Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Personally I am of the opinion that all climate changes come from haarp type activities.
The maximum instantaneous power output from HAARP is reportedly 3.6 MW. Whereas, world primary energy consumption is at a rate of about 18 Terawatts, which is 6 million times more. Also, the consumption of all that fossil fuel on a continuous basis leaves a virtually permanent residue in the atmosphere, multiplying its effect.

Now, I'm not denying that HAARP could have some effect on the weather or climate. But it's quite a stretch to say that such a relatively tiny project has such disproportionate power for evil.

"Planet X"? How many people take that fable seriously?
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Global hunger continues to rise, new UN report says

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/11-09-2018-global-hunger-continues-to-rise---new-un-report-says

“New evidence continues to signal that the number of hungry people in the world is growing, reaching 821 million in 2017 or one in every nine people, according to The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018 released today.

Hunger has been on the rise over the past three years, returning to levels from a decade ago.

The annual UN report found that climate variability affecting rainfall patterns and agricultural seasons, and climate extremes such as droughts and floods, are among the key drivers behind the rise in hunger, together with conflict and economic slowdowns.

Changes in climate are already undermining production of major crops such as wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions and, without building climate resilience, this is expected to worsen as temperatures increase and become more extreme.

Analysis in the report shows that the prevalence and number of undernourished people tend to be higher in countries highly exposed to climate extremes. Undernourishment is higher again when exposure to climate extremes is compounded by a high proportion of the population depending on agricultural systems that are highly sensitive to rainfall and temperature variability."

Temperature anomalies over agricultural cropping areas continued to be higher than the long-term mean throughout 2011–2016, leading to more frequent spells of extreme heat in the last five years. The nature of rainfall seasons is also changing, such as the late or early start of rainy seasons and the unequal distribution of rainfall within a season.


The harm to agricultural production contributes to shortfalls in food availability, with knock-on effects causing food price hikes and income losses that reduce people’s access to food.“


Actually the increase in starving people is "just" 26 millions of people compared to 2015, but it's the reversed trend that makes the bigger difference.

Obviously these official sources blame C02 emissions for climate change, not HAARP. And obviously it is totally useless to try and solve the problem of starvation. Especially by reducing carbon emissions. The problem will get worse, given the intentions behind it, and given that so much misinformation abounds that we cannot even agree upon the cause for climate change or if it is real...

But let's remember that at end "Jesus the saviour"will come that will stop the killing of the population and we will be grateful to him. One might wonder why this saviour will not come earlier... obviously because it is just part of the game.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
More thoughts about HAARP and weather modification...

The vast majority of moisture in the atmosphere is in the troposphere and lower stratosphere. The trade winds (and, to a lesser extent, the jet streams) are the "rivers of water" referred to above. The jet streams extend no more than 16 km above the earth's surface.

HAARP works by transmitting radio energy into the ionosphere, which begins at 80 km above the surface. At that high elevation, air pressure is virtually zero, in comparison to surface pressure levels.

So again I ask how HAARP could influence the weather in such a direct way as by pressure effects. If HAARP indeed has any influence on the weather, some other mechanism must be involved.

Also, HAARP is bound to a fixed location in Alaska. It can't heat the ionosphere anywhere beyond its horizon. There are a very few other high-powered radar installations on the planet, that could conceivably cause similar ionospheric heating effects. But there's no evidence of a system that could produce pinpoint effects at any arbitrary location.

given that so much misinformation abounds that we cannot even agree upon the cause for climate change or if it is real...
Indeed, some of us are severely confused by the obvious misinformation and disinformation produced by fossil fuel companies and their acolytes. And there's also a high correlation between conservative/fundamentalist Christian religion, and climate change skepticism. See:

https://www.alternet.org/2012/11/how-religious-right-fueling-climate-change-denial/

For the average climate science denier in the street (and there are a lot of them on some streets), there is often little correlation between the vehemence of their denials and the so-called "facts" at their disposal. The average Chuck is like Chuck Norris, who has claimed that climate science is a "trick". Not an innocent mistake, not a systemic bias, but a premeditated fraud. [....]

