Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
In Australia we have the worst drought ever in the inland of northern New South Wales, and a general drought over inland Australia. This is because the ocean is warming and it requires more heat on the land to bring the moist air in off the ocean.
The book by Ralph Alexander makes the point that the term "Climate Change" is used at least as much as "Global Warming" these days. Which is, perhaps, for the good reason that there are a lot of local, fairly intense climate changes going on, in addition to the long-term global trend. In addition to temperature increases, there are changes in seasonal rainfall patterns, and some regions are getting colder winters.

And skeptics will point out that the climate is always changing, especially on a local basis. And if we wait a few years, maybe those local climate changes will reverse themselves. Or maybe not.

Many mainstream scientists, on the other hand, believe that these local climate changes are caused, at least to a large extent, by the unfolding global changes.

The map below shows that the most extreme changes are in the Arctic region, with some locations more than 4C warmer in 2014-2018 compared to an 1880-1909 baseline. Australia is mostly about average for continental areas, but the ocean to the east of New South Wales is warmer than most of the world's oceans. This tends to confirm Claude's statement above.



About the increasing temperatures in the Arctic region, meteorologist Nick Humphrey (who says he gets all his funding from his Patreon sponsors) says:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/arctic-is-in-30680844

The Arctic as a whole is already in the range of +3-4 C/5.5-7 F above pre-industrial times. The Arctic is now a permanently altered climate region. It will continue to warm rapidly given the existing greenhouse gas concentration in Earth's atmosphere.
On a global scale, the current carbon dioxide equivalent concentration (based on the heating impact of all greenhouse gases) is near 500 parts per million (NOAA). In the past decade, the carbon dioxide equivalent concentration has risen, on average, near 3.5 ppm/yr. A (conservative) long-term warming expectation based on such a concentration would be over +2.5 C/4.5 F for the land air+sea surface. This would likely translate to +7-8 C/12.5-14.5 F of warming in the Arctic, supporting the rapid destruction of Arctic sea ice and permafrost discussed below. [....]
Permafrost - both land-based and sub-sea permafrost under the shallow areas of the Arctic Ocean - is melting much faster than projected originally. Terrestrial permafrost is melting across the Northern Hemisphere abruptly by way of landslides, thaw lakes and coastal erosion as sea ice is lost. The terrestrial permafrost contains 1,450-1,600 billion tonnes of organic carbon (per the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cryosphere Report) and hundreds of billions of tonnes of it will be released assuming a high emissions scenario (the scenario we are currently on). For comparison, about 275 billion tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere since 1750 in the form of carbon dioxide (1 ppm of additional carbon dioxide = 2.13 billion tonnes of carbon; The actual carbon dioxide concentration has risen 130 ppm from near 280 ppm in 1750 to 410 ppm in 2019).
Much of these terrestrial permafrost emissions will be as carbon dioxide, but a portion of it will be methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas on short-time scales (96 times more powerful than CO2 on a 20-yr timescale). There is also evidence that a significant amount of nitrous oxide, another powerful and long-lived greenhouse gas is already being released. These emissions will accelerate as rapidly as the permafrost holding the organic material melts.
Sub-sea permafrost in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (under the East Siberian and Laptev Seas) is methane-bearing via methane hydrates and free pressurized gases. It is estimated that >1,400 billion tonnes of methane are stored in the ESAS, with its ability to be released into the free atmosphere by the fact that the sea is so shallow over the continental shelf.
But before panic sets in, I should mention that the "geopolitical climate whore scientists" say there's nothing to worry about, because it will take hundreds or even thousands of years for any significant amount of methane to be released from the undersea methane hydrate deposits and permafrost.

Are y'all reassured by my calming message from the geopolitical climate whores?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the map above, Jerry.
The book by Ralph Alexander makes the point that the term "Climate Change" is used at least as much as "Global Warming" these days. Which is, perhaps, for the good reason that there are a lot of local, fairly intense climate changes going on, in addition to the long-term global trend. In addition to temperature increases, there are changes in seasonal rainfall patterns, and some regions are getting colder winters.

And skeptics will point out that the climate is always changing, especially on a local basis. And if we wait a few years, maybe those local climate changes will reverse themselves. Or maybe not.

