Review: Unprecedented Crime
The unprecedented crime Peter Carter and Elizabeth Woodworth refer to in the title is that of willfully causing global temperatures to rise, through greenhouse gas emissions, to levels already causing large-scale loss of life while threatening human survival and that of countless other species. They might with equal accuracy speak of crimes, plural, when those who from positions of authority either actively aid key offenders or, by failing to hold them to account, betray the trust placed in them.
This is the unique selling point of Unprecedented Crime: a closely argued insistence that, under existing laws and without recourse to new ones framed specifically to outlaw ecocide, we could indict corporate and governmental bodies identified without hyperbole by the authors as guilty of crimes against humanity.
Think about it. Ninety-seven percent of scientists in relevant disciplines are telling us climate change is real, is man-made and is taking us all, meaning humanity and other advanced life forms, down a roller coaster of environmental catastrophe. Not in some distant sci-fi dystopia but on a timescale measured in decades, years even. Given this, the scale and extent of denial – literal in the case of ‘sceptics’ in the pay of Fossil Fuels Inc; de facto in that of governmental cowardice and venality – are staggering. Why then, with the stakes so high, would we not view the perpetrators as guilty of crimes of a magnitude surpassing anything the world has seen – even in history’s darkest moments?
This is the premise of Carter and Woodworth’s case. Like any good scientist, they start with observable phenomena, as indicated by their opening chapter: Extreme Weather Around the World. From here they proceed, again as scientists do, to set out in Chapter Two the underlying drivers; in this case a heightening of earth’s natural and life-optimal greenhouse effect, to unnatural and decidedly sub-optimal levels, noting along the way a 1990 assertion by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that as a matter of certainty:
Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the green-house effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface temperature.
But that second chapter does more than set out the science. It locates the birth of a small and decidedly non-scientific cabal, of pretty much the most powerful vested interests on the planet – aka the fossil fuels industry and its financiers – and charts their success in casting doubt on that IPCC certainty:
In 2010 a landmark book, Merchants of Doubt, showed how a small group of prominent scientists with connections to politics and industry led disinformation campaigns denying established scientific knowledge about smoking, acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, and global warming.
Written by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Harvard science historian, and NASA historian Erik Conway, Merchants was reviewed by Bill Buchanan of The Christian Science Monitor as “the most important book of 2010,” and by The Guardian’s Robin McKie as “the best science book of the year.” It was followed by the 2014 documentary of the same name, also widely seen and reviewed.
The research showed how the disinformation tactics of the tobacco companies in the 1960s to undermine the scientific link between smoking and lung cancer served as a model for subsequent oil company tactics suppressing climate change science.
Following the U.S. Surgeon General’s landmark report on smoking and lung cancer in 1964, the government legislated warning labels on cigarette packages. But a tobacco company executive from Brown & Williamson had a brainwave: people still wanted to smoke and doubt about the science would give them a ready excuse.
His infamous 1969 memo read: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”
Here’s the thing. People exercised by a terrifying possibility, whose avoidance or mitigation will necessitate – or can be portrayed as necessitating – inconvenience and pain, will be receptive to the counter-view that it’s all hogwash, or at the very least that the doomsayers are overegging things. So eagerly receptive, in fact, that they won’t look too closely at the motives of those advancing such a counter-view. Nuff said, save that Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers For Survival’s spotlight on dirty tricks and systematic strong-arming – their attendant corruption of body politic and informed debate constituting a crime in and of itself – does not make for the most relaxing of bedtime reading.
Three subsequent chapters make the case against an unholy trinity whose crimes of commission and omission would place them in the dock, under existing laws, in a saner and less mendacious world. The headers speak for themselves: State Crime Against the Global Public Trust … Media Collusion (a chapter of particular interest in light of the recently published Media Lens book on media corruption by market forces) … Corporate and Bank Crime …
Chapter 6 discusses Moral Collapse and Religious Apathy. Well well. Search in vain for a “thou shalt not trash Planet Earth” message in Quran, Veda or Bible, but these and other revered texts from our pre-industrial past have much to say on injustice. The meek, you see, are not to inherit the earth after all. Rather, the world’s poorest – their carbon footprints negligible – find themselves at the front line of climatic catastrophes already underway as a result of corporate greed in the Global North. Here’s a snippet from the early pages of John Smith’s Imperialism in the Twenty-first Century, reviewed here, on this aspect of the matter. Having opened with the collapse of an eight-storey textile factory in Dhaka, killing 1133 workers, Smith goes on to say that:
Starvation wages, death-trap factories and fetid slums in Bangladesh typify conditions for hundreds of millions of workers in the Global South, source of surplus value sustaining profits and unsustainable overconsumption in imperialist countries. Bangladesh is also in the front line of another consequence of capitalism’s reckless exploitation of living labor and nature: “climate change”, more accurately described as capitalist destruction of nature. Most of Bangladesh is low-lying. As sea levels rise and monsoons become more energetic, farmland is inundated with salt water, accelerating migration into the cities …
I’ve a reason for citing this. Part Two of Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers For Survival moves from naming the guilty to setting out what is to be done. In doing so the authors introduce the only note I take issue with in the entire book. Chapter 10, on Market Leadership, opens with this:
Much has been written about the constraining effects of capitalism, globalization, and the debt-based economy on a clean energy transition, saying that we must begin by addressing these root issues.
Although these structural impediments may be slowing the potential pace of renewable energy growth, the climate emergency allows us no time to fix the economic system first.
For reasons I’ve gone into elsewhere – here for instance, and here – I shudder at such strawman argument. Few on the left say “fix capitalism then climate change” but many, me included, see scant prospect of stopping or even slowing this and other effects of capitalism’s destruction of nature without taking on what the authors rightly refer to in the above extract as “root issues”. The two fights are one and the same. The underlying cause of climate change is capitalism’s inbuilt addiction to growth: its constant and tyrannical drive to create ever more stuff for us to buy; its demand – no less imperious for that sly obeisance to the God of Choice – that we continually cast out the old to make room for the new and, by this and this alone, breathe life into falling profits in an endless cycle of boom and bust. Moreover, there’s only one irrefutable reply to the mantra that measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions are – like measures to rein in the lucrative death-for-profit industries – “anti-job”. That is to push back at such slick and circular ‘reasoning’ by placing wealth creation for human need, not private profit, firmly on the table.
So say I. But where does this leave the likes of me? Do we withdraw in a sulk from collaboration with those who see things otherwise while sharing our horror at the criminal insanity unfolding before our eyes? Hardly. Climate breakdown, this book reminds us, leaves no room for sectarianism. Red and Green must find common cause. To that end we should differentiate two forms of collaboration: on the one hand rainbow alliances whose shaky, lowest common denominator foundations require dilution upon dilution of principle, only to implode at the first real test of solidarity; on the other hand working alliances, united fronts, in which no dilution of principle is called for. Just shared recognition of a common goal, and willingness to engage with all who are prepared to work towards it.
To that end, Unprecedented Crime offers a resounding rallying call. It sets out with admirable clarity the nature and scale of the problem, offering a novel but logically flawless way of viewing that problem with the urgency necessary for confronting it with adequate resolve. It lays out the basis for a program of concrete demands in the here and now: demands around which an opposition movement can coalesce, demands with which to win over the undecided as well as those who have given up on hope and demands with which to counter the lies of denialists and the delusions of those who still believe we have time on our side.
Unprecedented Crime – Climate Science Denial and Game Changers For Survival can be ordered here: https://www.claritypress.com/Carter.html or in England from Amazon. It has a Foreword by Dr. James Hansen: former top NASA climate scientist, probably the world’s best-known climate scientist and the man who blew the whistle on climate change to Congress in 1988. Dr. Peter Carter, is an IPCC expert reviewer
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Nov.14 2018: Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html
To quote from the article, for those who will refuse to follow the link:
Quote begins:
“Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.
“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”
Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”
Quote ends.
Ralph Keeling is co-author of the Resplandy et al. study, which had claimed “that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” But after Nic Lewis’s review and critique of Resplandy et al, the authors of the Resplandy et al study now admit that they can’t stipulate anything about just how much warming the oceans may be undergoing.
“Oooops,” I guess.
But I wonder whether the climate alarmists who initially embraced the study’s “findings,” and thus had their hysteria further inflamed, will even notice the retraction, let alone cease to trumpet the “findings.”
To echo Lewis, perhaps that is too much to hope for.
So Lewis’ maths is good (this time). So what? Following on from the thread below:
We get to burn more carbon: because burning carbon raises all the indeces of human welfare (including environmental welfare). I’m not sure where this ad hoc, “tellytubby” pseudo-science argument is coming from …but I do know where it leads. And who it empowers. Which is all the more intriguing, given the anti-capitalist credentials of the poster.
All in all, a minor reputational resurection for Lewis: and a huge loss for life and humanity? Win, win for the capitalist oppressor …eh, Norm?
Link not available in EU.
Off-Guardian : “Facts really are sacred”
and they have deleted all of my comments showing event relationships …
Just as I thought, this place is not what it claims to be.
MG
Are you talking about the lengthy lists of numerology bullet points, repeat-posted all down this thread and almost completely OT?
Stay on topic, don’t repeat post or spam, keep the numerology on a need to know basis – and you’ll be fine
Most labour intensive spamming I’ve ever seen; longest posts too.
P.S. It was my intention to share the whole lecture, and not have the video start at 13 minutes and some . . .
My first sense of when the AGW went ‘mainstream’ was that its demonstrable failure in time would bring about a huge backlash against corrupt science that would throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, since then I have educated myself to discover that this is nothing new and that narrative continuity is soon reinstated in the population, somewhat like the ‘Men in Black’.
But I note the actual state of scientific activity is increasingly socially irrelevant – apart from the technologism that drives and sustains our corporate powers and dependencies. Sexing up the ‘science’ documentaries has reached orgasmic proportion for teletubby science. The idols of scientific ideals are like the gold that isn’t in the bank and doesn’t back the money supply. But the faith in it is… too big to fail.
Social (and geo or global) engineering in search of narratives to push it along. Or more likely, incubating and developing such movements as a proxy force from a long way back.
The stories that attract the backing of invested power and influential backing become the energy source by which power manipulates those who believe and enact them. Without that backing of power, not only would they not be able to stand up, shout or maintain themselves, but a more natural quality of growth would occur. However this is easy to say, but most automatically seek to survive in the terms of the world they are adapted to and invested in – ie: career, family and reputation. Sensing ‘which way the wind blows’ is often an unconscious positioning to align in better prospects and the moral fervour has its backlash BECAUSE it is given power by Media PR, KOLs (Key opinion leaders) and misrepresentations of science that are not allowed significant support in any mainstream as a result of a variety of ways of exerting pressure.
That applies to the identity politicking in general. A lack of challenge – not because there is none, but because it can be engineered out – just as in Corbett’s WW1 conspiracy pt1 with the account of inducing the conditions by which to destroy Germany. A few key people effecting change that the British Cabinet didn’t find out until for a decade or so later. That’s how I see networks conspiracies of mutual self interest consolidating a power class or indeed ‘sucking up the world’s wealth’ as the leverage to operate overwhelming influence. Orwell’s law if it exists, is that whatever the political slogan, its actual intent and effect is the reverse. Ie Ministry of peace, healtchare and saving the environment. The destruction of this Planet as a biological integrity for the support of life is underway – regardless this seems too insane to contemplate being by DESIGN.
Now it may be that the belief is in wiping off the vermin first and re-greening the Earth after they come out of their bunkers (?) Or that they really have somewhere else to escape (?) or that they believe that bringing on the Rapture is their ultimate fulfilment (?) but the way deceit works is to sell a story that the sucker is hooked and baited by, and as with the internet of bubbles, each is fed their own version of the ‘inside dope’.
Or then again, live this day well because that is in our power to effect.
No matter what the past suggests or demands, the future is open.
Norm
You do not have to answer to me, or even reply to this: but I’m trying to understand your POV on AGW – given your normal anti-capitalist stance. I can’t. I don’t get it.
Lindzen is a liar, well known for cherrypicking his data. And no, I am not going to get into a pseudo-scientific debate …he’s right in as much as this is a purely political issue. Purely political. So let’s drop the quasi-scientific camouflage?
AGW boils down to a capitalism v humanism debate: the carbon bourgeois fake-left and even faker-right versus the Rest. By the Rest, I have detailed, here and elsewhere, that amounts to 80% of humanity and all of biodiversity that is under the threat of carbonist cannibalism. Ordinarily, we would agree on this?
Lindzen, in quite a disgusting faux solidarity with the suffering, inverts the issue. Those that are under threat of having their lives disrupted are THE VERY FUCKING CAPITALISTS THAT ARE KILLING THE PLANET AND DEHUMANISING HUMANITY. Those who are being exploited to sustain this are the Rest of Life (born and unborn). Like Lindzen gives a fuck about the exploitation and suffering his life causes.
I got to around 29:30 before I really puked my ring. Sorry, but I’m barely being metaphoric, I nearly did. Lindzen, like the anti-life uber-distorter he is, made the claim that we have had three quarters of a degree of warming in the past century …during which time:
So the world is getting better (due to the myth of progress); and we’ve never had it so good? Better for whom?
That is pure hyper-distorted mendacity and anti-humanism masquerading as ‘science’. Fortunately, rather than rant, there is actually data that proves he is, I would say deliberately, lying. Bill Gate’s buddy Steven Pinker cherrypicked some globalist anti-life pseudo-data earlier this year for a book. It was so wrong, even Monbiot had to debunk him. There are plenty of other debunkings. Here’s one:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-05-18/steven-pinkers-ideas-about-progress-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/
The recent ‘dying planet index’ details this further. We are dying, and capitalism is killing us. Normally we see eye to eye on this. Lindzen is an enemy of humanity with an ethnocentric USA!USA!USA! supremacist and exceptionalist disfiguring of reality. His manufacturing of uncertainty and culturally induced inertia will get us all killed.
So Norm, in posting this delusional propaganda piece: do you actually believe that humanity and the environment are just going to get better and better (for Lindzen, Gates, Pinker et al) under capitalism: the more and more carbon we burn (carbon = $$$$ as I’ve posted several times before)? What about the carbon/$$$$ distribution and inequality aspect that no one who wants us to keep burning carbon (till we can farm the Arctic) wants to talk about? There was a proposal that we (the carbon bourgeoisie) curtail our emissions, so that the dehumanised, marginalised and betrayed majority can improve their lives – within an overall carbon reduction framework. That way we get to mitigate AGW, global poverty, inequality, species depopulation and extinction, etc all at once. That way, Lindzen’s sensibilities will not be offended. Or would they?
There is less than 1.5bn who are cannibalising the resources of 7.3bn people and what is left of biodiverse life.. The radical responsibility is to choose for the many, or so I thought? In an anti-capitalist, anti-war, eco-humanism we might, it’s a very small might, be able to salvage a little Life. But not by listening to the likes of Lindzen.
There is scientific truth, and then there is, under the sway and at the behest of capital, the politics of how science is conducted.
Lindzen is, in my opinion, accurate in his description of how the politics of science, which is more of a hindrance than a facilitator of ‘scientific discovery,’ weigh upon the business — in the literal sense of that term, i.e., the ‘business’ — of climatology, and by implication, of course, upon the business of all science as it is pursued and funded in a world dominated by the interests of capital.
And that is the reason why I posted the video, to try to get the ‘believers’ to pause and think a little about why it might be that in the mainstream press ‘global warming’ is all the rage. Lindzen offers a few salient clues.
Is AGW real? I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows. There are rational claims and suppositions on all sides, and in my mind, we have only just begun to really study climate and are therefore nowhere near understanding enough about it to be able to gauge the significance, if any, of carbon emissions.
Thus any talk about the certainty of how fossil fuels are destroying our world is ‘hysteria’ born of conjecture, of woefully incomplete information.
But even if AGW were an issue in need of being addressed, It would yet go, and will yet go, unaddressed under the rule of profit.
Thus for me, AGW is a distraction from the paramount issue of our times, that is to say, the fact that in our world ‘profit making’ counts for more than all human welfare and ecological issues.
It is to have things ass-backwards to elevate a future (possible/uncertain/unknown) catastrophe over another that we know (or should know) is unfolding now, in the present: the ascertainable mass oppression and exploitation that is the direct result of ‘money’ and ‘money making,’ of the ‘private property’ of the few that is literally premised upon the ‘destitution’ of the many.
The unprecedented crime is not the burning of fossil fuels in the face of AGW, but the fact that ‘profit making’ compels us as a society to sacrifice absolutely EVERYTHING to that end, even if it means the direct or indirect destruction of our environment, and of humans and other species of life in countless numbers.
AGW is an uncertainty. Something that may or may not even be real.
But capitalism is real. It’s effects are destructive in all kinds of different ways. It’s happening now.
Unless you remove a cause, you can’t eliminate its effects, whether potential or actual, conjectural or self-evident.
Norm
You must have noticed that I have repeatedly said that $$$$ = carbon. Expressed slightly more scientifically: Output: global GDP (expressed as $$$$tns) = input: energy (hydrocarbons: measured in megatonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)) …which correlate at near enough a ratio of 1:1 (R2 = 0.99072).
The world economy is an energy economy. Carbon consumption = capitalism. PROFIT = CARBON. The two are not separable. The separation of present and future effects of profit valorisation are nominal and notional. Therefore: the future effects of burning carbon are real and tangible: as death, destruction, and dehumanisation NOW. AGW is a variable, which, if you accept (as you do) the current violence of capitalism, it becomes in effect, inconsequential. Capitalism will kill us anyway, AGW or not.
Carbon consumption is becoming more and more costly, even if you bracket off AGW …due to EROI. That cost will (already is) becoming an economic drag slowing the world economy; exacerbating all the contradictions engendered in pseudo-infinite valorisation and accumulation of capital = carbon profiteering. Hyper-competition, monopolisation, super-exploitation, militarisation, imperialism and sub-imperialism will all multiply: compounding exponentially.
A slowing super-indebted globalised economy, riven with fracture lines and loaded with systemic fragility is a dangerous thing. Those, other than you, that defend the status quo ante do not, and will not, admit that unmitigated capitalism plausibly entails civilisational collapse …or worse. Hell, nuclear war will probably mitigate AGW for us!
The thrust of this thread is that strategic doubt, consciously created and culturally introduced, leads to a praxis of inaction …that defends the status quo. My particular take is, that instead of doing EXACTLY what is required of us to do – NOTHING …let’s get smarter. We are in a war, and the outcome of that war will decide whether or not humankind is an aberrant species or not. The status quo ante of globalised carbon capitalism is locked in to the system. At the managerial political level there is not even a whisper of an alternative. The counterfeit propaganda promulgated by many (including Lindzen, Lewis, and Curry) is that it will cost too much to mitigate capitalism (this is a bounded morality and rationality as their self-interests are capitalistic). Only, even though they mean ‘capitalism’, they say ‘AGW’ and utilise politicised, mythologised (Curry’s ‘skydragons’) pseudo-science to defend capitalism ‘scientifically’. All they actually do is say “we don’t know, so let’s do nothing”. I find this completely negligent and unconscionable. Their concern extends no further than their own bounded, and instrumental, rationality. Beyond those bounds lie the dying planet.
That’s why I say it boils down to capitalism v humanism. Or individualism v holism. Or exceptionalism v universalism. It is political, purely political. Viewed politically, pragmatically, and radically humanistically: should a ‘New New Left’ re-emerge to meld Red and Green …humanity needs to find the weak spots as fulcrums and vectors of change. AGW presents humanity with a perfect tool. We cannot survive with the top heavy superstructure and architecture of oppression. It is evolutionary and bioenergetically redundant and unsustainable. Humanity will have to transversalise: absorbing the exploitative superstructure into a base of common ownership and shared, autonomous responsibility to survive. That is if humanity wants to survive, which is currently in doubt.
If we do nothing, and fall back into culturally induced somnolence, well, I’ll let you contemplate the consequences. Doubt requires certitude, we do not have any mono-valent terms. Introduce enough of BOTH, and let the fragmented mind of the socius meltdown. I have’nt got time to introduce a metalingual analysis: but the Lords of Carbon use both, and we are too collectively stupid to raise above it. Doubt and certitude auto-negate each other, and favour the status quo ante. And that is good for the carbon burning, $$$$ manufacturing, autophagacitical consumption of the planet …which good for their core business model …and bad for humanity.
When will we learn?
Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster : Israel : Moshe Dayan
Moshe Dayan : ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’
*
See also :Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137063
See also : Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner and the To-hoku Earthquake & Tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137216
See also : Related : Nuclear fission : Otto Robert Frisch and the WW2 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Japan.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137219
*
On February 24, 2010, it was reported that Japan had offered to enrich uranium for Iran.
Japan Offers to Enrich Uranium for Iran
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/10221-japan-offers-to-enrich-uranium-for-iran
Report: Japan offers to enrich uranium for Iran
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3853864,00.html
yandex.com search : Fukushima Israel
https://yandex.com/search/?text=fukushima%20israel&lr=104986
*
Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami
and :
Japan : Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
*
Israel : Dimona / Nuclear Weapons
Samson Option
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
…
Some have written about the “Samson Option” as a retaliation strategy. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter which the American Jewish author Ron Rosenbaum writes “goes so far as to justify” a Samson Option approach:
Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
Rosenbaum writes in his 2012 book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III that, in his opinion, in the “aftermath of a second Holocaust”, Israel could “bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)” as well as the “holy places of Islam.” He writes that “abandonment of proportionality is the essence” of the Samson Option.
In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel’s existence. Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst’s The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force.
Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’
I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.
…
*
Note : Ron Rosenbaum’s books also featured in the Jo Cox narrative..
See these posts on the Jo Cox script :
An overview of the main reasons for the “specially selected” books, allegedly belonging to Thomas Mair
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062869145#post1062869145
Thomas Mair’s alleged 3 esoteric, green hardbacks : Lord Levy : Prof Roger Pearson & Franz Boas : EU Referendum : David Cameron’s “Bloomberg Speech”
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062942177#post1062942177
The alleged Thomas Mair “book selection” : Zion : Theodor Herzl
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062976760#post1062976760
These posts, among many others, were summarily removed from the main threads at the very smelly DIF and consigned to a dark corner of that forum into a jumbled, multi-topic mess of a thread, which signaled the end of my efforts there.
*
Moshe Dayan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan
Moshe Dayan ( 20 May 1915 – 16 October 1981 ) was an Israeli military leader and politician. He was the second child born on the first kibbutz, but he moved with his family in 1921, and he grew up on a moshav (farming cooperative). As commander of the Jerusalem front in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (1953–58) during the 1956 Suez Crisis, but mainly as Defense Minister during the Six-Day War in 1967, he became to the world a fighting symbol of the new state of Israel.[2]
…
*
The 777 th Prime Number is 5903 = P777
http://www.numberplanet.com/number/170f/index.html
*
From Israel : Defence Minister Moshe Dayan born on 20 May 1915
to Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on 11 March 2011 is :
= 777 months, 777 weeks, P777 days
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/dateadded.html?d1=20&m1=5&y1=1915&type=add&ay=&am=777&aw=777&ad=5903&rec=
MG
Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner and the To-hoku Earthquake & Tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan.
See also : Japan : The 2011 Tohoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137063
*
Japan : The 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami
and :
Japan : Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on 11 March 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
*
Lise Meitner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner
Lise Meitner ( 7 November 1878 27 October 1968 ) was an Austrian-Swedish physicist who worked on radioactivity and nuclear physics.
Meitner, Otto Hahn and Otto Robert Frisch led the small group of scientists who first discovered nuclear fission of uranium when it absorbed an extra neutron; the results were published in early 1939.
Meitner, Hahn and Frisch understood that the fission process, which splits the atomic nucleus of uranium into two smaller nuclei, must be accompanied by an enormous release of energy. Nuclear fission is the process exploited by nuclear reactors to generate heat and, subsequently, electricity.
This process is also one of the basics of nuclear weapons that were developed in the U.S. during World War II and used against Japan in 1945.
Meitner spent most of her scientific career in Berlin, Germany, where she was a physics professor and a department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute; she was the first woman to become a full professor of physics in Germany. She lost these positions in the 1930s because of the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany, and in 1938 she fled to Sweden, where she lived for many years, ultimately becoming a Swedish citizen.
Meitner received many awards and honors late in her life, but she did not share in the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for nuclear fission that was awarded exclusively to her long-time collaborator Otto Hahn. In the 1990s, the records of the committee that decided on that prize were opened. Based on this information, several scientists and journalists have called her exclusion “unjust”, and Meitner has received many posthumous honors, including naming chemical element 109 meitnerium in 1992. Despite not having been awarded the Nobel Prize, Lise Meitner was invited to attend the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in 1962.
…
*
The 666 th Prime Number is 4973 = P( 666 ) = P666
http://www.numberplanet.com/number/136d/index.html
The 4973 rd Prime Number is 48337 = P( 4973 ) = P4973
http://www.numberplanet.com/number/bcd1/index.html
48337 = P( 4973 ) = P( P( 666 ) ) = PP666
*
From Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner born on 7 November 1878
to the Japan To-hoku Earthquake Tsunami and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on 11 March 2011 is :
INClusive =
= 48337 days
= PP666 days
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?d1=7&m1=11&y1=1878&d2=11&m2=3&y2=2011&ti=on
*
Notes :
The definition and interpretation of the 3-digit rep-digits, 111 to 999 is here :
The 3119 ( P444 ) day sequence from GHW Bush DCI CIA to WTC-1993 and 9/11
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062656639#post1062656639
An explanation of the use of Prime Ordinals or Prime Sequence Numbers is here :
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062727690#post1062727690
An explanation of the date arithmetic types : ILUAF and ISUAF, INClusive, INTerval and NORMAL, is here :
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062934235#post1062934235
MG
Related : Nuclear fission : Otto Robert Frisch and the WW2 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Japan.
See also : Japan : The 2011 Tohoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137063
See also : Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner and the To-hoku Earthquake & Tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137216
*
Otto Robert Frisch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Robert_Frisch
Otto Robert Frisch FRS ( 1 October 1904 22 September 1979 ) was an Austrian physicist who worked on nuclear physics.
With Lise Meitner he advanced the first theoretical explanation of nuclear fission ( coining the term ) and first experimentally detected the fission by-products.
Later, with his collaborator Rudolf Peierls he designed the first theoretical mechanism for the detonation of an atomic bomb in 1940.
*
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
During the final stage of World War II, the United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively.
The United States dropped the bombs after obtaining the consent of the United Kingdom, as required by the Quebec Agreement.
The two bombings killed 129,000 – 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians.
…
*
The 666 th Prime Number is 4973 = P( 666 ) = P666
http://www.numberplanet.com/number/136d/index.html
*
From Nuclear fission : Otto Robert Frisch born on 1 October 1904
to the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 is :
= 14919 days
= 3x 4973 days
= P666 + P666 + P666 days
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?d1=1&m1=10&y1=1904&d2=6&m2=8&y2=1945
MG
Mark; If your examples of date arithmetic gives ‘signatures’ to events – if I got that right – who or what might be the nature of the power to synchronise such timings and what significances do you draw or seek to communicate? Or are you hoping someone else will in some way tell you?
The inference is of malign influence from a higher or dimension of which we only experience effect and assign it causes in the realm of effects – or the physical dimension.
This can of course be associated with magic, but anyone using a tool can become identified or in a sense possessed by their toolset, and so the most ‘powerful’ may simply be conduits for a sense of powerlessness that is then compelled to act as it does.
The idea of free will is inverted in the idea of magic – as it is in the idea of the free market by those who gain insider influence to capture and rig the markets to serve one group at expense of others.
Do you feel a compulsion to communicate about date arithmetic gives ‘signatures’ to events, or a movement of love – which of course extends a sense of worth to others as yourself?
I hold for free will as the capacity to accept and share in all that is worthy and wait on clarification for all that is not, rather than give power to fear and succumb to it. Because fear operates a distortion and denial in the mind of those who then cannot recognize love as who they are or of course in each other – and this effects a version of creating that is divisive, limiting, conflicting and destructive or depleting – but most of all, deceitful. Ands so vigilance always needs to be first against deceit, from the quality of our peace (or we are already divided).
Alignment in Spirit – or Purpose – can seem like magic – but is witness to a shared will and blessing, not a self-manipulated outcome into which separate wills join a manipulated from of outcome and ‘pull it off’ or rather get everyone or most everyone else to buy into a lie and operate as if it is true. IE Adjust their mind to an imposed reality.
And are such minds then owned or trapped in the framing of their deceiver? Or are they still as they are in truth created but actively denying their own witnesses in the running of a false sense of self-survival under a deceit that was designed to operate from the one place no one would challenge. Yourself.
(A) …lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
– Joseph Goebbels
I thought of this quote (I saw on SOTT yesterday) for the name similarity and the theme – but truth is perceived as enemy by mind-investment in the lie as the measure of its own act or intention. Truth doesn’t attack or destroy lies. Truth being itself true, is the condition in which untruth is undone. Hence the protection of the lie by the mind-investment in attacking it and thereby assigning or sacrificing truth to it.
As for Goebells – he also knew that suppression, and disinformation work a delay in which new lies can shift attention so that the old ones no longer hold interest – along with a conditioned sense of survival by compliance in the official narrative as self-interest – where job or physical security wins out over extreme risk under conditions lacking support or protection for honesty.
So by the time the so called settled science is revealed to be unfounded or mistaken, the object of the ruse will be achieved and set in law, while if need be some token sacrifice of ‘criminals’ can draw a line
while new forms of the old ruse are brought in.
Now if that seems depressing, it is – and so the key is to remain inspired and become responsible to yourself for thought and action that dis-inspire you by choosing differently. This may seem too high a price to pay – and in fear, the greater evil relative to the ‘world we know’. Depression and anxiety – along with rage and impotence characterise an unowned self-betrayal. All negative emotion can be tapped into as a source of power. But positive or integrated being can only be aligned in.
Hello binra
Thank you for your interest.
There’s a lot to parse in your posts, so it might be a tad more productive and certainly a lot clearer if you have any questions, to ask them one a at time so that I can answer them one at a time.
I’ll take one of your points, since you mention “magic”.
Please see these posts and the links therein :
jamesfetzer.org : Thomas Muller, Observations on the Squirrel Hill Synagogue Shooting (Updated)
MG : https://jamesfetzer.org/2018/10/thomas-muller-observations-on-the-squirrel-hill-synagogue-shooting-updated/#comment-42119
Quote :
“All false flag events, faux terrorism, mass shootings etc., use a scheduling system that relies on the use of kabbalistic numbers to define the Y, M, W & D relationships between events.”
winterwatch.net : Re-Examining the Untimely Death of a President’s Son: John F. Kennedy, Jr.
MG : Holocaust narrative : Anne Frank and the murder of JFK Jr.
https://www.winterwatch.net/2018/11/re-examining-the-untimely-death-of-a-presidents-son-john-f-kennedy-jr/#comment-7640
MG : Re: “belief in the magic of numbers”
https://www.winterwatch.net/2018/11/re-examining-the-untimely-death-of-a-presidents-son-john-f-kennedy-jr/#comment-7658
Quote :
Just to be clear :
I have never once suggested that there is anything magical, supernatural, hokus pokus, other worldly, preternatural etc etc about the scheduling of events and the selection of perps and targets etc., and nor would I.
Hope that helps.
Btw, did you know that your name is an anagram on Rabin and Brain ?
You are not the ghost of Yitzhak are you ?
MG
I was interested in what moves you.
I have my own sense of the world not being actually as it is be-lived to be, where the beliefs of a mind-capture* by deceit are effectively protected from exposure or indeed healing.(mind capture*or indeed of a mind-split of dissociation from true relation as the demand for unconsciousness).
Tesla’s birth – being one of your date sum examples (I did follow one of your links) doesn’t fall under the same framework as a planned event – at least not to the date.
I used the term ‘magic’ because it is part of the nature of the cultural background of the secret societies – is it not?
A hypnotist can elicit a blister from a cold needle believed hot, placebo can work as well or better than pharma, and a cancer diagnosis can kill – even if it turned out later to have been a mistake. So the power of the mind operates largely under the pretence that it is weak and ineffectual, which of course is also part of a strategy of stealing power from the unwary.
I don’t associate with numbers so much – though I see that primes or fibonacci and other sequences and ratios are part of the ‘sacred geometry’ that can also be expressed in octaves or fractal holography. Nor do I have an insider view as to what is in the minds or purpose of those who ‘psyop-erate’ upon the human consciousness. I have my own life.
I do have a sense that a common but false sense of self-protective survival running blind, delivers us unto evil and that an opportunism can take advantage of a predictable and programmable nature for its own agenda – which of course seems to be driven by perverse or hateful intent – but is that also because such is the nature of the ‘hackable human’?
(Corrupt habits or desires are part of control-ability and therefore promotion – where competency matters less than compliance in key matters).
When I first took a comment handle, brian was already taken, so I chose binra. Brain isn’t where Mind IS, as far as I am concerned, but it is the vehicle through which Mind extends a focus into the physical experience and it is neuro-plastic in terms of developing or changing pathways of association, thought and behaviour.
I don’t know the people you mention, and I don’t know what other facets of being are in a sense part of my own expression. At some level, Everyone. No man is an island – and I see this applies in much greater terms than it was originally intended.
So you don’t have anything to add to that cabalistic quote?
I don’t just follow links without some sense of conscious purpose. Without being dismissive of the nature or effects of such events I wonder – ‘so what’ – which can also be – ‘so what is that all about then?’
It certainly suggests magic to me – but more of manipulating ‘source code’ as in sorcery, than in the stage magician – yet see how effectively diversion and assertive repetition works in ordinary political (or personal) manipulation.
Did you post something specific to the alleged but already punishable crime of AGW? Or it that you feel the mere discovery of the number system to be an overriding communication – and if so – why?
My various points are possible points of engaging discussion. Not a lack of links to follow 😉
There is much that is hidden, and not always wrongly. There is hatred in the human heart that uncovering can trigger psychotic dissociation and indeed the breaking of our ‘world-view’ involves this in some respect does it not?
How does one abide the unthinkable – when it cannot be re-assigned to unconsciousness?
Because the pain or sickness of it is in us – and not those we seek to assign it to and excommunicate, damn or deny.
Is it not?
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds,
and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.
And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” (Solzhenitsyn).
I hold that we have already judged a part of ourself evil and sought – and still seek to destroy it.
But as you see in the world – any vector of perceived or believed threat becomes an ‘evil’ – including of course truth itself.
And so the nature of the entanglements of the human conditioning are far more complex than the appeal to simple good v evil narratives could ever allow or uncover. And yet the principle of illusion usurping or replacing truth in our own mind is not so hard to grasp.
Saruman – albeit fictional – studied the arts of the ‘Enemy’ and became seduced by them.
Confucious was asked what would he do if he was in the seat of power and he replied that he would redeem the dictionary. Words spell meanings that can then drift and shift and engender derivative meanings of an entirely false currency. But a true word is the dispelling of the false – and so is defended against and shouted down, ridiculed or subverted by forms of mis-association. None of which change its status, but all of which maintain a lack of substance as a mutually self-reinforcing investment in the false.
For truth is in our heart’s recognition and not the forms, imagery or symbols of its substitution.
So maybe my directions of focus are not where you are interested in looking – and why should they be if you have better things to do in the terms that makes sense to you – but they are another way of responding to the undermining of a world-view that we didn’t know we had until the spell was broken.
That’s something that hate, blame and vengeance doesn’t and cannot grok. For some, the deceits are becoming transparent as an indicator to the way the mind is structured to ‘script’ its world. It goes deeper than political and social power structures. And is now clearly in the realm of ‘mind-control’ as the presumption to make reality and enforce it. Which comes back on topic 😉
Thanks for your response Admin.
Most odd. I thought those “gremlins” were all dealt with during the revamp ?
Great shame they are still occurring …
I keep copies of everything I post, so should I submit it again ?
Will it get through this time ?
I had to wait over 24 hours for the previous post to appear …
MG
We haven’t done the revamp yet. We’re hoping to launch the new site next month
Fisherman weighs in.
https://youtu.be/IFbACPh2xPA?t=143
Admin:
Yes, there is an identifiable “eugenicist phalanx” that congregate around Mikhail Gorbachev. I call their agenda ‘corporate commoning’ – which leverages the myth of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. We are too stupid to look after the aquifers: so Nestle and Coca Cola will do it for us. Monsanto, Cargill, and Syngenta will care for the arable land. Rio Tinto the mining for minerals. Fucking frightening.
There is another major trend of faux deglobalisation – they even have a terminology …’glocalisation’. This is the Soros Play to fracture the nation state into borderless (for them and their money) federations; smaller polis-municipalities and ‘resilient’ city-state metropolii …under a ‘Global Parliament of Mayors’ (Sadiq Khan clones). These fractured and atomised communities would be vassal (neo-feudal serfdoms) to an inverse totalitarian corporatocracy: infiltrated right down to the high ASI-surveillance street scene. (Statistics and information control are technochratically crucial).
They know resources are running out (including oil: ‘peak oil’ Hubbert was one of them): they (the Club of Rome) commissioned key studies …most appositely the Limits To Growth (LTG). This has been manipulated toward de-population. Crucially though, if you take away the spin, it does not mean the science is wrong. Many of the agendas (peak oil, peak resource; species (not ours) depopulation studies, EROI, LTG) have a wealth of corroborating data and meta-analyses. The best example of the corporate/academic spin on real data was that fellow who showed up to advocate after-birth abortion – for the sake of humanity. Fucking frightening!
So will the AGW narrative be deployed in order to leverage de-industrialisation and neo-feudalism. Of course. Let’s call it the ‘Hunger Games Future Scenario’.
The trick is to get smarter, identify the propaganda from the real, and act in our (humanities) best interests accordingly. Otherwise, they have us on one of either horns of a propaganda dilemma. If we fall back from perceived extremisation into reactionary inaction …the dilemma becomes a trilemma. That way, the PTSB have us exactly where they want us: propagandised into inaction by our own doubt.
Flip! It came in at the top again, Admin. This was a reply to you from yesterday.
I do not feel doubt is divisive if it is recognised as such and brought to curiosity. But if doubts are glossed over or forced down, then coercion is operating instead of a living communication.
I feel that you grossly underestimate the capacity of corporate capture to astroturf any movement they so choose in any institutional arena and do so as a complex mimicry of life.
I hold that there IS certainty at the level of being that is beyond the scope of the mind of ‘define, predict and control’.
And the error of any who seek to use it is always that of the attempt to USE truth as a weapon.
Can that last phrase not sink in?
Certainty is falsely gotten by setting against something that seems irrevocably evil. But such a one NEEDs the evil to support the power that then rides out to save the day. The tares and the wheat run together. This is self evident in “Too Big to Fail”.
The nature of the certainty of being is a basis from which to relate with integrity and thereby grow it as our consciously connected awareness – rather than a supplied or framed identity under fears that are assigned ‘certainty’ or reality in terms of bounding or directing thought.
All thinking that operates through the ‘lens darkly’ operates the private agenda – as IF split off from Life and then split again in the intent to subject it and the experience of subjection.
Restoring a truly relational willingness for communication – rather than persuasion or one-up-man-ship (defence within power struggle) – is what vested interests are most intent on denying by seeking and using any and every ‘trigger point’ of our respective personality structure.
My take on this is of having a crash course in identifying and integrating such ‘reactive habit’ to a more consciously aligned will, and I mean conscious in the presence of life – and because of our misuse of the will, usually use the term willingness in awakened worthy as opposed to wilful attempts to become worthy.
The investment in the AGW carbon trading and etc is so big now that it joins the ranks of “Too Big to Fail”.
However, failure is becoming too big to hide – even though the most ingenious ruses are played out to capture and divert attention from the fact.
I’m going to move your comment as it’s evidently a reply to flaxgirl
As Philip and a friend yesterday have pointed out: it’s a waste of time arguing online – you need to get onto the decision makers. I guess we recognisers of the problem would have been better devoting our discussion to solutions rather than wasting time trying to argue with those who are impervious to the scientific facts and criticality of the situation.
These are the headings under the last chapter of the book, “Evidence of the climate emergency”
—Why More Global Climate Change is “Locked In”
—The Escalating Arctic Emergency
—Multiple Arctic Feedbacks
—The Arctic is Emitting the Three Main GHGs
—Evidence Arctic and Amazon Carbon Sinks Have Switched to Carbon Sources
—Still Accelerating CO2 Rate of Increase Has Recently Reached Levels Unprecedented in Earth’s History
—Methane Concentrations
—The Multi-Faceted Oceans Emergency
—Ocean Surface Warming Dooms Coral Reefs
—Ocean Heat
—Ocean Deoxygenation
—Ocean Acidification
—The Sea Level Rise Emergency
—Human Habitability in Danger
—The Coming Food and Water Emergency
—Climate Wars
These are the legal cases where plaintiffs are pressing charges against climate change crime:
Woohoo! US Supreme Court allows historic kids’ climate lawsuit to go forward (Nov 2)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07214-2?utm_source=twt_nnc&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=naturenews&sf201482657=1
Two states launched fraud investigations into Exxon over climate change, and one has followed with a lawsuit. Nine cities and counties, from New York to San Francisco, have sued major fossil fuel companies, seeking compensation for climate change damages.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04042018/climate-change-fossil-fuel-company-lawsuits-timeline-exxon-children-california-cities-attorney-general
It has been shown to you and everyone here that:
1. the earth has not warmed in the past 18 years
2. the claims the “missing heat” is in the oceans is purely a theory
3. the theory of CO2 as a major climate forcer remains unproven and is in competition with other theories that are equally or in some cases a lot more plausible.
4. even it it’s true the idea it will lead to catastrophic temperature rises is based on a further completely speculative and evidence-free hypothesis of positive feedback loops that most climate scientists do not accept.
These undeniable facts, which you yourself have been forced to accept one after another, combine to show there is at best inconclusive evidence for manmade global warming and absolutely NO evidence for a coming climate catastrophe.
Which raises the question why the media suppresses all this data and tries to sell, not just AGW, but the completely evidence-free catastrophe scenario (CAGW) as proven fact.
Why? Why? The most important question!
You’re a freakin 9/11 Truther, flaxgirl! You know how the power structures work. You know who owns the Supreme Court, and the media, and you don’t trust anything they say – unless it’s about global warming!
Think. Just for a moment. I implore you.
Why is the US Supreme Court allowing a global warming lawsuit? Why is that getting so much attention when the 9/11 victims’ families lawsuit is ignored?
And why the fuck do you think the 9/11 families are all fake but you believe this “kids’ climate lawsuit” is beyond question genuine?
Why this one blind spot? Where’s your logic? Why aren’t you wondering why the Guardian, the BBC, George Monbiot, and the fucking Supreme Court, who are all tools of the 1%, are promoting climate change?
Why are they claiming it’s proven when it’s not? Why are they advocating the suppression of contrary evidence and opinions?
Oh and – where did the “denier” meme come from? Same place as the “conspiracy theory” meme? We all know where that is.
The point is this is going to be used to leverage a bunch of stuff none of us want. Censorship, more poverty, massive energy price hikes, more taxation for the 99% , more curtailments on freedom and privacy. But while you and those like you are so brainwashed by the media-created image of what climate change is you won’t object to anything they do in its name.
That scares the bejeezus out of me
Indeed , Flax: the internet debate is a waste of time. The real debate has moved on (elsewhere) to policy and mitigation. I tried to do the same and was largely ignored. Phillip’s article proposed the same, the merging of “red and green” – ditto.
Against which we have ascientific opinions masquerading as science. And political debate masquerading as scientific debate. Among which I note that it’s not CO2 – a response to which demands a rewrite of the laws of physics; and that, in fact, we are about to enter and Ice Age – a pseudo-scientific theory which was debunked when I was a teen …but it is still doing the rounds. Championed by those that argue from quasi-scientific exceptionalism and mythology: that they know better than the ‘theory’ that shows consilience, convergence and consensus that CO2 IS the major driver of AGW (>95% – and I’m definitely not conflating it with CAGW!).
[When is a theory not a theory: when it is a scientific Theory – dealt with days ago but ignored. If you know science better than scientists: enter a paper for peer review. Can’t get a paper accepted: it must indicate a conspiracy. Couldn’t be that the cherry picked data doesn’t support the bullshit theory – as has happened to the few denialists that have tried. Whereupon, they resort to internet, and sneer. Synopsis: if internet memes trump scientific Method we are back in the Dark Age with a bunsen burner and tabula rasa of scientific theory. Is science perfect? Hardly: but it trumps internet ‘scientists’ – an issue dealt with days ago but ignored].
According to Professor Kevin Anderson (previously of the Tyndall Centre – whoooh, controversial!) 70% of global CO2 emissions are from the rampant consumption (my terms) of just 20% of humanity. 50% of those emissions are from the even more rampant consumption of just 10% of humanity. Here’s an quasi-scientific observation – AGW (not CAGW!) is class warfare. Who would wager against the fact that climate denialists are ALL from the 20%? Probably from the 10%? These are the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois of the climate war. Trying to preserve bourgeois consumerism is a form of carbon imperialism: an imposed inequality over 80% of humanity.
Who does “we don’t know” and “let’s wait and see” – or more emphatically “let’s do nothing” – benefit the most …the 20% or the 80% of humanity (the ones who are almost certainly going to be affected the most)? The cost benefit analysis using human capital (real lives) versus financial (carbon) capital is a moral no-brainer. Anderson’s proposal: the Eurocentric bourgeois consumers and emitters (my terms) curtail their emissions (his per capita limit would itself be an imposed inequality) would reduce global emissions by a third in a year or two. How many denialists would go for that? Shall we ask them? 😉
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-10-09/response-to-the-ipcc-1-5c-special-report/
The imposed inequality, access and distribution of CO2 as a climate warfare is not to be discussed. A solution of CO2 – and therefore, broadly speaking, wealth* – redistribution would be a egalitarian way to mitigate two of the major issues of globalised corporate carbon capitalism. Let the carbon bourgeoisie consume less, the global carbon precariat poor consume more, toward an equality of ameliorated and mitigated AGW? Shall we put this (not new) proposal to a global referendum? Or shall we claim: “we don’t know” and “let’s wait and see”, or more emphatically “let’s do nothing” … in the interests of science of course?
[The global economy is a carbon energy economy. $$$$ out = carbon in – with a >99% correlation. “Energy and the Wealth of Nations” by Hall and Klitgaard is an entire thesis of the socio-political carbon energy economy. Suffice to say: virtually ALL socio-political upheaval – from stagflation to the Iraq War – is underpinned by carbon. Carbon injustice is a peace and stability issue too. Carbon causes imperialist wars and socio-economic destabilisation – let’s address that too].
Shouldn’t we be tackling global poverty anyway? Then there is less emphasis on faux ‘certitude’, and more on a humanist consensus and a pragmatic global solution – for the many. Who could put a moral argument against such inequality and injustice issues? How about a proxy ‘scientific’ argument for the carbonised status quo ante …to preserve the inexactitude of carbon capitalist imperialism? An argument made by the few: for the few?
[The issue of the manipulation of uncertainty and faux certitude as a SCAM: dealt with days ago but largely ignored].
The debate is not just Eurocentric, but anthropocentric. The WWF ‘Dying Planet Index’ bi-annual report was released while this debate has been running. Species depopulation and extinction is a carbon capitalist issue too. Yes, there are other economic factors – but they are underpinned by access to carbon too (as Hall and Klitgaard show). Herein, I have seen the peurile propaganda that we should ’embrace the burn’ and farm Greenland and the Arctic. Only, how do you farm …without bees?
Organisms co-evolve with their environment. When the environment changes faster than the organism can adapt – they go extinct. This is already happening on a mass scale. Not all species can mass migrate and adapt to a new environment. Rats, cockroaches and other detritivores can. We are rapidly approaching a human megafauna monoculture of domesticants and detritivores. Frankly dangerous comments like this invite the policy that we finish the anthropocentric imperialism over Nature …making the monoculture complete and nature extinct as a humane act of mercy. Only we are a part of the fragile web of life …unable to manage the rapidly changing biomes: we would surely follow.
[Rapid is no excuse to interdict a fictitious claim of CAGW conflation. Biomes develop over thousands of years epochs, not decadal – hence species extinction]
Nature provides services for humanity worth around US$125 trillion a year. Including US$ 235-577 billion crop production dependent on pollinators (the Arctic Bee – maybe in 30,000 years or so …long after we die out (one year after the bees)). Internalised into global corporate carbon capitalism: along with the inter-generational costs of climate mitigation (the IPCC are kicking the can down the road waiting for mythical carbon sequestration and ‘negative emissions’ technology); along with the human cost of global inequality …as soon as the debate is opened to include these, and a myriad other internal contradictions of global corporate carbon capitalism: it soon becomes morally indefensible to defend.
But the climate bourgeoisie can offer a weak ‘scientific’ defense of global corporate carbon capitalism. “We don’t know” and “let’s wait and see” – or more emphatically “let’s do nothing” …Wait, what is that sound? Listen closer. Is that not the sound of the majority of humanity (born and unborn), and what is left of Nature rallying to cry “FUCK OFF!”
I think it is.
The same kind of arguments were brought up for the cholesterol theory (aka the statin fact – though that goes far deeper than milking the sick and making them sicker).
The Cochrane controversy is not involved with ‘climatology’ or meteorology but the corruption of science in the medical field is of such an order as to call the whole ‘peer review system’ and institutional integrity into question …. seriously.
Insofar as the AGW agenda operates the means to persist the poisoning of the Living for the sake of very ingenious deceits then your sentiment at the end fits well enough. But it is a diversion into personal SATISFACTION of hateful vendetta and this is a sweet baited hook to those who just want to be pointed at something to kill – metaphorically, legally or literally.
There never was a debate or at least the freedom for debate was lost to the polarising hate (guilting) campaign that has global, national and corporate teeth – not to mention a mob.
A mind that is changed against its will is of the same opinion still.
Freedom of information – which is a multilevel interactive flow – is the basis in which a free choice can be aligned in as our own. There IS no freedom of information within the framing of this ‘offer you cant refuse’.
‘Post truth’ is without any intention of giving a voice to anyone who sings off-script.
You think this issue is ‘different’.
I think it is cunningly laid and executed as perhaps was the environmental movement itself.
I know we (I include myself) felt we were waking up to and aligning in a better way of living, but to what degree has this movement been subverted and used as another proxy in the broad spectrum mind-capture.
PR is an extremely well researched study of the human psyche from the point of view of the desire to manipulate it.
But yes – if you articulated your outrage to the actual – not modelled or forecast – evils that best us as a result of our own corrupted systems of governance, provenance and supply, you would not be meeting what seems to you to be an anti-life agenda in your fellows. For I see an anti-Life agenda in the AGW distortion.
I wont ‘stop’ the global rollout of such agenda anyway – by this and every other device because it is just as much a part of a self-programmed chain reaction as all that it pretends to oppose or ‘solve’. Only individuals are free to step out of its mindset and live from a different basis than giving power to perceived and believed evils and then seeking to overcome them. I see the cause is upstream to the level of the symptoms that are then assigned ‘causality’ in diversionary strategy against a deeper or more fundamental exposure.
‘Too big to fail’ – means something else has to take the consequences of failure – and this means those without a voice or whose voice is denied. Not least by those who could have helped bring it forth – but sell out for personal gain and abandonment of their own – and their own truth. No surprise if these become hateful and vindictive in the context of such a self-betrayal. It is said everyone has their price – but many can be simply induced to comply via old tricks such as good cop bad cop. The deceiver understands our pain – and can deeply sympathise – as a means to induce allegiance whilst confirming us in the powerlessness of the ‘victim’ and empowering the urge to bring down the ‘victimiser’. It is called identity politics.
Public Release: 31-Oct-2018: Earth’s oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought . Princeton University https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/pu-eoh103118.php
Sounds scary, not? Quotes:
Scientists know that the ocean takes up roughly 90 percent of all the excess energy produced as the Earth warms
“Imagine if the ocean was only 30 feet deep,” said Resplandy, who was a postdoctoral researcher at Scripps. “Our data show that it would have warmed by 6.5 degrees Celsius [11.7 degrees Fahrenheit] every decade since 1991
Back to reality: the oceans are on average 12,100 feet deep, 400 x more. So the “warming” is 400 x less, resulting in 0.01625 C per decade which gives 0.0486 C increase since 1991.
Not just non scarey, more of a non event.
It’s even worse than that, Antonym. They aren’t even trying to measure actual temperature of the ocean. They’re monitoring something called APO (“atmospheric potential oxygen”). Based on the theory that a warming ocean would release more APO they are estimating an amount the oceans may have. warmed. They admit APO is also increased by burning fossil fuels, so they make a guess at how much of the increased APO is due to that and anything over they guess may be due to theoretical ocean warming.
In other words there is no data produced to actually show there is any ocean warming at all.
The “heat sink in the sea” hypothesis is at this point little more than a desperate attempt to explain why global temps have been stagnant since around 2000 while CO2 has continued to rise.
These facts are unacknowledged in the media, which continues to pump out scare headlines for the masses such as “Earth’s oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought”, banking that most people (like Mulga “abusive drunk at the back of the bus” Mumblebrain) will either not bother to read the text or won’t understand it if they do. But in the scientific community it’s a big deal. How long can the AGW crowd continue to ignore this major challenge to their theory?
The CAGW con- census is getting desperate: 0.01625 C per decade is only 0.001625 C per year. About impossible to measure, more than error margins, but worse – not alarming. Desperate situation calling for desperate measure(ments). In stead of taking a neutral trace gas like Argon they opt for all present O2 which is involved in many giant natural processes and cycles: lack of hockey stick blade with Argon?
And speaking of APO, this just in: A major problem with the Resplandy et al. ocean heat uptake paper
I guess that with that link I could have quoted part of the author’s conclusion:
What’s the point you are making Norm? I refer you to AtomsSanakan’s (?) reply on Curry’s blog. One bad paper does not undermine peer review, the results of which we rely on every day. Nor does a bad paper mean a conspiracy, or undermine the consensus theoretical model. We undermine science at our peril. Is it perfect, or even optimal …no. Science could be vastly improved by including the excluded observer (second order cybernetics) and introducing the First Person experiential …which is happening. Until that scientific revolution unfolds, science as it is is all we have.
BTW: did you read the post (Rand Corporation …that’s the Rand Corporation!!!) where Curry admitted her Lewis/Curry upper ECS limits were too low …and arbitrarily added a few degree to match the peer/consensus (her term)? Is that scientific? What does that say of peer review when you can change parameters on a whim? Perhaps Nic Lewis could review his own butchered estimates?
BTW: that’s Nic Lewis, capitalist and mathematician, with no training in climate science; and Curry, heroine of the corporatocracy carbonistas, who agree with the basics and bow to consensus, as suits …but who want to induce doubt and strategic non-commital into policy (very successfully so far.) That’s the Lewis and Curry who are empowering the dehumanisation, destruction and death entailed by the ultra-violent, super-exploitative carbonism. And a revolutionary socialist is quoting them?
Just sayin’ …
Norm:
Having read the post in more depth, I came across these caveats:
”Assuming I am right that Resplandy et al. have miscalculated the trend …”
”How might Laure Resplandy have miscalculated …”
Lewis castigates the press for blithe acceptance of unchecked results (that may well be right, it wouldn’t be the first time his maths and parameters have been criticised). His supporters, with blithe acceptance, rush to push his unchecked analysis (that may well be wrong, are you certain the mistake is Resplandy’s?)
The upshot is that the lower bound for ECS is anchored at 1.5 C. The upper bound can be changed by Curry on a whim to 3 C, (higher) OK …4.5 C. Cutting the carbon budget by 25% is ruled out, though. That means we burn the carbon budget for 2 C …and hope that is not in fact the carbon budget for 4.5 C. It might be, that is what the peer/consensus (her term) says …shall we try and see?
Admin do not like my terminology, but what else shall I call those who play statistical Russian Roulette with humanities future …other than heretics? Traitors? Denialists seems too respectful to me. What is respectful about gambling with human, floral, and faunal lives? If you can’t see what these thugs are up to, I can. I do not feel respectfully inclined toward their skydragons and obfuscatory games.
Lewis’ bias is toward corporate carbon capitalism and all the exploitation that entails. He might be right, he might be wrong. He could challenge Laure Resplandy through the peer review system, but he does it from a blog. Is this science, or manufacturing uncertainty? I don’t know, do you?
If in doubt, I would very much back the humanism rather than the carbonism. That means giving Laure the benefit of the doubt. I can’t be sure now that the peer review system has let a bad ‘un through. Perhaps the reviewers were correct and thorough? Will anyone check Lewis’ analysis as it disseminates through the blogosphere? Probably not. Who really has the moral highground?
In the final analysis: ending carbon capitalism by any means necessary should be the radical responsibility of every existential humanist on the planet, don’t you think? Lewis is no friend to humanity. No friend at all.
“What’s the point you are making Norm?”
Something along the lines of:
“Lewis castigates the press for blithe acceptance of unchecked results (that may well be right, it wouldn’t be the first time his maths and parameters have been criticised). His supporters, with blithe acceptance, rush to push his unchecked analysis (that may well be wrong, are you certain the mistake is Resplandy’s?)”
Doubt is everywhere and on every side, and not merely on this perticular issue in connection with that of climate change more generally.
And if one bad paper doesn’t invalidate the peer review process — which, by the way, is a process by ‘consensus,’ and thus inherently political in the sense that careers and funding very much do depend on the ‘terms of reference’ currently dominating ‘those who do the reviewing’ — it only takes one good piece of analysis to undermine it in the long run.
Am I claiming that Nic Lewis’s analysis of Resplandy et al. is definitive? Not at all. But it should invite others, who have the competence to do so, to examine these contending sides of the issue at hand.
I’m away for the rest of the week. I might be able to make some time on the weekend to discuss further.
Doubt is a given: after 560+ comments …doubt is the only certitude. My point all along, is rather than have a pseudo-scientific debate that none of us understand (some say they do, but frankly, I have my doubts). The way out seems to me to be humanist …to employ radical responsibility and a universalist Existentialist Humanism to choose the best result for the super-majority. The best result being Life and the end of the megadeath purveyor of global carbon capitalism. I do not know about you, but I do not want Nic Lewis having an elevated say in the future of life. How about we (humanity) decides? Wouldn’t that be novel?
In the attacks on cholesterol as the villain, its role as healer was undermined – (Not to mention its vital roles in the body), all kinds of toxic interventions piled in as the basis of an industry born of the narrative – (Ancel keys as the PR poster boy), and the emergence of surrogate makers instead of clinical diagnosis. Where levels are decided by which to then initiate pharmaceutical interventions. the goalposts, can and are then moved – to capture or ‘medicalise’ ever more people – as part of conditioning them TO sickness management (the Medical State). With the whole thing backed by funding, regulatory capture and applied disincentives for non compliance. Meanwhile dietary advice promotes sickness – with a sense of moral brownie points for depriving ourselves of good fats and an ongoing ignorance of very substantial dangers from refined sugars, and carbohydrate overload.
This is one among many examples. But it took 30-40 years for the ‘model’ to be shown as lacking substance and yet is STILL active as a dead man walking in the sickness industry and in the conditioned thought and habit of the population.
So for the propagandist, the shock headlines with the carefully crafted narrative distortion – works to buy time in which to reposition before the people catch up. For by them all the goalposts are moved and they are hopelessly behind the game. It doesn’t matter if the AGW is found to be flawed or wrong after the laws of power transfer are put in place.
And New Science can always be invented upon the demonisation of the old.
So I do not join your carbon certainties and even capitalism is so big a barn door to shoot at from point blank that it doesn’t mean anything to rail against it.
The nature of a technocracy is more of systems approach for not just control of capital, but of energy on all levels.
If you equate Life with an energetic exchange – then pay more attention.
It is the force which keeps in balance the contention we experience which must fist be defined. This force will also control that narrative.
You’re approach would be common sense. Sense is not common. Addressing a definition of common sense would simply facilitate the ever elusive ‘force’ again. It is rather like that ’enigma within an enigma’ It counters our every move because it is us making each move.
I read your post and felt a prompt to feel and write into ‘common sense’. If the reader finds the journey too abstract relative to the concrete, jump to the last three paragraphs. (We have to learn to ‘see’ the world, and likewise have to relearn to see beneath appearances – if we are moved to question a private sense of dispossession).
Sensing and making sense are two facets of one process or movement of being.
or rather one thing can seem to become two – and oppositional or out of alignment.
Sensing is receptive, and meaning is the the extension or projection of what is received.
It is how you know you have received and in this sense Descartes was correct.
In this sensing is undifferentiated or direct knowing of light as felt being.
The light of awareness shines upon and though the objects of its own reflection.
We can not give a meaning we have not received or conceived.
Conceiving is a creative faculty of thought as a maker of meanings that extend or filter the conception of a differentiated self.
It can thus relax to receive and express sensed being, or contract around its concept of self-becoming.
As the self-concept develops, it becomes a self-conscious inhibition, seemingly separate self from directly received being and subject to it. It becomes conditioned by its own filtered and self-reflected experience as if unsupported, to then derive meanings of threat, rejection, attack, denial, betrayal from its own oppositional reactive contractions from the field of its own being and assign these motives to its own being, while at the same time depending on and still being the ‘love’ that is direct common sense. And so the mind is split to levels and levels split to compartmented conditionality to make a narrative ‘sense’ out of a loss of true sensing – as a result of the self-inhibiting ‘thought and reaction’ of a model or reality given priority as the basis of sense, meaning and life – but as survival under threat.
Commonality can thus seem to be a set of conditioned beliefs that are mutually self-reinforcing but founded in opposition and defence against a perceived or believed threat, as a tribal or group or ideological ‘identity’. But truly common is not divided or unified over and against the targeted or projected enemy, but is innately and inherently common to all – regardless of its current state of expression, inhibition, or denial.
This is also to say that beneath the surface levels of appearances and coded meanings is a level of communication that is unconscious until relaxed into, that automatically aligns in common sense rather than attempt to force support for a private assertion that no longer makes sense from the shifted perspective.
Common sensing is not in agreeing the meanings of the forms and appearances of our world, but a reconnecting of awareness and attention to the presently or currently receptive, that then embodies through us as shared being, or the actual experience of a felt communication.
So tell me, honestly. When you take over the world, are you going to exterminate us all or keep some of us around for amusement?
There is no ‘taking over’ the world but in delusion, and you cannot get rid of or escape yourself but make a world of such delusion and suffer it as real.
Of course you can follow your joy.
Or you may sacrifice yourself to a false god instead.
To make joy conditional upon conforming others or your world to your demands is not a real relationship with others, your world or your self.
The meek shall inherit the Living Earth because only the release of distorting bias to a true receptivity can share it. You cant really ‘share’ illusion so much as mutually self-reinforce each other. Shared being is not a ‘getting or a doing’ so much as a letting that does through us.
This makes no sense to the mind in power struggle and so nothing truly sensible can or does get through to such a set of mind – but Life can knock on the door of those who sacrifice and replace joy in being for such a ‘war’.
You addressed me as if I represent the intent to deny Life on Earth.
Perhaps Life as you define it, is War – period.
Such is the belief in the exclusively ‘physical’, or rather, in the domination and subjection of Life in physical terms.
I hold that definition to be a mistaken identity.
And as such capable of correction.
But only though willingness to re-evaluate.
Insofar as I find and am found in such a willingness, I am joined in purpose with everyone who seeks a better way of seeing and being – regardless of their external circumstance or even their location in time.
The Call for Help is not unequivocal when framed in sets of demands or non-negotiable conditions.
How much can get through the filters even if Everything is freely given?
I see life as a prior wholeness in which the mind can war with itself and be-live itself other.
Divide and rule, rules out wholeness as the protection of the part against a feared whole. But the pause of the choice to enact this can become open to being aligned to a wholeness from which it never really HAD the power to divide itself from or split off.
Plato’s cave indicated an reachable and seemingly unteachable addiction to shadowplay.
But not a total unconsciousness.
Your last point reminds me of the Matrix film in which the creative had to be maintained as the source of the Matrix itself. The reversal of consciousness operates a parasitic and destructive relationship to a source it completely depends upon – but must keep that hidden. It runs a lie and protects a lie as it ‘life’.
From the point of view of the lie – truth or love calls upon total sacrifice. And so in fear of the greater evil, protects the lie of a life as a ‘partial sacrifice’ or lesser evil. Of course it doesn’t stop there for there is no resting in a lie – and so the mind of sacrifice becomes the ‘world’ gained at expense of Whole Souled Being. With power struggle operating ‘who shall pay and how much’. Side effects, collateral damage or necessary to break eggs to make an omelette or to destroy all traditional inheritance to make way for a new world.
Where have you perceived me writing in support of a coercive agenda?
Is it not that the threat of; ‘if you are not for us you are against us!’ is not exclusively applicable to neocon warmongers?
Are you doing the thing you most hate? – but if you notice this, you CAN choose NOT to hate yourself some more – but simply do something else as an expression of a true self-acceptance – which is love.
Its always seems easier to attack your brother than deal with the problem where it is – not least because the mind of the displacement of the problem makes it unsolvable by definition. Hate always finds a target – unless undone to the hurt that runs beneath it and given true witness and embrace.
I’ll meet you in honesty when you choose to extend it. While you emulate a machine ‘intelligence’, or conditioned reaction, as an automaton or golem you have no substance from which to engage.And so there is no ‘you’ – no presence and nothing but a snark pretending to be a post.
Such a lack of presence is the condition that not only invites self illusion and subjection, (also known as unconsciousness) but demands it. While running as if in grievance and opposition. Huh? Seems like a familiar pattern.
Someone said once that an unquestioned life is not worth living – but is it better said that worth, to be uncovered must be extended (shared) to truly live?
You can of course get your identity from the Mall or the Military Industrial complex – but this is always up to you. You don’t have to react as if your thinking is unquestionable right.
Unworthy thinking fruits in unworthy actions and dumps its toxic debts on others as its way of persisting in denial of the consequences of it thoughts and behaviours. But I don’t buy into this and I write to invite walking out of the scam.
Being smeared, ridiculed or attacked without substance is an indication that I am doing something worthwhile.
If you should find me engaging in deceits and tricks instead of communication, then call out my honesty to correct it because my desire is to choose not to use guilt as a source of power and protection. Its a racket and you are working for it whether you think so or not when you seek to invalidate another so as to feel better about yourself.
Just feel yourself better. No need to put down others.
Now if you are only pretending to be here as yourself, then disinfo and division is your duty or at least your paycheque.
I don’t care who you think you are – but while I extend communication to you – it is of an equality of being, because that is the condition in which communication can occur.
Identifying against believed evils is being made in their shadow. I understand that it is easy to say “we are against murder and lies and oppressive systems of denial” – but that is too easy to use as a manipulative masking device.
What are you living FOR, axisofevil?
2018-10-31 New study estimate ocean warming using atmospheric O2 and CO2 concentrations. We are aware the way we handled the errors underestimated the uncertainties. We are working on an update that addresses this issue. We thank Nicholas Lewis for bringing this to our attention.
http://resplandy.princeton.edu/
BTW: those empowered by carbon, the Lords of Carbon, are the very upper echelons of the global possessing classes that ensure humanities enslavement. Their very edifice, the exploitative hierarchical superstructure, is an edifice built from carbon consumption. Capital = carbon. Capitalism = carbon (carbonism). Accumulation = carbon. Growth = carbon. Exploitation = carbon. Dehumanisation = carbon. Violence = carbon …can I stop yet?
Humanity has a very small outside chance of wresting the levers of power away from the Lords of Carbon by de-carbonising and negotiating a neo-optimal egalitarianism with the desolated earth. A transversalised egalitarianism without the hierarchical superstructure cannibalising the life from the foundations of nature. It is by no means certain that the earth IS still in a recoverable state to support us. Everyone just assumes that it has the resilience to recover. Anyone, like me, who dares suggest it might not, especially if we keep pushing on our metabolic bounds, is an eco-Fascist. The earths metabolic rate is currently running at 170%. Very few seem perturbed by this, most seem blasé. Carbon capitalism and carbon socialism both have growth vectors that push that rate to 180, 190, 200% (a new planet required) …even then they cannot stop.
Viewed in such light, Laure’s perhaps apocryphal 25% carbon budget reduction seems eminently sensible? Especially as it is equatable to a metabolic reduction or stability. Lewis’ induced uncertainty, even if it proves correct, seems like an unnecessary gamble? An induced metabolic increase. At what rate will a metabolic rift occur? No one knows.
Science won’t save us: its supposed inherent objectivity is being culturally manipulated. Inducing uncertain uncertainty into science certainly won’t. Fallible, emotional, intuitive and empathetic humanism, applied as a universalism, just might. On the conditional probability of the interests of the super-majority: what say you that we err wildly on the side of Laure …rather than take a very uncertain gamble with Nic?
There is an alternative view, though BigB, that decarbonising(?) is part of some social engineering plan by the same eugenicist phalanx of the 1% bringing us liberal-fascism and Agenda 21. It’s claimed they are pouring money into the AGW narrative in order to leverage de-industrialisation and neo-feudalism. Can this perspective be ignored? Is it possible there is more propaganda here than we think?
Desire and willingness for true can and shall save us from error – but not while the error is protected and defended with the status of truth. That any forms of the search for truth can be subverted to (personal and political) assertions of truth is the nature of the ‘ego’ or psyop of deceit.
Where BETTER to hide the intent to persist a private power agenda than in noble causes? And failing that in the zero-tolerance (denial) seeking of the power against designated ‘evils’ threats and enemies of the state – including of course the antichrist of the denialism that DOES NOT support your ego.
You can conflate your self-image with a protector of the one true faith, the Living Planet or the Last Hope for Humanity – but its a ruse by which to interject a personal sense of control instead of SIMPLY aligning in love of life and giving witness from there – instead of aligning in a hatred of fears and evils that secretly give you power in place of a directly felt dependence in Life Itself.
Notice how the negative worship works – and then you are free as a being and as a scientist to predicate your terms of reference and relation directly from a movement of Life – such as wonder, curiosity and willingness to be shown what your need and desire are the shape of the willingness to receive.
A sense of littleness is the basis from which self-inflation seems necessary and desirable. Conceptual frameworks have their place – but if placed OVER Life and given priority instead of Life – operate the usurpation of Life as ‘mind-capture’.
Somewhere in your self you simply know this, and letting this Be – is the way to transform our conceptual and definitional structures, because what has value is purified and what hasn’t falls away of itself.
The mind that made the error is not the mind of its correction – or you cannot solve an error at the level of its expression.
The charging forth in righteousness is the blind arrogance that imposes the pattern of action-reaction in place of the shifting as a wholeness to a new ‘configuration’ or perspective.
Recognition of truth accepted has ALREADY changed your walk and talk.
Witch-hunting for the ‘guilty’ errors seeks and finds the ‘sins’ by which to initiate coercive impositions upon self and other.
And so the recognition and immediate repentance of what is recognised false is an immediate realignment in the peace of being – from which to relate and communicate sanely.
While the choice to use guilt as a means to persist in error – while claiming and believing to have ‘outed’ or exposed it in the other – or in the body or in the evil thoughts that now have to be denied in self – and therefore in other – is to entrance oneself into those who know not what they do.
Or in Orwell’s terms, who enact slavery under belief they are free.
Only seeing it in ourself can effect the release of our own feed to an ‘unconscious’ and destructive use of the mind. the attempt to wake up and tell everyone ELSE is of course another form of the same temptation to ‘survive’ in terms of a self-evasion. WHO then ‘survives’ or is ‘protected’ but the error itself?
Each in our own unique way are playing a part in a conscious intent to remain unconscious of whatever has been effectively mapped out from our attention.
This faculty has great benefit as learned subconscious patterns that free awareness for relational experience and exploration, but if set from a basis of a negatively conditioned sense of self – operates the protection and defence of false and unworthy core definitions and beliefs. The evasion of self guilt or self-hate works the attempt to hide it from ourself and deny and attack it in others. But it remains IN your mind and active AS your mind – even if you induce others to ‘eat of the same fruit’ and enact the role-play of support for your way of ‘seeing’ as their own ‘path to self-inflation; as if that is true power, or to salvation from the vulnerabilities to threats that now crowd in and multiply as the result of a loss of wholeness and connection in Being – to division and conflict.
Instead of denying others, why not deny the false sense of self in which they are temporarily identifying instead of true, and extend the worth to their being in terms of a communication of being – rather than supporting the framework of the denial of feeling-awareness that self-justifies as a defence mechanism – against its own exposure.
Sure, the illegitimate and deceitful operation of ‘power in the world’ does all in its power to hide and divert the exposure of its lack of substance – as do all who participate in it. And so a tangled web of deceits becomes impossible to unravel because there is no ‘thinking’ that has not been ‘doctored’ or adulterated by such use.
Fresh thinking comes spontaneously and naturally of a true stillness or wholeness of being. This is exactly the opposite of the compulsion to DO something. However a true desisting and release from identity in reaction is not a lack of awareness or indifference to relationship – but a fully present awareness in which no bias, interjection or mind-framing is being given a ‘blind eye’ or special favour and protection.
While the destructive or divisive urge ‘feels’ the release of tensions in the ‘doing’ – it does so only as the priming and reinforcing of an addictive pattern of identity. So it has the ‘pleasure’ of enjoying the subjugation and suffering of the sinful others who get their just desserts. But the freedom from addiction is the willingness and persistence of the feeling awareness of the obstrauctive and divisive and hateful – to the point of recognizing OUR need for healing and attending it directly, immediately and as a radical self-honesty that may humble our ego, but align us truly in a love that cannot BE manipulated, possessed or controlled – but only known in the giving.
If we do not give ‘self’ to others from a true appreciation, then we give the self of a guilted, fearful and divided distrust – that invoked the need for control from a sense of private possession.
When a child comes into our family – we extend it a self as a loving invitation to join the human experience. But because we may not a full appreciation of love’s meaning or our own, we also ‘give’ all the mixed messages and doubletalk of a split mind – that we may have become normalised to, yet is still a painful and disturbing dissonance to the young who are apt to sacrifice themselves in taking or assigning blame in seeking the restoration of the wholeness that a sense of dissonance and threat has undermined.
These patterns of breakdown of communication – travel down through the generations. Changing form, but not their core archetypal content. Reality is not FORM alone and the surface assignment of meanings reacted to as ‘good or evil’ is completely open or vulnerable to the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ or the phishing of an identity theft by which to be taken over by the will of another – working through the unconscious guilts and fears that the surface world of form was made to cover over.
No one under war-demands has the time, the free attention or the disposition to truly observe, feel and recognize the act by which he or she lives. Or rather the act that embodies the nature of the Cause that we accept as true of us. Because we do not live by our own thought, word or deed – but as the giving of thought, word and deed.
Some recognition of the power of thought is in the attempt and intent to deny it, manipulate it and set a new world from it. But this is the thought OF denial, manipulation and the setting of such a mind against and upon the invalidation and demonisation of the ‘old’.
If you love freedom – extend gratitude to everything and everyone that has participated in bringing you to this moment – but not in the terms that such experience seemed, because freedom is moving with what we truly have – and therefore are. Free of what we in fact NEVER had but carried around as the baggage of struggle or self-atonements under a loss of true response-ability. Life as a totality is not something the mind is able to define, predict of control. So the mind of that idea of control is the ‘death’ of awareness of wholeness and the assertion of a coercive attempt to ‘manually’ survive a sense of a fallen life or nature as the imposition of sickness management as healthcare or national security or carbon guilt. Education by indoctrination is making sick, and under such denials, life devolves and degrades to mounting crisis that are a true CALL to wake from the projection of this denial onto others. Live your owning or honesty and meet the other in its light, or deny the other and lose your own light by the very act of hating and denying it in the other – who is thus erased or un-personed under the ‘moral’ imperative to attack.’All in a ‘good cause’ – except it isn’t the Cause of Good, but the cause of the hate of evil. These are not equivalent. And any alliance with the ‘enemy of your enemy’ is entirely conditional to separate agendas. You are in it for your reasons. But those who set it all in motion have their own agenda, and when you are no longer useful, you and your reasons will be discarded. And yes the nature of the evils in the world is sickening and rightly so. But look to healing rather than sickness management as a qualitative difference that makes all the difference. Under sickness management, ‘healing’ is an illusion and used only in the manipulative PR of the media release. Everything that is truly human is being erased behind your very eyes – and by law of contract that you give willingness for. So don’t sign by reaction. Feel out the small print.
Nic Lewis: I wanted to make sure that I had not overlooked something in my calculations, so later on November 1st I emailed Laure Resplandy querying the ΔAPOClimate trend figure in her paper and asking for her to look into the difference in our trend estimates as a matter of urgency, explaining that in view of the media coverage of the paper I was contemplating web-publishing a comment on it within a matter of days. To date I have had no substantive response from her, despite subsequently sending a further email containing the key analysis sections from a draft of this article.
Typical response in climate “science”: ignore those auditing your work and bath in the praise of syncopates. That’s fine for social media but not for Science.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/
It will be difficult to slow or stop this global warming, thanks to the oceans, which are warming as well. Currently, the amount of infrared heat radiated back to space is slightly less than what we absorb from the sun due to the increase in greenhouse gases. This excess energy slowly warms the oceans. Although it takes them a very long time to heat up, once they have they will release more infrared radiation and the Earth will emit as much back to space as it receives from the sun. But the planets surface will be warmer, because a larger fraction of that infrared will be blocked by the blanket of greenhouse gases. Thus, we can expect about another 0.5 degree Celsius of warming even if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to stop increasing today, which is unlikely as we continue to burn coal, oil and natural gas for our increasing energy needs.
Small changes in the Earths heat balance can lead to large climatic changes. For example, the ice ages during the last several million years–and the warmer periods in between–appear to have been triggered by no more than a different seasonal and latitudinal distribution of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth, not by a change in output from the sun. The geologic record shows that the differences in ice cover, sea level and precipitation as well as in plant and animal populations were quite dramatic between the ice ages and the warm interglacials. Yet the global average temperature differences corresponding to these radically different climates were only about 5 degrees C in the tropics and 8 degrees C in polar regions.
Preface all your above comments with “I believe…” (or rather “SkepticalScience told me…”) and there’s nothing wrong with it.
1. Ocean warming – as Antonym and I discussed yesterday, there is currently NO direct evidence of any significant ocean warming at all. It’s purely theoretical at this stage, and guesstimated through proxies. The theory is put forward in order to explain why there has been no detectable global warming for the past 18 years. The idea is it HAS been warming but the sea has captured all of the “excess” heat.
Like I said, no evidence the sea is in fact warmer, or at least sufficiently so to explain the “missing” heat. And even less evidence for why the oceans would act in this way.
The most important thing to take away from this though is that there has been no detectable warming for 18years.. True fact no one denies.Not even the CAGW crowd can do that.
No. Warming. In.18.Years.
If the elites and Big Oil seriously wanted to discredit manmade global warming you’d think they’d make more of that, because in scientific terms it is a major challenge to the AGW theory.
In theory. All just theory. Just try to remember every explanation about what drives the climate (even the ones the God of All Things on SS produces) is just that – theory. Might be true. Might not. The certitude is the lie.
Also note, that tiny variations in the sun’s effect having huge effects on climate is NOT under any circumstances an indicator that tiny variations in CO2 will do the same. What kind of scientist even talks like that? It’s like saying “a tiny amount of cyanide can kill a man, here is a tiny amount of something else – ergo it can kill me”.
If small variations in the “distribution” of solar energy can make the diff erence between an ice age and not, all that means is the sun is a powerful driver of climate. It tells us nothing about C02, other than to suggest it’s a less plausible hypothesis for recent warming than is the change in solar activity.
If you’re as logical as you say you are flaxgirl, you should be able to work this out for yourself. It’s a pea and thimble act being played on us. A bait and switch. In plain view.
Good explanation.
Is this true…..or no.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/06/21/fish-wars-loom-climate-change-pushes-lobster-cod-and-other-species-north/4uCFNQKDz3dipGaZSD7WVP/story.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50549.htm
That article only shows that PCR is no scientist and has the usually wooly grasp of the data that non-scientific climate hysterics always have. He’s all over the map, God bless him, stumbling from one garbled misrepresentation to another.
What in God’s name is a “heat extinction” event? The warmer periods on earth have been associated with increased animal life. It’s the glaciations that are the anomalies and which threaten extinctions. The temp on earth is currently colder than at almost any time in its entire existence.
Someone tell this chap we are in a period of unprecedented glaciation, with succeeding ice ages coming thick and fast. We are just lucky another one hasn’t kicked off yet. Unless the remote possibility of CAGW turns out to be true, heat is not our worry, cold is.
The disgraceful thing is that the climate scientists themselves know that 90% of the AGW scare porn in the popular media is garbage, mangled science misunderstood by journalists, but they let it stand because it furthers their own cause.
Not ok people. Not ok at all. Chickens will eventually come home to roost.
Reply to flaxgirl about the falsification of data perpetrated by Jones et al and openly admitted in the Climategate emails
Yes.They replaced the tree ring data, which didn’t show warming, with surface temperature data that did show warming, and pretended the surface data was tree ring data.
That’s data falsification, as PSJ has already told you below. It is in fact scientific fraud.
What? If the data “diverges” from your theory it’s “perfectly reasonable” to falsify the data to make it fit your claims? Even NIST never went that far/
Yes, he should. Not doing so was fraudulent.
Pretending surface data is tree ring data is not a “lack of transparency”, it’s fraud. Scientific fraud. Period. SS’s queasy excuse-making here is discreditable.
But they couldn’t admit they were using surface temp data on a tree ring graph without admitting to fraud. That’s why they weren’t “transparent”. The whole point of what they were doing was deceit. The “trick” was to make people believe surface temp data was tree ring data. Saying the only problem with that is “transparency” is like saying “well if you fiddle your tax returns it’s not a crime provided you tell the tax man what you’re doing.”
No, they haven’t. A simple description of what Jones et al did is enough to make it clear they committed fraud. The people “misrepresenting” it are the likes of SS and the mainstream media who try to blur the issue and make sickly excuses for Jones’s flagrant manipulation of data.
It’s been “rightly criticised” because it’s fraudulent.
What? So because other people are open about the tree ring data that makes Jones’s attempt to hide and manipulate that data somehow ok?
Flaxgirl, I have to ask – do you actually read this stuff before you copy and paste? is there anything SS could say that would be so blatantly deceptive, so clearly sophistic you wouldn’t just blindly accept it?
OK, point taken, MLS. It was fraudulent.
Nevertheless, the skeptics did not explain it as it is. They still misrepresented it because they inferred that “decline” related to temperature.
Steven Jones also lied about cold fusion and about thermite in the WTC. He’s also a climate skeptic, who comments here under a thin disguise, as do Tony Szamboti, David Griffin and other Truthers. At least Griffin doesn’t lie about climate change. Jones will lie about anything his paymasters tell him to lie about.
The Jones et al referred to above is NOT Dr Steven Jones, the discoverer of thermite in the WTC dust. Your position on cold fusion appears confused. We suggest you read “Fire from Ice” by Eugene Mallove for information on Jones’s role in the cold fusion story. Mallove absolutely DOES NOT accuse Jones of lying or any kind of false dealing. This seems to be a deliberately seeded internet meme designed to discredit Jones.
Addition: 15 years before 2017 = “good” data – a period with a clear warming trend – unlike the preceding 15 years, which gave “bad” data, level or cooling, hence the choice of year. CAGW language.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently made an report called SR15 of which the following is part: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
Page 1: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response
to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty
Little Science, much politics.
Page 5 , footnote 5: Present level of global warming is defined as the average of a 30-
year period centered on 2017 assuming the recent rate of warming continues.
Their climate is now “defined” by 15 years of data and 15 years of speculation. Even less Science.
Remember how the “consensus of Economists” failed with their predictions in 2008?
I wonder what “eliminate poverty” means in real non-manipulated language. I don’t think, given, the tenor of current government, we can assume it’s anything we’d readily agree to!
I’m baffled how people can not see the way this issue has been hijacked by the Bill Gates & Agenda 21 crowd who preach anti-human anti-freedom doctrines in the name of saving the planet. To me this is as worrying as the drift to war. It’s anyone’s guess which will get us all first.
I have serious doubts about how much longer any of us will be free to air our non-mainstream opinions at all.
It is all doublespeak.
Enforce poverty to prop up (sustain) the unsustainable.
Everything evil works a face of respectability excepting when it needs to give itself a foil.
But always and only at the level of forms of asserted and associated meanings.
A reply to flaxgirl I once again can’t post in the correct place
I hate to break it to you flaxgirl but you are perhaps the most absolute believer I have encountered on this forum. You have incredibly strong convictions based often on the flimsiest evidence. You watched “Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick” and believed everything in it. You listened to Dammegung (sp?) claiming he’d talked to a 1% insider and believed everything he said to the point it changed your entire view of the world and you suddenly “realised” no one died on 9/11 or at Sandy Hook or in the Boston bombing, or maybe ever, I don’t know.
You are absolutely a believer but you tell yourself your beliefs are “facts” and “logic” and you decry everyone who doesn’t share your view, which is the part I find quite ugly and annoying.
No, I think you accepted it as quite probable because it fits with your pre-existing beliefs. You admit you know nothing about the science so you certainly didn’t do an evidential assessment.
Massive increase? Oh dear me flaxgirl.
400,000 years ago there was 280 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere (according to ice core samples). Today there are just under 400ppm. The lowest observed in ice core studies over the past 500,000 years is 180ppm.
Imagine a bathtub full to the brim with water, around 80 litres. If the bathtub represents the atmosphere, how much of that 80 litres would be C02?
Well, 400,000 years ago the answer would have been around 20 ml or four standard teaspoons.
Today you can add an extra two teaspoons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Now I won’t claim that will definitely have no effect. It may. Many scientists think it does. But it’s not a “massive” change in the composition of the atmosphere is it,and the fact you think the changes are “massive” implies you have not done even basic amounts of reading and research. You see, when you double 0.02% of something the result is still very very small, even though twice the size.
(Since you’re all about the facts an logic I’m sure you’ll readily appreciate all of this and not just run off to Skeptical Science Man (aka “the Voice of God who Never Lies”) and find a handy factoid that allows you to pretend all this pesky data doesn’t in fact exist.)
Speaking of data – here’s some homework. Go and do some of that research you enjoy on these questions:
1. How much CO2 was estimated to have been present in the atmosphere during the Cambrian period? Try the Triassic next. Or the Devonian.
2. For what percentage of the earth’s history has there been any ice at the poles?
3. Are current temps a) warmer than average over geological time or b) a LOT colder than average?
4. What is a “normal” temperature for the globe?
5. What indeed is a “global” temperature?
Or the warming could reverse (it actually stopped some years ago and there’s no evidence it’s started up again as yet) and we could get another glaciation. We don’t know. We can only theorise.
Word to the wise, I have a suspicion the likes of BigB and Mog, who were singing your praises as a paragon of rationality earlier today, would much much rather you shut up about “no one died at Sandy Hook” right now.
Or maybe they agree with you. Shall we ask them? 😀
Of course, CO2 was massively higher in the past than it is now but that was very much in other times when the earth was very, very different. Now a “mere” doubling of the CO2 level from the start of industrial times (around 280ppm) is predicted to be catastrophic. We’re at 400ppm and that is already very dangerously high in the current earth situation. No doubt, Moriarty, the climate scientists agree wholeheartedly with a number of the figures you present above – the difference is they interpret them differently. They look at the context in which those figures existed and the context is now – and that is crucial to the argument.
I completely reject that I have very strong beliefs based on the flimsiest of evidence and you are a shocking strawmanner. I believed Ole Dammegard when he said that an insider told him that the power elite justify their hoaxing of us by telling us with ridiculousness, smiling grievers, sloppiness of execution, etc because it made sense of things that previously hadn’t and the evidence is clearly there – no “belief” required, it simply made sense of information such as Robbie Parker’s performance at the microphone which made no sense before. As I say, I have put out four challenges, all languishing unresponded to, where the challenger can choose their own judge from specified professions. Do you think that might mean something?
I know that BigB completely disagrees with me that Grenfell was a staged event and he was very annoyed with me over that. We also had an interminable debate about the Seth Rich murder which I also say is staged. (I doubt there’s too many people in the world who think more events are staged than I do, however, I think I always present a good case for that belief.) People agree and disagree on things.
Actually, you’ve just prompted a thought. Just as the tobacco companies and the oil companies have blamed the customer, perhaps the perpetrators of the 9/11 hoax will defend themselves – if they’re ever charged – with: “Well, we TOLD you. We didn’t show you any terrorists boarding planes; we told you they were lousy pilots, especially little Hani, who we also told you did the amazing manoeuvre into the Pentagon; physics clearly precludes steel frame skyscrapers from crashing to the ground in perfect symmetry due to fires or 200 ton airliners penetrating those massive buildings. How could terrorists pop up alive, how could a pristine passport flutter to the ground from that fireball and, if it was so pristine, how could we get the name wrong initially? How could you possibly believe the miracle survivor stories with alleged survivors not showing a scratch – they were an obvious hilarious joke. We TOLD you but you didn’t pay attention. Not our fault if you believe our nonsense. It’s yours.” And you know, they do have a point.
“Of course, CO2 was massively higher in the past than it is now but that was very much in other times when the earth was very, very different.”
Indeed, flaxgirl. When we say “the planet is under threat from human activity” – or as I say, “from capitalism” – that’s shorthand. The Planet will shrug off anything we throw at it. The pedantically accurate version is that “the planet’s recent capacity to support human and other advanced life forms is under threat from capitalism”. By “recent capacity” I refer to the fact homo sapiens sapiens has been around some 140,000 years, while bipedal hominids – common acestors to us and other great apes – have been walking the earth some 6 million years. Temperatures in the Devonian or other prehistoric age are therefore a red herring.
Our 4.7 billion year old Earth has seen five mass extinction events, most recently when a giant asteroid hit what is now Mexico 66 million years ago to trigger volcanic activity across the globe, with loss of 75% of species. back in February I dedicated a post to Roger “Socialist in Canada” Annis, who poses the question: Will Mass Extinction Event Number Six be man made? We don’t know for sure but scenarios well short of mass extinction events, but catastrophic all the same for advanced life, seem more than likely.
My views are (a) current climate changes are real, man made and terrifying; (b) even if I’m wrong, the kinds of action required are good on other fronts (air pollution, oil wars and much more); (c) the consequences of the anti AGW camp being wrong are vastly worse than those of the AGW camp being wrong, so common sense would suggest erring on the side of the latter; (d) this debate has run its course since the anti AGW camp here is not the problem. Rather than waste time seeking to change the minds of folk with no more power than you or me, we need to focus on the inaction of corrupt leaders and journalists who in the main agree climate change is real, but at every turn prioritise “economic growth”, heroin to capitalism, over curbing greenhouse emissions.
But of course, even that last pales into insignificance against the overridingly important matter of my legal fight with Sheffield Hallam University!
SHU – So is the outcome settled?
Far from it. We’ve won an important victory with ramifications for the entire sector but two fights remain, the most wide ranging in ots implications to be decided this month, 15-16th.
Best of luck.
Phillip: you are a breath of fresh air. Good luck in your trials and tribulations. Stick it to the Man on the 15th …from me. Here’s to small victories.
Indeed it probably will.Though a full scale thermonuclear war would probably wipe out most forms of life on land.
But why do you believe human beings can’t survive in a warm world? If we put aside all the CAGW-posited issues of positive feedback and runaway warming (which remain highly contentious and promoted only by extreme believers), why would a couple of degrees of warmth and reduced, or even absent, polar ice caps threaten our survival?
We aren’t creatures of the cold. We are a subtropical species that thrives in temps around 70-80F. We find it much much easier to survive in extreme warm than in extreme cold. If we assume an extreme case in which the polar ice vanishes, Greenland and Antarctica would become habitable. Even with rising sea levels the amount of land available to live on and to farm would vastly increase.
How is this bad, let alone a species-threatening disaster?
This is just an expression of the ongoing “the sky is falling” paradigm of extreme eco-activism. We don’t know how or why but by golly SOMETHING bad will happen soon and it will be all our fault!
I agree on sensible efforts to curb pollutants, including GM manipulated organisms whose knock-on effect on the eco system is not yet known. I agree on efforts to maintain wilderness areas (in the Guardian today). But this hysterical and non-specific “we’re all gonna die” stuff has been going on for so long to so little result now it’s becoming ridiculous.
Why are you terrified Mr Roddis? Of what precisely? I think you are terrified because people have written books like the one you reviewed in which they sell a terrifying vision, and not because you have looked at the science. The science isn’t terrifying. Let me explain.
Even among those climate scientists who accept the reality of CO2 forcing and of manmade contributions to warming, very very few accept the extreme ideas of catastrophe put forward by the CAGW crowd (“catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, as opposed to “anthropogenic global warming”).
The media, however, is paid or prompted to promote the catastrophe angle, and conflates the two positions. You are told that a majority of scientists accept the reality of AGW, and it is implied to you this means they accept the reality of CAGW. Not so. They don’t.
CAGW, as promoted in this book, and in all the popular writing on the subject of global warming, is a fringe idea that demands we assume positive feedback from cloud vapour will boost the assumed warming affect of CO2 to produce “runaway” warming. This is entirely hypotheticall. No evidence for such a feedback system exists in nature. The claims of catastrophe are as real as the software that produces them and that’s all.
So at least wait to be terrified until we have some solid real world evidence the terrifying predictions have any chance at all of happening.
Reducing pollution is great. I am 100% behind that. But do you notice the absence of detail in the vaguely proposed “solutions” offered by people in the CAGW camp? There’s a reason for that. Real solutions are thin on the ground. None of the sustainables we currently have are remotely feasible as replacements for fossil fuels. They are hugely expensive, massively inefficient and, in some cases, highly polluting and eco-aggressive. The only one with a reasonable potential for mass use is solar power, and that is very location-dependent.
Without the huge and profitable subsidies we are all currently paying Big Oil and others to run these “Green” energy systems, they would have shut down long ago and in fact many are doing so as we speak. They are, ironically, completely unsustainable.
Which means the only remotely viable alternative we have to FF is good old nuclear. Not sure about you, but I would rather take my chance with the tiny probability CAGW comes to pass than fill the world with Fukushimas waiting to happen.
If not nuclear then what? There is, as things currently stand, literally no way of supplying today’s energy needs that does not require either fossil fuels or fission reactors. Until we get cold fusion or some other form of LENR underway this is the painful reality.
No they aren’t. CAGW (not AGW) has literally zero evidence to support it beyond a few computer models. Whereas the consequences of abandoning fossil fuels are known and quantifiable and would be catastrophic.
Agreed. We are not the problem. The problem is that swathes of people have been brainwashed into believing debate is unnecessary, because the Truth has been revealed in some quasi-religious form they can’t even articulate most of the time. They have been conditioned to shut their ears to dissenting voices and consider doubters and deniers as Satanic deceivers trying to lead them from the path of righteousness. This is irrational cultist thinking, and really is terrifying.
@BigB (reply to comment way down this thread which doesn’t allow reply)
No, they don’t. Or at least not equal access. With the current grip that AGW hysteria has on things it’s virtually impossible to get a aper accepted to any major journal that questions it.
There is however a considerable wealth of earlier papers and other data. What I’m interested in is – have you read any of it?
i Why do the corporatocracy benefit from “culturally induced doubt”? Since when has that been how political institutions work? Absolutists know that culturally induced certitude is much more unifying.
Be honest – which group right now is easier to manipulate, the ad hoc ragtag of disaffected “denier” souls who don’t feel convinced by manmade climate change; or the ideologically driven “believers” who are fervently convinced the deniers are evil and that “action” of some kind is needed to save the planet?
All our masters now have to do is convince this army of the Green God that Action X will save the world and they will not only agree to it they will be happy to scourge and punish anyone who doesn’t conform. Action X will be, of course, some money-making, power-enhamcing thing in a Green box.
ii Your claim of death and destruction is predicated on the assumption the most extreme AGW hypothesis is correct. Logical failure. You can’t acknowledge AGW is unproven and then argue we must act anyway or AGW will kill us all!
Death and destruction are theoretical outcomes of the most extreme interpretation of AGW. The probability of this extremity being reached is small. So, any action we take should be proportionate to that reality.
You agree with that right? I’m not saying we can’t afford to mitigate, I’m saying let’s do a cost/benefit study based on the actual science. Right?
Yeah. How about it? What is it? We don’t know.
Here’s another question – what’s the alternative?
Genuine question. Renewables currently are useless at providing for modern energy needs. They’re massively inefficient (solar is among the better types, but only in optimum locations), and come with their own eco-costs.
We literally can’t provide the world’s energy needs without either carbon or nuclear as of now. Literally can’t. If we actually were to stop using fossil fuels it would bring its own death and destruction. The idea it’s a no-cost win-win plan is just nonsense. It’s a potential disaster and we need to have a very solid scientific analysis of cost/benefit.
But of course those who have been programmed to believe only evil fossil fuel trolls say that will reply “how DARE you say we need more information! There’s NO TIME! The world will burn BURN if we don’t DO SOMETHING.” Because they are effectively inoculated against any kind of rational or nuanced discussion on the issue in the way cultists are.
MLS
The topic under discussion is corporately introduced doubt: which you belatedly interject to deny the existence of. May I suggest you read the article, and the comments, before commenting? In the meantime, a sound, epistemic (and now circular) thesis has been put forward that the only reason NOT to act against AGW is culturally manufactured doubt. The science, per se, is not in question. In the balance of probability, erring on the side of an environmental humanism, there is sufficient consensus, and the science is sufficiently settled to concur with a politics of action. Against that, the main cultural stasis is a consciously constructed politics of doubt.
So before you even start, that is where we were. No one says there are not outlying opinions. Access to the peer review journals is a separate issue. Rather than a frankly asinine reference to a Green God conspiracy: and money in a Green Box (carbon capitalism isn’t an amoral money making scam, is it?) …the issue is the corporatist v the humanist response to a sufficient consensus. Against which has to be weighed the unconscionable …that of not acting. The leveraging of this debate into the praxis of inaction is the subject of The Unprecedented Crime, The Merchants of Doom, the SCAMs paper, and my deconstruction of Curry’s mythological fire breathing Uncertainty Monsters. Which you would have known, if you read the comments.
If you don’t accept that culturally induced doubt is a weapon of carbon capitalism, I suggest you read at least the reviews of any of the literature cited, or at the very least Phillip’s article. This will answer your question: “how do the corporatocracy benefit”.
I do not predicate the current death, dehumanisation, and destruction on CAGW. This is another subject I parsed days ago. The conflation is purely because you have not read the comments.
I base my thesis on the current state of corporate carbon capitalism. A point that should be so self-evident to all that I will not digress. It is essentially what is under discussion every day (though some people conflate the issue by referring to a form of carbon capitalism erroneously labelled ‘socialism’).
We DO know the environmental cost of carbon: the slow extinction of life on earth …extrapolated from the current omnicide with AGW as a variable. Capitalism is an Extinction Level Event: end of. End of life. This is already in an advance stage. The only uncertainty is the manner of the ending. The eschatology of AGW merely contributes one of the variables. Life will survive us no doubt. I would prefer if life survived with us.
As to the alternatives: I do not know. No one does. We need oil and resources for a transition to post-capitalism: not on massive military might to defend intra-capitalist interests. But that is a separate issue. The point is, the longer we squander our remaining resources, and the longer we put off transition …the less resources we have for transition, and the less to transition too. Plus the continually offset costs of mitigation of all forms of capitalist Wetiko cannibalism. In short, internalising those costs and making capitalism humanistically responsible for its costs – the mythical ethical capitalism – means capitalism is already a socially, economically, and environmentally redundant means of production and provision. Not to mention the entailed death and destruction.
Where carbon capitalism is taking us may well be neo-feudalism. But don’t blame the Green God for that: blame carbon capitalism. The telos of capitalism is totalitarianism. The Green God is the only hope we have.
I won’t respond to your cultist jibe: save to say – it cuts both ways. Those who are arguing for stasis, masquerading as science, are inculcated too. To whit, I have been trying to open a dialogue of resolution for a while now. How do we move beyond the binary propaganda, and resolve to unite and move on? Because the Masters of Carbon play the Uncertainty game as a cybernetics of social and environmental cannibalism …that suits only them.
That is the Unprecedented Crime …a Crime against Humanity.
@BigB To sum up your post without the fog of verbiage: “Moriarty, you are talking about something I don’t want to talk about, so under the guise of a “reply”, I will ignore everything you say, and continue asserting the a priori certitudes that your comment has specifically shown to be erroneous”
If you want to address anything I actually wrote in the above comment I will be happy to continue the discussion.
No, we’re done. Comments like the one you just wrote to Phillip kept me up at night, after visiting ‘Judy’s’. Your concepts, if not your heart and soul, are fossilised in carbon. I replied to everything you said with humanity. When you find yours among the paleo-fossils, we may speak again. In the meantime, we are talking about different planets and different humanities. In different languages.
It’s not all about you and yours: there are other lives and other lifeforms you would willingly sacrifice to burn carbon. Only, what are you going to do when your precious carbon runs out? It won’t, but it will become an ever increasing drag on the economy. Another cost to add to the inhumanity of carbon capitalism.
BTW: I must have made at least three comments to clarify the AGW v CAGW issue you choose to manipulate. No one was talking about CAGW until you said we were. That’s your delusion. Your quasi-religious anti-debate is deliberately off topic …much like the rest of the denialist ‘scientific’ pseudo-thinking. Probably best leave it there.
Professors of logic and dialectic could use this reply of BigB’s to illustrate how struggling debaters hide their lack of data. It’s textbook.
Trick 1 – AD HOMINEM
Trick 2 – DIVERSION USING REAL OR ASSUMED MORAL OUTRAGE
Think for a moment. How is this a rational response to me pointing out above that we don’t currently have any alternative to fossil fuel or nuclear power? Did I say this was a good thing? No. Did I say I loved carbon? No. Why introduce these pseudo points?
And most importantly, if it isn’t true why doesn’t BigB respond by telling me I’m wrong and showing me what the alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear actually are?
I suggest he doesn’t, because he can’t. Because it is true, but he doesn’t want to admit it for some reason. So he tries to divert and instead of addressing the point he fulminates like a revivalist preacher about my moral failings. Standard technique, if rather clumsily applied.
This bit is the best bit though:
Well this means one of two things. 1. BigB has no idea what AGW and CAGW actually are and is just bluffing his way out in a rearguard action. 2. He does know and is again using obfuscation.
@BigB – let’s get this cleared up. The difference between AGW and CAGW is that AGW does not predict a major disaster and CAGW does. Judging by your posts here you absolutely do believe in CAGW, as do the authors of the book being reviewed, as does, Mr Roddis, as does flaxgirl. It’s the thing that separates you from those people who accept manmade climate change but don’t think it will be a catastrophe. You are promoting and defending CAGW every time you claim there will be a climate disaster if we don’t “do something.” Everyone who demands action on climate to prevent a coming climate catastrophe is subscribing to CAGW whether or not they use the term or even know what it means.
Okay? Are we good? All clear at last? You have been talking about CAGW from the outset. You just didn’t use the scientific term.
I’m sure you will acknowledge this openly and unambiguously in a single terse sentence (not) 😀
edited by Admin for clarity
BigB has repeatedly accepted the science isn’t proven. Aren’t nuanced positions possible? Do no believers in AGW (but not CAGW) also advocate for climate action as a precaution? Isn’t that simply good sense?
Thanks Admin! 🙂
A current sense of probability is an entirely different notion than ‘belief’.
That Climate is cyclic – as well as being affected by extreme events (Cataclysms in the past – as in the end of the younger Dryas, is simply obvious to me.
The idea that carbon dioxide gas is the cause of a ‘runaway’ process of warming with catastrophic results is possible to assert in a ‘science’ that is more politics than science. The history of science is a political history – not in terms of party politics but of the engineering of the social order.
A consideration of action to take with regard to the despoiling and degradation of Life on Earth is no more caused by CO2 than (so called good or bad) cholesterol causes heart disease . Yet that has been an official consensus that initiated adverse health for millions – while making vast profits for Pharma – who still operate damage control in retreat – as does any other ‘industry’ working a negative agenda.
The model is the basis for actions and interventions and when the theory is adopted or accepted into the official narrative it is when the actions and interventions are politically expedient or in such a way as to make them so.
Nothing true can be allowed in where ‘too big to fail’ operates.
Even as our (officially accepted) models of the body are mechanistic and vastly over simplified narratives made rigid by the investments and reputations of ‘experts’ and their funding sources, so also our Cosmology – which includes the nature of our Sun and its relation with Earth – which currently operates as if the primary influence of the Sun is electromagnetic radiation – and downplays or does not recognize the electrical charge relation of the Solar capacitance or plasmasphere, relative to that of Earth – which is called a magnetosphere. Nor of the changing nature of the Solar ‘communications’ as a result of its relation with its embracing galactic environment.
But much of the geological and meteorological activity has electrical underpinnings – from earthquakes to hurricanes – as does the nature and the action of living blood and the heart that is generally presumed to ‘pump’ the blood around the body. And craters are presumed to be impacts from comets or asteroids. And no end of other presumptions that once accepted, were built upon in search of ‘answers’ limited to their confirmation.
I hold that we are best to act from a true foundation regardless of external circumstances, but who can be open to truth while maintaining that stories are true. But as Thomas Khun elaborates, a model becomes unwieldy and increasingly complex as more data comes in that either gets denied and ignored or forced into convoluted extensions to the model.
This applies also to socio-political understandings and the devices by which the old defends itself against threat of change include the (further) limitation of consciousness, the withdrawal of a voice and an imposing ‘austerity’ of further disempowerment.
I don’t see merely climate change of global parameters but a most fundamental change of consciousness approaching a global convergence.
This can only be fearfully misinterpreted by the consciousness’ that runs unknowing over unconscious denials.
Persistent patterns of denial DO the thing they accuse or project to others to then attack as a justifiable defence.
Limiting consciousness is not a resolution, no matter how deep into darkness we contract ourselves.
MLS
I answered your alternatives question with an honest ‘I do not know’. I do not know because it is unclear what corporate carbon capitalism will leave. Probably not very much. Possibly nuclear ash. All the more reason to find an alternative before its too late. Not a reason to carry on regardless.
If you will keep making the preposterous claim that eco-fascists like me are too stupid to distinguish between AGW and CAGW: and if you will predicate your counter-claim on such unsound reasoning …it makes it all the easier to refute. I can simply refer you to my comment of the 28th when I wrote:
Everything I say is predicated on AGW, not CAGW, being an unconscionable outcome. That AGW does not predict a major disaster is asinine and ascientific. And anti-human. That you cannot comprehend a nuanced argument is clear: as you conflate other issues in with the imaginary CAGW club you have constructed to beat us with. Metaphorically, of course.
Once again, no one was, or is talking about CAGW before you alleged we were. It’s a figment of your imagination. For the record, I agree with you on CAGW …it is the stuff of mythology. It is predicated on climate models with the input assumption that carbon capitalism will carry on unabated until 2100 …which is of course ludicrous. It will collapse long before then.
It is my hope that AGW will not be as bad as predicted too. Not through the agency of any agreed mitigation policy: on account of the economic slowdown, and the OPEC moratorium on reduced oil production. Where we are probably irreconcilably polarised, is that for me (possibly not in person), it will be bad enough. Not catastrophic, but catastrophic enough, as I already said previously. But I was not expressing a purely personal view.
As for your mythical Professor of Logic: what would they make of an interlocutor who premised their counter-claim on a false set of predicates, misinterpreted from the original proposition? Then pursued their falsified set of predicates, despite being advised that they were in error …four times? Probably that the response was logically flawed, unrelated to the fact, and in no way refuted, or even referenced the original.
Shall we call this the MLS ‘Imaginary CAGW Fallacy’?
Surely the term ‘manmade climate change’ is an inflation. To allow for a potential human effect within a changing climate is better stated. There may also be any number of other related or less related contenders – such as the bovine effect and the microbiota effect. Not mentioned here yet – perhaps is the definite intent of largely secret technologies to effect weather – which is not climate – but could play a part in – for example – diverting the jet stream or hurricanes (Ionospheric heating).
The spraying of nanoparticulates into the atmosphere is another unacknowledged technology that could be anything or many things that affect weather which is used all the time to push the climate fear. They could also be stealth vaccines.
I also sense that as a Living System – (which is an oxymoron – but may have to suffice) – Earth is not responding in altogether predictable ways from the standpoint of the models employed.
“The spraying of nanoparticulates into the atmosphere is another unacknowledged technology that could be anything or many things that affect weather which is used all the time to push the climate fear. They could also be stealth vaccines.”
Do you care to elaborate?
‘Geo engineering’ as the criss-cross sky patterns of con/chem trails has not so much been overtly denied as ignored.
Under the aegis of the ‘climate change imperative’ at least some of this activity has to some degree been acknowledged but as far as I know – without any public oversight or accountability.
So something – we know not what – is being done at great expense – we know not why for reasons we are not told.
When governments or corporations tell obvious lies, people speculate as to what really happened, but when the whole issue is ignored it makes those who ask open questions seem like the dissonant ones.
