Climate Change - Where shall I begin?

Hi everyone,

I've long been suspicious of the 'Climate Change' narrative, and have recently stumbled across several videos & documents which have reaffirmed my suspicions. I'm quite well up to speed with Agenda 2030, 15 minute cities etc., but I am hoping for some pointers specifically which show evidence of both sides of the arguement.

I found a very good pamphlet by Co2 Coallition, which in short says the whole thing is nonsense and has some compelling data & arguments to back it up. It was compiled & backed by a whole host of supposed Doctors, Scientists & Experts, and I'd be happy to share on here if anybody would like to see it.

As, I'm sure with most members on here, I am distrusting of most MSM & government or non-profit articles, data etc., so would be interested in reading some independent bits. I am struggling to find any real evidence backed data on the 'climate change is real' side of things, just literal nonsense based guess work.

If anybody has any good sources for either side of the arguement then I'd very much appreciate it.

My view on climate change has historically been that I suspected it was a fairly natural cyclical transition of our planet, and that our emissions & actions where perhaps speeding the cycle up. My view is now shifting to it being purely natural and we're not speeding it up.

Any help or discussions appreciated!

a reply to: TurkeyGoose


Real Climate Science has historical records that indicate we were in a global cooling period up to the point the data was 'adjusted'.

ChatGPT has admitted there is no global warming based on the data.

a reply to: TurkeyGoose

Where shall I begin?

Probably the best place to start would be putting 'climate change' into the ATS search engine; you'll find a ton of threads discussing the pros and cons.

This topic always seems to be a moving target.
Nobody in their right mind would say that the climate does not change - it does, has and always will.

The argument always needs to be focused , IMO, on 2 things.

1) Are we, human beings, causing the climate to change to an extent where we should modify our behaviour?
2) Even if we are not, should we use technology and impose restrictions upon ourselves anyway in an effort to nudge the climate in the direction we want - fighting nature if you will.

Any argument outside those two tends to be part of pulling the wool over peoples eyes in order to take advantage and profit.

On point 1, I have seen and read nothing that demonstrates than climate change is driven by human beings to any large extent. (doesn't mean there is no data - just haven't seen it)
On point 2, it's a no from me.


Finally, politicians and the likes of Greta Funberg should never be listened to on this subject, IMO

a reply to: TurkeyGoose

In the attached, the speaker explains that climate change is driven by El Nino and the sun

www.facebook.com...


This is entirely a scam to steal from the population, impoverish and control the majority of the population.

It's essential to consider various perspectives when examining a complex issue like climate change. While there are differing opinions, the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is real, primarily human-driven, and poses significant risks to ecosystems and societies.

Here are some sources representing both sides of the argument:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The IPCC is the leading international body assessing climate change, and their reports represent the scientific consensus on the issue. Their assessments are based on thousands of studies and are reviewed by experts worldwide. The IPCC's reports provide extensive evidence that climate change is primarily driven by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. You can find their latest reports at: www.ipcc.ch...

NASA's Global Climate Change website: This site offers comprehensive information on the evidence, causes, effects, and potential solutions related to climate change. It includes data from various sources, including satellite observations, that support the consensus view that climate change is real and driven mainly by human activities. The website is available at: climate.nasa.gov...

For alternative views that question the mainstream consensus on climate change, you can refer to the following sources:

CO2 Coalition: As you mentioned, the CO2 Coalition is a group that argues that CO2 emissions are not harmful and may even be beneficial for the planet. Their reports and publications can be found at: co2coalition.org...

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF): The GWPF is a UK-based think tank that questions the extent and severity of climate change and opposes many climate policies. They publish articles, reports, and briefings that offer alternative perspectives on climate change. Their website is available at: www.thegwpf.org...

