The first way is that the warmists who say we're all going to die unless the US drastically reduces its CO2 emissions strongly endorse the Paris Accords. The problem is that the Paris Accords allow India and China to drastically increase their CO2 emissions. If the warmists really believed that we're facing an existential crisis they couldn't be enthused about a treaty which ensures that a catastrophe will occur.
However the Paris Accords do ensure that the US will transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries which is the real motivation behind the warmist's fervor.
With the fall of the USSR and the discrediting of the Communist vision the left had to find another lie to justify their desire for unlimited government power and the transfer of wealth from people who earn it to leftists who want it.
They latched on to the green movement. The left is using the #FakeNews media to lie to the people and convince them that unless the left is given money and power we're all going to die .
But if the threat were real then the left couldn't have been happy with a treaty that allowed dramatic increases in CO2 emissions. It's obvious therefore that the left doesn't believe that there is a significant threat from mankind's CO2 emissions.
The second way to see that the left is lying about climate change is that if we look at the actual temperatures of the earth they've been flat for around 19 years. But if the temperatures aren't going up how can the left blame global warming for all the the supposed environmental catastrophe's we've supposedly been enduring?
Clearly the left doesn't believe that CO2 emissions are causing problems when they know that the earth's temperature hasn't been going up.
The third way to see that the left is lying about "climate change" is that they reject approaches that actually do reduce CO2 emissions. Nuclear power for example is ideal in the context of the "climate change" panic yet the left opposes it completely. If we were facing the end of humanity because of CO2 emissions the left would be endorsing all forms of power that would reduce CO2 emissions. But they're not.
Also note that the use of natural gas rather than coal can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, which is why the US--unlike the European countries the left always tell us are leading the way--is the world leader in reducing CO2 emissions.
But the reality is that the left only supports things that increase government power or redistribute American wealth to the left.
Posts
14 comments:
Are you saying that almost every geologist, meteorologist, and scientist in the world is out to get the American republican? I've been a Conservative my entire life, but the Greenhouse Effect is real and it's posing an existential threat. The tobacco industry also sold the promise that their product was safe. And we all have someone that's died early from those diseases.
The greenhouse effect is real but all the climate models depend on increases in CO2 leading to increases in Water vapor which is the real greenhouse power house. But there is no sign of increasing water vapor and as you can see the temperature of the world hasn't been increasing at anything like the rate predicted by the models.
Far from all scientists believe in catastrophic global warming. The vast majority who do believe in human caused warming don't think it's catastrophic. And many scientists, including myself I'm a physicist, don't think that man is causing the earth to warm in any significant way.
Why? Well for one thing the rising oceans have been rising since the late 19th century when measurements started which is long before human CO2 levels would be a problem. If you look at the Hockey Stick diagram, which has been shown to be fraudulent, the warming begins in the 1960 nearly 100 years after the ocean started rising.
Another reason is that warmists were very enthused about the Paris Accords. Yet those accords allow China and India to massively increase their CO2 emissions. If the alarmists actually believed we're facing a crisis they couldn't support China and India massively increasing their emissions. Hence it's clear that the warmists don't really believe we're facing a crisis.
How about some sources? I can’t find anything to substantiate your facts, except China and India did agree to peak their output by 2030, but reports say they’ve already made grounds to reduce their year over year growth are on track to reduce by 2030.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/enough-with-the-fairy-tales-about-the-paris-agreement-its-time-for-facts
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-china-climate.html
You must be one heck of a physicist if you can disprove NASA and the UN based off two graphs that you don’t source.
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
The ocean covers 71% of the earth. It makes sense if you say the water started to rise in the 1870’s considering the Industrial Revolution started in the 1760’s. Water would the first thing to absorb any heat before it would be felt terrestrially as anyone that lives close to coast knows. .
And it was not alarmists that wrote the Paris Accord, it was each government making commitments to the rest of the world. There are no penalties. A worldwide pact.
The US promise to withdrawal from the Paris Accord doesn’t take place until Nov 2019. Trump could’ve gotten out immediately if it was in the US’ best interest by resigning, but it would have meant resignation from the UNFCCC first. Which proves he wasn’t fully committal if we use the logic above. Many States are defying that pull out by having their own goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2018/06/01/trump-tried-to-kill-the-paris-agreement-but-the-effect-has-been-the-opposite/
If only one thing is presented in rebuttal, please prove how the hockey stick curve has been disproven. That one I’m dying to see. Oh, and every publication I’ve ever read since 1999, including textbooks and environmental classes at Penn State do claim it’s likely catastrophic unless measures are put in place.