What exactly is the theology of climate science denial? The Cornwall Alliance – a coalition whose list of signatories could double as a directory of major players in the religious right – has a produced a declaration asserting, as a matter of theology, that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming."
It also tells us – on the firm foundation of Holy Scriptures – that policies intended to slow the pace of climate change represent a "dangerous expansion of government control over private life". It also alerts us that the environmental movement is "un-Biblical" – indeed, a new and false religion. If the Cornwall Declaration seems like a tough read, you can get what you need from the organization's DVD series: "Resisting the Green Dragon: A Biblical Response to one of the Greatest Deceptions of our Day."
Now, this isn't the theology of every religion in America, or of every strain of Christianity; not by a long stretch. Most Christians accept climate science and believe in protecting the environment, and many of them do so for religious as well as scientific reasons. But theirs is not the theology that holds sway in the upper reaches of the Republican party, or moves your average climate science denier Chuck. As Rick Santorum explained at an energy summit in Colorado:
"We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth … for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."
Why does this theology of science denial have such power? For one thing, it gives its adherents something to throw back in the face of all those obnoxious "elites", which they think are telling them what to do with their lives. There's no need to master the facts if all you need is to learn a few words of scripture.
But, perhaps, more to the point is that this kind of religion works for Chuck because it allows him to disguise the extraordinary selfishness of his position in a cloak of sanctimony. Translated into the kind of language that you can take to the shopping mall, it says that God wants you to squeeze whatever you can out of the earth – and to hell with the grandkids. [my emphasis -- JR]
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
There's no possible way that HAARP could influence the weather in such a direct way as by pressure effects. If HAARP indeed has any influence on the weather, some other mechanism must be involved.

Also, HAARP is bound to a fixed location in Alaska. It can't heat the ionosphere anywhere beyond its horizon. There are a very few other high-powered radar installations on the planet, that could conceivably cause similar ionospheric heating effects. But there's no evidence of a system that could produce pinpoint effects at any arbitrary location.
You're not addressing the claim that the directed beams are directly creating a 'lensing' effect that indirectly affects the lower strata. Also the claim was made that such sites are located at several other places, including .... Russia.

What is your reaction to the claims of Princeton's Happer that the IPCC climatologists always use the wrong CO2 radiance model in their computer modeling? That happens to be in his area of expertise, and not the IPCC 'scientists'.

What if the majority of the 97% of scientists have simply ceded their personal agency by proxy to 'scientists' who appear to have the same problem as pharmaceutical company 'scientists', where trillions of dollars are at stake, as similar for Al Gore and his investments (or other motivations)? The pharma group have become more marketing agents than scientists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You're not addressing the claim that the directed beams are directly creating a 'lensing' effect that indirectly affects the lower strata.
What is a 'lensing' effect, and how does the ionosphere effect the tropospheric trade winds, either directly or indirectly? I don't see a theory here that's coherent enough to address.

Also the claim was made that such sites are located at several other places, including .... Russia.
Yes, and the claim is also that floods have been caused in Australia. How does a radio transmitter in Russia cause flooding in Australia?

What is your reaction to the claims of Princeton's Happer that the IPCC climatologists always use the wrong CO2 radiance model in their computer modeling?
On the contrary, it's Happer who is always insisting on using a wrong CO2 radiance model. The "consensus" view is that increased CO2 causes direct feedback effects including increased water vapor. Seems straightforward to me, and the models and the data are conforming pretty well. Happer refuses to take any of this into account.

That happens to be in his area of expertise, and not the IPCC 'scientists'.
No, Happer's expertise is in atomic physics: optical pumping systems, atomic clocks, magnetometers, and adaptive optics systems. Any relation to climate science is tenuous at best.

Happer also has some expertise in fundraising from unsavory characters such as Scaife and Mercer. And, he was caught in a Greenpeace sting operation that showed he would have no qualms taking money from a Middle East oil company.

For more on Happer, see:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change.pdf

https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer

What if the majority of the 97% of scientists have simply ceded their personal agency by proxy to 'scientists' who appear to have the same problem as pharmaceutical company 'scientists', where trillions of dollars are at stake, as similar for Al Gore and his investments (or other motivations)? The pharma group have become more marketing agents than scientists.
At some point, it's necessary to look at the actual evidence that's being presented by the various scientists, the self-consistency and logic of the arguments, and the personal character and cultural biases of the individuals involved.

It's also interesting to notice that there are some researchers who have renounced the IPCC and other academic funding sources, as well as the petroleum companies, and are now apparently relying on YouTube monetization and Patreon accounts to eke out a modest existence. They passionately argue that the situation is far worse than even the IPCC is stating.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
What if Happer is correct, via his atomic physics, and the IPCC dudes are as wrong as the people that PhotoShoped the cover of Gore's book such that a hurricane is turning backwards, and another one is present at the Equator?

