I enjoyed your article. I hope I can get my friends to read it.
I only learnt about the climate scam during the past 3 years. It may be the blessing of covid. I never bought into covid, my background is in homeopathy so I'm confident of treating acute disease no matter what caused it. I used to wonder how to convince people not to worry about a "virus" when the message was being mixed with "climate denial". Now I've learnt so much more about politics, economics, psychology, history and philosophy. Life feels richer for it.
I hope our society can move back to more open discussion and rational debate. The "Does Power Corrupt" post is, in my view, even more important, and although political systems are discussed, the emphasis is quite different and hopefully unifying.
Hi David, Since my last visit here I have read, among others, two books:
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrck Moore, ex co-founder of Greenpeace.
The scare stories are all based on things that are invisible like CO2, or very remote like Polar Bears and coral reefs. People must rely on activists and scientists who all have skin in the game.
And
Climate In Crisis by RFK Jr
Who's causing it, who's fighting it, and how we can reverse it before it is too late.
Hedging my bets? Good to have a rounded view.
And after the fiasco of the covid models... Are the climate ones any better?
For those of us who can't deny that we see there is less snow, there is more flooding, the idea that maybe these effects are being caused by humans, but not in the way that we think, is pretty alarming!
Phar, even here you are simply not correct. True, there is always more flooding somewhere, more snow somewhere, more drought somewhere, and there is indeed one thing there is more of globally; more alarmist reporting of these common events that have always occured. However the theory is Catastrophic Global Warming. And that, as linked in the post above, and here again for you, is simply not happening.
When I was a climate activist I was very aware of the '97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming' statement; it was one of the main tenets of the climate faith and I was still green and believed in The Science and a benign governing class. No more!
Shame, I had such great hopes for Obama. I wonder if he just had the wrong people advising him. At the time I thought Trump was nuts for pulling out of The Paris agreement - how wrong was I...
If anyone thinks how could the climate pushers be so wrong in what they espouse and is tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt - look at the covid debarcle. They got everything wrong (or was it the real plan all along) - and it has already cost millions of lives, plus many lives ruined by sickness, jobs lost and economies destroyed.
Remember - There is an even bigger agenda of world control!
I was taken in by the climate movement for a while. I joined Extinction Rebellion, UK, went to many meetings, read a library of books, watched hours of videos and interviews: I was all in.
I even went on a Rebellion to London (six hours by coach) for over a week and slept on a church crypt concrete floor. We totally closed down the centre of the capital city. It was amazing!
Then covid struck.
In short, I realised the models used for covid were utter rubbish (prof Neil Ferguson - again...) and funded by Bill Gates, also biggest private donor to the WHO. So if they could be SO wrong about covid, the same could be true about climate. I started to look...
Also, if the Elites were backing climate at the UN and the WEF then whatever was good for them was not going to be good for me.
My eyes are wide open now to the depopulation programme, total control agenda with CBDC, 24/7 surveillance with 5G, social credit scoring and all the rest of it.
The US has a century-long plus history of Eugenics which was largely created and funded by Henry Ford and Andrew (?) Carnegie, which was imported and expanded by Hitler, ultimately to become the Final Solution - research institutes were funded in Nazi Germany by Ford & Carnegie. The depopulation agenda is not new. Bill Gates' grandfather and parents were also powerful supporters of the movement. (Edwin Black - Nazi Nexus)
Dark times indeed! Thank you for your service to humanity. Blessings.
You have had quite a journey. It can be difficult to see and note the dark side of human nature. Yet there is a light side as well. (The "Does Power corrupt post dives a bit into that.)
Well done, David. You certainly knocked this one out the park. Ever since the vile Don't Look Up, any talk of climate change makes me start to cringe at how gullible we are. But if your only staple is mainstream media and its paid-for talking heads and 'experts', then it's to be expected. I was certainly on board the climate train for a good few years, but Covid derailed that which was one of its many unplanned benefits. I've been red-pilled so many times over the past three years I hardly recognize myself. But this is all part of waking up. I just finished reading Liam Scheff's astonishing Official Stories. Highly recommended.
Thank you Navyo! Glad you liked it, and as always, if shared with some one, I am curious to hear their response. The "Does Power corrupt?" post is related to the GW post, in that it is a general examine of psychology behind all tyrannical actions.
I strongly support reading at least 100 to 200 hours of research and debate on any one subject, before allowing one self to form a solid perspective. I have not read Liam's writing, but it is true that the "official" story is often mixed with a political perspective, and every perspective is often not pure.
Yes, I agree that listening to both sides (or all three) of a narrative explanation is part of the cognitive evaluation process. The one-sided narratives and debates of the mainstream are most people's idea of truth. To break that is challenging. I've tried and failed numerous times to the point of giving up. I don't try anymore. Some of those with vaccine damage are beginning to learn the hard way.
Like you, Liam has done thousands of hours of research. I think you will appreciate his book very much.
