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.
|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.
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
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.