#153. One for the sceptics. Free Will or Determinism , The Climate Religion Rowsons #Perspectiva

Perspectiva #ClimateCultReligion #DasFeelvia #153. One for the sceptics

das-feel-1-1

 

 

Sorry for the typos in my previous post.
Just to wrap up here as I do not wish to just argue with myself.
I had a discussion back in April With the Author and another of his Followers of a 3 part blog post on Watts Up with That. The title of the Posts was as Follows.

Peak Oil, Abiotic Oil & EROEI: Real(ish) Things That Don’t Matter, Part One: Peak Oil
David Middleton / April 22, 2019

Peak Oil, Abiotic Oil & EROEI: Real(ish) Things That Don’t Matter, Part One: Peak Oil

EROEI
“EROEI is the preferred energy metric for Malthusians, environmental activists, Warmunists and proponents of uneconomic energy sources. The invention of this concept is generally credited to an ecology professor…”

Will give you a flavour, this wing of the Climate debate is I think as useful to the Political project of CO2 Carbon Trading as the Catastrophist Wing, both are fueled by, Polemic, Rhetoric and Emotional bed wetting and dummy spitting Its a Manichean thing and this Roger Pelke Junior Talk at the GWPF is worth watching on that point regarding the Polarised debate and Religous fervour pursued on both sides, parading their Hurt Feelings and needing to repair to their various Churches or Cult HQ,s A bracket into which I would place the Perspectiva, project of Rowson.

I took David Middleton to Task on his Appeals to the Rhetoric and Ad Hominem rather than tackling the substantive issues of Energy-based metrics for Energy investment and Consumption Decisions.

“The unit of account in a Fiat money system is an arbitrary unit basing a unit of account upon an SI Unit of energy makes a great deal of sense if you do not wish to be robbed of your skin in the game by the money laundering Banksters- Sadly the Author of this piece has gone off at half-cock failing to define terms and set boundary conditions. Watch Glassmans talk and slide show and try again-

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dv8avoovsHqr/

“Clowns to the left of me Jokers to the Right. Useful idiots for usury everywhere. Watts up With That #LimitstoNouse https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/04/25/clowns-to-the-left-of-me-jokers-to-the-right-useful-idiots-for-usury-everywhere-watts-up-with-that-limitstonouse/ The Author lets us all down that insist that empirical evidence must be respected in The Debate about climate. Economics and Political Economy are imprecise pseudo-scientific priesthoods every bit as manufactured and absurd as Micheal Mann and his desperado band of cultist cool-aid hawkers. Steelers Wheel sums it up really. Quite one of the worse articles I have read here. ”

https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/04/25/clowns-to-the-left-of-me-jokers-to-the-right-useful-idiots-for-usury-everywhere-watts-up-with-that-limitstonouse/

The Exchanges in the discussion are pasted into the comments of my own blog pointing at the David Middleton series of articles, the 3 articles and all the comments are worth reading David is a very Knowledgable Oil Industry Engineer,
The point regarding the Role of Debt-based money in the Late Stage Financialised State monopoly Capitalism under which most people are net losers and a vanishingly small percentage are net Gainers, is hard to see There is a very real sense of Peak Ignorance around the current Hiatus we face as the Paradigm shift takes place.
The Shift To what is the question? ultimately ending on a Philosophical note the argument boils down to Determinism or Free Will and Herecletus or Parmenides.

As a Pelagian and a religious man myself, I do not need Rowson’s ethical code to point me in the direction of the Cult of #WrongKindofGreen I stand with Liberty, Free will and bow to no man,

https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/it-is-who-you-know-and-what-you-believe-that-counts-the-semi-establishment-pelagianism-of-bremain-brexit-brino-dominiccummings-cynics-saw-what-people-could-be-and-were-angered-by-what-they-h/

  1. THREADS

    #1…Greta Thunberg tweet:
    It’s 2019. Can we all now stop saying Climate Change and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological emergency, and ecological breakdown?

    And from Kristin Lin this week:
    #2…The language we use has a real power to influence how we understand our world — and act in it. It’s an idea that Jonathan Rowson, an applied philosopher and chess grandmaster, takes up in this weeks On Being. “Finding the right form and the right reverberation of language really makes a difference in terms of how people feel it,” he says.

    Rowson is the founder of Perspectiva, a research organization developing a framework for thinking about how social change happens. As its tagline, “systems, souls, society,” suggests, Perspectiva is interested in drawing out the relationship and dynamics between individual and collective consciousness — which, Rowson explains, is particularly helpful for thinking about climate change.

    “The crisis of climate change is a crisis of disconnection between the facts and the feelings,” he says. “We know something is true; we don’t feel that it’s true. We don’t live as if it’s true.”

    This disconnection is where language can act as a bridge. And Rowson believes that the right language can change the world. “It changes conversations, which changes cultures, which changes practices.”

    and #3….

    Brian: The disease care model really doesn’t get to the root cause does it, Jason?

    Jason: No. It’s patchwork at best. And fundamentally, actually I think that the biggest disservice we do is that, if the disease care model works at resolving our symptoms, we’re actually bypassing the real work that we need to do, right? So, it’s almost it’s more detrimental if we actually get solutions with the disease care model, because we’re not getting the real solutions. We’re sort of masking over it.

    I think the real opportunity is to understand what the symptoms are so that we can get to the root cause resolution, which always has to do with how we’re living out of alignment. And there’s a lack of congruence with the way we think, the way we feel, and the way that we act in the world, and then in our lifestyle. So, that’s really the opportunity. So, I think we have to sort of change our mindset to go from “Let me get rid of this thing that I’m experiencing” to, “Let me understand this and learn how to really move through it so that it cannot exist.”