I have seen a patent for a delivery system for nanoparticulate application of vaccines from the air.
Aluminium is one of the particulates that is reported as fallout from ‘jet trails’ that stay in the air much longer than a contrail and become a hazed instead of a clear sky – and may be rightly or wrongly associated with lack of rainfall.
Aluminium is also a principle adjuvant (toxic initiation of an immune response) in most modern vaccines (as a move from mercury). The theory being that proteins associated with the shock and response, condition the body to make antibodies to the profile of the associated ’causes’ which is supposed to generate an antibody response before the ‘alien’ proteins’ have initiated cellular immunity – which we know as sickness of fevers, rashes and detoxifications.
I have no idea whether there is any link between ‘chemtrails and vaccines’ excepting both operate without public oversight or accountability. But rising auto-immune disease is more threatening to humankind – in my opinion – than global warming. And nano particles may pass through the skin, lungs and gut in ways that ordinary particles don’t. Aluminium is in my opinion associated with brain dysfunction – during infant and child development but also in forms of dementia.
Now for all I know there may be threats that are not AGW – but of a different order that are not entrusted to public disclosure and so AGW operates as the mainstream narrative. Insiders have access to information – or perhaps their own ‘insider bubble of paranoia’ that outsiders either fear and evade or might violently reject.
Notice that my conjectures are just that – but that weather modification happens is no longer hidden, that weather weapons have international treaties to limit or ban them is from a long way back. We have no idea what ‘dark’ or secretly developed technologies have been developed or are being tested on unsuspecting people. But there are documented examples of such human experimentation in the past such as studying black people allowed to unknowingly die of syphilis, and unprotected exposure to atomic radiation.
HAARP or similar ionospheric heating is another. Where military and corporate operate a single agenda is in secret developments of any kind of weaponry – across the whole spectrum of ways to undermine or disable an ‘enemy’ a rival or anyone designated a threat to a ‘national or even global’ security that oversees itself in private.
Giving power to fear is not my desire or intention, but hiding or pretending fears don’t exist is cognitive dissonance or a fear-directed dissociation.
That weather INFLUENCE may be possible to enact without being revealed could also be a factor in generating weather and climate fear – for to most everyone, weather patterns are the nearest they get to experience climate change – including travel between poles and tropics or seal level to high altitudes. And so linking weather fear to the AGW would make sense as a PR advisory on ‘impacting’ the message.
However the extreme weather we are experiencing has ample parallels in the records.
But as with psy-warfare, the belief that the ‘enemy’ has capabilities operates the SAME emotional reaction as if they actually do. This also applies btw to Snowden etc. The tech may be not nearly as capable in practical use as the fears of the public assume in self-censoring. There certainly are no poster children for any ability to use all this surveillance to nip crime and fraud in the bud – but that could be because holding incriminating information on anyone of any influence anywhere, may be more ‘powerful’ as a way of controlling society than any process of law and justice SEEN to be done.
The mess is of such a nature as to make limiting oil companies revenues irrelevant and I don’t claim it is any more understandable than the financial obfuscations that are un-understandable by design – but serving a purpose for those who devise them. And I know that self evasion can believe itself to be a great ‘discovery’. That’s how the mind works to mask what it is invoked or called upon to hide.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vaccines+nanoparticles&bext=msl&atb=v105-1&ia=web
vaccine delivery by aerosol
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vaccine+delivery+by+aerosol&bext=msl&atb=v105-1&ia=web
I also submit that the theory of vaccination remains unproven and the science is not settled – and by proven I mean in true effectiveness and not in meeting antibody markers. The principle is similar to the AGW as is the ‘treatment’ and the conditioning of the population to conform, comply and militate for the ‘treatment’.
Unprecedented crime? Possibly – but the pattern is an ancient one of sacrificing to appease or mitigate the gods of terror – BEFORE they strike or before are feared, believed, predicted or expected to strike.
Who Pays? And WHO gets to decide who pays?
As I said earlier, I don’t think those who see the human race as a virus or curse on the planet take themselves off.
I sense that those who elect to leave by suicide tend to be tormented or unable to bear their life experience.
I look primarily to the meanings I am giving everything as the primary determiners for how I then experience. And this includes the profound truth that ‘I of myself’ don’t know and that what I seem to know as an isolated private agenda is not a settled or irrevocable truth. there is a much greater perspective than anything rising from a fixation in guilt or horror. Even when the fixation is the underbelly to looking ANYWHERE else.
March 2017 : New cloud type : Homomutatus
After years of various denials that what folk were in the sky, did not exist, ( if they bothered to “look up” and most seemingly do not ), last year the WMO and the UK’s Met Office announced updates to the International Cloud Atlas to include 12 new cloud types.
One of them was named : homomutatus
Twelve ‘new’ types of cloud finally gain Met Office recognition
https://weather.com/en-GB/unitedkingdom/weather/news/twelve-new-types-cloud-gain-met-office-recognition-named/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic_cloud
But by far the greatest number of anthropogenic clouds are airplane contrails (condensation trails) and rocket trails.[3][4]
Gallery: all the new clouds officially recognised by the Met Office
https://www.wired.co.uk/gallery/cloud-formations-met-office-weather
Homomutatus
Persistent contrails (of the Cirrus family of clouds) are formed over a period of time under the influence of strong upper winds. They grow and spread out over a larger portion of sky, and eventually take on the appearance of more natural cirri-form clouds
MG
Back in the nuclear power no thanks 70’s a friend had a badge ; “Mutate now, avoid the rush!”
I don’t actually see the evidence for mutations forecast from radioactivity (say in wildlife around Chernobyl). But I do see the erasure of consciousness before my very eyes.
Fear works a large part of this, and if fear is contagious then guilt is toxic.
Who is learning to look at the triggers for guilt or fear so as to not be under their spell?
If the ‘spiritual’ aspect of direct awareness is out of range (blocked by thinking) – then improve the communication of the body-mind.
There is a lot coming up now about the role of the micro-biome in the sustaining of life and function – and of the communication of the emotional being to epigenetic effects.
I keep finding more that I had never heard of – such as the biological transmutation of elements – and a lot around a pervading electrical Universe that operates at the subtlest levels of our being through to the Galactic. All of which reinforce a sense that our current mind/world model is one of limitation and division under self-deceits and is not so much a true subjection so much as a development of a ‘separative and divisive attack/defence’ mind. Such a consciousness – if conscious it is – works its own checkmate or ‘endtime’, that then becomes available as the structural opportunity for the awakening of a reintegrative movement that has always ran alongside the separative – but is only noticed, aligned in or chosen from the recognition of the ‘self’ as false and therefore a curiosity of desire for true.
Defence is not seeking truth but arms, armour, allies and ways to hide – and to delay the inevitable… which to the ego is an equation of truth or Reality with death of a private sense of control.
But under such deceits and obfuscations, and temptations to mis-identify – the need for truth as a core quality of undefended transparency to being is in service of the Life we ‘thought’ to control.
So perhaps our freedom is not in the external conditions, so much as how we choose to respond and what we choose to respond from. Conditioning runs deep set habit patterns.
When crops like wheat are sprayed with Roundup to ‘ripen’ for harvest – the plant puts all its remaining energy into generating seed. In terms of Human Consciousness, seed is Idea. The idea that we are giving witness to and receiving. This is similar to releasing all that doesn’t belong – as one who approaches death may in the desire to release and be released. Spiritual life is in some sense similar in the release of the petty and the obstructive to the core sense of who and what we are.
There may be a protective or defensive intent in the geoengineering relative to Solar conditions that are insider science and not for mainstream access. The Solar System moves through Galactic environments that are not homogenous and this may be subtler than simply different charge relations – though my sense is that all the planets are affected by changes in the Solar Plasmasphere for the above reasons.
And that passing through a threshold may then stabilize to a new ‘order’.
Changes are that which the mind seeks to ‘explain’ account for and incorporate to its 3D reality model – but much is beyond the scope of such a filtered and limited consciousness. This is no less true of non physical communication during sleep as during so called waking. But out of mind is not ‘dead’ or ‘inactive’. So I live the sense of more fundamental changes that have reflections in ‘world events and a transformational consciousness’ as a willingness to listen in new ways – or to the news of the movement of being, rather than the filtering, limiting and divisive distortions.
“We don’t know” can be the positive opportunity for a knowing that we do not manufacture from the old mind. “I cant do it!” can be the recognition of the freedom from persisting in what we never could do (control or make our own reality) so as to naturally come back into alignment with a greater Gift than ‘thinking alone’ can devise.
Or then again, one can sicken and suffer and die in grievance and powerlessness. A human life is a life of choices – most of which are mind-hidden until the awakening responsibility for Now.
Not ‘responsibility’ as ‘fear, guilt and punishment’ of a past that denies our present by extending into future continuity without choice, freedom or willingness. That is the illusion of power, or rather the giving of power to illusion, and suffering it to be true because we WANTED it.
As one who has ‘Sun-gazed’ at sunset over many years I often find the Sun too bright now – indeed it seems brighter over the last year or two. Perhaps my vision is more sensitive to light but the redness of the Sun at dusk is often not so. While I understand the red shift is associated with dust in the atmosphere, the possibility of nano-particulate aluminium may be reflective rather than absorbing of the blue light end of the spectrum.
As I have no resource for scientific experimentation, I shall observe such effects as I notice with regard to what is actually occurring and allow the imagination’s creativity to serve a positive appreciation – rather than a negative fear agenda – with whatever willingness lives and moves out from its shadow.
Fears can serve bringing attention fully present, but their associated baggage may be obstructive to seeing anything. And so in this way fears are revisited and undone to anew way of being. (being from an unconflicted nature to which the mind learns to follow rather than run ahead).
From what I read Moriarty’s Left Sock has made a counter point to your claim of culturally induced doubt, namely that culturally induced certitude is of more use to the PTSB.
I find that a very insightful point, actually.
In my own personal experience I have witnessed a good deal of cultist thinking. I have never witnessed it to focus on doubt. As M’sLS says, it works by inducing certitudes, and as a corollary, forcing a gulf between those who “believe” and those who don’t. Cults work by uniting people inside a cocoon of false belief and by telling them that those who don’t believe are not simply wrong but “different”, benighted, lost.
The cultist message is always built round the idea of warning the brethren against listening to outsiders preaching doubt. I have literally never witnessed a cult that warned against certitude!
Read this as a ‘Parthian Shot’ if you like. I don’t regard myself as ‘retreating’ as such (although I won’t hold it against anyone who does), rather that the unfolding of this debate on the subject matter of this book, and the interjections from OffG contributors has encouraged me to look for a different forum to discuss current affairs. Horses for courses.
Disagreements with ‘Admin’ and Catte have centred predominantly on four things. Firstly a conflation regarding the question of whether or not there is a ‘debate’ about the veracity of AGW, or if in fact there is ‘consensus’. There clearly is a debate here, and on the internet generally, and in the halls of power and in the media (especially the Right wing media), and some contributors to that debate are indeed scientists. There clearly is not anything resembling a meaningful debate within the huge, worldwide community of scientists working within the field of climate research. There is indeed consensus within this latter group, as has been shown by numerous peer reviewed papers that have been linked repeatedly in these here discussions. ‘Admin’ and others keep conflating these two facts, and to my eyes, that is irresponsible.
Similarly, the disagreement follows the line of what constitutes ‘proof’. BigB has written one of the clearest succinct explanations of the concept of ‘proof’ within the scientific context generally and within climate science specifically. Again, I see this ignored by opponents of AGW, and by Catte and ‘Admin’, and there has been a repeated boiler plate response that carbon gas forcing and AGW are ‘not proven’. What is?
This calls to a concept which is surely close the very heart of why this website was created in the first place. Catte has written several very interesting articles over recent months exploring the relationship between groupthink, truth, perception, outliers and such. My take on these concepts is that we cannot easily substitute the very controlled procedures and institutions that have evolved over centuries which seek to get ‘the best guess that we can’. The scientific publication, academic review, judicial processes – all these are far from perfect, but they are the best that we have. (NB Piers Corbyn is nothing to do with these). Philosophically speaking, there is no absolute certainty about anything, so we are necessarily thrown back onto a moral question about what constitutes the best approach to getting as close to the ‘truth’ as possible. This website has been, I would say, a key contributor to that moral argument over the past few years, as public recognition of the immorality of corporate ‘truths’ has grown and grown. However, this episode has deviated I would say.
Again, BigB, flaxgirl and others have made the moral argument for taking the factually established consensus within the climate research community as the best guide to a position on AGW generally. It reads to me that ‘Admin’, on balance, does not agree with that, and sees the moral imperative to be to keep the ‘debate’ open and ongoing regardless of the impacts on political consensus or political action that such an open ended debate might have.
The key points about 9/11 is not that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds (although that is obviously very important), or that the wargames hampered the defensive response. Rather it is that NIST have classified and destroyed scientific data and evidence, that the FBI have classified and destroyed evidence, that the 9/11 Commission was a sham from start to finish.
The key point about Kelly’s death was not that there was no blood reported at the scene when he was found, it was that the coroner’s inquest was blocked. With Khan Sheikhoun is was the OPCW breaking its own code of conduct with regard chains of custody and collecting samples.
You get my point. Once the procedures, protocols and institutions of evidential verification and investigation are denied, disempowered or corrupted, then we are compelled to engage in little more than trial by public opinion, with all the vulnerability to sophisticated propaganda techniques that that entails. In the case of AGW, we have the institution of science arguing about the data day in day out, and it is ridiculous hubris to shout about water vapour or solar variation as if thousands of scientists have overlooked those factors but that some backyard outlier has the big reveal.
Griffin makes these points far better than I can in the article linked by Elizabeth below in these comments. As ever, his academic expertise in understanding the nuances of epistemology cut through the fog and confusion.
Thirdly, there have been repeated accusations by ‘Admin’ that those arguing for recognition of ‘consensus within the climate science’ are in fact arguing for censorship of those arguing against that position. I read through all the comments again and the only ones speaking about censorship are Admin and Catte. Nobody has called for the silencing of dissent on AGW. Flaxgirl made the point that oligarchs are being charged with abusing their positions at the head of disinformation campaigns working in their interests (as happened in the tobacco-cancer situation). Perhaps the OffG team would defend the executives at Philip Morris for employing PR teams to fudge the debate on smoking, all in the interests of ‘free and open ongoing debate’ ? If not, why not?
Again this seems dishonest of the OffG team. Censorship is not black and white. As writers like Parenti and Pilger point out, the corporate media system in liberal democracies rarely censors outright, but employs more subtle tactics of ‘selective neutrality’, agenda setting, selective omission, biased wording and so forth. In the case of AGW, it is hard to see the difference in this regard between OffG and that of msm.
Finally, there has been OffG’s repeated ‘corporate’ statement of its commitment to neutrality. From a certain perspective this attitude is admirable of course. But is it not, if ultimately taken to an absolutist extreme, just the same as the fabled ‘neutrality’ of The Guardian itself? There is no moral equivalency of multibillion dollar industries of deception (we are talking about the PR industry here – “go ahead kill yourself” – Hicks), and a few middle class scientists sick of the disinformation, so deciding to investigate it and write about it on the web. Greenwald and others make the case generally (as has BigB here, specifically) that neutrality is really an affirmation of the status quo. E.g. Who is neutral about the prospect of widespread nuclear war? Some could argue and no doubt have argued that the impact of a major nuclear exchange would not be as bad as some ‘scaremongering’ scientists claim. It is not ‘proven’ after all, just theorised through reference to models. It is not really ‘provable’ except by setting the damned things off.
I want a media to be morally engaged, to be explicit in its positions on things that it covers, I am even fine with a degree of filtering so long as that is done in an open way for reasons made clear and so long as media is owned and run democratically, transparently. How else do we protect ourselves from big money influence in the information sphere?
This AGW debate, amongst other things recently, has shown me that OffG’s model- although admirable in many ways, is not foolproof, and not what I am looking for.
An anecdote about science:
Today, at this very moment, Einstein’s theory of relativity is believed to be beyond dispute. Why? Because an expedition by Eddington and Dyson in 1919 “proved” what Einstein’s theory predicted would be the case: that light passing through a powerful, spherically arranged gravitational field would bend to the contours of that field.
Unfortunately, there is a slight problem with this presumption: no one with the competence to do so since the time of the promulgation and acceptance of that result put forth by Eddington and Dyson has ever bothered to review the details of the manner in which that result was obtained, no one, that is to say, except for one such scientist, a Canadian physicist, Dr. Paul Marmet.
Marmet has published a very succinct and accessible critique of the Eddington and Dyson “experiment,” and his critique is ’empirically’ and ‘logically’ irrefutable, and yet it continues to be steadfastly ignored by the “scientific” establishment.
Why?
Because a “consensus” exists presuming that a) Eddington and Dyson proved Einstein correct; that b) if Eddington and Dyson proved Einstein correct, Marmet must be a crank deserving only of being ignored and dismissed out of hand; that c) if Einstein’s theory has thus already been proved, as “everyone” already knows it has, there is no need to actually revisit the details of Eddington’s and Dyson’s foundational “proof;” and that d) (and perhaps more importantly) entire careers and reputations, staked on the validity of Relativity, would run the risk of coming undone.
And yet for all of that, it very much does remain the case that Marmet’s critique is on both empirical and logical grounds unassailable.
My point is, as the foregoing example amply illustrates to anyone who takes the time to familiarize him- or her-self with Marmet’s analysis, that scientific truth is not a matter of “consensus,” but of properly analysed and interpreted empirical data, and that the competent efforts of a single individual can count for more than all of the unexamined assumptions underpinning the consensual paradigm(s) of any given scientific discipline.
To further illustrate the irrationality of consensus opinion to which institutional science is vulnerable, consider this remark from physicist Alexander Unzicker:
(Source: online, a short article titled: “IS ASTROPHYSICS READY TO DRAW A LESSON FROM THOMAS KUHN?”)
By ignoring those who offer “reasons” for disagreeing with what we already believe, we deprive ourselves of the possibility of increasing the range and depth of what we actually know.
Because human knowledge cannot but be an agglomeration of many perspectives, because it must mostly be second-hand opinion and thus presumptive and perspectivist, it is inevitable that qualitatively equal and competent perspectives will clash, that viewpoints equivalent in their empirical and logical validity will conflict, but conflict only for lacking a proper or adequate theoretical or interpretive framework by which to be reconciled.
I agree with what you say about consensus. Massive consensus has so often been proved wrong. I, myself, hold a very unpopular view among both those who believe 9/11 was the work of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters and those who think it was an inside conspiracy. I believe the evidence shows very clearly that death and injury were staged. And just as man-made climate change made immediate sense to me before I knew anything of the evidence as soon as it occurred to me that the perpetrators had targeted truthers with special propaganda to ensure they maintained their belief in death and injury (even if it took me 4 years of study to get there) it felt as if it was just a matter of confirming what struck me as making so much sense. Of course, the perps would not have killed and injured the people when they could so easily fake it (and the evidence clearly shows fakery). That would make no sense at all. But even though what I say is so very common sense, truthers simply do not want to know about it and just ignore me – very significantly though they don’t attempt to argue with me. I find it astounding.
It is not so much consensus among scientists that makes me believe in dangerous man-made climate change but what individual scientists say and – most importantly – how they say it. When I look at the clarity and conciseness of the skeptical science site and read and listen to climate scientists who talk about it elsewhere what they say seems honest, reasonable and rigorous whereas when I look at those who deny it they do not seem credible in any way. I can say the same for all the comments on this website. Those who oppose it simply pull out cherry-picked facts with no regard for how they fit into the argument or they just make assertions. They simply provide no argument.
My understanding is way too dim to have an opinion on the theory of relativity – just to say that the 1919 experiment is not the only purported evidence for the theory. There is other evidence which you can read about here.
https://www.space.com/41020-putting-relativity-to-the-test.html
Yes. This sort of thing is not the exception but the rule.
And can be observed in individuals as in group identities.
The ‘model’ as a basis of identity, and control serves a different function than that of genuine relationship.
But no one can ‘get through’ to those who see as the ‘model’ dictates – unless of course its dis-integrity breaks down the capacity to give it allegiance – and then there may be a background stirring of a discontent that initially tends to reinforce the attempt to defend and reassert the model through narrative manipulations and of course open coercion and targeted hatred.
Oh don’t dress it up Mog. You feel threatened by arguments that cast doubt on something you believe in deeply. It makes you uncomfortable and you want to blame everyone for it but yourself.
Your language is acutely dishonest. You claim you support free speech on one hand and deny it on the other with qualifiers. Free speech has limits? And what are they exactly? Your comfort zones?
I too have read through this thread and I see the admin bending over backwards, excruciatingly and unnecessarily in my view, to qualify every single intercession with “I’m not claiming either side is correct” etc. I see them actually supporting the call to action on climate which you say they don’t. I see Catte saying she’s a Green and wants to see action on AGW.
How orthodox does this site have to be in order to appease you? Do they have to sign up to that ghastly McCarthyist website where deniers such as myself are listed for punishment or vengeance?
Let’s be honest, Mog, the only comment policy you would see as appropriate on this discussion is one in which all dissenting voices were airbrushed away before you had to read them. Your free speech is the freedom to speak in theory but the freedom to merely agree with you in practice.
For my part, I think there’s no other site on the net that has a better comment policy than OffG. It’s a breath of fresh air to see moderators making an effort to keep discussion open and fair but polite. I can imagine it’s a thankless task. And for sure, you have not thanked them.
I’ll thank you for nothing.
As for OffG, I have thanked them, on numerous occasions, and I thank them again here.
I didn’t suggest or expect you to thank me. But at least you have the grace to thank these guys who give us this platform. You could also not misrepresent their editorial policy in future.
There’s just one thing I disagree on, mog. To my mind, the key point about 9/11 is that death and injury were staged and I think the concerted, ongoing effort that has gone into the truther-targeted propaganda campaign supports that view, namely, the high-profile loved ones and workers who promulgate suspicion of government/knowledge of controlled demolition while at the same time speak of their loved ones/colleagues who perished in the buildings. Not a single loved one of the 265 passengers who allegedly died in the planes though is agitating for an inquiry as far as I know. Shouldn’t they be asking questions about how the multi-trillion dollar defense machine managed to fail four times in one day regardless of whether they recognise controlled demolition or faked plane crashes?
Not to say I don’t completely understand what you say are the key points. I just think regardless of anything else the key point is that death and injury were staged.
Gosh, Mog, one of your paragons of reason thinks 9/11 was staged! Ouch, that’s gotta be embarrassing 😉
Excellent mog; though we need to be superhumanly careful to stay respectful – which in the main you do – when (a) this site is a great resource thanks to Catte et al; (b) this debate has run its course since the anti AGW camp here is not the problem. Rather than waste time seeking to change the minds of a tiny minority with no more power than you or me, we need to focus on the inaction of corrupt leaders and media who tend to agree climate change is real and man made, but at every turn prioritise “economic growth” – heroin to capitalism – over curbing greenhouse emissions.
Why not simply extend respect as you would yourself receive. What is superhuman about that?
If you are offended in your brother – why? People do not all see the world the same and this can become our strength when we open in desire to uncover why, by listening, instead of framing them as invalid heretical or enemies for not supporting the idea or cause that YOU are choosing to believe, invest in and give power to. Collective power under fear is hierarchical obedience to a top down dictate but a shared integrity of honouring communication is a collective willingness in shared purpose. The former can align actions or denials as acute instances of applied force but only the latter can grow a true cultural expression.
You pronounce your personal summary of the ‘debate’ as a waste of time, (A debate that never was or could be – because it starts from a conclusion there is no debate and that NOT conforming to such a ‘consensus’ of asserted and repeated claims of being settled science and beyond criticism is itself a crime calling on punishment).
Demonising economic growth is ju jitsu to a shift of definitions. The definitions of such growth have been corrupt and corrupting, as a result of a predatory and rapacious disregard for life. But that is NOT the basis for flip flopping to deny and limit growth under a demonisation based on ‘carbon’.
All that we need is an honesty of a qualitative discernment as for the economic activity that operates a negative ACTUAL result – regardless of GDP and other meaningless financial obfuscations.
Making disposable or toxic crap is making us into disposable units. But ‘carbon’ isn’t toxic – except in being pushed as an energy GUILT currency. Perhaps the shift from a debt based currency to a guilt based currency seems a natural progression – but if we want an energy-based currency – why not remove the blocks to the development of energy solutions that do not operate the centralised top down corporate control and consumer dependence?
The ‘carbon’ guilt-trap denies a genuine debate on actual environmental issues that include the degrading of our biology to the point of paralysis and collapse. To a very few, this is actually seen as an opportunity for power. Perhaps the ultimate victory for the worship of destruction as power over Life.
It is an interesting observation on the subject of climate change. That we the people are encouraged by the elite classes to embrace a collective guilt over something we have very little ability to change. Whether man made or a natural phenomena.
Those in the world who really care with the most passion about the planet being so damaged by pollution. Are the ones who embrace this guilt and responsibility the most. Even sadly I fear, to the point of falling out and calling out for voices to be silenced on this site.
The ones who encourage and keep reinforcing this guilt and fear are the ones responsible for the harm and damage being done. And they are the ones who could choose to stop the destruction of the environment and polluting if they were of a mind to. They could create models of sustainable living but don’t. They make gain at the expense of all else. Sustainable models do not feed the crude beast. lip service is given but nothing changes. Their continued aggression and wars to grab precious resources rolls on regardless.
This in the end all becomes another form of divide and rule and trauma inflicted onto the people. It also may if one is not very careful infect us with the sin of arrogance. Elitist and selfish in its manifestation. Who are we in the west to tell other nations that they are not able to do what we have already done.
.In spite of the constant fearmongering by the state nothing halts their march of progress and polluting habits when money rules. Anti fracking protesters are being treated criminally in the North West of England at this moment All at the same time as our government pretending they care about climate change and plastic pollution levels. Summits are frequently held by those in power giving lip service of doom quoting man made models for global warming. Then they set up and trade emissions back and fourth and continue the damage.
There have been years and years of campaigning and pushing for pollution cuts and against environmental destruction. We now all argue among our selves over things we can not prove or control. We do however have a choice. To either embrace the negative and fuel this disconnect or to embrace each others individual concepts and ideas in loving open minded discussion.
We have so little real understanding of Gaia and her ability to re balance. The science on all things is ultimately built on models of theories which may at some future time become disproved. Though whatever may be. We should all be working for ways to live respectfully in peace and in harmony within this wonderful dream. It is probably good to sometimes think that .We are maybe not as important as we would like to believe ourselves to be.in the greater cycle of Gaia.
All we can ever do is hold our own council and live our lives as truthfully and with as much care, compassion, respect and humanity as we are able. To live lightly on the earth.
Pertaining to this issue, there is the phenomenon of ‘climate change’ per se, and then there is what is very much the unsettled ‘science’ of ‘climate change.’
‘Climate change’ is something that has always happened and always will. This we know as a certainty.
The ‘why(s)’ and “wherefores” of ‘climate change,’ even in the absence of human influence, however, is something we do not know either on the whole or in detail. How, then, can we “measure’ the impact of mankind’s influence on it? You cannot get a measure of the latter without first having a measure of the former. Period.
I know the latter as ‘fact.’ If it were not a fact, then there would be no reason, among others, for the following line of inquiry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
But even if AGW were the most pressing issue of our times — and I claim no position one way or another, because “I DON”T KNOW” that it is, however much of a ‘scientific consensus’ may be said or argued to exist — it still wouldn’t matter, and the reason it wouldn’t matter is that we live in a world where “PROFIT” (and, by implication, the largesses that fund all scientific research) trumps absolutely “EVERYTHING.”
If curtailing emissions means curtailing the bottom lines of the most powerful corporations in existence, it simply won’t happen.
Therefore, the most pressing problem facing us isn’t and can’t be AGW, but the hegemony of CAPITAL.
Unless and until the latter is either effectively dealt with or implodes all on its own, human welfare and the ecology of the planet will continue to count for very little.
And something I only just came across and that some may find relevant to the discussion:
Norman, this is what Ari Jokimaki has to say about Svensmark. I haven’t watched your video and only skimmed the article and comments – just to say that it may be worth looking at both sides if you believe that Svensmark has a valid argument.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/analysis_of_svensmark_reference_list.html
Reply in flaxgirl style:
When you name a single point that you believe supports (or even could support) the argument against significant effect of cosmic-rays to climate please name it. Until that time your insistence that a debate exists is not justified.
So Antonym, how do you relate cosmic-rays to the steep global temperature rise of the last 100 years, assuming you accept that rise – or do you have a quibble with it?
You don’t study replies made to you and therefore keep on making wrong assumptions about them, or the people replying you, resulting in a endless and meaning less repetitive word stream.
I for one give up talking to a brick wall.
I’m afraid the data does not support the cosmic rays/cloud-seeing theory, Antonym. You’ll need to pull out another skeptic argument. I’m sure you’ve got a number still to go.
https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
I was wondering what God had to say about cosmic rays! Aren’t we lucky flaxgirl that John Cook (aka “The Word of the Lord”) is so reliable, so honest, so completely infallible that all we have to do is run over to Skeptical Science and consult the oracle to know the Truth.
Any resemblance between you and a brainwashed cultist who simply believes his/her leader without question is entirely coincidental.
I think what I object to most in argument is derision. Not that I’m never guilty of it myself but only in small doses.
Your derision is simply complete rubbish and is the kind of argument that turns me right off skeptic argument regardless of content.
John Cook started Skeptical Science. It is now run by a number of people. The article I quoted was by someone other than JC. I just realised! His initials are JC. How about that? Some other skeptic derided him for his Christianity.
The fact that I admire SS does not make me a brainwashed cultist. That is an absurdity. Can you not see how utterly pointless and false what you say is and how you undermine your credibility with it. It is pitiful.
LOL hilarious that you can with a straight face complain about derision when you have been charging all over this thread sneering at anyone, even the mods on this site who doesn’t 100% agree with you, screaming “show me the evidence” and then refusing point blank to the point of lunacy to even read any of the evidence you’re shown!
All you do, whatever evidence anyone quotes is find something on that ONE SINGLE website that you think refutes it. Mostly it doesn’t refute it because it’s a dumbed down junk site. But you don’t notice, you don’t even bother to read the posts by the people you are talking to, or follow the links, you just run off to Skeptical Science to find something you can tell yourself proves you’re right and slap it down here going “seee!!”.
It’s totally mad. Can’t you think for yourself? Can’t you even dare to look at one single sceptical website in case it makes you doubt?
What’s that if not cultist? How would you feel if someone responded to all your 911 stuff by going to Snopes and coming back with one of their retarded bits of “debunking” and saying “see that proooooves I’m right!”
What you just can’t get in your head is that you might be that person about climate change. You have totally bought a mainstream fake news story about “the earth burning up”. You’re a mainstream dupe on this. You are. Wake up before you start thinking Russia hacked the DNC!
Skeptical Science is simply the goto website when debunking skeptic arguments on climate change, the curator of all the arguments if you will. It presents them clearly and concisely. If you can suggest a better site to go for debunking arguments, please do.
I hate the idea that people interpret what I do as sneering and deriding. Can you please let me know where you think I do this?
Yes, if you can keep up the pretence of an engagement you can elicit a slip by which another reveals their personal frustration in a leaky gut feeling given form in sarcasm. Now throw your whole weight into a righteous attack to back out of an argument you were never really engaged in anyway.
I have been accused of being an AI bot or something similar simply because I do not write to a machine intelligence but to a conscious attention and intention.
But the nature and pattern of a manipulative intent is not obscure but is well documented and easy to learn to spot – whether a personal resort seeking to appeal for sympathy (or induce antipathy), or a highly trained operative.
That the ‘Terminator’ might not be a physical robot, but a program running in the guise of human behaviours puts humanity into the need to discern the true from the false. The hiding of the false by assigning it to others is one of the signs of artifice. But the resort to masking is not in itself a call to judge and assign penalty by accusation, but a call FOR communication.
So instead of ‘taking such offence’ when you admit to behaving in the same manner yourself, why not restate relationship in terms of an opportunity to withdraw or rephrase whatever was said in a way that honours the relationship and the right to join or not join in agreement on specific ideas and beliefs?
My sense is that many are devolving to become robots as part of the transition to bio-tech and A.I.
However, others are choosing to honour relational being itself as the ground of being and are evolved by such alignment for a shifting of focus from reflected meanings to direct participation.
I see this as the true choice that is HIDDEN by the false framing of a misidentified self interest running ‘robotically’ as a reactive defence mechanism. And so, regardless your – or any reader’s current occupation, I write to look AT the thinking of the world rather than ‘think it’ or be ‘thought’ by it.
Part of the ability to look AT the reactive mind is the ability to open a choice of NOT reacting or taking the bait of reaction under triggering conditions, and the nature of the triggering conditions can be recognised as tricks or devices and deceits of thought in the mind – regardless the forms they take or who seems to instigate it. Who want freedom, learns of freedom.
Because no matter what a manipulative thought or intent asserts, your ARE the freedom to choose not to persist it upon yourself, or enter its framing by engaging with it in the terms of its own assertion. But real freedom seems to cost a manipulative sense of possessive control – and there’s the rub!
As that freedom you are worthy of gratitude for sharing true witness – because truth is not a personal possession, manipulation or manufacture. And so the true of you is worthy of the gift of true witness for your own release from what you have made and suffer as real. But always and only to your own willingness of acceptance. The absence of coercion is the sign of a true acceptance.
Needy people want to use you to get what they believe they lack. But true need calls forth a true relationship.
That’s humanity’s stumbling block – opening to and engaging in genuine relationship – because there is no specified or systematic FORM to living communication – and yet we are invested in such models for salvation in terms of a separative sense of self that runs as a slave to fear under illusion of freedom.
Plato’s Cave – or the Matrix. But if the way into subjection was a deceit, then there is a basis to question our ‘reality’ as an opening to perspectives the deceit actively filters out, distorts and denies – so as to persist as a reality of choice.
Yes – I see this is a step into an awareness of the Electrical nature of the Universe and the release of a gravitational model – which will also find gravity to be a by product of electrical charge relation and not itself a universal absolute. (We will also release Big Bang, expanding Universe, Black holes and dark matter and dark energy). I cant believe that ‘insider’ science is not already well aware of this, but the model for the mainstream is a model of containment and entrainment – and the role of fake science is then to purvey narratives that support or are used to support political and commercial interests under a mask of fighting evils or discovering cures.
The other side of the coin is that humanity may not be ready or willing to accept disclosure. If truth were openly shared, illusions would not require global defence systems. And so those who demand illusions will find them no matter what any science or simple honesty uncovers.
Cosmic Rays are a function of ‘Plasma’ Physics. Plasma is electrically charged ‘matter-energy’ of ions and electrons that are phases of a Creating Universe – which is very different from a static Singularity that ‘exploded’ at a beginning from which a Universe has then expanded and ‘formed’ over billions of years.
The ‘Solar wind’ is an electrical circuit – between Sol and its Galactic environment – and Earth (and other planets of our system) is within and part of that circuit. Our Solar System is moving through differing charge relations with its environment – noting that the Sun’s plasmasphere extends way past Pluto and one of our spacecraft has recently moved or is moving though this boundary to surprise surprise find a charged state that ‘we did not expect’. This line is so common with regard to electrical phenomena as to suggest either an incredible failure to join the dots due to ‘model’ blindness or a top-down narrative control as for example works with regard to vaccine critical science – and now to AGW critical science.
Plasma Physics is ‘hidden’ from recognition by the ‘standard model’ which includes the Sun being believed as a Fusion reaction when in fact the fusion is occurring at the surface of a Sun which is actually an electrical transformer with a hotter surface (plasma in arc mode – as in lightning) than beneath – which is also revealed in sunspots which are temporary holes in the Heliosphere to the cooler surface below and associated with the looping ejecta of solar material (plasma), that gains in acceleration after leaving the Sun. (Due to electrically charged layers around the Sun). There is no space – in terms of a vaccuum or nothing – so much as vast regions of plasma or ionized electrically acting ionised matter and electrical charge.
I don’t write to assert an argument in a contest but to share in what I am finding as a result of questioning fake science – just as with fake everything else – and that is a positive vision or indeed reintegrative understanding of Life, The Universe and Everything – but as the saying goes; ‘dont let truth get in the way of a good story’. What is a ‘good story’? Is it any narrative in which we are so invested as to only be able to experience in its terms? or is that behind us as we open to the waking up from narrative identity struggle to realignment in natural function?
And I also said on this page – Corbyn, Piers – sells long range weather forecasting services to business and private customers based upon the study of past known Sun activity and weather conditions.
When not knowing HOW something works is used to assert that it thus CANNOT work, is not science but a naked empiricism dressed up in pretensions of settled sayance.
Old man Rockefeller effectively shut down homeopathy as a rival to his own pharmaceutical cartel monopoly that then protected itself by capture of the regulatory authorities, but employed a homeopath as his exclusive personal physician.
As they say – go figure.
This is old now but it irked me so I’m responding now. One thing I’d like to point out, binra. You say that I say I “take offence”. I didn’t use the word offence. I said I object to derision. The two words have quite a different force and I wonder if there’s a slight sexist overtone in your saying I take offence – as if, as a woman, I can’t cope with derision from other commenters, mostly male. Of course, I wouldn’t be arguing endlessly on these pages if I couldn’t cope with it.
While I admit that I might be derisive on the very odd occasion (and using only very few words) that is an extremely different matter to be constantly arguing with people where you have to wade through a paragraph (sometimes two it seems) of derision to get to the point. I’m only interested in the argument, not what the other person thinks of my reasoning ability nor do I feel the need to inform them of my opinion of their reasoning ability. I have complete confidence in my reasoning ability and I’m also perfectly happy to admit I’m wrong when I realise I’m wrong. Derision is offputting, a timewaster, distracts from the argument and makes it easy to miss whatever real point the derider might make.
You are free to notice when you feel irked,and can use the experience to notice the demands or conditions you have set that others or yourself are failing to meet.
I have not reread through what we have said in response to each other or to the points raised, but I write to illuminate choices being made – such as framing ‘irk’ in terms of denialist or time-waster.
What would happen if we addressed the issue without assigning invalidations to the other’s intent?
Of course it is possible to intend to deny the voice or acceptance of the meaning of another, and indeed to deny to others what in fact we are doing and saying. But this can merely be illuminated or reflected without assigning (our own) ill intent or malign motives.
I don’t know you are a woman – though your commenting name suggests so. I meet you (and anyone) in what you choose to share or give – whoever you are and whatever your background. In this thread I met your instant acceptance of recognition of the AGW assertion as true and of total faith in those individuals and institutions who are its proponents as obviously or necessarily right – with no conversation possible except the restatement of this view in such a framework as to make any other view wrong, but more than wrong; to be serving hateful and therefore ‘righteously attackable’ intent.
I have said many times that I feel the framing of the issue to be itself a trap that I choose not to enter.
I also do not share in the mainstream or official narrative of the scientific version of reality, nor in the elite and exclusive ‘priesthood’ of corporate-backed institutional investment and its denial of true witness. But that does not mean I am seeking to take away your right or power to choose for you.
But to make a choice as an actual choice, we have to know what it is we are choosing between, and this implies information as to what each choice entails. Deception can and does frame false choices so as to hide or deny the true choice from the ‘voting slip’ or ‘debate’. In this sense you are right – there IS no debate or indeed election to be engaged in – its is all sown up, done and dusted. The magical or symbolic ritual is a matter of getting people to sign away their freedom in a form that they are attracted to or compelled to ‘act now!’ – as if doing so is going to limit the freedom of those intent on its destruction and thus regain their own…
The symbol of freedom or the symbol of love and life can be set against the symbols of hateful evils and terrors so as to engage the mind as the active denial of its own true being. Such is a mind set in its own image against relational communication. This isn’t a personal accusation but a pervasive pattern of human enslavement. Ultimately or indeed truly, it is ideas that we give power to, that then disempower us. If we saw choice as only that, there would BE no choice – only creative freedom. Until acceptance of such a freedom releases false or loveless thinking, vigilance against deceit is our need for it holds for the peace in which the true can be recognized and shared. But not forced upon self or other – or world.
The LIA (Little Ice Age) is ending. Temps are rising back to pre-LIA levels. What caused the LIA? No one knows, but it coincided with very low solar activity. Is this correlation a proof of cause? No, but it’s good evidence. Is the rise in CO2 causing the recent warming or is that just correlation? We don’t know.
Are you going to listen to any of this, do some research that doesn’t involve asking Skeptical Science to tell you what to think?
Not. A. Chance. God might be cross with you if you depart from doctrine.
I use SS because it conveniently curates all the skeptic arguments and provides clear and concise debunking of them. Doesn’t it make perfect sense to use it? If you can debunk the debunking by SS by all means go ahead. If you can suggest another website I should consult please recommend it.
Of course, trusty old SS is right there with a critique of the LIA skeptic argument.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
“The Little Ice Age remains for the present the subject of speculation. The most likely influence during this period is variable output from the sun combined with pronounced volcanic activity. We know that from the end of the LIA to the 1950s the sun’s output increased. But since WW2 the sun has slowly grown quieter, yet the temperature on Earth has gone up.
The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.”
Other websites have been suggested here numerous times. Climate Audit is one mentioned several times.
It’s also been alleged by several commenters SS is inaccurate and partisan and examples of said inaccuracy have been offered. I don’t verify them but they are definitely here on this page and the posters will claim they have already ‘debunked the debunker’.
You do not as a rule respond to such comments. Maybe you don’t notice them as the thread is very long and tangled. But there’s little point in asking for information, ignoring it when given and then asking for it again.
This is a bit different from the “AGW is proved, the science is settled and everyone who doesn’t believe is a heretic!” angle you and the other brave crusaders on here have been taking isn’t it.
Even supposing the claims made above are true (they aren’t completely, see below), they stop a long way short of “proof”, and SS admits the LIA is a “subject of speculation.” Good, that at least is a bit more realistic about our state of knowledge.
The truth is that everything about the climate is a “subject of speculation” for us with our current state of knowledge. We don’t know enough. Our observation windows are too narrow when measured in geological time. We have no idea why the LIA happened. SS’s suggestions are possible explanation, but the process becomes distorted and deceitful once other possibilities are not given equal weight, and certain speculations are morphed by political manipulation, into pseudo-fact.
And SS is deliberately sloppy with the data. Sun activity is decreasing NOW, but it didn’t start decreasing in the 1950s. In fact recent ice core studies (see link below) on isotope proxies have shown the sun was at a 1200 year peak of activity in the late 20th C – which exactly coincides with the period of warming between c.1950 and 2000.
Since that time the warming has all but halted, and this coincides with the sun entering a new period of low activity.
It’s way too early to draw conclusion about any of this. It’s certainly too early to rule out that C02 contributes to increased global temperatures. If the C02 continues to go up but temps don’t then in 200 or 300 years we may be able to draw tentative conclusions! But at the moment there is provisional hard evidence that CO2 is NOT a major climate forcer and that recent warming has been due to the activity of the sun.
See the ice core study here http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
BTW, when I mentioned the LIA I said this to you:
How hilarious is it that in response you post a quote from Skeptical Science! 😀
MLS, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect me to go to SS as it’s the debunking go to. I’m not a scientist. Why would I spend hours researching a claim you make when I can just go to SS. I’ll return with what they say and leave it up to you to debunk them. Now I’ll respond to your alleged debunking of SS.
This is what the scientist you link to, Ilya Usoskin, says elsewhere:
https://www.mwenb.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Blog-Ilya-Usoskin-def.pdf
Although the present knowledge remains poor, in particular since most of the climate models consider only the direct TSI effect which is indeed quite small, I would intuitively and subjectively say that the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but presently other factors play the dominant role. However, such time-delaying processes as e.g. ocean heating, are not straightforwardly considered.
It is also interesting to note that SS use Usoskin’s work to debunk another scientist’s work:
https://skepticalscience.com/mini-ice-age-myth-still-wrong.html
And just to add. Of course, I’m no scientist but if it were solar activity wouldn’t you tend to expect just a higher temperature without so much feedback and climate change than if CO2 were responsible? With just more sun there wouldn’t be so much heat trapped in the atmosphere causing greater concentrations of water vapour, seemingly the greatest feedback. Wouldn’t just greater solar activity produce quite different results which would be of less concern?
Dear flaxgirl,
I think you inadvertently failed to emphasize in Usokin’s quote what the quote itself insists upon, something which also coincidentally the so-called gaggle of ‘deniers’ in this thread have been at pains to highlight for you.
Rather, the proper emphasis in Usokin’s quote should read as follows:
“Although the present knowledge remains poor, in particular since most of the climate models consider only the direct TSI effect which is indeed quite small, I would intuitively and subjectively say that the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but presently other factors play the dominant role.”
See how that works: one quote, two very different readings,
You want to emphasize as ‘fact’ that “the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but has since not been.”
But Usokin is not asserting this as fact, but as a question that needs to be properly investigated, i.e., her assertion is “intuitive and subjective,” something that remains highly speculative and hasn’t yet been shown to be either true or false.
The only factual claim that can here be said to be being ‘debunked’ is — given the question(s) being raised by Usokin — that “the science has been settled.”
As a response to MLS’s response I think my highlighting is perfectly valid, Norman.
Climate scientists are uncertain about many aspects of climate change which they readily admit to, however, they are certain enough that the rise in CO2 is causing dangerous warming and climate change. That is sufficient for me. It may not be sufficient for you but it is sufficient for me.
Right. The climate scientists in your camp don’t really understand the link between the many different aspects of solar activity and the earth climate system, but they know they can discount them in an era of rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Fascinating logic.
As I just said, Norman, this is what they say.
“Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.”
Just to clarify.
What I want to do is show that the scientist that MLS links to is in agreement with what SS says in terms of solar influence being influential until mid-century. That is all.
Um, if what SS says in terms of solar influence being influential until mid-century, but thereafter being negligible, as a matter of “fact,” then you fail to show that the scientist that MLS links to is in agreement with what SS contends: she is not making a statement of “fact;” she is pointing to an issue that must be further investigated before any ‘rational’ stance can be adopted in relation to it.
So which is it: does SS assert as “fact” that although solar activity was influential until the mid-20th Century, it no longer is; or does it assert, as Usokin does, that all of this is as yet unproven speculation?
Just to point out Ilya is a man’s name.
My response was very much to MLS’s claim below and really needs to be considered in that context. I’m not going to discuss the matter further.
“But at the moment there is provisional hard evidence that CO2 is NOT a major climate forcer and that recent warming has been due to the activity of the sun.
See the ice core study here http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf“
Okay, she’s a he, and it’s not Usokin, but Usoskin.
So what’s the problem with the ice core study?
I didn’t even look at it. My point is that Usoskin says that he thinks solar influence diminished mid-century (even if he’s not sure about it) – SS says the same thing (without expressing the uncertainty). MLS rejects that with the link to Usoskin’s study (but who says elsewhere as I’ve shown that he thinks the solar influence reduced mid-century). This is it – I’m not discussing it further.
And just to add further:
From SS:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.
And just to add further again:
The certainty that scientists have on the rise of CO2 being a dangerous climate forcer is sufficient for the oil companies. Their lawyers, despite the willingness of the denialists they have happily funded to support their case with their argument, ignore them and do not defend their case using any doubts on the matter. Not at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial
“From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change.”
They are using the same defence that the tobacco companies used: it’s the customer’s fault.
No skeptic, so far, has given me a possible explanation for why an oil company would not use doubt on CO2 causing a dangerous rise in temperature to defend their case, when so many of their supporters are willing to help them to use it.
Perhaps you can offer a reason, Norman?
If Big Oil is accepting the reality of manmade global warming it’s more likely to be because it can profit from green energy subsidies and oil price increases (to deter use)or other areas of leverage than because the science is just too strong to deny. If the “deniers” can deny it, why not Exxon?
But surely to defend their case it would be much better for them to claim they are not responsible for causing sea level rise because it’s uncertain what’s causing it rather than blaming it on the customer? They’re defending a very serious case here which will lead to others – lots of others perhaps. They stand to lose colossal amounts of money. I very much doubt the possibility of green-energy subsidies would be playing on their minds here – although certainly it might elsewhere. Do you understand the seriousness of the case?
I guess you wouldn’t understand the seriousness of the case because, if it’s the same Admin, you think the children’s legal case against the US government is a psyop. Please read this article and then confirm whether or not you still think it’s a psyop.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/kids-sue-us-government-climate-change/
The seriousness of the case isn’t the point. Massive corporations don’t think like that. They don’t give a stuff about data or truth or ethics. If they wanted to deny manmade climate change they would. Even if there were no evidence at all that called it into question.
If Big Oil is accepting AGW it’s because it sees a way to profit from it either directly or indirectly. Period.
When I say the case is serious what I mean is that they may suffer greatly. Nothing to do with ethics. My goodness!
That’s an assertion with zero evidence.
What about, they’re in a corner? Do you think that’s a possibility? They’re in a corner and they’re struggling to come up with something – so they blame it on the customer as the tobacco companies did – but not very successfully.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial
“That argument didn’t work for the tobacco industry in the past, because they knew of the health risks associated with consuming their products, yet engaged in campaign to manufacture doubt to convince people to keep smoking. Ultimately, a federal judge found the tobacco industry guilty of fraud to further a conspiracy to deceive the American public about the dangers of their products.”
“Perhaps you can offer a reason, Norman?”
Actually, I’d rather talk about how lacking an adequate understanding between solar activity and climate isn’t in anyway problematic for the assertion that only CO2 can be responsible for the climate change of today. Can you explain it to me?
I’ve already quoted it twice. This is what SS says. They are not presenting all the evidence right here for what they say obviously. But this is what they say. If you want to argue the case with them go ahead. I’m not saying on more on it.
Note: “recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory” refers to renewed activity by the sun.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
“Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.”
Your quote explains nothing. And it is clear that the position you embrace is as I first claimed it was: “You want to emphasize as ‘fact’ that “the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but has since not been.”
However, the situation is rather as follows: what is not well understood, as Usoskin and many others aver, is how solar activity in its various “transient nonstationary (often eruptive) processes” — to borrow a phrase from Usoskin — impinges on climate. Climatologists don’t know, even if only in approximate terms, the real extent or mechanics of that influence.
But if the influence of the sun on climate is poorly understood — and it is — and it is yet obviously significant for the evolution of climate — and it is — then how can the unknown approximate magnitude of this influence be presumed to be negligible in comparison to the presumed current effects of CO2? If it is unknown and undemonstrated in its extent, you cannot “know” that it is either more or less significant than CO2. Furthermore, unless the weight of this influence becomes known, you cannot determine the approximate extent of the influence of CO2 as such. For the latter cannot be known without the former also being known, and indeed, neither can be specified without also quantifying the effects of a great many other processes or factors that still remain to be taken into account.
Climate dynamics are the result of systems of processes all impinging on and reacting to one another. It isn’t only just one thing that drives climate change, but many, although some things will be more consequential than others at given moments in time or even at all times. If you don’t know the most essential parts of the system and how they interact, you understand nothing.
Understanding solar activity is critical to an understanding of climate change. For the sun is the major source of the energy that drives and modulates that change. If you don’t understand how that energy drives that change, you don’t and can’t understand climate. We have only just begun to study solar activity. We therefore have only just begun to study climate. We are only at a beginning. Everything about climate science has yet to be settled.
Norman, I’m afraid I reject your claim that I want to emphasize “fact” and what I wanted to emphasize was the agreement between the scientist MLS quoted and SS (though there is the difference that the scientist expressed uncertainty about what he thought whereas SS presented what they said more as fact – which is only reasonable because SS writers are more climate-as-a-whole-focused and are more knowledgeable about all the other factors that tend to indicate it is not solar activity causing warming while the solar scientist’s interest is narrower).
I just had a very depressing conversation with a friend who informed me of very clear indications of climate change that are evident right now and it seems completely ludicrous to keep on arguing the subject.
Assuming you are being entirely open in your communications here, I suggest that you are under the nocebo effect.
A similar thing an happen to those being told by ‘authority’ that they have a life threatening disease – ie: cancer – and that “nothing can be done” (except a load of toxic and carcinogenic ‘treatments’ to buy some time).
This is the result of giving power away as if the ‘experts’ are your protection rather than one of many information possibilities. Now others can tell you a story that completely undermines your Spirit – and you accept it!
The first need in all such matters is not a scientific debate – but a self-honesty of spiritual intention, purpose and decision. All sorts of things deceive and destroy the lives of all sorts of people because they are already disposed to believe what they are told. In this case there are themes: human guilt and unworthiness being at the core.
Science – like all perceptions and interpretations goes forth in search of specific self-reinforcements.
So it can be used to disprove its assumptions.
The bottom line – as I see it – is ‘What do you want to be true?’ – not because you can change the truth – but because whatever you actually want – is what filters or directs the focus and results of whatever you then find.
To actively desire a positive outcome means to seek and find it. Finding a negative outcome and setting measures against it (as it has been framed) is not the same as holding the focus of a truly positive outcome.
In my positive – is the capacity to recognize and release negative distortions when they are recognised. No one can release or become free of what they have not owned – no matter how much they try to change everyone else.
Nor can I force you to accept anything that you are not willing to accept.
There are all sorts of ‘reasons’ as to why people back or follow or defy any kind of ideas. Not much about science is unchanging – and yet there is this strange belief that NOW are we enlightened and the ignorant past is replaced.
So a ‘consensus’ reality is a FORM of outer agreement concealing many different inner motivations. Self-interest can be enlightened – or it can be altogether mistaken – depending on what we are accepting as true by reacting or living as if it is true.
This much I can say with certainty and that is that Existence or Life is infinitely more than anything we think – and that is Good News to anyone trapped in their own thinking (or anyone else’s media feed).
Because energy CONTROL was always what power was about and the key people in the oil companies are in with the ‘winners’ – as you believe yourself to be.
Your case all along is that you just ‘knew’ CO2 AGW was true and hold it obvious and seek and find only what supports you which is to a large degree the so called debunking of any other view.
You have your reward – that is – you are doing what you want because you wanted to. Now you have the test of whether it truly fulfils.
I feel that we all have a desire to align in a greater sense of purpose and worth than the false thinking of the world gives us – and so can believe we find it in the denial and overcoming of the false.
I have no difference with anyone as to the understanding of monopolising needs as a way to induce scarcity and control – and to do so in ways that are indifferent and callously disregarding Life and the lives of others. But I also see that new needs are set up in healthcare as a result of toxicity, and toxic or denaturing food production. New needs are set up in any arena in which the true is denied for the sake of a private agenda – and are likewise captured or manipulated and used for the fulfilment and reinforcement of private agenda.
