Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

While the consensus is near universal for SR...
This is an error in Bayesian reasoning. The consensus regarding special relativity is virtually universal, hence there's nothing unusual about either Soros or Thunderbolts acceptance of it. In other words, this is not distinctive enough to prove anything about the source of Thunderbolts' errors.
...the explicit use of SR in philosophy and political-scientific agendas is done only by a significant few - and Soros is one of those.

Of course you will tell me that millions of MMGW supporters also believe SR - and that is true - but normally SR has no part in their specific scientific and political endeavors e.g. a climate scientist can demonstrate MMGW without having to use SR to back it up. Jerry supports the idea of MMGW and SR - but he does not use one to justify the other, and he does not use the Soros philosophy either.

It is different with Soros, since his explicit teaching of Fallibility is linked with his preaching of the SR agenda. Hence his apparent support for the anti-MMGW agenda is a direct result of his philosophy of Fallibility - and that one of these gigantic fallibles for him must presumably be the massive data evidence showing global warming. Hence his need to hide behind Sir Karl Popper and SR lest his Fallibility theorizing be shown to be bunk.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
It is different with Soros, since his explicit teaching of Fallibility is linked with his preaching of the SR agenda.
OK, I'm following your reasoning here.

Invoking not only Einstein but also Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Chaos theory, Soros argues that statements can fall into at least three categories: True, False or Indeterminate. He goes on to say:

I claim that statements whose truth value is indeterminate are even more significant than statements whose truth value is known. The latter constitute knowledge: They help us understand the world as it is. But the former, expressions of our inherently imperfect understanding, help to shape the world in which we live.
Viewed through this lens, perhaps Thunderbolts is making statements whose truth value is indeterminate, at least depending on how the statements are parsed. That is, if they say "the Sun's energy comes from cosmic rays, and from LENR (cold fusion) reactions on the surface and in the corona", that that can be construed as possibly true. Some part of the energy might in fact come from such sources, even if (as I maintain) most of the energy must come from hot, high pressure fusion in the Sun's core.

I denounce the Thunderbolts statement as false because I believe, at a minimum, it's clearly oversimplified and misleading. But perhaps by making the statement in a form "whose truth value is indeterminate", they are attempting to "shape the world we live in". That is, the bold statement encourages research and action, in a way that a wishy-washy, more accurate formulation would not.

If indeed Soros is funding the Thunderbolts, perhaps his intention is to indirectly encourage LENR research. Or perhaps he has some other curiosity about interplanetary or interstellar electric fields and currents. If that's the case, then by taking this approach, Thunderbolts is attracting scientific mavericks and free thinkers. Perhaps an unintentional side effect is that such mavericks are also receptive to the debate about MMGW.

Measuring Soros's intentions, we also need to look at what else he funds. Namely, $25 million since 2000 for groups with "climate-related agendas and goals spanning from reducing global carbon emissions to less than 350 parts per million and 100 percent 'clean energy, to the elimination of new fossil fuel projects and a 'green civil rights movement.'”

So, what's really going on here? Is Soros funding both sides of the MMGW debate, either to incite chaos and civil war, or perhaps in hopes that a more complete analysis of "The Truth" will emerge from the controversy?

Or, is it even possible that Soros has more money than he knows what to do with? Perhaps he or some staffer gave Thunderbolts $2.2 million on a whim, or because hoodwinked? Soros is said to have pumped some $32 Billion into his charitable foundation, so these amounts are just pocket change.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Very funny, I've triggered the IPCC globalists vs. the Soros globalists.

This thread was meant to discuss the plasma /electric basis of the cosmos. For all I, or y'all, know the Sun may operate with both internal and external modalities. Anyone who has ever worked with a cathode in a relative vacuum knows it must first be heated before it can emit electrons.

My post was thus focused on solar related plasma and its relation to the Earth, presently pinched into the polar region. I cannot help that YouTube's recommendation algorithm sent that video to me and that the graphic showed plasma interacting with the Earth. I cannot help it that you two globalist wacko-birds have not told me that I'm wrong that the globalist Earth Energy Budget does not allow for 1 pW of such energy to be accounted for, while you two applaud all the massive fraud going on to make globalism a fait accompli.

What gives you the right to say what the IPCC says "by implication" when you know full well, they never said any such thing??
"By implication" means that they did not explicitly say such a thing, but by leaving this out of the budget they may as well have.
The Thunderbolts folks might be predicting a reversal of the Earth's magnetic field, but it hasn't happened yet. So why should the IPCC address this?
I don't care whether either they do or don't. I don't know what the Thunderbolts people say about the Earth's magnetic reversal, but pretty much every modern scientist today knows that the magnetic poles are drifting and changing strength. Like the guy in the video says. Do you believe that this scientist is wrong?
The Thunderblot-brained notion of "external" solar fusion, the denial of MMGW and the probability of Soros funding are most definitely interconnected. Hence I can conclude confidently that the wackjobs here are all intimately linked to belief in special relativity (SR) and Einstein-based thinking since George Soros sure is!
Based upon the hysterical, lunatic logic presented here by you two, both of you are controlled opposition agents of George Soros and the pope, and this cannot be denied.