You're absolutely correct to state that the term "climate change" is a political term. At the time it was coined by GOP strategist Frank Luntz, it was meant to sound less threatening than the previous (and more accurate) term of "global warming". Frank recently changed his mind, and has offered his services to help undo some of the damage he wrought.
You're absolutely right to call out skepticism of the climate narrative; that's how science needs to function. But you also must take close stock of what is observably happening in the natural world. That is what has drawn my attention and concern far more than what is shown in imperfect (as you rightly point out!) climate models.
As this is in the post I suggest you look carfully. Reporters report and live on FUD. Billions of dollars buys a lot of FUD used to blow up every climate event into a trend that is not happening.
Alright -- let's say for the sake of argument that CO2 (and CH4, NOx, etc) induced warming is just not based in reality.
CO2 induced acidification of the oceans (CO2 disolved in water created carbonic acid), on the other hand, is indisputable. Easily measured, with significant and documented impacts around the globe. Mid 2000s we started seeing oyster seed on the oregon coast dissolve. That's been happening further up the west coast in recent years. Pteropods in the gulf of Alaska, and around the Antarctic ocean started dissolving in the 20-teens. That's the base of the marine food chain being destroyed by increasing atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic sources. Are you okay with that?
David, you start out with something I did not say. And neither did the link provided. And, in fact, I said quiet the opposite in the main post where it speaks of the "consensous".
I am also guessing you did not read the link, "Wheres the Emergency" as it also makes no assertion that CO2 warming is not based on reality.
I will get into the acidic oceans scare when I have a bit more time, yet in the "Global Warming" post I provide links to several sites that give Peer reviewed reports on all the CAGW fears, including the "Acid Oceans", and it is my hope that folk would read alternative sides of an issue before jumping to conclusions. That is why the links are there and it will save endless back and forth on each and every concern, if we can challenge our selves to explore the issues from every angle.
"The most striking feature of Figure 11 is the great preponderance of data located in positive territory, which suggests that, on the whole, marine organisms likely will not be harmed to any significant degree by the expected decline in oceanic pH. If anything, in fact, the results suggest that the world's marine life may actually slightly benefit from the pH decline, which latter possibility is further borne out by the scatter plot of all the experimental data pertaining to all life characteristic categories over the same pH decline range, as shown below in Figure 12."
All the Best. ( The NIPCC web site has much more as well.)
hi DV, you echo my thoughts. my latest thinking is to look at the parallels with covid... people really got sick with something new during covid. you cannot tell them to deny their own experience when you are pushing your own theory that doesn't explain each person's experience. at the bottom of the covid rabbit hole is the very likely scenario involving deliberate creation release of covid Bio weapon, and or toxins of some sort...
with the climate problem it seems undeniable that there is less snow, there is less snow in the mountains, there is less snow in Virginia, there are more floods every year in Virginia in Low Places like Hampton Roads... but who's to say that the globalists are not causing a lot of these effects, in order to round us up into their world government camp? I recently saw a really convincing presentation that kind of covered this Theory... my personal experience is the trees in my neighborhood are dying at the tops. the tops of the trees are dying. once it was called to my attention I can't not see it. I will try to find this presentation for you and Link it here.
“...problem it seems undeniable that there is less snow, there is less snow in the mountains, there is less snow in Virginia, there are more floods every year in Virginia in Low Places like Hampton Roads”
Globally it is a VERY EASY assertion to deny. Even within the US. There are minor indications of seasonal snow increase, and decrease, and really very little outside of historical flux.
For instance California politicians claim we are in the worst drought in 1,200 years. ( Certainly ended now) Yet the claim is nonsense. In the last 12 centuries California has had two droughts lasting well over a century, one where many of the oak trees died. Mammoth mountain in the central Sierras is a very good barometer for California precipitation. The last 20 years of the “ greatest drought in 1,200 years" had considerably more precipitation than the first 20 years, beginning in 1963 as I recall.
BTW, California just passed up 1983 snow records, yet is still behind 1951. In 1883 I think we had flooding far worse then anything sense.
While I do not discount minor effects from weather modification I cannot support major claims of climate modification. I saw many such claims regarding this years California snow pack. Yet I watched the massive energy involved over many millions of square miles, thousands of miles away in pacific cloud formations and jet stream flux. All natural and presenting very predictable weather over the western US 7 to 10 days later. Nothing humans did would have had anything but a minor local affect on what transpired.
We have no GLOBAL increase in droughts, floods, extreme weather, hurricanes, tornadoes, wild fires, etc. Yes, there are regional effects on weather caused by humans where forests have been decimated and perhaps where weather modification has occurred. Yet nothing outside of normal climate fluctuations has occurred. ( Those minor changes can be dramatic for the localized areas they occur, yet this has always been true.)
Thank you David. I do indeed know many avid environmentalists that are rationally and deeply skeptical of the CO2 harm assertions. I can assure you, I have read dozens of papers, as well as countless hours of debate on each subject of contrasting perspectives of all the major CAGW issues - droughts, heat waves, extreme weather events, SL rise, "acid oceans" etc... Please consider to reference the actual links from the NIPCC and CO2 science web sites for any concerns you may have. Every concern is addressed by multiple papers. I do appreciate your response.
