Three big questions a lot of leftist struggle to answer ...
(i.imgflip.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
Thanks! I will give that a look. I love watching these kinds of videos, just to see what the arguments are on the other side, if nothing else.
I think I learned about Climate Change in a really good way in High School. We watched an anti-Climate Change movie (The Great Global Warming Swindle), and wrote down every single claim it made. Then, we had to look up every claim and interviewee in the show, and checked if they were backed up by evidence. To me, this demonstrated how much the anti-Climate Change movement twisted the facts and straight up lied. Only after doing this did we actually learn properly about climate change, and I have been keeping up with most major reports on it since, and following a few climate scientists on youtube and such. I think because of this, I find these kinds of videos unpersuasive, as I know the counterarguments, and the studies that disprove them.
I think I am also really suspicious of any claims of there being a NWO, as some random person nearby my school made a video accusing it of being a NWO training camp where they secretly conducted illuminati rituals on the students. We all found it hilarious, but also, made me think these kind of theories were pretty bogus.
Anyway, if you have any other good channels to watch for Q related content or anything else, I would love to know them! I find them very entertaining!
Thanks again for being so friendly!
As a PhD scientist who has been studying "climate change" for the past 40 years, I can guarantee that it is 90% politics, and 10% science. Why do you think they changed from claiming "man-made global warming", to "man-made climate change", and now, just "climate change"? It's because the data on global temperature didn't fit the narrative. The foundation of "man-made climate change" is that man-made global warming is a cause of climate change. You have to have an increase in the rate of global warming above the rate that has been occurring for the past few thousand years, that can be attributed to man's activities, in order to claim that man's activities are causing climate change. Well, the Earth has not been significantly warming at a faster rate during the past 50 years or so than the historical rate of warming. The biggest indicator that there has not been an increase in the rate of warming is the fact that the rate of global sea level rise has not significantly increased in the past 50 years. I believe it's probably safe to say you are under 40 years of age, and have been bombarded by leftist propaganda your entire life. I invite you, as another poster has, to look beyond what CNN, NYT, and a whole host of leftist media outlets tell you, and what leftist "scientists" tell them. A good place to start, in regard to "climate change" is the notrickszone website.
So, unless I am mistaken, I thought that it was Republican political advisor Frank Luntz that really pushed for the shift to using the term "climate change" in public discourse, as he viewed it as a less scary term. In the scientific community, I think it has been a really common term throughout (to the point that the IPCC, founded in 1988, has "Climate Change in its title), as Global Warming and Climate Change refer to similar, but distinct phenomenon.
I also do not know which studies you are referring to when you say that the temperature is not increasing nor is sea level rising. NOAA data shows sea levels are currently increasing at a rate of 1/8th an inch a year (2.6 inches between 1993 and 2014). Similarly, compliations of data from thousands of weather stations by NOAA has shown an increase since 1981 of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade. This has been accelerating from a much slower pace in the first half of the twentieth century, and is dramatically faster increase than past warming events (I had a long section here I cut out about why this must be anthropegenic due to Stratospheric Cooling, Milankovich Cycles, and the rate of Carbon-14 isotopes, but cut it out for ease of reading. I can elaborate on that, if you want, though).
Thanks for the website link, though, I had a peek at it, and it has a ton of really interesting studies I want to read more in depth, so sorry if I am not able to give a full response right now. Despite the number of studies though, it appears like there is a high degree of data manipulation. He focuses incredibly on median January temperatures in Europe, which we would expect to be decreasing, due to Artic Warming (which is especially strong during the winter) weakening the Jet Stream. Seems odd that he only focuses on January, though, and not the whole year, which is showing a clear warming trend, increasing 1.7 degrees Celsius over the last century.
I have also noticed he cuts a few lines from the studies to support his view, even if the study ultimately argues that for anthropegenic climate change (like, he does this on a study about Scandinavian tree rings, and another on North Atlantic dipole). Considering these were the first two studies I clicked, I am not optimistic about the accuracy of his summaries on the rest.
But yeah, I am 21, so fully indoctrinated lol. Most alternative media I find, especially on the right, pulls the aforementioned tricks of data manipulation, so I find it really hard to trust them.
Anyway, I am sure you are super busy, so do you want to continue this discussion in a few days after I read through the website more thoroughly? No worries if not, as I am sure you have more interesting things to do than argue with leftists online (I am just using this as an excuse to procrastinate on my dissertation lol).
You must not have clearly read what I wrote. I referred to an increase in the rate of global warming, above what has been occurring. The same for global sea level rise. The period of Earth's history we are in, the Holocene epoch, has been associated with a general warming of the Earth, and associated sea level rise, since the time of the last glaciation (~20,000 years ago until now). There are fluctuations up and down along the way. The levels of change occurring now are within the ranges of those fluctuations. Data collected during the past 100+ years from a global network of tide gages does not support the theory of man-made global warming.
When you say "he" has manipulated data, I don't know who the "he" is. The notrickszone website is mostly a collection of links to studies by people from all over the globe, so there is no "he" that I know of.
As far as Frank Luntz goes, the MSM likes to call him a "Republican pollster", but he is a "never Trumper", and is certainly not a conservative Republican. Conservative Republicans are the only decent Republicans, because the RINOs and globalists within the party only care about personal wealth and power, and not about our country.
Glad you are open to discussion. Most Democrats just run :)
Thanks! I'll give that a watch later (have gotten lots of video recommendations from this post).
I just saw the first bit, and I have to say, I am not a fan of Davos either. They talk a lot about climate change and equality, but this is often more rhetoric than action. Their dogmatic adherence to Neoliberal Capitalism to solve their actions severely limits their effectiveness. Usually they just come up with a few arbitrary and vague goals, without any true plan to achieve them.
Seriously, how are you going to solve worldwide economic inequality without tax increases on the ultrawealthy? Yet, Davos refuses to discuss this...
I wish Davos was anywhere near as radical of a group that it is depicted as.
P.S.: This is a really common view among leftists. The truth is, we hate organizations such as Davos, the IMF, and especially George Soros. I find it funny when it is suggested that Antifa is working with them, as the ideologies are mutually incompatible. If you look at leftist media (not liberal media), you find lots of hate towards them.
Why is income inequality a bad thing? If someone works harder than someone else, shouldn't they be paid more? Most income envy is due to the media. Without the media telling people they need to buy this and that, or they don't measure up without having this or that, people would be satisfied with all that is ever necessary, food, water, and shelter. The only time income inequality is truly a significant thing is when tyrants are in control. The modern Democratic party of the U.S. is trying to push our country into tyrannical rule. How can anyone support that?
Nice! I gave it a watch! It is obvious you put a lot of work in finding these clips. To me, this sounds pretty great. I am fully in support of more international cooperation (which they seem to be describing).
My issue with a lot of these politicians is that they say this sort of rhetoric, and then don't follow through. I would love to see the US have more of an internationally minded outlook. The number of basic international agreements that the US is not part of (like landmines, cluster munitions, Convention on the Rights of the Child, International Criminal Court, etc.) is truly shameful.
Anyway, if this is the NWO that you are referring to, I am excited to join!