Gay Patriot Header Image

Stefan Molyneux on “Climate Change”

I find Molyneux’s video-enlarged, ranting bald head a bit creepy. But his content is often brilliant. I recently listened to this one from 2015.

Molyneux proposes the following thought experiment:

  1. Suppose stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs – whomever you view as corruptible) are in charge of calculating some important measure of the world.
  2. Let’s call it the Economy Rate (ER). It could go up or down. The stockbrokers fudge and massage the ER data, as they see fit.
  3. First, the stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going DOWN! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  4. But over the years, the ER rises. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going UP! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  5. But then the ER stops going up. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it could go UP OR DOWN! With unpredictable pauses! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”

At what point do you begin to see that the stockbrokers are taking you, in a racket?

  • Point 1 is climate scientists – who are a huge, publicly-funded industry. Each scientist profits (as wage/salary payments, benefits, etc.) from the grants she receives.
  • Point 2 is the world average temperature, which climate scientists derive from data that they themselves fudge and massage.
  • Point 3 is the 1970s, when climate scientists gave alarming predictions of a New Ice Age.
  • Point 4 is the 1980s to the 2000s, when their monster was Global Warming. The famous “hockey stick” upward graph.
  • Point 5 is recent years, when the “hockey stick” graph failed and they switched it to Climate Change – in whatever direction.

Do you believe that climate scientists are less corruptible than stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs)? That they’re somehow more objective and noble?

I don’t. You who do (lefties) have a RELIGIOUS FAITH in climate scientists, that you’re not admitting. And it’s exactly what climate scientists want you to have.

Your delusional, gullible faith is how they keep their tens of billions of taxpayer dollars coming. And of course they would have a “consensus” that they are objective and noble and deserve it and should be listened to and those dollars should keep coming. Of course they would.

Happy Earth Day!

Share

22 Comments

  1. One of the biggest issues I have is that many of these scientists, who are considered part of the global consensus, are not even true scientists, and/or do not specialize in a field related to the study of climate. Many of them are engineers and statisticians who are basing their information on data that has been collected for approximately 200 years. They are people like Bill Nye, who does not have a degree in an observational scientific field, but a BA in mechanical engineering. And really, calling it all “climate change” is silly, since climate changes daily, if you want to get technical about temperatures going up or down, wind blowing or not blowing, storms or a lack of storms…

    Comment by TAD — April 22, 2017 @ 3:03 am - April 22, 2017

  2. gonna pick a similar simile

    Lets say you decide to prove Fracking is totally benign and safer than safe.

    So, you send out 12,000 to 13,000 surveys to environmental scientists asking them if they believe Fracking is “safe”.

    10,200 or so filled out surveys return.

    You discard all but 77 of those surveys.

    75 of those surveys say “Yes. Fracking is “safe”. (Note, not benign, because you asked if it was “safe”)

    How do you defend saying “97% of environmental scientists say Fracking is totally benign” when you tossed out 99.25% of the data?

    Yes, that is exactly how accurate the “97% of climate scientists” claim is.
    75 out of 77 . . . out of 10,200+ replies to a survey, sent to 12-13,000 or so.

    Burt Rutan said that if he used their modeling methods, none of his planes would fly. The solar physicist I know says she doesn’t care what we do, the big orange ball in the sky can heat of freeze us at will, and don’t get her started on mass ejections or magnetic storms from the thing. Temps could be our least worries.

    Comment by JPKalishek — April 22, 2017 @ 7:40 am - April 22, 2017

  3. There is way too much anecdotal evidence backing what Molyneux posits to scoff it away.

    The hysteria began with “man caused” global warming, the Kyoto Protocols and the hole in the ozone.

    Then glaciers started melting at alarming rates.

    The seas began to rise and New York City was within a few decades of peril.

    Then some stuff happened with Micheal Mann and fudged data and …..

    They began to forget the hole in the ozone and the man caused climate change and just concentrate on climate change in general.

    Most of us said: Well, yes, climate has a geologic record of changing over the millennia, so what else is new.

    And then, the whole climate change industry began shouting that if you were not aggressively with them that made you a “climate denier.”

    How can any sentient person be a “climate denier.”

    So now, when I see Bill Nye and his ilk I feel like Gary Coleman saying “Whatchu’ talking about, Willis?”

    Bill Nye and the Climate Guys are clearly feasting off a carcass of their own making.

