We wuz snookered!

mikesim

mikesim

Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
2,825
Age
76
Location
Union, MO
Bike
NT700, Red, #989,
For the last several years, there has been much discussion back and forth amongst our members regarding climate change, EV utilization, government coertion of market forces, fuel prices, the Green New Deal etc. Tracing back, the source of all the angst among the public regarding these controversial topics, one is led back to the unescapable conclusion that the public (not just American) has been sold a bill of goods regarding the horrors of ineveitable climate change... or lack thereof. Those of us who refused to sign on to the farce were ostracized as "climate deniers" or luddites who refused to accept "settled science" . We were harangued by politicians who said that we were allowing the planet to be destroyed for our children if we didn't take drastic action NOW..

I present to you several recent articles that have been finally published in the MSM confessing their mea culpa in foisting their misinformation on a gullible, but scientifically woefully informed general public. Even the IPCC has stated in so many words that perhaps they were a wee bit off in their catastrophic predictions. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction knowing that I was eventually proved right in my skepticism but that's not really the point of this post. The damage to our worldwide economy has been devastating by listening to and trusting the settled scientists dire prediction. I have no idea what the total cost of this debacle will be, but it will be enormous. In the worldwide automotive sector to date there have been over $114 billion dollars written off by the manufacturers who were led blindly to the slaughter by the politicians siren song. Even our beloved Honda for the first time in the history of the company since 1957 was forced to accept a $9 billion charge against earnings.

I am attaching several links to articles that expand on my brief synopsis. I look forward to the discussion.

Mike



share.google

Media Coverage (or not) of RCP8.5 RIP

The biggest story in climate science in decades has been mostly ignored
share.google share.google

open.substack.com

How Climate Science Lost Its Way on Scenarios

A summary of our 2021 deep dive on what went wrong
open.substack.com open.substack.com

substack.com

Does the IPCC Exaggerate Climate Science?

A new study finds the IPCC Summary for Policymakers has systematically amplified climate science beyond what the underlying report actually says
substack.com substack.com
 
The news in general including "Climate Change" is pretty disturbing these days. I still listen in to it but ignore most of it. Usually money drives this stuff, follow $$ and power. I don't have the energy to follow $$ and power on all the stories that are put out. I try to ignore most of it.
Realistically I can't do much about any of it anyway. Very hard to take politicians seriously when they promote climate change and then get in a jet and fly off to an event somewhere.

Arknt
 
My problem is there of course is climate change and there always has been and always will be. And you can find a graph to prove anything you like. Short term and long term.
Spokane's climate has changed dramatically over 30 years and change that we have been here. Why? I have no idea. People who think they have all the answers are full of it. Basically now it is a political issue used for politics. Manipulation. And not matter what the truth is, there is no way you are gonna change people's behavior, let alone countries. And that is the inconvieniet truth.


1780964559443.png
1780964628352.png
 
Despite the emissions of 8 billion people likely do have effect... do we currently witness a massive, global marketing scheme...
And of course do they all only want our best... our money...

And its omnipresent, a broadband attack across all media channels, even with small things, like the chosen graphics in weather reports only serve to irritate people...
So what was once welcomed as a nice summer day forecast, is now used to spread panic with a full grown 'heat warning'...

509740450_1158155616347590_1000226565942291700_n.jpg

Of course, by strafing us in the western world with CO² tax on fuel (hence on pretty much everything, especially food...), the temps drop instantly... 🤔
(this... and because the Chinese wall reaches up into the stratosphere, so their emissions won't reach us... right...)
And we're supposed to obey, to buy, to consume...
Get an EV, get PV, a new fridge, a new stove, a new energy efficient smart TV, pay deposit on your soda bottles, pay extra climate tax on everything... 😒
(and instead supporting local farming, they expect you to buy meat and produce that have been hauled on freight ships across the ocean -> Mercosur... 🤬)

4c5631e26584e97e5a0f8d9451b76114_1280x720.jpg

Visit https://www.ventusky.com/ select [air quality], then [CO] and zoom out on global view... wow...

