Climate Change: The Science of it All – Part Two

In part two, we will touch on why we should not be simply accepting the main stream media, or “scientists” views without study.

Welcome to Deuxième partie….. (That’s French for “Two”) – Or “Part Deux” if you’re an “Airplane fan”.

In any case…..

Do you BELIEVE the media?  Why do you believe the media? Why SHOULD you believe the media?

Let’s look at the words “belief”.  What does it mean to us.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. In other words, belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something.  Another way of defining belief is, it is a mental representation of an attitude positively orientated towards the likelihood of something being true.  In the context of Ancient Greek thought, two related concepts were identified with regards to the concept of belief: pistis and doxa. Simplified, we may say that pistis refers to trust and confidence, while doxa refers to opinion and acceptance. The English word doctrine is derived from doxa. Belief’s purpose is to guide action and not to indicate truth. (https://infogalactic.com/info/Belief)

And also:

Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.  The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐεμπειρία (empeiría). After Immanuel Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge. This is contrasted with a priori knowledge, the knowledge accessible from pure reason alone.

(https://infogalactic.com/info/A_priori_and_a_posteriori)

Essentially, what we are saying is simple. If you have previous, personal knowledge, experience of, or observe something, you have a reason to “believe” that a particular something is true.  Previous experience with something tends to give a person fore-knowledge of future events, in relation to the previous experience.  There is personal knowledge, and pure reason alone.  There is experience.  There is a learning experience, which might include “book learning” or “teaching” or even your own experience with no one around.

In any case, you learn something by some method.  To this author, personal experience trumps books, or teaching and media experiences or projections.  Because, you have yourself, experienced some aspect of learning, it is more real than having read it in a book, seen it on television, or had a professor “explain it to you”.

If you are sitting on the beach one summer and experience extreme heat one year, and a hurricane the next, and the third year, a chill wind from the north at the same time period you’re more than likely to remember the other two experiences and say, “Hmmm, something is not like the other two years”.  These things are also known as empirical evidence….

Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.^[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect.

(https://infogalactic.com/info/Empirical_evidence)

Many of those touting “Climate Change” as true, also seem to have a degree in one thing or another.  Some don’t have a degree in anything remotely related to weather, like Bill Nye, a “mechanical engineer”.  I’m a “non-degreed electronics engineer”.  I have vastly more experience in the field of radio theory than Nye does in his own field – and, am likely more qualified to talk about “Climate Change” because I have meteorological training in addition to other Earth Science training.  However, that’s not the point.  He’s a “Science Guy” and in the media.  He’s also a “comedian” as well.  In 1986, Nye left Boeing to pursue comedy, writing and performing jokes and bits for the local sketch television show Almost Live!, where he regularly conducted wacky science experiments.

He is a television actor.  He’s part of the reason we should not simply accept what we see on television at face value.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, also a “scientist”.  In reality, he is.  He’s an astrophysicist, probably a pretty good one.  Also, younger than me.  And an African American.  And a “believer” of Climate Change.  Of the people I’ve heard talk on it, he is the ONLY voice that I have personally listened to and respect.  I still don’t believe in “climate change” though, because there is no ‘settled science here’.

Again, he is a famous individual, and using the same tactics the media uses.  Scaremongering.  When a “scientist” states we “must believe”, then he has stepped into the realm of religion. (https://youtu.be/Jm_YoL9ykC4)

Science is the “craft of knowledge”, not a “belief system”.

If you are forced to “believe” in something, you must have faith it exists or is true.  You can not necessarily demonstrate it happens or there is a cause and effect.

Cause and effect is very important here. Cause and effect are related, one event occurs which creates a second event.  Lightning causes thunder in the atmosphere.  Thunder is the effect generated by a lightning strike ripping through the air at 224,000 miles per hour.  Essentially this causes a sonic boom.

Climate Change has a cause and effect.  Likely many causes for the effects on the climate.

The media concentrates on ONE and ONLY ONE thing.  The amount of carbon dioxide put into the air by humans.

The media doesn’t mention the sun, sun spots, sun’s radiant energy.  Media doesn’t mention seasonal changes where they point out “more or less ice” in the antarctic.  Instead you will find many satellite images show “more or less” but looking closely you will discover the images are different years, even different decades and invariably the one with “less ice” is a summer image. (Summer occurs in the Antarctic in the WINTER TIME in North America).