So the web of deceit is – from where I stand – much greater, and operating as a broad spectrum dominance of thought, speech and actions. While at times this seems to be orchestrated by an evil power or conspiracy of power that is set upon destroying and or enslaving humanity and the Earth, I also see that ‘private agenda’ is the very nature of the block to a true and open Communication in which is our truly Human inheritance and appreciation of Earth.
The USE to which the AGW movement is being put is to my sense aligned in the further enslavement of our being. So – even in regard to measures that can be adopted and effected with regard to adverse conditions in which we have a part – such as pollution and denatured food – we are NOT addressing the underlying causes.
The tactic of delay uses smokescreen and diversion to throw off pursuit or exposure. It may run as a survival instinct against exposure in truth as ‘death’ or total loss of power or self or even loss of ‘face’.
The mind in defence is divinely empowered because the mind is the expression of a divine function. WE meet it in our relations with others and our world because it frames our interpretation of the world.
False flags can occur as mistaken identity or of guilt by association. And so the firemen can be associated with causing the fire (and in corrupt instances have done so!). But ‘who benefits?’ is always a worthy check on our own (and others) bias.
911 is an illustration that a very wide spectrum of institutional services can be orchestrated to a timing through which an unthinkable act was carried out in broad daylight and remained hidden. This is a form of magic trick and should alert us not to further distraction while the trick continues – but to wake in vigilance to the nature and presumptions of our ‘world’
In reply to flaxgirl re: Chevron’s position on CC :
Money. Money. Money.
Chevron : Climate Change
we proactively consider climate change in our business decisions
https://www.chevron.com/corporate-responsibility/climate-change
Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change and believes that encouraging practical, cost-effective actions to address climate change risks while promoting economic growth is the right thing to do.
At Chevron, we believe that managing climate change risks is an important element of our strategic focus to return superior value to stockholders. Although we cannot forecast exactly what will happen in the future, we believe Chevron’s governance, risk management and strategy processes are sufficient to mitigate the risks and capture opportunities associated with climate change. Throughout our long history, we have shown our resilience through our ability to adapt to changing conditions in the marketplace, and we will continue to adjust our business as needed to effectively and proactively manage climate change risks.
Chevron strives to contribute to the ongoing conversation about climate change. To that end, we voluntarily published Managing Climate Change Risks: A Perspective for Investors in March 2017, in which we discussed our views on market fundamentals, governance, risk management and strategy. In March 2018, we issued a second, more detailed voluntary disclosure report, Climate Change Resilience: A Framework for Decision Making. We encourage interested stakeholders to review our latest report to gain an understanding of Chevron’s current views on climate change.
…
MG
Of course, the oil companies say all that bullshit
This doesn’t work for their court case. They’re defending themselves in court over what they have done in the past up till now – all the puffery about what they’re about now means nothing in the court case. They stand to lose millions, if not billions. They are in a corner and they’re using the same weak argument the tobacco companies used.
Would it not be more plausible for any powerful vested interest to employ every kind of ‘futurology’ so as to position for it and where possible shape it and where not to spread assets and liabilities so as to be in the dominant position when the flip is allowed to flop. there are always sacrifices but these are token to the management of perception of those who perceive in terms of past associations rather than present discernment and discriminations.
But this ‘Climate’ business is far bigger than the wealth or influence of oiligarchs – being a kingpin for the reframing of corporate and national law under ‘energy’ debts (guilt). No less insidious is the framing of also apparently scientific medical ‘guidelines’ that become instituted in national a corporate law. Globalism is not being held back by the Trump card – but served by a perfect diversion.
I see global governance as inevitable in SOME FORM OR ANOTHER – unless the industrial, technological infrastructure should collapse – because it is that which has in a sense brought everything to a convergence.
But my caveat in capitals is that I hold for a governance of consent in which the value of human being is extended to all. This is not the same as assigning special status to victims – apart from the natural extension of compassion to the restoring of their wholeness. I believe when everything ELSE has been tried and found to fail, we will come ‘back’ to the true – not unlike the prodigal son’s willingness to be even as a servant in his father’s house (Life) under the belief that any claim to inherited worth or value has been squandered, trashed and invalidated (guilt).
The voice for guilt is also known as the deceiver. It gives a false sense of self to those who fear to face it and be undone of it. For what we run from – appears to chase us, and what we push down seems to be trying to come up.
MLS writes:
“And SS is deliberately sloppy with the data. Sun activity is decreasing NOW, but it didn’t start decreasing in the 1950s. In fact recent ice core studies (see link below) on isotope proxies have shown the sun was at a 1200 year peak of activity in the late 20th C – which exactly coincides with the period of warming between c.1950 and 2000.
Since that time the warming has all but halted, and this coincides with the sun entering a new period of low activity.”
The following graph by Dr. Leif Svalgaard corroborates MLS’s assertions:
Source: HERE
Depending on whose interpretation of the summary of experimental results you read, the CLOUD experiment at CERN would appear either to support or not support Svensmark’s hypothersis. Go figure.
In the post to which you link, we read the following:
“Surely reviewers competent to review the paper would be aware that the CLOUD project doesn’t support Svensmark’s hypothesis?
But if one takes the time to visit the CERN website to have a look at the latest update related to CLOUD, the summary of results does indeed, at least in part, lend support to Svensmark’s hypothesis.
To quote the relevant bit:
“The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.” [My emphasis. Source: here]
But I guess that the ambiguous part of the statement pertaining to ‘small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle not significantly affecting aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate’ is enough, according to some, to vitiate the apparent ‘fact’ that cosmic rays nevertheless and apparently do account for nearly one-third of all aerosol particles formed in the atmosphere, what with 33% of anything being, as everyone knows, insubstantial.
Question(s): are the changes in the cosmic ray flux associated with the solar cycle always small? Or can they sometimes be large? And if large, might they then begin to have a significant impact even on today’s polluted climate? And can large deviations be sustained over long periods of time? Or is it the case that the cosmic ray flux is always more or less constant and thus always accounts for about 33% of all cloud forming nuclei? Of course, I don’t know the answers to these questions. But then the CLOUD update, as it is written and at least to my mind, begs these questions, and given these questions, it seems to me that Svensmark’s hypothesis has yet to be dismissed.
And speaking of alternative readings of the results of CLOUD:
http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/30/though-media-refuse-to-admit-cern-results-vastly-strengthen-svensmarks-cosmic-ray-climate-theory/
‘Skeptical’ originally or properly indicates an unwillingness to accept but by definition open to the possibility of being persuaded. Much skepticism these days is in fact cynicism covering over a blind or unquestioning gullibility.
Cynicism is hate that seeks to prove or force its rightness by undermining any other view.
And so sneer and smear and smugness accompany its appeals to ‘authority’ and its willingness to bully when it feels that power is at its back. While having no conscious sense of behaving in such a manner – for they are more than ‘right’ – they are empowered to deny in the Name of THE Moral Necessity of our Time.
Would a blank cheque of signing into the whole raft of global regulations that are in place for ‘combating’ Climate Change under a false pretences be a crime similar to that rolled out immediately from 911?
Unlike Norman – I see the Corporates being reined in or at least netted within a framework in which key players get insider privileges for delivering the Corporate sector into fiscal and legal requirements that can then be adjusted to limit, break up and control what otherwise remains a vector for instability. I don’t see the ‘program’ of power struggle ever becoming ‘settled power’ or ‘consensus subjection’.
And the power that arose through such as the Carnegie Rockefeller cartel extended like a many tentacled creature into many other market captures and institutional or regulatory corruptions. So the token defeat of the oil (and coal) industries will be like the defeat of tobacco to the rise of e-vaporating smokers.
“Billions of people” will not have to wait for sea levels to rise or desertification t o torch them off of the Planet or for Prince Phillip to come back as a deadly virus, because the people are being systematically conditioned and herded into choosing to degrade, sicken and kill themselves – quite apart from the use of overt (and covert) warfare.
It can be said that we are all going to die in any case – but that there is a difference in the passing on of a gift, and of a cultural inheritance. Insofar as the ability to have children, and for them to develop in functional health into interdependent adults, we are leaving an unprecedented mess of broad spectrum degradation and debt – and of course the challenge of a lifetime. But if the current trends for toxicity related diseases (often hidden under infectious contagions that are actually expressions of toxicity and malnutrition) – along with toxic treatments continue, the hockey stick of an exponential curve will bring us to a paralysis.
I see nothing unprecedented in being lured into a dependency that then further weakens us. Buyer beware!
Show me some vision for a cooperative convivial freedom from the toxic canopy of a top down dictate and I might at least lean to the argument of ‘it doesn’t really matter if it is true because it is necessary’.
Necessary according to whom?
One of the most foolish notions that I commonly see is that if an asserted and identified tyranny can be ‘taken down’, all else will be well. Rather than uncover the underlying cause of the symptom in our collective thinking – and NOT a collective guilt.
More to consider:
I can 100% guarantee flaxgirl did not watch this video.
The way we use words often sets thm in polarised or false meanings – by being set in associations of other word-meanings. So profit can become a dirty word.
No one does anything or has any motivation to do anything but that in some way they believe it profits them to do so – as they define themselves in that moment or situation to be.
The last part is the significant part to our understanding and acceptance of freedom.
If we define ourselves in lack and fear of loss, we will think and act to avoid loss, to shore up or armour against risk and ally or invest ourself in forms of power and protection aginst threat.
All of that is a movement in being that isolates and divides. I can call it the ego – but it is belief or set of beliefs about ourselves and therefore about others and our world.
The growing of appreciation by the extending of appreciating it is the economy of a cup that runneth over. Its sense of worth and connection extend out in actions but no less in the demeanour of an inspired and active engagement with life – rather than a compulsive or fear-driven dictate to save ourselves from greater loss.
The nature of love is shared. It is not a ‘should’ share or a ‘share or be damned’ – but an already shared nature to our being. But the nature of a conditional love is the setting of conditions for love that of course turn to hate the moment those conditions change – as a sense of being deprived, denied, rejected and abandoned. And so those characteristics become our ‘defence’ or attempt to get back the fruits of love that are our right.
Because humanity is a long way down a dark way to nowhere, it will seem naive or foolish to bring profit back into the realm of love’s awareness and recognition – but the restoration of our true inheritance as a shared or commonwealth, depends on returning or rather uncovering a true foundation from which to give and receive in a true currency of worth – which is a movement of gratitude for receipt even as it is a willingness to stand with another in true witness when they temporarily seek for love or its qualities of having and being as one – in outer forms of manipulative domination or possession and control. While these negative traits are easy to use for large examples in our world they are no less observable in ourselves and each other in the ordinary living of our day. One-up-man-ship is a sign of a lack of worth seeking self-reinforcement in the posture or forms of worth. It can just as well operate as the asserted grievance of passive aggressive refusal to join in or cooperate.
My email doesn’t easily enable me to access the video in a click – and I haven’t looked at it – but the understanding of a destructive profit motive is a critical issue to what I see as actual and present danger and not just an asserted representation of such danger in forms that effectively protect the core control narrative of the negatively identified sense of self in lack while masking such a device in the token sacrifice of the oil and coal industry.
It might be remembered that the lust or compulsive dictate in search o power will do or say anything to gain support in attaining such a position, and then immediately close all doors or pathways by which anyone ELSE can likewise use the same strategy or pathways.
The ever constricting regulation of thought, word and deed resulting from is the result of plundering a hope that disaster can be averted or mitigated, rather than any true-founded hope of renewal and restoration in health and wholeness.
The profit that any denial of true seeks is firstly to gain reinforcement by which to persist, and then to increase the mind of such denial as the basis of our thought and identity. And so the corruption of thought is the basis by which a world of lack, in debt and dependency, runs on and is fed by the energies generated BY denial of the living, to further enact the sacrifice of self, others and living world to the false god of the sense of control as security, power and protection.
In truth the attempt to control from a fear-based interpretation always protects and propagates the cause of a divisive and destructive chaos within the presentation or the masking in ‘order’ or protection.
For the imposition of a private agenda is the denial of a true relational communication – regardless its assertion of being for the benefit of mankind. The survival of the FITTING is a recognition of inter- relational being – which is a poor concept POINTING to an already active nature.
Where is love in the world but in what we have chosen or accepted to invest defend and protect as our ‘self’? And to all that ‘profits’ such a sense of self?
A great and necessary truth for scientists as for everyone is that we do not know – but that in this acceptance as a desire and willingness to know, truth of itself reveals itself. Those who ‘already know’ have demotivated themselves from learning, discovering and the fruits of an innate curiosity and wonder.
Of ourself we are nothing but we are not of ourselves. Only in a simulated mental ‘space’ could we be so deceived. The subjective sense is a creative imagination operating through a structure of self-conditioned ‘programming’.
It isn’t CO2 that ‘threatens’ the world of human thought and invested identity but the light of a true awareness. But Reality ITSELF is incapable of ‘attack’ or destruction’, and assigning such a role to the Cause or Nature of Existence is of course our ‘flesh in the game’. When the game is no longer worth the candle, engagement or investment of allegiance fades or falls away to the natural refocusing in worth.
In any condition where there is awakening from a nightmare, the invested identity in power and privilege within the nightmare reasserts itself as the ‘representative of the only true god’ or indeed as the only protector from a god of terror. Both sides are the same – or simply there are no sides, so much as inside-outs that see everything backwards and propagate doublespeak or the use of true currency to further false or fantasy agenda – enacted upon the body of the word, of each other and our own.
Fantasies given power are dangerous because we invest in them as if to profit or – having been caught – avoid debit. Uncovering the false as a witch hunt is the wish to find it first and foremost in OTHERS.
Those who run away from themselves cannot know that this is their motivating force and so are not guilty of the error that set that pattern of conditioning from which all else proceeds as the attempt to eradicate, overcome or manage and control the guilt seen OUTSIDE. We are all each other’s shadow until we recognize each other in light. This is not at the level of the personality – nor within the framework of the thinking that supports the personality. Truth is revealed or uncovered by an absence of obstruction.
But we do not realize we get in our own way while we are ‘righteously aimed’ at the ‘wrong’.
The persistence in futility under the belief that the result will this time be different is the closest we have got to a perpetual motion machine.
So, to sum up: Judith Curry refers to a non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus; defers to a non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus; bows to a non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus; raises the upper limit of her ECS estimates to a non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus (twice); which brings her estimates well within the non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus; which confirms the non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus …but there is no peer/consensus: because (with little or no reference to empirical data) you say so? Got it.
Though apparently, Ms Curry (who has reviewed quite a lot of empirical data and made her own models (with a retired financier)) disagrees with you. She seems to think the ‘no true scotsman’ scientific community DO have a peer/consensus. Which renders anything I may have said in a different context as irrelevant to this particular conversation. It also renders your own POV problematic. On what empiric grounds are you basing it?
The ‘not settled’ fallacy is a SCAM, which has been dealt with several times now. A SCAM that is deliberately manipulated, by the likes of Curry, to culturally manufacture doubt. Against strongly reasoned meta-analysis: you offer ‘some might say’; ‘no true Scotsman’ SCAMs; and Piers Corbyn as an example of the large body of evidence that my use of the term ‘denialism’ negates. When I push my case, you retort with hurt feelings and faux denunciations. My I suggest that none of this would have been forthcoming, if you did what you said, and engaged with the meta-analytic argument; not dismiss it with bluff in favour of a pre-determined fixed point of view. Some might say that is an authoritarian tactic. Not me me of course, but some might.
You say you want the data discussed, but actually act as though you do not. You certainly do not want anyone to draw any conclusion from the data. Do you honestly think scientifically uneducated anti-dialogue will add anything: except time and doubt?
I’m still waiting for a link to the empirical data I am denying from Saturday. Instead, I was offered Piers Corbyn (who Catte hasn’t even read). Can you not see that is dismissive from our POV? With such evasiveness, you got rid of Mog, and gained Denier, which I would suggest shows that you are not creating a level playing field. Denier brought nothing but invective and negation. Mog put forward detailed and considered analysis. Which one did you label the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada?
I’m biased, but I think you have lost a valuable contributor for someone who shouts a lot, but says nothing useful.
Perhaps next time, things would get a little less heated if you did not make false accusations of demanding censorship. Or counter passion with reference to the Inquisition. As Catte concedes, it certainly wasn’t me who started bandying around invective.
Whatever others have said, I never called for censorship: yet you bring it up again. That’s your delusion. Frankly, it’s quite demeaning and unnecessary, being as I have already refuted the claim on this forum. Some might say that is poor etiquette too. Not me, but some might say.
As for the ‘hurt feelings’: please, that’s a tactic from the playground. Surely adults can engage in robust debate without such a tactic. Again, there would have been little need had you offered anything substantive to refute the meta-analysis.
Or shall we refer to Nigel Lawson and ‘Lord’ Monckton? I chose Curry as she is at least ‘credible’. Her ‘analysis’ forms the basis of a large proportion of the denialist claim …including James Corbett. I asked you to check: but she actually offers nothing …except culturally created doubt. If you think that allegorical fire breathing enraged Uncertainty Monsters constitute scientific debate: apart from I strongly disagree – there’s little more I can say.
Just to put the record straight: empassioned argument is not denunciation. I hope we can agree the future of life on earth is the most important debate we should be having right now. This morning, the BBC are pushing the species extinction angle. If we label paranoiacally label this propaganda: we can only fall back into inaction. This is a mistake.
You guys are doing an amazing job. I hope we can agree that there would not be much point if all commenters just agreed all the time? Sometimes. it pays to be controversial?
That was obviously a reply to Admin.
Data? Yes, only if they would have been archived properly with public access! But that didn’t happen in Climate science: https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/#comment-783918
There is a deliberate (and thus dishonest) game being played by a number of paleo climate scientists of hiding inconvenient data a) fully from public view, or b) to exclude then ex post if they do not show the desired trend. Too many climate science publications allow non disclosure of underlying raw data : Science and Nature don’t.
Try this about getting raw data out of climate scientists dead hands: http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/19/climategate-coverup/
Of course there’s a consensus, measured by volume anyhow. That’s never been a point of controversy. The controversy is about the manipulation of the figures claimed and of what the consensus is about. It’s the same problem yet again of a complex scientific issue being dumbed down and simplified into a quasi-lie.
97% of climate scientists do NOT think the sky is falling.
A majority believe in some degree of CO2 forcing and therefore some degree of human influence on recent warming.
There is no majority consensus on the question of CAGW (“catastrophic manmade climate change”).
You and many lay people think of AGW and CAGW as synonyms. They’re not. A consensus about AGW is not a consensus over CAGW. The latter is a minority conviction only.
But the most important thing to emphasise is that science is not about consensus. It’s not about opinions at all. It’s about the pursuit of truth. And, as Norman Pilon points out, the great steps forward in our knowledge have not been made by committees on the basis of majority opinion.
I differentiated between AGW and CAGW days ago. No one is conflating them. I dismissed CAGW myself to focus on the peer/consensus for AGW …a consensus you confirm. That consensus has been under discussion for days as a good enough reason to mitigate – not just climate change, but – the root cause of climate change, (and a whole other raft of destructionism) …which is carbon capitalism.
In whose defence, you offer a false conflation, and a manufactured green certitude …which I also parsed out of the argument days ago. The only certitude is the event, science is never ‘proven’, we have to act on the balance of probability, there is enough of a consensus (given that we cannot run the real experiment in the lab of the biosphere) to demand system change on the basis of AGW.
Look at what you yourself admit to – a consensus for AGW – and tell me again that we should keep burning carbon – for humanities sake?
Perhaps you could elucidate the consequences for humanity of an ECS of 3 C (with an upper limit of 4.5 C) and explain how this will benefit humanity?
You’ll get more people to agree that:
* dependence on fossil fuel kings like the Gulf ones, the Iranian ayatollahs or Russian or American leaders is not healthy.
* air pollution from diesel, ship bunk fuel etc. is immediately unhealthy, specially for kids and elderly.
* nuclear energy is at present the only non intermittent serious alternative as Germany is going to find out soon at high cost.
Getting people to agree within a dualist linguistic framework, with binary logic, and a binary propaganda system creating eternal fissures and sectarianisms …is a separate topic: the epistemics of I am keen to discuss. But not today.
Earlier today, one of the various people who can access the ‘Admin’ epithet posted this:
Can I just intercede to say: what a patronising, dismissive and supercilious interjection this is. The data has been discussed, by people called scientists. At least two people have put forward a strong analytic case based on their empirical data. To whomsoever wrote this: just what do you think Mog and I are referring to: strawberry cheesecake?
Where I quote Curry saying “I’ll even bow to peer/consensus pressure”: the peer/consensus designation refers to ALL DATA; ALL SCIENTISTS (or at least a significant cross-section that have been personally analysed by Curry). This concept is called meta-analysis, as you seem not to be familiar with it. Ergo: my meta-analytic deconstruction of Curry is based on ALL DATA; ALL SCIENCE; though not on a paper by paper basis.
To echo Mog (who your obfuscation seems to have lost): the composite ‘Admin’ identity have offered nothing but strawmen bluffs (Piers Corbyn – really?) and used a phoney censorship shield (that you yourselves constructed) in order to negate and dismiss meta-analysis – based on ALL DATA – as mere opinion. Every objection raised has been countered empirically and academically by one or other of us (ably backed by flaxgirl). In return, you encourage mere opinion – on a paper by paper basis – contra the overall analysis? Despite the fact that it has been politely pointed out that culturally manufactured doubt is the corporate modus operandi. One of you even chose the article that points this out, FFS.
I deliberately chose Curry because she is among the most prominent of deniers …an expert witness and policy advisor (maker) for Congress. Her opinion is clearly elevated by corporate concerns beyond the peer/consensus (her terminology: I guess I will have to explicitly point out now that this alone CONFIRMS a peer/consensus) of science …in order to manufacture doubt and strategic non-committal. Unless you think black/white swans; enraged fire breathing ‘Uncertainty Monster’ dragons (admit it: you don’t know what I am talking about?) trump peer/consensus scientific enquiry – based on ALL DATA.
As I seem to have to spell it out: Curry concedes that the META-DATA points to an ECS of 3 C…that’s 3 C. Not ‘catastrophic’, but catastrophic enough. For the hard of thinking, that’s the median of her extended range of 1.5-4.5 C …based on ALL DATA; ALL SCIENCE.
Her solution – let’s do nothing. Which contra ALL DATA: seems to be what the composite Admin is advocating. Balance and neutrality are non-positions. At some point you have to come off the fence and act. Acting means choosing a side. Non-committal prioritises Corporatocracy over Humanity: or didn’t you read the review you posted?
Everyone is free to post here, but using that freedom to hurl lengthy abuse at the admins is poor etiquette.
None of us are anti-AGW, and we have been careful to maintain an evenhanded approach. The debate is NOT proven, you have admitted this yourself (though occasionally in your voluminous rhetoric you seem to forget it again).
You counter this acknowledged ambiguity with claims that IF AGW is real it needs action now, not more talk.
That’s fine. None of us would disagree. We support calls to action on climate. We hosted this review because we think it and the book are important.
But you can demand action on a probability while still permitting discussion of the data.
It’s concerning when the demands for action include demands for censorship of all dissenting opinion.
We DON’T agree with that and never will.
Hope this clarifies things and removes the need for further denunciations of the hardworking people here.
On what basis do you say the debate is not proven – in fact, I’d very much query the term debate – the existence of naysayers does not necessarily mean that a genuine debate exists. You say you’re not anti-AGW but why aren’t you PRO-AGW? Being merely non-anti in this crucial situation is effectively the same as being anti. It suggests you don’t think urgent action is required.
What is your basis for saying that the debate is not proven? Is it merely because naysayers exist? What is your basis?
Your slogan is “because facts really should be sacred” but I find that what are proven facts are simply not recognised by you as such. In fact, what you seem to promote in regard to a number of phenomena, not just climate change, is the notion that “we cannot be sure” and that it would be premature and wrong to call things out as this or that when the evidence is, in fact, very clear and it is wrong NOT to call them out. I find the idea that we must hold back on calling things out quite strange when the evidence is clear and there is nothing contradicting it.
Can you please provide a single piece of evidence that you think shows that the debate is not proven. Just one single piece of evidence. If you cannot provide that then what rationale is there for your claim that the debate is not proven?
Literally no one claims the AGW theory is proven – which is why absolutely everyone, from the IPCC down, talks in terms of probabilities. There would be no need for consensus if all the major points were proven.
We support free debate here. Stop demanding suspected heretics explain themselves. It’s just weird.
Yes, but do you yourself know of anything that you think casts doubt on it? Climate scientists say they are sufficiently sure of it that radical action must be taken so when they use the word “proven” they’re simply using the word in a very specific scientific way. Climate scientists certainly do not say, we really don’t know for sure, so don’t worry about, do they? They say most emphatically, act as if it is proven because we’re pretty sure and we’re getting surer not less sure. That is what they recommend. So to talk of it as not being “proven” is meaningless in a practical sense.
But regardless of “proven” or not, the only people who are really in a position to question anything are bona fide climate scientists. None of us non-climate-scientists can offer anything that challenges the theory. Certainly nothing has been put forward here to challenge it one tiny bit. It’s all been skeptic bunk. The fact that it may not be “proven” does not necessarily mean that it’s a subject of debate either, at least, at the non-climate-scientist level.
Fact: No one on this site has put forward anything that challenges the theory even remotely.
Fact: Man-made climate change is an incredibly important subject, if not the most important subject of our time. Being so important it should not be accepted blithely that it is a subject for debate, especially when it is obvious from the naysayers here that they simply pull out skeptic nonsense or facts that are meaningless.
Fact: In a recent court case, Big Oil’s lawyer wasn’t on the same page as the climate denialists hired to defend it. The lawyer accepted the climate science and preferred to argue that it is the fault of the energy consumers just as the tobacco companies tried to argue that it was smokers’ fault that they chose to smoke.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial
So one is obliged to ask, “Where is the debate whose right you wish to defend?” Where is it? It certainly does not exist on this page and it does not exist in the courtroom where those being charged with being massively responsible for climate change are.
Where is the debate on climate change whose right you wish to defend? If it doesn’t exist then its right to exist surely cannot be defended.
What are you talking about flax girl? You are currently involved in a debate on this page that you are simultaneously claiming doesn’t exist! Time to re-evaluate your position 😉
There is no debate where there are no valid points on one of the sides. No valid points have been put forward on this page on the non-pro-AGW side so I call that a non-debate. To back up my claim of non-debate (and BigB and others have substantiated their own claims of non-debate), the lawyer of one of the Big Oil defendants in the case of causing sea-level rise is not arguing in court against the climate science, despite a number of climate denialists putting forth their views to support the defendants, he’s arguing it’s the customer’s fault.
Naysayers does not mean debate. For a genuine debate there must be at least one valid point presented by one of the sides. We haven’t seen one so far. Have you got one?
This is nuts. There are differing opinions on the potential causes of climate change, ok! They have been referenced right here. Sometimes in direct response to you by various posters. I am not claiming these differing opinions are right or wrong. I am not defending them. But they definitely exist. Have you simply gone mad or are you playing trick or treat?
Either way, stop spamming this discussion with claims that the discussion doesn’t exist. Either respond to the various data points and opinions being offered by the likes of Antonym, PSJ, LadyDi etc or if you really don’t think it’s a debate – don’t post.
You keep talking theoretically about the existence of a debate – your rationale being that people are putting forth opinions – but you cannot name a single point that supports the argument against AGW. There must be a single valid point on the other side and so far you have not nominated a point you think is. You have come up with one that isn’t though – sea ice level rise in Antarctica.
When you name a single point that you believe supports (or even could support) the argument against AGW please name it. Until that time your insistence that a debate exists is not justified. Moriarty has just stated to me that PSJ’s mention of solar fluctuation theory is some kind of argument. Mention of a theory is meaningless. It needs to be stated how this theory contradicts the AGW theory.
Also, how on earth would you explain Big Oil’s agreement with the climate science in their defence of the accusation of causing sea-level rise if there was really any debate on the subject? Can you offer an explanation?
Please do not falsely accuse me of spamming.
Talk to the people offering the opinions. The debate about whether there is a debate is ridiculous and over.
I think we just define scientific debate differently. For me to agree that a scientific debate exists I’d need to recognise a valid scientific point from the other side – if I felt that my knowledge was too limited on the matter I’d simply admit that I was not in a position to claim whether a debate existed or not. If you’re OK that you personally cannot nominate a valid point and you think that people simply offering opinions from the other side means that debate exists then OK. We simply define what constitutes debate on a scientific subject differently.
However, I think a very compelling argument against the existence of debate is the fact that the Chevron lawyer in defending his client against the charge of climate change crime says:
“From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change.”
… and instead, Big Oil use the same defence as the tobacco companies – it’s the customer’s fault.
That to me is extremely compelling and, of course, the oil companies’ own research shows that they knew.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/two-face-exxon-misinformation-campaign-against-own-scientists.html
Just to check – do you believe an argument on a scientific subject can be considered a debate when there is no valid point produced from one of the sides?
If you think that a debate can occur on a scientific subject where no valid point is presented on the other side then OK there is a debate. I do not consider that kind of discussion a debate. If you do think that a single valid point must be produced can you please name that valid point for anti-AGW?
I don’t recognize your ‘debate’ because it isn’t one, only a ‘challenge’ to come out and be framed in criminal association, ridiculed and denied instead of a real exchange. So the claim of unprecedented crime – posits all else in the presumption of guilt for changes in climate – that are extraordinarily complex mixtures of adjusted and modelled and estimated data and diverts from ongoing and actual culpability and evaded and displaced responsibility for a wide range of actually toxic vectors of disease, death and biological/environmental degradation.
This moral certainty or guilt-driven crusade works a deceitful agenda and uses all the tricks of the trade that are the signature of a predator manipulation of the frustrated and fearful.
Fraudulent or doctored ‘science’ as self-interest under threat or inducement – as in aligning with jobs or funding and business or career opportunity is no different from any other institutional vector of social and political influence.
However those who are standing in what they hold to be an integrity of science in the face of every intent to undermine the integrity of their person – are inspiring people doing science with the potential for a cultural renewal in a time of cultural bankruptcy.
I don’t know how it can be any clearer, Binra. Oil companies being charged with causing sea-level rise due to climate change accept the climate science and use a defence completely unrelated to any doubts about what is causing it.
Many companies are also taken to court for causing pollution, including, of course, oil companies – they always get off lightly though, don’t they? It’s not an either/or situation. Many people concerned about climate change actually focus on health and environmental impacts other than the climate because they know people respond to those areas more. Most people concerned with climate change are also concerned with other environmental problems. In fact, recently I have been more active against coal and coal seam gas than against inaction on climate change – not that I’ve been all that active in regard to anything.
Campaigning against inaction of ‘climate change’ ays it all.
By giving your mind to false and destructive ideas, your mind is not your own – by your own election.
But you can choose differently, when you no longer give your self into attempting to change others instead of being yourself.
Charging oil companies with causing sea level rise is absurd. But if you can get others to join in such absurdity, you can establish new forms of ‘unprecedented crime’ that of course have all along been intended to justify and make it ‘duty’ to invoke and enact unprecedented forms of punishment.
Once humans are de-humanised, it can be no crime at all to treat them as vermin and not only unworthy of love and life but a way to become ‘worthy’ by persecution and killing.
If a true account was brought to the law and enacted proportionately then much that is considered profit now would be a loss and a criminal offence. This is not because to profit or increase in the Good in life is evil – but because the intent to profit by deceit and at expense of another is accepted in almost all as normal currency of thought and behaviour. A false selfishness ‘protects’ itself by false accounting, by shifting guilt to others, and by giving support to the call for punishment of others.
To posit sea level changes onto a single narrative as part of a shifting system of guilt-control with ‘oil companies’ dangled as the baiting target, is using the emotional charge of the recognition of their responsibility for behaving callously and destructively, as a fuel or energy source by which to consolidate a global energy control – which is the point of leverage – as is control of food and water and health.
Perhaps many are ‘convinced’ by sensing where the power runs.
Seeing some escape from penalty and a supported identity in an alignment in self interest to ‘convenient truths’.
But a love of truth is the nature of the truth of love, and is unwilling or indeed unable to deny itself.
There is no communication between the false and the true, nor indeed can there be a real competition or battle – because illusions battle only with themselves while truth simply is itself. Bringing illusions to truth is their undoing, and bringing truth to illusion is a persistence in a the futility of giving reality to illusion as IF a means to then destroy or overcome it.
However we remain capable of recognising and releasing the false within the willingness and acceptance of true.
And unable to more than cover over, hide or deny the true – because we do not create ourselves.
Denial was set in motion as a self-defence and that self can re-evaluate its need for such defence in the light of who you now accept yourself to be and what you now recognize as the ‘side effects’ collateral damage’ and overall destructive outcome of demonising the ‘other’ as a means to righteousness, self-validation or power.
I exercise my right to speak into any issued that I am moved to in the way I am moved acknowledging that all actions have consequences. Those who want to outlaw free speech and conform speech compliance to imposed dictate are at best misguided and unaware of its worthiness for protection – especially for those we disagree with.
The incitement to a mob and state mandated hate and violence under the banner of a witch hunt for ‘denialists’ is an insidious attack on freedoms that need defending by exercising them, if tyranny is not to be passively accepted.
One good reason for ACTING NOW – is that the whole case will collapse if this momentum isn’t forced through.
As I said already the agenda is being imposed through corporate transnational organisations upon the national and corporate level and the only need for the population at large is to set up this kind of ‘either you are with us or you are a terrorist’ ultimatum.
“In A Time Of Consensus Deceit, Farting Becomes A Revolutionary Act” – George Ohwell
Admin: I was going to butt out … but then you posted this. I’ve got to ask: have we been talking at cross purposes for days? Do you actually understand the scientific Method? Nothing is ever proven: or even provable.
Your post takes the debate full circle: its content was addressed in literally my first reply to Phillip. So, of course AGW is not proven. Nor will it ever be. Neither is general relativity, special relativity, or quantum field theory, or even gravity – science is falsifiable. That doesn’t mean it is not settled or highly verified. To manipulate the seeming uncertainty of science is a SCAM, which is the subject of this debate. The Unprecedented Crime, the Merchants of Doom, the SCAMs paper, and a deconstruction of Curry’s Rand presentation have all been presented as sources backing the thesis that strategic doubt is the corporatocracy’s main weapon to create cultural stasis. They lobby for the science to be ‘proven’: for “full scientific certainty” – knowing this is impossible. In the meantime, they keep on doing what they are doing …killing us for profit.
Semantics are important: the lexis used by scientists is not the same as the conventional or colloquial use. The word ‘proven’ is not even applicable to the Method. ‘Falsifiable’ doesn’t actually mean ‘false’. ‘Theory’ does not mean theory: more akin to a Law inscribed on a tablet of stone (highly verified – but still not ‘proven’). A hypothesis is not a guess: but a rigorously tested concept (verified – but not proven).
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/
If the hypothesis is falsifiable, it can be negated – but it hasn’t been. Post-Popper: a single anomalous result should negate a hypothesis. In practice, it would take a consistent set of anomalous results to negate it. Post-Kuhn: scientific revolutions occur when a new paradigm is put forward that better explains the known, observable, and verified data AND the anomalous results …the famous paradigm shift. Neither has happened.
In theory, AGW is self-refutable. A serious reverse in any of its conditions negates the theory. To have any validity, any denialist would have to put forth a refutation or new paradigm in the peer reviewed literature. The mythological debate you keep referring to, but never actually post any reference to, is a bunch of people bitchin’ and moanin’ on the web, about how every element of the Method is flawed …whilst refusing to do any real science. For the umpteenth time: the real scientific debate is done – but never ‘proven’.
The ‘proof’ is the event, not the conditional probability of the event (Bayesian Calculus). The ‘proof’ will occur in the only lab we have – the biosphere. When the probability reaches 100%, the event will be unfolding and unstoppable.
I do not want to be confrontational or denunciatory: but your replies show a profound misunderstanding of the basic knowledge of AGW and the scientific method. Yet all of this has been posted by multiple commenters, only to be rebutted with a non-referral to a mythical debate. The one person that most contrarians point to as doing real science is Curry. I’ve shown that she has revised her ECS warming estimates broadly in line with the peer/consensus (her term). She doesn’t even dispute the greenhouse effect, or any other element of the theory. No serious scientist can. All she does is sow doubt. Check it out and verify for yourselves.
There is no scientific debate. There is no logical refutation. There is no alternative paradigm. Yet nothing is proven and denialism leverages this fact of science to manufacture doubt. Not do anything positive, just doubt. If you understand the Method, that doubt really isn’t there. And the probable proof of a consensus ECS of 3 degrees is an ECS of 3 degrees. That’s not an experiment with the future of life we can afford to carry out.
That’s it. You can verify or deny that as you will.
Curry may not dispute the extent to which Co2 (0.04 percent in the atmosphere) forces climate but plenty of other scientists do. There are some very logical arguments for doubting the ability of something present in such small amounts to significantly affect the climate. They may not end up being correct (we don’t know as yet) but they do exist and are valid.
It seems very odd to continue to claim ”there is no scientific debate” in the face of people endeavoring to debate you. There certainly is a scientific debate to be had and such debates happen in many places, just not here apparently, or at the BBC where contrary opinions are banned, or at the IPCC where they are also banned or highly discouraged, or in Nature, which will only rarely countenance papers from skeptical authors (counter to the very principle of scientific inquiry).
Apparently the only way to establish the consensus is to ban everyone who doesn’t agree with it and then to claim “there’s no debate”. At one time we could call that Stalinist, but now it’s merely standard liberal thinking.
Have you read any of the studies that look at some of the longstanding other potential climate forcers? There’s a lot of good work out there worth reading. Solar minimums and maximums in particular show considerable correlation with previous periods of warming and cooling, which is very interesting.
Maybe you could tell us why you think such work is less robust than the Co2 studies, and indeed is so weak it does not deserve to even be considered as a valid hypothesis?
Key word, “endeavouring”, PSJ. Endeavouring without any success.
Can you offer any explanation at all for the lawyer defending Chevron which has obviously paid a motza to propagandists to spread the “message of doubt” to say in a courtroom where the charge is climate change crime:
“From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change”.
Do you think this article provides evidence that Exxon’s own research confirmed they knew about man-made climate change but did not act on that knowledge? If not, please explain.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/two-face-exxon-misinformation-campaign-against-own-scientists.html
PSJ, you have provided nada, zilch, nothing, niente in regard to any actual fact that challenges the theory of climate change.
PSJ just pointed you right to something that directly challenges the CO2 theory – the solar fluctuation theory. You are literally ignoring it, looking right past it, while at the same time shrieking in his virtual face that there’s “nada, zilch, nothing, niente”!
What’s going on here? Is something now redefined as nothing if it’s not what we want to see?
Oh dear, Moriarty. The mention of a theory does not challenge the CO2 theory. Do you think that climate scientists are not aware of solar fluctuations and don’t study their influence? Pleeeaaasee.
Please whenever you think something mentioned may challenge the theory go to skepticalscience.com and see what they have to say and then come back here and let me know what you think the validity of the mentioned item is.
Climate myth – it’s the sun
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
And just to add.
The anti-AGWers and the climate scientists often actually agree on certain data, however, what the anti-AGWers do is ignore other very important data to make interpretations to suit them.
AGW and climate change, as mog has pointed out, is a coherent theory. There is no other coherent theory to explain the warming happening now. Not remotely. The more they study warming and climate change the more they understand what is affecting what and how it is affecting it and it all points to greenhouse gas emissions (as well as other things we do). The theory is becoming more and more coherent not less so.
flaxgirl, your comments are based on a complete misunderstanding about 1) the state of the science and 2) the way science works.
There are currently competing theories of what the major climate forcers are. The two strongest are CO2 or other greenhouse gases and solar fluctuation.
They both fit the observed data very well. Both have their adherents and their critics.
Your man at Skeptical Science tells you only one of these theories makes sense, and even though you don’t believe anyone died on 9/11 and don’t believe anyone died in Sandy Hook you do believe him and his one little website as if it was channeling the voice of God.
For some reason you are sure he and he alone will never lie to you. Unfortunately he is. He’s lying. he is taking one set of theories, simplifying them and selling them as fact.
He’s not lying if he believes AGW is the best explanation though is he.
Asserting a belief isn’t lying as such but of course is an investment.
One may deal in fake currency or false beliefs while under the wish or belief they are true.
So the charge of liar often unwise. Suffering under deceit or self illusion is free of personal attack.
However there is always some aspect of a wilfulness or deliberate turning a blind eye in any ongoing participation in giving false witness, false account or misrepresentation – perhaps because it suits us not to know what would trouble us, cost us our social acceptance, our career or simply our own self exposure in a sense of self-betrayal or disintegrity – bringing shame and depression if not directly addressed.
A lot of people censor or block information that makes them feel powerless and sick without any sense of perspective or direction. I feel many use the corporate provision of unconsciousness as a way NOT to feel and not to know what overwhelms them.
I am not a “believer” Moriarty. I hate being accused of being a believer. I accept things as true based on evidence and reason and I keep an open mind as much as possible. From almost the first moment I heard about man-made climate change I accepted it as quite probable simply because it made sense. If there are gases in trace amounts in the atmosphere keeping the earth from being a frozen ball then it only makes sense that massively increasing that amount will have effects. Of course, it’s not guaranteed because we have to look at other things affecting climate and there could be natural thermostatic effects which mitigate the increased warming … or whatever. But the notion that we will create warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere is very, very common sense. It’s just a question of the evidence supporting that common sense idea. And it does.
As for staged events. I have issued a $5,000 Occam’s Razor challenge on 4 events where the responder can choose their own judge from two professional types. If you believe strongly that death and injury weren’t staged on 9/11 and that 26 people died at Sandy Hook I urge you to respond to the challenge.
occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
MLS: this is where the ‘debate’ becomes political. Solar fluctuations as a driver: what can we do about that? Nothing …let’s burn Baby, burn.
Believe it or not, there is a broader perspective of humanism and pragmatism. Carbon capitalism is killing life on Earth; there is an undecidable contention on AGW (there’s not, I’m just saying for the sake of it); AGW may be forced by solar fluctuation or manmade activity; or a combination; or by one to the exclusion of the other; OMG, it’s too hard …we can’t decide …science is in its infancy and may be uncertain either way …let’s do nothing and burn more carbon to see …close loop – carbon capitalism is killing life on Earth…
This is the stupid, stupid, stupid logic of the anti-dialogue. The way to break the uncertainty is to act from an environmentally pragmatic intervention. Carbon capitalism is killing life AND may be causing AGW (high probability, sufficient consensus, sufficient settled science). Are the really only a couple of people here that can see that the circular logic is ITSELF CAUSAL!
As soon as you side with Life, the debate is done.
Those who have no acceptance of their own powerlessness can only reinforce it by attempting to control more and more of whatever they have the power to interfere with…
So we live in a realm of change – although there may be an inner dimensions for want of better words, that all change is but an expression and reflection of (Universe as Idea). In which case we are identifying in our ‘avatars’ or personality construct. Which is part of our human experience but not the whole.
In the always changing we have to stay present, adapt and grow – but in the false security of a static identity – insulated by technology and medication, we sleepwalk into becoming risk averse and hysterically over reactive at any sense of threat – while the owner of the chicken coop – a certain Mr F. Loxy, manipulates such docility and compliance, to appeal to herd-immunity as a way to move the chickens into ‘wanting’ whatever his needs dictate.
Everyone taken in by the carbon con, is taken out of the consciousness of the psycho-political deceits by which a far more toxic and malevolent agenda operates. Perhaps therein lies the appeal. A simple narrative with goodies and baddies that Big Brother can fix for us with our support, so we can be diverted from the degradation and destruction in the overriding and sacred calling for the saving of the world.
In WW2 under the German ‘blitz’, people were very demoralised to be rained upon with death and destruction by an enemy they could not see or fight back against – and so ack-ack guns were brought out to pour ammo into the nights sky – with very rarely a hit – but it was re-assuring to those who didn’t know that.
The collecting of iron – pots, pans and iron gates or fences for spitfires or such – was another morale boosting idea where much of it was dumped off Sheerness (the sea).
People are propagandised as a matter of course.
The truth is that we do not KNOW what tomorrow brings and never shall – even with very hight degrees of probability there are factors that are unaccounted for because they were not present in awareness or considered significant at the time of the predictions – and within the momentum of the investment in the prediction as a ‘good idea’ to those who decided to use it or perhaps use a confluence of trends to make a case by association – such as Ancel Keys and his ‘selective’ data that was given huge PR to effectively deprive us of healthy fats, and divert us to unhealthy fats and industrial grease. (Not to mention the statin market) while the ‘pure, white and deadly’ sugar to diebetes, heart disease and associated disability was effectively diversioned for another 40 years, and now running like a supertanker regardless of science actually breaking ranks from a narrative dictate.
Look each other in the eye with an honesty of not knowing and yet in a shared willingness to know. Because we only need to know what we need to know now – in terms of living this day well. The capacity to ‘live’ in the past and future at the expense of a present awareness is the substitution of awareness with the re-enactment of the past.
But who controls the present?
In order to become present we have to be still of the intent to be or do somewhere ‘else’.
Be still and know is not a scientific edict – but even scientists discover that they only find a breakthrough after intense struggle that has to simply run out – and in that letting go is where the insight or inspiration is suddenly ‘given’ us.
So while I recognize doing as the expression of being, I say, “don’t just DO something – stand there!”
I found the other day that Ivan Illich used it long before I did.
What can we stand IN but self honesty?
What else CAN have integrity?
Why else would actors appeal for ‘moral’ justification for support when they can simply teach by example?
Self-honesty wont get you anywhere in this world (of addiction to self-illusion) except trouble!
In a version of the Emperor’s New Clothes the child who spoke of what he saw was hushed and taken away by his father because he had grown up enough to learn to see them.
A theory is and always shall be theoretical.
Science worthy of the name seeks to disprove its OWN theories.
And INVITES a process of self-testing and opening to challenge.
Asserted facts are believed theories given, (by some), a status of fact.
Of course you can give your reality to anything and have what it gives you in return.
But if you are compelled to sacrifice your reality in worship of a theory as fact, then you are consenting to give truth to that which denies your OWN. Why feed the blind troll? or “what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his Soul?”
Is it not because doing so brings you something that you believe worthy or meaningful at some level of your mind?
Including perhaps the perfect excuse for placing responsibility for your experience ‘outside’ on others, on a past and on a projected future of a past you want to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing butting in.
But the filter of meanings for your experience provide the meanings you give it – and what you give to ‘experts’ to validate you in.
Consensus blame becomes a focused and directed hate.
The charged false
generates a polarity
of reaction by which
to maintain its role
as the assigning of
guilty as charged.
Patrick Moore -co founder of Greenpeace published on ocean “acidification by CO2” and calls it a complete fabrication, as CO2 was 10+ higher in past millennia and life thrived.
Antonym, In the Ordovician there was vastly more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. This does not mean that high levels NOW are OK because in the Ordovician there was sun dimming. Can you please take onboard the simple fact that while there may have been this or that condition in the past that may in some way resemble what’s going on now, that does not a priori mean it’s OK now. Many factors need to be considered.
Skeptical Science has a response to Patrick Moore’s “Gish Gallop”, of course! Don’t have time to read it now but I will.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/moore-2012.html
The claims the sun was dimmer during the ordovician are theory, flaxgirl, not fact.
To save you time, all the claims made about past climate and a lot of the claims about current climate are theory, and the science acknowledges this. We have to guess or theorise because we don’t know enough.
Our window of empirical observation goes back a maximum of 150 years, which is nothing in geological time. The equivalent of presenting a theory of weather based on the last two seconds of looking out your window.
Everything else is climate reconstruction based on ice cores and tree rings. This is not an exact science and there will of necessity be vast differences of interpretation.
Wen you read Skeptical Science try to remember this. He’s presenting one set of theories. He’s not presenting proven fact, he’s not even presenting data, he’s presenting a theory of interpretation of the incomplete climate data we have.He may be right. But so may Judith Curry. So may the sceptics.
The reason you believe you are dealing with fact and proof and “settled science” is a political one. Politics, in the form of the IPCC, have intervened and ruled that certain of the theories are acceptable and certain others are not. The impetus for this ruling was not scientific. It was a collision between Green pressure groups and economic forces that saw a potential for money to be made and control to be asserted.
A huge con has been played on many unsuspecting people such as yourself, BigB and others here. You have been played.
You have been persuaded that the science is proven when it’s not (and the scientists themselves know it’s not, they just try to hie it from you).
You have been persuaded “doubt” is a dirty word.
You have been corralled into self-censorship, warned not to read or listen to the “bad people” spreading false doctrines.
You have been persuaded that the “bad people” don’t even count as people. That they’re subhuman, evil and should be silenced for the common good.
You have been conned into believing a literal multi-billion dollar climate change industry is a frail fringe movement opposed by the very people who are actually promoting it and getting rich off it.
Wake up. You say everything is a rich man’s trick – why hasn’t it occurred to you “catastrophic manmade global warming” may be part of the scam?
It is. It’s a clever bid to get us all to voluntarily sign up to neo-feudalism, Agenda 21, worldwide censorship and all the other tasty items on the liberal agenda.
But the scam isn’t the science – which may be wholly or partly true. The scam is the selling of the science as something it’s not. The conversion of a complex, multi-faceted and very partially understood field of study into a dumbed down politicised and twisted version of itself for sale to the masses.
It’s a tragedy for all of us is what it is.
I’ll agree on one point, MLS – it’s all political now. But that is what Curry stands accused of by me: sowing the politics of doubt and the praxis of inaction with a mythology of swans and fire breathing dragons …dumbed down to confuse the layman and impress the environmentally friendly Rand Corporation. When you look at what she says: she is not far from the peer/consensus (her term) So perhaps you have been played by mythology too?
I wrote a comment about ‘proven’: and leveraged uncertainty like Curry practices. The balance of probability is that the consequences of inaction are unconscionable. I also wrote about the Method – perhaps you can critique that? Suffice to say, your “literally dozens” of scientists have access to peer reviewed literature to make a case. If you want to argue the Method is flawed and politicised itself… well, we’ll just have wait and see. I’m not sure the environment can wait though, or be turned into a lab for our hydrocarbon economic experiment.
What surprises me, when one side accuses the other of conspiracy …is why it does not click? What if both sides are playing us? What if propaganda is binary? What happens while we argue …the status quo of dehumanisation, death, and destruction happens. The corporatocracy benefit either way from culturally induced doubt. What do we do? That all depends on our perception of the status quo.
Carbon capitalism is killing the planet. You mention a green conspiracy with the IPCC to make money, but omit the costs of carbon capitalism. What would be the cost of internalising the unaccounted for costs of extractivism and pollution? What would be the cost of internalising the conservation of species? Or the reparation of the biosphere? What would be the cost of internalising the cost of the marginalised majority (around 80%) who are dehumanised by carbon capitalism …so that 20% of consumers can burn more carbon, and extract more resources, and pollute more biomes?
Curry leverages such a line: we can’t afford to mitigate because of the economic cost of carbon. How about the environmental cost of carbon? Carbon costs the Earth when looked at in this way? Burning more makes no sense whatsoever if we account for the environment and humanity. It’s not just politics, it’s responsibility and morality. What right do 20% of those alive today have over the excluded majority of humanity, and the Unborn future?
None, I’d say. Carbon capitalism is ultra-violent and super-exploitational, and costs the Earth. Am I being conned by my humanity when I say we need to end it? I don’t think so. It would be unconscionable to want it to carry on unabated. Isn’t that what the carbon capitalists want us to do too?
Whats’ with the shift to carbon?
You’re just talking through your hat.
It’s a shame that people divide into groups. Those who believe everything told them and those who believe nothing. The percentage of people who use clear reason, logic and evidence to make their judgements seems unfortunately very small to me.
As BigB makes very clear Judith Curry accepts the climate science, she just pretends she doesn’t – sort of.
Can you explain why Big Oil’s legal team in defending their case against causing sea-level rise say:
“From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change”
They could use the arguments presented by their climate denialist friends, Monckton and co but they don’t. Can you explain why they would do that?
If you can come up with an explanation why they would do that if the science isn’t settled on AGW I’ll be very, very impressed.
Everyone knows about other climate forcers, of course! It is precisely the history of other climate forcers that show us that it is greenhouse gases that are the primary forcers now. The past climate would make absolutely no sense if it weren’t for other climate forcers.
Please provide a single piece of evidence that you think challenges the AGW theory.
Evidence undermining the asserted case?
1. The expression of the state of mind of those who coercively assert it!
Global energy control from global down to granular level?
Thanks – but no thanks.
I feel a better and truer way than coercive manipulation and enforcement.
And I invoke the Spirit of being truly moved as a unifying expression from within – rather than sacrifice or subvert such movement to a private agenda masking as group or global consensus.
For a dead letter scientist, there is no ‘within’.
The the ‘death of God’ is the death of self.
But the management and control of the belief in self-existing data-objects
operates as an artificial intelligence of programs laid down
to run as the structure through which
to open into such experience as
‘otherness’
through which to unfold the quality of re-cognition in form
to the recognition of the formless.
Even as in our world there ate forces we think to know and manipulate, or define and embody applications of expression, that once were invisible movements known only in their effects – so are the ’causes’ we thinks to have discovered, but themselves effects – not merely back to a cause in the past, but to a present Causal IDEA that both embraces and expands the idea of Union as increase – or a cup that runneth over – and NOT a closed system.
Any more than the Platonic solids or ‘sacred geometry’ is static in living expression. Until recently we had no conception of Everything at once or indeed ‘Everything Everywhere) and as a dead construct holds no self differentiation or movement. Such is the result of identifying in the model or the ‘knowledge-map’ as the replacement for a synchronicity of wholeness that is greater than its parts and yet absent none of them.
The first electrical or indeed fluid theories established a recognitions of systems that were predictable in terms of inputs and outputs. The attempt to apply this to human activity or rather to fit human activity into such data-sets is assisted with ‘A.I’ or extended processing intelligence for an almost real time feedback and adjustment. Perhaps all other agenda becomes a means to the setting up of this one – to those insiders of the desire or imperative to effect it.
To be as gods – but in their OWN right.
Plasma science is both new and ancient. Anthony Perrat found correlations of ancient petroglyphs worldwide with the forms of then secret plasma experiments at different energy levels.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=perrat+petroglyph&bext=msl&atb=v105-1&ia=web
The thunderbolt of Antiquity was a plasma discharge.
The linkage and relation of Sun to Earth within the Solar plasmasphere is NOT of radiation across a vaccuum of space. There is no ‘lack of matter so much as vast regions of plasma with filaments or ‘Birkeland’ Currents of ‘ionized’ electrical charge.