Also completely omitted in the "public scaremongering" is the current solar maximum... which I trust to have significant effect... 🤔

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for sustainability...
Like driving a long lasting, quality car... a 30 year old Toyota... because the entire production chain for building an oh-so-new car for me to replace it,
blows out so much pollution... I could likely drive the trusty Toyota for another hundred years and still have caused only a fraction...
I also don't need a new motorcycle every two years, a new phone every 3 months, or a new computer and TV every six to twelve months... :rolleyes:
We buy pretty much only locally produced food, to avoid all the misery with long, energy-intensive transport routes... (and got addressed as "nazi" for that... :mad:)

Every piece of plastic, metal, paper, electronic waste, etc... comes into the designated receptacle for recycling... since I can remember...
(but right, we Gen Xers have ruined the planet...pfffff...)
 
Last edited:
ST1100Y said:
Every piece of plastic, metal, paper, electronic waste, etc... comes into the designated receptacle for recycling... since I can remember...
(but right, we Gen Xers have ruined the planet...pfffff...)
Click to expand...
Pffft...... you think you Gen-X'er's have ruined the planet!!?? Y'all are a bunch of pikers compared to us Boomers! You should be tickled we are all dying off.........

;)

Mike
 
The thing that drives me most crazy about this is the zealotry. If you push back on even the wildest claims they start talking about "97% of climate scientists."

Yeah, bud, I read the IPCC report. I read scientific pubs as a part of my job. What 97% of climate scientists agreed was:
1. The global average temperature appears to be rising
2. The most likely explanation is anthropic carbon emissions.

It's important to separate the science, which is cautious and the rest who seem to have another agenda.
 
Other than to observe that any time I hear the words "climate change" my malarkey meter flickers (sometimes pegs), I can't add a single word of wisdom or clarity to what has already been said.

I will note that very often when browsing this forum and the several others that I frequent, I do so while using my 12 year old laptop that Microsoft says is obsolete. It and the legacy software work fine.
 
basketcase said:
Other than to observe that any time I hear the words "climate change" my malarkey meter flickers (sometimes pegs), I can't add a single word of wisdom or clarity to what has already been said.

I will note that very often when browsing this forum and the several others that I frequent, I do so while using my 12 year old laptop that Microsoft says is obsolete. It and the legacy software work fine.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is a push to rig the legacy software so it wont work. And the hardware... More planned obselecence. My two Android 12 phones worked great till an important to me app changed and works only on Android 14 and up. :mad: The web says I can not upgrade my two motorola phones to android 14. :mad: My Windows 7 and Windows 10 machines are working for now.....but Microsoft says my Windows 10 machine can not be upgraded to Windows 11. Others say different.
 
ST1100Y said:
Despite the emissions of 8 billion people likely do have effect... do we currently witness a massive, global marketing scheme...
And of course do they all only want our best... our money...

And its omnipresent, a broadband attack across all media channels, even with small things, like the chosen graphics in weather reports only serve to irritate people...
So what was once welcomed as a nice summer day forecast, is now used to spread panic with a full grown 'heat warning'...

View attachment 23883

Of course, by strafing us in the western world with CO² tax on fuel (hence on pretty much everything, especially food...), the temps drop instantly... 🤔
(this... and because the Chinese wall reaches up into the stratosphere, so their emissions won't reach us... right...)
And we're supposed to obey, to buy, to consume...
Get an EV, get PV, a new fridge, a new stove, a new energy efficient smart TV, pay deposit on your soda bottles, pay extra climate tax on everything... 😒
(and instead supporting local farming, they expect you to buy meat and produce that have been hauled on freight ships across the ocean -> Mercosur... 🤬)

View attachment 23884

Visit https://www.ventusky.com/ select [air quality], then [CO] and zoom out on global view... wow...

