598

Review: Unprecedented Crime

The unprecedented crime Peter Carter and Elizabeth Woodworth refer to in the title is that of willfully causing global temperatures to rise, through greenhouse gas emissions, to levels already causing large-scale loss of life while threatening human survival and that of countless other species. They might with equal accuracy speak of crimes, plural, when those who from positions of authority either actively aid key offenders or, by failing to hold them to account, betray the trust placed in them.

This is the unique selling point of Unprecedented Crime: a closely argued insist­en­ce that, under existing laws and without recourse to new ones framed specifically to outlaw ecocide, we could indict corporate and governmental bodies identified without hyperbole by the authors as guilty of crimes against humanity.

Think about it. Ninety-seven percent of scientists in relevant disciplines are telling us climate change is real, is man-made and is taking us all, meaning humanity and other advanced life forms, down a roller coaster of environmental catastrophe. Not in some distant sci-fi dystopia but on a timescale measured in decades, years even. Given this, the scale and extent of denial – literal in the case of ‘sceptics’ in the pay of Fossil Fuels Inc; de facto in that of governmental cowardice and venality – are staggering. Why then, with the stakes so high, would we not view the perpetrators as guilty of crimes of a magnitude surpassing anything the world has seen – even in history’s darkest moments?

This is the premise of Carter and Woodworth’s case. Like any good scientist, they start with observable phenomena, as indicated by their opening chapter: Extreme Weather Around the World. From here they proceed, again as scientists do, to set out in Chapter Two the underlying drivers; in this case a heightening of earth’s natural and life-optimal greenhouse effect, to unnatural and decidedly sub-optimal levels, noting along the way a 1990 assertion by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that as a matter of certainty:

Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the green-house effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface temperature.

But that second chapter does more than set out the science. It locates the birth of a small and decidedly non-scientific cabal, of pretty much the most powerful vested interests on the planet – aka the fossil fuels industry and its financiers – and charts their success in casting doubt on that IPCC certainty:

In 2010 a landmark book, Merchants of Doubt, showed how a small group of prominent scientists with connections to politics and industry led disinformation campaigns denying established scientific knowledge about smoking, acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, and global warming.

Written by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Harvard science historian, and NASA historian Erik Conway, Merchants was reviewed by Bill Buchanan of The Christian Science Monitor as “the most important book of 2010,” and by The Guardian’s Robin McKie as “the best science book of the year.” It was followed by the 2014 documentary of the same name, also widely seen and reviewed.

The research showed how the disinformation tactics of the tobacco companies in the 1960s to undermine the scientific link between smoking and lung cancer served as a model for subsequent oil company tactics suppressing climate change science.

Following the U.S. Surgeon General’s landmark report on smoking and lung cancer in 1964, the government legislated warning labels on cigarette packages. But a tobacco company executive from Brown & Williamson had a brainwave: people still wanted to smoke and doubt about the science would give them a ready excuse.

His infamous 1969 memo read: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

Here’s the thing. People exercised by a terrifying possibility, whose avoidance or mitigation will necessitate – or can be portrayed as necessitating – inconvenience and pain, will be receptive to the counter-view that it’s all hogwash, or at the very least that the doomsayers are overegging things. So eagerly receptive, in fact, that they won’t look too closely at the motives of those advancing such a counter-view. Nuff said, save that Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers For Survival’s spotlight on dirty tricks and systematic strong-arming – their attendant corruption of body politic and informed debate constituting a crime in and of itself – does not make for the most relaxing of bedtime reading.

Three subsequent chapters make the case against an unholy trinity whose crimes of commission and omission would place them in the dock, under existing laws, in a saner and less mendacious world. The headers speak for themselves: State Crime Against the Global Public Trust … Media Collusion (a chapter of particular interest in light of the recently published Media Lens book on media corruption by market forces) … Corporate and Bank Crime …

Chapter 6 discusses Moral Collapse and Religious Apathy. Well well. Search in vain for a “thou shalt not trash Planet Earth” message in Quran, Veda or Bible, but these and other revered texts from our pre-industrial past have much to say on injustice. The meek, you see, are not to inherit the earth after all. Rather, the world’s poorest – their carbon footprints negligible – find themselves at the front line of climatic catastrophes already underway as a result of corporate greed in the Global North. Here’s a snippet from the early pages of John Smith’s Imperialism in the Twenty-first Century, reviewed here, on this aspect of the matter. Having opened with the collapse of an eight-storey textile factory in Dhaka, killing 1133 workers, Smith goes on to say that:

Starvation wages, death-trap factories and fetid slums in Bangladesh typify conditions for hundreds of millions of workers in the Global South, source of surplus value sustaining profits and unsustainable overconsumption in imperialist countries. Bangladesh is also in the front line of another consequence of capitalism’s reckless exploitation of living labor and nature: “climate change”, more accurately described as capitalist destruction of nature. Most of Bangladesh is low-lying. As sea levels rise and monsoons become more energetic, farmland is inundated with salt water, accelerating migration into the cities …

I’ve a reason for citing this. Part Two of Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers For Survival moves from naming the guilty to setting out what is to be done. In doing so the authors introduce the only note I take issue with in the entire book. Chapter 10, on Market Leadership, opens with this:

Much has been written about the constraining effects of capitalism, globalization, and the debt-based economy on a clean energy transition, saying that we must begin by addressing these root issues.

Although these structural impediments may be slowing the potential pace of renewable energy growth, the climate emergency allows us no time to fix the economic system first.

For reasons I’ve gone into elsewhere – here for instance, and here – I shudder at such strawman argument. Few on the left say “fix capitalism then climate change” but many, me included, see scant prospect of stopping or even slowing this and other effects of capitalism’s destruction of nature without taking on what the authors rightly refer to in the above extract as “root issues”. The two fights are one and the same. The underlying cause of climate change is capitalism’s inbuilt addiction to growth: its constant and tyrannical drive to create ever more stuff for us to buy; its demand – no less imperious for that sly obeisance to the God of Choice – that we continually cast out the old to make room for the new and, by this and this alone, breathe life into falling profits in an endless cycle of boom and bust. Moreover, there’s only one irrefutable reply to the mantra that measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions are – like measures to rein in the lucrative death-for-profit industries – “anti-job”. That is to push back at such slick and circular ‘reasoning’ by placing wealth creation for human need, not private profit, firmly on the table.

So say I. But where does this leave the likes of me? Do we withdraw in a sulk from collaboration with those who see things otherwise while sharing our horror at the criminal insanity unfolding before our eyes? Hardly. Climate breakdown, this book reminds us, leaves no room for sectarianism. Red and Green must find common cause. To that end we should differentiate two forms of collaboration: on the one hand rainbow alliances whose shaky, lowest common denominator foundat­ions require dilution upon dilution of principle, only to implode at the first real test of solidarity; on the other hand working alliances, united fronts, in which no dilution of principle is called for. Just shared recognition of a common goal, and willingness to engage with all who are prepared to work towards it.

To that end, Unprecedented Crime offers a resounding rallying call. It sets out with admirable clarity the nature and scale of the problem, offering a novel but logically flawless way of viewing that problem with the urgency necessary for confronting it with adequate resolve. It lays out the basis for a program of concrete demands in the here and now: demands around which an opposition movement can coalesce, demands with which to win over the undecided as well as those who have given up on hope and demands with which to counter the lies of denialists and the delusions of those who still believe we have time on our side.

Unprecedented Crime – Climate Science Denial and Game Changers For Survival can be ordered here:  https://www.claritypress.com/Carter.html or in England from Amazon.  It has a Foreword by Dr. James Hansen: former top NASA climate scientist, probably the world’s best-known climate scientist and the man who blew the whistle on climate change to Congress in 1988. Dr. Peter Carter, is an IPCC expert reviewer

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

598 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Antonym
Antonym
Nov 14, 2018 2:07 PM

Nov.14 2018: Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 14, 2018 6:36 PM
Reply to  Antonym

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 14, 2018 7:41 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 14, 2018 6:43 PM
Reply to  Antonym

Link not available in EU.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 12, 2018 7:17 AM

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

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 12, 2018 1:32 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

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

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 11, 2018 9:28 PM

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 11, 2018 9:33 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

P.S. It was my intention to share the whole lecture, and not have the video start at 13 minutes and some . . .

binra
binra
Nov 11, 2018 11:24 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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,… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 14, 2018 5:41 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 14, 2018 8:00 PM
Reply to  BigB

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.… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 15, 2018 10:23 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Norm You must have noticed that I have repeatedly said that $$$$ = carbon. Expressed slightly more scientifically: Output: global GDP (expressed as $$$$tns) = input: energy (hydrocarbons: measured in megatonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)) …which correlate at near enough a ratio of 1:1 (R2 = 0.99072). The world economy is an energy economy. Carbon consumption = capitalism. PROFIT = CARBON. The two are not separable. The separation of present and future effects of profit valorisation are nominal and notional. Therefore: the future effects of burning carbon are real and tangible: as death, destruction, and dehumanisation NOW. AGW is a variable, which, if you accept (as you do) the current violence of capitalism, it becomes in effect, inconsequential. Capitalism will kill us anyway, AGW or not. Carbon consumption is becoming more and more costly, even if you bracket off AGW …due to EROI. That cost will (already is) becoming an… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 9, 2018 11:43 AM

Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster : Israel : Moshe Dayan Moshe Dayan : ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’ * See also :Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137063 See also : Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner and the To-hoku Earthquake & Tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137216 See also : Related : Nuclear fission : Otto Robert Frisch and the WW2 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137219 * On February 24, 2010, it was reported that Japan had offered to enrich uranium for Iran. Japan Offers to Enrich Uranium for Iran https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/10221-japan-offers-to-enrich-uranium-for-iran Report: Japan offers to enrich uranium for Iran http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3853864,00.html yandex.com search : Fukushima Israel https://yandex.com/search/?text=fukushima%20israel&lr=104986 * Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami and : Japan : Fukushima Daiichi nuclear… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 8, 2018 5:59 PM

Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner and the To-hoku Earthquake & Tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan. See also : Japan : The 2011 Tohoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137063 * Japan : The 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami and : Japan : Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on 11 March 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster * Lise Meitner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner Lise Meitner ( 7 November 1878 – 27 October 1968 ) was an Austrian-Swedish physicist who worked on radioactivity and nuclear physics. Meitner, Otto Hahn and Otto Robert Frisch led the small group of scientists who first discovered nuclear fission of uranium when it absorbed an extra neutron; the results were published in early 1939. Meitner, Hahn and Frisch understood that the fission process, which splits the atomic nucleus of uranium into two smaller nuclei, must be accompanied by an enormous release of… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 8, 2018 6:23 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

Related : Nuclear fission : Otto Robert Frisch and the WW2 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. See also : Japan : The 2011 Tohoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137063 See also : Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner and the To-hoku Earthquake & Tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137216 * Otto Robert Frisch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Robert_Frisch Otto Robert Frisch FRS ( 1 October 1904 – 22 September 1979 ) was an Austrian physicist who worked on nuclear physics. With Lise Meitner he advanced the first theoretical explanation of nuclear fission ( coining the term ) and first experimentally detected the fission by-products. Later, with his collaborator Rudolf Peierls he designed the first theoretical mechanism for the detonation of an atomic bomb in 1940. * Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki During the final stage of World War II, the United States detonated two nuclear… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 9, 2018 8:50 AM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

Mark; If your examples of date arithmetic gives ‘signatures’ to events – if I got that right – who or what might be the nature of the power to synchronise such timings and what significances do you draw or seek to communicate? Or are you hoping someone else will in some way tell you? The inference is of malign influence from a higher or dimension of which we only experience effect and assign it causes in the realm of effects – or the physical dimension. This can of course be associated with magic, but anyone using a tool can become identified or in a sense possessed by their toolset, and so the most ‘powerful’ may simply be conduits for a sense of powerlessness that is then compelled to act as it does. The idea of free will is inverted in the idea of magic – as it is in the… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 9, 2018 9:29 AM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

(A) …lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. – Joseph Goebbels I thought of this quote (I saw on SOTT yesterday) for the name similarity and the theme – but truth is perceived as enemy by mind-investment in the lie as the measure of its own act or intention. Truth doesn’t attack or destroy lies. Truth being itself true, is the condition in which untruth is undone. Hence the protection of the lie by the mind-investment in attacking it and thereby assigning or sacrificing truth to it. As for Goebells – he… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 9, 2018 12:18 PM
Reply to  binra

Hello binra Thank you for your interest. There’s a lot to parse in your posts, so it might be a tad more productive and certainly a lot clearer if you have any questions, to ask them one a at time so that I can answer them one at a time. I’ll take one of your points, since you mention “magic”. Please see these posts and the links therein : jamesfetzer.org : Thomas Muller, Observations on the Squirrel Hill Synagogue Shooting (Updated) MG : https://jamesfetzer.org/2018/10/thomas-muller-observations-on-the-squirrel-hill-synagogue-shooting-updated/#comment-42119 Quote : “All false flag events, faux terrorism, mass shootings etc., use a scheduling system that relies on the use of kabbalistic numbers to define the Y, M, W & D relationships between events.” winterwatch.net : Re-Examining the Untimely Death of a President’s Son: John F. Kennedy, Jr. MG : Holocaust narrative : Anne Frank and the murder of JFK Jr. https://www.winterwatch.net/2018/11/re-examining-the-untimely-death-of-a-presidents-son-john-f-kennedy-jr/#comment-7640 MG : Re: “belief… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 9, 2018 6:32 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

I was interested in what moves you. I have my own sense of the world not being actually as it is be-lived to be, where the beliefs of a mind-capture* by deceit are effectively protected from exposure or indeed healing.(mind capture*or indeed of a mind-split of dissociation from true relation as the demand for unconsciousness). Tesla’s birth – being one of your date sum examples (I did follow one of your links) doesn’t fall under the same framework as a planned event – at least not to the date. I used the term ‘magic’ because it is part of the nature of the cultural background of the secret societies – is it not? A hypnotist can elicit a blister from a cold needle believed hot, placebo can work as well or better than pharma, and a cancer diagnosis can kill – even if it turned out later to have been… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 8, 2018 5:51 PM

Thanks for your response Admin.

Most odd. I thought those “gremlins” were all dealt with during the revamp ?

Great shame they are still occurring …

I keep copies of everything I post, so should I submit it again ?

Will it get through this time ?

I had to wait over 24 hours for the previous post to appear …

MG

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 8, 2018 12:46 AM

Fisherman weighs in.

https://youtu.be/IFbACPh2xPA?t=143

BigB
BigB
Nov 7, 2018 2:38 PM

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 7, 2018 2:41 PM
Reply to  BigB

Flip! It came in at the top again, Admin. This was a reply to you from yesterday.

binra
binra
Nov 7, 2018 3:31 PM
Reply to  BigB

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.… Read more »

Admin
Admin
Nov 4, 2018 5:35 PM

I’m going to move your comment as it’s evidently a reply to flaxgirl

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 4, 2018 11:34 AM

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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 4, 2018 3:42 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 4, 2018 5:40 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 4, 2018 8:16 PM
Reply to  BigB

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… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 3, 2018 11:09 AM

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
Moriartysleftsock
Nov 3, 2018 12:20 PM
Reply to  Antonym

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… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 3, 2018 1:17 PM

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?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 6, 2018 7:28 PM
Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 6, 2018 7:35 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 6, 2018 9:15 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 6, 2018 11:21 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 7, 2018 2:48 AM
Reply to  BigB

“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.… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 7, 2018 3:03 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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
binra
Nov 7, 2018 4:01 PM
Reply to  BigB

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… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 7, 2018 11:59 PM
Reply to  BigB

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.

binra
binra
Nov 8, 2018 10:08 AM
Reply to  axisofoil

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… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 8, 2018 12:15 PM
Reply to  binra

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?

binra
binra
Nov 8, 2018 1:54 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 8, 2018 3:41 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

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… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 9, 2018 1:28 PM
Reply to  BigB

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
BigB
Nov 7, 2018 12:20 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 7, 2018 12:49 PM
Reply to  BigB

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… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 7, 2018 2:13 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 4, 2018 10:46 AM
Reply to  Antonym

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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 4, 2018 11:12 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

Elizabeth Woodworth
Elizabeth Woodworth
Nov 5, 2018 12:58 AM

Good explanation.

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 3, 2018 3:43 AM
Moriartysleftsock
Moriartysleftsock
Nov 3, 2018 12:39 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 2, 2018 12:03 PM

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 12:45 PM

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
SGibbons
Nov 2, 2018 12:57 PM

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.

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 12:09 PM

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.

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 11:38 AM

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
PSJ
Nov 1, 2018 3:07 PM
Reply to  Antonym

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
binra
Nov 3, 2018 10:03 PM
Reply to  PSJ

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.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 1:58 AM

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 4:56 AM

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 5:49 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.… Read more »

writerroddis
writerroddis
Nov 1, 2018 10:15 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

“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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 10:43 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

SHU – So is the outcome settled?

writerroddis
writerroddis
Nov 1, 2018 10:51 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 11:22 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

Best of luck.

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 1:25 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:26 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 9:13 PM

@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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 8:55 AM

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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:39 AM
Reply to  BigB

@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.

