Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

[Jerry Russell]

The following video explains why MMGW climate science is all wrong

Still looking for that one perfect video that will vindicate all your prejudices, eh?

Scanning through the transcript, and then looking at some of the comments to the video at You Tube, I agree with the commenter who said that Ben Davidson is delivering a "Gish Gallop".

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

During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.[3][4] In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.[5] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved[6] or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.​

​

And since we are playing the "dueling multi-hour video" game, here's my position. Maybe I'll discuss this in more detail, after you watch this ~2 hour long playlist of Ben Davidson debunks from the "Space Weather" channel.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX99MBYW71KCH0eokT0jeTUzIto0rBe4E

 

[Richard Stanley]

That's pretty silly Jerry.

Either the climate scientists are restricting their data sets or not, in the case of volcano forcing, as with the others, such that they can ignore the historical effects of much large events.

Now, maybe Davidson et al. are indeed lying, but they are providing specifics which can be either accepted or challenged. But you're engaging in group ad hominem.

As I just posted on Graham Hancock's new book lecture, he discussed the unwarranted bad science criticism of the KT event effects and the repeat of that over the Clovis issue. As Soon stated, this behavior is not Science. If scientists cannot address criticisms and data, and default to ad hominem, this means they are terrible scientists themselves.

Science used to know that humans cannot fly. Now they say that humans can fly. But they were correct all along. Only airplanes and such mechanisms can fly.

 

[Jerry Russell]

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.

Here is Ridd's paper that got him into trouble with his university.

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploa...-1-from-Climate-Change-The-Facts-2017-IPA.pdf

The paper provides the interesting information that the same species of coral can adapt to different temperature regimes by "choosing" to work with different indwelling symbiont algae. The algae provides nutrients for the coral through the process of photosynthesis.

When the water temperature suddenly changes, the coral expels its symbiont algae in the "bleaching" process. It is a desperate survival strategy on the part of the coral, in hopes that a better adapted symbiont algae can be drawn in from the environment. If no better adapted symbiont is available in the local ecosystem, the coral dies.

The fact that a warm water adapted symbiont algae exists in Thailand, is very little help to a coral in the GBW that is dying because of extraordinarily rapid climate change. Perhaps in this case, there is some hope that humans could intervene by importing an appropriate algae.

No, the Reproducibility Crisis runs across all the soft sciences, which includes the Climate unScience Cult.

Here's the information Ridd provided in his paper, regarding the "reproducibility crisis" in science. Based on the citations he provides, it seems that the literature on this topic is indeed primarily related to the biomedical & pharmaceutical fields (and psychological research, which is also dominated by pharmaceutical interests.) Ridd wrote:

The lack of quality assurance in science has become a hot topic, particularly in medical science. e failure of drug companies to replicate the findings of scientific institutions is just the tip of the iceberg. In the biomedical sciences, many authors have reported the level of irreproducibility at around 50% (Vasilevsky et al. 2013; Hartshorne & Schachner 2012; and Glasziou 2008). More recently, John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, suggested that as much as 85% of science resources are wasted due to false or exaggerated findings in the literature (Ioannidis 2014). Professor Ioannidis focused on, among other matters, the lack of funding for replication studies, which are so important in the medical area. Indeed, replication of already ‘known’ results is one of the fundamental processes upon which the reliability of science rests, but this is generally seen as mundane and not the way to advance a scientific career. Funding bodies are rarely keen to spend money on such work.​

​

The problem is so acute that the editor of The Lancet, one of medicine’s most important journals, stated that:​

​

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. (Horton 2015)​

​

Similar concerns have also been raised for the psychological sciences (Wagenmakers et al. 2011).​

But, here's where Ridd goes wrong (at least in my view):

In contrast to government policy science, research with an industry or medical focus usually includes some proper quality assurance, with good reason. For example, a company hoping to develop a drug from promising university trials will typically need a billion dollars to take it to market. The first step for the company is to check and replicate the original peer-reviewed research. It is of concern that when these checks are done, conclusions from the original work are found to be in error more than half the time (Prinz et al. 2011). is could be disastrous, but at least the checks were made to prevent wasting vast resources.​

How many different ways is this wrong? First of all, it may be true that "government policy science" has QA problems, but Ridd doesn't have any sources to quote for that assertion, aside from himself. All his sources are talking about problems with research done with an industry or medical focus. "Promising university trials" are frequently industry funded. And the basic problem is that the pharmaceutical companies want to sell drugs, whether they're effective or not. A "Flagrant Conflict of Interest", as Ridd says.

It's certainly possible that climate researchers also have a "conflict of interest" related to the institutional bias in favor of MMGW, but I've argued that really the institutional bias is to downplay the seriousness of MMGW.

So, does Ridd himself have a "Flagrant Conflict of Interest"? Well, it turns out most of Ridd's research career is related to effects of dredging projects on coral reefs. And, he gets most of his funding from dredging companies. Does anybody see a problem here??

