Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Ben Dhyan]

NO NO NO NO NO. I never said that the Climatologists created this. In fact I have always held the position that it was created via politics and political agenda.

Edit: Just to clarify. Science has looked into it in the past and saw a possibility. Politics saw the potential for crisis and ran with it. Government funding comes with strings and it demands a direction of focus that you are not allowed to deviate from.

Correct, here is the direction the globalization elites intend...The Green Agenda

We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the
climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore, Climate Change activist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level."
- Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Correct, here is the direction the globalization elites intend...The Green Agenda

We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the
climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore, Climate Change activist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level."
- Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

Damn son, you've not only got a smoking gun there, the f'ing thing is still warm.

 

[Jose Fly]

NO NO NO NO NO. I never said that the Climatologists created this. In fact I have always held the position that it was created via politics and political agenda.

Edit: Just to clarify. Science has looked into it in the past and saw a possibility. Politics saw the potential for crisis and ran with it. Government funding comes with strings and it demands a direction of focus that you are not allowed to deviate from.

Well this thing just gets bigger and bigger, doesn't it? Too bad you have no evidence.

 

[Debateable]

Well this thing just gets bigger and bigger, doesn't it? Too bad you have no evidence.

Bigger and bigger? WTF are you talking about? This has been the deal from the get go. However you received the notion that we were completely blaming climatologists is beyond me.

The IPCC was created in 1988 and this is in their articles of organization or as they call it "Principles Governing IPCC Work":

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

How in the hell could they have determined already that climate change was human induced back in 1988 before the IPCC has ever done any of their studies? If this isn't evidence to you that they had pre-determined conclusions going in then I can't help how blind you are.

 

[metis]

We have known for about 200 years now about the heat-retention qualities presented by higher levels of CO2 and methane gas, and now we well know that the quantities of both are higher now versus what they were 100-200 years ago.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

We have known for about 200 years now about the heat-retention qualities presented by higher levels of CO2 and methane gas, and now we well know that the quantities of both are higher now versus what they were 100-200 years ago.

You "know" the qualities, you they have to jigger the climate models to to get the drastic results the socialist demagogues want. When it comes to the climate, what we "know" is almost certainly not a complete knowledge, which as a minimum doesn't take into account the effects of the Sun on our extremely complex climate, or the actual (unjiggered) climate data plugged into unjiggered climate models showing results that match reality--not a weather forecast 100 years hence.

 

[Darkstorn]

socialist demagogues

That sounds a bit like rhetoric.

/E: Climate change denialists are engaged in a conspiracy to discredit viable science in order to exploit and profit from potential revocations of environmental treaties and agreements if the gullible masses are convinced with enough fancy word-play.

 

[metis]

You "know" the qualities, you they have to jigger the climate models to to get the drastic results the socialist demagogues want. When it comes to the climate, what we "know" is almost certainly not a complete knowledge, which as a minimum doesn't take into account the effects of the Sun on our extremely complex climate, or the actual (unjiggered) climate data plugged into unjiggered climate models showing results that match reality--not a weather forecast 100 years hence.

That simply is not correct as I've been following this subject now for roughly 50 years as I've had subscriptions to Scientific American and some other scientific publications for that long.

This subject has evolved as new information has been coming in, going from a question as to whether we may have been drifting towards a new ice age back in the 50's, to the realization that global warming for unknown reasons in the 80's, to a certainly that human endeavor is the main culprit in the 00's and 10's decades.

Over the last two decades especially, the climate scientists have gradually discarded other possibilities as being the main cause, including any changes in our rotation around the sun, our proximity to the sun, etc.

Also, what we now know about global warming is not based on models but on actual measurements that have been accumulated internationally for 200+ years now, and now we well know the main reason why it is happening.

The main opposition to accepting this reality is mainly political/economic, not scientific. And, logically, even if we weren't absolutely certain of the causation, wouldn't it make much more sense to drift in that direction even as a precaution? On top of that, there's other benefits from moving away from fossil fuels.

 

[Darkstorn]

Metis, do take into account that everything you just said, is merely liberal socialist propaganda to him. His sources definitely are NOT any form of biased propaganda, oh no. But everything everyone uses to oppose his biased propaganda, he dismisses as being biased propaganda.