Of course, since the two of you have insisted upon re-opening this debate for the sake of Soros and the pope, it would likely be good to point out that such as the polar plasma flows may be of less import than all of the natural oscillatory inputs to the the Earth's climate regime. All these sans any forcing such as CO2. These oscillatory effects have relatively short periods to as long as a millennia. These cycles, like the La Nina and El Nino, have no doubt caused more than a few wildflower plants to miss a season of more. Now you're both going to tell me that these natural cycles are indeed caused by CO2.

To get this back on topic, it might have behooved me to note that the Thunderbolts folks are rather holistic in that they relate common global symbolism of yore to what can be expected to be seen in the sky from a massive plasma event. But, now you're both going to tell me that Soros is an immortal Highlander and he was creating such propaganda thousands of years ago.

How come I can't like my own posts, damnit?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You think what you want, I've spent too much time on this thread, and as Trump says: "Time will tell".
Discussion moved back to this thread, so as to preserve a record of the fact that you can't stop beating a dead horse, even when it involves calling your host a "wacko-bird".
 
What an insightful reply overall, Jerry! Where I wrote: "It is different with Soros, since his explicit teaching of Fallibility is linked with his preaching of the SR agenda".
OK, I'm following your reasoning here.

Invoking not only Einstein but also Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Chaos theory, Soros argues that statements can fall into at least three categories: True, False or Indeterminate. He goes on to say:


I claim that statements whose truth value is indeterminate are even more significant than statements whose truth value is known. The latter constitute knowledge: They help us understand the world as it is. But the former, expressions of our inherently imperfect understanding, help to shape the world in which we live.
Quite correct. Soros argues in a formal logical way, rendering all intermediate questions (non yes/no questions) to be expressions merely "of our inherently imperfect understanding" which, obviously, modify our understanding as we "help to shape the world in which we live".

Now I am misquoting him in the above paragraph, since I have inserted an interpretative piece of text (underlined). I emphasize that these indeterminate questions control our thinking essentially, since they can both impair and help our understanding. Soros however merely says that "our imperfect understanding(s)… help to shape the world in which we live." His statement means that our imperfect understanding not merely modifies how we see the world - an obvious truth - but that this imperfect understanding actually "shapes the world" itself. This latter can be true when people take physical action to alter the world, however Soros' words imply more than this, that our imperfect understanding alone modifies the world, which statement implies that the universe has NO independent reality but is controlled "automatically" by a mere human mind (or a collectivity of such minds) afflicted by "our inherently imperfect understanding".

This highlighted implication is the teaching of philosophical idealism - and is implicit BOTH in the popular misconception/interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle and in a proper understanding of the philosophical basis of Chaos Theory! (I will have to explain these in separate threads - especially as it these issues that I hope to collaborate with Joe about since his understanding here is not too great).
Viewed through this lens, perhaps Thunderbolts is making statements whose truth value is indeterminate, at least depending on how the statements are parsed [Claude: :D:D]. That is, if they say "the Sun's energy comes from cosmic rays, and from LENR (cold fusion) reactions on the surface and in the corona", that that can be construed as possibly true. Some part of the energy might in fact come from such sources, even if (as I maintain) most of the energy must come from hot, high pressure fusion in the Sun's core.

I denounce the Thunderbolts statement as false because I believe, at a minimum, it's clearly oversimplified and misleading. But perhaps by making the statement in a form "whose truth value is indeterminate", they are attempting to "shape the world we live in". That is, the bold statement encourages research and action, in a way that a wishy-washy, more accurate formulation would not.
Exactly the point - the danger of misdirected research!
If indeed Soros is funding the Thunderbolts, perhaps his intention is to indirectly encourage LENR research. Or perhaps he has some other curiosity about interplanetary or interstellar electric fields and currents. If that's the case, then by taking this approach, Thunderbolts is attracting scientific mavericks and free thinkers. Perhaps an unintentional side effect is that such mavericks are also receptive to the debate about MMGW.

Measuring Soros's intentions, we also need to look at what else he funds. Namely, $25 million since 2000 for groups with "climate-related agendas and goals spanning from reducing global carbon emissions to less than 350 parts per million and 100 percent 'clean energy, to the elimination of new fossil fuel projects and a 'green civil rights movement.'”

So, what's really going on here? Is Soros funding both sides of the MMGW debate, either to incite chaos and civil war, or perhaps in hopes that a more complete analysis of "The Truth" will emerge from the controversy?

Or, is it even possible that Soros has more money than he knows what to do with? Perhaps he or some staffer gave Thunderbolts $2.2 million on a whim, or because hoodwinked? Soros is said to have pumped some $32 Billion into his charitable foundation, so these amounts are just pocket change.
Very good that you have uncovered this. Apart from mumbling verbal support for Palestinians, Soros seems to be progressive in many ways - which is understandable in that he would be hoping to make future profits out of new "post-CO2" technology, a desire not restricted to "Little" Al, i.e. Al Gore.