They always feel to mention the cause and effect of taking pictures at the wrong time of year.

We have kept scientific records for about 400 to 500 years.  The Chinese kept sunspot records.  Temperatures have been recorded by humans since they developed a thermometer and measurements. (mid 1700s)  In 1593, Galileo invented a “thermoscope”, a device capable of demonstrating rudimentary temperature changes.  There were no scales yet.

Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit was the German physicist who invented the alcohol thermometer in 1709, and the mercury thermometer in 1714. In 1724, he introduced the standard temperature scale that bears his name—Fahrenheit Scale—that was used to record changes in temperature in an accurate fashion.

The point being, while we could record some information, it was inaccurate at best, and with no scales, it’s useless today.  Ice cores are pulled from the arctic and antarctic and CO2 is measured.  But, core samples are not 100% accurate either, nor, can they give exact dates for the cores. Only approximate decades.

The Earth, we know, has gone through multiple Cooling and Warming Cycles.  Ice Ages come and go.

Our last one was about 10,000 years ago, with a “mini Ice Age” in the 1700s.  This is a historical fact. And we’re still, technically “coming out of it”.  Also, a historical fact.

The Little Ice Age as it is called lasted from about the 16th to 19th centuries.  (https://earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice-age)

At about the middle time period of this “little ice age” another event was occurring.  The Maunder Minimum, also known as the “prolonged sunspot minimum”, is the name used for the period around 1645 to 1715 during which sunspots became exceedingly rare, as was then noted by solar observers.

Dead in the middle of the “Little Ice Age”.

How many SUVs existed then? None.  How much oil was being burned by humans?  None, or at least very little.  How many modern factories spewing gasses into the air existed?  None.

At the end of the of this little ice age, the Industrial revolution was really just getting into it’s infancy.  And still, there was an insignificant amount of gasses being blown into the air.

Cause and effect.  It is also believed that the sun caused this little Ice Age.  And, there were also volcanoes that may have contributed to the issue.

If volcanoes contributed, then how can CO2 be the culprit?

Also, note that the little Ice Age wasn’t necessarily global, but was essentially restricted to the Northern Hemisphere according to many records, AND even just to the North American Continent.  England had colder temperatures in the 1600s, and there were times when it was normal.

So, was the sun spots, or rather, lack thereof a cause and the effect being a little ice age?  Many scientists “believe this to be true” now.

The one take away is that, however it happened, the SUN contributed greatly to the little Ice Age.

Oh, and this is “climate change”.

But, it certainly wasn’t human caused.

The media uses buzz words, and sometimes they use scientific terms in an effort to cause you to take notice.  A form of “social engineering”.  DeGrass Tyson and Nye are both quite guilty of this, and are media personalities.

The Weather Channel is another media outlet.  If you listen to them they can’t predict where the next hurricane is going to track, let alone where it will land.  How can they be so dead set on a path for destruction of a 1 degree Celsius variation of the Earth’s temperature twenty years hence?

Simply put, they can’t.

They are a media outlet, they get people to watch them based on suspense, based on scare tactics, based on how they can keep you hanging on to the next word, which comes right after this next advertisement (to get you to buy things).

It is HOW they MAKE THEIR MONEY.

The long and short of it is simple.  The Media is out to make big money.  They do it by enticing you, the population, to watch them.  They keep you in suspense, give you reasons why you’re going to die, and they fall into line with those who tell them “we’re going to die….” and forget the part “…if we don’t keep the government giving us grants to investigate this climate change stuff!”

 

Part Three is coming soon.

 

Climate Change: The “Science” of it All

Part One:

I’ve lived aboard space ship Earth for over six decades now.  From the time I was very young, probably six years old, I’ve been fascinated with science.  Not one particular discipline, but, pretty much all of them.  Astronomy was my first love. Chemistry, second and physics my third.  The latter culminated in my career in RF communications, radio systems, the design and implementation of many things, including one of the largest communications systems ever, the VHF/HF portion of the White House Communications Agency’s ground network spanning the East Coast of the USA.  (Note: even that system is now outdated and probably moved on to new technologies now.)