Many mainstream scientists, on the other hand, believe that these local climate changes are caused, at least to a large extent, by the unfolding global changes.
The most important feature of the map is the blue spot in the middle of the North Atlantic south of Greenland. This is the effect of the meltwater coming off Greenland - cooling the Atlantic there while the rest of the world has warmed - and the proof of MMGW in that it reveals Greenland to be an "ice pack" on Earth's "overheated forehead"!
But before panic sets in, I should mention that the "geopolitical climate whore scientists" say there's nothing to worry about, because it will take hundreds or even thousands of years for any significant amount of methane to be released from the undersea methane hydrate deposits and permafrost.

Are y'all reassured by my calming message from the Geopolitical Climate Whores?
Some like it hot - especially them GCW scientist ho-hos!

Yours in the sauna
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
On some level, I agree that we are dealing here with the self-imposed ignorance described in the video, but at a higher level we seem to be dealing with a clique of deception, motivated by 1) elite profit, and 2) a knowledge and/or belief of enhanced elite survivability. And at the higher level we are talking about such as the intergovernmental coercion of national science panels to agree with the manufactured consensus, founded upon maleficent extrapolations and normalizations of measured data and the same in fudging their computer models. "If your panel's bureaucrats don't sign on to our BS, you will be kicked out of the benefits club."

When scientists outside of the clique of deception started announcing that all the solar system's planets were experiencing signs of respective global warming, the clique did not decide that humans' Earthly CO2 was somehow making its way to those planets in the same time frame as Earth's rise in heating. Or claiming that the Jesuit's busy aliens (apparently in the service of Space Jesus) were warming those planets, but instead the clique immediately came up with different and independant unique explanations for why each planet and/or moon was appearing to warm, almost as if they had these answers prepared in reserve. Apparently, at the Solar System Casino it was a good time to play roulette and bet on the 000000.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I agree that we are dealing here with the self-imposed ignorance described in the video,
There's a difference between "ignorance" and "informed disagreement". The video talks about solar energy flux changes, and electric currents within the solar system. I don't think anybody denies that such things are conceptually possible. But there's no evidence that they are actually a major factor.

When scientists outside of the clique of deception started announcing that all the solar system's planets were experiencing signs of respective global warming,
What are you talking about? A web search turned up this article...

https://www.space.news/2015-10-06-entire-solar-system-is-heating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html

Which discusses a study by a "Dr. Mike", who says that "the sun’s magnetic field has increased by 230 percent within the last 100 years." It turns out that this is Dr. Michael Lockwood, who did indeed study the effect of solar influence on climate. But, he "told the New Scientist that he seriously doubted that solar influences were a big factor compared to anthropogenic influences." And in his scientific paper "Solar Influence on Global and Regional Climates", Lockwood wrote:

The academic reputation of the field of Sun-climate relations is poor because [.... it is...] a field that in recent years has been corrupted by unwelcome political and financial influence as climate change sceptics have seized upon putative solar effects as an excuse for inaction on anthropogenic warming. In particular, figures and statistics with known errors, limitations and inaccuracies are repeatedly reproduced on the Internet and in the media (as discussed, for example, by Damon and Laut 2004), and publications are reported in a massively selective manner. None of this makes any difference to the scientific reality, or otherwise, of mechanisms connecting solar variability and Earth’s climate; however, it does make evaluation of the evidence much more difficult.

The above "space news" article also mentions that atmospheric pressure on Pluto is increasing. This information comes from a thread at abovetopsecret.com which also claims that Mars is warming, and that increased amounts of interstellar dust particles are "leaking though the Sun's magnetic shield". Finally, there is a prediction that Jupiter might get warmer in the future.

FWIW, Wikipedia denies that increased atmospheric pressure at Pluto is because of change in temperature. They say it's because the north pole came into sunlight, causing intensified evaporation of nitrogen there.

the clique immediately came up with different and independant unique explanations for why each planet and/or moon was appearing to warm
Maybe because out of all the planets and moons, Mars is the only one besides Earth that is actually warming? And maybe Mars is warming on a different timescale, to a different extent, and for a different reason? Maybe Pluto and Jupiter aren't getting warmer at all?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following are presentations on the SAFIRE Project, an exploration of the plasma model of the Sun, by plasma physicists among other scientists and engineers. They actually created an artificial plasma Sun, and it remarkably replicates most of the observed solar phenomenon, in a much more coherent fashion that the mainstream model.

