Trying to red pill some liberal friends who aren't keen on Biden but think Trump wasn't great for the environment especially with "global warming's impending doom". So... title?
Comments (31)
sorted by:
Repeat after me..."foreign aid and climate activism=money laundering for the political elite". Thanks for the tax dollars slaves...we will take that!
You mean like the ice age blizzard that went from Canada to Mexico last week?
lol I agree, but they're very brainwashed that they can't use their own eyes. They need the "science".
They've been brainwashed to believe fake science, so...
I'm a scientist. I've been asking people for a couple decades to show me good evidence it isn't bogus.
The only piece of real science I have seen to support it is a very mild warming trend over a couple decades. The warming trend seen is the same type of warming trend that has been seen thousands of times in geological records, and we are no where near numerous past peaks in temperature. In fact compared to geological records we are in a relatively cool period.
Other than that I have seen tens, maybe a hundred climate models that have failed prediction by a stupendous amount. Every single one has been so miraculously bad at predicting trends its as if they were trying really hard to make bad models.
I used to think they got a bunch of real scientists together and asked them all to make April Fools climate model. Then someone stole those fake models and started publishing them one by one as a LARP, but everyone took them seriously instead.
That was before I realized the whole thing was a DS PsyOp for control and money.
@OP: My advice is to ask them for a piece of real science that supports the theories. Ask them for a single predictive climate model that has lived up to its predictions. The main problem with their thinking is, you can't prove something doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person who says it does.
It's because they all use 2 inputs, one of which is completely wrong. But instead of realizing there might be something amiss with their hypothesis, they double down on their dogmatic religion. Gee ... there must be some rea$$$$$$$on they do that.
In fact, we are in an interglacial period, which started about 10,000-12,000 years ago, within a 2,000,000-year ice age.
We are also within a 300-year warming period, which followed a 300-year cooling period, which followed a 300-year warming period, etc.
The Sun and the Earth's periodic tiliting and gyrating in various ways are the primary factors in our climate changing over time.
Humans have added some CO2 to the atmosphere, which is excellent for plant life and, therefore, all life.
They will unironically say that the "extremes in weather" are indicative of it.
Glacier National Park removes signs predicting glaciers will be gone by 2020. The age of moving the goalposts and faking touchdowns.
Unfortunately I made the mistake of not archiving resources over the years, but with some effort you should be able to verify the following.
If global warming were a significant issue, then we would be pushing for nuclear power and nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fusion will take decades at current pace (less with significant funding that isn't occurring), but once completed we will have unlimited green energy by today's standards.
This implies that any potential damage caused by global warming will be reversible at scale.
We already have prototypes for:
Plants/fungi that consume plastics and hence take care of the much more significant threat that is pollution (which nobody with half a brain is going to argue)
Extraction of atmospheric CO2 (which may or may not be a good idea and demands significant research into the real impact of CO2)
Data processing: With nuclear fusion we'd be able to build supercomputers that will make Moore's law look like a joke. This implies climate models that will enable full control over weather and environment.
Now with nuclear fusion being a little while into the future the most efficient way to curb any climate and pollution issues are nuclear power plants.
They are the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to produce energy as of today, because they use the least amount of surface area per output. All "green" forms of energy annihilate entire ecosystems at costs (environmental and economical) significantly higher than nuclear fission.
The only issue with that would be nuclear waste, which with nuclear fusion will become a non-issue (worst case shoot the junk into the sun, which will become viable once synthesizing materials ad absurdum becomes economical through fusion).
The fact that nobody is pushing for nuclear power and nuclear fusion hence concludes that there is no threat to the planet, because none of the above is a secret for anybody following the real science, as opposed to political narratives.
All of the above ignores the highly questionable flip-flop from "global cooling" to "global warming" to "climate change" whenever the weather doesn't play along with the constructed narrative.
The weather forecast from last week should be enough
How about snow in Jerusalem heck bet Texas does
Forbes articles on how the 97% is bogus:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=39c4da083f9f
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=2ed528f51157
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/
The wikipedia page with the list of scientists that disagree with global warming has, of course, been deleted. It was long. You can still find the page but it basically says, deleted. In and of itself that should tell them something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
Global warming impending doom? If so, why do Gore and O own huge estates on the coasts? Dont they claim ice is melting and ocean levels rising? Would anyone spend millions on properties that would soon be under water?
This is a good start. It gets at one of their biggest lies and one that is easily disprovable. The so-called scientific consensus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw
It's short and does not speculate. Just shows that what we are being shown about "global warming" or as they now call it "climate change" is a manipulated narrative. It also makes you question: If it was True, why would they need to lie?
https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-and-temperature-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046
https://www.prageru.com/video/religion-of-green/
https://twitter.com/TheAliceSmith/status/1343931265867800576?s=20
https://twitter.com/QuazgarTheGreat/status/1343944519323168778?s=20
This site https://www.climatedepot.com/m/
And
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Check them and their archives
Lived experience...
Tonyheller on bitcute has some good climate BS info. Many videos are short and to the point.
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/TiI9raakyTiT/
X22 report from, I think Feb 19. Talks about the Paris crap in plain english.
Sun and heat bring life. Cold brings death. Period.
About 15 years ago, emails from the University of East Anglia in London were hacked, at the time it was one of the most important institutions studying global warming. Well, it looks like the "scientists" found out that the planet had gotten colder, then they cooked the books and used Alinsky's tactics on anyone who had the temerity to question their data. Also the same people who informed us in the late 1970s that we were in another Ice Age and very soon. I remember the frozen wastelands on the covers of Time and Newsweek magazines. So the next time a statist stooge gives you the BS on climate change, hit them with that. Just another way for the state to take control of another sector of the economy.
https://extinctionclock.org/
Here you go. An up to date growing tally of false claims of global warming/climate change/global cooling or whatever the fuck it's called now..
https://realclimatescience.com/
In 1 hour, you will know more than 99% of everyone (including "scientists"), and when you are done with that, get back to me (in this thread), and I will explain EXACTLY why ALL of the climate computer models have been wrong for the past 40 years in EVERY prediction they have ever made.
But you have to have the fundamentals down first. So, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G25FxnF6e1U
I've always liked this site: https://wattsupwiththat.com/
lots of REAL science.
Check out the book Red Hot Lies by Chris Horner. Published in 2008 but aged like wine.
No, that's not what the libtards preach.