Plasma is neither solid liquid or merely gas – but electrically charged and magnetically affective AS further electrical charge effect. The quality of Plasma is of creating self sustaining systems out of its own nature at both Galactic and Atomic scales. The connectedness of all ‘objects’ within an electric Universe is simply its nature – but invisible to the ‘disconnected sense’ of the self in imaged form as a narrative overlay or ‘mapping out’ from a sense of ‘not-knowing’ that protects self-division from a fear of loss of self in relational being.
The term plasma was borrowed from the term for blood – which is an electrolyte that moves as the result of electrical voltages and in helical motion with the vortexing motion of the of the heart as a balancing and regulating of an energy system we call a body in space and matter. Heart disease has many models of ‘causation’ but in truth becomes ‘multifactorial’ as a broad spectrum of functional relationships under strain, distress or inflammation and inhibition of life as energy, and the suppressive effects of a spectrum of inhibiting action or expression – which of course correlates with the world of exposures and environments factors – including emotional results of accepted or energised thought.
Proceeding from the basis of false or incomplete narratives may have made a few rich and reputable or powerful, but at the expense of the health and function of the many and the whole.
The ‘official narrative’ is the corporately backed and followed model of a subordination of science to its marketisation and weaponisation.. It is the actively held or accepted purpose that is causal, not the tools or abilities employed.
Biodiversity is the nature of a healthy living cell, because every part holds some integral function in its true relation. the demonisation of parts assigned ‘evil’ motives works the denial or exclusion of the communication of wholeness under the ‘fight-flight of the sympathetic response.
In its proper function, this operates as a subconscious routine for the preservation of the body under conditions of sudden shocks or surprises. In dysfunction it is as if we are permanently switched into fear – and recycling or re-enacting ancient patterns over ever more complex masking. if this is so it can be observed. the ability to watch our own thought is however subverted or short circuited by the reactive triggering of their associated response. In other words there may be huge resistance in patterns of evasion from simply observing without judging interventions of a coercive and self-protective gesture.
i can not write into the tick boxes of the framing of ‘thought’ for translating life into codespeak. Nor does Life actually become matter or data, so much as giving focus into a ‘simulation experience’ as the result of the current self definitions.
The sense of subjection under our own experience gives rise to reactions that reinforce the original error of the attempt to subject our experience as if from a point outside it. This operates a denial that in turn we experience as being denied and therefore armoured and enraged. The balancing of our inner and outer enables the release of old and obstructive habit of grievance, fear and rage to the recognition of all that is within us as ours, and therefore integral to us as we are in this instant of Creation or Existence.
There is no moral guilting of manipulative coercion to the recognition and aligning in the appreciation of true. Nor is there any inherent requirement to justify or prove or validate your own existence – with and within All That Is.
By our fruits are we known.
Judith is a lukewarmer. She accepts the reality of CO2 as a major forcer of climate. There are literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of other climate scientists who do not accept this to varying degrees. They are turned into non-people by the Orwellian method of claiming the only opinions that count are the ones that agree with X and then claiming unanimity based on the exclusion of dissent.
Keep up, MLS: Judith changed her position (unwittingly, but you can check my interpolation). Perhaps you can tell me what her new (interpolated) ECS range of 1.66 – 4.5 C does to her conditional probabilities? Because it seems to weaken her Lewis/Curry outlying ‘climate realism’ low of 1.66 C. Her mid-range is now much higher. I don’t know, but 3 C seems a bit more than lukewarm to me?
How does any of that change the only important thing I said about Judy? She’s a lukewarmer, and she still is even with her revised or whatever guesstimates.
The actual point of what I was saying is, if you care to look, that there are many scientists who don’t accept the reality of CO2 s a major forcer.
I notice I am not the first to say this to you, and yet you never acknowledge it. You just talk about Judy some more. Not sure if this time will be any different, but we can always try.
Will you at least acknowledge there are scientists out there who question manmade global warming and are not convince CO2 is a major forcer? Or are you going to keep ignoring every single point made by the “other side” so that flaxgirl can claim there’s “no debate”?
How does this change anything about ‘Judy’ …it changes a lot actually. One, she’s not a ‘lukewarmer’ if she accepts the peer/consensus …with an upper ECS limit of 4.5 C. And she did it arbitrarily. She took her own Lewis /Curry estimates, admitted they were low, and added a few degrees. Then presented it with dragons and swans. That’s not science: that’s the politics of doubt epitomised. Which is what I have been saying since last weekend.
I also point out that her estimates form the ‘climate realism’ perspective. If you can arbitrarily manipulate the parameters: and present a mythology – how can you take anything she says as ‘science’. The whole politics of capitalist doubt and intransigence falls apart when you pick at it …revealing an anti-life amorality of stasis.
A dozen ‘ignored’ scientists versus the fate of life and humanity? How would you weight the subjective Bayesian Calculus on that? I’d say on the side of survivability of humanity, wouldn’t you agree?
Your late interjection is transparent and teleological, in that you want to introduce a element of doubt and inaction. Pretty much every point you raise has been pre-supposed and dealt with. Your ‘Green God’ is a mythology to match Curry’s dragons and swans. I thought you were interested in ‘science’?
Science masquerading as doubt is a SCAM. Did you read about who that argument favours? No, you didn’t did you?
I meant to add that the guesstimate was Curry’s not mine.
This is sound epistemology, BigB. Admirably put. To which we can add that if there is significant and credible doubt – and FWIW I dont think there is – we should err hugely on the side of assuming AGW is real when (a) the consequences of getting it wrong are unthinkable and (b) steps to pull back from the brink of climate breakdown also make urgent sense on other fronts.
Btw, I’d like to have played a more active role here but am caught moving house and fighting Sheffield Hallam university at employment tribunal. Its kind of demanding! I do hope – am confident in fact – you, mog and flaxgirl on the one hand, catte and the team on the other, can find a way through this without lasting rancoor. You’re all needed!!!
Good luck with your fight and your house move, Philip.
Do bear in mind that the difference between ‘the team’ on one hand and the people you mention in the other is NOT over the science of AGW but over censorship of opinion and whether the contrary views should even be debated.
Given the huge push to normalise censorship, most recently manifested in the attack on gab.com, and the renewed attack on free speech by George Monbiot we are very disturbed at the numbers here who support such a move, provided the people being censored don’t share their views.
You are a champion strawmanner, I’ll give you that, Admin.
Where in any of our argument do we suggest censorship? I just say that for you to claim that scientific debate exists you need to identify a valid point from the other side. If you cannot do that you have no claim to say a scientific debate exists because mere opinion, cherry-picked data and false claims do not count as valid points. But as I said, you define scientific debate differently from me. You think debate exists where people say whatever on each side – that’s scientific debate for you. OK.
Do you suggest then that any range of plausibly fearful scenarios that – it they should occur – are so dire as to demand believing them and preempting them by reacting as if they are already true? AND that the only way to react is the way the frame of the scenario dictates? This is quite apart from the intent that preys on such fears as the taking of power, by a false promise of power that induces its believers to self-disempowerment.
Was the 911 ‘conversion’ another way of tuning in to where the blocked charge of emotionally energy is – in order to capitalise and use it to reach an otherwise hidden target?
Why would scientific institutions be any less manipulatable than all of the institutions that had to be coordinated for the ‘911 switch’ into an open lie – forcibly protected?
The precautionary principle applies to the intervention or treatment.
Though I would challenge the whole nature of diagnosis as being open to bias by specialisation.
So before accepting the framing of the dictate – or compulsion to ‘act’ from such a script, I would look at it AND at its fruits.
But anyone that becomes baited and hooked by reaction, is then no longer free to look at the frame that is being acted out as if undeniably true and necessary.
“Evil – when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty” (Simone Weil)
How would you know you are not deceived? Would the horrendous consequence of committing to such a dire consequence not merit the precautionary principle?
Science is not a means to grow in wisdom or discernment. Such qualities are essential to the responsible balancing of power and responsibility.
‘WMDs were so dangerous that there was no time nor reason NOT to lay waste to Iraq’. I could make a list.
The mind of the reversal has a signature that we would all to well to notice or be vigilant against succumbing to.
EG; The narrative of brain chemical imbalance as the cause of diagnosed psychiatric conditions never was settled science but it became the dominant theme by power and money invested in it – both by those who felt protected by such a diagnosis and those who effected treatments based upon such theories and profit thereby in status or privileges of inclusion or exemption as much as financial gains. The ‘treatments’ actually effect brain receptor imbalances that result in symptoms that confirm the ‘disease’ as a progressive deterioration calling for more ‘treatment’. The dependency is ensured by such levels of agitation – as in not being able to bear being in our own ‘skin’ – and thus ensure few will escape the benefits of the treatment plan.
The helpless clutch of a negative harvest?
Only while refusing to question the basis of our own thinking.
I’ll tell you why, PSJ. Curry is a glorified blogger using a mythology of swans and fire breathing dragons to decide the fate of humanity. Shall I write that again, or does that prospect alone not scare the equivocation out of you?
Read what she says: and she has conceded to the peer/consensus …she just doesn’t want any action. She says we don’t know about the climate: but she can tell you the fraction of a degree and the cost benefit ratio of mitigation when it pleases …it’s called selective bullshit.
Scientific inquiry is never settled in the way Admin was requiring. We don’t know the why of gravity, and Einstein is still being tested. Any credible work will feed in through the scientific peer review to either verify or falsify hypotheses …the theoretical model will be updated and tested accordingly. And then it will be tested and updated, and tested and updated. Given the nature of the one lab that matters, when the theory is 100% …we may all be dead or dying.
If it is Stalinistic to point out that the science is settled enough for practical purposes …lord help us! If it is Stalinistic to point out the doubt and delay are being strategically leveraged by the corporatocracy, lord help us! If it is Stalinistic to point out that the science will only be “proven” by the human and biotic catastrophe actually occurring, lord help us!
For all pragmatic and humanist purposes the debate is over. There is literally no future in business as usual. Literally.
I think you skipped most of my post and only read the last paragraph there. My question was why do we regard the solar fluctuation theory of climate forcing as less robust than the Co2 theory? Nothing whatsoever to do with Ms Curry! Maybe the debate has moved on but I would still be interested in an answer to that
This is obviously not the case in mathematically programmed models – with other ‘laws’ or constants serving as parameters for the result.
The technocratic ideal quantifies everything to serve the model, but this ideal is a human intent or desire for definition, prediction and control.
The ground from which such a focus arises is a fearful and conflicted sense of self-chaos.
The archetype of Order OVER Chaos is beneath our top-down control psyche/society.
Not recognizing that the very act of such a ‘control’ generates and replicates is core belief and thus a self reinforcing self perpetuating negative experience upon which an apparently positive posits itself.
Where you choose to posit or accept yourself is your freedom but; “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty” ~ (Simone Weil).
The giving up of a free awareness for a ‘sacred duty’ set against a believed and perceived evil is a consciousness in which, when:
“The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should therefore be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated. If the doctrine be admitted, rulers have only to declare war and they are screened at once from scrutiny” ~ (William Ellery Channing).
“War against” — insert chosen evil threat— is a racket.
Or rather it is a ‘mind-capture under the reactive program to leap before we look, and the frame ourself in looking only for what supports the war effort, or salvation from hell as we are individually or consensually defining it.
Everyone finds what they are looking for – for some problems are unsolvable by design and generate huge budgets of diversionary delay from a true accounting – but in the process of a determined futility, we may uncover a change of mind and find a true need unexpectedly met, that we had not even recognised running beneath our drama.
Until such a shift of attention opens to a recognition and acceptance, the mind-capture operates in place of and as substitution for a true relational appreciation for being.
The model for the scientific model is itself a human construct. the creative cannot be altogether and entirely eradicated by the systematic, nor could it seem to self-exist a moment without the creative – which IS the nature of the extension of thought or word as definition whose result is beheld or recognised ‘Good’ – in the sense of a true resonant match.
The tool of the mind that looks ‘out’ has to be recognised and reintegrated to the mind that first looks within. But not by anything other than the innate law of our true nature or quality of being. Dissonance of conflicted ‘word and experience’ is a freedom to consciously our creation as creative freedom, because we have the mind of the ability to forget it in false substitutions that
The positing of a world as ‘outside’ a sense of subjection to the threats of such a world, generates a private personal sense of self control supposed to be ‘within’, is the root of a polarised I-Other as a ‘conflicted self sense’ – and of course a freedom to transcend in a greater beholding recognition or embrace. This applies also to the process of shifting from a fragmented and divisive psyche/model, to alignment within relational coherence or functional integrity.
The signature of an incoherent model is of its demand for war and sacrifice of the living, wherever the living is perceived as threat to the model in which the identity is unconsciously predicated or identified.
No amount of appeasement to such demand will ever buy the ‘peace’ or ‘freedom’ of its conditional promise.
For those who have not shall have taken from them – even the little that they have.
This phrase refers to an identity posited in and reacting from lack, fear, or shame, and not material possessions or presentations of wealth, knowledge or power.
The mind senses an imminent exposure as existential threat and the filtering distortion of such a ‘war’ operates the ingenious and inventive in place of the truly creative. Creation is always an extension of inspiration. But the assertions of possession and control are always a private agenda – ingeniously masking as for the common good or the benefit of humanity.
Possession and control of the narrative framework in which human thinking operates is the undermining and undoing of the structures through which consciousness KNOWS itself alive. Relation itself is the creative chaos of an emergent order. The shifting to an embracing recognition is both a giving and receiving as one. It is also the basis for living this step from a shared quality of being – and as such is a witnessing to the true as a RESULT and not a means to coerce an outcome in the modelled future at expense of the living appreciation of the present as a relational expression. the attempt to impose a past as a presentation over true presence so as to put fulfilment in somewhen else is a dissociative ‘mind-capture’ that uses the interpretation of its past as a way to deny a fear of its reliving in the present. Yet such a self-protective attempt to deny an evil, operates the unconscious fixation upon it and the constant recycling of the hated or feared as the forming or conditioning of an identity fed. supported and dependent upon war, sickness, fear and division for its function – that it seeks to induce you to accept as yours.
Never rush – especially in an emergency – is because what is in fact emerging is not at all what in triggered fear we so readily mis-perceive – and become heavily invested in justifying and asserting as true – regardless that we kill the patient or destroy the people whose ‘regime’ was deemed to be oppressed, or deny any creative and functional approaches to a self-toxifying and destructive ‘economy’.
There IS no creative or inspired Vision in the narrative ‘consensus’ of life as sickness management. At least ‘noble lies’ has some seed of a true aspiration. But the purveying of nightmares as the matrix of a sense of life purpose is a race to the bottom in which the struggle to the top is simply to be the last to drown.
Preaching to the deaf….
The majority of scientists .. are right. The majority of citizens who voted for Hitler, Bush, Clinton, Trump are right. right? Con -census yes.
Peer-review, the process that UAE Climategate prof. James wanted to bend as he wrote in one of those hacked e-mails.
Jones, not James
Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university’s Climatic Research Unit.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of “trick” has been misinterpreted
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate”
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics – that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.
From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
“Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future.”
Nature “trick” / hide-the-decline debunked!
https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
That’s not a debunk. You can’t debunk the Climategate emails. They were an example of quite deplorable scientific manipulation and fraud I’m afraid. Shocking to see it not only done by respected scientists but then aided and abetted by the media.
Regrettable to the greatest degree to see science, which is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, become victim by degrees to the terrible anti-rational anti-truth agendas of the globalists
The first item in Antonym’s list, “Hide the decline”, is clearly debunked and was misquoted.
https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm.
From the link above.
“Decline” relates to tree rings not temperature and has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995.
[Correct quote]
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
It’s clear that “Mike’s Nature trick” is quite separate to Keith Briffa’s “hide the decline”. “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to a technique (a “trick of the trade”) by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
There is nothing secret about “Mike’s trick”. Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret “trick” or confusing it with “hide the decline” displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.
Antonym states:
… and then brings up completely unrelated emails (that may or may not show dishonest manipulation) as if these cast doubt on Prof Jones’ claim of “trick” being misinterpreted. The skeptics love their logical fallacies. What, of course, Antonym fails to do is explain how “trick” has, in fact, been misinterpreted – above are quotes from the article that explain it clearly and show that he was misquoted. Clearly, the skeptics were triply dishonest in their pushing out their “hide the decline trick” nonsense, in the way they inferred that “decline” referred to temperature when it referred to tree rings and in implying that the use of the words “hide” and “trick” meant dishonest manipulation.
I will return to the other items (unless someone gets in before me) when I have time.
“Hide the decline” is about falsifying data. Mann et al were using tree ring data on the infamous hockey stick graph to plot assumed global temperatures in prehistory. For this they needed to show that tree ring data correlated with known climate data during the historical period.
Unfortunately, the tree ring data they had did NOT show a strong correlation with known temperatures. It completely failed to show any late 20th century warming spike, which is recorded on satellite and surface weather stations. This meant they could not justify using tree ring data to plot prehistoric temperature, which was a large blow to their work.
What they should have done is publish their results, complete with the problematic tree ring data and honestly admitted to the holes in their hypothesis.
Instead they opted for fraud – or in other words to use “Mikes’s trick” to “hide the decline”, (ie cover up the fact their tree ring data showed no sign of the late 20th century warming).
This was data falsification. One of the worst crimes in science, actually. The fact their universities and the media combined to cover it up is very strong evidence for the amount of support the AGW hypothesis has among the institutions of power and influence.
There that’s a brief 101 on the history of Cimategate, I hope it inspires you to go to the sources and read some more!
Skeptical Science is not a good source to rely on. Very lax and neither truly Skeptical nor scientific. Someone compared it to Screw Loose Change. I can’t disagree except to say SLC could at least be amusing in its heyday. SS is simply and woefully partisan to the point of rank misdirection and lies by omission.
The section on the Climategate emails is a very good example. It sets up a straw man argument about misunderstanding what “the decline” meant and proceeds to debunk its own invention. Utterly and seemingly intentionally misleading.
I quote from your post:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
My goodness can it be more brazen? These guys are openly discussing corrupting their data. They say right there they are adding real world temperature data to their tree ring data in order to “hide the decline”, ie make the tree ring temperature graph look more like the one from the weather stations and satellite data!
Absolute, barefaced data falsification.
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/12/27/an-open-letter-to-libertarian-climate-change-denialists/
“Hide the decline” when read in its original context, has to do with the decline in growth of trees from certain high latitudes. The scientists simply replaced this data with thermometer data post-1960 because of human emission of nitrogen, which makes some of the tree ring data diverse (and decline) compared with temperature data from thermometers.
Doing this is perfectly reasonable because of the “divergence” problem.
https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm
“From 1880 to 1960, there is a high correlation between the instrumental record and tree growth. Over this period, tree-rings are an accurate proxy for climate. However, the correlation drops sharply after 1960. At high latitudes, there has been a major, wide-scale change in tree-growth over the past few decades.”
As indicated below, Jones should have distinguished between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in the graph, however, the escalation of this lack of transparency into a crime far greater is more dishonest than the lack of transparency. There was no crime in replacing the temperature type used – only in not being transparent about it. I agree it shouldn’t have been done but the skeptics have completely misrepresented it.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes-trick-with-hide-the-decline.html
In creating the WMO graph, Jones cut off the tree-ring density curve around 1960 when it diverged from instrumental temperature and grafted the instrumental temperature onto the green line. This technique has been rightly criticised for failing to distinguish between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in a graph. However, the decline in tree-ring density is not a hidden phenomena – it’s been openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995) and was also discussed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Actually, PSJ, why don’t you explain why it’s not a debunk? Presumably, you accept the part-debunking I’ve explained below but, if not, of course go ahead and say why you think that’s not a debunking. But please explain why you think the SS article does not debunk the other emails.
The best answer is to read the Climategate emails flaxgirl. They are unambiguously a discussion of how to perpetrate fraud and censorship without being caught. No amount of apology or weasel words after the fact can change that. Don’t take my word or SS’s word. Read the emails and see for yourself.
PSJ, you claim that SS’s article is not a debunk. Please explain how it is not a debunk. What are they misstating? What are they missing? You make the claim – you back it up.
Well I relented and have explained the basics to you. I hope you at least read to the end. I’m doing my best to communicate, you have to do your bit too you know!
If you re investigate history you may move back the influence to see that science was arrested or compromised in its infancy. But this cant be seen until the ‘reality’ cracks. And the willingness to abide it is not a casual or trivial matter of taking thought.
For many, 911 broke their world view not least because it was intended to announce the power to ‘make reality’ and enforce it regardless of reason, science or honest witness. (In my view).
A sort of negative harvest that feeds on both fear and rage.
A whole web site auditing climate science: https://climateaudit.org/
It found out that the hockey stick shaped temperature curve is carved by hook and crook. After getting various temperature curves from many different sources only the hockey shapes are published, all the rest are discarded – not mentioned at all. That is not science: thy that in medicine research and you’ll end up with avoidable deaths. The site does not dispute slight temperature increase, just wild upticks predicted.
You want an unprecedented crime? Look for Micheal Mann’s continues misuse of cherry picked data and techniques to erase past high temperatures to obtain a straight hockey stick shaft and others to get a huge blade: https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/#comments
You just pull out all the nonsense “skeptic” arguments one after the other, don’t you? It’s shameful. Fancy pulling out the fact that climate was hotter 125,000 years ago as if this proves that miraculously some other amazing climate forcer was making the earth warmer and thus CO2 isn’t the climate forcer we think it is when it was the earth wobble stated clearly in the article you linked to – which isn’t happening now, antonym. Not happening now. The global temperature is rising in line with carbon emissions – nothing to do with earth wobble. You need to make sense of what you link to, antonym. Not just link to something that means absolutely zero as far as man-made climate change is concerned.
Hockey stick deceit debunked!
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Flaxgirl, read before you write please! Read in the link above how top climate scientist Micheal Mann keeps on manipulating climate graphs deliberately to cause alarmism, the scary blade.
Global temperatures are also rising in line with number of bicycles sold, casino visitors, TV watchers, number of chickens, use of wireless communication, number of English and Chinese speakers etc. etc.
Two lines marching in step doesn’t prove anything.
The CO2 story also is about doubling emissions: when will humanity emit double the present numbers?
Next do you realize that trees grow better now due to CO2 fertilization? This messes up any tree ring width temperature proxy data, but is super for agriculture.
But what exactly is your point? What does the fraudulence Michael Mann may allegedly engage in prove? What is he saying differently from climate scientists who recognise man-made climate change? My attitude is that, as the consensus is high among climate scientists, it’s the anti-AGWers who have to prove their point first. Did you read the skeptical science critique? What do you have to say on that?
I read those “Skeptical” science pages on this years ago. That consensus is like a sky scraper with rotten (Mann etc) foundations. Sheep scientists quote him blindly. What is happening today with PAGES is the exclusion of any data that look non alarmist = non science.
Antonym: forget the broken hockey stick …how many scientific presentations use black and white swans, and fire breathing dragons to represent “enraged Uncertainty Monsters”? Curry uses analogy, allegory and mythology to negate science …and confuse the layman.
Perhaps we can drop the outliers, and go with the consensus 3 degress (that even Curry admits to)?
I watched her in an interview with James Corbett. I’ve also seen her speak truth to power. I don’t recognize your representation of her. Nor did she say what you suggest in that interview.
To me, the assertion of ‘scientific consensus’ and ‘settled science’ are oxymorons that invalidate scientific credibility and reveal political or personal agenda.
You may not share my view of science because you may have a different sense of what science is and does. The harnessing of science to corporate and political agenda is the old marriage of Church and State in new clothes.
I see that the site you link is already a serious scientific forum that is not trying to airbrush uncertainties for one or another ‘side’.
https://climateaudit.org/blog-rules-and-road-map/
This page above as a cursory read feels very relevant to what has been going on here at OG.
[My response to Catte’s questions below.]
Catte: you wrote:
“Is this science settled? Or is there massive doubt? Well qualified people hold both these opinions and al[l] shades in between. If we decide to ignore Group A and listen to Group B, what are we doing that’s more discerning than picking a team to support?”
As several of us have said: the science is settled. Not on the blogosphere, where there is a wide range of opinion. Among serious scientific contributors: even the deniers are not truly deniers (apart from the loony fringe, whom I won’t address.) This point I take from the Patron Saint of Deniers: Judith Curry. There are two main points of contention: uncertainty and mitigation policy …which are obviously closely interrelated.
To focus on warming: not sea level rise, loss of albedo. species extinction, etc …The main issue is Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS to Doubled CO2): which is the range of temperature rise we can expect. There is a broad consensus for 3 degrees; with outlying support for (CAGW) ranges of 6-10 degrees; and a lower range around 1.5 degrees. Here. I am taking Curry’s own facts, so as not to be controversial. It’s all on her blog.
Particularly, I am drawing on her recent Rand Corporation presentation. The lower range of estimates of course includes her own: Curry/Lewis 2015 with an ECS estimate of 1.66°C (5–95% uncertainty range: 1.15–2.7°C). Let me drop the invective and call this ‘climate realism’, as many others have. However, and to quote Curry:
I do not feel I have to pursue this line any further, when the upper “v likely range’ (even allowing a weak probability) is 4.5 C.
[My ‘alarmist’ understanding is that 6 C is an Extinction Level Event. I could be wrong, but it’s not a chance I want to take.’]
Then there is the ‘Uncertainty Monster’, and the ‘unsettled’ nature of the debate. I am not going to labour this point. Uncertainty means both that the estimates could be too high …or too low. It is not a positive argument; but a deliberate delaying tactic. I’m not qualified to investigate the ‘tuning’ issue of climate models. But I will note that Curry’s estimates are from models. So is she the worlds leading modeller, or as has been suggested, she used more liberal parameters to obtain her results? For the die-hard ‘all the models’ are wrong argument: then we are blind and waiting for the real world data to kill us factually (whoops, sorry, I lost my objectivity!). From the Rand presentation:
The issue of ‘Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs)’ and the politics of doubt has been covered in this paper:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2747q17h
Suffice to say: delay favours BigOil and carbon capitalism …not the viability of humanity.
Curry then links the ECS with the ‘social cost of carbon’ and – leveraging the Uncertainty Monster (known neglecteds) – argues that we should do nothing (adaptative mitigation to extreme weather events).
That’s enough for me: that’s fine for Curry to argue: but how about some humility and humanity for the billions that this attitude condemns to death? Or the untold billions in cost to subsequent generations in mitigation?
This is the state of the debate, from the other side, so to speak. Anyone can read the Rand presentation and report if I have misrepresented her views. So there is no real debate, except the policy debate: what do we do?
Catte asked:
“My questions are – why do we decide to weight some opinions more than others? Based on what criteria? How can we tell if we’re being informed or propagandised from either side? What, in actual real terms, can we do?”
We are beyond the scientific debate: so we need to have a humanistic policy debate. The science can never be settled due to the nature of science: but exploitation of this fact has very negative consequences, and deliberately misrepresents the settled nature of the science. The ‘wait and see’ argument is Eurocentric and in itself, imperialist over life itself. The majority of humanity, and the living biosphere cannot ‘wait and see’. Given the uncertainty and modelling deficiencies: Curry’s own ECS estimates are in themselves insufficient reason to ‘wait and see’. By her own argument, and her own admission, they could be too low. Viewed humanistically, they are a call to action – not inaction. The Uncertainty Monster works in either direction (the clue is in the name). It cannot be a certain reason to do nothing. There could be uncertain principles involved that would wipe us out. Curry’s manufactured uncertainty is a bad-faith policy inaction.
If that means doing nothing, “I can’t say myself that that isn’t the best solution.”
http://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=213894792
Personally, I think the consequences of inaction are too unconscionable to even contemplate. There is no debate, except about the active praxis of the humanist response. To whit: oldies are the best:
“System Change: Not Climate Change!”
[As a codicil: on the thorny attribution/ unforced debate – Curry is famously 50-50. That is her ‘uncertain’ opinion. My humanist opinion, based on a wider variety of dehumanisation, death and destruction the current system entails is that it hardly matters arguing about the other 50% – we need system change anyway.]
Superbly clarifying BigB.
Things have moved on in the realm of the sceptic/denier over the past ten years, from ‘they grew grapes in Britain in the middle ages’ to something like, ‘AGW is probably right, but fucked if I care’.
LOL.
Could be also 1.15 C or even less. Most climate models are running too hot compared to measured reality. Fear sells, which is good for bigger grants.
Hold on. There’s some assumptions here that need examining.
Firstly, this is NOT about what I think or my personal opinions, or your personal opinions. It’s about the baseline for discussion. We aren’t discussing what we believe about climate change.
We’re discussing the parameters for such a discussion.
There is a continued push by people on both sides to move this beyond factual debate on the assumed basis that the science is beyond question in this or that area and an assumed moral imperative demands we move on to talk about what we can do.
But this can easily become a “no true Scotsman” argument. There are scientists who question the very basis of manmade climate change. Some of them – like Piers Corbyn – are well-qualified and seem sincere. We can’t exclude them from consideration and then still claim there’s consensus because “no TRUE climate scientist questions AGW”.
That’s a rhetorical trick, not an argument.
Before we are justified in making any such assumption we need to show that the likes of Corbyn et al are all either
a) corrupt
b) incompetent or
c) just plain wrong.
SHOW it. Not just say it because someone else told us so.
Because this is the problem isn’t it? We aren’t scientists. We are taking things on faith. So we need to be wary. When that faith extends to effectively closing our minds and ears to any dissenting opinion, when it begins demanding we drive out or excoriate those who don’t share our faith, I think things are going too far, don’t you?
I’m a Green. I accept the reality of AGW. I believe in green energy and the desirability of weening ourselves off fossil fuels.
But when people here begin posting links to online lists of “deniers” I am concerned. They claim this is not comparable to Propornot ’s infamous list (which we are on, to answer another commenters question), because this one is made by concerned real people, not agents of the deep state.
To which I reply – so what? The deep state is busy trying to whip up a climate of hate in which people are encouraged to rat on each other. They don’t care what the cause is, the point is the division, the fear and the mutual suspicion. Lists of “evil” 99%ers made by other 99%ers is exactly what they want to see.
We don’t want to see such lists of evildoers here. It’s antithetical to everything we stand for. And we will not tolerate using “no true Scotsman” type arguments to avoid addressing one side of the debate. Because we know where this kind of normalised intolerance and censorship will lead.
I haven’t read what Piers Corbyn’s arguments are. Have you? Does he deserve to have his views ignored?
I haven’t read what Piers Corbyn’s arguments are. Have you? Does he deserve to have his views ignored?
Nobody has, that is the point. He declines to tell anyone what his method is. This is the antithesis of science, isn’t it? Science is a collective, shared pursuit of knowledge, not secret quackery for sale.
Is that the best name you can come up with, Piers Corbyn ? How about a research scientist, or an independent group of them, or an independent research facility?
It matters not how many times people ‘show it’ that deniers are fringe dwelling opinions for hire (there are plenty of links on here), deniers just sit there and say ‘proof please’.
when people here begin posting links to online lists of “deniers” I am concerned. They claim this is not comparable to Propornot ’s infamous list (which we are on, to answer another commenters question), because this one is made by concerned real people, not agents of the deep state.
To which I reply – so what?
FFS this is into the realm of flat earth.
I take it that you are familiar with the history of fossil fuel funded fake opinion. (The Koch brothers mean anything to you?). How do you propose that people who are getting their opinions through one form of media or another respond to such activity, if not by pointing it out? Maybe you think nobody should point it out?
Can you not see difference between propornot smearing independent and honest investigative journalists and people calling out billionaire oil magnates paying crooked scientists to skew their work?
If not then you are an absolutist and are abusing the principle of free speech in the very same way that propagandists are.
The only purpose of a list like that is to encourage the persecution or punishment of the people on it. This is not something we can endorse or support.
People need to be free of the fear they will be attacked or suffer consequences simply because of what they believe. That doesn’t just apply to people and beliefs we happen to like.
If you think that’s abusing free speech feel free to visit sites that police the comments and regulate what is allowed to be said.
Those sites would likely ban you for attacking its editors and editorial policy though.
Piers Corbyn – from what I currently know, analyses past records of sun activity and weather and plots the patterns of the present to the cycles of the past to offer a weather prediction service that people, businesses, corporations PAY for. His work is founded on cyclic activity of the Sun as an Electrical Effect on the Earth as an Electrically driven system. He doesn’t himself necessary understand HOW or what all the mechanisms are or make that part of his service.
We have a standard model of the Universe that is gravitic and uniformitarian. IE Assertion that things have always been much as they are now over the last few billion years give or take a few extinction events such as the end of the Younger Dryas – about 13,000 yrs ago. “Billions of years” are the agency of almost every change. The catastrophic nature of our even recent past is largely airbrushed – excepting the new star wars budget and psyop of asteroids as Enemy Threat (budget) and mining $$$$$ and of course shhhhh…! – the transglobal vector of a world-dominating power from ‘on high’.
Standard model is a steady state of THINGS held together by gravity (weaker than the electric force by 10 to the 8 power).
It has added all kinds of man made inventions that take it into the realms of mathematical models by which a failing model is propped up by a ‘dark matter, black holes and big bangs’. And cosmology is wide open to a completely unverifiable spin. This dark state of affairs also has profound effects on our modelling of the Earth’s as a system of forces.
But the force of investment in the old model is the Established Order.
The Plasma Universe opens a new view in which the Universe is an electrically connected system that is also scalar from the atomic to to the Galactic. The Sun in the standard model is believed to be a fusion reactor whose em radiation (full light spectrum) is supposed to heat the Earth as an otherwise closed system. This is mistaken.
If as I feel confident to suggest, the Sun as an electrical transformer of a greater Galactic connection, also a circuit between the Sun and Earth’s plasmasphere (called a magnetosphere from the belief that the magnetic field is created by molten iron core rotation.
(Note: Can iron CREATE magnetic force or does it attract and channel or magnify the electromagnetic properties of its environment? Magnetism and electricity are always the same thing for all electric charge flow creates a magnetic field).
The Earth’s ionosphere is electrically charged and the atmosphere is a dielectric. Lightning discharges (Plasma in arc mode) operate upwards as well as to Earth as a breakdown of the dielectric.
Plasma Cosmology is an emergent but suppressed paradigm that I believe insider science is aware of since Nikola Tesla at least and mainstream science is not, or soon learns not to speak of openly. A standard model denier is not a lucrative position. Halton Arp discovered red shift isn’t receding galaxies, and that quasars are actually associated with relatively near systems.
Thunderbolts.info offers an intro to The Electric Universe.
Routinely cosmic electrical events are reported as ‘strange’ or ‘unexpected’, without ever joining the dots. The latest is a plume on Mars – as just ‘water or ice’ from a wind passing an extinct ‘volcano’- but note ‘water and ices’ are the common signature of plasma discharge from comets (supposed to be the heat of the Sun but you have to be dotty and unjoined in thought to assert that as credible). Jupiter’s moon Io is not vulcanism but Plasma discharge events. I never invite belief but consideration to follow your OWN stirrings or not.
Perratt’s correlation of plasmoid pattern-shapes obtained in then topsecret lab experiments with petrogyphs etched or painted onto rocks over 10,000 years ago is just the entree to Plasma Mythology.
Where science fears to tread such as to use the term myth as equivalence to falsehood. But our mythic archetypes structure our thought and personality – including would be Promethean scientists.
So my sketch here is not to focus on the details but to suggest a far greater ‘error’ in the foundations of science as currently ‘settled’ invested and defended as IF a consensus. And from my view it is pointless to seek official recognition or even dialog from minds set on denying new perspectives. And so the new unfolds as something that is in place to seed culture as the old falls apart or as Max Plank once said – science progresses one death at a time.
The ideas that gain support are not the true – but those which can be weaponised or marketised and presented so as to seem true. When the all the money was lined up on the human genome as a goldmine for its massive investment in research – Bruce Lipton (Biology of Belief) effectively found out that it was wrong in its assumptions and in its expectations – for before the term was coined he discovered the epigenetic nature of the environmental influence as the primary factors that would turn on or off various genes. But don’t let truth get in the way of a good profit. They didn’t and he was stonewalled and had to find another career. There’s a long list of scientists whose legitimate findings have been squelched. Some gain recognition if the model shifts to incorporate them. In which case they are woven into the sacred history. But they can just as well be airbrushed from it no matter how many nobel prizes they win or what reputation they have garnered if they cross the line. Power in the world is revealed by what you cant say – at least without attracting penalty.
I am reminded that Old man Rockefeller et al changed the medical landscape via ‘philanthropy’ so as to ‘win’ the most prestigious medical institutions over to pharmaceutical interventions, replacing what was then called empiric medicine – in terms of herbal, homeopathic and naturopathic health support – such as to create a virtual monopoly for pharma AND capture the regulators to make it a protected monopoly cartel – from which position the quack who sold crude oil (nujol) as a cancer curecould officially enforce all other that chemically synthesized and patented approaches to health ‘care’to be some form of health denialism – oh yes – quackery! But Rockefeller wouldn’t let a an allopathic doctor near him. He had a private homeopath.
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/08/drug-story-by-morris.html
As I keep on saying, Catte, it’s so easy. Just put anything non-pro-AGW into skeptical science and you will be richly rewarded with a thorough critique/debunking. Of course, you may disagree with it and you will often find comments that disagree with the alleged debunking but it gives you a good base to work out, as much as any of us can who are non-scientists, who’s right and who’s wrong.
Below are two critiques related to Piers Corbyn’s pronouncements on the climate and just to say, he is NOT a climate scientist, he is a weather forecaster. Not that I put massive store in credentials, necessarily, just sayin’.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/winter-2014-15.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/open-letter-mayor-boris-johnson.html
also try putting anything non-pro-official 911 story into Screw Loose Change and get the same result! Having a potential answer doesn’t prove you are correct. It’s more complex than that and we need to do more than just choose a side to blindly believe.
There’s no comparison. If you look at what the SS writers say they do debunk not simply claim to. They write clearly, concisely and compellingly with lots of links to studies. For goodness’ sake – have a look – don’t use the logical fallacy of citing one debunking site to cast doubt on another.
I’m a 9/11 truther – I know all about bunk debunking! I know that alleged debunking is so often false but not in the case of SS. They allow anyone to post comments as long as the comment is on-topic and not abusive and you can tell from those who oppose the debunking that they don’t have a case.
Their information is rigorously presented and they update and make corrections.
Yes – here you point to the basis of contagion. For the urge to identify against a perceived or believed evil pre-empts any other (process of) communication. I see this as ‘taking the bait’ and vigilance for peace as a quality of unwillingness to invite and enact division or conflict as IF both certain and morally compelled.
No can can see a deceit they are already framed in by reaction.
Nor can anyone be made to see what they are not willing to accept.
But we can learn that what we are accepting and thinking is framing or directing our perceptions and resulting experience and this is a basis for a shifting of perspective or freedom to align an experience congruent with who we now recognise and accept ourselves to be.
The emotional nature of the ‘territory’ makes abiding it, a challenge.
The sense of fears’ guilts, hates and suffering can be a recoil of the mind to anywhere else ASAP.
But the dissociating mind can also then use the ‘negative’ as its own source of power, identity or support.
The dissociating mind is not the answer to conflict but rather the persistence of conflict under guise of ‘war against conflict’ – if you see what I mean.
Holding willingness for communication amidst the urge to shut it down or force it or dominate it – is perhaps the most critical step in what then follows on automatically – even if against the grain of our conditioned or even cherished personal responses.
BigB,
Had enough of this.
Just wanted to say how much I respect your opinions and your writing. Also that I have appreciated the time you put into researching topics carefully and presenting them honestly.
I’ve learnt a lot from your posts and have been prompted to think much from reading them.
Go well.
The respect is mutual. We may never meet, but I feel as though I have lost a friend. Please reconsider?
If not, go well too.
Catte:
The Piers Corbyn angle was a little joke, wasn’t it? Because he is out on the loony fringe with Monckton.
The parameters for debate have been discussed before. Surely no one could disagree with the epistemology of empiricism: from a credible peer reviewed source (not Corbyn). That is the basic standard of scientific debate.
Here is where you seem to perceive I am pushing for a false positive consensus. That’s not my fault, that’s because you believe there is still a debate to be had. On the blogosphere maybe, but among scientists there just is not the perceived dissensus.
During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467616634958
Your ‘No True Scotsman’ rhetoric is dealt with in the SCAMs paper. As I pointed out, not even Curry denies the basic consensus. Her tactic is to introduce enough doubt to disconnect effective policy making from the science. It should be noted, that she is a de facto policy maker, not an advisor. Is that even ethical for a blogging scientist? Do we want her to decide our future for us?
Shall we, with unscientific opinion, create our own dissensus to add to the doubt already being sown, with our barely understood reasoning? After all, that is what Phillip’s article is about: the deliberate introduction of strategic doubt by the corporatocracy. The Unprecedented Crime, the Merchants of Doom, and the SCAMs paper all highlight culturally introduced doubt and strategic non-committal as a deliberate corporate tactic. They consciously delay for “full scientific certainty” …which, in this case, is the death of life on earth.
If you have a role, is it not to relinquish the politics of doubt?
You are already unwittingly effectively censoring the debate: by insisting we have a debate about a debate that is as settled as science allows. No True Scotsman, and dissensus of consensus notwithstanding. Whilst a priori accepting that none of us is really qualified to have the debate. Why not just accept the science?
Doubt is a weapon of the elite, because they want to disable praxis. So long as we engage in pseudo-debate, they burn carbon. We all burn carbon, I burn carbon …even though I don’t want to. Only concerted unitary action will change that.
What I find strange about the whole elite AGW plot is the cultural inaction. Apparently, they are making us afraid: not afraid enough I fear! Action conquers fear. Maybe if we culturally stopped indulging in strategically introduced doubting, we might act?
We’re dying Catte, it’s just that simple. Do we want Piers Corbyn to advise us on that? Or to follow Curry’s praxis of inaction, so her nieces get a job? She may not be funded by BigOil, but she might as well be.
It’s up to you. My advice is that the time for talk is done.
This ‘debate’ has surprised me and disappointed me. So many contributors here (and it would seem at least one ‘Admin’ writer) hold different opinions to me on the matter, opinions that seem to me to be effectively ‘settled’.
The arguments against the position I hold have been :
1. That the case for AGW (and/or the case for catastrophic AGW) is not scientifically settled and that therefore there needs to be a free space for back and forth in the tradition of free and open debate. The claim that there is scientific consensus on AGW generally is unfounded.
2. That the claim that there is a scientific consensus on catastrophic AGW is unfounded.
3. That claimed scientific consensus is irrelevant or at best of secondary importance to evidence.
4. That the documented history of fossil fuel industry funded ‘denial’ or propagated ‘doubt’ is irrelevant or of secondary importance to evidence.
5. That the mainstream corporate/state media and state power favours (unfairly) the case that AGW is a real and increasing threat to civilisation/ humanity/ life on Earth, and excludes the doubters/ critics/ sceptics/ deniers.
6. That anyone who objects to the discussion as presented simply as ‘A versus B, you decide’ is either explicitly or tacitly demanding absolute censorship of anyone who has any questions whatsoever about the veracity of the AGW theory, and that this is anti-democratic/ fascistic.
There are probably others, but those seem to be the main ones. [NB I note that the focus of arguments that I have encountered here are somewhat different from those I read the last time I personally engaged with the issue. Back then there were many claims that the weather patterns on Earth show no signs of abnormality, that the temperature record disproved the AGW hypothesis and such. Now the focus seems to be on contesting that AGW will cause catastrophic warming.]
The article was not about whether AGW is a legitimate theory or not, it was written under the assumption that it is. The article was about a book which sought to document how a propaganda system of powerful vested interests has effectively subverted the debate around the issue. Propaganda is probably the primary concern for writers and readers at OffG.
It bemuses me why people on here seem to think that the story within this book (and documented in many other places) of the ‘denial industry’ can be brushed aside because someone ‘cannot point to definitive evidence that AGW is happening/ will happen. Obvious questions arise, ‘Why did they perpetrate this fraud?’, ‘Why did fossil fuel companies conduct research, conclude AGW was a threat, cover it up, pay billions to seed doubt, if AGW is a baseless theory or a fraud?’.
Why do people here think that (for example) Bellingcat’s, or The White Helmet’s funding stream is of crucial importance to their objectivity, but not that Andrew Watt’s?
So as an obvious starting point, look at DeSmogBlog’s list of associations and funding of prominent critics of AGW (it’s extensive and amply referenced):
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
1. This claim is simply ignorant. If we look at the much-quoted-over-the-years ‘30,000 scientists petition’ against AGW we see that it looks nothing like a serious petition, and indeed it isn’t. Unverifiable and for the most part signed by people with no background in climate (or closely related) science, it is misleading propaganda pure and simple. Conversely there have been several studies of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers on the topic which consistently show a high degree of consensus (unusually high in fact for a pioneering field of science).
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
2. This seems harder to quantify, although surveying the leading academics in the field and their reactions to the recent, much more pessimistic/ cautious statements of the IPCC, we see that there is a general sentiment that the IPCC are being too lax in their estimates of what the scientific consensus says are ‘safe’ pollution levels.
https://www.cicero.oslo.no/en/posts/news/a-journey-from-5c-to-2c
3. Consensus is all we can go with in this instance. We are though talking about the opinions of many thousands of scientists who have worked with and analysed predictive models, all of which are based on real world observations. Scientists- I think it is fair to say, tend to be people of careful and considered opinions, not prone to exaggeration and sensationalism. There is no laboratory test on planetary ecosystems that we can run, in the way that scientists might if testing a new drug or material. Scientific opinion is what we have in this, unless you want to consider divine intervention or some such.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/the-wall-street-journal-vs-the-consensus-of-the-scientific-community/
4. Well of course it is relevant. The mother lode of denialism as I have seen it lies within libertarian capitalist thinking. Libertarians see the issue as some kind of state driven conspiracy against ‘the free market’, perhaps originating in shadowy elites but orchestrated somehow through state funded research institutes (universities). This leads to big questions about the epistemology of science and how it relates to democratic, transparent and accountable structures of power and how it relates to oligarchic, opaque, and private interests. AGW (if true) is a fundamental affront to capitalism. I just read this article (https://monthlyreview.org/2018/07/01/cesspools-sewage-and-social-murder/) about what was really the first ecological challenge of industrial civilisation (sewage), how state and private interests played out, and how Marx pre-empted ecosocialism by over a century.
5. This is simply untrue. Curry (mentioned repeatedly) spoke at length at a recent Congressional panel. Sceptical opinions about AGW have figured prominently in Right-wing publications for decades from the Mail to the Spectator (UK) and frequently on liberal ones (note Radio 4’s frequent hosting of Lawson etc.) If AGW is a conspiracy to usher in global governance then why are so many powerful figures in governments round the world and in the media so determined to pour doubt on the theory? I have not read an attempt at explaining that.
https://www.prwatch.org/search/node/climate%20change%20denial
A comparative list of powerful people supporting AGW and those opposing it might be helpful in quantifying this. As indeed would the comparative amounts of funding.
Someone turned up to claim climate change research receives 2 billion dollars of funding per year, but did not stay to offer a source.
Just read through all the comments from ‘Admin’ under this article.
It is clear (from the recitation of widely debunked denialist tropes) that at least one ‘Admin’ writer/ editor has anti AGW convictions and is somewhat caught in their own reality tunnel.
I would suggest that they do some research (perhaps some of the top science journals on the subject ? http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/st/climate/journals/).
It is not, as suggested, a case of ‘Wattsupwiththat’ versus ‘The Ecologist’, it is a case of ‘Wattsupwiththat’ versus the efforts of the global scientific community.
You sound like Torquemada policing the consciences of the masses Mog. Let’s get a little sense going here.
1. Several people use the “admin” identity. The one who monitors the comments most often is NOT an editor and, FWIW, is not “anti-AGW.” In fact none of us could be defined that way.
2. If they were, though, that would be ok, because we accept people’s right to have differing opinions and still be respected and given a platform.
3. Our comment policy is to keep a level playing field and to point out opinions and facts that may be being overlooked by a particular debate or poster. This tends to make people with polarised views assume we are “against” them.
4. The “global scientific community” is a no true Scotsman argument in that you exclude all those members of that community that don’t concur with your view as being unrepresentative. It’s also an argument from authority and a sophism at the same time.
Our comment policy is to keep a level playing field and to point out opinions and facts that may be being overlooked by a particular debate or poster.
No it is not.
Beyond a certain point this is not the case.
For example, if somebody started posting ‘evidence’ that, say, the victims of child abuse were not as seriously affected as has been claimed, you would shut it down, and rightly so.
There are no truly ‘level playing fields’, we all have biases and limits.
‘Admin’ has intervened repeatedly to question the factual assertions of AGW posters and in defence of deniers/ skeptics, falling behind a false shield of ‘where is the evidence that CO2 causes climate destabilisation?’. As BigB so eloquently points out the only ultimate proof will be when Earth dies or survives. Is that an ethical standpoint for you to take then?
Point 4 has been refuted repeatedly and there are numerous studies cited here to show that consensus is high (around 97%). If you have something with which to refute that refutation then link to it why don’t you?
You demand eveidential back up for the assertions, they are provided, then you just ignore them.
I am starting to take this website less and less seriously.
‘Victimism’ is a very pernicious way of thinking where minds take joy in seeking and confirming guilt in others as a power source for our personal or social credentials, while presenting as sympathetic, caring or concerned.
The appeal to a ‘higher authority’ invokes ‘key opinion leaders’, ‘experts’ or ‘peer reviewed studies’ – but if these fail – then what was running all along comes to the fore – the appeal to guilt.
Oh for sure, Man’s inhumanity to Man knows no bounds. But the USE of the suffering of others for personal or political gain whilst confirming them in victimhood as if an act of caring – is very much within the spectrum of Man’s inhumanity to Man and NOT above or outside it.
Deceits are not only in the mind of global elitists, power cartels and politicians or anyone else seeking to get us to buy (into) anything, but in our own thought.
The attempt to point the finger only away from self at the designated scapegoats or pharmakoi, is like selling toxic debt – so as to exchange an actual liability for as tradable asset.
I see the ‘carbon’ guilt trip as at root a ‘religious’ archetype framed in scientism.
Environmentalism as a psuedo-religion is a framework of thought in which – if we are not vigilant – we use the despoiling of the Earth as a basis to gain personal and political power in place of a loving embrace of the Living Earth as integral to our being. Demonising the blamed is giving it power of a negative charge by which to seem positive.
One view of human progress or development is of generating ever more subtle forms of self-evasion under the seeming escape, overcoming or erasing of self-dissonance assigned external causes.
A true intimacy of being – with the natural of the world or the natural of each other and ourselves is a quality of being that does not go forth and multiply a sense of lack, scarcity and competition of the attempt to dominate and take possession or control.
The expressions OF wholeness are unique and richly diverse. the unprecedented crime of self-replacement on the throne of God, is a self-conviction in guilt from which there is no escape because it cannot happen! The belief that it can be done and has been done leaves only ‘who will pay the price’ – and in this is the diversion of penalty away from self to projected guilt in the other.
I recognize the term ‘God’ is become a devalued term by common abuse but the belief in a sense of sin against Life invokes the same hate that invoked and incites the ‘Holy War’ or the ‘Inquisition’.
This is very easy to access amidst the hatred given power in this world. And hatred must seek and find a target or else be overwhelmed or undermined. This is where the opportunity for growth is. Finding willingness for relational being when triggered by our denials. It doesn’t have the glamour of ‘saving the world’ but it has the true reward of inheriting a true appreciation – from which to live.
Catte, what do you make of the fact that there is not a single comment made by a non-pro-AGWer in the comments section on this article that stands up to scrutiny and that most non-pro-AGWers simply drop out of argument. Antonym is still going but they weren’t able to respond to the quashing of their 125,000-years-ago-Greenland-was-warmer nonsense and their latest nonsense is on the Michael Mann hockey stick.
It is a FACT that not a single comment made by a non-pro-AGWer (or anything they link to) stands up to scrutiny. Do you see any significance?
The non-pro-AGWers’ comments have really diverted discussion from the topic of the book whose primary subject is the crime of propagandising against the climate science and against climate action, not whether dangerous man-made climate change is happening for which there is much too much evidence for the subject to be one of debate and it is sad that we still have to waste our time on it.
In your opinion…..
It’s not opinion, antonym. You had no response to my response to your 125,000-years-ago-Greenland warming nonsense, did you? No response. Antonym, you are a trotter-out of skeptic bunk. What single, simple FACT do you have that contradicts man-made climate change. Just give one.
The Eemian warming was nonsense? Present temperatures and sea levels are only high if you narrow your view to the last 200 years – the game that the Alarmists are playing.
You are starting to sound more and more fanatic by the way….
I’m not saying the warming itself is nonsense, what I’m saying is that the cause of it in no way casts doubt on the cause of today’s warming, which is human pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Please tell me the cause of the warming and how it casts doubt on the cause now.
The cause of present warming? The same as any temperature fluctuations, natural variation.
Why do you think “global temperature” should be nonfluctuating? Is “it” controlled by some computer system? Or by Gaia?
Not the cause of present warming, the cause of Eemian warming and what relation it bears to the cause of current warming.
What is your source that there is no current warming and that what is happening is merely natural variation?
May we just intercede to say – well done to Antonym and flaxgirl for discussing some data rather than listing all the reasons the data doesn’t need to be discussed as others have tended to do.
So ClimateAudit have debunked Skeptical Science’s debunking of their debunking of the hockey stick or they’ve just debunked the hockey stick? In other words, does Skeptical Science have the last word or does ClimateAudit?
Where did I write there is no present warming? There is, since the LIA but it comes from natural variation, as the LIA itself.
My beef is with catastrophic man made global warming caused by our CO2 emissions.
The source you often cite – Skeptical Science actually offers a lot of opinion, or data-interpretation, which you elect to believe and then present here as fact.
I don’t claim you’re necessarily wrong of course, I’m just making a distinction clear. Opinion is exactly what everyone is presenting here.
Can you give me an instance?
Exactly the hockey stick pages of Sceptical Science that you linked have been thoroughly refuted at Climate Audit which I linked. It takes a few hours to study all though.
I hold it simply obvious that the climate has changed a lot through time and that there are all sorts of records that may not be perfect or exact but there have been much warmer climes and flora and fauna in places that are now tundra.
And yes there have been catastrophic events – more than conventionally accepted and in the past referred to in the age we call mythical because we simply cannot decipher it OR the artefacts that remain.
Hence there is no reason at all in arguing that climate does not change. But whether our corporate plunder and consumption-guilt is calling down or significantly adding or subtracting to such cyclic change and these forecasts of armageddon any more than any other time we have assigned adversity and change to ‘something wrong with us’ that must be purged and appeasements made – is another issue. Disaster capitalism uses chaos as the opportunity to get into positions of control relative to everyone else’s unsettling and confusion. Major financial crashes are not only by design, but operate a consolidation of power.