CO2 is a molecule, made of 'atoms', right?

Are all the graphs (with such as hurricanes and forest fires) that Dr. Soon showed wrong, because they show more historical context than the IPCC data? Or is Dr. Soon's data wrong? What about the Russian modeling data? Surely you don't think the Russians could be wrong versus other 'European-American' efforts, right?

It seems like in the last decade or so there a large number of massive ancient lakes and rivers, and evidence of civilization being found lately under the sands of the Sahara. And that some of people involved are dating the massive climate change involved to around 6,000 years ago or more, till around the end of the last Ice Age.

If true, do you think that CO2 could have also been involved there?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What if Happer is correct, via his atomic physics, and the IPCC dudes are as wrong as the people that PhotoShoped the cover of Gore's book such that a hurricane is turning backwards, and another one is present at the Equator?
I explained to you, why I think the IPCC dudes are correct and Happer is wrong. It's because the IPCC accounts for effects of water vapor, and Happer doesn't.

I'm not a great fan of Al Gore either. Just because CO2 induced climate change is a real problem, doesn't mean that Al Gore isn't an opportunistic fraud.

But even if you despise Al Gore, isn't it stooping pretty low to complain that his book cover artist took liberties with hurricane images? Seriously, who cares??

CO2 is a molecule, made of 'atoms', right?
Yes, and the New Testament is a 'book', made of 'letters'. But that doesn't make everyone who studied the alphabet, into a New Testament expert.

Are all the graphs (with such as hurricanes and forest fires) that Dr. Soon showed wrong, because they show more historical context than the IPCC data? Or is Dr. Soon's data wrong?
According to Wikipedia, "From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work." And he's speaking on behalf of the "Independent Institute", a Libertarian think tank founded by David J. Theroux, who also helped set up Cato Institute. Sourcewatch says that Theroux's think tank "worked extensively for the tobacco industry and any other industry that would pay them to fake research". A web search shows that Theroux's by-line mostly appears in very conservative Catholic publications.

Having said that, I suppose I'll need to watch the video before I can comment any further...
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Here's an Australian scientist, Peter Ridd, who was dismissed for whistleblowing on aspects of GW, related to his work on coral reef health. As with Soon's claims of contextually constricted data sets and such, Ridd claims that the 'dying' coral reefs are doing just fine. That identical corals are thriving in even warmer locales, and that coral 'bleaching' events are normal and recoverable.


What we seem to witnessing is part of the problem with the 'modern' university system as detailed so well by Bernal in his Black Athena, Vol. 1. This where institutional academics are steered in what they pursuits they can or cannot pursue. This started in the 1730's thanks to England's King George II in his 'native' Germany, at Göttingen University. Of course, now most universities are complete whores for corporate and government research money, much of which has an a priori financial or political bias for preferred conclusions.

Such is evidenced by the Orwellian nature of the manner that Ridd was 'disciplined', and the complete lack of transparency provided by the MMGW advocates, identical to the pharmaceutical boys.

Of course, prior to the 'modern' university system, all universities (before the 'state' secular institutions) were religious institutions defending the scam cult of Yahweh and his alleged son.

What we have now is the Cult of Institutional Pseudo-Science.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As with Soon's claims of contextually constricted data sets and such,
About Soon's forest fire data set: forest fires were rampant in the period from 1900 through 1940. One cause was sparks thrown off by railroads running through forests; I'm not sure what else was going on. After a particularly massive conflagration in 1910, a political consensus developed around the idea that forest fires needed to be fought & contained promptly. It took some time for the technological capabilities to catch up to the political goal.

By the 1960's, a stable and low rate of forest fires had been achieved. Any increase in the rate of fires since then, is not due to the same causes that resulted in high rates of fire in the 1930's. Soon complains that James Hansen is being childish for chopping off the beginning of the graph, but really it's Soon who is concealing the facts.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So then, the USFS undertook forest management practices to suppress natural (lightning caused) forest fires, by use of such as controlled burns, and aggressive fire-fighting techniques. Thus setting an unnaturally low, man-made baseline for using forest fires as a late context analytical criteria, right?