As far as I can find, no scientists have bothered to directly refute Ridd's IPA paper, including its various specific points about the status of coral reefs. But, similar claims are found in a "Viewpoint" published in Marine Pollution Bulletin with Ridd as senior author, entitled "The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science". And, this article did draw a reply from the coral scientists whose work was attacked in Ridd's papers. Schaffelke et al wrote:

Larcombe and Ridd (2018) state that there is little incentive for critical assessment of published works stating that “such critiques have been largely ignored in the subsequent literature”. Given their sincere call to improve quality control processes in science it is interesting that nowhere in their 2018 Viewpoint do Larcombe and Ridd make it clear to readers that many of their criticisms of the nine GBR papers have been raised previously (i.e., Ridd, 2007; Ridd et al., 2011, Ridd et al., 2013a, Ridd et al., 2013b), and have been thoroughly addressed by the original authors (De'ath and Fabricius, 2011; De'ath et al., 2013; Kroon, 2013). To republish previous claims that have been addressed and refuted appears to be selecting information to support their statements and an example of the very issue Larcombe and Ridd (2018) are criticising.​

This is serious, folks. Ridd's criticism of coral science has been published before; his criticisms have been rebutted and rebuked; and rather than carrying forward with the debate, Ridd simply pretends that no replies have ever been offered.

Highlights of specific rebuttals contained in Schaffelke et al 2018: regarding the overall decline of the GBR:

​

De'ath et al. (2012): The 27-year decline (1985–2011) of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes​

De'ath et al. (2012) showed a 50% decline in coral cover on the GBR, and quantified the causes for this decline, attributing it to the combined effect of tropical cyclones, outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and thermal coral bleaching. Larcombe and Ridd (2018) state that the impact of the extreme Tropical Cyclone (TC) Hamish in 2009 “was not mentioned by De'ath et al. (2012)” (p. 458), and that the circumstances leading to the reported decline in coral cover were due to “special environmental conditions” from TC Hamish and TC Yasi in 2011.​

​

In fact, De'ath et al. (2012) identified tropical cyclones as the major cause of coral loss in the GBR in their analysis, which included the detailed path, duration and strength of all 36 cyclones (including TC Hamish and TC Yasi) that affected the GBR during the observation period 1985–2011.​

​

Larcombe and Ridd (2018) also summarised the De'ath et al. (2012)conclusion as “Coral cover will fall to 5%–10% by 2022” (p. 453). This statement is both incomplete and an over-simplification of the De'ath et al. (2012) study: the full sentence from the discussion in De'ath et al. (2012) reads “Without significant changes to the rates of disturbance and coral growth, coral cover in the central and southern regions of the GBR is likely to decline to 5–10% by 2022”. Other sections in the De'ath et al. (2012) publication provide regionally explicit data on the effect sizes of the three forms of disturbance.​

​

Coral cover trends, based on standardised survey methods by the long-term coral monitoring program of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, are now reported annually [1]. The significant decline in coral cover reported in De'ath et al. (2012) was followed by a period of recovery (2012 to 2016), due to an absence of disturbances that had driven the 50% decline, and fast growth rates of one type of corals – tabulate Acropora spp. that dominate early successional reefs in the central and southern GBR. Further significant loss in coral cover was observed in the northern and central GBR in 2016 and 2017 due to extreme temperature stress (Hughes et al., 2017) and a new population outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish. Greater warming (Brown and Caldeira, 2017) and more extreme weather (Fischer and Knutti, 2015; Wang et al., 2017) are predicted globally. Coral abundance and recovery are expected to be adversely affected under the predicted future regime of chronic pressure and more frequent and severe disturbances (e.g. Cheal et al., 2017; Osborne et al., 2017).​

And, regarding calcification rates:

​

De'ath et al. (2009): Evidence for declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef​

De'ath et al. (2009) report a significant 14.2% decline in the rate of calcification in massive Porites corals from 68 reefs spanning the entire GBR between 1990 and 2005. This decline was unprecedented for at least the previous 400 years for which calcification records existed.​

​

Ridd et al. (2013a) pointed out an error in the original data set, as some outer-most bands in some corals were incompletely formed. De'ath et al. (2013) have subsequently corrected the rate of decline, from 14.2% in the 2009 study, to 11.4% [95% CI = (10.4, 12.4)]. This rate of decline is marginally reduced, yet it is still unprecedented. Larcombe and Ridd (2018) repeat the critique of Ridd et al. (2013a), but do not cite the responses and corrections (De'ath et al., 2013; also published in Science9), and continue to ignore the fact that there are is no evidence for ontogenetic changes in Porites growth rates.​

​

We maintain that the initial finding of slowing of coral growth rates, possibly attributable to climate change, are valid and supported by other studies reporting similar responses for several other reef regions around the world, including the Caribbean, SE Asia and the eastern equatorial Pacific (reviewed in Lough and Cantin, 2014). A separate analysis of Porites growth records from seven reefs in the central GBR (D'Olivo et al., 2013) over a longer time period than in De'ath et al. (2009) shows a significant decline in calcification on three inshore reefs, and attributes this decline to river discharges. Calcification on four mid- and outer-shelf reefs increased over six decades, but decreased from 1990 to 2008 on midshelf reefs, which D'Olivo et al. (2013) interpret as an indication of recovery from a coral bleaching event in 1998. A subsequent study demonstrated how coral bleaching associated with major thermal stress events on the GBR suppressed coral calcification for four years, followed by recovery (Cantin and Lough, 2014) thus providing a mechanism of action to support the observed decreases.​

​

All of this is very complex. But I don't see that Ridd is successfully challenging the basic narrative that the coral reefs are in an advanced state of decline.