Please keep in mind that it is important to critically evaluate the credibility and scientific rigor of sources on both sides of the argument. The scientific consensus supporting the reality and severity of human-driven climate change is based on extensive evidence and research, but it's always helpful to consider various perspectives when forming your own opinion.a reply to: TurkeyGoose

a reply to: LoneWolfMT

I think the biggest problem is the assumption that a scientific consensus means they are automatically correct. A group can be just as wrong as an individual. Scientists have their own "cliques" and like a great many people refuse to admit when they are wrong. Too much has been revealed lately about how the peer review process has been hijacked for agenda for some of us to trust their data does not have biases cooked in.

a reply to: LoneWolfMT

From Mann's entirely bogus "hockey stick" graph, as debunked by McIntire in 2006 to the Climategate scandal where Phil Jones asked to delete compromising email that revealed his fraud, compounded by his refusal to provide source data (that is against scientific method 101-Jones later claimed he "lost" some of the data), it was, is and will forever be a con job.

The "investigation" into Phil Jones "exonorated him" because they claimed they looked only at the "intergity of his processes and not the quality of his data."

Right.
Just like if you investigate a drug for effectiveness, you don't look at clinical data. You instead look at lab facilities, "right" people in the "right" places, nice productions areas, but not the actual effectivess, oh no....

Laughable whitewash.


This is politics and nothing but.
See, Obama is so concerned about global warming and the imminent danger of RISING SEAS that......he recently bought a large oceanfront home in Hawaii....

Prominent politicos don't really believe in this BS
They just need "global warming" or Covid or some other made up "crisis", any crisis will do, to impose dictatorial control for the benefit of globalists and politicos
Screw the people.


"By their actions you shall know them...."

a reply to: TurkeyGoose

The climate change agenda is just another way to introduce Marxism into our society.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TurkeyGoose

The climate change agenda is just another way to introduce Marxism into our society.

More like feudalism

a reply to: TurkeyGoose

Its not about controlling the carbon. The carbon they want to control is us. You dont need to control freedom and introduce new political ideologies. We could if we wanted just remove the carbon from the air and sequest it into the soil. This is what tribes across south America did and they made some of the most ferrtile soils in the world in doing so.. (biochar) Putting organic matter into the ground as soluble and insoluble carbon. Increases the flow of electric currents and makes plants go bigger.

Go and have a look at global temps over the past. Here in Scotland it was warmer a couple of thousand of years ago. We where growing grapes then. Not anymore. look at the medical warm period. Warmer than it is today. Loook at the mini ice age. Colder than it is today and it looks like that might be about to happen again. Antarctica has been increasing in ice mass since Roman times.. Its hogwash all of it.

a reply to: TurkeyGoose

My view on climate change has historically been that I suspected it was a fairly natural cyclical transition of our planet, and that our emissions & actions where perhaps speeding the cycle up. My view is now shifting to it being purely natural and we're not speeding it up.

That's the chart that needs refuting. The temperature vs the gray line off carbon emissions.

Things I noticed.

In 1880 we released only 31% less Co2 (around 290 ppm) than the 416 in 2020. That's really not enough of an increase to explain the temperature rise proportionally. By making the range 280-420 I feel they can make it look like it correlates closer. The gray line is way more gradual. It would look more like two unrelated data sets on one chart.

The cooling trend on that chart ended around 1910. At about 300 ppm of output. The entirety of the runaway warming trend of 1.4 degrees above 20th century average was accomplished by a 27% increase in carbon emissions. Which hit the peak of this graph the year of the pandemic.

I want to side with the roundly discredited people using the argument temperature increase may PROCEED Co2 output.

In any case that's a very misleading graph. And it's the official .gov graph too.

** Double Post Removed **

Since Climate Change believers are a religion my religion is non-belief. None of what they claim is true. Of course we damage the environment but we aren't causing a rise in Earths temperature.

We are killing everything with microplastics, glyphosate and wireless radiation however but let's worry about the conjectured possible future temperature shall we?

I happen to be a Scientist who studies weather data for my job collecting air samples. The Sun is the problem, period.
We have a problem too. The Politicians are using the natural Cycles of the Sun to fool people. The Sun is going thru huge changes and so are all the planets. Many here have shared good concepts here in this thread already but we have a whole lot of people that have just their gut feelings.

The link below has a ton of material in short youtubes that explain the cycles and how the new Space based telescopes are teaching us about our Sun.

Here is a chance to find proof of Solar forcing and geomagnetic interferences from this one guy who was shunned. This Scientist is now lauded by some Astro Physicists who used to say no way he was right.

