climate change, featured, latest, Reviews
Comments 598

Review: Unprecedented Crime

Philip Roddis

c

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

Scribbler for some sixty years, and for fifteen a photographer too, Philip Roddis began blogging in the early noughties by inflicting film reviews on an unsuspecting public. Soon he was doing the same with illustrated writings on wanderings in Asia and Africa. He writes “to help me think, and because I like to be read”, and finds photography's problem solving aspects "a break from those of writing, as well as an aid to writing and to reflective travel”.

His blog is Steel City Scribblings

598 Comments

    • 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.

      • BigB says

        So Lewis’ maths is good (this time). So what? Following on from the thread below:

        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 (by Lewis’ maths). 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?

        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?

  1. Mark Gobell says

    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

    • Admin says

      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

    • Antonym says

      Most labour intensive spamming I’ve ever seen; longest posts too.

      • 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.

      • BigB says

        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:

        “…this has been accompanied by the improvement of all indeces of human welfare (including environmental welfare).”

        So the world is getting better (due to the myth of progress); and we’ve never had it so good? Better for whom?

        “…this has been accompanied by the improvement of all indeces of human welfare (including environmental welfare).”

        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.

          • BigB says

            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).

            https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/x-y-graph-of-energy-consumption-and-world-gdp-to-2016.png

            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?

  2. BigB says

    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.

    • BigB says

      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.

  3. 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

    • Moriartys Left Sock says

      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

      3
      1
    • BigB says

      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.

      1
      2
      • 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.

  4. Antonym says

    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.

    • Moriartysleftsock says

      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?

      • Antonym says

        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?

        • I guess that with that link I could have quoted part of the author’s conclusion:

          The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

          Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming.

          Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected.

          Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.

          But perhaps that is too much to hope for.

          Nicholas Lewis 6 November 2018

          • BigB says

            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’ …

          • BigB says

            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.

              • BigB says

                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?

                • binra says

                  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?

            • Antonym says

              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/

          • BigB says

            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?

            • Admin says

              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.

          • Antonym says

            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.

            1
            1
    • 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.

      1
      1
      • Moriartys Left Sock says

        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.

        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

        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.

    • Moriartysleftsock says

      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.

      4
      1
  5. Moriartys Left Sock says

    Reply to flaxgirl about the falsification of data perpetrated by Jones et al and openly admitted in the Climategate emails

    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.

    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.

    Doing this is perfectly reasonable because of the “divergence” problem.

    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/

    https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm
    As indicated below, Jones should have distinguished between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in the graph

    Yes, he should. Not doing so was fraudulent.

    however, the escalation of this lack of transparency into a crime far greater is more dishonest than the lack of transparency.

    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.

    There was no crime in replacing the temperature type used – only in not being transparent about it.

    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.”

    I agree it shouldn’t have been done but the skeptics have completely misrepresented it.

    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.

    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

    It’s been “rightly criticised” because it’s fraudulent.

    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).

    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.

    • SGibbons says

      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.

      • Admin says

        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.

  6. Antonym says

    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.

  7. Antonym says

    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?

    • PSJ says

      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.

      • binra says

        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.

  8. Moriartys Left Sock says

    A reply to flaxgirl I once again can’t post in the correct place

    I am not a “believer” Moriarty. I hate being accused of being a believer.

    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.

    From almost the first moment I heard about man-made climate change I accepted it as quite probable simply because it made sense.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    we have to look at other things affecting climate and there could be natural thermostatic effects which mitigate the increased warming … or whatever.

    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.

    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

    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.

      • writerroddis says

        “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!

        2
        2
          • writerroddis says

            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.

              • BigB says

                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.

        • Moriartys Left Sock says

          The Planet will shrug off anything we throw at it.

          Indeed it probably will.Though a full scale thermonuclear war would probably wipe out most forms of life on land.

          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.

          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?

          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.

          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.

          My views are (a) current climate changes are real, man made and terrifying;

          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.

          (b) even if I’m wrong, the kinds of action required are good on other fronts (air pollution, oil wars and much more);

          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.

          (c) the consequences of the anti AGW camp being wrong are vastly worse than those of the AGW camp being wrong,

          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.

          (d) this debate has run its course since the anti AGW camp here is not the problem.

          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.

          3
          2
  9. Moriartys Left Sock says

    @BigB (reply to comment way down this thread which doesn’t allow reply)

    Suffice to say, your “literally dozens” of scientists have access to peer reviewed literature to make a case

    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?

    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.

    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?

    How about the environmental cost of carbon?

    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.

    4
    1
    • BigB says

      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.

