Climate Change

[MattK]

Matt,
Please watch the film I posted. Once you've done that, please explain why you still believe the lies being told by the grifters who profit from this scam rather than proper scientists using real world empirical data that proves without a doubt that man made climate change is a myth. There's literally no evidence for it at all. Zilch, none, nada.
Tim.

Don't know why but the link doesn't work

 

[MattK]

Matt,
I have news for you: the ice caps aren't melting. If you want to know the inconvenient truth that blasts these lies out of the freezing water, I recommend you read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the facts presented in this series of articles by Chris Morrison. Enjoy . . .

The Real Inconvenient Truth: Arctic Sea Ice Has Grown Since 2012
Dramatic Recovery in Global Sea Ice Confounds the Net Zero Catastrophists
Melting Ice Caps and World on Fire vs The Reality

So, the ice caps aren't melting after all, the polar bears aren't on the verge of extinction - they're flourishing - along with the penguins. It's all nonsense designed to instill fear and sow compliance so that we spend thousands on heat pumps that don't work and eat bugs instead of steak and stay in our cold homes rather than swanning around the world like Leonardo DiCaprio having an absolute blast.
Tim.

Tim,

I've just finished reading a couple of articles, but neither provided any concrete research links to back the author's perspective or counter the prevailing climate change dialogue. It seems more like their personal take on the matter. There's a lot of data interpretation going on, with folks bending it to fit their narratives. And then, believe it or not, there are still people out there who subscribe to the flat Earth theory (and no, we're not talking about Terry Pratchett's Discworld

Climate Change Overview: The IPCC reports are like climate change encyclopedias
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

or
The National Snow and Ice Data Center provides the most current updates and analyses on ice coverage

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[Lightning McQueen]

As Tim's link isn't working, try this one, I believe this is the movie?

 

[MattK]

As Tim's link isn't working, try this one, I believe this is the movie?

Thanks

 

[timsk]

Tim,
I've just finished reading a couple of articles, but neither provided any concrete research links to back the author's perspective or counter the prevailing climate change dialogue.

Matt,
Unusually, instead of the research links appearing in the normal blue colour (as in your post) - they're in red in the articles - apologies for not pointing that out in my last post. There's any number of them, sprinkled like confetti all over the place!

So, Chris Morrison's articles are meticulously researched and evidenced based. Indeed, that's the whole point of them, i.e. it's not his personal opinion at all, he's presenting empirical scientific data (i.e. not GIGO computer models which most 'world is on fire' data is based on), that shows quite clearly that the ice caps are no longer melting. If you have evidence that what he says is wrong or misleading in some way, by all means post it, but please be specific. Quote the passage/statistics in Morrison's article(s) that you disagree with, clearly state why you think he's wrong or misleading and support this by quoting the passage/statistics from the IPCC (or whoever) as evidence to support your counter narrative. I'm afraid that simply posting a link to an entire report without being specific isn't helpful and doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Sorry! ;-)
Tim.

PS. Thanks LM for posting a link to the documentary - yes it's the right one!

 

[timsk]

Interesting . . .
Post some inconvenient truths that go against the mainstream narrative that they have no argument against - and this is what happens. And some folks still think we live in an open society where free speech is cherished and protected. Well, all I can say is: think again. . . .

Matt,
I hope you managed to view the film before it got taken down. Either way, if you're still of the same view that climate change is wo/man made, and if the case in favour of this argument is so strong and the case that I and those in the film put forward is so weak - why take the film down? Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but, for me, this is proof positive that the criminal elite behind the climate change grift know the game's up, they've been rumbled, the ship's taking on water and it's only a matter of time before it goes down.
Tim.

 

[timsk]

Climate the Movie

“Compared to the last 500 million years the Earth is exceptionally cold,” explains Durkin. The reason there is ice at the poles is that we are in an ice age, observes Moore. “We are at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling period, and they say i…

www.bitchute.com

 

[MattK]

Matt,
Unusually, instead of the research links appearing in the normal blue colour (as in your post) - they're in red in the articles - apologies for not pointing that out in my last post. There's any number of them, sprinkled like confetti all over the place!

So, Chris Morrison's articles are meticulously researched and evidenced based. Indeed, that's the whole point of them, i.e. it's not his personal opinion at all, he's presenting empirical scientific data (i.e. not GIGO computer models which most 'world is on fire' data is based on), that shows quite clearly that the ice caps are no longer melting. If you have evidence that what he says is wrong or misleading in some way, by all means post it, but please be specific. Quote the passage/statistics in Morrison's article(s) that you disagree with, clearly state why you think he's wrong or misleading and support this by quoting the passage/statistics from the IPCC (or whoever) as evidence to support your counter narrative. I'm afraid that simply posting a link to an entire report without being specific isn't helpful and doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Sorry! ;-)
Tim.