The premise of this model is the flow of electric / plasma currents between the planets and the Sun, between the Sun and our galaxy, thus making the plants actual dynamos. This is consistent with the findings of millions of amperes of current flowing into and out of the Earth's polar regions.

If the solar system traverses into and out of space regions with more and less ion or energy densities, then these plasma currents can play the variable role in global warming. And of which, as I understand it, the IPCC 'science' ignores instead of faking the impact of CO2, that it is, it allows for sun light heating in the thermal budget, but nothing from polar plasma current flows and coronal mass ejections (CMEs).


 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Alexander's claims that amounts to saying it's due to solar variation is obsolete.
It may or may not be.

But what is important is that he shows that so far what has been produced as undenible proof of human made global warming is fake. He allows for the possibility of human made participation in warming, but definitely minimal.

It's not that by proving that solar variations aren't the cause, it is automatically proved that it is a manmade affair.

Can you see the fallacy in your reasoning?

Besides, he shows that warming has been largely overestimated in projections, and also historical data have been altered to prove a higher warming than it is. And who tries to demonstrate the contrary is obstacled, like that scientist speaking to Congress reveals.

And he also suggests that the enourmous amount of money that will be wasted in counterracting an inexistent MMGW could be spent instead on trying to find the real causes. So, he is not giving solar variations as the ultimate and undeniable cause of warming. He was just suggesting in 2012 a possible cause, according to the state of research at that moment.

I also add that even if we find the real causes there might be nothing that we can do, if it is a natural phenomena. What is going on is nothing unusual in the history of Earth.

So far the trend is nothing worring, and hadn't it been for certain interests it wouldn't have been a matter of concern for anybody.
 
Last edited:
So, Emma, you try to explain global warming by solar changes only!
It may or may not be.

But what is important is that he shows that so far what has been produced as undenible proof of human made global warming is fake. He allows for the possibility of human made participation in warming, but definitely minimal.
He has proven nothing of the sort since the diminution of solar cycles in recent decades does not explain the rampant global warming of our day - specifically the melting Greenland Ice Sheet.
It's not that by proving that solar variations aren't the cause, it is automatically proved that it is a manmade affair.

Can you see the fallacy in your reasoning?
No, because once the solar variations are shown NOT to explain the global warming of the last 40 years, the human-induced explanation remains the favored one - ever since Svante Arrhenius predicted it in the 19th century, though it did nt really get underway until 1977.
Besides, he shows that warming has been largely overestimated in projections, and also historical data have been altered to prove a higher warming than it is. And who tries to demonstrate the contrary is obstacled, like that scientist speaking to Congress reveals.
False, the evidence shows that it has been underestimated, though I suspect that the reason here is the increased CH4 emissions (which take 10 years to dissipate).
And he also suggests that the enourmous amount of money that will be wasted in counterracting an inexistent MMGW could be spent instead on trying to find the real causes. So, he is not giving solar variations as the ultimate and undeniable cause of warming. He was just suggesting in 2012 a possible cause, according to the state of research at that moment.
The claim from 2012 is obsolete since according to his theory we now should be cooling i.e. the Greenland meltwater should have ceased, which it has not, as Jerry's map above shows.
I also add that even if we find the real causes there might be nothing that we can do, if it is a natural phenomena. What is going on is nothing unusual in the history of Earth.

So far the trend is nothing worring, and hadn't it been for certain interests it wouldn't have been a matter of concern for anybody.
So you claim a cryptic (unknown) cause and so we don't have to do anything but "business as usual". You remind me now of Steven Pinker, forever claiming that everything is getting better and better under modernity. In contrast CO2 increases are not only shown to have a decisive effect in global warming - through blocking infrared radiation at night leading to a cooler upper atmosphere above the absorbed infrared radiation - but have diluted the Atlantic Conveyor, leading to persisting anomalous climate changes around British Columbia and the western half of Australia.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
The Atlantic Conveyor refers to the massive salt-water stream that underlies the Gulf Stream and that traditionally brings heat from the Caribbean into the North Atlantic. The water is saltier than the Gulf Stream, the saltiness arising from net evaporation in the Caribbean, the water vapor passing across the Isthmus of Panama over to the Pacific Ocean. The net Atlantic saltiness is overwhelming, not being reversed e.g. by the flow of the Amazon.