    Al Gore was deep in the Chicago futures market selling “carbon credits” in a scheme that would make Enron weep with envy. He went from being a wealthy ex-politician to being filthy rich. He went into selling climate change snake oil while the Clintoons became filthy rich selling shares of “global initiatives.” Both Gore and the Clintoons were just another version of the “Justice Brothers” (Sharpton and Jackson) shaking down liberals who will fund anything which runs on unicorn farts.

    Tom Steyer is a billionaire environmentalist who got his moola as a hedge fund manager. The whole hedge fund concept is fairly free of SEC regulation and involves short selling, the use of leverage, shared risk through a partnership with other investors and a compensation system based on investment performance which is usually in the 20% (or higher) range of management fee.

    So, if you take the hedge fund techniques and apply them things which involve vast sums of government financing, you can manipulate the scheme in ways to siphon off a lot of money flowing through the pipeline. For me, in its simplest of terms, “successful” hedge fund managers and Mafia dons and drug cartel kingpins are all in the same game.

    The point is, a certain type of mind thinks like Willie Sutton, the serial bank robber. The story goes that when asked why he robs banks, Sutton replied: “Because that is where the money is.”

    Maybe some of these climate hoaxers went into the game with their hearts pure and their eyes wide open, but then they became addicted to the theory and the funding and the scientific method became an obstacle, they turned more and more to politics, propaganda and manipulation. Here is how Edward Bernays wrote it down:

    In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.

    Notice that Bernays spoke only of the ethical opinion conduit!!!

    And now there is the great divide between the noble good guys and the “climate deniers.” Typical DemonizingRat Alinsky rabble rousing.

    Comment by Heliotrope — April 22, 2017 @ 8:52 am - April 22, 2017

  4. Two things. First off, isn’t it peculiar the way they insist on calling it “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming.” But if you pin them down as to what they mean by “Climate Change,” it all comes back to “Temperatures are increasing worldwide due to human emissions of CO2…. but don’t call it Global Warming.”

    That, in and of itself, tells me that “Climate Change” is a load of shyster-talk. If you cannot even be honest at the basic level of your cause, why should I trust you about anything else?

    Comment by V the K — April 22, 2017 @ 9:13 am - April 22, 2017

  5. And the second thing, ManBearPig Cultists sometimes ask, “What would it take to convince you that Climate Change (Global Warming) is real?”

    Well, for starters, when “Climate Change” is no longer being used as a vehicle for a left-wing political agenda, that might assuage my skepticism. I mean, ain’t it an odd coincidence that all the “solutions” to Climate Change involve doing things the left has wanted to so since the time of Lenin? Massive expansion of Government power, dismantling free enterprise in favor of a planned political economy, massive redistribution of wealth from private to Government control, trans-national political authority?

    Comment by V the K — April 22, 2017 @ 9:17 am - April 22, 2017

  6. Also, VtheK, where are the biggest ecological tragedies of a massive scale most prone to happening? The Soviet Union, China, and other marxist/socialist heavens.

    Comment by JPKalishek — April 22, 2017 @ 10:30 am - April 22, 2017

  7. I have been following this topic for years. The study referred to in #2 (Doran and Zimmerman I believe) was just about as bogus as it gets. The subsequent studies that have been done all seem to come up with the 97 percent consensus (amazing isn’t it). Everything the alarmists put out–that CO2 is a toxin and will cause the earth to become parched instead of greening up is ridiculous. Large areas of the planet are getting greener and as greenhouse growers know CO2 helps plant life grow and thrive. It would be much better to have this happening as far as our food supply goes. The climate models used have been faulty, the temperature gauges used have been placed in alleys on concrete in between tall buildings instead of out in the open where they would get a more accurate reading. But, the most telling fact about the alarmists is that like the colleges now trying to shut down conservative opinions, the alarmists try to shut down any other studies and opinions on the climate that disagree with them.

    Comment by Not A Liberal Mom — April 22, 2017 @ 10:43 am - April 22, 2017

  8. @ NALM: Yes, carbon dioxide can help plants grow, but only up to a certain extent. The study that often gets sited for the “carbon dioxide is fine” did a follow-up several years later, and found that there had been a plateau affect. It turns out that past a certain point, carbon dioxide stops being effective because the limiting resource for the plants becomes nitrates and other compounds in the soil. Ecology is all a matter of resources- if you have unlimited food, you’re limited by water; if you have unlimited by water, you’re limited by space; it goes on and on.