    Brian: That’s pretty profound that it’s detrimental, in all likelihood, that we if we get what seems like solutions from the conventional disease care model, folks beware. Because it may seem that’s the case and in fact it is likely not. And that is a great way to segue into my little imagine scenario here which is this, I know in this pretend thing that we call free time that you are a fan of golfing. So—

    Jason: Yeah. I love golf—

    Brian: Okay, good. So, then let’s say that you and I have gone through, I don’t know, nine holes already. You’re beating my butt because I am an absolutely terrible golfer, though I enjoy it. And I figure now is the prime opportunity, Jason, to ask you a big question that I’ve been meaning to ask. So, I say, “Hey Jason, from your area of expertise, what are the three most essential things people must do to look their best, feel their best, and live a long life doing it?” What would your first most essential be?

    Jason: I think, especially in our Western world and the life that we’ve created for ourselves, primarily in U.S. and Canada and UK and this type of thing, I think we have to get moving again. We’ve really created a poor relationship with movement. Most of us sit around all day on a computer working. I mean this is what I do. It’s part of my life as well. This is the modern world we’ve created. So we’ve got to find ways to get moving again and incorporate movement into our life on a more regular basis.

    Worst case scenario, yes, going and doing a 20 to 30-minute workout is great, or going to a yoga class and a cycling class, or whatever it might be. Then that’s all good stuff. But I think we need to change the relationship with movement and figure out a way we can move more. It’s funny. You go into like an airport, you know, you’re flying out somewhere, and you see people riding the escalator, right? And they just have a backpack on or a small bag.

    What’s the reason that they’re riding an escalator? It’s not like you have these big pieces of luggage necessarily. Or even if you have luggage, a lot of times you can actually carry them upstairs, right? A really good way to get exercise. Or you see people taking those people movers that are literally these belts on the on flat ground, and they just stand there while the belt moves them down the terminal. I mean I kind of jokingly point this out because we’ve really just we’re not even aware of some of the things that we’re doing. We’re just sort of getting lazy with our movement.

    So, you know, movement is so profoundly beneficial for the mind and the body that we must incorporate it. And I think the best way to do so is to find the things that you really enjoy and do that do more of that. You know, whether that’s playing with your kids or playing with your pets, going for a walk, it doesn’t really matter. I mean if you love marathons, whatever it is, make sure you enjoy it. A lot of us I see that we’re trying to force movement into our lives, and we don’t really enjoy it. We actually dread it.

    And I think psychologically that’s tough, because you’re creating a situation where a portion of your day you don’t even like. And you’re doing it because—most of the time we’re doing it because we don’t like something about ourselves, whether it’s we don’t have enough muscle, or we have too much fat and we’re trying to get rid of that. Or we’re trying to lower our blood pressure or something we’re trying to do that’s—so we’re trying to counteract something, right?

    And I think if we just include some movement styles that we really enjoy, include more play and more fun in our life, that is profoundly effective. And for those who have physical jobs, a high demand for physical labor in their jobs, that can be a really good thing just because you’re moving a lot. And it’s really funny. As a practitioner when I would run, you know, blood work and hormone panels and microbiome labs and all kinds of different lab work, I found that the people that really moved a lot and did a lot of exercise and enjoyed, it was amazing how many other poor decisions they could make, and exercise surprisingly made up for it.

    and #4…

    Nitric oxide is made by the blood vessels’ lining, or endothelium. The endothelium is exquisitely sensitive to the physical and chemical conditions inside our blood vessels. When the endothelium senses heart-healthy conditions, such as physical activity and low cholesterol, it releases more nitric oxide. And that’s a very good thing. Nitric oxide expands the blood vessels, increasing blood flow and decreasing plaque growth and blood clotting.

    Conversely, when the endothelium senses high cholesterol, high blood pressure, smoking, or emotional distress, it releases less nitric oxide, and atherosclerosis (heart disease) accelerates.

    Penile erection depends on the release of nitric oxide. Viagra and other drugs like it that reduce erectile dysfunction work on the next step of the nitric oxide pathway. Are impotence and atherosclerosis closely related? Absolutely. Any lifestyle no-no that decreases nitric oxide, such as smoking, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol levels, causes both problems.

    Nitroglycerin, which my grandfather took to relieve his chest pain, works by being converted into nitric oxide. In a sense, nitric oxide is the body’s own nitroglycerin. If you had first discovered how nitroglycerin and nitric oxide work, as three Americans (Robert Furchgott, Lewis Ignarro, and Ferid Murad) did, in 1998 you would have won the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Nitric oxide is that important.

    Suggestion:

    I believe that the notion put forward by Greta Thunberg and Kristin Lin and Jason Prall and the Pritikin Center, that language is important is one essential ingredient in adjusting to the notion that we have passed Peak Prosperity, and then actually living with Peak Prosperity in the rear-view mirror. For example, if we speak of a trip to a conventional doctor as ‘getting my symptoms masked with drugs’, and if we describe a trip to the gym as ‘masking my symptoms with self-flagellation’…then everything changes. If, on the other hand, we go for a brisk walk or use a push mower to mow the lawn and feel the tingle in our fingertips, we can describe to ourself or our companion the evidence of nitric oxide and luxuriate in the knowledge that the body is telling us ‘All is Well’.

    Peak Prosperity means, among other things: peak symptom hiding; peak dysfunctional behavior; and peak mental and physical stressors. This is not to downplay the real stressors that arise out of change…but maybe changing our language changes our thought processes which changes our real-world reactions and eases transitions.

    Don Stewart

    • The ideas behind Climate Communication are deeply Stalinist.
      There is any number of examples of Communication and PR experts, not scientists imploring their charges to not mention numbers, people do not understand that stuff.

      Its a short step from avoiding the numbers to defining the boundaries of Wrong Think and setting out the Thought Criminal Gulag.

      Non-Platforming was debated at the Oxford Union last week
      This is Katie Hopkins against the proposition

      The whole thing is worth watching.

      If one has a Position to set out on any issue political or Scientific or even about the Soccer, The Baseball or Starting prices for the 3.30 at Doncaster, Then set out that position Frankly Don,

      “The crisis of climate change is a crisis of disconnection between the facts and the feelings,” he says. This opening statement is a telling clue to the purpose of this sort of ANti Free speech for the little people Stance. Make your own arguments and stop projecting your own prejudices onto the arguments of others.

