Climate Change Skeptic

– filtering all of the wealth sucking hot air to see what's really goin' on…

A Not-So-New yet Not-So-Politically-Gendered Perspective on Climate Change December 28, 2009

Filed under: Personalities,Qing-Bin Lu — Climate Change Skeptic @ 9:43 PM

I realize it has been a few days since my last post, dear Reader, and I will admit, today’s post was a bit of a crap shoot to figure out.  I focused on Mr. Plimer prior to Christmas, and like most of you, I then dove deeply into a sea of chocolates, pies, and greasiness in general.  I then gladly unwrapped gifts, created trash, and played with my electronic gadgets and overslept and overate, just like everyone else.  I haven’t been focused on earth causes, and I imagine after Copenhagen let out, the 32,000 confused and rushed delegates all flew home in jumbo jets and did exactly what I did, with the heat cranked and the lights blaring.  I’m sure it is always better to see a smile in a well-lit, warm room! 

Was today a day to highlight a personality, or perhaps to crack the seal on a different perspective?  The article below, which was published in a PEER-REVIEWED PAPER out of the University of Waterloo, sheds a decent amount of light on a different perspective (no pun intended!).   

Of course, my first thought here is “what is Qing-Bin Lu’s motive?”  Well, I can’t find one.  I did some research, and if anything, he depends on the social institution he is wedded to for all of his funding, which basically means his “livelihood” (we all love money, right?).  I like that it is peer-reviewed – the Al Gores will not ever be able to be part of the review process.  And why is this, dear Reader? Because HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST!  I guess this makes me feel like the results are less biased because the filters that Mr. Lu’s studies had to pass through seem more impartial than the media machine that is currently passing fads as science (or so says my own personal opinion).  Note that  Mr. Lu’s research still ties climate change to human activity, but not one that requires a wealth transfer and the destruction of the capitalist system.  Despite my personal opinion on climate change, I still think we are fucking up the planet.  I just don’t think we can connect page 2’s dots to page 3’s issues, so to speak.   

Speaking of personal opinions, I want to take a moment to address something a little more personal that has emerged since I decided to write this blog.  I first thought (naively, of course), that I would be able to freely share this journey with my real-life or “tangible” peer group.  For now that isn’t going to happen.  I will admit, I get fiery about this subject, but only because I am saddened by how unquestioning the masses currently are, and I have recently come to learn that the masses are actually quite uncomfortable with me questioning anthropogenic climate change and the political motivations behind it.  For example, trying to get someone to change simple adjectives referring to cold weather as “cold” instead of the current politically correct and confusing “extreme” reference seems to be a jarring and discomforting experience.  Language builds subconscious misrepresentations, right?  My perspective is that we change the language to change the brainwash….whatever the brainwash should happen to be.  When I feel cold, I don’t feel “extreme”…do you?  Anyway, a myriad of other issues were at play, but basically a good friend of mine chose to attack me and take every comment regarding my quest with this issue personally.  I am flexible and can definitely push my boundaries, but our recent conflict motivated me to create boundaries between my quest and my peers in order to keep the peace.  That approach was also unacceptable, which resulted in more attacks and me basically telling this person to “stuff it”.  I hate to say this, but I feel like this energy exchange is happening on a global scale.  Attacks = dismissal and unwillingness to explore concepts that challenge one’s belief system.  I have yet to hear an apology.  And, in all fairness, it has motivated me even further to continue searching.  It is kind of weird to experience – I mean, coming out of the closet never EVER garnered this much controversy, nor did I ever lose friends over it.  Talk about hysteria, right?  Screw it.  I want the truth, and it turns out, I was always a raging homosexual.  But I always knew that, and so did everyone else.  And like “climate change”, no one wanted to BELIEVE that there was a possibility I might like my own kind and that I might be okay with forgiving the desire to breed incessantly (there’s my earth saving initiative, right?).  Activists should be praising me for eff sakes!  Curiosity is never a bad thing.  People’s inability to handle the discovery process correctly because of fear or greed is what clouds things up.  No one is perfect, dear Reader.  But like I said, I am still waiting for an apology.  And I am not quitting this quest because it makes someone squirm, regardless of how much I love them.    

I digress.   

To finish off today, dear Reader, I want to leave you with a diagram of the carbon exchange cycle.    

- Carbon cycle. Courtesy of Thankfully, rational science is still being taught somewhere!


