RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: “Climate Change” Is A Hoax - RightNation.US

Jump to content

“Climate Change” Is A Hoax Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,742
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 09 September 2019 - 12:41 PM

Quote

“Climate Change” Is A Hoax

Townhall.com
Kurt Schlichter
Sep 09, 2019 12:01 AM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.

excerpt:


I hate science, evidently, because I’m woke to the manifest truth about what the leftist elite currently calls “climate change." It is the second most staggering fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people after the media’s promotion of the unstoppable candidacy of Beto (who is a furry). Like some suckers still do, I once believed that “science” was a rigorous process where you tested theories and revised those theories in response to objective evidence. But in today’s shabby practice, “science” is just a package of self-serving lies buttressing the transnational liberal elite’s preferred narrative. Our alleged betters hope that labeling their propaganda “science” will science-shame you into silence about what everyone knows is a scam.

Nah. “Climate change” is a hoax. Come arrest me for felony denial.

Understand that the term “climate change” does not refer to actual meteorological phenomena but, rather, to the sordid rat-king of lies, scams and power grabs that we are commanded to accept as pagan gospel lest we burn to a crisp or drown or suffer...whatever the Armageddon du jour is. When you say “climate change is a grift,” and you should as often as possible, you are pointing out that this green-on-the-outside/red-on-the-inside fake frenzy is really just a set of intertwined grifts transparently designed to separate you from your freedom and your property in the name of somehow adjusting the weather.

Observing that “climate change” is steaming garbage served in a dirty ashtray is not disputing that the climate changes. That the climate is not static, and never could be static, is one of the myriad reasons that this whole idea is ridiculous. The planet gets hotter, it gets colder, sometimes quickly, sometimes over eons, and there are a bunch of reasons why, like the sun and volcanos. Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors, but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one. Of course, if they really cared about carbon, they would be up in arms about China and India, which are upping their output while we are slashing ours. Yet the object of their ire is your New York strip. Gosh, does that seem consistent with 1) someone truly concerned about atmospheric carbon, or 2) someone who trembles with joy at the notion of bossing around you rubes out in gun/Jesusland?

The underlying premise of their claims seems to be that there is a “right” temperature for the earth; watch them sputter when you enquire about that perfect setting for Earth’s thermostat. Remember, if you ask questions you hate “science.” If they did stop telling you how you hate “science” long enough to respond, they might explain that of course there’s no perfect temperature – it’s not like LA, where it’s always 72 degrees.

But then, what are they comparing the present climate to in order to declare that our climate is “getting worse?” If you establish a climate baseline, then you can compare what’s actually happening to the baseline and that might demonstrate that the whole thing is baloney. That would be awkward. It happened after Katrina. Oh, Katrina’s proof positive that Gaia is really ticked off and…and…and…then we had a bunch of years without much hurricane action at all. You might think that this would be evidence that maybe the climate wasn’t in chaos, and that they would be happy to be proven wrong, but no, it doesn’t work that way. Every time the weather fits the narrative, you see, it’s proof that the climate kooks are right, and every time the weather fails to fit the narrative, well, weather’s not climate. At least until the next heat wave or storm; then weather will totally be climate again.

Heads, you must give us all your freedom and money, and also tails, you must give us all your freedom and money.

Now, we’re being told that we’re all going to die in…I guess we’re down to what? About 11.5 years this go ‘round? Of course, we’ve been told many times that we’re doomed and the deadlines have come and gone with the doomsdayers not missing a beat. They’re like old timey Elmer Gantrys promising the apocalypse over and over again, with their hardcore true believers regularly showing up for the rapture over and over again no matter how many times the Four Horseman fail to turn up.

We haven’t even seen one horseman.

Back in the 70s, I remember we were promised an ice age if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. Then in the 80s, we were promised death by ozone hole if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, and then doom by acid rain if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. By the time they started promising that we were all gonna die from global warming if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, I was still wanting my ice age. It would be nice to have a white Christmas in LA.

So, where’s my damn ice age?

Oh right, only a climate denier – Climate, I deny thee! – might wonder why we should hand over one, ten, a hundred trillion bucks to people who have never once been right about their predictions. You evidently hate “science” if you expect the “science” people to be correct at least one time in a half-century.


<SNIP>

LINK

Wish I could post the whole thing. B)
0

#2 User is offline   Tikk 

  • Oh Rrrrrreeeaaaally?
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Joined: 16-December 03

Posted 09 September 2019 - 02:14 PM

As someone who is trained in science and works professionally in science, global warming advocates tick me off for falsely claim that 1) They follow true scientific methods and sources 2) I'm wrong for questioning their methods and results.

Although I do find it funny when morons call me a 'denier'.
0

#3 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 31,199
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 09 September 2019 - 02:26 PM

View PostTikk, on 09 September 2019 - 02:14 PM, said:

As someone who is trained in science and works professionally in science, global warming advocates tick me off for falsely claim that 1) They follow true scientific methods and sources 2) I'm wrong for questioning their methods and results.

Although I do find it funny when morons call me a 'denier'.

Don't you know that all of that stuff is sooo outdated? :huh:

Scientific facts are now determined by a consensus of progressive "scientists"?

Get with the program already! :rant:

Sheez, grandpa! :angry:







:sarcasm:

:P
0

#4 User is offline   satellite66 

  • No more RHINOs!!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 5,566
  • Joined: 27-November 03

Posted 09 September 2019 - 02:41 PM

The "man made climate change" BS is what gets me. Climate changes and they are using that simple fact to further their agenda of control.
Our air and water is cleaner and safer than it was when I was young I have no doubt. Except perhaps the water where democrats control the cities
0

#5 User is offline   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,166
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 09 September 2019 - 03:05 PM

View Postsatellite66, on 09 September 2019 - 02:41 PM, said:

The "man made climate change" BS is what gets me. Climate changes and they are using that simple fact to further their agenda of control.
Our air and water is cleaner and safer than it was when I was young I have no doubt. Except perhaps the water where democrats control the cities


In 1974 I was working as an engineer for a local TV station. In July I was helping to move some old camera equipment from the transmitter building which was in uptown Cincinnati. The new local EPA building was being dedicated that day (in the same part of town near UC). The reason I remember is because the smog was so thick it really hurt to breath. The irony was just as thick.

There hasn't been a day anywhere near as polluted as that day in the area since. People who say how bad it is now have no clue.
0

#6 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,365
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 09 September 2019 - 03:46 PM

View Postsatellite66, on 09 September 2019 - 02:41 PM, said:

The "man made climate change" BS is what gets me. Climate changes and they are using that simple fact to further their agenda of control.
Our air and water is cleaner and safer than it was when I was young I have no doubt. Except perhaps the water where democrats control the cities

Flint Michigan...cough cough.
0

#7 User is offline   kestrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,765
  • Joined: 22-January 05

Posted 09 September 2019 - 05:03 PM

View Postgrimreefer, on 09 September 2019 - 12:41 PM, said:

Wish I could post the whole thing. B)

Here's something I've posted before..I think it tells the tale...notice the time frames that the media wasn't screaming "we're all gonna die!!"

There is most certainly a pattern to climate change…but it’s not what you may think:




For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.




* 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895

* 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistence that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times

* 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912

* 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune

* 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post

* 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

* 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?

* 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

* 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933

* 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

* 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

* 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune

* 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

* 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962

* 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report

* 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine

* 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times

* 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969

* 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post

* 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine

* 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post

* 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

* 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times

Cassandras are becoming

increasingly apprehensive,

for the weather



Kestrel...



0

#8 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,566
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 09 September 2019 - 05:35 PM

 Tikk, on 09 September 2019 - 02:14 PM, said:

As someone who is trained in science and works professionally in science, global warming advocates tick me off for falsely claim that 1) They follow true scientific methods and sources 2) I'm wrong for questioning their methods and results.

Although I do find it funny when morons call me a 'denier'.

Exactly.
0

#9 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,149
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 09 September 2019 - 06:05 PM

One slight correction: A "hoax" is intended as a prank; a joke. The climate change people are committing fraud, not hoax.

B)
0

#10 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,566
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 09 September 2019 - 06:51 PM

 MontyPython, on 09 September 2019 - 06:05 PM, said:

One slight correction: A "hoax" is intended as a prank; a joke. The climate change people are committing fraud, not hoax.

B)

Hmmm. Good catch. I like accuracy.
0

#11 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,365
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 09 September 2019 - 07:46 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 09 September 2019 - 06:05 PM, said:

One slight correction: A "hoax" is intended as a prank; a joke. The climate change people are committing fraud, not hoax.

B)

Good point. And, climate change is real, changes all the time. The concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is complete BS. So, instead of, say, throwing money at trying to clean up legitimate Super Fund sites, where there is true pollution, they spend billions on ginned up "research" to attempt to justify a complete takeover of the world's government to a unified socialist/totalitarian model. Meanwhile real polluted areas don't get attention because the fraud eats up all the money. Repulsive, disgusting, and plenty of other words that won't make it past the filters here.
0

#12 User is offline   Italian Biker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,163
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 09 September 2019 - 07:47 PM

View PostSeverian, on 09 September 2019 - 03:46 PM, said:

Flint Michigan...cough cough.

Flint was caused by aging bad water utility infrastructure and treatment methods more than bad water at the natural sources the water originally came from. If the would have stayed getting water from the Detroit utility, it wouldn't have happened.
0

#13 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,073
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 09 September 2019 - 07:50 PM

View PostTikk, on 09 September 2019 - 02:14 PM, said:

As someone who is trained in science and works professionally in science, global warming advocates tick me off for falsely claim that 1) They follow true scientific methods and sources 2) I'm wrong for questioning their methods and results.

Although I do find it funny when morons call me a 'denier'.

:yeahthat:

I like to watch their heads' spin when I tell them that I've been employed in the environmental field for 25 years
0

#14 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,566
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 09 September 2019 - 11:50 PM

 Severian, on 09 September 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

Good point. And, climate change is real, changes all the time. The concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is complete BS. So, instead of, say, throwing money at trying to clean up legitimate Super Fund sites, where there is true pollution, they spend billions on ginned up "research" to attempt to justify a complete takeover of the world's government to a unified socialist/totalitarian model. Meanwhile real polluted areas don't get attention because the fraud eats up all the money. Repulsive, disgusting, and plenty of other words that won't make it past the filters here.

This too.
0

#15 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,073
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 10 September 2019 - 01:13 AM

View PostItalian Biker, on 09 September 2019 - 07:47 PM, said:

Flint was caused by aging bad water utility infrastructure and treatment methods more than bad water at the natural sources the water originally came from. If the would have stayed getting water from the Detroit utility, it wouldn't have happened.


They switched from groundwater (neural-alkaline) to surface water from the Flint River (slightly acidic), which commenced leaching of metals from the ancient lead and copper pipes.

Trump's fault, clearly
0

#16 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,073
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 10 September 2019 - 01:23 AM

View PostSeverian, on 09 September 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

Good point. And, climate change is real, changes all the time. The concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is complete BS. So, instead of, say, throwing money at trying to clean up legitimate Super Fund sites, where there is true pollution, they spend billions on ginned up "research" to attempt to justify a complete takeover of the world's government to a unified socialist/totalitarian model. Meanwhile real polluted areas don't get attention because the fraud eats up all the money. Repulsive, disgusting, and plenty of other words that won't make it past the filters here.


Agree fully with the argument, but must correct some details:

Superfund, however inefficient and bloated, has indeed cleaned up much of the worst contaminated sites in the nation. I've been doing that very work since 1994 (and wow, some of the <censored> that I've seen...). What sites are left on the Superfund List are either a. currently undergoing cleanup, or b. represent low-risk sites or munitions sites (the latter were saved until the end for various reasons).

While there are some emerging contaminant issues such as PFAS/PFOA, hormones and hormone-mimics (phthalates and bisphenol-A), and pharmaceuticals that may have wide-ranging implications, on the whole, the U.S. has done a magnificent job since CERCLA and SARA (the governing laws behind Superfund) were passed in 1976 and 1980, respectively. Three of the greatest accomplishments are the restoration of the Delaware River, Hudson River and Lake Erie. Where each used to catch fire and no one in their right mind would fish or swim in them, now, they do. Endangered species are returning for the first time in decades.

Superfund has in large part accomplished what it set out to do. The problems now are a different kettle of fish. Currently, chemical contamination has been replaced by a new set of environmental concerns: overfishing (thank you China, Japan); plastic, plastic everywhere (global problem, with China and the Third World as the worst culprits); overdevelopment and habitat fragmentation.

This post has been edited by Howsithangin: 10 September 2019 - 01:26 AM

0

#17 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,365
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 10 September 2019 - 09:42 AM

Thanks for the insight into the status of most Super Fund sites. You're right not the best example, but there are plenty of world wide pollution issues orders of magnitude more important than CO2. Like, cleaning up China and India, soot and pollution belching factories, the black carbon they deposit on the Arctic definitely increases melt as it changes the albedo of the ice. Add to that the issues you mention, all going mostly unaddressed as the world obsesses over a trace gas in the atmosphere. But addressing such things doesn't allow you to try and control the whole world's economy and peoples.

This whole business is very depressing to me. These people are anti-science, and the fact that people educated in science are often the ones pushing out this nonsense is particularly upsetting to me. Of course, didn't take long after I started college for me to realize that many of my physics professors were not the wise, learned men I had thought they were. They ran my mentor out of the college, he was by far the best instructor and physicist they had, out of jealousy, and as it turns out from their comments, a shocking amount of anti-Semitism. Ones youthful opinions seldom survive contact with the real world.
0

#18 User is offline   corporal_little 

  • What is your major malfunction....
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,439
  • Joined: 09-January 04

Posted 10 September 2019 - 09:56 AM

View PostTikk, on 09 September 2019 - 02:14 PM, said:

As someone who is trained in science and works professionally in science, global warming advocates tick me off for falsely claim that 1) They follow true scientific methods and sources 2) I'm wrong for questioning their methods and results.

Although I do find it funny when morons call me a 'denier'.


Exactly. This is madness. I'm not a scientist, just a contractor, but I did learn the scientific method in junior high science class..

1. Ask a question...
2. Come up with a hypothesis
3. Predict the outcome of your hypothesis
4. Test to see if your predictions were right.
5. Analysis of your testing...
6. Replication of your testing/experiments
7. External peer review of your findings

It seems like politics is causing these highly educated and trained people to stop at step 3 and declare their predictions as fact and demand full compliance by other people, even if steps 4 and 5 clearly show their predictions to be faulty.

It makes zero sense. No, even if climate change was real and was going to cause major damage and death, no would would ever be able to agree. It's crazy.
0

#19 User is offline   DJGoody 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 784
  • Joined: 07-June 16

Posted 10 September 2019 - 12:25 PM

View Postcorporal_little, on 10 September 2019 - 09:56 AM, said:

Exactly. This is madness. I'm not a scientist, just a contractor, but I did learn the scientific method in junior high science class..

1. Ask a question...
2. Come up with a hypothesis
3. Predict the outcome of your hypothesis
4. Test to see if your predictions were right.
5. Analysis of your testing...
6. Replication of your testing/experiments
7. External peer review of your findings

It seems like politics is causing these highly educated and trained people to stop at step 3 and declare their predictions as fact and demand full compliance by other people, even if steps 4 and 5 clearly show their predictions to be faulty.

It makes zero sense. No, even if climate change was real and was going to cause major damage and death, no would would ever be able to agree. It's crazy.



Follow the money! If the gov't is funding your 'research' guess who is going to get the answer they want?
0

#20 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,566
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 10 September 2019 - 01:27 PM

 corporal_little, on 10 September 2019 - 09:56 AM, said:

Exactly. This is madness. I'm not a scientist, just a contractor, but I did learn the scientific method in junior high science class..

1. Ask a question...
2. Come up with a hypothesis
3. Predict the outcome of your hypothesis
4. Test to see if your predictions were right.
5. Analysis of your testing...
6. Replication of your testing/experiments
7. External peer review of your findings

It seems like politics is causing these highly educated and trained people to stop at step 3 and declare their predictions as fact and demand full compliance by other people, even if steps 4 and 5 clearly show their predictions to be faulty.

It makes zero sense. No, even if climate change was real and was going to cause major damage and death, no would would ever be able to agree. It's crazy.

One additional giveaway is the fact that, while this end of the known world catastrophe lurks around the corner, we can save ourselves by giving Al Gore our money. Like, what?
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users