Climate Change: Factors Ignored by the Mainstream
Not everything in the world is as simple as we are led to believe. My personal views on climate change do not jive with either the "man made" climate change zealots or with those who have been labeled deniers.
In this video, I discuss my position on climate change and point out one big overlooked factor. I even take to the field to back up my hypothesis. What are your thoughts?
My video is at DLive
I don't think "global warming zealots" exist, or that it's a religion. That seems like a dishonest caricature to me, and how anything seems when it's unclear to the layperson what makes it credible. Nor do I think the middle point between two extremes is always correct. 2+2=5 is in between 2+2=4 and 2+2=6, but that doesn't make it the most reasonable.
Confounding effects like the heat island effect, shade, albedo, etc. were what caused Richard A. Muller to also be skeptical of the findings AGW is based on. So, he re-did all of the original experiments while accounting for those factors. Notably, his funding came from the Koch brothers, who hoped he would find some flaw in the original methodology.
Can you guess what he found instead?
Well, of course he converted from a skeptic to a believer! I have heard the same argument made to support Christianity.
I wouldn't characterize all people that believe in anthropogenic global warming as zealots. Hopefully that isn't how I came across. There is definitely a sub group that are so invested in the idea of CO2 based gloabal warming that no matter what current evidence or new evidence might come up, it wouldn't change their minds. Which basically means that they have faith in this AGW idea.
One of the issues I have with AGW being pushed by the mainstream media, governments and educational institutions, is that for the last 20 years that people have been focused on it, almost all the other real environmental issues have been ignored. Deforestation and constant plowing leading to topsoil loss and desertification is a huge issue and where is the public outcry? Nitrification of our lakes and streams from synthetic fertilizers and improperly managed livestock operations is also a big deal and I hear nothing about it almost.
It is getting late and I don't have time to write an essay, maybe I can do a follow up video. To keep it brief though, I trust my five senses and gut a whole lot more then a bunch of academics. I have seen too much shenanigans with science when it comes to health issues to just blindly trust the "experts" on global warming.
Don't fixate on the language used, but on his research. He had every reason in the world to conclude what his paymasters wanted. Why didn't he?
No, nobody's like this and it's an absurd caricature you're using to dismiss legitimate scientific findings.
I don't think that's the case. There's still plenty of attention paid to those problems. If you gauge how much work is being done on solving a problem by your personal awareness of it, consider that's mostly connected to the amount of news coverage each problem receives.
So do flat Earthers.
I'm gonna guess those shenanigans were fake news though, like "climategate" which was a whole lot of nothing.
"I'm gonna guess those shenanigans were fake news though, like "climategate" which was a whole lot of nothing."
Hmm, remember Al Gore's graph that he rode a scissor lift to elaborate on? Well turns out he was lying. Straight out lying. He separated the graph of CO2 emission and temperature increase in such a gross fashion to hide the fact that the graph actually shows that the heat PRECEDES the CO2 emissions. NOT the other way around.
Pure deception, and he got nailed for it.
I don't see any citations in your post.
Out of all the various college courses I had to take for my degree in Liberal Studies, my favorite class used a textbook titled, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" by Chris Horner. A few years later I got to hear him speak at a local university. Great stuff! I think you're hitting many of the key points that were in the book. There is $ to be made regarding carbon credits and guilt is a huge tool of government. I've got a toddler climbing on me, but just had to tell you I love that you're not worried about shaking things up a bit. Great post!
Thanks for the support! I think when you challenge conventional thought on AGW people just assume you are anti-environment, which is totally not the case. I just don't like being swindled! 😒
Lots of food for thought. I don't think it's any one thing causing the problems we have today.
I agree that the targeting of carbon is an easy path for governments to take. It's easier to tax, but it's also easier to be seen to be doing something. Yet nitrogen/nitrates are just as big, if not bigger problem than CO2 in our atmosphere. When I learn more about how the soil works to break things down I start to wonder if it's an indication of how we've disrupted the whole cycle.
Nitrogen feeds plants when it's been converted by bacteria in the soil to make it absorbent for them. Carbon also needs nitrogen to help it break down in the soil. Animals produce nitrogen. Knowing all this you can see how the cycle works when in balance. However, mankind is currently removing plant life at a phenomenal rate while the rate of people and livestock has increased. Add to this all the carbon stores we're pulling out of the ground and burning. Then add the cities and bare earth to that...
I agree with your assessment and even though there are proven solutions to most of these problems (other then overpopulation) governments are doing little to nothing to implement them. They have no problem collecting additional tax monies though....
Also many of these issues could be solved with one solution as many of them are connected.
Yes. I'd say regenerative agriculture, replenishing the forests (or at least creating food forests) and ecological/sustainable architecture and energy sources would certainly be a big step in the right direction. Give nature back its balance.
Food forests and properly managed rotational grazing or combos of the two should be the direction we strive for. Did you see my post on Hazelnuts I did months ago? They have the potential to replace annual crops like soybeans.
I must have missed that one. Very interesting, thank you.
Do you know if that blight is only in America or Europe too?
As far as I know it is only in North America.
have you notice the mainstream media never mentions peak oil ? its because our economic system is based on growth
It has to grow or the debt will cause a deflationary vortex. I am not sure if peak oil will be an issue or it. It definitely could be. I just wonder if renewables will come on strong enough before then to cushion the effect and take over some of the energy production.
when it comes to oil people only talk about the supply side, not the demand. Even if its true we have 100 years of oil , it will be the remainning few decades that will be a struggle . That 100 year figure was from ten years ago
Also just because the oil doesn't actually run out doesn't mean it won't become prohibitively expensive. I am sure the future will be interesting.
so say the 2008 spike was due to the bush stimilus