 

[Jerry Russell]

That's pretty silly Jerry.

I don't see what's so silly about it. I'm asking you to do your own research. Why should I have to answer Davidson in great detail, when the work has already been done? Go watch the "Space Weather" playlist, review the arguments pro and con, and tell us what you find out. (The vlogger is anonymous, but claims to have a 30-year scientific career in the field. I watched a random sampling, and found that he seems very knowledgeable, and considers that Davidson is not.)

 

[Jerry Russell]

Catching up on loose ends:

Now you admit that Putin is a businessman?

Putin runs Russia as if his slogan were "The business of Russia, is business." He's like the Calvin Coolidge of our time.

In summary, the MMGW climate scientists have completely ignored the effect of all solar inputs besides one.

The insinuation that this is some new insight on Davidson's part, or that solar inputs have been swept under the rug, is belied by this 2009 Scientific American article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.​

​

Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate models—including those used by the United Nations’ prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—incorporate the effects of the sun’s variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.​

Now, this does agree that the IPCC models only use one solar variable as an input, instead of using multiple parameters. But it's because climate scientists have considered and rejected using those other parameters, and not because they're being willfully oblivious.

I've now sat through the new Davidson video linked above. I've made an honest effort to understand what he's saying, but I didn't even see anything that I could identify as a coherent theory as to how these solar effects could be causing the abrupt climate change we're currently experiencing. So, I'm at a loss as to what I'm supposed to argue against.

At 12:18, Davidson shows a graph of 11,000 years of sunspot activity, which shows an alarming hockey stick upturn starting around 1850. But, I don't understand why this upwards trend of sunspot activity is supposed to cause global warming. Also, checking Wikipedia, I found a less severely averaged version of the sunspot activity graph. This shows a peak about 1950, and a downward trend since then. So if there's some cause and effect relationship between this and global temperature, it's very slow and indirect.

I've argued that really the institutional bias is to downplay the seriousness of MMGW.

Here's a case in point. The blogger Robin Westenra noticed that the graphics produced by NSAIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) depicting the progressive melting of sea ice in the Arctic, don't accurately represent the break-up of the ice as shown by NASA satellite photos. Westenra suggests that perhaps NSAIDC is cooking the books.

Blog article:

http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-arctic-melt-has-slowed-down-really.html

Or, video:

 

[Emma Robertson]

Here is a very long article published on a peer reviewed platform that dispels any doubt about the possibility of see level rising from ice melting, even in the case execptional ice melting was true (which I don't believe).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987118300446

"Why would sea-level rise for global warming and polar ice-melt?

Highlights

•
Global warming and polar ice-melt not contribute to sea level rise.
•
Melting of huge volume of floating sea-ice around polar region cool ocean-water preventing thermal expansion.
•
Polar ice melting re-occupy same volume of the displaced water causing no sea level rise.
•
Gravitational attraction of the earth plays a dominant role against sea level rise.
•
Melting of land ice in the polar region allow crust to rebound elastically for isostatic balancing through uplift should cause sea level to drop relatively.

6. Conclusion

Geophysical shape of the earth is the fundamental component of the global sea level distribution. Global warming and ice-melt, although a reality, would not contribute to sea-level rise. Gravitational attraction of the earth plays a dominant role against sea level rise. As a result of low gravity attraction in the region of equatorial bulge and high gravity attraction in the region of polar flattening, melt-water would not move from polar region to equatorial region. Further, melt-water of the floating ice-sheets will reoccupy same volume of the displaced water by floating ice-sheets causing no sea-level rise. Arctic Ocean in the north is surrounded by the land mass thus can restrict the movement of the floating ice, while, Antarctic in the south is surrounded by open ocean thus floating ice can freely move to the north. Melting of huge volume of floating sea-ice around Antarctica not only can reoccupy volume of the displaced water but also can cool ocean-water in the region of equatorial bulge thus can prevent thermal expansion of the ocean water. Melting of land ice in both the polar region can substantially reduce load on the crust allowing crust to rebound elastically for isostatic balancing through uplift causing sea level to drop relatively. Palaeo-sea level rise and fall in macro-scale are related to marine transgression and regression in addition to other geologic events like converging and diverging plate tectonics, orogenic uplift of the collision margin, basin subsidence of the extensional crust, volcanic activities in the oceanic region, prograding delta buildup, ocean floor height change and sub-marine mass avalanche."

 

[Jerry Russell]

Here is a very long article published on a peer reviewed platform that dispels any doubt about the possibility of see level rising from ice melting, even in the case execptional ice melting was true (which I don't believe).

Strange that you think one peer reviewed paper would "dispel any doubt", in spite of the many other peer reviewed papers stating the opposite. And I'm also mystified as to why you would present this paper so positively, even though it clearly states that both global warming and ice-melt are realities.

