Climate Change - True Believer or Skeptic?

by Simon 129 Replies latest jw friends

  • Simon

    Climate change ... who doesn't believe it? Crazy fools and science deniers ... right?

    It seems like it's become the new religion, the new orthodoxy, that must be accepted and believed as gospel and preached to all.

    Is it OK to be skeptical?

    I think the problem is that "climate change" is such a vague, nebulous term. What does it mean exactly?

    The simplest idea that most people hold to is that the climate is changing, specifically that it's getting warmer, and that it is the result of human action.

    Remember when it was called "global warming" instead and people would laugh when there was a cold spell and the believers would become agitated claiming they were confusing "weather" with "climate"? Have you noticed now how local weather events are taken to be evidence of global warm..., erm, I mean climate change? If anyone suggests they are confusing weather and climate they are called a denier. Hmmn.

    But it's serious isn't it? We only have 10 years to save the planet. Yeah, that's been claimed since the 1980's. It always seems to be 10 or 12 years - short enough to be alarmist, long enough to be forgotten when it doesn't happen.

    Remember an Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore? Is the inconvenient truth that hardly any of the predictions have come to pass? But still we have people making the same claims.

    The fact is that the climate is a complex system and is always changing - it's never been stable, it's just that our short existence gives us a view that it's static, in the same way that mountains are just there - stable and immovable. We've been in a relatively cold period for some time so a rising temperature isn't really unusual. The question is whether it's going to be catastrophic and whether humans are responsible and can change it.

    Where my skepticism comes in is that the issue always seems to come down to people waving their arms shouting "doom and woe, the sky is falling ... unless ..." and then the demands for money. Somehow, it's OK if pollution happens, as long as money changes hands, usually in their direction.

    We have politicians applauding themselves for reaching agreements like the Paris Climate accord. Did you know some of the agreements were for countries to raise their levels of pollution?

    Trump and the US are derided for pulling out of it but have been one of the countries who have cut their emissions the most - investing the money in clean energy because it makes economic sense in a capitalist system. Bribes, fines and levies are loved by socialists but don't solve any problem, they just perpetuate and subsidize inefficiencies.

    Some species can't adapt or can't adapt fast enough but that has always been the case. While the portrayal in the media may be that Polar Bears are dying out and the forests are disappearing, the reality is that the Polar Bear population is higher now than 20+ years ago and there have been millions of Sq Km's of forest added in no small part due to carbon levels going up - oh yeah, that pollution that we hear about is also known as "plant food" and what used to be way higher when the earth supported more lush life and vegetation.

    For us, a warmer climate means more growing areas vs a colder climate which could mean the most productive farm lands, that feed most of the population, becoming permafrost.

    There's a lot to discuss but I don't think anyone is overjoyed with the idea of pollution - we like to see nature and natural habitats, to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. But often that is conflated with climate change.

    I'm becoming more skeptical because the more you find out about the media headlines, the more it seems like spin. The data often doesn't back up the headlines or has been manipulated (with retractions never given the same coverage) and the figures such as "97% of climate scientists agreeing that climate change is real and man-made" turn out to be as fictitious as the stats that women only get paid 70c for what a man get's paid a $1 for.

    Why do the climate + pollution charts always start around the same time? Because if you go back, you see the correlation is less convincing - the temperatures have gone up before at the same time as carbon emission but then came down again. Some of the past data has been changed - newspaper headlines of record temperatures in the 20's are now no longer reflected in the temperature histories.

    Here in Canada Trudeau has added a carbon tax which is becoming a serious burden to many and it's not done a single thing to reduce pollution or climate change. In fact, the biggest polluters are exempted from the whole scheme. So how serious is the problem really if it's OK? Is the world really in peril?

    It's looking more and more like a huge scam. Change my mind.

  • minimus

    I can’t change your mind because what you say is sensible.

  • JeffT

    What did you do with the real Simon?

    Seriously, I've been skeptical all along because there has been evidence that numbers are being fudged to make the results come out to the "correct" solution. I'm on my way to work, I'll have to look later but I just read about a weather service in Australia that is revising historical numbers to make it look like there has been warming. That may be reasonable, but they need to explain there numbers. That's how science works.

  • john.prestor

    As a researcher, I give the benefit of the doubt to other researchers. That's all it comes down to. I looked at their data, their data looks good. Worst case scenario, reducing pollution, recycling more, that kind of thing benefits us in the long run anyway.

  • redvip2000

    sad state of affairs when it comes down to science having conform to political ideology.

    What can we say...Trump is right. Scientists are wrong. Even if the consensus is now nearly absolute that the carbon humans are producing is making the planet warmer. Doesn't matter. What matters is that we must tune our minds and stay in step with whatever the political ideology leaders and pseudo conservative news say.

    Whatever they say. We buy it. Doesn't matter if it goes against the consensus of the people who dedicate their lives to studying these things.

    Welcome to the Watchtower 2.0

  • Tobyjones262

    I can not say its not real but I don't buy it at least as its stated by the leftards. History has shown much warmer and much cooler in pre history by checking the atmosphere trapped in ice at the poles. I can remember the leftists screaming an ice age was coming in the 70s. The end of the world is 20 years away in 1977, the seas are dead in 10 years that was in 1993,

    I am not saying I don't see problems but what I see is water shortages [fresh water] food shortages, not due to Global Warming but 8 billion people and climbing. We have a population issue. Its like trying to put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag. At some point there has to be a mass kill off. Disease, famine or something else but it can not just keep expanding.

    Here is the thing, the only way they say that Global Warming is going to happen is complex computer models that try to take into account every possible variable. The thing is as time goes by they have to keep changing the models because their predictions do not come out the way they think they will. So why should we all live in a grass hut and ride a bike to work because of a failed computer model?

    If someone wants to recycle which as of now it costs more energy to recycle everything over making new other than Aluminum, than knock yourself out. If you want to over pay for a POS Tesla knock yourslef out. but where I say BS is don't try to make laws like AOC the idiot new shiny face that ban air travel and cars.

  • Simon
    Seriously, I've been skeptical all along because there has been evidence that numbers are being fudged to make the results come out to the "correct" solution

    Yeah, there's so much political interference now through funding that real "science" is hard to identify. Unless you want to have your funding cut, you put out research supporting the politics ... even if it can't be replicated and the data doesn't really add up.

    There was an article recently about the increasing number of studies that cannot be replicated and yet become "gospel" in terms of being quoted.

  • Simon
    Worst case scenario, reducing pollution, recycling more, that kind of thing benefits us in the long run anyway.

    Those are good things, I am not saying I want pollution or don't want a better environment. But is it really the "worst case scenario"?

    Being made to work like a serf and taxed into oblivion based on a lie so elites can live in luxury may be worse than taking re-usable cotton bags to the supermarket and it flip-flops every fews years - what was good is now bad, it turns out plastic bags are more ecological than cotton ones.

    One thing I've noticed is that people who are very involved pushing climate change tend to do a hell of a lot of air-travel. Funny how we're not supposed to do any of the thing they do lots and lots of ...

  • DesirousOfChange

    I'm always amazed where there are these "record setting events" that they rest of the sentence is......"since xxxx". The most rain in February since 1978. The coldest temp on record since 1927. The hottest July since xxxx.

    For decades (or perhaps centuries) there have been these extremely high temps, low temps, rainfall, etc etc.

    The TRUTH BOOK hasd quotes from the 1960's on how the pollution was so severe that all life would perish in 10 years if we didn't change it.

    Yeah, it's like the JW's. Endless warning of the end of the world. But here we are............

  • john.prestor

    Oh I'm all for taxing the rich, they're the ones who fucked up the environment to begin with, they should pay to fix it. If that's what it comes down to and they start trying to make the rest of us pay to clean up their mess, I aint down for that.

Share this