The 97% Myth - Real?

climate-change

#1

So looking at the discussion of global warming…err. climate change, I KEEP hearing the 97% nonsense. I rarely hear someone challenge it. Here’s a good take on the 97% from two different sources. Why do people keep letting this lie go unchallenged?

http://www.petitionproject.org/

So anyone have a rational explanation of why the 97% is still repeated over and over? Anyone have solid proof that it’s actually correct? I’ve listened and read a lot and it seems like nonsense to me.


#2

The 97% poll was debunked many years ago, but it is repeated over and over because it is a central tenet of the Church of AGW. That and it is now politically incorrect to say otherwise even if you are an agnostic of that religion and thus liberals can get away with calling you a “denier” if you don’t buy into it, facts be damned.


#3

If climate change is caused by CO2 and trees breathe CO2 and give off oxygen, then why aren’t all the climate nuts not out planting trees?

Maybe that just doesn’t work with their political agenda.


#4

2017 is supposed to be the 3rd warmest year on record here in the United states per NOAA but according to their own maps it most certainly doesn’t look that way


#5

Because it isn’t about simple solutions. A trillion trees would more than make up for the carbon humans have put in the atmosphere. “Climate Change” is about control and transfer of wealth.


#6

Because we need room to build the thousands of low income housing projects for the millions of impoverished families we are going to import into our country.


#7

LOL…That is too simple and obvious of a solution.

Who is going to get rich on that scheme? :smirk:


#8

Since we’ve started putting carbon into the atmosphere, we have reduced teh number of trees on earth by several trillion.

How would we get a trillion trees back?


#9

That’s actually part of carbon neutral initiatives. Planting of trees to offset the carbon emissions of the enterprise.

But so you have any concept of just how large a number 1,000,000,000,000 is?


#10

Just “carbon” now? You are just using the elemental pollutant, carbon, now in your scaryalarmist talk? Is that a slow backing away from the accusations about carbon DIOXIDE since now that old claim has been debunked?


#11

I am glad this thread has been created! I am wondering why the left keeps doubling down on this issue without debate? From Mayor Deblowhard to most Democrats in congress to almost every other leftist on the planet?

Where are they getting their data to suggest there is proof?


#12

83.6% of statistics are made up! :grin:


#13

In general or relating to Global warming claim?


#14

comrade-be-quiet-science-is-settled


#15

I keep looking for a fire sale on beachfront properties by Liberals.

No luck yet.


#16

#17

Thats because for the most part it is nonsense.

The entire “Climate Change” narrative was originally hatched by a Cartoonist named John Cook who is not even a scientist let alone a climate one, he had zero credentials in the field of climatology but that didn’t stop the Progressive left from latching onto this narrative to promote a much broader false and sinister agenda. (See Al Gore and how wrong he has been about the predictions he made) Progressivism is not limited to the US, but its a world wide phenomenon. The progressive strategy is focus on a singular topic and herd and rally the masses to support a cause in order to put them into power as opposed to getting masses to huddle around multiple fronts. Progressives claim to want a open, freer society with full transparency yet with the election of Obama told us that it was anything but. The entire “Climate Change” narrative that we keep hearing about is such a cause that serves not only this purpose but to fleece million if not billions of dollars of tax payers dollars into their coffers. “The Paris Climate Accord Treaty” was such a scheme in which EU countries would exfiltrate wealth from the US to subsidize their already weakening economies. (Might explain why Soros backed candidate Obama who was so willing to sign the US up for this sham in order to weaken America’s economy and Military funding capabilities) When Trump pulled out of the accord, so too did Germany, after realizing they would be footing most of the bill. No coincidence here, just look and follow the money.

That being said, progressives keep doubling down on this narrative because for the most part leftists sheeple around the globe have bought into the narrative, and through their fear mongering and propaganda media sources the progressive power brokers are seeking control through Government institutions as well as feeding their grifter tendencies to reinforce these ideas; such as the world is going to end in 12 years, or that Polar caps are melting, or extreme weather is due to mans burning of fossil fuels and will exacerbate the Human demise; are all talking points the progressive use that is motivated by their need to increase their numbers to support their cult.

You asked the question, “why is no one challenging this issue?” Which in a much larger perspective is the reason why I am taking the time to write this post and leads to a basic fundamental question. Is debate across all spectrum’s in political discourse allowed to happen? What are the real motives of those who are in opposition to those who challenge such narratives (more on that in a bit) but first:

Was the ACA ( Obama’s Health Care law) allowed public debate before passage?
How about Socialism vs. Capitalism? Is that being debated with both sides equally represented and allowed a balanced presentation of the facts?
Do we yet know what is the details of the "New Green Deal is and will it be debated in a public forum where both sides can make their case for and against?
How about immigration? Even though its received public attention and has become a contested issue recently, is the issue of reform, and Illegal immigration being debated by the public in a proper open forum by concerned Americans?
Is MSM being challenged front and center about the lies they tell? Or the divisive Hate they promote on a daily basis?

Are politicians who blatantly lie, or break the law being held to account by the general public who in turn can raise questions in a public forum? (MSM was suppose to be the voice of the people, so where is that voice now?)
How about the election of Alexandria Occasio Cotez’s primary and general election? Was she challenged in a public forum on the merits of her ideas? Was any newly minted Democratic candidate who won in the 2018 mid-terms elections were open for debate by opposing candidates? (I think you will find that AOC and others were refusing such debates with their opponents and that is a very large problem.

