Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

Suchender

Active Member
Another chart :
Are we at the end of another cycle with the temperatures going down ?

The red arrows on the diagram mark large cycles of approximately 1050 years. The period from about 1256 BC to 54 BC had one extra 172 year cycle, so there can be fluctuations in overall cycle length, but they tend to be plus or minus one sub-cycle.
652
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
.... C'mon baby

I simply must go - Baby, it's cold outside
The answer is no - Ooh baby, it's cold outside
This welcome has been - I'm lucky that you dropped in
So nice and warm -- Look out the window at that storm
My sister will be suspicious - Man, your lips look so delicious
My brother will be there at the door - Waves upon a tropical shore
My maiden aunt's mind is vicious - Gosh your lips look delicious
Well maybe just a cigarette more - Never such a blizzard before

I've got to get home - Oh, baby, you'll freeze out there
Say, lend me your coat - It's up to your knees out there
You've really been grand - Your eyes are like starlight now
But don't you see - How can you do this thing to me
There's bound to be talk tomorrow - Making my life long sorrow
At least there will be plenty implied - If you caught pneumonia and died
I really can't stay - Get over that old out
Ahh, but it's cold outside

Baby it's cold outside

Brr it's cold...
It's cold out there
Can't you stay awhile longer baby
Well... I really shouldn't... alright

Make it worth your while baby
Ahh, do that again...

https://www.metrolyrics.com/baby-its-cold-outside-lyrics-christmas-song.html

REPENT YE BITCHES!!!

.... scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward [c]us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
The Day of the Lord
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up, especially Australia. 11Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:3-13 KJV)​

 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Jerry, did Gorby and Ted Turner really say such things, such as about reducing the global population down to 250 to 300 million?


What's ol Robert Mueller III be in this picture?

655
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up, especially Australia.
So if this has been predicted since 2000 years ago, and now it's coming to pass, how does that contradict our Postflavian doctrine? If the New Testament predicts that the world will end with fire, why would we venture to disagree? In this case, the science strongly agrees with 2nd Peter.

Jerry, did Gorby and Ted Turner really say such things, such as about reducing the global population down to 250 to 300 million?
Michael Snyder gathered up this collection of "Population Control Quotes" to confirm that Ted Turner did indeed say 250-300 million would be "ideal". Gorby called for a 90% cut, which would leave 600 million.

I don't believe the problem is the sheer number of people. It's the product of the number of people, their self-serving and warlike nature, and the dirtiness of the technology they use.

Repent ye bitches indeed, or the challenge will be to keep the population decline from going all the way to zero.

We may survive the Anthropocene, but need to avoid a radioactive ‘Plutocene’

by Andrew Glikson

On January 27, 2017, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the arms of its doomsday clock to 2.5 minutes to midnight – the closest it has been since 1953. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels now hover above 400 parts per million.
Why are these two facts related? Because they illustrate the two factors that could transport us beyond the Anthropocene – the geological epoch marked by humankind’s fingerprint on the planet – and into yet another new, even more hostile era of our own making.
My new book, titled The Plutocene: Blueprints for a post-Anthropocene Greenhouse Earth, describes the future world we are on course to inhabit, now that it has become clear that we are still busy building nuclear weapons rather than working together to defend our planet.
I have coined the term Plutocene to describe a post-Anthropocene period marked by a plutonium-rich sedimentary layer in the oceans. The Anthropocene is very short, having begun (depending on your definition) either with the Industrial Revolution in about 1750, or with the onset of nuclear weapons and sharply rising greenhouse emissions in the mid-20th century. The future length of the Plutocene would depend on two factors: the half-life of radioactive plutonium-239 of 24,100 years, and how long our CO₂ will stay in the atmosphere – potentially up to 20,000 years.
During the Plutocene, temperatures would be much higher than today. Perhaps they would be similar to those during the Pliocene (2.6 million to 5.3 million years ago), when average temperatures were about 2℃ above those of pre-industrial times, or the Miocene (roughly 5.3 million to 23 million years ago), when average temperatures were another 2℃ warmer than that, and sea levels were 20–40m higher than today.
Under these conditions, population and farming centres in low coastal zones and river valleys would be inundated, and humans would be forced to seek higher latitudes and altitudes to survive – as well as potentially having to contend with the fallout of nuclear conflict. The most extreme scenario is that evolution takes a new turn – one that favours animals best equipped to withstand heat and radiation.