Also completely omitted in the "public scaremongering" is the current solar maximum... which I trust to have significant effect... 🤔

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for sustainability...
Like driving a long lasting, quality car... a 30 year old Toyota... because the entire production chain for building an oh-so-new car for me to replace it,
blows out so much pollution... I could likely drive the trusty Toyota for another hundred years and still have caused only a fraction...
I also don't need a new motorcycle every two years, a new phone every 3 months, or a new computer and TV every six to twelve months... :rolleyes:
We buy pretty much only locally produced food, to avoid all the misery with long, energy-intensive transport routes... (and got addressed as "nazi" for that... :mad:)

Every piece of plastic, metal, paper, electronic waste, etc... comes into the designated receptacle for recycling... since I can remember...
(but right, we Gen Xers have ruined the planet...pfffff...)
Click to expand...
Does your media constantly use panic terms like "High Stakes" "catostrophic" "Disaster"? Every weather report on the national news now refers to "disasterous" flooding, tornados and high winds and hail...and how many people are in the bullseye. In short, Spring weather.
We all installed LED lighting in our houses..and energy efficient this and that. Only to have our rates raised. Why? Data centers.


For those of us who work in the energy and electricity space, it has been incredible to see the volume and breadth of conversation on the electricity demand and environmental impact that could follow the rapid and massive expansion of data centers. The emergence of large language models (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and others), proliferation of cryptocurrencies, and continued demand for cloud computing and data storage have drawn new attention to the energy demands of the technology sector. Furthermore, policymakers and stakeholders have indicated that facilitating the expansion of data centers in the United States could be important for economic growth and national security. Over the past year, hyperscalers—large technology companies that offer cloud computing services like Microsoft and Google—have been signing major long-term contracts with new or repowered generators to ensure a steady supply of power to the data centers that they plan to bring online. But what are the implications of this new draw on the grid, and what policies or tools are being considered in attempts to align technological growth with goals for emissions, affordability, and reliability in the power sector?
1781027691008.png
 
Hmm. “Climate Change”?
Growing up in Kansas in the 1950’s, we had thunderstorms, tornadoes, blizzards, hot and cold, you name it. Mom said it was 108 degrees the day I was born.
Back then, we just called it “WEATHER”! LOL
 
I think there may be some confusion about where I stand. I'm not defending the climate change agenda — I'm saying the science was real enough to be weaponized, which is actually what made the scam so effective.

Strip away the politics and what the actual science said was fairly narrow: temperatures appear to be rising, CO2 is the likely driver. That's it. The apocalyptic timelines, the economic mandates, the EV shakedowns — none of that came from the science. That came from people who found it useful.

On the ice age point — that's fair, and it's worth noting. Catastrophism has a long track record of being wrong and a surprisingly good track record of making money. Paul Ehrlich built an entire career predicting imminent collapse — mass starvation, resource wars, societal breakdown — starting in the 60s. Decades later, none of it happened and he's still a celebrated figure. There's clearly a market for doom that has nothing to do with whether the predictions pan out. That's kind of my point. The problem isn't the underlying data, it's what gets built on top of it.

I was skeptical of the agenda from the start, same as most of you. I just think it's worth being precise about what they got wrong versus what they invented outright — because that's what makes the case against them airtight.
 
Coyote Chris said:
OK, I agree on the govt but I will bite on the earth's average temp. How so?
View attachment 23886
Click to expand...

If you think about how an average of something is calculated, and then think about the earth, you should wonder how the governments can claim to know an average temperature of the planet. You can calculate the average temperature for Dallas, TX for the month of October and find out that average is meaningless, as the variations in daily temperatures will be way lower and way higher than the "average" and this variation will change day-by-day and week-by-week. Increase that variation by a factor a billion and you see that this planet does not have average temperature. They calculate number so they can generate data so they can demand money to save us from something they can't measure.
 
Yeah.. you can use 100,000 years as an average and it won't tell you squat. It's like taking your blood pressure today then tomorrow and saying 1 day average is your blood pressure is rising, or falling.

100,000 years to the earth is like one breath to us... 50 years is truly ridiculous... and natural things like volcanoes do more than our cars...

Besides, we will destroy ourselves long before the earth kicks us off....

Saving the planet... HA... what a joke... The planet is fine, we're just trying to save ourselves.
 
Belisaerio said:
I'm saying the science was real enough to be weaponized, which is actually what made the scam so effective.