Similarly, the fires in the Amazon are man-made, caused by the Brazilian farmers' desires to take swift advantage of the Chinese desire to bypass Trump's trade war tariffs.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So then, the USFS undertook forest management practices to suppress natural (lightning caused) forest fires, by use of such as controlled burns, and aggressive fire-fighting techniques. Thus setting an unnaturally low, man-made baseline for using forest fires as a late context analytical criteria, right?
It's not clear to what extent the fire epidemic of the early 20th century was natural (lightning caused) and to what extent it was related to various human interventions in the forest. But, yes, the baseline is man-made. That doesn't mean it isn't a reasonable baseline for analysis. To be entirely fair, one might actually go and read what Hansen said, and whether he acknowledged all the factors.

It's possible that the rate is increasing again because of other causes in addition to global warming. None of this analysis is ever completely simple.

Similarly, the fires in the Amazon are man-made, caused by the Brazilian farmers' desires to take swift advantage of the Chinese desire to bypass Trump's trade war tariffs.
This, and the policy changes instituted under Bolsonaro. And, global warming is probably also a factor.

Ridd claims that the 'dying' coral reefs are doing just fine.
That's a ridiculous claim. And it seems that Ridd made this statement based on generalized arguments about the "reproducibility crisis in science", rather than a fair and balanced analysis of the many scientific field studies that have abundantly documented the fact that coral reefs are suffering extensive damage. And it turns out that Ridd has long been shilling for an Australian entity known as the "Institute for Public Affairs", which is an extractive industry lobbying group. And he's been affiliated with Cato Institute as well.

What's a university supposed to do when a professor is shilling for mining industries, and also insulting all their other employees and research groups without cause, and making a mockery out of the institution? Apparently, they're supposed to just take all the abuse, because Ridd just won his court case on technical grounds.

There might be a kernel of truth in what Ridd is saying. I suspect it's true that coral reefs can and do exist in a wide variety of climate conditions. The problem is that any particular coral ecosystem is finely tuned to the local climate, and is not going to survive rapid change. And the change is too quick for species to migrate to find the climate conditions they're adapted to. And it's also true that not all coral reefs are suffering equally under current conditions. But, overall, the news is very dire.

You could save some time by Googling these climate skeptics before jumping to conclusions about who the scientific whores are.

Of course, now most universities are complete whores for corporate and government research money, much of which has an a priori financial or political bias for preferred conclusions.
What you're missing here, is that the institutional bias is overwhelmingly conservative. Industry doesn't want to hear about MMGW, and neither does the Catholic Church. Over many decades of hard work, the MMGW story has gradually beaten back the bias to some extent, and it has become the scientific orthodoxy while overcoming the great forces arrayed against it. And the people who are doing real on-the-ground research are convinced that the institutional bias is still underplaying the seriousness of the situation.
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Ridd claims that the 'dying' coral reefs are doing just fine.
That's a ridiculous claim. Many scientific field studies have abundantly documented the fact that coral reefs are suffering extensive damage.
"Maybe it’s not the end of the world for corals after all.

That’s one of the surprising findings of a new project called the 100 Island Challenge, led by two scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego.

Jennifer Smith, Stuart Sandin and their team from Scripps are studying the changes taking place on 100 coral reef systems around the world. What they have found offers a surprising, and hopeful, glimpse of the current state of coral reefs.

“We’ve seen evidence of health pretty much everywhere,” says Sandin. “This isn’t saying that every reef is thriving, and every reef has stayed immune to climate change. But what we’re seeing is that after a reef dies, organisms grow.” Call it the Jurassic Park effect: life finds a way.

While they acknowledge that some reef systems like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia have suffered tremendously from recent warming events, other reefs seem to be thriving."

https://qz.com/1180919/coral-reefs-thrive-despite-global-warming-say-scientists-with-3d-images-from-scripps-institution-of-oceanography/


"THE Great Barrier Reef is thriving, not dying!
Posted: April 11, 2018 |
THE real story on the current health of the Great Barrier Reef from dive-boat operators and divers who work up and down the reef everyday…
“THE journalists come up and they’re not interested in what the truth is. They’re only interested in finding out where the ‘dead’ reef is. And when people who work right up and down the reef can’t actually take them to a single place that is going to suit their dooms-day story, then we sort of need a bit of balance…”
During the middle of March, USA Today reported that a study published in the peer review journal Nature that coral reef growth stood to be severely harmed due to ocean acidification resulting from human-induced climate change. Researchers pointed to The Great Barrier Reef in Australia in their examination.