I already knew of the "external coronal fusion" Sun story before reading of Joe Atwill, and I had no trust in it because the authors backed the teachings of Big Al, i.e. Einstein. Their teachings leave the Sun's core unexplained and essentially inert and un-investigable, ignoring the fact that H-bombs work under the pressure of A-bomb material that explodes around the deuterium-tritium core, creating "internal (sun-like) pressures" which enable the deuterium and tritium to fuse!

There are now attempts to create a neutrino telescope - to investigate solar neutrinos in a more directed way, to see what parts of the Sun the neutrinos are coming from. Once this is done, and the Thunderblot alternative exposed, the story of coronal nuclear fusion will die a natural death.

The big point here though is Big Al - Einstein - since Big Al's views are those of disguised idealism, the agnostic/"academic philosophy" teachings of David Hume, particularly those reflected through the confused scientist Ernst Mach. In Relativity the Special and the General Theory (RSGT) Einstein speaks of both of them approvingly when he attacks Plato (Appendix V, p. 142 in the 5th edition of the text, written in 1952, with 157 text-pages overall).

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
OK Jerry, I should not have called you a wacko-bird. How about you are a sea gullible and Claude Badley SJ is a notsea gullible?

Even though I know you wont watch the following, I'll post these here for those interested. Lindzen and Tol have some interesting comments on the motivations for the ridiculous claims of your fake climate heros and sheros.

I will add that this corrupt science is in service to globalism such that once the control implemented by the parallel feudal mechanisms of Agenda 21 are achieved, it will be announced that all their good work has saved the planet. The layers of lunacy are manifold, and one is that if Claude could kill all humans, not just the MMGW alarmist deniers, then the weather and climate would go on and vary similarly, albeit not exactly the same.



 
The second video, re Madhav Khandekar, is from the "Friends of Science"...
Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The organization rejects the established scientific conclusion that humans are largely responsible for the currently observed global warming. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change," not human activity. They argued against the Kyoto Protocol. The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year. They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.
...whose initials should better read FoBS!

And when GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) had Tony Abbott, former Australian prime minister, as their guest - what else can I say. I met this moron back when I was a medical student. He was such an idiot I thought he'd never get anywhere in the Liberal Party.:oops:

How wrong I was - the Liberal Party were such total dead-loss morons that the idiot Tony Abbott became their exalted leader!:(

This is the sort of BS artist (= lifetime actor) that is peddling the denial of MMGW!

Yours faithfully
Claude (or perhaps whatever "SJ" means)
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
OK Jerry, I should not have called you a wacko-bird. How about you are a sea gullible and Claude Badley SJ is a notsea gullible?
You can come up with all the insults you want. All you ever accomplish, is to piss off the person(s) you're insulting. Except when it goes so over-the-top that you just have to laugh, and apply reflexivity.

Even though I know you wont watch the following, I'll post these here for those interested. Lindzen and Tol have some interesting comments on the motivations for the ridiculous claims of your fake climate heros and sheros.
Ah, but sometimes I do watch them, or read transcripts.

In the first video, Richard Tol starts right off by saying "Climate change is a problem. Climate change is real, and really human caused, and it's a problem we need to solve." Then he argues in favor of a carbon tax, which is actually a more extreme solution than the US is willing to consider.

So, in what way is Tol even disagreeing with the middle-roaders among my "fake climate heros and sheros"??

Except that when he says "if you look at the underlying literature, it doesn't paint an apocalyptic message at all." That depends on which of the peer reviewed literature you read. Much of the literature predicts relatively subdued and very manageable effects, while other authors predict the annihilation of virtually all life on earth, which seems apocalyptic enough to me.

Claude (or perhaps whatever "SJ" means)
SJ = Society of Jesus, aka Jesuits. From the Free (online) Dictionary, "Jesuitism or Jesuitry: 1. The doctrines, practices, etc., of the Jesuits; 2. informal offensive subtle and equivocating arguments; casuistry." And: "Casuistry: 1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead. 2. The determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules."

As in, "Criticising George Soros's ethics on the grounds that he accepts Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, is an egregious example of casuistry."
 

Seeker

Active Member
My only contribution to this thread, trying to be a S(eeker)J(esuwit)592 by attempting to apply an over-the-top S(aussy)J(esusChrister) Reconciliation
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The second video, re Madhav Khandekar, is from the "Friends of Science"...

