Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate change crisis is ‘manufactured’
Climate scientist Judith Curry says climate change is a “manufactured consensus.”
nypost.com
Scientist admits the “climate crisis” is manufactured
- Thread starter Proud NJ Sports Fan
- Start date
nypost.com
It is a religion and an industry that at some point will be acknowledged as one of the greatest frauds and con jobs in history.
Of course it is. They try to make us believe that any weather event that has occurred for millennia on this planet is somehow related to humans, whether it be wildfire, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, etc.
Thought you guys would love to read this - a bunch of experts in the field essentially saying, "We told you so."
www.latimes.com
Allstate lost $0.32 on the dollar of homeowners' insurance premium they wrote in the first half of 2023. I'm sure they're somehow in on the big climate conspiracy, though, right?
Here's a question for all of you - do you think it's at least possible, amidst a sea of scientists on the "consensus" side, that calling yourself one of the few climate "contrarians" might provide you some money-making opportunities of your own?
How climate scientists feel about seeing their dire predictions come true
Wildfires in Canada and Hawaii. Hurricane Hilary set to strike California. Scientists have warned about worse storms and more frequent fires for years.
www.latimes.com
Allstate lost $0.32 on the dollar of homeowners' insurance premium they wrote in the first half of 2023. I'm sure they're somehow in on the big climate conspiracy, though, right?
Here's a question for all of you - do you think it's at least possible, amidst a sea of scientists on the "consensus" side, that calling yourself one of the few climate "contrarians" might provide you some money-making opportunities of your own?
I think it's crazy that you're writing off an entire scientific community because of some suspicion that they're only doing this for the money when the other side of the argument is populated by giant corporations and interest groups with enormous money interests, that love any excuse to drag their feet or do nothing, and they will aggressively lobby politicians to make sure no substantial laws will ever be enacted to address climate change.
As you well know, individuals have a much smaller impact on the climate. My point is that the responsibility is on institutions to do this, but they have barely done anything, and they won't do anything unless governments make them do it.
The Inflation Reduction Act does some good things, but it isn't enough. On that note, I am taking advantage of the 30% tax credit on solar panels and added them to my home this year. I didn't do it specifically because of climate change. Truthfully I did it because of the expanded tax credit, and because my power cooperative raised rates this year, and hinted that they would likely raise them again in a short period of time.
But if you are that passionate, why are you waiting for the government to do something.
So you will only change if you are incentivized to do so?
The climate is changing but we need to acknowledge that this is also being used as a dog whistle issue to scare people into supporting legislation (whether it’s necessary or not). We can’t control what the rest of the world (including the biggest culprits- India, China, Pakistan, etc.) do, so we have to be realistic that anything we do is not going to move the needle much on slowing it down or reversing the trends.
We continue to develop Lower Manhattan, coastal mega-mansions on the Jersey Shore….we keep spending taxpayer dollars on restoring Sanibel Island that’s been wiped out three times in 20 years!! Why are those in power and with financial influence making decisions that waste money or ignore the science?
No offense, but I’m more concerned about issues that are a bigger threat.
Yes, I am ultimately trying to save money in the long run through an efficient and frugal lifestyle, you got me.
You seem to think there's some sort of gotcha argument in me waiting for the government to enact policy that made solar panels more affordable. I have finite resources and had to wait until I could afford solar panels and was helped by government policy, and this came at a time when electricity rates increased, making the decision even more budget-friendly in the long run. I can't do something if I can't afford to do it!
I truly don't know what you're arguing here. You seem to think that society wastes millions of dollars doing counterproductive things while ignoring the science and very clear trends... And I agree with you!
Like, yes? You're not being sarcastic, right?
Do you think the increased frequency and severity of these catastrophes is not a big threat? What's a bigger threat, in your opinion?
Wow, the American Enterprise Institute? No partisan affiliation there! And from four years ago? Very credible. You got a Babylon Bee link, too?
Here's something current:
"It’s gotten less coverage, but the majority of the population of the northwest territories of Canada were evacuated last night [Wednesday] because all of the major settlements are threatened by separate fires. All of them."
No gotcha argument. You do you.
We do waste billions of dollars on unnecessary things. Our government also make decisions to often where individuals or companies profit that have no benefit or detrimental impacts on society.
We have so called leaders out in front of this that are not walking the walk.
Cyber attacks are the greatest threat IMO to our national security.
The climate always changes, as it has for millenia. The dry high desert of the inter-mountain west and California were once tropical rain forests, for example.
Humans who think they can do anything about it are complete and utter fools.
Last edited:
This is another way they get weak-minded people to follow them like sheep. Big, scary, deceptive graphics that make it seem like the whole world is imploding, or in the case on fire.
Sure, we’re utter fools if we believe we can prevent the climate from being impacted from something like a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor hitting the earth, or tectonic plate shifts, like some of the things that causes previous changes in the climate.
As are the humans who believe that human activity can not impact the climate or that those impacts and risks can not possibly be reduced or mitigated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_air_polution
Three things that we need to consider:
1-The U.S. can throw trillions of dollars on initiatives and it will be like shoveling sand in the ocean. China, India, Pakistan, etc. generate 5-10 times the pollution and the greatest population growth we will experience globally in the next 50 years will be in Africa.
2-Should we be spending more resources for adjusting to a changing climate versus putting all of our resources in prevention? Does it really make sense for the levee system in New Orleans as opposed to relocating the effected population? What legislation could have been passed 20-30 years ago that would’ve prevented the fires in Hawaii or hurricane in California?
3-We need an energy strategy that is not a politically driven agenda that gets reset every four years. Need to balance environmental and economic impact of such plan and evolve as new technologies are developed (thermal, hydrogen, etc). Why do few talk about nuclear power which is much safer and cleaner today?
Three things that we need to consider:
1-The U.S. can throw trillions of dollars on initiatives and it will be like shoveling sand in the ocean. China, India, Pakistan, etc. generate 5-10 times the pollution and the greatest population growth we will experience globally in the next 50 years will be in Africa.
2-Should we be spending more resources for adjusting to a changing climate versus putting all of our resources in prevention? Does it really make sense for the levee system in New Orleans as opposed to relocating the effected population? What legislation could have been passed 20-30 years ago that would’ve prevented the fires in Hawaii or hurricane in California?
3-We need an energy strategy that is not a politically driven agenda that gets reset every four years. Need to balance environmental and economic impact of such plan and evolve as new technologies are developed (thermal, hydrogen, etc). Why do few talk about nuclear power which is much safer and cleaner today?
