169

Climate Change: The Unsettled Science – Part 2

Iain Davis

In Part 1 we questioned the fundamental principles said to underpin “the Climate Science™.” Specifically we considered the scientific validity of the claimed “consensus” and explored some of the many scientific doubts expressed about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory and the so-called “greenhouse effect.”

We noted the contradictory layman’s explanation of AGW theory offered by some climate scientists. This apparent lack of basic knowledge should not simply be dismissed. “The” climate science is being exploited by a global public-private partnership as claimed justification to transform the world. The least we can expect is that the selected climate scientists understand their own theory.

With the 2023 publication of a series of policy briefs called Our Common Agenda, the United Nations (UN) announced that questioning “the Climate Science™” is tantamount to hate speech. As we discussed in Part 1, the legacy media has already adopted editorial policies that rule out any possible questioning of the climate science orthodoxy. Thus the internet is an important remaining public square where people can still ask questions.

Therefore, the UN asserted, efforts must be made to censor any and all scepticism expressed online:

The impacts of online mis- and disinformation and hate speech can be seen across the world, including in the areas of health [and] climate action. [. . .] A small but vocal minority of climate science denialists continue to reject the consensus position. [. . .] Strengthening information integrity on digital platforms is an urgent priority for the international community. [. . .] [M]easures that limit the impact of mis- and disinformation and hate speech will boost efforts to achieve a sustainable future.

The UN made absolutely no mention of the fact that many of the people it calls “climate science denialists” are scientists, including climate scientists. By omission and by misrepresenting anti-scientific statements about “consensus” as scientific arguments, the UN spreads disinformation globally.

The purpose of these articles—Parts 1 to 3—is to stimulate open and honest debate about climate change and climate science. They are not offered as conclusive rebuttals of the prevailing climate science. Based upon the inspiring Ph.D dissertation of Rob Jeffrey, they merely provide a limited record of some of the reasons to question the prevailing climate science and the climate change narratives we are all asked to accept without question by the UN and others.

These articles form a series. Please read Part 1 first to fully grasp the arguments made here.

Questioning AGW Theory Experimental Proof

The AGW theory paper Halpern et al. (2010) clarified that the naming of the “greenhouse effect” was misleading because the proposed AGW related mechanism is nothing like the process that keeps the atmosphere warm in a greenhouse:

Concisely, greenhouses work by restricting the outward flow of thermal energy to the surrounding atmosphere by convection, while the atmospheric greenhouse effect works by restricting the outward flow of thermal energy to space by radiation.

Wherever possible, science generally proves theories through repeatable experiments that consistently produce results that evidence the theory. Based on the 1856 published theories of Eunice Foote, in 1859 John Tyndall conducted his famous experiment to show how CO2 absorbs and transmits radiant heat. This is often cited as experimental proof of the “greenhouse effect.” Tyndall’s experiment did not demonstrate the claimed greenhouse effect.

In order to do so, Tyndall would have needed to show a temperature gain in the emitting and absorbing objects. Something Tyndall didn’t even measure. Tyndall demonstrated that thermal energy radiates from a warm body to a colder one and the comparative electromagnetic radiation absorption properties of various gases.

Other experiments are cited as claimed proof of the greenhouse effect. In 2020, the Royal Society conducted an experiment which they said qualitatively illustrated climate change mechanisms. They placed a heating element, set to 50°C, inside balloons inflated to various fixed pressures filled either with air or pure CO2. They then switched the element off and observed how long it took to cool. The researchers noted that the cooling rate was much lower in the CO2 filled balloons.

Firstly, this was not a demonstration of the “enhanced greenhouse effect” suggested by proponents of AGW theory. Without any additional energy supplied to the system, AGW theory claims that if a constant power supply was maintained to the heating element so-called “back” radiation from the CO2 would increase its temperature. The Royal Society experiment certainly did not prove AGW theory or the alleged physical mechanism of “global warming.”

Gasses trapped in balloons at fixed or constrained pressures behave nothing like the actual freely expanding and contracting gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere. Nor is pure CO2 comparable with atmospheric CO2 levels. In the atmosphere, the CO2 would cool by expansion and adiabatic lapse. It couldn’t do that in the pressurised balloon. This experiment did not demonstrate the alleged greenhouse effect either.

Other so-called greenhouse gas theory proofs are equally inconclusive. Nature published a paper that supposedly quantified the atmospheric greenhouse effect using satellite readings to measure the infrared radiation energy trapped by atmospheric gases and clouds. Having done so, the climate scientists then claimed this provided compelling evidence of atmospheric “positive feedback,” in this case, the alleged radiative forcing of the enhanced greenhouse effect. They did not prove the “enhanced greenhouse effect,” they simply assumed its presence and observed the same gas properties that Tyndall demonstrated more than 165 years earlier.

Another scientific principle to demonstrate that a theory is sound is the lack of any other plausible explanation. This doesn’t appear to be the case with the “enhanced greenhouse effect” that is central to AGW theory.

Many physicists, astrophysicists, such as Joseph Postma, and other scientists have offered other plausible explanations. For example, Holmes 2018 suggested that surface temperature could also be maintained through nothing more than the effects of atmospheric pressure and thermal convection within the troposphere:

[. . .] it is proposed that the residual temperature difference between the effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature, is a thermal enhancement caused by gravitationally-induced adiabatic auto-compression, powered by convection. A new null hypothesis of global warming or climate change is therefore proposed and argued for; one which does not include any anomalous or net warming from greenhouse gases in the tropospheric atmospheres of any planetary body.

Two climate scientists, Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller, achieved some infamy for publishing papers under pseudonyms. Earmarked as “climate deniers,” they couldn’t even get their papers submitted for peer review let alone published in “respected” journals. In 2014 they decided to publish using pen-names and their papers were then peer reviewed and published. The papers were subsequently withdrawn, not for any scientific reason but because their clearly necessary use of aliases was discovered. Karl Zeller observed “disagreeing with current greenhouse effect theory does not constitute an error.”

In 2017, the climate scientists published Nikolov, Zeller (2017) which offered a model for calculating the mean global temperature for the surface of a solid planet with or without an atmosphere. They applied their model to Mars, Venus, Triton (a moon of Neptune) and Titan (a moon of Saturn) and claimed their model proved accurate.

Crucially, their model relied upon calculated surface air pressure and solar radiation to estimate mean global temperature. Their model implies that the chemical composition of an atmosphere does not control the surface temperatures of a planet. In the abstract for their 2017 paper, the scientists wrote:

[. . .] the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.

Questioning AGW Theory Warming

A core element of AGW theory is the notion that humanity’s CO2 emissions are causing “additional” and “unprecedented” global warming. Therefore, there must be some empirical evidence that the rise in atmospheric CO2 precedes any measurable warming. There doesn’t appear to be any.

It is commonly acknowledged that there is no paper, anywhere in science, that proves the existence of the AGW mechanism using nothing but empirical data. The link between humanity’s GHG emissions and climate change is based upon a complex network of interdependent theories, computer models and projections. Indeed, making empirical measurements of such things as the average “surface air temperature” (SAT) are highly problematic.

Rob Jeffrey observed:

Almost all scientists believe that natural forces have driven long-term climate change in the past. The earth’s history shows that climate change is a process taking place for over four billion years. There would appear to be broad agreement that long-term climate change cycles are driven by the Milankovitch cycles, the history of which is well recorded.

The Milankovitch cycles describe the major orbital cycles of the Earth as both the shape of the Earth’s solar orbit and its “axial tilt” fluctuate relative to the sun. This causes the Earth to receive varying intensities of TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). Over time, this is part of the natural variation that impacts the climate.

The “official” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate science concedes that historical temperature proxy records, such as ice cores, show that there is a lag, possibly of up to 800 years, between the initiation of global warming and rising atmospheric C02. Caillon et al. (2003), noting that interglacial warming appears to initiate in the southern hemisphere, found:

The sequence of events [. . .] suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 (+ or – ) 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation. CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during deglaciation [warming].

Shakun et al. (2012) developed a “computer model” which the authors claimed explains what happens next from an AGW theory perspective. This has been reported by, among others, Skeptical Science:

In short, the initial warming was indeed triggered by the Milankovitch cycles, and that small amount of orbital cycle-caused warming eventually triggered the CO2 release, which caused most of the glacial-interglacial warming. So while CO2 did lag behind a small initial temperature change (which mostly occurred in the Southern Hemisphere), it led and was the primary driver behind most of the glacial-interglacial warming.

To be clear: AGW theory posits that the sun, which is only apparently capable of heating the Earth’s surface to -18°C, starts the process of glacial-interglacial global warming but then, assuming a kind of naturally occurring enhanced greenhouse effect, “additional” released GHGs—notably CO2 from the oceans—trap the heat causing “positive feedback.”

Supposedly this, in turn, exacerbates global warming. This is said to explains why historical C02 and temperature records appear to show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 does not cause global warming and simultaneously demonstrates why CO2 does cause global warming.

As Skeptical Science puts it:

Thus while the initial warming hasn’t historically been caused by CO2, CO2 has amplified the warming for thousands of subsequent years, and thus is still the principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature.

AGW theory reportedly suggests that C02 is the “principle control knob” and, while the sun is the power switch, it is not the power supply. Radiative forcing appears to produce significant amounts of additional atmospheric heat energy, if AGW theory is to be believed.

The problem with this idea is that global temperatures have seemingly been historically as high if not higher than they are today, while CO2 levels were lower during those warm periods. For example, by sampling mercury levels in peat bogs as a climate proxy, Martinez-Cortizas et al. (1999) showed that the climate in north-west Spain was, on average, 1.5°C warmer during the Medieval Warm Period (c 950 to c 1250) and possibly up to 2°C warmer during the Roman Warm Period (c 250 BCE to c 400 CE) when compared to the stated modern average (1968 – 1998) at the time of publication.

These findings correlate with numerous other studies that show these warmer, relatively low CO2 periods. For example, Desprat et al. (2003) used pollen levels from core samples taken from the Iberian peninsula that also show both the Roman and Medieval warm periods. This is evidence that seemingly contradicts both the notion of unprecedented modern global warming and AGW theory.

Ljungqvist (2010) took multiple proxies from across the northern hemisphere to reconstruct historical temperatures. Again, these show both the Roman and the Medieval warm periods. During these periods, according to AGW theory proponents like NASA, atmospheric CO2 levels did not eclipsed 280 parts per million (ppm).

Fig 4: Ljungqvist (2010) Reconstruction of Temperature Variability

This kind of empirical evidence has led many scientists, including Rob Jeffrey, to question AGW theory in its entirety:

There is strong evidence that non-atmospheric culprits, for example, the sun, are primarily responsible for global warming and any climate change.

For example, Soon et al. (2015) found:

Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). [. . .] Overall, evidence suggests that a net increase in the TSI, or in the projected solar insolation gradient which reflects any net increase in solar radiation, has caused an increase in both oceanic and atmospheric heat transport to the Arctic in the warm period since the 1970s [. . .].

In 2018, atmospheric scientist Rex J Flemming Ph.D noted:

Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. [. . .] There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. There is a thermal blanket or buffer for atmospheric surface conditions that has been in existence for the past billion years [. . .]. Its exact form depends on the effective solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface. The sources of the thermal blanket and the subsequent transfer of heat upward are from three forces: the Earth’s gravitational field with its impact on convection, the condensation of water vapor (H2O), and the radiation effects of the two primary atmospheric trace gases of H2O and CO2. It will be demonstrated that the radiative roles of H2O and CO2 are relatively minor.

Jeffrey highlights the work of the astrophysicist Professor Valentina Zharkova who has been the lead author of numerous papers highlighting how variable solar activity effects the known TSI impacts of the orbital cycles. Zharkova has identified many solar cycles, some as short as 11 years in duration. She has shown how these solar activity cycles either enhance or counteract the TSI effect of the major orbital cycles:

This approach revealed a presence of not only 11-year solar cycles but also of grand solar cycles with a duration of 350–400 years. [. . .] These grand cycles are always separated by grand solar minima of Maunder minimum type, which regularly occurred in the past, forming well-known Maunder, Wolf, Oort, Homeric, and other grand minima. During these grand solar minima, there is a significant reduction of the solar magnetic field and solar irradiance, which reduce terrestrial temperatures.

Globally, the planet is in a warming interglacial phase after emerging from the Little Ice Age that ended in the mid 19th century. With regard to recent warming, if we look at the data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) temperature records set across all US states since 1890, the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.

AGW theory states that it is man-made CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels that have strongly exacerbated global warming. The bulk of these emissions are said to have occurred in the post WWII period. Which begs the question: why were the 1930’s the hottest decade of the 20th century in the US if CO2 levels rose markedly post WWII?