PS. Thanks LM for posting a link to the documentary - yes it's the right one!

I watched the film and believe it's normal for people to hold different ideas. Some subscribe to a global conspiracy theory, others deny the existence of global warming or even believe the world is flat—there are many theories out there.

Here are NASA's data on temperature:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121

And about ice: NASA Ice Sheets

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

Everyone has their viewpoint on global warming. However, I think if it weren't an issue, it likely wouldn't be discussed so extensively.
Consider this simple logic: reducing resource consumption implies cutting down production, which could lead to fewer jobs, shrinking economies, and reduced corporate profits. It's hard to see who would benefit from this.

I'm not a scientist, but I strive to think critically

 

[MattK]

Interesting . . .
Post some inconvenient truths that go against the mainstream narrative that they have no argument against - and this is what happens. And some folks still think we live in an open society where free speech is cherished and protected. Well, all I can say is: think again. . . .

Matt,
I hope you managed to view the film before it got taken down. Either way, if you're still of the same view that climate change is wo/man made, and if the case in favour of this argument is so strong and the case that I and those in the film put forward is so weak - why take the film down? Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but, for me, this is proof positive that the criminal elite behind the climate change grift know the game's up, they've been rumbled, the ship's taking on water and it's only a matter of time before it goes down.
Tim.

View attachment 334275

I don't know why the film was removed. It could be due to copyright issues, among many other possible reasons. I don't think it was taken down specifically because of the topic; it still appears on Vimeo. Following that logic, websites that spread this theory would also be blocked.

 

[timsk]

I watched the film and believe it's normal for people to hold different ideas. Some subscribe to a global conspiracy theory, others deny the existence of global warming or even believe the world is flat—there are many theories out there.

Hi Matt,
We can agree on your first point: nothing wrong in holding differing views. Thereafter, there's little common ground, I'm afraid!

I maintain that man made climate change is the 'global conspiracy theory'! As for denying the existence of global warming, I've not come across a single person who says that, I've not read anything by anyone who asserts that or watched any YouTube videos/films by anyone who believes that. Clearly, temperatures change all the time and, being at the tail-end of the Cenozoic ice age as we are - global temperatures are starting to get very slightly warmer. The sole issue is who or what is causing it - not that it's taking place.

Perhaps you'd care to address some of the key points raised in the film? Top of the list is how can Co2 cause climate change when ice core data since the dawn of time shows quite clearly that temperature change (up or down) comes first and that change in Co2 comes second, i.e. like a moving average, the latter lags behind the former by circa 100 years? This fact alone should cause everyone to question the central orthodoxy that Co2 is the cause of increasing temperatures.

Here are NASA's data on temperature:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121

And about ice: NASA Ice Sheets

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

I suggest you treat NASA with the same scepticism that you treat my posts. In all seriousness, the reason the world is in such a mess is because people rely on so called 'experts' and big name organisations like NASA and the BBC to tell them the truth and then they accept what they say without question. Whilst understandable, it's a serious mistake, IMO . . .
NASA Climate Model Fails at Basic Physics, Report Finds
The Climate Alarmist Attack Dog Who Was Wrong About Everything

Everyone has their viewpoint on global warming. However, I think if it weren't an issue, it likely wouldn't be discussed so extensively.

It isn't being discussed at all - let alone extensively! There is no discussion beyond the odd forum like this one. It's presented as 'settled science' (even though there's no such thing) and anyone who tries to question the mainstream narrative is ostracised, marginalized and/or labelled a crackpot tin hat conspiracy theorist etc. Did you not take on board what the scientists said in the film?

By way of example, the BBC literally won't allow anyone on radio or television who questions the narrative. They only invite disciples of the cult of fear, doom 'n gloom. My question to you is why? If people like me are idiots and it's easy to prove us wrong, why not have us on programmes and make fools out of us? IMO, there's only one reason they won't do that - and that's because they know we'd make fools out of them!

Consider this simple logic: reducing resource consumption implies cutting down production, which could lead to fewer jobs, shrinking economies, and reduced corporate profits. It's hard to see who would benefit from this.

I'm not a scientist, but I strive to think critically

Sorry, I don't understand what your point is or how it relates to the myth of man made climate change?
Tim.