What's ol Robert Mueller III be in this picture?
Club of Rome looks like a bunch of civil service policy wonks and scientific do-gooders who are trying to schmooze with the global elite.

https://www.clubofrome.org

The Club of Rome is an organisation of individuals who share a common concern for the future of humanity and strive to make a difference. Our members are notable scientists, economists, businessmen and businesswomen, high level civil servants and former heads of state from around the world. Our mission is to promote understanding of the global challenges facing humanity and to propose solutions through scientific analysis, communication and advocacy.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So if this has been predicted since 2000 years ago, and now it's coming to pass, how does that contradict our Postflavian doctrine?
It doesn't. That there is a cosmic forcing into climate change does not preclude avaricious elites, like Gore from playing everyone else, including faking temperature data and panicking the human sheep into undo actions.
If the New Testament predicts that the world will end with fire, why would we venture to disagree? In this case, the science strongly agrees with 2nd Peter.
You mean that you now agree that Mann-Made Global Warming is a hoax? :)

Which science are you referring to? Australia is currently burning up, but of course the Science says that the underlying drought (and hence dry fuel) is from the Northern Indian Ocean Oscillation.
by Andrew Glikson

On January 27, 2017, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the arms of its doomsday clock to 2.5 minutes to midnight – the closest it has been since 1953. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels now hover above 400 parts per million. Why are these two facts related? Because they illustrate the two factors that could transport us beyond the Anthropocene – the geological epoch marked by humankind’s fingerprint on the planet – and into yet another new, even more hostile era of our own making.
Doomsday? Sounds like these scientists are reading the Bible. As is being understood by others than me, such narratives are part of the new Religion of the Globalists.

In truth, it is no easier for a nuclear missile to get launched today than 50 years ago.

There is no scientific proof that CO2 thermal effects transfer onto H2O effects, as the 'science' now admits must occur in order for the hoax to be true, rather than the effects of the Sun and other cosmic phenomenon. Sardonically, the preserved imagery made by humans around the globe, thousands of years ago, has more integrity than contemporary Science.

Club of Rome looks like a bunch of civil service policy wonks and scientific do-gooders who are trying to schmooze with the global elite.

https://www.clubofrome.org

The Club of Rome is an organisation of individuals who share a common concern for the future of humanity and strive to make a difference.
What kind of concern and difference? Malthusian and/or Winner-take-all?

Is the following true Jerry? It sounds to me that if ol' Space Fucking Jesus (pardon my French) comes riding on a nuclear missile at the head of an Space Farce of even more, that the ensuing population reduction can then be used to explain why the Earth's temperature stopped arising. No?

...
“Rising carbon dioxide emissions will cause a global average temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius by 2052 and a 2.8 degree rise by 2080, as governments and markets are unlikely to do enough against climate change, the Club of Rome think tank said,”
reports Reuters.
The report, entitled,
 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years,
 decries improving living standards in developing countries and warns that man-made climate change could eventually kill off humans entirely.
Although the report has generated a deluge of coverage in the establishment media, not one of those news stories points out that the Club of Rome admittedly manufactured the “idea” of man-made global warming back in 1990.
On page 75 of their 1990 publication entitled 
The First Global Revolution, the organization outlined how they would manufacture ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them.
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” states the report, which can be read in full at the end of this article.
The passage appears under a sub headline entitled, “The common enemy of humanity is Man.”
The Club of Rome’s 1972 publication
The Limits To Growth was a Malthusian blueprint on how the human population needed to be reduced in order to prevent an ecological collapse, which in itself was merely a disguised version of the abhorrent eugenicist ideas that were circulating in the early part of the 20th century and eventually died out with Hitler. The 
widely discredited population bomb paranoia of the 70′s and 80′s was gradually replaced by the climate change fearmongering that we see the organization pushing today, which again is merely another regurgitation of the eugenics-obsessed policies of the elite.
Prominent members of the Club of Rome include Al Gore and Maurice Strong, both of whom are intimately involved 
with privately-owned carbon trading groups, whose multi-million dollar profits are solely reliant on protecting the credibility of the man-made global warming dogma.

The mega-criminal Maurice Strong is supposedly dead in China, having fled there because of his crimes regarding Iraq. Al Gore, another petroleum profiteer is alleged to become a billionaire of of carbon trading, if he isn't already.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You mean that you now agree that Mann-Made Global Warming is a hoax? :)
The little smiley indicates that you know this is a silly question. Your "Hide the Decline" video is a slimy, dishonest, sanctimonious piece of propaganda, and it didn't get any better when you spammed it up for the second time.

As is being understood by others than me, such narratives are part of the new Religion of the Globalists.
Perhaps it's a new religion, and propagated to children in Sunday School like other religions. But there's a difference: Jesus and Yahweh are fictional gods, nothing more than avatars of earthly human Lords. Whereas the many Limits to Growth are very real, and very menacing.