      Authentic Discourses on Decisions to Act.
      A golden Rule in folklores Canon
      holds what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the Gander
      do unto others that which to you would be done
      thus applied in discussion, we should always avoid slander.
      Leave at the first introduction
      the habits of Authority and induction
      When those listening seem deaf to what you tell
      refrain if you please from poisoning the well
      if your working hypothesis requires certitude
      refrain from tailoring cloth that renders the emperor nude
      If to your point, you wish others to allude
      refrain from a hypocritical sneering attitude.
      When your correspondent appeals to evidence
      consider their sources, were they well meant?
      In all matters, skepticism will serve you with equivalence
      and always remember to mistrust the Government.
      “man müsse das Volk stets in Armuth erhalten, damit es gehorsam bleibe.”(2)
      Belloc characterised the reformation as

      ´´a rising of the rich against the poor´´,(1)

      ´and indeed Calvin had written the unfortunate statement:

      ´´The people must always be kept in poverty in order that they remain obedient´´.(2)

      p.198 Lost Science of Money.(1)
      https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/authentic-discourses-on-decisions-to-act/

  2. @roger lewis
    ‘ clue to the purpose of this sort of ANti Free speech for the little people Stance’

    I looked at the Perspectiva website and saw nothing that looked like censorship. I suspect that when he describes people as knowing but not feeling, he is describing Climate Scientists as well as ordinary people. If Climate Scientists actually felt what is about to happen, would they carry on with Business as Usual?

    As for what is about to happen, a very recent paper from a single MIT professor explored the chemical makeup of the oceans and the previous mass extinctions. The result is a simple model which explains why the mass extinctions occurred when they did. It’a about tipping points, beyond which the collapse becomes basically irreversible (like a canoe approaching the tipping point). The author calculates that we are currently very close to that tipping point.

    Now the Establishment doesn’t want to hear anything about tipping points….the Earth will get a little warmer and probably the Arctic ocean melts and that will expand GDP opportunities in the Arctic and the governments of the US, Canada, and Russia are eagerly looking forward to it. Climate scientists mostly don’t want to hear about tipping points either…James Hansen has described everything as just linearly increasing the odds of warmer weather. The MIT paper says that ‘no, it is not linear, it is abrupt and irreversible’.

    Anybody can rebut the MIT paper and show that the chemical equations are wrong, that the geological record has been misrepresented, and that we actually have nothing to worry about….But don’t hold your breath.

    The point remains…if we actually now ‘know’ that Extinction is where we are headed, can we feel that sufficiently to change our behavior? Because we know behavior results from feelings.

    Don Stewart

    • Don, Catastrophic End Times prophesy is nothing new. It sells newspapers and allows Politicians easy sound bites.
      Regarding Self Evident Truths I like this from the anonymous response to the Publication of the US declaration of Independence penned by Jeremy Bentham,

      “They are about “to assume,” as they tell us, “among the powers of the earth, that equal and separate ( 120 ) station to which” — they have lately discovered — “the laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God entitle them.” What difference these acute legislators suppose between the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, is more than I can take upon me to determine, or even to guess. If to what they now demand they were entitled by any law of God, they had only to produce that law, and all controversy was at an end. Instead of this, what do they produce? What they call sell-evident truths. “All men,” they tell us, “are created equal.” This rarity is a new discovery; now, for the first time, we learn, that a child, at the moment of his birth, has the same quantity of natural power as the parent, the same quantity of political power as the magistrate”.

      “We know behaviour results from feelings”, do we Don, its a bit more involved than that isn’t it the Ancients gave us The Ring of Gyges, and the 1960’s the invisible man. The Question of Belief and Knowledge and Truth are the intractable and eternal problem of Philosophy.

      Psychologizing the failure of others to agree with our point of view is a terrible turn in modern discourse.

      Greta Thornberry is a modern-day Joan of Arc and no better than any other charlatan. That there is terrible environmental damage being done I do not disagree with, that CO2 is a pollutant or any danger whatsoever is falsified beyond any reasonable doubt, hence the move to legislate the Quackery as state decreed truth.
      We have nothing to fear but the fear and especially the Manufactured fear from the vested interests of State Monopoly Capitalism.

      I am not a fully paid-up member of the Das Feel squad Don, never will be. Produce your evidence and subject your methodology to Falsification by others.
      Feelings, Bar Hum Bug.

  3. @Roger
    You claim, as I understand you:
    *CO2 is not a poison in any sense of that term, and so the MIT study with its geological evidence and chemical equations must be wrong. Probably you would add an addendum claiming that the peer review the paper survived is a sham.
    *How humans make decisions is a matter for Philosophy. I suppose you think that neuroscience has not shed any light on the subject.

    Life is too short to argue with you….Don Stewart

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “#153. One for the sceptics. Free Will or Determinism , The Climate Religion Rowsons #Perspectiva

  1. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1700906
    Here is the link to the full Paper.
    “This observation may help explain the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum’s modest biotic impact. The Frasnian-Famennian extinction provides another exception. Supposing that it is indeed a mass extinction, its presence well below the critical line illustrates an important point: Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle (2).

    Modern investigations of mass extinctions often emphasize a plurality of causes. Erwin’s “complex web of causality” (8, 37) addresses how a combination of volcanism, climate change, marine anoxia, methane release, and other environmental stressors may have contributed to the end-Permian extinction. Recent studies of the end-Cretaceous extinction consider massive volcanism (38) in addition to a bolide impact (39). Flood basalt eruptions are also clearly associated with the end-Triassic (40) and end-Permian (15) extinctions, but their contribution to CO2 levels is ostensibly modest (41). Evidently, the carbon cycle both indicates and excites Earth system change. These dual roles merge, however, if external perturbations cause the cycle to respond by magnifying the initial disturbance. System-wide instability may then follow. Because the critical rate rc bounds qualitatively different dynamical regimes, perturbations that exceed rc (at time scales much greater than τx) suggest such unstable evolution. The carbon cycle thus becomes one of many environmental stressors, and an array of causes is naturally implicated.”