Look up the ozone depletion theory of climate change. It is believed that the warming stopped because of the ban on CFCs. Although there are other pollutants such as NOx compounds that degrade ozone. The vinyl chloride fire in Ohio has certainly produced CFC like compounds.
There are many scientists that think CFC's had almost nothing to do with the ozone hole and it is a natural phenomena. (They make solid arguments to support this.)
CO2 is certainly not a pollutant, and modern coal plants effectively remove particulates. There are far more problems with materials, mining and pollution with all wind and solar production. What can't happen won't, and net zero cannot happen.
That's interesting info re: fast reactors, thanks. Sounds like a huge undertaking to build all those required facilities on one site. Wish Gate's project was closed cycle. Burning their own waste makes perfect sense. Apparently there still needs to be deep burial for the final radioactive remnants. Not needing water cooling will greatly increase site possibilities.
Funny - my mother told me one of her college professors won the Nobel Prize for their theory about CFCs destroying the ozone layer. And I’m enrolled at that same university and will soon end my pandemic-enforced hiatus from there (hopefully!)
Well I don’t think CFCs are the only chemicals causing that, they just happened to be going out of patent and some other companies in the business of manufacturing pollutants found it would be convenient to use for a scapegoat. But there must be a natural thing going on too. I wondered whether Cl from sea spray would cause the same effect and whether there wasn’t actually more natural chlorine radicals in the air from sea salt than there was from CFCs. Actually there’s not a lot, otherwise rain would taste salty. Though I couldn’t find a sure source of figures for chlorine content in sea spray in the air, I did some figures and determined that the chlorine radical content coming from CFCs would be much greater.
What I’m worried about is ozone depleting in other places. They never seem to talk about that. Even though it ought to be a huge cause of warming, much more than CO2 potentially. CFCs might be banned but nitrogen oxides are still emitted like crazy and these also supposedly deplete the ozone layer but you never hear them go into detail about it, just some vague stuff about them being more potent greenhouse gases than. CO2 but their greenhouse effect is dwarfed by the amount of heat they produce from UV through altering the ozone balance. They form in nature out of manure and other nitrogenous organic waste. But a lot of it is scrubbed out of the atmosphere by trees. Now in nature most nitrogenous organic waste either gets used to grow plants or gets sequestered under the Earth to become fossil fuel one day. Nowadays we’ve got tons upon tons of poop that’s not being used to grow plants, it’s rotting in a landfill where there are no trees around to keep the air clean so the sky gets full of NOx. Some of it is livestock manure and should be used to grow feed crops instead of shipping in petroleum based fertilizer from Russia or wherever. And some of it is human waste. Do you think it’s good in the long-term to take and take from the environment and sequester it in a landfill instead of putting it back into the environment to resume its role in the circle of life? (Or the Circle of Poo as South Park puts it - that song explains how it works pretty well). That and there’s an imbalance in the plants to animals ratio. We are not planting enough plants to take advantage of higher CO2 levels to grow abundantly and process it into O2 faster than we can exhale it. To maximize our living vegetation biomass we need all of our poop to be out in the environment being used to grow things, or else stuck in a time capsule underground that we can frack open in a million years when it becomes oil. I mean seriously planting more trees would create jobs and take care of CO2 and the other pollutants. Or better yet, plant hemp which sucks toxins out of the soil, could be used to phytoremediate landfills (don’t smoke the buds or eat the seeds afterwards though! Paper and fibers might be OK) Just stick a whole bunch of them on your roof if you’re not going to get solar panels or paint it white to cool your home. Oh I wonder if a sheet of chicken wire coated with rhodium/palladium/platinum like a catalytic converter and stretched over a crop field would clean out any stray NOx compounds from overapplied fertilizer?
I wont bother to look it all up, but the skepticism is based on the hole being a naturally variable phenomena. From an old comment...
“how is stratospheric ozone produced”? Well you can find the answer in many easily available textbooks (remember there wasn’t a widely available internet circa 1990) – that is stratospheric ozone is formed by sunlight (specifically UV) impinging upon O2 molecules in the upper atmosphere. The high energy UV photons cleave the O2, and the highly reactive and unstable monatomic oxygen binds with nearby O2 to form O3.
And O3 then forms a blocking layer for UV, thus making earth more habitable for all life as we know it.
The key here is, it is a natural process – driven by the UV from the sun. O3 is also unstable and decays spontaneously – if it is not continuously being generated by the solar UV it’s concentration will decline.
Now when is the Antarctic ozone hole observed? In late winter/early spring – WHEN THE ANTARCTIC HAS BEEN IN THE DARK FOR 6 MONTHS! (hence concentrations decline as no new O3 is being generated)
Combine this with the fact that the Antarctic upper wind pattern circulates at the pole, with very little mixing to higher latitudes – and you have a mostly natural phenomenon! OK, so it is highly likely that much of the “hole” is a natural phenom, and there are more factors not even noted.