In truth, it is no easier for a nuclear missile to get launched today than 50 years ago.
Again, there's a big difference. Fifty years ago the "superpowers" were led by such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Leonid Brezhnev. Forty years ago, we had Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. As bad as they all were, these were intelligent individuals who understood that "a nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought."

Today, we have Trump boasting that his button is bigger. This is the same Trump who asked an advisor, three times!, "if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?"

Is the following true Jerry?
Why don't you link to the original source? This is Paul Joseph Watson, from Alex Jones's team. And as we all know, they're crypto-Catholics. That is, supporters of infinite economic growth and infinite population growth. Burning every last drop of fossil fuels. And, "traditional values" which seems to include men's absolute right to own their women and use them to pop out more babies.

What's wrong with the idea of uniting against the common enemies of "pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like"?



Malthusian and/or Winner-take-all?
Let's be clear that the billionaires, mega-corporations and the military are responsible for the bulk of the problem. Middle class Americans and Europeans, much less so, but also benefit from the system and cooperate with it. (And that includes myself.) The billions of people who live in villages or slums in Asia, China and Africa consume and pollute so little, that their complete elimination would make hardly any difference.
 
I simply cannot accept that man made global warming (MMGW) due primarily to CO2 can be denied at all now. Last month I had to drive from Perth to Sydney and had to wait for two sets of fires, one around Norseman in WA, the other the Blue Mountains fire near Sydney to burn themselves out. Half of NSW's forests have been burnt - and yet our halfwit prime minister still wants Australia to depend upon coal exports. Sydney also experienced a record high temperature of 47 degrees - and I had to experience it outside too! No doubt our PM will also offer the USA troops to help invade Iran too - but at least the smoke from nuclear fallout will cause global cooling from the cooling of the northern hemisphere!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I simply cannot accept that man made global warming (MMGW) due primarily to CO2 can be denied at all now.
Yes you can. Correlation is not Causation. Your heat, which we have had decades ago where I live, only serves to dry the available fuel. That the separate ignition causes, which may be mann-made and/or natural, are also not caused by CO2.

As for the former, you should likely look for radical agents of the new religion, either of the true-believing sheep or paid sheepdog varieties, looking to advance the propaganda campaign of the Malthusian billionaire sponsors, seeking to Euthanize us useless eaters.

The little smiley indicates that you know this is a silly question. Your "Hide the Decline" video is a slimy, dishonest, sanctimonious piece of propaganda, and it didn't get any better when you spammed it up for the second time.
So, your approach is to slime the facts, rather than to address that in service of the a priori globalist geopolitical agenda, that measurement data is manipulated and fed to both the MSM and the gullible progressives taking their word for such. How ironic that the progressive left throws hissy fits about the MSM and Hillary, yet has no problem getting into bed with Gore. Yet there is no difference.

This is why you are admitting (next item below) that this is indeed a New Religion. You are replacing the Gospels with the Gorpels (bogus graphs), and this would make Goebbels smile.
Perhaps it's a new religion, and propagated to children in Sunday School like other religions. But there's a difference: Jesus and Yahweh are fictional gods, nothing more than avatars of earthly human Lords. Whereas the many Limits to Growth are very real, and very menacing.
Well, yes, probably at Sunday School, but also at Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday School.

I had to be shushed at a neighbors house, because the Greta-like granddaughter was within ear shot.
Again, there's a big difference. Fifty years ago the "superpowers" were led by such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Leonid Brezhnev. Forty years ago, we had Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. As bad as they all were, these were intelligent individuals who understood that "a nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought."

Today, we have Trump boasting that his button is bigger. This is the same Trump who asked an advisor, three times!, "if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?"
"Grandma, what big ears you have!!!"

It's all to scare you into the new religion Jerry. And it has worked.

You should really be (quietly) praising Trump who is working in service (The Big, Bad, Wolf) to your cause, or at least the Deep State that put him there will, with the fake Russiagate ploy and the NSA's Facebook front.
What's wrong with the idea of uniting against the common enemies of "pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like"?
Saving humanity by killing them?

If one is truly interesting in making effective positive change to real problems then they can't waste massive resources on fake causes.
Let's be clear that the billionaires, mega-corporations and the military are responsible for the bulk of the problem. Middle class Americans and Europeans, much less so, but also benefit from the system and cooperate with it. (And that includes myself.) The billions of people who live in villages or slums in Asia, China and Africa consume and pollute so little, that their complete elimination would make hardly any difference.
These same elite entities are the very sponsors of your new religion. If you both would just find a paper bag to hyperventilate into and breath in some extra CO2, you'll be able to think more clearly about all of this.

