Climate change bullshit

The act of paying taxes and purchasing carbon credits as a means of mitigating the impacts of climate change does not constitute scientific evidence, as this falls under the purview of policy and macroeconomics, which are distinct fields of study.

Despite this, I do believe that climate change is caused by human activity and acknowledge the urgency of the issue. However, I personally hold the view that there may be limited actions that can be taken in New Zealand, and that our contribution to the global effort may be relatively insignificant. Nevertheless, I believe that by taking action, we can demonstrate leadership to other nations and inspire them to do the same.

The main point of my message in this conversation is to emphasize the importance of scientific evidence and the need to take action to reverse the effects of climate change. It is crucial to address this issue if we want to ensure that our planet remains habitable for future generations.

There is a vast body of scientific evidence, including data collected from ice cores, tree rings, and temperature readings, that demonstrates that the Earth's climate is changing at an unprecedented rate, and that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are a significant contributor to this change. The overwhelming consensus among the scientific community is that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to the environment, ecosystems, and human societies.

The science is real, climate change is happening and it is man made.

I am neither debating nor suggesting that the proposed course of action by the government is appropriate for reversing the effects of climate change.

18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of
Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Note: The prediction of
famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air
pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Sums it all up ! It's crap in /crap out scenario. I believe the climate always changes. I don't accept that man is having much effect. Maybe building cities affects the data collected. I do believe that most Climate 'scientists 'are selected, paid very well to train the pollies and consequently guarantee their future employment. Just like the priests from the middle ages would save you if you tithed to them. New spin on the same game. Scare the living daylights out of those who can't, won't or don't think for themselves. We're in the middle of a hiatus on a long term descent into an ice age.IMO

I see that you're skeptical about the role of human activity in climate change. While it's true that the climate has always been changing, the scientific consensus is that human activity is accelerating the rate of change. As for the motives of climate scientists, I can understand why you might be suspicious, but it's important to remember that scientific research is subject to rigorous review and replication. And while there are certainly concerns about the politicization of climate change, that doesn't mean we should dismiss the scientific evidence altogether. Just my two cents!

Fake news, Tesla is not making a Hydrogen Car.

A misinformation campaign designed to either undermine Elon Musk, drive the share price up/down or just for shits and giggles - who the fuck knows... 

Like lots of other misinformation campaigns this one has taken on a life of its own.  There are literally 100's of videos, Facebook posts, LinkedIn posts, etc

Unfortunately this happens a lot.  Another example is the misinformation campaign to convince as many people as possible that the current rate of climate change is not man made.

It's amazing how many people get sucked into these campaigns.