    The data that is far more convincing to me that something is going on is the ecological data. Instruments can be miscalibrated, data points fudged; the behavior and distribution of animals and plants don’t lie: populations are disappearing from environments closer to the equator and are being formed closer to the poles. Species that were originally in the lowlands are starting to move into the highlands. The ranges of species that can only survive above a certain temperature are increasing, while those of species that can only survive below a certain temperature are decreasing. These are trends consistent with fossil assemblages from times of confirmed warming. So if things aren’t getting warmer, why are species acting like it is?

    The environmentalists are doing to environmental science and ecology what the eugenicists did to genetics and anthropology: taking scientific laws and twisting them to fit their own political objectives, and setting up any and all genuine findings to be dismissed as pseudoscience.

    Comment by Sean L — April 22, 2017 @ 1:11 pm - April 22, 2017

  9. I think it’s telling that the ‘March for Science’ is being led by Bill Nye; not a real scientist, but an actor who plays a scientist on TV. You couldn’t get more metaphorical than that.

    Comment by V the K — April 22, 2017 @ 1:14 pm - April 22, 2017

  10. the big orange ball in the sky can heat of freeze us at will, and [never mind] mass ejections or magnetic storms from the thing.

    LOL. so the Sun is God, after all 🙂

    How can any sentient person be a “climate denier.”

    Exactly. I don’t deny climate change. Heck, I don’t even deny Global Warming.

    What I deny is: Big Government. I deny that it’s needed or effective; and I deny that it’s moral.

    Denying that makes me a criminal Climate Change denier??! It would follow that the true agenda/meaning of the phrase “climate change” is simply: Big Government.

    ain’t it an odd coincidence that all the “solutions” to Climate Change involve doing things the left has wanted to so since the time of Lenin? Massive expansion of Government power, dismantling free enterprise in favor of a planned political economy, massive redistribution of wealth from private to Government control, trans-national political authority?

    Yes, an incredible coincidence.

    If we wanted to constructively reduce the world’s average temperature a half degree or two, all we would need to do is construct an orbiting aluminum sheet of several square miles. (Like a small, permanent extra cloud.)

    Well, it would be quite an achievement, I don’t want to make it sound too easy. But the point is: If global warming (I believe its major causes are natural; greenhouse gases would be a lesser cause) is a problem, we could reverse it within a decade.

    Are the Climate Changists interested in the solution? No! For them, global warming is a problem that *must never be solved*. Because solving it would, you know, end the racket.

    Large areas of the planet are getting greener and as greenhouse growers know CO2 helps plant life grow and thrive.

    That reminds me: as the Earth is allowed to get warmer (remember – per comments above, we could stop it), large areas of Canada and Siberia will become farmable. That’s not a bad thing.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 22, 2017 @ 7:28 pm - April 22, 2017

  11. @ ILC: Siberia’s problem is that a lot of the biomass is just allowed to rot away because there aren’t enough herbivores around to eat it, so even if things get warmer up there, things might not necessarily get better. The dilemma has actually been used by some scientists as an argument for cloning of mammoths, since they were a major herbivore in Siberia and could help to rebalance the ecosystem up there.

    Comment by Sean L — April 23, 2017 @ 1:17 am - April 23, 2017

  12. In 2015, at a news conference in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    Cited here: Because it’s religion for the Left and mere science for the Right

    Comment by Donald Sensing — April 25, 2017 @ 6:31 am - April 25, 2017

  13. I have a Master of Divinity degree from Vanderbilt (very liberal school, I am not though) and it was plain to me many years ago that environmentalism is a religion more than anything else. I am far from the first to say this. But I explained in 2008 how Greenism remaps Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. In fact, Greenism is an apocalyptic religion. Please see here.

    Comment by Donald Sensing — April 25, 2017 @ 6:35 am - April 25, 2017

  14. The climate is changing and always has. The only question is how much influence has humanity had on the current temperature. Since the beginning of the current uptick in average temperature, we’ve gained one or two degrees. If such a change were truly dangerous, I’d be dead as my wife often adjusts our thermostats by several times that amount. If the climate scientists and the press were objective, we would see stories about the benefits of slight warming or a minuscule rise of a certain essential trace gas. But no, scientists tend to discard data that doesn’t fit their pet theory and begin a different experiment. Journalists tend to bury stories that don’t agree with their political views.