... rejects the established scientific conclusion ...
This is what Jerry would historically have called solipsism at its finest. But, unfortunately the hysterical alarmists here and elesewhere have created their own reality bubble and have created an established conclusion, and then point to matters besides evidence, except for corrupted evidence.
And when GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) had Tony Abbott, former Australian prime minister, as their guest - what else can I say. I met this moron back when I was a medical student. He was such an idiot I thought he'd never get anywhere in the Liberal Party.:oops:

How wrong I was - the Liberal Party were such total dead-loss morons that the idiot Tony Abbott became their exalted leader!:(

This is the sort of BS artist (= lifetime actor) that is peddling the denial of MMGW!
As far as I know (and I don't know what the Aussie Labor Party does) but most all major parties, including the pre-Trump Republican Party all agree with the corporate, UN, Vatican, MSM line of MMGW. Next, you'll be telling me you're having sex with Bill Clinton's wife while Bill is sleeping with Melania Trump.

I know it is rather distressing to most people, but I do prefer to seek coherency in my life. By your logic, this makes you a lifetime actor.
You can come up with all the insults you want. All you ever accomplish, is to piss off the person(s) you're insulting. Except when it goes so over-the-top that you just have to laugh, and apply reflexivity.
I may be wrong here Jerry, but I don't think so. I am usually very considerate with people, even those who don't agree with me, However, it is well known that I love to retaliate. If you aren't happy with scientists with spectacular careers you don't need to besmirch their character and mine, just show how they are wrong.
In the first video, Richard Tol starts right off by saying "Climate change is a problem. Climate change is real, and really human caused, and it's a problem we need to solve." Then he argues in favor of a carbon tax, which is actually a more extreme solution than the US is willing to consider.

So, in what way is Tol even disagreeing with the middle-roaders among my "fake climate heros and sheros"??

Except that when he says "if you look at the underlying literature, it doesn't paint an apocalyptic message at all." That depends on which of the peer reviewed literature you read. Much of the literature predicts relatively subdued and very manageable effects, while other authors predict the annihilation of virtually all life on earth, which seems apocalyptic enough to me.
Hello!!!!! Earth to Jerry and Happy Nazi!!! Tol says there is no reason for alarm.

That every credible critic of the IPCC and MMGW Alarmgate has not denied that CO2 causes warming simply can't stop any alarmist from being triggered into insisting that they are all denying that MMGW exists altogether. I know that both of you are smart enough to understand the difference, but most all of you, except the Nazi provocateur here, are too emotionally infested (I was hoping to type 'invested' :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D) via your unwarranted sense of existential angst. This is the equivalent apocalyptic milieu that the Nazis exploited, and Claude Badley SS is in hog heaven.

Nice that you allow that the "others" are merely MSM and otherwise derivative media nobodies, as opposed to scientists, as the videos discuss that the media is much more apocalyptic than even the IPCC, which is bad enough.

Jerry and Fascist, how much money has been pumped into the fake MMGW consensus efforts, versus such such as oil money? I love that you two think that money from the government makes for more honest whores.
 
But, unfortunately the hysterical [climate] alarmists here and elsewhere have created their own reality bubble and have created an established conclusion, and then point to matters besides evidence, except for corrupted evidence.
I admit that the IPCC etc. have sometimes exaggerated, but now that even Australia's most stable seasonable climate - the south coast of WA, which is where the greatest concentration of wildflowers are, and the stable seasonal rainfall is the reason for that - has been hit by record drought, puts those rare plants' survival in jeopardy. These plants previously evolved over millions of years without human assistance - and attest to a general climatic stability in privileged parts of the Earth, despite incredible punctuations - notably the Holocene-engendering meteor strike on the Laurentide Ice Sheet causing the Younger Dryas. This climate stability has now been severely disrupted by man.

I know that you attribute to me superhuman submarine qualities (searching for submerged civilizations) but I also know that what is now the Great Barrier Reef - indeed all coral reefs today - was/were dry land 14,000 years ago after the Last Glacial Maximum!
As far as I know (and I don't know what the Aussie Labor Party does) but most all major parties, including the pre-Trump Republican Party all agree with the corporate, UN, Vatican, MSM line of MMGW. Next, you'll be telling me you're having sex with Bill Clinton's wife while Bill is sleeping with Melania Trump.
I'll try, but after what I said about her, and the fact that she's still alive, I rather suspect you won't believe me.:oops:
I know it is rather distressing to most people, but I do prefer to seek coherency in my life. By your logic, this makes you a lifetime actor.
Well you've sussed out the dirty slimy ALP (Australian Labor Party) correctly, though I know more than one decent person in that organization - they have to think things out continually to keep mentally clean - in the face of that party's incoherency - and so I dips me lid to their efforts.:)

Taking my cue from philosophy books the terms coherency and consistency have special meaning for me. We all seek coherency in life, in the vernacular sense of 'coherency', but consistency is something that goes further. Einstein's relativity has coherency, in that it can tell a story by stringing some words together plausibly - otherwise no one would believe it. Consistency however demands much more, and uncovers the fact that Einstein's consistency is mathematical and abstract, so does not rest upon physical objectivity.
I may be wrong here Jerry, but I don't think so. I am usually very considerate with people, even those who don't agree with me, However, it is well known that I love to retaliate. If you aren't happy with scientists with spectacular careers you don't need to besmirch their character and mine, just show how they are wrong.