Many of those billions are a problem when they are forced to cut down forests for wood to burn. They could be given easy access to clean water instead of spending most of their days walking to and from a distant water source. Their birth rates go down naturally when they can achieve a decent life style.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So, your approach is to slime the facts, rather than to address that in service of the a priori globalist geopolitical agenda, that measurement data is manipulated and fed to both the MSM and the gullible progressives taking their word for such.
If you go back a few posts, you'll see that I am disputing the factual assertions that keep coming up in these Koch Bros and Heartland Institute sponsored videos. (No, I haven't figured out how John Robson and "Climate Discussion Nexus" are getting their Koch money, but the stench is obvious.) They haven't presented any adequate reason to doubt the global average temperature data.

Nor is there any scientific basis whatsoever, for denying the link between CO2 and the greenhouse effect. It's one thing to dispute how large the effect is, or how much it's amplified by feedback effects. But it's just complete and utter bullshit, to claim this effect doesn't exist.

Well, yes, probably at Sunday School, but also at Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday School.
It was a progressive improvement, when we stopped teaching religion every day of the week in public school. But we do teach science in public school on a daily basis.

Part of the problem here, is as Caitlin Johnstone explained recently:

Why everything is fucked

We all slid out of the womb an itty bitty helpless information sponge into a world full of mentally ill giants who couldn’t wait to fill our tiny skulls with all of their inner demons. And now everything, understandably, is fucked.
That’s basically our whole entire situation in a nutshell. You can add on as many extra details as you like–plutocracy, corruption, mass media propaganda, billionaire wine cave fundraisers, whatever–but ultimately our plight is due to the fact that every single human showed up on this planet completely helpless and knowing nothing, forced to trust crazy giants to give them the grand introductory tour.
Why were those giants crazy? Well you see, they got here the same way you did: small, slippery and completely clueless, surrounded by enormous gibbering lunatics who were all in a mad rush to teach them how to be insane.
And those giants came into the world under the exact same circumstances, as did the giants who came before them, and the giants who came before them, and so on.
But also, I would add -- every true thing about the world that has ever been discovered, is conveyed from the old to the young in exactly the same way.

Saving humanity by killing them?

If one is truly interesting in making effective positive change to real problems then they can't waste massive resources on fake causes.
This is really hitting below the belt. You should be ashamed of yourself.

There are many progressive ways to deal with this problem: conservation, simplicity, simple technology changes (paper instead of plastic), advanced technology adoption (electric vehicles, solar and wind power, and perhaps thorium or cold fusion if we could get those working), population reduction by means of improved respect for women's rights, and so forth.

The means of dealing with global warming, are largely identical to the means for dealing with fossil fuel depletion, and the environmental damage caused by fracking, offshore drilling, strip mining, and other means of obtaining fossil fuels.

These same elite entities are the very sponsors of your new religion.
I'm not sure about that. The Catholic Church, Christian Zionists and Billionaire Industrialists (with Koch Bros at the lead) are still primarily backing the Old Time Religion, which was to go forth, multiply and subdue.

Many of those billions are a problem when they are forced to cut down forests for wood to burn. They could be given easy access to clean water instead of spending most of their days walking to and from a distant water source. Their birth rates go down naturally when they can achieve a decent life style.
All true. And they have nobody but Al Gore to blame for their plight???
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
These two articles by Andrew Winston seem apropos...

The Straw Man Arguments of Climate Denial

For some unknown reason, the New York Times decided that in 2017, it needed to hire a known climate denier away from the Wall Street Journal. The new op-ed writer, Bret Stephens, wasted no time diving into the fray, decrying the certainty of people who want action on climate change. His article is a fantastic example of how to make straw man arguments.
Here’s the critical passage from his climate hit piece:
Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions.
He makes two fundamental claims:
(1) Everyone who is seriously concerned about climate change (which, I would note, includes basically every major scientific association in the world) is TOO certain about the science.
(2) Solving the problem will be “abrupt and expensive.”
On the first one, the only thing to say is that’s bullshit. It’s not that the climate-concerned know with 100% certainty how it will all play out — of course we don’t, and nobody serious is really claiming that we do. The science is filled with probability assessments.
No, the certainty is around the case for action, which is different than the science itself. In that, I’m 100% sure robust action is justified, given both the probabilities of continued emissions changing our climate AND the dire consequences if the warming continues unabated. It’s basically an expected value calculation, and the risk-reward assessment is clear. Reducing carbon — through innovation in energy, buildings, transportation, and other sectors — is an enormous opportunity to improve health and generate wealth.
The second claim has been the go-to for deniers for many years. It’s nearly the official position of the entire GOP establishment in DC, especially the president. They talk about fighting climate change as if it’s some giant liberal boondoggle to spend money. There are two big problems with this argument. First, it’s quite a logical feat to decry climate hawks for certainty, and then declare with utter confidence (and no data) that doing anything to reduce emissions will be too expensive.
But second, and more importantly, the argument that reducing carbon will drag the economy down is wrong, increasingly absurd, and actually backwards.