 My desire is that you examine this closely, and see if you can spot anywhere in the diagram where CO2 is poisonous and somehow mucking up the “circle of life”.  If you’re tuned into western media in any way, shape, or form, I’m sure you’re aware that the eco-radicals are now trying to deem CO2 as a “poison”.   I could continue to comment, but the picture speaks for itself.  Next time, dear Reader:  CO2 as a poison…(really???)  : )  Peace!


First Case Study: Ian Plimer, Geologist, University of Adelaide December 23, 2009

Filed under: Ian Plimer,Personalities — Climate Change Skeptic @ 9:24 PM

Dr. Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology and Nut Job to Climate Change Fascists, University of Adelaide


Well, dear Reader, I had to take a day off last night in order to do a few things.  Christmas is now two days away, and let me tell you, the shoppers are extra fuckin’ bitchy this holiday season.  “Boobs as battering rams up escalators” comes to mind.  Sometimes, dear Reader, I am ashamed to be part of the same mammal group.  No wonder I love my dog so much.  

I digress 

Sooo, Climategate.  I finished my brief introduction to all of you two days ago, only to have that feeling that someone who might be embarking on a huge home renovation might be having: “Where do I start first?” I asked myself.  Well, in writing this blog and in all of my discussions of recent past, I seem to be fixated on certain proponents of the pro-climate change movement.  Al Gore, in particular, seems to be someone I pick on.  I have two general criticisms of Al Gore – One: he is NOT a scientist.  Two: his personal worth has almost doubled under a movement that coerces others to decrease their own personal worth in one way or another. Seems kind of hypocritical, right?  I left you with a link yesterday regarding a geologist by the name of Ian Pilmer whose views are quite contrary to those of Mr. Gore.  Unlike Mr. Gore, Pilmer is actually a REAL geologist.  So my goal today is to find out as much as I can about Mr. Pilmer.  And as part of the “balanced perspective”, I will leave it up to you to access the typical, mainstream links with all of the same information about Mr. Gore that you’ve been fed already.  There are many references, all easy to find, and only within a few clicks.  Try finding one news organization, except Fox, that thinks this movement is all a bunch of crap! (and don’t get me started on Fox either!). 

So, here’s what I found: – thought I would start with the “consensus” interpretation (Wikipedia, after all, is biased to the lowest common denominator of its users).  You can have a look for yourself, but here are some brief points about Mr. Plimer: 

  • Name: Ian Rutherford Plimer
  • Birthdate: February 12, 1946 – somewhere in Australia
  • Avid critic of creationism and of the scientific consensus that global warming is driven by anthropogenic CO2
  • Has written 6 books and published almost 60 academic papers
  • Acts as Director for three mining companies

Immediately, anyone who is following the current eco-trend would point out the last bullet I’ve outlined, which makes sense.  The only argument I’d have to offer here would be that, by nature, any member of the IPCC is also working within the organization to secure their own funding and to promote their own self-serving interests.  Everyone has an agenda.  This one is just a polarized version of the familiar profile we’re used to.  Hey, if we’re going to claim a “bias”, we might as well be satisfied that both sides of this debate contain balanced biases.  Ian, however, doesn’t receive funding from the global taxpayer.  Food for thought.  

The Wikipedia reference contains a large body of information with a lot of links and references to his work and his personal history.  It would be exhaustive and redundant for me to reiterate them here.  However, I did find a series of YouTube video recordings of a lecture he gave recently.  You can find them here: – Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5 

I will provide more information once I have it.  For now, it’s Christmas, bitches!  Go have a drink and tell someone you love ‘em!  And, if you’re one of those bitchy shoppers I made reference to at the beginning of this post – just breathe.  I’m sure your kids will still love you if you don’t trample someone to get a Zhu Zhu doll.  Peace. 


Let The Online Journey Begin! December 22, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — Climate Change Skeptic @ 1:24 AM

Well, I suppose it is appropriate to thank you for tuning in to join me on a journey of discovery. Lately, I feel that society is being lead to a state of cult panic/hysteria over global warming, and in all of this I feel like something is missing from the entire equation.  I want to basically explore the entire issue from as many angles as possible.  Many ecological experts and scientists that no longer support the theory of climate change (formerly known as “global warming” *ahem*) have been largely swept under the rug, dismissed, or have voluntarily left their positions in organizations of power.  I hope to address some of them sometime during this journey.  I mean, we’re all used to the Michael Moore and Al Gore perspectives on all of this, right?  I will quickly remind you, dear Reader, before I continue, that both of these men have many homes and vehicles and they also fly their asses all over the countryside for press junkets, etc.         


