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!).    

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/behind-the-science/5930-study-shows-cfcs-cosmic-rays-major-culprits-for-global-warming   

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 teachers4schools.com. 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!

Advertisements
 

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: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_plimer – 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: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDDNgl-UPk – Part 1 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRwTbMj6Hx8 – Part 2 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1lkdNOPVA – Part 3 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWiv5QAZAJM – Part 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpo2Jhi3I0 – 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.