The real reason for "Climate Change" alarmism

Another "climate change" hoax promoter says the real goal is global wealth re-distribution.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

The naive, the gullible, the foolish will listen to the hoaxers and turn all their money and their liberty over to them thinking they are solving a problem, not realizing they are accommodating a completely different objective. We will see the charts, the fabricated and manipulated numbers and the claim that if we don't act NOW, we will all fry.

Couple of photoshops I saw recently: "When Al Gore was born there were 7000 polar bears. Today there are only 30,000 left."

"When Al Gore was born there were 130,000 glaciers. Today only 130,000 are left."

 

Here's the problem.

I'm not listening to alarmists.

I look out my window at the sea wall and can SEE the tides getting higher over the last ten years.

I don't listen to alarmists.

I drive down the streets of South Beach and SEE high tide waters coming up through the drains and SEE the work starting on
multimillion dollar pumping stations to catch up with rising sea water.

So when I SEE smart-a**ed remarks concerning ocean level rise - I don't think of alarmist scientists or politicians- I think of what I can SEE
out my window.

Good day, sir.

 

Here's the problem these fossil fuel profiteers - .their ridiculous claims of conspiracy against climate scientists and stupid pictures of a dried lake (what is that supposed to be about????) simply are not even trying to show a case an honest case for the ignoring clear signs of the world change - they just make up BS to make it OK to keep their heads in the sand and burn-baby-burn fossil fuels!

Try reality! Your children will be glad you did!

https://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

 

Danny, I'm not questioning the tides, but I do wonder if mankind can make any such change in just 10 years even if we tried.

 

Good Grief, could it possibly be more people and more pavement?.

"Our flood-control system was built over 60 years ago to handle two million people. We now have almost eight million people," says Gabe Margasak, a public information officer for the South Florida Water Management District.

Because of this, in the past six years the District spent about $270 million in upgrades.

The department says in most cases the flood system operates as it’s designed, but there are storms with more rainfall than the system can handle. That’s when we’ll see flooding. They also attribute flooding to other factors.

"In South Florida, especially places that are built up with concrete; these are places that historically the water would trickle into the ground and now you have a parking lot or road so there’s nowhere for the water to go," says Margasak.

According to the district, water levels are currently where they’re supposed to be for this time of year. But just like Florida weather, things can change fast.

http://wlrn.org/post/why-flooding-cant-be-prevented-south-florida

 

Of course it is...... The UN wants basically (only) the United States to actually pay other nations for our carbon emissions... Meaning we should give African countries (or any undeveloped nation) money based on our emissions..... Of course China told the UN to go F-OFF while globalist asshats here in the US think it's a good idea..

Lets not forget asshat quacks that get paid via government grants - taxpayer dollars - to promote this AGW nonsense to further the agenda... It's kinda ironic if you think about it because they're promoting an agenda for personal gain but for the reasons of global socialism. I suppose all these (*)(*)(*)(*)***** think they will find themselves among the elite if their agenda is to ever come to fruition.

 

If you look at the chart, which show a 170 year ever increasing loss of glacier ice (many having disappearing far after 10,000 years of buried ice), we can see that in the 10 year period from has lost 50% of the ice volume change ice we had.

50%. In 10 years!

 

Funny, I live on the west coast and head to Monterey multiple times a year. And the irony is, the tide line is still in the same place it was when I first got here in 1984.

 

Global warming is kind of up there with chemtrail conspiracies now. Nobody actually believes in it.

 

I think democrats should have gone with the paul krugmann lie about an alien invasion, to steal from the American people.

[video=youtube;jaED2ErdIv8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaED2ErdIv8[/video]

 

lol I love the al gore captions for the polar bears... it sums up one of the major problems with the argument...

they need to go back to saying "pollution is bad, and no matter its form, we should always try to reduce pollution"... thats a message I believed in 40 years ago, and I still believe in today... pollution by definition is bad... we should always take the modern things we do today, and find ways to make them cause less pollution, thats never a bad message to preach... problem is when they attempt to redefine science, and push political ideology into the realm of science, that science often fails to support them... they just need to get back to the message the hippies were preaching back in the day, pollution is bad, and we should make efforts to pollute less... simple and proven...

 

Yes, but that provides insufficient opportunities for graft and to grab power to re-distribute wealth.

 

And 400 years ago earth was in the middle of the Little Ice Age - which followed the medieval warm period. The Little Ice Age ended in about 1850. Is that a coincidence for the beginning of the diminishing volume of arctic ice as your chart shows? That the earth was coming back to a warmer condition because of the end of the Little Ice Age and have nothing at all to do with "global warming"?