However, Paul Talbott at Majestic Aquariums in Australia explains why it’s important not to believe the hype.

https://climatism.blog/2018/04/11/the-great-barrier-reef-is-thriving-not-dying/


https://greenjihad.com/2018/04/11/the-great-barrier-reef-is-thriving-not-dying/

"CORAL BLEACHING IS A NATURAL EVENT THAT HAS GONE ON FOR CENTURIES, NEW STUDY

Date: 16/08/18 Graham Lloyd, The Australian

Published in Frontiers in Marine Science, the research by scientists from Glasgow and Edinburgh universities reconstructs temperature-induced bleaching patterns over 381 years spanning 1620-2001. The findings are at odds with claims that mass coral bleaching is a recent phenomenon due to climate change. Scientists studied the tree ring-like lines of annual growth in 44 coral drill core samples. They were able to reconstruct the history of bleaching events each coral had survived. Results showed the number of bleaching years per decade had increased between 1620 and 1753 when up to six years of each decade showed bleaching in at least 20 per cent of coral cores.

The frequency then reduced until the first half of the 19th century when only one year of every decade had evidence of bleaching in at least 20 per cent of coral cores. Bleaching increased again between 1821 and 2001 to three years per decade but there were periods of low prevalence and frequency, including from the 1820s to 1830s.

Large-scale observations of the Great Barrier Reef first began in the late 1970s.

“Bleaching has been occurring on the GBR at least during the last four centuries, and has increased 10 per cent in prevalence since the 1790s,” the paper says.

Little has been known until now about the frequency and extent of bleaching events prior to these modern observations"

https://www.thegwpf.com/coral-bleaching-goes-back-four-centuries-new-study/
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
"Surprise! The Great Barrier Reef is Not Dying from Global Warming
Eric Worrall / August 16, 2019

It is tough for scientists to maintain the fiction that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is broken, when the government minister responsible for the reef goes and has a look for herself.

GRAHAM LLOYD

The Great Barrier Reef is not dead, is not dying and is not even on life support, federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley has declared after her first official visit to the World Heritage-listed site.

“Today we saw coral that was struggling but we also saw coral that was coming back, that was growing, that was vibrant,” Ms Ley said.

“I was expecting to see dead areas with a few patches of life,” Ms Ley said.

“I saw the exact opposite to that.”

Ms Ley was also accompanied on the visit by the government’s reef and recycling envoy and local member, Warren Entsch.

He said it was important Ms Ley had not taken the word of scientists or tourism operators but had “put on the gear and gone under the water to see for herself”.

In relation to bleaching and climate change, he said it was not a new phenomenon: “It has been happening for millennia.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/surprise-great-barrier-reef-is-not-dying-from-global-warming/
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
"GREAT BARRIER REEF: REPORTS OF ITS DEMISE HAVE BEEN EXAGGERATED, CLAIM LOCALS

Look beyond the headlines and you'll find the Great Barrier Reef still has life in it, says Jenny Peters, who's just back from a visit

Jenny Peters Monday 10 July 2017 10:38

Despite reports to the contrary, the Great Barrier Reef really is not dead yet. Last week, Unesco resolved not to add it to its “endangered” list, notwithstanding fears that it would (and even with surprising additions such as Vienna). And in fact, as travellers who still have not ticked it off their bucket list will be happy to hear, locals on the ground say that there is plenty of life left in the world's largest barrier reef.

That is notwithstanding the back-to-back bleaching events that occurred along the reef in 2016 and 2017, in which the waters that envelope this natural wonder not only overheated but stayed hot through winter, effectively stopping the coral from spawning (which is how it reproduces and thrives). Adding in the effects of Cyclone Debbie, which made landfall in the Whitsunday Islands and at Airlie Beach in March this year, and there is no doubt that the reef has been taking a battering lately."


https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ausandpacific/great-barrier-reef-endangered-demise-exaggerated-locals-claim-australia-queensland-unesco-world-a7827796.html
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
While they acknowledge that some reef systems like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia have suffered tremendously from recent warming events, other reefs seem to be thriving."
Who said that every coral reef, everywhere, had completely died? Or even that the GBR completely died? Nobody says that.

