Climate Alarmists vs. Skeptics
Whom do you believe?21 total reviews
Comment from Karen Cherry Threadgill
I already read and reviewed once, but, oh well, no it was someone else. They wrote about levels back at the beginning. They wrote about the up and down of levels through time. Our air could be cleaner. And our water much much cleaner. Thanks for this, I will watch the movie. Good work. Karen
reply by the author on 10-Apr-2024
  |
I already read and reviewed once, but, oh well, no it was someone else. They wrote about levels back at the beginning. They wrote about the up and down of levels through time. Our air could be cleaner. And our water much much cleaner. Thanks for this, I will watch the movie. Good work. Karen
Comment Written 10-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 10-Apr-2024
-
Thanks, Karen. I'm happy to hear you're planning to watch the movie. That really was my goal in writing this essay--to interest people in watching it.
-
:-)
Comment from Pearl Edwards
Not only is solar and wind not reliable or cheap but they are not recyclable, so even more pollution. Australia's current government is going down the road of the alarmist at great cost to us, it's people. We produce less than 1% but they seem to think povety for what should be a prosperous country is the best alternative.
Crap.
cheers,
valda
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
|
Not only is solar and wind not reliable or cheap but they are not recyclable, so even more pollution. Australia's current government is going down the road of the alarmist at great cost to us, it's people. We produce less than 1% but they seem to think povety for what should be a prosperous country is the best alternative.
Crap.
cheers,
valda
Comment Written 09-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
-
Our country's current administration is attempting to do the same thing, much to our great detriment. I wish the governments of the world would wake up to the fact that they will be handing the world to China if they persist in this madness for a reason that as yet is not backed up by the science (much as they may claim it is) and probably never will be.
Comment from T B Botts
Hello Jim,
Do you like to stir the hornets nest buddy? I really enjoyed what you wrote here. I hope that I remember to go back and check out the movie you suggested. I watched a video by a number of prominent Christian scientists some years ago who described similar feelings that you did. They mentioned also about places like Africa not utilizing fossil fuels and thus being in such poverty, never being able to lift themselves from the cycle of poverty, always needing a handout from the rest of the world. I see this administration pushing electric vehicles, without telling the full truth about them. The batteries largely come from China, our enemy, who is intent on knocking America off the world stage. The rare earth minerals are indeed rare, and the mining of them takes tons of earth removal for a fraction of what is needed for one battery. What happens when the batteries die and are no longer usable? How do we address the storage of them? I see that they are prone to catch fire, and not only electric cars, but electric bikes have caught fire and burned down the homes where they were stored. On both coasts, wind farms are being built where fishing fleets have historically fished. Without sufficient study to see how these structures will impact fish stocks, we could be dooming the country to relying on places like Chili or Norway for seafood. I find that environmentalists all too often look at a short term solution without realizing the long term affects. I can promise you, people like Obama, Bill Gates, and others who are billionaires, who are pushing a climate change agenda in places like the World Economic Forum, will have all the resources they need to be comfortable, while the rest of the peasants strive to get by. Thanks for addressing this sensitive issue.
Blessings,
Tom
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
|
Hello Jim,
Do you like to stir the hornets nest buddy? I really enjoyed what you wrote here. I hope that I remember to go back and check out the movie you suggested. I watched a video by a number of prominent Christian scientists some years ago who described similar feelings that you did. They mentioned also about places like Africa not utilizing fossil fuels and thus being in such poverty, never being able to lift themselves from the cycle of poverty, always needing a handout from the rest of the world. I see this administration pushing electric vehicles, without telling the full truth about them. The batteries largely come from China, our enemy, who is intent on knocking America off the world stage. The rare earth minerals are indeed rare, and the mining of them takes tons of earth removal for a fraction of what is needed for one battery. What happens when the batteries die and are no longer usable? How do we address the storage of them? I see that they are prone to catch fire, and not only electric cars, but electric bikes have caught fire and burned down the homes where they were stored. On both coasts, wind farms are being built where fishing fleets have historically fished. Without sufficient study to see how these structures will impact fish stocks, we could be dooming the country to relying on places like Chili or Norway for seafood. I find that environmentalists all too often look at a short term solution without realizing the long term affects. I can promise you, people like Obama, Bill Gates, and others who are billionaires, who are pushing a climate change agenda in places like the World Economic Forum, will have all the resources they need to be comfortable, while the rest of the peasants strive to get by. Thanks for addressing this sensitive issue.