Fig 5: World Economic Forum – anthropogenic CO2 emissions since 1900

The Thames periodically froze solid during the Little Ice Age. Perhaps most regularly during of the solar Maunder minimum [c.1645–c.1715]. Even relatively recent global warming began prior to the notable post WWII increase in man-made CO2 emissions. If it hadn’t Londoners would still have been holding frost fairs on the frozen Thames in the 1920s.

It seems likely that global temperature rises over the last few centuries have been as a result of the Earth absorbing more shortwave solar radiation due to lower cloud albedo. The warming of the planet in the last 20 years is apparently due to the higher ultraviolet permeability of clouds. The degree of infrared radiative forcing, allegedly caused by the so-called greenhouse effect, appears negligible.

Dübal and Vahrenholt. (2021) stated:

We found the declining outgoing [reflected] shortwave radiation to be the most important contributor for a positive TOA (top of the atmosphere) net flux of 0.8 W/m2 in this time frame. [. . .] We compare clear sky with cloudy areas and find that changes in the cloud structure should be the root cause for the shortwave trend. [. . .] The drop of cloudiness around the millennium by about 1.5% has certainly fostered the positive net radiative flux. [. . .] This leads together with a reduced incoming solar of −0.17 W/m2 to a small growth of imbalance of 0.15 W/m2. We further present surface flux data which support the strong influence of the cloud cover on the radiative budget.

These finding were corroborated by a NASA research team who published Loeb et al. (2021) which stated that 21st century warming was “primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice.” This references the observed reduction in planetary albedo.

Similarly, professor Antero Ollila found that the “SW [shortwave] anomaly forcing was the major reason for this temperature increase. SW anomalies have had their greatest impacts on the global temperature during very strong (super) El Niño events in 1997-98 and 2015-16”

Consequently, Rob Jeffrey noted:

The earth’s orbit causes these cycles around the sun, the different periods of the Earth’s Eccentricity cycle, the Obliquity cycle and the Precession of Equinoxes. Until the last 200 years, any significant climate change has been naturally driven [. . .], it is believed by many experts that these shorter-term cycles are driven by solar cycles. [. . .] These are caused by fluctuations in the solar flux [incoming shortwave radiation measured in W/m2], affecting cosmic ray penetration and cloud formation in the earth’s atmosphere leading to warming and cooling periods. [. . .] The remaining question is how much humans currently contribute to short-term global warming. Earth has been in similar short-term natural warming phases eight times over the last 11,000 years.

Questioning The Impact of Human CO2 Emissions

Perhaps the arguments we have explored here and in Part 1 show little more than scientific debate. However, even if we accept how the “enhanced greenhouse effect” is supposed to work, there is still further reason to question the AGW theory.

As Rob Jeffrey stated:

Even if CO2 is scientifically proven to cause some global warming, there is significant evidence indicating that human-made CO2 is only a tiny part of the overall global CO2 generated.

The atmosphere contains approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and about 0.9% argon. The remaining 0.1% consists of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane and ozone. In addition, water vapour (H2O) is a notable variable. Some AGW theorists claim that greenhouse gases make up 1% of the atmosphere, but argon is not a greenhouse gas, so that doesn’t appear to be true.

Adding complexity, water vapour readily condenses into a liquid and evaporates back to a gas in the atmosphere. It’s transient nature means it can account for up to 3% of total atmospheric gases.

As is often reported, atmospheric CO2 currently constitutes more then 400 ppm of the atmosphere. That equates 0.04% of total atmospheric gases.

This suggests that CO2 accounts for about 40% of GHGs, if we temporarily discount water vapour. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), throughout the 1990s, of an estimated annual average of 793 billion metric tons (bmt) of atmospheric CO2, approximately 23 bmt were the result of annual human emissions.

This suggests that human CO2 emissions accounted for about 3% of all atmospheric CO2 at the end of the last century. Human CO2 emissions have continued to increase during the first two decades of the 21st century. A current average of around 35 bmt, about 4.5% of total CO2 emissions, isn’t unreasonable. Consequently human CO2 emissions appear to represent approximately 1.8% of all GHGs—H2O content is a variable that impacts this figure.

The climate scientists who write at Skeptical Science state that the human induced enhanced greenhouse effect is the “principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature.” Unfortunately, if we radically transform every aspect of our lives and somehow manage to reduce human CO2 emissions to zero (which isn’t possible unless we go extinct) at least the 98.2% of annual global emissions of GHGs would seemingly remain.

This situation is further complicated by water vapour which can contribute 80% of GHG by mass and 90% by volume. Thus supposedly increasing the total alleged GHGs in the atmosphere. NASA states that water vapour is, by a considerable margin, the dominant GHG:

Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. [. . .] [Researchers] used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature. [. . .] Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.

The variation of atmospheric H2O gas is said to be a product of the greenhouse effect, which causes further evaporation. Water vapour supposedly accounts for between 66% – 85% of the overall “greenhouse effect.” Crucially, in AGW theory, water vapour “does not cause global warming.” Apparently, while it is by far the most influential GHG it does not constitute a “forcing” GHG. “Radiative forcing” is reserved for other GHGs, such as CO2 and, too a much lesser extent, CH4 (methane).

If we accept that up to 90% of GHG by volume is water vapour, then this reduces the human emission of CO2 to about 0.3% of total GHGs. Leaving 99.7% of GHGs to contend with if we achieve “net zero” emissions.

As AGW theory rejects the notion that climate change is caused by the sun, the extent to which clouds alter the absorption of solar radiative flux is largely dismissed. This means the alleged “radiative forcing” of greenhouse gases includes water vapour as a passive product of the “forcing” GHGs, but excludes cloud cover as a significant variable for any corresponding “climate change.”

The IPCC explains this by stating that primarily human CO2 emissions, which represent about 0.3% of GHG’s (if we include water vapour), has a “net warming” effect, while water vapour, in its entirety, doesn’t. This is supposedly because CO2 has a much longer “residence time” in the atmosphere.

As noted by the EIA, of the total 793 bmt of emitted CO2, from both natural and human sources, 781 bmt were re-absorbed by the planet—via trees, oceans, weathering, etc.—in the same period.

This emission and absorption rate between carbon “reservoirs,” such as forests, mountains and oceans, is called the carbon cycle. The carbon “sink” is the measured amount of CO2 that absorbed or emitted by the reservoir per unit of time. This is measured, for example, in kilograms of CO2 per day—kg C/day.

Harde (2016) found:

We have critically scrutinized this [carbon] cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time is 4 years.

Noting this, Rob Jeffrey added:

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is critical, as the longer, it remains in circulation, the longer any purported artificial imbalance will exist. The IPCC position (unproven) is that CO2 atmospheric residence time is 100+ years. Further evidence indicates that the CO2 atmospheric residence time is more like ten years (or less) — an extraordinarily significant difference with major ramifications.

This observation is entirely contrary to the claims of the IPCC and other promoters of AGW theory. Certainly with regard to the IPCC, as we shall discuss in Part 3, the fact that such findings are seemingly ignored may be due to political bias.

Questioning the AGW Computer Models

The reason the climate scientists insist that AGW is settled science, apart from the fact their funding is largely dependent upon them saying so, is that all the AGW theory based “climate models” are offered as if they are evidence supporting the theory. Models are dependent upon theory.

Even if subsequent measurements are congruent with the model, unless other explanations have been discounted, the model still doesn’t “prove” the theory. As Jeffrey, Clauser, Postma, Soon, Flemming, Lindzen, Giaever, Dyson, Curry, Spencer, Coombs and many other sceptical scientists and other sceptics have tried to highlight, not only is it illogical to claim a model “demonstrates” a theory, the AGW theory computer models frequently appear to be either biased or just plain wrong in any event.

Given that stratospheric cooling has been observed, according to Dr Hossenfelder and other climate scientists, concordance with Manabe and Wetherall’s 1967 model—see Part 1—“proves” AGW theory and supposedly dispels the notion that a change in solar radiation has anything to do with recent global warming. It is instead caused by an “enhanced greenhouse effect” they say.

As mentioned in Part 1, Santer et al, (2023) claims to have detected the supposedly undeniable AGW theory “fingerprint.”

When looking at the signals in the mid to upper stratosphere Santer et al. (2023) noted that the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption caused stratospheric warming but that after the initial warming period the volcanic eruption “augments the gradual anthropogenically induced stratospheric cooling.” It should be noted that this is the observed augmentation of an unproven theoretical effect.

Satellite data from the University of Alabama shows the volcanic stratospheric warming and subsequent cooling effects following both the El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991) eruptions. After each eruption stratospheric temperatures settled lower than they were prior to each eruption. Rather than a monotonic linear temperature decline, the data indicated that volcanic activity led to a marked downward step in stratospheric temperatures. In 2009 the US National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote “the stratospheric changes are not monotonic [not consistently linear in a single downward trajectory], but more step-like in nature.”

Fig 6: Non monotonic “step down” in stratospheric temperatures following volcanic eruptions

In January 2022 the the underwater Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha-apai volcano erupted. Sellito et al. (2022) stated:

We find that the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha-apai eruption produced the largest global perturbation of stratospheric aerosols since the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and the largest perturbation of stratospheric water vapour observed in the satellite era. [. . .] The likely stratospheric ozone depletion due to aerosol and water vapour injections might produce a large additional cooling of the stratosphere.

Ozone (O3) has a heating effect in the stratosphere, as noted by NASA in 2004:

Ozone generates heat in the stratosphere, both by absorbing the sun’s ultraviolet radiation and by absorbing upwelling infrared radiation from the lower atmosphere (troposphere). Consequently, decreased ozone in the stratosphere results in lower temperatures. Observations show that over recent decades, the mid to upper stratosphere (from 30 to 50 km above the Earth’s surface) has cooled by 1° to 6° C (2° to 11° F).

The stratospheric cooling potentially caused by the Hunga-Tonga eruption was clearly observed by Schoeberl et al. (2023). This and earlier findings, following the El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo events, suggests that stratospheric cooling is more than just “augmented” by volcanic activity. It cannot be ruled out that volcanic eruptions are, in fact, a significant driver of ozone depletion and, therefore, stratospheric cooling.

The other aspect of the claimed AGW theory “fingerprint” is that stratospheric cooling occurs concurrently with tropospheric warming, all allegedly caused by the “enhanced greenhouse effect.” But lower planetary albedo results in more shortwave “ultraviolet” radiation warming the earth. Data from NASA’s CERES EBAF readings suggest that the the Earths albedo, particularly in the northern hemisphere which has far greater “blackbody” land mass, has reduced significantly over the last 20 years.

In addition, Ozone depletion, cooling the stratosphere, also increases the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation that reaches Earth’s surface. This, combined with reduced albedo, suggests the Earth is absorbing more solar shortwave “ultraviolet” radiation, warming the planet. Volcanic ozone depletion has evidently contributed to the process.

Santer et al. (2023) stated that from 1986 to 2022, human-produced greenhouse gases caused warming of the Earth’s surface. Data from CERES EBAF and evidence from Schoeberl et al. (2023) among others, suggests warming caused by increased solar radiative flux. The surface could be warmed by the sun and the stratosphere could cool as a result of natural variability.

Seen from this perspective, there is no conclusive AGW theory “fingerprint,” as claimed by some “climate scientists.” Manabe and Wetherall’s 1967 model simply offers another possible explanation.

We might also question both the degree and the pattern of tropospheric warming alleged in the AGW climate models. For example, Mitchel et al. (2020) found evidence of consistent bias in the AGW climate models that tended to exaggerate both tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling:

[. . .] we find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project] modeled trends, and we show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature. We also uncover previously undocumented biases in the lower-middle stratosphere: the CMIP6 models appear unable to capture the time evolution of stratospheric cooling, which is non-monotonic.

Jain et al. (2023) have suggested the reason AGW models are frequently at odds with the empirical data is because of poorly understood “internal variability”:

The scientific literature presents many examples where a mismatch between model and observed climate features has been reported, such as trends in regional rainfall amount and temperature, multidecadal changes in atmospheric circulation and climatology, the frequency or magnitude of extreme events [. . .] or external forcing effects. There can be many reasons why models disagree with observations. However, [. . . ] a lack of agreement between the modeled and observed climate can still arise simply due to chaotic internal variability

Ayer et al. (2021) defined internal variability as “the natural variability of the climate due to its chaotic and nonlinear nature.” The IPCC concedes that the climate is a chaotic system that defies accurate prediction:

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

The fact that “long-term prediction of future climate states” are, according to the IPCC, impossible, rather undermines all the current “climate alarm” about what the climate will be like in a hundred or two hundred years. Perhaps “the generation of ensembles of model solutions” can predict “the probability distribution” of likely future climate states, but nearly all of the models referenced by the IPCC are constructed solely from a AGW theory. They could all be fundamentally flawed.

“Equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS), in accordance with AGW theory, is defined in Sherwood et al. (2020) as “the steady-state global temperature increase for a doubling of CO2.” The Sherwood paper offered an AGW theory based ECS model. It was extremely influential in the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Scientific Report (AR6), published in 2021.

Hitherto, the IPCC ARs claimed that doubling in C02 would cause somewhere between 1.5°C and 4.5°C of “global warming.” This changed in AR6, largely thanks to the Sherwood model, to a claim that the ECS would allegedly lead to 2.5°C of warming or maybe up to 4.5°C, or perhaps 5°C.

When independent researcher and mathematician Nic Lewis checked the methodology of the Sherwood paper, cited more than twenty times by the IPCC, he claimed to have found significant errors, inconsistencies and other mathematical shortcomings. Using the same dataset but different analysis techniques, Lewis found that ECS leading to “between 1.5 °C and 2 °C” warming. Considerably lower than the Sherwood influenced IPCC claims.

Dr Roy Spencer is a former Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He is currently team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Dr Spencer contends that climate sensitivity, suggesting that man-made CO2 emissions are causing an “enhanced greenhouse effect,” overlooks internal variability to such an extent that the “enhancement” is virtually undetectable.

Consequently he is called a climate denier by the legacy media. Nonetheless, Dr Spencer states:

Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. [. . .] Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity” [ECS]. [. . .] You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine.

Wikipedia tells us:

In technical terms, climate sensitivity is the average change in global mean surface temperature [GMST or just GST] in response to a radiative forcing

The GST is currently calculated by averaging the temperatures anomalies of the oceans (sea surface temperature – SST) and the surface temperature anomalies of continents (surface air temperature – SAT). These are absolutely essential inputs into the AGW theory “climate sensitivity” based models.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) provides the IPCC with “estimates” for the SAT which is the air temperature within about 2m above the Earths surface. The so-called “GISTEMP analysis” provides one of the four key dataset inputs into the IPCC’s favoured AGW theory models. When considering what the SAT is and how to measure it, until 2018, GISS stated that it:

[. . .] doubt[s] that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. [. . .] To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as [GISS] know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted.

In terms of working out the SAT component of the GST, GISS added:

Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.

GISS has more recently updated its thoughts on this issue. It now states:

SAT varies quite substantially and so this number is not necessarily reflective of a broader area average. SAT maps can only be created using a model of some sort. [. . .] In the global average, this variation is around 0.5°C

and

[. . .] different approaches can give systematically different answers depending on the specifics of the weather that day. [. . .] [D]ifferent models will produce slightly different estimates of the SAT. [. . .] Statistical approaches (such as used by Jones et al. (1999)) have a similar uncertainty.

To be clear: there is no universally accepted, systematic methodology even to calculate the current average SAT of the Earth. Yet nearly all AGW theory based models rely upon calculated SAT for the input “climate sensitivity.”

Santer et al. (2021) (not 2023) showed that between 1988 to 2019 the observed sea surface temperature [SST], tropospheric temperature, and total tropospheric water vapour showed less tropical warming than predicted by the AGW theory climate models. The conclusion was not that the AGW theory computer models could possibly be awry but that the “large uncertainties in observations” needed to be accounted for.

The legacy media exploited the paper to amplify climate alarm by reporting that satellite readings had underestimated global warming for 40 years. While this is not what the paper said, it could certainly be inferred from it and that is the story that was told.

Upon examining the Santer et al. (2021) paper, Dr Roy Spencer noted:

I conclude that there is nothing new in the paper that would cast doubt on the modest nature of tropospheric warming trends from satellites — unless one believes climate models as proof, in which case we don’t need observations anyway. [. . .] [T]he Santer et al. study [is] largely consistent with the view that global warming is proceeding at a significantly lower rate that is predicted by the latest climate models, and that much of the disagreement between models and observations can be traced to improper assumptions in those [AGW theory] models.

Recently more than 1,800 signatory scientists, academic researchers and other AGW theory sceptics, including Nobel Laureate scientists, issued a joint statement:

To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?

We are supposed to believe that the science is settled and to question “the Climate Science™” constitutes some sort of heresy. The UN and its IPCC are among the “intergovernmental” bodies that not only demand that we unreservedly agree with whatever they tell us but, if we don’t, accuse us of engaging in a form of hate speech.

As we shall discuss in Part 3, the IPCC and other proponents of AGW theory have gargantuan conflicts of financial interest. Public and private institutions and organisations that push AGW theory have a clear political agenda that has little to do with addressing any environmental concerns. Nor does there appear to be any evident basis for “climate alarm.”

In Part 3 we explore the evidence that suggests the narratives we are given about the alleged “climate emergency” are nothing more than propaganda.

I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.

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.

4.5 22 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

169 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Antonym
Antonym
Jan 2, 2024 4:28 AM

This scare scam is easiest exposed by a look a most beaches around the world: older buildings / trees still standing close to the waterline without being drowned today.

Faking data, graphs, models and publications is easy, faking reality isn’t.

In for example Canada old vegetation is re-surfacing from under centuries old ice and snow; same in other locations close to poles.

James M Nunn
James M Nunn
Jan 1, 2024 5:55 PM

Geo engineering, white elephant in the room, GeoengineeringWatch.org

NickM
NickM
Dec 31, 2023 2:32 PM

Dr. Campbell and Prof. Dalgleish announce the Death of Science

https://youtu.be/us4N4KL7VkI?si=z5CYX2TKX_LJiYW7

Now it can be told. How the Con-19 mafia tried to suppress evidence the Bio-Lab origin of Covid-19 and its U$ Patented Spike Protein. Stong arm tactics modelled on Galileo trial forced pliable scientists to retract the truth. Dalgleish’s book reveals the struggles and triumph of his own research group, and of other researchers who were suppressed but could not be destroyed.

“Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated” — Mark Twain.

“Eppur si muove” (And yet it moves) — Galileo (attributed)

GR-watch
GR-watch
Dec 30, 2023 2:06 AM

it wouldn’t be surprising if the out-of-control CO2 they are talking about turns out to be a ‘NOVEL CO2-19’, with a ‘gain of function’ enhancement designed to add more havoc on Earth.

NickM
NickM
Dec 30, 2023 7:49 AM
Reply to  GR-watch

No, it’s just a bogeyman CO2 designed to extract more money increase power over the sheeple; like bogeyman Saddam Hussein, bogeyman Muamar Ghadhaffi, bogeyman Bashar Assad and bogeyman Vladimir Putin.

steven oxley
steven oxley
Dec 29, 2023 8:10 PM

Unsettled? Wake Up Iain

mgeo
mgeo
Dec 30, 2023 8:47 AM
Reply to  steven oxley

As it is now a religious issue, he is trying to be gentle.

NickM
NickM
Dec 30, 2023 9:26 AM
Reply to  steven oxley

Science is never settled.

“There is always this confusion” — Feynmann.

Especially weather prediction: a science with so many interactions between so many factors that “it is not even wrong” — just sometimes wrong and sometimes right.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Lay your bets!

sandy
sandy
Dec 29, 2023 6:40 PM

Good grief! This movie modeling a “cyberattack” scenario as “predicted” by the wondrous WEF was produced by Obama’s production company “Higher Ground Productions”, stars Julia Roberts, Ethan Hawke and Kevin Bacon. Good reviews. A utterly preposterous apocalyptic paranoid scenario with Arabic leaflets dropped saying “Death to America”. Ever seen Red Dawn? OMG. The new ways the Establishment attempts to motivate us into executing ourselves for their sins. Humor, please. OMG.

Leave the World Behind
https://brownstone.org/articles/must-we-leave-the-world-behind/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_the_World_Behind_(film)

Matt Black
Matt Black
Dec 29, 2023 2:24 PM

This is how they are implementing the open-air ghetto:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/12/29/wales-to-spend-2-6-billion-fighting-climate-change-next-year/

Organize and clean-up your own backyard, start with the masonic dividing minions, notify them, use dilatory tactics, post solutions, protect you & yours like every other creature on this planet.

George Mc
George Mc
Dec 29, 2023 4:25 PM
Reply to  Matt Black

Great stuff. Launch whatever rearrangement of funding scam you like as long as you flog it under the label of “aiming for Net Zero”, “dealing with a climate and nature emergency” (??!!), “saving the planet” etc.

And on that, here is a little reminder of the whole green scamming franchise with a little gallery of the fabulous Naomi Klein and her wondrous rad posturing:

https://www.theartofannihilation.com/mckibbens-divestment-tour-brought-to-you-by-wall-street-part-xiii-the-increasing-vogue-for-capitalist-friendly-climate-discourse/

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 30, 2023 10:08 PM
Reply to  Matt Black

Its just a debt scheme.
The budget is as usual, but new “finance capital” will budget the clima features.

Quickdraw
Quickdraw
Dec 29, 2023 2:07 PM

You know it is a scam by the response they require–simple rule of thumb for any government scam. First of which is the absolute hubris of thinking that I (or man) am the cause of climate change, all when I can barely change a tire anymore. Rather than telling Americans to plant pollinator gardens instead of useless grass to water and mow would be to much common sense. In my small plot of land I have planted over 40 trees and shrubs and dozens and dozens of other plants–and each year I see more and more pollinators show up to feed.

gordan
gordan
Dec 29, 2023 1:54 PM

creating a world price

the origin of oil 15 mins in you get some good stuff about what oil is fossil fuel a history lesson

Col. Fletcher Prouty interview 1994

https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=AkJqraXqKLU

Not sure no more.
Not sure no more.
Dec 29, 2023 3:51 PM
Reply to  gordan

A rouge colonel?? Hmmm.

ariel
ariel
Dec 29, 2023 9:55 PM
Reply to  gordan

Wonderful to hear Fletcher Prouty AGAIN, pulling the rug from under petroleum as fossil fuel.

Clutching at straws
Clutching at straws
Dec 29, 2023 1:02 PM

What if WEF and UN plans are really about a fairer world ?

What if unlimited migration actually happens, Billions relocating to a better life ?

If that happens our “Western” lifestyle will be seriously impacted – as we’re starting to see.

The lives of millions will be enriched at our expense.

Is that why we’re so upset ?

Asking for a friend.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 3:28 PM

Take a sober look at remaining deposits of resources and try to imagine what’s coming in the forthcoming decades and centuries. Scarcity of everything, collapse of the world as we know it. The just-in-time supply system we have built can function without cheap juice, and cheap juice will be nowhere to be found.

The WEF crowd are trying to position themselves to be at the top of the pyramid, to establish some sort of neo-slavery.

Nobody will have a better life. The past decades might have been as good as it gets in the entire history of humans. The question is who will have it better and who will get the shittier end of the stick.

People are absolutely right in considering the WEF to be no good motherfuckers. People (talking for instance about most of the idiots frequenting this forum) are absolutely wrong in dismissing everything the WEF and others say regarding ecology, climate and shit like that. They spin the stuff to their advantage, but it doesn’t mean that the underlying predicament doesn’t exist.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 3:49 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

Correction:

It’s not necessarily true that nobody will have a better life. Nobody will have a better life in terms of material abundance, the way we consider “better life” today. Or have heretofore considered.

Happy people will still live happy lives. Grumpy mortherfuckers will still be grumpy.

We should be engaging in formulating a vision for the future that is not based on the economic premises stemming from the Age of Burning.

The transformation humankind will go through will be massive, more profound than the industrial transformation.

The task for the immediate future is to persuade everybody to pull their head out of their asshole and get ready. Come up with ideas.

The future could be brighter than the past, albeit without cars, without (so many) machines, etc.

As fucked up as things are, I’m optimistic.

George Mc
George Mc
Dec 29, 2023 4:30 PM

Maybe you could ask your “friend” what is meant by the following:

“a fairer world”
“a better life”
“will be enriched”
“at our expense”?

Clutching at straws
Clutching at straws
Dec 29, 2023 5:33 PM
Reply to  George Mc

OK I was playing devil’s advocate but there was a serious point behind the post.

The 2018 migration compact allows for virtually anyone to move to a richer nation.

On a large scale this will drag down the standard of living in that richer country.

This will all be sold to us as “fairness” whilst eroding even further any bargaining power we had when we were a bit richer.

The effect will be a leveling out of wealth amongst the proles. The poor will be a bit richer but the important point is the richer will be substantially poorer, and therefore even more controllable.

The top 1%, of course, will be the only big winners.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 4:41 PM

“What if WEF and UN plans are really about a fairer world ?”