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 1:08 PM

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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 2:01 PM
Reply to  BigB

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 8:38 PM
Reply to  Editor

Thanks Admin! 🙂

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 10:52 PM
Reply to  BigB

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 8:21 PM

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 10:34 PM

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… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 3, 2018 11:58 PM
Reply to  binra

“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?

binra
binra
Nov 5, 2018 12:46 AM
Reply to  axisofoil

‘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… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 5, 2018 8:58 AM
Reply to  binra

March 2017 : New cloud type : Homomutatus After years of various denials that what folk were in the sky, did not exist, ( if they bothered to “look up” and most seemingly do not ), last year the WMO and the UK’s Met Office announced updates to the International Cloud Atlas to include 12 new cloud types. One of them was named : homomutatus Twelve ‘new’ types of cloud finally gain Met Office recognition https://weather.com/en-GB/unitedkingdom/weather/news/twelve-new-types-cloud-gain-met-office-recognition-named/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic_cloud But by far the greatest number of anthropogenic clouds are airplane contrails (condensation trails) and rocket trails.[3][4] Gallery: all the new clouds officially recognised by the Met Office https://www.wired.co.uk/gallery/cloud-formations-met-office-weather Homomutatus Persistent contrails (of the Cirrus family of clouds) are formed over a period of time under the influence of strong upper winds. They grow and spread out over a larger portion of sky, and eventually take on the appearance of more natural cirri-form… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 5, 2018 8:43 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

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… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Nov 1, 2018 3:18 PM
Reply to  BigB

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!

mog
mog
Oct 31, 2018 4:30 PM

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… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 31, 2018 7:15 PM
Reply to  mog

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 7:35 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 9:16 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 8:21 PM
Reply to  mog

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… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 31, 2018 9:13 PM

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
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 9:18 PM
Reply to  mog

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 7:45 AM
Reply to  mog

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?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 8:01 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:43 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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

writerroddis
writerroddis
Nov 1, 2018 11:41 AM
Reply to  mog

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.

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 10:09 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

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… Read more »

Kathy
Kathy
Oct 31, 2018 2:34 PM

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… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 31, 2018 11:55 AM

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,… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 31, 2018 12:30 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

And something I only just came across and that some may find relevant to the discussion:

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 7:56 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Norman, this is what Ari Jokimaki has to say about Svensmark. I haven’t watched your video and only skimmed the article and comments – just to say that it may be worth looking at both sides if you believe that Svensmark has a valid argument.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/analysis_of_svensmark_reference_list.html

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 8:03 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 10:48 AM
Reply to  Antonym

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
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 11:19 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 11:32 AM
Reply to  Antonym

I’m afraid the data does not support the cosmic rays/cloud-seeing theory, Antonym. You’ll need to pull out another skeptic argument. I’m sure you’ve got a number still to go.
https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:49 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 12:36 AM

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
LadyDi
Nov 2, 2018 3:06 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 4:05 AM
Reply to  LadyDi

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?

binra
binra
Nov 5, 2018 12:27 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 2, 2018 5:19 PM

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.… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 11, 2018 12:40 AM
Reply to  binra

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 11, 2018 9:52 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:55 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 5:30 AM

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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 2, 2018 11:09 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

“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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 2, 2018 11:17 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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! 😀

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 12:13 PM

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 1:03 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 4:45 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.,… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 8:26 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 9:11 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:15 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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.”

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 8:35 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 9:20 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:30 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 9:51 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Okay, she’s a he, and it’s not Usokin, but Usoskin.

So what’s the problem with the ice core study?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 10:06 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 8:46 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

And just to add further:

From SS:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:13 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:39 PM
Reply to  Editor

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?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:58 PM
Reply to  Editor

I guess you wouldn’t understand the seriousness of the case because, if it’s the same Admin, you think the children’s legal case against the US government is a psyop. Please read this article and then confirm whether or not you still think it’s a psyop.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/kids-sue-us-government-climate-change/

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 10:16 PM
Reply to  Editor

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… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 10:04 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

“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?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 10:10 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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.”

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 3, 2018 2:49 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 3, 2018 5:28 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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.

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 6:09 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 4, 2018 10:48 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 2, 2018 9:55 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 10:43 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

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
binra
Nov 3, 2018 6:41 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 3, 2018 3:49 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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:
comment image

Source: HERE

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 4:27 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 2, 2018 8:40 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

‘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… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 31, 2018 1:50 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

More to consider:

LadyDi
LadyDi
Nov 2, 2018 3:11 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I can 100% guarantee flaxgirl did not watch this video.

binra
binra
Nov 2, 2018 12:04 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 30, 2018 9:45 AM

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 30, 2018 9:48 AM
Reply to  BigB

That was obviously a reply to Admin.

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 31, 2018 8:46 AM
Reply to  BigB

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.

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 31, 2018 1:55 PM
Reply to  BigB

Try this about getting raw data out of climate scientists dead hands: http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/19/climategate-coverup/

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 9:33 PM
Reply to  BigB

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 7:35 AM

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… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 7:56 AM
Reply to  BigB

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
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 10:47 AM
Reply to  Antonym

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.

BigB
BigB
Oct 29, 2018 5:18 PM

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 30, 2018 4:48 AM
Reply to  Editor

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 30, 2018 11:25 AM
Reply to  Editor

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 30, 2018 9:35 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 11:41 AM
Reply to  Editor

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?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:10 PM
Reply to  Editor

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 1:40 AM
Reply to  Editor

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:14 PM
Reply to  Editor

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
binra
Nov 1, 2018 10:55 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 12:25 AM
Reply to  binra

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.

binra
binra
Nov 5, 2018 11:29 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 8:37 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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’… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 12:41 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 31, 2018 12:08 AM
Reply to  Editor

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… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 31, 2018 12:46 AM
Reply to  BigB

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 2:03 AM
Reply to  PSJ

“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
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 2:16 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 8:46 PM

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

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:40 PM

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
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 9:55 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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.

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 10:16 PM
Reply to  Editor

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… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 12:30 AM

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 11:16 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 2, 2018 9:41 PM
Reply to  BigB

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 2:39 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

antonym
antonym
Oct 31, 2018 3:44 AM
Reply to  PSJ

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 7:18 AM
Reply to  antonym

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
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 2:01 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 31, 2018 6:47 PM

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… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 8:51 PM
Reply to  BigB

Whats’ with the shift to carbon?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 8:58 PM

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.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:18 AM
Reply to  PSJ

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.

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 8:16 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

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… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 2:09 PM
Reply to  PSJ

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
BigB
Oct 31, 2018 4:29 PM

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
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 8:06 PM
Reply to  BigB

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
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 9:25 AM

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… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 10:56 AM

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

writerroddis
writerroddis
Oct 31, 2018 8:44 AM
Reply to  BigB

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!!!

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:19 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

Good luck with your fight and your house move, Philip.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 10:00 AM
Reply to  Editor

You are a champion strawmanner, I’ll give you that, Admin.

Where in any of our argument do we suggest censorship? I just say that for you to claim that scientific debate exists you need to identify a valid point from the other side. If you cannot do that you have no claim to say a scientific debate exists because mere opinion, cherry-picked data and false claims do not count as valid points. But as I said, you define scientific debate differently from me. You think debate exists where people say whatever on each side – that’s scientific debate for you. OK.

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 3:38 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

Do you suggest then that any range of plausibly fearful scenarios that – it they should occur – are so dire as to demand believing them and preempting them by reacting as if they are already true? AND that the only way to react is the way the frame of the scenario dictates? This is quite apart from the intent that preys on such fears as the taking of power, by a false promise of power that induces its believers to self-disempowerment. Was the 911 ‘conversion’ another way of tuning in to where the blocked charge of emotionally energy is – in order to capitalise and use it to reach an otherwise hidden target? Why would scientific institutions be any less manipulatable than all of the institutions that had to be coordinated for the ‘911 switch’ into an open lie – forcibly protected? The precautionary principle applies to the intervention… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 31, 2018 8:47 AM
Reply to  BigB

I’ll tell you why, PSJ. Curry is a glorified blogger using a mythology of swans and fire breathing dragons to decide the fate of humanity. Shall I write that again, or does that prospect alone not scare the equivocation out of you? Read what she says: and she has conceded to the peer/consensus …she just doesn’t want any action. She says we don’t know about the climate: but she can tell you the fraction of a degree and the cost benefit ratio of mitigation when it pleases …it’s called selective bullshit. Scientific inquiry is never settled in the way Admin was requiring. We don’t know the why of gravity, and Einstein is still being tested. Any credible work will feed in through the scientific peer review to either verify or falsify hypotheses …the theoretical model will be updated and tested accordingly. And then it will be tested and updated, and… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Nov 1, 2018 2:51 PM
Reply to  BigB

I think you skipped most of my post and only read the last paragraph there. My question was why do we regard the solar fluctuation theory of climate forcing as less robust than the Co2 theory? Nothing whatsoever to do with Ms Curry! Maybe the debate has moved on but I would still be interested in an answer to that

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 12:48 PM
Reply to  BigB

This is obviously not the case in mathematically programmed models – with other ‘laws’ or constants serving as parameters for the result. The technocratic ideal quantifies everything to serve the model, but this ideal is a human intent or desire for definition, prediction and control. The ground from which such a focus arises is a fearful and conflicted sense of self-chaos. The archetype of Order OVER Chaos is beneath our top-down control psyche/society. Not recognizing that the very act of such a ‘control’ generates and replicates is core belief and thus a self reinforcing self perpetuating negative experience upon which an apparently positive posits itself. Where you choose to posit or accept yourself is your freedom but; “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty” ~ (Simone Weil). The giving up of a free awareness for a ‘sacred… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 30, 2018 7:20 AM
Reply to  Editor

Preaching to the deaf….
The majority of scientists .. are right. The majority of citizens who voted for Hitler, Bush, Clinton, Trump are right. right? Con -census yes.

Peer-review, the process that UAE Climategate prof. James wanted to bend as he wrote in one of those hacked e-mails.

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 30, 2018 12:45 PM
Reply to  Antonym

Jones, not James

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 31, 2018 1:39 PM
Reply to  Antonym

Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university’s Climatic Research Unit. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999 “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of “trick” has been misinterpreted From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004 “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” The IPCC is… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 10:24 AM
Reply to  Antonym
PSJ
PSJ
Nov 1, 2018 2:55 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

That’s not a debunk. You can’t debunk the Climategate emails. They were an example of quite deplorable scientific manipulation and fraud I’m afraid. Shocking to see it not only done by respected scientists but then aided and abetted by the media.

Regrettable to the greatest degree to see science, which is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, become victim by degrees to the terrible anti-rational anti-truth agendas of the globalists

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 11:12 PM
Reply to  PSJ

The first item in Antonym’s list, “Hide the decline”, is clearly debunked and was misquoted. https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm. From the link above. “Decline” relates to tree rings not temperature and has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995. [Correct quote] “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” It’s clear that “Mike’s Nature trick” is quite separate to Keith Briffa’s “hide the decline”. “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to a technique (a “trick of the trade”) by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. There is nothing secret about “Mike’s trick”. Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Nov 2, 2018 1:13 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

“Hide the decline” is about falsifying data. Mann et al were using tree ring data on the infamous hockey stick graph to plot assumed global temperatures in prehistory. For this they needed to show that tree ring data correlated with known climate data during the historical period. Unfortunately, the tree ring data they had did NOT show a strong correlation with known temperatures. It completely failed to show any late 20th century warming spike, which is recorded on satellite and surface weather stations. This meant they could not justify using tree ring data to plot prehistoric temperature, which was a large blow to their work. What they should have done is publish their results, complete with the problematic tree ring data and honestly admitted to the holes in their hypothesis. Instead they opted for fraud – or in other words to use “Mikes’s trick” to “hide the decline”, (ie cover… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Nov 2, 2018 1:25 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I quote from your post:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

My goodness can it be more brazen? These guys are openly discussing corrupting their data. They say right there they are adding real world temperature data to their tree ring data in order to “hide the decline”, ie make the tree ring temperature graph look more like the one from the weather stations and satellite data!

Absolute, barefaced data falsification.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 4:01 AM
Reply to  PSJ

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/12/27/an-open-letter-to-libertarian-climate-change-denialists/ “Hide the decline” when read in its original context, has to do with the decline in growth of trees from certain high latitudes. The scientists simply replaced this data with thermometer data post-1960 because of human emission of nitrogen, which makes some of the tree ring data diverse (and decline) compared with temperature data from thermometers. Doing this is perfectly reasonable because of the “divergence” problem. https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm “From 1880 to 1960, there is a high correlation between the instrumental record and tree growth. Over this period, tree-rings are an accurate proxy for climate. However, the correlation drops sharply after 1960. At high latitudes, there has been a major, wide-scale change in tree-growth over the past few decades.” As indicated below, Jones should have distinguished between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in the graph, however, the escalation of this lack of transparency into a crime far greater is more… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 11:30 PM
Reply to  PSJ

Actually, PSJ, why don’t you explain why it’s not a debunk? Presumably, you accept the part-debunking I’ve explained below but, if not, of course go ahead and say why you think that’s not a debunking. But please explain why you think the SS article does not debunk the other emails.

PSJ
PSJ
Nov 2, 2018 12:34 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

The best answer is to read the Climategate emails flaxgirl. They are unambiguously a discussion of how to perpetrate fraud and censorship without being caught. No amount of apology or weasel words after the fact can change that. Don’t take my word or SS’s word. Read the emails and see for yourself.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 12:40 AM
Reply to  PSJ

PSJ, you claim that SS’s article is not a debunk. Please explain how it is not a debunk. What are they misstating? What are they missing? You make the claim – you back it up.

PSJ
PSJ
Nov 2, 2018 1:18 AM
Reply to  PSJ

Well I relented and have explained the basics to you. I hope you at least read to the end. I’m doing my best to communicate, you have to do your bit too you know!

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 10:17 PM
Reply to  PSJ

If you re investigate history you may move back the influence to see that science was arrested or compromised in its infancy. But this cant be seen until the ‘reality’ cracks. And the willingness to abide it is not a casual or trivial matter of taking thought.
For many, 911 broke their world view not least because it was intended to announce the power to ‘make reality’ and enforce it regardless of reason, science or honest witness. (In my view).
A sort of negative harvest that feeds on both fear and rage.

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 29, 2018 2:36 AM

A whole web site auditing climate science: https://climateaudit.org/

It found out that the hockey stick shaped temperature curve is carved by hook and crook. After getting various temperature curves from many different sources only the hockey shapes are published, all the rest are discarded – not mentioned at all. That is not science: thy that in medicine research and you’ll end up with avoidable deaths. The site does not dispute slight temperature increase, just wild upticks predicted.

antonym
antonym
Oct 29, 2018 3:30 AM
Reply to  Antonym

You want an unprecedented crime? Look for Micheal Mann’s continues misuse of cherry picked data and techniques to erase past high temperatures to obtain a straight hockey stick shaft and others to get a huge blade: https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/#comments

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 4:31 AM
Reply to  antonym

You just pull out all the nonsense “skeptic” arguments one after the other, don’t you? It’s shameful. Fancy pulling out the fact that climate was hotter 125,000 years ago as if this proves that miraculously some other amazing climate forcer was making the earth warmer and thus CO2 isn’t the climate forcer we think it is when it was the earth wobble stated clearly in the article you linked to – which isn’t happening now, antonym. Not happening now. The global temperature is rising in line with carbon emissions – nothing to do with earth wobble. You need to make sense of what you link to, antonym. Not just link to something that means absolutely zero as far as man-made climate change is concerned.

Hockey stick deceit debunked!
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

antonym
antonym
Oct 29, 2018 4:52 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Flaxgirl, read before you write please! Read in the link above how top climate scientist Micheal Mann keeps on manipulating climate graphs deliberately to cause alarmism, the scary blade.
Global temperatures are also rising in line with number of bicycles sold, casino visitors, TV watchers, number of chickens, use of wireless communication, number of English and Chinese speakers etc. etc.
Two lines marching in step doesn’t prove anything.
The CO2 story also is about doubling emissions: when will humanity emit double the present numbers?
Next do you realize that trees grow better now due to CO2 fertilization? This messes up any tree ring width temperature proxy data, but is super for agriculture.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 5:33 AM
Reply to  antonym

But what exactly is your point? What does the fraudulence Michael Mann may allegedly engage in prove? What is he saying differently from climate scientists who recognise man-made climate change? My attitude is that, as the consensus is high among climate scientists, it’s the anti-AGWers who have to prove their point first. Did you read the skeptical science critique? What do you have to say on that?

antonym
antonym
Oct 29, 2018 7:00 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I read those “Skeptical” science pages on this years ago. That consensus is like a sky scraper with rotten (Mann etc) foundations. Sheep scientists quote him blindly. What is happening today with PAGES is the exclusion of any data that look non alarmist = non science.

BigB
BigB
Oct 29, 2018 11:25 AM
Reply to  antonym

Antonym: forget the broken hockey stick …how many scientific presentations use black and white swans, and fire breathing dragons to represent “enraged Uncertainty Monsters”? Curry uses analogy, allegory and mythology to negate science …and confuse the layman.

Perhaps we can drop the outliers, and go with the consensus 3 degress (that even Curry admits to)?

binra
binra
Oct 30, 2018 8:08 PM
Reply to  BigB

I watched her in an interview with James Corbett. I’ve also seen her speak truth to power. I don’t recognize your representation of her. Nor did she say what you suggest in that interview.
To me, the assertion of ‘scientific consensus’ and ‘settled science’ are oxymorons that invalidate scientific credibility and reveal political or personal agenda.
You may not share my view of science because you may have a different sense of what science is and does. The harnessing of science to corporate and political agenda is the old marriage of Church and State in new clothes.

binra
binra
Oct 29, 2018 10:12 PM
Reply to  Antonym

I see that the site you link is already a serious scientific forum that is not trying to airbrush uncertainties for one or another ‘side’.

https://climateaudit.org/blog-rules-and-road-map/

This page above as a cursory read feels very relevant to what has been going on here at OG.

BigB
BigB
Oct 28, 2018 1:44 PM

[My response to Catte’s questions below.] Catte: you wrote: “Is this science settled? Or is there massive doubt? Well qualified people hold both these opinions and al[l] shades in between. If we decide to ignore Group A and listen to Group B, what are we doing that’s more discerning than picking a team to support?” As several of us have said: the science is settled. Not on the blogosphere, where there is a wide range of opinion. Among serious scientific contributors: even the deniers are not truly deniers (apart from the loony fringe, whom I won’t address.) This point I take from the Patron Saint of Deniers: Judith Curry. There are two main points of contention: uncertainty and mitigation policy …which are obviously closely interrelated. To focus on warming: not sea level rise, loss of albedo. species extinction, etc …The main issue is Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS to Doubled CO2):… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 28, 2018 2:09 PM
Reply to  BigB

Superbly clarifying BigB.
Things have moved on in the realm of the sceptic/denier over the past ten years, from ‘they grew grapes in Britain in the middle ages’ to something like, ‘AGW is probably right, but fucked if I care’.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 4:32 AM
Reply to  mog

LOL.