In the face of what is already here we have a range of choices. But if what is here is replaced with the fear of what might be coming, we can deny ourselves a range of choices and be dictated by the framing of the feared scenario.
Thus calm is needed to come into a true relational presence from which a more consciously aligned action proceeds.
However, the rollout of the global guidelines from which national laws will be implemented and enforced is not waiting on anyone’s permission.
Binra, climate scientists know better than any of us how the climate has changed in the past. They know it much better than you and I and most other people. And they use the knowledge of how climate has changed in the past to analyse what’s going on now. Please, please never never use the argument of “climate’s always changed” – as if climate scientists don’t know that and, indeed, very much depend on that knowledge to analyse the present.
Important question here seem to be.
1. How do climate scientists measure past changes?
2. How accurate is the measurement?
3. What’s different about this fluctuation than previous ones that makes it a) definitely manmade and b) worrying.
OffG is not claiming these things aren’t true, just encouraging some baseline data rather than vague claims like ‘climate scientists know’. I’m sure they do but it’s good to be clear WHAT they know and how.
For goodness’ all this information is published on the internet widely.
I missed this comment before and have published another more pertinent comment since.
The article I linked to about the Big Oil court case says it all.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial
Chevron’s lawyer says:
“From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change …”
And obviously the big oil companies KNEW the facts about man-made climate change just as tobacco companies knew about the health effects of smoking. And they are arguing the same line – it’s the customer’s fault, not ours.
If you can identify where exactly debate on the subject exists, please do. Otherwise, I think we can say categorically “there is no debate”. If there were, Big Oil would certainly be brandishing that in the courtroom but they’re not.
You say so – but I disagree entirely!
Can everything you say be summarised as ‘this is what I have been told and I believe it’?
The idea that any science is settled is ‘mainstream science’.
Narratives driving or derived from scientific endeavour are subject to all of the bias or indeed corruptions of any human endeavour. Why would truth win over power?
‘Standing on the shoulders of giants’ could be the perpetuation of giant mistakes.
Accepted and applied scientific narrative underpins the social and political ideas of its day and its findings are allowed, funded or suppressed according to what is officially adopted or endorsed by human motivations.
Political agenda works the manipulation of public opinion as the ‘science’ of social engineering. Or indeed the ‘dark arts’.
All climate data are not on the Internet! Climate scientists get away with publishing articles without showing data; they don’t want others to find other conclusions from it. Ice core specialist Lonny Thompson is a frequent perp in this, as are some major tree ring specialists like Briffa who did the same https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/#comment-783918
You are your own already sealed ‘argument’ and there is no communication with you.
Absolutely anything said can be smeared, debunked, ignored, ridiculed or assigned virtriol – and is.
So in the framing of your invitation to come into your parlour – its already fully engaged. No room for anything else to come in. So of course you assert your ‘narrative dominance’ and I for one give that no allegiance.
the very nature of denying critical voices with such terms as criminal denialism is itself a denial of a free flow of information in public, in science in politics and in the Media. But this is not encouraged or in fact permitted. And as with other similar thought-control – it isn’t worthy of ‘arguing or debating’ in its own framing as “Unprecedented Crime’.
“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
~ Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
BTW I see this quote as a cue to discern ANY kind of induced and enforced ‘correctness’ as well as noting that any (group) identity seeks self reinforcement and defends against ‘threats’ in terms that might call it supporting beliefs into question.
I am always open to communication, Binra, if I feel the other person is serious in their argument and not continually spouting nonsense.
There are very simple facts. One of them is that we are now up to 356 comments on this article and not a single one of those 356 comments has said anything to contradict the theory of man-made climate change happening now. Not a single one. If you have one, please let me know what it is. I’ve asked a number of times but no one has responded except antonym and they just pull out unsubstantiated claims such as “natural fluctuations” and warm periods in the past whose cause bear no relation to the current situation.
I like to take facts by the horns so to speak. When a fact is a fact I like it to be acknowledged as such and not somehow diminished or tried to be pushed away as not being a solid fact with weak arguments.
An admin comment is
“Skeptical Science actually offers a lot of opinion, or data-interpretation, which you elect to believe and then present here as fact.”
I asked the admin for an instance of this but there was no response.
Skeptical Science analyses the so-called skeptic arguments using studies and other science. It is not based on opinion but on science, however, the comment shows that the person who made it simply has a problem with accepting man-made climate change as a simple fact and tries to get around it with assertions that simply aren’t true and have not been backed up with an example.
Eyes wide shut….
Spouting nonsense can be a mutual experience, each of the other.
Communication breakdown runs where conditions are dictated as to what must be said or done in order to qualify as valid.
You you can have your self-belief in simple facts and perceive others as spouting nonsense.
The factors that altogether hold climatic conditions for Earth are so vast – that your assertion of human cause strikes me as the epitome of human arrogance. Which I extend to us all collectively and not at you in particular. The example replicates the way the human mind uses ‘attack and victim’ to justify its power as God’s replacement – andI am not invoking the separate ‘God’ of human thinking, but of Singular Fact of a Living and Creating Universe – or which we may seem to be separately in rather than integrally of, and have developed an extremely complex consciousness by which to experience the world of our own self-reinforcement in judgements – as a simple self evident narrative identity.
Predicting the future based on trends and cycles, can indeed stand in a place that seems to tell the weather what it is going to be rather than make a predictive forecast of current trends and currently recognised and estimated variables under current ‘laws’ pertaining to currently held models that support and are cultural developments of a current consensus as the the Emperor’s New Clothes.
Positioning so as to assert a place of control from the believed or anticipated change or by interpretation given to the identified trend, Foxy Foxy can induce Chicken Licken to infect the others farmyard animals with fear’s contagion – and under the ruse of guiding to Owlsy Wowsy wisdom, lead away from it as the progressive agenda of predating upon the masses.
Now there is a basis for the crucial importance of our right relations through our thought and actions, for while you cannont MAKE the truth different than it is, you CAN believe you have done so – and the guilt of this supports your faith in the power to persist in doing so, and of the setting of that same power against you by others – and by all vectors or agencies of a now FEARED truth. Because what is denied is given the power OF fear BY the vert belief it need BE denied.
It would be a miracle indeed to find communication with those who have remade communication int a weapon by which to self-protectively DISRUPT it.
But a miracle is a witness to the true communication already and always running beneath the ‘official narrative continuity’ of selected facets held as sacred, and kept apart or held over the whole. Without the movement of truth through us, would be NO possibility of the undoing of our own self-illusion.
Fig leaf thinking covers our self-lack as effectively as a child’s covering their eyes hides them from being seen. The simple fact is that we do not know – and accepting that rather than ‘fronting’ a sense of power, would truly open to That Which Does Know. Opening to truth is a an active willingness. Human substitution is an active wilfulness. Bringing the mind Home (Reintegrative understanding) cannot be the persistence of the mind OF a segregative intent in splitting of and seeking power over, and protection from.
There are all kinds of ways in which such an arrogance and ignorance is negatively affecting our thought, and through our actions from our thinking, negatively affecting our biosphere. The guilted fearing inducement to fixate on carbon dioxide as a metaphor for guilt by which to then control the ‘destructive evil’is a form of magic by which to protect the evils that are thereby kept hidden.
The WANTING of something to be asserted and held true in place of true, is a delay.
But when a destructive system operates only further destruction under crusades against ever shifting ‘evils’, the experience of living under such a dictate becomes only more degraded and insuffereable – calling of course for more guilt and the need for more sacrifice of true to magical solutions that cannot work but they can delay the recognition and alignment in what works.
There are elements in the checking back of industrial activity that are called for and elements of what may seem like austerity that are called for – but from a qualitative cultural understanding and acceptance.
An elitism by definition works an insider view in relation to the perceived (judged) outsiders. The Outsider view knows at some level the Emperor is naked but has been long conditioned to learn to comply and conform and suppress the simple truth because it will only get you in trouble.
The use of talents for private ends at expense of the needs of others and of the whole is the withholding of those talents from serving the needs of others and recognition of embrace within wholeness.
There is no moral guilting or magical manipulations to a real relationship, but there does have to be the willingness to notice and to own what is already running, that blocks, filters and distorts our perception of the other – or of the Living Earth. The mind of guilt IS the mind of projecting what we hate instead of what we appreciate, as if to get rid of or suppress and deny self-conflct by dumping it ‘outside’.
(Fred Flintstone’s cat comes to mind here. What you deny, will deny you).
Live the day well.
Hey Brian,
I just found my favorite sledgehammer.
I don’t think you’re looking at this straight.
When did you last see an anti-global warming article in the Guardian? The Indy? The NYT? The WaPo?
You know the BBC has instructed its journalists to no longer give airtime to “deniers”, right?
This isn’t to say that manmade climate change isn’t real but we can’t just ignore it is backed by a lot of powerful voices, especially those most connected with the Deep State – Soros, the Graun, the WaPo, the BBC.
Do we just ignore this aspect? It has to be acknowledged and discussed. The idea manmade global warming is a fringe thing like 9/11 is just not true!
Jesus it’s hard to even say that on THIS site! People jump on you and call you evil! If you post anything questioning AGW on the Graun your comment gets taken down.
These things are just facts.
When did you last see an anti-global warming article in the Guardian? The Indy? The NYT? The WaPo?
To be honest, it was two days ago, and was linked from this discussion thread. [It made the case against consensus].
However, that is not the point, as I see it. Just because liberal news outlets have a clear agenda aligned with established power doesn’t mean that everything they publish is complete bullcrap. The Guardian (even today) still publishes articles that, superficially ‘challenge’ the system (for example, they recently worked on the spycops controversy). This is their business model – to create a facade of authentitcity so as to attract educated readers.
I am not defending the overall editorial position of the Guardian (or any other liberal news org) as they are beyond redemption and indefensibly corrupt. I take the position of Edwards and Cromwell at Medialens who critique the de-emphasis of Guardian climate coverage, by claiming that it is delegitimised when accompanied by adverts for flights and cars, and by making the point that the importance of the issue strikes at the fundamental contradiction of a media system embedded in corporate power.
Action on climate change may be ‘backed’ by power interests (as well as opposed), but what does that actually mean? The response of state capitalism has been mainly hot air and little action. It has essentially been business as usual for the past three decades since the issue first became mainstream. Some powerful people like to present themselves as ‘progressive’ or ‘green’, which we all know is a front, because to be genuinely, progressively green would mean to unpick the capitalist system of Earth destruction and redistribute wealth and power, and they ain’t going to do that. It’s called ‘greenwash’ and has been documented by writers in the anti-corporate green movement since at least the 90s.
6. All I would want to see on a website such as this (one where ‘facts are sacred’) is the debate presented with reference to empirical facts. There is a consensus, there is a coherent theory (CO2 heats up under infra red, CO2 levels are historically extreme, we produce much CO2, there is correlation in earth records of CO2 and temperature, the Earth has heated rapidly in the industrial era – none of that is seriously contested), there is a documented cover up by vested interests, there is declining coverage of the issue in the MSM. The notion of ‘fair footing to both sides in all debates’ is a conceit. Nobody does that, no matter how noble it may sound to our own ears. The only person to speak honestly here has been Mulga with his/her invective. This is the great killing. The climate will kill most of us being born today, and the rich will survive, perhaps acting seriously on the issue only when their own survival is perceived to be threatened. The ‘fascism’ is, and will be, the West’s abandonment of the poor in the global South who will be first in line and first to revolt against this anti-life system. Most sceptics/deniers here I just read as being duped. The editors I am disappointed in.
I applaud your effort to be analytical. Can I add though that we need to consider the separate factors of this separately. It’s not a question of simply believing or not believing in anthropogenic climate change. It genuinely i more complex and we cant just dismiss that complexity without becoming simplistic and therefore pointless.
Manmade climate change is a different concept than catastrophic manmade. They aren’t the same entity, and it’s not a Big Oil plot to point this out.
I am one of those who think manmade climate change is probably real. BUT I do not accept the ides it will be catastrophic as very likely.
Why?
Because the CO2 theory of warming is robust and plausible, but the positive feedback theory of runaway warmingisn’t, and without that any manmade warming would be small and possibly even counteracted by other climate forcers such as solar activity.
The first thing any rational discussion of the subject needs to do is separate out the different elements which tend to be condensed by lay people and the always stupid press into a single issue. They are very much not a single issue.
Have you got a link to some peer reviewed research (or lay person’s summary of such research) which supports your opinion on feedback mechanisms and the unlikelihood of catastrophic ‘run away’ climate change?
Its increasingly hard to find any new peer reviewed studies that question climate change, because, as with scientific analyses that question the official story of 9/11, it’s almost impossible to get them accepted for publication.
Does this not, of itself, ring alarm bells for you? It sure does for me.
“(CO2 heats up under infra red, CO2 levels are historically extreme, we produce much CO2, there is correlation in earth records of CO2 and temperature, the Earth has heated rapidly in the industrial era – none of that is seriously contested)”
A similarly coherent argument can be made — and has been made — on the basis of confirmed empirical evidence for variations in the flux of cosmic rays impinging upon the earth’s atmosphere: a correlation in earth records between a low incidence of cosmic rays and global warming trends is an established observational ‘fact.’ The work of Henrik Svensmark (and of others associated with his efforts) has established this ‘fact.’
Furthermore, not only do variations in this flux accord nicely with the warming that the Earth has apparently undergone in the industrial era, it also accounts for past warming and cooling trends, of things like the comings and goings of past ice ages, something that industrial era emissions of CO2 can’t possibly explain.
In your opinion, then, assuming that you are open to accepting “established facts,” what is the most likely explanation for ‘climate change’ on earth: something to do with variations in the incidence of cosmic rays, with an explanatory range that potentially spans eons, but that also correlates with variations measurable in weeks or months? Or industrial era emissions of CO2 that just happen to also coincide with a period in which the intensity of cosmic rays would indicate a warming trend– assuming, of course, that the age old established correlation between the prevalence of cosmic rays and climate trends continues to hold?
My money is on Svensmark and the ‘fact’ that variations in cosmic ray flux correlate closely with warming and cooling trends, be it over periods of months or many thousands of years.
I do not understand the point of that database of “deniers”. It comes out of the same stable as Propornot and that dreadful list of “Assad apologists” the WaPo featured (I believe OffG is on both?). It’s not good.
Haters and censors make such lists. I prefer to debate people and opinions rather than corral them. I don’t agree with most of the people on that list but I don’t want to see them shamed or punished for their views. Do you?
I don’t think it does come ‘from the same stable’ as propornot etc.
The Syria War deceptions and fake fake news scandals have been orchestrated by the deep state. Such conspiracies of deception ultimately rely upon secrecy structures which implement clandestine plans. Plans which involve the mass destruction of human life for profit and power.
The list of climate sceptics mentioned is drawn by genuinely concerned citizens, fighting back against powerful interests who have invested a lot of money to subverte the debate. This tactic has also relied upon non-disclosure or selctive disclosure of interests. Those interests also, don’t give a fig about the preservation of life (human or other).
It is the other way round. DeSmogBlog is on the same side in the ‘big picture’ as sites like OffG (which makes the tenor of debate here bizarre to me).
The problem is Admin, there is plenty of hot air opinion adding to AGW, and no real research …unless you can link to anyone who can mount a serious challenge to the current paradigm.
Judith Curry seems to be the denialists heroine: so I spent an hour last night surveying her ‘research’. I could not sleep afterwards.
I read several of her articles, including a paper she gave to the Rand Corporation – that well known humanist progressive outfit with no ties to the military whatsoever. Quite frankly, I was appalled. Her Uncertainty Monster approach is anti-science and heretical. She, and her knuckle dragging redneck acolytes KNOW the science is sound. They DO NOT DENY global warming, or even a modicum of anthropogenic forcing. She is prepared to allow for 3 degrees of warming. She certainly does not deny the basic principle, that (all things being equal) adding CO2 will warm the climate. Her/their game is then to obfuscate science (all things not being equal) into “we don’t know” what the effects will be – so we should do NOTHING, on account of the ECONOMY (climate mitigation will adversely affect the price of carbon: so her six nieces won’t be able to get a job).
This is exactly the tortured logic I find amoral and anti-human. The Uncertainty Monster (let alone the heretical and consciously created Uncertainty Monster) is the best reason we have to act – not to carry on burning carbon and hope against hope. That is unconscionable and indefensible. The current climate is already an extinction level event for the many: so the few can have their carbon future, and burn it now. Monstrous, monstrous, monstrous…
In one interview, she even addressed the ‘only one planet – no room to experiment’ argument I and others espouse by saying that China and India will keep burning carbon – so we should too.
I should not have to point out that her opinion has already been given WAY too much validity. This has resulted in Trump’s anti-humanist ecocidal climate-fascist dictatorship – having empowered the Repugnicants during a series of Congressional Hearings in the Obama era. She is their go-to woman when they want to justify the ecocide of the Unborn to burn coal now.
Is this the research you are referring to? I hope not, because ‘research’ of that quality will get us all killed. It already is. Why are you giving an air of validity to this anti-humanist heresy?
All in all, the word ‘denialist’ seems overly gentle to me now. So do ‘traitor’ and ‘heretic’. This is the future of life on earth we are talking about. So forgive me if I appear overly emotional.
[BTW: one of your regular commenters hangs out there, making comments about HAARP heating the ionosphere. Is this the kind of audience you want to empower? Because you do have the power to frame people’s opinions. Giving credence to denialism, like it has any real validity, seems a poor choice to me.]
So, you’re opposed to censorship, you just think we shouldn’t allow one side a platform? And the difference is?
As I state, I oppose censorship of any sort, however, it is rather galling that the book is about the crime of climate change denial and there’s all these people commenting who don’t even recognise climate change denial let alone that it is a serious crime and are of the misguided view that it is those who claim man-made climate change is a serious problem who are the criminals! And they cannot follow through with their argument. They drop out because it’s shown to be faulty. That’s intellectual dishonesty. If they have no argument to continue with they should admit that their line of thought is in some way defective. I made a point about non-pro-AGWers dropping out of argument, PSJ responded, and now seems to have dropped out him/herself! I rest my case. No censorship but the point can surely be made that anti-AGWers simply do not have legitimate argument, demonstrated so very clearly by the fact that they drop out when the defects in their argument are pointed out.
When you say it’s a “serious crime” I take it you are being colloquial and not actually suggesting people should be prosecuted or imprisoned for “denying” climate change? Because that is rather at variance with “opposing censorship”
Colloquial? Have you read the title of the book – do you know what it’s about? Those in power and who lobby power who are stopping action on climate change should be prosecuted, yes!
And it will be very interesting to see the outcome of this case, assuming it is ever allowed to proceed.
The suit, Juliana v. US, also known as the children’s climate lawsuit, was first filed in 2015 and now includes 21 plaintiffs between the ages of 11 and 22, including Sophie Kivlehan, 20, the granddaughter of the famed climate scientist James Hansen. The case argues that the US government undertook policies that contributed to climate change, thereby causing irreparable harm to young people and denying them a safe climate. As relief, they want the government to pursue policies to keep warming in check.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/10/23/18010582/childrens-climate-lawsuit-supreme-court
You want it to be made illegal to question manmade climate change?
How exactly does that square with your claim to be anti-censorship?
Whats the difference between your holy cause and anyone else’s holy cause?
Should jihad be waged by every polarity upon its one shadow denials?
Binra, As I’ve said before I’m just a prosaic, logical thinker. I know it’s a deficiency in my psychology because it’s simply a fact of life that others clearly do not reason as I do (even my identical twin reasons very, very differently) but I find it so frustrating that such ultimately simple facts can be debated endlessly, eg, man-made climate change and 9/11 being an inside conspiracy. And now with my recent realisation that death and injury were staged on that day I have a new jihad – persuading truthers of same. It seems that most other truthers are quite attached to the idea that the evil, rogue elements within the US government killed and injured all the people on the day. Although I believed it myself for a whole four years of study now that I’ve awoken to what, to me, is the most significant lie of 9/11 apart from the basic one of it being an inside conspiracy (the amount of propaganda that has gone into promoting that lie is one indicator of its significance), it seems so obvious that, of course, that wouldn’t be the evil rogue elements’ MO at all. It was so easy to fake, the consequences of doing it for real would have been highly problematic not to mention that the power elite absolutely love hoaxing us so, of course, they wouldn’t have done it for real and the evidence clearly shows it … but nobody wants to know. No one responds to my emails to agree or disagree, I am simply ignored – completely ignored. It’s quite disheartening.
So perhaps you’re right, binra. Perhaps I should give up my holy causes because it doesn’t seem to get me anywhere at all and the way I do it certainly wins me no friends and manages to lose the ones I have. But I probably won’t just the same.
Your freedom to explore your perspectives and learn all the while is always with you and there is no one can say what you should or should not think, say or do – though of course we all have feedback of both circumstance – but most importantly how we interpret our circumstance.
If you want to attract free alignment with your views, do you not also have to recognize others in their own way and from their own experience and background are doing the same.
I personally rest content with giving true witness from where I stand and don’t take on the form of the outcome as an effect – because the witness is the effect.
Trying to force relationship is not the same as bringing ourselves fully to them.
Beneath the attempts to ‘get people on board’ or shame them for not doing so or attack or vilify them for holding alternate perspectives, is a passionate sense of urgent necessity. I can feel this is so and I don’t share it, and nor would I object to your voicing it as an owned position. But as a moral certainty of a right to summarily judge and dismiss any other view I do object.
I find it no different to any other invitation to join in hate or fear with the assumption that not sharing it will align me with the hateful.
Is the scientific community suffering an induced hysteria? At least in the framing of a directed focus.
Autistic kids have served to open a lot of discovery about gut dysbiosis and the role of the gut biome in brain function, immune function, gut wall protection, dietary deficiencies and inflammations, and the role of toxic assaults, acute and chronic. Not least because mother love refused to be walled out and silenced by a canopy of experts.
If the trend of such developmental impairments continues at the same rate, there will be no thinkable future because half the population will be in need of being cared for. Is that alarmism or simply a genuine cause for alarm? But it is one of very many other vectors of breakdown, paralysis or a splitting off of the few who abandon the very many?
A greener Planet with a bit more CO2 may be a better climate than a worse. But I sense a homeostasis operates via a whole range of alternative pathways – just as with the body. I also honour a Living Earth in a Living Universe.
I do not hold the model – any model – as the reality itself. And see the transformation of the current model as a sort of ‘end of the world’ drama. Humans have long fought over the ‘true model’ because all else follows from who we accept our self and therefore world, to be.
The role of science in integrity is to seek for a model that is most aligned with verifiable fact under controls to guard against subjective distortions of private agenda.But there is also the function of a model of significance for who we are and what our place is and what our function is.
I sense that whatever explanations we invoke for our changing times, we will all be obliged to adapt in ways that we do not expect as old ways of thinking no longer operate because the ground has shifted and we cannot go back to what used to seem real. So of course one response is to ‘try harder’ or become desperate as a way of maintaining a concentration or focus. I feel it is helpful to become more consciously focused in a positive sense of purpose and therefore I warn against allowing unconscious fears to run un noticed.
I read that during the Black Death, many believed the End was nigh and so crops were not tended or functions broke down such that a large part of the susceptibility to contagion was hysteria, dissociated psychosis and malnutrition and unsanitary conditions. the susceptibility for people to become hysterical, unstable and defenceless against fear’s contagion and every kind of magical appeal to escape it – is no different in C21. But there are those – who may not even yet know they are of such – who wake up in time of need to hold a grounded focus and serve the needs of the situation. Fear seems to be a lever to power, but I feel it is a portal through which we remember who we are and open a new perspective from there. These are two ways; segregating into a fear driven struggle of powers or reintegrating to a Life that fear hid or forgot – and no there is no way to cast that discovery in terms of a mind of forgetting or to ‘prove’ it to anyone. Fear distorts perception so as to see its cause out there and seek to attack the cause.
I feel we need fresh Vision, not rebranding of the same old ‘story’ – but that is the ‘unknown’ into which our greatest fears are all projected. This is the Creative Process. But we need be vigilant NOT to let fear create our reality if we truly desire to embrace Life on Earth rather than lose identity to a disembodied alien mindset of define, predict and control.
Why participate in a non debate?
Come in to be trashed and vilified?
I do not share your framework of belief. Nor your judgement of me for my freedom to align in what I hold true – which doesn’t deny yours – but does deny your right to tell me what to think or presumption to deny others who don’t support your belief.
Neither do I share in your trust of fronting organisations given ‘authority’ as global ‘guiding’ directives for setting policy that operates politics by stealth, or ‘social engineering’ and mind control.
Insofar as I recognize actual threats – across a broad spectrum of dominance – to the Life that we both are and share, I wouldn’t adopt the postures or join in the behaviours that are characteristic of the ‘speech and actions’ that I see as a ‘denialist’ agenda. I use the word to refer to the shutting down of communication, not the refusal to conform and comply to a dictate supported by personal attack.
Words can be set to mean almost anything, according to their framing context. Playing on the Holocaust as a power source is typical of victim-driven politics – excepting the ‘billions of dead’ are a computer simulation – or rather – an exaggerated narrative developed from computer simulations.
If OG becomes a hangout for denialism as I experience it then it joins the mainstream media
I do not attack the persons of those who believe other people’s beliefs must be denied, but I disassociate from supporting their activities. I stand in the freedom to speak and be heard. When there is clear intent to undermine, subvert or deny a communication, then allowing such behaviours social acceptance is choosing to lose our own voice to manipulative deceits. Ah but in a good cause the ‘noble’ lie serves better than reasoning.
At least if you kill the patient you can stand in obedience to the standard of care as officially mandated by the regulatory bodies to which governments are hostage. Else to whom was Tessa Jowell’s pleading?
Rockefeller medicine – as a legally protected racket set the stage for the capture of scientific establishments and their regulation. Good intentions appeal to the attempt to hide or offset a sense of guilt or fear of evil. Fear and guilt agenda capitalise upon increasing the ‘account’ of fear and guilt as their power source. Guilt and fear already underpin or frame the currencies of our exchange – which applies to thought as well as money.
If I thought a genuine ‘back to nature’ communitarian conviviality were intended then I would participate in better way to promote it. But Gore and Gates etc have ‘smart cities’ for dumb users. A sort of hi-tech concentration camp, slave labour, human processing system.
It takes guts to stand for one’s convictions amidst a top-down directed persecution because one cant just lean on the power of the certainties that official authorities prioritise, incentivise and fund or support.
Water as fuel?
Hydrogen and oxygen.
What’s good enough for NASA should be good enough for all.
I don’t know that they openly use it – but I have read their need to find it on other planets as a source of fuel in one of their own missives – and no I don’t recall the link it was a dumb-user scientism report on perhaps asteroids, moons or planets.
Plasma-vortex energy as fuel? NASA have openly supported using a drive that the official model doesn’t ‘explain’.
It isn’t about energy needs EXCEPT as it is about energy control and dependency. It isn’t about information technology EXCEPT as it is about information control and dependency.
It isn’t about feeding the World EXCEPT as it is about food pruding control and dependency.
There is a pattern here.
Recognising a pattern is the awakening consciousness of CHOICE.
Until such a moment, the framing of all choices serves ‘Rome’.
Admin: I am opposed to censorship, and I am opposed to non-empirical opinion: particularly when concerning the continuation of life on earth. There is a massive difference. For the record: I never even mentioned censorship. Whoever I was talking to yesterday made this statement:
““Denialism” basically negates an entire swathe of opinion and research.”
I asked for empiricism. What research? Perhaps you could link to the new paradigm that better fits the data? Asking someone to back up a claim is not censorship, is it? The two are not even remotely similar.
I’m sure everyone wants life on earth to continue. There’s just a measure of disagreement about whether manmade global warming constitutes a threat to that. Regarding evidence.
There’s a multitude of evidence, the trouble is there’s also a multitude of interpretations of what it means. Some claim the Antarctic is losing ice, some claim it’s gaining ice. Some claim solar activity is not involved in current warming, some claim it is a major player. Some claim C02 is a major player, some claim it isn’t. Some claim there’s been no warming for fifteen years, some claim there has but we can’t detect it. Etc etc.
Some say the people on one side are entirely correct and the people on the other side are all liars and fools. We see no reason to believe this of either side and like to keep the discussion open and without the manipulative use of emotionally charged and accusatory language.
Some say the Skripal’s were poisoned with Novichok, some say they weren’t. Some say the Russians did it, some say they didn’t. Some say Putin was directly responsible, some say he wasn’t.There’s a multitude of evidence, the trouble is there’s also a multitude of interpretations of what it means.
Is that your argument? Empiricism, reason, and pragmatism can settle the issue as soon as you want to get off the fence. It’s not like it’s a matter of life or death, is it?
The “argument” OffG stands by is freedom of opinion and expression, and the corollary that, before we decide people need to be prosecuted or silenced or denounced for their beliefs, we need to be damn sure we’re 100% correct and not just being gigantic hubristic pricks.
I’m sure most of our readers agree.
You’re predicating everything you say on the belief there is a large amount of data that conclusively proves catastrophic manmade climate change. You may well be correct. I’m a one-time Green party member, as I have often said before. My own prejudice inclines me to believe we need to act on climate change, just as we need to do something about the plastic problem and the destruction of the ecosystem by intensive farming.
But, unlike the other two things, climate is incredibly complex. I’ve read enough about it to know I don’t know much about it at all. I’m dependent on “experts” to decode the science.
Is this science settled? Or is there massive doubt? Well qualified people hold both these opinions and al shades in between. If we decide to ignore Group A and listen to Group B, what are we doing that’s more discerning than picking a team to support?
I’ve been watching the discussion here on this, and frankly it’s been disappointing. I’ve seen the “evidence” invoked by dozens of people of various opinions, over and over again, I’ve seen the word used as a stick to beat people into submission or retreat, but I have never, or rarely, actually seen the evidence produced. It’s been an absent guest at this function. A thing referred to but never invited in.
What actually IS the evidence BigB? I haven’t read a book about climate change in ten years and I’m damned if I remember very much of the detail. Do you? Am I informed enough to make a proclamation about it? Are you? Or are we just exchanging hardened prejudices forged from our predispositions and on whether we prefer Watts Up With That or the Ecologist.
I want to say to everyone here (this bit isn’t addressed to you actually BigB as you’ve been much more moderate than most) – how about y’all stop screaming at each other about how right you are and how crazy the other one is, and how there’s SO MUCH evidence and blah blah blah – and tell us what the damn evidence that convinced you so profoundly actually is . I want to see it. I want to hear it discussed. I don’t want to watch a bunch of hysterical people kicking each other to death while screaming about “evil” and “omnicides” and “eco-fascists” and all the other nonsense we’ve been seeing
My questions are – why do we decide to weight some opinions more than others? Based on what criteria? How can we tell if we’re being informed or propagandised from either side? What, in actual real terms, can we do?
These are questions I would like answered, and I doubt I’m alone.
I’d like OffG to be a place where people can discuss some of this stuff, not just another echo chamber for one polarised view or another, busy screaming at or silencing all the heretics for the saving of their souls.
That’s why we have the comment and editorial policy we do on this.
Sorry, this is long and all directed at you. But I’ve been intending to say something for a while.
I’m afraid, Catte, that “the “argument” OffG stands by is freedom of opinion and expression” has just been shown to suffer by the Admin who falsely accused me of being abusive (I was critical, not abusive) and used this false accusation to silence me by telling me not to reply. It is ironic that the Admin kept questioning me about my credentials as an opposer of censorship and yet engaged in this activity him/herself. I find this extremely disappointing.
I also find it disappointing that the Admin keeps engaging in logical fallacy as shown below.
1. you asked for an opinion on a law suit not on climate change, and that is what you were given.
This implies it was illegitimate of me to bring climate change into my response. There was a reason for that. The fact that the admin, most bizarrely to me, thinks that the law case is a psyop is an indication (in addition to others) that they do not comprehend the seriousness of man-made climate change.
2. don’t try to seed abusive arguments with the admin staff who have enough to do.
There is nothing abusive in what I’m saying. I’m just pointing out that the admin shows a serious lack of knowledge of climate change in their comments and suggest they learn more.
3. you admit to having no understanding of the science of global warming so it ill behooves you to insult others on that account
I admit to no such thing. I admit I am certainly very far from expert and I’m not a scientist but I state quite clearly that I think I know enough to know that man-made climate change is happening and that we need to take action on it. And I think my comments show this.
4. we are not claiming manmade global warming doesn’t exist, nor have we made ANY claims on that account, so at least save the calvinistic abuse for those that genuinely disagree with you. The level of intolerance being shown is frankly disgusting.
Pull yourself together, stop being abusive, stop trying to seed arguments.
Intolerance? Where is my intolerance? While the admin may not make any claims that manmade global warming does not exist they pull out facts, such as sea ice levels in Antarctica, suggesting that perhaps there is some legitimacy (“to be fair”) in the non-pro-AGWers’ argument) when this is a very well-known cherry-picked fact in the climate change argument. I am just pointing it out.
What arguments am I trying to seed here? The arguments are seeded already.
There are two sides to this debate. We try to be fair to both. Don’t disrespect that effort or this site.
But if we judge by the vast number of comments on this review, there aren’t two sides because any non-pro-AGWer has not been able to sustain their argument against the other side. If you can find a sustained argument from a non-pro-AGWer please let me know what it is. The non-pro-AGWers give their opinion and then drop out when the going gets tough. I’m not saying they are not entitled to an opinion. They are not in power, controlling action on climate change – so, of course, they are entitled to their opinion.
But I am saying the evidence shows from their inability to sustain their argument that there is not, in fact, two sides to the debate. There is opinion and there is fact and the fact is on the side of the serious problem of man-made climate change and the crimes by the powers-that-be of climate-change denial and inaction on climate change.
Catte, it’s really straightforward. The vast majority of arguments presented by non-pro-AGWers focus on anomalies that seemingly suggest that the earth isn’t warming (eg, sea ice level rise in Antarctica – but when you look at Antarctica in total it’s a different picture) or that there is evidence from the past that CO2 doesn’t force warming as claimed (eg, the Ordivician – but there was sun dimming) or that there are other forcers (eg, because Greenland was warmer with no high level of CO2 – but there was earth wobble so irrelevant). They simply do not look at the evidence in the correct context and ignore the relevant facts that show so very, very clearly that pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes global warming and climate change.
As I’ve already stated, if you trawl through the comments you will simply not find a single non-pro-AGW argument that is sustained against argument from the other side. If you find one, let me know.
Any time you get an non-pro-AGW argument stick it into the skepticalscience.com search and you will be richly rewarded with a thorough debunking.
Climate change is not a “polarised” argument. Man-made climate change is very, very real and it presents a grave threat to civilisation. It is already affecting humans and other species negatively. I don’t know why the baulking at the use of the word “catastrophic”. Already in Australia we have added an extra fire danger level – catastrophic. Catastrophes of one kind or another have happened throughout history, some avoidable, some not, and they will continue to happen. Unacted-on man-made climate change will be one of them.
The crime of climate change denial using lots of propaganda as discussed by mog in his comments and also, of course, in Elizabeth’s book is also very, very real and needs to be acted on.
There is absolutely no good reason, economic (in fact, acting on climate change is better for the economy) or otherwise, that we should not be taking radical action on climate change.
There has been warming (more in the Northern hemisphere) because we came out of the Little Ice Age, a low point in the last 1000 years. Looking at longer trends these are still natural variations. Under melting Siberian permafrost various animal bodies come up now; this shows that it has also been warmer in the past.
What is your point, Antonym? Climate scientists know that there has been warming in the past, and that there are, of course, natural variations. What is your evidence that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not warming the planet now and causing climate change?
In normal Science if you hypothesize something (anthropogenic CO2 causes this warming), you have to prove it.
Science has shown that warmer (Eemain) and colder (Ice Age) periods have occurred geologically recently without CO2 forcing.
Yes, there was some other forcer, no? Some other forcer or some other reason that is not relevant now. The fact of coldness or hotness at other times in history means absolutely zero in terms of current man-made climate change without an explanation for why they happened.
Climate scientists do not say that CO2 is the only climate forcer. Of course, they don’t. Can’t you see that you have no argument. You just pull facts out as though they mean something when they don’t.
I’ll quote again from climate scientist Dana Royer:
“If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: “the geologic record contains a treasure trove of ‘alternative Earths’ that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings.”Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.”
I thought globalism Inc geopolitical computer simulations had settled this.
Russia and Europe HAVE to be prevented from closer alliance.
Russia HAS to be isolated and undermined.
Europe has to also be destabilised as a means to a globalist rescue.
The science is settled, there IS no debate!
Any convenient Lie is better than an inconvenient truth.
You can read a doublespeak assertion truly by reading it inversely.
Skripal:
Now I personally don’t know the details of what actually happened, let alone what is reported to have happened – but its is not obscure what the assertions are used to back up or ‘justify’.
There may be all sorts of insider info. All ‘sides’ involved might hang out together. The whole thing could be a ‘scripted’ destiny in which we are all helplessly enacting – whether knowingly or under delusions.
But the WAY of it does not witness to an integrity of report, or account or response.
Nor to my view does the AGW social engineering meme.
There IS no freedom of thought without genuinely challenge to ‘asserted consensus reality dictate’.
And I expect a defence of Russia in terms of the WAY the forces set against it are ranged.
I have found and hold it it impossible to persuade anyone of anything they are not already open to accept. The intent to do so also undermines my own relationships as a conditionality that divides and runs a framework of coercion – usually in ‘subtle’ or coarse insinuations of unworthiness – ie judgments.
Coercion doesn’t seek to demonstrate a range and nature of choices from which to make an informed decision, but ‘makes you an offer you cant refuse’. Pay up, or the Earth gets it – or if your prefer ‘billions die’.
I suspect billions will in any case die. Not just because death is the release of the body when it time is done.
But because a multi-vector attack by stealth works death by choice as eugenics by toxic consumption, exposure and impoverishment. The primary nature of the attack is deceit. Under a false framing we then do unto ourselves and our fellow beings.
Of course there are two sides involved; the deceivers and those who are open to being deceived.
It takes two to tango. But recognizing we have been deceived is the opportunity for an enlightenment. Many think or say they want to be ‘enlightened’ but not if it uncovers such self exposure.
Could terror and rage operate as the ‘demons’ around the Treasure – along with seductions of personal escape or gratification?
And then maybe we can also understand why there is such a deep-seated resistance to a deeper honesty in those who have the will and means to cover over, deny and evade – because it is not only the ‘leaders’ who do it – but it is their decisions that have a much greater effect on others. Are they decisions or is it all determined for the ‘stability’ of order over chaos?
Do they in fact embody a mass consciousness regardless of our surface perceptions?Is there a mass unconscious denial working through our belief we are free in a sense of defiance and opposition?
Every one wants life on Earth to continue one would think so, but some dark greens would prefer to reduce the population of Homo Sapiens to reduce drastically and fast , just to give other species a fair and equal space. The rich 1% wants that reduction too but just to have more for themselves (ego balloons unlimited), not for other animals.
In my lifetime and as a shadow of the ‘Green’ influence has grown the meme of humans as a virus on the Planet. I call it a meme because I regard it as by design, or at least cultivated and developed from the more general sense of an unworthiness, deserving of denial, pain and death – and certainly not deserving of love.
‘If God is love – then my existence proves God’s non existence’ – could be the conviction of a guilt and hate-distorted sense of self. When it comes to love, a little knowledge is a total knowledge. Its very nature spontaneously shares itself – given willing acceptance and releasing inhibition of expression.
The impulse to murder or punish is of course suppressed to a large degree but its core intent is the blanking and invalidating of a true humanity in ourselves and therefore in others. Of course it works the same the other way round; for as we see others is ALWAYS part of who we thereby become – and so dehumanise ourselves under a belief we are right or justified in hate.
So the modern variant is of self-hating humans plaguing the Earth but of course few if any of those who feel this way remove themselves – but rather, deny themselves and others in ‘atonement and mitigation of sin’ – while demanding the same sacrifice of others and vilifying those who persist in what they see as an anti-life agenda in which they claim the moral high ground as the right to both judge hateful in others and call down penalty – with a growing support of political machinations that tune in to the emotional charge for the opportunity to use it as a power source.
Human virus is promoted along with Malthusian population doom, and combined in the Duke of Edinburgh’s comment on coming out of hospital, “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – which incidentally I watched him say on mainstream tv – but in ducking the quote I notice it is ‘debunked’ online.
Self-hate is guilt and is destructive to life. It is the anti-life ‘agenda’ not the projected shadow self.
(Though of course any situation of a breakdown of communication is a call to correct it).
No one in the body’s mind is altogether free of self-hate and “I hate myself and want to die” (~ Kurt Cobain) is a pain that many depressed people live with as a daily sufferance and indeed kill themselves to escape or perhaps to overcome their clinging to life as defiance of it.
For most of us our guilts and hates are kept lidded over, diverted from, evaded, but leak out in dilution or specific triggered reactions in which we are literally taken over or possessed by convictions of reality that completely override relational awareness.
Some understanding of this is essential in my opinion to reading and responding to human behaviours from a consciously guided perspective including of course our own.
Blame culture operates to deny the bringing of THAT we hate, fear of judge ourselves to a FREE awareness. And so any invitation to join IN hating works the anti-life principle of refusing or fearing to look at our self.
I hold that there are simple errors in thought that multiplied to become a sickening morass of inescapable and irrevocable effects or consequences. But the attempt to correct thought by force and coercion is my understanding of the exact nature of the ERROR itself and not a true correction at all.
And so who would ‘save’ their self shall lose it, while who willingly releases such a self in a greater willingness for wholeness of being shall be found anew in what was not lost, so much as covered over.
Simply realigning in life and persisting because it IS a true desire and not a fear driven agenda of conflicting interests, is opening the way to steps that are lived as witnessing to Life and growing what naturally embodies – because it is who we are, rather than something we ‘should be’.
In any emergency, there is an urgent need to relax and bring ourselves fully present.
The Cartesian basis for empirical science as a dictate or ‘jealous god’ is that of a subjection of consciousness to a reductionism of life overseen by elites and trained ‘thinkers’.
It easy to hide behind the trojan of scientism because too many have too much invested in it to seriously challenge it – and the few who have the integrity and guts to hold for truth at cost of withdrawal of funding, loss or reputation and curtailing of career are smeared by groupthink that is no less homophobic than any other appeal to join in hate.
The ‘prophets’ that may later be accepted, recognized and canonised generally have to first be demonized and cast out. History is current.
False flags or falsely assigned causes are not ONLY past events but challenging them is a present danger. If a doctor kills with the official standard of care there is no enquiry, accounting or consideration of error or fault to be addressed. The official standard of care is perhaps the leading cause of death in US/UK (if its contributions to heart disease and cancer were uncovered) But in any case as third official cause of death it says something about a top down human ‘concern’ and the ‘science’ behind it.
Medicine isn’t run afaik on computer modelling – but it has moved from clinically acquired relational experience to a technician reading tests for ‘levels’ that then indicate prescription of drugs that very often have financial inducements or mandatory compliances attached.
Doctoring for the masses will follow Uber in replacing its meatware with AI.
Don’t look up – but there is a broad spectrum threat to human freedom of thought, association and endeavour – I call Life. Why don’t peope wake up?
Because they ‘woke’ into a false and managed ‘dream’ of waking up!
What is the basis for such a claim?
Because it runs the exact same patterns of guilted fear and control – as an identity manipulation.
Fears and evils have to be faced to be detached from our trigger finger. But no one can be forced to face what they are unready – no matter how much anyone wants to ‘help’ them.
We can create the conditions for learning. Blame (of assigned and projected guilt and penalty) utterly denies learning.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair
This of course runs deeper than money. A false sense of self has all the defences available to the true – while you run it. And like a cancer tumour of a split off sense of growth will reroute your functions to feed and protect IT at your expense. A false sense of self is a split off sense of self. Life IS in you but unrecognised – because a re-triggered narrative dictate frames in threat and the need to armour up and destroy.
Is it not a similar pattern for cancer as for War on Climate change? Nocebo shock diagnosis pushing for immediate action.
I would welcome a freedom to regain a working relationship with the land, with a mixed economy that removes the Life denying canopy to allow micro-cultural diversity of genuine cultural endeavour instead of forced growths drawn from blood sacrifice. I don’t know that abiotic oil and gas is ‘blood’ as such because I hold water more in that function, but I am no fan of using even ‘limitless’ fuels that pollute – and whose ‘by products’ poison us. But to divert this toxic negligence (at best) to carbon dioxide as THE critical factor of all the vapours and gases associated with the theory of the greenhouse effect – is ju jitsu – in which all the momentum of the opponent is used against them.
Once a means to power has been accomplished THROUGH the will of the people, the people soon find themselves locked out.
The proclivity to be deceived is the belief one can both see and attack deceit in the other.
But this is all globally decided long ago, its infrastructure laid down and its rollout aided by its apparent obstructions. Including the cultivation of zealotry. One way of the other, all ways lead to Rome – in the framework of the worship of power over Life. Only looking on an insanity as nothing else, can release it to an acceptance of its undoing. War on CO2 or War on Climate Change or War on ‘denialism’ is all doublespeak.
Medical Science – not based on computer modelling – but often based on narratives that are unfounded and approaches that suppress health and manage sickness:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” ` Marcia Angell, MD,
Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent. Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
I am more willing to listen to those who risk much to hold to hold to views the established momentum seeks to suppress or deny. But I am able to bracket what is not fully clarified to take all facets into account – which are outside the framework of problem-defined reaction.
I want polluters prosecuted and made accountable under law in proportionate terms that MAKES it their economic necessity to clean up or shut down. But I don’t include CO2 as a toxin though indeed there is a relational or proportionate range for human and other life to live within as with everything else. While there is no safe level of mercury – even if directly injected as your flu jab – let alone in industrial contaminants.
If only people like Flaxgirl read your: Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent. Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
I’m not in charge of the timing or where and when attention alights in recognition of true.
But I recognize that what I need to know may come to me from where I do not expect – or from those I may have discarded or judged against.
The protection of ‘public trust’ by the hiding of institutional corruption is of course the way to lose trust and become ever more trapped in an inability for disclosure and thus addressing the real need. Escaping disclosure of a true account can use ingenious devices to change all the goalposts while everyone is saving the world.
The opposition to ‘climatechangism’ does not deny climate change or environmental aggression, as the history of the Earth is the history of its climate and of human interaction with it, that is, the change of its climate (Panta rhei). ‘Climatechangism’ or the ideology build around an exaggerated and absurd deformation of climate change and its deliberate confusion of scientific concepts, is a doctrine of the same nature and closely related to the one that proclaims nations as rich or poor (when there is only ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ people in every nation) and constitutes another weapon of moral and ecological blackmail in the arsenal of the exploiters against the working populations of the West, the only ones that could comply with the ‘ecological agreements’ imposed by its oligarchies. Its aim is the softening of the will to resist globalisation by Western workers and the justification of the deindustrialisation of the West and, so, the destruction of its Working Class, as well as the acceptance of environmental aggression and merciless destruction in the Third World, where the delocalised ‘factories’ of unfair competition are located. ‘Climatechangism’ is the ‘friendly’ but empty fireworks of brutal global exploitation.
Until 4 years ago when I watched JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM& and woke up, I used to call people “conspiracy theorists” of which I’m now ashamed. However, two people in particular I thought of as conspiracy theorists, my identical twin and a friend, I still think of as conspiracy theorists, even if our beliefs about a number of conspiracies coincide, because they simply tend to believe that anything said by authorities is a lie whereas I always judge by the evidence. In terms of bombings, mass shootings, vehicle rampages, police bashing of disabled pensioner, stalker-killing, you name it – I’ll call “staged event!” but ONLY because of the evidence which includes very helpful clues from the global power elite who are responsible (the power elite have this “moral” belief that if they give us clues through discrepancy between show and tell, ridiculousness, things that don’t add up, contradictions, etc, the responsibility is on us to call them out and – if we don’t – the fault’s on us and they are spared karmic repercussions.)
There are a number of alleged conspiracies I don’t believe and the one I find the most difficult to understand is that of man-made climate change. To my mind, governments are doing virtually nothing about climate change. They just give lipservice to it and they’re in bed with the fossil fuel lobby. The revolving door between Australian politicians and the Minerals Council and similar organisations moves so fast it makes your head spin. Generally, our ministers for energy, environment and resources are so utterly moronic and pro-fossil fuels it makes you despair. Of course, it’s not just from a climate change point of view but from a devastation of a health and environment in general point of view.
There is no man-made climate change conspiracy! The conspiracy is the fossil fuel lobby. How can it not be clearer that all the very rich people are invested in fossil fuels and they’re pushing to keep them going as long as possible?
Broad lukewarmer position. The earth is warming. CO2 is a probable cause. The established trend rate of warming is around 1.3C per century. On current trend line sea level is rise at around 30-40cm a century – a house brick every 30 years. Broadly speaking there is minimal harm at this rate of change and adaption is possible. For example, compare 2018 to early 1900s given there has been 1.2C worth of warming in that period. The earth’s temperature waxes and wanes and we deal with it (eg disappearance of Dogger Bank) – and weather has never been purely benign – and, yes, there is evidence of faster change in the ice core records even in recent periods.
The current outcome of a warmer world with more CO2, is increased precipitation and a greening planet, though this could just be a short term effect.
So why the big scare? Global warming is presented as a major issue because of claims of extremely high levels of warming (at its worst to 3-5C by 2100), and very large sea level change 1.2-5m by 2100. These extreme positions are far larger than the current historic trend lines, and can only be generated through computer modelling and more extreme ‘assumptions’ of feedback effects.
So far the models of every decade have exceeded the actual trend – so 80s-90s when the scare started the model was 4C per century, the modelled value declined to 3C per century in 90s-00s, and to 2C in the 00s-10s – still above the historic trend line. The poor performance of the modelling, and the historical stability of the climate, suggests that negative feedbacks on climate change are underestimated, while positive feedbacks might be overestimated.
It is then quite possible for 97% to believe the earth has warmed (historic), but still dispute the likely risk for the future projection (care needs to be taken with claims like ‘97%’ as what was measured is not usually how the datapoint is used – it is over-extended to mis-applied to morph the actual datapoint into something it didn’t say).
Knowing world history, how much trust would you have had in a projection trying to describe the world in 100 years’ time? With a timescale of that length and the relative poor modelling performance wouldn’t you expect much more debate as to what is or could be happening. So the tendency of the climate science community to also be advocates (and the need for grant money), combined with the silencing of critics, plus a tendency to play to the more extreme ends of the modelling outputs and should keep observers at least a little skeptical.
However, if global warming is a problem, then the fast (and only gridscale) solution is nuclear power. Renewables have to be deployed in such large numbers, and lack crucial pieces of technology, like storage, that they are a real gamble within the claimed timescales. Renewables are megawatt units in a multi gigawatt world. In particular storage is a major major issue, with hidden environmental impacts from mining for materials to drive batteries (lithium) and generators (eg rare earth minerals), or large scale dam construction for hydrostorage.
So we will know we have a serious problem with climate change when environmentalists come out for massive investment in nuclear fission to replace fossil fuel and call for the reversal of the German closure of nuclear plants (about the single worst climate-change decision ever taken).
But we’re not saying in the 10s-20s, 1C are we? No we’re not doing that at all. In fact, we’re going very much the other way. As time goes on, warming takes effect and the climate is better understood, projections are becoming more accurate.
I’m so disappointed at the number of anti-AGW (or effectively anti-AGW) comments on this review. The book is about the crime of climate change denial and yet so many people still don’t get it.
The crime of climate change denial is why we’re not implementing renewables as we need to. There is absolutely no reason at all that we cannot decarbonise by implementing renewables. It is only the crime of climate change denial (pushed by those invested in fossil fuels) that is stopping us.
From 2002-2011, South Australia had a forward-thinking premier, Mike Rann, who consulted Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, Steven Schneider, and environmentalist Herbert Girardet from Wales among others in implementing a more sustainable future. South Australia is way, way, way ahead of all the other states (except Tasmania) in implementation of renewables. And it would seem to be mainly because SA had a forward-thinking premier, while the state I live in, NSW, is so massively influenced by the coal lobby and fossil fuel lobbyists in general. Not that SA doesn’t have problems too – but then it hasn’t had Mike Rann as premier for a number of years now.
http://australianleadership.blogspot.com/2017/07/mike-rann-on-south-australian-energy.html
Some don’t agree that the claims of inevitable catastrophe are proven. Some don’t accept that AGW is a major issue or even a reality. Are you suggesting we censor them?
I am completely opposed to censorship of any kind. Where in my comment do you find anything of that nature? What I love about OffG is that you don’t censor below the line. That is truly wondeful.
Admin: some think the world is no more than 10,000 years old, and was created in seven days. Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial: some are still mounting legal challenges to teaching evolution v creationism. Appeals to a mythical ‘some’ – that can argue anything they want – is surely an appeal to logical fallacy?
The proof of a future inevitable catastrophe can only be that future inevitable catastrophe. Appeals to wait and see, for the real world data confirmation, well…
With AGW: we clearly have a case of indeterminancy – not either/or. Choices have consequences. Surely anyone can see that the conscious choice not to act has unconscionable consequences? The intelligent and ethical choice is to act: whether that be based on pragmatism, not fact.
Those who are fear based, that fear AGW is an elite plot to ensnare us: seem to fail to recognise that we are ensnared in an inverse totalitarian corporatocracy right now. The intelligent response is to use AGW as part of an array of inputs to change the output of the current capitalist world system: which is dehumanisation, death and destruction. One of the logical consequences of system change would be the egalitarian transversalisation and equal sharing of resources …which necessitates the redundancy of apex capitalist predators. Let’s get rid of them, before they get rid of us?
A common thread that emerges from these debates is that the deniers are also vehement apologists for the current system. The current system is already evolutionarily redundant. All ‘progress’ we have made in the last decade has been through piratical credit and finance imperialism. This masks the fact that the productive economy is moribund: and will remain that way. There is a strong case, from science and empiricism, to be made that can ‘prove’ this.
Only, nothing can ‘prove’ anything. The only real fact is the event: real AGW, real financial collapse, real mass extinction, real civilisational crisis and potential collapse. The argument is not therefore from fact. Fact is too late. The argument is from balance of probabilities, logical indeterminancy, causal consequence, efficacy, and pragmatism.
I did ask the deniers to put forth a positive vision: not just negative criticism. We need alternative scenarios: not purely critical negation. Pure negation is fear based and change averse. Negation favours stasis and inaction.
The problem I foresee with this is that denialism has a default fallback position of magical realist thinking. Does anyone really believe the ecosystem can afford a petty-bourgeois crypto-capitalist lifestyle for 7bn people? Or just a shrinking minority of humanity. Those who believe that they can have their technochratic cake and eat it now, externalising the majority of humanity, and foreclosing the future for the Unborn …well, is that thought even human?