Over my decades of life, I took every science class in elementary and High School I could, and found, once I went to college that I was not interested in “getting a degree” so much as I was interested in “knowledge and learning”.  So, instead of concentrating on either a degree or particular discipline, other than electronics and digital theory, I took to taking – or rather “wangling” myself into various writing and science courses.

What this means is that I don’t have a “degree” like most people would have.  I didn’t complete some particular subset of educational theory to give me a tiny slice of the pie of knowledge.  I didn’t concentrate on one piece, thus becoming an “expert” in that chosen field.

Instead, I’ve concentrated on gathering and learning information in the sciences and have participated in many of them “as an amateur”; that is, not being paid necessarily, to do the things I did. I’ve been involved in everything from Astronomy to Psychology to Meteorology, and may other sciences.  My “degree” of study originally was a bachelor of science in, of all things, business.  That degree fanned out into nothing but sciences, and thus I never “received” my degree. By doing this, I found that all sciences are interconnected, and each has an effect on another.  While you might say “meteorology does not affect stellar physics” you might be partially correct, but stellar physics does affect Earth bound weather, and climate.

What I did receive in my (still on going) education was a vast amount of study in many, many different sciences.  I went to college on and off for over thirty years and to this day, I still pick up textbooks and read them cover to cover.  Hey, if Abe Lincoln can become a lawyer without formal training, then anyone can learn a discipline, including any of the sciences.

Am I an “expert” in anything?  Yes, electronic theory, radio frequency theory, and the technical aspects of electronics engineering (and have taught this material in colleges as well).  I was certified in the State of Colorado as  Teacher, based not on my “degree” but my “knowledge and experience”.  I have a technical degree diploma in digital theory s a result.

I used to sit at lunch with several “colleagues” at the Missile Defense Agency, who had “Masters” and “Phd” after their names, discussing things like physics, mathematics and the like, and not only keeping up with them and their conversations, but contributing to them.  One asked me what my phd discipline was one day, not knowing I was the electronics security systems engineer.  I chuckled when he asked, and told him I was just an engineer.  He was visibly shocked.  He said he though I must have held a degree in physics based on my knowledge of the subject.

I no longer teach these days and am retired on a Sailboat.  I was, once, as a young man also a contributor to solar studies.  I was doing daily sunspot counts with my telescope and presenting the data to a large University for sun spot numbers.  I was a data collector.   Much of the data I collected went into records for the official sun spot counts.

I was sixteen at the time.

The point here is not really to tout my credentials, but rather to show that knowledge can be gained by anyone, anywhere, if they put their minds to it.  Study is study. Knowledge is knowledge.  You don’t have to have a degree from a higher learning institution just to “show you’re smart”.  A degree gets you into places because society has placed those who “pay their dues” on a pedestal, rather than know their subjects.

For instance, I probably can’t get a job doing scientific studies of the weather, but I probably COULD get a paying job at a local TV station doing the weather on the six o’clock news. (Side note: I don’t WANT a job doing these things.)  I’ve been a storm spotter for the National Weather Service, and a storm chaser, chasing with several famous figures in the past twenty years so I know about the weather.  Being a Sailor on a sail boat forces one to have even more intimate knowledge of the weather than even chasing tornadoes!

Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing, some might say.  I say, knowledge is power.  Knowledge gives you the ability to seek out more knowledge, how to study things outside your discipline.  The ability to learn gives the ability to reason, and reasoning gives you the ability to come to logical, scientific conclusions, whether it is about Politics, or Sciences.

Reasoning is the ability to discriminate between facts, fiction, opinion, truth and lies.  Reasoning, and the ability to have rational thought processes allows a person to discern from objective evidence (note the phrase “objective”) whether something is reasonable to be true or false.

If you are attempting to understand something more clearly, for instance, let’s take “Climate Change” as an example, you might read all you can on the subject, taking in the information as-is.  You read the footnotes.  You check articles.  You read a book or ten on the subject.  You take “for granted” the material is presented by someone with special knowledge on the subject, and most of us tend toward “benefit of doubt”.

The material presented, we assume is accurate, unbiased and forthright.

But, Global Warming – later called “Climate Change” has some problems.  For example, there’s the “Climategate” hoax, the attempts at changing data (which has been shown in emails that were made public) to make things appear more drastic than they are.