As the Atlantic Conveyor takes the warm salty water past Britain into the Northern Sea, the salty water gives up its warmth to Europe. Being heavier than ordinary seawater due to the salt, the water then traditionally (i.e. before 1977) sinks into the Deep Layer of the ocean. This means that the Arctic Ocean is constantly losing volume to the deep oceans, and explains why the flow in the Bering Strait is from south to north!

What goes down must come up! This means that the Deep Ocean waters have to come to the surface elsewhere in the world. This occurs off the western edges of continents and around Antarctica - but, traditionally, off the Pacific Northwest of North America, the Alaska Panhandle and British Columbia. This rising nutrient-rich cold water counteracts the effect of the Kuroshio Current which comes from south of Japan and heads directly for the Alaska Panhandle, warming southern Alaska and British Columbia. Hence the traditional temperature of British Columbia was governed by the balance of Kuroshio warm water and upwelling nutrient-rich cold water.

In 1977 this balance was lost, with British Columbia suddenly warming by nearly 2 degrees C, along with Southern Alaska and also lesser warming in Washington State, Oregon and Northern California. What was the reason for this?

The reason is that mid-north Atlantic blue spot in Jerry's map of the world which shows the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. This fresh meltwater cools the underlying Atlantic Conveyor but, more importantly, dilutes it, rendering its salty water LESS SALTY. Hence when this salty water delivers its heat load to Europe it NO LONGER forms Deep Water as before, but Intermediate Water instead. The ocean has three layers, the MMGW overheated surface layer, the Intermediate Water (nutrient poor) and the Deep Ocean Water (nutrient rich).

From 1977, the Atlantic Conveyor began producing Intermediate Water rather than Deep Ocean Water. Being lighter than Deep Ocean Water it upwelled at the surface of the oceans at a different part of the Earth's surface. This upwelling now occurrs off the west coast of Sumatra, diluting the equatorial Indian Ocean with cold nutrient-poor water and increasing the Indian Ocean Dipole (i.e. making it more a positive dipole, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole), meaning that hotter Indian Ocean water now moved toward the African Coast, helping to create the Ethiopian-Somalian droughts. It also caused the rainfall in north-west Australia (Darwin, Arnhem Land, Kimberleys) to increase. Conversely, it causes the rainfall of South-West Western Australia (SWWA), where I live, to fall catastrophically since this tropical equatorial water is where the water source of SWWA comes from. The agriculture collapse of this region has followed, with abandonment of over 30% of the Wheatbelt.

It is now much worse however, as inland New South Wales is collapsing agriculturally as warmed ocean waters retard the movement of rain-fronts and the ability of such fronts from delivering rain to the land. In the old days heavy clouds meant rain - they no longer do so, but just as often merely pass over the landscape without precipitation.

This "new normal" will mean the near collapse of Australian agriculture - meaning Australia will barely be able to feed itself - reaffirming I might add, the severe antipathy towards immigration that Australians have upheld for 25 years or more!

The idiot-farmers and others who followed this solar-cooling nonsense (in that its effects, while real, are overwhelmed by MMGW) are now paying the price for it - especially as, led by big business, they have not been interested in developing technology for a CO2-neutral economy.

Unless you address these bigger issues, Emma, you become a shill for the MMGW deniers.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The following are presentations on the SAFIRE Project, an exploration of the plasma model of the Sun, by plasma physicists among other scientists and engineers. They actually created an artificial plasma Sun, and it remarkably replicates most of the observed solar phenomenon, in a much more coherent fashion that the mainstream model.
I'm more into reading, rather than watching videos. Information on the SAFIRE project is at this link:

https://www.safireproject.com/ewExternalFiles/SAFIRE-Project-Report.pdf

Background info on the "Electric Sun" theory is here:

https://www.velikovsky.info/ralph-juergens/

The SAFIRE project seems to involve passing an ionic current from anode to cathode in a vacuum chamber, creating a plasma display. I'm not sure I understand how this is different from what takes place in a typical fluorescent light fixture, or neon tube, aside from high potentials & energy levels. In their recent experiments, they claim to be using a 200KW DC power supply. Short bursts of very high energy are reportedly seen, and they claim that trace amounts of heavy elements are created as a result of transmutation of elements. This feels reminiscent of the cold fusion (LENR) results reported by Emilio Del Guidice, and reported in my article "Deuterium Shell Game" here at this site.

