It was Climate Gate that brought me to the realization that the whole system was a fraud. Once you understand what that grift is all about, the bread crumbs lead straight to the Globalists and all things follow from there.
I think it's the most important Red Pill, and the easiest case to make.
If that's the case, what information should I be aware of to convince myself that we don't need to make substantial economic adjustments to stop destabilizing the climate?
The information of which I'm aware includes:
The top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past 15 years
Average global temperatures have risen 1.2 C (2.16 F) since the 1910s
Average global temperatures have risen 0.4 C (0.72 F) just between the 2000s and 2010s
It seems this is compatible with climate change predictions. What of this is false? Or why should I not worry about it?
You asked your question in good faith, so I'll reply in kind.
"The top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past 15 years"
This is simply not supported by data. The 1930's had many years of higher temps. They have been revising the data to fit their narrative. There are also some serious issues with how global temperature is measured, including the "heat sink" bias of having the ever-decreasing measuring sites being located in cities and in terrible locations impacted by proximity to buildings/pavement.
We just finished a 20 year period of no warming at all.
"Average global temperatures have risen 1.2 C (2.16 F) since the 1910s"
Again, not accurate, but more important is the arbitrary choice of time period you start measuring from. The world was always going to warm in the 20th century because we were coming out of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.
"Average global temperatures have risen 0.4 C (0.72 F) just between the 2000s and 2010s"
I hate being repetitive, but the same arguments I used above apply here.
If you want to do a deep dive into my sources, I'd recommend:
https://wattsupwiththat.com
The big issue with the "climate models" is that they completely ignore the effects of things like Solar Flares and Cosmic Rays which have a much bigger impact on temperatures than any Greenhouse Gas effect.
Not only that, but a strong case can be made using history that mankind thrives in warmer periods.
Thanks for the link. The provided site appears to be a lot to study.
Many, including me, have been convinced by the media that climate change is an existential threat, and that radical adjustments must be made to stop it. If that's true, then things like an effective global carbon tax seem necessary; however, the Paris Climate Agreement seems ineffective and harmful to the West. The reliance on wind and solar instead of nuclear also seems questionable.
If climate change is false, a lot of people need to be convinced. In this case, we need something like Mike Lindell's short video (the one that's 16 minutes) summarizing the arguments accurately, succinctly, and in a way that equips the viewer for further study.
A point also needs to be made who and why manufactured the narrative we have accepted. Now that we see how blatantly the global media coordinated lying about Covid and the 2020 election, it is easier to see how the narrative could be false. However, there remains the question: if the narrative is fundamentally based on manipulated data, who originated it, and for what reason?
This is basically what broke the idea for me. A bunch of leaked emails from the big players in the early days of "global warming" show exactly how much they fucked with the data and the field in order to strive for predetermined conclusions.
Those videos have already been made. I'll go look for them and "circle back" to you later today.
The entire Climate Change movement was created by a Canadian named Maurice Strong (he's an interesting read) and implemented through the UN with a lot of help from Globalist think tanks and people like Soros. Their solutions to their made up problem were all about One World Government, and Climate Change was the mechanism they planned to use. Please note the similarities with how they scared us with Covid to consolidate power.
I once believed in Climate Change and even gave money to Greenpeace. After the ClimateGate emails came out about 12 years ago, it became obvious that the science was very flawed and the scientists very compromised. All research was controlled by the Cabal and you couldn't publish if you went against the accepted narrative. Sound familiar?
I will get you those videos today and I hope you draw the conclusions I have and help spread the word. I've long thought it was the best evidence of all that there is indeed a Globalist Cabal that will lie to get power.
We are not saying the world hasn't warmed in the last century. It has, for many reasons, just not to the degree that they are alleging.
They are also assuming that Carbon is the "control knob" for our climate. It is not, and is more likely but a minor factor and evidence suggests that rising Carbon levels actually trails rising temperatures, not the other way around.
It is also important to note that they have never made a sound case for why warmer temperatures are a bad thing. We've got a Solar Minimum coming in the next 2 decades where global temps are likely to drop 2-3 degrees. We'll all be wishing for Global Warming at that point, and I only hope that real science is allowed to develop means for fighting that.
The truth is that we are in our infancy for understanding how our climate works, and pretending that we have anywhere near enough information to make an informed decision goes against all scientific processes and suggests an ulterior motive.
I was negligent earlier in not mentioning Dr. Willie Soon.
In my defense, I just couldn't remember his name. He explains my case better than I could ever do myself, and this video that I just dug up from my archives is pure gold.
I haven't watched this video in about a year, but am doing so now, and my recollection is that this is the dagger in the heart of this debate:
Records have only been kept since mid 1800’s. All previous charts are extrapolated data, but that data shows we’re just in a normal cycle and it’s not warming outside normal trends. Due to Grand Solar Minimum we’re actually going to see colder norms for a while and many predict a timely small ice age. The scientists that rely on gov’t grants for their income SKEWED climate data under DS threat think Gore to inject their narrative. It’s all a carbon tax ploy to enrich the DS.
That is not a useful response that's going to change minds. If people believe it's real, then arguments are needed to invalidate the things we have accepted as true.
It was Climate Gate that brought me to the realization that the whole system was a fraud. Once you understand what that grift is all about, the bread crumbs lead straight to the Globalists and all things follow from there.