I will endorse that data too as what I was not wanting to know, but I need to know.

originally posted by: LoneWolfMT
It's essential to consider various perspectives when examining a complex issue like climate change. While there are differing opinions, the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is real, primarily human-driven, and poses significant risks to ecosystems and societies.

Here are some sources representing both sides of the argument:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The IPCC is the leading international body assessing climate change, and their reports represent the scientific consensus on the issue. Their assessments are based on thousands of studies and are reviewed by experts worldwide. The IPCC's reports provide extensive evidence that climate change is primarily driven by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. You can find their latest reports at: www.ipcc.ch...

NASA's Global Climate Change website: This site offers comprehensive information on the evidence, causes, effects, and potential solutions related to climate change. It includes data from various sources, including satellite observations, that support the consensus view that climate change is real and driven mainly by human activities. The website is available at: climate.nasa.gov...

For alternative views that question the mainstream consensus on climate change, you can refer to the following sources:

CO2 Coalition: As you mentioned, the CO2 Coalition is a group that argues that CO2 emissions are not harmful and may even be beneficial for the planet. Their reports and publications can be found at: co2coalition.org...

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF): The GWPF is a UK-based think tank that questions the extent and severity of climate change and opposes many climate policies. They publish articles, reports, and briefings that offer alternative perspectives on climate change. Their website is available at: www.thegwpf.org...

Please keep in mind that it is important to critically evaluate the credibility and scientific rigor of sources on both sides of the argument. The scientific consensus supporting the reality and severity of human-driven climate change is based on extensive evidence and research, but it's always helpful to consider various perspectives when forming your own opinion.a reply to: TurkeyGoose

I agree. That is very misleading using a short range of data with a short change in the temp. Literally a lie to put this out there by the IPCC. They got busted using this stuff by the Scientists with the study for fudging numbers.

Statics also say their data was no accurate enough to be used for even one of the predictions it made, zero. This is a political power grabbing tool that goes hand in hand with the Cabal planning on controlling the planet with an iron rod.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: TurkeyGoose

My view on climate change has historically been that I suspected it was a fairly natural cyclical transition of our planet, and that our emissions & actions where perhaps speeding the cycle up. My view is now shifting to it being purely natural and we're not speeding it up.

That's the chart that needs refuting. The temperature vs the gray line off carbon emissions.

Things I noticed.

In 1880 we released only 31% less Co2 (around 290 ppm) than the 416 in 2020. That's really not enough of an increase to explain the temperature rise proportionally. By making the range 280-420 I feel they can make it look like it correlates closer. The gray line is way more gradual. It would look more like two unrelated data sets on one chart.

The cooling trend on that chart ended around 1910. At about 300 ppm of output. The entirety of the runaway warming trend of 1.4 degrees above 20th century average was accomplished by a 27% increase in carbon emissions. Which hit the peak of this graph the year of the pandemic.

I want to side with the roundly discredited people using the argument temperature increase may PROCEED Co2 output.

In any case that's a very misleading graph. And it's the official .gov graph too.

Thank you all for your information & links, all will be very helpful to develop my understanding! I've had a read through on GWPF's report for 2022 and found it very interesting and intended to read through it again.

A lot more reading to go, so thanks again!

skepticalscience.com...


Those who refute AGW are the ones with an agenda. Ask yourself who is least affected (personally) by flood, drought, famine, mass migration, food shortages, increased foot prices ..... And who has the most to gain by continuing to selling oil and coal.

The proposed solution is naturally taxes, who has the most to gain there?

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
skepticalscience.com...


Those who refute AGW are the ones with an agenda. Ask yourself who is least affected (personally) by flood, drought, famine, mass migration, food shortages, increased foot prices ..... And who has the most to gain by continuing to selling oil and coal.

Refuting a lie is what some of us are damned good at Andy.. AGW is a flat out lie, period. The reports are here now for you to read on this thread and data to review in the links. It is a lie you will learn to see I suppose one day if you are not poking fun at it in sarcasm.

We do affect our habitat with our air pollution and water contamination. That does little to affect the Earth. The more soot pollution the lower the average temperature in places that burn huge amounts of Coal. Turned off the coal in places and the temp in those areas rose a bit. It is the Sun that decides how warm we are and man can only hide the Sun and hide from it too.