I disregard the 'simulations'. I find it hard to give credence to anyone who gives those credence. As I understand it, many of the 'observed effects' have been dishonest. Still, the idea that an increased level of atmospheric carbon dioxide *could* be warming us seems possible to me. Am I making an error?
Of course I can see lots of reasons to lie about the effect of burning coal and hydrocarbons too.
@C - The claims are that the earth's climate can be predicted for many years ahead - which is false; and that the earth's future climate can be controlled by Man - which is insane nonsense.
Or, at least, the Climate Change movement would be false, insane nonsense if it really was motivated by 'science' - but of course it isn't; as is obvious.
@C - The topic is usually tendentiously 'framed' in ways that distract from the outrageous and clear wrongness of what is assumed - so it is useful to remind ourselves, from time to time, what the Anthropogenic Global Warming people are actually claiming to know and be able to do.
6 July 2017 at 14:39
The professional skeptic/ cynic is a notable internet phenomenon - posting blogs, wikis, vlogs, videos and other social media that purport to debunk commonly held fallacies.
But while they may be rightly skeptical about small things, they all have a world view based on the incoherent built-in assumptions of materialist utilitarian sexual revolutionary Leftism; and nearly all of them swallow the One Big Lie of modernity which is the climate change scam.
My litmus test says that when somebody cannot see the biggest fraud of all time, which is all around and everywhere; very obviously engineered to justify and facilitate a tyrannical global bureaucracy of total surveillance, monitoring and control...
Well, if that can't see the Biggest Lie, then they can't see the little lies either - not really: they're just spouting a very minor, Establishment-friendly micro-frisson variant of the usual mainstream mass media garbage.
"Swallowing the Big Lie: 'Climate Change' is a litmus test of the professional skeptic/ cynic"
4 Comments -
I disregard the 'simulations'. I find it hard to give credence to anyone who gives those credence. As I understand it, many of the 'observed effects' have been dishonest. Still, the idea that an increased level of atmospheric carbon dioxide *could* be warming us seems possible to me. Am I making an error?
Of course I can see lots of reasons to lie about the effect of burning coal and hydrocarbons too.
6 July 2017 at 03:44
@C - The claims are that the earth's climate can be predicted for many years ahead - which is false; and that the earth's future climate can be controlled by Man - which is insane nonsense.
Or, at least, the Climate Change movement would be false, insane nonsense if it really was motivated by 'science' - but of course it isn't; as is obvious.
6 July 2017 at 06:10
Thank you. That was a genuine question by the way. I didn't mean for it to come over as a challenge.
6 July 2017 at 14:30
@C - The topic is usually tendentiously 'framed' in ways that distract from the outrageous and clear wrongness of what is assumed - so it is useful to remind ourselves, from time to time, what the Anthropogenic Global Warming people are actually claiming to know and be able to do.
6 July 2017 at 14:39