You mean, the same WEF that imposed the Con-19 $cam which made a dozen instant billionairs by mandating the use of RNA Vaxx that kills more patients than the disease does?

And the same UN that cannot stop an ongoing genocide in a tiny country?

As the Spartans said to the Persians, “if” is a big word.

Clutching at straws
Clutching at straws
Dec 29, 2023 5:39 PM
Reply to  NickM

It should have read “fairer”

What a difference a couple of exclamation marks make !

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 30, 2023 10:21 PM

I find your question interesting. Because it also fits in with the Elite’s concerns about the Western middle class in “Silent wars………….”:
“they are non disciplined, dont care a shit about their neighbour and fellowman, are prepared to betray their own children and anybody for a buck.”

They are not stupid. Its a way of controlling the sheeple.

gordan
gordan
Dec 29, 2023 12:59 PM

know kneading to be done in der brain

simply put a roth shill rotten shield enslavement tool the wars the vaccines have created sum resistance

wall street and the rise of hitler and the bolshevik revolutions the khazar name stealers history erasers
are the devils own pirate law of the sea on terra firma.

deny the devil and his silly sicko sodomite henchmen

BuelahMan
BuelahMan
Dec 29, 2023 11:25 AM

All one needs to do is look to the hypocrites and see its all BS:

https://youtu.be/k4N6aLTvtBo?si=d2-xfhMCOGXd-azH

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 5:10 PM
Reply to  BuelahMan

From your Link:

“Warns against rising sea levels. Buys beach house [cheap].”

Al Gore? Vice President under the corrupt Clinton regime. Produced alarmist blockbuster about Global Warming. Impressed a lot of physicists who discussed the movie when they should have kept their eye on the man. Parked 3 SUV gas guzzlers back of his mansion. Made $Billions by trading “Carbon Credits” as financial “solution” to “global CO2” non-problem. Son of a politician. Occuation listed as Politician and Businessman. Tells you all you need to know about Con-CO2.

davetherave
davetherave
Dec 29, 2023 11:07 AM

Whats the angle hear then ?
if we mentioned animal testing your a vegan jihadist and want to stop you meat eaters.
if we mention environmental stuff we are just stop oil or extinct rebellion!!!
and if we fucking dare mentioned chemtrails or weather modification then
you same lot (surface level truthers in new alt media) will pull out the anti s brush.

Your also shilling a narrative…

One of the biggest raves in Europe (doesnt ask permission from the government to have this gathering) and something real strange happened there. my mates where there and saw the planes and lines and then……

Teknival: Rave-goers get hypothermia after unexpected snow in France
7th May 2019

$150,000 cloud-bursting service guarantees sunny wedding weather
Rain, rain, go away. A UK company offers an unusual service with the promise of clear skies and sun for your wedding day.
Feb. 5, 2015

recap: the newish alternative media from the legacy media that refuses to discuss the obvious.
not really alternative is it..

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 3:19 PM
Reply to  davetherave

I’d be very interested if you could link me and our readers to the best sources about chemtrails that you have.

I think there is a big difference between local weather modification – cloud seeding or cloud busting or whatever we call it – and altering weather in any wider sense. I wonder, has anyone made some meaningful documentary evidence about this? Would love to see it all. Thanks!

A2

George Mc
George Mc
Dec 29, 2023 4:33 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

I never could see the need for chemtrails or weather modification or a real manufactured pandemic etc. when the overlords can create such splendid effects through propaganda alone. And at no expense or danger to themselves.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 4:49 PM
Reply to  George Mc

I do tend to agree. The power of a moving picture show media simulacrum – like the holodeck on the enterprise – shouldn’t be underestimated lightly!

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 5:21 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

One of my neighbors is a scientist and I discussed this issue with him. In a nutshell, he said no way. One of the reasons he quoted was the high cost of the compound (I forgot what it is) used in the process. It’s used on an experimental basis only.

As both of yous say, why bother doing this shit (or that shit and the other shit) if people can be made believe that the shit is happening. Let them yap about stuff, whatever it is – including the (non-)existence of viruses – it’s all good.

As long as they don’t discuss stuff that actually matters. Which right now is putting them on a short leash as the civilization is heading toward a collapse.

The trick is NOT TO FOLLOW whatever the fucks feed ya, to reject the myriad of prisms through which they want you to see the world through, to follow your own path.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 8:03 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

Which right now is putting them on a short leash as the civilization is heading toward a collapse.

Let’s also acknowledge that this narrative could be a psyop too. Or at least, it may be being magnified to that end. Fear, any form of fear, is the mind-killer. The right sort of fearful self-reproach makes populations pliant and obedient.

If we’re floating down Niagra gorge toward the ruinous and inevitable falls at the end, I’d at least prefer to do so having surrendered my fear. That way, apart from being spiritually prepared, I might even stand a chance of spotting an alternative route out of there lol

A2

Pilgrim Shadow
Pilgrim Shadow
Dec 29, 2023 9:00 PM
Reply to  George Mc

Here’s why: because if you study the weather, or virology, etc. you will eventually want to harness the powers of whatever it is that you are studying. It’s not enough to understand the way the way weather works; the ultimate goal is to be able to control the weather, disease, etc. Consider the difference between learning about the reproductive system and actually having sex.

You make it sound as if everyone who studies any sort of science or field of inquiry is only doing it out of pretense, with no actual interest in the subject matter. Man has always desired dominion over nature and there are many who’s natures impel/compel them to seek out answers to their questions.

“To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

George Mc
George Mc
Dec 30, 2023 8:39 AM
Reply to  Pilgrim Shadow

It’s all about political and economic control. The media can control without any costly monkeying around with diseases or the weather. In the media, they “create the reality”. And those who “disagree” with the media whilst still accepting the basic assertions are only helping the rulers.

Pilgrim Shadow
Pilgrim Shadow
Dec 30, 2023 2:29 PM
Reply to  George Mc

Sure, the mainstream media (controlled arm of Government) can and do “create the reality,” and in the case of weather modification, chem-trails etc. the narrative they offer is that anyone who has questions or concerns about such things is a conspiracy theorizing, paranoid kook and that’s all anyone needs to know about it.

Nevertheless, there are persons whose livelihoods revolve around studying, manipulating and otherwise controlling the weather, with varying reasons and desires.

NickM
NickM
Dec 30, 2023 9:31 AM
Reply to  Pilgrim Shadow

To boldly split infinitives where no man has ever split them before.

Pilgrim Shadow
Pilgrim Shadow
Dec 30, 2023 2:35 PM
Reply to  NickM

Poetic license.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 5:13 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

“Would love to see it”.

But don’t hold your breath while waiting.

Penelope
Penelope
Dec 29, 2023 5:40 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Sam, Chemtrails Exposed, A New Manhattan Project $22. by Peter A. Kirby. My edition is from 2016; that’s how long he’s been writing on it, but there’s a more recent edition too.

He covers the whole topic including the planes used to disseminate it, history, connection to HAARP, chemistry involved, biological impact, etc.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 8:04 PM
Reply to  Penelope

Thanks for the recommendation. Links are also appreciated! A2

rubberheid
rubberheid
Dec 29, 2023 8:06 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

sorry, but,

chem-trail denial just means your head is far up your ass, but has not yet popped out again, yet.
maybe when it does, it will see.

just actually spend the time to observe, instead of calling them “normal” contrails or vapour or some nut job conspiracy, like coronacovid19 eh?

“don’t be ridiculous,” admin and his alter ego scoffed, nicely.

Look Up.

“meaningful documentary evidence” – – eh, that all persists in some capacity – or does doc fauci have to present it to you? And never mind them-type-enthusiasts, do you have eyes? real eyes . . ?

ochone. tis but a fraud, offly.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 8:34 PM
Reply to  rubberheid

To quote Muhammad Ali, “What ya doin’, agitating?”

Please contribute by posting evidence or discussing like a gentleman. That or give it a rest please. Thanks. A2

rubberheid
rubberheid
Dec 29, 2023 9:53 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

very poor show Sam, dullard refusenik psychosis that ye pretend to dwell within, serious, LOOK UP.

“what, y’all experts,..” what actor was that over another??

I don’t know if OG has nasty fangs or teething gums, but chewey denial is consistent.

So covid was a lie but man made tartan skies are a conspiracy.

Ok, right ye are O G,
ma fukn erse,
in the most gentlemanly discourse as suits the company, frankly.

What happened to the glory misery days of covid chat shows Sam, when we all had hunners (sic) of postings, eh? yeah, most of us got sick of selective conversation/denial. O G

and here we are again.

out.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 10:44 PM
Reply to  rubberheid

Not big, not clever. Last warning. You’ve said nothing of any content, simply slung shit around 😅. You and Ekologista are clearly either the same person or working in tandem and it’s achieving nothing. It’s nonsensical. It’s cringey. A2

rubberheid
rubberheid
Dec 29, 2023 10:07 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Sam, there is over a decade’s worth shtuff on this out there. Are you really so selective or unaware? Seriously, you cannot see it?
So, you can cover terrain theory and cbdc but cannot find/refute/refuse to see manipulated skies above you. ??

all ranting aside, there it is. Denial, is denial. Reality manifests.

I ain’t scoring points here, spend the time and observe, please. When i was a child we NEVER had checkerboard skies, not even when the space shuttle was piggy-backed above us.

Chem trails are very real and if OG refutes this, it says too much about this place.

Voila

enjoy your paychecks, see Geo at MOA, lol

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 10:25 PM
Reply to  rubberheid

Stop with the ad hom, it’s dull.

I invited the conversation, so have it, or step back and let others have it. Thanks. A2

Johnny
Johnny
Dec 29, 2023 10:56 AM

The worlds most successful hoax by far, is religion, followed by capitalism, communism and the fear of the unknown.
They all lead to spiritual dead ends.
They are all empty and pathetic substitutes for Love.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 5:14 PM
Reply to  Johnny

“Love, Love, Love, all you need is Love” — Beatles hit.

Pilgrim Shadow
Pilgrim Shadow
Dec 29, 2023 9:14 PM
Reply to  Johnny

Religion is an human universal.

brian of nazareth
brian of nazareth
Dec 29, 2023 7:32 AM

Climate doom propaganda never raises the issue of perpetual war, it’s as if war isn’t the most destructive activity on the planet. “We” are not invited to think about the cost of war in all its vast and growing demands for land, resources, energy and er…human lives.
For me, this fact reveals the dishonesty that lives within climate propaganda as it suggests that war is inevitable and not up for discussion. Further, it implies that “planet-saving climate rules” may be implemented by force.

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
Dec 29, 2023 8:11 AM

They talk about re-naturing and that its a living breathing planet, yet cut down huge swathes of forests for biomass.
Planet of the humans documentary by Michael Moore exposes the whole green energy industry.

Edwige
Edwige
Dec 29, 2023 8:23 AM
Reply to  Paul Watson

Biomass constitutes by far the majority of so-called renewable energy yet when almost everyone hears that term they’ll think of solar and wind power. That’s not happened by accident.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 10:01 AM
Reply to  Edwige

The form of idiocy you suffer from consists of focusing on how some isolated aspects of a holistic issue are peddled and perceived by motherfuckers who have things to hide and who have no clue as to what the fuck is going on, respectively, instead of trying to understand the said holistic issue.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 5:16 PM
Reply to  Edwige

Most biomass is solar energy captured and stored in solid or liquid form.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 30, 2023 11:27 PM
Reply to  NickM

Not understood.

rubberheid
rubberheid
Dec 29, 2023 7:50 PM
Reply to  Edwige

we are all biomass now.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 6:46 AM

“Thus the internet is an important remaining public square where people can still ask questions.”

Keep the internet open! Maintain net neutrality!

“Only connect” — EM Forster, Two Cheers for Democracy.

Sarah
Sarah
Dec 29, 2023 4:41 AM

Thank you Iain Davis very researched and comprehensive article. I find the easiest way to discuss “Climate Change” is to say: “What do trees and plants live on?” They usually look at me as though I’ve asked a trick question: “Uh, sun, water?” They respond questioning. I will then answer with great satisfaction, “Yes, but more importantly CO2”.
If they’re at all interested, I will then go on to explain about the 400-year cycle, the Grand Solar Minimum 2021-2053 that we find ourselves in at the moment, and how it is that it is purely the activity of the sun that controls climate across the planets, even those planets without coal and gas-guzzling SUVs.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 6:48 AM
Reply to  Sarah

““Yes, but more importantly CO2”.

Actually all 3 are important.

Edwige
Edwige
Dec 29, 2023 8:26 AM
Reply to  Sarah

It’s a great conjuring trick how they’ve made the sub invisible to any discussion about the amount of heat in the world!

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 9:58 AM
Reply to  Sarah

““What do trees and plants live on?”

