Global warming vs. Climate change

bobhardee wrote:7/15/2016
Anyone who questions climate change would do better than to argue with a road sign than to post their disagreement and expect me to comment.

There's nothing wrong with a road sign, Bob.  I just didn't want to bother stating the obvious, but it seems I've just been egged on haha!

I wanted to spare your thread.  Fine, you asked for it.

I'm not suggesting it's ALL predictive programming.  It's just something to think about as something not to be overlooked.  There's possibly 'real' climate change (sure, and if so, it's probably natural for the most part [eg. sun cycles, solar system cycles, galaxy cycles, whatever...], has happened countless times in our past, will happen in the future, and there's not much that can [or even should or could] be done to change that IMO).  This is about taking whatever that 'truth' may be and twisting it into bullshite for a cabalistic agenda by saying humans are the cause (the ENTIRE cause the way they go about it).

Anyway, I never expect you or anyone else to comment on whatever I post in this forum (it's nice sometimes, but I don't expect it).  When I post, it's for everyone who is following that thread.  I happened to be over on that Agenda 21 thread and it seemed to be a good little reminder about how facts/information are constantly twisted and manipulated to instill guilt and fear in the masses in order to steer them to think whatever these cabalists want us to think.  It's all the excuse they need to continue, with immunity, to control/subjugate us while poisoning us to keep our numbers down.  They have all kinds of nonsense reasons for this (and maybe they even believe their own nonsense), but that's another topic which is why I only posted a link to the Agenda 21 thread.

You see, I am not even concerned about 'climate change' -- real or not.  Remember how it used to be called 'global warming' and they inundated us with images of polar bears clinging for dear life to melting icebergs?  Eventually, people started to question that so they changed it to 'climate change' so no matter what mother nature does (or doesn't do), they can twist and fabricate it to their advantage.










I do care about how there's this little merry band of psychos...  And, we continue to allow them to control our lives and this entire planet as they push ahead their 'new world order' using whoever and whatever works.

I do not think it's wise to separate the question/truth of 'climate change' from the 'bigger picture'.  

bobhardee wrote:Pris
Have you lost whatever little contact you had with REALITY?
Maybe the only misinformation agent is YOU.
Bob H.

Get a grip child.

Your uh... concern for me is touching, Bob.  

Btw, I never said you were a misinformation agent.
It's possible you may be naively oblivious and a wee bit in denial.





My contribution here is about widening the scope of possibilities for consideration.

bobhardee wrote:Okay I'm sorry.

mudra wrote:Hello Bob

I don't want to speak in the name of Pris but I believe you will find
her posts are aligning with what the following videos are raising for concern
in the Global Warming agenda.


Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink

Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week’s US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.”


https://www.corbettreport.com/climatologist-breaks-the-silence-on-global-warming-groupthink/


Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics

Don’t you hate when Fox News and the other MSM spin-meisters use simple tricks to skew and misrepresent data and statistics? How about when the World Meteorological Organization does it? Or NASA? Or the Journal of Climate? Or GISS? Join James for today’s thought for the day as he shows you some of the grade school level parlour tricks the global warming alarmists use to misrepresent their data and bamboozle the public.

https://www.corbettreport.com/lies-damned-lies-and-global-warming-statistics/


Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience


Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.

https://www.corbettreport.com/climate-change-is-unfaslifiable-woo-woo-pseudoscience/


Love Always
mudra

How about Lies, Damned Lies, and Koch Brothers funded Libertarian corporate deep state fake science global warming statistics?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

The Kochs are globalists, faux Libertarians, going back to their father co-opting the John Birch Society. Despite long ago JBS members having known the intricacies of the world government agenda none of the billionaire brothers used their fortune to educate Americans on this globalist Holy Grail of plans.

   David Koch was a board member of the Earthwatch Institute, described by some as a sustainability Agenda-21 promoting organization, he is currently a board member of the uber-globalist Aspen Institute formerly headed by Club of Rome and UN superwonk Maurice Strong, and an the board of Trustees of Rockefeller University. William Koch has been known at times to donate millions more to Democrats than Republicans. While they work both sides, their outward mask is the antithesis of the Rockefellers.

   American plutocrat dynasties are known for having family members pull the strings from both sides. It the dialectic, it never goes away it just gets slicker with each generation.

   Part of the strategy of the Kochs as “fossil fuel polluter oilgarchs” funding AGW skeptic groups is they can set up the necessary strawman entity for litigation intended to silence critics. This is already being put into motion using the model of the Tobacco lawsuits as precedent to go after any person or group publicly critical of the “accepted science”. It’s an escalation of the attack on free speech against skeptics of the Establishment including threats of fines, jailing, and termination of employment (e.g. the French meteorologist). I view it on par with General Wesley Clark suggesting disloyal Americans (thought crime critics of the global war on terror) should be sent to internment camps.

Thanks for the tip, LibertyLover!… I’d looked into Maurice Strong some time back but I know nothing about the Koch brothers. Must pursue that!

       p.s.: I’m somewhat confused as to why folks can understand the art of funding, controlling and profiting from both sides of something when it comes to business and war

       but have trouble grasping the concept when it comes to “climate”…??      

Again, if the stats are being manipulated mainly by the ‘climate change alarmists’ why do the Koch brothers (and others) feel the need to spend tens of millions on fudging their own psywar? If the facts speak for themselves, why haven’t those forces that allegedly have created a false hysteria also suppressed the forces that seek to damp down that hysteria and thereby de-rail the plan ?

It makes no sense.

You cite Fox as a classic exemplar of a disinformation service, yet it is they who are the prime network for voicing doubts about climate science. Why?

