How I know climate change is a hoax

[Rickeroo]

By "climate change", I mean the social and political phenomenon that purports it to be a catatrosphic issue. First is the gaslighting with sea level rise. No one is moving away from coastlines, Midway looks the same as in WWII, Kivalina didn't go underwater in 2018, etc. People at the shoreline have to turn on the news before they realize their house went underwater 10 years ago.

Next, and this is the big one, look at the proposed solutions: rich countries with high per capita CO2 emissions throwing money at the problem. There are already 24 countries that emit less than 1.2% of the per capita emissions that the US does, mostly in Africa. Given the catatrosphic issue of climate change (I've heard it's been really hot this past week), one wonders why there are no calls to reduce the US economy and standard of living to that of Uganda or Lesotho.

If it's "not practical" that the US reduce consumption to Ugandan levels, then how catatrophic can climate change be? Lifestyle comes before "saving the planet", it would seem.

 

[phoenix2020]

By "climate change", I mean the social and political phenomenon that purports it to be a catatrosphic issue. First is the gaslighting with sea level rise. No one is moving away from coastlines, Midway looks the same as in WWII, Kivalina didn't go underwater in 2018, etc. People at the shoreline have to turn on the news before they realize their house went underwater 10 years ago.

Next, and this is the big one, look at the proposed solutions: rich countries with high per capita CO2 emissions throwing money at the problem. There are already 24 countries that emit less than 1.2% of the per capita emissions that the US does, mostly in Africa. Given the catatrosphic issue of climate change (I've heard it's been really hot this past week), one wonders why there are no calls to reduce the US economy and standard of living to that of Uganda or Lesotho.

If it's "not practical" that the US reduce consumption to Ugandan levels, then how catatrophic can climate change be? Lifestyle comes before "saving the planet", it would seem.

Cool. I can see why yours is considered the leading voice on climate science. If you don't mind my asking, when you go on the air to set the record straight on climate change, do you do the bow-tie, the standard jacket-and-tie or keep things super-casual with perhaps a sweater? Did Tucker and his crew have a particular dress code for you to adopt before going live?

We have few if any professional climate scientists such as yourself on this site, so I'm quite curious as to the dress code you've adopted when addressing the nation through the mainstream conservative media.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Why should anyone care about the opinion of a random layman that has never spent even one full day of his life dedicated to atmospheric and climate research?

I swear to god this snowflake generation that thinks they know everything despite being total ignorant morons is contributing to the death of truth and facts.

 

[Loulit01]

Why should anyone care about the opinion of a random layman that has never spent even one full day of his life dedicated to atmospheric and climate research?

I swear to god this snowflake generation that thinks they know everything despite being total ignorant morons is contributing to the death of truth and facts.

They get their education and opinions from TV and radio. Researching anything themselves is immoral, apparently.

 

[bongsaway]

By "climate change", I mean the social and political phenomenon that purports it to be a catatrosphic issue. First is the gaslighting with sea level rise. No one is moving away from coastlines, Midway looks the same as in WWII, Kivalina didn't go underwater in 2018, etc. People at the shoreline have to turn on the news before they realize their house went underwater 10 years ago.

Next, and this is the big one, look at the proposed solutions: rich countries with high per capita CO2 emissions throwing money at the problem. There are already 24 countries that emit less than 1.2% of the per capita emissions that the US does, mostly in Africa. Given the catatrosphic issue of climate change (I've heard it's been really hot this past week), one wonders why there are no calls to reduce the US economy and standard of living to that of Uganda or Lesotho.

If it's "not practical" that the US reduce consumption to Ugandan levels, then how catatrophic can climate change be? Lifestyle comes before "saving the planet", it would seem.

Yay, you saved the world by declaring climate change to be a hoax, thanks. Now excuse me as I go sweat my ass off outside.

 

[bongsaway]

Why should anyone care about the opinion of a random layman that has never spent even one full day of his life dedicated to atmospheric and climate research?

I swear to god this snowflake generation that thinks they know everything despite being total ignorant morons is contributing to the death of truth and facts.

Well said.

 

[Rickeroo]

Why should anyone care about the opinion of a random layman that has never spent even one full day of his life dedicated to atmospheric and climate research?

I swear to god this snowflake generation that thinks they know everything despite being total ignorant morons is contributing to the death of truth and facts.

