Those "monsters" that are skeptical that climate change is man-made, and going to end the world by 2030.
Chris
Jan 23, 2020
If you recall from Part I, there are three groups of people involved in the climate debate. This article will focus on the second group (critics and scientific skeptics), the science they’ve observed (or not observed), and why they are worth listening to. In this article, I refer to a number of “climate skeptics” from media personalities to climate scientists, some of which have experience working with the IPCC.
At the same time that a then-sixteen-year-old girl was delivering a speech to the United Nations on climate alarmism, real scientists and climate commentators – 500 of them – wrote a registered letter to the UN, with a statement bolded, “There is no climate emergency.” No news coverage was given despite Friends of Science sending that letter to at least 500 media contacts.
John Stossel, consumer report, is no stranger to reporting on “scares” like plague, famine, and perpetual war. The list of things that we were told was “going to get us” is long and absurd, and John mentions, “none of those scares turned out to be as frightening as the warning, but I am told ‘Global Warming’ is different.”
In John’s signature method, he investigates whether there is any validity in claims made by politicians, activists, and media, that we have “twelve years to act” before dire consequences… or is it ten years… maybe nine?
In an attempt to hear perspectives from both “alarmists” and “skeptics”, John organized a debate at the Heartland Institute. Not one of the three alarmists invited showed up to debate. The three skeptics who did attend showed disappointment that the discussion that day was one-sided.
John has also invited Al Gore on his show but to no avail. Why would Al Gore, who finds value in giving speeches all over the world, not find it productive to have a debate around climate change? Debates change people’s minds. It is an opportunity to share knowledge and have the audience and your opponent think critically. If given the opportunity to educate new listeners with your knowledge, one with a solid argument would take that opportunity. Unless the minds likely to be changed will not turn in your favour, and you know it.
One of the debaters at the Heartland Institute debate, Patrick J. Michaels, former President of the Association of State Climatologists argued, “the Obama Administration’s model, projects that the amount of global warming that would be saved from going to zero emissions tomorrow – you don’t know how to do that, put you back in the stone age, but let’s just say we did it – would be fourteen-hundredths of a degree Celsius (0.14 degrees Celsius).”
Patrick also appeared on a Life, Liberty & Levin in October 2018. In addition to the aforementioned position, his resume also includes the Center for the Study of Science at the CATO Institute, Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society, and contributing author to the IPCC. With Mark Levin he explains that the earth has seen two periods of warming: one in the early twentieth century (which could not have been manmade as carbon emissions were not sufficient enough to have an impact), and the other in the late twentieth century (which slowed down or ended while carbon emissions stayed flat or increased). These two periods show no correlation between manmade carbon emissions and temperature increases.
If you watch the short video segment, Patrick also explains why climate models are fictitious and how they are engineered to be sensitive. “The scientists, not the science, are determining how much [the earth] is going to warm” (Patrick J. Michaels, The truth about global warming).
Further to the debate about carbon dioxide and correlated earth temperature, a WND article published December 2019 reports over 100 scientific papers debunking the idea stating, “based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.” (100 scientific papers: CO2 has miniscule effect on climate)
What else are critics saying about carbon? “Carbon is the basis for all life on earth,” explains Patrick Moore, Environmental Consultant and Scientist, PhD Ecology. “There is no such thing as an excess of CO2 under any real-world circumstances.” He clarifies that plants are the basis of all animal life on earth and animals depend on plants for their existence. The sugars are the energy that we need to survive, and those sugars are made of carbon and water using energy from the sun. He also reveals that when we burn fossil fuels, we get carbon and water (and a contaminate which we know how to clean). The idea that burning fossil fuels is a bad thing has become a sort of cult-religion in a secular society and a political movement.
In one Forbes article from November 2019, Michael Shellenberger reveals he has been politically active on the issue of climate change for over two decades and has researched and written about the topic for seventeen years. Yes, he is a climate change activist. He has also corrected “inaccurate and apocalyptic news media coverage” including disinformation regarding Amazon and California forest fires and their links to climate change. His concern is that the movement has been essentially hijacked, making it “self-defeating” which leads to polarizing people on the debate. He explains that the exaggeration of claims prevents being able to focus on important issues that could be managed short-term.
“First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species,” (Michael Shellenberger, Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong).
I highly recommend checking out this article as it is refreshing to hear someone talk about climate change without unnecessary alarmism. Michael has more experience with the topic of climate change than Greta Thunberg has had experience on this planet. And personally, I don’t shy away from hearing reasonable arguments from a climate change activist, because as noted in Part I, there are many statements about climate change that the two debating groups can agree on.
Jerome Ravetz is an American Philosopher of Science, Associate Fellow at Oxford University, James Martin Institute for Science and Civilisation, and has challenged the claims of scientific objectivity for most of his career. His concept of “post-normal science” refers to how climate change cannot live in the “normal science” realm because policy implications have always been present and have been strong. Post-normal science is defined as “facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent” leading climate scientists to break rules of scientific etiquette and ethics and thus become corrupt.
“What I say may be shocking to some [readers]. I argue that the ‘global warming’ campaign can be best understood as yet another of the Wars that have characterized politics in recent years… now the evil empire of choice is Carbon, intended to be vanquished by an infinitely corruptible system of bureaucratically defined payments for non-existent transactions.”
(J. Ravetz, Oxford Magazine, 2010)
Liz Wheeler, of One America News Network, has an informative speech she gave to a group of young adults at Young America’s Foundation conference. This is an easy-to-digest video which is great for tween and teen audiences if you want to counteract any indoctrination that they may receive at school. Liz’s HOW DARE YOU: 10 reasons not to believe climate change criers, explains the “binary choice” tactic which comes into play with the question “do you believe in climate change?” and why that question is flawed.