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 28, 2018 2:29 PM
Reply to  BigB

Could be also 1.15 C or even less. Most climate models are running too hot compared to measured reality. Fear sells, which is good for bigger grants.

Catte
Catte
Oct 28, 2018 2:48 PM
Reply to  BigB

Hold on. There’s some assumptions here that need examining. Firstly, this is NOT about what I think or my personal opinions, or your personal opinions. It’s about the baseline for discussion. We aren’t discussing what we believe about climate change. We’re discussing the parameters for such a discussion. There is a continued push by people on both sides to move this beyond factual debate on the assumed basis that the science is beyond question in this or that area and an assumed moral imperative demands we move on to talk about what we can do. But this can easily become a “no true Scotsman” argument. There are scientists who question the very basis of manmade climate change. Some of them – like Piers Corbyn – are well-qualified and seem sincere. We can’t exclude them from consideration and then still claim there’s consensus because “no TRUE climate scientist questions AGW”. That’s… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 28, 2018 3:28 PM
Reply to  Catte

I haven’t read what Piers Corbyn’s arguments are. Have you? Does he deserve to have his views ignored?
Nobody has, that is the point. He declines to tell anyone what his method is. This is the antithesis of science, isn’t it? Science is a collective, shared pursuit of knowledge, not secret quackery for sale.
Is that the best name you can come up with, Piers Corbyn ? How about a research scientist, or an independent group of them, or an independent research facility?
It matters not how many times people ‘show it’ that deniers are fringe dwelling opinions for hire (there are plenty of links on here), deniers just sit there and say ‘proof please’.

mog
mog
Oct 28, 2018 3:50 PM
Reply to  Catte

when people here begin posting links to online lists of “deniers” I am concerned. They claim this is not comparable to Propornot ’s infamous list (which we are on, to answer another commenters question), because this one is made by concerned real people, not agents of the deep state. To which I reply – so what? FFS this is into the realm of flat earth. I take it that you are familiar with the history of fossil fuel funded fake opinion. (The Koch brothers mean anything to you?). How do you propose that people who are getting their opinions through one form of media or another respond to such activity, if not by pointing it out? Maybe you think nobody should point it out? Can you not see difference between propornot smearing independent and honest investigative journalists and people calling out billionaire oil magnates paying crooked scientists to skew their… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 28, 2018 11:41 PM
Reply to  Catte

Piers Corbyn – from what I currently know, analyses past records of sun activity and weather and plots the patterns of the present to the cycles of the past to offer a weather prediction service that people, businesses, corporations PAY for. His work is founded on cyclic activity of the Sun as an Electrical Effect on the Earth as an Electrically driven system. He doesn’t himself necessary understand HOW or what all the mechanisms are or make that part of his service. We have a standard model of the Universe that is gravitic and uniformitarian. IE Assertion that things have always been much as they are now over the last few billion years give or take a few extinction events such as the end of the Younger Dryas – about 13,000 yrs ago. “Billions of years” are the agency of almost every change. The catastrophic nature of our even recent… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 4:44 AM
Reply to  Catte

As I keep on saying, Catte, it’s so easy. Just put anything non-pro-AGW into skeptical science and you will be richly rewarded with a thorough critique/debunking. Of course, you may disagree with it and you will often find comments that disagree with the alleged debunking but it gives you a good base to work out, as much as any of us can who are non-scientists, who’s right and who’s wrong.

Below are two critiques related to Piers Corbyn’s pronouncements on the climate and just to say, he is NOT a climate scientist, he is a weather forecaster. Not that I put massive store in credentials, necessarily, just sayin’.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/winter-2014-15.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/open-letter-mayor-boris-johnson.html

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 10:14 AM
Reply to  Editor

There’s no comparison. If you look at what the SS writers say they do debunk not simply claim to. They write clearly, concisely and compellingly with lots of links to studies. For goodness’ sake – have a look – don’t use the logical fallacy of citing one debunking site to cast doubt on another.

I’m a 9/11 truther – I know all about bunk debunking! I know that alleged debunking is so often false but not in the case of SS. They allow anyone to post comments as long as the comment is on-topic and not abusive and you can tell from those who oppose the debunking that they don’t have a case.

Their information is rigorously presented and they update and make corrections.

binra
binra
Oct 30, 2018 10:16 AM
Reply to  Editor

Yes – here you point to the basis of contagion. For the urge to identify against a perceived or believed evil pre-empts any other (process of) communication. I see this as ‘taking the bait’ and vigilance for peace as a quality of unwillingness to invite and enact division or conflict as IF both certain and morally compelled. No can can see a deceit they are already framed in by reaction. Nor can anyone be made to see what they are not willing to accept. But we can learn that what we are accepting and thinking is framing or directing our perceptions and resulting experience and this is a basis for a shifting of perspective or freedom to align an experience congruent with who we now recognise and accept ourselves to be. The emotional nature of the ‘territory’ makes abiding it, a challenge. The sense of fears’ guilts, hates and suffering… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 28, 2018 4:24 PM
Reply to  BigB

BigB,
Had enough of this.
Just wanted to say how much I respect your opinions and your writing. Also that I have appreciated the time you put into researching topics carefully and presenting them honestly.
I’ve learnt a lot from your posts and have been prompted to think much from reading them.
Go well.

BigB
BigB
Oct 28, 2018 5:43 PM
Reply to  mog

The respect is mutual. We may never meet, but I feel as though I have lost a friend. Please reconsider?

If not, go well too.

BigB
BigB
Oct 28, 2018 5:21 PM
Reply to  BigB

Catte: The Piers Corbyn angle was a little joke, wasn’t it? Because he is out on the loony fringe with Monckton. The parameters for debate have been discussed before. Surely no one could disagree with the epistemology of empiricism: from a credible peer reviewed source (not Corbyn). That is the basic standard of scientific debate. Here is where you seem to perceive I am pushing for a false positive consensus. That’s not my fault, that’s because you believe there is still a debate to be had. On the blogosphere maybe, but among scientists there just is not the perceived dissensus. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467616634958 Your ‘No True Scotsman’ rhetoric is dealt with in the SCAMs paper. As I pointed out, not even Curry denies the basic consensus. Her tactic is to… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 27, 2018 11:05 PM

This ‘debate’ has surprised me and disappointed me. So many contributors here (and it would seem at least one ‘Admin’ writer) hold different opinions to me on the matter, opinions that seem to me to be effectively ‘settled’. The arguments against the position I hold have been : 1. That the case for AGW (and/or the case for catastrophic AGW) is not scientifically settled and that therefore there needs to be a free space for back and forth in the tradition of free and open debate. The claim that there is scientific consensus on AGW generally is unfounded. 2. That the claim that there is a scientific consensus on catastrophic AGW is unfounded. 3. That claimed scientific consensus is irrelevant or at best of secondary importance to evidence. 4. That the documented history of fossil fuel industry funded ‘denial’ or propagated ‘doubt’ is irrelevant or of secondary importance to evidence.… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 27, 2018 11:08 PM
Reply to  mog

1. This claim is simply ignorant. If we look at the much-quoted-over-the-years ‘30,000 scientists petition’ against AGW we see that it looks nothing like a serious petition, and indeed it isn’t. Unverifiable and for the most part signed by people with no background in climate (or closely related) science, it is misleading propaganda pure and simple. Conversely there have been several studies of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers on the topic which consistently show a high degree of consensus (unusually high in fact for a pioneering field of science).
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

mog
mog
Oct 27, 2018 11:10 PM
Reply to  mog

2. This seems harder to quantify, although surveying the leading academics in the field and their reactions to the recent, much more pessimistic/ cautious statements of the IPCC, we see that there is a general sentiment that the IPCC are being too lax in their estimates of what the scientific consensus says are ‘safe’ pollution levels.
https://www.cicero.oslo.no/en/posts/news/a-journey-from-5c-to-2c

mog
mog
Oct 27, 2018 11:11 PM
Reply to  mog

3. Consensus is all we can go with in this instance. We are though talking about the opinions of many thousands of scientists who have worked with and analysed predictive models, all of which are based on real world observations. Scientists- I think it is fair to say, tend to be people of careful and considered opinions, not prone to exaggeration and sensationalism. There is no laboratory test on planetary ecosystems that we can run, in the way that scientists might if testing a new drug or material. Scientific opinion is what we have in this, unless you want to consider divine intervention or some such.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/the-wall-street-journal-vs-the-consensus-of-the-scientific-community/

mog
mog
Oct 27, 2018 11:12 PM
Reply to  mog

4. Well of course it is relevant. The mother lode of denialism as I have seen it lies within libertarian capitalist thinking. Libertarians see the issue as some kind of state driven conspiracy against ‘the free market’, perhaps originating in shadowy elites but orchestrated somehow through state funded research institutes (universities). This leads to big questions about the epistemology of science and how it relates to democratic, transparent and accountable structures of power and how it relates to oligarchic, opaque, and private interests. AGW (if true) is a fundamental affront to capitalism. I just read this article (https://monthlyreview.org/2018/07/01/cesspools-sewage-and-social-murder/) about what was really the first ecological challenge of industrial civilisation (sewage), how state and private interests played out, and how Marx pre-empted ecosocialism by over a century.

mog
mog
Oct 27, 2018 11:14 PM
Reply to  mog

5. This is simply untrue. Curry (mentioned repeatedly) spoke at length at a recent Congressional panel. Sceptical opinions about AGW have figured prominently in Right-wing publications for decades from the Mail to the Spectator (UK) and frequently on liberal ones (note Radio 4’s frequent hosting of Lawson etc.) If AGW is a conspiracy to usher in global governance then why are so many powerful figures in governments round the world and in the media so determined to pour doubt on the theory? I have not read an attempt at explaining that.
https://www.prwatch.org/search/node/climate%20change%20denial

mog
mog
Oct 28, 2018 9:19 AM
Reply to  Editor

Just read through all the comments from ‘Admin’ under this article.
It is clear (from the recitation of widely debunked denialist tropes) that at least one ‘Admin’ writer/ editor has anti AGW convictions and is somewhat caught in their own reality tunnel.
I would suggest that they do some research (perhaps some of the top science journals on the subject ? http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/st/climate/journals/).

It is not, as suggested, a case of ‘Wattsupwiththat’ versus ‘The Ecologist’, it is a case of ‘Wattsupwiththat’ versus the efforts of the global scientific community.

Catte
Catte
Oct 28, 2018 3:01 PM
Reply to  mog

You sound like Torquemada policing the consciences of the masses Mog. Let’s get a little sense going here. 1. Several people use the “admin” identity. The one who monitors the comments most often is NOT an editor and, FWIW, is not “anti-AGW.” In fact none of us could be defined that way. 2. If they were, though, that would be ok, because we accept people’s right to have differing opinions and still be respected and given a platform. 3. Our comment policy is to keep a level playing field and to point out opinions and facts that may be being overlooked by a particular debate or poster. This tends to make people with polarised views assume we are “against” them. 4. The “global scientific community” is a no true Scotsman argument in that you exclude all those members of that community that don’t concur with your view as being unrepresentative.… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 28, 2018 3:39 PM
Reply to  Catte

Our comment policy is to keep a level playing field and to point out opinions and facts that may be being overlooked by a particular debate or poster. No it is not. Beyond a certain point this is not the case. For example, if somebody started posting ‘evidence’ that, say, the victims of child abuse were not as seriously affected as has been claimed, you would shut it down, and rightly so. There are no truly ‘level playing fields’, we all have biases and limits. ‘Admin’ has intervened repeatedly to question the factual assertions of AGW posters and in defence of deniers/ skeptics, falling behind a false shield of ‘where is the evidence that CO2 causes climate destabilisation?’. As BigB so eloquently points out the only ultimate proof will be when Earth dies or survives. Is that an ethical standpoint for you to take then? Point 4 has been refuted… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 29, 2018 12:27 PM
Reply to  mog

‘Victimism’ is a very pernicious way of thinking where minds take joy in seeking and confirming guilt in others as a power source for our personal or social credentials, while presenting as sympathetic, caring or concerned. The appeal to a ‘higher authority’ invokes ‘key opinion leaders’, ‘experts’ or ‘peer reviewed studies’ – but if these fail – then what was running all along comes to the fore – the appeal to guilt. Oh for sure, Man’s inhumanity to Man knows no bounds. But the USE of the suffering of others for personal or political gain whilst confirming them in victimhood as if an act of caring – is very much within the spectrum of Man’s inhumanity to Man and NOT above or outside it. Deceits are not only in the mind of global elitists, power cartels and politicians or anyone else seeking to get us to buy (into) anything, but… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 6:07 AM
Reply to  Catte

Catte, what do you make of the fact that there is not a single comment made by a non-pro-AGWer in the comments section on this article that stands up to scrutiny and that most non-pro-AGWers simply drop out of argument. Antonym is still going but they weren’t able to respond to the quashing of their 125,000-years-ago-Greenland-was-warmer nonsense and their latest nonsense is on the Michael Mann hockey stick. It is a FACT that not a single comment made by a non-pro-AGWer (or anything they link to) stands up to scrutiny. Do you see any significance? The non-pro-AGWers’ comments have really diverted discussion from the topic of the book whose primary subject is the crime of propagandising against the climate science and against climate action, not whether dangerous man-made climate change is happening for which there is much too much evidence for the subject to be one of debate and it… Read more »

antonym
antonym
Oct 29, 2018 7:01 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

In your opinion…..

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 7:09 AM
Reply to  antonym

It’s not opinion, antonym. You had no response to my response to your 125,000-years-ago-Greenland warming nonsense, did you? No response. Antonym, you are a trotter-out of skeptic bunk. What single, simple FACT do you have that contradicts man-made climate change. Just give one.

antonym
antonym
Oct 29, 2018 7:26 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

The Eemian warming was nonsense? Present temperatures and sea levels are only high if you narrow your view to the last 200 years – the game that the Alarmists are playing.
You are starting to sound more and more fanatic by the way….

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 7:29 AM
Reply to  antonym

I’m not saying the warming itself is nonsense, what I’m saying is that the cause of it in no way casts doubt on the cause of today’s warming, which is human pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Please tell me the cause of the warming and how it casts doubt on the cause now.

antonym
antonym
Oct 29, 2018 7:37 AM
Reply to  antonym

The cause of present warming? The same as any temperature fluctuations, natural variation.
Why do you think “global temperature” should be nonfluctuating? Is “it” controlled by some computer system? Or by Gaia?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 11:17 AM
Reply to  antonym

Not the cause of present warming, the cause of Eemian warming and what relation it bears to the cause of current warming.

What is your source that there is no current warming and that what is happening is merely natural variation?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 11:25 AM
Reply to  antonym

So ClimateAudit have debunked Skeptical Science’s debunking of their debunking of the hockey stick or they’ve just debunked the hockey stick? In other words, does Skeptical Science have the last word or does ClimateAudit?

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 29, 2018 2:02 PM
Reply to  antonym

Where did I write there is no present warming? There is, since the LIA but it comes from natural variation, as the LIA itself.
My beef is with catastrophic man made global warming caused by our CO2 emissions.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 10:15 AM
Reply to  Editor

Can you give me an instance?

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 29, 2018 11:18 AM
Reply to  Editor

Exactly the hockey stick pages of Sceptical Science that you linked have been thoroughly refuted at Climate Audit which I linked. It takes a few hours to study all though.

binra
binra
Oct 30, 2018 12:23 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I hold it simply obvious that the climate has changed a lot through time and that there are all sorts of records that may not be perfect or exact but there have been much warmer climes and flora and fauna in places that are now tundra. And yes there have been catastrophic events – more than conventionally accepted and in the past referred to in the age we call mythical because we simply cannot decipher it OR the artefacts that remain. Hence there is no reason at all in arguing that climate does not change. But whether our corporate plunder and consumption-guilt is calling down or significantly adding or subtracting to such cyclic change and these forecasts of armageddon any more than any other time we have assigned adversity and change to ‘something wrong with us’ that must be purged and appeasements made – is another issue. Disaster capitalism uses… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 30, 2018 1:45 AM
Reply to  binra

Binra, climate scientists know better than any of us how the climate has changed in the past. They know it much better than you and I and most other people. And they use the knowledge of how climate has changed in the past to analyse what’s going on now. Please, please never never use the argument of “climate’s always changed” – as if climate scientists don’t know that and, indeed, very much depend on that knowledge to analyse the present.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 30, 2018 10:48 PM
Reply to  Editor

For goodness’ all this information is published on the internet widely.

I missed this comment before and have published another more pertinent comment since.

The article I linked to about the Big Oil court case says it all.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial

Chevron’s lawyer says:
“From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change …”

And obviously the big oil companies KNEW the facts about man-made climate change just as tobacco companies knew about the health effects of smoking. And they are arguing the same line – it’s the customer’s fault, not ours.

If you can identify where exactly debate on the subject exists, please do. Otherwise, I think we can say categorically “there is no debate”. If there were, Big Oil would certainly be brandishing that in the courtroom but they’re not.

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 12:17 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

You say so – but I disagree entirely!
Can everything you say be summarised as ‘this is what I have been told and I believe it’?

The idea that any science is settled is ‘mainstream science’.
Narratives driving or derived from scientific endeavour are subject to all of the bias or indeed corruptions of any human endeavour. Why would truth win over power?

‘Standing on the shoulders of giants’ could be the perpetuation of giant mistakes.

Accepted and applied scientific narrative underpins the social and political ideas of its day and its findings are allowed, funded or suppressed according to what is officially adopted or endorsed by human motivations.

Political agenda works the manipulation of public opinion as the ‘science’ of social engineering. Or indeed the ‘dark arts’.

