Global warming and climate change alarmists harp on about “dangerously high” manmade CO2 output levels. So how much are they? The answer will shock you


#21

Yes, exactly what I meant :slight_smile:

-From the Oxford dictionary-
Deception = The act of deceiving someone by making them believe something that is not true.

And there are powers that have perfectioned this like an art, it’s not a secret…it is commonly taught in some circles, universities, etc.

Advertising is today based mostly on it, for example…plus some psychological techniques to impress the listener’s mind.


#22

And so you believe that is what 99% of the scientific world has done, vis climate science?


#23

Oh. My. Fucking. Word.

I have several Oxford science degrees and several harder postgraduate science degrees so trust me I know what science is more than most unless you were one of my tutors.

And this claim is quite frankly a LIE.

They got random students (kids doing any old fucking degree) to read an article that is FAKE but looks real, copying a true article and changing the graphs and on that basis they signed. Who funded this fraud? ExxonMobil. I too was duped by this shit until I spent literally a couple of hours looking into it. I actually wanted it to be true but it’s bullshit.

People who believe it are devious liars paid directly by the corps or “useful idiots” I e. People who mean well but have been duped into this, ironically totally oblivious that the people they are fighting against are actually the people who are using them as useful idiots.

In my mind perpetuating the myth that global warming isnt manmade is worse than fraud, it is worse than child abuse, it is worse than serial rape, it is worse than starting wars and genocides, it is worse than being Hitler… because all these fuckers can at most kill off millions of people. People who deny manmade climate change on the other hand are edging the whole world and all our future generations into potential destruction. That’s billions of people, forever.

Just fucking stop this shit.


#24

Yet you’ve not provided any consistency, other than opinions from your mouth, and useless yelling.

There are enough consistencies to have the reasonable doubt that every side is being manipulated, exactly like the claim that global warming is manmade, and yet…the entire solar system has warmed up in the last 15-20 years (NASA and various other indipendent astronomers claim), and not of a marginal number, but by an huge amount…who is responsible for it on the other planets, including the gas giants ? Little green mens ? :grin:

And, excuse me if I am sounding a little offensive…but giving the quality of your forum interventions, and eventual current contributions, plus the language you use (technically and scientifically speaking) I doubt more than a little that you really have the degrees you’re claiming :smirk:


#25

Jesus man, just stop. If you were actually interested in.the science that proves climate change is real, and that man contributes to it, just look at the scientific consensus of scientists all over the world.

Haven’t you ever thought it interesting that the vast majority of climate change denial is payed for by the fossil fuel industry?


#26

Where is his contribution ? I may be hard to see, so please pass the highlighter on the text for me …

Haven’t you ever thought interesting that the vast majority of climate change theories are coming from politically active characters, foundations belonging to millionaires, et al ?..

What you still can not grasp, is that I’m not pro or against a part or another, just watching the whole scene after evaluating both and thinking …


#27

Want to see real and serious scienctific researchs ? Here is some… (unfortunately it is not material for the average Joe).

It hints way more and scientifically accurately the causes of the global changes, than all the Global Warming claims.


#28

You are aware that theory=observed and quantified data in scientific terms right? As in, we have understood and observed the effect spoken of?

All a climate change denier can say is

  1. There have been natural periods of warming and cooling, (which science agrees with,)

  2. And A denier will merely question how severe our impact on climate has been, (he doesn’t claim humans have had zero impact.)

This tells me something important.

Climate change denial requires you to at least mildly accept the scientific consensus view, but then encourages you to reinterpret the data that we can test, to make it say something else entirely. This is very telling of something really nefarious.

What is there that is negative or nefarious (politically speaking,) about the side that accepts climate change as a fact and wants to remedy it?

If certain “actors” are telling me to buy an EV, and efficient solar panels, and telling me to stop buying gas, what is nefarious there? I genuinely dont see what you are referring to.

Perhaps you believe that green energy policies would bleed you for taxes? Consider this.

You spoke earlier about technology being hidden away by nefarious actors. Let me tell you a story.