Blessings,
Tom
Comment Written 09-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
-
You are way more educated than most about this, Tom. You make very good points about the batteries and the rare metals that go into them, many of which China has a monopoly on.
Too many people don't seem to take the threat of China very seriously. Either that or they just haven't thought about the issue in those terms--that China won't abide by the policies we force ourselves to adopt. This would surely change the balance of power in the world, much to our detriment.
Our government is being much too hasty to get off fossil fuels before finding a replacement that won't destroy our economy in the process of adopting it.
Comment from Sandra Stoner-Mitchell
Hi Jim, I think I've spent an hour reading all your post, and was pleased to read both sides of the debate. I then went to read what your other reviews said, and I have to say, this has been a very interesting debate. I will go and watch the film now. I do not have a single scientific atom in my brain, but I do agree with a lot that you have said. We have been through the stone age, the ice age, and others, yet we still come back. It's not an easy thing to get rid of us humans. (although there are many I wish we could get rid of.) Thanks for this, Jim, I'm sorry I can't put up an argument for us to battle out! Warmest hugs. Sandra xx
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
|
Hi Jim, I think I've spent an hour reading all your post, and was pleased to read both sides of the debate. I then went to read what your other reviews said, and I have to say, this has been a very interesting debate. I will go and watch the film now. I do not have a single scientific atom in my brain, but I do agree with a lot that you have said. We have been through the stone age, the ice age, and others, yet we still come back. It's not an easy thing to get rid of us humans. (although there are many I wish we could get rid of.) Thanks for this, Jim, I'm sorry I can't put up an argument for us to battle out! Warmest hugs. Sandra xx
Comment Written 09-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
-
Why, thank you for spending that amount of time on it, Sandra. I applaud you for deciding to watch the film, which says it all much better than I have.
I was hoping this would spark some debate because I believe it is such an important topic, but not in the sense that the alarmists think of it. It's important because anytime major policy decisions by our government are made without much greater knowledge than we currently have, then unintended consequences are bound to happen. This is the kind of issue where we should not be so hasty to make any major changes because we may set ourselves on a path of destruction that we won't recover from.
Comment from estory
I had to read your essay, it was interesting, an open minded leap into one of the more controversial topics of our society today; I also posted a climate change poem not too long ago- Totems. I believe the Earth is undergoing climate change; the science is kind of irrefutable. But the Earth has been undergoing climate change since it was created, and extinctions have been going along with it all the time. Hundreds of millions of years ago, before fossil fuels, the Earth was so warm Antarctica was a tropical rainforest, and giant lizards the size of houses roamed the planet. Sixty thousand years ago, the Earth was so cold if you drove north from Raleigh to New York you would come across a huge ice sheet draped along the landscape. But there is a method to the madness in the media; these big companies need tremendous scources of power to run their AI data centers, and it is cost prohibitive to build natural gas fired power plants and nuclear energy. Solar and wind are much cheaper. And they take less time to build and less money to maintain. Some food for thought. estory
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
|
I had to read your essay, it was interesting, an open minded leap into one of the more controversial topics of our society today; I also posted a climate change poem not too long ago- Totems. I believe the Earth is undergoing climate change; the science is kind of irrefutable. But the Earth has been undergoing climate change since it was created, and extinctions have been going along with it all the time. Hundreds of millions of years ago, before fossil fuels, the Earth was so warm Antarctica was a tropical rainforest, and giant lizards the size of houses roamed the planet. Sixty thousand years ago, the Earth was so cold if you drove north from Raleigh to New York you would come across a huge ice sheet draped along the landscape. But there is a method to the madness in the media; these big companies need tremendous scources of power to run their AI data centers, and it is cost prohibitive to build natural gas fired power plants and nuclear energy. Solar and wind are much cheaper. And they take less time to build and less money to maintain. Some food for thought. estory
Comment Written 09-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
-
Well that's an interesting theory I've not heard before. It's one thing to want to build more wind turbines and solar panels, but quite another to actually ban fossil fuels in their favor. The efficiency of those sources will never replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy, nor will their reliability because they are dependent on the sun to shine regularly and the wind to blow constantly, and that's too much to ask for. Those sources of energy can't be stored the way fossil fuels can until they are needed and will never be able to satisfy peak demand conditions.
