There is a large elephant in the room...

Post Reply New Topic

Reading this debate has been great because it's remained civil and those on both sides have been more eloquent and more knowledgeable that I could be on the subject. My grasp of the fka "Global warming" now known as "Climate Change" is purely as a layman.

I thought I did read that surface temps of Mars have been increasing? Since we haven't colonized Mars yet, no human involvement there.

My issue as a layman and as a human being on this planet relates mainly with the strong proponents of climate change requiring "action" on some global level. My "spidey senses" go through the roof at the nebulous "action" that we as humans should be taking to curb climate change; that kind of thing smacks of hidden agenda and that's a main reason I think many people are guarded, cautious, skeptical or outright dismissive of the so called threat of climate change. We saw something similar this year, when FINALLY the agenda all along in the U.S., hidden until this year has been a complete ban on all guns. Everyone knows that was the hidden agenda from the beginning with years of lies and deceit (e.g. "assault rifles" only nonsense). Thankfully at least the "cat's out of the bag" on that one.

I bring up that example only because.....what's the hidden agenda with taking "action" on "climate change"? No one could convince me that there isn't a hidden agenda or an end game if "actions" were put in motion. Those with a hidden agenda are the ones that hide behind the guise of feigned innocence the most: "What? Us? There's no hidden agenda. We just want Mother Earth to be the best she can be and humans just need to make a few minor adjustments to their lifestyles. Barely noticeable. A few simple things will solve the problem and if they don't, gawrsh, I guess we'll just have to make a few more changes and if those don't work, hyuck hyuck, we'll just have to try a few more. I mean we've got everyone's best interest in mind, don't you????"

Just because politicians have a tendency to misuse scientific discoveries, that doesn't mean the original discoveries were wrong in the first place.


So if left wing politicians use and exaggerate global warming, that doesn't mean the scientists were wrong.

True, the Earth's climate has changed in the past. Did these past changes produce any negative consequences?

In repsonse to Magna:
When the scientific consensus told us that asbestos was deadly and action was needed to control it's use, did you suspect a hidden agenda there, too?
When the scientific consensus tells us that excess sugar intake is related to deadly metabolic diseases, and that we should be taking action on that for the sake of public health, is there a hidden agenda?
Are the people with the hidden agenda the ones trying to protect our health, or the ones with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo?

Magna here:

Do you mean pre-1970's when a scientific consensus (ie general agreement) believed that asbestos causes Mesothelioma before it was proven? Or, do you mean since the 1970's that it's been considered irrefutable (which it is)?

Same of excess sugar intake. That's been proven.

Alcohol consumption on the other hand, has it's medical proponents who believe it's healthy to consume moderate to even above what most people consume daily/weekly. While there are also a large number of medical researchers who believe alcohol is harmful. There's been a flip flop on this many times over. If the consensus today flips to "alcohol is bad for you." Should alcohol be banned? If the consensus tomorrow is: "Alcohol is good for you." should physicians everywhere prescribe that their patients drink a glass of wine daily? No. I think we'd all agree science isn't settled on the alcohol issue.

Hiding the climate change data as someone already posted is a grave issue and a major blow to credibility.

Also, researchers, inventors, explorers, scientists in any field historically aren't the ones that have an agenda. The pioneers in the field of robotics that pushed their glasses back up to bridge of their noses and dreamed of how AI robots could help humanity in so many wonderful wonderful ways may have had the best of intentions. Great. What about those that wish to take that technology and use it for control, death, destruction and to feed their own greed?

I want details. Concrete and specific recommendations on how the "consensus" believes we are to combat climate change.

Researching a bit about the Paris Accord for answers gets me nowhere. When I see a tie-in to the UN plan for "sustainable development" (ie Agenda 21), I couldn't even stifle an audible: "Oh, brother!".

No one gives concrete details on changes they believe some countries should take (our exploitative factory countries like China, etc largely getting a pass with some barely plausible sounding excuse) to combat climate change for the same reason gun control proponents have lied for years about their ultimate goals. Reveal the goals outright and no one would buy that they're peddling.

Details, specific recommendations, please. Heck, I'll throw a few out there:

All fossil fuels burned for energy usage should be outlawed for any country other than the ones we want to make our cheap stuff using their slave labor.

Only the super rich should travel by air. After all, they wouldn't stop anyway, they deserve it and really do have more important reasons to fly that we do.

Outlaw plastics manufactured by fossil fuels.
Outlaw fertilizers manufactured by fossil fuels.
Wind, solar and hydroelectric power only.
Reduce or eliminate meat consumption (animals exhale CO2).
Reduce the human population dramatically (humans exhale CO2 and are the disgusting problem with all of this in the first place........)
Global "carbon tax" on every human (a penalty for being alive) and pet.

Details, please.

