Clarification
This is an opinion piece. My opinions are based on facts, but they also got a lot to do with conclusions I reached that many of you might disagree with. In this article I will not argue against the fact that we see a rise of temperature, I will argue against its severity. The Hysteria behind the Climate Change is the real hoax. I don't see myself as anti-environment, but the way the topic is discussed in the media led me to doubt the official story. This article came to be after a discussion with @lennstar I had under his article.
( Hybrid of brown bear and ice bear), source
We live in an ice age
Many people are not aware that, scientificly speaking, we are at the end of an ice age. Having polar caps is not a normal state of earth, it is a sign of an ice age. Polar bears are a quiet recent species that evolved from brown bears in the dawn of a long cold period 4 million years ago. In a German Zoo it was proven that there can be hybrids between the two species (link to german article). These hybrids are most likely fertile. Nature finds a way and has many mechanisms to cope with climate change. Now lets look a couple more million years back into the history of climate change.
500 millions years of climate change
Temperature of earth in °C compared to average value
Time in million years------------------------------------------------Time in millenia, source
As you can maybe tell, this graph displays the real hoax. Climate change is normal for earth and it happened rapidly in the past, for example during the Paleocene-Eocene. Many other parts of the graph indicate as well that small jumps of a few degree are quite common. You can also see that the last 5 million years have been damn cold. Becoming warmer would be the earth normalizing its temperature.
Prognoses
Meteorology is a difficult and complex science. It is almost impossible to predict weather and climate correctly because of all the factors involved. Hence I will not even try to dispute the speculations of +5 degree Celsius in 2100. I'm pretty sure that if I research the raw data I will find many questionable methods used in these speculations.
Edit: This article was criticized for not refuting the arguments made by the establishment aka the consens. Thus I started a series in which I want to analyze the data given by nasa.gov on the topic. https://steemit.com/politics/@thatgermandude/my-data-is-better-than-yours-1-climate-change-data-1-the-beginning
(source)
Danger from rising sea levels and similar symptoms of climate change
People have always been drawn to coastlines, rivers and even volcanos. These settlements often had to endure floods and similar catastrophes. The people often manage to survive but usually lose their home and have to face huge financial damage. We need to help those people in the case of disaster, but we cant prevent it from happening. On a quick left biased side note: Coast Line Estate is very expensive. Private beaches and islands are often owned by the top 1%, I think this is a big reason why the climate change lobby is that strong.
Résumé
Climate Change is an important topic and we should keep our eyes on potential danger. But all the Hysteria about it is just not justified. There are much more severe threats like giant underground methane bubbles that we should worry about, instead Climate Change is currently used as an political weapon. They try to centralize a CO2 regulations. Worldwide. I hope you know that this could establish a precedent for a world government.
Climate change is observed by all available data and anthropogenic contributions are statistically significant. Your views are contrary to the data.
I used established data to back my views up. I dont oppose the notion that temperatures are rising, I am saying that it is not as dangerous and unusual as the establishment and media make it out to be.
I am also very good with numbers, I would appreciate if you would point to any data that suggests Im wrong. Im always willing to change my mind.
No, you used very specific data to back up your positions. If you display data in certain ways you can make a case for a variety of positions. It is only the cumulative sum of the data that tells the whole story.
I used data provided by the German wikipedia. The information is displayed in english wikipedia as well (except the 500mil graph), I didnt want to rant again about the difference between english and german wiki. I could have maybe explained more about the natural processes that make climate change rapid. Those processes can also be potentially initiated by humankind.
Still even the 500 mil years graph I embedded, kinda shows how ridiclious established prognoses. To refute them I would need to write a whole new article, but I am willing to do that if you are interested ;)
Except the prognosis is about the current trend NOT the current temperature. That trend is over too short a timescale to be noticing in the plot, it would be a small blip at the end. (Not sure how phone autocorrect got to tonight... But okay)
It's all about the slope of the change. This data is all over too long a timescale. It masks the problem due to presentation. As a result is generates a biassed outlook for people using it who do not know what it's intended to show.
I don't criticize the data, data is data it is what it is.
this would actually be my main argument against it. It is tough for me to put in words, but can you all the small up and downs in the past, not the big ones, the thousands of small ones.