China, India
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/05/30/china-co2-carbon-climate-emissions-rise-in-2018/
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/11/13/global-emissions-expected-rise-2017-say-researchers/
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/06/11/countries-increasing-carbon-emissions-the-fastest/6/
Oh and I see you agree that the Paris accords allowed China to increase their CO2 production until all the people who wrote the paris accords are retired. That's what I said. If we're facing an existential crisis then we can't afford to allow that. The fact that the people who say the world will end before then also applaud the Paris accord shows that they don't really believe what they're saying.
Yes I am one heck of a physicist. :)
If the worlds temperature hasn't increased dramatically in the last 20 years as all the models predict it should have then they're wrong. Only one chart is needed.
The page you linked to doesn't show a temperature curve just a bunch of claims about outcomes based on models that don't correctly show the temperature profile for the last 19 years. Hardly compelling.
A whistleblower revealed that NOAA deliberately released a methodologically flawed report to influence the Paris accord meetings. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/
No warmist says that human CO2 contributed to temperature rises before 1960 or so so there is no way that people could be responsible for oceans rising in the 18th century. Also water tends to stay cool. That's why it's cooler at a beach than inland.
The folks who wrote the Paris accords were alarmists. More importantly they know that they can use the fear of climate change to increase the role of government, transfer huge amounts of money from the US to the rest of the world and make a fortune in the process.
If we're facing an existential crisis why are there no penalties?
Given that most of those other states aren't meeting their goals and the US is actually reducing CO2 emissions it's unclear how much those other countries are really willing to spend money on this silliness.
Here's a whole book which includes many scientists who believe that man is responsible for some or even a large fraction of global warming that say the hockey stick is fraudulent: https://smile.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-ebook/dp/B013TZFRGE/ref=sr_1_2?crid=5NCNQU06TM0P&keywords=mark+steyn&qid=1561680253&s=digital-text&sprefix=steyn%2Caps%2C194&sr=1-2
There are many problems with the diagram. First the authors refused to release their algorithms or their data for peer review for a very long time. When they did it was discovered that you could feed their algorithm white noise and you'd get a hockey stick.
They used only one type of proxy for the long handle; tree ring data. Denrochronologists were dubious because many factors impact tree ring width and hence they're unlikely to be a good proxy for temperature. That was proven to be true because the long flat portion of the hockey stick doesn't show things like the medieval warm period. During the time shown on the chart Greenland went from being green to being covered in ice but that doesn't appear in the chart.
But the real kicker is that if they had continues to use the same temperature proxy data in the present day as they used up to where the hockey stick curved it wouldn't be a hockey stick; rather it would be a continuing downward line.
The climate gate emails showed that they "hid the decline" by not showing the tree ring data after around 1960 or so as I recall. Instead they started using ground based thermometer readings that they adjusted to show an increase. That's highly unethical.
The point is if the tree ring data was accurate in the long straight part it must be accurate in the present, especially since there are many more samples, and similarly if it's wrong in the present it must be wrong in the past. There is no mechanism to suddenly decouple tree ring widths from temperature if they were previously coupled.
Interestingly the ground temperature data, without corrections, doesn't show a significant increase. Even more interestingly the corrections applied were to lower older temperature in the 1940s and increase temperatures in the present. That's odd because while it's what's needed to show global warming it's the opposite of what you'd expect. As urban areas grown ground based thermometers tend to transition from being in grassy fields to being in parking lots. The urban heat island effect means that those thermometers will read hotter now even if the earth is the same temperature. Hence the obvious correction is to reduce current temperatures to compensate. But that's the opposite of the correction that was applied.
Of course Penn isn't going to question Al Mann; he brings in too many government contracts.
Even though he's on record for suing people who doesn't agree with and working to keep papers that disagree with him from being published and even though he's falsely claimed to be a Nobel Laureate Penn isn't going to risk his contracts.
Look the bottom line is clear if we're facing an existential crisis there is no way that anyone could be happy with allowing China and India to massively increase their CO2 production for another 11 years yet they are. Hence they can't really believe the claims they're making.
Trinko,
You're reading all the wrong stuff. Polluting your mind, dude. Reading is good. Reading propaganda isn't. If you're interests are in far right conservative ideals, no problem. But please for your own sake and the rest of the people on earth that want this planet to remain habitable, fact check the sources. I'm guessing you're an avid fan of InfoWars too?
