The religion of climate change.

While Paris burns the opportunity arises for people of stable mind and a relatively reasonable grasp of human history to contemplate contemporary climate change ideology and draw comparisons to other religious events invoked to enslave and oppress populations.

For many centuries the Earth was thought to be flat or disc shaped as well the center of the universe. The science of the Dark and middle Ages was intertwined with and subordinated to religion which was defined then as an absolute belief system operated and controlled by the moneyed elite. Any questioning of the dogma was often met with ridicule, ostracization and sometimes burning at the stake.

Those who relinquished skepticism could be afforded all the benefits and support of the entrenched elite much like climate scientists of today who are bribed with research funding to conclude that the state dogma is correct. On the other hand they face isolation and impoverishment for any observations that challenge elitist doctrine.

As we enter a new year those of us who see clearly must not give up the fight to think independently and question authority that has seized on the advantage of power to punish the people to save the world. The absurd notion that the dynamic forces that control the Earth’s climate systems can be harnessed by taxation and regulation must be viewed in a historical religious context not a scientific one.

The elites that possess the power are not going risk that power in an age where information is more ubiquitous than at any time in human history. They need the “next big thing” to impose control over the masses. Contaminating, corrupting and intimidating science into a crusade against the people by blaming them for the weather comes right out of the same Pandora’s Box that gave us the Inquisition.

Human history is still a work in progress and religion disguised as science is just the latest manifestation signifying the futility of fools that obediently step into the leg irons of their elitist slave masters. Those who are not fools need to watch the fate of the resistance in Paris.

The elites in our history always claim that their power preserving is for a greater good for our own good but as with the rest of human history they don’t have a clue what they are talking about. But they do know how to stay rich by taxing the rest of us.

 

Anyone who thinks that man with his vast cities and population and mining and burning of fossil fuels and eradication of forests and changes to the ecology is not changing earth's climate is quite simply a moron.

 

Unlike any religion, when I've asked physicists and other scientists about climate change, they've willingly and eagerly offered evidence. So far it appears that, as with evolution, there are people who "believe" it and people who don't understand it, but I have yet to meet anyone who understands the basics of the claims and still doesn't "believe" it. Similarly, climate "skeptics," as with old-earth "skeptics," tend to misrepresent information in order to press their point.

 

Anyone who sees mankind using the gifts of God (trees, oil, coal etc.) as destroying the planet is quite simply a moron.

 

This made me laugh. Only those that never actually look into the science wholly believe the alarmist claptrap.

 

God's gifts? One always enjoys an intelligent arguement. I will look elsewhere!

Psalm 24:1 “A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein.”

 

I believe you and Trump are intellectual equals. Hint: that isn't a compliment!

 

Can you imagine if we didn't drill for oil? That oil is going somewhere, I prefer we pump it out.

 

The vast majority of those who have researched the subject know that the recent warming trend is significantly due to human-generated contributions. You can quibble about the degree of appropriate alarm, but denialism is functional illiteracy.

 

Yes. I can. Oil is the devil. More wars have been fought over oil in the last 100 years than any other commodity. Its an obnoxious pollutant.

Imagine that instead of oil, that solar had been the driving force in the late 1800's. It's ubiquitous and doesn't depend on ownership rights.
The Middle-east would have been left alone to grow at it's own pace - the European powers would have basically left it alone save for canal zone.
The Japanese would not have had the great impetus to attack the US on December 7th - there would have been no Japanese oil embargo. The Russians might have had a chance for real Democracy if the Oil Oligarchs hadn't put Putin in power.

Oil is the Devil.

 

The problem with your proposed oil free technology is it can't compete on the open market. If it could, oil would be a thing of the past. Take electric cars for example. They have a very short range. They don't work in cold weather. The replacement of batteries is expensive. There is no infrastructure for recharging these cars. And so forth.

Also, are you proposing to eliminate oil based products, such as plastic, nylon, synthetic rubber, paving for roads, driveways, etc.?

What have you personally done to stop using oil products?