There are multiple graphs and charts produced by NASA and NOAA that have been modified, even changed, and data dropped off those charts.  This makes “Climate Change” suspect.

Places where sensors are set up are in urban areas, where it’s obviously hotter than out on the plains of Kansas or mountains of Colorado, and an urban area will obviously and consistently show higher temperature norms, than something distant from the massive concrete, asphalt and steel structures built by people.

When data becomes suspect, so too, does the final “answer”, in this case, regarding “Climate Change”.

Logic and reasoning, especially ‘deductive reasoning’ comes into play here.

We may deduce that because someone “modified” data, they were attempting to modify thinking.

We may deduce that because someone changed graphs they were attempting to high an important piece of information.

We may deduce, correctly, that placing temperature sensors deep in the heart of a thriving metropolis would necessarily skew temperature readings, and thus the data be factually inaccurate.

As a society, we’ve become dependent upon computers, “Google” and search engines giving us information at the touch of a button, or by clicking on a link.  But, that data isn’t always accurate.  Nor, sometimes is it meant to be.  In reality, there are two, and sometimes more than two, sides to every thing.

But, in the “Science of it All” there are facts, and there are inconsistencies that don’t fit with facts.  Throughout my six decades, one thing has been consistent when it comes to science: Scientific DoomSayers are almost always wrong.

Scientists can and do come to a consensus on things, but, it takes time, and a lot of independent studies by many people, many papers, many discoveries for this to happen.  It’s not “set by policy” as “Climate Change” has been done.  Simply setting a political policy to give monies to one type of study does not, in itself, create consensus.  Well, it does, because “money”.  Who wants to give up their piece of the pie when it is lucrative?

Speaking of pieces of the pie, and “consensus”, we should point out that the folks pushing this “Climate Change” thing are so dead set on it, they’ve started campaigns to “get the word out” and tell the masses “the debate is over”.

This is, in effect, non-scientists who are pushing this agenda on the public and claiming peer-reviewed papers are “in consensus”, giving high marks to the papers in the “study”.

Why would anyone want to push such an agenda?  Look at the bottom of the second graphic above, and read after “SJI Associates”.  Now, look at the next graphic and draw your own conclusions.

SJI is a design firm.  They design advertising.  They create material to entice you to BUY something.  Very interesting concept, isn’t it?  Who would have thought you’d have to hire an advertising firm to convince the public into buying science?

In part two, we will touch on why we should not be simply accepting the main stream media, or “scientists” views without study.  In part three we will discuss “scientific consensus” and the mythology of the “97% Consensus on Climate Change“.

Climate Change: Deniers vs Hoaxers

Climate Hoaxers want you to believe the tiny pieces of data they give you are the big picture, when in fact, they are simply cherry picked data.

The Hoaxers wants you to believe that if YOU find a piece of data that debunks theirs, you are the one doing the cherry picking, and this is a standard tactic they do.

The “Deniers” – like me, know the truth. We’re old enough, smart enough and well-educated in the sciences to see the facts aren’t all there at all.

The follow YouTube Video by Tony Heller, explains a lot more than the Left will explain. Not only has he managed to show why they chose the years they chose, but he fills in the blanks. You know, all the years before and after which actually indicate there is NO MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE.

Imagine that.  Please watch the whole video in another window, then drop back in here and finish reading.

https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU

I’ve mentioned this before.  As a child I recall seeing Newsweek and Time magazine, as well as some of the news papers like Detroit Free Press and Detroit News giving the dangers of America front page news; pollution, spewing exhaust into the air, and that we’d be an Ice Age before the year 2000.  I remember the later changes in the same papers and magazines talking about how Global Warming would kill us, and cities would be inside of Domes in the year 2000.

None of that came to pass.

If you watched the whole video you can now SEE visually, why Man Kind has had little to NO effect on the rise of water levels, or the warming of the planet.  You can also see that the graphs are only TINY PIECES of a LARGER picture.

The Larger picture is what truly tells the story.

“Settled Science” rarely is “settled”.  No one anywhere , unless they are crazy, believes Gravity isn’t real, so there are exceptions.  But physics is a field upon which the human race has barely scraped the surface.  Stellar physics isn’t “100% settled”.  Hydrodynamics isn’t perfect (they can’t predict the path of a hurricane for more than two days out, even though the Earth’s atmosphere is a “liquid” of sorts).

