It's about money and wealth transfer. No amount of carbon taxes will change the climate. They will just ask for more and more.
You've been suckered and scared.
A Few Honest Questions for the Climate Hoaxers?
- Thread starter grainfedpraiboy
- Start date
It's about money and wealth transfer. No amount of carbon taxes will change the climate. They will just ask for more and more.
You've been suckered and scared.
None that I'm aware of.
Can't speak for "most," but it's obvious to me their models are too limited.
AGW, the phrase 'Climate Change' was conconcted later to cover their asses as when absolutely NONE of their predictions panned out, is a profound dissent from the Western Scientific Tradition.
It is not based on hypothesis, objective testing and empirical observation.. it is based on 'models' that are incapable of isolating the key factors of their claim from other pontential factors. It is fatallly limited both in scope and and in time.. having no answers as to the origin on historical climate epochs.. or lesser warming or cooling periods. It is inherently prejudiced in its choices of measurement, which inevitably support its case.
It becomes obvious that these 'scientists' have no interest in the truth.. they are interested in promoting a pernicious philosophical and political agenda... of depopulation and limiting the human pestilence on pristine Mother Earth. It is a pagan, nature worshipping cult.. that has nothing to do with real science.
As with all orthodoxies that impose themselves on academic communities, they are viciously persecutorial of dissent. You put your career, tenure, appointments, publishings in severe jeopardy if you cast doubt on the orthodox 'truth' of AGW. Hence they can claim virtually unanimous support from those who have been cowed into support... when they don't have an ounce of scientific credibility or integrity.
Last edited:
What do you mean by climate hoaxers? Skeptics on any topic are pretty much always a coalition nut jobs and rationalists. Climate change is no different, but by using the term hoaxer, you are essentially castigating everyone with the same conspiratory brush. That's like saying everyone who is skeptical of religion belongs in the same camp as the Zeitgeist movement.
You at least acknowledge that this is not a discussion about whether or not it's a conspiracy, so let's move on by summarizing the theory of AGW:
1) The earth is warming.
2) Man is responsible.
3) This is bad and will be catastrophic.
4) We must do something to stop this.
5) Anyone who questions just one of these assertions is a denier or a hoaxer.
I agree with the first two points, so I guess that makes me 3/5ths hoaxer (to use your term). Some hoaxers (of the conspiracy theorist type) are 100% hoaxer in that they deny the world has warmed over the past 100 years, while others like Bjorn Lamborg are only 2/5th hoaxer.
To answer your questions, there are many. Judith Curry and Roy Spencer are probably the better ones, but there are others. Why do I not believe climate scientists? Actually, I do. When they say the earth has warmed, I believe them. When they say that we are likely responsible for warming, I believe them. When they make apocalyptic Michael Mann predictions I don't believe it because the catastrophic predictions they made that were supposed to materialize by now have not done so. As Feynman said, if the theory does not match the data, the theory is wrong. Period.
I hear this a lot from people on this board. Can you tell me the dollar amount of the climate change money we've sent so far to the third world so I know what you folks are referring to?
Last edited:
Nothing sent because fewer and fewer people and gvts are buying into the fantasy
Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. I do regard science as fact (or the closest thing to it in our world.) I also accept that science is ever evolving. I do not believe this is a contradiction.
Taxslave will tell you in almost every thread that the concept of AGW is part of a conspiracy to send Canadian tax dollars to the third world. Eaglesmack tells you the same in every second thread. Walter will tell you the whole thing was cooked up by the people bringing you the "New World Order" and petros has stated multiple times that climate scientists lie for the money or to otherwise 'protect their funding'.
Again capt, lots of bluster on your part - little substance. And you've still not answered any of the question.
How about you tell me who the leading climatologists and organisations are who share your view. That is unclear to me.
I still want to know why we should panic over returning to normal after the coldest point in civilized man's history?
Most governments of all political stripes never meet a tax they didn't like. I agree that no amount of carbon taxes will prevent further climate change. Government will always ask for more until guys like you stop expecting guys like me to be taxed to death to pay for the externalized expenses (healthcare, landfills, recycling schemes etc) for all the plastic crap I am forced to subsidise as just one example.
Why is it the people who believe climate change is a hoax always have to conclude with an insult of some sort? Look at almost every post here. Why is civil debate on this subject so difficult for the hoaxer crowd?
You should worry because:
1. The ph of the oceans is measurably changing and becoming more acidic because of atmospheric CO2;
2. the oceans are rising at a rate of an inch per year according to NASA;
3. the earth is going through a rapid extinction event on a timeline unprecedented in it's history;
4. pollution on earth has become such a problem that cancer is the leading cause of death in China and every man woman and child on the planet now has plastic in their blood;
5. the planet currently lacks the resources or ability to accommodate 7 billion people with a Canadian type lifestyle let alone the 10 billion we'll hit the middle of this century.
The point is that it employing a 'statement of fact' while simultaneously refuting an alternate statement of fact is a tenuous position when one acknowledges that 'facts' are in constantly evolving.
Taxslave has never employed the idea that this is a conspiracy. That said, the most prominent lobby groups that champion AGW/CC decry the need for the West (incl Canada) to 'fund' initiatives in the developing world... Call it what you want, but it is a form of tax.
This brings to light a very unfortunate circumstance... The AGW/CC crowd expresses the dangers of human induced climate change and the only answer is to reduce emissions... The conundrum here is that the most direct manner to achieve this is by limiting the actual number of 'emitters' in the equation.
I said it in a round-about way, the direct observation is that the AGW/CC position is best served by a mass cull of humans... For the sake of clarity, as I don't buy into the AGW/CC premise, I don't not support this, but for those that do, they have a real ethical dilemma on their hands
No bluster on my part, and again, I have answered your questions.... I refuse to be limited to a small box of logic, imposed by a select philosophy. This is why you are having such difficulty in squaring this circle
Quite frankly, you walk the thinnest of lines and it takes almost nothing to turn the tables in determine that it is really the pro-AGW/CC crowd that are in denial, and therefore, are in fact the 'hoaxers'
I look towards the geologic record, paleo-studies in the hard sciences.
Let me ask you... Define a climate scientist for me and more over, what accredited universities have offered formal, universally recognized degrees in this area for more than 10 or 15 years?
Fair enough, point taken. Though what should I call people who believe AGW is a hoax?
At issue is number five on your list. I see people who deny science and will tell you vaccines are bad. I see people who know nothing of agriculture deny science and tell you GMO is bad. And of course, I see people deny climate science and dispute climate change. Obviously these are political decisions or their defensive points wouldn't be peppered with nonsense about wealth transfers to the third world or that climatologists are lying in order to protect their funding.
When scientists make "apocalyptic" pronouncements my observations has been that is more media spin but at the end of the day, we are seriously cocking up the planet with our poor management practices and left unabated, the most serious of the predictions are likely to come true at some point. Data can be misinterpreted or misunderstood but the science itself never lies.