My Dad helped work on the charging system for General Motor’s EV1 in the 90s. He said the battery just needed a bit more range to be truly viable. GM spent ungodly money on R&D for their Electrovet and the EV1 program, but they flushed it to save their bottom line.

They apparently had a special NIMH battery in development ie recycleable, easy to rejuvinate when totally dead, but EXXON bought out the inventor’s IP and nothing came of it.

Im sure you have heard the saying “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime”?

The “Actors” on the climate change denial side are the ones who only want to give you a fish. In fact, they are so status quo as to claim that only they can provide the fish.

You may believe (if you dont than I have misconstrued, and I apologize,) that climate change proponents are tree hugging hippie liberals, but consider that their viewpoint on man.made coimate change is the only one that is the clearest advocate of domestic cottage industry energy production.

Whaf I mean is, If I have an EV and Solar, wind, or water power at home, I am not at the mercy of any government, or corporation to supply my energy needs from that point on.

Up front cost might be exorbitant, but over time, it pays for itself, and I hold the keys.

That is infinitely better than a GM, a GE, or an OPEC telling me I have to keep paying for utilities and tech that haven’t improved much in the last century.

I agree that there is more to the climate debate.


#29

Apologies for the vile language but there are few things in the world that make a toff nerd like me use such disgusting language and manmade climate change denial is one of them (not you personally, no personal offence intended).

I’ll leave this thread with one piece of genuine friendly advice. If you are not paid in some way by ExonMobil (if you are then I would love to see you burn slowly in your own oil ) please write whatever reactionary reply you want to, to save face on this thread, and some will read it (I won’t as I’ll be gone, but will understand your need to write it) … but please please read and re-read this next bit in private and let it sink in over the next few months:

You’re clearly on the right side, with your heart in the right place, with a mind that is open and enquiring relative to most, clearly a phenomenal warrior against the powers that be, a thorn in the side of the establishment… you’re on my team. You’re my man, my buddy, and may one day join forces in this massive uphill struggle we face. But you don’t realise that these powers are very wise indeed and feed on some of us good warriors with disinformation and lies, lies that are right up our street (IE powers are lying about global warming… must be true because the powers are evil… yeah let’s believe it… I did to begin with till I looked at the ‘evidence’) . Most of these lies are just disinformation bullshit i.e. let’s help disseminate bullshit about chemtrails or something to keep them busy, they’ll lap it up and then will have less time to focus on the real issues. The best way to cover the truth is drown it in a load of lies. What’s even more clever about this particular bit of disinformation is that it directly helps these powers… Double whammy for them! They are banking on the weakness of some to be able to discern, and just lap everything up because “it sounds anti establishment therefore it has to be true right?”. This is where we have to be WISER. Sadly two of my friends who have sunk in the quicksand of believing every piece of laughable rubbish there is. People who were once formidable warriors in the fight, but who are now literally laughed at by almost everyone er know for believing in 30foot tall humans, hollow moons, denying manmade climate change etc etc. Interestingly these are my non-Oxford mates and not one of these guys is a scientist, or even been to university at all coming to think of it… I wonder if there is something in that. But anyway… don’t be a laughing stock. That’s exactly how the Powers are winning: feeding so much crap disinformation in the system that sadly some good folk like you buy into it and then suddenly your credibility is lost and everything you say is laughed at as you earn the name Cassandra. Just look at the number of likes you (dont) have. Dont be one of those casualties dude. Keep it real, use your powers of discernment. Understand the nature of the war, the nature of disinformation thrown in the mix to discredit good people like you and muddy the waters. The more time we spend discussing this the less time we have sorting out the real issues. Don’t believe everything! An easy start: just spend 20mins on looking into that alleged 30,000 ‘scientist’ lie that’s a good start. Start unpicking teh lies you’ve been fed. It’s painful I know. But if you are the open minded truth warrior you seem to be you won’t care (I didnt). When I say stuff, people listen. Not because of my profession, my money, my degrees, my CV, my posh accent etc but because people know I don’t believe any old rubbish and know how to investigate. When my two unfortunate friends say stuff even if it’s spot on I see people roll their eyes, politely leave the conversation, laugh at them etc… Again, just look at your number of likes on this thread. You’re doing more harm than good to the cause of truth. Take a deep look. Re-read the above over and over in the coming months and join the fight. Alternatively carry on as you are and be a zombie… used to be alive and fighting but now getting in the way of people like me who are uninfected and still fighting the fight.