The paper might be a valuable contribution to the discussion of sea-level rise projections. It provides some valuable information about definitions of sea level, given the ellipsoidal rather than precisely spheroidal shape of the earth. It points out that a number of factors effect sea level, including elastic rebound, and cooling of ocean waters by melting sea-ice. And the point is well taken, that ancient sea levels were effected by plate tectonics and other geologic factors, as well as climate changes.

But the conclusions seem to represent a lot of hand-waving, rather than the results of any modeling or computations of the effects of the various factors. Also, I noticed some extremely strange statements, such as the view that water melting from the ice mass over Greenland could be trapped by the land masses of Europe and America, and prevented from dispersing southward to raise ocean levels worldwide. Overall, I didn't find the paper very convincing.

Regarding elastic rebound, I would be very surprised if this effect isn't accounted for by other authors who have made projections about sea level rise.

 

[Emma Robertson]

My clear position on the debate about global warming (between those who affirm that temperatures are increasing because of C02 emissions, causing drafts, floods, wildfires and sea level increases vs those who affirm that weather has always changed and there is nothing unusual going on, nothing to worry about) is:

yes, the weather is changing, no it's not because of Co2 emissions, no it's not a natural change, it's manmade alteration using advanced technology (HAARP type), yes, there is quite something to worry about, as this is going to turn into the end-times scenario "forseen" in the bible.

I am revisioning my belief expressed here and I am investigating if the weather is really changing and if the supposed change is really caused by HAARP. The reasons for negative answers are growing.

For example, about tornadoes, NOAA explains that we do not have a sure evidence that tornadoes have increased in the last decades, and as far as more severe ones are concerned they have not. Modern systems are able to track more tornadoes and this creates the probably false perception that they have increased.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

But more surprisingly, tornadoes have always shown bizarre patterns, at least in the last 150 years and at least around South-East America, so it's not HAARP making them turn sharply or create strange patterns:

"As a hurricane propagates northward out of the tropics, the environmental wind field often becomes weak, causing the hurricane to slow down, stall, or move erratically, especially if the hurricane is away from the influence of strong high or low pressure systems. "

"Hurricane movements can be very unpredictable, sometimes performing loops, hairpin turns, and sharp curves."

http://www.hurricanescience.org/science/science/hurricanemovement/

Evidence of manmade weather effects on 9/11 for instance, is found in the satellite photos of Hurricane Erin, the potentially catastrophic storm that approached New York on a beeline for several days prior, stopped dead off the coast on that day, then performed a sharp about-face and departed afterwards. The eye of this hurricane on 9/11 was a sharply-defined perfect pentagon, with a 60 degree diagonal disruption in one side of it, uncannily representing the damage pattern caused in the Pentagon in Arlington later that day.

I verified the path of this hurricane Erin in 2001 and is not a pentagon. With a bit of fantasy one may see three sides of a pentagon and imagine the missing ones, but it's far from a complete and equilateral pentagon, and it's shape is nothing unusual. Very disappointing for those who want to see anything related with 9/11. If you saw a picture with a pentagon path, Rubie, the path must have been edited to appear like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Erin_(2001)#/media/File:Erin_2001_track.png

Even those who see something strange in it can only notice a turn which might appear unusual:

but there is nothing unusual in a turn like that, as we have seen that "Hurricane movements can be very unpredictable, sometimes performing loops, hairpin turns, and sharp curves."

And here, on NOAA websites it's clearly shown:

https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/

Clic on the picture and choose one year, starting from 1851. In certain years hurricanes are full of turns and twists. For example in 1884, 1886, 1900 and 1920, enough ago in time to exclude any HAARP activity in those times.

Addition:

I realize now that you were talking about the shape of the eye of the hurricane and not it's path, Ruby.

I searched but I could not find pictures of the eye so I cannot say anything about it's real or supposed pentagon shape.

Anyway, this serves to object to those who assume other hurricanes behave strangely (path) because of HAARP.

As for Erin, even assuming it's eye shape was a pentagon, this would not be a sign of HAARP activity but rather a supernatural phenomenon or a strange coincidence.

And I can object to those who affirm that Hurricane Erin was turned away from NY using HAARP to avoid hindering the 9/11 "operation":

"Hurricane Erin was never an East Coast landfall threat, as the cold front and increased westerly winds aloft gave a final east, then northeast shove to Erin."

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/september-11-hurricane-erin-missed-east-coast

 

[Emma Robertson]

I am aware that tornadoes and hurricanes are two different phenomena and I have mixed them. Tornadoes are born on land and hurricanes are born on ocean. So we have that about tornadoes historical data don't show a growing trend for the more severe ones, and for less severe ones we don't know. About hurricanes we have that they have always behaved erratically.

It's left to see if hurricanes data show a growing trend.
Here is the answer: https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-answer-if-hurricanes-have-gotten-stronger-or

"After last year’s devastating U.S. hurricane season, it’s only natural to wonder—as many did in 2005—if 2017’s ferocity had something to do with global warming or if it was just a destructive reminder of natural climate variability.