You're absolutely correct about the changing nature of climate, and it's going to change both up and down regardless of anything man does. Too many people claim, "Well, I can remember when I was a kid, how much cooler and snowier it used to be than it is now, and how many fewer hurricanes there were, but if you look at actual data rather than this anecdotal evidence, and you look at it for a reasonable period of time rather than simply the last 40 or 50 years, and you look at it on a global scale rather than just your small area of the world, those sort of statements are much less compelling and often plain wrong.
The movie I gave a link to mentions that much of the supposed warming that has taken place in the last 100 years has been due to the fact that the temperature sensors have been severely compromised by the expansion of urban areas such that many of them are now located within the cities which are often 10 degrees or more warmer than surrounding areas. If you look at the rural temperature readings, or the ocean temperature readings or the satellite temperature readings, they all show virtually no warming at all and are consistent with each other while the urban readings are way out of whack.
Comment from Gloria ....
Nice job, Jim. In the ongoing debate about climate change which involves much more than CO2 emissions, the role of fossil fuels remains a contentious issue as you have adequately addressed. While some argue fossil fuels are not the primary cause, others emphasize they have a direct impact on our planet's changing climate.
You've presented valid points, but we must keep in mind that fossil fuels are finite. Oil, gas, and coal power much of our industry, and their reserves are dwindling. Predictions suggest they'll be depleted within the next 50 years. Regardless of whether CO2 emissions directly cause climate change, our reliance on these fuels poses a critical challenge to our survival, rendering all the arguments moot in the grand scheme of things.
Science is not static; it evolves as new information emerges. Skepticism arises when people perceive science as "settled". However, the beauty of scientific inquiry lies in its openness to change and I think we can all agree that science has added much to our lives. As scientists uncover fresh insights, theorems adapt. We must recognize this dynamism and appreciate the value of ongoing research rather than throwing it in the trash bin because some predictions did not proffer their promised outcomes.
Experts--be they scientists, doctors, politicians, or artists--often operate within their silos. While specialization is essential, it can lead to tunnel vision. I think we'd do well to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration to address complex global challenges. After all, climate change transcends boundaries and affects us all.
Whether or not mankind directly causes climate change our actions matter. Toxic gases and waste harms not only us but also the other sentient beings we share this planet with and our collective responsibility extends beyond our own lifetimes. Moreover, it is our duty to seek sustainable energy alternatives to ensure a future for generations to come.
Through renewable energy, conservation, or innovative technologies, we can shape a better world--one where fossil fuels don't dictate our fate.
I watched the documentary, and it provided me with no new information or perspective. Anyway, thank you for sharing a well-considered essay.
Gloria
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
|
Nice job, Jim. In the ongoing debate about climate change which involves much more than CO2 emissions, the role of fossil fuels remains a contentious issue as you have adequately addressed. While some argue fossil fuels are not the primary cause, others emphasize they have a direct impact on our planet's changing climate.
You've presented valid points, but we must keep in mind that fossil fuels are finite. Oil, gas, and coal power much of our industry, and their reserves are dwindling. Predictions suggest they'll be depleted within the next 50 years. Regardless of whether CO2 emissions directly cause climate change, our reliance on these fuels poses a critical challenge to our survival, rendering all the arguments moot in the grand scheme of things.
Science is not static; it evolves as new information emerges. Skepticism arises when people perceive science as "settled". However, the beauty of scientific inquiry lies in its openness to change and I think we can all agree that science has added much to our lives. As scientists uncover fresh insights, theorems adapt. We must recognize this dynamism and appreciate the value of ongoing research rather than throwing it in the trash bin because some predictions did not proffer their promised outcomes.
Experts--be they scientists, doctors, politicians, or artists--often operate within their silos. While specialization is essential, it can lead to tunnel vision. I think we'd do well to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration to address complex global challenges. After all, climate change transcends boundaries and affects us all.
Whether or not mankind directly causes climate change our actions matter. Toxic gases and waste harms not only us but also the other sentient beings we share this planet with and our collective responsibility extends beyond our own lifetimes. Moreover, it is our duty to seek sustainable energy alternatives to ensure a future for generations to come.
Through renewable energy, conservation, or innovative technologies, we can shape a better world--one where fossil fuels don't dictate our fate.
I watched the documentary, and it provided me with no new information or perspective. Anyway, thank you for sharing a well-considered essay.
Gloria
Comment Written 09-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 09-Apr-2024
-
Thank you very much, Gloria, for this detailed and thoughtful review. I actually agree with much of what you said, especially with the desire to find some viable substitute for fossil fuels mainly because of the hazard they pose to the environment when not burned responsibly. That's why there is so much more smog and air pollution in places like China than in the West, where we have many regulations that cause us to burn them in a much cleaner manner.