Hello!!!!! Earth to Jerry and Happy Nazi!!! Tol says there is no reason for alarm.

That every credible critic of the IPCC and MMGW Alarmgate has not denied that CO2 causes warming simply can't stop any alarmist from being triggered into insisting that they are all denying that MMGW exists altogether. I know that both of you are smart enough to understand the difference, but most all of you, except the Nazi provocateur here, are too emotionally infested (I was hoping to type 'invested' :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D) via your unwarranted sense of existential angst. This is the equivalent apocalyptic milieu that the Nazis exploited, and Claude Badley SS is in hog heaven.
Hmmmm! So I'm NOT too emotionally invested/infested am I???? Schultz! Schuuuuultz! But wait - at least I now know Noam & Co. are destined for hog hades!
Nice that you allow that the "others" are merely MSM and otherwise derivative media nobodies, as opposed to scientists, as the videos discuss that the media is much more apocalyptic than even the IPCC, which is bad enough.
How true, unfortunately!
Jerry and Fascist, how much money has been pumped into the fake MMGW consensus efforts, versus such such as oil money? I love that you two think that money from the government makes for more honest whores.
I can't understand your bolded words. Do you mean that the MMGW consensus itself is fake? Clearly not, since the consensus is for real. What I think you mean to say is that the MMGW consensus is based on fake, corrupted or misconstrued science and that someone or some groups bought off the scientists in order to have them corrupt the evidence and tout MMGW. Were the latter the case, the CCHDs (Climate Change Holocaust Deniers) should have been able to disentangle the errors, if not the money trail, rather than try to distract us e.g. onto the solar cycles as the supposed cause.

The one sword in their armamentarium is that it may be CH4 that is the real culprit, its release due to mining and fracking, and possibly permafrost melting. The excessive formation of non-front-associated cirrus clouds on very hot days could be the manifestation of CH4 since it rises up in the atmosphere higher than does water - many such cirrus cloud examples in Perth and I saw them in LA some days after I arrived when the unlikely summer storms had abated.

One big advantage you have over me locally Richard is that you have lived in one spot now and when very young. Has the climate there changed at all in those years? I did not move to Perth until 1979, when the fall in winter rainfall was already established, so I have never experienced a traditional Perth winter. As you live about 750m above sea level, you may not be experiencing the increasingly hot nights that occur in Perth and Sydney summers nowadays - especially in that the sudden 2 degree C warming in British Columbia from 1977 may not extend to your region which may instead have undergone a relatively reciprocal cooling in reaction to that warming (a local effect too small for Jerry's map). These are long term trends - and those who have stayed or returned to a particular spot for a long time are best at judging such issues, so I'll defer to your judgment here.

Yours faithfully
Colone... oops... Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
These plants previously evolved over millions of years without human assistance - and attest to a general climatic stability in privileged parts of the Earth, despite incredible punctuations - notably the Holocene-engendering meteor strike on the Laurentide Ice Sheet causing the Younger Dryas. This climate stability has now been severely disrupted by man.

I know that you attribute to me superhuman submarine qualities (searching for submerged civilizations) but I also know that what is now the Great Barrier Reef - indeed all coral reefs today - was/were dry land 14,000 years ago after the Last Glacial Maximum!
All life evolved and/or adapted/moved over millions of years, and there have been many forms that have gone extinct, more often than not from non-human causes. The ice records show that the Earth spends most of its time, by far, in ice ages. Who are you going to convict and execute now for helping to keep the Earth in the nice long, warm, anomolous Holocene summer, to borrow from Brian Fagan's book, The Long Summer? We didn't start the Holocene fire, but have kept it going for more than 10K years.
I can't understand your bolded words. Do you mean that the MMGW consensus itself is fake? Clearly not, since the consensus is for real. What I think you mean to say is that the MMGW consensus is based on fake, corrupted or misconstrued science and that someone or some groups bought off the scientists in order to have them corrupt the evidence and tout MMGW. Were the latter the case, the CCHDs (Climate Change Holocaust Deniers) should have been able to disentangle the errors, if not the money trail, rather than try to distract us e.g. onto the solar cycles as the supposed cause.
Yes, if you read my posts then you'd know that the consensus is FAKE. There is no consensus among general scientists, which claim had to be dropped, and now we're left with these whores who have taken billions in globalist funding to confirm their master's a priori conclusions. Using their corrupt computer models and improperly extrapolated data sets to do so, all in collusion with the corporate MSM and other media outlets, pandering to their panicked audience and other globalist masters.

And preeminent atmospheric physicist like Richard Lindzen is reduced to a rank climate change skeptic in the debate at Oxford Union, which the cantankerous Mehdi Hasan rather overtly reveals the MSM practices, while managing to lose to Lindzen.


The anti-carbon frenzy of today ironically initially started as a means to stop nuclear power growth, which they did quite successfully. Now, many people in the anti-carbon camp want to bring back nuclear.