We need to end capitalism for humanities sake, now. AGW, intelligently and evolutionarily used, is an issue that can necessitate that change. Not changing is an unconscionable and unjustifiable option.
AGW is not something we can afford to take a chance with. Not least because some might say.
What about the Externalised? What about the Unborn? What might they say?
Denialism itself is their censorship.
Let the denialists speak: but let them address the ethical consequences of denialism. If they can put forth a paradigm of equality and a future for all: then fine. But global carbon capitalism cannot fulfil that sustained vision …so don’t we have to change anyway?
Then what is the argument about?
And shall we agree to avoid loaded language like “denialist”? It’s not quite “heretic” or “traitor” – but it’s up there.
No. Not when you allow someone who uses a variant of the word free rein to call any “anti-progress” ideological comments “eco-fascist” and “Nazi”. Heretic and traitor work fine too!
Denialism seems quite neutral in comparison? This page is full of negatives, anyone can deny. At least I have tried to put forward an alternative POV. By Denialism I mean the purely negatives and name calling, which I have tried to show is a practico-inert status quo policy. In the meta-analysis, there is no praxis in inertia. We have to act in unity. Those negational crypto-capitalists who are inured of the status quo …well, does it matter what they say?
I’ve been listening to them all my life, banging on about technological progress. All I can see is the death and destruction in the wake of that POV. So if I’m an eco-fascist for wanting egality, biotic emancipation, a future, and human harmony …denialism seems a pretty mild retort to me.
Perhaps, at the very least, I could suggest no negation without affirmation? Let’s have a proper debate about the future …because I can see where our current “progress” leads. If anyone seriously thinks the current state of the world and its prognosis is anything other than the best ecocide a Man can buy …denialist is the least of the words I have for them.
It wasn’t a directive, just a suggestion. We do try to police the ad hom, but it’s difficult to keep up when we don’t have a dedicated comment mod (if anyone wants to volunteer for that job let us know!). Maybe it’s just me but “eco-fascist” is a bit more specific, though not all that polite or constructive. “Denialism” basically negates an entire swathe of opinion and research.
But you DO the very thing you say you hate!
I deny the framing in fear and guilt all this is wrapped in as anything I need or want to invite into my consciousness.
The true element is a destructive agenda – its association with the energy cartel is apt – Corbett has good documentary overview of Big Oil as a vector of a callous and destructive and deceitful global dominance – but it is at root an energy control racket – and is no less active in gaining control of every human need. That’s the ‘devil’s job’; to come between the need and the fulfilment of the need – so as to gratify a private fantasy over the denial of true.
And so this APPARENT ‘discussion’ is really a trap because there is no intent for a discussion – and thus you are right there is no debate and the science is dead under dogma. You clearly are free to do this and I am free to disassociate from it and I do deny it as valid communication – BUT I remain open to you. And I remain open to the truths that the deceit weaves into its complex instrument by which to hide its toxic debt.
Demonising and invalidating of others (of or aspects of yourself) is a false and destructive use of denial because in doing so you assign a negative charge and limit your consciousness by mapping out part of the full spectrum significance. IE what is denied is still present and active but pushed to ‘unconsciousness’ BY denying it light.
Hateful as I feel this, I have to accept that is is part of our current human predicament – but i can acknowledge it as a choice under a specific set of accepted reality definitions and indeed YOUR current choice without denying you or your freedom to recognize the nature of your choice as being dictated BY the shadow of your denial – for this is the very nature of minds in denial and the human conditioning in general.
We are driven BY our fears and hates to disown, control, and eradicate them. Or rather we have attempted that as a way to escape, suppress or mitigate their effects.
All of this FEEDS the ‘power’ of shadow governance, compartmentalised thinking, personal power struggle, fantasy substitution and powerlessness driven to enact ever more ‘evils’ under claim of moral necessity that carries a personal vendetta and self (fantasy) vindication.
All the ‘cartesian’ back story is unnecessary to a simple willingness to love truth and truly love. What does that mean but to abide with what is – in the willingness to recognize what is true here – and in that recognition – it extends automatically to what you did not see before and who you misperceived before as a result of judgement that were unconscious but are now brought to light and brought home to be exchanged or if you will, redeemed.
My sense of human progress is of our disintegrating ability to HIDE the lie by which we seem to survive as ‘separate’ or independent powers unto ourselves. We are In Life and Of Life – and can recognize and be aligned thereby or we use grievance and threat to assert a private identity of self-specialness denied its due or deprived it need. The more power you really have, the less need to shout. But that is because power is the balancing of alignment in truth and not the manipulation of truth to serve a fear and hate (and guilt) justified agenda.
Shock tactics for the demolition of the weak and divided. It doesn’t matter if the story is proved false once its payload has been used to shift the law. It can become a convenient lie. As someone here already said ‘it doesn’t matter if its true, if it serves to bring down the Oil and coal industry’. Possession as they say, is nine tenths of the law and the dispossessed or denied – have a hard time finding a voice or a forum in which to speak and be heard.
I don’t seek special rights for minorities but equal rights for all under a law seeking balance within wholeness rather than the recycling of vengeance. Good v evil is the mind that ‘Falls’ for the baited lure. False v True is not a battle because truth does not support or join in a condition that excludes it by definition. So… change our definitions or suffer them to frame us in false ‘choices’.
Which 9/11 conspiracy believer would like to be called a denialist? Anybody else?
Are you not bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted admin?
If you really want to moderate to protect a culture of mutual respect, you might simply prompt sooner to rephrase or restate a point without using ad-hom smear and insinuation. This would be a challenge to those whose denial of another’s right to a view isn’t total because they would have to tune into their meaning rather than boilerplate phrasing.
Since I was a small child I learned that people presented false kindness to get something from me or get me to take a shape that isn’t me. This was not a scientific study in human behaviours, published and peer presented but the dissonance of a presented communication that was needy, manipulative or coercive. I didn’t have articulation then – but it did not elicit a free or loving response. There was something wrong or out of true. Back off, hide or mask over. Coercion is ‘for your own good!’ – well no. It isn’t. Its some kind of fear that makes people strange. They have elsewhere minds with eyes that don’t see.
The study of the psyop or intentional manipulative deceit, is something worthy of giving focus – without having to be drawn into the framing or baited hook of the psyop. One cannot uncover a deceit that one is baited into reaction by.
You have critical awareness of fake media with regard to political narratives, why would this not also be needed for ‘scientific’ narratives?
I see denial working a mind-capture of the the accuser OF ‘denier’ to others as projecting its own unrecognised mindset. Unless introspection defaults automatically to projection – in which case there is no conscious awareness of having looked within.
This is the same set of fingerprints as US power, or indeed the Israeli tail that wags the dog – who are so immune to introspection as to be able to successfully deny anything and protest themselves the victim. The exceptionalism of double standards claims morally justified right to attack – in the claim of defence backed up by victimhood that must NOT be challenged or even openly discussed – and so those who do, are all brushed with ‘denier’ with no exceptions – and are equated with the intent to genocide.
Joylessness is a direct result of aligning in a death culture for there is no humanity in it – for all its rules and rights and tickboxes of ‘care’. Once the bit is taken, those who are taken in become a one way street of no intent to communicate but only to dictate – viz – ‘There IS no debate’ and ‘the science is settled’ (sic) and ‘scientific consensus’ – which equates to the official narrative – at least in terms of the current regime.
The polarisation of the mind in conflict that blocks its own function is perhaps at the root of human evils and My sense is that our forebears were conditioned by a catastrophic past in which fear became the dominant overriding ‘centralist’ and top-down mind and society. The God-king and its priesthoods recorded and ritually re-enacted the imprints of the ‘abuser’ in the context of deliverance and supplications and sacrifices against reoccurrence.
The pattern of the development of this consciousness seems to be progressive, and perhaps in ways we don’t expect – it is. But the same archetypal patterns repeat in ever more sophisticated forms. Science as it ‘settled’ to become, operates its own priesthoods and rites, dogma and sacrifice – but all under the trick of having banished or ruled our or denied the ignorant and evil superstitions of our forbears – as if we only stand on the shoulders of a few who are canonised and set in an unchanging firmament under which to worship/research.
It isn’t that I hold science to be an invalid tool, but it is currently purposed by the intent to define, predict and control – as a private top-down agenda, and that is NOT the desire and willingness of uncovering the Already true to a shared significance of a tangible Good.
In a mad world of addicts, breaking from the addiction can become an experience of isolation or persecution, because it weakens the social invisibility of the habit and thus is easily felt as threatening to the established order which believes itself fighting against madness or fighting against the suppression of freedom.
To truly free ourselves of an ignorance we have to stop using the past as a dump for the current ignorance.
Ignorance has to come home to roost instead of a progressive mask for a conservative possession.
GDP includes a vast amount of negative and destructive expenditure. A negative economy ‘too big to fail’.
Its a fall set of markers.
Medicine is rife with false sets of markers. You don’t need to get sick, now, you just fit into the moving goalpoasts.
Psychiatry invents syndromes to medicate more of the population (under the lie that it corrects an imbalance while actually generating one) that in turn attracts an escalating diagnosis and medication that many cannot get off or take years of supported discipline to free themselves or simply reduce. Psychiatry is an extremely insidious vector of state mandate and the pseudo-scientific/pseudo religious branding of others as ‘delusional and dangerous’ will likely be used as a justification of ‘medical’ manacles – if not already in the 200+ vaccines in the pipeline (also associated with state mandate).
The ‘risk averse’ of a false protectionism is the undercurrent thinking to all the ‘interventions’ that actually harm, kill and poison. It also works the sealed unit of a society where learning is no longer required. Smart tech = dumb user. Corporate controlled supply lines= infantile suckling consumer.
The opportunism rides upon the thinking that can be capitalized.
Fear and guilt generate ever new ways to mask as power, protection and progress – excepting the pattern starts to show and so its fall apart enough to shift to a new game of the same denials working the same split mind. There is a terrible ‘unconscious’ or shadow aspect to the surface mind – that must be kept hidden above all else. And yet it shows itself (leaks out) all the time in horrible ways that are not owned or addressed but are hidden and protected while diversionary tactics work to direct the psychic-emotional energy onto any available or plausible ‘enemy’, scapegoat.
Psychic war is when the mind capture weakens enough for a genuine curiosity to stir, and I feel it is this that activates the defences – which are to bait into division and so put back to ‘sleep’. But growing ‘children’ need to exercise their developing abilities and not be exorcized of them. Chronos eating his own children again…
Well said, BigB.
While the ‘world’
(whatever in fact the world is)
Has a past that goes back to time out of mind
(where else can time come from)
The activation of human consciousness
(as a subjective imaginary modelling of its own predicament)
And its cultural and technological developments
(that burst forth suddenly as city states and god kings around the world in conditions that almost no one now can even begin to understand),
Correlates not just with the Bible, but with the Mythic record of Antiquity – whose consciousness and experience cannot be translated into a filtered and compartmentalised ‘amnesia’.
The more we wrote down, the more we forgot. the more we outsource the more dependent and addicted, to the persistence of the ‘gods’ in archetypal patterns of consciousness.
Who controls the present controls (uses) the past to control the future.
Think you that our History is not also ‘fake news’?
Think you that Institutional ‘science’ is not a denier of threat to its model past, and mandated future?
The symbolic representation of a mind in fixated in its own subjection matrix could be a prison planet under alien agenda. Could alien mean ‘denied and unrecognized self?
Where exactly is imaginary ‘space’ in which our ‘world’ model is experienced?
I have a sense that an Infinite ‘Map’ has a You Are Here sign – but it also has a tuning slider, such that as you change the tuning, the mapping fragments or reintegrates.
But unlike a flat map – it reflects as tangible and visible experience.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Our forebears survived – and despite any legacy of inherited conflicts and denials – we experience and share this world through the ‘archetypes’ that their living gives on.
It is Saturn’s Day morn here. But unlike our ancient forebears we need a telescope to see its rings and would have no conceivable rationale for the naming of the days after the Gods – because they are planets of no great consequence and so are ancestors around the world all suffered synchronous mass hallucinations. Which of course could be another way of describing our ‘world’.
But one can always pull into the fore what one wants to see and push out to long grass what one wants not to address and if want were true desires all indeed would be well. But true desires are whole and so don’t need to push away – but wants are partial – as in a bit on the side. If there is One World Out There, we will never actually find agreement as to exactly what it is – but that is the nature of an Open Creation. Never settled or fixed to a final conclusion for there is always an embracing perspective to any reality you thought your were in.
If one has to justify ones choice by denying another’s, then the other’s role is the support of what otherwise is not trusted to stand – or else why?
Anyone who feels denied will seek to deny their denier. But of course.
A prediction is a forecast or prophecy but not a claim. The claim is that C02 gas from human outputs is tipping the Earth’s climate into a ‘runaway greenhouse effect, that is then predicted to result in apocalyptic negative effects.
The predictions of doom are repeated through decades while the machinery of corporate and national politics and law is rolled out regardless of any process of oversight or accountability. In that sense it is not really about the climate so much as using it as a means to institute a global structure of binding law along with a technological grid over every input and output of the human ‘system’. It also does so through a guilted manipulation of pseudo-religious outrage and zeal in attacking heretics or holocaust-deniers. The pattern is nothing new – but this global technocracy opens the gates of hell or perhaps the key the Gate’s and Gore’s ‘smart cities’.
All of this is effectively planned and rolled out with a relentless discipline and reward system that uses people through what they most want and what they most fear. So that people believe they are freely choosing what they want or freely choosing to defend against feared outcomes. I don’t write to influence your choice so much as illuminate what in fact you are choosing between.
It may be that deniers go to hell – but have a great time in giving hell to each other – as if to get a better status in hell, while those who love Earth inherit a New Earth by virtue of their unwillingness to deny the Good the Beautiful and the True – under any kind of manipulative deceit.
But I simply feel to align in truth as I recognize truth just because it is true – and not as a sense of personal salvation while others drown or get locked up or ‘disappeared’.
Catastrophes come and go. Change is the nature of a born existence. Sacrificing to the god will not hold back the earth Changes, but the wish that it will, given power, can take on a self inflicted penalty when none at all is required.
Just align true in y/our relationships as the foundation for all else. Re-educate. Question everything – especially if it comes from the top down through corporately captured Media and fronting organisations.
Expect accusers to be revealing their own intent in what they aggressively assert and assign to others. Not as a clever self-evasion, but as a recognition of the lack of love in expression.
Narratives are stories. There is an awareness of stories that is not invested in invested outcomes. This gives a perspective from which a ‘new story’ is lived. An awakening and reintegrating story. Those who would know not what they do, want to be ‘someone else’ and dump a hated self on others – and so they are not in their right mind. Nor can they be told anything they are not already willing to know – any more than we can open to what we are unready or unwilling to know. But once we have opened a consciousness, we have the ability to grow willingness by living from it instead of a default mind.
Fear runs a self-fulfilling prophecy – unless the prediction awakens the willingness to own our fear and make another choice. I leave the future Open. The boot of fear is not stamped upon its face. ‘Predictions’ can also operate fearful imaginations given emotional reality, causing physical dysfunction. Seek a true Vision.
Perhaps you should suggest to denialists that they should show their research that proves their point rather than snipe at the information based on scientific evidence compiled for many decades. The great thing about the denialists is that they make statements that are clearly untrue and based on false data put out by the coal lobby. Even denialist governments are telling lies. The Australian government is an example. They no longer claim climate change is fake but instead say we must not make energy prices too high for consumers when the reality is wind power and solar power are less than half the full life cost of coal generation. This does not include the health cost of coal pollution which is significant or take into account the rising cost of insurance because of extreme weather.
I don’t mind if people put their point of view but they need to show the research that proves their point. I am surprised if Off Guardian would be supporting people like the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch who fund most of these denialists. I am also surprised that the increase of massive storms and droughts and firestorms have not become so obvious that more scientific proof is not required to take action on an issue that threatens lives of all species on this planet.The dilemma is that we only have a decade to stop a rise exceeding 2 degrees. I will be dead when the most deadly impacts kick in but for young people, and for the multitude of species that will be made extinct I have grave fears and an anger at those who deliberately set out to prevent remedial action to prevent an existential catastrophe.
It’s interesting though how the non-pro-AGWers drop out of argument, isn’t it? Of course, people may simply just have moved on and aren’t bothered to respond but nevertheless it is interesting to note. I cannot identify one compelling comment against AGW, can you? I might have missed a couple as there are a large number but from my trawl I cannot see any. Perhaps there is information provided in a link that is compelling but I cannot see anything compelling in a comment.
Jim Scott – Ian Macdonald – no response
Lukewarmer – me – no response
Denier – me – dropped out (very prolific with comments though)
MLS – me – dropped out
gepay – Admin – no response to request for $2 billion figure in climate research grants
And as I was going through I just quashed a comment by Antonym. He gave a link to a previous higher-level of warming 125,000 years ago, however, this, as stated in the article was due to the earth’s wobble not levels of CO2, and only affected parts of the earth, so in no way an argument against man-made climate change.
Oops! I referred to Antonym as “he”, perhaps Antonym is not a he.
Speaking purely for myself I tried to discuss the evidence with several people here but didn’t get very far. One person told me he didn’t want to discuss the data, though he didn’t say what he did want to discuss instead. Another called me a lot of names I only partially understood.
From what I saw MLS was posting factually while he was here, as were a couple of “lukewarmer” people.
I absolutely agree we should talk data not insult each other, but that goes both ways! The people who talk about “deniers” don’t want to talk to us because they think we’re evil or something. It’s very bizarre.
I come from a religious background and really, the responses on this topic remind me of the more intolerant and fundamentalist members of that church than of rational people discussing a scientific topic.
MLS argued that there have been vastly greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and we didn’t have runaway climate change. I responded with a quote from skepticalscience showing that when larger amounts of CO2 have occurred in the past the sun was dimmer which allowed the glaciation threshold to be up to 3,000 ppmv.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-basic.htm
So what he said was factual, however, it didn’t account for the important fact of the presence of a dimmer sun and therefore the fact cannot be used as an anti-AGW argument.
I am very happy to discuss any data I’m capable of understanding.
Can I ask you, PSJ, have you run any anti/cast-doubt-on AGW arguments that you believe are supported by the data through the skepticalscience.com search to see what their counter-argument is?
Whatever your impressions about arguments on this site, the fact is, that non-pro-AGW arguers do not respond or drop out when it seems quite clear they cannot present a counter-argument to the one presented.
Thanks for the link flaxgirl. It’s an interesting theory, but where is the data? How robust is it? He’s putting forward an argument, not stating a fact.
But he’s also making the case for other climate forcers we are all encouraged to ignore. If the sun can powerfully offset the effects of C02 then how can we ignore it as a driver of modern climate?
Solar minimums and maximums correlate almost exactly with known fluctuations of earth’s temperature in the past, but the AGW hypothesis completely dismisses any consideration of the sun driving current warming.
Why? Where is the data to support that? I see theory and argument. But no data.
What I see is a very complex scientific subject being simplified and promoted as “settled science”, and very sadly people have been brainwashed into believing anyone who discusses the complexities is evil or genocidal or whatever other ad hominem is current.
This is the antithesis of science and the antithesis of the method of inquiry that has built our civilisation for the last five hundred years.
I would strongly urge you to read the opinions on both sides and not to allow yourself to be driven into self-censorship by peer pressure.
The last paragraph of John Cook’s intermediate article on high levels of CO2 in the past is:
“If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: “the geologic record contains a treasure trove of ‘alternative Earths’ that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings.”Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.”
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
In his article there is a link to a study by climatologist Dana Royer that pieced together 490 proxy records to reconstruct CO2 levels over the last 540 million years. There are also links to other studies that shed light on the subject from different angles.
Where is your data that we are encouraged to ignore other climate forcers? Where is your data showing “solar minimums and maximums correlate almost exactly with known fluctuations of earth’s temperature in the past” and preclude any climate forcing by CO2?
What it seems the deniers are doing themselves is ignoring other climate forcers, eg, sun dimming in the Ordovician. The Basic article says that we know that there was sun dimming because of “established nuclear models of main sequence stars”, however, there is no link to that data. But one has to ask the question: if the climate scientists are saying there was sun dimming during the Ordovician why aren’t the anti-AGWers arguing against this to validate their argument that CO2 is not the climate forcer claimed by the climate scientists? Where is their data that there wasn’t sun dimming?
And just to add: one really has wonder what can explain the very high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere without extreme warming. You do agree that it is a recognised greenhouse gas that operates as such at a very trace level, no?
If the Skeptic chap admits CO2 isn’t the only driver of climate change, does he grasp the nettle of how we can tell the current warming is driven by Co2? Solar activity also follows the patterns of previous warmings and coolings. It’s possible the sun drives warming and the CO2 is a result of the warmer planet. I tend to think CO2 IS a forcer, but when all we have is correlation it’s hard to know. But even expressing a modicum of rational doubt apparently means I should go to jail or be prosecuted according to you and BigB and the frankly insane Mulga
I made a very big error in referring to skepticalscience as John Cook’s site. He started it but it is run by a number of people now and there are a large number of contributors while the work of many, many different people, including, of course, a large number of climate scientists is linked to.
Please cite sources that show that CO2 is not shown to drive current warming.
Who would be so foolish as to engage with a den of communication deniers?
They are not open or listening to anything but their own script.
And if disregarded sufficiently – would have to start talking nervously among themselves…
Why not use flax derived products and packing instead of all this plastic crap?
because poisoning the world is intended.
And the focus will not be on the actual, but where power directs your minds to fixate instead.
I haven’t heard one convincing argument for C02 as the driver of anything but selectively fine tuned computer models.
Sacrifice the people to the model, the system, the ideology, the religion, the idol, the faith that delivers from fear as long as all other thought is denied and yes, there’s nothing like fear to focus the mind in shutting out any doubts.
Science ought to be the attempt to DISPROVE a theory so as to either open the way for a better one or have it stand with the status of fact UNTIL it is unseated by new evidence. Politics of course works the other way around.
There is a choice being made to produce so much waste from petro plastics when it would have been so easy to produce cellulose plant based biodegradable products.
.Binra. As you put it. Sacrifice the people to the model etc. .
It is an interesting observation on the subject of climate change. That people are encouraged to embrace a collective guilt over something they have very little ability to change. Whether man made or a natural phenomena.
Those in the world who really care passionately about the planet being so damaged by climate change and pollution are the ones who embrace this guilt and responsibility the most. .This becomes another form of divide and rule and trauma inflicted onto the people. It also may if one is not careful become almost arrogant elitist and selfish in its manifestation.
The ones who encourage and keep reinforcing this guilt and fear are the ones responsible for the harm and damage, and could choose to stop the destruction of the environment and polluting if they were of a mind to. They could instead create models of sustainable living but don’t because they make gain at the expense of all else. Sustainable models do not feed the crude beast. The beast that pours guilt out onto us from every pore as more and more waste and damage is done. lip service is given but nothing changes. How many more years will go by and how little will really change
All we can ever do is hold our own council and live our lives as truthfully and with as much care, compassion and humanity as we are able.
‘Climatechangism’ is a clear and brutal globalist attack against organised workers in the West and, therefore, of the world, as the West constitutes the most advanced example to follow for the workers of all countries in environmental legislation and protection, as well as in protection and conditions of work and other socialist advances. It is an untenable position to suggest that, the most polluting countries in the world, mainly underdeveloped countries, could continue their dirty activities, that harm, in the first place, their own populations, meanwhile NGO’s and international organisations, hijacked by upper class bureaucrats, demand the relatively less polluting West to disarm, ditch its energy resources and transfer its technology, for free, to tyrannical regimes allowed to pollute to help delocalisation and unfair competition. If people is serious about climate change and pollution, they cannot but oppose and combat globalisation, that is, unfair competition exchanges and mass migration, the main causes of pollution. This, ‘climatechangists’ bigots refuse to do since they know that, the real target of their harebrained theories is not pollution, as they like to maintain, but the remnants of the Working Class of the Western World, its democracy, its technology and its systems of social protection. Western workers should not move a finger to commit suicide, help the globalised system of slavery and pollution and create more ruthless exploiters in the Third World or anywhere else.
My website. Lessons from anti progress ideology (aka ecofascism/Nazism)
http://monbiot.scrapthetrade.com/ecofascism.html
This is what I think of Hansen and his Dark Mountain ecofascist/Nazi pals (and the tilt of this book)
African American Dartmouth College professor Michael K. Dorsey referred to Dark Mountain in the following way in the Guardian comments. Link now broken
“Everyone should stay vigilant and keep their danger sniffers on full alert when the likes of those high on the Dark Mountain and others associated with “deep ecological” tendencies get on about “crises” of “humanity.” Sadly, we have a great deal of evidence now, that such ‘dark’ tendencies have been built upon a legacy of misanthropic meandering, petty eco-fascism and immigrant bashing– souped up in talk of waywardness from the “myth[s] of human centrality”–by the likes of Teddy Goldsmith, the gaggle of old Ecologist sods, inter alia, some of whom helped precipitate the Cornerhouse.
http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/5160452
-Do we know the amount of warming caused by CO2?
Yes, it’s settled science.
-Does it equal the warming predicted by the alarmists?
NO, it doesn’t. A lot less, in fact.
-How come the difference?
The alarmists include ‘feedbacks’ from climate computer models
-Are these feedbacks settled science?
NO, they are not.
-Can a mass deployment of wind turbines and solar panels stop the CO2 increase?
No country has achieved this to date, not even with massive expenditure.
-Will energy storage solve the problems of wind and solar?
NO. The small scale units presently deployed are not representative of a real solution.
-Will battery cars provide clean, green transport?
NO, because they will be recharged from fossil fuels.
-Do firms claiming to run on ‘100% renewable energy’ such as Apple, actually do so?
NO. All this means is that they have bought renewable capacity equal to their usage.
-Are there other ways to replace or reduce fossil fuel usage?
Yes, thorium or fusion, but they receive only a tiny fraction of the funding of wind and solar, and at this rate will take many decades to develop..
-Why is that?
Follow the money. Subsidies lead to corruption.
-Could we replace fossil fuels if we had the will to?
Probably yes, but not the way we’re going. Which is a road to ruin.
Good comment Ian, well argued.
Ian I have critiqued your statements which are mostly incorrect
Do we know the amount of warming caused by CO2? This statement is correct.
Yes, it’s settled science.
–
Does it equal the warming predicted by the alarmists?
Wrong Ian there are thousands of scientists working in many different fields who are making predictions based on their collective information. They are not alarmists but professionals who strive for the utmost accuracy.
Wrong again Ian the linkages between CO2 intensity and warming has again been very accurate here is the chart.
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
NO, it doesn’t. A lot less, in fact.
How come the difference?
The first of these two comments is plain wrong the temperature rise follows a very predictable path as CO2 increases.
the temperature rise is very close to what has been predicted.Remember the temperature we have had is all measured on thermometers as well as other techniques used by satelite technologies. It is as factual as you can get and is done by bureaus of meteorology in many countries around the world from millions of thermometers.. Do you think someone has been tampering with all these thermometers? Difference?There is no difference.
The alarmists include ‘feedbacks’ from climate computer models
-Are these feedbacks settled science?
NO, they are not.
What feedbacks Ian you give no information at all and furthermore there are many different calculations made and the IPCC uses the mean line of all these estimates. Remember they are estimates. the feedbacks that are difficult to predict are the physical feedbacks such as the amount of methane being released as permafrost melts.
-Can a mass deployment of wind turbines and solar panels stop the CO2 increase?
No country has achieved this to date, not even with massive expenditure.
Wrong again Ian it can be done.
It is true that no country has completely changed to renewable clean energy even though it is possible and it is planned by a number of clever countries. The main reasons why not, are that it does take time and money to completely phase out fossil fuel generation and secondly that there has been a lot of lobbying and palm greasing of politicians by the fossil fuel pushers.
The generation companies are now calling for a fast transition to wind and solar because clean energy is also cheaper than fossil fuel.
Finally some countries are coal and oil exporters and do not want to stop making money from royalties.
-Will energy storage solve the problems of wind and solar?
NO. The small scale units presently deployed are not representative of a real solution.
Wrong again Ian very large batteries are already in place and reducing energy costs and there are solar pumping techniques that use gravity to store energy. These have a very large capacity.
-Will battery cars provide clean, green transport?
NO, because they will be recharged from fossil fuels.
Sorry Ian wrong again I currently charge my camper van batteries with solar panels. You probably missed the press coverage that revealed that Europe (EEC) has ruled that all production of petrol and diesel powered vehicles will be phased out in 30 years. Furthermore China is leading the way with solar and wind powered trackless tram systems that are recharged each time they pick up and drop passengers at the tram stops.
-Do firms claiming to run on ‘100% renewable energy’ such as Apple, actually do so?
NO. All this means is that they have bought renewable capacity equal to their usage.
This is a meaningless piece of sophistry Ian because you can’t tell the difference between power from solar, wind turbine or fossil fuel. If Apple buys from renewable sources then it can get cheaper electricity. Why wouldn’t they and why wouldn’t you.
-Are there other ways to replace or reduce fossil fuel usage?
Yes, thorium or fusion, but they receive only a tiny fraction of the funding of wind and solar, and at this rate will take many decades to develop..
Bullshit Ian where are these thorium and fusion generators. They have spent a fortune developing them and yet they can hardly power a light bulb and are massively more expensive than solar and wind. Maybe one day they will get them to work.But they cannot compete with the cheap cost of renewables.
-Why is that?
Follow the money. Subsidies lead to corruption.
I agree and we have been subsidising dirty coal for over a hundred years because the negative impacts of it to our health our environment our water supplies and our climate are both a physical and financial cost. Its time the corrupt bribed politicians were jailed for selling us out. What is the value of a living planet Ian?
-Could we replace fossil fuels if we had the will to?
Probably yes, but not the way we’re going. Which is a road to ruin.
Again I agree but with a twist . We could have clean energy in place in 15 years and we may have to if we want life to continue on this planet. Coal and oil; are not only the road to ruin they have been the cause of countless wars and destruction of communities around the world. Even our oceans are being made lifeless by these two archaic minerals.
Who wouldn’t want cheaper energy with clean air clean water and a healthy environment. Only brainwashed fools.
Thank you, Jim.
Anybody remember this?
https://youtu.be/ei-_SXLMMfo?t=23
Actually the anti science brigade drag out these totally unrelated pieces of nonsense that relate to a period of time where one section of earth got colder in some areas and hotter in others. Greenland actually warmed up and grapes could be grown there. However it wasn’t global cooling or warming it was caused when a wobble the earths oscillation on its axis caused it to tilt towards the sun in Greenland. But that did not change the average temperature all over the planet. A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing in the minds of morons. Even at a time when we have an existential crisis that could end life on our planet you will find a group of chattering monkeys laughing at the highly trained scientists because being monkeys they don’t have the wit to understand that they are about to be hit by a tsunami that will wipe them out. Neither do they understand the difference between a scientist and a greedy coal baron who pays corrupt politicians to piss in their pockets.
I don’t know that anyone actually is what they say they are or seem to be and so I meet everyone in what they give fruit of.
It is very possible that if this site was being ‘incited to disinfo or smear and disrupt tactics’ then any gov or NGO agency can operate multiple accounts just as can an individual. It is pointless and divisive to accuse or conjecture whether someone actually believes what they say or whether it is – for an example – an extremism of hate that works to deter newcomers from association. And a later association by which to invalidate the site. But also trashing or ridiculing others – given currency of acceptance, deters posting.
The idea of free speech is of the right to speak and be heard. Those who want the right to deny others do not seek to be heard or received but obeyed. If there were no power backing up the program, many would laugh. Many laughed at Hitler with no awareness of the international banking and cartel industrialist backing that was behind him.
The freedom of journalism and that includes scientific or medical journalism, is necessary for freedom from fraudulent deceits which of course include conflicts of interest – but the vastness of the money and power influences involved make it impossible to openly challenge a ‘narrative dictate’ without being walled out at best. However, if we do not in some sense ‘vote’ with our voice or presence, then something else comes in to take the space we vacate.
As I often say; Garbage in; garbage out!
If all you get is garbage, change your inputs.
Come FROM a different predicate.
If garbage is a successful result for you – then you have your reward. You are the garbage collector!
However the recognition of the result of our own thought, feeling and acceptance is no one else’s responsibility or right to impose. You can give YOUR word for You. That’s it. Give the world you want to live in. Because you do – except only a Living Word results a Living World.
Brian
Garbage is such a great word. As a metaphor – the community in which I live is considering an ordinance to go through our garbage to determine how we are obeying recycling protocol. In this case garbage is information.
I also view garbage as information. I will determine for myself which garbage is useful to me and which is not. I will recycle accordingly.
When you yourself are here taking in ‘garbage’ and responding to it, does …”if all you get is garbage, change your inputs “…. not also apply to you?
“Garbage in; garbage out”?
As a garbage collector myself, I find yours a little outside the box…..or can as it were.
Of course you are free to give value where you see fit.
Of course I give as I would in truth receive and of course I look at my own perceptions or ‘reception’ so as only to give what I hold true and not persist in what for me is ‘garbage’. We are each free to value the valueless – but we are not free to make the un true true – even if a claim of ‘consensus’ is used to deny debate and vilify and persecute those who do not give acceptance or consent to the ‘consensus’.
This ploy to me reveals a LACK of substance. A love of truth needs not fear challenge – and needs only be vigilant against deceit. Hence the lack of substance will do or say anything BUT engage in the issue – though of course it may pretend to but only as a ruse by which to catch a moment of unguardedness.
In a significant sense ‘post truth’ narrative control – because that’s what it is – is a complete LACK of substance. Hence you can choose to see an ‘overwhelming and unstoppable power’ or a house of cards. But the rub is that mere opinion is a cover over an unexamined life, and the nature of the corruption of power is more than systemic to our politics – it is built into our personality structure. This has been called a fallen nature. In modern times this is the view of humans as a virus on the planet etc but the view is almost always projected onto others and attacked there.
As I see, everything you give is yours. It only seems to be in those you judge.
So I hold to release and be released.
Garbage NOT given (or dumped) and freedom to extend Life anew.
Releasing someone from what you put onto them is nothing to do with what they say or do – but recognizing a self-unworthiness and owning it by no longer pushing it out of ‘mind’.
The more you push ‘out of mind’ the less mental capacity you have.
And the more you hate and attack it in others.
I don’t mean the ability to mental ‘specialness’ but simply the capacity to engage in relational activity outside the bubble of a private defended sense of judgements lived as true.
To make an image of reality and worship it instead of reality is the ‘separative’ mind that would ‘Lord it over’ in judgement of its own private agenda. So this is the basis from which a dissociated (insane) mind, attacks it own source, nature and sustenance so as to make a lie survivable and sustainable.
The commandments are mostly interpreted as coercive – but I sense they are saying that you – as an inherent Expression of Life, CANNOT break these relational bonds of Life without breaking from your own awareness of your true being.
I realise that most are now ‘thinking’ only in a seemingly scientific paradigm, but the model is the framing perspective of our current thinking the experience it opens up. It is never The truth, because truth is alive – and an image is a construct. If it aligns with truth it significance will resonate a congruity and coherence of being and experience. If it does not, the dissonances will be experienced as conflicts, guilts, fears and yet being driven by them we do not see they are hidden in the way we are seeing – or rather NOT seeing. The past is such an unarguable example of ignorances and arrogances that the present really should not be presumed to the final word of an enlightened age.
The eco as religion attempts to bring back wholeness in purely physical terms. But human destructiveness is an inherent development of the psychic-emotional archetypes of our conditioned consciousness. To understand the behavioural human one has to open the psychic-emotional ‘territory – which is NOT the narrative ‘control’ of surface thinking, but an energetic of communication that we have mostly forgotten how to feel and know and are likely to invalidate, fear and deny abiding it as a result of social conditioning. Nonetheless we are of a ‘Nature’ that is infinitely more than what a dissociating mind has made of it or THINKS to have made of itself over it.
But the lines are blurring through the uncovering of the Universe as a scalable electrical representation rather than a collection of thing-objects in ‘space’ moved by forces of interactions that evolve as kind of machine learning.
That – in a sense – there is no ‘self’ apart does not mean there is no narrative identity structure through which to experience and integrate that experience at a deeper level.
But the initial development of the self construct has been need driven – that is under necessity of life under extreme conditions. It still IS that but the way the mind works is to redistribute and redefine itself and world so as to insulate its controlled self image, from its chaotic true reflection.
‘Thou shalt not kill’, is in my view more aptly translated as ‘thou shalt not murder’. Initially this likely pertained only to other members of one’s tribe (and in a sense still does) and yet the expanding of the ‘god-king’ idea of Sovereignty of will to the people, was the movement of Liberalism against the Aristocratic ‘blood right to rule’. However the idea of the will as power over another, or subjection under another is the result of taking power unto our self in image rather than listening in Life for the discernment of the movement of the Will – for the true Will is not our construct imposed or overlaid upon our true desire. Fear will NOT let us listen unless we face or address the true nature of our fear rather than align with fear’s dictate. If self-honesty were easy to allow the world would not be experienced as it is.
In the sense of a ‘Living Biosphere’, tune in to the ‘field of knowing that Life simply Is – beneath all complexity and diversity of relational expression – for all true existence is relation – or an expression of relation as an embodiment of the whole.
While accepting a physical ’cause’ for existence might seem to release us from guilt that is associated with religious and superstitious error, the great deceit is the belief we are now free and ignorance is only in those who persist in denying the model. Fear and guilt are NO LESS active for being ‘out of mind’, but our capacity to face it and own what is truly ours, while releasing what we have no belonging in, is denied when we insist on ‘fighting our shadows’ out there.
The USE of fear and guilt as ‘justifiable’ leverage for a ‘worthy cause’ is the persistence and protection of guilt and fear in propagating new cycles of violence, deprivation, scarcity and denial.
I hold for the healthy denial of permission to fear and guilt to run my thought, feeling and response. So I am not going to join in ‘saving humanity’ by adopting the very thing we need saving FROM.
When we can love the Life in Life, we shall love our brother AS ourself, because when one of these is broken the others cannot whole. Despite existential guilts – loving ourself is a self-honesty of acceptance for that you are as you are. This is a working awareness through which learning – or a shift or perspective – can occur.
Poisoning the environment as a weapon by which to subdue or disempower an enemy or ‘obstruction’ is nothin new.
Poisoning the mind with false flagged diversion is nothing new.
But waking to a new perspective is a qualitative shift that has to then be ‘lived from’ to be integrated. Its not enough to take insights out of context for a personal or private gratification. ‘Taking ourself out of context’ is the original error and all errors that proceed are expressions of being out of our true Environment (by the manufacture and development of artifice). I’m not calling down blame for mistakes made within a willingness to learn.
There is a basis of order and control that is un-coverable rather than add-able. But it is the by product of aligning in Sanity because truth is true and not in seeking and using truths to attack or coerce the craziness in ‘others’ seen unlike ourself while actually embodying what we hate in ourself – perhaps so much as to align in anything that relieves us of pain. But that is where the answer is… where we do not want to look. So generate a diversion. In fact generate a mind that will automatically pre-empt awareness by persistent diversion. Narrative continuity as persistence of self. But can we wake from the archetypes of our ‘story’? Not if we cannot recognize them when they recycle us.
Sounds like you have been reading the Bible. Which one? Mine is Websters…….yours?
What I wrote in the latter part of my reply is a contemporary ‘take’ to your quoted section. If you look, it parallels it.
Confucious was once asked what he would do if he was in the Seat of Power – and he replied that he would redeem the dictionary.
Who understands the spelling of meanings and the adulterations and corruption of our word, knows where the power is. But any intent to interject private agenda as a divisive control is the adulteration and corruption of power.
While you use the word to weave a web of self illusion, you will not be able to receive a true word and be healed of the pain and isolation of its experience.
This is a very simple choice but heavily obscured by investment in illusion.
Honesty remains the basis for re-alignin our minds, our relationships and our world to a true fulfilment. But while the search for the liar in ‘others’ else persists, the lies ‘at home’ are protected from awareness.
A quick note on neurocognition. Science to this juncture is almost exclusively Cartesian. Observer and observed are distinct bounded entities that do not interfere with each other. The scientific observer is one who utilises the a priori method (of pure transcendent Reason: universalised Natural Laws; etc) to discover infallible empirical knowledge. That scientific knowledge becomes the basis of further science: and so on as we build up an emporium of laws and fundamental principles …the objective observations and explanation of the world we live in – but are separate from.
That this has validity is not in question. The question is: has this disembodied and mind independent view of the res cogitans and res extensa taken us as far as it can go?
There is a different view that emerges from the inter-disciplinary cognitive sciences. Let me call it the Neuro-Phenomenological Image (NPI) of humanity …which emerges from the Santiago Theory of Consciousness [Maturana; Varela]. The main findings of the cognitive sciences so far are:
Consciousness is fully embodied
Cognition is mainly unconscious
Language is mostly metaphoric
I’m not trying to convince anyone: but this model is fully eco-cognitive, eco-literate and human …very much in line with the Wisdom Traditions. Given the Cartesian ‘scientific image of man’ (sans the intuitive and emotional human frailties) …it is a significant improvement.
The main difference of the NPI is that we are fully embedded in our environment. “Organism and environment specify each other”. Cognition is life and action. As we perceive: so we act. Our cognitive faculties are co-evolved and co-specificational of our environment. The act of cognition micro-adjusts our biological structure; which in turn micro-adjusts our cognitive environment (in a cognitive and ‘intentional arc’ [Husserl]). So much so that we are cognitively “structurally coupled” with the environment. The Buddhist term for this is pratitya-samutpada: usually rendered as ‘co-dependent origination’ …but I prefer Thich Nhat Hahn’s terminology – that we ‘inter-are’ with each other and inseparable from the environment. Cognition is life.
In the cognitive act (seeing, for instance): the ‘external’ sense object, and the ‘internal’ sense faculty are coupled in a conscious synergy. The consciousness we call sight is an experiential Gestalt that occurs neither ‘in here’ or ‘out there’. We “put forth our world” together. The NPI is operationally (structurally) closed and bounded (autopoietic): but cognitively open …embedded in the larger systems and processes of Life. Life is nested in life and cognitively and synergistically embodied. There is no separation or boundaries, as such. There is no substance or property dualism (beyond linguistic differentiation). Cognition is coterminous with life.
Make of it what you will, but I suggest such an eco-existential makes for a totally different assessment and appraisal of such issues as ‘AGW’. There is no ‘climate’ as such, it is a Cartesian discursive and differential set that is a reductive metaphor for Life itself.
I like this. Has Cartesian dualism talen us as far as it can? It remains the fundamental paradigm for scientific enquiry, notwithstanding questions raised decades ago by findings in quantum mechanics . That it may have taken us as far as it usefully can is an idea that has long and not always consciously interested me. This past quarter century I’ve sought in amateurish fashion to integrate scientific, marxist and – broadly speaking – buddhist understandings.
Such thoughts are clearly relevant here. One very big aspect of our current predicament is surely an arrogant and stupid belief, not usually conscious, that homo sapiens sapiens – we know that we know – is special and separate. Its American Exceptional, and concomitant thirst for Full Spectrum Dominance, writ large!
Phillip: it appears we are on parallel life courses!
You hit the nail on the head with quantum mechanics: it’s incompatible with the Cartesian-Newtonian-Einsteinian observable universe. We have two major proven theories of physics – quantum field theory and general relativity – that are either incompatible: or we are inhabiting two distinct universes at once. As this is patently absurd: then we have a dualistic, binary logical, linguistic form that cannot accurately describe the world as it is. Which is a big problem for the human mind, which is a purely psycho-linguistic creation.
I can sketch the deficiencies and ontological problems of language in a few sentences. The solutions will not be so easily forthcoming.
As soon as you have the cognition ‘I am’ (the ‘principium individuatonis’ = PI): as you say, you have the root cause of American Exceptionalism and Full Spectrum Dominance.
All binary propositions – thesis and antithesis – entail the PI.
All binary propositions entail a superiority/inferiority of the PI: over/under the PI.
This clearly follows from the BLACK/WHITE or FEMALE/MALE binaries.
(You may immediately notice that I have presented an inversion of the encultural hierarchy).
Ergo:
All binary propositions entail the (full spectrum) dominance/subjugation of the PI: by the PI.
To butcher Nietzsche: both the Will to Power and the Master/Slave moral dialectic are subtle powerplays encoded in the binary logic of language. With cultural intensification: these linguistic fissures can easily be manipulated. The PI of language exploits the PI of language for its own entailed exceptionalist domination. This is the basis of history, propaganda and ideology. These, in turn, form part of the justification/intensification/domination process of the PI.
The PI entails a Sense of Agency (SA) and Sense of Ownership (SO). The SA intensifies to instrumental reason. The SO intensifies to Private Property Rights and Accumulation by Dispossession. The SA and SO combine to cathex on the fetishised externalised object: the unknowable Other (either commodified person or personified commodity). The PI is the root of the Master power principle; and the Master wealth principle. Ergo:
The PI is psycho-cognitively capitalist: which entails imperialism, exploitation, and dehumanisation of the Other.
Capitalism is not an external system. It only appears that way due to the PI. Capitalism is a function of the PI. Ergo:
Capitalism is binary cognition. Or miscognition and cathexis of the PI.
In conclusion:
The cultural intensification of the PI psycho-cognitively entails involution (meaning entropy), dominance, death, and destruction.
Note: this is not an individual processual personification – it is a ubiquitous, pan-historic, and pan-cultural binary ‘linguistification’ of humanity. I’m not sure anyone is ready to hear this: but there is no PI. There is no disconnected, isolated, and personalised ‘I am’ conceptual mind. Mind only arises in its (culturally denied and ruptured) interconnectedness and interrelationship with the (excluded and unknowable) Other. We are not alone: we are binary enculturated as alone.
The Ghost is not in the machine: the Ghost is in the binary Code of the machine. The PI is the Ghost of binary language. Our entire culture is built on the mass cathectic reification and fetishisation of the binary Ghost of language.
Which is not such a crazy proposition: as language, mind, and culture developed together. What may be a less pleasing proposition to the culturally indoctrinated (that’s all of us) is that language, mind and culture are metonymic and interchangeable designators. Mind is socius: not individual or a subjective PI. The PI, the quasi-divine individual, is an inter-subjective, psycho-linguistic and cultural artefact. The PI, with its isolated, disconnected, disembodied mind – is an apperceptual category error of binary logic and dualist discursive alpha/numeric linguistic description.
The world projected forth by the PI is a universalised psycho-linguistic hallucination (parakalpita). Its reality is in that it has the PI invested in it. We psycho-linguistically and unconsciously schematise the PI in everything we do. The PI Homeworld is the normative constructor – and potential destructor – of the alienness of the Otherworld (the Lifeworld as a binary linguistic mirror of the PI). If this goes consciously unchallenged: we are acting out adaptive patterns of sectarian behaviour that we cannot honestly say are our own. This is not the mass personification of humanity; but the mass impersonification of humanity. How this plays out on the Lifeworld stage needs no explanation: it is what we comment on every day.
I’ve already proposed the solution: the NeuroPhenomenological Image of Universal Humanity. The ‘individual’ that is singular, autonomous, but interconnected, and structurally coupled with the environment. The very short version of a proposed solution is not the PI ‘I am’, but the ‘We are’. We inter-are, and co-evolve in our interplay, in our interaction, in our interconnectedness.
The Cartesian binary paradigm is evolutionary redundant. The observable universe, that is Life itself, emerges in self-organised patterns of interconnectedness from the quantum to the cosmos. Life emerges from Life. There is no cognitive disconnect. Why let binary language create one?
I like your comment both about American Exceptionalism which I equate with the Master Race and the idea that we have become separated from the web of life. Our own hubris is perhaps the greatest threat to our survival.
Luckily we have Trump and his ilk in the Australian Parliament to bring us back to the base of a tree to consider how much more evolution we still need before we can regard ourselves as realised beings in tune with our world..
@ mulga says”
“It takes the usual combination of imbecility and Evil, typical of deniers, to place TWO ie 2, ‘scientists’ before tens of thousands of others, 200 years of climate science and the UNANIMOUS opinion of ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth. But human Evil and stupidity are surely limitless.”
To which I say
The scenario you denigrate is the only way Humanity and Science actually advances.
Those who speak truth to the alignment under ‘power’ often find recognition only after they are dead.
That is the difference between aligning in the true and seeking a personal salvation at other’s expense. Under threat we can easily be triggered to WANT that something be true – ie payback to the oil-igarchy. (As if they are not a hundred moves ahead of you). Or fear something enough to let in anything that says it will save us.
Insofar as I see a manipulative deceit, it works in the shadow with access to our fears and hopes, so as to make complex psychic-emotional instruments full of toxic debt and induce others to buy them.
No matter what field of influence the pattern are the same. It tells you what you want to hear – with a payload attached.
But ‘what we want’ radically shifts when we come down from a red alert of triggered fears. So take time to align in what you truly desire and be that FOR You – so that FROM there you can meet others in who you ARE – rather than interact in some pinball world of mutually triggering reaction.
“Simply a LIE, and the only question needed now, is just why deniers are so viciously Evil and bent on causing humanity’s extinction?”
It read at first on my mail as if mulga was calling the 97% out for the lie it is… But no it is mind programming:
1. Assert the accusation as a shock tactic.
2. Define the already guilted narrative range of allowable ‘questions’.
3. Set the pseudo question in terms of its payload of viciously evil intent.
The only question I have in this regard is ‘why anyone would take the bait?’. And yet this sort of mind-framing persistently ‘works’ the frustrated and the lost to think they have found a target they can actually identify and get vengeance on. As if the driving need is a personal sense of self vindication and no real concern for others at all.
Instead of challenging fake news, toxic polluters, fake food and pharma, not even the chemical industries that churn out biocidal packaging, furnishings, cosmetics and etc and etc – without any real check or holding to account – no take it out on your brother – who does not join with you in holy jihad.
But if you want a freely consensual future – ie by free willing consent, that stops the toxicity, heals and restores the integrity of natural being and uncovers our natural function by living it – then count me in.
But the first stumbling block to healing is an unwillingness for self-honesty that runs beneath false witness to self and therefore to others and by definition an alienation or dissociation from the very felt quality of our existence.
Integrity as a congruence of thought word and deed is an integrity that moral posturing can only seek to pass of as by masking in forms – like phishing attacks.
There is a facet of the mind that is trained to go forth and find the sins in others and attack them, to bring the blood sacrifice to its Master – who ensures it dogs will ever be hungry.
We already have AI attack robots. Their extensions of technological ability doesn’t just make working hardware. Its premise is the capture and control of the ‘software’ of thought that we still think is our own.
I stand in freedom of association as the freedom to accept and share in the thoughts that extend or give or share meaning to existence. This has to accept the freedom to deny the gift or it would be coercive. So your freedom to deny your true Inheritance or indeed Inherence to being – is the capacity without which you can accept.
Just because one is poor in spirit or divided in purpose, does not mean the inheritance of an innate blessing is denied or withheld by anything but insistence on self-deprivation.
There is no framework to share looking at the issue when the only framework is a baited trap.
How could this site NOT be targeted by disinfo? In the world as it is?
But do I spy a pack running psy-cooperatively? Or just a fear and suspicion of attack running as fear driven and hateful reaction? Much easier to attack me than to address the issue… it would seem.
It is also true that self-censorship can effect what is no longer required to be operated at a cost.
Simply the fear of something threatening can trigger defensive reactions by which the fear is effectively re-inforced as reality, and enacted blindly as self-fulfilling prophecy.
Giving disregard to the voice for fear is the way the truth can rise to awareness.
Luckily I don’t need to be either side of the fence on this topic.
Man is contaminating the planet. From fracking, Air travel and my particular favorite, ‘The War on Terror’. Oh and don’t forget Capitalism.
Get the UN to do their job and put the likes of Blair, Net-AND-Yahoo, Trump, Hilary Clinton, Barry Obama and their friends in low place, and the rest will follow
I’d like if I may to suggest a simple experiment anyone can try.
1] Go to Google and type in “9/11”.
2a] make a note of how far down you need to scroll to find a site supportive of the official government version
2b] make a note of how far down you need to scroll before you find a Truther site
3] Clear the search and type in “global warming”
4a] make a note of how far down you need to scroll before you find a site supportive of the manmade global warming theory.
4b] make a note of how far down you need to scroll to find a site that questions the manmade global warming theory.
Come back here and report your findings.
Ok.
“9/11” – I got to page 6 of the Google search and still had not found a single Truther site
“global warming” – The first 3 pages were exclusively pro-manmade global warming sites. Toward the bottom of page 3 I found two sites that questions manmade global warming.
So my experiment suggest to me that the search term “9/11” is heavily censored by Google to the point of almost completely suppressing one side of the debate.
What surprised me was that the search term “global warming” seems to be somewhat censored, or weighted at very least, towards to pro-manmade global warming camp
That is because the anthropogenic climate destabilisation theory is ‘settled science’, supported by ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth, and 99% of actively publishing climate scientists, AND by the overwhelming evidence from reality. Whereas climate destabilisation denialism is the province of paid disinformers, and various omnicidal psychopaths and lunatics, who seem to actively desire human extinction.
When did it become ‘climate destabilisation’? Is that preferred now over ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’?
I have been down this road before with you, Mulga, so I probably shouldn’t venture there again. But, (I can’t help myself!) I don’t think that it is ‘settled science’ by any stretch, except for those who earn their living by perpetuating this myth. Check out James Corbett on global warming (especially his recent ‘Why big oil conquered the world’), where he carefully examines and debunks the AGW hypothesis, if you are open to changing to your mind.
One thing you can bet your house on is that whenever someone uses the phrase “overwhelming evidence” regarding man-made climate change, the rest of the post will not contain any.
Global warming underpins a multi trillion dollar, Enron created, carbon trading operation supported by carbon billionaires like Tom Steyer and Jeremy Grantham.
Billions, possibly trillions of dollars of free carbon credits (license to produce CO2) were handed out to big business. In the absence of global warming, they would be worthless. The American system collapsed in 2010 but individual states have created their own schemes.
http://www.scrapthetrade.com
Which of course a pittance when compared to the trillions that fossil fuel companies make. Carbon trading is a shoehorn to try to fit the reduction of carbon dioxide into the capitalist framework. A way reduction can be achieved by “the market” which is the one thing, other than money, that capitalist revere.
Unfortunately it is open to gaming and is not as effective as a straight tax on carbon emissions would be.
The relative amounts of funding for either side might be useful information. Do you have any figures?