Supposedly, CFC’s migrate to the upper stratosphere and cause O3 to break down. No such migration has ever been measured – only modeled by the way… But forget about that for a moment. The argument was the UV breaks down the CFC and free Chlorine atoms destroy the Ozone….
So it is fair to ask how much Chlorine the outdoor swimming pools, in just North America, emit into the atmosphere
Turns out it is more chlorine than the entire world’s release of CFC’s over a year. So many critics argue that we’ve banned a mostly benign, non toxic, non flammable refrigerant gas, yet we still pump more chlorine into the atmosphere from N America’s swimming pools (not to mention all the industrial sources, or drinking water treatment in the whole world) than would have been released by CFC’s
And we replaced the CFC’s with an ongoing litany of ever more worse refrigerants – each incarnation after a ban is less efficient, and makes refrigeration systems less efficient/reliable, thus needing to be larger, and less safe as some are now even based on propane (the YF1234 in new cars for example are explosive in accidents, and can release HF in the combustion of YF1234 which can cause irreparable damage if inhaled).
All spray cans used to use inert non flammable CFC’s as propellants – and what did they replace this with? Highly flammable raw propane and butane – to this day. Oh, and CO2 is not a pollutant.
Supposedly the fluorinated compounds damage the ozone less because it takes a higher energy UV photon to break a fluorine-carbon bond than a chlorine-carbon bond.
I don’t know about swimming pool chlorine. If it’s not exposed to enough UV it won’t break the bonds and it won’t become a free radical. A lot of chlorine compounds are very stable, such as dioxins for example.
Vinyl chloride can also make similar compounds when burned. Did you that Teflon is vinyl fluoride, but with all of the hydrogens replaced by fluorine, and completely polymerized of course. I stopped using Teflon pots and pans because I don’t know how to cook without burning shit and that was probably poisoning me.
Hmm I think I recall reading that the cooking spray I used to make pancakes was flammable. Real smart to make something sprayed in such close proximity to a stove flammable. However it didn’t seem to make the gas burner go crazy when I used it over the pan.
" I stopped using Teflon pots and pans because I don’t know how to cook without burning shit and that was probably poisoning me"
LOL.
I do not know the answer regarding swimming pools, except to note that they are certainly exposed to a great deal of UV light, with high evaporation and regular replacement required. Prior to a recent move I took care of my pool in a very warm sunny environment. I think Free chlorine is formed, post UV exposure, when the chlorine forms hypchlorite ions. The hypochlorite separates when UV light hits it. This turns the hypochlorite into gas, which is released into the air.
If we stopped wasting trillions on mostly beneficial CO2 mitigation, we could easily afford real research and limitation of legitimate environmental concerns and harms.
I’ve wondered about this, and whether chloride in the sea could cause more ozone depletion. According to my calculations it doesn’t but I wasn’t able to get a clear picture of how much chloride from sea spray is in the air.
Why are you calling yourself reasonable horses? I like a nice Percheron myself... David's article is pretty convincing, and here is someone who goes one step further: https://tessa.substack.com/p/geoengineering
Percherons appear to be highly reasonable horses, but I don’t believe Gulliver mentions them in his travels. He does, however, hang out in his final voyage with Houyhnhnms, aka “rational” or “reasonable horses” because “The Houyhnhnms, by contrast [with Yahoos, a race of sub-humans], are the epitome of reason and virtuous simplicity” (Britannica). I went with Reasonable Horses because it’s aspirational and “Houyhnhnm” is super hard to spell and pronounce. Some pronounce it “winnums,” but as far as I know, nobody fact-checked that with Swift.
Thanks for the link. I like the way Tessa Fights Robots. We’re in a fight for life against the sick megalomaniacs toxifying medicine, our food and water, and even the air we breathe. Remember a tv ad campaign that told us, “It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature”? Mostly true and the point we’ve been missing from “Frankenstein” for over 200 years.
Ah! I should have known! I knew someone whose license plate was " Houyhnhnm " so I got the story from her... Swift was pretty swift, eh? then I saw the movie of Gulliver's Travels on TV... none of the horses in the movie version Iook at all like Percheron. Glad you like Tessa.
My starting place doesn’t accept the Warmmongers premise but is a simple obvious question. With a follow up and the subsequent follow-ups which write themselves:
What is the Delta between the current Earth temperature and the optimal Earth temperature? Why is that the optimal temperature?
The truth worked out on the old Mensa Debating Forum, and help from the “Unified Theory of Climate” found that the current Earth temperature and the optimal Earth temperature is determined by air pressure. The Earth’s average surface temperature was much higher during the days of the Dinosaurs, but Solar irradiance was weaker. Bubbles in Amber show that the air pressure at that time was about 3 bar. But the simplest way of proving that Carbon Dioxide does not cause warming by radiative forcing, but by molar mass is the fact that we have that 3 bar pressure, and seven replications of proof using the Scientific method. Which are that the average temperature at the one bar pressure points on each of the planets, is the same, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus.
and their PTE, (pressure induced thermal enhancement) paper.
