Climate Change Denial, Can You Make a Case?

[mark kennedy]

I've been catching these videos on YouTube about Global Warming being a hoax. Of course you can find those easy enough, but some pretty credible arguments out there. There are others but I thought this one was worth watching:

Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace and is convinced the rise of CO2 is actually saving the planet, and man has little to do with it:

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists." (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change, Independent)
​

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had encountered any of these arguments and what do you think?

 

[Go Braves]

Nope. The only case for climate change denial are the proverbial briefcases loaded with money going to Trump from the coal lobbyists.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope. The only case for climate change denial are the proverbial briefcases loaded with money going to Trump from the coal lobbyists.

What I'm getting is that there is some 4 billion dollars a year being spent on it and the globe isn't really getting significantly warmer. Now, I happen to believe the ice caps are receding but strangely, there is this argument out there that man has little to do with it and it's a good thing.

 

[Go Braves]

What I'm getting is that there is some 4 billion dollars a year being spent on it and the globe isn't really getting significantly warmer. Now, I happen to believe the ice caps are receding but strangely, there is this argument out there that man has little to do with it and it's a good thing.

Doesn't need to be getting significantly warmer for it make a huge difference.

 

[eleos1954]

I've been catching these videos on YouTube about Global Warming being a hoax. Of course you can find those easy enough, but some pretty credible arguments out there. There are others but I thought this one was worth watching:

Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace and is convinced the rise of CO2 is actually saving the planet, and man has little to do with it:

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists." (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change, Independent)
​

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had encountered any of these arguments and what do you think?

The earth is dieing. Ultimately can man do anything about it? Nope. Gods plan will happen. Does that mean we do nothing? Nope, but ultimately what we do will not matter. The Lord will come back ... and He will destroy the earth.

Romans 8:22

For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

 

[hedrick]

The proof *is* written for all to see. Global warming - Wikipedia

It won't wipe out mankind. Climate change has happened before. But it will cause a lot of disruption and suffering. Christians should care about it.

Many of the Climate Impacts Predicted in the Last National Climate Assessment, in 2014, Are No Longer Theoretical - Slashdot

 

[visionary]

40 New Scientific Papers Say Global Warming Does Not Exist

 

[Hieronymus]

What I'm getting is that there is some 4 billion dollars a year being spent on it and the globe isn't really getting significantly warmer. Now, I happen to believe the ice caps are receding but strangely, there is this argument out there that man has little to do with it and it's a good thing.

It's apparently sun activity that determines the global climate changes.
As for the icecaps, it apparently depends on where you look.
Some places it recedes, other places it grows.

In all, when you look into Agenda 21, agenda 2030 and the Kalergi plan, you'll find all this climate hype and white guilt is pushed with agendas such as those behind it.

Green energy is energy that is beneficial to the green (plant life).
In other words, more CO2 and warmer, like they do in greenhouses.

And people think they're smarter when they just repeat what they've been made to believe....
Crazy times...

 

[mark kennedy]

It's apparently sun activity that determines the global climate changes.
As for the icecaps, it apparently depends on where you look.
Some places it recedes, other places it grows.

In all, when you look into Agenda 21, agenda 2030 and the Kalergi plan, you'll find all this climate hype and white guilt is pushed with agendas such as those behind it.

Green energy is energy that is beneficial to the green (plant life).
In other words, more CO2 and warmer, like they do in greenhouses.

And people think they're smarter when they just repeat what they've been made to believe....
Crazy times...

I think there is a fairly interesting argument to be made that more CO2 would be good for opening up more fame land certain places in northern climates. I really thought the shear magnitude of the money being spent was reason for pause, critics say that might be an ulterior motive. It's just something I explore occasionally, I haven't really made my mind up yet one way or the other.

 

[Hieronymus]

I think there is a fairly interesting argument to be made that more CO2 would be good for opening up more fame land certain places in northern climates. I really thought the shear magnitude of the money being spent was reason for pause, critics say that might be an ulterior motive. It's just something I explore occasionally, I haven't really made my mind up yet one way or the other.

Yeah, more life dies of cold than of heat.

But it's hard to tell what's going on nowadays.
Apparently there's a lot of 'weather control' going on too.
We've had chem trails for decades now, and especially the last years it's everywhere and always visible too...
God knows what those megalomanic nutjobs are up to with HAARP and what not...
They're trying to kill us, it seems..
They want us to agree with what they're doing, and meanwhile they want us divided...
Whaddawoild, whaddawoild...