I think it's the most important Red Pill, and the easiest case to make.
I see more and more masks on chins. I think normies are starting to realize that the plague isn’t dropping bodies left and right.
If that's the case, what information should I be aware of to convince myself that we don't need to make substantial economic adjustments to stop destabilizing the climate?
The information of which I'm aware includes:
The top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past 15 years
Average global temperatures have risen 1.2 C (2.16 F) since the 1910s
Average global temperatures have risen 0.4 C (0.72 F) just between the 2000s and 2010s
It seems this is compatible with climate change predictions. What of this is false? Or why should I not worry about it?
You asked your question in good faith, so I'll reply in kind. "The top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past 15 years" This is simply not supported by data. The 1930's had many years of higher temps. They have been revising the data to fit their narrative. There are also some serious issues with how global temperature is measured, including the "heat sink" bias of having the ever-decreasing measuring sites being located in cities and in terrible locations impacted by proximity to buildings/pavement. We just finished a 20 year period of no warming at all. "Average global temperatures have risen 1.2 C (2.16 F) since the 1910s" Again, not accurate, but more important is the arbitrary choice of time period you start measuring from. The world was always going to warm in the 20th century because we were coming out of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century. "Average global temperatures have risen 0.4 C (0.72 F) just between the 2000s and 2010s" I hate being repetitive, but the same arguments I used above apply here. If you want to do a deep dive into my sources, I'd recommend: https://wattsupwiththat.com
The big issue with the "climate models" is that they completely ignore the effects of things like Solar Flares and Cosmic Rays which have a much bigger impact on temperatures than any Greenhouse Gas effect.
Not only that, but a strong case can be made using history that mankind thrives in warmer periods.
Thanks for the link. The provided site appears to be a lot to study.
Many, including me, have been convinced by the media that climate change is an existential threat, and that radical adjustments must be made to stop it. If that's true, then things like an effective global carbon tax seem necessary; however, the Paris Climate Agreement seems ineffective and harmful to the West. The reliance on wind and solar instead of nuclear also seems questionable.
If climate change is false, a lot of people need to be convinced. In this case, we need something like Mike Lindell's short video (the one that's 16 minutes) summarizing the arguments accurately, succinctly, and in a way that equips the viewer for further study.
A point also needs to be made who and why manufactured the narrative we have accepted. Now that we see how blatantly the global media coordinated lying about Covid and the 2020 election, it is easier to see how the narrative could be false. However, there remains the question: if the narrative is fundamentally based on manipulated data, who originated it, and for what reason?
This is basically what broke the idea for me. A bunch of leaked emails from the big players in the early days of "global warming" show exactly how much they fucked with the data and the field in order to strive for predetermined conclusions.
I appreciate your open mind on the subject.
Those videos have already been made. I'll go look for them and "circle back" to you later today.
The entire Climate Change movement was created by a Canadian named Maurice Strong (he's an interesting read) and implemented through the UN with a lot of help from Globalist think tanks and people like Soros. Their solutions to their made up problem were all about One World Government, and Climate Change was the mechanism they planned to use. Please note the similarities with how they scared us with Covid to consolidate power.
I once believed in Climate Change and even gave money to Greenpeace. After the ClimateGate emails came out about 12 years ago, it became obvious that the science was very flawed and the scientists very compromised. All research was controlled by the Cabal and you couldn't publish if you went against the accepted narrative. Sound familiar?
I will get you those videos today and I hope you draw the conclusions I have and help spread the word. I've long thought it was the best evidence of all that there is indeed a Globalist Cabal that will lie to get power.
Let me just clarify one thing:
We are not saying the world hasn't warmed in the last century. It has, for many reasons, just not to the degree that they are alleging.
They are also assuming that Carbon is the "control knob" for our climate. It is not, and is more likely but a minor factor and evidence suggests that rising Carbon levels actually trails rising temperatures, not the other way around.
It is also important to note that they have never made a sound case for why warmer temperatures are a bad thing. We've got a Solar Minimum coming in the next 2 decades where global temps are likely to drop 2-3 degrees. We'll all be wishing for Global Warming at that point, and I only hope that real science is allowed to develop means for fighting that.
The truth is that we are in our infancy for understanding how our climate works, and pretending that we have anywhere near enough information to make an informed decision goes against all scientific processes and suggests an ulterior motive.
I was negligent earlier in not mentioning Dr. Willie Soon.
In my defense, I just couldn't remember his name. He explains my case better than I could ever do myself, and this video that I just dug up from my archives is pure gold.
I haven't watched this video in about a year, but am doing so now, and my recollection is that this is the dagger in the heart of this debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U&t=221s
Records have only been kept since mid 1800’s. All previous charts are extrapolated data, but that data shows we’re just in a normal cycle and it’s not warming outside normal trends. Due to Grand Solar Minimum we’re actually going to see colder norms for a while and many predict a timely small ice age. The scientists that rely on gov’t grants for their income SKEWED climate data under DS threat think Gore to inject their narrative. It’s all a carbon tax ploy to enrich the DS.
Good question. How about the fact that it's not real?
That is not a useful response that's going to change minds. If people believe it's real, then arguments are needed to invalidate the things we have accepted as true.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/?sh=5497f64f6184
Sorry. This was supposed to be added to the comment.