That would be a part of an academic pursuit made far easier if CAGW was not Post Normal, political science. Unfortunately the current state of "science" does not allow constructive ideas and debates.
Fair question with no simple answer. I do not think there is an "optimal" T as nobody lives in the GAT, let alone can easily define that number. Clearly an ice age is not optimal for human society, However, what is beneficial to some, is harmful to others, and that varies by the individual as well.
First of all the GAT is not known, ( large error bars) and every attempt comes up with very different answers. So, within “climate science “ they simply take a data set, and attempt to calculate the warming rate based on that data set with extrapolating factors from hundreds of miles away. ( Again, error bars are usually not included ) So they calculate an anomaly, not a GAT, and the "adjustments" always continue and tend to cool the past or warm the present. The satellite troposphere readings are likely the best atmospheric T gauge for many reasons, and they show very little warming. (linked in the post)
They generally ignore the option of using only long measured location stations well situated for avoiding errors like Urban Heat Islands, etc. The Ocean Heat content studies are all over the map with very large error bars and very legitimate published peer review criticisms. The entire GAT field is frankly FUBAR with dozens of critical papers published in the Peer Review literature. Much greater resolution would be needed with consistent similar methodology and proper station settings as well as an accurate calculation of global humidity. This is well beyond our current ability now, let alone for the historic past with disparate measuring instruments, practices, and coverage that was very sparse.
The USHCN, or United States Historical Climate Network of well dispersed long running stations shows the 1930s as the warmest. The “optimal” depends on where you live I suppose, and is a rather arbitrary variable. The adjustments used are very controversial. The oceans contain 1000 times the energy of the atmosphere, and the energy residence time is far far longer. Cloud feedback's are heavily disputed and they may even have the sign wrong. The atmosphere is a thin sandwich between space and the oceans. There are at least 20 different papers giving very different estimates on the climate sensitivity to CO2.
Thank you Gary. I have two academic friends that only ever listened to NPR, the BBC, etc... They both were shocked to learn how cloistered their "news" is. And so it has opened their minds to re-examine other areas.
Terrific Name and sure does fit...And, Marilyn is the only person who could EVER have carried that role in 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes'. Love the Oldies.
So sorry to hear about your loss...Makes me weep. Our pets become our family...At all times and there's never enough time for those loving unconditionally. I have a white Maltese named Dexter I rescued years ago and he's now going on 16. He's the proverbial good-natured little old man...AND, I adore him. I know my time with Dexter is short...
Wishing you a great Sunday...I KNOW OUR PETS ARE SOMEWHERE IN SOME KIND OF PET HEAVEN.
This is another great article. It is amazing how effective control of interest rates also controls the narrative. "Whoever controls the narrative ... controls public opinion... controls the world.”
Monetary study by New York Chamber of Commerce “Special Currency Committee” – 1906, “By the control of its rate of interest and of its issues of notes it would be able to exert great influence upon the money market and upon public opinion. Such power is not possessed by any institution in the United States.”
Here in Western Colorado the weather modification jets keep us from seeing the sun day after day since October 2022 except for the day the jets were grounded 1/11/23. Control of the weather is by corporations in the 21st century. Control of the climate is still up to nature.
I enjoyed your article. I hope I can get my friends to read it.
I only learnt about the climate scam during the past 3 years. It may be the blessing of covid. I never bought into covid, my background is in homeopathy so I'm confident of treating acute disease no matter what caused it. I used to wonder how to convince people not to worry about a "virus" when the message was being mixed with "climate denial". Now I've learnt so much more about politics, economics, psychology, history and philosophy. Life feels richer for it.
I hope our society can move back to more open discussion and rational debate. The "Does Power Corrupt" post is, in my view, even more important, and although political systems are discussed, the emphasis is quite different and hopefully unifying.
Hi David, Since my last visit here I have read, among others, two books:
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrck Moore, ex co-founder of Greenpeace.
The scare stories are all based on things that are invisible like CO2, or very remote like Polar Bears and coral reefs. People must rely on activists and scientists who all have skin in the game.
And
Climate In Crisis by RFK Jr
Who's causing it, who's fighting it, and how we can reverse it before it is too late.
Hedging my bets? Good to have a rounded view.
And after the fiasco of the covid models... Are the climate ones any better?
Nope, as Both, Covid and Climate, are run by the same WEF crowd.
Did you have a chance to actually read the “There is no energy shortage “ links.
I will endeavour to look at the links tomorrow when my eyes have recovered from their battering today. This is a hard slog!
I’m archiving this. Thanks for providing a balanced sane perspective!
Thank you. My hope is that you will share it with family or friends that never hear a well presented skeptical position.
For those of us who can't deny that we see there is less snow, there is more flooding, the idea that maybe these effects are being caused by humans, but not in the way that we think, is pretty alarming!
https://tessa.substack.com/p/geoengineering
Phar, even here you are simply not correct. True, there is always more flooding somewhere, more snow somewhere, more drought somewhere, and there is indeed one thing there is more of globally; more alarmist reporting of these common events that have always occured. However the theory is Catastrophic Global Warming. And that, as linked in the post above, and here again for you, is simply not happening.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Further to my comment below...