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 31, 2018 1:24 AM
Reply to  binra

All climate data are not on the Internet! Climate scientists get away with publishing articles without showing data; they don’t want others to find other conclusions from it. Ice core specialist Lonny Thompson is a frequent perp in this, as are some major tree ring specialists like Briffa who did the same https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/#comment-783918

binra
binra
Oct 29, 2018 10:32 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

You are your own already sealed ‘argument’ and there is no communication with you. Absolutely anything said can be smeared, debunked, ignored, ridiculed or assigned virtriol – and is. So in the framing of your invitation to come into your parlour – its already fully engaged. No room for anything else to come in. So of course you assert your ‘narrative dominance’ and I for one give that no allegiance. the very nature of denying critical voices with such terms as criminal denialism is itself a denial of a free flow of information in public, in science in politics and in the Media. But this is not encouraged or in fact permitted. And as with other similar thought-control – it isn’t worthy of ‘arguing or debating’ in its own framing as “Unprecedented Crime’. “No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 30, 2018 12:55 AM
Reply to  binra

I am always open to communication, Binra, if I feel the other person is serious in their argument and not continually spouting nonsense. There are very simple facts. One of them is that we are now up to 356 comments on this article and not a single one of those 356 comments has said anything to contradict the theory of man-made climate change happening now. Not a single one. If you have one, please let me know what it is. I’ve asked a number of times but no one has responded except antonym and they just pull out unsubstantiated claims such as “natural fluctuations” and warm periods in the past whose cause bear no relation to the current situation. I like to take facts by the horns so to speak. When a fact is a fact I like it to be acknowledged as such and not somehow diminished or tried… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 30, 2018 1:35 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Eyes wide shut….

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 8:24 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Spouting nonsense can be a mutual experience, each of the other. Communication breakdown runs where conditions are dictated as to what must be said or done in order to qualify as valid. You you can have your self-belief in simple facts and perceive others as spouting nonsense. The factors that altogether hold climatic conditions for Earth are so vast – that your assertion of human cause strikes me as the epitome of human arrogance. Which I extend to us all collectively and not at you in particular. The example replicates the way the human mind uses ‘attack and victim’ to justify its power as God’s replacement – andI am not invoking the separate ‘God’ of human thinking, but of Singular Fact of a Living and Creating Universe – or which we may seem to be separately in rather than integrally of, and have developed an extremely complex consciousness by which… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 1, 2018 9:07 AM
Reply to  binra

Hey Brian,
I just found my favorite sledgehammer.

LadyDi
LadyDi
Oct 28, 2018 1:55 AM
Reply to  mog

I don’t think you’re looking at this straight.

When did you last see an anti-global warming article in the Guardian? The Indy? The NYT? The WaPo?

You know the BBC has instructed its journalists to no longer give airtime to “deniers”, right?

This isn’t to say that manmade climate change isn’t real but we can’t just ignore it is backed by a lot of powerful voices, especially those most connected with the Deep State – Soros, the Graun, the WaPo, the BBC.

Do we just ignore this aspect? It has to be acknowledged and discussed. The idea manmade global warming is a fringe thing like 9/11 is just not true!

Jesus it’s hard to even say that on THIS site! People jump on you and call you evil! If you post anything questioning AGW on the Graun your comment gets taken down.

These things are just facts.

mog
mog
Oct 28, 2018 8:51 AM
Reply to  LadyDi

When did you last see an anti-global warming article in the Guardian? The Indy? The NYT? The WaPo? To be honest, it was two days ago, and was linked from this discussion thread. [It made the case against consensus]. However, that is not the point, as I see it. Just because liberal news outlets have a clear agenda aligned with established power doesn’t mean that everything they publish is complete bullcrap. The Guardian (even today) still publishes articles that, superficially ‘challenge’ the system (for example, they recently worked on the spycops controversy). This is their business model – to create a facade of authentitcity so as to attract educated readers. I am not defending the overall editorial position of the Guardian (or any other liberal news org) as they are beyond redemption and indefensibly corrupt. I take the position of Edwards and Cromwell at Medialens who critique the de-emphasis of… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 27, 2018 11:16 PM
Reply to  mog

6. All I would want to see on a website such as this (one where ‘facts are sacred’) is the debate presented with reference to empirical facts. There is a consensus, there is a coherent theory (CO2 heats up under infra red, CO2 levels are historically extreme, we produce much CO2, there is correlation in earth records of CO2 and temperature, the Earth has heated rapidly in the industrial era – none of that is seriously contested), there is a documented cover up by vested interests, there is declining coverage of the issue in the MSM. The notion of ‘fair footing to both sides in all debates’ is a conceit. Nobody does that, no matter how noble it may sound to our own ears. The only person to speak honestly here has been Mulga with his/her invective. This is the great killing. The climate will kill most of us being… Read more »

Hilaire Belloc
Hilaire Belloc
Oct 28, 2018 1:04 AM
Reply to  mog

I applaud your effort to be analytical. Can I add though that we need to consider the separate factors of this separately. It’s not a question of simply believing or not believing in anthropogenic climate change. It genuinely i more complex and we cant just dismiss that complexity without becoming simplistic and therefore pointless. Manmade climate change is a different concept than catastrophic manmade. They aren’t the same entity, and it’s not a Big Oil plot to point this out. I am one of those who think manmade climate change is probably real. BUT I do not accept the ides it will be catastrophic as very likely. Why? Because the CO2 theory of warming is robust and plausible, but the positive feedback theory of runaway warmingisn’t, and without that any manmade warming would be small and possibly even counteracted by other climate forcers such as solar activity. The first thing… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 28, 2018 8:57 AM
Reply to  Hilaire Belloc

Have you got a link to some peer reviewed research (or lay person’s summary of such research) which supports your opinion on feedback mechanisms and the unlikelihood of catastrophic ‘run away’ climate change?

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 31, 2018 1:05 AM
Reply to  mog

Its increasingly hard to find any new peer reviewed studies that question climate change, because, as with scientific analyses that question the official story of 9/11, it’s almost impossible to get them accepted for publication.

Does this not, of itself, ring alarm bells for you? It sure does for me.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 1, 2018 2:18 AM
Reply to  mog

“(CO2 heats up under infra red, CO2 levels are historically extreme, we produce much CO2, there is correlation in earth records of CO2 and temperature, the Earth has heated rapidly in the industrial era – none of that is seriously contested)” A similarly coherent argument can be made — and has been made — on the basis of confirmed empirical evidence for variations in the flux of cosmic rays impinging upon the earth’s atmosphere: a correlation in earth records between a low incidence of cosmic rays and global warming trends is an established observational ‘fact.’ The work of Henrik Svensmark (and of others associated with his efforts) has established this ‘fact.’ Furthermore, not only do variations in this flux accord nicely with the warming that the Earth has apparently undergone in the industrial era, it also accounts for past warming and cooling trends, of things like the comings and goings… Read more »

Hilaire Belloc
Hilaire Belloc
Oct 28, 2018 1:24 AM
Reply to  mog

I do not understand the point of that database of “deniers”. It comes out of the same stable as Propornot and that dreadful list of “Assad apologists” the WaPo featured (I believe OffG is on both?). It’s not good.

Haters and censors make such lists. I prefer to debate people and opinions rather than corral them. I don’t agree with most of the people on that list but I don’t want to see them shamed or punished for their views. Do you?

mog
mog
Oct 28, 2018 9:06 AM
Reply to  Hilaire Belloc

I don’t think it does come ‘from the same stable’ as propornot etc.
The Syria War deceptions and fake fake news scandals have been orchestrated by the deep state. Such conspiracies of deception ultimately rely upon secrecy structures which implement clandestine plans. Plans which involve the mass destruction of human life for profit and power.
The list of climate sceptics mentioned is drawn by genuinely concerned citizens, fighting back against powerful interests who have invested a lot of money to subverte the debate. This tactic has also relied upon non-disclosure or selctive disclosure of interests. Those interests also, don’t give a fig about the preservation of life (human or other).
It is the other way round. DeSmogBlog is on the same side in the ‘big picture’ as sites like OffG (which makes the tenor of debate here bizarre to me).

BigB
BigB
Oct 27, 2018 8:44 AM

The problem is Admin, there is plenty of hot air opinion adding to AGW, and no real research …unless you can link to anyone who can mount a serious challenge to the current paradigm. Judith Curry seems to be the denialists heroine: so I spent an hour last night surveying her ‘research’. I could not sleep afterwards. I read several of her articles, including a paper she gave to the Rand Corporation – that well known humanist progressive outfit with no ties to the military whatsoever. Quite frankly, I was appalled. Her Uncertainty Monster approach is anti-science and heretical. She, and her knuckle dragging redneck acolytes KNOW the science is sound. They DO NOT DENY global warming, or even a modicum of anthropogenic forcing. She is prepared to allow for 3 degrees of warming. She certainly does not deny the basic principle, that (all things being equal) adding CO2 will… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 27, 2018 12:35 PM
Reply to  Editor

As I state, I oppose censorship of any sort, however, it is rather galling that the book is about the crime of climate change denial and there’s all these people commenting who don’t even recognise climate change denial let alone that it is a serious crime and are of the misguided view that it is those who claim man-made climate change is a serious problem who are the criminals! And they cannot follow through with their argument. They drop out because it’s shown to be faulty. That’s intellectual dishonesty. If they have no argument to continue with they should admit that their line of thought is in some way defective. I made a point about non-pro-AGWers dropping out of argument, PSJ responded, and now seems to have dropped out him/herself! I rest my case. No censorship but the point can surely be made that anti-AGWers simply do not have legitimate… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 27, 2018 1:43 PM
Reply to  Editor

Colloquial? Have you read the title of the book – do you know what it’s about? Those in power and who lobby power who are stopping action on climate change should be prosecuted, yes!

And it will be very interesting to see the outcome of this case, assuming it is ever allowed to proceed.

The suit, Juliana v. US, also known as the children’s climate lawsuit, was first filed in 2015 and now includes 21 plaintiffs between the ages of 11 and 22, including Sophie Kivlehan, 20, the granddaughter of the famed climate scientist James Hansen. The case argues that the US government undertook policies that contributed to climate change, thereby causing irreparable harm to young people and denying them a safe climate. As relief, they want the government to pursue policies to keep warming in check.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/10/23/18010582/childrens-climate-lawsuit-supreme-court

binra
binra
Oct 28, 2018 5:26 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Whats the difference between your holy cause and anyone else’s holy cause?
Should jihad be waged by every polarity upon its one shadow denials?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 7:02 AM
Reply to  binra

Binra, As I’ve said before I’m just a prosaic, logical thinker. I know it’s a deficiency in my psychology because it’s simply a fact of life that others clearly do not reason as I do (even my identical twin reasons very, very differently) but I find it so frustrating that such ultimately simple facts can be debated endlessly, eg, man-made climate change and 9/11 being an inside conspiracy. And now with my recent realisation that death and injury were staged on that day I have a new jihad – persuading truthers of same. It seems that most other truthers are quite attached to the idea that the evil, rogue elements within the US government killed and injured all the people on the day. Although I believed it myself for a whole four years of study now that I’ve awoken to what, to me, is the most significant lie of 9/11… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 29, 2018 11:54 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Your freedom to explore your perspectives and learn all the while is always with you and there is no one can say what you should or should not think, say or do – though of course we all have feedback of both circumstance – but most importantly how we interpret our circumstance. If you want to attract free alignment with your views, do you not also have to recognize others in their own way and from their own experience and background are doing the same. I personally rest content with giving true witness from where I stand and don’t take on the form of the outcome as an effect – because the witness is the effect. Trying to force relationship is not the same as bringing ourselves fully to them. Beneath the attempts to ‘get people on board’ or shame them for not doing so or attack or vilify them… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 28, 2018 5:22 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Why participate in a non debate? Come in to be trashed and vilified? I do not share your framework of belief. Nor your judgement of me for my freedom to align in what I hold true – which doesn’t deny yours – but does deny your right to tell me what to think or presumption to deny others who don’t support your belief. Neither do I share in your trust of fronting organisations given ‘authority’ as global ‘guiding’ directives for setting policy that operates politics by stealth, or ‘social engineering’ and mind control. Insofar as I recognize actual threats – across a broad spectrum of dominance – to the Life that we both are and share, I wouldn’t adopt the postures or join in the behaviours that are characteristic of the ‘speech and actions’ that I see as a ‘denialist’ agenda. I use the word to refer to the shutting… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 27, 2018 4:18 PM
Reply to  Editor

Admin: I am opposed to censorship, and I am opposed to non-empirical opinion: particularly when concerning the continuation of life on earth. There is a massive difference. For the record: I never even mentioned censorship. Whoever I was talking to yesterday made this statement:

““Denialism” basically negates an entire swathe of opinion and research.”

I asked for empiricism. What research? Perhaps you could link to the new paradigm that better fits the data? Asking someone to back up a claim is not censorship, is it? The two are not even remotely similar.

BigB
BigB
Oct 27, 2018 6:07 PM
Reply to  Editor

Some say the Skripal’s were poisoned with Novichok, some say they weren’t. Some say the Russians did it, some say they didn’t. Some say Putin was directly responsible, some say he wasn’t.There’s a multitude of evidence, the trouble is there’s also a multitude of interpretations of what it means.

Is that your argument? Empiricism, reason, and pragmatism can settle the issue as soon as you want to get off the fence. It’s not like it’s a matter of life or death, is it?

Catte
Catte
Oct 27, 2018 8:46 PM
Reply to  BigB

The “argument” OffG stands by is freedom of opinion and expression, and the corollary that, before we decide people need to be prosecuted or silenced or denounced for their beliefs, we need to be damn sure we’re 100% correct and not just being gigantic hubristic pricks. I’m sure most of our readers agree. You’re predicating everything you say on the belief there is a large amount of data that conclusively proves catastrophic manmade climate change. You may well be correct. I’m a one-time Green party member, as I have often said before. My own prejudice inclines me to believe we need to act on climate change, just as we need to do something about the plastic problem and the destruction of the ecosystem by intensive farming. But, unlike the other two things, climate is incredibly complex. I’ve read enough about it to know I don’t know much about it at… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 28, 2018 1:56 AM
Reply to  Catte

I’m afraid, Catte, that “the “argument” OffG stands by is freedom of opinion and expression” has just been shown to suffer by the Admin who falsely accused me of being abusive (I was critical, not abusive) and used this false accusation to silence me by telling me not to reply. It is ironic that the Admin kept questioning me about my credentials as an opposer of censorship and yet engaged in this activity him/herself. I find this extremely disappointing. I also find it disappointing that the Admin keeps engaging in logical fallacy as shown below. 1. you asked for an opinion on a law suit not on climate change, and that is what you were given. This implies it was illegitimate of me to bring climate change into my response. There was a reason for that. The fact that the admin, most bizarrely to me, thinks that the law case… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 28, 2018 2:43 AM
Reply to  Editor

But if we judge by the vast number of comments on this review, there aren’t two sides because any non-pro-AGWer has not been able to sustain their argument against the other side. If you can find a sustained argument from a non-pro-AGWer please let me know what it is. The non-pro-AGWers give their opinion and then drop out when the going gets tough. I’m not saying they are not entitled to an opinion. They are not in power, controlling action on climate change – so, of course, they are entitled to their opinion. But I am saying the evidence shows from their inability to sustain their argument that there is not, in fact, two sides to the debate. There is opinion and there is fact and the fact is on the side of the serious problem of man-made climate change and the crimes by the powers-that-be of climate-change denial and… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 28, 2018 2:27 AM
Reply to  Catte

Catte, it’s really straightforward. The vast majority of arguments presented by non-pro-AGWers focus on anomalies that seemingly suggest that the earth isn’t warming (eg, sea ice level rise in Antarctica – but when you look at Antarctica in total it’s a different picture) or that there is evidence from the past that CO2 doesn’t force warming as claimed (eg, the Ordivician – but there was sun dimming) or that there are other forcers (eg, because Greenland was warmer with no high level of CO2 – but there was earth wobble so irrelevant). They simply do not look at the evidence in the correct context and ignore the relevant facts that show so very, very clearly that pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes global warming and climate change. As I’ve already stated, if you trawl through the comments you will simply not find a single non-pro-AGW argument that is sustained… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 28, 2018 5:00 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

There has been warming (more in the Northern hemisphere) because we came out of the Little Ice Age, a low point in the last 1000 years. Looking at longer trends these are still natural variations. Under melting Siberian permafrost various animal bodies come up now; this shows that it has also been warmer in the past.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 28, 2018 11:04 AM
Reply to  Antonym

What is your point, Antonym? Climate scientists know that there has been warming in the past, and that there are, of course, natural variations. What is your evidence that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not warming the planet now and causing climate change?

