If you think so, then one person does.    Perhaps if you spent more time in developing a cogent argument, instead of making up false positions for other people, you'd do better here.

2 hours ago, Ps37 said:

I imagine that from 1933-1945 "science deniers" were not well-tolerated.

Quite the opposite.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/holocaust-museum-shows-how-nazi-theories-affected-12-survivors/2018/06/29/665d9f32-7a1a-11e8-93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html

Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that the "Aryan science" promoted by Hitler was garbage.   Would you like me to show you that?

A huge number of European scientists were killed or fled the Reich as science deniers with their idiot racial ideas, got Hitler's ear.    One of the fleeing scientists was Albert Einstein.    It didn't just happen then.   Stalin likewise elevated a science denier, Lysenko, and purged Darwinists and geneticists from Soviet universities.    The result was crop failures and famines.   Soviet biology is still recovering from that.

2 hours ago, Ps37 said:

I choose to remain skeptical.

That's the funny thing about reality; it doesn't care what we think.