Years of Living Dangerously Series Debunked
Part 9 of 9:
Season 1, Part 9 - Moving a Mountain
Part 1 of 9: Season 1, Part 1 – Dry Season
Part 2 of 9: Season 1, Part 2 – End of the Woods
Part 3 of 9: Season 1, Part 3 – The Surge
Part 4 of 9: Season 1, Part 4 – Ice & Brimstone
Part 5 of 9: Season 1, Part 5 – True Colors
Part 6 of 9: Season 1, Part 6 – Winds of Change
Part 7 of 9: Season 1, Part 7 – Revolt, Rebuild, Renew
Part 8 of 9: Season 1, Part 8 – A Dangerous Future
Part 9 of 9: Season 1, Part 9 – Moving a Mountain
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: April 18, 2017
*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one.
*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).
Part 9 is a continuation of Part 8. Michael C. Hall starts off with the migration of people to Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. He believes that man-made climate change is causing most of the migration. In reality, the real reasons are due to the natural inhospitable land conditions and the lack of jobs, education, and law.
While man-made climate change can influence such things, it has no power to cause it. Aside from the inhospitable land, it's the same all over the world. People leave rural areas to live in the city. It's not rocket science.
NYT journalist Thomas Friedman talks about Obama's response to climate change and laments the fact that Republicans in the House keep blocking his polices. That's not an environmental issue. That's a political issue.
Voters vote Republicans into the House. Why? Because the economy is a higher priority than the scourge of carbon dioxide and methane. A good deal of the American public is resisting the ideology of carbon dioxide and methane as the harbinger of death.
This is why Hollywood is moving into high gear in creating this documentary. Hence, climate change believers are using social conditioning via Hollywood to manipulate the minds of the American and global public. Well done climate change believers.
And while many climate change believers claim that the science is factual, they don't act like it. Many climate change believers eat meat, live in large detached houses, and continue to use gas cars, boats, and planes.
I don't see a large climate change boycott of meat or chicken. Nor do I see a large boycott of gas cars, boats, and planes. And I definitely don't see most climate change believers living in condos and apartments through an ideology of minimalism. Why not? Because they don't really believe in climate change either.
Most of these people want to be part of the movement because it gives them meaning in their atheist lives. It gives them purpose. They just want to be part of something bigger than themselves. They want what the Christian community has but without the religious ideologies. Hilarious.
Hall talks about the devastating cyclones in Bangladesh destroying the livelihood of farmers. Again, the land has always been inhospitable. This is not the best place to grow or live. You can't say that man-made climate change is causing inhospitable growing conditions/seasons.
Why not? Because there have always been inhospitable growing conditions/seasons throughout the globe for all of time. Claiming that man-made climate change causes that is not falsifiable science. It's just popular ideological junk science. Eugenics, marijuana prohibition, and women having inferior intelligence are all popular ideologies in the past based on objective science.
Friedman talks to Obama about his climate change legacy. It's interesting to note that whatever solutions that climate change believers create, no significant changes to the weather/climate are occurring.
And this is part of a bigger issue. How long will it take for the world to get back to normal if...all coal mining is banned...if everyone switches to electric cars...and if everyone becomes vegan. There are no answers. Why not? Because the theory of man-made climate change isn't falsifiable and doesn't provide any level of accurate predictability. Everyone is just guessing, speculating, and interpreting based on ideological science
Climate change believers can implement their solutions and it may take the planet 100 or 1000 years to change. It's anyone's guess. That means high taxes, high electricity rates, a higher cost of living, and a vegan diet for at least 100 or 1000 years. This should be a red flag that none of the science is falsifiable. It's just liberals living in their ideological bubbles.
And god help the climate change movement if they succeed in their goals but enable a 100 year cold snap. Instead of witch burning, people will be burning climate change scientists for warmth and food and will never listen to such people again in the future.
In Chile, Dr. M. Sanjayan talks to Dr. Paul Mayewski (a climate scientist) about the climate changing as quickly as Hollywood disaster movies depict. Umm...What? And this is supposed to be science? Yikes.
Oddly enough, Sanjayan shows an animation where the climate changes abruptly thousands of years ago. Umm...there's no industrial revolution during the rise of the Akkadian empire, but the climate changes abruptly. There's no industrial revolution in the Mayan civilization, but the climate changes abruptly. There's no industrial revolution in the Viking colonies of Greenland, but the climate changes abruptly.
Sanjayan says that these are natural changes that are pushed to a tipping point. And that man-made climate change is pushing us to a new tipping point. Is that falsifiable? No. it's just ideological science. Man-made climate change doesn't push the empires of the past into a tipping point. So why would we think that it will do so in the future?
But climate is relative in the past as well. As one area goes through a drought, another area goes through a flood and torrential rain. Creating a general global temperature is nice but doesn't really tell you any significant information about climates in particular regions.
Hall talks about the rice crops in Bangladesh. And while rice is pretty hearty, it has no significant level of nutrition due to the necessary heating of rice to be edible. The people would be better off growing karela.
And no, contrary to what Obama says, poverty, via man-made climate change is not a national security issue. Muslim extremism is a national issue. Corruption is a national security issue. Poverty, via man-made climate change is not a national security issue.
Starving poor people don't become terrorists because of man-made climate change. Starving poor people become terrorists because of prior religious and political ideologies. Climate change believers are merely reinterpreting almost all past conflicts and phenomena through the lens of man-made climate change. This isn't falsifiable science. It's just liberals refusing to step out of their ideological bubbles.
Hall then continues his personal journey with a survivor from the Bangladesh sweatshop tragedy through the lens of man-made climate change. This is the correct way to manipulate the emotions of viewers. Well done Hollywood.
Friedman and Obama talk about government cynicism in solving the problem of man-made climate change.
WE governments and scientists are adept at creating problems that don't exist. It's not that the problem is too big for the government. It's that it doesn't exist.
While Hitler claims that the problem is the Jews. In reality, the problem doesn't exist. But that doesn't stop Hitler from taking action. The fact that liberals believe in the problem of man-made climate change will enable the lack of growth and development of humanity in general.