Anthropomorphic Climate Change – “man-created” climate change may occur on a very tiny scale, around cities where we’ve added massive amounts of concrete, asphalt and, you guessed it, cars and exhaust fumes.  SURE, we’ve all seen cities full of smog.  Sure, we’ve seen the dangers of breathing that stuff.  But, we’ve also seen Mother Nature clean the air in a few hours.  We’ve also seen Mother Nature rebuild woods and forests taken by forest fires.

In time, Mother Nature cleanses the Earth and puts back what man has borrowed.  Trees reduce CO2 to Oxygen.  The ocean’s plankton does the same job, converting CO2 in the ocean back into oxygen and giving it to the creatures who live there.

There are more trees in the North American Continent than there were when people FIRST moved here (and I’m not just talking about White People, either, I’m talking about ANY PEOPLE FROM ANYWHERE).

Climate Change has been on-going for the life of this tiny speck of sand on which we live, and it will continue.

It is driven by an extremely powerful force of nature called “The Sun”, or Sol, our nearest Star.  The sun has it’s ups and downs, it has sun spots, and lack of sun spots – massive magnetic storms on the surface – which cause stellar winds (solar winds) which in turn affect the planet’s magentosphere, which, in turn affects our weather.  There are pockets of dust in space, which we go through from time to time, darkening the sun slightly, and causing cooling.

There are volcanoes, earthquakes, tectonic plate movements, seasons, El Nino, La Nina and other weather events, all of them culminating in effects.  The largest, most pervasive of all weather events causing climate change is the simplest thing imaginable.  Water, in the form of rain.

Rain take mountains and creates hills, sand, breaks of rocks and boulders, blocks roads, causes floods and creates erosion.

Erosion takes islands away.  Erosion creates the sand on the beach.  Erosion make the Appalachian mountains into hills, and some day the Might Rocky Mountains will be like the Appalachians, small, not large, the Appalachian’s will be hills.

This has nothing to do with man kind or CO2 emissions.

The last thing I want to say here is that we’re not “Climate Change Deniers”, but rather “Climate Change Realists”.  We know climate change happens, but it doesn’t happen because of CO2 and other exhaust emissions from our cars and use of fossil fuels.  It occurs naturally, and will continue to occur naturally.

Just as a test of this… ask ANY climate change hoaxer, “How will we stop Yellowstone from erupting?” They will sputter and tell you you’re changing the subject, or deflecting, or even worse, call you a name.  Then ask them, “How are we going to stop a dangerous asteroid from destroying the Earth in moments?”

They will fall apart.  Those two things are extreme dangers and can happen at any second of any day of our lives from here on out.  I don’t hear anyone worried about something that will decimate the Earth or destroy it outright in seconds, but hear how we’re all going to die in a decade.

Anthropomorphic Climate Change is a HOAX, pure and simple.  It’s a device to destroy Capitalism, to force the rich to be poor, and to force the poor to get something for nothing.  It’s a Socialist PLOT, not a scientific study.

Climate Change is a Cult.

Climate Change Realists are those who eschew junk science for facts.

Climate Change, Socialism and You

I remember reading Time Magazine and Newsweek, in the 1970s, and perhaps even early in my childhood, and wild statements about the coming doom of the human race, indeed, the whole planet from global cooling.

There were articles in papers, and many “scientific” magazines regarding “Global Cooling” and “The Coming Ice Age”. Enough to scare a little kid into believing some of the stuff.

I mean, after all, these words were coming from Scientists, people whom I held in high regard as a child – and to be fair still do at my many-decades removed from childhood-age.

At my old age now I’m skeptical. Skeptical of any thing that comes out from scientists, but especially from the media, alledged to be from the mouths of “scientists”. Especially of the “98% of scientists agree” nonsense.

I evaluate everything through my own brain, through my own intellect and I don’t just “believe” what people tell me. No matter which side of the political spectrum they might reside. Science is rarely, if ever, “settled”. There’s always room for growth, understanding, education and gaining new knowledge. Some sciences are hard science, without which things wouldn’t work. Gravity. Mathematics. Most physics.

Certainly, mathematics is reasonably stable. Most physics, is stable, with few new discoveries being made.