    The Discussion part of the Paper is interesting in that it concedes, “Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle” (2).

    I would add to that last quote “If at all”

    And point those interested in the Ocean Chemistry of Carbon Sequestration to Prof. Glassmans Acquittal of CO2 particularly Ocean Solubility of CO2 and Henry’s Law.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20190402051937/http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

    ABSTRACT
    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

    Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

    Like

  2. rogerglewis
    on July 22, 2019 at 8:49 am said:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1700906
    Here is the link to the full Paper.
    “This observation may help explain the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum’s modest biotic impact. The Frasnian-Famennian extinction provides another exception. Supposing that it is indeed a mass extinction, its presence well below the critical line illustrates an important point: Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle (2).

    Modern investigations of mass extinctions often emphasize a plurality of causes. Erwin’s “complex web of causality” (8, 37) addresses how a combination of volcanism, climate change, marine anoxia, methane release, and other environmental stressors may have contributed to the end-Permian extinction. Recent studies of the end-Cretaceous extinction consider massive volcanism (38) in addition to a bolide impact (39). Flood basalt eruptions are also clearly associated with the end-Triassic (40) and end-Permian (15) extinctions, but their contribution to CO2 levels is ostensibly modest (41). Evidently, the carbon cycle both indicates and excites Earth system change. These dual roles merge, however, if external perturbations cause the cycle to respond by magnifying the initial disturbance. System-wide instability may then follow. Because the critical rate rc bounds qualitatively different dynamical regimes, perturbations that exceed rc (at time scales much greater than τx) suggest such unstable evolution. The carbon cycle thus becomes one of many environmental stressors, and an array of causes is naturally implicated.”

    The Discussion part of the Paper is interesting in that it concedes, “Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle” (2).

    I would add to that last quote “If at all”

    And point those interested in the Ocean Chemistry of Carbon Sequestration to Prof. Glassmans Acquittal of CO2 particularly Ocean Solubility of CO2 and Henry’s Law.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20190402051937/http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

    ABSTRACT
    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

    Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

    Like

  3. This is an excellent Paper on the Mathematics of Climate Change and Climate Change Alarmism, Climatology as opposed to Climate Politics, http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf “The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.” 1. This simple calculation clearly demonstrates that there are not enough stations to model the surface temperature of the globe, and satellites cannot replace surface stations. The reduction in the number of sensors being used is fundamentally unsound: temperature varies from one place to another, from one hour to the next, and this natural variability can be tracked only by a very dense network of sensors. p.16 2. Determining an average temperature for a system as complex as the Earth has no physical meaning. Unfortunately, this question, fundamental though it is, has never been tackled by organizations involved in meteorology. For them, the answer is simple: you take all the sensors and calculate the average! p.23 3. According to the British Met Office, ‗The global average temperature is the arithmetic mean of the northern hemisphere average and the southern hemisphere average.‘ This type of reasoning is being used by all the international bodies, and one might legitimately question its validity. The thermodynamic mean, for its part, is too complicated to apply and requires the use of models (with all their limitations and uncertainties). We might, however, wonder why the arithmetic mean is also being used in areas that are less well provided with sensors or have very high or very low temperatures. If we content ourselves with an unweighted arithmetic mean, then areas with the highest density of sensors are going to be over-represented! Our conclusion here is very clear: SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 – to calculate the arithmetic mean for the entire planet makes no sense and can only lead to errors; – you can calculate the arithmetic mean for areas well provided with sensors (Europe and the US), and compare the values from one year to another. This might provide information on local climate variation. p.26/27 4. On CO2 Measurement and concentration, Our conclusion is very clear: the entire methodology used to observe CO2 has to be overhauled before we can even think about the results that have been obtained by these observations. The first step is to correctly document the natural variability of CO2 concentrations (what affects them, and how do they manifest?). We must not forget that the aim here is to make a global assessment of CO2 concentrations in the entire atmosphere. Let us use a simple comparison to explain this. Let us imagine that we want to document incidents of sins committed by human beings. Before concluding that ‗we can restrict our investigations to the areas around cathedrals‘, which would at least have the merit of simplicity, we would have to find out about the ‗natural‘ variability of sin. Perhaps, in fact, more sins are committed far away from cathedrals? p.57 5. Cyclones. 3. Critical analysis In this case, we have been able to obtain raw data and conduct our own analysis, which clearly demonstrates, contrary to what we are all reading all the time, that there has been no increase in the number of cyclones over the past 40 years. We have found a slight increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 cyclones (the strongest), but the numbers are very small each year, and the increase might simply be due to changes in ‗accounting methods‘. A common deception is as follows: you begin by looking at cyclones that reach the US mainland (the ones that affect people and insurance companies) and you count them. Then you change the perimeter and include all cyclones in the North Atlantic, including ones that disperse at sea. Of course, the second group is bigger! As we said earlier, the statistics presented here cover all cyclones in the North Atlantic. p.67 6. Sea Level Rises. a. Two kinds of instruments are used: • Marigraphs, which have been around for 200 years; • Altimetry satellites, which measure the height of the satellite above the ocean; they have been around for 20 years, namely Topex/Poseidon (1992), Jason 1 (2001), Jason 2 (2008). The water level varies naturally: • Due to the tides (lunar attraction) • Due to wind and storms • Due to sea currents This being so, the estimates provided by marigraphs and satellites can be no more than averages, if possible over one year or several years, as phenomena such as El Niño affect the sea level for a year or more. p.68 b. E. Be careful! On Models. ( https://www.bitchute.com/video/dv8avoovsHqr/) As this issue has taken on a major political dimension, all kinds of statements are made by absolutely anyone at all. Great care is therefore called for when accepting information. 1. Models Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as 76 SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTK0LHclNFs Critical analysis The rising sea level is a basic thesis for journalists, to support the doctrine of global warming. They say, ―Look, the sea is rising, and so we are in danger‖. It is perfectly true that the sea level is rising, but essentially this is due to the cooling down of the core of the terrestrial globe which has been taking place gradually for five billion years. As a result of this contraction, the lighter areas (the oceans) tend to rise up in relation to the heavier areas (the mountains). This is simply a consequence of buoyancy, and human beings have nothing to do with it. p.77 That’s Chapter 1 summarised and is sufficient for responding to the Pariah Status proffered upon me by Ron. I would close only by Pointing interested and critical thinkers at the work of Clive Spash and his Paper The Brave New World of Carbon Trading. https://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf https://youtu.be/FTEaXBnXLts “A FIRE, A FIRE IS BURNING! I HEAR THE BOOT OF LUCIFER, I SEE HIS FILTHY FACE! AND IT IS MY FACE, AND YOURS, DANFORTH! FOR THEM THAT QUAIL TO BRING MEN OUT OF IGNORANCE, AS I HAVE QUAILED, AND AS YOU QUAIL NOW WHEN YOU KNOW IN ALL YOUR BLACKHEARTS THAT THIS BE FRAUD – GOD DAMNS OUR KIND ESPECIALLY, AND WE WILL BURN, WE WILL BURN TOGETHER!” ― ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE

    Like

  4. This is an excellent Paper on the Mathematics of Climate Change and Climate Change Alarmism, Climatology as opposed to Climate Politics, http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf “The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.” 1. This simple calculation clearly demonstrates that there are not enough stations to model the surface temperature of the globe, and satellites cannot replace surface stations. The reduction in the number of sensors being used is fundamentally unsound: temperature varies from one place to another, from one hour to the next, and this natural variability can be tracked only by a very dense network of sensors. p.16 2. Determining an average temperature for a system as complex as the Earth has no physical meaning. Unfortunately, this question, fundamental though it is, has never been tackled by organizations involved in meteorology. For them, the answer is simple: you take all the sensors and calculate the average! p.23 3. According to the British Met Office, ‗The global average temperature is the arithmetic mean of the northern hemisphere average and the southern hemisphere average.‘ This type of reasoning is being used by all the international bodies, and one might legitimately question its validity. The thermodynamic mean, for its part, is too complicated to apply and requires the use of models (with all their limitations and uncertainties). We might, however, wonder why the arithmetic mean is also being used in areas that are less well provided with sensors or have very high or very low temperatures. If we content ourselves with an unweighted arithmetic mean, then areas with the highest density of sensors are going to be over-represented! Our conclusion here is very clear: SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 – to calculate the arithmetic mean for the entire planet makes no sense and can only lead to errors; – you can calculate the arithmetic mean for areas well provided with sensors (Europe and the US), and compare the values from one year to another. This might provide information on local climate variation. p.26/27 4. On CO2 Measurement and concentration, Our conclusion is very clear: the entire methodology used to observe CO2 has to be overhauled before we can even think about the results that have been obtained by these observations. The first step is to correctly document the natural variability of CO2 concentrations (what affects them, and how do they manifest?). We must not forget that the aim here is to make a global assessment of CO2 concentrations in the entire atmosphere. Let us use a simple comparison to explain this. Let us imagine that we want to document incidents of sins committed by human beings. Before concluding that ‗we can restrict our investigations to the areas around cathedrals‘, which would at least have the merit of simplicity, we would have to find out about the ‗natural‘ variability of sin. Perhaps, in fact, more sins are committed far away from cathedrals? p.57 5. Cyclones. 3. Critical analysis In this case, we have been able to obtain raw data and conduct our own analysis, which clearly demonstrates, contrary to what we are all reading all the time, that there has been no increase in the number of cyclones over the past 40 years. We have found a slight increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 cyclones (the strongest), but the numbers are very small each year, and the increase might simply be due to changes in ‗accounting methods‘. A common deception is as follows: you begin by looking at cyclones that reach the US mainland (the ones that affect people and insurance companies) and you count them. Then you change the perimeter and include all cyclones in the North Atlantic, including ones that disperse at sea. Of course, the second group is bigger! As we said earlier, the statistics presented here cover all cyclones in the North Atlantic. p.67 6. Sea Level Rises. a. Two kinds of instruments are used: • Marigraphs, which have been around for 200 years; • Altimetry satellites, which measure the height of the satellite above the ocean; they have been around for 20 years, namely Topex/Poseidon (1992), Jason 1 (2001), Jason 2 (2008). The water level varies naturally: • Due to the tides (lunar attraction) • Due to wind and storms • Due to sea currents This being so, the estimates provided by marigraphs and satellites can be no more than averages, if possible over one year or several years, as phenomena such as El Niño affect the sea level for a year or more. p.68 b. E. Be careful! On Models. ( https://www.bitchute.com/video/dv8avoovsHqr/) As this issue has taken on a major political dimension, all kinds of statements are made by absolutely anyone at all. Great care is therefore called for when accepting information. 1. Models Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as 76 SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTK0LHclNFs Critical analysis The rising sea level is a basic thesis for journalists, to support the doctrine of global warming. They say, ―Look, the sea is rising, and so we are in danger‖. It is perfectly true that the sea level is rising, but essentially this is due to the cooling down of the core of the terrestrial globe which has been taking place gradually for five billion years. As a result of this contraction, the lighter areas (the oceans) tend to rise up in relation to the heavier areas (the mountains). This is simply a consequence of buoyancy, and human beings have nothing to do with it. p.77 That’s Chapter 1 summarised and is sufficient for responding to the Pariah Status proffered upon me by Ron. I would close only by Pointing interested and critical thinkers at the work of Clive Spash and his Paper The Brave New World of Carbon Trading. https://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf https://youtu.be/FTEaXBnXLts “A FIRE, A FIRE IS BURNING! I HEAR THE BOOT OF LUCIFER, I SEE HIS FILTHY FACE! AND IT IS MY FACE, AND YOURS, DANFORTH! FOR THEM THAT QUAIL TO BRING MEN OUT OF IGNORANCE, AS I HAVE QUAILED, AND AS YOU QUAIL NOW WHEN YOU KNOW IN ALL YOUR BLACKHEARTS THAT THIS BE FRAUD – GOD DAMNS OUR KIND ESPECIALLY, AND WE WILL BURN, WE WILL BURN TOGETHER!” ― ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE

    @AdjyLeak
    @storjproject
    @ErikVoorhees
    @WeAreChangeNYC
    @alexandria
    @KimDotcom
    @BlocktechCEO
    @OpenIndexProto 
    @FLOblockchain
    @Suitpossum
    @ActivistPost
    @DanDicksPFT
    @IluvCO2
    @Piers_Corbyn
    Ian56789
    @juanbenet
    @Free_Ross
    @realbitcoinwiki
    @aantonop
    @Brett_Shavers
    @OpenIndexProto 
    @Suitpossum
    @MrTardigradeUK
    @2013Boodicca
    @financialeyes
    @JoeBlob20

    @RealM_Shrimpton
    @Albion_Rover
    @RichieAllenShow
    @briangukc
    @markwindows
    @JoeBlob20
    @TonyGosling
    @davidicke
    @Ian56789
    @MrTardigradeUK
    @IanRCrane
    @_Spinflight_
    @deYook
    @ShoebridgeC

    #ConquestofDough #NaziPug #AlisonChabloz #LabourAntiSemitism #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy #FreeAssange #OnLineHarmsAct #Section13 #EUssr #StalagLuftBlighty #MAGA #MEGA

    @ErikVoorhees @WeAreChangeNYC @alexandria @KimDotcom @BlocktechCEO @OpenIn…

    #GrubStreetTags
    #GrubStreetJournal
    #GrubStreetPolitics
    #GrubStreetGeoPolitics
    #GrubStreetPoliticalEconomy
    #GrubStreetMoneyandFinance
    #GrubStreetFilm
    #GrubStreetMainStreamMedia
    #GrubStreetSamizdat
    #GrubStreetDissidentContent
    #GrubStreetWeb3
    #GrubStreetonAlexandria
    #GrubStreetIPFS
    #GrubStreetOIP
    #GrubStreetDunciad
    #GrubStreetObjectiveKhunts
    #GrubStreetHumour
    #GrubStreetErotica
    #GrubStreetArtandLetters
    #GrubStreetExegesis
    #GrubStreetFaithandSpitituality
    #GrubStreetCensoredindEADtREEANDhttpiNTERWEBS
    #AgrubStreetPublishedScribler
    #GrubStreetMultiMedia
    #GrubStreetVideo
    #GrubStreetPolemic
    #GrubStreetRhetoric
    #GrubStreetSatire
    #GrubStreetComediaVulgaris
    #GrubStreetCallOutCallsBS
    #GrubStreetPamphlets
    #GrubStreetEssays
    #GrubStreetPhilosophy
    #GrubStreetScience
    #GrubStreetEnergy
    #GrubStreetGreenFascism
    #GrubStreetWrongKindOfGreen
    #GrubStreetWikiBallot
    #GrubStreetPDC
    #PersonalDestinyControl
    #GrubStreetInfoWars
    #GrubStreetRadio
    #GrubStreetSteppinOuttaBabylon
    #GrubStreetEscapingTheMatrix
    #GrubStreetRedPill
    #GrubStreetLyrics
    #GrubStreetPoetry
    #GrubStreetMusic
    #GrubStreetSapereAude
    #GrubStreetThroughtheGiftShop

    Like

  5. This is an excellent Paper on the Mathematics of Climate Change and Climate Change Alarmism, Climatology as opposed to Climate Politics, http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf “The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the

    Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.” 1. This simple calculation clearly demonstrates that there are not enough stations to model the surface temperature of the globe, and satellites cannot replace surface stations. The reduction in the number of sensors being used is fundamentally unsound: temperature varies from one place to another, from one hour to the next, and this natural variability can be tracked only by a very dense network of sensors. p.16 2. Determining an average temperature for a system as complex as the Earth has no physical meaning. Unfortunately, this question, fundamental though it is, has never been tackled by organizations involved in meteorology. For them, the answer is simple: you take all the sensors and calculate the average! p.23 3. According to the British Met Office, ‗The global average temperature is the arithmetic mean of the northern hemisphere average and the southern hemisphere average.‘ This type of reasoning is being used by all the international bodies, and one might legitimately question its validity. The thermodynamic mean, for its part, is too complicated to apply and requires the use of models (with all their limitations and uncertainties). We might, however, wonder why the arithmetic mean is also being used in areas that are less well provided with sensors or have very high or very low temperatures. If we content ourselves with an unweighted arithmetic mean, then areas with the highest density of sensors are going to be over-represented! Our conclusion here is very clear: SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 – to calculate the arithmetic mean for the entire planet makes no sense and can only lead to errors; – you can calculate the arithmetic mean for areas well provided with sensors (Europe and the US), and compare the values from one year to another. This might provide information on local climate variation. p.26/27 4. On CO2 Measurement and concentration, Our conclusion is very clear: the entire methodology used to observe CO2 has to be overhauled before we can even think about the results that have been obtained by these observations. The first step is to correctly document the natural variability of CO2 concentrations (what affects them, and how do they manifest?). We must not forget that the aim here is to make a global assessment of CO2 concentrations in the entire atmosphere. Let us use a simple comparison to explain this. Let us imagine that we want to document incidents of sins committed by human beings. Before concluding that ‗we can restrict our investigations to the areas around cathedrals‘, which would at least have the merit of simplicity, we would have to find out about the ‗natural‘ variability of sin. Perhaps, in fact, more sins are committed far away from cathedrals? p.57 5. Cyclones. 3. Critical analysis In this case, we have been able to obtain raw data and conduct our own analysis, which clearly demonstrates, contrary to what we are all reading all the time, that there has been no increase in the number of cyclones over the past 40 years. We have found a slight increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 cyclones (the strongest), but the numbers are very small each year, and the increase might simply be due to changes in ‗accounting methods‘. A common deception is as follows: you begin by looking at cyclones that reach the US mainland (the ones that affect people and insurance companies) and you count them. Then you change the perimeter and include all cyclones in the North Atlantic, including ones that disperse at sea. Of course, the second group is bigger! As we said earlier, the statistics presented here cover all cyclones in the North Atlantic. p.67 6. Sea Level Rises. a. Two kinds of instruments are used: • Marigraphs, which have been around for 200 years; • Altimetry satellites, which measure the height of the satellite above the ocean; they have been around for 20 years, namely Topex/Poseidon (1992), Jason 1 (2001), Jason 2 (2008). The water level varies naturally: • Due to the tides (lunar attraction) • Due to wind and storms • Due to sea currents This being so, the estimates provided by marigraphs and satellites can be no more than averages, if possible over one year or several years, as phenomena such as El Niño affect the sea level for a year or more. p.68 b. E. Be careful! On Models. ( https://www.bitchute.com/video/dv8avoovsHqr/) As this issue has taken on a major political dimension, all kinds of statements are made by absolutely anyone at all. Great care is therefore called for when accepting information. 1. Models Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as 76 SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTK0LHclNFs Critical analysis The rising sea level is a basic thesis for journalists, to support the doctrine of global warming. They say, ―Look, the sea is rising, and so we are in danger‖. It is perfectly true that the sea level is rising, but essentially this is due to the cooling down of the core of the terrestrial globe which has been taking place gradually for five billion years. As a result of this contraction, the lighter areas (the oceans) tend to rise up in relation to the heavier areas (the mountains). This is simply a consequence of buoyancy, and human beings have nothing to do with it. p.77 That’s Chapter 1 summarised and is sufficient for responding to the Pariah Status proffered upon me by Ron. I would close only by Pointing interested and critical thinkers at the work of Clive Spash and his Paper The Brave New World of Carbon Trading. https://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf https://youtu.be/FTEaXBnXLts “A FIRE, A FIRE IS BURNING! I HEAR THE BOOT OF LUCIFER, I SEE HIS FILTHY FACE! AND IT IS MY FACE, AND YOURS, DANFORTH! FOR THEM THAT QUAIL TO BRING MEN OUT OF IGNORANCE, AS I HAVE QUAILED, AND AS YOU QUAIL NOW WHEN YOU KNOW IN ALL YOUR BLACKHEARTS THAT THIS BE FRAUD – GOD DAMNS OUR KIND ESPECIALLY, AND WE WILL BURN, WE WILL BURN TOGETHER!” ― ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE

    @AdjyLeak
    @storjproject
    @ErikVoorhees
    @WeAreChangeNYC
    @alexandria
    @KimDotcom
    @BlocktechCEO
    @OpenIndexProto 
    @FLOblockchain
    @Suitpossum
    @ActivistPost
    @DanDicksPFT
    @IluvCO2
    @Piers_Corbyn
    Ian56789
    @juanbenet
    @Free_Ross
    @realbitcoinwiki
    @aantonop
    @Brett_Shavers
    @OpenIndexProto 
    @Suitpossum
    @MrTardigradeUK
    @2013Boodicca
    @financialeyes
    @JoeBlob20

    @RealM_Shrimpton
    @Albion_Rover
    @RichieAllenShow
    @briangukc
    @markwindows
    @JoeBlob20
    @TonyGosling
    @davidicke
    @Ian56789
    @MrTardigradeUK
    @IanRCrane
    @_Spinflight_
    @deYook
    @ShoebridgeC

    #ConquestofDough #NaziPug #AlisonChabloz #LabourAntiSemitism #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy #FreeAssange #OnLineHarmsAct #Section13 #EUssr #StalagLuftBlighty #MAGA #MEGA

    @ErikVoorhees @WeAreChangeNYC @alexandria @KimDotcom @BlocktechCEO @OpenIn…

    #GrubStreetTags
    #GrubStreetJournal
    #GrubStreetPolitics
    #GrubStreetGeoPolitics
    #GrubStreetPoliticalEconomy
    #GrubStreetMoneyandFinance
    #GrubStreetFilm
    #GrubStreetMainStreamMedia
    #GrubStreetSamizdat
    #GrubStreetDissidentContent
    #GrubStreetWeb3
    #GrubStreetonAlexandria
    #GrubStreetIPFS
    #GrubStreetOIP
    #GrubStreetDunciad
    #GrubStreetObjectiveKhunts
    #GrubStreetHumour
    #GrubStreetErotica
    #GrubStreetArtandLetters
    #GrubStreetExegesis
    #GrubStreetFaithandSpitituality
    #GrubStreetCensoredindEADtREEANDhttpiNTERWEBS
    #AgrubStreetPublishedScribler
    #GrubStreetMultiMedia
    #GrubStreetVideo
    #GrubStreetPolemic
    #GrubStreetRhetoric
    #GrubStreetSatire
    #GrubStreetComediaVulgaris
    #GrubStreetCallOutCallsBS
    #GrubStreetPamphlets
    #GrubStreetEssays
    #GrubStreetPhilosophy
    #GrubStreetScience
    #GrubStreetEnergy
    #GrubStreetGreenFascism
    #GrubStreetWrongKindOfGreen
    #GrubStreetWikiBallot
    #GrubStreetPDC
    #PersonalDestinyControl
    #GrubStreetInfoWars
    #GrubStreetRadio
    #GrubStreetSteppinOuttaBabylon
    #GrubStreetEscapingTheMatrix
    #GrubStreetRedPill
    #GrubStreetLyrics
    #GrubStreetPoetry
    #GrubStreetMusic
    #GrubStreetSapereAude
    #GrubStreetThroughtheGiftShop

    Like

  6. Ken Moore on July 27, 2019 at 1:29 am said:
    Thank you again for another engaging read Dr Morgan.

    My initial thought is that linking trend EcoE with prosperity is a BIG claim I’d like more proof please :). EcoE could be the driver here or it’s role could be marginal. How did you untangle all the other factors ?