Your sources are all Fox News-y. It's a total spin to what they say is no-spin. Look, I know religion and politics are two things you'll never change people's mind on. It starts wars and riots and all sorts of bad things. My ideals are no better than yours. But the planet is something we all have to live with. I grew up in a conservative household. My dad would have me run to the TV yelling Liberal Alert when Sam Donaldson or Dan Rather came on. Like they were going to destroy the world. This can actually destroy the world. Read the IPCC Report. Losing Earth: A Recent History. www.ssir.org. Anything with a viewpoint other than political. If you're science-minded like you say you are, don't listen to people that have a vested interest in denying the science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
Throughout its history, The Washington Times has been known for its conservative political stance.[6][7][8][9] It has drawn controversy for publishing racist content, including commentary and conspiracy theories about United States president Barack Obama[10][11][12][13][14][15] and support for neo-Confederatism.[16] It has published material promoting Islamophobia.[17] It has published many columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change,[18][19][20] as well as ozone depletion[21] and second-hand smoke.[22][23]
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/24/18512804/climate-change-united-states-china-emissions
Yeah, China and India's output is growing, but unfortunately so is their population at an explosive rate. They still put out less CO2 per capita than the U.S. by a long shot and are implementing more green technology as a result of the Paris agreement. The problem is that their technology is relatively new in it's lifecycle. Investments were made as the countries were growing. It's like an aircraft carrier. Once it's in motion, you can't just put on the brakes.
Basically you're saying that any source that says things you don't like is not to be trusted.
I'm a physicist and I've read a lot more than fox news and it's clear that there is no scientific evidence that mankind is increasing the temperature of the earth in any meaningful way.
The IPCC report has been discredited in multiple ways for years. From their retracted claim that the glaciers in India are disappearing to their use of the fraudulent hockey stick diagram.
But once again the truth is clear. The warmists are keen on the Paris Accords which allow massive increases in CO2 production by China and India. If the warmists believed what they were saying there is no way that they could agree to such increases. The fact that they do agree with those increases proves that they don't believe what they're saying.
No, I'm saying any source that's based on political and economic motivations instead of scientific are tainted and should not be trusted. The Nazis thought what they were doing was scientifically correct too. Scary times we live in.
So we should reject stuff from the IPCC and NASA because the funding for climate change research depends on those "scientists" saying what the politicians need to be said in order to get more power and money for the politicians?
Scientists who push global warming benefit financially from higher research grants and favorable coverage in the media.
Politicians benefit from global warming because they use it as an excuse to raise taxes and arrogate more power for themselves.
By your reasoning then we shouldn't trust what they say.
Trunks-
If you’re truly open minded, watch Before the Flood on Netflix. It answers all your doubts. Especially the provisions about India and China in the Paris Agreement.
Why would I trust anything from Netflix? They refused to remove child porn and they're giving the Obama's millions. The child porn is why I dropped my Netflix subscription.
In any case it's an accepted well documented fact that India and China are massively increasing CO2 production and that that would have to be unacceptable if we were really facing an existential crisis. Nothing that Netflix could say can change those facts.
Given the rampant fraud in the climate community--the hockey stick and the NOAA report which violated NOAA rules, used bad analysis techniques and was designed to influence the Paris Accords for example--nothing that Netflix would say would be compelling.
I'm a physicist; I know bogus science when i see it.
Lighten up. You’re missing the best programming ever created in the history of entertainment because of some artsy-fartzy Argentinian movie with a scene that was maybe in bad taste, but did play well into the overall story. Weird but some good adult sex scenes. The little girl thing. There is some other really sick shit out there I’m sure. Not just a pre-pubescent girl riding a pillow. Who hasn’t jerked off into a pillow in their youth, right? I’ve watched Fox News. And besides Hannity, Fox and Friends, and a few others, it does does a pretty good job of using flashy colors, and ribbons, and American flags to distract you from the reality that polluters are making a killing and willing to bring us all down. It’s very 1984. You’re being duped. Our grandkids are going to be facing MadMax stuff and looking back at us for being complete pricks for ignoring the science for 40 years. Exxon even admits they’ve known about global warming. They got caught. And we’re still not doing a fucking thing because of all the propaganda. Google Exxon’s stance on climate change. If you don’t use google because they donated to an openly gas congresswoman in CA. Then look on yahoo. Saying yahoo’ing it doesn’t have the same ring to it. This is a beautiful place we’re ruining.
And re subscribe to Netflix. You’re missing out. Check out Our Planet too. That stuff is beautiful.
Anyone who says "lighten up" about child porn, a little girl having an orgasm on screen, has lost all credibility.
As to MadMax stuff I'm a physicist and I've looked at the data and there is no basis for the insane claims being made.
The fact that the people making those claims are also completely cool with China and India massively increasing their CO2 production means that that they don't believe climate change is real either.
You're the one being fooled not me.
I've deleted 3 of Scot's s comments because they were about a sexually explicit topic unrelated to climate change.
He also said that I repeat the same argument but he neglected to mention that he has yet to explain why my arguments are wrong.
Finally my BS is from Cal Tech and my Ph.D. is from the University of Wisconsin at Madison so no I'm not a physicist because I graduated from a community college and no one isn't a physicist-- or biologist, chemist, etc-- until one has a Ph.D. something one can't pick up at a community college.
Post a Comment