One interesting thing I think I need to point out right away emphasizes the prevalence of “pro” vs. “anti” that surrounds us right now with climate change. While I was looking to get an e-mail address for this blog, I typed in “climatechangeskeptic”, and the pre-fix was available. For some reason this both surprised me and frightened me. It made me wonder if I was the only one out there with the intention of exploring this from what, at this point, would be considered a radical perspective?  Here I am, in a sea of billions of people who could have taken this hotmail account if they wanted it, and I somehow snagged it. I suspect that I am not the only one in the world who wants a different perspective, prefix availability or otherwise. Like most people passionate about a cause (especially this one), I too am passionate about my willingness to challenge the sources that tell the facts, and to scrutinize the hidden agendas and economic trade-offs (and sometimes “rip-offs”) that are beginning to emerge on a global scale because of our newfound fanaticism, rife with hypocrisy and disillusionment, regarding climate change and CO2 emissions.            

I do not profess to be a scientist, nor am I an economist. Yes, I have gone to school and I am almost at the point where I could obtain my economics degree, but I approach this more as a curious citizen . I’ve done a large body of work in the public sector, as well as worked for non-profit credit agencies as well.  The government, I’m afraid to say, breeds inefficiency, for the most part.  But with the credit agencies, I was able to witness the positive power and influence that the world of finance can have on a community, know dear Reader, that these are both heavily influencing my thirst for another take on the situation. As a byproduct of the climate change debate, capitalism is being scrutinized in a huge wave by many groups, some rife with envy for whatever reason.  Within this scrutiny lies the intent of destruction, fed by the greed of the pack mentality.  It is no longer about an examination of the system itself and how we can improve it.  It has instead has become a herd mentality-type movement, fueled by envy and fear, that is intent on completely destroying the very systems that keep us in our lifestyles.   The fear I have is that, in destroying capitalism with fantasies and fairytale illusions, we run the risk of destroying the progressive aspects of our lifestyles. Ironically, I am concerned about our collective sanity and health. I am afraid that we will all make major sacrifices for all of the wrong reasons and to the harsh detriment of our own progress as a civilization. Trees create jobs. Oil creates jobs. Jobs feed families. Families need education. Jobs fund education. Education brings new technologies.  Technologies create efficiencies.  Transportation creates efficiencies.  Jobs and oil create roads.  And so on. When did we lose sight of this entire equation? When did we stray from “responsible use and management” and weave right into fanaticism?  (And why wasn’t this e-mail prefix taken yet?).  I guarantee we’re effing up our planet, yes.  But we’re doing it by taxing its resources.  It would be naive and anthrocentric (?!) to a certain degree to believe that human have more effect than the sun, the moon, and the planets around us.             

Albert Einstein, The Coolest Scientist Ever. Although I am definitely NOT a scientist, I do often make that face.


I mean, to me capitalism is a robust tool that sometimes ends up being misused and is especially ineffective when bad leadership combines with structurally unintended consequences. George Bush had veto power, for example, and in my opinion (and I don’t think I am alone here), he shouldn’t have. This concept can easily be applied to many styles of market or governance when you really think about it. It could actually be argued that most other forms of governance, by design, require more of a centralized stronghold on law and governance, compared to a capitalist, free-market, democratic system. Iran’s current political and economic situation, to me, is proof to a certain extent of what I am talking about. I will admit, capitalism in the western world was on a path that would eventually require more checks and balances, but I do feel that climate change and the ensuing hysteria, is turning governments into centralized regimes – not because of their leaders, but because of a select few who are now influencing the financial and environmental agendas of their leaders (i.e. pulling the marionnette strings).  As a result of this, I am concerned that the power of capitalism is being underestimated, undervalued, and trashed right now.  When you think about it, Barack Obama is a glorified social worker (Re:ACORN) with no environmental, financial, or business experience, and he’s now the leader of the most powerful economy in the world.  I’m not begrudging his talents (America did need more diplomacy and a “friendlier face” on the international platform, most definitely), but the man has a card carrying socialist as part of his personal team (she quickly revoked her membership once appointed, so I now correct my “has” to a “had”).  I’m sure I will get into this later on as well.  I also think many of the reasons for capitalism’s scrutiny are clear and make sense.  I mean, we had the financial crisis, right?  Who wasn’t rocked by that?  But now with the influence of the climate change movement, society has now come to a place where all we’re being taught to know is how to envy and revile capitalism….even though the system provides us with all of the necessities and luxuries of life.  This financial collapse was awesome in the sense that it set the stage for a validation of many “wealth redistribution” mechanisms very quickly, which by proxy encourages socialism (I like to call it “theft”), and fits nicely across the global cattle crossing towards the pastures of “climate change”, with all of its wealth transfering mechanisms.  Let’s face it.  Capitalism gives us jobs. It provides us with food, Nike shoes, ugly SUVs, and your environmentally deplorable vinyl sided home. It provides money to teach our kids. It provides an environment for technologies to flourish based on the demands of every single person, as opposed to a centrally focused think tank that is mostly disconnected from the individual and run by minority group economic agendas.  The ability to have these choices manifest as a consequence of the system itself is part of the freedom equation that makes North America so awesome. And sometime after the cold war, we forgot about all of this.  Hell, I wasn’t even alive yet.  Neither was my mother.  You have to see the irony here, right? Oh how short our collective memory truly is!          