I don't have any trouble with the idea that electric currents flow through space, carried by solar wind and cosmic rays.

But what I find mystifying about all of this, is the claim that these are effects of primary importance. The fact is, that the vast majority of energy radiated from the Sun, warming the Earth, is thermal black-body radiation emitted from the surface at about 6,000 degrees Kelvin. Coronal radiation, although at a higher temperature, is a minuscule fraction of the total energy.

And furthermore, we know that the Sun is very massive, with the vast majority of the mass located beneath that thermal black-body radiating surface. With its tremendous gravitational mass, it's clear that enormous pressures and temperatures must exist in the interior. Even in our terrestrial environment, we know that very high pressures and temperatures exist below the surface of the Earth, sometimes escaping from the crust in volcanoes. Obviously the temperatures and pressures inside the Sun must be far more intense.

As soon as the energy of nuclear fusion reactions was described, in 1920, it was conjectured (first by Arthur Eddington) that fusion reactions must be taking place inside the Sun. This immediately solved a mystery which had plagued scientists since the heliocentric solar system was first described: how the Sun could provide so much energy for such a long time. If it had been driven by chemical energy (combustion) it would have flamed out in a short time. The production of fusion energy in the core of the Sun is now regarded as "settled science", verified directly by neutrino observations, as well as indirectly by computation. I found a nifty summary of this story at Quora, here.

So, what's bizarre to me about this "Electric Sun" theory, is the denial that the Sun's energy is coming from fusion in the core.

Given the enormous mass of the Sun, and the pressures and temperatures that must be found at the core: what on earth would make these Thunderbolts folks think there's no fusion taking place?

When you think about it, this is very analogous to the claim that CO2 couldn't be the cause of global warming, so some other mysterious effect must be responsible. It's just the same thing, to deny that fusion energy is driving the Sun, and then conjure up strange reactions in the corona as substitutes.

In the "Electric Sun" material, there's no explanation given for where all the energy driving the electrical effects is coming from. Where's the equivalent of the 200KW power supply in the SAFIRE experiment? Electric currents don't create themselves, they need to be driven by some energy source or dynamo. And according to conventional science, the answer is obvious enough: the electric effects are being driven by fusion energy emerging from the core, although the exact mechanisms aren't clearly understood. And to a much lesser extent by cosmic rays, which are now thought to come from supernovae, and ultimately powered by fusion reactions involving carbon instead of hydrogen.

If indeed this Thunderbolts material is as much of an obvious fraud as it appears to be, then what's the motivation? Follow the money? SAFIRE is funded by something called The International Science Foundation, whose only current project is SAFIRE. They received $2.2 million in "private funding". I guess there's nothing suspicious about that. But, could this be the same International Science Foundation that was funded by George Soros in 1992 to save Russian scientists from starvation after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and was accused of being a front for the CIA? It does seem to be a strange coincidence.
 
You've nailed it Jerry...
If indeed this Thunderbolts material is as much of an obvious fraud as it appears to be, then what's the motivation? Follow the money? SAFIRE is funded by something called The International Science Foundation, whose only current project is SAFIRE. They received $2.2 million in "private funding". I guess there's nothing suspicious about that. But, could this be the same International Science Foundation that was funded by George Soros in 1992 to save Russian scientists from starvation after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and was accused of being a front for the CIA? It does seem to be a strange coincidence.
...in that Wallace Thornhill and George Soros both appear prominently on the "critical thinker website".

https://thecriticalthinker.wordpress.com/tag/wallace-thornhill/

Hence the connection if not identity of the two "International Science Foundations" must be assumed until proven otherwise.

Indeed, Soros, with his fake pro-Palestinian stance, reminds me of Noel Ignatiev who whinges about Whiteness, and also, I later found, postures with the same fake pro-Palestinian stance.