Denying Climate Denial

Imagine your doctor tells you that you have dangerously high cholesterol and blocked arteries. She says you may drop dead soon. [Note: Based on comments/questions, I should clarify here. By “doctor”, I mean the entire medical establishment. So imagine you got not just a “second opinion,” but 100 opinions…and 97 say the same thing].
You might have four basic reactions based on two dimensions, belief (or doubt) in the basic facts/science, and whether you commit to action or delay.



1) Doubt AND inaction (simplistic denial): You say, “I don’t think the evidence is real — it’s a hoax.”
2) Acceptance but Inaction: “Yes, it’s happening, but I don’t think aggressive action is warranted yet. It may disrupt my life too much.”
3) Doubt but Action: “I’m not sure the doctor is right. But I’ll take the healthier path because the risk is too high, and it’s better for me anyway.”
4) Acceptance AND action: “I believe the doctor and the science and I think it’s urgent. So I’m dramatically changing my behavior, and doing it now.”
If option 1 seems silly to you — because, say, you’re having trouble climbing stairs without wheezing, so the evidence is already there — you’ve got three options left. You may choose path 4, where you realize that the problem is real and change your behavior accordingly. But since outcomes are all that matter, path 3 is nearly as good. Regardless of why, you could eat healthier, exercise more, and take a statin. You might see that the behavior change has many additional benefits — you feel better all the time, live longer, and be able to do more with your life.
But it’s path 2 — acknowledging the issue, but arguing for more discussion and delay — that must drive doctors crazy.

Winston notes that Stephens, the NY Times editorialist, has moved into box 2, and thus Stephens can claim he's not a "denier". Which is also the case with the vast majority of the "skeptical" videos that have been created and posted here courtesy of the Koch Bros and friends.

Sadly, Richard and Suchender seem to be stuck in box 1, "It's a Hoax".
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Reducing carbon — through innovation in energy, buildings, transportation, and other sectors — is an enormous opportunity to improve health and generate wealth.
I should add, that my position about this is somewhere between Winston and his "GOP establishment" who expect that transition from fossil fuels is not workable. I expect that in any renewable, post fossil fuel world: the price of energy will be much higher than it is now, and the labor productivity will be lower. So, less wealth to go around. Or at least, until some truly safe and efficient nuclear power technology is developed.

Also, I am not questioning that there's a lot of hypocrisy in the "green new deal" movement. Massive amounts of wealth will be transferred into elite hands, in many cases without delivering the goods that have been promised. Carbon trading does little if anything to actually reduce emissions.
 

Suchender

Active Member
Denying Climate Denial

Imagine your doctor tells you that you have dangerously high cholesterol and blocked arteries. She says you may drop dead soon. [Note: Based on comments/questions, I should clarify here. By “doctor”, I mean the entire medical establishment. So imagine you got not just a “second opinion,” but 100 opinions…and 97 say the same thing].
The guy who wrote this is a CROOK !​
AGAIN this bull of 97% !!!​
Sure he did NOT bother to go through all those 'opinions' to find it to be 97% in favour of Global Warming based on human activity !​
But being a good CROOK he is throwing this in the faces of readers..... a typical CROOK !​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ruby Gray

Member
These two articles by Andrew Winston seem apropos...
...
Imagine your doctor tells you that you have dangerously high cholesterol and blocked arteries. She says you may drop dead soon. [Note: Based on comments/questions, I should clarify here. By “doctor”, I mean the entire medical establishment. So imagine you got not just a “second opinion,” but 100 opinions…and 97 say the same thing].
You might have four basic reactions based on two dimensions, belief (or doubt) in the basic facts/science, and whether you commit to action or delay.



