'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

[mchammer]

Another article about the book:

 

[mchammer]

awesome. when you find these reports from federal agencies, please link it here. I'm not seeing them.

We have 1 of 2 things...

Boy, aren’t you naive. There is a 3rd option: no one gives a **** if it is real. It’s porn theatre to extract money from your pockets.

The 43 year satellite data shows the earth is warming at 1 degree per century. Nothing suggests 4-7 C warming trend that the alarmists are pushing. If the actual warming is 1-2 C per century, the response is do NOTHING!!! Why would any grifter support that?? You answered your own question. As you said, trillions have been spent. Again, why would anyone push a conclusion that would turn off that spigot?

 

[mchammer]

2. CC is a hoax and we have trillions of dollars being eventually wasted and impacting everything from our comfort to our national security.

Waste??? Do you really believe the money spent is viewed as waste in DC?

 

[mchammer]

awesome. when you find these reports from federal agencies, please link it here. I'm not seeing them.

We have 1 of 2 things...

1. CC is real (even if exaggerated a great deal by progressives) in which case prudence would dictate substantial investigation and likely action to follow
2. CC is a hoax and we have trillions of dollars being eventually wasted and impacting everything from our comfort to our national security.

Both scenarios strongly suggest we need to have solid investigation and science to back up the discussion. If the CC science is so obviously flawed, and worse yet, fake...then it should be easy to refute. Not in some mom and pop online backroom but with actual research that established agencies stand behind.

Please tell me which economic model that you would trust your savings and/or livelihood?

 

[mchammer]

awesome. when you find these reports from federal agencies, please link it here. I'm not seeing them.

We have 1 of 2 things...

1. CC is real (even if exaggerated a great deal by progressives) in which case prudence would dictate substantial investigation and likely action to follow
2. CC is a hoax and we have trillions of dollars being eventually wasted and impacting everything from our comfort to our national security.

Both scenarios strongly suggest we need to have solid investigation and science to back up the discussion. If the CC science is so obviously flawed, and worse yet, fake...then it should be easy to refute. Not in some mom and pop online backroom but with actual research that established agencies stand behind.

You trust these folks to make an honest assessment of the climate risk?

 

[mchammer]

It’s already in the record. It just gets ignored by the politicians, media, and the grifters who profit from it.

LULZ. Here’s an article in the WP complaining that the GOP included non-alarmists in a climate change panel. How can we get a balanced solution if the dems won’t allow a balanced hearing?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nced-climate-change-hearing-proves-pointless/

 

[mchammer]

In contrast, here’s the record of a panel discussion run by dems which had no balance whatsoever:

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE: THE IMPACTS AND THE NEED TO ACT

 

[mchammer]

Article about the 2017 hearing on geo-engineering:

US House Science Committee just had a rational hearing about climate

 

[mchammer]

More about the 2017 hearing in March:

Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself before Congress | National Review

 

[mchammer]

you're missing my larger point. the GOP had the Senate from 2015-2021 and the House from 2011-2019 and the POTUS from 2016-2020. There are 13 federal agencies that routinely weigh in on Climate Science. Why the heck didn't the GOP use time in power to ensure that both sides of the climate debate were represented?

This is how they were treated:

I talked to Pielke after the hearing. He was clearly frustrated about the status of the science he loves. “If these are the leading voices of climate science, they can have it,” he told me. “The field is so politicized that it’s almost impossible to break through. Now we are being compared to murderers and Stalinists. If their favored policies are so fragile in light of legitimate critique, they might want to rethink their policies.”

 

[nashhorn]

$$$ and more $$$.

 

[Monahorns]

This is how they were treated:

I talked to Pielke after the hearing. He was clearly frustrated about the status of the science he loves. “If these are the leading voices of climate science, they can have it,” he told me. “The field is so politicized that it’s almost impossible to break through. Now we are being compared to murderers and Stalinists. If their favored policies are so fragile in light of legitimate critique, they might want to rethink their policies.”

mchammer, there are many many climate scientists who are not alarmists. Less today of course because of the persecution. But that is the point. They have been marginalized, insulted, attacked, muted, etc. I have listened to a good number of interviews of guys who were top level climate scientists, but when they didn't go along with the climate alarmist narrative they were quickly kicked to the curb.