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 28, 2018 1:19 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

In normal Science if you hypothesize something (anthropogenic CO2 causes this warming), you have to prove it.
Science has shown that warmer (Eemain) and colder (Ice Age) periods have occurred geologically recently without CO2 forcing.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 29, 2018 6:17 AM
Reply to  Antonym

Yes, there was some other forcer, no? Some other forcer or some other reason that is not relevant now. The fact of coldness or hotness at other times in history means absolutely zero in terms of current man-made climate change without an explanation for why they happened. Climate scientists do not say that CO2 is the only climate forcer. Of course, they don’t. Can’t you see that you have no argument. You just pull facts out as though they mean something when they don’t. I’ll quote again from climate scientist Dana Royer: “If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: “the geologic record contains a treasure trove of ‘alternative Earths’ that allow scientists to study how… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 28, 2018 9:20 PM
Reply to  BigB

I thought globalism Inc geopolitical computer simulations had settled this. Russia and Europe HAVE to be prevented from closer alliance. Russia HAS to be isolated and undermined. Europe has to also be destabilised as a means to a globalist rescue. The science is settled, there IS no debate! Any convenient Lie is better than an inconvenient truth. You can read a doublespeak assertion truly by reading it inversely. Skripal: Now I personally don’t know the details of what actually happened, let alone what is reported to have happened – but its is not obscure what the assertions are used to back up or ‘justify’. There may be all sorts of insider info. All ‘sides’ involved might hang out together. The whole thing could be a ‘scripted’ destiny in which we are all helplessly enacting – whether knowingly or under delusions. But the WAY of it does not witness to an… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 28, 2018 3:14 PM
Reply to  Editor

Every one wants life on Earth to continue one would think so, but some dark greens would prefer to reduce the population of Homo Sapiens to reduce drastically and fast , just to give other species a fair and equal space. The rich 1% wants that reduction too but just to have more for themselves (ego balloons unlimited), not for other animals.

binra
binra
Oct 29, 2018 9:46 AM
Reply to  Antonym

In my lifetime and as a shadow of the ‘Green’ influence has grown the meme of humans as a virus on the Planet. I call it a meme because I regard it as by design, or at least cultivated and developed from the more general sense of an unworthiness, deserving of denial, pain and death – and certainly not deserving of love. ‘If God is love – then my existence proves God’s non existence’ – could be the conviction of a guilt and hate-distorted sense of self. When it comes to love, a little knowledge is a total knowledge. Its very nature spontaneously shares itself – given willing acceptance and releasing inhibition of expression. The impulse to murder or punish is of course suppressed to a large degree but its core intent is the blanking and invalidating of a true humanity in ourselves and therefore in others. Of course it… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 28, 2018 8:11 PM
Reply to  BigB

The Cartesian basis for empirical science as a dictate or ‘jealous god’ is that of a subjection of consciousness to a reductionism of life overseen by elites and trained ‘thinkers’. It easy to hide behind the trojan of scientism because too many have too much invested in it to seriously challenge it – and the few who have the integrity and guts to hold for truth at cost of withdrawal of funding, loss or reputation and curtailing of career are smeared by groupthink that is no less homophobic than any other appeal to join in hate. The ‘prophets’ that may later be accepted, recognized and canonised generally have to first be demonized and cast out. History is current. False flags or falsely assigned causes are not ONLY past events but challenging them is a present danger. If a doctor kills with the official standard of care there is no enquiry,… Read more »

antonym
antonym
Oct 29, 2018 7:30 AM
Reply to  binra

If only people like Flaxgirl read your: Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent. Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.

binra
binra
Oct 30, 2018 12:34 AM
Reply to  antonym

I’m not in charge of the timing or where and when attention alights in recognition of true.
But I recognize that what I need to know may come to me from where I do not expect – or from those I may have discarded or judged against.
The protection of ‘public trust’ by the hiding of institutional corruption is of course the way to lose trust and become ever more trapped in an inability for disclosure and thus addressing the real need. Escaping disclosure of a true account can use ingenious devices to change all the goalposts while everyone is saving the world.

comite espartaco
comite espartaco
Oct 26, 2018 11:42 AM

The opposition to ‘climatechangism’ does not deny climate change or environmental aggression, as the history of the Earth is the history of its climate and of human interaction with it, that is, the change of its climate (Panta rhei). ‘Climatechangism’ or the ideology build around an exaggerated and absurd deformation of climate change and its deliberate confusion of scientific concepts, is a doctrine of the same nature and closely related to the one that proclaims nations as rich or poor (when there is only ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ people in every nation) and constitutes another weapon of moral and ecological blackmail in the arsenal of the exploiters against the working populations of the West, the only ones that could comply with the ‘ecological agreements’ imposed by its oligarchies. Its aim is the softening of the will to resist globalisation by Western workers and the justification of the deindustrialisation of the West… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 26, 2018 12:06 AM

Until 4 years ago when I watched JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM& and woke up, I used to call people “conspiracy theorists” of which I’m now ashamed. However, two people in particular I thought of as conspiracy theorists, my identical twin and a friend, I still think of as conspiracy theorists, even if our beliefs about a number of conspiracies coincide, because they simply tend to believe that anything said by authorities is a lie whereas I always judge by the evidence. In terms of bombings, mass shootings, vehicle rampages, police bashing of disabled pensioner, stalker-killing, you name it – I’ll call “staged event!” but ONLY because of the evidence which includes very helpful clues from the global power elite who are responsible (the power elite have this “moral” belief that if they give us clues through discrepancy between show and tell, ridiculousness, things that… Read more »

thelonggrass
thelonggrass
Oct 25, 2018 12:49 PM

Broad lukewarmer position. The earth is warming. CO2 is a probable cause. The established trend rate of warming is around 1.3C per century. On current trend line sea level is rise at around 30-40cm a century – a house brick every 30 years. Broadly speaking there is minimal harm at this rate of change and adaption is possible. For example, compare 2018 to early 1900s given there has been 1.2C worth of warming in that period. The earth’s temperature waxes and wanes and we deal with it (eg disappearance of Dogger Bank) – and weather has never been purely benign – and, yes, there is evidence of faster change in the ice core records even in recent periods. The current outcome of a warmer world with more CO2, is increased precipitation and a greening planet, though this could just be a short term effect. So why the big scare? Global… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 25, 2018 10:02 PM
Reply to  thelonggrass

So far the models of every decade have exceeded the actual trend – so 80s-90s when the scare started the model was 4C per century, the modelled value declined to 3C per century in 90s-00s, and to 2C in the 00s-10s – still above the historic trend line. But we’re not saying in the 10s-20s, 1C are we? No we’re not doing that at all. In fact, we’re going very much the other way. As time goes on, warming takes effect and the climate is better understood, projections are becoming more accurate. I’m so disappointed at the number of anti-AGW (or effectively anti-AGW) comments on this review. The book is about the crime of climate change denial and yet so many people still don’t get it. The crime of climate change denial is why we’re not implementing renewables as we need to. There is absolutely no reason at all that… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 25, 2018 11:10 PM
Reply to  Editor

I am completely opposed to censorship of any kind. Where in my comment do you find anything of that nature? What I love about OffG is that you don’t censor below the line. That is truly wondeful.

BigB
BigB
Oct 26, 2018 12:34 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Admin: some think the world is no more than 10,000 years old, and was created in seven days. Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial: some are still mounting legal challenges to teaching evolution v creationism. Appeals to a mythical ‘some’ – that can argue anything they want – is surely an appeal to logical fallacy? The proof of a future inevitable catastrophe can only be that future inevitable catastrophe. Appeals to wait and see, for the real world data confirmation, well… With AGW: we clearly have a case of indeterminancy – not either/or. Choices have consequences. Surely anyone can see that the conscious choice not to act has unconscionable consequences? The intelligent and ethical choice is to act: whether that be based on pragmatism, not fact. Those who are fear based, that fear AGW is an elite plot to ensnare us: seem to fail to recognise that we are… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 26, 2018 5:23 PM
Reply to  Editor

No. Not when you allow someone who uses a variant of the word free rein to call any “anti-progress” ideological comments “eco-fascist” and “Nazi”. Heretic and traitor work fine too! Denialism seems quite neutral in comparison? This page is full of negatives, anyone can deny. At least I have tried to put forward an alternative POV. By Denialism I mean the purely negatives and name calling, which I have tried to show is a practico-inert status quo policy. In the meta-analysis, there is no praxis in inertia. We have to act in unity. Those negational crypto-capitalists who are inured of the status quo …well, does it matter what they say? I’ve been listening to them all my life, banging on about technological progress. All I can see is the death and destruction in the wake of that POV. So if I’m an eco-fascist for wanting egality, biotic emancipation, a future,… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 27, 2018 12:22 AM
Reply to  BigB

But you DO the very thing you say you hate! I deny the framing in fear and guilt all this is wrapped in as anything I need or want to invite into my consciousness. The true element is a destructive agenda – its association with the energy cartel is apt – Corbett has good documentary overview of Big Oil as a vector of a callous and destructive and deceitful global dominance – but it is at root an energy control racket – and is no less active in gaining control of every human need. That’s the ‘devil’s job’; to come between the need and the fulfilment of the need – so as to gratify a private fantasy over the denial of true. And so this APPARENT ‘discussion’ is really a trap because there is no intent for a discussion – and thus you are right there is no debate and… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 27, 2018 2:28 PM
Reply to  BigB

Which 9/11 conspiracy believer would like to be called a denialist? Anybody else?

binra
binra
Oct 26, 2018 11:15 PM
Reply to  Editor

Are you not bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted admin? If you really want to moderate to protect a culture of mutual respect, you might simply prompt sooner to rephrase or restate a point without using ad-hom smear and insinuation. This would be a challenge to those whose denial of another’s right to a view isn’t total because they would have to tune into their meaning rather than boilerplate phrasing. Since I was a small child I learned that people presented false kindness to get something from me or get me to take a shape that isn’t me. This was not a scientific study in human behaviours, published and peer presented but the dissonance of a presented communication that was needy, manipulative or coercive. I didn’t have articulation then – but it did not elicit a free or loving response. There was something wrong or out of… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 26, 2018 11:28 PM
Reply to  BigB

Well said, BigB.

binra
binra
Oct 27, 2018 1:18 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

While the ‘world’ (whatever in fact the world is) Has a past that goes back to time out of mind (where else can time come from) The activation of human consciousness (as a subjective imaginary modelling of its own predicament) And its cultural and technological developments (that burst forth suddenly as city states and god kings around the world in conditions that almost no one now can even begin to understand), Correlates not just with the Bible, but with the Mythic record of Antiquity – whose consciousness and experience cannot be translated into a filtered and compartmentalised ‘amnesia’. The more we wrote down, the more we forgot. the more we outsource the more dependent and addicted, to the persistence of the ‘gods’ in archetypal patterns of consciousness. Who controls the present controls (uses) the past to control the future. Think you that our History is not also ‘fake news’? Think… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 26, 2018 12:30 AM
Reply to  Editor

A prediction is a forecast or prophecy but not a claim. The claim is that C02 gas from human outputs is tipping the Earth’s climate into a ‘runaway greenhouse effect, that is then predicted to result in apocalyptic negative effects. The predictions of doom are repeated through decades while the machinery of corporate and national politics and law is rolled out regardless of any process of oversight or accountability. In that sense it is not really about the climate so much as using it as a means to institute a global structure of binding law along with a technological grid over every input and output of the human ‘system’. It also does so through a guilted manipulation of pseudo-religious outrage and zeal in attacking heretics or holocaust-deniers. The pattern is nothing new – but this global technocracy opens the gates of hell or perhaps the key the Gate’s and Gore’s… Read more »

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Oct 26, 2018 3:29 AM
Reply to  Editor

Perhaps you should suggest to denialists that they should show their research that proves their point rather than snipe at the information based on scientific evidence compiled for many decades. The great thing about the denialists is that they make statements that are clearly untrue and based on false data put out by the coal lobby. Even denialist governments are telling lies. The Australian government is an example. They no longer claim climate change is fake but instead say we must not make energy prices too high for consumers when the reality is wind power and solar power are less than half the full life cost of coal generation. This does not include the health cost of coal pollution which is significant or take into account the rising cost of insurance because of extreme weather. I don’t mind if people put their point of view but they need to show… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 27, 2018 12:07 AM
Reply to  Editor

It’s interesting though how the non-pro-AGWers drop out of argument, isn’t it? Of course, people may simply just have moved on and aren’t bothered to respond but nevertheless it is interesting to note. I cannot identify one compelling comment against AGW, can you? I might have missed a couple as there are a large number but from my trawl I cannot see any. Perhaps there is information provided in a link that is compelling but I cannot see anything compelling in a comment. Jim Scott – Ian Macdonald – no response Lukewarmer – me – no response Denier – me – dropped out (very prolific with comments though) MLS – me – dropped out gepay – Admin – no response to request for $2 billion figure in climate research grants And as I was going through I just quashed a comment by Antonym. He gave a link to a previous… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 27, 2018 12:12 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Oops! I referred to Antonym as “he”, perhaps Antonym is not a he.

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 27, 2018 12:46 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Speaking purely for myself I tried to discuss the evidence with several people here but didn’t get very far. One person told me he didn’t want to discuss the data, though he didn’t say what he did want to discuss instead. Another called me a lot of names I only partially understood.

From what I saw MLS was posting factually while he was here, as were a couple of “lukewarmer” people.

I absolutely agree we should talk data not insult each other, but that goes both ways! The people who talk about “deniers” don’t want to talk to us because they think we’re evil or something. It’s very bizarre.

I come from a religious background and really, the responses on this topic remind me of the more intolerant and fundamentalist members of that church than of rational people discussing a scientific topic.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 27, 2018 1:33 AM
Reply to  PSJ

MLS argued that there have been vastly greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and we didn’t have runaway climate change. I responded with a quote from skepticalscience showing that when larger amounts of CO2 have occurred in the past the sun was dimmer which allowed the glaciation threshold to be up to 3,000 ppmv. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-basic.htm So what he said was factual, however, it didn’t account for the important fact of the presence of a dimmer sun and therefore the fact cannot be used as an anti-AGW argument. I am very happy to discuss any data I’m capable of understanding. Can I ask you, PSJ, have you run any anti/cast-doubt-on AGW arguments that you believe are supported by the data through the skepticalscience.com search to see what their counter-argument is? Whatever your impressions about arguments on this site, the fact is, that non-pro-AGW arguers do not respond… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 27, 2018 2:07 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Thanks for the link flaxgirl. It’s an interesting theory, but where is the data? How robust is it? He’s putting forward an argument, not stating a fact. But he’s also making the case for other climate forcers we are all encouraged to ignore. If the sun can powerfully offset the effects of C02 then how can we ignore it as a driver of modern climate? Solar minimums and maximums correlate almost exactly with known fluctuations of earth’s temperature in the past, but the AGW hypothesis completely dismisses any consideration of the sun driving current warming. Why? Where is the data to support that? I see theory and argument. But no data. What I see is a very complex scientific subject being simplified and promoted as “settled science”, and very sadly people have been brainwashed into believing anyone who discusses the complexities is evil or genocidal or whatever other ad hominem… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 27, 2018 2:56 AM
Reply to  PSJ

The last paragraph of John Cook’s intermediate article on high levels of CO2 in the past is: “If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: “the geologic record contains a treasure trove of ‘alternative Earths’ that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings.”Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.” https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm In his article there is a link to a study by climatologist Dana Royer that pieced together 490 proxy records to reconstruct CO2 levels over the last 540 million years. There are also links… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 27, 2018 3:54 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

And just to add: one really has wonder what can explain the very high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere without extreme warming. You do agree that it is a recognised greenhouse gas that operates as such at a very trace level, no?

Hilaire Belloc
Hilaire Belloc
Oct 28, 2018 1:33 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

If the Skeptic chap admits CO2 isn’t the only driver of climate change, does he grasp the nettle of how we can tell the current warming is driven by Co2? Solar activity also follows the patterns of previous warmings and coolings. It’s possible the sun drives warming and the CO2 is a result of the warmer planet. I tend to think CO2 IS a forcer, but when all we have is correlation it’s hard to know. But even expressing a modicum of rational doubt apparently means I should go to jail or be prosecuted according to you and BigB and the frankly insane Mulga

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 28, 2018 2:35 AM
Reply to  Hilaire Belloc

I made a very big error in referring to skepticalscience as John Cook’s site. He started it but it is run by a number of people now and there are a large number of contributors while the work of many, many different people, including, of course, a large number of climate scientists is linked to.

Please cite sources that show that CO2 is not shown to drive current warming.

binra
binra
Oct 27, 2018 1:44 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Who would be so foolish as to engage with a den of communication deniers? They are not open or listening to anything but their own script. And if disregarded sufficiently – would have to start talking nervously among themselves… Why not use flax derived products and packing instead of all this plastic crap? because poisoning the world is intended. And the focus will not be on the actual, but where power directs your minds to fixate instead. I haven’t heard one convincing argument for C02 as the driver of anything but selectively fine tuned computer models. Sacrifice the people to the model, the system, the ideology, the religion, the idol, the faith that delivers from fear as long as all other thought is denied and yes, there’s nothing like fear to focus the mind in shutting out any doubts. Science ought to be the attempt to DISPROVE a theory so… Read more »

Kathy
Kathy
Oct 27, 2018 5:26 PM
Reply to  binra

There is a choice being made to produce so much waste from petro plastics when it would have been so easy to produce cellulose plant based biodegradable products. .Binra. As you put it. Sacrifice the people to the model etc. . It is an interesting observation on the subject of climate change. That people are encouraged to embrace a collective guilt over something they have very little ability to change. Whether man made or a natural phenomena. Those in the world who really care passionately about the planet being so damaged by climate change and pollution are the ones who embrace this guilt and responsibility the most. .This becomes another form of divide and rule and trauma inflicted onto the people. It also may if one is not careful become almost arrogant elitist and selfish in its manifestation. The ones who encourage and keep reinforcing this guilt and fear are… Read more »

comite espartaco
comite espartaco
Oct 25, 2018 11:32 AM

‘Climatechangism’ is a clear and brutal globalist attack against organised workers in the West and, therefore, of the world, as the West constitutes the most advanced example to follow for the workers of all countries in environmental legislation and protection, as well as in protection and conditions of work and other socialist advances. It is an untenable position to suggest that, the most polluting countries in the world, mainly underdeveloped countries, could continue their dirty activities, that harm, in the first place, their own populations, meanwhile NGO’s and international organisations, hijacked by upper class bureaucrats, demand the relatively less polluting West to disarm, ditch its energy resources and transfer its technology, for free, to tyrannical regimes allowed to pollute to help delocalisation and unfair competition. If people is serious about climate change and pollution, they cannot but oppose and combat globalisation, that is, unfair competition exchanges and mass migration, the… Read more »

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 3:33 PM

My website. Lessons from anti progress ideology (aka ecofascism/Nazism)

http://monbiot.scrapthetrade.com/ecofascism.html

This is what I think of Hansen and his Dark Mountain ecofascist/Nazi pals (and the tilt of this book)

African American Dartmouth College professor Michael K. Dorsey referred to Dark Mountain in the following way in the Guardian comments. Link now broken

“Everyone should stay vigilant and keep their danger sniffers on full alert when the likes of those high on the Dark Mountain and others associated with “deep ecological” tendencies get on about “crises” of “humanity.” Sadly, we have a great deal of evidence now, that such ‘dark’ tendencies have been built upon a legacy of misanthropic meandering, petty eco-fascism and immigrant bashing– souped up in talk of waywardness from the “myth[s] of human centrality”–by the likes of Teddy Goldsmith, the gaggle of old Ecologist sods, inter alia, some of whom helped precipitate the Cornerhouse.

http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/5160452

Ian Macdonald
Ian Macdonald
Oct 24, 2018 8:33 AM

-Do we know the amount of warming caused by CO2? Yes, it’s settled science. -Does it equal the warming predicted by the alarmists? NO, it doesn’t. A lot less, in fact. -How come the difference? The alarmists include ‘feedbacks’ from climate computer models -Are these feedbacks settled science? NO, they are not. -Can a mass deployment of wind turbines and solar panels stop the CO2 increase? No country has achieved this to date, not even with massive expenditure. -Will energy storage solve the problems of wind and solar? NO. The small scale units presently deployed are not representative of a real solution. -Will battery cars provide clean, green transport? NO, because they will be recharged from fossil fuels. -Do firms claiming to run on ‘100% renewable energy’ such as Apple, actually do so? NO. All this means is that they have bought renewable capacity equal to their usage. -Are there… Read more »

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 2:53 PM
Reply to  Ian Macdonald

Good comment Ian, well argued.