Despite how much NOAA and other scientists would like to answer this question, hurricane activity varies so much from year to year and decade to decade that it’s difficult for us to detect any long-term trends with the records we have;"

A scientific team is building a method to track hurricanes from seismic records, which date back to the beginning of 20th century, earlier than satellite records which go back only to 1960. With these new data it will be possible to see if we can find a trend in hurricanes activity.

 

[Ruby Gray]

Addition:

I realize now that you were talking about the shape of the eye of the hurricane and not it's path, Ruby.

I searched but I could not find pictures of the eye so I cannot say anything about it's real or supposed pentagon shape.

Anyway, this serves to object to those who assume other hurricanes behave strangely (path) because of HAARP.

As for Erin, even assuming it's eye shape was a pentagon, this would not be a sign of HAARP activity but rather a supernatural phenomenon or a strange coincidence.

Yes, it is the shape of the eye of Hurricane Erin that was the Pentagon, not the path. And its appearance would be an extraordinary coincidence indeed!

 

[Claude Badley]

Greetings Emma and greetings once more Jerry.

Emma may not know that I am an Australian, from WA, where Ningaloo Reef, the second largest Australian reef, has suffered little global warming damage.

I had already been following the Ridd story outside this thread, but you, Jerry, have revealed a new angle to me.

He has been awarded compensation for his sacking but James Cook University (at Townsville) is challenging this in the courts. Up until I read your work I thought that the common claim that 90% of the GBR had been damaged or destroyed - as opposed to about 20-25% as claimed by Ridd - was an extreme claim made by "official researchers" who were being encouraged by corrupt academia to declare the reef dead. As a result, mining claims would face less opposition from environmentalists since the latter would already have given up the reef for dead!

Note that the Australian Government does not substantially fund universities now; James Cook U and others have to hunt up private funding, led by their wealthy vice-chancellors!

And things are worse still; southern Australia is beset with severe drought, Perth having the hottest and driest September on record, with the wildflower season cut short and many cancelling their tours.

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Richard Stanley]

Happy Postflavian Resurrection Claude (this does not mean you are our messiah though. Yet!)

And things are worse still; southern Australia is beset with severe drought, Perth having the hottest and driest September on record, with the wildflower season cut short and many cancelling their tours.

After several bad wildflower seasons, we had a huge bloom this year (but you missed it by several months). We also had a very mild and arid summer in comparison to the last few decades of increasing desert monsoon humidity. My swamp cooler did a great job almost every day for once. At the beginning of autumn, night temps have already dipped into the high 30's, and soon I'll have to "drain my swamp cooler", unlike our President's globally "heated" rhetoric.

What a brilliant segue, all the trillions of intergalactic readers of Postflaviana are unguently gushing, as they know exactly where I'm going with this.

My original title of this thread (Globalist Warming Denial) was meant to be somewhat ambiguously confusing, but I actually meant it to help ponder whether or not MMGW is an Al Gorey (al-egorical?) globalist scam. This based upon the cultural tradition (of the Bible and other solar religions) of blaming a hubristic Liberal humanity run amuck and thus God (aka the Sun and his Vicar's minions) must put us back in our proper place.

This theme runs deep in the Bible, and archaeology is in general agreement that human civilizations were cyclically destroyed, by various cosmicly generated climate events, mostly related to the relationship of the Sun to Earth. This is the general theme of UCSB's anthropologist Brian Fagan in his book, The Long Summer. And he argues that the bigger and more complex a society is the harder it will fall. I have to assume that this is because the majority of people, especially "the Haves" insist that their relative paradise will go on forever, after all God loves them, especially Them.

But, in my Machiavellian analysis outlook it seems apparent that a considerable faction of elites have long considered that we'll incur some sort of Malthusian End. And if such as some radicalized evangelical fundamentalists consider it apropos to act as their God's agents in "immanentizing the Eschaton", then these elites consider it their ordained right to do the same, perhaps even prodding the Dominionists to do their bidding, as Useful Idiots.

If one was going to play out the 'script' of the Biblical End Times, as I assert here on Postflaviana, then would not it make sense to organize an elite cabal to exercise their political and financial influence over susceptible scientists to go along with their grant funds and such to fudge their conclusions to some a priori conclusion that the warm "Sky is Falling"?

The following is a presentation by 'rogue' University of Colorado scientist, Richard Alan Keen, whose presentation, It's the Data Stupid: What's Wrong with Global Warming?, makes the 'outrageous' assertion that one must first have accurate data, or at least have an honest and accurate way to 'normalize' incomplete and inaccurate data to base a proper scientific conclusion upon. This, instead of formulating a Biblically geopolitical (my framing) conclusion and adjusting the data to fit the conclusion.

There is a reason why Christian and Jews like to focus on the amazing stories of Joseph and his dream interpretations for his pharaoh, about the 7 years of feast and 7 years of famine. It is the same reason that they like to ignore the abysmal crony capitalism story of what Joseph and the pharaoh did to the people at the end of Genesis 47. While the average 'Abrahamic' person believes that their respective messiah is focused on saving them, because He Loves, Loves, Loves them, the real subtext of the Bible is in instructing the global elite du jour on how to recontextualize land and underlying asset theft (and consequent associated crimes like genocide) in sanctified Justification terms like Providential Conquest, Promised Land, Manifest Destiny, etc.. It's not Murder if God orders it.