 

[MattK]

So, looking at the ice core data, it's clear that there have been times when CO2 levels went up after the temperatures did. But that doesn't change what we know about CO2 and climate change today. The big issue now is the fast warming over the last hundred years, mostly because of the extra greenhouse gases, like CO2.

The impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) on temperature increase was theoretically identified in the 19th century. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a paper in 1896 where he first hypothesized that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere could lead to higher global temperatures, thereby explaining the mechanism of warming. Arrhenius is considered one of the pioneers in the study of the greenhouse effect and its impact on Earth's climate.

Svante Arrhenius

Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's really important to tell the difference between the natural warming and cooling cycles the Earth goes through and what's happening now, which is heating up way faster than usual.

The IPCC reports, along with research from NOAA and NASA, are helpful. They've got a ton of studies that look at CO2 levels and temperatures over time, showing how they're connected and backing up what we're seeing with the current climate change trends.

 

[MattK]

I suggest you treat NASA with the same scepticism that you treat my posts. In all seriousness, the reason the world is in such a mess is because people rely on so called 'experts' and big name organisations like NASA and the BBC to tell them the truth and then they accept what they say without question. Whilst understandable, it's a serious mistake, IMO . . .

If we can't trust organizations like NASA, then who can we trust?

 

[MattK]

It isn't being discussed at all - let alone extensively! There is no discussion beyond the odd forum like this one. It's presented as 'settled science' (even though there's no such thing) and anyone who tries to question the mainstream narrative is ostracised, marginalized and/or labelled a crackpot tin hat conspiracy theorist etc. Did you not take on board what the scientists said in the film?

By way of example, the BBC literally won't allow anyone on radio or television who questions the narrative. They only invite disciples of the cult of fear, doom 'n gloom. My question to you is why? If people like me are idiots and it's easy to prove us wrong, why not have us on programmes and make fools out of us? IMO, there's only one reason they won't do that - and that's because they know we'd make fools out of them!

I don't know about BBC, but, for example, I found Steve Koonin (the first speaker in this video) at the Aspen Ideas Festival, so I'm not sure that these guys are ignored

 

[MattK]

Regarding the last point:

Consider this simple logic: reducing resource consumption implies cutting down production, which could lead to fewer jobs, shrinking economies, and reduced corporate profits. It's hard to see who would benefit from this.

I'm not a scientist, but I strive to think critically
Sorry, I don't understand what your point is or how it relates to the myth of man made climate change?
Tim.

You have noticed that you believe it's all a 'global conspiracy theory.'

I maintain that man made climate change is the 'global conspiracy theory'!

My question is: if that's the case, then who benefits from it? Who is organizing this global conspiracy?

Consider this simple example: the primary objective in combating global warming is to reduce production and consumption to reduce CO2.

Now, let's ponder the implications. If production decreases in countries, jobs will be lost, and overall economic indicators will decline. However, it's common knowledge that economies thrive when consumption increases. Therefore, it's evident that countries and companies stand to lose from these measures.

So, the question remains: if global warming is indeed a hoax or a global conspiracy, then who stands to gain from it?

 

[timsk]

So, looking at the ice core data, it's clear that there have been times when CO2 levels went up after the temperatures did.

Incorrect: temperatures lead and Co2 lags behind by circa 100 years. Check out the film, this was explained clearly and in detail.

But that doesn't change what we know about CO2 and climate change today. The big issue now is the fast warming over the last hundred years, mostly because of the extra greenhouse gases, like CO2.

Co2 comprises just 0.042% of the atmosphere, i.e. 420 parts per million. Of that, man made Co2 is just 3%. 3% of 0.042% is 0.00126%. i.e. 12.6 parts per million. You and fellow climate alarmists are expecting me to believe that these homeopathic quantities of Co2 are responsible for the increase in temperature without providing any empirical evidence to support the theory? Moreover, you have no way of distinguishing between the 3% man made Co2 and the 97% natural Co2 - so it's impossible to state categorically that it's the former that's causing the rise rather than the latter. Termites produce more Co2 than humans do: so how about we scrap net zero and just get rid of the world's termites - problem solved!

The impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) on temperature increase was theoretically identified in the 19th century. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a paper in 1896 where he first hypothesized that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere could lead to higher global temperatures, thereby explaining the mechanism of warming. Arrhenius is considered one of the pioneers in the study of the greenhouse effect and its impact on Earth's climate.

