Climate

I don't care if people believe in, or disbelieve in AGW theory: there's evidence to support at least some of both sides points. I do care that we can't even talk about it, because so many people are 100% sure that anyone who doesn't agree with them is greedy, evil, uninformed, and destroying the planet. The truth is far more nuanced. Anyone with a cursory understanding of the science (including Nobel laureates) recognizes that the politicians have taken over and the Science doesn't show what they claim. Most think Global Warming is likely to be good for humanity and life on the planet, and that just about everything the Press/Public/Activists believes is exaggerated to the point of absurdity. The more this goes on, the more Skeptics come out of the woodwork.

Issue	Lie	Truth
Climate Change	CO2 is causing the climate to warm, we’re near a tipping point: 97% of scientists say so. And the earth is doomed if we don’t accept carbon taxes, green energy and stop using fossil fuels immediately. The Green New Deal would be our salvation. Even free speech shouldn't apply to Climate change deniers, with efforts to arrest those scientists and pundits that disagree with the newspeak	The climate is changing because it’s always changing, the models are inconclusive. Science isn’t consensus and the studies that claim consensus are junk-science. Since the climate models are undeniably broken, and CO2 has been proven not to be as much of a forcing factor as expected, we’re near an all time low in global temperature, warming has historically been good for humanity, and those screaming the loudest have a history of being wrong. We need to study more before overreacting: and fossil fuels have done more to decrease pollution than to harm us. And many famous scientists think this stuff is overblown. You don't win scientific arguments through suppression of facts/arguments you don't like.