Capitalism is under attack. Therefore, by proxy, our way of life is under attack. Developing nations would love nothing more than a handout.  I mean, as the poor person in my family, I’m never going to turn down a handout, right?  Academia also has an envy/greed stake in this as well – the 60’s were great, but the unintended consequence of this was the formation of a bunch of academic “leaders” that have now successfully indoctrinated the children of capitalists and entrepreneurs towards an ideology of hate and envy towards the very hands and systems that feed them – the same system that paid for their tuition, bought them weed, and made sure they had all of the latest Nike and Lululemon crap on their backs.  Need I remind you, dear Reader, that this system also pays the taxes to the university where this test tube environment exists?  Sadly, I’m afraid the next generation will not fully know what we are doing until they realize what is really going on and that they are paying for it!  I mean, North Koreans love their way of life. Their ignorance guarantees this. And, for some reason, I feel a socialist wealth transfer is underway on a global scale, and we are actually now all defending the very thing we used to fight. Our ignorance via our indoctrinations, to some extent, guarantees this.  I mean, we live in a world where we are taught to agree and reiterate all of the time (have you ever written a test in university where your answer was allowed to be “objective”, perhaps a squiggle or a happy face, and you’d still get full points?).  I mean, why would we even be motivated to challenge the pre-prescribed answer in the first place?             

For some reason, I am one of those unlucky people who questions everything, including authority.  I may not be a genius, but I am emotionally intelligent and have been provided, by fate, many opportunities during my lifetime to validly and justly question authority.  I think being a genius would be less complicated, to be honest with you.            

This blog, in effect, is a journey for more knowledge on t.he movement and the political agendas behind “climate change”.  I expect opposition and full rejection on some of my statements and opinions, and I will praise my first piece of hate mail because it means I’m one step closer to being able to freely question “climate change” with another human being without being labelled as a total freak – my upstream battle, bashing into others, means we are all still swimming in the same river.  There’s comfort in that!  Think of it this way – had science not been allowed to progress freely without agendas or undue influence many, many years ago, we’d still be living on an earth that was believed to be completely flat. Food for thought.           

- back when the earth was flat and prior to some 'crazy person' going against the grain with claims of its roundness.


To begin this journey, I will leave you with a few links that I have found today. Sources and agendas are important factors when analyzing information. If we all bypassed this mechanism in perpetuity, we’d all still believe that Santa was real and that the tooth fairy exists and that both fly in from the right hand corner of the earth, over its flatness, and into our bedrooms. Imagine how disappointed and lost we’d feel if we weren’t given the opportunity to learn the difference between reality and illusion. Imagine all of the teeth that you would collect under your pillow once your parents were out of the picture. Anyway, my point is this: If you are being led to believe something, you should really check out your sources so that you can more clearly decipher the truth, the intention, and the directions from which the facts you’re being told are coming from.  My banter is mostly just my own opinion; my sources will accumulate as we progress through this blog.   I thank you, dear Reader, for tuning in, regardless of your stance on all of this.             

 As inflammatory as I may be at times, it is due in part to my frustration – know that I encourage the truth, before anything else.  Communication breeds knowledge.  Knowledge breeds truth.  Truth breeds reality.  : )  Peace.        

Links of Interest for the Day:                                             

Oh, and if you’re really eager, go sign this petition to force Al Gore to debate himself over is lies (not that many people have, but then again, my e-mail prefix was also available, right?) :