I used to take catastrophic climate change literally, thinking that liberals actually believed the world was on the edge of climate collapse from CO2 emissions. If no one is asking the US to reduce it's economy to that of Uganda or other ultra-low emission countries, then liberals can't actually believe in climate collapse.

Let me get this correct - the planet is on the verge of "climate catastrophe", but we're still permitting Americans to live rich, Western lifestyles?

 

[phoenix2020]

Why should anyone care about the opinion of a random layman that has never spent even one full day of his life dedicated to atmospheric and climate research?

I swear to god this snowflake generation that thinks they know everything despite being total ignorant morons is contributing to the death of truth and facts.

I disagree, it's obvious @Rickeroo is a globrally renown climate scientist. Clearly he was a frequent guest on Tucker's show prior to his dismissal, and I can only imagine that he is amongst the global Top 50 when counting followers on Twitter and/or Truth Social. I personally invite @Rickeroo to post links to his team's global climate model simulation results. Indeed, a well-funded climate science outfit such as his could probably make runtime models available to the public.

@Rickeroo what do you think? Would you have any concerns with providing public access to your climate model?

 

[Diomedes]

, Midway looks the same as in WWII,

How do you know that?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why should anyone care about the opinion of a random layman that has never spent even one full day of his life dedicated to atmospheric and climate research?

I swear to god this snowflake generation that thinks they know everything despite being total ignorant morons is contributing to the death of truth and facts.

Yep, the only hope to save the planet is to take power away from the ignorant masses (aka the electorate) and give it to government officials who will implement whatever policy (their preferred?) ’experts’ (are paid to?) say is best.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How do you know that?

Hmm…

The Midway Atoll You Might Not Know | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Midway Atoll is well known as the site of a June 4-7, 1942 battle that was the turning point of World War II in the Pacific. The inscription on the marker in the photo above reads, in part: “After this Battle of Midway, the United States and its allies forged ahead with ever increasing strength...

www.fws.gov

Exploring the Sunken Heritage of Midway Atoll: Honoring the Legacy of the 75th Anniversary of the Battle of Midway: Mission Logs: May 10: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research

 

[eohrnberger]

"How I know climate change is a hoax"
'Because the weather will be so much better if you give more of your money to the government.'

Yeah, right . . . Ummm, No.

 

[Rickeroo]

How do you know that?

Two ways. The first is the reality of the ocean rise since 1941, here's a photo from that time period:



It's pretty much unchanged, satellite views can confirm this. The airbase at Boca Chica Key (Florida) in the 1940's can also be compared to today.

Had these vulnerable low-lying islands shrunk or dissapeared in 70 years, then sea level rise would be a real problem. If it's a real problem, then the left would call for real solutions. They aren't calling for real solutions because there's no sea level emergency.

 

[Rickeroo]

Because the weather will be so much better if you give more of your money to the government.

This is another aspect of 'climate change' that makes no sense. If the government wants to tax me $10,000 a year for renewable energy, I'd be making that money at a job, which results in economic activity and CO2 emissions. It would be better to simply not make that income in the first place and lower my lifestyle accordingly (smaller house, less consumer trinkets, etc). The ideal of course would be to get to Ugandan levels of consumption and CO2 emissions.

There are a lot of African countries that have a fraction of the CO2 emissions of the US. They maintain this low level without solar panels, electric cars, or taxing their citizens for 'green' energy.

The saving grace of the left's "climate change" agenda is that they still expect to maintain Western levels of consumerism. Africa already has the answer to our climate "emergency".

 

[Steve Case]

Cool. I can see why yours is considered the leading voice on climate science. If you don't mind my asking, when you go on the air to set the record straight on climate change, do you do the bow-tie, the standard jacket-and-tie or keep things super-casual with perhaps a sweater? Did Tucker and his crew have a particular dress code for you to adopt before going live?

We have few if any professional climate scientists such as yourself on this site, so I'm quite curious as to the dress code you've adopted when addressing the nation through the mainstream conservative media.

Attacking the messenger is tried and true.

 

[Steve Case]

They get their education and opinions from TV and radio. Researching anything themselves is immoral, apparently.

It's the so-called main stream media that spreads the climate is in crisis stories. Anyone who thinks
something is amiss has to dig into the actual empirical records to find out about sea level, historical
temperature, storms, droughts, & floods etc. and in many cases what they said then and what they say
now in order to make the case that media outlets are aren't telling the truth.