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Oct 26, 2018 7:18 AM
Reply to  Ian Macdonald

Ian I have critiqued your statements which are mostly incorrect Do we know the amount of warming caused by CO2? This statement is correct. Yes, it’s settled science. – Does it equal the warming predicted by the alarmists? Wrong Ian there are thousands of scientists working in many different fields who are making predictions based on their collective information. They are not alarmists but professionals who strive for the utmost accuracy. Wrong again Ian the linkages between CO2 intensity and warming has again been very accurate here is the chart. http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures NO, it doesn’t. A lot less, in fact. How come the difference? The first of these two comments is plain wrong the temperature rise follows a very predictable path as CO2 increases. the temperature rise is very close to what has been predicted.Remember the temperature we have had is all measured on thermometers as well as other techniques used… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 26, 2018 10:20 AM
Reply to  Jim Scott

Thank you, Jim.

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 24, 2018 6:33 AM

Anybody remember this?
https://youtu.be/ei-_SXLMMfo?t=23

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Oct 26, 2018 7:47 AM
Reply to  axisofoil

Actually the anti science brigade drag out these totally unrelated pieces of nonsense that relate to a period of time where one section of earth got colder in some areas and hotter in others. Greenland actually warmed up and grapes could be grown there. However it wasn’t global cooling or warming it was caused when a wobble the earths oscillation on its axis caused it to tilt towards the sun in Greenland. But that did not change the average temperature all over the planet. A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing in the minds of morons. Even at a time when we have an existential crisis that could end life on our planet you will find a group of chattering monkeys laughing at the highly trained scientists because being monkeys they don’t have the wit to understand that they are about to be hit by a tsunami that will… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 23, 2018 11:08 PM

I don’t know that anyone actually is what they say they are or seem to be and so I meet everyone in what they give fruit of. It is very possible that if this site was being ‘incited to disinfo or smear and disrupt tactics’ then any gov or NGO agency can operate multiple accounts just as can an individual. It is pointless and divisive to accuse or conjecture whether someone actually believes what they say or whether it is – for an example – an extremism of hate that works to deter newcomers from association. And a later association by which to invalidate the site. But also trashing or ridiculing others – given currency of acceptance, deters posting. The idea of free speech is of the right to speak and be heard. Those who want the right to deny others do not seek to be heard or received but… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 23, 2018 10:01 PM

As I often say; Garbage in; garbage out!

If all you get is garbage, change your inputs.
Come FROM a different predicate.
If garbage is a successful result for you – then you have your reward. You are the garbage collector!

However the recognition of the result of our own thought, feeling and acceptance is no one else’s responsibility or right to impose. You can give YOUR word for You. That’s it. Give the world you want to live in. Because you do – except only a Living Word results a Living World.

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 24, 2018 3:44 AM
Reply to  binra

Brian
Garbage is such a great word. As a metaphor – the community in which I live is considering an ordinance to go through our garbage to determine how we are obeying recycling protocol. In this case garbage is information.
I also view garbage as information. I will determine for myself which garbage is useful to me and which is not. I will recycle accordingly.
When you yourself are here taking in ‘garbage’ and responding to it, does …”if all you get is garbage, change your inputs “…. not also apply to you?
“Garbage in; garbage out”?
As a garbage collector myself, I find yours a little outside the box…..or can as it were.

binra
binra
Oct 24, 2018 8:44 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

Of course you are free to give value where you see fit. Of course I give as I would in truth receive and of course I look at my own perceptions or ‘reception’ so as only to give what I hold true and not persist in what for me is ‘garbage’. We are each free to value the valueless – but we are not free to make the un true true – even if a claim of ‘consensus’ is used to deny debate and vilify and persecute those who do not give acceptance or consent to the ‘consensus’. This ploy to me reveals a LACK of substance. A love of truth needs not fear challenge – and needs only be vigilant against deceit. Hence the lack of substance will do or say anything BUT engage in the issue – though of course it may pretend to but only as a… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 23, 2018 9:47 PM

To make an image of reality and worship it instead of reality is the ‘separative’ mind that would ‘Lord it over’ in judgement of its own private agenda. So this is the basis from which a dissociated (insane) mind, attacks it own source, nature and sustenance so as to make a lie survivable and sustainable. The commandments are mostly interpreted as coercive – but I sense they are saying that you – as an inherent Expression of Life, CANNOT break these relational bonds of Life without breaking from your own awareness of your true being. I realise that most are now ‘thinking’ only in a seemingly scientific paradigm, but the model is the framing perspective of our current thinking the experience it opens up. It is never The truth, because truth is alive – and an image is a construct. If it aligns with truth it significance will resonate a… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 23, 2018 10:13 PM
Reply to  binra

Sounds like you have been reading the Bible. Which one? Mine is Websters…….yours?

binra
binra
Oct 24, 2018 7:45 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

What I wrote in the latter part of my reply is a contemporary ‘take’ to your quoted section. If you look, it parallels it. Confucious was once asked what he would do if he was in the Seat of Power – and he replied that he would redeem the dictionary. Who understands the spelling of meanings and the adulterations and corruption of our word, knows where the power is. But any intent to interject private agenda as a divisive control is the adulteration and corruption of power. While you use the word to weave a web of self illusion, you will not be able to receive a true word and be healed of the pain and isolation of its experience. This is a very simple choice but heavily obscured by investment in illusion. Honesty remains the basis for re-alignin our minds, our relationships and our world to a true fulfilment.… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 23, 2018 9:19 PM

A quick note on neurocognition. Science to this juncture is almost exclusively Cartesian. Observer and observed are distinct bounded entities that do not interfere with each other. The scientific observer is one who utilises the a priori method (of pure transcendent Reason: universalised Natural Laws; etc) to discover infallible empirical knowledge. That scientific knowledge becomes the basis of further science: and so on as we build up an emporium of laws and fundamental principles …the objective observations and explanation of the world we live in – but are separate from. That this has validity is not in question. The question is: has this disembodied and mind independent view of the res cogitans and res extensa taken us as far as it can go? There is a different view that emerges from the inter-disciplinary cognitive sciences. Let me call it the Neuro-Phenomenological Image (NPI) of humanity …which emerges from the Santiago… Read more »

writerroddis
writerroddis
Oct 24, 2018 5:12 AM
Reply to  BigB

I like this. Has Cartesian dualism talen us as far as it can? It remains the fundamental paradigm for scientific enquiry, notwithstanding questions raised decades ago by findings in quantum mechanics . That it may have taken us as far as it usefully can is an idea that has long and not always consciously interested me. This past quarter century I’ve sought in amateurish fashion to integrate scientific, marxist and – broadly speaking – buddhist understandings.

Such thoughts are clearly relevant here. One very big aspect of our current predicament is surely an arrogant and stupid belief, not usually conscious, that homo sapiens sapiens – we know that we know – is special and separate. Its American Exceptional, and concomitant thirst for Full Spectrum Dominance, writ large!

BigB
BigB
Oct 25, 2018 12:03 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

Phillip: it appears we are on parallel life courses! You hit the nail on the head with quantum mechanics: it’s incompatible with the Cartesian-Newtonian-Einsteinian observable universe. We have two major proven theories of physics – quantum field theory and general relativity – that are either incompatible: or we are inhabiting two distinct universes at once. As this is patently absurd: then we have a dualistic, binary logical, linguistic form that cannot accurately describe the world as it is. Which is a big problem for the human mind, which is a purely psycho-linguistic creation. I can sketch the deficiencies and ontological problems of language in a few sentences. The solutions will not be so easily forthcoming. As soon as you have the cognition ‘I am’ (the ‘principium individuatonis’ = PI): as you say, you have the root cause of American Exceptionalism and Full Spectrum Dominance. All binary propositions – thesis and… Read more »

Jim Scott
Jim Scott
Oct 26, 2018 8:16 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

I like your comment both about American Exceptionalism which I equate with the Master Race and the idea that we have become separated from the web of life. Our own hubris is perhaps the greatest threat to our survival.
Luckily we have Trump and his ilk in the Australian Parliament to bring us back to the base of a tree to consider how much more evolution we still need before we can regard ourselves as realised beings in tune with our world..

binra
binra
Oct 23, 2018 8:16 PM

@ mulga says” “It takes the usual combination of imbecility and Evil, typical of deniers, to place TWO ie 2, ‘scientists’ before tens of thousands of others, 200 years of climate science and the UNANIMOUS opinion of ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth. But human Evil and stupidity are surely limitless.” To which I say The scenario you denigrate is the only way Humanity and Science actually advances. Those who speak truth to the alignment under ‘power’ often find recognition only after they are dead. That is the difference between aligning in the true and seeking a personal salvation at other’s expense. Under threat we can easily be triggered to WANT that something be true – ie payback to the oil-igarchy. (As if they are not a hundred moves ahead of you). Or fear something enough to let in anything that says it will save us.… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 23, 2018 7:58 PM

“Simply a LIE, and the only question needed now, is just why deniers are so viciously Evil and bent on causing humanity’s extinction?” It read at first on my mail as if mulga was calling the 97% out for the lie it is… But no it is mind programming: 1. Assert the accusation as a shock tactic. 2. Define the already guilted narrative range of allowable ‘questions’. 3. Set the pseudo question in terms of its payload of viciously evil intent. The only question I have in this regard is ‘why anyone would take the bait?’. And yet this sort of mind-framing persistently ‘works’ the frustrated and the lost to think they have found a target they can actually identify and get vengeance on. As if the driving need is a personal sense of self vindication and no real concern for others at all. Instead of challenging fake news, toxic… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 23, 2018 5:14 PM

How could this site NOT be targeted by disinfo? In the world as it is?

But do I spy a pack running psy-cooperatively? Or just a fear and suspicion of attack running as fear driven and hateful reaction? Much easier to attack me than to address the issue… it would seem.

It is also true that self-censorship can effect what is no longer required to be operated at a cost.
Simply the fear of something threatening can trigger defensive reactions by which the fear is effectively re-inforced as reality, and enacted blindly as self-fulfilling prophecy.

Giving disregard to the voice for fear is the way the truth can rise to awareness.

TFS
TFS
Oct 23, 2018 5:10 PM

Luckily I don’t need to be either side of the fence on this topic.

Man is contaminating the planet. From fracking, Air travel and my particular favorite, ‘The War on Terror’. Oh and don’t forget Capitalism.

Get the UN to do their job and put the likes of Blair, Net-AND-Yahoo, Trump, Hilary Clinton, Barry Obama and their friends in low place, and the rest will follow

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 23, 2018 4:37 PM

I’d like if I may to suggest a simple experiment anyone can try.

1] Go to Google and type in “9/11”.

2a] make a note of how far down you need to scroll to find a site supportive of the official government version

2b] make a note of how far down you need to scroll before you find a Truther site

3] Clear the search and type in “global warming”

4a] make a note of how far down you need to scroll before you find a site supportive of the manmade global warming theory.

4b] make a note of how far down you need to scroll to find a site that questions the manmade global warming theory.

Come back here and report your findings.

Georgy Girl
Georgy Girl
Oct 23, 2018 7:44 PM
Reply to  PSJ

Ok.

“9/11” – I got to page 6 of the Google search and still had not found a single Truther site

“global warming” – The first 3 pages were exclusively pro-manmade global warming sites. Toward the bottom of page 3 I found two sites that questions manmade global warming.

So my experiment suggest to me that the search term “9/11” is heavily censored by Google to the point of almost completely suppressing one side of the debate.

What surprised me was that the search term “global warming” seems to be somewhat censored, or weighted at very least, towards to pro-manmade global warming camp

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Oct 23, 2018 9:45 PM
Reply to  Georgy Girl

That is because the anthropogenic climate destabilisation theory is ‘settled science’, supported by ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth, and 99% of actively publishing climate scientists, AND by the overwhelming evidence from reality. Whereas climate destabilisation denialism is the province of paid disinformers, and various omnicidal psychopaths and lunatics, who seem to actively desire human extinction.

Savorywill
Savorywill
Oct 24, 2018 12:46 AM

I have been down this road before with you, Mulga, so I probably shouldn’t venture there again. But, (I can’t help myself!) I don’t think that it is ‘settled science’ by any stretch, except for those who earn their living by perpetuating this myth. Check out James Corbett on global warming (especially his recent ‘Why big oil conquered the world’), where he carefully examines and debunks the AGW hypothesis, if you are open to changing to your mind.

The dog ate the data
The dog ate the data
Oct 24, 2018 4:13 PM

One thing you can bet your house on is that whenever someone uses the phrase “overwhelming evidence” regarding man-made climate change, the rest of the post will not contain any.

Denier
Denier
Oct 23, 2018 4:16 PM

Global warming underpins a multi trillion dollar, Enron created, carbon trading operation supported by carbon billionaires like Tom Steyer and Jeremy Grantham.

Billions, possibly trillions of dollars of free carbon credits (license to produce CO2) were handed out to big business. In the absence of global warming, they would be worthless. The American system collapsed in 2010 but individual states have created their own schemes.

http://www.scrapthetrade.com

Mighty Drunken
Mighty Drunken
Oct 23, 2018 10:07 PM
Reply to  Denier

Which of course a pittance when compared to the trillions that fossil fuel companies make. Carbon trading is a shoehorn to try to fit the reduction of carbon dioxide into the capitalist framework. A way reduction can be achieved by “the market” which is the one thing, other than money, that capitalist revere.
Unfortunately it is open to gaming and is not as effective as a straight tax on carbon emissions would be.

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 24, 2018 2:41 AM
Reply to  Editor

This site is informative
https://www.opensecrets.org/influence/

gepay
gepay
Oct 25, 2018 2:07 AM
Reply to  Editor

The US government gives out research grants for studying climate – to the tune of at last count of 2 billion dollars a year -. anybody who disagrees with the Man made CO2 is causing climate change is not funded. The Koch bros and the fossil fuel companies give out millions, possibly tens of millions. the oil companies also fund environmental groups that push the man made co2 is causing catastrophic climate change. paradigmn. They especially like carbon credits as does Goldman Sachs. The 97% figure is for scientists that believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the climate has warmed since the little ice age. Michel Ghil 2013 says >It’s fascinating that terminations (of the glacial age) occur when CO2 concentrations are lowest, and interglacials end when CO2 concentrations are high. Here is Lennart Bengston – He was head of research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 25, 2018 1:59 PM
Reply to  gepay

Yes. I alight in your post as more to the point. I would prefer to see shared discussion on the methods and ruses of social engineering, than feed a trapped identity in polarised and baited reaction TO THEM. A conspiracy – or breathing together of fame (specialness), fortune, power and privilege works a private self-interest at expense of the whole, and in masked agenda of plausible deniability as one who ‘knows not what they do’. But beneath all the presentations is the issue of power to prevail or survive as an adaptation within any perceived or believed situation. Our ‘conscious’ sense of our self is not always aware of the bias of our conflict of interest, such that we can ‘believe ourselves’ when we say that our financial or political affiliations have in no way influenced our impartiality. Of course this can work in reverse – for anyone on a… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 25, 2018 8:06 PM
Reply to  Editor

While specific claims should be supported, there are general observations that are simply obvious. The pretence that this is or ever was a scientific debate is already framed by a political body distorting a scientific narrative and reasserting it over decades as a persistent conditioning – while implementing top down ‘guidelines’ into every nation’s law. James Corbett’s ‘Pay Up or the Earth Gets It! – #PropagandaWatch’ I don’t deny climate is change. I certainly do not deny the poisoning and degrading of our living world, our biology, our consciousness and our capacity to think. (which I see occurring in reverse because all else proceeds from accepted idea). But i give no credibility to the USE that the environmental movement is being put to. I noticed this comment on Corbett – which I think makes a worthy point: mfr58: Thanks James. Unfortunately the well meaning environmentalists are the most difficult people… Read more »

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Oct 23, 2018 7:11 AM

‘Search in vain for a “thou shalt not trash Planet Earth” message in Quran, Veda or Bible…’

Even narrowing the search to only the latter tome: what do you want, the Alpha (after the opening cosmology bit)

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to till it and to keep it.

or the Omega

blockquote>Revelation 11:18 The nations raged, but thy wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, for rewarding thy servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear thy name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.

or the plethora in between?