The simplistic thinking of simpletons of your ilk is cute.

Things have consequences, you know?

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/

les online
les online
Dec 29, 2023 4:23 AM

New Science: Geothermal Energy Becomes Key Factor In Climate (2:04:53):
https://principia-scientific.com/new-science-geothermal-energy-becomes-key-factor-in-climate/

TheOriginalDaveH
TheOriginalDaveH
Dec 29, 2023 1:45 AM

Since both CO2 and water vapor are greenhouse gases and both are released from the oceans as the Earth warms, what kept the 3 warmer periods in the last 5000 years from spiraling into hothouse conditions during any of those periods (assuming AGW is valid)?

AntiSoof
AntiSoof
Dec 28, 2023 11:04 PM

As if it wasn’t bad enough that the truth is simply not being told, the biggest price paid is that trust in each other is destroyed. That’s the sad part, the loss of confidence.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 7:20 AM
Reply to  AntiSoof

Which is why it is written: “Thou shalt not Lie”.

Which is why the greatest catastrophe in modern British history was Prime Minister Tony B.Liar (now a Director in House of Rothschild): because he destroyed “trust in each other”. And the immediate evidence of Lack of Trust was the network of spy cameras which B.Liar set up.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Dec 28, 2023 10:44 PM

“Science” that one cannot question is not science.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 28, 2023 10:10 PM

Oil is coming from old fossil dinosaurs. Dinosaur oil!

Rockefeller made a fortune together with Ford using dinosaur oil in the first uncomfortable cast iron black vehicles running 20 km/hr for rich men who paid a fortune trying to impress a woman wearing white hats with fruits on.

Everytime you drive a car on gasoline, you drive on dead fossil dinosaurs, thus destroying our ancient history.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Dec 28, 2023 11:56 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

So called fossil fuels (including oil, gas, natural gas and methane) may have an abiotic origin (that is, not from dead plants or animals). This may account for the fact that new deposits are continuously found.

See, even Wikipedia says so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 12:05 AM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

That’s an unproven theory. Most likely wishful thinking since depleted deposits are not replenishing.

Even if true, however, it would still depend on the rate at which deposits replenish vis-a-vis the rate of extraction. In other words, there still would be a threshhold beyond which fossils would be depleted, sooner or later.

Plus, the abiotic theory, even if true, doesn’t solve the myriad of other ecological issues, namely the erosion of nature caused by human activity, technologies.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Dec 29, 2023 1:27 AM
Reply to  Ekologista

RE: That’s an unproven theory.

Well, so is AGW.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 6:13 AM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

Global warming is a bullshit umbrella term that means shit. Intended to bring the plebs under control. To give them something they can swallow.

Abiotic oil is a wishful-thinking concept promoted by people SCARED SHITLESS OF THE PROSPECT THAT THE FOSSIL-FUEL DRIVEN INDUSTRIAL AGE IS OVER, OR WILL BE ONE DAY, PROBABLY QUITE SOON.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 7:31 AM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

Even more so: much, much, much more unproven than the stellar origin of the atoms C H O which make up Earth’s abundant compounds of Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen.

richard
richard
Dec 29, 2023 8:09 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

The following is from John Truman Wolfe’s e-book, The Anatomy of a Con Job
Permission to circulate this work has been granted by the author 

 After considerable research, in 1956, Russian scientist Professor Vladimir 
Porfir’yev announced that “crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with 
biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial [originating with the 
earth’s formation] materials which have been erupted from great depths.”
If your eyeballs didn’t fall out when you read that, you might want to read it again.
He said oil doesn’t come from anything biologic, not, as conventional wisdom dictates, from the 
fossilized remains of dinosaurs and/or ancient plant matter. It comes from very deep in the earth and 
is created by a biochemical reaction that subjected hydrocarbons (elements having carbon and 
hydrogen) to extreme heat and intense pressure during the earth’s formation.
Russians referred to this oil (any oil, really) as “abiotic oil” because it is not created from the 
decomposition of biological life forms, but rather from the chemical process continually occurring 
inside the earth.
I know, easy for Porfir’yev to say. But it turns out it was more than just a theory.
Because shortly after the Russians discovered this, they started drilling ultra-deep wells and finding 
oil at 30,000 and 40,000 feet below the earth’s surface. These are staggering depths, and far below 
the depth at which organic matter can be found, which is 18,000 feet.
Interesting, eh?
The Russians applied their theory of abiotic deep-drilling technology to the Dnieper-Donets Basin, an 
area understood for the previous half a century to be barren of oil. Of sixty wells drilled there using 
abiotic technology, thirty-seven became commercially productive—a 62 percent success rate 
compared with the roughly 10 percent success rate of a U.S. wildcat driller. The oil found in the basin 
rivaled Alaska’s North Slope.
Let’s say they had a good hair day.
But it doesn’t stop there, not by a long shot. Since their earlier discoveries, the major Russian oil 
companies have quietly drilled more than 310 ultra-deep wells and put them into production.
Result? Russia recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the planet’s largest oil producer.
Maybe they are onto something.
Though there were papers written on this early on, almost all were in Russian and few made it to the 
West. And those that did were laughed at.
No more. With Russia’s rejection of the Exxon-Yukos deal (Putin did not want this technology and 
their abiotic oil experts exported to the West) and the access to information now available on the 
Internet, the word has begun to spread rapidly to the West. Still, it hasn’t taken hold yet.
Why not? This is huge. Oil is not a fossil fuel! And it’s renewable! Wow!
There are a couple of factors at play here.
Big oil has a vested interest in pushing the idea that oil is scarce, hard to find, and thus costly to 
produce—all of which, of course, means increased revenues and profits. 

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 9:04 PM
Reply to  richard

Interesting if true.

If oil were available in essentially unlimited quantities, providing ample supply of the master resource – energy, the predicament would then consist of the availability of other resources and the problems caused by the dissipation of energy and the adverse impact of the human overshoot on the Earth’s ecosystem, i.e. erosion, eradication of other species, pollution, etc.

Anyway, I’m taking what you wrote with a grain of salt for now.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Jan 1, 2024 7:36 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

Back to lead octane 98 pls. I loved 98 octane lead, when they took it away.

Top Cat
Top Cat
Dec 30, 2023 10:57 PM
Reply to  richard

I would think, if there were thoughtful, well-informed people on here, one of them would assert that, no, Russians do not have 30000 foot deep wells, and provide evidence to support their argument.

I see no such assertion.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 29, 2023 1:16 AM
Reply to  Tom Larsen

My apology for the sarcastic comment, but the article is beyond common sense.
Off course oil and gas is abiotic. Can bio live in the 2000 C inner lava crust?

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 4:56 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

That’s a question I’m very interested about. There’s so much we’ve taken for granted that’s come up for question in modern times. It makes you wonder. A2

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 6:18 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

The one most important thing people take for granted is that technological innovation will solve anything.

It won’t.

Ditto science. Our sciences are in fact highly primitive. They examine shit in a reductionist as opposed to holistic manner. They don’t connect the dots.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 4:39 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

I guess that means we should take anything scientists say with a pinch of salt? Context is all. Just finding out about the properties of light the other day, and how it bends every principle of what we term ‘science’, was an eye-opener for me!

We often think of science and mathematics sharing a bed with engineering and human technological advances, whereas not at all. We can scribe a perfect circle on a lathe but we can’t describe it mathematically. We can use trial and error to harness the properties of natural laws and materials in different configurations without being required to understand how and why these processes happen.

Such is the difference between engineering and the sciences, and where the dark art of progress resides.

So many of our technological breakthroughs are built on a refined method of trial and error, with the ‘science’ inserted later, like marketing copy, to smooth over our gaps in knowledge and preserve our illusion that we know the HOW and the WHY! 😅

A2

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 5:26 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

I’ve recently read this essay – the rant of a disillusioned scientist.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/12/confessions-of-a-disillusioned-scientist/

Interesting. We approach knowledge in a selective reductionist manner, without comprehending how dots are connected, how stuff fits together.

If you think in terms of millennia, people might one day come to realize that the development of cognitive ability, at least the way it’s happened up to now, is a cul-de-sac, and adopt a different relationship vis-a-vis the world.

Like become part of it, instead of placing themselves outside of it.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 7:44 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

2000C looks a bit steep still, for survival of organic life, but the upper limit of temperature for evolution of organic life has assuredly been rising since Darwin’s original suggestion of “some warm little pond”. The last I read was, Life originated in a brew of sulphuric acid laced with heavy metal salts boiling under ultrahigh steam pressure (200 degC?) in volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 2:08 PM
Reply to  NickM

Or aliens 🙂

Pilgrim Shadow
Pilgrim Shadow
Dec 29, 2023 10:16 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

👽

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 6:15 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Holy fuck, oil is alive?

Balkydj
Balkydj
Dec 29, 2023 8:55 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Got the sarcasm immediately, unlike some. Sarcasm largely fails,
Without audible amplification.

Howsoever, your Lava Crust is a fine example that elevates the conversation, which can also be said of any discussion that includes the ‘natural’ Resonance of any High Auroral Accoustic Research Programming, first formulated with Phased Array Antennas in Alaska… speaking of Alaska & Lava Crust, my mum used to bake an

Amazing Baked Alaska: that dessert from the oven, with the
Ice Cream inside, (bit like Intel, but tastes better…)
Happy New Year, Erik.
Regards
Balky

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 29, 2023 9:52 PM
Reply to  Balkydj

Same back and to everybody here to economize Happy New Year greetings.  🎅 

Balkydj
Balkydj
Jan 3, 2024 8:16 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

We are nothing, unless we share… ‘two cows’ was / is / & will be,
Forevermore Solutionary…

Best. Check. Feed. ( & gainful distraction )…

I wanted to share some knowledge, maybe you know: no doubt ,
Eko-guy does not know, yet, how ENERGY, as a business, Works !
Magnetosphere. Magnetism. Metamorphosis into Terra Firma…
Grounded in what/watt/wtf/WTC7’s… no further comment. Watt I wanted to share with you, is the profound science in locating, where,
Is most Charged ? Naturally speaking, Lightning Wise, in terms of IMPETUS, intensity & industry ? ! Jo’ burg is the Capital City of Lightning Strikes, that occur 200 Times every second, globally speaking though, jack-eko- JOE’BURG is NOT the EPICENTRE ! !
Well worth comprehending to bake Alaska, if you want…
And much more.

Balkydj
Balkydj
Jan 3, 2024 9:54 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

More being, where is the Lava Crust, truly ready cooked…?

Well, well , well … whatever you extract, water is a simple

Pre-requisite factor , like in… Congo. The democratic Republic…
Add some metallurgy and you will very very simply for yourself,
Understand where the MOST LIGHTNING STRATEGIES, sorry strikes,
Occur. Laws of Attraction, Diamonds, Gold, Graphene, Columbite Tantalite… Coltan the Tan-gential comprehension of Conductive behaviours, sponsored here within this very thread of comments.
Makes me Laff ‘ if nothing else, eko my aarse 😂

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 7:28 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Outdated hypothesis from the 19th century. Modern atomic theory explains why hydrocarbons (CnH2n) are so plentiful in the earth’s interior: because Carbon and Hydrogen were among the first atoms to congeal out of Primordial Light, and hence the most abundant.

davetherave
davetherave
Dec 29, 2023 10:52 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Dinosaurs in the British museum look sooooooooooo real
I especially liked bullsh**t T rex that lived 50000000000000000000000 years ago
in the 2nd to last ice age before the hot age after man came from monkeys.

comment image

George Mc
George Mc
Dec 29, 2023 10:53 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Everytime you drive a car on gasoline, you drive on dead fossil dinosaurs, thus destroying our ancient history.

You’re killing dead dinosaurs?

underground poet
underground poet
Dec 29, 2023 11:57 AM
Reply to  George Mc

He got tired of beating dead horses so he moved on to dinosaurs.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 29, 2023 9:59 PM
Reply to  George Mc

Its what the clima change people tell us. We drive on fossil oil yes? Fossils can only be old dead dinosaurs.
I am only referencing Science and my government’s official public documents.
THEY said it!
I couldnt dream of having any thought of my own. I trust my government.

sandy
sandy
Dec 28, 2023 8:11 PM

No “greenhouse effect”. No “fossil fuels” because the carbon we harvest is dead and crushed plant material, not dead animals. “Death Tax”, “national security interests”, “structural adjustment programs”, “food insecure”, “clinical death”, and on on. The wordsmithing to hide actuality is non-stop. Underneath each ILLUSION is a truth cosmetically shielded.

We could make an entire dictionary of these spin words.

Mario J.
Mario J.
Dec 28, 2023 7:50 PM

Climate change is World biggest hoax. Dot.