 

What are the specific changes caused by man, what is the impact of these changes, and what is the impact of any proposed corrective actions. These are the sort of questions intelligent people would discuss.

 

I assume that you think that global warming is a religion because people believe it without evidence. I counter that your belief that global warming is a conspiracy made by elites to control the planet is also a religion because you don't give any evidence for this at all.

 

Translation: You only listen to the ignorant media or the few alarmists and are not familiar with all facets of the science or the debate within the climate science community.

Which scientists do you believe? The ones you agree with or the ones that are rational.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

And thanks for proving mine.

 

So, oil really isn't the devil, it seems, as the non petroleum economy proposed is still highly dependent on... oil. All of those lightweight carbon based materials have to come from somewhere. And let us also not forget that while we're just plugging in, that so much of how we plug in is fed by coal especially outside of the US. So, when we plug in, we just defer the pollution to whatever state owned or syndicated energy grid that provides the electricity those vehicles then consume. More, because of the limitations of range, mobility is seriously limited. Of course, this is planned. As in, use other vastly more polluting state run or regulated transportation sources, like planes, trains, etc. This further limits mobility, further ensures the ability to rapidly shut off mobility, limit to where or when you can travel etc.

The erosion of our freedom. Why? Because some folks can't make money off of you today.

 

Denialism is defined as any science that is counter to the alarmist dogma. Basically true denial is rejection of any of that science.

 

The email trail from the East Anglia University would be sufficient evidence of the both collusion and conspiracy of evidence tampering that are the foundation of the AGW religious orthodoxy. When you consider that everyone in support of the AGW religion regularly use the internet to express their belief, isn't it somewhat hypocritical of them? I mean, all that energy they are wasting.... tsk... tsk....

 

Folks who believe fundamentally deny the actual science. And then, because it's this base, they call other folks names, like deniers, in their bullying attempt to wash over their own denial......

 

Denialism is the denial of physical facts, such as denying the objective fact that fossil fuels are the primary cause of the current warming trend. But if you prefer the comfort of your straw man instead, have at it.

 

Perfect. So now demonstrate that your assertion is correct. Demonstrate that you can differentiate use of fossil fuels driving actual climate change. That shouldn't take long, and then you can explain how the ~<4% of total CO2 output globally is then responsible for what we're seeing.

 

Here are three good, well-referenced resources you can check out to learn the basic science and which address most of the common denialist arguments:
https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/

No natural explanation has been offered that fits the facts and explains the warming trends, and several facts show that the greenhouse effect is to blame (winter temps rising faster than summer temps, nighttime temps rising faster than daytime temps, upper atmosphere cooling while lower is warming, etc.). We are, of course, significantly contributing to the causes of the greenhouse effect, therefore significantly contributing to its effect. We can differentiate CO2 resulting from the burning of fossil fuel vs naturally occurring CO2. And, of course, we've destroyed tons of natural carbon sinks, meaning that even much of the natural CO2 in the air is our fault, since we've destroyed much of the natural means of cycling that CO2 out of the atmosphere.

You can find out more about the specifics here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
https://grist.org/climate-energy/natural-emissions-dwarf-human-emissions/
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...osub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/...ng-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m3

Or, for a crash course, you can just watch this video. Skip to 2:20 if you want a quick answer to your question above:

 

So, instead of actually citing real studies, you resorted to blog posts? Even your own source, Grist.org suggests that natural CO2 emissions far exceed man made by a magnitude of 20:1. So what? Show how that ~<4% actually is the only driver. You've said that science cannot find a "natural cause" and yet, we've experienced multiple transitions from glaciation to interglacial in our global history. None of the citations you've provided then explains how those happened, absent human intervention.

So what? A scientist would suggest that we don't actually know anything then. We have a few hypothesis.. but what can we actually demonstrate here? Can we, for example, demonstrate that the addition of ~<4% CO2 into a solution then generates 100% of the additional insulation necessary to produce the kind of warming we're seeing today? Who did this work? Why not just cite them?

 

"Sufficient evidence ...?" Hell, dude - you are stating that the actions of .00001% of a group define the intent of a group. Pretty shoddy science on your part.