1) Doubt AND inaction (simplistic denial): You say, “I don’t think the evidence is real — it’s a hoax.”
2) Acceptance but Inaction: “Yes, it’s happening, but I don’t think aggressive action is warranted yet. It may disrupt my life too much.”
3) Doubt but Action: “I’m not sure the doctor is right. But I’ll take the healthier path because the risk is too high, and it’s better for me anyway.”
4) Acceptance AND action: “I believe the doctor and the science and I think it’s urgent. So I’m dramatically changing my behavior, and doing it now.”
If option 1 seems silly to you — because, say, you’re having trouble climbing stairs without wheezing, so the evidence is already there — you’ve got three options left. You may choose path 4, where you realize that the problem is real and change your behavior accordingly. But since outcomes are all that matter, path 3 is nearly as good. Regardless of why, you could eat healthier, exercise more, and take a statin. You might see that the behavior change has many additional benefits — you feel better all the time, live longer, and be able to do more with your life.
But it’s path 2 — acknowledging the issue, but arguing for more discussion and delay — that must drive doctors crazy.
Interesting that you should choose this particular analogy, Jerry! There is certainly a considerable similarity in their methodologies. The most intrinsically involved party, the pharmaceutical industry, performs vast studies "proving" its premise, that cholesterol is a dangerous fat which causes heart disease etc, DEDUCES that reduction of cholesterol will prevent huge numbers of deaths from these diseases, then recommends that virtually every person on earth should take statins from age 2 years to the grave, to prevent premature impending demise.
But there are many things wrong here.

[Medical discussion continues here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/heart-disease-diet-and-drugs.2607/

-JR]


The question "Qui bono?" should rightly be asked here, as well as in the CO2 "extinction rebellion" debate.

Who profits from the fearmongering that has been artificially created around that natural nutrient, cholesterol? The answer is obvious.

The CO2 debate is very like the cholesterol con. Dumbed down to a simplistic catch-cry echoed by the masses who cannot discern between disparate scientific and pseudoscientific conclusions for themselves.

"CO2 is a polluting poisonous gas and if we don't reduce its atmospheric concentration by political action and carbon taxes we are all going to die."

It is just not that simple. In fact, it is not true at all.

H2O and CO2, those deadly greenhouse gases that we have been told we must eliminate, are actually the building blocks of every living thing.

There are highly qualified scientists who expose the climate fallacies, such as Dr Judith Curry and Professor William Happer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
AGAIN this bull of 97% !!!
It doesn't matter if the actual number is 97% or 80%. It depends on which scientists you include in the survey, and the exact questions being asked.

And it's beside the point for the purpose of the essay, which was to talk about the benefits of acting to build renewable energy technology.

I decided to delete the picture that was attached to Suchender's post, because of an unmistakeable tinge of bigoted anti-semitism.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
I do agree Jerry, diet and heart disease is an excellent topic that deserves its own thread. [And now it does! -JR]
I didn't mean to derail this one with an off-topic essay.
But like you, I was making an analogy between the current climate debate, and the state of the diet-heart disease controversy.

In both cases, there is the majority of the scientific community's highly publicised research and conclusions on the malady and solution. Great emotional investment from the global public is engendered by alarmist propaganda. Politics weighs into the fray and enforces the scientific wisdom, true or not.

Most of us do not have access to the raw data, nor the expertise to evaluate it, but rely on the "experts" to tell us the truth. But do they?

Who collects the 25 Euros per tonne carbon tax? I do not know, but some entity is benefiting enormously, and stands to do so to a much greater degree, yet for all the hype and the reductions in CO2 emissions by certain countries, CO2 levels continue to rise. Where have all those taxes gone? How much has already been collected? What have they achieved? Seems the untested, untestable science in this case is failing. But the scaremongering increases.

Just so, there are calm considered expert responses to the climate data. There are those who do not make the unwarranted leap of religious faith from the hard statistic of atmospheric CO2 having risen, to the untestable hypothesis that CO2 is evil, that Man caused this elevation, that we will all die if it is not reduced, and that Man has the power to adjust the cut of the emperor's new clothes.

Anyone who has ever applied for a bank loan knows how figures can be manipulated to give false impressions and steer the outcome in a desired direction.

Climate "science" has taken this fudging technique to levels that have dire, inescapable consequences for us all. I do not trust that we are being told the truth about MMGW.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I decided to delete the picture that was attached to Suchender's post, because of an unmistakeable tinge of bigoted anti-semitism.
I find myself second-guessing this decision. Not that I was wrong to object to Suchender's image, which showed gloating politicians wearing Star of David attire. I feel very strongly that although we take a position here that's very critical of Zionist politics and religion, we need to draw a red line that we don't express hatred here. I'm sure that Suchender meant well, but I don't want that sort of material hosted at the site.

What I'm second guessing, is whether this image on the front page is any better? It's an image I concocted in Photoshop from two sources. I have the feeling that maybe it's OK because it depicts an ancient iconic image of Moses, and he's engaged in wondrous contemplation. But am I just making excuses for myself?

OT to this thread... if there's more discussion, I will move to the site policies forum.