If FOX didn’t provide an outlet for climate skepticism in the “conservative” camp, then many in that group would bolt from the mainstream media. Some would settle into controlled op alt media and a subset, finding that lacking or distasteful, would likely migrate to fairly good alternative media sources and start thinking for themselves. TPTB don’t want more serfs to fully awaken.

That is a coherent reply.

       If I understand you right, the widespread coverage of climate skepticism in right-leaning mass media outlets is a kind of containment exercise; smoke and mirrors to keep the inquiring minds of the Conservatives ‘on the path’ and suckling from the propaganda teat.

       My first thought is that that is quite elaborate. I am familiar with the misapplication of ‘Occam’s Razor’ from those who defend the official 911 narrative (when they claim that insider involvement would have been complex, therefore consideration of such should be rejected per se), however, the two issues are quite different in scope and in terms of the practicalities of information control. It is hard for me to see how a double deception could work unless part of a meta-conspiracy, a power network that is all encompassing.

       My second thought is that I still do not understand the role of Exxon’s own research that supports the notion that there was/is significant risk in exploiting carbon fuels for our energy sources that is in the news at present. Why was this suppressed for thirty years ? Is it all part of a longterm plan as well ? The fact that it ties into the known wide scale employment of proven track record disinformation agents and front groups, is all that part of some double bluff, another part of a meta-conspiracy to hoodwink and confuse?

       I know that these are not arguments relating directly to one side or other of the scientific dispute, but to be honest, that is a very complex subject area. I thought about just approaching it from a ‘reasonable doubt perspective’ – that it seemed congruous that religiously committed conservatives who hold a faith position that “only God can change the weather”, and who are tied up financially in the fossil fuel industries, are also the ones who are most vocal and determined to be ‘skeptical’ about climate science – even if this means spending huge sums of money on psyops, media and propaganda….
       Qui Bono?

mudra wrote:

bobhardee wrote:Okay I'm sorry.

What are you sorry about Bob ?
These contrary points of view just  show the subject of Global Warming is controversial.
Up to us to make our own minds about it as we collect and study data all along.

Love from me
mudra

Bob, if this is about your opinion about the 'climate change debate', mudra's right.  There's nothing to be sorry about.

I do not expect you to agree with anything I say.  Besides, it would be pretty boring around here if we all agreed on everything.
I can't stand forums that get too mushy.   .....

If you're sorry about having suggested I'm basically a loon with possibly nefarious intentions and some 'growing up' to do, no worries.  I can take it.
I like that you're being honest with me... from your point of view, of course.

Scientists now believe that the outbreak began when a massive heatwave melted away layers of permafrost and exposed the bodies of anthrax infected reindeer who'd died more than 70 years ago.  

All over the arctic right now, scientists are seeing climate change take effect at a rapidly accelerating speed.  Ice sheets are melting, sea levels are rising, and dangerous precedence are being set for the future of our planet.

bobhardee wrote:Pris,
I was discussing this matter with a person whose opinion I value.  I have known this man since high school and we were room mates in college. He has traveled the world.  He has worked as mud reader for the oil and gas industry.  That is a person who reads the mud that comes out of the drill holes and evaluates if the drill will be successful or not. In so doing, he helped bring in a number of gas wells in WY. He was successful enough that he set up his own business and made enough money to retire early. However, for the last 15 years has taught science in his local high school.    

When the issue of global warming comes up, he shakes his head and says this is nothing but 8th grade science.  Anyone who denies the current carbon build up of the last 100 years is nothing more than man made, hasn't passed 8th grade science.   Has there been build ups like this in the past on this planet? Yes.  Has it been during the last 13,500 years in which "modern" man has taken hold? NO.  So the planet will survive the current build up with little to no problem. Weather humanity survives is highly questionable.

There are a number of political people who believe they can spin any story they want in any direction they want.  Global warming being one that has been pinned in a number of directions. My friend will tell you that these people make their living by telling lies that global warming is not real.  

Every month I post the global results of extreme climate change.  Floods, Fire, and Wind damage have become so common people are starting to think that it has always been like this.  It hasn't.  
Bob H

Yes, Bob.  And, there are people who make their living telling lies that global warming is man-made and those ones are doing waaay better business.

Even though both sides are making money, don't you find it curious that so much more money is made convincing everyone of man-made global warming?  Again, those doing the convincing hold both sides of the debate (it's real, it's not real) to play their agenda and also so no one will suspect foul play.  They need 'opposition' for this to work and will even setup 'fall guys' to make it work.  There isn't two sides of the debate -- there is only 'one side' as far as they're concerned.  It's all just to distract us.  They have us arguing about nonsense ('climate change' from man-made CO2 vs 'climate change deniers'). Anyway, you get the point.  

There is no denying the Earth is warming up.  So are the other planets.  Our entire solar system is warming up.  Coincidence?

They don't want us talking about Earth-made and/or Sun-made global warming (you can't tax and oppress people with those).

Could this have something to do with growing planets?...  Is this a galactic phenomena?  

I am not convinced our enemy is CO2.  Our enemy is the group of spinmeisters -- those who keep messing with the narrative and keep us in conflict to further their agenda.

Scientists that are mostly paid well and have everything to gain from both sides this 'debate' vs those who are not paid well and have everything to lose speaking out against man-made 'climate change'...... That tells me something.

Maybe we ought to be listening more to the scientists and individuals that have nothing to gain everything to lose by speaking out against, specifically, man-made CO2 'climate change'.  To be clear, they are NOT the ones against global warming.

I'm also thinking 'fossil fuels' are actually abiotic... another interesting topic.

Anywhooo...