I'm actually in favor of developing more nuclear energy plants because they have much less effect on the environment as long as the spent fuel rods are properly disposed of.
Like you, I also think we need to develop alternative energy sources, but I don't believe wind and solar are the ways to go for many reasons too numerous to get into here. But I am convinced than man, with his ingenuity, will find alternative sources of clean energy before we ever run out of fossil fuels.
The problem with the argument that we will run out in, say, 50 years, is that those estimates are only based on known reserves, and we keep finding more and will continue to do so unless further exploration becomes banned, as attempts have been made in places like ANWR. Fracking has also opened up huge new reserves of extractable fossil fuels.
My only point here is that there is no apparent emergency either due to the supposed ill effects of additional CO2 concentration or the supposed scarcity of fossil fuels. The only emergency would come if we were to abandon their use prematurely, and China didn't. That would be an immediate, serious threat to the security of the world, and at the same time would ruin our economy. Those are not hypotheticals, but real concerns.
Comment from royowen
I'm with you, I have no opinions, a. because my scientific knowledge is scant, I have good reason for some things I know absolutely everything I need to know, my believe in an absolute God prevents me from believing the man can be allowed to destroy what is His, some may think that is naive and stupid, but either we believe wholeheartedly or we don't, I love and follow football and cricket, I lapse into a sort "healthy' opinion on those things, but that's all, I agree with you, but I'm a little lazy, I have a geologist/mining engineer son in law, also a fine Christian boy. Bless you for standing up. You'll crack a few skulls here, blessings Roy,
reply by the author on 08-Apr-2024
|
I'm with you, I have no opinions, a. because my scientific knowledge is scant, I have good reason for some things I know absolutely everything I need to know, my believe in an absolute God prevents me from believing the man can be allowed to destroy what is His, some may think that is naive and stupid, but either we believe wholeheartedly or we don't, I love and follow football and cricket, I lapse into a sort "healthy' opinion on those things, but that's all, I agree with you, but I'm a little lazy, I have a geologist/mining engineer son in law, also a fine Christian boy. Bless you for standing up. You'll crack a few skulls here, blessings Roy,
Comment Written 08-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 08-Apr-2024
-
It's interesting that most who've responded have been on the skeptic side. I was kind of hoping for more dissenters to discuss it further with them, but they either didn't care to read it, or didn't feel like reviewing it.
-
Opinions never move, only truth, which adds up from all directions Jim, history echoed, (eg. that?s why history through one set of eyes becomes myth or legend, unless verified by many witnesses, although variations in observation, agree at the central point of the fact.) the gospels are a good point, Lawyers agree if the had four witnesses like the writers, they would win every case. opposition in opinion confuse the central point, therefore are bountiful. Be as wise as serpents, but as gentle as doves. Bless you Roy
Comment from tfawcus
Another well-reasoned essay on this important topic. You address the problem with an even hand, giving both sides of the picture. This is most refreshing in these days of alarmist sound bites.
reply by the author on 08-Apr-2024
|
Another well-reasoned essay on this important topic. You address the problem with an even hand, giving both sides of the picture. This is most refreshing in these days of alarmist sound bites.
Comment Written 07-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 08-Apr-2024
-
Thanks very much, Tony.
Following is a quote from an article that analyzes Michael Crichton's State of Fear that I thought particularly relevant to what you just said:
"... amidst the rush to capture attention and generate profit, some media outlets prioritize sensationalism and bias over journalistic integrity. This race for viewership and higher ratings often results in the distortion or manipulation of facts, leading to biased narratives and misinformation. As a consequence, the truth becomes a casualty, and the public is left susceptible to misinformation and the perpetuation of often skewed or incomplete perspectives."
I think that's where we are today, and too many trust the media to do their thinking for them.
Comment from Julie Helms
A geologist I spoke to recently said, yes the climate is changing. It always has. He told me about some scientific papers written by scientists running satellites that measure solar activity. The correlation between solar activity and changing climate was 100%. But they were forbidden from publishing the papers.
He broke the numbers down for me like this. Imagine the climate as a pond. On one side you have man-made influence stream flowing in, and on the other side solar activity influence stream. To compare the amount of influence each stream has on the pond (as discovered by the satellite scientists), the man-made stream would be one inch wide. The solar activity stream would have a width of the distance to the moon and back again 70 times.