Cloverleaf
Cloverleaf
Dec 28, 2023 7:13 PM

Hehe monkey science, with the obligatory monkey experts… next time you have a party or go down the local pub hark at ‘the trousered (and skirted) apes’… when they laugh.. the bearing of the teeth and the oooh oooh monkey sounds they make… (the females are the worst).

I have a tendancy to do it myself when some imbecile goes on about global warming or claims they are an expert!

Top Cat
Top Cat
Dec 30, 2023 11:03 PM
Reply to  Cloverleaf

I am afraid it would seem that you don’t sound all that well-informed yourself: certainly no “expert.” The tone of absolute surety, coupled with the poor linguistic mechanics, obviate the thesis you are trying to propound.

mastershock
mastershock
Dec 28, 2023 6:48 PM

Consequently he is called a climate denier by the legacy media.

Willem
Willem
Dec 28, 2023 6:23 PM

Some useful points from (the late) Michael Crichton on man made climate change

I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.

There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century.

I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes. Ideologues and zealots don’t.

The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.

The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.

We haven’t the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term “wilderness,” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational, and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip miners. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence.

We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily—usually by preventing something—with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control.

I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.

More points, see: https://www.michaelcrichton.com/works/state-of-fear-authors-message/

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 28, 2023 7:28 PM
Reply to  Willem

“believe in impending resource scarcity”… “ignorance of history”

Unlike Mike Crichton who presents NO FACTS whatsoever, only a collection of phantasms, people who – as you contemptuously, and endlessly ignorantly, imply – “believe” in the forthcoming scarcity of resources are industry specialists, experts, people doing lifelong research, people who got data and facts up the wazoo.

Examples of the work of such informed people include:

https://www.simonmichaux.com/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/
https://ourfiniteworld.com/author/gailtheactuary/
https://www.youtube.com/@thegreatsimplification
https://un-denial.com/
https://karlnorth.com/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000171

Check out the stuff presented therein and compare it to the empty denialism of your guy or this text in which the authors admirably uses zillions of words to say nothing. Nothing positive that is. Trying to put a dent in efforts to tackle a holistic issue is not positive.

The predicament at play – regardless of how urgent the situation is at the moment, which is questionable – is a biological issue. OVERSHOOT. That’s over-fucking-shoot. Not some philosophical bullshit. Yes, the human population is in overshoot thanks to the discovery of fossil fuels and sooner or later the Earth will not have the carrying capacity to sustain human population. Or, autrement dit, there is a correlation between the availability, extraction, and use of resources and population size. If you ignore that and keep overindulging, your species will go extinct.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/12/a-story-of-mice-and-men/

The depletion of resources is not the only issue. The toxicity of the industrial age is another one. Humans are living a toxic lifestyle, poisoning everything left and right, fucking with the natural world, causing other species to disappear, playing fucking god with nature. Now, we’re NOT ABOVE FUCKING NATURE! Humans are part of the Earth ecosystem and Nature rules man, as opposed to vice versa. We’re shitting where we live in a monstrous way. Did you know that like one in seven young couples are unable to conceive offspring?

This has been going on for too long, centuries. People consider the current aberrational state of affairs normal (preposterous!). People like you are in denial, cognitive dissonance prevents you from facing reality. So, instead, you cling to vessels who are equally as empty and produce pseudo-logical and pseudo-philosophical arguments why everything is hunky-dory.

Edwige
Edwige
Dec 28, 2023 10:27 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

“Unlike Mike Crichton who presents NO FACTS whatsoever”.

‘State of Fear’ has a 20 page bibliography listing the sources Crichton consulted. The section of the book Willem linked to is an appendix where Crichton wanted to clarify his position on certain matters and comes after the main text where he presented his copious factual evidence.

The rest of this post is a mixture of re-heated Malthusianism and straw-manning (you really think most commenters here don’t see there’s any problem with toxicity?).

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 28, 2023 11:31 PM
Reply to  Edwige

Ain’t seen no factual evidence. There ain’t none there. End of story.

I don’t know what commenters can see or not, I can’t see inside their brain, even if I wanted to take a closer look.

The reference to Malthunianism you can shove back into your asshole.

The aforestated, namely the overshoot predicament, is an issue, no matter what else you pull out of your ass to dismiss it.

The degree of urgency of the many ecological and biological might be questionable, the fact that the current trajectory is not sustainable ain’t.

Your comment is an example par excellence of the denialist cretenism that will most likely prevent people from finding a solution.

Listen to Michaux – he says that when he tries to present his research to people, some get very angry (extreme manifestation of cognitive dissonance), so he doesn’t bother no more.

Anyway, I presume that you didn’t bother to check out any of the above links. To you, it’s all crystal clear – everything is bullshit and it’s all Klaus Anal Schwab’s fault. Or Kill Gates’s. Sheesh …..

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 28, 2023 11:10 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

But why can you always and only and extremely carefully avoid what a simple calculator can tell you. It not complicated. Why?

Endless links, endless graphs, to point out a lie and extremely carefully avoiding the simple and obvious fact.

Lets say we are 8 billion yes? Make it 3 persons average in a house of 100 m2, 700m2 garden, foothpath half a road 200m2 = 1000 m2.

You get an area of 1/3 of Australia. The rest of the Globe is completely empty for human life. The above is similar to Inhabitants/ha of Sao Paulo.

Saying we can inhabit 1/3 of Australia with either big city a la Sao Paulo or 1-plan housing 100m2 for 3 people average incl road and foot paths.

What does this simple calculation done on a calculator tell us about not only all your bs, but about all other bs too?

You are just running away now yes, and start all over again on another site with the same song again again again again yes? Why?
Because your doggy bowl is empty and need refilling.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 28, 2023 11:53 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Are you being serious?

Population size has very little to do with land size. It has everything to do with available resources, namely the master resource – ENERGY.

The current population size only exists, or has grown to its size, thanks to the availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels. They’re used in farming, transport, and everything else.

Without fossils, the goings-on will come to a halt and people will starve to death.

And I’m not even mentioning fertilizer and all the other issues.

What you wrote is so incredibly fucking stupid that I can’t believe my eyes. You are an EXAMPLE PAR FUCKING EXCELLENCE of the Dunning-Krueger effect!

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 29, 2023 12:54 AM
Reply to  Ekologista

“Population size has everything to do with cheap fossil fuels, energy”.

Ohhh so only because we had “limited fossil fuel” we can occupy 1/3 of Australia? You are fantastic in your absurdity.

First of all there is eternal energy from the sun yes?
The earth rotate, saying we have eternal energy from wind and waves.
Then we have nuclear energy.
In the earth crust we have a gigantic melting bowl of iron, stone, metals, 2000 C hot lava producing eternal gas, coal, abiotic oil.
The emptied oil reserves are slowly being build up again.

It means all talk about limits and “limitations” of energy are absurd. There is eternal energy everywhere except in an environmentalist’s nut brain, and as I said you are so stupid you cant admit a simple fact.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 6:08 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

When was the last time you used your internal energy (sic) to, say, cut down a fucking tree?

Let me be a little bit more explicit as far as space vs. energy, since your bird brain don’t seem to be getting it.

Say, you live in a 50 square meter apartment in some stinky city. So, you’re thinking yourself, atta boy!, zillions of motherfuckers could populate this planet, look how little space each of us occupies.

Bull-fucking-shit.

The reality is that you occupy a vastly larger space,

You get your food from the supermarket whereto it’s delivered from farms, food plants, plantations, field, all over the place. The space needed to grow and produce your share of the shit is part of your living space. You’re connected to that space through ENERGY.

You get hot water, electricity, all sorts of services. That comes from heating plants, power generating plants, hydroelectric plants, nuke plants, coal mines, all sorts of places. Again, part of that space is yours. You get the shit thanks to ENERGY.

Do I need to continue? The fucking clothes you were are made from cotton grown in fields or some plastic shit produced who the fuck knows where. Again, you get it thanks to ENERGY.

Take ENERGY OUT OF IT, and your as good as fucked. Or make energy more expensive and you’re as good a fucked. And I don’t mean more expensive in terms of the pieces of paper that are at best good for wiping your ass, I mean the physical value of what you’re capable of producing.

Without the benefit of cheap energy, you wouldn’t be able to produce enough to cover the cost (in physical terms) of growing food. Like, imagine yourself on a vast piece of land – without machinery and energy, you wouldn’t be able to feed yourself.

As to the forms of energy you mention. Solar is the only energy we got. Wind is solar. Nuclear energy REQUIRES fossil fuels – it can complement them, but can’t exist on its own.

Interesting you should mention planetary rotation. There is also gravity. How do you propose we extract energy from the Earth’s rotation? Like you shoot yourself up into space and harness the planet to a fucking dynamo and somehow send the juice back down? Or some other technological marve? I’m all ears man!

Everything else you mention hinges on fossil fuels. Abiotic is most likely wishful thinking.

So, that’s about it as far as energy.

As you can see, you’re hallucinating.

Now, you can examine the consequences of the industrial age, the toxicity, erosion, etc.

underground poet
underground poet
Dec 29, 2023 12:06 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

@ How do you propose we extract energy from the Earth’s rotation?

I think somebody tried to make electricity from collecting rising tide water and then releasing its stored energy.

I dont know how he made out w/it though..

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 29, 2023 8:57 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

So you failed all your math in ground school. You cant even use a calculator to count the price of 2 apples in a supermarket.

The 8 billion accommodated on 1/3 Australia yes?

On the rest of the completely deserted earth Africa, China, Russia, Europe, N and S America, Greenland, Antarctica, Atlantic Sea, Pacific Sea, minus 1/3 Australia you are free to build all the cotton fields, tomatoes, toilet factories you want.

So whats your problem man?

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 9:41 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

No, I didn’t. I was a little math genius in school. Having grown in the city of the alchemists, I was fascinated by math and mathematical formulas. Some, I discovered on my own, such as the pi and its various applications.

Not so much today anymore, but I certainly don’t use calculator for simple arithmetic.

Yeah, the Earth is big and there is a lot of space. To use it you need ENERGY. Already explained that above. Put your head round it, FFS!

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 10:39 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

Too much monotonal yelling achieves nothing. Dial it back. Thanks. Last warning on that. It just turns into troll-flexing and that’s lame. Thanks, A2

DM:
DM:
Dec 31, 2023 5:51 AM
Reply to  Ekologista

Bull-fucking-shit to you too.

Elmo
Elmo
Dec 29, 2023 3:42 AM
Reply to  Ekologista

You sound like the typical troll who turns up here every now and then in support of an official narrative and ends up resorting to invective and insults as soon as anyone expresses their doubts about any aspect of it.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 5:48 AM
Reply to  Elmo

“Support of an official narrative” (sic) …

You’re hallucinating in projecting your hangups into what I say.

NOBODY IS OFFICIALLY ADMITTING THAT RESOURCES ARE DWINDLING. NOBODY IS OFFICIALLY ADMITTING THAT THE CURRENT LIFESTYLE IS UNSUSTAINABLE.

Instead, they’re feeding you nondescript shit about climate change and all sorts of other smokescreens because you’d shit yourself if you heard the actual truth.

I’m simply calling a spade a fucking spade.

Language got nothing to do with any of that.

Paul
Paul
Dec 29, 2023 9:48 AM
Reply to  Ekologista

I agree that many lifestyles are not sustainable in the sense that they cause too much damage to the environment. Too many trinkets bought from China etc.

I work in low energy building design, 98% of people in this country live in homes which consume several times more energy than they could if they were built intelligently. We are getting better, though it is taking time. And not least because most people can’t afford to build/renovate in this way and the guvmint certainly isn’t helping (heat pumps can be great but not in a poorly insulated home).

People are switching to electric cars. There are lots of unforeseen issues with these cars, but I guess if you believe oil is evil and dwindling then this must be a good thing, no?

So I’m curious, what exactly would you have done?
Have everyone get rid of their cars?
Stop everyone buying anything not made in their own country?
Ban central heating and force people to freeze to death?

Careful, you might sound like the media or a government official.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 3:15 PM
Reply to  Paul

“I guess you believe oil is evil”

You guess wrong. Not only belief is not the basis for my thinking, but I’d have to be a fucking moron to somehow think that a natural mineral is “evil” (sic).

Oil is a fabulous resource, stuff packed with energy, transformable into tons of useful products. The dwindling thereof is a disaster. Or rather the wasteful use thereof during the past centuries is a disaster.

It could not have been avoided though. People couldn’t have predicted the future. Their behavior was from a biological viewpoint entirely natural. That’s how overshoot happens.