 

[eohrnberger]

This is another aspect of 'climate change' that makes no sense. If the government wants to tax me $10,000 a year for renewable energy, I'd be making that money at a job, which results in economic activity and CO2 emissions. It would be better to simply not make that income in the first place and lower my lifestyle accordingly (smaller house, less consumer trinkets, etc). The ideal of course would be to get to Ugandan levels of consumption and CO2 emissions.

There are a lot of African countries that have a fraction of the CO2 emissions of the US. They maintain this low level without solar panels, electric cars, or taxing their citizens for 'green' energy.

The saving grace of the left's "climate change" agenda is that they still expect to maintain Western levels of consumerism. Africa already has the answer to our climate "emergency".

Exactly that the world's political elites and WEF have in mind for everyone else except themselves, lower standards of living bordering on poverty.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's the so-called main stream media that spreads the climate is in crisis stories. Anyone who thinks
something is amiss has to dig into the actual empirical records to find out about sea level, historical
temperature, storms, droughts, & floods etc. and in many cases what they said then and what they say
now in order to make the case that media outlets are aren't telling the truth.

Yep.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

 

[Rickeroo]

It's the so-called main stream media that spreads the climate is in crisis stories. Anyone who thinks
something is amiss has to dig into the actual empirical records to find out about sea level, historical
temperature, storms, droughts, & floods etc. and in many cases what they said then and what they say
now in order to make the case that media outlets are aren't telling the truth.

I liken it to being told one's house is on fire. Since we can't see the flames, the TV has to tell us that our living room and couch is on fire. Then the TV tells us ridicoulous things about how to extinguish the flames - give money to poor countries, tax the rich, etc.

If the house was on fire, the occupant wouldn't need the TV to constantly remind him. The TV would tell him to grab a fire extiguisher or take other heroic measures to put the flames out. Instead, the TV tells him to sit tight and donate his money to the government, who will then put out the flames.

 

[Steve Case]

Two ways. The first is the reality of the ocean rise since 1941, here's a photo from that time period:

View attachment 67455726

It's pretty much unchanged, satellite views can confirm this. The airbase at Boca Chica Key (Florida) in the 1940's can also be compared to today.

Had these vulnerable low-lying islands shrunk or dissapeared in 70 years, then sea level rise would be a real problem. If it's a real problem, then the left would call for real solutions. They aren't calling for real solutions because there's no sea level emergency.

NOAA tides & Currents page tells us that the rate of sea level rise is about
1.7 mm/yr and in 70 years that would come to less than five inches. You're
not going to see that on that then and now photograph or notice it much
anywhere else.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I liken it to being told one's house is on fire. Since we can't see the flames, the TV has to tell us that our living room and couch is on fire. Then the TV tells us ridicoulous things about how to extinguish the flames - give money to poor countries, tax the rich, etc.

If the house was on fire, the occupant wouldn't need the TV to constantly remind him. The TV would tell him to grab a fire extiguisher or take other heroic measures to put the flames out. Instead, the TV tells him to sit tight and donate his money to the government, who will then put out the flames.

How dare you?

 

[Geoist]

They get their education and opinions from TV and radio. Researching anything themselves is immoral, apparently.

Oh, they'll do 'research'. But that research usually involves conspiracy blogs. This is why rightwingers are so reluctant to provide sources to their claims.

 

[Credence]

I am sure your decendants will thank you for setting us straight on the big hoax

Here is what we should be doing

 

[Loulit01]

I am sure your decendants will thank you for setting us straight on the big hoax

As they apply sunblock and fan themselves in Nome.

 

[BabaVoss]

By "climate change", I mean the social and political phenomenon that purports it to be a catatrosphic issue. First is the gaslighting with sea level rise. No one is moving away from coastlines, Midway looks the same as in WWII, Kivalina didn't go underwater in 2018, etc. People at the shoreline have to turn on the news before they realize their house went underwater 10 years ago.

Next, and this is the big one, look at the proposed solutions: rich countries with high per capita CO2 emissions throwing money at the problem. There are already 24 countries that emit less than 1.2% of the per capita emissions that the US does, mostly in Africa. Given the catatrosphic issue of climate change (I've heard it's been really hot this past week), one wonders why there are no calls to reduce the US economy and standard of living to that of Uganda or Lesotho.

If it's "not practical" that the US reduce consumption to Ugandan levels, then how catatrophic can climate change be? Lifestyle comes before "saving the planet", it would seem.

I’m guessing you ‘do your own research’.