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, more life dies of cold than of heat.

But it's hard to tell what's going on nowadays.
Apparently there's a lot of 'weather control' going on too.
We've had chem trails for decades now, and especially the last years it's everywhere and always visible too...
God knows what those megalomanic nutjobs are up to with HAARP and what not...
They're trying to kill us, it seems..
They want us to agree with what they're doing, and meanwhile they want us divided...
Whaddawoild, whaddawoild...

I'm not sure about the chem trails and HAARP, although I have indulged from time to time in some of the theories out there. I just think there is another way of looking at climate change.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm not sure about the chem trails and HAARP, although I have indulged from time to time in some of the theories out there. I just think there is another way of looking at climate change.

Well, chem trails are definitely real, but it's called "geo engineering" now.
It's no longer "just a conspiracy theory".
They spray metal particles like Aluminium and Borium (iirc) and even Lithium sometimes that fog up the skies, which are often greyish blue nowadays.
They say they do it to reflect the sun light away from earh.
They're different from normal con trails.
Normal con trails dissolve after a while.
Chem trails usually grow and hang around and disperse, graying up the blue sky.
They can be used to seed clouds too.

 

[The Barbarian]

40 New Scientific Papers Say Global Warming Does Not Exist

From your list:

Breitbart.com reports: In the chart below from a study by Polovodova et al, we see that 20th century warming is perfectly normal in a long-term historical context. It was no warmer – indeed, is slightly cooler – than either the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warming Period.

The source says this has not been accepted for publication in a journal. One of the reasons that might be so, is that the data from the current millennium was removed from her graph.
https://cdn.newspunch.com/wp-conten...uropean-Continent-Polovodova-Asteman-2018.jpg

So more of the same attempts to fake "published papers by real scientists." Ask yourself; "If real scientists are getting real evidence against warming climate, why would someone need to fake stories to support that belief?"

Can't think a reason, myself.

 

[Yarddog]

I was watching a show about Alaska last night and the Government Wildlife speaker gave a good talk about global warming. The effects are shown in Alaskan rivers which are warming and getting close to a temperature that will kill the salmon as they travel up stream to spawn.

 

[Hieronymus]

I was watching a show about Alaska last night and the Government Wildlife speaker gave a good talk about global warming. The effects are shown in Alaskan rivers which are warming and getting close to a temperature that will kill the salmon as they travel up stream to spawn.

Good talk doesn't mean truth.

 

[Albion]

We do know this much--

Some of the so-called experts, the people who were regarded as having really gotten the full story, made predictions only a few years ago that have already been proven false.

The world's supply of oil did not run out in ten years; the planet is now awash in it. The arctic ice was predicted to be gone by now, according to Al Gore...but it is not. Certain islands were supposed to be mainly underwater now, drowned by changing oceans, but the land has actually risen! And so it goes.

 

[Yarddog]

Good talk doesn't mean truth.

Me saying it doesn't mean it's true but the wildlife expert cited a scientist who was keeping water temperature measurements in non-glacial rivers in Alaska. I'll try to find the data.

Sockeye salmon and climate change

https://www.ktoo.org/2014/12/12/study-climate-change-hurting-salmon-habitat/

 

[The Barbarian]

Some of the so-called experts, the people who were regarded as having really gotten the full story, made predictions only a few years ago that have already been proven false.

You've been misled about that.

The first transient climate projections using GCMs are 30 years old this year, and they have stood up remarkably well.

The arctic ice was predicted to be gone by now, according to Al Gore...

Algore isn't a climate scientist. Climate science predicted that we would see a continuing reduction in Arctic ice...

And there it is.

but it is not. Certain islands were supposed to be mainly underwater now, drowned by changing oceans, but the land has actually risen!

That's a testable claim. Let's take a look...

Because some areas, like the west coast of South America, are rising from uplift, it varies from place to place, but so far, we've averaged about 7 centimeters. Most of this is not from melting ice (melting Arctic sea ice doesn't change ocean levels at all) but rather from thermal expansion as the oceans warm up. If that big ice shelf in Antarctica comes lose, it's going to be a much faster rise than anticipated.

But deniers simply make up their own stories to fend off reality. And so it goes.