When I was a climate activist I was very aware of the '97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming' statement; it was one of the main tenets of the climate faith and I was still green and believed in The Science and a benign governing class. No more!
Shame, I had such great hopes for Obama. I wonder if he just had the wrong people advising him. At the time I thought Trump was nuts for pulling out of The Paris agreement - how wrong was I...
If anyone thinks how could the climate pushers be so wrong in what they espouse and is tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt - look at the covid debarcle. They got everything wrong (or was it the real plan all along) - and it has already cost millions of lives, plus many lives ruined by sickness, jobs lost and economies destroyed.
Remember - There is an even bigger agenda of world control!
And we are the prey!
Wow David! What an amazing Labour of love.
I was taken in by the climate movement for a while. I joined Extinction Rebellion, UK, went to many meetings, read a library of books, watched hours of videos and interviews: I was all in.
I even went on a Rebellion to London (six hours by coach) for over a week and slept on a church crypt concrete floor. We totally closed down the centre of the capital city. It was amazing!
Then covid struck.
In short, I realised the models used for covid were utter rubbish (prof Neil Ferguson - again...) and funded by Bill Gates, also biggest private donor to the WHO. So if they could be SO wrong about covid, the same could be true about climate. I started to look...
Also, if the Elites were backing climate at the UN and the WEF then whatever was good for them was not going to be good for me.
My eyes are wide open now to the depopulation programme, total control agenda with CBDC, 24/7 surveillance with 5G, social credit scoring and all the rest of it.
The US has a century-long plus history of Eugenics which was largely created and funded by Henry Ford and Andrew (?) Carnegie, which was imported and expanded by Hitler, ultimately to become the Final Solution - research institutes were funded in Nazi Germany by Ford & Carnegie. The depopulation agenda is not new. Bill Gates' grandfather and parents were also powerful supporters of the movement. (Edwin Black - Nazi Nexus)
Dark times indeed! Thank you for your service to humanity. Blessings.
You have had quite a journey. It can be difficult to see and note the dark side of human nature. Yet there is a light side as well. (The "Does Power corrupt post dives a bit into that.)
Thank you for reading and contributing.
Well done, David. You certainly knocked this one out the park. Ever since the vile Don't Look Up, any talk of climate change makes me start to cringe at how gullible we are. But if your only staple is mainstream media and its paid-for talking heads and 'experts', then it's to be expected. I was certainly on board the climate train for a good few years, but Covid derailed that which was one of its many unplanned benefits. I've been red-pilled so many times over the past three years I hardly recognize myself. But this is all part of waking up. I just finished reading Liam Scheff's astonishing Official Stories. Highly recommended.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you Navyo! Glad you liked it, and as always, if shared with some one, I am curious to hear their response. The "Does Power corrupt?" post is related to the GW post, in that it is a general examine of psychology behind all tyrannical actions.
I strongly support reading at least 100 to 200 hours of research and debate on any one subject, before allowing one self to form a solid perspective. I have not read Liam's writing, but it is true that the "official" story is often mixed with a political perspective, and every perspective is often not pure.
Yes, I agree that listening to both sides (or all three) of a narrative explanation is part of the cognitive evaluation process. The one-sided narratives and debates of the mainstream are most people's idea of truth. To break that is challenging. I've tried and failed numerous times to the point of giving up. I don't try anymore. Some of those with vaccine damage are beginning to learn the hard way.
Like you, Liam has done thousands of hours of research. I think you will appreciate his book very much.
You're absolutely correct to state that the term "climate change" is a political term. At the time it was coined by GOP strategist Frank Luntz, it was meant to sound less threatening than the previous (and more accurate) term of "global warming". Frank recently changed his mind, and has offered his services to help undo some of the damage he wrought.
You're absolutely right to call out skepticism of the climate narrative; that's how science needs to function. But you also must take close stock of what is observably happening in the natural world. That is what has drawn my attention and concern far more than what is shown in imperfect (as you rightly point out!) climate models.
Here is a close look at what is happening...https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
As this is in the post I suggest you look carfully. Reporters report and live on FUD. Billions of dollars buys a lot of FUD used to blow up every climate event into a trend that is not happening.
Alright -- let's say for the sake of argument that CO2 (and CH4, NOx, etc) induced warming is just not based in reality.
CO2 induced acidification of the oceans (CO2 disolved in water created carbonic acid), on the other hand, is indisputable. Easily measured, with significant and documented impacts around the globe. Mid 2000s we started seeing oyster seed on the oregon coast dissolve. That's been happening further up the west coast in recent years. Pteropods in the gulf of Alaska, and around the Antarctic ocean started dissolving in the 20-teens. That's the base of the marine food chain being destroyed by increasing atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic sources. Are you okay with that?
David, you start out with something I did not say. And neither did the link provided. And, in fact, I said quiet the opposite in the main post where it speaks of the "consensous".