Climate changes in circle and in a general trend, like Steem :D, and the thing they did was use the numbers of a current up-wave to describe the long term tendency.
well... you should! You are criticizing my data. That is OK and valid as an approach. There can be very biased "true" data and even rarely false data. You should always be very critical on conclusions that derive from data/statistics.
“I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself” - Winston Churchill
No I'm criticizing the interpretation of the data you are using (it's terrible), and your opinions (they are predicated on poor interpretation). Not the data itself. It's common among those who deny what is happening, to have no clue what the data they are using means. You are no exception to this trend. Do more research, or even better, have some trust in those who have dedicated their lives to it. "Experts" do generally know something about their fields. I know quite a bit about mine (enzyme kinetics). Climate scientists know a lot more than either of us about these trends.
I am not however, criticizing You personally either. Just want to clarify that, only this one opinion you have formed.
I'd recommend you read up on the basics of climate change - https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/. Your post reveals that you have a very limited understanding of the phenomenon.
Fortunately, scientific consensus doesn't care about what you, I or anyone thinks. Anthropogenic climate change is happening according to statistically significant data, any opinion is irrelevant.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
It is an existential threat to the homo sapiens, and other species, however, when a political leader is ignorant.
Consesus about speculations does not make them true.
I will make a follow up post on the topic about climate change data and data in general. It is to long for the comment section.
Thanks for getting involved in the discussion. It is healthy to disagree. I would have preferred if you were a little bit more concrete in your claims, though ;)
There's no scope for disagreement. If you can't accept scientific consensus, you have to learn how to clear your mental blocks and do so. I don't make any claim, but please see here, like I linked above - https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
PS: If, however, you have made a groundbreaking discovery that will reverse scientific consensus, please do publish your findings. The world will stand corrected when you win the Nobel Prize.
no, I have participated in many different scientific discussions and it should be recommended to not accept the scientific consensus to truly form an opinion. It is what people in the science community call "critical thinking".
Your link contains a list of institutions saying "Climate change is a problem" on a side not you often see "human activities" or similar formulations, that means in actual language that they dont believe C02 is the main cause.
You did not present any scientific argument against my post, you presented scientific opinions. I can discuss those, but I need a few pages for that and I will do so as post. I will note you when its done (expect sunday)
Wow, you exhibit a startling dose of confirmation bias. It almost seems like you're reading a different page :)
Like I said above, if you have made a groundbreaking discovery that will reverse scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change, please tag me. I will then stand corrected when you win the Nobel Prize, as a discovery of this magnitude would merit. Otherwise, don't bother notifying me. All the best with your propaganda!
BURN
97%, one of those magic numbers that indicate a lot of crap is about to spew forth.
justtryme, If you can look past your biases, watch this video.
"if you can look past your biases" get real. I am not biassed, towards anything but data.
I think the only thing heating up is all the warmerist believers!
http://www.frot.co.nz/design/sift/global-warming/
Thanks for the link. Seems like a solid "anti climate change" speaker. He got some good topics, like "Correlation does not prove causality", which is one of the major reasons I hate popular science. Every real scientists would feel ashamed to commit such a felony, but I guess it helps if you can dry your tears with tax payer money.
I did that webpage about 10 years ago and ever since have been waiting for someone to prove there has been any warming above the global average over the past 10 000 years. And nobody ever has, because it's actually getting cooler...
wait you are the author?! Followed!
Yes that's me :)
I did it as a Steemit post 8 months ago and got a $76 payout - hopefully things are heading back towards good payouts again!
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@sift666/global-warming-the-new-apocalypse
I think human made climate change is a hoax. Scientists can't even say in unison whether it's global warming or cooling we are dealing with; the existing models are inaccurate at best.
yeah with climate being influenced even by things like the organic waste (feces) influences the climate. And as I said without a doubt we change the climate, but that is just a fact we cant get rid off. Building all our cities changes the climate. Almost everything we do does.
My only concern is all the panic involved in the discussion. And of course the NWO ambitions that climate change is a cover up for.
Yep, part of the Agenda 2030...