 

[Jose Fly]

Bigger and bigger? WTF are you talking about? This has been the deal from the get go. However you received the notion that we were completely blaming climatologists is beyond me.

Just how many people does this massive, worldwide conspiracy involve?

The IPCC was created in 1988 and this is in their articles of organization or as they call it "Principles Governing IPCC Work":

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

How in the hell could they have determined already that climate change was human induced back in 1988 before the IPCC has ever done any of their studies? If this isn't evidence to you that they had pre-determined conclusions going in then I can't help how blind you are.

Gee, do ya think maybe there had already been a body of work in climatology before the IPCC was formed? Or were you thinking that the field of climatology didn't exist until the formation of the IPCC?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Metis, do take into account that everything you just said, is merely liberal socialist propaganda to him. His sources definitely are NOT any form of biased propaganda, oh no. But everything everyone uses to oppose his biased propaganda, he dismisses as being biased propaganda.

The Green Agenda

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You "know" the qualities, you they have to jigger the climate models to to get the drastic results the socialist demagogues want. When it comes to the climate, what we "know" is almost certainly not a complete knowledge, which as a minimum doesn't take into account the effects of the Sun on our extremely complex climate, or the actual (unjiggered) climate data plugged into unjiggered climate models showing results that match reality--not a weather forecast 100 years hence.

True, the theory depends 100% on Jiggered data, without it there is nothing to see

This quote from Yogin Kothari of the 'Union of Concerned Scientists' - is in response to Trump's attempts to make public science more public/ transparent- and pretty much sums it up for anyone

“The science that the agency relies on should be public, but you don’t need the underlying data"

?! oh no that's not important at all!

 

[Jose Fly]

True, the theory depends 100% on Jiggered data, without it there is nothing to see

Oh yay.....another accusation of deliberate, massive fraud made against the world's climatologists........and again, without a shred of actual evidence.

I sense a pattern.......

 

[metis]

Oh yay.....another accusation of deliberate, massive fraud made against the world's climatologists........and again, without a shred of actual evidence.

I sense a pattern.......

Ya, and it's that some people are far more apt to believe their politicians than the vast majority of scientists who specialize in climatology, which has to be the epitome of ignorance.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We have known for about 200 years now about the heat-retention qualities presented by higher levels of CO2 and methane gas, and now we well know that the quantities of both are higher now versus what they were 100-200 years ago.

No one disputes those facts, nor that the world has warmed, it is the claim that the humans are the predominate cause of the warming and or that the present temperature warming trend is bad for humans and the planet.

 

[Darkstorn]

The Green Agenda

So, you're trying to prove my point, or...? I mean, i accuse you of using biased propaganda as sources to try and accuse others of being victims of biased propaganda. And you reply with something clickbaity titled "The Green Agenda" to somehow show your non-bias?

I mean, i did read the link a bit too... And it sounds just as crazy as the title would suggest. It pains me to think that you imagine that **** to be a credible source for anything except your delusion.

I mean daymn son. I meant it when i said i shouldn't make fun of your disabilities but this is starting to become so pathetic i think it's time to start making you consider your options: You can either stay here and continue on your present course. Or you can try to appear sane to everyone else than yourself by learning what "critical thinking" means.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I mean, i did read the link a bit too... And it sounds just as crazy as the title would suggest. It pains me to think that you imagine that **** to be a credible source for anything except your delusion.

Why do you say it is not a credible source?

 

[Darkstorn]

Why do you say it is not a credible source?

I DID say it's a credible source: For his delusions.

But if you insist on arguing about it, i'll use this one instead: For the same reasons he claims that every other link is not a credible source: Bias.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I DID say it's a credible source: For his delusions.

But if you insist on arguing about it, i'll use this one instead: For the same reasons he claims that every other link is not a credible source: Bias.

You mean to say you think all 50 to 60 links that support the Green Agenda quotes are not credible?

The Green Agenda - References

 

[Darkstorn]

You mean to say you think all 50 to 60 links that support the Green Agenda quotes are not credible?

The Green Agenda - References

I've never said anything like that. I said it's biased.

But if you STILL insist on arguing: Yes, i do believe most of them are not credible. Almost none of them are quoted from actual environmental scientists. There's a bunch of politicians, some animal rights activists and even some biologists.

I do make the claim that they are not credible indeed. You are welcome to argue how an animal rights activist's quotes are valid.