      1
      2
      • Moriartys Left Sock says

        @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.

        2
        1
        • BigB says

          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.

          • Moriartys Left Sock says

            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

            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.

            Trick 2 – DIVERSION USING REAL OR ASSUMED MORAL OUTRAGE

            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

            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:

            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.

            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

            2
            1
            • Admin says

              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?

                • 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.

            • BigB says

              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:

              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 …

              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’?

            • binra says

              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.

                  • Mark Gobell says

                    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

                    https://wi-images.condecdn.net/image/ZmNJYo61VYA/crop/1020/f/5201_main_aircraft-condensation-trails-contrails-cirrus-homogenitus_clouds-special-clouds-and-other-features.jpg

                    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).

      • PSJ says

        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!

  10. mog says

    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.

    2
    1
    • 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:

      In 1912, Alfred Wegener proposed a theory of continental drift. Not only was the shape of the continents in favour of his idea, but he also provided further well-documented paleontological and geological evidence that backed his theory. Yet, his ideas were vehemently rejected by all leading geologists of the time. While the established theory of sunken land bridges was complicated, arbitrary and counter-intuitive, Wegener’s alternative was not accepted because nobody could imagine the physics behind the motion of the continents.

      One key factor, however, was the fact that he was a meteorologist. As such, he was not part of the ‘community’ and, therefore, geologists dismissed him as an ‘amateur’. Some imprecise terminology in Wegener’s writings helped his opponents ridicule his theory as ‘pseudo-science’, though his only fault was not holding the prejudices of the field. As the geologist Chamberlin put it around 1928, “If we are to believe Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70 years and start all over again”.

      (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

      • binra says

        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.

    • Moriartys Left Sock says

      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.

      • mog says

        I’ll thank you for nothing.
        As for OffG, I have thanked them, on numerous occasions, and I thank them again here.

        • Moriartys Left Sock says

          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.

      • Moriartys Left Sock says

        Gosh, Mog, one of your paragons of reason thinks 9/11 was staged! Ouch, that’s gotta be embarrassing 😉

    • writerroddis says

      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.

  11. Kathy says

    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.

  12. 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.

        • Antonym says

          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?

            • Antonym says

              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.

                • Moriartys Left Sock says

                  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.

                    • LadyDi says

                      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.

            • Moriartys Left Sock says

              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.”

                • Admin says

                  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.

                • Moriartys Left Sock says

                  “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.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.”

                  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

                • Moriartys Left Sock says

                  BTW, when I mentioned the LIA I said this to you:

                  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.

                  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.

                      You want to emphasize as ‘fact’ that “the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but has since not been.”

                      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 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?

                    • Admin says

                      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?

                    • Admin says

                      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!

                      If Big Oil is accepting AGW it’s because it sees a way to profit from it either directly or indirectly. Period.

                      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’

                    • Mark Gobell says

                      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.

                    • binra says

                      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:

                      https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/leif-9000-fig2.png

                      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.

      • LadyDi says

        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.

  13. BigB says

    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?

    2
    1
    • Antonym says

      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.

    • Moriartys Left Sock says

      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.

      • BigB says

        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?

        • Antonym says

          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.

          • BigB says

            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.

  14. BigB says

    Earlier today, one of the various people who can access the ‘Admin’ epithet posted this:

    “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.”

    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?

    2
    1
    • Admin says

      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.

      4
      1
      • 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?

        • Admin says

          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.

              • Admin says

                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?

                  • Admin says

                    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.

                    • Admin says

                      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?

                    • binra says

                      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.

              • binra says

                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

          • BigB says

            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).

            “The human impact on climate is a theory, supported by many hypotheses, each of them tested according to widely accepted scientific standards.” Hans Custers

            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.

            • PSJ says

              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?

              4
              1
              • “Endeavouring”

                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.

                • Moriartys Left Sock says

                  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.

                    • Moriartys Left Sock says

                      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.

                    • Admin says

                      He’s not lying if he believes AGW is the best explanation though is he.

                    • binra says

                      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

                    • BigB says

                      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.

              • antonym says

                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

                  • Moriartys Left Sock says

                    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.

                    • BigB says

                      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?

                    • 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.

              • Have you read any of the studies that look at some of the longstanding other potential climate forcers?

                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.

                1
                1
                • 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.

              • Moriartys Left Sock says

                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.

                • BigB says

                  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?

                  • Moriartys Left Sock says

                    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”?

                    • BigB says

                      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?

                    • BigB says

                      I meant to add that the guesstimate was Curry’s not mine.

            • writerroddis says

              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!!!

              3
              1