Electric cars for fucks sakes still mostly run on fossil fuels. The growing share of biofuels and renewable power notwithstanding. What matters is the overall generation of power – it comes from fossils. There is NO FUCKING WAY the current civilization can be sustained without fossil fuels.

This is not a question of somebody wanting people to get rid of their cars. When there is no more gas to put in the tank, it will be it. Ditto everything else. Get that through your head.

You don’t seem to be grasping the enormity of the predicament. Resources ARE FUCKING FINITE. Period. No amount of heat pumps can do anything about that.

What can be done?

MASSIVE REDUCTION IN THE USE OF ENERGY

STOP CONSUMERISM

DISTRIBUTE FACTUAL INFORMATION, NOT THE CLIMATE CHANGE BULLSHIT, HIT PEOPLE IN THE FACE WITH THE THREAT, MAYBE SOMEBODY WILL COME UP WITH SOMETHING

LEARN TO LIVE WITH NATURE AS OPPOSED TO BY TRANSFORMING NATURE

SO ON, SO FORTH

Paul
Paul
Dec 29, 2023 5:59 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

Ok but who are you shouting at? The commenters here are mostly a conscientious bunch, and thus they are doing what they can.
Are you shouting at the rest of the world? Good luck getting that message through to them. They still think Covid was real.
You’ve more or less confirmed what I suspected, that if you were in power your solutions wouldn’t be dissimilar to our current ‘rulers’.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 9:12 PM
Reply to  Paul

Psychological projection, mister. As far as power and rulers. If there is one thing I’d abhor, it would be being in a position of power. I don’t want to rule over other people. In fact, most of the time I don’t even want to interact with anybody. These few comments I’ve posted are a rare exception.

Paul
Paul
Dec 29, 2023 6:00 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

“I guess you believe oil is evil”
You guess wrong. Not only belief is not the basis for my thinking, but I’d have to be a fucking moron to somehow think that a natural mineral is “evil” (sic).

Probably English is not your native tongue. What I said was for effect, not to be taken literally.
I’d be the moron if I actually thought a human could think that oil was evil. And I am not a moron.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 3:18 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

“NOBODY IS OFFICIALLY ADMITTING THAT THE CURRENT LIFESTYLE IS UNSUSTAINABLE.”

Except Al Gore for the past 20 years, and now all the other plutocrats at WEF. Plus sweet green nutters like Greta Greenberg and the Green German Girlies. All of whom want to solve the Resources Nonproblem by allocating more of whatever it is for their well-heeled privileged class and less of whatever it is for us skint and downtrodden prole class.

“Darling, do the poor do this?”.
“Darling, yes”
“It’s much too good for them”.

Tom Larsen
Tom Larsen
Dec 29, 2023 4:58 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

RE: NOBODY IS OFFICIALLY ADMITTING THAT RESOURCES ARE DWINDLING. NOBODY IS OFFICIALLY ADMITTING THAT THE CURRENT LIFESTYLE IS UNSUSTAINABLE.

This is exactly part of the AGW narrative. It’s part of the fear campaign promoted by pretty much every variation of the Climate Change Narrative TM. Every book I have read on climate change says this. I don’t have any idea what you mean by “nobody.”

Since March 2020, anytime fear is used to promote an agenda, I now assume it is bullshit, that has become my default position.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 3:05 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

“[ENERGY (sic)] thanks to the availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels.”

Soon to be vastly increased by the availability of even cheaper nuclear fuels and solar ENERGY (sic). Why is plant life and bacterial life vastly more abundant than animal life? Because plants tapped into free photonic ENERGY from the Sun’s nuclear furnace hundreds of millions of years ago. And bacteria tapped into free thermal ENERGY (sic) from the Earth’s nuclear furnace thousands of millions of years ago. Whereas we hairless apes seem to be the first animals to begin to follow the considerable lead gained by plants and bacteria.

Mish
Mish
Dec 28, 2023 11:33 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

Crazy that you’re being downvoted for this comment. Thanks for posting!

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 12:00 AM
Reply to  Mish

Cognitive dissonance is a nasty bitch!

The last few hundred years, especially the consumerist binge of the last 100, have felt good, and people want more of it. Most are pissed off because others have had it better, and want their fair share (they’re right about that).

People think within the rather small cage the encompasses the Age of Burning. They can’t see beyond that, unable to take a step back and consider things in a holistic long-term fashion.

They think that what we live through is the norm, while it’s the one-time historical aberration.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/11/the-intransigence-of-now/

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 3:46 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

From your Link to Do The Math, by Tom Murphy:

“Tom Murphy is a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego. An amateur astronomer in high school, physics major at Georgia Tech, and PhD student in physics at Caltech, Murphy has spent decades reveling in the study of astrophysics.

“Following his natural instincts to educate, Murphy is eager to get people thinking about the quantitatively convincing case that our pursuit of an ever-bigger scale of life faces gigantic challenges and carries significant risks.

“Note from Tom: To learn more about my personal perspective and whether you should dismiss some of my views as alarmist, read my Chicken Little page.”

I agree whole heartedly with Tom that (sic) “our pursuit of an ever-bigger scale of life faces gigantic challenges and carries significant risks”. But I disagree with his Chicken Little alarmism.

Everybody knows that Life carries significan risk, evolves in a violent universe and faces gigantic challenges. Yet here we are; and where we are headed nobody knows. I trust Life more than I trust Tom’s calculations; and I have posted links to another physicist who is not at all alarmist.

“It is difficult to make predictions; especially about the future” — Niels Bohr, physicist.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 5:41 PM
Reply to  NickM

What exactly are you trying to express by this tautological rant?

Why do you have to ascribe some -ist (alarmist) label to people to a priori discount what they have to say? Ever thought of simply discussing ideas?

As to where we’re headed, it’s pretty obvious. Into a major shitstorm. The juice that spins the wheels of this civilization is running out, not to mention that we’re drowning in our own shit.

Your cavalier attitude toward what happens kinda goes contrary to humankind’s intellectual efforts thus far, where people have been trying to figure out shit to make things better for themselves and to prevent bad stuff from happening. You might wanna give a thought to whether the sticking of your head in the fucking sand is not the manifestation of you being scared shitless of the grim future and subconsciously shutting it out. It kinda looks that way from where I’m standing.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 8:57 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

“The juice that spins the wheels of this civilization is running out”

When every miserable day or prematurely melted ice cream is held in support of this foregone conclusion, which we’re encouraged to accept as plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face common sense, how do we see past our own confirmation bias?

Perhaps we’re not meant to?

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 9:30 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

So, let’s take a step back and look at the whole circus, what’s happening.

There is clearly a huge effort to reduce industrialization, to reduce combustion-engine mobility, to slow everything down, to transition to renewables.

Why? Sure, you can claim that the PTBs are insane and after us, but if you introduce an irrational element in there, it’s anything goes and it no longer makes sense to reason or consider anything.

Anyway, if you put the pieces together, including what industry insiders say (https://www.artberman.com), the above statement makes sense. The world has entered into a poly-crisis that includes energy/resource scarcity, damaged ecology, fucked up culture, revolt on the part of actors that have traditionally had the short end of the stick, etc.

In other words, this is the best explanation for what’s happening.

I’ll stand corrected if I’m wrong.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Dec 29, 2023 10:36 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

You’re focusing on a consumer level. Eg. Selling electric cars to consumers, which rely on majority coal-generated electricity anyway and have a built in redundancy of about ten years. This might be seen as invigorating consumerism! Especially when you consider gas-powered cars, due to marketplace competition, are now running longer and more reliably than ever before.

This might be quite a different kettle of fish to what you’re describing. Especially when there are other agendas which stand to benefit from such scaremongering. You’re welcome to your opinion, of course. A2

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 30, 2023 6:17 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Switching to electric with the aim of replacing all the gas powered stuff could serve for that purpose, for sure. It’s clearle a DEAD END though. So, the likely purpose is to give people hope, provide something that will seemingly perpetuate the status qou.

On the other hand, deindustrialization is in full swing, which doesn’te mate with your hypothesis.

Try occam’s razor reasoning for a change – look for the most obvious explanation instead of projecting onto reality all the preconceptions accumulated in the spherical thing dangling on your neck

DM:
DM:
Dec 31, 2023 6:05 AM
Reply to  Ekologista

Wow! Russia, China, and India are de-industrializing?

I didn’t know that.

Balkydj
Balkydj
Jan 3, 2024 8:30 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

You really do not understand ENERGY, yet,
and the Transference of same… Equilibrium

** At minimum **

What constitutes energy,
Chemically ? Physically ?
Biologically ? Is Blackrock,
Alive ? Or, just magnetic?

Paul
Paul
Dec 29, 2023 6:06 PM
Reply to  NickM

He lost me at “has spent decades revelling in the study of astrophysics”. Studying lies to teach lies, what a pathetic waste of a man’s life.

Top Cat
Top Cat
Dec 30, 2023 7:00 AM
Reply to  Ekologista

I pretty much agree with you. But there’s one thing I’d like to know. It seems kind of strange to me that you get to be so abusive. I mean you curse and swear and raise the roof, and not only that but you disagree with the editorial opinion on here. So why are your posts not canceled? Are you a friend of the editors? I just don’t get it.

Sunface Jack
Sunface Jack
Dec 29, 2023 5:19 AM
Reply to  Ekologista

You need to recalibrate your brain fella.

For one reference as an example from an actuary that you use… Gail Tverberg hangs her hat on Malthusian theory, finite resources and Limits to Growth because of Climate Change and environmentalism that is at the core of the Club of Rome’s existence.
Many actuaries punt for the financial insurance industrial complex. Scare tactics and prophets of doom.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 3:41 PM
Reply to  Sunface Jack

Gail Tverberg provides tons of pertinent data and formulates eloquent conclusions.

Kinda the exact opposite of your self, if you catch my drift …

As far as “SCARE”, “FEAR”, etc.

The only people SCARED SHITLESS I see around are those who doggedly refuse to acknowledge the dwindling resources predicament and the consequent end of the present historical age, the forthcoming collapse of the industrial civilization.

The thought of no longer having the present luxuries makes you stick your fucking head in the fucking sand, or the asshole of some other idiot, and babble mantras about fucking malthuninisms and so on, as exhibited by most of the commenters here. And in real life too.

Get some balls, roll up your sleeves, and face the future. It will be different, but people will make do. Well, at least those who don’t jump off the fucking cliff out of chagrin that the party is over.

Elmo
Elmo
Dec 29, 2023 10:45 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

…fucking… fucking… idiot… fucking… fucking…

Yep, just as I said, and going by how hard you’re working here, I’m betting that you’re a paid troll. Either that or you don’t have a life, but then I guess it could be both. 😄

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 9:28 AM
Reply to  Ekologista

“sooner or later the Earth will not have the carrying capacity to sustain human population.”

I doubt whether ten billion more hairless apes would make much difference to the life-sustaining capacity of planet Earth. The evolutionary strategy of genus homo has sound and ancient roots: Social Cooperation, like the ants and the bees. In addition, like the rats, the seagulls and other species successful over widely different environments, homo is not a fussy feeder.

“If it walks, runs, hops, creeps, crawls, flies or swims the chances are you can eat it raw. But plants are stationary so beware, they protect themselves with poison.” – Airforce handbook for downed pilots.

“Animal life is merely a faint smear on the surface of plant life”.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 29, 2023 3:19 PM
Reply to  NickM

What exactly were you trying to express by evacuating the above words out of your brain?

Me understands not.

Either I’m too fucking stupid to comprehend your deep thoughts, or you’re too fucking stupid to formulate a coherent idea.

Elmo
Elmo
Dec 29, 2023 10:46 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

It’s the former.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 30, 2023 11:55 PM
Reply to  NickM

Think about the weight of 1 billion people. 1 billion x 80kg = 80 million ton deadweigth.
This alone could get the globe out of balance in the earth’s rotation around the sun, thus causing the entire global vaccinated population to fall off into space and die.

THIS would cause a disaster for our planet. Just pointing at facts here! 😎

underground poet
underground poet
Dec 29, 2023 12:00 PM
Reply to  Ekologista

The more zombies we produce, more people feel everything is fine and normal.

Ekologista
Ekologista
Dec 28, 2023 7:30 PM
Reply to  Willem

“believe in impending resource scarcity”… “ignorance of history”

Unlike Mike Crichton who presents NO FACTS whatsoever, only a collection of phantasms, people who – as you contemptuously, and endlessly ignorantly, imply – “believe” in the forthcoming scarcity of resources are industry specialists, experts, people doing lifelong research, people who got data and facts up the wazoo.