Visit the 100 Island Channel web page and their facebook page, and see what they're really saying. The recommend this article:

https://www.newsdeeply.com/oceans/articles/2017/08/24/coral-triage-scientists-zero-in-on-reefs-with-best-chance-of-survival?fbclid=IwAR1FvmUDKwPxvFSxFDuN3tcFPjkZAFW2xmoEBPU9OCs90Cl1B0yrJfJoLHc

IT SEEMS IT’S nothing but bad news for coral reefs. Unchecked coastal development has poured pollutants, sediments and excess nutrients into coral habitats. Overfishing has altered reef ecosystems, home to one-quarter of the world’s marine species, while the extermination of sharks is removing the reefs’ top predator. Meanwhile, much of the carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere settles into the ocean, increasing its acidity and disproportionately affecting delicate reefs. That CO2, of course, contributes to rising ocean temperatures, which have triggered the unprecedented back-to-back coral bleaching events of 2014–17 that devastated reefs worldwide.
But a group of coral reef specialists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, believes at least some reefs have the potential to survive another major bleaching event. That’s if enough of the right kind of data can be collected on how reefs are changing and local communities can be enlisted to manage their reefs so that they are in optimal health when the next surge in ocean temperatures inevitably occurs.
Their conviction is behind a new project dubbed the 100 Island Challenge, an experiment using cutting-edge imaging technology to survey coral reefs in two and three dimensions.
“Our group is in the minority in that we do have hope that not all reefs are going to be dead in 10 to 20 years,” said Jennifer Smith, coprincipal investigator for the 100 Island Challenge and a professor at Scripps.
In other words: this group of specialists agrees that coral reefs are being hit hard, and they think that some might survive IF "local communities can be enlisted to manage their reefs": that is, based on unprecedented human intervention into systems that have done fine on their own until now. And, investigator Smith admits that most scientists predict that all the reefs will be dead in 10 to 20 years. NOT that all scientists (or anyone) thinks that all coral reefs are dead already.

Smith would be appalled to see her work used to support pollyanna climate denialism.

However, Paul Talbott at Majestic Aquariums in Australia explains why it’s important not to believe the hype.
In the video, Talbott says that the reefs are indeed changing and some are recovering. But he also says:

… in speaking to the boat operators and the divers that work right up the coast, up and down the coast of the GBR, they basically said that during those epic times of bleaching there was definitely reefs, particularly to the north, that's suffered extensive damage; some of them up to 100 percent…

And, he encourages people to donate to coral reef emergency funds. Again, he's the last person who would want to see his observations used to justify complacency.

Published in Frontiers in Marine Science, the research by scientists from Glasgow and Edinburgh universities reconstructs temperature-induced bleaching patterns over 381 years spanning 1620-2001. The findings are at odds with claims that mass coral bleaching is a recent phenomenon due to climate change.
Again, check what the study actually says, rather than relying on summaries written by industry shills. The authors don't question that the bleaching event of 2014-2017 was on an unprecedented scale, nor that things are likely to get worse.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full

...reconstructed increases in bleaching frequency and prevalence, may suggest coral populations are reaching an upper bleaching threshold, a “tipping point” beyond which coral survival is uncertain.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Again, check what the study actually says, rather than relying on summaries written by industry shills. The authors don't question that the bleaching event of 2014-2017 was on an unprecedented scale, nor that things are likely to get worse.
So then, why are identical coral species elsewhere thriving in even warmer waters? If there are multiple factors then warming alone is not the primary factor.

Dr. Soon made several challenges to the premise of CO2 driven acidification. He claims the methodology for making this claim is deceitfully highly flawed and is easily testable, in such as your underground laboratory.

While today is likely the hottest day of the summer for me, this has been an exceptionally comfortable summer that I had otherwise been dreading. I know that there is a difference between weather and climate, but I have to think that any changes in warming climate is beyond human abilities. And, that the elites that have always controlled our institutions, giving only recent lip service to academic freedom, are trying to deflect the public mind from the underlying reality.

Dr. Ridd brought up the issue of the Reproducibility Crisis in Science, and thus how can we trust these institutional scientists, especially the IPCC who will not release their data sets.

In any case, it seems a relatively simple matter for someone to reproduce Happer's claim that the wrong CO2 behavioral numbers are being used. Or have the Russians already done this for us?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So then, why are identical coral species elsewhere thriving in even warmer waters? If there are multiple factors then warming alone is not the primary factor.
Everybody agrees that some coral ecosystems are continuing to thrive, even as others die.

Why would you assume that the species are identical in different locations? There could be subspecies that look identical, but adapted to different temperatures.

Why do you say that the waters are warmer where coral is thriving? In the Australian GBW, it's said that the worst effected areas are at the northern extreme of the reef, which would be closest to the equator, and therefore warmest.