All the best dude. Love and peace.


#30

Ok … I partially agree with what you say, but you could probably figure out by yourself that what you’re telling me could be applied from both our sides and used for either you and me, right ?

But if all that worries you is being liked, or fearing to be laughed at, well…it is absolutely not a thing that worries me, as I already said elsewhere “I would rather prefer to be hated for what I AM, rather than being appreciated and liked for what I am not…” , and comparing me to some of your friends, when you don’t know me personally, and know nothing at all of my life, age, and experience is a little pompous from your side…

What makes you think I’m saying the same that your friends were saying you ? I got more than one confirmation in the last 25 or so years of my life that what I was looking at, was right…and you know why ? Because I never discarded any view or hypothesis, and the truths that come up from doing this constantly evolved and carried new revelations; I am a well respected figure in both my work sector, and the people who know me personally as friends (few…but better than being surrounded by limited mindset individuals).

Secondly, if what interests you here are the likes, see my numbers in the forum and the relative badges I got, probably your estimations do not match … but what is more important to me, is that I have given a considerable technical contribution in this forum, since my appaerance, from a technical perspective, often posting or citing deep technical material, and having helped many people with technical help and advice, both publicly and privately, and very little in talking chatter just to hype and burn time…speaks for itself.

Peace.


#31

Can agree on most everything here, finally you made some coherent argumentation :slight_smile:

Yes, but consider this: these actors want you to focus on these “green” technologies (but some of them are not so green if you look at the big picture) because they want you to focus there, and not find-out that there are many, many better, clean and unlimited free-energy technologies.

At one point the world awarness regarding pollution reached a critical mass, and this made it necessary for those who have interests in this sense to change their plans, and spill out some “crumbs” in the form of cleaner techs, to make the public awarness focus on these, instead of many other better ones, available from more than a decade, but censored.

I was very fortunate to having had the chance to see some of these in working prototype form, it is something that makes any other current “green” tech look just so primitive and, in some way, still polluting.

Yeah, it has always been so since the early 1900…but you know, that is only one side of the coin, because the same people who control that side, control the other side of the coin too, including all and any “green” movement.

That’s why it’s necessary to make an effort in viewing the bigger picture of all this, avoiding to take sides, and demonizing any possible alternative view.

Then it is all what counts and is important about this debate.

Peace.

P.S.- Regarding batteries, you would perhaps be surprised to know that fully recyclable ones have already been developed, that recharge in less than one minute and can hold more than three times the charge in respect to the currently best batteries, but as usual, these are kept from reaching the mass market, and in any case there are already working technologies that would allow any device to be powered without the need for any battery or cable.


#32

No, The Science is settled. Climate change is happening.

The politicing and the “other side” of the debate has to do with socio-economic factors, and folks debating about energy infrastructure, its not the climate science that is causing the confusion.

You cant have unlimited free energy, that goes against the physical laws of our universe. If you are referring to “zero point” energy, you are being misled.

Fusion/fission hybrid breeder reactors are the closest we can get to “unlimited energy,” in a shorter 5-15 year time frame, contingent on funding that is.

Batteries that charge in 5 minutes are technically super capacitor/battery hybrids, no such thing as a magic battery.

Lithium Ion with a solid electrolyte combined with supercapacitors will probably be.the.next big thing for batteries, at least for practical use outside of a lab.

As for the claim that “both green and anti green are funded by the same folks,” that’s just called corporations covering their own asses, and its this politicing that makes up this alleged “other side” in discussions of climate.

The science is crystal clear, the politics of energy and infrastructure is what is not clear, and people falsely blame climate science when they should be looking at these other factors.