Lets not mention the Democratic Party recently announcing that they will not allow Fox News to moderate any of their debates, and you get the idea that they don’t want to be challenged on the merits of the ideas that they represent. Nope what you will get is all questions designed to favor a particular candidate as well as prop up the Candidates with their own biases for viewers at home to be fooled into thinking a fair process is happening as well as sterile representations on what the future will look like if they get control of government by promising more free shit. Just look at Bernie Sanders long diatribe of when announcing he was running for president. The entire monologue is about giving away free shit! The irony of Bernie Sanders is his initials are “BS” and we all know what that means, but I digress.

My point is that if you haven’t already noticed the MSM and the DEMOCRATIC party wanting to silence free speech is because if such challenges to their ideas are allowed, that most would fail to provide a cogent argument to defend them. Much in the same way Climate Change right now is going unchallenged.

Motives:
Tom Steyer was so much adamant about impeaching Trump that he spent a 100 million dollars in trying to convince members of congress along with producing TV ads in promoting accusations that the President of the United States is guilty of committing crimes. But why was he so adamant about this? Was he crazy? What was his motive? Well follow the money again and it might shed light that Tom Steyer has simply left himself exposed. After Trump ended subsidies to the biggest scandal in Obama’s term, the solar energy industry, Tom simply couldn’t deal with being cut off from his already questionable business practices and gravy train lobbying efforts, so he went on a campaign to try to remove Trump from office by spending millions. He has supported and profited from the coal industry yet he is all for supporting the climate change hoax. He is probably the biggest hypocrite of all liberals yet because no one is challenging him he is allowed to continue to go unchallenged. Why is he not challenged to make his case within a public forum? Answer is, he wants to control the narrative, mostly his narrative, but he is allowed to go on MSNBC and debate with Chris Mathews to rant against the President of the United States. There is something very wrong with this picture when the elite are given a microphone and the commoner is not, then that is where a huge disparity exists between opposing views and exposing the truth.

How about Republicans and the so called RINOS who have went against Trump in his avocation to addressing illegal immigration? Again what is their motive for doing so?
Cheap labor, enrichment from their lobbyists donor dollars who head multinational companies that seek to keep the status quo? Why has this not become something of an issue that the American Public can be better informed about? Why hasn’t Trump just come and say it in plain English to lay waste to the McConnell’s the Ryan’s, The Coryn’s, The Romney’s etc., etc., for subverting our sovereignty and decimating the working middle class?

How about NAFTA? Why was there such Opposition to this deal being revised? Maybe China’s interests, and their lobbyists efforts in DC? The secret Empires within the US political class was built by taking bribe money from the CHICOM’s in order to exploit not only the middle class but to decimate our industrial capabilities in exchange for buying our debt and exporting cheap stuff that finds their way into landfills at alarming rates, as well as being allowed to steal our technology?

How about the Democrats and their refusal to address illegal immigration? is there public debate on this? We can surmise what their motives are: To create dependency by changing the demographics from a literate population to one that is Illiterate to insure they remain in power forever.

On a another note, one poster here named Scott brought up a very good point about true conservatism and how he no longer had use for today’s so called conservatives because they were so unwilling to be engaged and challenge the left on their ideas. Where are conservatives? On the internet? In talking head pundits on Fox News?

Isn’t it time to start thinking of other ways to challenge these despots in a public forum by promoting more discussions on issues that we may disagree on? Shouldn’t it be settled with facts presented, and oral arguments being made that are substantiated with science and facts? Remember before when TV and Radio were ever to be used by political candidates that debates took place in public forums? Just something to think about in the larger perspective when considering why Free speech is systematically under attack from all aspects within our public institutions.

Lastly, my position on climate change is not to deny that it is indeed changing, because for the most part in my views it has been happening, for thousands of years of course. What is not proven by scientists is whether or not Man is exacerbating unrecoverable, irreversible trends created by man’s carbon foot print is highly debatable. While I am a believer in being better custodians of the planet such as our waste disposal methods ( such as plastic bags and other plastics finding their way into our Oceans) and finding ways to discover more affordable, more efficient sources of energy, planting more trees and preserving our forests globally, I also am a strong believer in reaching conclusions by consensus with transparency and so far the entire “Climate Change” debate is anything but. What needs to happen is an open and honest discussion on the topic by all asides to reach such consensus that will lead to better solutions, as well as ending the adversarial approaches that we are seeing among the political class that seek to divide the populace along ideological lines who in turn also seek to profit and empower themselves by using political dogma scare tactics. The only way that is going to happen is if people start to find solutions to challenge these ideologues to a public debate and let the narrative and truth be available for all to decide for themselves! First follow the money!

A must see video that lays out in succinct articulate terms why the "Climate Change Narrative being promoted is a big giant false premise!

43efe56db4ee85dc016722f7c3f7c3ff


#18

Don’t forget millions of acres of windmills and solar panels.


#19

#20

Care to source that?

In the US there are MORE than there were 100 years ago according to some…

I would also have a tough time trusting their numbers of trees being lost since not long ago, they thought there were 400 billion trees in the world. Now we’re told we have 3 trillion.

Either way, I call BS on your statistic that we’ve reduced the number by several trillion since we’ve started to put carbon into the atmosphere.