Examples of the work of such informed people include:

https://www.simonmichaux.com/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/
https://ourfiniteworld.com/author/gailtheactuary/
https://www.artberman.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@thegreatsimplification
https://un-denial.com/
https://karlnorth.com/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000171

Check out the stuff presented therein and compare it to the empty denialism of your guy or this text in which the authors admirably uses zillions of words to say nothing. Nothing positive that is. Trying to put a dent in efforts to tackle a holistic issue is not positive.

The predicament at play – regardless of how urgent the situation is at the moment, which is questionable – is a biological issue. OVERSHOOT. That’s over-fucking-shoot. Not some philosophical bullshit. Yes, the human population is in overshoot thanks to the discovery of fossil fuels and sooner or later the Earth will not have the carrying capacity to sustain human population. Or, autrement dit, there is a correlation between the availability, extraction, and use of resources and population size. If you ignore that and keep overindulging, your species will go extinct.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/12/a-story-of-mice-and-men/

The depletion of resources is not the only issue. The toxicity of the industrial age is another one. Humans are living a toxic lifestyle, poisoning everything left and right, fucking with the natural world, causing other species to disappear, playing fucking god with nature. Now, we’re NOT ABOVE FUCKING NATURE! Humans are part of the Earth ecosystem and Nature rules man, as opposed to vice versa. We’re shitting where we live in a monstrous way. Did you know that like one in seven young couples are unable to conceive offspring?

This has been going on for too long, centuries. People consider the current aberrational state of affairs normal (preposterous!). People like you are in denial, cognitive dissonance prevents you from facing reality. So, instead, you cling to vessels who are equally as empty and produce pseudo-logical and pseudo-philosophical arguments why everything is hunky-dory.

ariel
ariel
Dec 28, 2023 7:38 PM
Reply to  Willem

He was a brilliant researcher and author and early casualty of the present climate panic movement.

Veri Tas
Veri Tas
Dec 28, 2023 9:51 PM
Reply to  Willem

Who are the “we”?

In my view there are three groups of we: The “experts” and their enforcers; the ordinary people who do considerable research; and the masses who simply comply with whatever comes from the top.

That middle group, it appears to me, is powerless against the first and latter group working together.

NickM
NickM
Dec 29, 2023 9:05 AM
Reply to  Willem

“I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.” — Willem.

“All I know for sure is that I know nothing for sure” — Socrates.

“Que Sai’Je?” — Motto of Montaigne.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 28, 2023 6:11 PM

The article presents a
“Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL)Main image: CLINTEL
BackgroundThe Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is a Netherlands-based1 climate science denial group founded in 2019 by retired professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and journalist Marcel Crok.2 Its principal view is that “there is no climate emergency.”3
According to Dutch broadcaster KRO-NCRV Pointer, the 800 “scientists, scholars, and professionals” that support CLINTEL have “conducted little to no climate research.”4 DeSmog analysis has found that the list of signatories includes a commercial fisherman, a retired chemist, a cardiologist, and an air-conditioning engineer, alongside a number of retired geologists.5
The organisation has close ties to Forum voor Democratie, the main Dutch nationalist party, and its leader Thierry Baudet, who has quoted statements by CLINTEL in the country’s House of Representatives.6
Various members of CLINTEL’s list of ambassadors, and its extended list of signatories, have connections to libertarian free-market groups with a history of climate science denial, including the Heartland Institute [Recipient of massive funding by Exxon and the rest of the oil/energy industry], the Cato Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.7 All three organisations are members of the Koch-funded Atlas Network.8 9…
CLINTEL is largely funded by real estate millionaire Niek Sandmann,18who has invested half a million euros in the organisation, and real estate entrepreneur Cor Verkade.19
Additionally, research by Follow the Money and the Platform Authentic Journalism, two Dutch investigative journalism sites, and data-journalism broadcaster Pointer (KRO–NCRV), found that oil money built up from the 1990s has filtered its way into the foundations of CLINTEL.20
An article on Follow the Money’s site explains that Guus Berkhout founded the Delphi Consortium, a company that develops geo-imaging technology for the oil and gas industry, in 1982. Over 30 fossil fuel organisations were committed to paying €30,000 to €55,000 per year to have access to Delphi’s research, including Shell, BP and Chevron.21
In 2014, Berkhout started another research project called the Center for Global Socio-Economic Change (CFGSEC), with €1.2 million of funding coming from the Delphi Consortium. With a network he built from this project, Berkhout founded CLINTEL.22
Both Berkhout and Crok have denied that there is any oil or gas funding behind CLINTEL.23″
https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/

Top Cat
Top Cat
Dec 30, 2023 7:07 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

You seem to be able to show a lot of concrete proof that the people who are opposed to fixing global warming seem to be funded by the oil and the gas and the coal. I find it strange how those who agree with them just do not like to think about this peculiar and yet obvious if you think about it association. It’s like, what do they call that, I read it on here somewhere, I think, is it, uh, cognitive dissonance?

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Dec 28, 2023 6:10 PM

A most interesting collection of observations in this article.

Here are a few more things for questioning folks to consider:

  1. ‘How do you define ‘global temperature’? Is it an average of land-based surface temperatures? Do you add surface sea/ice temperatures? Do you measure total heat stored in solid carbon on land, total heat stored throughout the depths of the oceans, do you measure the total heat stored in all levels of the atmosphere to the point where the earth’s gravitational field is pretty minimal? What does the effect of ‘temperature definition’ have on what is posited to be the value?
  2. If the science is ‘settled’, why do we still have to give money to computer modellers?
  3. How many people have compared the communication style of ‘the climate squirearchy’ with Wall Street hustlers??
  4. Why are tree stumps found when glaciers retreat to levels higher than the current tree line????
  5. What are the effects of modifying atmospheric composition using metallic elements?
  6. How well can humans control the size and maximum pressure of major high pressure cells in the earth’s weather system? By doing so, what effect do they have on ‘weather’?
  7. How well can humans create extreme rainfall events through cloud seeding? What effect does this have on global weather, and ‘climate change’?
  8. Do humans have the capability to use EMR to mimic incoming solar radiation? If so, what effects could that have on global climate?
  9. Do humans have the capability to induce earthquakes using focussed beams of EMR? If so, what effects could that have on the earth?

You can all tell that I am a confirmed ‘climate sceptic’, just as anyone with a scientific bent should be.

I have a healthy skepticism considered very dangerous by controlling politicians, security service psychos and billionaire control freaks/eugenicists.

One of the dangers of being a ‘skeptic’ is that you don’t believe something just because a Professor said it, you don’t believe it even if a Chief Government Scientist says so. You believe it if the available evidence suggests that it be so and you measure your belief in terms of relative levels of uncertainty in your position.

Finally, a skeptic is open to changing their position if the evidence changes. A True Believer rarely does, because they have built a whole psyche around unchangeable truths.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 29, 2023 1:22 AM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

Sea surface temps are definitely part of the average, in fact a key reason why it generally doesn’t fluctuate at high rates, why in history changes which have happened took LONG periods to fully occur. This makes the current rate of increase highly unusual, in fact unique.
Long term computer modelers are simply trying to make predictions about how fast things will happen. And even what will happen in certain areas. The latter IMHO is a fool’s errand. The former is more valid, but the outstanding fact about that is that changes are happening faster than the most drastic case scenarios have painted in the past, with terms like “unprecedented,” “worse than expected,”… being repeatedly used in updates.
3??? Guilt by association.
4, Glaciers have expanded before in certain areas. This hasn’t happened in epochs, and they are melting at unprecedented rates world wide, not just in some regions and not others.
5. Effects are not enabling of any specific outcomes in specific areas.
6.Humans have ZERO ability to control high pressure cells, which are the results of global weather patterns. Have you any idea of how much energy would be needed to affect such a cell? If you did, you’d know it’s beyond the scope of available energy generation for the entire planet.
7. Cloud seeding requires… clouds. Requires favorable humidity conditions, favorable airflow patterns, favorable dynamics. The seeding is the least important part, and the only one which can be controlled.
8.. Mimic solar radiation? Using what as the power source? 9. Geology has zip to do with electromagnetic radiation.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 28, 2023 6:02 PM

Virology has never been a science, a branch of inquiry about the physical world which relies upon repeatable, falsifiable experiments using independent variables. On the other hand, climate science is precisely such a field of knowledge. It’s based upon thermodynamics and fluid mechanics/gas dynamics, fields of knowledge which go back millennia. Arguments which dismiss climate science on the basis that virology is a fraud are thus non-starters.

Part I of this article featured an alleged “debunking” of global warming, particularly relying upon the work of Joseph Postma. Tim Ball, the supposedly renegade climate scientist, whose page published Postma’s paper,  has gotten Exxon funding, by the way. Remember how Exxon completely suppressed the very existence of a study by its own scientists which demonstrated CO2 increases will drive drastic climate destabilization. and instead took a public position “refuting” global warming, indeed sponsoring organizations such and the Heartland Institute which attack the concept

A different view of Postma’s paper is presented here, demonstrating the poor science behind the paper.

Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect,Chris Colose, 8/17/11.
https://skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html

Veri Tas
Veri Tas
Dec 28, 2023 10:02 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

I admit I know nothing about climate science or who funds whom in this game of control of the narrative and, ultimately, of the people.

However, it seems to me a distinct possibility that either side of “the science” cannot arrive at the truth so long as the petri dish model of climate continues to be applied. We are not living in a snow globe.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 29, 2023 1:05 AM
Reply to  Veri Tas

Petri dish model?

Veri Tas
Veri Tas
Dec 29, 2023 10:23 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

“…  thermodynamics and fluid mechanics/gas dynamics… I had to do a bunch of those in labs for my engineering courses, towards getting the degree.”

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 31, 2023 2:51 AM
Reply to  Veri Tas

It must be awful to have taken an Msc degree and later discover the whole thing and all the complicated calculations and books, all was based on a wrong basic assumption.

I am thinking of these “climatology” professors. Other degrees could be mentioned. It turned out to be a wrong religion.

DM:
DM:
Dec 31, 2023 6:11 AM
Reply to  Veri Tas

climate science is an oxymoron.

Elmo
Elmo
Dec 29, 2023 3:29 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Virology has never been a science, a branch of inquiry about the physical world which relies upon repeatable, falsifiable experiments using independent variables. On the other hand, climate science is precisely such a field of knowledge. It’s based upon thermodynamics and fluid mechanics/gas dynamics, fields of knowledge which go back millennia. Arguments which dismiss climate science on the basis that virology is a fraud are thus non-starters.

How is a science “based upon thermodynamics and fluid mechanics/gas dynamics, fields of knowledge which go back millennia.” in any way equivalent to a science that “relies upon repeatable, falsifiable experiments using independent variables.”?

“Arguments which dismiss climate science on the basis that virology is a fraud are thus non-starters.” Nice little straw man fallacy there, pal.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 29, 2023 5:57 AM
Reply to  Elmo

Not remotely a “straw man,” i’ve gotten that argument a bunch of times on this page, i.e. “it’s all from the same source, the people who brought us the Scamdemic and the fake virus.”

And seriously? You think thermodynamics and fluid mechanics/gas dynamics don’t have such experiments? I had to do a bunch of those in labs for my engineering courses, towards getting the degree.

Elmo
Elmo
Dec 29, 2023 10:35 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

If the MSM and entities such as the WEF and UN are constantly pushing it, the odds are highly in favour of it being a load of crap, regardless of what the more gullible amongst us think.

You were able to carry out those “experiments” of yours in an environment that replicated the behaviour of the atmosphere, right? 😂

Corona Hotspot
Corona Hotspot
Dec 28, 2023 5:29 PM

The unsettled science is a very settled fraud on an unprecedented scale. It’s like the virus lie, but different. Or the J-lie, but also different.

ariel
ariel
Dec 28, 2023 9:58 PM
Reply to  Corona Hotspot

It’s the usual story. Just follow the MONEY.
Politics is money.
Net Zero is Climate Change is politics IS BIG BIG MONEY,
And top down control.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 29, 2023 1:04 AM
Reply to  Corona Hotspot

It is as if the world is being divided quite precise up in two parts.

The ones who are coming from an ape, get all jabs and are together with the Liar, and the ones who are not afraid to see how our universe is designed together with its Creator.

Paul
Paul
Dec 29, 2023 10:34 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

It’s exactly this. The Corona lie brought me to the Creator.

Pilgrim Shadow
Pilgrim Shadow
Dec 30, 2023 2:43 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

“I come not to bring peace, but a sword.”

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 31, 2023 12:52 AM
Reply to  Pilgrim Shadow

‘Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

You may say we have left our belongings to be your followers.

I tell you this, anyone who has left home, or father, mother, wife, children, land for the kingdom of God, shall be rewarded a hundred times over on earth, and inherit the Kingdom of God.

Quite a strong verse.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 31, 2023 3:39 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen