Man-Made Climate Change is so obvious, it's not even worth discussing...

Whatever Koolaid you choose to justify, I supposed sometimes ignorance is bliss. However, for some reason I have this nasty habit of getting myself in trouble by questioning everything, assuming nothing, and trying not to take anything for granted. This seems very upsetting to some people (and for many of Tucker Carlson's guests as well), as they call us "idiots" or "deniers" for not "knowing better" and for daring to question establishment propaganda "consensus" on an issue.

Tucker Carlson Embarrasses California Professor On Climate Change:

Hold on a sec... what do you mean 98% of the world's scientists DON'T believe in man-made climate change?! Say it ain't so, you climate change denier!

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97% scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97% consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Full Story: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

Full Story: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

That's the problem with dogmatic views on any side, as such extreme (and often simplistic) views leave little room to account for any real complexity in a dynamic universe. As Obi-Wan says, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" after Anakin tells him "Either you're with me or against me".

Whenever you're told an issue is so indisputably obvious that it can't even stand up to simple scrutiny or basic "common-sense" questions, especially when there's a crap-ton of money involved, be highly skeptical. If an issue or idea is truly undeniable, those promoting the position should welcome the opportunity to defend it along with loads of supporting factual evidence. If they're on the level, they would be open to considering any rational arguments to the contrary. At worst, they re-substantiate their own world-view. At best, they can stop wasting time pursuing and promoting erroneous views, and start dedicating energy towards finding a better and more precise world-view that can potentially benefit us all.

It's a bit frightening how easily some commonly held beliefs can be all but ripped apart by asking just a single question. If you're called "stupid" for it, and told that the evidence is self-evident without further elaboration, you know you're probably on the right track.

Here's a bunch more evidence indicating that climate change is most likely completely out of our (and certainly the government's) control, and that we are more likely facing a period of global cooling instead:

The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.

Full Story: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialization where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

Wait a sec, NASA came up with this?! Hmmm...

Full Story: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

But of course, if you can't win an argument based on facts and suppression, you can always threaten prosecution upon anyone who disagrees with your point of view:

The US Department of Justice has been considering whether people should be prosecuted for the offense of climate change denial. “This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, responding to a question from green activist Sen Sheldon Whitehouse at a Senate Judiciary Hearing.

Full Story: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

And WOW, there seems to be a lot of $$$money to be made in being a climate change shill, PassMeThePork on that gig!

When twenty alarmist climate scientists wrote to President Obama last week demanding that he use RICO laws to crush dissenting climate skeptics, the world of honest science – it still exists, just about – was rightly and properly appalled.

Apparently, though, this isn’t a full time job. It can’t be – because on top of this salary, from 2012 to 2014, Shukla appears to have paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for his part-time work via his non-profit Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES).

Full Story: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/22/lead-climate-scientist-behind-obamarico-letter-serious-questions-answer/

And a bit more on the actual history of climate change, from back in the days before cars existed and people were worried that Manhattan may soon be buried in a post-apocalyptic-style pile of horsey manure:

So unfortunately, when I say we have put everything into this model, I really mean what I say. When you put together the historical data, what pops out at you is just amazing. I had to gather coins from around the world to recreate the world monetary system and then place that on the timeline as well. What jumps out at you is the correlation of civilization and the rise and fall of empires with climate change.

Full Story: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/climate-change-history-the-fall-of-empires-come-when-warming-turns-of-cooling/

This body of knowledge has been completely ignored by the global warming/climate change religious cult. They know nothing about nature or cycles and they are completely ignorant of history or even that it was the discovery of these ancient creatures who froze with food in their mouths. They cannot explain these events nor the vast amount of knowledge written by people who actually did research instead of trying to cloak an agenda in pretend science.

So yes, I regard the global warming/climate change groupies as a religious cult. They have never bothered to read history. The Age of Enlightenment was all about the study of everything and the sudden awakening that the world is cyclical and not linear. These religious fanatics have not put forth a shred of evidence that their theory has been tested over millions of years — only post-1950.

Full Story: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/climate-change-v-religion-or-just-propaganda/

I could keep on going, but perhaps I should just wrap this up, as it's getting pretty long already and I believe we've at least established that while 98% of scientists might agree that we should do what we can to protect our environment (ie. localized man-made pollution), the true figure as it relates to "man-made climate change" (or that government could even do anything about it) is most likely a fraction of that...

Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist who was a contemporary of Einstein at Princeton, is criticizing scientists who advance what he describes as an ‘agenda-driven’ perspective on global warming. He suggests that there has been a confusion between “pollution,” something definitely man-made and solvable, and “climate change,” a feature of nature and mostly beyond the control of humanity. Furthermore, he also asserts that there’s not only a “large community of people who make their money by scaring the public,” but an element of group-think at play, as well.

Full Story: http://ijr.com/2015/10/448344-top-physicist-bolts-global-warming-consensus-see-says-obama/