 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
"CO2 is a polluting poisonous gas and if we don't reduce its atmospheric concentration by political action and carbon taxes we are all going to die."

It is just not that simple. In fact, it is not true at all.
Some people might say this, but surely not here!

CO2 and H2O are not pollutants, not poisonous, and essential for life. But they do promote the greenhouse effect, and thus have an influence on climate. There's room for debate about the magnitude of the effect, compared to other factors. But I don't understand why we're still discussing that the greenhouse effect of CO2 and H2O is really a thing.

Who collects the 25 Euros per tonne carbon tax? I do not know, but some entity is benefiting enormously, and stands to do so to a much greater degree, yet for all the hype and the reductions in CO2 emissions by certain countries, CO2 levels continue to rise. Where have all those taxes gone? How much has already been collected? What have they achieved?
Shooting from the hip here... but my understanding is that the carbon tax is widely viewed as one of the more effective carbon reduction strategies. There's a general rule in economics, that if you want less of something, you put a tax on it.

The revenue collected should go right into government coffers, just like income tax or sales tax. From there, it can be used either for good or evil, just like any other government revenue. Increase in carbon tax can be balanced by reduction in general sales tax or income tax.

Over the last several years, these carbon taxes have promoted rapid growth in the solar panel & wind power industries. So, carbon emissions are being reduced compared to what they might have been without those taxes. But I agree that not enough is being achieved, and the overall trend of carbon emissions is still upwards.

Carbon tax is much more effective that Al Gore style cap & trade.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Some people might say this, but surely not here!

CO2 and H2O are not pollutants, not poisonous, and essential for life. But they do promote the greenhouse effect, and thus have an influence on climate. There's room for debate about the magnitude of the effect, compared to other factors. But I don't understand why we're still discussing that the greenhouse effect of CO2 and H2O is really a thing.



Shooting from the hip here... but my understanding is that the carbon tax is widely viewed as one of the more effective carbon reduction strategies. There's a general rule in economics, that if you want less of something, you put a tax on it.

The revenue collected should go right into government coffers, just like income tax or sales tax. From there, it can be used either for good or evil, just like any other government revenue. Increase in carbon tax can be balanced by reduction in general sales tax or income tax.

Over the last several years, these carbon taxes have promoted rapid growth in the solar panel & wind power industries. So, carbon emissions are being reduced compared to what they might have been without those taxes. But I agree that not enough is being achieved, and the overall trend of carbon emissions is still upwards.

Carbon tax is much more effective that Al Gore style cap & trade.
I saw a video on how some place in Germany had created a 3-way hybrid power grid where when the sun don't shine, or the wind don't blow, there is the constant thermal energy created from vast composting organic matter to fill the power void. Of course the by-product of this is vast amounts of wonderful organic compost to return to agricultural land, civil spaces and private gardens. That sounds like a brilliant synergy to me. All organic matter is in some sense a solar battery, and if that energy can be released in a benign or beneficial way, that has to be a good thing.

And I am certain Moses would not be offended with your graphic. Although there is of course, the commandment to forego the making of images!
 

Suchender

Active Member
I decided to delete the picture that was attached to Suchender's post, because of an unmistakeable tinge of bigoted anti-semitism.
No problem, Jerry !
It was just a picture by an artist.....

Only there was not a shred of anti-smitism in it !
The artist was trying to show some hidden loyalties of American politicians.
If he is right with this or not, I don't know. This is not important to me.....
My purpose was to picture some crooks :cool:

You put the bar very low, Jerry ! :rolleyes:

One can interpret that image as a praise of the jewish State to be able to penetrate American politics in such a profound way !
.
662
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
I said I would keep my researches for myself but this is too interesting and short to write to refrain from.

I remember Richard Stanley mentioning the motivations behind Al Gore's support to MMGW theory as a monetary drive, having invested in renewable energies.

I also remember myself trying to undestand the global motivations for inventing and supporting MMGW theory despite the evidence against it. I asked here: is it possible that ALL people supporting it are people with investments in green energy? That did not seem much likely.
What other reasons could there be? I did not get an answer.

So far it had been clear to me that data have been altered to provide a false correlation between C02 increases and temperature increases and that simulations have been used to support the catasthophic scenario which has not come true. These are facts and not opinions.

Yet I did not have the motive. At least not the United Nations' motive. It was clear that they have been altering data, suppressing opposing opinions, and last have used a teenager to manipulate us into thinking what they want us to think. But why?

So, up until now I had been open to the possibility that MMGW could be real, after all. We have strong stakeholders who have an interest to alter the truth in their favor: mine and oil companies.

But the politicians at the UN, the major supporter of the MMGW theory? What strong personal interest could they have?