For such short periods of time how can anyone be confident that these are not normal fluctuations of Earth's climate? It is the height of hubris to claim that for a planet that is billions of years old a few decades experience can allow us to determining causality of ANY change in climate with certainty and then to prescribe solutions that the alarmists admit are intended to re-distribute wealth rather than solve any problem with the climate.

 

The solution is to make everyone's electric bill so high that they'll go broke just trying to survive while putting thousands of people in the coal/oil industry out of business.

Right? Who's with me?!?

 

Bs I look at the same tide line and see no change.

Cheers
Labour

 

Words to live by...

Speaking of reality, why does this graph begin almost precisely at the end of the Little Ice Age, when glaciers were probably at their highest volume in more than 10KY? In the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings were living in Greenland. By a hundred years into the Little Ice Age, their pastures were under glaciers, and they had been wiped out by the cold. Maybe those glaciers added to the total glacier volume the Little Ice Age piled up by 1850, when your graph begins. Ya think? As your graph is based on proxy data, which can be extended further into the past, why don't you show us the graph going back a couple of thousand years instead of a couple hundred, so we can compare current glacier volume loss to the loss in previous natural warming periods?

 

All the land on earth is either rising, sinking, or stable. How much and how fast each type changes its relative position is distributed normally, according to the well-known bell curve. If the land where you live is sinking fast, you are going to see the tide getting higher even if sea level isn't rising.

I have lived in a coastal city for several decades, and I don't see any such rise in the tides as you describe. In some places the tides are going down. There are places around the Mediterranean where ancient port ruins are now kilometers from the sea.

 

You should move then. It is completely unjust that wealthy coastal residents should be able to tax poorer inland communities to make their poor house siting choices work. We need massive taxes on these coastal areas, all permit costs, construction costs, remodel permits, all should skyrocket to "encourage" folks to move inland.

This will result in a wealth transfer from rich coastal snobs to the poorer inland folks, so greater equality. You are for greater equality, aren't you?

Have you considered the Atlantic seaboard? Sea levels have been falling for 6 years.



http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8534720

 

One more failure by the Deniers!

This is typical of the simplistic propaganda from fossill fuel interests to try to spin a local Northern Hemisphere weather as a GLOBAL phenomenon!

This is the time in our world that Republicans start thinking about more than only their only back yard.

Of course they won't....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

 

Except, you know, scientists.

But what do scientists know about science anyway

 

The LIA is a misnomer. It was not an actual ice age. It was a period of brief cooling due to volcanic eruptions

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

And the medieval warm period was a brief and regional warming period caused by changes in the North Atlantic oscillation. Greenland was mostly covered in ice during its Viking colonization. Again, the warming of the MWP was not global.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

 

Even natural variations in climate have causes. The climate doesn't just magically change. Something forces it to. Natural cycles occurs over tens of thousands of years. Natural forces that could case sudden change, such as volcanoes, are easy to observe.

There is no natural warming source that explains the warming troposphere and the cooling stratosphere. Or that nights are warming faster than days. There is no natural force that explains why there is less oxygen in the air. There is no natural cause that explains why the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere has the same isotopes as carbon from fossil fuels. There is no natural force that explains the dropping pH of the oceans.

You guys and your ridiculous paranoia over wealth redistribution is just mind blowing. Apparently it is just fine to funnel billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, but heaven forbid we put some money into developing renewable energy.

Rather than admit to astronomical evidence that humans are changing the climate, it makes so much more sense and is so much easier to beleive that there is this massive global conspiracy that has been ongoing for over 50 years and includes every government on the planet, millions of scientists and every research university in the world. It makes TOO MUCH sense.

Who has been backing this US conspiracy anyway? Do you think that both republican and democratic presidents have been in on this? Republican and democratic congresses? For 50 years?

 

Except that much of the increase in Miami Beach flooding is from non-storm flooding, when high tide pushes the ocean water back into the streets in the absence of rain.

Conservatives usually understand one concept well: Money.

There are trillions of dollars of coastal real estate at risk due to rising tides. How stupid would it be of a nation to risk that much of its assets, into which hard work was poured for a long time, just because of political convictions?

As another poster said, though, most of this coastal real estate is owned by the rich. So maybe AGW is nature's way of forced wealth redistribution?

You know what is going to happen though when the guy driving the Hummer and having 10-times the carbon footprint of the average Joe has his multi million $ ocean front threatened by rising tides: He will call to the much hated government to spend lots of money to protect his home.

 

And MUCH more important, how much lower sea level will get for how much spent in remediation?

This calculus is total guess work, unknowable.

 

The "naive, the gullible, the foolish" are those who can look at the tremendous evidence collected across the lengths of the scientific community and deny that it's real, choosing instead to believe the political front men for the big money shelled out by the carbon polluting industries, primarily oil and coal. Fortunately, most of the world is far better educated than today's Republican voters.