    If pushed I could plot a graph of per capita prosperity versus many metrics that could correlate. For example we know that average IQ has been shown to correlate well with per capita GDP. IQ’s have been dropping in developed countries since the 70’s.
    Or i could plot a graph of the average hours spent surfing the net versus per capita prosperity and form a theory that wasting time on social media is preventing us doing more productive things…
    Of course such a correlation wouldn’t be absolute proof of a link.
    I recognise you have invested heavily in this but with the greatest respect, has that made you susceptible to conformational bias?

    Then there are the changes that have occurred since the millennium that are difficult to quantify but can’t be ignored. The doctrine of political correctness (the elevation of the politically correct over the factually correct truth) has been universally accepted. My point is this misguided journey into the sort of bad governance that would shame a banana republic has been hugely costly. I’m thinking of costly wars, attacks on the family and special status of married couples, open door to outsiders that may not share our customs and beliefs. The drive to eradicate perceived notions of ‘poverty’ and ‘unfairness’ that simply didn’t exist a few decades ago.

    Of course this environment has fostered the religion of climate change. Two points id like to make.

    The scientists relying on tree ring data and ice cores to convince us that we are experiencing unprecedented weather patterns is totally unhinged. Secondly the impact of CO2 is relatively tiny. Oh and a third point is that scientists that don’t stick to the climate change script get frozen out.
    The BBC are keen to tell us we have just had the hottest day….then slip in that it was almost as hot back in 1945 before climate change was even invented. ..
    This article sums it up very neatly Id urge readers to look at it with an open mind. Sorry for the long winded post!
    https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/?fbclid=IwAR0XlA2ZjlEGf6ijtwn1P9Z1H8J54XnzoiCU4rlEaphobXl_ymKscP2MW-o

    Reply ↓

    drtimmorgan
    on July 27, 2019 at 11:18 am said:
    What one might call the ‘theory’ tying prosperity to ECoE follows a chain of logic where each link can be tested.

    First, the connection between energy and economic activity. It’s impossible to name any product (good or service) that can be supplied without energy.

    We know that the cessation of energy supply would cause economic activity to cease.

    Additionally, we have historical evidence – the vast take-off in population numbers, and the economic activity (and especially the food supply) that supports them, occurred at the same time that we started using fossil fuels.

    Then, ECoE itself.

    We know that energy is consumed in any process which accesses energy for our use. We know that materials (steel, plastics, etc) used in energy access cannot themselves be supplied without the use of energy, and we know that processes (putting these things together) also depend on energy.

    Where fossil fuels (4/5ths of current energy supply) are concerned, the effects of depletion are observable – oil fields newly brought on stream are smaller, technically more difficult, more remote and of lower quality than the ones that they replace.

    This, I’d submit, is a chain of logic in which each link is demonstrable.

    drtimmorgan
    on July 27, 2019 at 11:24 am said:
    On climate change, few people are more sceptical than me about the ‘official’ or ‘consensus’ interpretation of anything.

    But I accept it, bearing in mind the following:

    – The overwhelming majority of scientific opinion supports the case. This is the science of hard facts, not a social science. This opinion isn’t split 55/45, say, but probably about 99/1.

    – Glacier melting is visible

    – So is species loss

    – and pollution

    rogerglewis
    on July 27, 2019 at 12:01 pm said:
    https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/con-in-consensus.pdf

    What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and
    contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core
    issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.
    3
    Second, it is obvious that the “97%” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is
    ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of
    greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phoney claim of 97%
    the consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.

    The Glacier Position is Half a dozen of one and six of the other.
    https://iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

    On Species Loss, again this is an ill-defined domain and whilst one accepts the damage done by deforestation and monoculture Agriculture, and concern for Say the Bees, these are unrelated to the AGW CO2 hypothesis which is the Contents of the #WrongKindofGreen Trojan horse of misanthropic Green fascism.
    Pollution is Bad , of course it is, CO2 is not pollution and also the CO2 Emissions policy focus lets polluters off the hook this is the basis of Clive Spashes, Brave new world paper.

    https://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE1.pdf

    ewaf88
    on July 27, 2019 at 1:33 pm said:
    One thing that you have omitted is that although there have been past periods of warming and ice ages these have been 1000s – millions of years apart.

    Don’t you think it’s a big coincidence that the current period of warming coincides with industrialisation given the time frame we’re talking about.

    Given the huge timeframes of the Earth it’s statistically unlikely that we’d have a warming period that exactly matches a tiny period of our industrial activity

    Also the rate of change is far faster that any in history.

    Of course we could argue about this indefinitely but I am totally convinced that we are to blame and not cycles in the Earth’s climate.

    drtimmorgan
    on July 27, 2019 at 1:42 pm said:
    Agreed.

    Where climate change itself is concerned, it’s up to each of us whether we believe in it, and in human activity as a significant contributory factor. I do believe this.

    The point of this article, though, is this. Just say you don’t believe in climate change, or our role in causing it. So what do you do? Carry on relying on fossil fuels? Doing that will, beyond all doubt in my opinion, destroy the economy. We’re already having to engage in truly freakish financial behaviour to kid ourselves that the economy is “growing”.

    Therefore, continued reliance on fossil fuels look to me a lose-lose combination.

    rogerglewis on July 27, 2019 at 1:46 pm said:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    @ewaf88 I do not claim to know definitively regarding human contribuitoon? O am however convinced of the arguments that CO2 has been cynically put in the frame and much more heinous Human activity and indeed other large influencers of Climate have been ignored.

    I suspect the CO2 Narratives are all along related to what is known as #TheCarbonCurrencyEndGame.

    Debt-based money has caused many more deaths than CLimate change, the Green Lobby is largely silent on matters such as War and the Military-Industrial Complex .

    Political Economy is Making people who think differently or believe different things to agree on ways of acting, Its a point Roger L Pelke Junior makes in this Talk.

    remember Walter Lippman on politics the
    57:56
    goal is not to get everyone to think
    57:57
    alike the goal is to get people who
    57:59
    think differently to act alike

    Reply ↓

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s