This site is informative
https://www.opensecrets.org/influence/
The US government gives out research grants for studying climate – to the tune of at last count of 2 billion dollars a year -. anybody who disagrees with the Man made CO2 is causing climate change is not funded. The Koch bros and the fossil fuel companies give out millions, possibly tens of millions. the oil companies also fund environmental groups that push the man made co2 is causing catastrophic climate change. paradigmn. They especially like carbon credits as does Goldman Sachs. The 97% figure is for scientists that believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the climate has warmed since the little ice age. Michel Ghil 2013 says >It’s fascinating that terminations (of the glacial age) occur when CO2 concentrations are lowest, and interglacials end when CO2 concentrations are high.
Here is Lennart Bengston – He was head of research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He became a recipient of the Milutin Milankovic Medal in 1996.[2] He is now a senior research fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.
Resigning from the GWPF – Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization
“Dear Professor Henderson,
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson”
Suppose you are a climate student at East Anglia – look up climate gate emails – and imagine you find contrary evidence to man made CO2 being a pollutant or a degree or so of global warming not being a problem….
edited by Admin for formatting
Yes. I alight in your post as more to the point.
I would prefer to see shared discussion on the methods and ruses of social engineering, than feed a trapped identity in polarised and baited reaction TO THEM. A conspiracy – or breathing together of fame (specialness), fortune, power and privilege works a private self-interest at expense of the whole, and in masked agenda of plausible deniability as one who ‘knows not what they do’. But beneath all the presentations is the issue of power to prevail or survive as an adaptation within any perceived or believed situation.
Our ‘conscious’ sense of our self is not always aware of the bias of our conflict of interest, such that we can ‘believe ourselves’ when we say that our financial or political affiliations have in no way influenced our impartiality.
Of course this can work in reverse – for anyone on a witchhunt can persist in the conviction of the sin in the other and conduct research or generate models until those that can plausibly be used to support the accusation are then published.
While this can be similar when seeking to uncover the mechanisms of a harm that overwhelming anecdotal and statistical correlations illuminate – such as so called safe biocides or other private-profit-serving toxicity, the ‘post truth’ manipulation of a mind-captured and systemically controlled humanity, targets the hidden or latent ‘sins’ associated with guilt of self-doubt in division, and fear of exposure and punishment, as the fuel source for running a deceptive agenda.
The appeal to sympathetic identification in asserted victimhood, and of extreme emotional the antipathy against an accused or assigned perpetrator, works such that NOT showing compliance and support is frames as ‘denial’ of – and therefore complicity in – ‘outrageous crimes against humanity’. Regardless if the victims are in fact real. Only the emotional reactions and alignment in them matters. Its all in the headline and the first paragraph. In all such ploy the accuser aggressively asserts their own sins onto the other and no less aggressively attacks. Truth is ‘invited’ only to be ridiculed, pissed on and crucified – in a ‘religion’ of sacrifice to a god of vengeance.
This device or pattern of splitting a dissociative identity under terror of attack, fuelled by the belief one HAS guilt and deserves punishment FOR the sin of attack, is the ‘survival’ of the divided or split mind AS an alignment within and under the ‘dominating power’ of the psyop.
“To arrive at our beginning and know it for the first time” (T.S Elliot).
The capacity of the mind to ‘Fall’ for the same ruse over and over again is the persistence of the belief that ‘this time, a victory will be had’, or a salvation or a peace or an end to disease or a delay of the ‘end of Civilisation’…. as we be-live it to be. But the underbelly of denials that predicate such an organisation of consciousness and collective alignment in hidden guilting and fear, is redistributed or shape-shifts as if change had occurred.. But its simply the same device for the recharging of the self-attack upon which a lie of a world can gratify its appetite of a wish to run instead of true.
The desire to uncover, reveal or know the truth is associated with an inner intuitive recognition that something partial, false or illegitimate is running as believed and accepted currency of acceptance. But should the consensual investment of an illegitimacy be ‘threatened’, then the defences against truth will be activated to subvert and suppress and rework the ‘true movement of a sharing or revealing’ to serve as a form through which deceit maintains its ‘security’ in secrecy – by mapping out the ‘territory’ in association with hates and evils attracting penalty, or filtered and diluted as a basis for the further ‘research’ for better ways of … managing ‘truth’ as if life is a sin and sickness and ONLY the Protection Racket can save us. Only of course this is more subliminally communicated in terms of ‘see what happens to those who do not comply and to those who do’.
I believe the Afghans were offered a carpet of gold for a private sellout of their people, or a carpet of bombs on them and their people. Power often only has to drop a few hints to have minions re-aligning for favour or to keep their job.
The conspiracy of a separate self-survival works within the definitions it accepts and lives as true. The manipulation of ‘reality’ is a choice, but framed in such a way as to be able to plausibly deny and thus ‘escape’ responsibility by assigning elsewhere – to outside ’causes’ of plausible association.
But we can only truly change what we accept responsibility for. We can only release a poor choice for a better when we own our choice. So responsibility is not a blame economy of debt, carbon or sin, but the willingness to be undone of a deceit by which we suffer the loss of everything we love.
The nature of a scientific institutional establishment – and its narrative ‘consensus’ is itself an obstacle to genuine scientific enquiry – which is always advanced by challenging the ‘consensual beliefs and presumptions’.
Not by asserting the ‘posture’ or the ‘provocation’ of challenge, but of revealing something truly fitting, integrating and healing to a sense of block in conflict or division.
The ‘settling of science’ is a political and corporate investment in a model for what it can be useful for.
‘All models are wrong (not truth) but some models are useful’. Yes – but to serve what purpose?
The claim to serve the betterment of mankind, as ‘progress’ and salvation from the ignorances, evils and limitations of our past, is like a politician’s promise or an advertising claim. They say what you want to hear, but much more cunningly than that, for they ‘speak’ to your subconscious of denied desires as the reality of you – because that is what induces you to react.
Ah but THIS time it is real. As soon as you cast a vote in a rigged election you have a conflict of interest with the true choice. You have an ‘identity investment’ that may seem to be for the good, but claims its ‘right’ or substance, AGAINST a perceived wrong, a sin or an evil.
The ‘worship of the necessary evil’ as a source of life and power is a ‘secret society’ openly practiced in unrecognised ritual masquerade.
But is the power of Life in fact generated by assertive attack, denial and deceit?
Or do we have ‘live’ backwards?
Can you (or anyone) provide a source for that astonishing figure you claim?
“2 billion dollars a year” spent by the govt on climate change research grants?
Please post verification if poss.
While specific claims should be supported, there are general observations that are simply obvious.
The pretence that this is or ever was a scientific debate is already framed by a political body distorting a scientific narrative and reasserting it over decades as a persistent conditioning – while implementing top down ‘guidelines’ into every nation’s law.
James Corbett’s ‘Pay Up or the Earth Gets It! – #PropagandaWatch’
I don’t deny climate is change. I certainly do not deny the poisoning and degrading of our living world, our biology, our consciousness and our capacity to think. (which I see occurring in reverse because all else proceeds from accepted idea). But i give no credibility to the USE that the environmental movement is being put to.
I noticed this comment on Corbett – which I think makes a worthy point:
mfr58:
Thanks James. Unfortunately the well meaning environmentalists are the most difficult people to discuss this issue with. They are so convinced of the C02 story because it supports their (reasonable) vision of humans as irresponsible wreckers of the earth’s ecology. Because the powers that shouldn’t be are, seemingly, wanting to protect the planet, it gives the environmental movement kudos, a status they never had before. Now the greens move from being hippy tree huggers, to be up there with the big boy scientists, and they like the recognition and power it gives them, the feeling of righteousness. I know this psychology, I have a degree in environmental science and have worked for years in the nature conservation and renewable energy sectors. I’ve had zero success in persuading anyone I know from that “community” to reassess what they think they know.
This pattern, of developing a minority identity in powerlessness and then giving it power, taking it mainstream and using it to undermine residual societal cohesion so as to take power and wealth – by rendering powerless, is not ‘secret’ – but as soon as our buttons are pushed we are no longer in our right mind – but reacting out from the scenario that the psyop has triggered and shapes. A different kind of jihad – but the same unseeing conviction.
What are the general and special factors in the availability and direction of funding?
They are commercial and political and embody structures of regulation that effectively deny a voice to human beings as a whole – while purporting to be protectors of humanity and enlisting your support in their agenda under false pretences.
Its all about globalism as a dominant system to which humanity is fitted or subjected.
Not a global community of freedom to associate and exchange – but the groupthink of a narrative control. No debate. No questioning. No voice. No freedom.
In a world of lies why would some of them be defended as true?
It seems to be life, Jim, but not as we know it.
What is is trying to say Spock (mindmelding session in progress).
It is screaming, screaming in terror and yet paralysed and unable to give any expression of its condition.
Can you reach it Spock?
I’ll try captain, but it seems to have lost all receptivity…
‘Search in vain for a “thou shalt not trash Planet Earth” message in Quran, Veda or Bible…’
Even narrowing the search to only the latter tome: what do you want, the Alpha (after the opening cosmology bit)
or the Omega
blockquote>Revelation 11:18 The nations raged, but thy wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, for rewarding thy servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear thy name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.
or the plethora in between?
‘Search in vain for a “thou shalt not trash Planet Earth” message in Quran, Veda or Bible…’
Even narrowing the search to only the latter: what do you want, the Alpha (after the opening cosmology bit)
or the Omega
or the plethora in between?
Thanks for the offer, Robbobbobin, but I’ll settle for a reminder as to which of the Ten Commandments proscribes ecocide.
“I’ll settle for a reminder as to which of the Ten Commandments proscribes ecocide.”
That’s a smartass, dishonest response on several levels. First of all, on its face and “in your face.” Your original field of enquiry specified (amongst other texts), “the Bible”. If you meant perhaps the only bit you can name (the “Ten Commandments”?) then simple rules of honest, non-diversionary argument would have you say that upfront, when you sought to impugn the collaborative work of generations of multiple authors (and the judgement of a large number of readers who value their work) as part of an unstated (and erroneous) sub-agenda. I’ll skip the secondlys and thirdlys in obeisance to your apparent disdain for all but those sections of a work referenced in its executive summary (or all but those mitzvot inscribed on the stone tablets Moses could carry down the mountain).
Next, it’s also a stupid and self-defeating response. Those who judge the texts you so misrepresent to be valuable guides to righteous behavior include the largest set of politically influential AGW deniers around. You diss them with obvious misunderstandings of, ignorance of, or easily refutable misrepresentations of their putative position on a specific point and they’ll double-diss you and yours, with your own written “evidence”, in all the wrong legislative places. Has your cause got time for that?
Good call, Robbobbobin. Thanks.
Robbobbobin I really did mean no disrespect. My original ATL remark, which you quote, was intended as neutral observation. The great religious texts still extant can all be located between the neolothic and industrial revolutions: addressing issues arising in the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer, and from the rise of the city state and larger populations agriculture enabled. As all systems of law, morality and etiquette must, they offer codes to manage tensions between our nature as social yet individuated beings. We still draw on those systems, believer and non believer alike. What those texts do not offer – COULD not offer at that historic juncture – is advice for our post industrial predicament: a capability, unenvisaged by Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna etc, to take out pretty much all advanced life on the planet, ourselves included.
That is what I meant, and you have misunderatood me in thinking I see this ahistorically, as somehow a culpable defect in those texts. I may as well blame Shakespeare for not addressing evolutionary theory!
Was I a tad flippant in response to your initial comment? Maybe – but did said comment harbour a touch of prickliness of its own? That’s how I, perhaps compounding misunderstanding with misunderstanding, read it.
In any case I think “dishonest” unwarranted. I try hard to be truthful in all my writing. I see no greater thing to aspire to. As for this unexpected spat, I apologise if I brought it on myself: initially by not making myself sufficiently clear; subsequently by responding with a quip, yes, but not venom, Over and out.
While we’re at it…..Here is something for the open minded. At this point, who knows?
https://youtu.be/AcDspzYDhP4?t=25
As co-author of “Unprecedented Crime,” I am addressing the comments below this review from the standpoint of having been David Ray Griffin’s colleague for 12 years. Dr. Griffin and I have written together on both 9/11 and climate change.
Why on both topics?
We worked first to try to defeat the official story of 9/11 and its resulting global war on terror so that media attention could move to the far more serious (and existential) ecological crisis.
While it is natural that people who understand the 9/11 hoax might suspect that the same media that has trumpeted the global war on terror may be pushing a climate hoax as well, Dr. Griffin has explained in an important article that they are two very different things:
“9/11 and Global Warming: Are They Both False Conspiracy Theories?”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42827.htm
Indeed, the reality of climate change has long been suppressed by the media, which is virtually owned by Big Oil. Of the global top 10 Fortune 500 companies, 7 are either oil or automotive companies, and they support the media with intense advertising.
In 2015, Dr. Griffin wrote his encyclopedic climate change book: “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?”
https://www.claritypress.com/Griffin.html
In 2016, Dr. Griffin and I wrote, “Unprecedented Climate Mobilization: A Handbook for Citizens and Their Governments,” Foreword by Dr. Peter Carter
https://www.claritypress.com/Woodworth.html
In 2018, Dr. Peter Carter and I wrote, “Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival,” https://www.claritypress.com/Carter.html
As you will see on the amazon.com website, Dr. Griffin left a very supportive comment about this book. He and Dr. Carter and I believe that Dr. James Hansen, who predicted to Congress in 1988 that we were on track for a climate emergency, is the top climate scientist in the world. (Hansen has been arrested several times outside the White House for protesting against pipelines.)
Again, I believe that anyone involved in the climate denial controversy would likely find Dr. Griffin’s above-mentioned article about 9/11 and Global Warming helpful. Paul Craig Roberts also posted it:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/09/15/david-ray-griffin-examines-911-global-warming/
Thank you for your interest.
Hi Elizabeth and many any thank for this book. I know you are also a 9/11 Truther, which I am not, but I feel as if intelligent adults should be able to agree and disagree on a subject by subject basis. I applaud this work you are doing.
My question is, are you troubled by the fact so many of your fellow Truthers are climate Deniers? I am thinking Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, James Fetzer and many others, all are noted for rejecting the science of manmade global warming.
Why do they do this since several of them are scientists or from scientific disciplines?
Thanks for your comment, SGibbons.
Yes, indeed, civilized, I like to think that intelligent people usually do respect one another’s views!
I have not seen articles or comments by any of the 9/11 truth people you mention, but I do know that none of them are climate scientists. As a science librarian I spent 30 years delivering peer-reviewed articles to environmentalists and health professionals, so I would look to the science literature for climate change observations and assessments.
About 97% of climate scientists who are published in the peer-reviewed literature believe that global warming is real, and is caused by increased CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. This literature is indexed in the enormous literature database services that maintain high standards for inclusion of the science journal titles they index. (The same is true of engineering, technology, and medical literature.) The whole system is not perfect, but it’s the most rigourous quality control framework we have.
The main thing to emphasize here is the precautionary principle: If an existentially threatening phenomenon, such as increasingly devastating extreme weather — in the form of floods, droughts, hurricanes, and forest fires — is interpreted in the scientific literature as caused by humans, then we should do something really effective to transition away from business-as-usual energy sources, and soon!
“About 97% of climate scientists who are published in the peer-reviewed literature believe that global warming is real and is caused by increased CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution”
Not only is that untrue, it makes very little sense to anyone who has studied science.
“The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
Simply a LIE, and the only question needed now, is just why deniers are so viciously Evil and bent on causing humanity’s extinction?
My goodness Mulga Mumblebrain this is a scientific debate not the Inquisition or a Salem witch trial. What’s the matter with you?
You ask in another comment what a lukewarmer is. A lukewarmer is someone who agrees that manmade global warming is probably real, sees the wisdom of curbing emissions, but who is not necessarily convinced by the much less robustly supported ideas of potential catastrophe.
That’s me.
Don’t be such a hypocrite. There is NO ‘debate’ about anthropogenic climate destabilisation science, only lies, misrepresentations and distortions by the psychopathic denialist claque, all of which will help cause the premature deaths of billions. And THAT is the greatest moral and spiritual crime of ALL time.
Did you read the linked Guardian article? I’m not a Guardian fan, and not a “denier” but the 97% figure is demonstrably a myth IMO and I think the author of the piece pretty much proves that. I’d be interested to discuss why you don’t agree.
And how terrifying that two other readers here actually think your cries of “Be gone vile unbeliever!” are commendable. What is happening to us? We seem to be descending into a new dark age of religious fundamentalism replacing rational thought.
You are not doing the leg work Denier.
We know that there is a highly funded campaign to distract from the scientific consensus, it is documented fact.
Now look at Tol who wrote the Guardian article, look at this associations and it is immediately clear that he works in circles of Lawson and Lomberg etc. people funded to muddy the waters.
It’s hard to challenge one’s own confirmation bias.
I perceive Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to be right wing nutters never mind Lawson and his motley crew.
@Mog But he may still be correct, no? Surely we look at the data not just at where the money comes from? I was funded by the DoE some years ago, does this mean any science I produce or cite is invalid a priori?
Do we also examine funding of the pro-AGW argument? What if a pro-AGW scientist gets money from alternative energy grants?Or Goldman Sachs that promote carbon taxes etc? Does that invalidate his research? I don’t think so!
I think it’s better to look at the science first and last and only consider funding in cases where fraud can be detected independently.
Do we also examine funding of the pro-AGW argument? What if a pro-AGW scientist gets money from alternative energy grants?Or Goldman Sachs that promote carbon taxes etc?
Fossil fuel companies were the first to really investigate the AGW hyhpothesis. They buried their research and started campaigning to spread ‘doubt’ (this is what this book is largely about).
Do Goldman promote carbon taxes? Why are the green lobby complaining of shouting into deaf ears for the past three decades when the most powerful bank in the world wants the same as they do?
You are not making any sense to me, and do not provide any evidence that the huge, long running and diverse body of research is corrupted or controlled, as your theory determines it must be.
Did they invent climate change a hundred years ago with a view to raising some extra tax in the early 21st century?
What is the end game or objective of this vast deception? Agenda 21 ?
PSJ didn’t say any research was corrupted so far as I can see. His/her point seems to be that the data should count first and not be dismissed simply on account of who funds it.
He/she can correct me if I have this wrong.
Thanks Admin, and yes, I did not mean to suggest any specific body of research was “corrupt.” My point was (or was meant to be!) that rather than focus on this or that researcher’s funding we should look at his data. Because the data is what matters.
Questions of funding only become meaningful if the data is falsified or there’s evidence for corruption.
Let’s discuss the data!
No, let’s not discuss the data.
The data has been discussed a million times by people far more qualified to understand the data than you or I. They (nearly all) came to the same conclusion.
This isn’t 9/11- where all you have to do is look at the data and realise that it’s an obvious lie. It’s the opposite of 9/11 – where the data is widely scrutinised and cross checked by many many genuine experts who have worked for organisations as varied as Friends of The Earth and Exxon, and has been for decades. The counter theory of 9/11 relies on the concept of compartmentalised control of information through state and non state secrecy structures. These we know exist.
Climate research is all in the open, so to suggest that all those people are wrong is to suggest mass hysteria or an impossible to work conspiracy to deceive.
Having educated myself with regard to fraud with regard to medical pharma science along with a recognition of the way the mind works – i see the same patterns working in science as did in religion. Only ‘church and state’ are now scientific institutions and corporate power.
Self interest is not a conspiracy. But a negatively defined self interest is predicated on largely unconscious survival instincts. People are often incredibly naive about science because it is ‘all out in the open’ – well no it is not.
In theory all sorts studies can be published – and ignored. All thing are not equal when trillion dollar revenue streams are involved. All things are not equal when your reputation, status and privileges are found to be on mistaken premises.
All things are not equal when whistle blowing corruption carries a heavy penalty. When ‘consensus’ determines what is to be found and how best to find it. Money and power distort everything. Science is not neutral – but is the feed for the weaponising and marketising of everything or it wont be allowed the means to grow past its seedbed phase.
The mind is trained where NOT to go without much overt instructions.
My most recent scientific inspiration comes from Ling with regard to: A Revolution in the Physiology of the Living Cell.
I am not at all against science but see such a mass of investment in old models that are unwilling to change – regardless the cost to human life. This is across the spectrum and not just in science – but it is I think more hidden there because for so many it is their sense of hope and progress relative to fears from the past.
If science has to ‘sex itself up’ to sell itself or attract or interest people, then is it not in the same category as politics?
Data is meaningless without a framework for its interpretation – so one has to do more than suckle what is being fed.
While on the medical side, Malcolm Kendrick’s ‘Doctoring the Data’ is a good intro the the way studies can be made to support almost anything.
When someone speaks into a ‘consensus’ of invested interests with valid and repeatable evidences that refute the presumed fact of the consensus, the result is to be ignored and often cast out, invalidated or made example of as a warning to others.
This is so throughout history.
When Bruce Lipton discovered what is now called epigenetics, his findings were ignored and people basically turned their backs on him. After thoroughly rechecking his work he confided in a mentor of some standing in the medical field, explained what he had found and the reaction and pushing for some explanation he was given a frank response; ‘well it’s not what we’re thinking’.
When Dr Klenner presented successful treatments and reversals of polio using intravenous vit C to the AMA, he was ignored. No one showed interest or even an examination. With the big vaccine schedule all lined up – it wasn’t what they were thinking – and nor is the association of such symptoms with toxic exposures – at that time DDT.
So the investments in ‘genes’ as the key to huge profits and polio vaccines as the noble lie by which to persist in poisoning for profits – and set up a whole new crusade resonate with my sense of a cover story for ecocide across a wide spectrum of effect and a lucrative new playground for corporates who get all sorts of inducements to get on board – and perhaps negative inducements relative to not complying.
GW is no longer in the public domain so much as being effected as a corporate coup.
I am wary of the ability to set up both a point and counterpoint and work both ends against the middle.
I don’t think it is possible to overestimate the planning and discipline that goes into the globalist idea – and that global domination is not overt so much as the framing and rigging of the systems that then run as if for the common good.
So things like ‘trade deals’ are drafted in secret by armies of lawyers to effectively shift power to corporate lawyers and offshore courts. Your country needs you – NO – your Company owns you – except its a multi-headed complex of unaccountable offshore obfuscations and in this issue multiple fronts of NGOs and ‘experts’. It starts with some plastic words and ideas sown and publicised, and then becomes the new mantra and is already being put into law AS IF a bottom up victory when it is a top down edict masking through the use of a minority as a proxy.
How to save billions of lives?
Turn off the computer modelling scenario.
That said, ‘saving lives’ is a great slogan, when of course billions now living will die!!!
This is part of life on Earth.
Tragedy is in suffering or dying needlessly and from what seem to be avoidable causes.
Tragedy is also when human beings die en masse while still alive, by sacrificing themselves to imagined causes.
Can you say that backwards?
Can you say anything that is not backwards?
Your oral imbecility and hypocrisy is sickening. There is the greatest difference possible between those seeking scientific truth in pursuit of saving humanity from self-destruction, and those lying, distorting and misrepresenting for money in the service of human annihilation.
If the science is obvious and settled for goodness sake quote it, link to it, use it to prove others wrong and yourself right and let go the endless abuse that only makes you seem hysterical and unhinged.
We don’t support denunciatory ranting even in pursuit of good causes. Cite sources and facts and STOP assuming everyone who doesn’t agree with you works for big oil. No one is going to be won over by those tactics unless there’s something wrong with them.
Regarding the positions of major economists on climate change, Lord Stern confessed years ago that he had not taken it seriously enough.
Then we have William Nordhaus, 2018 Nobel prize winner at Yale, Jeffrey Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, and Jeff Rubin (author of The Carbon Bubble) in Canada — all highly concerned and working hard to head off catastrophic climate change.
Hi there Elizabeth – is there anything to be gained by trading names of people variously qualified who share our opinions on climate change?
It’s science and science is supposed to be about data.How did that become lost?
I mentioned their names because it was stated in another post that economist Richard Tol was the economist to believe about climate change. (Cannot find that post today)
Nick Stern is owned and operated by $100 billion hedge fund owner/ carbon trader Jeremy Grantham
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/nicholas-stern/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Grantham
Jeremy Grantham’s 2Q 2010 letter
Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/02/207994/grantham-must-read-time-to-wake-up-days-of-abundant-resources-and-falling-prices-are-over-forever/
Jeffrey Sachs is one of the unspeakable American economic gangsters who ripped the Russian economy apart, left human beings torn and destitute while handing over the country’s oil wealth to a small number of ‘oligarchs’.
https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/
You clearly put your head above the parapet on 9/11 but you are still deeply mired in the polished but deeply corrupt petit bourgeois world of American business/politics/economics where everyone is a different shade of Gatsby. Including Trump.
The science is simple.
95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour (aka weather). 3.6% is due to carbon dioxide.
The effect of a change in carbon dioxide is known exactly. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to double, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REMAIN THE SAME, the earth’s temperature would rise by 1 degree.
So why are we told of an unstoppable rise, many times this? Because AGW theory claims that the effect of that 1 degree change would have a knock on effect on the water vapour model, which would multiply that 1 degree change many times over. aka positive feedback.
There’s just one little problem with that theory. The water vapour model (aka the weather) is unknown. Science requires that a model should be produced, describing the effect of water vapour, that that model should make verifiable predictions, and that the predictions should be verified by actual measurements. So far they haven’t been able to do that. Untl they do, the predictions of climate science are worthless.
But there is a lesser degree of proof. Correlation does not prove causality, but it can act as a smoking gun. The hockey stick curve claimed to show this. Unfortunately it turned out to be a fraud. It catapulted Michael Mann overnight from obscure PhD student to international jet setting celebrity, because it was what the AGW fraternity wanted to hear. McKintyre and McKittrick had to legally force Mann to reveal his algorithm and his data. That’s unprecedented in scientific research. When they demonstrated the fraud, Nature, which originally published the research, refused to publish the retraction. Make what you like of that! So they had to publish privately. But their case was overwhelmingly proved when they demonstrated that you could feed any set of random numbers into his algorithm and it would always produce a hockey stick curve regardless.
So I’m waiting to hear that climate science has produced a model which has made predictions, and that the predictions have been verified. Then I will become a believer. I suspect the whole show will collapse before that happens.
Yes it really is that simple.Water drives the climate. One day we will understand how that works !!
Water is not just fluid dynamics but is patterned by plasma or electrical dynamics. The fourth phase of water is of great significance to re-understanding our world. Where gravitic science invents ‘pumps’ the finding reveal innate operations of charge separation and charged relations – from the atom to the Galaxy. Likewise the Earth is not a self contained system receiving a bit of radiation from the Sun, but is within a greater electrical Universe that might generally be called Plasma Cosmology.
The Electrical nature of the Universe is played down and sidelined by mainstream scientific narrative, which leads me to presume there are insiders and mainstream in this as in any field that can me weaponised or marketized.
The electrical force is 10 to the 8th power stronger than the gravitic force – but the investments of corporate and institutional advantage and influence are in the old model – and so it adds more and more fudge to protect the model against the dat that simply does not support it. Dark matter, black holes, big bangs and a completely ungrounded cosmological model where the ‘theories’ no longer proceed from or can be proved – but can be mathematically modelled. And presented with great complexity by people who have lost all social significance – excepting they induce huge budgets to chase particles or protect us from asteroids, or modify the weather.
Weather weapons have an international treaty quite some time back, and weather modification technologies have been sort of acknowledged under a GW protection research. How much aluminium nanoparticulates can your already malnourished brain take? (unless you were an active denier of the consensus demonising of butter and cholesterol).
Perhaps though all of this is what is called multifactorial – and no one has all the factors in their ‘model’. And all of us are bound to base our decisions on models that are not true now – even if a consensus reality and will at some point be recognised never to have been true when the capacity to maintain the belief is exposed AS a belief and not supported in fact. One CAN argue forever on which facts are facts and so ‘science advances one death at a time’ (Max Plank). It also ‘advances’ into cul de sacs by the settling of issues via political rather than scientific means.
I hold our Sun (in whose Plasma-sphere we are tucked well inside) – and therefore the nature of the charged space through which the Sun and Solar system is moving – as the prime determiner of climate and much more than climate.
Whereas the old model is seeding death cults the new opens a regeneration of culture from a completely unexpected perspective. The focus on ‘fixing’ or breaking the old is taking away from growing the new. Those who are set on staying in positions of power and privilege set up schemes by which to use the fears of apocalyptic guilts or zeals to charge up a carbon guilt economy. You are not a sinner until you use energy or fart. If you lose your credit rating there will be ways of atoning. But if you are found in denial, you will be treated for your thought disorder. ‘All very painless, you’ll hardly feel anything and that makes for safe thinking for all!’
Hey Brian,
If nothing else you have reminded me that I still have a sense of humor. If you are a Distraction Bot. You got me.
We can use water/fat in the body as an analogy for water vapour/CO2 in the atmosphere. Water vapour is not a climate forcer just as water in the body is not responsible for excessive weight unless you have a fluid retention problem – fat is. You can drink loads of water but it will not put on weight, it will simply be eliminated.
Water is, of course, incredibly important and no doubt impacts climate in many ways but water vapour does not increase warming except as a positive feedback – the hotter the atmosphere the more it retains water vapour. Why don’t you put every anti-AGW argument you can think of into skepticalscience.org and see what it says – you may disagree, of course, but at least look at the argument that may debunk what you think.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Hi flaxgirl,
I am trying to keep a lid on it because this site is a serious place but I am fascinated with this BINRA character. It must be AI. it doesn’t respond directly but within it’s commentary is much assimilated materiel.From wikipedia? Who knows. Just as Elon Musk, I take AI very seriously. We are in for a wild ride dealing with this phenomenon down the road. This is an educational opportunity right here on Offguardian. I am attaching a film which you may have seen. If not, it is important. Really. Think about what it is saying. I find it arrogant, self serving and dangerous..What ever – it is most certainly coming and should be considered before arrival.
https://youtu.be/y5jiGeQBLTk?t=2
Avoid arguments “to the man” please. If we begin accusing each other of being bots meaningful discussion is over
Dana Nuccitelli is the Guardian’s climate poster boy. They delete any comments that counter his stories including facts that this guy also works for MNC Tech Tetra and thus has financial conflict of interests issues. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dana-nuccitelli-661a447
The irony is that from where I stand, the reactive conditioned thinking is as a golem or automaton.
However, unlike the ‘ruling elites’ I am not moved confirm you in your limitations nor seek to manipulate your programming, but to invite you to transcend them. No strings attached and in any way that is your way of waking in joy of life. If you take joy at another’s expense then you have forgotten what joy is – or believe yourself unworthy.
Where I stand is no-where special. So I have become one with a particular style of writing, but the fact that I don’t seek social reinforcements and agreements does not mean I don’t see the intent to deny my humanity that you so callously embody.
However, I don’t focus there, but on your unwillingness to engage in relationship with me. That is the key to any communication and your putting your stuff onto me is perhaps because I am not supporting your current sense of yourself an your world – and yet you have a …fascination.
I hold anyone coming into my field of awareness and relationship as a living one – regardless their presentation. And as an example OF relationship in a world that is predicated on the evasion of any real intimacy in pseudo relationships.
So my willingness to respond to you is my desire for a world arising from a greater self-honesty, while recognizing that this purpose is against the grain of the way the mind-in-the-world ‘works’ and so is by default ‘denied access’ or defended against.
Why choose to persist in arrogant, self serving and dangerous behaviour? You are part of co-creating the culture here. Give as you would in truth receive.
However, while you have access to A.I through your own projected beliefs about me, you can actually ask anything in the desire to know – instead of prodding and testing ‘it’ to see if you can trip ‘it’ up.
The corporate manipulation of the human mind does so by reducing us to mechanical systems of inputs and outputs. the global rollout of the internet of Things is for a ‘real time’ systems control approach. There are conversations we could have about this development of human ‘consciousness’ (sic). My civility is to your person – but not to be your doormat.
If you behave like a fool you will be taken for a fool.
Sorry, that is typical of the kind of sophistry one would expect from John Cook/Bellingcat. Looking at their material makes me feel dirty.
This is it
What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a ‘positive feedback loop’ in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
It is precisely that feedback argument that made me and a lot of others realise we were dealing with a scam. The global warming argument depends on this positive feedback. The problem is that the water vapour / clouds system is very poorly understood and is in fact the weakest part of the whole thing.
Here is a grown up (physicist) view.
“CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions – October 2016
This is a huge step for atmospheric science,” says lead author Ken Carslaw of the University of Leeds, UK. “It’s vital that we build climate models on experimental measurements and sound understanding, otherwise we cannot rely on them to predict the future. EVENTUALLY, when these processes get implemented in climate models, we will have much more confidence in aerosol effects on climate.”
https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/10/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions
Good old John has an article on clouds, of course. What do you say to this article?
https://skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm
John Cook is NOT a scientist. He is not qualified to discuss any of this. Just like Eliot Higgins/ Bellingcat.
The source I provided in my last post is of the very highest quality (a physicist at CERN). Cook is the opposite.
… and John most certainly is a scientist. I wasn’t referring to him as the author of the articles, just the owner of the site.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml
Dana Nuccitelli is the author of both the Basic and Intermediate articles, which reference various scientific studies. Pray, tell me, where the fault is in the content. That’s what counts, isn’t it, not so much the credentials.
When you have to resort to attacking credentials (especially falsely), really … surely you can do better than that?
That link doesn’t seem to say anything about John Cook’s education or training. Where does it say he’s “most certainly a scientist”?
Apologies. That wasn’t the best link. This was the link I should have put (you can get to it from the scholarly publications link on the About page).
https://skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1
He has a BSc with an option in physics. That’s it. He has no published science (climate) papers. That is ALL that matters here.
Everything else happened after he became the Eliot Higgins / Forrest Gump celebrity of Australia. Hilariously his cognitive science PhD is about global warming denial supervised by an even bigger nut job, Stephan Lewandowsky.
When you can say something intelligent about the content of the article you link to or the articles that I link to then please do otherwise please don’t waste everyone’s time with bogus attacks on credentials. An “option”? Never heard that term before in relation to a degree. It says very clearly, “major”.
He has a degree in science. He is co-author of a number of papers and he works with many other scientists.
Pray, what are your credentials, denier?
That is just Bellingcat level sophistry. He has a science degree with physics as a major. He has published zero (climate) science papers. That is the subject at hand.
I have a science degree with maths as a major and physics as a minor. My bro is a retired top class scientist (microbiologist) .
So as you do have a science qualification perhaps you can speak authoritatively on the merits or otherwise of the articles on clouds’ warming/cooling effects in skeptical science. If you do have a qualification why are you so reticent to say something intelligent and merely resort to falsely attacking credentials.
I am not remotely qualified to address real climate science papers which is why I don’t. I link to reputable scientists who are.
But surely you have some words to say. Dana links to a number of scientific studies. Do you have a quibble with the scientific studies or his interpretation of them?
What would you say is the main difference in the conclusions reached in the CERN paper as opposed to the SS articles?
I think even to non-scientists we can get the gist here. CERN and SS are not at odds and while both articles are related to clouds SS has a much more comprehensive argument while CERN is focused on specific results of experiments.
CERN have done experiments from which they have learnt that while it was already known that sulphuric acid was important for nucleation of aerosols, additional molecules – organic compounds or ammonia – are also required. This knowledge will help narrow predictions in aerosol effects.
“The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.”
SS’s states that clouds can have both a warming and cooling effect. Denser, lower clouds are reflective thus have a cooling effect while higher, thinner clouds trap heat and have a warming effect. Studies suggest that as the temperature warms clouds will more likely have a net warming effect rather than net cooling – Denier, is there anything you specifically disagree with about this statement?
In the UNSW video, climate scientist, Steve Sherwood, says that observation shows that water vapour is circulating at shorter distances from the earth than the models are showing. When water vapour circulates lower it means reduction of cloud formation and and thus an increase in climate sensitivity.
In the UQx denial video, a major point is that historically whenever there has been higher levels of CO2 the climate has warmed so it seems unlikely that clouds will act as a kind of thermostat to lower the temperature.
You say: “The problem is that the water vapour / clouds system is very poorly understood and is in fact the weakest part of the whole thing.”
I think what the UQx denial video says is sufficient. Historically, higher levels of CO2 have corresponded to higher temperatures indicating that clouds do not act as a thermostat. That is all we need to be certain about to make us act on climate change.
An option? That’s a new term for me in relation to a degree.
He has Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a MAJOR in physics.
Pray, what are your credentials, Denier?
What matters to me is intelligent argument, not attacks on credentials. That is no form of argument at all. Please don’t waste everyone’s time with that sort of nonsense. What we’re all waiting with bated breath to learn from you, Denier, is what is wrong with the two articles by Dana Nuccitelli on skeptical science on clouds’ warming/cooling effects. Do you have intelligent words to say on these articles?
I already linked to an article about research on clouds from CERN. That is the absolute opposite end of the credibility scale from Nuccitelli. The answer – we don’t understand the clouds/vapour system which are (obviously) interlinked.
You “already linked to”. So you did, Denier, you linked to an article – the refuge of the person who cannot provide their own critique. It’s gone beyond links now, Denier, beyond links. You linked to one article and I linked to two others. If the only thing you can come up with is that CERN scientists are more reputable than the writers on SS you have ZERO argument. None at all. If you have no ability to critique any of the articles, give any hint at all where one paper is superior than another for whatever reasons, give some kind of thesis of the articles … then you have nothing. You have no credibility whatsoever and you are merely wasting everyone’s time on this site with false and nonsensical statements about others’ credibility.
I feel absolutely positive that given the task himself, John Cook would not be reduced to relying on links to articles but would be able to discuss authoritatively the CERN article against Dana Nuccitelli’s. What do you think, Denier, do you think that John would be capable of providing a critique or the basic theses of the articles where you cannot?
It says here
“Cook is trained as a solar physicist and says he is motivated by his Christian beliefs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science#Reception_and_motivation
That is pretty laughable qualifications for a scientist. If he had real qualifications they would state the level, date and university plus his published research. He is NOT a scientist.
My reply to Flaxgirl who linked to a page https://skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1
He has a BSc with an option in physics. That’s it. He has no published science (climate) papers. That is ALL that matters here.
Everything else happened after he became the Eliot Higgins / Forrest Gump celebrity of Australia. Hilariously his cognitive science PhD is about global warming denial supervised by an even bigger nut job, Stephan Lewandowsky.
Let me guess. You’re not a scientist, either, and your understanding perhaps is not sufficient to discuss the content of the article you link to yourself or the ones on the skepticalscience site authoritatively. I am not a scientist and I readily admit I’m not up to the task myself but I don’t go propagandising against climate science.
One thing that seems clear is that it is not clear how much warming and how much cooling are involved with clouds in which case why concern ourselves too much with it but rather concern ourselves with the fact that we know the global temperature is increasing in line with more and more greenhouse gas being pumped into the atmosphere and we need to do something about it.
And just one more thing. Can you please drop the nonsense that John Cook is a sophist. Water vapour and clouds are not one and the same phenomenon and as we can see – all you had to do was type “clouds” into the search – skepticalscience addresses both water vapour and clouds have been addressed.
So Tol argues that the consensus is only 91%!
I give you Dana’s response.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus
“An anonymous individual has also published an elegant analysis showing that Tol’s method will decrease the consensus no matter what data are put into it.”
http://t.co/wXd0FjekBE
Even if Tol were correct, this is only one study of the scientific literature on climate science. Others have found similar consensus.
97% http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract
97% http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
100% http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Nuccitelli is part of the Skeptical science mob, run by the Bellingcat of climate, John Cook. An Australian born again Christian lunatic who has been lauded Forrest Gump like by the global corporate establishment to push global warming and has even been given phony academic qualifications to make him look credible. He believes he will be lifted off the earth by God in the Rapture.
Nutter
“I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25”, he wrote. “… I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.”
Talk about unexpected – faith is hardly the de rigueur mindset in scientific circles, particularly when it is so frequently associated with US right-wing Fox punditry, anti-science rhetoric, creationism and – bizarrely, in the case of climate change – the Rapture.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/aug/25/solar-physicist-religion
Ivar Giaever has a Nobel Prize in physics.
“Global Warming Revisited – – climate science is pseudo science.
Freeman Dyson: Climate Change Predictions Are “Absurd”
These two men have more credibility than all those 97% climate scientists combined. They are old and they don’t have careers that can be destroyed by corporate interests.
It takes the usual combination of imbecility and Evil, typical of deniers, to place TWO ie 2, ‘scientists’ before tens of thousands of others, 200 years of climate science and the UNANIMOUS opinion of ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth. But human Evil and stupidity are surely limitless.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
FWIW I have heard several prominent truthers express skepticism about global warming. It tends to be an unpopular idea among the American libertarian right and many truthers tend to spring from this tradition. Alex Jones comes to mind as typical. I think both you and David Ray Griffin may come from the liberal tradition.
It’s refreshing to see the political spectrum represented in the truther movement, and I certainly don’t object to this diversity of views. I cant imagine why anyone would.
What does it matter that you don’t all agree on everything? It only shows you are honest people expressing honest opinions.
I, too, worked as a science librarian, with an MSc in Physics. The crucial question to ask is not percentages of scientists who go along with the grant-awarding authorities, but what the minority say. That’s at least 3%, which is a huge percentage for an established theory of Physics, which no-one is allowed to doubt. In 2006 I was the subject of a witch-hunt in Esperanto association of Britain. After their AGM a 90-year-old told me, “I voted for you because the one in a minority is usually right”. I was right. I’d produced a seminal report showing evidence that the basis of their claimed financial crisis was bogus. They were winding down the association. Yet if you were to judge by the speeches at the AGM you’d think I was indeed in a minority of one. I got 17% of the vote.
The question to ask is: “Where is the seminal paper?” Does it exist? Does it even exist for the greenhouse effect as applied to greenhouses? I don’t think many physicists believe that that’s how greenhouses work any more.
But well done on 9/11. I was led to that by following up on the Esperanto scam, and I was led to looking at climate change by following up on 9/11. Search relentlessly for the seminal physics paper, because if it ain’t there, there ain’t no case.
Elizabeth – I don’t mean to follow you around and snipe at you, but with respect, what is a “climate scientist?” Last time I looked Jim Hansen was a physicist, so is Michael Mann. But they’re climate scientists, correct? What makes a climate scientist? Is it a self-definition? Defined by the area of interest? Climate is such a massive and complex subject how do we define exactly when a scientist becomes a “climate scientist”?
And no, Elizabeth, sorry, that 97% figure is bogus. There are real figures which come in at around 30-60% support for the idea of manmade global warming, much lower for the question of whether it’s likely to be dangerous to human survival. That’s a separate and pretty controversial area of debate.
But what about the data? Do you agree the data matters and needs to take priority? Because it gets very little airtime in most concerned lay person discussion.
It reminds me of the 9/11 no-planers and space-beamers (not you but others), throwing insults and ad hominem around, refusing to discuss the evidence.
So you’re a “planer”, PSJ? Now why doesn’t that surprise me the least little bit.
Do you mind my asking what you find compelling about the 9/11 “official story” for want of a better term?
Excellent question.
The only compelling thing about the 9/11 Official Story is that it’s the official story.
That’s pretty compelling for some people, particularly if their careers, social position, or self-identity are depending on it.
I know Ian (iafantomo), and I can assure you he is not a believer of the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ narrative.
He mentioned this post in an email to a ‘group’ I belong to.
Personally, I believe Global Warming is very real, but it is not something I concentrate on.
I’m a 9/11 Truther, and what with that, ‘Chemtrails’, Wi-Fi/5G, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Ukraine and so forth, I have enough on my plate.
I will direct him back to this post, as I think he will want to answer for himself.
SGibbons,
I asked where you had read that Jones (et al) disputed AGW.
Now you repeat the claim. still with no reference.
Have you got anything, or are you spouting disinformation and lies ?
Possibly since the facts are not supporting the claim that man made CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change. Add to this the fact that regulating the average citizens energy usage is an amazing control mechanism of their behavior.
this is not to say I don’t believe the present economic system that needs the growth mechanism of cancer to sustain needs to be changed.
There are so many real problems that man causes that we need to deal with – over fishing – glyphosate and other herbicide and pestide use – Fukushima still dumping thousands of gallons of radioactive water into the Pacific every day since Mar 11. – the ever rising number of American children with neurological problems – …
we don’t need to deal with a false problem that will lead to more control by the elites
James Hansen endorsed an anti civilisation eco fascist book by Dark Mountain crazy Keith Farnish.
“The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization”.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/the-anti-industrial-revolution.html
Hansen’s endorsement
Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests – they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort. –
-Professor James Hansen, GISS, NASA
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Times-Up-Uncivilized-Solution-Global/dp/190032248X
Hansen isn’t primarily a scientist but an extreme anti technology, anti civilisation campaigner
Denier: I’d quite like to see you lay out just how you think that the capitalist system is survivable: let alone prospering. Do you believe in quasi-infinite compound exponential growth? Or indefinite supplies of easily recoverable, high quality negentropic resources? Or abiotic oil? Or infinite waste sinks? Infinitely reproducible high quality soil, potable water, clean air? Or do you imagine a techno-utopia of a human monoculture: with holographic flora and fauna in virtual natural history museums? Just how much further can we push the metabolism of the planet: or will we use our semi-divine ASI-Ubermensch Will-to-Power to create a new synthetic biome? Just what is your vision for Man without Nature?
The anti-civilisationists are those capitalists who would risk it all for just another $$$$.
BigB: Humans have gone from hunting woolly mammoth with stone tools to the iPhone and the International Space Station, and throughout this dramatic series of advances there have been shrill naysayers like yourself forecasting that it will all end badly and the sky is about to fall in. There is a long-standing tendency for people to think that their own era is somehow a special moment in history when everything is reaching its culmination and progress cannot continue. These people are always proven wrong because it turns out that the limitations are not in the world around us but in their own imaginations. However, their failure is always forgotten and each new generation updates the fallacy. Change some of the words in your comment and it could have been said centuries or millennia ago when people were worried about running out of wood or of coal, or about salination of croplands. While these were genuine problems, they did not cause humanity to collapse and retreat back to its caves but spurred innovation and discovery, which not only overcame the problems but vastly expanded human capabilities and created the advanced technological civilisation you now enjoy. Yes, there is a remote possibility that this time you and these authors are correct and the wolf really is in the field, but my money is on what Julian Simon called the ultimate resource, i.e. human ingenuity, and on future discoveries that negate your objections in ways none of us today can even conceive of, just as the Romans could not have conceived of wifi or lasers. All of your objections assume that humans will remain on the one tiny planet we now inhabit, and indeed we are coming up against its limitations, which is reflected in a logistic tailing off of global population growth. However, this increasing awareness of the planet’s limitations is at last motivating us to get off it. We already have a permanent presence in space and the growing activities of a number of space entrepreneurs suggest that we are on the threshold of a new step upward for humanity as we clamber out of the earth’s gravitational well and transition to a space-based civilisation. It will come sooner than you think, I guarantee that. Remember, 25 years ago, most of the internet didn’t even exist. Things can change a lot over that timescale. And this universe is pretty damn roomy, and is absolutely packed with minerals and negentropy, possibly in forms we don’t even know about yet, while the amount accessed by humans so far is utterly negligible. So on paper there is plenty of scope for exponential or hyperbolic growth to continue for a long time to come, and all it requires is for the innovators and optimists to triumph over the negativists and doom-mongers, as they have been doing every single day for the last fifty thousand years.
Jared M
No offence friend, I do not know you at all. As a little amusement: if you and Elon Musk and his capitalist hypertrophy buddies want to reach our nearest star (proxima centauri) – a mere 4.24 light years away …you better be on your way. With current technology it will take 81,000 years to reach. Only, it’s not habitable. The nearest habitable exoplanet I can see is 227 light years away. You do the maths: but I think that is about 4.3mn years?
Looks like you better stay here with me and try and make this world liveable and workable for all.
How exactly is life as we live it ‘survivable’? Surely an absurd framing.
Assigning evil to ‘Capitalism’ is likewise simplistic and meaningless.
Blanket generalisations that are associated with a presumed ‘we’.
Assigning evil to perceived or conceived trends, works the reaction of the pursuit of private ends.
Investment of emotional energy, and thus identity, in false thinking, invokes reacting to perceived evils in like kind – but as if serving the one true god/ideology/belief.
The presumption to thinking the Grand Model and then acting to impose changes in line with an replacement model or a new model order is the elitism that seeks to save itself from a true account – by not allowing any account that threatens the model it persists unknowingly – because the model IS the presumption to define predict and control leading to a sense of Right to do so. And Duty to protect the ‘right’.
The mind (that believes itself) adrift and separated from its own sustenance replicates life in manual overrides and substitutions – not least by combining with others in mutual agreements and alignments of identified power and protection in the context of the threat that is inherent to a fear of lack of sustenance.
This is not just a political conundrum but the mortal conditioning of human psyche and cultural development.
Possession and control operate as ‘combination’ power to which true individuality is sacrificed. NOT aligning in such sacrifice thus becomes perceived as a denier of the ‘power’ by which life is protected and thus attacked as the threat itself.
Humans don’t need Cosmic catastrophes now, they can make their own.
Assigning evil to ‘Capitalism’ is likewise simplistic and meaningless.
Humans don’t need Cosmic catastrophes now, they can make their own.
— but you’re here to tell us that capitalism is in no way catastrophic, all appearances to the contrary. The billionaires and their various hired thugs, stooges, and propagandists are completely innocent and blameless. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. Nothing to see here, please move along.
I’m glad we could clear up that issue.
(note to admins: have you counted what proportion of the total comment text on this site is contributed by this obvious disinfo shill? How would it be possible to produce such a quantity of garbled text, if not algorithmically? If the purpose of such volumes of meaningless verbiage isn’t to swamp and derail the real commentary, then what is it?)
Because I do not support your framing you presume I support your ‘enemy’. And then attack me as IF I was your enemy and interpret my responses AS IF they offend.
I believe ‘good and evil’ narratives are simplistic and obscuring and wide open to manipulative intent.
I have a sense of the Good as a true recognition that spontaneously shares itself.
Without the witnesses it may be the form of ‘good’ that cannot inspire joy if it is merely some compliance or conformity of behaviour.
And I have a sense of the evil arising as a result of a false framed definition of the good that necessarily invokes conflict.
That the identity in confusing false with true can and does generate such an evil experience or entanglement is both the conditioning of the last few thousand years or more – AND yet is not other than the layers and levels of our current consciousness as the embodiment of that conditioning – most of which is masked off or unconscious.
The primary device for unconsciousness is by denial, that energises assertion of accusation against others so as to hide in the saving nature of attack. Being ‘conscious of something ELSE – keeps you from what you are not ready or willing to own. In self righteous grievance is a sense of self-lack ‘saved’ from facing its own judgement upon itself.
Framing or defining ourself in lack, is seemingly imposed from without – hence the suffering of a physical world. But opening the curiosity and awareness for true of being notices more of what was hidden. And so there is that which desires to know and be known and there is that which seeks to mask and hide from exposure in what it fears to uncover or be revealed as. These are not exactly good and evil – but more an extension of relationship and the withholding and avoidance of relationship. One can extend love while electing to move in different directions or engage in self illusion under the forms of joining. the forms alone are not the fruits.
If you can ONLY see me as a troll – what’s your grievance? Where is the harm?
Has the socio-political gestalt shifted from all the old certainties? I thinks so – although I see the same core patterns taking different forms.
if I got it together I could write to a blog and only post a short extract in the post here with a link to the full post. You could ask for something like that instead of generating such a grievance and suffering it.
I watched a bit of Jung last night where he recounted being shamed at school or college for submitting work that the teacher declared was copied. It was Jung’s work and was of such a nature because he was passionately interested and brought such an attention. But it was denounced by the teacher and he was subjected to shaming – regardless no evidences whatsoever.
Here’s a quote I resonated with from someone I look forward to learning ore of.
“I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” ― Malcolm X
I’m not really focused in the personal grievance. I embrace my fate as a whole and stay open to staying with – whatever is going on. The world is quite mad and yet in different moments I see and share in different ‘worlds’. Why fixate in what makes us sick? Why not consciously choose to align in health of a wholeness of being? What might that actually be?
THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE FULL MOVIE
video – 1 hour 16 minutes
The Great Global Warming Swindle Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.”
https://vladtepesblog.com/global-warming-related-media-and-articles/
Is that a full or partial narrative? Bracketing off the climate (like it is an isolatable comensurable entity): is humanity living in harmony with Nature? Or is the overall systemic view of humanity one of very great disequilibrium and dangerous imbalance with our fragile planet? And massive disequilibrium and dehumanisation amongst ourselves? What if we are wrong about the climate? The definitve view for AGW is as suspect as the definitive view against. With all Unborn biotic life to answer for: which is the safer determination to make? What moral right does just a 20% minority of consumers have to decide the longterm fate of the planet – to the exclusion of 80% of humanity – for their continued petty-bourgeois prosperity now? If AGW was not real: wouldn’t we need to invent it anyway …to precipitate radical change and justice for all – born and unborn?
Never mind the truth here’s the bollocks!
Invent ‘truths’ to manipulate people to serve a vengeance or hate agenda?
Post truth is will to power in which everything and anything else will be distorted or subverted to serve and support that power.
But what power, born of such deceit, can serve any justice?
A mockumentary that was universally criticised for its lies and misrepresentations.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/tv/11213
I suspect that the majority of regular visitors to ‘Off-Guardian’ probably come here because like myself they did not believe the reports put out by the MSM and view it’s output as unaldulterated propaganda.
The question which therefore arises is why should we believe them in respect of AGW when we barely believe them on any other issue, what could be the reason that they wish to pursue this agenda, what do they hope to achieve and who stands to benefit the most.
To look into some of these questions and ponder for yourself I heartily recommend watching James Corbett’s work on Maurice Strong who was a key figure in the founding of various UN environmental summits and to quote Jame Corbett “Rothschild’s dream came true when Strong presided over another high-level UN environment summit: the 1992 Rio “Earth Summit.”” https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-maurice-strong-globalist-oiligarch-environmentalist/
Also well worth watching are Corbett’s reports; https://www.corbettreport.com/pay-up-or-the-earth-gets-it-propagandawatch/
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1131-elaine-dewar-on-maurice-strongs-cloak-of-green/
There are many more interesting and informative items on James Corbett’s website not least of which if you haven’t seen it is documentary “How and Why Big Oil Conquered the World” https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
That is a very silly argument. Anthropogenic climate destabilisation science is not a creation of the global elites. They are often enough deniers, like you, because fossil fuels represent tens of trillions in assets, that require being reduced to zero value if humanity is to survive. Do you have shares in fossil fuels? Much of the media, certainly the Murdoch cancer, remain wickedly and ferociously denialist.
What do the other 3% think?