Fluid Dynamics is certainly one of the branches of physics employed in various aspects of the Earth sciences. Remember, that the atmosphere is technically a liquid. Hydrodynamics is the study of fluids in motion. All of these are connected. As are other aspects of physics, such as stellar physics, solar winds, space weather and the effects all of these things have upon the atmosphere of a planetary body, such as Earth. So, it makes sense that scientists would use “physics” to explain various aspects of the atmosphere. But, do they? I question whether they use ALL of the resources available, and the inter-disciplinarian studies of other sciences.

Somewhere in 1975 a man named Wallace Smith Broecker coined the phrase “Global Warming” inadvertently when he published a paper titled: “Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”

In the 1980s, the “Ozone Hole” was discovered after one of the first space shuttles went up. That was a “scare”, and precipitated the “chlorofloro-carbon” scare and the aim to remove such things from spray cans everywhere. Because, you know that huge ozone layer is up there protecting us from skin cancer and too much ultraviolet radiation from the sun. (*Because, the sun is hot, it’s a massive thermonuclear, on-going, fusion reaction that isn’t going to cease any time soon… producing a LOT of heat and light. Keep this in mind as you read.)

In the 1990s, the phrase changed from “Global Cooling” to “Global Warming” to bring things back around to the 1975 paper. (Remember, in the 1960s and 1970s, global COOLING was a key phrase.)

In the latter years of 1990s, and early into the “21st Century” the phrase “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.

Throughout all of these word and phrase modifications, this author became “suspicious”. By the time a dozen or more years went by after “Global Cooling” and the public sense of reality settled in, the new phrase came into being because the public was insufficiently “alarmed” and something needed to “trigger” the new generations of “children” and “wannabe climate experts”.

If you can keep people confused, or better, angry at their surroundings, even if the reasons are made up, you can keep them disconnected, uneducated, less-than-knowledgeable and certainly in an uproar for “change”.

Karen Christiana Figueres Olsen is a Costa Rican diplomat with 35 years of experience in high level national and international policy and multilateral negotiations. She was appointed as Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in July 2010, six months after the failed COP15 in Copenhagen.

Ms. Figueres Olsen is actually a Socialist. Her party? National Liberation Party of Costa Rica, and that party is a member in the Socialist International organization.

Parts of the following is from her own mouth. Original is from an article from a news source in Lubbock Texas that appears to have been removed now (http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE ) :

United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism

It has been clear since the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union
collapsed that Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is a Marxist Hoax.

When the dream of a Soviet Utopia collapsed, Marxists in the United
Nations, the United States, and Europe needed a quick Plan B dedicated to
the destruction of Capitalism. Plan B is the claim that the normal human
use of fossil fuels could somehow catastrophically change the climate of
Earth and has all along been a Marxist plan to divert trillions of dollars
from developed nations to the United Nations. The goal has been to
replace Capitalism with a World economy totally under the control of the
United Nations.

The United Nations climate chief admitted on 03 February 2015 that the
primary goal of the Global Warming hoax has been the gradual progressive
destruction of Capitalism,

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given
ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development
model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press
conference in Brussels.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting
ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to
change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least
150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight
and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP
15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It
is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

In other words, Climate Change is a HOAX perpetrated on the world, and upon gullible people. Left leaning people who want so desperately to change the world to some Socialist Utopian model they will do literally anything to accomplish this goal.

Socialism is the goal. The destruction of a Capitalist society is the goal. Forcing oil and gas prices to be so high no one can afford fossil fuels, forcing electric devices on us (which are ALL susceptible to EMP for instance, and expensive now. You can’t even charge an electric vehicle without the need for fossil fuels!)

Greta Thunberg recently received her “15 minutes of fame” while she because a world star “sailing” on a sailboat to the UN from Europe to preach at America. Greta (and father) no more “sailed” that ship than I did (and I’m a sailor). She caused consternation among the Left Wingers on our sailing and Cruising forums on Facebook for weeks.

The Left would post some victorious post regarding this “brave child” and the Right would debunk it. Moderators would in turn block and ban people for rude comments – or politics. Global Warming IS POLITICAL, NOT SCIENCE.

While the gullible continue to scream and shout, the rest of us have come to the learned conclusion that this hoax must stop, and we must stop teaching our children to act out in public and make them “super stars” on a stage planked with lies and falsehoods.