What is ironic is watching you go on and on about Einstein and then (coherence and consistency) fall into this globalist ruse. It's called heads I win and tails you lose. You (and Joe et al.) wave with your left hand about what those evil Jews (with Einstein here the avatar du jour) are doing while the right hand ushers us back to a nice Western feudalism, the memories of Joseph and pharaoh. And all with the backdrop of feast and famine.
One big advantage you have over me locally Richard is that you have lived in one spot now and when very young. Has the climate there changed at all in those years? I did not move to Perth until 1979, when the fall in winter rainfall was already established, so I have never experienced a traditional Perth winter. As you live about 750m above sea level, you may not be experiencing the increasingly hot nights that occur in Perth and Sydney summers nowadays - especially in that the sudden 2 degree C warming in British Columbia from 1977 may not extend to your region which may instead have undergone a relatively reciprocal cooling in reaction to that warming (a local effect too small for Jerry's map). These are long term trends - and those who have stayed or returned to a particular spot for a long time are best at judging such issues, so I'll defer to your judgment here.
My lifespan means little, but as I told you before, yes the weather has changed, except that this year was an exceptional reversal. Almost none of the late decades monsoonal influx, meaning low humidity (comfortable heat) and a great wildflower bloom. When my brother-in-law's cattle ranching relatives arrived here from the Great Plains (1850s) this place was not a desert, but rather a grassland with antelopes. Once the railroad arrived, the antelope refused to migrate and all died, thus killing the grasslands. That and the subsequent depletion of the aquifer by alfalfa farmers. But, hundreds of thousands have since flocked to this desert, watering their (medieval) lawns, filling their pools, using evaporative cooling, etc.. H2O, the most powerful greenhouse gas.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello!!!!! Earth to Jerry and Happy Nazi!!! Tol says there is no reason for alarm.
Didn't I just finish saying that the crystal ball is cloudy, and the future is difficult or impossible to predict?

The questions should be, what is the range of possible & credible scenarios?

Supposing we assign a 10% probability to the worst case scenario (extinction of the vast majority of species on earth), is that a cause for alarm, or not? And would that be a basis for enacting a carbon tax, or not?

Or can we confidently say that the scenarios painted by "alarmists" can be assigned a zero weight? If so, on what basis?

If you aren't happy with scientists with spectacular careers you don't need to besmirch their character and mine, just show how they are wrong.
OK, fair enough. The scientists in question should be addressed on an individual basis. It's entirely possible that a self-respecting and conscientious individual could accept funding from CO2 belching industries, and that their objectivity would be entirely unaffected by said funding.

Nevertheless, if obvious errors in reasoning are correlated with funding sources, then I feel confident in rejecting the conclusions.

That every credible critic of the IPCC and MMGW Alarmgate has not denied that CO2 causes warming simply can't stop any alarmist from being triggered into insisting that they are all denying that MMGW exists altogether.
Hooray!! Yes, every credible critic admits that CO2 causes MMGW, which is a real thing. The legitimate controversies are about the sensitivity values, and how positive and negative feedbacks will effect the outcome.

It's only the Thunderbolts, Ben Davidson, and various speakers at Heartland and Cato Institute conferences, who say that the whole thing is a fraud.

Claims that there is no fusion taking place in the core of the Sun, or that electrical effects related to solar wind are the dominant factor determining the Earth's climate, are simply not legitimate science.

...preeminent atmospheric physicist like Richard Lindzen...
Lindzen's most recent peer reviewed paper on climate change, shows that he's clearly in this camp of "credible critics" who do indeed agree that CO2 causes MMGW. What he's arguing is that the IPCC and other mainstream scientists have over-estimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2, based on errors in computing positive feedback effects.

And I agree that it's important to get the basic science right, as much as humanly possible. We need the best, clearest crystal ball we can get.

For whatever it's worth, Lindzen's arguments have been answered, for example, by the four peer reviewers (including two recommended by Lindzen himself) who rejected the paper at PNAS. (It was later published in a Korean journal.) All four reviewers agreed that Lindzen had failed to answer the criticisms that were raised in reply to an earlier 2009 version of the paper. Also see the analysis by Dana Nuccitelli at John Cook's website, which includes links & discussion of more peer reviewed analysis of Lindzen's view on climate sensitivity to CO2.

I myself can only hope that Lindzen is right. Furthermore I don't claim to have time or expertise to follow these arguments at the level they're presented. But it would seem extremely presumptuous to me, to assume that Lindzen's arguments are entirely correct and comprehensive. Not to mention the assumption that he is totally pure of any influence from all the Koch money he's taken, or that he is not in any way effected by his obvious bias in favor of continuation & increase of fossil fuel based industrial activity. And similarly it seems pretty dangerous to me, to assume that all the peer reviewed scientific literature specifically replying to Lindzen's arguments, are motivated entirely by support for fascistic globalist solutions to MMGW problems.

There is no consensus among general scientists, which claim had to be dropped, and now we're left with these whores who have taken billions in globalist funding to confirm their master's a priori conclusions.
Why should there be a consensus among "general scientists", any more than among the general public? Some specialist in, say, General Relativistic Analysis of the Crab Nebula, doesn't know any more about this than you or me. Maybe less, because they're too busy studying the Crab Nebula to do much reading in the area. And sadly, such a person can be just as much prey to sophisticated propaganda as anybody.

As I've said a hundred times by now, and as you've refused to even acknowledge: the far fringe of climate alarmists no longer get globalist funding, if they ever did. I'm talking about (for example) Guy McPherson, James Lovelock, Stuart Scott, Paul Beckwith, Dahr Jamail, & etc. They say the situation is far worse than the IPCC is saying, and even worse than the MSM is saying(!!), for the following reasons:

(1) IPCC ignores Arctic feedback effects which will occur as melting ice causes albedo change;

(2) Likewise, IPCC ignores that Arctic warming could release large amounts of CO2 and methane from permafrost and undersea methane hydrate deposits.

(3) IPCC ignores or underestimates the aerosol masking effect. Industrial activities such as coal burning power generation, and commercial airline traffic, inject massive amounts of aerosol particles into the atmosphere. The particulates tend to reflect solar energy from the planet, resulting in "global dimming" and a cooling effect that partially offsets the warming caused by greenhouse gases. In the event of a dramatic reduction in global industrial activity, this global dimming would stop, resulting in a step increase in MMGW. I used the bold heading because in this entire thread, I believe I've forgotten to mention this.

(4) IPCC makes unwarranted assumptions about economics and the political system. They assume that economic growth can continue, and the human race will prosper, even as climate change unfolds. In fact, the full effects of MMGW may come into play, as a much smaller human population is trying to cope with the aftermath of economic collapse, nuclear war, and/or with the escape of massive amounts of nuclear waste from destroyed nuclear power plants.

I love that you two think that money from the government makes for more honest whores.
Yes, that's right. And you must think the same way, otherwise you wouldn't be advocating for UBI, national health care, or any other program with the potential to turn the entire population into government whores.

To the extent that there's any real basis for a government or institutional bias on climate change, it's entirely towards understating the extent of the problem. Scientists researching the true facts of MMGW have been subject to continual pressure from CO2 belching industries and the billionaire status quo. In my mind, the fact that they've reached as much of a consensus as they have, in the face of this tremendous and ongoing pressure, is a testament to their integrity.

So now, as a result of decades of hard work and perseverance, MMGW researchers and renewable energy innovators have finally reached a point of having some globalist influence. They've won (fickle) support from a fractious sect of elite-funded charitable foundations and nouveau riche, including such as Bill Gates and George Soros. And this is a mixed blessing, as the environmental concerns have been co-opted in support of dubious fascist-feudal policies.
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
When we suddenly see our climate changing we are naturally drawn to think that there must be some unusual reason and we look for a culprit. Our lifespan is too short to know that climate also changed in other centuries.

Did you know that during the medieval Little Ice Age the witches were accused of manipulating the weather? Or that it was the consequence of our bad behaviours? Drinking and gambling and showing knees for example, which God did not like.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

"Historians have argued that cultural responses to the consequences of the Little Ice Age in Europe consisted of violent scapegoating.[34][35][36][32][37] The prolonged cold, dry periods brought drought upon many European communities, resulting in poor crop growth, poor livestock survival, and increased activity of pathogens and disease vectors.[38] Disease tends to intensify under the same conditions that unemployment and economic difficulties arise: prolonged, cold, dry seasons. Both of these outcomes – disease and unemployment – enhance each other, generating a lethal positive feedback loop.[38] Although these communities had some contingency plans, such as better crop mixes, emergency grain stocks, and international food trade, these did not always prove to be effective.[34] Communities often lashed out via violent crimes, including robbery and murder; sexual offense accusations increased as well, such as adultery, bestiality, and rape.[35] Europeans sought explanations for the famine, disease, and social unrest that they were experiencing, leading to the act of placing blame upon the innocent. Evidence from several studies indicate that increases in violent actions against marginalized groups that were held responsible for the Little Ice Age overlap with years of particularly cold, dry weather.[36][32][34]

One example of the violent scapegoating occurring during the Little Ice Age was the resurgence of witchcraft trials, as argued by Oster (2004) and Behringer (1999). Oster and Behringer argue that this resurgence was brought upon by the climatic decline. Prior to the Little Ice Age, "witchcraft" was considered an insignificant crime and victims were rarely accused.[32] But beginning in the 1380s, just as the Little Ice Age began, European populations began to link magic and weather-making.[32] The first systematic witch hunts began in the 1430s, and by the 1480s it was widely believed that witches should be held accountable for poor weather.[32] Witches were blamed for direct and indirect consequences of the Little Ice Age: livestock epidemics, cows that gave too little milk, late frosts, and unknown diseases.[35] In general, as the temperature dropped, the number of witchcraft trials rose, and trials decreased when temperature increased.[34][32] The peaks of witchcraft persecutions overlap with hunger crises that occurred in 1570 and 1580, the latter lasting a decade.[32] These trials primarily targeted poor women, many of whom were widows. Not everybody agreed that witches should be persecuted for weather-making, but such arguments primarily focused not upon whether witches existed, but upon whether witches had the capability to control the weather.[32][34] The Catholic Church in the Early Middle Ages argued that witches could not control the weather because they were mortals, not God, but by the mid-thirteenth century most populations agreed with the idea that witches could control natural forces.[34]