    Comment by Ironwood — April 25, 2017 @ 6:40 am - April 25, 2017

  15. I find Molyneux creepy and I am turned off by his descent into race realism, so I tend to discount anything he says these days.

    Comment by Tom — April 25, 2017 @ 9:25 am - April 25, 2017

  16. The following posits that what we are being told about climate change is real.
    When asked, most climate scientists will tell you they believe that about half of the temperature rise is caused by human activity. That means the other half is caused by something else. What? Even if there were no human influences on climate we would still be warming but at half the current rate. We would still have a problem but maybe a couple of hundred years from now. So even if we manage to reverse mankind’s contribution to climate change we would theoretically still be in trouble. I haven’t heard too much about this from any of the usual activists.

    Comment by Johnny Lumber — April 25, 2017 @ 9:28 am - April 25, 2017

  17. My problem with this is NOT passing laws designed to protect the environment. Nobody likes swimming in a polluted ocean.

    My problem is NOT that scientists agree or disagree about the cause of pollution (whether or not it leads to warming/cooling/ozone depletion, etc.)

    My problem is that this ENTIRE “climate change’ edifice is nothing more than a gigantic wealth transfer from lower and middle class residents of western countries with democratically elected leadership and better-than-average human rights records and relatively good records of environmental stewardship to a select group of hyper-wealthy authoritarian dictators in third and second world hellholes. All designed to do nothing more than make Algore and his fellow travelers feel better about themselves while making them even more obscenely rich.

    No amount of wealth transfers from middle class Americans to hyper-wealthy Chinese tyrants or Russian oligarchs will improve the environment in China, or the living standards of Russian people one iota. Same goes for Africa.

    When Algore gives up his mega-mansion to fund this insanity and starts living like Teddy Koczinski in a ramshackle self-built hut in rural Wyoming, THEN I’ll start paying attention.

    Comment by rightofgenghis — April 25, 2017 @ 9:32 am - April 25, 2017

  18. Tom – Funny, I was just wondering “what about that?” Molyneux does many talks and comments where, thankfully, any of his racial considerations do not enter. So, he may have it compartmentalized? I found his Climate Change thought-experiment brilliant, and felt that it’s only right to credit where I got it. I’ve commented at length (and may turn it into a post) why having a racial focus is a really stupid/bad idea, *even if* your statistics are scientific: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2017/04/23/hes-baaa-aaaaaack/#comment-1215835

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 25, 2017 @ 9:33 am - April 25, 2017

  19. Sean L : You think temperature measures can be fudged, but not counts of plant and animal life? None of us know how many elk, &c are out there unless someone measures them, and fudging *that* data is as easy as misdirecting your herd counters.

    And yes, the Sun is the big unknown, and needs more study.

    Comment by somercet — April 25, 2017 @ 9:33 am - April 25, 2017

  20. [I]You think temperature measures can be fudged, but not counts of plant and animal life? None of us know how many elk, &c are out there unless someone measures them, and fudging *that* data is as easy as misdirecting your herd counters.[/I]

    Also, extinction is part of the Earth’s natural processes. Species come and go all the time. Thinking that it’s our job to prevent species from going extinct is more than a little arrogant.

    That said, we should take care not to usher species into extinction whenever practical or desirable. Giant pandas would go extinct if not for humans because they are a ridiculous niche species. Fortunately, humans think they’re cute. I also like a world where there are Siberian Tigers and Blue Whales. But Delta smelt? Screw ’em if they can’t adapt.

    Comment by V the K — April 25, 2017 @ 10:12 am - April 25, 2017

  21. Sean L seems to e confusing Global Warming, which over the past 200 years is well-documented, with OMG! People Are Causing Massive Warming That Will Kill Us All!!
    I would expect, pace Darwin, that species would change or adapt a lot as their environment gradually [what, 0.1 degree per decade?] warms. Unfortunately for Algore and his Merry Band of Climate Scam Artists that doesn’t even come close to “proving” that human-caused global warming is a threat big enough to spend trillions [yes, I got it right, over several decades] to somehow”prevent” it by lining the pockets of the select.

    Comment by Jorge X Mckie — April 25, 2017 @ 11:19 am - April 25, 2017

  22. […] consensus” Establishment of their day. In our day, the Climate Changists ARE that religious, well-funded “scientific consensus”; not the […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Snowflakes Prove Again That Truth Melts Them — May 1, 2017 @ 8:08 pm - May 1, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.