Strip away the politics and what the actual science said was fairly narrow: temperatures appear to be rising, CO2 is the likely driver. That's it. The apocalyptic timelines, the economic mandates, the EV shakedowns — none of that came from the science. That came from people who found it useful.

On the ice age point — that's fair, and it's worth noting. Catastrophism has a long track record of being wrong and a surprisingly good track record of making money. Paul Ehrlich built an entire career predicting imminent collapse — mass starvation, resource wars, societal breakdown — starting in the 60s. Decades later, none of it happened and he's still a celebrated figure. There's clearly a market for doom that has nothing to do with whether the predictions pan out. That's kind of my point. The problem isn't the underlying data, it's what gets built on top of it.

I was skeptical of the agenda from the start, same as most of you. I just think it's worth being precise about what they got wrong versus what they invented outright — because that's what makes the case against them airtight.
Click to expand...
I think I would change your first statement slightly for a more correct understanding....... "I'm saying the science "appeared" real enough to be weaponized, which is what made the scam so effective.....

The other thing that the public bought into was the premise that the science was settled or that there was a consensus about climate change. The idea that science is settled is hogwash! Science is never settled! History has shown numerous times that settled science has been proven wrong. Newtonian mechanics was settled until quantum physics came along. Also, just because a consensus amongst scientists exists, doesn't make it correct.

We just need to remain skeptical about what we allow to be stuffed down our collective throats.

Mike
 
mikesim said:
I think I would change your first statement slightly for a more correct understanding....... "I'm saying the science "appeared" real enough to be weaponized, which is what made the scam so effective.....

The other thing that the public bought into was the premise that the science was settled or that there was a consensus about climate change. The idea that science is settled is hogwash! Science is never settled! History has shown numerous times that settled science has been proven wrong. Newtonian mechanics was settled until quantum physics came along. Also, just because a consensus amongst scientists exists, doesn't make it correct.

We just need to remain skeptical about what we allow to be stuffed down our collective throats.

Mike
Click to expand...
I remain unsure about that.
 
mikesim said:
I think I would change your first statement slightly for a more correct understanding....... "I'm saying the science "appeared" real enough to be weaponized, which is what made the scam so effective.....

The other thing that the public bought into was the premise that the science was settled or that there was a consensus about climate change. The idea that science is settled is hogwash! Science is never settled! History has shown numerous times that settled science has been proven wrong. Newtonian mechanics was settled until quantum physics came along. Also, just because a consensus amongst scientists exists, doesn't make it correct.

We just need to remain skeptical about what we allow to be stuffed down our collective throats.

Mike
Click to expand...
The problem with putting it that way is it becomes me impugning the reputations of the scientists. I don't have any evidence to do that. The science is 'real' if you are reporting your findings and in this case a conjecture, couched as probability, not certainty. It doesn't become not science because you're wrong, which is why Isaac Newton is still considered a great scientist despite being colossally wrong in every frame of reference except this one.

There is a large contingent of people, especially in governments, that want to roll back the western world. I don't know if it's self-hate or they see some opportunity or something else entirely. This issue was hijacked by them, just as environmentalism has been. But acknowledging when something was misused, if there's no evidence of bad faith, only strengthens your position. If nothing else you completely knee-cap the blanket 'you're just anti-science' dismissal.

By 'no evidence of bad faith' I mean the initial findings that started all this — not the circus that followed, which had and has plenty.

EDIT: Much of which you were pointing out initially. It may not have seemed that way, but I was agreeing with you but with context.
 
Interesting discussions.

Data is always open to some interpretation. Records are specific to certain circumstances. Proving any hypothesis about global warming or climate change (or not) requires more information than we know. We are simply guessing about a lot here.

OK, I don’t have any data to show me that if I put my thumb on an anvil and hit it with a hammer it will hurt. I do however have related experience to indicate a certain result.

I think that all we can do is the best we can which most certainly differs widely person-to-person in both amount and direction. We could do much better without the scripted “news”. We humans tend to believe what we want to hear. So between human nature and polluted “news” not much will be agreed upon. But I like getting the most information I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom