Remember to open-mindedly comment on subs with differing narratives!

submitted by happysmash27 from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (23 children)

I used to believe in Climate Change. I love the environment, greens, sustainability, etc. Hate pollution, toxins, etc. It was my hardest conspiracy to come to terms with. Really hard.

If you already know the government and media lie to you then you're half way there.

There's a lot of stupid shit the right believes. There's also a lot of stupid shit the left believes. Russiagate is clearly stupid. (There's actually a much deeper real Russiagate that is VERY different than the bullshit on MSM.)

Just as Russiagate is nonsense for the left so is Climate Change. Science is never settled. Scientism is a blind faith in whatever authorities tell you and it has taken over this planet. Science needs to be an open process or it's all just proprietary secrets in good faith by corrupt corporations.

I used to believe everyone who didn't buy into Climate Change was stupid or worked for Big Oil. That may be the case sometimes but there is a third non-partisan way. Once you realize the whole think is a politically loaded weapon you can step back and actually look at the pros and cons.

Same thing with vaccines and 5G radiation. Or all this sexism, racism, SJW-ness, and censorship crap.

We're being played. If we let them.

How Big Oil Conquered the World - a 2015 documentary, is a contextual history and critical analysis of the petroleum and banking monopolies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnk-f2ThpE

Why Big Oil Conquered the World - a 2017 documentary, is a contextual history and critical analysis of the petroleum and banking monopolies, their development of eugenics, the overpopulation myth, and the manufactured climate change scare, in order to dominate and control every aspect of our lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wlNey9t7hQ

/s/science/comments/dsy/the_crisis_of_science_the_corbett_report_20190222/

/s/science/comments/f9t/dissecting_the_crisis_of_science_andrea_saltelli/

/s/science/comments/gzh/solutions_open_science_corbett_report/

/s/technology/comments/ii7/the_hard_road_to_technocratic_world_order_corbett/

Every time they mention the failures of modern science, the lack of a valid testing method, or vaccines, often if you substitute with "Climate Change" you'll find that it fits too an the "science" is very much faith-based. And because it's flimsy and because they have ulterior motives, they need to shut all skepticism down ASAP. And this time it's worse than lying about tobacco.

/s/Health/comments/ik1/vaxxed_axed_as_adam_schiff_tries_to_control_your/

/s/Documentaries/comments/16m/vaxxed_from_cover_up_to_catastrophe_full_movie/

/s/Health/comments/ifr/del_bigtree_vaccine_deception_big_pharma_what_the/

/s/science/comments/g5d/free_speech_and_shutting_down_the_vaccine_debate/

[–]zyxzevn 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

I care a lot about the Environment. The "science is settled" led me to study the sceptic side of the climate change discussion. Nothing is settled, but you can both agree on things that you can directly observe.
I was protesting against nuclear waste and pesticides. Now suddenly out of nothing the earth is warming, we have only 15 years, but we can hardly notice it? What is going on? There is clearly a political agenda going on.

*1 The consensus was manufactured. They hand-picked the papers, and left out all other papers. The many (50%) other climate specialists that were not picked mostly disagree.

*2 The climate models are very inaccurate and need to be improved in every way. Not just by manipulating parameters, as they do now.

*3 The variations of the sun were not linked to the models. They forgot the sun. Well, in better words: they did not understand how the small variations of the sun can cause large changes on earth. While they can indeed find a correlation. The solution is simple: the small variations are only on small part of the spectrum. The larger energy variations are on the full spectrum, so there is that.

*4 All "solutions" were either more taxes and more nuclear waste. Which are not solutions at all.

*5 Clouds and water were not related to climate-change. Forests were even negative, while it is always colder in a forest (due to biochemistry etc, I believe).

*6 The Climate "collapse" that is pushed everywhere is almost never agreed on by all specialists. It is the sudden rise of the temperature when it reaches just a bit too high. It will kill all life on earth. And this is what became the essential part of the political push.

*7 A lot of scare is pushed in the media, which is totally fake. Often they publish temperature rises that do not exist.

This is all independent of the state of the earth's climate.

In the mean time, the sea levels are not rising. Some land-masses with large buildings are sinking instead. That is according to our best satellite ENVISAT. That is the only one with a very accurate device. So accurate, it can tell the difference between warm and cold water.

Addition: The solar flares that are usually 10 times bigger than earth, can sometimes hit the earth's atmosphere. This can cause very strong hurricanes and other disasters.

Conclusion: there is no need for panic and we need far better climate models and better global measurements.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

You deserve SaidIt Platinum!!!

*3 The variations of the sun were not linked to the models. They forgot the sun. Well, in better words: they did not understand how the small variations of the sun can cause large changes on earth.

IMO: They accepted easily debunkable science as fact, in an effort to ignore the sun's effect.

[–]HopeThatHalps 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

TBH, I care more about the fact that we're pigging out on a non renewable energy resource, burning up the product of fossils just to get from here to there. The proponents say we will have developed an alternative by the time it's all gone, but that's bullshit, the alternatives are on hand, and they're slow to uptake. People care more about what is cheap right now than what will become expensive later. Oil is also used to make a lot of other things, such as producing plastics, so it's not just a question of how we will get around, but presumably the many other things oil is used for will be endangered as well.

[–]cyber_burn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i tend to agree. people have always had trouble looking past the immediate present. it's logical to want to move toward renewable energy without the need for a looming catastrophe. and while i think it's likely that global warming is occurring, i think there is a lot of dishonesty that has come with it.

additionally, even though i believe that it's happening, i'm always willing to listen to and consider thoughtful discussion about it. but climate change is just another stage for the play of completely closing your mind to anyone who doesn't espouse what you believe to the letter. our knowledge of our surroundings is constantly evolving, and the climate is very complex, so i don't understand the thought that anyone could know exactly how and why the climate is changing. more study and discussion is important.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I care more about the fact that we're pigging out on a non renewable energy resource, burning up the product of fossils just to get from here to there.

If Climate change is a hoax, then what else is a possible hoax?

What if petroleum is renewable? What if the fossil fuel story is scarcity hoax designed to control the market for maximum profit???

It's a resource cartel exactly like diamond market...

[–]HopeThatHalps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The fact that it's non renewable is self evident. Alternatives such as ethonol are not adequate replacements for crude oil. Even if there is more crude underground than we know, it's still a non renewable resource, it will be depleted sooner or later. The crude that remains might be innaccessible, or we might cause a lot of damage in the process of getting to it.

If welathier people choose to spend more on those alternatives now, we get more volume, which leads to cheaper costs per unit, and ultimately the alternatives become affordable for everybody. It's just a question of how much non renewable crude oil we will have pissed away before that time comes. Pure capitalism dictates that we should soak up every drop of crude and burn it first, and then let someone else deal with whatever negative side effects come from that, and so I don't consider pure capitalism to be pragmatic.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know why they ignore the ocean currents as a perpetual source of energy.

Oh, right. Practically free energy isn't profitable.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

The fact that it's non renewable is self evident.

Please explain how this is self-evident.

The deepest fossil that has ever been discovered was at the 16,000 ft level.

The deepest oil well is 40,000 feet deep. How did the "fossil fuel" get 25,000 feet below the fossils?

Again, please explain how this is self-evident?

[–]HopeThatHalps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is an argument from ignorance. "Since I don't know something, I will just assume something else is true", in this case "I don't know how fossil fuel ended up in a certain place, therefore I will assume we can produce more fossile fuel." You're just trading one seemingly implausible premise with another of your choosing.

But maybe I'm the one who is ignorant, what can you tell me about the feasability or reproducing crude oil from scratch? I understand there is a product called "synthetic crude", but that involves taking other depletable resources and converting them into something similar to crude oil, and so that's non-renewable also.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Is this your self-evident argument?

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

How is it not self evident? To say the notion that crude oil can be wholly sythesized in a renewable fashon is highly novel, the burden falls on you to explain how this is feasible.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm beginning to doubt that you understand what self-evident actually means...

You made the claim.

By the way petroleum has been lab synthesised.

There's a tremendous energy source beneath the crust that could supply the required energy, and catalytic materials, as well.

It's not outside or the realm of possibility.
The point is that the cartels control the land and the extraction.

Experiments have been performed on empty wells too see if they refilled.

Spoiler: They refilled...

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually James Corbett has covered how the idea the oil is "fossils" was a Rockefeller myth to make people think it was more "natural".

Also, strange things happen to molecules in high velocity impacts. IMHO all those carbon fluids may be in part the result of eons of asteroids, like the water collected in our oceans.

Lastly, this is old news from about a decade ago, there are folks in Nevada or California that have developed some small scale tests to make gasoline from the air and focused solar power. I'd show you, but that hard drive died. AND it was a mainstream docu science show like BBC or Horizons or NOVA or Discovery or something. It was also about removing carbon from the air.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

B E S T SUMMARY BY FAR !!!

Mind if I copy paste to my Truther Top 20s lists?: https://infogalactic.com/info/Truther_Top_20s

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Feel free.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

On top of this the poles are shifting at an accelerating rate. And they are converging (roughly toward Indonesia).

This is resulting is a significant weakening of the magnetosphere that is shielding the Earth.
Stack a CME onto this weakened shield and real disaster is looming in the coming decades.

Disaster is looming and we're completely unaware of it...

Edit:. Evidence.

North Pole

South Pole

[–]SundogsPlace 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Excellent post!

[–]sawboss 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Scientism is a blind faith it whatever authorities tell you and it has taken over this planet.

Right along with other fascist ideas such as frenology and eugenics. It's especially easy to buy into lies when they appear to confirm your own internal biases. If the degree holding elitists in media would only understand that, maybe they'd be capable of empathy for ordinary people.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They fully understand this. That is the very reason that they use lies that prey on internal biases.

This has been worked out into various sciences: sociology, public relations, psychology, etc. There is a reason that these social sciences continue to receive funding.