The Climate Agenda is all BS

I guess from the title of the post and some earlier comments elsewhere, you can tell that I’m a sceptic. I define a sceptic as someone with an enquiring mind as opposed to a denier, a useful term in the ideological space of which I don’t seek membership (as those of you may have noticed from my earlier posts). I also don’t give a toss that I might be in the minority, the claim that over 95% of scientists have an opposing view to mine is of no relevance to me either. Majority opinions are useful in the political space, not the scientific one.

I like to step back from the internal bickering over the subject and try to formulate my own perspective. Let’s start with the primary contention that my greatest fear should be that if I continue to heat my home with fossil fuels, the oceans will rise up and we all will be flooded.

Is this happening, and could it continue to happen? There does seem to be ample evidence that an Ice Age existed at least some 10 000 years ago, and that New York was buried under what I believe has been called the Wisconsin Glacier. If it wasn’t a glacier that moved those rocks about, then I guess I’m left with Godzilla or King Kong. I’ve been to New York, it isn’t buried under a Glacier, so the planet has clearly warmed over the past 10 000 years.

So, is the Ocean rising? This set me off on a quest for evidence that this might be happening around New York and I came across the following image in a publication about local geology (not focused on climate change). The extension of the Hudson River now submerged under the Atlantic Ocean would appear to suggest New Jersey and Long Island were significantly larger than they are today. Check it out on Google Earth, even at low resolution, there appear to be evidence of this.


MY conclusion, Holy Crap, it does appear to be happening, I have no other explanation to offer based on this evidence. The publication goes on to explain that something like 150 million years ago this part of the world was attached to Africa, and since then ripped apart to form the Atlantic Ocean. We need a bigger Godzilla to explain that.

So now the plan is that if we can get the world to stop burning fossil fuels, we can stop or at least slow the rate at which this beach is being consumed. Really? Is that the plan? Pardon me for being a sceptic, but I think we need a better plan.

Thanks, but:

If I am to address your concerns about the science you’ll have to state what those concerns actually are. Yes we are currently in an interglacial period of the current ice age and have been for thousands of years (the Holocene), yes there are other - natural - drivers of climatic changes that ended the last glacial period, as has happened in initial 40,000 year and more recently 100,000 year cycles for the last 2.6 million years. The existence of those glacial - interglacial cycles is known to the scientists that work to build our understanding of the more recent warming that’s almost certainly due to human activity.


From my perspective, your’e diving into the details too quickly. I’m trying to formulate the problem we are trying to solve, before trying to solve it.

So the way I think we got here is something along the following lines.
We all intuitively feel that indiscriminately burning fossil fuels is probably not a good idea. I don’t know who would dispute that, but I am open to challenge.
We then need a reason that everyone can buy into why this might be a problem, intuition doesn’t cut it. The obvious one to me is that it is a finite resource which we will eventually run out of. I believe latest estimates are that within 50 years we will run out of natural gas. Pick a number, but within my grandsons lifetime (he is 2) this is likely to impact him.
Now for some reason this is not emotive enough to get folks to take action, so we look for something that might be a better call to arms. How about the potential destructive impact on the planet? How about conducting some studies that determine the presence of increasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHG’s slow the escape of energy from Earth thus causing the planet to warm? Looks good, it appears that we might have some evidence to support this. Still does not look like we are convincing everyone, and they don’t seem too fired up about it. How about we blame those nasty
oil companies that get rich at our expense and support the Republican Party? That got the ball rolling, but we still have some skeptics. I know, let’s cancel them and call them deniers. Who knows we might be able to use this approach to deal with other issues of resistance later.

Now here’s the problem and the point that I tried to make in initiating this topic. Are we that convinced that if we alienated the companies best placed to solve the problem for us, and force the world to endure energy cost at least 4 times what they currently are (potential for another post), we will stop or slow the rate at which the Atlantic Ocean is consuming New Jersey and Rhode Island, or anywhere else in the world for that matter? Even worse, are we comfortable that if we indiscriminately continue to consume fossils fuels as long as we liquify the CO2 and pump it back onto the ground, we have solved the problem? My grandson is still going to need that bicycle.
Perhaps we need a better definition of the problem and a less emotive approach to the solution.
Oh, and pissing off the oil companies in the interim is not going to help us during this transition.


Political action should be based on the science, the science should not be created from the politics, so no, we start with the science then look to formulate political solutions.

Sorry, but your approach appears to me to be ideologically motivated.


What is the basis of this ideology exactly? It challenges yours?

1 Like

What do you imagine my ideology is on this issue?

I asked first. Let me clarify my second point. Are you saying that the act of challenging an ideology in itself makes it an ideology? Is that the justification for calling my approach ideological? If not and if you claim not to have an ideological position that you are defending, what is your basis for claiming that this is my motivation and not purely based on scientific evidence?