Svante Arrhenius

Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Theories are all well and good - I have no issues with them whatsoever. When they are put forward as fact supported by GIGO computer models without any empirical evidence and major policy is then implemented on the back of them which will result in the immiseration and death of millions of people - that's when I have a problem. So called scientists who are funded to push the false climate change narrative don't practice real science, aka the 'Scientific Method' - therein lies the problem . . .
THE CRUELTY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

It's really important to tell the difference between the natural warming and cooling cycles the Earth goes through and what's happening now, which is heating up way faster than usual.

The IPCC reports, along with research from NOAA and NASA, are helpful. They've got a ton of studies that look at CO2 levels and temperatures over time, showing how they're connected and backing up what we're seeing with the current climate change trends.

As I've already made clear, the debate isn't about whether or not the temperature changes - it changes all of the time. The debate is simply about the cause. Here's a question for you Matt: why are you so insistent that it's the 12.6 parts per million of Co2 that's the cause and seem unwilling to consider other possibilities for the change in temperature? Dare I mention that big hot yellow ball in the sky? No, ridiculous idea to even suggest that the sun could have anything to do with it, it's all down to the 12.6 parts of Co2 - aka the gas of life, without which we all die! Do you not see just how flimsy and ridiculous the whole climate change narrative is?
Tim.

 

[timsk]

If we can't trust organizations like NASA, then who can we trust?

Good question, and the answer is, sadly, no one.

I arrived at this conclusion during the pandemic when I realised that no one - and no organisation - is beyond the tentacles of those with the power and money to drive forward their agenda - which is usually to accumulate more power and lots more money. Back then, I believed that the Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI) wouldn't recommend jabbing children, as the evidence was crystal clear that there was zero benefit for them and potentially huge harm, including death. (I wrote to them at the time with my evidence.) Yet, the JCVI went ahead anyway, because they're corrupt. How they sleep at night I simply don't know. Anyway, I realised that if a committee like that can be bought so easily - then we can't trust anyone. It's very depressing.

 

[timsk]

. . . So, the question remains: if global warming is indeed a hoax or a global conspiracy, then who stands to gain from it?

This was fairly comprehensively addressed in the film, Matt.
Climate change and net zero are now a massive global industry worth $billions. And the people who benefit from it are the same as those who benefit from any scam. Just as the pharmaceutical industrial complex benefited from flogging an experimental gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine that turned out to be neither safe nor effective, and the global military industrial complex are benefiting from wars in Ukraine and Israel that could be stopped within days if there was the political will to end them, the green industrial complex benefit from pushing the false climate change agenda. It's the same ol' story: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. What's different this time is that the dividing line between the two is going to move up massively towards the rich and the lower poor group is going to get hugely bigger. You're quite right about the ensuing damage to the economy and people losing their jobs and businesses going belly up etc. That will happen, just as it did during the pandemic. But the big corporations, unelected NGO's and global liberal elites behind the scam don't give a monkey's to$$, as it's not them who'll be adversely affected. On the contrary, they stand to get richer by orders of magnitude - all at the expense of ordinary people in the west and the poor in third world countries - as was highlighted in the film.
Tim.

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

Termites produce more Co2 than humans do: so how about we scrap net zero and just get rid of the world's termites - problem solved!

No, humans produce more -- at least if you believe scientists instead of conspiracy theorists.

It’s the other way around -- termites produce approximately one-tenth of the carbon dioxide emissions created by humans

A meme shared hundreds of times in multiple posts on Facebook and Twitter claims that termites produce 10 times more carbon dioxide than humans in a single year. The claim is false; scientists estimate termites’ carbon emissions are approximately one-tenth of those created by humans.

factcheck.afp.com

 

[counter_violent]

As Tim's link isn't working, try this one, I believe this is the movie?

An excellent film all round.

We can see clearly the forces at work. "whoever pays the piper calls the tune".

There is however a very good reason to become as self sufficient as possible, ie installing solar panels at home and consuming all that power, as this will keep you at arms length from the greedy power companies. Energy prices will only go up and it's the mass consumers who will pay the price. So people can harp on about climate change and the consequences, but the smart people are investing in self sufficiency not because they are buying into the whole climate change story, but because they are insuring against future price rises of energy cost.

 

[timsk]

No, humans produce more -- at least if you believe scientists instead of conspiracy theorists.

Not a conspiracy theory R_L - that's the domain of those pushing the climate change agenda.

That said, I concede that I should have said 'smokestacks' rather than humans - not that it's a distinction with any real difference. Apologies nonetheless . . .

TERMITE GAS EXCEEDS SMOKESTACK POLLUTION
"Now researchers report that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world's smokestacks."