One of the big claims today is that a consensus of 97% of climate scientists agree about MMGW, but if these claims about the duplicitous formulation (see at ~16:00 into the following video) of the 97% is true then this is truly scandalous, and emblematic of how such as the 'progressive" left is getting co-opted into a craven and cynical elite agenda, sardonically the same as is complained about the populist right. As we discussed during your visit with me, a Real Elite essentially controls both the Right and the Left.

 

[Emma Robertson]

Yes, it is the shape of the eye of Hurricane Erin that was the Pentagon, not the path. And its appearance would be an extraordinary coincidence indeed!

Not really, this seems a common phenomenon for hurricanes:

"A range of final vortex structures is possible, depending on the size, width and strength of the initial vortex ring. Kossin and Schubert (2001) explore the part of the parameter space relevant to TCs. The typical response is for the vortex ring to break into a relatively large number of mesoscale vortices, which subsequently merge. These mergers may proceed to give a single discrete vortex monopole, or to a quasi- stable “vortex crystal”, an asymmetric lattice of mesovortices rotating as a solid body. The flow associated with such a structure consists of near- straight line segments, making up a persistent polygonal shape. Such lattices can also undergo internal rearrangements – e.g. from a pentagon with a central mesovortex to a hexagon, and back again. The former of these structures is strikingly similar to the well- known instance of mesovortices in Hurricane Isabel (Fig 1.2.6)"

http://www.meteo.fr/temps/domtom/La_Reunion/webcmrs9.0/anglais/recherche/Documents/IWTC6_1.2.pdf

 

[Claude Badley]

Dear Emma,
What you mention here is really good material.

Not really, this seems a common phenomenon for hurricanes:

"... These mergers may proceed to give a single discrete vortex monopole, or to a quasi- stable “vortex crystal”, an asymmetric lattice of mesovortices rotating as a solid body. The flow associated with such a structure consists of near- straight line segments, making up a persistent polygonal shape. Such lattices can also undergo internal rearrangements – e.g. from a pentagon with a central mesovortex to a hexagon, and back again. The former of these structures is strikingly similar to the well- known instance of mesovortices in Hurricane Isabel (Fig 1.2.6)"

http://www.meteo.fr/temps/domtom/La_Reunion/webcmrs9.0/anglais/recherche/Documents/IWTC6_1.2.pdf

We know that tornados consist of vortices within vortices and I am not surprised that hurricanes have this too - though I didn't know this until you posted this article. I am not surprised however because hurricanes (= cyclones) much larger than ours also occur on Saturn at its north pole where a central vortex is surrounded by six hurricanes in a rough hexagon shape.

This is also the vital question concerning the nature of matter - it is fundamentally solid as Democritus' and Newton's atoms were, or is it fundamentally fluid, as Eric Lerner thinks and the Bernoullis thought? The answer should be obvious!

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Emma Robertson]

hurricanes (= cyclones) much larger than ours also occur on Saturn at its north pole where a central vortex is surrounded by six hurricanes in a rough hexagon shape.

And there is a conspiracy theory claiming that Saturn is Satan, and a proof of it would be the exagonal central vortex on the planet, because Satanists allegedly use all kinds of geometrical shapes in their rituals, and the exagon is said to be one of these. The theory even go further saying that the exagon is just a manifestation of the tridimentional cube, and the cube is worshipped by Muslims (the black cube) and by Jews (which they wear on their forehead) and for this reason they are all worshipping Satan. The theory goes on by saying that with all these rituals around cubes they are merging our 3d dimension to the 4th, where the fallen angels are said to dwell, which will allow the fallen angels to ascend to the 5th dimension and in this way escape eternal condemnation by God. Obviously there is nothing true in all of that.

An analysis of this theory and of Saturn myths is found here: https://theoutline.com/post/2382/the-sadness-of-saturn?zd=1&zi=2bse5q3o

"Modern-day conspiracy theorists might not realize that this is their heritage. They prefer to talk about the hidden mysteries of Egypt and Sumeria, rather than admitting that their shocking new revelations about Saturn are just the orthodoxies of a not-too-distant age."

The fact that exagonal or poligonal shapes in general are common in hurricanes eyes is a good element of disproof of that conspiracy theory, because it shows that there is nothing unusual in Saturn's central vortex either, thus not a reason for connecting it to suspicious esoteric practices.

 

[Claude Badley]

Dear Emma,

I guess by 'exagonal' you mean pentagonal or hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, nonagonal, decagonal etc. I had not come across the word before.

And there is a conspiracy theory claiming that Saturn is Satan, and a proof of it would be the exagonal central vortex on the planet, because Satanists allegedly use all kinds of geometrical shapes in their rituals, and the exagon is said to be one of these. The theory even go further saying that the exagon is just a manifestation of the tridimentional cube, and the cube is worshipped by Muslims (the black cube) and by Jews (which they wear on their forehead) and for this reason they are all worshipping Satan.