Hi @thatgermandude,
I have no idea about this whole climate change thing due to a serious lack of knowledge - but I tend to be suspicious about these official sagas. The only thing I remember is that 25 years ago in school they told us that the island of Crete wouldn't exist any more in 20 years - which was five years ago. The same story they told us about the German Forest - you remember the "Waldsterben-Hype". It is still there. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
Ja Mei! All of this is explained by NASA! You are talking about Global Warming, this is about Climate Change! https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/ first question they anwser ;)
The best proof that I have no idea :-)
I would definitely agree with you that climate change is a hoax. The Earth has been undergoing a lot of changes for the past millions and millions and millions of years. During those times, there are drastic changes in the atmosphere, from hot to cold to hot again then cold again. Thus, there's no such issue such as climate change. I would rather call it global warming, 'cause the Earth is really warming up.
And I would like to commend you for saying that:
Well, I'd like to inform the other readers that we are no longer in the Holocene Epoch and it's been declared that Earth already entered a new epoch, Anthropocene, that is. Check it here. But, practically, the world just got defrost from ice which happened during the Pleistocene Epoch.
In the article you linked are also many other environmental topics mentioned like plastic pollution, agrar culture or waste in general. In my opinion those are much more important topics than a few µg of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Well, we're on the same page there. Pollution should be addressed, first.
thanks for the lenghty comment! There were huge differences in the German and English wikipedia. But I ranted about those differences on another topic before, so I didnt want to bring it up again.
Since we are definitely on an upwards trend I could agree on proclaiming a new age. I just find the rhetoric of ie "mass extinction " a little over the top. Historic and pre-historic mass extinctions have been much more severe, but I dont have concrete numbers on that tbh.
The most famous mass extinction is that of the Dinosaur, the Permian-Triassic Extinction but there are a lot of extinctions even before the P-T Extinction such as the Devonian, Ordovician-Silurian, etc. which you may call "critical". But these extinctions didn't happen overnight. They happened over a period of time.
Thus, I think extinction is actually happening right now. Why do you think mass extinction is exaggerated? I think it's quite true when you carefully look the world today.
I think the word "mass" indicates something over 50% of species. Not by definition, but as a personal gut feeling. We humans change the world and thus the environment of nature. However nature is resilient as hell. If I am correct humankind took shape during a bottleneck.
Now I love nature and animals. I am really curious about developing better communication with highly intelligent animals like birds, dolphins and dogs. But I hate the term fragile ecologic systems. Nature will crush us someday for sure. We should focus on creating an environment we, as humans, can live in. Nature will be just fine, she survived for billions of years.
You're right. That's why I don't particularly believe in the "Save, Mother Earth!"-campaign because the Earth doesn't need to be saved. Humans do.
Awesome. I've been looking for some different perspectives on this topic. Thanks for the great post!
You are very much welcome! That is exactly what I wanted to achieve: showing a different perspective.
While I don't think your content is thorough enough to help you stand your ground, it's a difficult topic that people jump all over, and I appreciate your willingness to engage in these comment discussions with people.
Are you familiar with Alex Epstein? If not, go watch a few youtube videos (his Dave Rubin interview is great!) and check out his book, the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
I will look him up, dont know him.
I also had a follow up post, where I got more into detail, but it actually has not that much munition in it either. My next post on the topic will go into Chemistry and CO2. Should be fun :)
You'll certain get some leverage from Alex on Co2. What I enjoyed most about him is how he reframes the debate. It's covered in the first chapter, which I think is free on Amazon. I'll follow you and keep an eye out!
Thanks, I appreciate your follow and your input 👍
What would you say about acid rain?
that it is different topic ;). I consider myself in favor of environmental protection in general. I just think it should be reasonable.
Watch the Video(s) here...
now I consider myself a socialist and I dont really like being blamed for the global warming campaign. But I can see why people do. There are sadly a lot of people on the left who believe the hoax, the reason why I wrote this post.
https://steemit.com/politics/@lennstar/make-our-planet-great-again
Current research indicates that the divergence of Polar Bears from Brown Bears took place about 600,000 years ago, until recently the divergence was thought to have taken place around 150,000 - 200,000 years ago.