But why does Noel Ignatiev whinge about Whiteness!!!!!!!??????

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The SAFIRE project seems to involve passing an ionic current from anode to cathode in a vacuum chamber, creating a plasma display. I'm not sure I understand how this is different from what takes place in a typical fluorescent light fixture, or neon tube, aside from high potentials & energy levels. In their recent experiments, they claim to be using a 200KW DC power supply. Short bursts of very high energy are reportedly seen, and they claim that trace amounts of heavy elements are created as a result of transmutation of elements. This feels reminiscent of the cold fusion (LENR) results reported by Emilio Del Guidice, and reported in my article "Deuterium Shell Game" here at this site.

I don't have any trouble with the idea that electric currents flow through space, carried by solar wind and cosmic rays.
Your first comment is pretty funny, because the second video (and maybe even the first) make the explicit analogy to a fluorescent light bulb.

You don't have any trouble with the idea of electric currents flowing through space, but apparently you have a problem with the Corona Aurora Borealis and tens of millions of amps flowing into and out of the Earth's (and other planets) polar regions.

As a degreed electrical engineer you understand that if resistance changes in a circuit that the current changes inversely. You are probably aware that the entire solar system is traversing through space at a gobsmacking speed, and that there are various clouds of interstellar dust that said solar system and its electric currents must necessarily traverse. Yes, even galaxies collide. :eek: There is something like 6 small galaxies currently colliding with the Milky Way.

Science was correct that humans cannot fly, and it still is. There has yet to be one human flap his arms and fly (upwards and without a squirrel suit) that is, unless you and Claude are going to prove me otherwise. Of course, Science also said that metal ships could not float.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
apparently you have a problem with the Corona Borealis and tens of millions of amps flowing into and out of the Earth's (and other planets) polar regions.
You mean, the Aurora Borealis? How could I have a problem with that? But... where does this number "tens of millions of amps" come from? How does that translate into energy flowing into the atmosphere?

Are you trying to promulgate some theory that solar wind is increasing, causing greater energy flow into these auroras, and causing global warming?

Science also said that metal ships could not float.
When was that?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
But... where does this number "tens of millions of amps" come from?
I believe this was the phrase used in the videos.
How does that translate into energy flowing into the atmosphere?
I x V = W
Are you trying to promulgate some theory that solar wind is increasing, causing greater energy flow into these auroras, and causing global warming?
No promulgation here, but rather more to point out that the IPCC Earth Energy budget ignores other inputs, consistent with their a priori admission that they must demonstrate CO2 as the the culprit, and thus humans must be apocalyptically blamed as the rationale for the new order.
When was that?
When someone proposed making ships out of steel instead of wood, if memory serves me it was regarding the British Navy.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
No promulgation here, but rather more to point out that the IPCC Earth Energy budget ignores other inputs, consistent with their a priori admission that they must demonstrate CO2 as the the culprit, and thus humans must be apocalyptically blamed as the rationale for the new order.
Leaving the IPCC out of it, the question is whether climate scientists are generally correct to ignore other inputs? And furthermore: if (in the face of substantial evidence implicating CO2) the Thunderbolts, SAFIRE project and Ben Davidson want to argue that solar or interstellar electric currents are somehow responsible for Global Warming and Climate Change -- isn't it their burden of proof to show that this true?

So they've pulled a number "tens of millions of amps" from out of nowhere? And with no mention of voltage potential (joules per coulomb), and no comparison to solar energy flux from black body radiation? This is not even an argument.

Humanity is apocalyptically to blame for our own predicament? Sadly, yes indeed. Or you could just blame the oil companies and coal miners, or other usual suspects.

When someone proposed making ships out of steel instead of wood, if memory serves me it was regarding the British Navy.
What an odd story. Aerodynamics is a new science, so I can understand why it was debated that bumblebees couldn't fly. But, principles of buoyancy have been well understood since Archimedes. I wonder what "scientist" was worried about this.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yes, you're right the IPCC scientists have no responsibility but to conclude what the IPCC wants, so that rich white people can implement further neoliberal global policies that further steer resources disproportionately to themselves. The reward for the White Man's Burden.

But based upon their first experiments they successfully demonstrated most key attributes of the Sun, including almost melting down their apparatus, far outside their calculations. Based upon playing with voltage and current they were even able to create a black sun.

