Climate Scam

[guyfriday]

I was digging for a specific video from a Congressional hearing about Climate Change that occurred decades ago. I hadn't run across it yet, but I did find this video reportedly from 1992. 



So, before I get into a lot of this mess, my question for everyone here is can we verify that this video is both real, and took place when it is said to have taken place, then if it is true can we start to hunt down the information reported in it? 

In this video it has Paul Harvey telling a story about climate change and how it is a fraud. Now I'm going to be looking for that Congressional hearing still, but in the meantime for the sake of arguments, I think we can look at this (if real that is) and start to dig apart this scam. It's about how the fragility of Earth is a lie being perpetrated in order to scam trillions of dollars from the global public and force many people of the world into modern servitude. All the while a very real threat of a new Glacial Period is beginning to emerge creating the next big Ice Age.

[argentus]

I am a conservationist.   I think there is a very simple way to determine whether 'climate change' is valid.   As a conservationist, I want to preserve/clean up the soil, the water, the land, the sea, and foster as much recycling as can be possible.   Instead of mandating "no single-use plastics", we should be working on reusing and repurposing those plastics.   I don't think we can legislate innovation, and therefore cannot legally declare that certain situation will be.   For example, we cannot mandate that diesel trucks will be replaced by EV trucks by a certain date.   What we can do is grant concessions toward those who replace their diesel trucks with EV trucks, and what we can do is install "free to the public" fast chargers for those trucks.   What we cannot do is make trucking companies replaces their diesel trucks with EV trucks.   That will result in a slam to the local economy as well as much less goods being trucked in.  Listen to this again:   We cannot legislate innovation.   This is much of the reason that the California economy is devastated.   Take a look at a video of Beverly Hills, or West Hollywood, or downtown Berkeley, or downtown San Francisco, and track all the chains that have pulled out and moved to more enlightened states.   

If the works of climate change require great gouts of money, then it is a fraud.   We should be cleaning up our act and the Earth, it's waters, soils, etc.   If your government wants to spend great amounts of money toward 'climate change', they are trying to use YOUR money to control you and the rest of the population.   

I don't think there is any doubt that wherever people congregate, they screw up the environment.   We expand and wipe out the resources and then expand more.   Most cities could not survive a week after the cutoff of incoming goods.   Most people would die, especially if that included the shut off of power.   So we are terrible creatures.   We shouldn't worry about the Earth though.  It has been through far worse than us.   It will always adapt and go on.   What we might be doing is rendering the Earth inhabitable for us, though the depletion of resources  and despoiling of its waters.   

So, the next time your politicians want to gather up millions, billions or even trillions of dollars to "fight" climate change, you tell them HELL NO.  You tell them in every way you can that you want those dollars spent toward cleanup and conservation, and that you don't give a shit about carbon credits or advancing third world nations which were damaged by climate change.   

Much of "climate change" is not truly measurable.   Oh sure, we have reached the 'tipping point'.   Yep, except where you average it over data points all over the Earth, it looks much like it always have.   We have cyclical changes.   If your pundits want to devote great  amounts of money to climate change, it is YOUR obligation to demand from them how those funds will be spent.

[Maxmars]

I have to confess that when I started hearing about global warming, I was very openly skeptical.   Not because of 'science.'  And not because of any information or observations I was personally clinging to.

I was skeptical because I hate modern media-amplified, profit scouring, dramatized narrative-spewing activists.  (This includes, but is not limited to, self-serving celebrities in the guise of "stars' and 'politicians.)

They are all so adept in generating sound bites, negative aspersions about dissenters, signaling their version of virtue... all while not knowing one damn thing they are talking about.  There are some exceptions, but those usually won't 'sell out' to marketing or self-promotion.

The message about global warming was - from my perspective - sabotaged from the get-go by obtuse, hypocritical, 'plastic' people who cared nothing for the situation, only how it could be used to continue their ambition of perpetually being in the spotlight.

The climate always changes, it always has, it has never been 'exactly as it was before' and it never will be.  It's called "time."

Paul Harvey spoke very much about the problem, and it wasn't climate change or the ecological changes that were subject to it.  He spoke about the 'actors' who seize the 'news' and make an end run for the pot of gold at the end of their black rainbow.  "Carbon credits" come to mind.  How now one saw the "new currency" being created for exploitation never ceases to amaze me.

[Essan]

It's important to recognise that there is a very big difference between hundreds of thousands of scientists - meteorologists, geologists, climatologists, glaciologists, oceanographers etc - studying and highlighting the impact human activity is having on Earth's climate, often to the detriment of human society  -  and those who take this information and use it for money making scams or seek to profit from it in other ways.

The latter do not invalidate the former.

