Imate li manje od 33 godine nikada niste doživjeli

Da bi se moglo razumjeti "kognitivnu disonancu" klimatskih skeptika, prvo valja pročitati ono što oni kažu. Ima ih prilično, lako ih je naći, a možda nije loše započeti ovdje:

NIPCC

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Evo i dva konkretna dokumenta:

A Critique of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/06818_Revised_v.2_Critique_of_Climate_Science_Special_Report_2.pdf

Testimony of John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville, U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 2 Feb 2016

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf

Komentar nepotreban, sve piše.

Only Anti-Science Suckers Believe Climate Change Hysteria

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/27/nolte-only-anti-science-suckers-believe-climate-change-hysteria/

"How many scientific doomsday prophecies do I have to see debunked before I am allowed to be skeptical of the next one? How many? Give me a number. How about if I give you a number: Thirteen... This is how old I am. …Old enough to remember being told that by now…

1. We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
2. We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
3. The oceans would be dead.
4. Global Cooling would destroy the world.
5. Acid rain would destroy our forests.
6. Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.
7. We would deplete our natural resources.
8. We would run out of oil.
9. The polar ice caps would melt.
10. Manhattan would be underwater.
11. People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.
12. Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.
13. “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

And that is just the Big Stuff, the world-shaking predictions the oh-so holy scientific consensus got horribly wrong during my lifetime. Yes, that science was also declared settled. Unfortunately, though, science gets a lot wrong... But that’s okay. It’s okay to get things wrong. Because science is a process, and as long as it remains a good faith process where things are tested and re-tested and a healthy skepticism runs free, only good things will happen. It is when the science is settled that things go horribly wrong. Because Settled Science is not science, it’s politics..."

Edit: kopiranje, numeriranje. WYSIWYG ne radi kako treba.

Ah. Pred ovako snažnom, opsežnom i uvjerljivom argumentacijom nema druge, nego zaključiti da sarkastični i zločesti Breitbart niš' ne valja. Doduše, nije jasno zašto ne valja i što je to netočno u gore napisanom, ali hej, kad Visak kaže, sigurno je tako. Dobro, pošto ne valja Breitbart, možda će bolja biti izjava Christiane Figueres, izvršne tajnice UNFCCC, glavne dužnosnice Ujedinjenih naroda za "klimatska promjene", koju je dala 2015. najavljujući usvajanje famoznog Pariškog sporazuma o klimi:

Figueres: First time the world economy is transformed intentionally
https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution."

Oho, vidi-vidi. Stvarno?! A ja, naivac, mislio da mi tu govorimo o klimi

Evo malo nedavnih znanstvenih radova o europskim šumama&temperaturama u prošlosti:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324991910_Further_Details_on_Holocene_Treeline_GlacierIce_Patch_and_Climate_History_in_Swedish_Lapland

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2745.13077

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bor.12276

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379117310430

Ukratko šume su nesmetano rasle iznad današnje visinske/temperaturne granice, a temperature su bile 3-4 stupnja više od današnjih uz niže razine CO².

Prvo, ne vrijedi se praviti blesav. Maske su davno pale i danas svi koji žele vidjeti vide i razumiju da se tu ne radi o svjetskoj klimi ni o zaštiti okoliša, nego o prljavoj političkoj ideološkoj borbi protiv "ekonomskog modela koji vlada 150 godina" - kapitalizma. Drugo, najveći svjetski zagađivač je lopovska socijalistička diktatura Kina, inače najveća i po broju stanovnika. Koji "ekonomski model" će oni mijenjati i kako? Standardna lijeva dvoličnost nema granica.

Dakle, briga Figueres & ine licemjerne klimatske histerike za klimu i okoliš. Da su iskreni, ne bi uporno beskrajno lagali, ne bi "dotjerivali" svoja biserna izviješća niti bi se toliko oslanjali na dokazano promašena računalna predviđanja, nasuprot stvarnim izmjerenim vrijednostima. Ne, drugovi i drugarice bi "na mala vrata" uvodili socijalizam, a halabuka o klimi im je samo novo sredstvo, oružje u svjetonazorskom ratu. Zato im više smeta Trump, čije su USA danas vodeća zemlja po zaštiti okoliša, nego Kina, koja čak ni po Pariškom sporazumu ne mora ništa, ne plaća ništa i prepušteno joj je na volju, hoće li ili neće. Za Figueres & co. to je u sasvim redu, jer kapitalističke slobodarske USA su im ideološki neprijatelj, a socijalistička tiranija Kina im je uzor - gospodarski i politički "model" kakav žele nametnuti cijelome svijetu.

E žalim, drugovi. Ne bu išlo

Kao, sudjeluješ u raspravi, a o onom o čemu se govori ne znaš ništa.