I am also guessing you did not read the link, "Wheres the Emergency" as it also makes no assertion that CO2 warming is not based on reality.
I will get into the acidic oceans scare when I have a bit more time, yet in the "Global Warming" post I provide links to several sites that give Peer reviewed reports on all the CAGW fears, including the "Acid Oceans", and it is my hope that folk would read alternative sides of an issue before jumping to conclusions. That is why the links are there and it will save endless back and forth on each and every concern, if we can challenge our selves to explore the issues from every angle.
Going to the linked CO2 web site we find this, which will give you a few hours of reading... http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/acidification.php
"The most striking feature of Figure 11 is the great preponderance of data located in positive territory, which suggests that, on the whole, marine organisms likely will not be harmed to any significant degree by the expected decline in oceanic pH. If anything, in fact, the results suggest that the world's marine life may actually slightly benefit from the pH decline, which latter possibility is further borne out by the scatter plot of all the experimental data pertaining to all life characteristic categories over the same pH decline range, as shown below in Figure 12."
All the Best. ( The NIPCC web site has much more as well.)
hi DV, you echo my thoughts. my latest thinking is to look at the parallels with covid... people really got sick with something new during covid. you cannot tell them to deny their own experience when you are pushing your own theory that doesn't explain each person's experience. at the bottom of the covid rabbit hole is the very likely scenario involving deliberate creation release of covid Bio weapon, and or toxins of some sort...
with the climate problem it seems undeniable that there is less snow, there is less snow in the mountains, there is less snow in Virginia, there are more floods every year in Virginia in Low Places like Hampton Roads... but who's to say that the globalists are not causing a lot of these effects, in order to round us up into their world government camp? I recently saw a really convincing presentation that kind of covered this Theory... my personal experience is the trees in my neighborhood are dying at the tops. the tops of the trees are dying. once it was called to my attention I can't not see it. I will try to find this presentation for you and Link it here.
Hi Liz, you state,
“...problem it seems undeniable that there is less snow, there is less snow in the mountains, there is less snow in Virginia, there are more floods every year in Virginia in Low Places like Hampton Roads”
Globally it is a VERY EASY assertion to deny. Even within the US. There are minor indications of seasonal snow increase, and decrease, and really very little outside of historical flux.
For instance California politicians claim we are in the worst drought in 1,200 years. ( Certainly ended now) Yet the claim is nonsense. In the last 12 centuries California has had two droughts lasting well over a century, one where many of the oak trees died. Mammoth mountain in the central Sierras is a very good barometer for California precipitation. The last 20 years of the “ greatest drought in 1,200 years" had considerably more precipitation than the first 20 years, beginning in 1963 as I recall.
BTW, California just passed up 1983 snow records, yet is still behind 1951. In 1883 I think we had flooding far worse then anything sense.
While I do not discount minor effects from weather modification I cannot support major claims of climate modification. I saw many such claims regarding this years California snow pack. Yet I watched the massive energy involved over many millions of square miles, thousands of miles away in pacific cloud formations and jet stream flux. All natural and presenting very predictable weather over the western US 7 to 10 days later. Nothing humans did would have had anything but a minor local affect on what transpired.
We have no GLOBAL increase in droughts, floods, extreme weather, hurricanes, tornadoes, wild fires, etc. Yes, there are regional effects on weather caused by humans where forests have been decimated and perhaps where weather modification has occurred. Yet nothing outside of normal climate fluctuations has occurred. ( Those minor changes can be dramatic for the localized areas they occur, yet this has always been true.)
All the Best...
that geoengineering presentation is so depressing I couldn't tell my friends to watch it, sometimes reality is just unbearable...
https://tessa.substack.com/p/geoengineering
Thank you David. I do indeed know many avid environmentalists that are rationally and deeply skeptical of the CO2 harm assertions. I can assure you, I have read dozens of papers, as well as countless hours of debate on each subject of contrasting perspectives of all the major CAGW issues - droughts, heat waves, extreme weather events, SL rise, "acid oceans" etc... Please consider to reference the actual links from the NIPCC and CO2 science web sites for any concerns you may have. Every concern is addressed by multiple papers. I do appreciate your response.
Great article!
Look up the ozone depletion theory of climate change. It is believed that the warming stopped because of the ban on CFCs. Although there are other pollutants such as NOx compounds that degrade ozone. The vinyl chloride fire in Ohio has certainly produced CFC like compounds.
There are many scientists that think CFC's had almost nothing to do with the ozone hole and it is a natural phenomena. (They make solid arguments to support this.)
CO2 is certainly not a pollutant, and modern coal plants effectively remove particulates. There are far more problems with materials, mining and pollution with all wind and solar production. What can't happen won't, and net zero cannot happen.
I think nuclear will be the eventual replacement.
David, what is your solution to nuclear waste?
I understand some fast reactors can use it for fuel...https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/when-nuclear-waste-is-an-asset-not-a-burden#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWhen%20using%20fast%20reactors%20in,the%20China%20Experimental%20Fast%20Reactor.