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Oct 23, 2018 7:21 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

‘Search in vain for a “thou shalt not trash Planet Earth” message in Quran, Veda or Bible…’

Even narrowing the search to only the latter: what do you want, the Alpha (after the opening cosmology bit)

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to till it and to keep it.

or the Omega

Revelation 11:18 The nations raged, but thy wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, for rewarding thy servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear thy name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.

or the plethora in between?

writerroddis
writerroddis
Oct 23, 2018 12:55 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Thanks for the offer, Robbobbobin, but I’ll settle for a reminder as to which of the Ten Commandments proscribes ecocide.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Oct 23, 2018 3:11 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

“I’ll settle for a reminder as to which of the Ten Commandments proscribes ecocide.” That’s a smartass, dishonest response on several levels. First of all, on its face and “in your face.” Your original field of enquiry specified (amongst other texts), “the Bible”. If you meant perhaps the only bit you can name (the “Ten Commandments”?) then simple rules of honest, non-diversionary argument would have you say that upfront, when you sought to impugn the collaborative work of generations of multiple authors (and the judgement of a large number of readers who value their work) as part of an unstated (and erroneous) sub-agenda. I’ll skip the secondlys and thirdlys in obeisance to your apparent disdain for all but those sections of a work referenced in its executive summary (or all but those mitzvot inscribed on the stone tablets Moses could carry down the mountain). Next, it’s also a stupid and… Read more »

Hope
Hope
Oct 23, 2018 3:27 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Good call, Robbobbobin. Thanks.

writerroddis
writerroddis
Oct 23, 2018 6:23 PM
Reply to  Hope

Robbobbobin I really did mean no disrespect. My original ATL remark, which you quote, was intended as neutral observation. The great religious texts still extant can all be located between the neolothic and industrial revolutions: addressing issues arising in the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer, and from the rise of the city state and larger populations agriculture enabled. As all systems of law, morality and etiquette must, they offer codes to manage tensions between our nature as social yet individuated beings. We still draw on those systems, believer and non believer alike. What those texts do not offer – COULD not offer at that historic juncture – is advice for our post industrial predicament: a capability, unenvisaged by Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna etc, to take out pretty much all advanced life on the planet, ourselves included. That is what I meant, and you have misunderatood me in thinking I see… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 23, 2018 1:37 AM

While we’re at it…..Here is something for the open minded. At this point, who knows?
https://youtu.be/AcDspzYDhP4?t=25

Elizabeth Woodworth
Elizabeth Woodworth
Oct 22, 2018 9:42 PM

As co-author of “Unprecedented Crime,” I am addressing the comments below this review from the standpoint of having been David Ray Griffin’s colleague for 12 years. Dr. Griffin and I have written together on both 9/11 and climate change. Why on both topics? We worked first to try to defeat the official story of 9/11 and its resulting global war on terror so that media attention could move to the far more serious (and existential) ecological crisis. While it is natural that people who understand the 9/11 hoax might suspect that the same media that has trumpeted the global war on terror may be pushing a climate hoax as well, Dr. Griffin has explained in an important article that they are two very different things: “9/11 and Global Warming: Are They Both False Conspiracy Theories?” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42827.htm Indeed, the reality of climate change has long been suppressed by the media, which… Read more »

SGibbons
SGibbons
Oct 22, 2018 10:30 PM

Hi Elizabeth and many any thank for this book. I know you are also a 9/11 Truther, which I am not, but I feel as if intelligent adults should be able to agree and disagree on a subject by subject basis. I applaud this work you are doing.

My question is, are you troubled by the fact so many of your fellow Truthers are climate Deniers? I am thinking Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, James Fetzer and many others, all are noted for rejecting the science of manmade global warming.

Why do they do this since several of them are scientists or from scientific disciplines?

Elizabeth Woodworth
Elizabeth Woodworth
Oct 22, 2018 11:11 PM
Reply to  SGibbons

Thanks for your comment, SGibbons. Yes, indeed, civilized, I like to think that intelligent people usually do respect one another’s views! I have not seen articles or comments by any of the 9/11 truth people you mention, but I do know that none of them are climate scientists. As a science librarian I spent 30 years delivering peer-reviewed articles to environmentalists and health professionals, so I would look to the science literature for climate change observations and assessments. About 97% of climate scientists who are published in the peer-reviewed literature believe that global warming is real, and is caused by increased CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. This literature is indexed in the enormous literature database services that maintain high standards for inclusion of the science journal titles they index. (The same is true of engineering, technology, and medical literature.) The whole system is not perfect, but it’s the most… Read more »

Denier
Denier
Oct 22, 2018 11:25 PM

“About 97% of climate scientists who are published in the peer-reviewed literature believe that global warming is real and is caused by increased CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution”

Not only is that untrue, it makes very little sense to anyone who has studied science.

“The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Oct 23, 2018 9:44 AM
Reply to  Denier

Simply a LIE, and the only question needed now, is just why deniers are so viciously Evil and bent on causing humanity’s extinction?

Hilaire Belloc
Hilaire Belloc
Oct 23, 2018 2:50 PM

My goodness Mulga Mumblebrain this is a scientific debate not the Inquisition or a Salem witch trial. What’s the matter with you?

You ask in another comment what a lukewarmer is. A lukewarmer is someone who agrees that manmade global warming is probably real, sees the wisdom of curbing emissions, but who is not necessarily convinced by the much less robustly supported ideas of potential catastrophe.

That’s me.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Oct 23, 2018 9:53 PM
Reply to  Hilaire Belloc

Don’t be such a hypocrite. There is NO ‘debate’ about anthropogenic climate destabilisation science, only lies, misrepresentations and distortions by the psychopathic denialist claque, all of which will help cause the premature deaths of billions. And THAT is the greatest moral and spiritual crime of ALL time.

Hilaire Belloc
Hilaire Belloc
Oct 23, 2018 3:02 PM

Did you read the linked Guardian article? I’m not a Guardian fan, and not a “denier” but the 97% figure is demonstrably a myth IMO and I think the author of the piece pretty much proves that. I’d be interested to discuss why you don’t agree.

And how terrifying that two other readers here actually think your cries of “Be gone vile unbeliever!” are commendable. What is happening to us? We seem to be descending into a new dark age of religious fundamentalism replacing rational thought.

mog
mog
Oct 23, 2018 5:04 PM
Reply to  Denier

You are not doing the leg work Denier.
We know that there is a highly funded campaign to distract from the scientific consensus, it is documented fact.
Now look at Tol who wrote the Guardian article, look at this associations and it is immediately clear that he works in circles of Lawson and Lomberg etc. people funded to muddy the waters.
It’s hard to challenge one’s own confirmation bias.

Denier
Denier
Oct 23, 2018 5:13 PM
Reply to  mog

I perceive Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to be right wing nutters never mind Lawson and his motley crew.

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 23, 2018 5:17 PM
Reply to  mog

@Mog But he may still be correct, no? Surely we look at the data not just at where the money comes from? I was funded by the DoE some years ago, does this mean any science I produce or cite is invalid a priori?

Do we also examine funding of the pro-AGW argument? What if a pro-AGW scientist gets money from alternative energy grants?Or Goldman Sachs that promote carbon taxes etc? Does that invalidate his research? I don’t think so!

I think it’s better to look at the science first and last and only consider funding in cases where fraud can be detected independently.

mog
mog
Oct 23, 2018 6:27 PM
Reply to  PSJ

Do we also examine funding of the pro-AGW argument? What if a pro-AGW scientist gets money from alternative energy grants?Or Goldman Sachs that promote carbon taxes etc? Fossil fuel companies were the first to really investigate the AGW hyhpothesis. They buried their research and started campaigning to spread ‘doubt’ (this is what this book is largely about). Do Goldman promote carbon taxes? Why are the green lobby complaining of shouting into deaf ears for the past three decades when the most powerful bank in the world wants the same as they do? You are not making any sense to me, and do not provide any evidence that the huge, long running and diverse body of research is corrupted or controlled, as your theory determines it must be. Did they invent climate change a hundred years ago with a view to raising some extra tax in the early 21st century? What… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 23, 2018 8:04 PM
Reply to  mog

Thanks Admin, and yes, I did not mean to suggest any specific body of research was “corrupt.” My point was (or was meant to be!) that rather than focus on this or that researcher’s funding we should look at his data. Because the data is what matters.

Questions of funding only become meaningful if the data is falsified or there’s evidence for corruption.

Let’s discuss the data!

mog
mog
Oct 23, 2018 9:42 PM
Reply to  PSJ

No, let’s not discuss the data.
The data has been discussed a million times by people far more qualified to understand the data than you or I. They (nearly all) came to the same conclusion.
This isn’t 9/11- where all you have to do is look at the data and realise that it’s an obvious lie. It’s the opposite of 9/11 – where the data is widely scrutinised and cross checked by many many genuine experts who have worked for organisations as varied as Friends of The Earth and Exxon, and has been for decades. The counter theory of 9/11 relies on the concept of compartmentalised control of information through state and non state secrecy structures. These we know exist.
Climate research is all in the open, so to suggest that all those people are wrong is to suggest mass hysteria or an impossible to work conspiracy to deceive.

binra
binra
Oct 24, 2018 3:12 AM
Reply to  mog

Having educated myself with regard to fraud with regard to medical pharma science along with a recognition of the way the mind works – i see the same patterns working in science as did in religion. Only ‘church and state’ are now scientific institutions and corporate power. Self interest is not a conspiracy. But a negatively defined self interest is predicated on largely unconscious survival instincts. People are often incredibly naive about science because it is ‘all out in the open’ – well no it is not. In theory all sorts studies can be published – and ignored. All thing are not equal when trillion dollar revenue streams are involved. All things are not equal when your reputation, status and privileges are found to be on mistaken premises. All things are not equal when whistle blowing corruption carries a heavy penalty. When ‘consensus’ determines what is to be found and… Read more »

binra
binra
Oct 23, 2018 11:56 PM
Reply to  PSJ

Data is meaningless without a framework for its interpretation – so one has to do more than suckle what is being fed. While on the medical side, Malcolm Kendrick’s ‘Doctoring the Data’ is a good intro the the way studies can be made to support almost anything. When someone speaks into a ‘consensus’ of invested interests with valid and repeatable evidences that refute the presumed fact of the consensus, the result is to be ignored and often cast out, invalidated or made example of as a warning to others. This is so throughout history. When Bruce Lipton discovered what is now called epigenetics, his findings were ignored and people basically turned their backs on him. After thoroughly rechecking his work he confided in a mentor of some standing in the medical field, explained what he had found and the reaction and pushing for some explanation he was given a frank… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 24, 2018 2:03 AM
Reply to  binra

Can you say that backwards?

binra
binra
Oct 24, 2018 7:56 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

Can you say anything that is not backwards?

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Oct 23, 2018 9:58 PM
Reply to  PSJ

Your oral imbecility and hypocrisy is sickening. There is the greatest difference possible between those seeking scientific truth in pursuit of saving humanity from self-destruction, and those lying, distorting and misrepresenting for money in the service of human annihilation.

Elizabeth Woodworth
Elizabeth Woodworth
Oct 23, 2018 8:01 PM
Reply to  mog

Regarding the positions of major economists on climate change, Lord Stern confessed years ago that he had not taken it seriously enough.
Then we have William Nordhaus, 2018 Nobel prize winner at Yale, Jeffrey Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, and Jeff Rubin (author of The Carbon Bubble) in Canada — all highly concerned and working hard to head off catastrophic climate change.

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 23, 2018 8:09 PM

Hi there Elizabeth – is there anything to be gained by trading names of people variously qualified who share our opinions on climate change?

It’s science and science is supposed to be about data.How did that become lost?

Elizabeth Woodworth
Elizabeth Woodworth
Oct 23, 2018 9:28 PM
Reply to  PSJ

I mentioned their names because it was stated in another post that economist Richard Tol was the economist to believe about climate change. (Cannot find that post today)

Denier
Denier
Oct 23, 2018 8:31 PM

Nick Stern is owned and operated by $100 billion hedge fund owner/ carbon trader Jeremy Grantham

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/nicholas-stern/

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

Jeremy Grantham’s 2Q 2010 letter

Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/02/207994/grantham-must-read-time-to-wake-up-days-of-abundant-resources-and-falling-prices-are-over-forever/

Denier
Denier
Oct 23, 2018 8:36 PM

Jeffrey Sachs is one of the unspeakable American economic gangsters who ripped the Russian economy apart, left human beings torn and destitute while handing over the country’s oil wealth to a small number of ‘oligarchs’.

https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/

Denier
Denier
Oct 23, 2018 8:40 PM

You clearly put your head above the parapet on 9/11 but you are still deeply mired in the polished but deeply corrupt petit bourgeois world of American business/politics/economics where everyone is a different shade of Gatsby. Including Trump.

Another Evil Denier
Another Evil Denier
Oct 23, 2018 8:05 PM
Reply to  Denier

The science is simple. 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour (aka weather). 3.6% is due to carbon dioxide. The effect of a change in carbon dioxide is known exactly. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to double, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REMAIN THE SAME, the earth’s temperature would rise by 1 degree. So why are we told of an unstoppable rise, many times this? Because AGW theory claims that the effect of that 1 degree change would have a knock on effect on the water vapour model, which would multiply that 1 degree change many times over. aka positive feedback. There’s just one little problem with that theory. The water vapour model (aka the weather) is unknown. Science requires that a model should be produced, describing the effect of water vapour, that that model should make verifiable predictions, and that the predictions should… Read more »

Denier
Denier
Oct 23, 2018 8:43 PM

Yes it really is that simple.Water drives the climate. One day we will understand how that works !!

binra
binra
Oct 24, 2018 12:57 AM
Reply to  Denier

Water is not just fluid dynamics but is patterned by plasma or electrical dynamics. The fourth phase of water is of great significance to re-understanding our world. Where gravitic science invents ‘pumps’ the finding reveal innate operations of charge separation and charged relations – from the atom to the Galaxy. Likewise the Earth is not a self contained system receiving a bit of radiation from the Sun, but is within a greater electrical Universe that might generally be called Plasma Cosmology. The Electrical nature of the Universe is played down and sidelined by mainstream scientific narrative, which leads me to presume there are insiders and mainstream in this as in any field that can me weaponised or marketized. The electrical force is 10 to the 8th power stronger than the gravitic force – but the investments of corporate and institutional advantage and influence are in the old model – and… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 24, 2018 2:35 AM
Reply to  binra

Hey Brian,
If nothing else you have reminded me that I still have a sense of humor. If you are a Distraction Bot. You got me.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 24, 2018 7:42 AM
Reply to  Denier

We can use water/fat in the body as an analogy for water vapour/CO2 in the atmosphere. Water vapour is not a climate forcer just as water in the body is not responsible for excessive weight unless you have a fluid retention problem – fat is. You can drink loads of water but it will not put on weight, it will simply be eliminated.

Water is, of course, incredibly important and no doubt impacts climate in many ways but water vapour does not increase warming except as a positive feedback – the hotter the atmosphere the more it retains water vapour. Why don’t you put every anti-AGW argument you can think of into skepticalscience.org and see what it says – you may disagree, of course, but at least look at the argument that may debunk what you think.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 24, 2018 8:41 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Hi flaxgirl,
I am trying to keep a lid on it because this site is a serious place but I am fascinated with this BINRA character. It must be AI. it doesn’t respond directly but within it’s commentary is much assimilated materiel.From wikipedia? Who knows. Just as Elon Musk, I take AI very seriously. We are in for a wild ride dealing with this phenomenon down the road. This is an educational opportunity right here on Offguardian. I am attaching a film which you may have seen. If not, it is important. Really. Think about what it is saying. I find it arrogant, self serving and dangerous..What ever – it is most certainly coming and should be considered before arrival.

https://youtu.be/y5jiGeQBLTk?t=2

antonym
antonym
Oct 31, 2018 3:26 AM
Reply to  Editor

Dana Nuccitelli is the Guardian’s climate poster boy. They delete any comments that counter his stories including facts that this guy also works for MNC Tech Tetra and thus has financial conflict of interests issues. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dana-nuccitelli-661a447

binra
binra
Oct 24, 2018 9:57 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

The irony is that from where I stand, the reactive conditioned thinking is as a golem or automaton. However, unlike the ‘ruling elites’ I am not moved confirm you in your limitations nor seek to manipulate your programming, but to invite you to transcend them. No strings attached and in any way that is your way of waking in joy of life. If you take joy at another’s expense then you have forgotten what joy is – or believe yourself unworthy. Where I stand is no-where special. So I have become one with a particular style of writing, but the fact that I don’t seek social reinforcements and agreements does not mean I don’t see the intent to deny my humanity that you so callously embody. However, I don’t focus there, but on your unwillingness to engage in relationship with me. That is the key to any communication and your… Read more »

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 1:11 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Sorry, that is typical of the kind of sophistry one would expect from John Cook/Bellingcat. Looking at their material makes me feel dirty. This is it What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a ‘positive feedback loop’ in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise. https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm It is precisely that feedback argument that made me and a lot of others realise we were dealing with a scam. The global warming argument depends on this positive feedback. The problem is that the water vapour / clouds system is very poorly understood and is in fact the weakest part of the whole thing. Here is a grown up (physicist) view. “CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions – October 2016 This is a huge step for atmospheric science,” says lead author Ken Carslaw of the University of Leeds, UK. “It’s vital… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 24, 2018 1:37 PM
Reply to  Denier

Good old John has an article on clouds, of course. What do you say to this article?

https://skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 1:51 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

John Cook is NOT a scientist. He is not qualified to discuss any of this. Just like Eliot Higgins/ Bellingcat.

The source I provided in my last post is of the very highest quality (a physicist at CERN). Cook is the opposite.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 24, 2018 9:47 PM
Reply to  Denier

… and John most certainly is a scientist. I wasn’t referring to him as the author of the articles, just the owner of the site.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

Dana Nuccitelli is the author of both the Basic and Intermediate articles, which reference various scientific studies. Pray, tell me, where the fault is in the content. That’s what counts, isn’t it, not so much the credentials.

When you have to resort to attacking credentials (especially falsely), really … surely you can do better than that?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 24, 2018 10:04 PM
Reply to  Editor

Apologies. That wasn’t the best link. This was the link I should have put (you can get to it from the scholarly publications link on the About page).
https://skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 10:33 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

He has a BSc with an option in physics. That’s it. He has no published science (climate) papers. That is ALL that matters here.

Everything else happened after he became the Eliot Higgins / Forrest Gump celebrity of Australia. Hilariously his cognitive science PhD is about global warming denial supervised by an even bigger nut job, Stephan Lewandowsky.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 24, 2018 10:37 PM
Reply to  Denier

When you can say something intelligent about the content of the article you link to or the articles that I link to then please do otherwise please don’t waste everyone’s time with bogus attacks on credentials. An “option”? Never heard that term before in relation to a degree. It says very clearly, “major”.

He has a degree in science. He is co-author of a number of papers and he works with many other scientists.

Pray, what are your credentials, denier?