You think what you want, I've spent too much time on this thread, and as Trump says: "Time will tell".
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is a graphic from the 2013 lecture on the Sun further below. As the scientist discusses, the current array of space telescopes and sensors is enabling us to start learning more about how the Sun works and its interactions with such as the Earth. As such, the graphic is looking at the energy field surrounding the Earth, showing the Plasma Mantle, and a Plasma Tail Lobe, and the Plasmasheet Boundary Layers feeding into and out of the Earth polar regions. I'm guessing that the bidirectional arrows are representing electron and proton flows within the plasma.

Also discussed is how the Earth's magnet field is collapsing and appearing getting ready to reverse, as it is wont to periodically do over relatively long periods compared to human civilization contexts. It is the Earth's magnetic field and the associated Van Allen Belts that protect us from too much solar and cosmic radiation, but don't worry, the IPCC says, by implication, we can ignore such energies, we've only to worry about CO2.

Because the Earth is only a tiny speck relative to the radial distribution of a typical solar storm's energies and the magnetic and VAB protection, we don't have to worry that a typical large solar storm has the energy to vaporize half the contents of our oceans in one fell swoop. Discussed is the 1859 Carrington Event, whose energy was focused more towards Earth than most storms.

589

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
It is the Earth's magnetic field and the associated Van Allen Belts that protect us from too much solar and cosmic radiation, but don't worry, the IPCC says, by implication, we can ignore such energies, we've only to worry about CO2.
First you announce that you've spent enough time arguing with me in the MMGW thread. Then you go bringing up the same topic again and again elsewhere on the site. There are rules around here against comment bombardment.

What gives you the right to say what the IPCC says "by implication" when you know full well, they never said any such thing?? The Thunderbolts folks might be predicting a reversal of the Earth's magnetic field, but it hasn't happened yet. So why should the IPCC address this?

But, it's interesting to see that I reached the same conclusion in this old thread, as I did in the newer one. It's just that I hadn't made the connection between Thunderbolts' denial of fusion in the Sun, their denial of MMGW, and the probability of Soros funding.
 
Last edited:
So I guess you have to thank Richard and Suchender for one thing.
But, it's interesting to see that I reached the same conclusion in this old thread, as I did in the newer one. It's just that I hadn't made the connection between Thunderbolts' denial of fusion in the Sun, their denial of MMGW, and the probability of Soros funding.
The Thunderblot-brained notion of "external" solar fusion, the denial of MMGW and the probability of Soros funding are most definitely interconnected. Hence I can conclude confidently that the wackjobs here are all intimately linked to belief in special relativity (SR) and Einstein-based thinking since George Soros sure is!

See p. 12 of Soros' now online book on "Fallibility"...

https://www.georgesoros.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/the_crisis_of_global_capitalism-chap-1-2017_10_05.pdf

...where not just Big Al Einstein but his Minister for Popperganda Sir Karl Popper are both liberally affirmed!:D:D:D

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The Thunderblot-brained notion of "external" solar fusion, the denial of MMGW and the probability of Soros funding are most definitely interconnected. Hence I can conclude confidently that the wackjobs here are all intimately linked to belief in special relativity (SR) and Einstein-based thinking since George Soros sure is!
This is an error in Bayesian reasoning. The consensus regarding special relativity is virtually universal, hence there's nothing unusual about either Soros or Thunderbolts acceptance of it. In other words, this is not distinctive enough to prove anything about the source of Thunderbolts' errors.

Whereas, items such as Solar Fusion Denial, MMGW Denial and Soros funding are all relatively unusual. As such, all of them constitute evidence for the hypothesis that Thunderbolts have some hidden agenda.

Thunderbolts are correct to point out that electrical phenomenon are important & interesting phenomena, on a planetary and interstellar scale. The solar corona is poorly understood. Experiments such as SAFIRE could possibly provide some insights into coronal processes. Thus, it's very possible that legitimate scientists might be attracted to Thunderbolts and their projects, while abstaining from taking a clear position on the more bizarre notions.

In other words, I wouldn't assume that everyone affiliated with Thunderbolts in any way, should be automatically classified as a "wackjob" or otherwise spooky.
 
Top