That is correct I guess in that in traditional astrology, Judaism is associated with Saturn - as opposed to Jesus Christ who is associated with Mercury.

And that's a high membership number you have there Emma! Seems that viewers of this website must be growing exponentially, or...

I very much like your next comment.

The theory goes on by saying that with all these rituals around cubes they are merging our 3d dimension to the 4th, where the fallen angels are said to dwell, which will allow the fallen angels to ascend to the 5th dimension and in this way escape eternal condemnation by God. Obviously there is nothing true in all of that.

Quite right, Jesus, Buddha & Co. are all found in "higher dimensions" than 'our' 3D space and one-D time. Einstein's invocation of spacetime and higher dimensions thereof is a way to smuggle religion back into scientific debate without scientists understanding how they are being manipulated.

I am trying to write a contribution to help Joe, dealing with the philosophy of science. The science writer John Horgan wrote disparagingly of the 'gang of four' philosophers of science i.e. Lakatos, Sir Karl Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend, reducing them to anti-heroes, which has given me a comic inspiration as to how to present their perverse theorizing and hostile interactions!

An analysis of this theory and of Saturn myths is found here: https://theoutline.com/post/2382/the-sadness-of-saturn?zd=1&zi=2bse5q3o

"Modern-day conspiracy theorists might not realize that this is their heritage. They prefer to talk about the hidden mysteries of Egypt and Sumeria, rather than admitting that their shocking new revelations about Saturn are just the orthodoxies of a not-too-distant age."

The fact that exagonal or poligonal shapes in general are common in hurricanes eyes is a good element of disproof of that conspiracy theory, because it shows that there is nothing unusual in Saturn's central vortex either, thus not a reason for connecting it to suspicious esoteric practices.

And that's the important thing with Joe Atwill. He has uncovered the utter malignancy of Freemasonry and its secret society offspring. Freemasonry is based on an obsessive development of mystical Egyptian ideas. Freemasonry fits in well with Protestantism and Judaism but has traditionally been opposed by Catholicism, which for me helps to explain Joe's turn to Catholic broadcasting media.

Joe himself told me about the fundamental importance of the thought of E Michael Jones (EMJ), whom he had already mentioned in numerous broadcasts - so I am trying to make myself more familiar with EMJ's strange ideas. His 'Barren Metal' I have only just started reading.

So now I'm going to have to click on your link!

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Richard Stanley]

And that's the important thing with Joe Atwill. He has uncovered the utter malignancy of Freemasonry and its secret society offspring. Freemasonry is based on an obsessive development of mystical Egyptian ideas. Freemasonry fits in well with Protestantism and Judaism but has traditionally been opposed by Catholicism, which for me helps to explain Joe's turn to Catholic broadcasting media.

There are many rooms in the Father's house, and a different servant for each one. But they all work for the same master, even though many do not know who it is. Some will tell you that the left wing of the house is at war with the right wing, ... or so it seems. Alas, the 'fronts' or fascia of each wing were built for the same owner.

 

[Claude Badley]

Bless you my son!

Happy Postflavian Resurrection Claude (this does not mean you are our messiah though. Yet!)

And how irritating it is for adults to be patronized by such words!!!!

There is a reason why Christian and Jews like to focus on the amazing stories of Joseph and his dream interpretations for his pharaoh, about the 7 years of feast and 7 years of famine. It is the same reason that they like to ignore the abysmal crony capitalism story of what Joseph and the pharaoh did to the people at the end of Genesis 47. While the average 'Abrahamic' person believes that their respective messiah is focused on saving them, because He Loves, Loves, Loves them, the real subtext of the Bible is in instructing the global elite du jour on how to recontextualize land and underlying asset theft (and consequent associated crimes like genocide) in sanctified Justification terms like Providential Conquest, Promised Land, Manifest Destiny, etc.. It's not Murder if God orders it.

All very true, but happily there is an upside to the story about the 7 years feast and 7 years famine. I had heard this story in scripture class in junior primary school, but as I progressed through primary school Sydney was hit by a severe 4-year long drought (1965-8), which let me realize that such stories were based on real climatic events.

Perhaps the classic story here is the giant volcanoes that erupted from 538AD - Ilopango in Guatemala then Rabaul in PNG and some other volcano about a year later. They brought about the true dark age with the collapse of civilizations globally - and voila, in its wake arose Muhammad & Islam!

One of the big claims today is that a consensus of 97% of climate scientists agree about MMGW, but if these claims about the duplicitous formulation (see at ~16:00 into the following video) of the 97% is true then this is truly scandalous, and emblematic of how such as the 'progressive" left is getting co-opted into a craven and cynical elite agenda, sardonically the same as is complained about the populist right. As we discussed during your visit with me, a Real Elite essentially controls both the Right and the Left.

Given that the normally most reliable rainfall in Australia is on the south coast of Western Australia, and that the rains failed there too, Australia's richest wildflower region is now under major threat. Summer rain - such as you had in LA when I was there - is useless for wildflowers since it only brings up weeds and fungi.

The loss of rainfall seasonality is such a threat to ecosystems that I can think of little more than executing the two speakers on the videos for promoting crime against the environment!!!!!!! Just as with the Great Barrier Reef, continued drought destroying the richest wildflower areas in South West WA will actually encourage miners to move in to mine coal, which, by a terrible coincidence, underlie the two richest wildflower areas - the Fitzgerald River National Park and Mount Lesueur region. National Park status in WA does NOT protect the areas from mining!!!!

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Richard Stanley]

Bless you my son!

This 'Father', of course, is currently Papa Francis, who is currently remodeling the master bedroom of said house, from a podium in the middle of the burning Amazon rain forest. Will he also remodel the bedroom of Judah's and that son (by another mother), Satan (aka Set/Seth)?

And how irritating it is for adults to be patronized by such words!!!!

My apologies, I sometimes go too far with my humor.

The loss of rainfall seasonality is such a threat to ecosystems that I can think of little more than executing the two speakers on the videos for promoting crime against the environment!!!!!!! Just as with the Great Barrier Reef, continued drought destroying the richest wildflower areas in South West WA will actually encourage miners to move in to mine coal, which, by a terrible coincidence, underlie the two richest wildflower areas - the Fitzgerald River National Park and Mount Lesueur region. National Park status in WA does NOT protect the areas from mining!!!!

Why not execute the miners? What about Milankovich, if he were still alive, that is? What about executing the rabid proponents of the Holy Bible, which commands men to "go forth and multiply", like Australian rabbits, with their chattel wives? This, while their 'celibate' priests systematically rape children while their acolytes bitterly complain about the Masonic degradations to their idolized Stepford Culture? The subtext of their canon being global conquest and dominion over all.

The IPCC 'science' is RANK 'geopolitical' science, of the order which you claim for Einsteinian science, or worse. I did not hear these speakers promote any such "crimes against the environment!!!!!!!", so you are conflating different matters, as intended, being caught up in the Group Think hysteria.

I, at least, have a 'serious' proposal to outlaw volcanoes, comets, asteroids, solar variations, supernovas, earthquakes, quicksand, and locusts. This, instead of executing scientific people who do not advocate for "crimes against the environment!!!!!!!" while properly engaging in the Scientific Debate about a geopolitical agenda driven issue, using their American First Amendment rights -- until they soon will disappear, during and after the Civil War which the current American Trojan Whore president is agitating for.

Since Al Gore is the poster boy for this geo-political cause, perhaps it might do to examine his and his late father's connection to the Occidental Petroleum, and the typical, behind the scenes linkages of such elites across the geo-political divide, with the likes of Armand Hammer, Oxy's late founder, long-term capitalist friend of the USSR. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=al+gore+occidental+petroleum&t=ffsb&atb=v173-1&ia=web

In any case, in the aggregate at least, the polar bears are happy with Global Warming, no matter who causes it.

 

[Emma Robertson]

I guess by 'exagonal' you mean pentagonal or hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, nonagonal, decagonal etc. I had not come across the word before.

I meant hexagonal. I am not native speaker, so I make some mistakes

And that's the important thing with Joe Atwill. He has uncovered the utter malignancy of Freemasonry and its secret society offspring. Freemasonry is based on an obsessive development of mystical Egyptian ideas. Freemasonry fits in well with Protestantism and Judaism but has traditionally been opposed by Catholicism,

I am afraid we are on the wrong track about Freemasonry. Up to now I was a supporter of the idea of conspiracy by Freemasons, but I am in the process of revisioning all my conspiracy ideas -which I never checked- and Freemasonry definitely looks as a victim like Jews are of false conspiracy ideas against them.

Easy to find a reason: their secrecy and their ideas of freedom, equality and justice must have been posing a threat to the powers that be. Not surprise that Catholics have always opposed them, but not only them, the list of repression against them is looooong, very looooong, as much as for the Jews:

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

Among the many, Russia persecuted Freemasonry during the communist era, so it is hardly true what conspiracists say that Freemasons are the ones behind the communist revolution.


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17272611

"It's nothing new, says Observer newspaper columnist Nick Cohen."

"Ever since the 1790s Masons have been "whipping boys" for global conspiracy theorists, he argues, adding that after the French revolution, Catholic reactionaries were looking for a scapegoat and the Jews - the usual target - were too downtrodden to be blamed.

"It was the Freemasons' turn and the narrative of a secret society plotting in the shadows has never gone away, says Cohen. "You can draw a straight line from the 1790s onwards to the Nazis, Franco, Stalin right up to modern Islamists like Hamas." "

As far as their interest in Egyptians symbols is concerned I read that when Freemasonry underwent its transformation in 1700s from an operative mason brotherhood to a speculative one, there were people who were not masons who were attracted to join because they thought they would find esoteric teachings among them, spiritual teachings, and they found very little. So my guess is that these intellectuals searched later for spiritual mysteries elsewhere and the Egyptians certainly offered an intriguing field.

https://www.gaia.com/article/ancient-egypt-and-freemasonry

But ancient Egypt is not their only area of interest, certainly ancient Greece and Roman world before the Church dominion, that is classical time, too.

I used to have a friend whose lodge was doing just that: searching for forgotten esoteric teachings in the Western world (as opposed to the trend to look for Eastern teachings).