Slides

Here's some slides to go over the facts on the issue, topic by topic. (Some have multiple slides of their own, if you want to dive deeper). If anything in these is new to you and you don't know, it shows that you're either uninformed (ignorant) or misinformed (lied to by your media/teachers). Thus if this isn't boring and droll, then you can either verify/refute the points made (which are science/facts), or you can remain an ignorant activist of disinformation. Climate Slides : 14 items Climate: Toastmasters I did a video of a toastmasters speech (2008-2009) on my views on Climate Change. I became curious and started researching as the things I was taught as a kid in the 70s were demonstrably wrong, and became more exaggerated and wrong throughout the 80s and 90s into the hysterics that many believe today. The goal is not to attack other people's views, but to share information for those who want to understand the issue deeper. Climate Forcing Factors What impacts the climate? In order: (1) Solar output (2) variations in the Earths Orbit (Milankovitch cycle) (3) Volcanism (4) Meteorological events (5) Plate Tectonics (6) Ocean Variability (7) Radiative forcing (8) Flora and Fauna. Man impacts the weakest two. The greenhouse effect is the weakest part of radiative forcing, CO2 is on the weakest of the greenhouse gasses, and Man contributes <3% of the CO2. In Science, everything is in dispute. Only the politicians are sure. Climate or Weather Any time someone points to a weather event (like California Wildfires, Hurricanes, and so on) and claims Climate Change, you can immediately write them off as a kook that either doesn't understand the Climate, or as a polemic that is trying to dupe the gullible leftists. Weather is what happens today, Climate is what happens over hundreds (or thousands) of years. While we get some anomalous years, the trends in Fires, Hurricanes, Floods, Snow, Droughts, Tornados has actually been DOWN (not up). This showing one event and claiming "Climate Change" and ignoring the trends, means they're a polemic, fraud, or both. CO2: Understanding the basics If you believe a slew of articles that are out there like these Tipping Point articles , then earth has passed the carbon tipping point (400 ppm of CO2, which we cross the other day), which means 6-7° of more warming is coming, which will; destroy humanity, cook off the planet, flood our cities, and we're doomed. Good, now maybe the know-nothings will shut the hell up and let us get on with our lives, while they're repeatedly proven wrong over the coming decades, just like they have been for the last couple hundred years. Climate Advocates Science is skepticism. If someone isn't a skeptic, then they're not a scientist: they're a politician or an advocate (zealot). While we should attack arguments and not people, you can look at the pool of some of the biggest advocates for a cause, and their claims and bonafides, and see how they stack up. People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bill Nye, Dennis Hayes, Garrett Hardin, Greta Thunberg, Ira Einhorn, John McConnell, John Tanton, Leonardo Dicaprio, Michael Moore, Paul R. Ehrlich, Saul Alinsky, and so on. Your causes are defined by your spokespeople, and their positions/accuracy... especially if they aren't moderated by the more credible at the time. What the loudest voices of Climate Activists have in common are hatred of free market capitalism and individual rights, scientific ignorance, claims way out ahead of the facts, and a willingness to practice human sacrifice (punish civilization and drive us back to the stone age or authoritarianism, no matter how many lives it costs, to save Mother Earth from thriving civilization). Climate Consensus Consensus/popularity is politics, Science is skepticism (and proof). A quick glance and the 97% Scientific Consensus for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), proves that those who repeat it are either fools (unaware of where it came from) or liars (dishonest), there really isn't a lot of middle ground on this one. The actual consensus is surprisingly small, and the studies that say otherwise are embarrassingly bad, and the one thing that most Scientists have a stronger consensus on, is that IPCC and the media are misleading the public (and overhyping things). Climate History If you can't answer/address these points, then you're not up for a fact based discussion, and if you could, you'd win the Nobel prize: Historically, CO2 does not correlate well with the climate at all (despite what Al Gore tells you). Historically, CO2 never caused warming: warming causes the oceans to release CO2. This may magnify warming, but it has never caused it. Why not? If CO2 caused warming, then why did the earth have ice ages (or cool down) when we've had up to 20x today's CO2 levels? (8,000 ppm) CO2 has averaged over twice current levels for the last 3M years, and it's only gone up a 30% over the last 200 years. Most of the CO2 and Temperature rise in the last 200 years was from BEFORE 1950's (when Man started putting out significant amounts of CO2). Climate Quotes From the contradictions between cooling vs. warming, the devastation caused by the pollution or warming/cooling that never came, to the ice caps that are still fine, to the glaciers that never went away, or the plants and animals that are still thriving and so on. Malthusian catastrophe's predicted since time immemorial. The point isn't that we shouldn't study this stuff, it's that we should look at it with the skeptical eye of mature adults who have a clue as to how wrong the religion of Science has been in the past, to know to not overreact like gullible emotional children today. Climate Skeptics Science is skepticism. If someone isn't a skeptic, then they're not a scientist: they're a politician. So the point isn't who is on this list, but who isn't. If anyone is dismissing Nobel laureates and Career Scientists on this list (like Fred Singer, Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, William Happer, and so on), then I want to see their credentials or evidence. If they don't have any, then they're the deniers, polemics or cult followers who can be ignored. Global Cooling Scare The left/media/polemics of today will pretend this didn't exist, or it was just a few outlets that were claiming it, and there was no science or momentum behind it. That's a lie. Paul R. Ehrlich, Watermelon environmentalist of the 1960's, not only wrote the discredited The Population Bomb, but he also started another Tragedy of the commons based chicken little disaster: the Global Cooling Scare. In 1968 he claimed fossil fuels had raised CO2 levels 15% which was causing clouds to block out the sun and causing the global cooling they had been observing (a minute fraction of a degree). He was wrong, warming had caused CO2 to go up (not fossil fuels), and it wasn't causing the cooling. But all the watermelon sources bought in: NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA, NYT, Science, CIA, and so on. We needed big government authoritarianism to fix it, or we we're doomed. This was all the rage until something bad happened... and they realized that despite the 40 year drop in temperatures (due to mans minuscule contribution to CO2), that we were actually warming again. Reverse engines, nothing to see here. Time for the next theory/excuse why we needed centralized Marxism to cure what ails us: this time it was Global Warming. (And when that paused, they changed the term to Climate Change: so that they could use up or down trends as an excuse to prove themselves right). Hockey Stick In 1998 by Michael E. Mann and some colleagues used various tricks to take out past warm periods and defraud the gullible into thinking this is the warmest period in recent history. You could put just about any data into his "algorithm" and it would come out looking like a hockey stick. But since it made it appear like the Earth was getting lots warmer than at any time in the past (and reaching a "tipping point"), propagandists like the IPCC and Al Gore used this to scare-monger around 2000. It was thoroughly debunked by many folks (including real Scientist Tim Ball), and Michael Mann sued Ball for defamation (the crime of telling the truth). Even in the hyper-liberal courts of Canada, Mann lost and had to pay court fees, because he wouldn't show his data like he was a real scientist. And even the far left and completely polemic IPCC pulled Mann's Hockey-stick from subsequent reports, because it made them look bad. If your only tool is a hammer (and sickle) They say if your only tool is a hammer, then all problems look like nails. Well if your only tool is a hammer and sickle, all solutions look like authoritarian marxism. You can tell how much the Climate Activists care about the environment, by how many solutions they support, or don't support. Like: Biggest Polluters are exempted from Climate treaties, Bike Lanes increase pollution, Nuclear Energy, and so on). If it was important enough that they believed that the climate was the problem, they'd stop doing what they're doing and take the low hanging fruit. That the U.S. and our economy is the target, tells us all we need to know about that they really care about (attacking our liberty and economy). It's never been about the climate. Links-Climate Some Sites and Articles debunking common climate "truths", that aren't so true, or at least not very proven. Skepticism is Science, Consensus is Politics. These places offer evidence that should give the rational pause. If activists don't have concerns about this evidence (and can't refute it), or if they attack the source instead of the arguments, then they aren't Scientists, they're polemics/activists/frauds. Memes-Climate It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes... Meme's aren't very constructive (just humorously mocking the hypocrisy and ignorance of the loudest advocates). But if the other side is comparing scientific skepticism to Holocaust deniers, then all that's left is to mock them back. Since science is skepticism, these memes make fun of FakeScience (those that detest skepticism).