And that interest became clear looking at the structure of the United Nations, I am surprised you did not notice it. It's so clear. (That's the problem of being too focused on "deep state" maybe).

The United Nations are formed by almost all countries in the World and in their General Assembly, their major deliberating body, they all have ONE vote.

ONE VOTE, it can be the smallest country, it can be the largest, it can be the richest, it can be the poorer.

The United States counts as just one vote. Canada counts as another vote. South Africa another vote. Australia another vote. That makes up the majority of advanced countries with just 4 votes. Europe has more countries, so more votes and is part of the advanced countries. But if you look at the remaining countries, the not advanced countries, the poor countries, the developing ones, it's an amazing number: Africa, Asia, South America, etc: https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2019/how-has-my-country-voted-at-unga/index.html

Now, what does the UN sais we should do to counterract Climate Change? One thing is reducing fossil fuel consumption and switching to green energy, and the other is transferring money from developed countries to undeveloped ones for compensation, through buying credits: the countries producing over their quota of CO2 emissions should buy from those who have credit, who have emitted less than their quota.

But not only that:

advanced countries, and especially the US, are being held accountable by UN for every natural disaster occuring, especially those occuring in poor countries, blaiming it on theoretical MMGW. Poor countries are playing the victims. Advanced and rich countries should pay their (poor countries) costs of adaptation to climate change.

Is it surprising? With the vast majority of poor or developing countries having the vast majority of votes inside the UN?

Poor countries can be as dishonest as rich countries can be and money appeals to everybody. It's not hard to see that they have devised a (dishonest) system to get money from richer countries based on supporting the theory that manmade C02 emissions cause temperature increase and all kinds of ecological disasters.

That finally can explain why the UN is so attached to the climate change story and selling it as true at all costs.

Why their story has gained global support still remains a mistery to me, trying to understand what other interests have been at stake.

Surely Al Gore has profited from it for gaining money from selling his book, his documentary, being highly payed for being invited in conferences and for investing in green energy companies. His wealth has increased enourmously.

Universities get funds if they investigate global warming. They don't get these funds if they deny man made global warming and general worry. As it is always the case when there is a human threat at stake. That would explain why the majority of scientists support MMGW theory, and they are willing to suppress those who dare refute it.

Activists like GreenPeace get funds if there are global threats to the environment as well.

And finally, for democrats it is part of their politics to support the poors, the disanvantaged, they can easily buy the MMGW narrative even if not true.

That is my picture so far, as imprecise as it can be, of the personal motives behind supporting a fake MMGW as opposed to the motives of mine and oil companies to deny it.

There is enough interest from both sides to lie.

The problem if poorer countries get funds from richer countries in this way, is that such money is not likely to go in the hands of those who need it most in the poorer countries, it will be seized by the rich people. I just laugh when I read their commitment to end poverty by 2030, according to the UN resolution they have signed.

For advanced countries the burden is high, besides having to give money to other countries, it reduces production and forces to switch to green energy which is more expensive, making western companies less competitive, and also a burden for households with increased costs for electricity and fuel.

The dishonesty of developing countries is shown also in their attempt to be exonerated from having to prove their respect of fossil fuels consumption reductions and that includes China.

One aggravating fact to this situation is that those who can do something to stop the plans of UN and activists are republicans or other right wing parties. And republicans and others right wing parties have been chosen by Putin to divide the West and weaken it.

So, on one side poor countries are using democrats or other parties of the left to steal wealth to Western countries and make them less competitive, and on the other Russia, with its egemonic ambitions, is using republicans or other parties of the right to divide and weaken the West.

Not a nice situation and hard to chose who to vote for. The best compromize maybe is to have a democratic leader and a republican controlled congress. They will freeze each other and even though they will not make much improvement for the country they will also make not much damage...

In the Climate Change story I think Russia is pretending to support the UN 2030 Agenda, but surreptitiously trying to obstable it, in its own style. Russia bases its economic strenght on fossil fuels exports, and aims to use them also as a lever to bind other countries to its will. It cannot be in real favor of climate change actions.
One fact in support of this is that the thousands of e-mails hacked in 2009 from East Anglia University which further proved the data manipulations on global warming and the oppression of the scientists questioning such data were found initially stored in a Russian server, from which then they were distributed to various websites and blogs.
Even though the authors of the hack have remained unknown it is quite obvious that it was the Russians, in perfect Russian style. That occured just before the Copenaghen summit on climate change and had a consistent minimizing effect on decisions taken there. Global skepticism also arised as a consequence, even though the scientific community managed to make appear the e-mails hacked as nothing bad.
 
Last edited:
Top