[Byrd]

I was digging for a specific video from a Congressional hearing about Climate Change that occurred decades ago. I hadn't run across it yet, but I did find this video reportedly from 1992. 

[Video: https://youtu.be/EY7yelLY7r8?list=LL]

So, before I get into a lot of this mess, my question for everyone here is can we verify that this video is both real, and took place when it is said to have taken place, then if it is true can we start to hunt down the information reported in it? 

In this video it has Paul Harvey telling a story about climate change and how it is a fraud. Now I'm going to be looking for that Congressional hearing still, but in the meantime for the sake of arguments, I think we can look at this (if real that is) and start to dig apart this scam. It's about how the fragility of Earth is a lie being perpetrated in order to scam trillions of dollars from the global public and force many people of the world into modern servitude. All the while a very real threat of a new Glacial Period is beginning to emerge creating the next big Ice Age.

No, FBI didn't try to arrest Paul Harvey.  Here's the files they have on him (free for anyone to see: https://vault.fbi.gov/paul-harvey)

I don't see any evidence that he spoke about climate change or gave an opinion on it.

[Maxmars]

It's important to recognise that there is a very big difference between hundreds of thousands of scientists - meteorologists, geologists, climatologists, glaciologists, oceanographers etc - studying and highlighting the impact human activity is having on Earth's climate, often to the detriment of human society  -  and those who take this information and use it for money making scams or seek to profit from it in other ways.

The latter do not invalidate the former.

Respectfully, I agree. 

Scientific understanding, however, is not a matter of social amplification.  "Science" is not dependent on the 'voice' it is given by media alarmism, and celebrity buy-in.  It is not about social and political opportunism and profit-seeking propaganda.

Were there any venue of scientific "consensus" I would certainly heed it.  But there is none.  Too much "club-membership" and not enough judicious analysis.

The number of collected science "opinions" is never a matter of scientists pursuing science.  "Aggregation" and "curation" of desired public utterances is not presented to "make the science seem certain" by activist scientists.  Science fact is not subject to "appearances" uttered by glamorous faces and talking heads.  To render it so makes it the object of "convincing".  Facts exists irrespective of "convincing."

I never mean to imply that 'science' is uncertain... only incomplete. 

As long as I see it being a matter of 'social' ridicule and 'club-memberships' I will know that it is more important to the information peddlers that I acquiesce, rather than understand.  I seek to understand.

We have spent too much time listening to opinion, and very little acknowledging that we have been studying this subject for a pitifully short time... denying that we have a lot to learn and pretending that we 'know' what has been happening on this planet for millennia. We simply don't.

Climate changes. It always has.  It has never been the case that "things will stop changing" or that "we" have the power to stop it.  We never have, and never will...

We need to accept that MONEY is the only 'speech" that is amplified in the media.  Social and political 'glory' and 'virtue' is the only common denominator in what we are being sold.  I prefer to discover or be told the truth, not made to "buy into it" for social comfort.

[guyfriday]

No, FBI didn't try to arrest Paul Harvey.  Here's the files they have on him (free for anyone to see: https://vault.fbi.gov/paul-harvey)

I don't see any evidence that he spoke about climate change or gave an opinion on it.

That's just the title of the video, I didn't think he was arrested either. I posted the video due to the year its reportedly made and the topic he covered. Some people seem to think that this Climate Change/ Global Warming issue started with Al Gore and well this video, while being from around the same timeframe, shows that it's a much bigger issue than just Al Gore looking to cash in on the idea. 

I need to find that UN report China made about Global Warming as well, that "proves" that Tabet and Nepal were going to be destroyed due to glacial melt.

[Byrd]

That's just the title of the video, I didn't think he was arrested either. I posted the video due to the year its reportedly made and the topic he covered. Some people seem to think that this Climate Change/ Global Warming issue started with Al Gore and well this video, while being from around the same timeframe, shows that it's a much bigger issue than just Al Gore looking to cash in on the idea. 

I need to find that UN report China made about Global Warming as well, that "proves" that Tabet and Nepal were going to be destroyed due to glacial melt.

First mention of climate change came in 1896 (yes, more than a hundred years ago.) https://science.anu.edu.au/news-events/n...0in%201938 - but public awareness of it began in the 1970's with the rise of interest in ecology and fights against pollution.  

This became even more highlighted with the ozone layer hole which resulted in the ban on fluorocarbons in 1978; an international effort which meant that the rest of the world started coming onboard with the issue of dealing with changes in the climate (droughts, storms, warming of the oceans, etc.)

[quintessentone]

Climate change truth or oil and gas agenda with climate scam at the forefront?

"World set to quadruple oil and gas production by 2030, led by new US projects"

https://thebulletin.org/climate-change/#footer_menu_itm

[pianopraze]

I’m much more worried about the coming ice age.



Nimoy said it so I believe it!