Exon-Mobil knows climate change is real, BP knows that its real, and they know their oil causes it, we know big Agriculture also contributes, but they all want to keep customers.

Exon and automakers have been investing in the so called “hydrogen economy” since the 70s, knowing full well that even in 2018 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are prohibitively expensive for mass market, because in part such a technology fundamentally relies on nuclear infrastructure to make it viable.

Ever seen the Toyota Mirai? Textbook example of the pipe dream nature of that technology without a nuclear infrastructure. Or, to be more accurate, its expensive because to make affordable hydrogen the means and materials involved are buried in regulations pertaining to Nuclear materials.

Damn near 40 years of R&D from almost every automaker and energy company in the world for fuel cells, and Toyota still had to resort to buying Mirai owners their fuel for a year+ because it is cost prohibitive.

In fact, The only viable green energy that the fossil industry actually pays for (for research and development) and then also bashes at the same time (by funding its opposition) is Nuclear power, of both fission and fusion variety.

Other than that, fossil fuel companies have also tried to pitch E85 as being "green,"when its very much not, by various avenues of deceptive marketing.

The error in your reasoning I believe is that you see the science of climate as the bone of contention instead of the energy and infrastructure debate which sometimes pays for a fraction of studies that muddy the water.


#33

How many millions of scientists do you believe are involved in this conspiracy? How much do you think they’re getting to keep us in the dark?

What’s your scientific background? What experiments have you carried out that show global warming is a lie?


#34

Consider that your conclusions are so only because you’re still missing some other data points and direct experience (that I may have) and still haven’t got the right way to process the information in the most efficient way, what you do is just denying some new possible data and evidence that someone could have found and processed along the way and made new conclusions, a very common way to do for many people, because it is thaught to us since early school and up to the academies and universities.

There is no way to make this discussion advance further and find new horizons, until you stay in that mindset and don’t look more deeply at how you use your reasoning and discernment process, and expand it a little, because you’re using fixed data coming from only one type of information.

I’ll try to expand this topic in another thread that will be better suited to help us to find common grounds, this thread has enough linked material for anyone wishing to explore the topic related matter further, on his/her own.


#35

Lilo, do you know why climate change denial is so ludicrous from a logical standpoint to most people except politicians and fringe scientists? Its all to do with the methodology.

Climate change deniers do not deny there has been a change in temperature per se, nor do they deny that man has played a part. That is significant, because it shows that they are willing to rhetorically accept the consensus view, only in order to then deny it by an arbitrary standard that they have later made up, or decided to employ. IE deniers employ deception to make their point.

Many employ a fallacy ad ignorantiam to dismiss the bulk of the data because, “well, you dont know every little detail, therefore I doubt.”

Also, while rhetorically accepting the consensus view, they then use a fallacy of appealing to Authority, and a fallacy of false equivalence i e select scientists that agree with their viewpoint, or point out something like water is " also a greenhouse gas," in order to disprove the relevance of greenhouse gases, even though said gases have completely different effects, properties, and completely different roles in the environment.

For example: would you argue that arsenic is safe for humans to ingest because there is only Trace Amounts of arsenic in apples, and we all know apples are safe to eat? Of course you wouldn’t argue that, because it’s a fallacious argument.

That’s not how one reasons to discover the truth. If you accept the core hypothesis, only to then try and poke holes in it to show that it’s inconsistent using your selective data set, ( while ignoring the much larger and vetted data set, ie scientific consensus) then you are not reasoning properly.

I got my degrees in history and comparitive religion in University, and I run across these same logical fallacies all the time when it comes to the questions of say, historical Jesus research.

People will come up with theories about a solely mythological Jesus with no historical core by using sources from a later time, like gnostic texts that we know come from the 2nd and 5th century, ( while for example ignoring the sources that we do know are older 1st century, and therefore closer in time and place to the original person.)


#36

Exactly LOL…ever asked yourself what is the metodology you’re using ? :smiley:
Sounds like dogma.

"If our adversary does not believe in divine revelation, there is no longer any means to prove the articles of faith with reasoning, but only to respond to his objections - if it has - against faith " - Summa Theologiae - St. Tommaso d’Aquino.

