Yes: be sure to read the other post referenced at the end of your article. Doomburg.substack and alexepstein.substack are excellent also. Not only is the atmospheric CO2 the lowest in 175 million years, but global temperatures follow rather than lead atmospheric co2. The big point is that this story, like a dozen others we are being fed, is a gaslight lie. --Robertyoho.substack.com.
I recall when living in Oxford, being in a bar one night and I started talking to a Climate Scientist who was about to start his PhD.
I politely asked him if he thought that the "anthropogenic climate change" theory could be wrong. His reaction was that of a religious person who had just heard a blasphemy. He ran away. That told me all I needed to know.
Gerbil warming-a hoax, climate change-cyclical, season changes unless you mean the man-made one. https://blaisevanne.substack.com/ Here is where you can learn much more. It used to be the cia and fbi were modifying the weather. Feel free not to believe this, it sounds pretty far fetched they used micro wave cannons, letting thunderstorms lightning and thunder, but disperse the clouds before it rained. Recipe for wildfires? Now the Air Force and Navy is doing it instead.
Why not, I have for years for the same reason, but they never caught on to that. Not very bright. Well they like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg, enough said?
Not only was there never any 97% consensus “on human-driven climate change”, but all such assertions were either purposely or ignorantly dishonest. And, any “scientist” who actually believes such nonsense that climate change is dependent upon or measurably impacted by the exceedingly micro-minimal and puny portion of man’s activities compared to the immense power of nature’s natural cycles, could possibly benefit from some psychoanalysis sessions or just a moment of common sense.
Regarding scientific 'consensus,' one could also apply the same charges against evolution. Within my traditional Catholic world I know a handful of PhDs who question the logic, methodology and conclusions of their contemporaries. Examples are: the conclusions are correct, but we just need to keep looking until we find the evidence. Or, logically such and such cannot occur, but given enough random chances over millions-billions of years, then it could've occurred, therefore it must've occurred. Here's a good documentary series that sheds light on differences between what the scientific literature can demonstrate based on the data collected versus the conclusions that are taught in B.S. biology books.
Ben Davidson has a YouTube channel devoted to how our climate is primarily influenced by the Sun. This video is a good starting point down the rabbit hole. https://youtu.be/9Fx11vmgcK0
The biggest question that never gets answered is how many of these actual scientists have evidence or even a plausible model showing that any human action (other than new technology) can meaningfully impact any of these trends? And without causing more harm than good?
All of the climate accords if followed perfectly (which we all know won’t happen) still result in increased human carbon emissions. Completely eliminating ALL carbon from North America and Europe would still leave more total carbon emissions than just 20 years ago.
Even when you give them every single benefit of the doubt, their proposals are still a bad deal.
I know that they're lying because here in the UK we've had 25 years of the highest immigration in our history , recently at record levels, with almost all of our immigrants coming from places with lower, normally much, much lower, per capita emission levels.
You just wouldn't have that immigration policy if there really was a climate crisis.
PsyOp Change
The one constant in their Dystopia.
When one ignores all those that don't agree, not to hard to get to 97% it would seem.
And ... they are likely lying in more ways than that.
Yes: be sure to read the other post referenced at the end of your article. Doomburg.substack and alexepstein.substack are excellent also. Not only is the atmospheric CO2 the lowest in 175 million years, but global temperatures follow rather than lead atmospheric co2. The big point is that this story, like a dozen others we are being fed, is a gaslight lie. --Robertyoho.substack.com.
“but global temperatures follow rather than lead atmospheric co2”
Yes, high school chemistry.
I recall when living in Oxford, being in a bar one night and I started talking to a Climate Scientist who was about to start his PhD.
I politely asked him if he thought that the "anthropogenic climate change" theory could be wrong. His reaction was that of a religious person who had just heard a blasphemy. He ran away. That told me all I needed to know.
Gerbil warming-a hoax, climate change-cyclical, season changes unless you mean the man-made one. https://blaisevanne.substack.com/ Here is where you can learn much more. It used to be the cia and fbi were modifying the weather. Feel free not to believe this, it sounds pretty far fetched they used micro wave cannons, letting thunderstorms lightning and thunder, but disperse the clouds before it rained. Recipe for wildfires? Now the Air Force and Navy is doing it instead.
Gerbil :)
Global warming, invented by gerbil jammers.
I'm going to call it gerbil warming from now on. It makes more sense than the BS Al Gore is trying to feed us.
Al Gore is 100% pure BS. Maybe that why W. was president. Not quite as insane about things he got a D in.
I think also that folks didn't realize how much of a globalist he and his father were. And what the significance of that was. I know I didn't.
Why not, I have for years for the same reason, but they never caught on to that. Not very bright. Well they like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg, enough said?
I was thinking the same thing :).
So sad, but it’s true!😡
This video is as timely as ever, well worth a watch.
https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU
Thanks, great info.!
Not only was there never any 97% consensus “on human-driven climate change”, but all such assertions were either purposely or ignorantly dishonest. And, any “scientist” who actually believes such nonsense that climate change is dependent upon or measurably impacted by the exceedingly micro-minimal and puny portion of man’s activities compared to the immense power of nature’s natural cycles, could possibly benefit from some psychoanalysis sessions or just a moment of common sense.
Regarding scientific 'consensus,' one could also apply the same charges against evolution. Within my traditional Catholic world I know a handful of PhDs who question the logic, methodology and conclusions of their contemporaries. Examples are: the conclusions are correct, but we just need to keep looking until we find the evidence. Or, logically such and such cannot occur, but given enough random chances over millions-billions of years, then it could've occurred, therefore it must've occurred. Here's a good documentary series that sheds light on differences between what the scientific literature can demonstrate based on the data collected versus the conclusions that are taught in B.S. biology books.
https://foundationsrestored.com
The "95% safe & effective" trope is nothing new.
Ben Davidson has a YouTube channel devoted to how our climate is primarily influenced by the Sun. This video is a good starting point down the rabbit hole. https://youtu.be/9Fx11vmgcK0
The biggest question that never gets answered is how many of these actual scientists have evidence or even a plausible model showing that any human action (other than new technology) can meaningfully impact any of these trends? And without causing more harm than good?
All of the climate accords if followed perfectly (which we all know won’t happen) still result in increased human carbon emissions. Completely eliminating ALL carbon from North America and Europe would still leave more total carbon emissions than just 20 years ago.
Even when you give them every single benefit of the doubt, their proposals are still a bad deal.
And BTW, our star creates a cyclical disaster every 12,000 years, and the last one was the “Gothenburg Event”, 12K years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihwoIlxHI3Q&list=PLHSoxioQtwZf1-8QeggXIVdZ-abyJXaO1
Good! At this point, I can't wait.
I know that they're lying because here in the UK we've had 25 years of the highest immigration in our history , recently at record levels, with almost all of our immigrants coming from places with lower, normally much, much lower, per capita emission levels.
You just wouldn't have that immigration policy if there really was a climate crisis.
gotta have a crisis at all times
Consensus! https://frederickrsmith.substack.com/p/demented-delphi-and-creepy-consensus-21-03-18
Everything that comes out of Trudeau's mouth is a lie. Many liberals, men and women get wet when they see him.
Bingo.