Man does pollute the earth in various ways, and we should be good stewards of our earth. But we have no effect on climate. It is 100% political bullshit, a money grab, a power move. I would encourage no fence sitting. It is a lie.
Great article to encourage thinking and debate!
Julie
:-)
reply by the author on 08-Apr-2024
|
A geologist I spoke to recently said, yes the climate is changing. It always has. He told me about some scientific papers written by scientists running satellites that measure solar activity. The correlation between solar activity and changing climate was 100%. But they were forbidden from publishing the papers.
He broke the numbers down for me like this. Imagine the climate as a pond. On one side you have man-made influence stream flowing in, and on the other side solar activity influence stream. To compare the amount of influence each stream has on the pond (as discovered by the satellite scientists), the man-made stream would be one inch wide. The solar activity stream would have a width of the distance to the moon and back again 70 times.
Man does pollute the earth in various ways, and we should be good stewards of our earth. But we have no effect on climate. It is 100% political bullshit, a money grab, a power move. I would encourage no fence sitting. It is a lie.
Great article to encourage thinking and debate!
Julie
:-)
Comment Written 07-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 08-Apr-2024
-
Thank you very much, Julie, and I couldn't agree more. Many people think it is the rich oil companies who pay all the money to scientists to lie about the effects of their product and never realize that there is a huge amount of money in it for the alarmists from governments of the world and many organizations who stand to profit from the alarmist point of view. I would say that it's at least a wash in regard to the financing of each POV. I've tried researching how much each side gets for their cause, but the data is inconclusive.
I prefer to think about the actual science. I think the alarmist side stakes too much on computer models, which have proven to be wildly innacurate so far, always erring on the side of too much warming in their predictions. Why would anyone want to base significant policy decisions on something that has a very poor track record so far?
There is so much we don't know yet, and we don't even know what we don't know. So let's not be too hasty to make major policy decisions on the little we do know so far. I know one thing for sure, though: we would be spelling our doom if we adopt the carbon-neutral policies but China doesn't, and I think only naive people don't understand that.
-
I don't think the powers that be care about the science one way or the other. They have ulterior motives. IMO
Thanks for the chat! :-)
-
Yes, I agree with that.
Comment from Carol Hillebrenner
This is a really interesting article, and I must admit I am not that concerned about climate change. My grandson spent almost two years in Shanghai China. In that time, he saw blue sky exactly once. Since that pollution travels around the earth but is mostly concentrated in China (and maybe India, he hasn't gone there yet.) I rather think they will have to change their attitude or die of the pollution. My Canadian niece and husband were making nearly a million dollars a year exporting reprocessed Canadian plastic to China. Now the business is almost flat as they are selling only a few kinds of plastic to China as the Chinese have decided to reprocess their own waste plastic (very late in the game). Most of the headlines in Scientific American in the early seventies warned of the coming Ice Age. But I am going to watch Climate the Movie. Thanks for a lot of useful information.
reply by the author on 08-Apr-2024
|
This is a really interesting article, and I must admit I am not that concerned about climate change. My grandson spent almost two years in Shanghai China. In that time, he saw blue sky exactly once. Since that pollution travels around the earth but is mostly concentrated in China (and maybe India, he hasn't gone there yet.) I rather think they will have to change their attitude or die of the pollution. My Canadian niece and husband were making nearly a million dollars a year exporting reprocessed Canadian plastic to China. Now the business is almost flat as they are selling only a few kinds of plastic to China as the Chinese have decided to reprocess their own waste plastic (very late in the game). Most of the headlines in Scientific American in the early seventies warned of the coming Ice Age. But I am going to watch Climate the Movie. Thanks for a lot of useful information.
Comment Written 07-Apr-2024
reply by the author on 08-Apr-2024
-
Thanks very much, Carol, and I'm very glad you've decided to watch the movie. It's so refreshing to hear very smart scientists giving evidence of what I've believed for a long time now.
I know this is a difficult topic to understand because of the complexity of the science, and there is so much we don't know yet, but from the research I've done, it seems that what the skeptics say is so much more straightforward and easier to understand than what the alarmists say in response. That usually sounds very confusing to me and hard to understand.
I think that's a tactic the alarmists use to make people think they are smarter than they really are because most people also don't understand what they say, so they think it must be brilliant. But like Occam's razor, the simplest explanation for something is usually the correct one.