The human race may indeed, someday, succumb to “climate change” but it will not be brought on by ourselves, rather by the nearest start to us, the Sun. Sol is burning bright and hot, goes through cycles every 11 years for sunspots, and over a 22 year cycle where the output increases and decreases, causing more or less weather on the planet.

The Human Race has a short term, one-generational memory. They can’t comprehend or remember what happened 25-30 years ago with ease, but we can certainly compare last year with this year and say “It’s hotter now than it was last year”.

Hurricanes come and go with the seasons, the ocean’s conveyor belts work because of seasonal changes, not because of CO2 in the atmosphere. The funny thing about science is that little Fluid Dynamics portion of physics I mentioned before. We can predict pretty accurately what a swirl in the water will do, same as a swirl in the atmosphere. However, you can’t predict with any accuracy the path of a hurricane for more than three days at most, even with the best computers on the planet.

Yet, scientists want us to believe we’re all going to be dead in twelve years from our own carbon footprints?

Not buying it any more. Even though I might have been a gullible child once, long ago, I’m certain NOT a gullible adult, I certainly question everything, and “belief” in a particular “religion” is something I’m not going to take lightly. Including, but not limited to “Climate Change”.

The “Climate Deniers” like myself certainly DO grasp the difference in climate and weather, we certainly are just as educated (if not more so in some instances) than the so called “climate experts”. Calling me a “climate denier” is the same as calling me a “racist”. Neither is true, but it makes someone else feel good about themselves because they can’t explain their own science either.

No, friends, climate change didn’t start because of humans. Climate Change has been on-going since the day the Earth coalesced out of star stuff and interstellar debris, long after the fires of Sol ignited, and has continued for roughly 4.5 billion years, a span of time no one can even truly comprehend with our short (maybe sixty good years) lifespan.

We’re NOT going to die in twelve years as predicted by a 16 year old child. Or by a Socialist. Nor by twenty five of the best scientists on the planet, because, simply, they aren’t the best if they aren’t questioning their OWN science at this point, given all the hiding of data, gyrations in facts, leaving-out of information, and out and out lies.
We have a rough chance of about 1 in 300,000 of being hit by a massive comet or asteroid that will destroy this planet and most life on it. Nothing over which to lose sleep.

Chances of a plane crash, 1 in 11 million.

Chances of being hit by lightning is roughly 1 in a million.

Chances of winning the lottery, roughly 1 in 52,000,000.

Chances of dying from “Climate Change” 1 in 7.7 BILLION. Essentially zero for all intents and purposes.

Worry about getting your lottery numbers right on the next ticket and stop agonizing over death by over heating when the ice all melts. I’ll be out sailing the coasts of West Virginia if it actually happens.

https://transitiontownpayson.net/2013/04/25/who-coined-the-term-global-warming-anyway/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/24/socialism_not_climate_change_is_the_real_threat_141323.html

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/vetlesen/recipients/1987/broecker_bio.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-asia-responsible-vast-majority-air-and-water-matt-walsh

https://www.discussionist.com/1015476535

In 1975, Newsweek Predicted A New Ice Age. We’re Still Living with the Consequences.

https://www.space.com/622-asteroid-chance-hitting-earth-2029-watched-carefully.html

Supreme Court again takes no action on climate change cases

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON | Mon Oct 7, 2013 9:16pm IST

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court Monday took no action for the second week running over whether it plans to undertake a potentially wide-ranging legal review of the Obama administration’s first wave of regulations aimed at tackling climate change.

The nine different petitions pending before the court, filed by states and industry groups, were not mentioned in a list of cases the court declined to hear on the first day of its new term.

Last week, the cases were absent from a list of new cases the court agreed to hear.

Monday’s inaction suggests the justices have yet to decide what to do with the nine petitions. The next opportunity for the court to announce its plans will likely be on October 15.

The rules, which apply to a cross-section of polluters from vehicles to industrial facilities, are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists say these are the prime contributor to climate change.

States, including Texas and Virginia, and industry groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had filed petitions asking the justices to review the regulations, arguing they would pose an economic burden to implement, among other complaints.

Related articles

• Supremes consider reviewing EPA greenhouse gas authority (junkscience.com)
• Supremes undecided on whether to review EPA climate rules (junkscience.com)