 

[mchammer]

$$$ and more $$$.

Hysteria and greed make expensive energy policies that won't save planet

 

[mchammer]

European HEATWAVE!!!!!!

 

[mchammer]

 

[nashhorn]

Ha, what BS.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

ok. that one is funny. to me, those are mostly about the MSM and less about the scientist, but they are both to blame.

 

[nashhorn]

Agree BO but someone had to do the loony calculations or get the source to quote the statistic. Maybe not a science claim in every case but I’ll bet some have a ‘scientific’ source. Nah, I didn’t research it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

They have been marginalized, insulted, attacked, muted, etc.

Within their own communities, this is what happens. The political class and media dismiss them as corrupt shills for the oil and gas industry and refuse to give them a platform. But of course the alarmists are regularly given a platform and never have their integrity or interests called into question - as if there's no money or self-interest involved in pitching green energy.

 

[mchammer]

Boy, aren’t you naive. There is a 3rd option: no one gives a **** if it is real. It’s porn theatre to extract money from your pockets…
You answered your own question. As you said, trillions have been spent. Again, why would anyone push a conclusion that would turn off that spigot?

To my point:

 

[Mr. Deez]

European HEATWAVE!!!!!!

One of things I like better about the UK. I wish we had their winters (more snow and colder), but I definitely like the less obnoxious summers.

When it's 93 in Berlin, it'll be 72 here.

 

[mchammer]

you're missing my larger point. the GOP had the Senate from 2015-2021 and the House from 2011-2019 and the POTUS from 2016-2020. There are 13 federal agencies that routinely weigh in on Climate Science. Why the heck didn't the GOP use time in power to ensure that both sides of the climate debate were represented? Why didn't they ensure that scientific papers presenting counter points saw the front row? If the CC science is such utter junk, it should have been easy to present the counter points from an authoritative source while the GOP held all three political pulpits.

BO, here is your chance to get a great look into the debate. One is the Aggie meteorological alarmist, and the other is Koonin, which is the author the book previously mentioned.

 

[mchammer]

To my point:

Note the warming envelope mentioned in the article is now reduced to 2-4 C since preindustrial times. Well, it has already increased 1 degree last century. Thus, the debate is 1-3 more degrees. Not an emergency.

 

[Monahorns]

mchammer, your tweet doesn't mention it, but the debate is a part of the Soho Forum Debate series put on by Gene Epstein. ThAnother great Austrian school economist and libertarian. It is an Oxford style debate where there is a winner and loser as determined by the audience.

It's funny that the other guy is an Aggie. He is going to be toast.

 

[mchammer]

"Give Up Your Yacht Before Lecturing": Bolsonaro Sinks DiCaprio In Titanic Twitter Thread | ZeroHedge

 

[Mr. Deez]

mchammer, your tweet doesn't mention it, but the debate is a part of the Soho Forum Debate series put on by Gene Epstein. ThAnother great Austrian school economist and libertarian. It is an Oxford style debate where there is a winner and loser as determined by the audience.

It's funny that the other guy is an Aggie. He is going to be toast.

I'll give the guy credit for having the balls to debate. Most climate "scientists" just tell the media not to let the other side even have a seat at the table.

 

[mchammer]

I'll give the guy credit for having the balls to debate. Most climate "scientists" just tell the media not to let the other side even have a seat at the table.

He’s been ripped in Texas by skeptics for past statements regarding climate alarmism. If he turned this down, his name would be more mud than it is now. I suspect he enjoys working at aggyland and felt he had to debate to maintain his job with at least of some modicum of respect from the citizens of the state.

 

[nashhorn]

Hahahaha, man made climate change?

Oh my days! Midnight comes a fraction sooner as Earth spins faster — Guardian US

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

Huh? Headline makes no sense

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/04/great-barrier-reef-coral-recovery-climate-change/