Well, people "like me" are distrustful of this "man-made" global warming pseudo science (now called man-made climate change and before that man-made global cooling) because there is not fact to back it up. Rather, people are being manipulated into buying into the creation of a new power scheme which ultimately breaks down into redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Further, when you start looking at the claims and the data used to make this pseudo science up it becomes downright scary. The entirety of decades of research in several cases was based on falsified data. Sampling errors on data recording stations were documented and then changed to suit these agendas.
So, do I accept this supposed science which I fear is based on a consensus as opposed to question it? You're damn right I do.
When you look at what the carbon trading scheme is about and really follow the money, you might begin to understand why this push to declare natural climate change as a man-made disaster is actually happening. The carbon trading proposals will bring many nations to their knees and make a select few wealthy beyond imagination. Think about that for awhile.
Bodhi, it appears to me, as an idle observation, that you are basically a victim of a false flag operation. The human race's economy is presently based on the securing, extraction and trade of this planet's natural resources. Most especially with the end result of burning these. Even the bread you eat is produced and transported to your mouth via fossil fuels. Those elements we don't burn are extracted, refined and distributed similarly.
Scientists suggesting this is detremental to the biosphere threaten this paradigm. How easy is it to discredit this message by setting up pseudoscientists for later debunking and then claiming these people are identical to real scientists thus contributing to the discreditation of the real scientists who are saying this in the first place? Not too difficult apparently. You for instance from my perspective seem fully locked on to the chaff.
You suggest that this lie you essentially call it, this movement, is designed to redistribute wealth. From what it is now into what? Any change I can see would be an improvement to the human race in the long-term. A more logical and intelligent international distribution of the world's resources would seem sensible - to which I'm now sure many people's response is to immediately resort to those hilarious words bandied about in the popular media which produce those inevitable and contrived knee-jerk reactions of horror: communism and socialism.
The current wealth distribution and indeed resource distribution in general is so lob-sided, so detrimental to progression and what's the word? oh yeah 'stupid', that it would be really hard to design a more perverted system if you tried. The real achievement of the Faction B I mentioned earlier is getting ordinary people to disavow scientific method and anything else which threatens their agenda with an almost religeous fervour and support the status quo as if it is something sacred and essential, presumably with a 'here's what's in it for you angle'.
These studies you are talking about, these papers, this data is not scientific. Their falsity does nothing to discredit the models which I have previously discussed because they aren't executed in the same rigorous and self-regulated, reproducible way.
Why don't we forget the economy, the agendas and even the science. Let's just look at the situation from a common sense perspective (and this is a pretty childish sketch, but here we go):
All fossil fuels, gas, oil, everything the human race burns up for energy were deposited over trillions of years by mostly plant life. Plants eat carbon dioxide and methane and all sorts of nasty elements we don't want floating around. In return they produce oxygen and other useful things. Over a time so unimaginably long you can't even comprehend it (I mean me too, it's ridiculous), this global organic tera-forming machine turned the world into a nice place for creatures to live.
When these biological entities died and decayed all of those nasties they had absorbed (the ones they haven't managed to convert) were safely stored away beneath the earth's surface. That's where it all went. I mean you can't destroy matter or eject it into space (as such), you can only move it or convert it, right? Then along comes mankind and the Industrial Revolution and in its forgivable ignorance starts extracting this material and burning it, at a rate so much faster than it was deposited that it's difficult to calculate it even conservatively or put it into any kind of meaningful frame. But very very fast.
Burning, combustion, liberates these nasties such as CO2 and especially methane releasing some of it (not all of it obviously, but enough to make a change) back into the biosphere which they were sucked out of in the first place. A more or less sealed biosphere I hasten to point out (and a small one at that).
We already know what this planet's environment was like when these nasties where floating around free and in abundance, back way way way before the first cells decided to team up and see if there was any future in it: anyone walking around without 9,000,000,000 factor sunblock, their own respirator and a pair of Oakley Armageddon™ sunglasses was going to have a really really bad day.
Sure the climate changes all by itself, cycles, that's only natural. The changes being discussed in this context are different, distinct, unprecedented and they coincide with the Industrial Revolution.
Of course this is just my view on the topic, my interpretation of the information available to me and as informed as an individual can be who isn't particularly biased and has paid attention deliberately and studied themselves. You might have your own view. Just try your best to make sure it
IS your own view would be my suggestion.