Just replace “faith” with “generally accepted scientific consensus” , that’s depicts very closely your methodology used…

Bro…this is exactly what you’re doing !

“Authority” ? Cared to write it in Uppercase ?..explains a lot… :slight_smile:

That’s exactly what you’ve done posting that ludicrous “ink test” in water article… :grinning:

It’s no difficult to analyze your wording here, and realize where you have picked your reasoning (core hypothesis, vetted data sets, scientific consensus)…but how much of all that you know comes from your OWN reasoning and discernment ?

Ooohh…this explains a lot :smiley:

Brother … all you’re doing here is just comparing what you’ve learned and hard memorized, and convincing yourself that it’s the most convenient truth you can count on, even if it’s not YOUR truth, born from the germination of something that comes from your internal awareness, and not only from the opinion learned from someone, however venerable it may be to your eyes, it’s more about discernment.

I suggest you read the interesting article I posted, discussing exactly this, in the newer thread.

Peace.


#37

Bullshit. A dogma is a principle held as incontrovertably true. The Scientific method relies on testing and re testing, and questioming assumptions so that we do not fall prey to dogmatism.

I accept climate change as factual, because there is ample observable evidence of it documented by the worldwide scientific community.


#38

Yet refuse to document about the controversial evidence… :smiley:

It’s a scientific dogmatic attitude in any case.

If you’re really doing as you’re saying…then study the video that I posted above, and ponder all it’s available data accurately and seriously, because it has a lot of in it… it requires a considerable scientific understanding to discern and evaluate the high level scientific data in it, but as you say… you have a scienticic degree, right ? Should not be so hard for you :smirk:

Please note - I don’t agree with that author scientific conclusions, but it has a considerable amount of interesting data to ponder on…


#39

Lilo, I say this as soneone who has listened to climate change denier lectures.

Deniers accept.

  1. The planet has seen a warming trend from 1890 to today. (They say earlier temp estimates are too variable, so they discount pre industrial temperatures.)

  2. CO2 “may” play a role, but they argue that we "cant know for sure of the full effect. Some argue that urbanization has caused a heatsink effect, while ignoring that hydrocarbons exacerbate this “heatsink effect.” THIS EFFECT IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DENIERS ADMITTING THAT HUMANS HAVE DRIVEN CLIMATE CHANGE SINCE INDUSTRIALIZATION.

  3. Their main worries regarding climate change are financial, not regarding observed data. ie they are worried about taxes, they cant really argue against the clear observed trend, they dont try. They just attempt to poke holes in minutia.

  4. They believe climate change is a cottage industry and a profit machine. (Is their side not the exact same?)

Pay attention to this. Nobody is able to deny the fact of a warming trend on either side, pro or against, from the time of industrialization to now. IE the scientific data is unscathed either way.

So my questiion is, why do you defend the powers that be on the anti climate change side? What benefit do you have by supporting bullet points that work in OPEC’s, or Coal’s interest?

If green energy is a lobby/cottage industry, it is without a doubt more decentralized, and in the control of private citizens by the nature of the technology.

What incentive is there for you to argue against the science, when even deniers cant say that warming isnt happening, but must agree by and large with data that is clear?


#40

“If you’re really doing as you’re saying…then study the video that I posted above, and ponder all it’s available data accurately and seriously”

I watched it, and it violated the very criteria for “discernment” that you posted about in your other thread.

If you stitch together clips of different scientific talks (without divulging the full context of the original lectures,) and then have an unknown narrator (the video’s creator who is basically a doomsday preparation nut with a business he is marketing) injecting his own opinion and “connecting the dots” between these different lecture snippets to make his point, then the video is guilty of the same misrepresentation that you accuse MSM of.

In fact, the central premise the guy is talking about (pole reversal, weakening of the earth’s magnetic fields, and his claims of the alleged impact this has on weather patterns,) IS REFUTED WITHIN SOME OF THE VERY TEXT SNIPPETS HE USES WHICH STATE PLAINLY THAT NONE OF THESE EFFECTS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.