More

2008 ABC Predicted that NYC would be underwater by 2015 ABC sensationalized Global Warming as recently as 2008, that a carton of milk would be $12.99 (it was $3.75), gas would be $9.15 a gallon (it was $2.40), and NYC would literally be submerged (Sea level rise was a couple millimeters from 2008). 2009 Glaciers gone by 2020 After Al Gore's error filled Inconvenient Truth, a lot of places, including Glacier National Park put up propaganda sensationalizing their watermelon socialist predictions, like signs around the park predicting that the Glaciers would be gone by 2020 or 2030. They even added deceptive before and after pictures with a Winter photo from 1922 versus a Summer photo from 2006 (Glaciers suffer seasonal effects). But alas, since it is nearing 2020 and the glaciers have only grown since the signs went up, they are quietly having their history revised. Climate Models I'll start taking Climate Models seriously once their developers have code reviews, write user guides for the software, write maintenance manuals for the software, and publish their code, documentation, and data publicly. Real software engineers do all of that. We develop code, expose our code to professional criticism from fellow engineers, document our code for the user, write maintenance manuals for subsequent software engineers. Modern software engineers often publish their code on public sites like GitHub, where other software engineers can learn from their code, or critique their code. The fact that they keep it all secret means that they aren’t confident and don’t want to expose it to scrutiny. Climate Religion Climate "Science" has all the tenets of being a religion. People can't explain why they believe it, but they trust what others tell them, they get angry if you question it (especially if you know more than them), they even want to make Heresy (non-belief) into a crime. Electric Cars Electric cars are great for the tech side. They're quiet, torquey, and if you prefer to plug-in all the time over getting gas every other week or so, then they're clearly better. They also give you HoV lane access if you live in a completely asshatted part of the country. If you have solar and charge during the day directly, energy wise might be a bit green. There's lots of upsides. Just don't get preachy about it, because environmentalism is one of their weakest points, not their strongest. Ocean Warming Yearly, the watermelon environmentalists (Green on the outside, red on the inside), re-release another chicken-little prediction about how everything environmentally is worse than they thought, because the oceans are warming more than they previously released. The problem is that the people who don't know a forcing factor from an albedo effect (and their rubes/audience) don't seem to read or understand the points they're making -- and those that do, aren't listened to. Paris Climate Accord Trump withdrew from Obama's non-binding agreement (either that unconstitutional treaty). And agreed to consider future ones, if there's a better deal. This was because anyone that glanced at it, knew it wasn't a good deal or about climate but wealth redistribution (from America and American businesses/jobs). And of course the left/media that disliked it under Obama, suddenly loves it, lies to its base about what it means, and their followers are in hysterics about something that did no good, a lot of bad, and since they can't argue on the merits, they use fallacies and lies to tell each other about what a big deal this is. This article covers the details.

Conclusion

Most Climate Skeptics I know, came to their position by being more informed than the other side. They understand the basics of CO2, where the entire Greenhouse Effect ranks in the list of Climate Forcing Factors, or the facts about our Climate History, Ocean Rise, Glacial Melt, and Hurricanes. Whereas I can't say the same for the other side. (To be fair, it's the 95% of vocal Climate Advocates that give the rest a bad name).

What the AGW advocates know is:

• what the media and celebrities like Leonardo Dicaprio have told them
• since they don't check facts, they believe there's unanimity in AGW theory (some 97% Climate Consensus) which is completely debunked.
• many have been trained to reflexively write off all Climate Skeptics as kooks or paid shills, without ever looking at their Resume's of achievements, and why they put their reputations on the line
• most ignore that the Climate Industrial Complex is a bunch of scientists and politicians that can parlay fear-mongering into votes, money and power (the modern snake-oil salesman).

Thus when we have a non-event like backing out of the Paris Climate Accord, even though it did couldn't have made the slightest difference in the actual climate, the seals have been trained to bark on cue.

Years ago, I did a Toastmasters Speech on Climate Change. There was a Documentary called The Climate Hustle (2016): while only OK, if a viewer isn't bored by the ground it covered, then they are not qualified to have an informed opinion.

Here's a few Climate Links and Climate Quotes, and finally Climate Memes. The Meme's aren't very constructive (just humorously mocking the hypocrisy and ignorance of the loudest advocates). But if you the other side is comparing scientific skepticism to Holocaust denial, then all that's left is to mock them back.

A question I often ask, is if I can point out anything that the other side doesn't know, is why? If we were having an honest discussion, then the best way to address that, is to present the other sides strongest arguments, then refute it. Why then has the AGW not done that, and gone with exaggerations, constructs and ad hominem's instead?

Skepticism is the best of the isms. It is critical thinking, it is science (the scientific method), and vise versa. Question everything, doubt what you're told, look for the other side of the story, or as Ronald Reagan put the Russian proverb, "doveryai no proveryai" (Trust but verify). If someone is not skeptical of what they are told, and won't question or consider facts that don't support their view, that doesn't make them a bad person: but they're not a practicing person of science, logic, reason or critical thinking. If they can't accept their biases or that truth, then they're not a self-aware person.