This stunning image was taken by Miguel Lasa.
Well something I didnt mention in the article. We killed all bears in Germany. A few years ago there was a sighting of a bear in south Germany. He was hunted and killed. Why do we keep bears in our "civilized world" extinct but protect them at the north pole? Makes no sense to me.
Btw I love bears. They always look so chilled and human. And the cubs.... If I would have to chose between saving a bear cub and an adult human, I would chose the bear 10 out of 10 times ;)
Polar Bears love people, very nourishing.
well I also befriended humans that could rip me into parts. Not sure who is more dangerous ;)
thatgermandude, Here is another scientist that backs up your statements. The "consensus" is mainly made up of non-scientist that have a political agenda. A lot of pertinent information is being suppressed such as the fact that concentrations of CO2 lags temperature by 400 to 700 years. In other words CO2 is affected by temperature, not the other way around. Many scientist suspect that CO2 has a cooling effect since it increases plant matter.
thanks for sharing. 1:30:00 is a little long of watch, but after seeing the first 3 minutes, it might be worth it. Seems like a bright guy.
You are becoming more and more conservative with every post dude! Which means my influence is rubbing off on you. 😉 Well not really, from what I have noticed we conservatives are numerous here.
I agree. Man-made climate change is a hoax, or at best case unprovable. The world is constantly changing and has been round for too long to accurately measure.
I am all for a clean planet - but a cheaper, slower and more common sense approach is preferable.
Regards,
SirKnight.
What you are describing as "conservative" are just the few valid points that you have and actually share with a lot of other ideologies :P
I wouldnt say there is no human climate change, there is and we should be careful about it. But it is not the huge catastrophe people make it out to be.
Looking at other comments I think this is just another "conflict topic" to devide political parties. In your case dems and reps
Thanks for your comment
TGD
I didn't think about this before "Coast Line Estate is very expensive. Private beaches and islands are often owned by the top 1%, I think this is a big reason why the climate change lobby is that strong." ... perhaps as it is usual we are all in the hands of few that manage all else with the power of money. Thanks for the notes.
@indepthstory
I got it from an @dwinblood article, all credit to him ;):
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@dwinblood/the-benefits-of-an-ice-age-hypothetical-ramblings-to-you-straight-from-the-curvy-passages-of-my-mind
Thanks for reading and commenting!
I have a strict policy, when I come across a "climate change/global warming drone, I say " you climate change people, I might have listened but now that your platform includes "flat earth" I say no way". Their little brains go haywire, like a glitch in their programing, while they are processing what I've said I walk away. So all climate change advocates are also flat earth advocates... simple yet effective!!!
i appreciate the meme, but I think it takes it too far. Hysteria is the true enemy and there are a lot of actual problems that get exaggerate, just to peddle superficial drama and distract from much more important topics.
German, I'm joking!! Just making fun of climate change advocates!! I have found that this "programing" has been around for decades. there is no amount of critical thinking or factual data you can offer those that have bought into this agenda.
They don't understand that climate data are very long term, these people believe fake scientists, fake news and fake hysteria, and it's impossible to try to present facts to those who have closed their minds off. I honor you for trying.
Sry, for being so anti fun... Im German.....
All good!! I've found the best way to stay happy and sane is to laugh at nonsense. On a more serious note, humans are being divided in to belief camps. some will choose to stay with what they've been told, the rest of us are looking closely and saying "wait a minute this makes no sense". Great effort is going into bringing us free-thinkers back into the narrative. I just found the more energy I expended trying get others to see thru the agenda, it just wore me out, so now I laugh and choose my reality. Humor and subtlety is hard to translate from english to english, so I'm sure I'm not coming across as well as intended!!
hey, I 100% understand where you are coming from. I love memes, humor is a great way to make politics more interesting.
I just dont like when people use jokes as an argument, because that makes the whole argument a joke.
:D.....Ok I tried... I know where the door is...
And I would love if you dont. I agree with your opinion, but I never heard of converting someone by calling them names ;)
I am following you. Suppose we reveresed the effects of Global warming? Canada would be under kilometers of ice.
thanks for the follow! My last name is snow, but I prefer sunshine as well ;)