I don't know about where you live, but the public school system in my area has been a joke for decades. The waiting lists for charter schools is HUGE. Home schooling families are increasing dramatically. Why? The school board ramrodded a plan to build a multi-million dollar wonder school about ten years ago because, gosh, dontcha know, it was FINALLY going to solve all education problems. Nearly everyone who didn't have a vested interest in the school was very much opposed. The school was built. It didn't solve the problem. Just a bit more tax money and this time we'll REALLY have the problem solved, administration continues to become shamefully and disgustingly bloated, problems are not solved and the taxpayer continues to pay more and more and more each year. Credibility is obliterated and everyone knows there is agenda driving the greed......pathetic.

Details, please.

Last edited by Magna on 07 Aug 2018, 9:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

Just reading about the effects of the recent heatwave on Japan, it's absolutely fleshing in some parts of Europe

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2018/ ... 2mo-ShKjIU

This is less archaic than the number of people falling to the heat but the visual's still sad. These dogs and their booties have stuck with me this morning.

Btw, really like CityLab and their quality of writers and diverse topics. Directly related although, I probably would've never read about some of the things that I have on there if it weren't for the stronghold of their writers.

Geopolitical content like that helps to get away from the everyday "rah-rah" of everyday mainstream news

https://www.citylab.com/environment/201 ... ls/566741/

Grief, this was really good/insightful. Didn't realize how hands on some already were, they make it sound as easy as baking a cake lol. I commend their work and hope someone with the funds can help,the woman's larger point at the end of the video does strike a chord. The future definitely is now, the time for planning's over. Waiting to be purged to environmental insolvency's just not productive. The Rachel Carsons and even JFK/LBJs' of the world might not do it.

There should be military deployment and aid specifically tasked with the repairing of the planet. We spend like over a trillion dollars on the military anyway, why aren't they tasked with protecting their own planet? isolationism's folly here.

Pentagon's at least addressed it, they need to be more aggressive; http://time.com/5129002/climate-change- ... -military/

I do have some fear in asking but I will anyway, when was the agenda exposed to completely ban all guns and when rhetoric escape common sense gun laws? Why, would you think there would be a hidden agenda to completely ban guns?

"Each day, researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego collect data by hand from the Ellen Browning Scripps Memorial Pier. On Friday, the water reached 78.8 degrees Fahrenheit — the highest since record keeping began there in 1916. The previous record, 78.6 degrees, had been set just two days earlier."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/us/c ... ature.html

I definitely don't want to go off topic. It's simply a logical conclusion. Something like this:

I'm a person who believes there are not currently enough laws to combat gun violence.
In my mind, more gun laws will reduce gun violence.
Ok, I guess the additional gun laws that were enacted didn't solve the problem. We still have a lot of gun violence....
Let's enact more gun laws, because at some point, we'll "get it right".
Ok, I guess those additional gun laws didn't really solve the problem either. Let's enact some more gun laws.....

If a person believes that more gun laws would have a positive inversely proportional effect in reducing gun crime, the more laws = less gun crime, then the logical conclusion and "ultimate" solution is repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns. Of course the idea of that solving the problem is ridiculous; we can look to Britain and watch them suggest the banning of knives due to the rampantly gory knife violence that's happening there since they've already banned guns.....

Retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens recently suggested gun control proponents cut to the chase and call for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment as doing so would achieve their goal. It's funny how there were crickets on the side of gun control advocates when ultimately in such an action, they would achieve the pinnacle of their goal and their belief.

You just need to do some simple googling to find climate change raw data.

https://data.worldbank.org/topic/climate-change


Apparently, the elephant in the room isn't so visible to many.

and raw temp data per country 1901-2016

http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateport ... historical

Why spend your energy opening your eyes and pointing them at the elephant, when you can instead accuse scientists of hiding it?

So according to Magna, we're creating hysteria on climate change to further a hidden agenda to... er... what exactly was this agenda? To immediately ban all fossil fuels? Why exactly would we be wanting that? What does anyone gain? Is it because we're really evil people who want everyone to suffer? I mean, seriously, WHY???

Is it so hard to believe that most of us are just trying to find a way forward that is going to cause minimum pain all round, factoring in the needs of future generations? And that maybe the lack of consensus on how to do it is not because of deceit but because getting people to accept the short-term pain needed is HARD.

Here we go again.

I gave some theoretical examples of what the "painful" solutions might be.

Please give me some examples of what believe to be real solutions. Later today I'll re-read my post where I asked for details on the kinds of solutions any of you think would solve the problem of climate change because perhaps the post was unintelligible?

There's no measurement data in the links you cited, only very limited statistical data.

Global warming scientists admit they hide their data. I heard one say "we don't want the public to misunderstand", or maybe they don't want their critics to "have ammunition" to use against them. If they published their data, then skeptics could go out and verify the data.

Regardless, Global Warming scientists are like Bernie Madoff ("I can't show you my data, but look at my charts").

Are you a weather expert? What "measurement data" means?

This link for instance can get temperature data from 1901-2016 http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateport ... al_climate

I am not talking about the chart, but the csv/excel data you can download from there, it shows temp per month per year from 1901 to 2016

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 08 Aug 2018, 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.