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 10:45 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

That is just Bellingcat level sophistry. He has a science degree with physics as a major. He has published zero (climate) science papers. That is the subject at hand.

I have a science degree with maths as a major and physics as a minor. My bro is a retired top class scientist (microbiologist) .

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 24, 2018 10:54 PM
Reply to  Denier

So as you do have a science qualification perhaps you can speak authoritatively on the merits or otherwise of the articles on clouds’ warming/cooling effects in skeptical science. If you do have a qualification why are you so reticent to say something intelligent and merely resort to falsely attacking credentials.

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 10:59 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I am not remotely qualified to address real climate science papers which is why I don’t. I link to reputable scientists who are.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 25, 2018 12:08 AM
Reply to  Denier

But surely you have some words to say. Dana links to a number of scientific studies. Do you have a quibble with the scientific studies or his interpretation of them?

What would you say is the main difference in the conclusions reached in the CERN paper as opposed to the SS articles?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 25, 2018 1:18 PM
Reply to  Denier

I think even to non-scientists we can get the gist here. CERN and SS are not at odds and while both articles are related to clouds SS has a much more comprehensive argument while CERN is focused on specific results of experiments. CERN have done experiments from which they have learnt that while it was already known that sulphuric acid was important for nucleation of aerosols, additional molecules – organic compounds or ammonia – are also required. This knowledge will help narrow predictions in aerosol effects. “The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.” SS’s states that clouds can have both a warming and cooling effect. Denser, lower clouds are reflective thus have a cooling effect while… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 24, 2018 10:47 PM
Reply to  Denier

An option? That’s a new term for me in relation to a degree.

He has Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a MAJOR in physics.

Pray, what are your credentials, Denier?

What matters to me is intelligent argument, not attacks on credentials. That is no form of argument at all. Please don’t waste everyone’s time with that sort of nonsense. What we’re all waiting with bated breath to learn from you, Denier, is what is wrong with the two articles by Dana Nuccitelli on skeptical science on clouds’ warming/cooling effects. Do you have intelligent words to say on these articles?

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 10:55 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I already linked to an article about research on clouds from CERN. That is the absolute opposite end of the credibility scale from Nuccitelli. The answer – we don’t understand the clouds/vapour system which are (obviously) interlinked.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 25, 2018 2:29 AM
Reply to  Denier

You “already linked to”. So you did, Denier, you linked to an article – the refuge of the person who cannot provide their own critique. It’s gone beyond links now, Denier, beyond links. You linked to one article and I linked to two others. If the only thing you can come up with is that CERN scientists are more reputable than the writers on SS you have ZERO argument. None at all. If you have no ability to critique any of the articles, give any hint at all where one paper is superior than another for whatever reasons, give some kind of thesis of the articles … then you have nothing. You have no credibility whatsoever and you are merely wasting everyone’s time on this site with false and nonsensical statements about others’ credibility. I feel absolutely positive that given the task himself, John Cook would not be reduced to… Read more »

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 10:25 PM
Reply to  Editor

It says here

“Cook is trained as a solar physicist and says he is motivated by his Christian beliefs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science#Reception_and_motivation

That is pretty laughable qualifications for a scientist. If he had real qualifications they would state the level, date and university plus his published research. He is NOT a scientist.

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 10:37 PM
Reply to  Editor

My reply to Flaxgirl who linked to a page https://skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1

He has a BSc with an option in physics. That’s it. He has no published science (climate) papers. That is ALL that matters here.

Everything else happened after he became the Eliot Higgins / Forrest Gump celebrity of Australia. Hilariously his cognitive science PhD is about global warming denial supervised by an even bigger nut job, Stephan Lewandowsky.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 24, 2018 9:58 PM
Reply to  Denier

Let me guess. You’re not a scientist, either, and your understanding perhaps is not sufficient to discuss the content of the article you link to yourself or the ones on the skepticalscience site authoritatively. I am not a scientist and I readily admit I’m not up to the task myself but I don’t go propagandising against climate science.

One thing that seems clear is that it is not clear how much warming and how much cooling are involved with clouds in which case why concern ourselves too much with it but rather concern ourselves with the fact that we know the global temperature is increasing in line with more and more greenhouse gas being pumped into the atmosphere and we need to do something about it.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 24, 2018 10:34 PM
Reply to  Denier

And just one more thing. Can you please drop the nonsense that John Cook is a sophist. Water vapour and clouds are not one and the same phenomenon and as we can see – all you had to do was type “clouds” into the search – skepticalscience addresses both water vapour and clouds have been addressed.

Mighty Drunken
Mighty Drunken
Oct 23, 2018 10:20 PM
Reply to  Denier

So Tol argues that the consensus is only 91%!

I give you Dana’s response.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus

“An anonymous individual has also published an elegant analysis showing that Tol’s method will decrease the consensus no matter what data are put into it.”
http://t.co/wXd0FjekBE

Even if Tol were correct, this is only one study of the scientific literature on climate science. Others have found similar consensus.
97% http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract
97% http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
100% http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Denier
Denier
Oct 24, 2018 12:15 AM
Reply to  Mighty Drunken

Nuccitelli is part of the Skeptical science mob, run by the Bellingcat of climate, John Cook. An Australian born again Christian lunatic who has been lauded Forrest Gump like by the global corporate establishment to push global warming and has even been given phony academic qualifications to make him look credible. He believes he will be lifted off the earth by God in the Rapture. Nutter “I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25”, he wrote. “… I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.” Talk about unexpected – faith is hardly the de rigueur mindset in scientific circles, particularly when it is so frequently associated with US right-wing Fox punditry, anti-science rhetoric, creationism and – bizarrely, in the case of climate change – the… Read more »

Denier
Denier
Oct 22, 2018 11:25 PM

Ivar Giaever has a Nobel Prize in physics.

“Global Warming Revisited – – climate science is pseudo science.

Freeman Dyson: Climate Change Predictions Are “Absurd”

These two men have more credibility than all those 97% climate scientists combined. They are old and they don’t have careers that can be destroyed by corporate interests.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Oct 23, 2018 9:46 AM
Reply to  Denier

It takes the usual combination of imbecility and Evil, typical of deniers, to place TWO ie 2, ‘scientists’ before tens of thousands of others, 200 years of climate science and the UNANIMOUS opinion of ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth. But human Evil and stupidity are surely limitless.

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 23, 2018 10:09 AM

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”

― Albert Einstein

Hilaire Belloc
Hilaire Belloc
Oct 23, 2018 12:39 AM

FWIW I have heard several prominent truthers express skepticism about global warming. It tends to be an unpopular idea among the American libertarian right and many truthers tend to spring from this tradition. Alex Jones comes to mind as typical. I think both you and David Ray Griffin may come from the liberal tradition.

It’s refreshing to see the political spectrum represented in the truther movement, and I certainly don’t object to this diversity of views. I cant imagine why anyone would.

What does it matter that you don’t all agree on everything? It only shows you are honest people expressing honest opinions.

iafantomo
iafantomo
Oct 23, 2018 5:31 PM

I, too, worked as a science librarian, with an MSc in Physics. The crucial question to ask is not percentages of scientists who go along with the grant-awarding authorities, but what the minority say. That’s at least 3%, which is a huge percentage for an established theory of Physics, which no-one is allowed to doubt. In 2006 I was the subject of a witch-hunt in Esperanto association of Britain. After their AGM a 90-year-old told me, “I voted for you because the one in a minority is usually right”. I was right. I’d produced a seminal report showing evidence that the basis of their claimed financial crisis was bogus. They were winding down the association. Yet if you were to judge by the speeches at the AGM you’d think I was indeed in a minority of one. I got 17% of the vote. The question to ask is: “Where is… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 23, 2018 8:31 PM

Elizabeth – I don’t mean to follow you around and snipe at you, but with respect, what is a “climate scientist?” Last time I looked Jim Hansen was a physicist, so is Michael Mann. But they’re climate scientists, correct? What makes a climate scientist? Is it a self-definition? Defined by the area of interest? Climate is such a massive and complex subject how do we define exactly when a scientist becomes a “climate scientist”? And no, Elizabeth, sorry, that 97% figure is bogus. There are real figures which come in at around 30-60% support for the idea of manmade global warming, much lower for the question of whether it’s likely to be dangerous to human survival. That’s a separate and pretty controversial area of debate. But what about the data? Do you agree the data matters and needs to take priority? Because it gets very little airtime in most concerned… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 26, 2018 10:31 AM
Reply to  PSJ

So you’re a “planer”, PSJ? Now why doesn’t that surprise me the least little bit.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 23, 2018 2:51 AM
Reply to  SGibbons

Do you mind my asking what you find compelling about the 9/11 “official story” for want of a better term?

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 23, 2018 3:01 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Excellent question.

milosevic
milosevic
Oct 23, 2018 6:41 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

The only compelling thing about the 9/11 Official Story is that it’s the official story.

That’s pretty compelling for some people, particularly if their careers, social position, or self-identity are depending on it.

Paul Barbara
Paul Barbara
Oct 23, 2018 6:40 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I know Ian (iafantomo), and I can assure you he is not a believer of the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ narrative.
He mentioned this post in an email to a ‘group’ I belong to.
Personally, I believe Global Warming is very real, but it is not something I concentrate on.
I’m a 9/11 Truther, and what with that, ‘Chemtrails’, Wi-Fi/5G, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Ukraine and so forth, I have enough on my plate.
I will direct him back to this post, as I think he will want to answer for himself.

mog
mog
Oct 23, 2018 5:08 PM
Reply to  SGibbons

SGibbons,
I asked where you had read that Jones (et al) disputed AGW.
Now you repeat the claim. still with no reference.

Have you got anything, or are you spouting disinformation and lies ?

gepay
gepay
Oct 25, 2018 2:17 AM
Reply to  SGibbons

Possibly since the facts are not supporting the claim that man made CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change. Add to this the fact that regulating the average citizens energy usage is an amazing control mechanism of their behavior.
this is not to say I don’t believe the present economic system that needs the growth mechanism of cancer to sustain needs to be changed.
There are so many real problems that man causes that we need to deal with – over fishing – glyphosate and other herbicide and pestide use – Fukushima still dumping thousands of gallons of radioactive water into the Pacific every day since Mar 11. – the ever rising number of American children with neurological problems – …
we don’t need to deal with a false problem that will lead to more control by the elites

Denier
Denier
Oct 22, 2018 10:34 PM

James Hansen endorsed an anti civilisation eco fascist book by Dark Mountain crazy Keith Farnish.

“The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization”.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/the-anti-industrial-revolution.html

Denier
Denier
Oct 22, 2018 10:37 PM

Hansen’s endorsement

Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests – they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort. –

-Professor James Hansen, GISS, NASA

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Times-Up-Uncivilized-Solution-Global/dp/190032248X

Hansen isn’t primarily a scientist but an extreme anti technology, anti civilisation campaigner

BigB
BigB
Oct 22, 2018 11:34 PM
Reply to  Denier

Denier: I’d quite like to see you lay out just how you think that the capitalist system is survivable: let alone prospering. Do you believe in quasi-infinite compound exponential growth? Or indefinite supplies of easily recoverable, high quality negentropic resources? Or abiotic oil? Or infinite waste sinks? Infinitely reproducible high quality soil, potable water, clean air? Or do you imagine a techno-utopia of a human monoculture: with holographic flora and fauna in virtual natural history museums? Just how much further can we push the metabolism of the planet: or will we use our semi-divine ASI-Ubermensch Will-to-Power to create a new synthetic biome? Just what is your vision for Man without Nature?

The anti-civilisationists are those capitalists who would risk it all for just another $$$$.

Jared M
Jared M
Oct 23, 2018 9:48 AM
Reply to  BigB

BigB: Humans have gone from hunting woolly mammoth with stone tools to the iPhone and the International Space Station, and throughout this dramatic series of advances there have been shrill naysayers like yourself forecasting that it will all end badly and the sky is about to fall in. There is a long-standing tendency for people to think that their own era is somehow a special moment in history when everything is reaching its culmination and progress cannot continue. These people are always proven wrong because it turns out that the limitations are not in the world around us but in their own imaginations. However, their failure is always forgotten and each new generation updates the fallacy. Change some of the words in your comment and it could have been said centuries or millennia ago when people were worried about running out of wood or of coal, or about salination of… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 23, 2018 7:11 PM
Reply to  Jared M

Jared M

No offence friend, I do not know you at all. As a little amusement: if you and Elon Musk and his capitalist hypertrophy buddies want to reach our nearest star (proxima centauri) – a mere 4.24 light years away …you better be on your way. With current technology it will take 81,000 years to reach. Only, it’s not habitable. The nearest habitable exoplanet I can see is 227 light years away. You do the maths: but I think that is about 4.3mn years?

Looks like you better stay here with me and try and make this world liveable and workable for all.

binra
binra
Oct 23, 2018 1:42 PM
Reply to  BigB

How exactly is life as we live it ‘survivable’? Surely an absurd framing. Assigning evil to ‘Capitalism’ is likewise simplistic and meaningless. Blanket generalisations that are associated with a presumed ‘we’. Assigning evil to perceived or conceived trends, works the reaction of the pursuit of private ends. Investment of emotional energy, and thus identity, in false thinking, invokes reacting to perceived evils in like kind – but as if serving the one true god/ideology/belief. The presumption to thinking the Grand Model and then acting to impose changes in line with an replacement model or a new model order is the elitism that seeks to save itself from a true account – by not allowing any account that threatens the model it persists unknowingly – because the model IS the presumption to define predict and control leading to a sense of Right to do so. And Duty to protect the ‘right’.… Read more »

milosevic
milosevic
Oct 23, 2018 9:41 PM
Reply to  binra

Assigning evil to ‘Capitalism’ is likewise simplistic and meaningless.

Humans don’t need Cosmic catastrophes now, they can make their own.

— but you’re here to tell us that capitalism is in no way catastrophic, all appearances to the contrary. The billionaires and their various hired thugs, stooges, and propagandists are completely innocent and blameless. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. Nothing to see here, please move along.

I’m glad we could clear up that issue.

(note to admins: have you counted what proportion of the total comment text on this site is contributed by this obvious disinfo shill? How would it be possible to produce such a quantity of garbled text, if not algorithmically? If the purpose of such volumes of meaningless verbiage isn’t to swamp and derail the real commentary, then what is it?)

binra
binra
Oct 24, 2018 2:37 AM
Reply to  milosevic

Because I do not support your framing you presume I support your ‘enemy’. And then attack me as IF I was your enemy and interpret my responses AS IF they offend. I believe ‘good and evil’ narratives are simplistic and obscuring and wide open to manipulative intent. I have a sense of the Good as a true recognition that spontaneously shares itself. Without the witnesses it may be the form of ‘good’ that cannot inspire joy if it is merely some compliance or conformity of behaviour. And I have a sense of the evil arising as a result of a false framed definition of the good that necessarily invokes conflict. That the identity in confusing false with true can and does generate such an evil experience or entanglement is both the conditioning of the last few thousand years or more – AND yet is not other than the layers and… Read more »

Coram Deo
Coram Deo
Oct 22, 2018 8:29 PM

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE FULL MOVIE
video – 1 hour 16 minutes
The Great Global Warming Swindle Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.”

https://vladtepesblog.com/global-warming-related-media-and-articles/

BigB
BigB
Oct 22, 2018 11:56 PM
Reply to  Coram Deo

Is that a full or partial narrative? Bracketing off the climate (like it is an isolatable comensurable entity): is humanity living in harmony with Nature? Or is the overall systemic view of humanity one of very great disequilibrium and dangerous imbalance with our fragile planet? And massive disequilibrium and dehumanisation amongst ourselves? What if we are wrong about the climate? The definitve view for AGW is as suspect as the definitive view against. With all Unborn biotic life to answer for: which is the safer determination to make? What moral right does just a 20% minority of consumers have to decide the longterm fate of the planet – to the exclusion of 80% of humanity – for their continued petty-bourgeois prosperity now? If AGW was not real: wouldn’t we need to invent it anyway …to precipitate radical change and justice for all – born and unborn?

binra
binra
Oct 23, 2018 4:13 PM
Reply to  BigB

Never mind the truth here’s the bollocks!

Invent ‘truths’ to manipulate people to serve a vengeance or hate agenda?

Post truth is will to power in which everything and anything else will be distorted or subverted to serve and support that power.

But what power, born of such deceit, can serve any justice?

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Oct 23, 2018 9:52 AM
Reply to  Coram Deo

A mockumentary that was universally criticised for its lies and misrepresentations.

milosevic
milosevic
Oct 23, 2018 9:21 PM
Reply to  Coram Deo

axisofoil
axisofoil
Oct 22, 2018 8:24 PM
Pablo
Pablo
Oct 22, 2018 5:04 PM

I suspect that the majority of regular visitors to ‘Off-Guardian’ probably come here because like myself they did not believe the reports put out by the MSM and view it’s output as unaldulterated propaganda. The question which therefore arises is why should we believe them in respect of AGW when we barely believe them on any other issue, what could be the reason that they wish to pursue this agenda, what do they hope to achieve and who stands to benefit the most. To look into some of these questions and ponder for yourself I heartily recommend watching James Corbett’s work on Maurice Strong who was a key figure in the founding of various UN environmental summits and to quote Jame Corbett “Rothschild’s dream came true when Strong presided over another high-level UN environment summit: the 1992 Rio “Earth Summit.”” https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-maurice-strong-globalist-oiligarch-environmentalist/ Also well worth watching are Corbett’s reports; https://www.corbettreport.com/pay-up-or-the-earth-gets-it-propagandawatch/ https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1131-elaine-dewar-on-maurice-strongs-cloak-of-green/… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Oct 23, 2018 9:56 AM
Reply to  Pablo

That is a very silly argument. Anthropogenic climate destabilisation science is not a creation of the global elites. They are often enough deniers, like you, because fossil fuels represent tens of trillions in assets, that require being reduced to zero value if humanity is to survive. Do you have shares in fossil fuels? Much of the media, certainly the Murdoch cancer, remain wickedly and ferociously denialist.

iafantomo
iafantomo
Oct 22, 2018 5:01 PM

What do the other 3% think?