Historians have argued that Jewish populations were also blamed for climatic deterioration during the Little Ice Age.[35][37] Christianity was the official religion of Western Europe, and within these populations there was a great degree of anti-Semitism.[35] There was no direct link made between Jews and weather conditions, they were only blamed for indirect consequences such as disease.[35] For example, outbreaks of the plague were often blamed on Jews; in Western European cities during the 1300s Jewish populations were murdered in an attempt to stop the spread of the plague.[35] Rumors were spread that either Jews were poisoning wells themselves, or conspiring against Christians by telling those with leprosy to poison the wells.[35] As a response to such violent scapegoating, Jewish communities sometimes converted to Christianity or migrated to the Ottoman Empire, Italy, or to territories of the Holy Roman Empire.[35]

In addition to blaming marginalized groups and individuals, some populations blamed the cold periods and the resulting famine and disease during the Little Ice Age on general divine displeasure.[36] Oppressed groups, however, took the brunt of the burden in attempts to cure it.[36] For example, in Germany, regulations were imposed upon activities such as gambling and drinking, which disproportionately affected the lower class, and women were forbidden from showing their knees.[36] Other regulations affected the wider population, such as prohibiting dancing and sexual activities, as well as moderating food and drink intake.[36]

In Ireland, Catholics blamed the Reformation for the bad weather. The Annals of Loch Cé, in its entry for the year 1588, describes a midsummer snowstorm: "a wild apple was not larger than each stone of it," blaming it on the presence of a "wicked, heretical, bishop in Oilfinn"; that is, the Protestant Bishop of Elphin, John Lynch.[39][40]"


Today we are more modern so we look for a more "scientifical" cause and effect, like C02 emissions or microwaves in the ionosfere, yet, since nothing has been proven, they are still the same superstitious scapesgoat reactions as in Middle Age:
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Today we are more modern so we look for a more "scientifical" cause and effect, like C02 emissions or microwaves in the ionosfere, yet, since nothing has been proven, they are still the same superstitious scapesgoat reactions as in Middle Age:
Yes, today we are more modern so we look for scientific causes of things. And it's clear that CO2 is certainly among the causes of climate change today, as every credible scientist agrees. Even Richard Lindzen.

Why are you still talking about microwaves in the ionosphere? I thought we had agreed to drop the HAARP issue. That idea is superstitious scapegoating.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I think we can agree then, that there is yet too much unknown about climate, and that there is minimal reason to be concerned about life on Earth going forward. Such is addressed in the following, a 10 year-old, non-debate debate (discussion) between Lindzen and a former 1990's IPCC contributing scientist, Dowlatabadi, about the issues involved. The discussion is focused around a NASA video and the misleading errors in the video, all of which lead to promoting panic, spread and amplified by the MSM and the alt-Left. In the short time they discuss some of the items you brought up.


Also discussed are some issues with solar radiative forcing which are glossed over in the claim about the minute variation in solar brightness. Namely that no attention is paid to spectral changes that impact variations in cloud formation.

They agree that computer models are much akin to using an ouija board. And Lindzen, like Keen (mentioned in prior posts), discusses the weak measurement data and normaliztions, and the gross weakness of proxy data.

Lindzen also states near the end that there is one thing that could change his mind, and so far, a decade later, I don't believe he has changed his mind.

We can also agree that government money might be a good thing, or not. Is a trillion dollar military budget now a good thing?
 
Government funding is one thing, private funding another. I claim that global warming denial is funded by wealthy private interests. Merely from Junkipedia (unless the entries are changed within 48 hours of this posting to remove the evidence - like what occurs on YouTube) I could find the following about Lindzen.
On December 27, 2013 the Cato Institute announced that he (Richard Lindzen) is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in their Center for the Study of Science
So what is the Cato Institute?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute. Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence.
Things go better with private funding of global warming denial, or, more popularly and succinctly as the MSM jingle says (or did once),

Things go better with Koch.

At sceptical science I found:

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

They forget to mention that fizzy drinks are fizzy 'cos they contain CO2 too.

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: Can anyone find a MMGW scientist-denier who does NOT live in Shillsville? (And I don't just mean Shillsville, USA!)
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
You should like the Kochs, their father did a lot for the Nazis, and a 'German' Koch was a big SS leader in Ukraine.

Sometimes things go better with facts. And as they say, "if you can't argue the facts, deflect."
 
Top