Climate change HOAX.

0  2016-04-06 by pkrhed

A lie from the beginning. From wiki:

In 1989, Schneider addressed the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews. This citation sometimes was used by his critics to accuse him of supporting misuse of science for political goals: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, October 1989.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.

32 comments

3  The_Noble_Lie 2016-04-06

Thanks for the quote. Great stuff.

1  pkrhed 2016-04-06

Isn't it? I'd like to actually get my hands on an original copy of that Discover magazine.

2  Putin_loves_cats 2016-04-06

Aye. Club of Rome.

2  pkrhed 2016-04-06

Bingo! The esteemed professor was a member himself.

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome. (1991) Page 75. https://archive.org/stream/TheFirstGlobalRevolution#page/n1/mode/2up

-1  relax_its_fine 2016-04-06

so if we burn a whole bunch of petroleum and release countless tons of co2 into the air it's not gonna have any appreciable effect on the climate?

3  Putin_loves_cats 2016-04-06

No. What we should be talking about is geoengineering, though.

-2  relax_its_fine 2016-04-06

that's great news! wish you were right...

3  Putin_loves_cats 2016-04-06

I am right. Don't feel bad, you've been swindled and lied to. Sucks, I know.

-3  relax_its_fine 2016-04-06

those damn scientists with their gold-plated toyotas and peer reviewed research! have they no decency!?

4  Putin_loves_cats 2016-04-06

You act as if $cience/peer reviewed cannot be bought. I'll refer you to Rockefeller and his scientists making the claim oil is a "fossil fuel", and succeeded.

1  relax_its_fine 2016-04-06

wait, how is oil not a fossil fuel?

4  Lo0seR 2016-04-06

how is oil not a fossil fuel?

Back in the 60's we had this publication called Weekly Readers, they told us oil came from dinosaurs, and that we would run out in the 2000's, so please tell me how it became a fossil fuel?

3  Putin_loves_cats 2016-04-06

Give this a short listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu_R3gp84TY. After that, come back to me and I'll send you some more links/reading.

0  pkrhed 2016-04-06

Reviewed by a bunch of their peers who believe the same way they do. Did you not read the man's own words? They don't care about the TRUTH, they know they "the end" is for our own good so that justifies "the means". It doesn't bother you that they admit it themselves?

2  relax_its_fine 2016-04-06

pretty sure the scientists working for petro-chemical companies who are reaching the opposite conclusions are making quite a bit more money, so that argument doesn't really make any sense.

2  pkrhed 2016-04-06

They won't be as soon as the carbon taxes and green mandates are instituted. You think there is no money in climate research?

2  pkrhed 2016-04-06

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#1d6763dd6f70

3  pkrhed 2016-04-06

Only thing we know for sure is man-made global warming is a hoax. They are a bunch of liars. No matter how many times we catch them people just ignore it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#315cbdf45909

2  cawclot 2016-04-06

You're proof is an opinion piece from someone at The Heartland Institute. Are you kidding?

3  pkrhed 2016-04-06

It's ONE source. How about Schneider's OWN WORDS? Discover Magazine? WTF is wrong with you people? Do you have a quote from the Heartland Institute where THEY admit to lying about climate change?

3  pkrhed 2016-04-06

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

-1  moltisanti72 2016-04-06

Serious question : what is the reason behind a hoax about climate change? Who would benefit from it?

2  Putin_loves_cats 2016-04-06

Carbon credit tax. The elites will benefit from it, while we suffer. It's basically a new stock market (bubble). It does nothing about pollution, just makes it more profitable and gives them more power. It's a scam.

1  moltisanti72 2016-04-06

Of course some are going to take advantage of this to make money, that's capitalism. Doesn't make climate change a hoax. Climate change is just pure logic and science, let's stop burying our heads in the sand

2  pkrhed 2016-04-06

TRILLIONS of dollars in carbon taxes for one. Everyone invested in "green" technology which will be MANDATED. Lots and lots of $$$.

1  moltisanti72 2016-04-06

Of course some are going to take advantage of this to make money, that's capitalism. Doesn't make climate change a hoax. Climate change is just pure logic and science, let's stop burying our heads in the sand

1  pkrhed 2016-04-06

Who's really burying their head? You asked the question, you got the answer. Still can't see anything that you haven't been brainwashed to believe. NONE of their predictions of past catastrophe have come to pass, but you believe the prophets of doom. They just keep pushing the date back. No different than those who put a date on the rapture, till the date passes, then try to reason it away.

1  moltisanti72 2016-04-06

Yes and I thank you for the time you took to give this answer to me. What predictions are you talking about? The fact that dumping massive loads of carbon and other shit in the air pollute the world is just pure logic, I can't see how some dont see it

1  pkrhed 2016-04-06

CO2 is not pollution. The esteemed Professor Schneider was talking about real pollution in his 71 paper. Particles of soot and smog in the air. Which he was predicting would bring another ice age.

1  pkrhed 2016-04-06

What predictions?

Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”

Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages"

1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”

That's a VERY small sampling. Shall I go on?

2  cuntrymouse 2016-04-06

the EPA uses it as justification for land grabs, interfering with privately owned property, and imposing competitive disadvantages on the competitors of lobbyists and cronies.

1  zeropoint357 2016-04-06

The new economy of the NWO depends on it. It will be a credit based virtual currency in which you have to earn credits in order to justify the deficit you represent to the planet.

3  pkrhed 2016-04-06

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2