I’ve watched this video start-to-finish multiple times, once with my teenage daughters who were engaged and inquisitive throughout. The part that had the biggest impact was when Liz explains what outlandish predictions by UN scientists, NASA, NOAA, and others have been made over the last four decades, propagated by news networks, none of which came true:
· Polar ice caps will be melted by the year 2000
· 50-million climate refugees from pacific islands would be flooding the west by now
· California would be flooded with inland seas by now
· The Netherlands would be uninhabitable by now
· Himalayan glaciers would be on the road to being fully melted
· Arctic would no longer enjoy ice
· Children would not know what snow is
Here’s another infographic I found with predictions that didn’t come true:
Dr. Madhav Khandekar is a former Expert Reviewer for the IPCC, contributing to the 2007 report which he was “very disappointed in”. An expert in meteorology and extreme weather, he has published over 150 papers and has been in the field of study for sixty years. Dr. Khandekar’s biggest critiques are regarding significant changes he recommended to be implemented in the final document, but his recommendations were flouted and thus he has lost interest in any material the IPCC distributes.
His other beef with the IPCC reports is the fallacy of the models. As a former Research Scientist with Environment Canada, he describes how the modeling was used for forecasts up to three days at most (depending on how good the winds were). The idea that mean surface temperature can be predicted for the year 2030, 2050, or 2100 is illogical.
In scientific discoveries that debunk alarmism claims and that you’ll never hear about in the mainstream news, you’ll find a group of scientists in Antarctica who found microfossils in 80ft samples of ice core leading to the discovery that the earth was three-to-five degrees Celsius warmer than present-day, roughly 3million years ago.
There are also reports of Australia’s real hottest-day records in 1896 after news networks have been reporting records are being broken at present, or in the last two decades. There was obviously some debate that took place on Twitter about this story, and I wish the content of that debate was available, however many tweet replies to the user who posted the article are replaced with “This tweet is unavailable”, likely in an effort to silence any critical thought against the intergovernmental establishment.
A report by Breitbart in December 2017, articles how raw data tampering took place with sea-level rise numbers leading to a second massive scandal with the IPCC termed, Tidalgate. This is following the original climate scandal appropriately named, Climategate, in reference to the emails we discussed in Part I encouraging unfavourable data to be concealed or deleted.
The Post Millennial reported in October 2019 that an RCMP investigation into the wildfires in Alberta resulted in a determination of arson after Canadians were reprimanded by former Minister of Environment and Climate Change that the fires were the fault of carbon-spewing humans. All these reports of facts coming out after climate alarmists attempt to fault humanity have not obtained the exposure they deserve. The Corbett Report released a video in September 2013, The IPCC Exposed, and discusses a series of scandals that have revealed the IPCC as a political organization that writes reports for a “specific political agenda.”
One such claim of data gathered from a peer-reviewed journal resulted in that data actually being taken from a World Wildlife Fund pamphlet written by an activist about the Amazon rainforest. This forty-five-minute video uncovers many other scandals and is well worth the watch!
Guess who else are critics of climate change alarmism? Sweden. That’s right, the home of Greta Thunberg and her “Skolstrejk for Klimatet” aren’t convincing the people of Sweden that their tax dollars are going to adequate use. As reported by Brietbart this month, the Swedish Taxpayers Association ran a poll where the public voted “climate change spending has been the biggest waste of taxpayer money in 2019.” Further, despite the spending, Sweden’s emissions actually increased over the same period, so taxpayers aren’t happy that spending on this issue has more than doubled in the last five years.
Critics are crucial to intellectual debate. To silence your critics is to close yourself off from learning something new, gain perspective from another point of view, and practice discourse to either better your argument, or better your viewpoint. Since we are being told that the “science” says the climate is changing, humans are responsible, and the change is dangerous to our existence (within the next decade), these are serious statements to not fully examine.
Hopefully, after reviewing the links in the footnotes, you have achieved enlightenment and had some questions answered. The way the activist and pseudoscientists are presenting this claim is farfetched and unbelievable. Keep amplifying the critical voices. Because as Richard Lindzen puts it, “the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the alarmists get.”
Hungry for more truth? Check out this thread on Greenhouse Theory and arm yourself with the knowledge to combat alarmism whenever it so virtue signals through the indoctrinated persons in our society:
Stay tuned for Part III tomorrow when I prod into how awful some of the activists and virtue signallers are.
>>>
Youtube: Are We Doomed? (John Stossel)
ClimateDepot: Liz Wheeler, How Dare You, 10 reasons not to believe climate change criers
Youtube: Former IPCC Scientist Refutes New Climate Change Report (Dr. Madhav Khandekar)
Youtube: The truth about global warming (Life, Liberty & Levin: Patrick J. Michaels)
Breitbart: Swedes Vote Climate Policy Biggest Waste Tax Payer Money 2019
WND: 100 scientific papers CO2 has miniscule effect on climate
Youtube: A Dearth of Carbon (w/ Patrick Moore, environmentalist)
Express UK: Antarctica shock, scientists’ groundbreaking discovery 400ft below ice revealed
Daily Mail: And you thought it was hot now? How a 24-DAY heatwave on Australia’s east coast in January 1896saw temperatures climb to 49 degrees and killed 437 people
Youtube: Fakest Day on Record
Breitbart: Tidalgate, Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise
The Post Millennial: RCMP finds Alberta wildfires started by arson
CTV News: Wildfire that threatened Alberta communities was arson RCMP, province
Quadrant: Climategate and ‘Post-Normal Science’
Youtube: No Climate Emergency say 500 Scientists to UN
Comments