If there are multiple factors (which undoubtedly there are), how does this rule out that warming could be the primary factor? (Other factors could include acidification, sewage outflows, radiation poisoning, agricultural chemical runoffs, ad infinitum.)

Dr. Soon made several challenges to the premise of CO2 driven acidification. He claims the methodology for making this claim is deceitfully highly flawed and is easily testable, in such as your underground laboratory.
You mean his complaint that experimenters are controlling pH independently from CO2 level in their aquariums, by using other chemicals in addition to CO2? What's deceitful about this, when their papers spell out exactly what they're doing, why and how?

Are you questioning whether the CO2 content of the ocean is increasing, and causing pH levels to become more acidic? These are very straightforward observations.

Where is there any basis to question the cause-and-effect relationship between hydrocarbon fuel consumption, and increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean?

While today is likely the hottest day of the summer for me, this has been an exceptionally comfortable summer that I had otherwise been dreading. I know that there is a difference between weather and climate, but I have to think that any changes in warming climate is beyond human abilities.
Yes, we have been fortunately blessed with moderate weather on the West Coast this year. Other places on the planet have suffered amazing extremes.

I understand that you have some deep internal bias that MMGW is impossible. I don't understand where this is coming from. Look how the entire face of the planet has been changed by human activity, everywhere you go.

Perhaps it might help if you reflect on the fact that the liar-in-chief, Trump himself, insists that MMGW is a hoax. Why would he be telling us the truth about this, when he lies about virtually everything else?

Dr. Ridd brought up the issue of the Reproducibility Crisis in Science, and thus how can we trust these institutional scientists, especially the IPCC who will not release their data sets.
The "Reproducibility Crisis" is mostly about pharmaceutical companies trying to pass drug trials. Applying this to coral science is grasping at straws. It's not difficult to see which coral reefs are bleaching and dying, and which ones aren't.

If you don't want to trust institutional scientists, there are plenty of non-institutional humans out there making observations about our dying planet.

In any case, it seems a relatively simple matter for someone to reproduce Happer's claim that the wrong CO2 behavioral numbers are being used.
I don't understand what you mean. There is only one planet we're talking about, and we're only running the experiment of burning all the fossil fuels once. What is there about this, that can be reproduced?

Happer's claim is that CO2 does not effect water vapor levels. This seemed pretty unlikely even when Lindzen and Singer were making that argument back in the 1990's. But if there was any credibility to Happer's position then, the data coming in now should make it pretty clear that it's just bogus.

Or have the Russians already done this for us?
Putin is an MMGW skeptic. Typical business person.

You do know that one of the most famous climate alarmists is also Russian? Natalia Shakhova.

 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following video explains why MMGW climate science is all wrong, and so, amazingly Trump is right from time to time. This provides the answers to my just prior observation.

However, Trump is wrong, we're going to need a wall across the Canadian border and make sure the Mexicans do not build one.

Now you admit that Putin is a businessman?

In summary, the MMGW climate scientists have completely ignored the effect of all solar inputs besides one. And thus, they place all blame on human activity.

The show is very interesting in showing the immediate cause and effect relationship of solar activity to hurricane production, no human heating needed.



I don't understand what you mean. There is only one planet we're talking about, and we're only running the experiment of burning all the fossil fuels once. What is there about this, that can be reproduced?
No, Jerry, each model has its own planet, its own instantiation.

We are not running an experiment of anything in real life. The Sun, aka Apollo, Aten, Yahweh is in control.
The "Reproducibility Crisis" is mostly about pharmaceutical companies trying to pass drug trials.
No, the Reproducibility Crisis runs across all the soft sciences, which includes the Climate unScience Cult.
Why do you say that the waters are warmer where coral is thriving? In the Australian GBW, it's said that the worst effected areas are at the northern extreme of the reef, which would be closest to the equator, and therefore warmest.
I'm taking the work of Ridd, who said that there are other areas of the world (not Australia) where the same corals are doing fine in warmer water. Maybe he's lying, but that's not what he or I said.
If there are multiple factors (which undoubtedly there are), how does this rule out that warming could be the primary factor? (Other factors could include acidification, sewage outflows, radiation poisoning, agricultural chemical runoffs, ad infinitum.)
Watch the video. But the Climate Cultists decided to arbitrarily limit the solar imput to their models, and thus blame the unnacounted balance on human activity.
 
Last edited:
Top