1 Like

Your failure to offer or address the scientific evidence.

1 Like

But my contention is that the scientific evidence that you elude to is irrelevant to the argument? Should we get into a discussion around the relative importance of CO2 in the life cycle of carbon based life forms verses its thermal properties. Interesting scientific discussion, but relevance?

The question I’m proposing is are you confident that if we reduce our carbon emissions through the combustion of fossil fuels, we will significantly impact the rate at which land is being consumed by the oceans. If you are emphatic about this claim, then I contest that your position is ideological as there are a multitude of other highly impactful factors. My position is skepticism, which is the basis of the scientific method based on the evidence I presented. I’m not claiming that it won’t impact the outcome, which would be an ideological position. I’m just not prepared to bet the farm on the position you appear to support.


I believe the IPCC projects SLR to be around a metre by 2100 with the expected continued rate of increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations.

Are you of the opinion they’re incorrect? If so on what evidence do you base that opinion?

1 Like

There is also significant evidence that increased carbon levels will increase food production and on balance humanity will benefit more from the increased levels than will be lost. So what? That’s not the problem that I initially proposed. What’s the point of repositioning the proposition just to conform to a prescribed narrative?

The question is the inverse. Do you believe that it is possible to prevent the ocean from rising by about a meter by 2100 through the current global climate initiative? I venture a no.

  1. Because it’s farting against thunder, and
  2. The cost to the world economy does not justify it.

We need a better plan.


Your claim was “I’m a sceptic as it pertains to a scientific hypothesis”

I’ve seen no evidence from you of any basis for scepticism of the science.
You’ve also said that ideologs are boring, on that we are agreed.

1 Like

The Climate Agenda is BS, I’m skeptical that it will work in just about every dimension you can think of.
We need a better plan. In the interim I’m buying my grandson a bicycle, and not purchasing a property along the coast. Sounds like a better plan.

As for a broader assessment that I’m a sceptic. Guilty as charged. I trained as a scientist, I’m skeptical about everything. Anyone that claims they are 100% certain about anything isn’t a sceptic or a scientist in my book.

Am I skeptical that the IPCC projection that Sea Levels will rise by about 1m by 2100? You bet I am. What’s my basis for this skepticism? It’s a projection, no more justification required.

Skepticism in my mind means I have my doubts that the projections and the actions proposed are correct. It does not mean that I refute them as you seem to imply. I therefore don’t see why I need to refute the statement you highlighted? I would think that the picture I posted would be sufficient cause to suggest that the IPCC may not be on top of this with 100% confidence?

1 Like

Scientific skepticism is skepticism based on science, ideological skepticism is skepticism based on ideology.
We can all claim to be uncertain of all science that is based on theory rather than natural laws because science outside of such laws is uncertain. But “scientific skepticism”, as most scientists mean it, is a belief that the science as offered is likely wrong, not that it just might possibly be wrong. A scientific skeptic should be prepared to offer contrary evidence on which that skepticism is based. As I see it the way you’re trying to use the term “scientific skepticism” is tautological.

If mere uncertain is skepticism what do you call a scientist who disagrees with the consensus? A super duper skeptic?

The tragic thing about this discussion is that in terms of dealing with the effects of AGW/ACC you and I probably aren’t far apart, though fast by geological standards it’s a slow process compared to the rate that human society changes, adaptation is likely (within reason) a better strategy to mitigation in the short to medium term.
I think you’ve just been trying to bait me into revealing I’m some terrible ideologist while I’ve been trying to get you to put your money where your mouth is with regard to your claimed “scepticism”.


What? Skepticism - definition - doubt about the truth of something. I did not realize that it was contextual. Where did you find this distinction?
Doubt - definition - uncertain about something. “it just might possibly be wrong”. Where do you find this to mean “highly likely that it is wrong”?

Now consensus - political and social context - alignment.
Consensus - scientific context - BS.

1 Like
1 Like

This is turning into a pointless discussion, I thought you were going to front with a basis for your “scepticism”, you I think were expecting alarmism from me, evidently neither is going to happen.


No, my intent is not to vilify you as some dreaded ideologist. My contention is that there are natural forces that overwhelm our puny little efforts as humans. I offer the image posted as scientific evidence that there are massive natural forces at play here that might overwhelm our projections and assumptions. Hence I’m skeptical of the projections based on this evidence, not some ideological feeling on my part.
You on the other hand are trying to force me into a position in which I refute the claim that humans are impacting the warming of the oceans. I cannot see the relevance. Now I have skepticism in this regard also, but that is outside the scope of what I thought we were discussing here.

1 Like

Do you imagine the natural forces you place emphasis on are unknown to the scientists whose work the IPCC reports are based?

1 Like
1 Like