That's interesting info re: fast reactors, thanks. Sounds like a huge undertaking to build all those required facilities on one site. Wish Gate's project was closed cycle. Burning their own waste makes perfect sense. Apparently there still needs to be deep burial for the final radioactive remnants. Not needing water cooling will greatly increase site possibilities.
Funny - my mother told me one of her college professors won the Nobel Prize for their theory about CFCs destroying the ozone layer. And I’m enrolled at that same university and will soon end my pandemic-enforced hiatus from there (hopefully!)
Well I don’t think CFCs are the only chemicals causing that, they just happened to be going out of patent and some other companies in the business of manufacturing pollutants found it would be convenient to use for a scapegoat. But there must be a natural thing going on too. I wondered whether Cl from sea spray would cause the same effect and whether there wasn’t actually more natural chlorine radicals in the air from sea salt than there was from CFCs. Actually there’s not a lot, otherwise rain would taste salty. Though I couldn’t find a sure source of figures for chlorine content in sea spray in the air, I did some figures and determined that the chlorine radical content coming from CFCs would be much greater.
What I’m worried about is ozone depleting in other places. They never seem to talk about that. Even though it ought to be a huge cause of warming, much more than CO2 potentially. CFCs might be banned but nitrogen oxides are still emitted like crazy and these also supposedly deplete the ozone layer but you never hear them go into detail about it, just some vague stuff about them being more potent greenhouse gases than. CO2 but their greenhouse effect is dwarfed by the amount of heat they produce from UV through altering the ozone balance. They form in nature out of manure and other nitrogenous organic waste. But a lot of it is scrubbed out of the atmosphere by trees. Now in nature most nitrogenous organic waste either gets used to grow plants or gets sequestered under the Earth to become fossil fuel one day. Nowadays we’ve got tons upon tons of poop that’s not being used to grow plants, it’s rotting in a landfill where there are no trees around to keep the air clean so the sky gets full of NOx. Some of it is livestock manure and should be used to grow feed crops instead of shipping in petroleum based fertilizer from Russia or wherever. And some of it is human waste. Do you think it’s good in the long-term to take and take from the environment and sequester it in a landfill instead of putting it back into the environment to resume its role in the circle of life? (Or the Circle of Poo as South Park puts it - that song explains how it works pretty well). That and there’s an imbalance in the plants to animals ratio. We are not planting enough plants to take advantage of higher CO2 levels to grow abundantly and process it into O2 faster than we can exhale it. To maximize our living vegetation biomass we need all of our poop to be out in the environment being used to grow things, or else stuck in a time capsule underground that we can frack open in a million years when it becomes oil. I mean seriously planting more trees would create jobs and take care of CO2 and the other pollutants. Or better yet, plant hemp which sucks toxins out of the soil, could be used to phytoremediate landfills (don’t smoke the buds or eat the seeds afterwards though! Paper and fibers might be OK) Just stick a whole bunch of them on your roof if you’re not going to get solar panels or paint it white to cool your home. Oh I wonder if a sheet of chicken wire coated with rhodium/palladium/platinum like a catalytic converter and stretched over a crop field would clean out any stray NOx compounds from overapplied fertilizer?
I wont bother to look it all up, but the skepticism is based on the hole being a naturally variable phenomena. From an old comment...
“how is stratospheric ozone produced”? Well you can find the answer in many easily available textbooks (remember there wasn’t a widely available internet circa 1990) – that is stratospheric ozone is formed by sunlight (specifically UV) impinging upon O2 molecules in the upper atmosphere. The high energy UV photons cleave the O2, and the highly reactive and unstable monatomic oxygen binds with nearby O2 to form O3.
And O3 then forms a blocking layer for UV, thus making earth more habitable for all life as we know it.
The key here is, it is a natural process – driven by the UV from the sun. O3 is also unstable and decays spontaneously – if it is not continuously being generated by the solar UV it’s concentration will decline.
Now when is the Antarctic ozone hole observed? In late winter/early spring – WHEN THE ANTARCTIC HAS BEEN IN THE DARK FOR 6 MONTHS! (hence concentrations decline as no new O3 is being generated)
Combine this with the fact that the Antarctic upper wind pattern circulates at the pole, with very little mixing to higher latitudes – and you have a mostly natural phenomenon! OK, so it is highly likely that much of the “hole” is a natural phenom, and there are more factors not even noted.
Supposedly, CFC’s migrate to the upper stratosphere and cause O3 to break down. No such migration has ever been measured – only modeled by the way… But forget about that for a moment. The argument was the UV breaks down the CFC and free Chlorine atoms destroy the Ozone….
So it is fair to ask how much Chlorine the outdoor swimming pools, in just North America, emit into the atmosphere
Turns out it is more chlorine than the entire world’s release of CFC’s over a year. So many critics argue that we’ve banned a mostly benign, non toxic, non flammable refrigerant gas, yet we still pump more chlorine into the atmosphere from N America’s swimming pools (not to mention all the industrial sources, or drinking water treatment in the whole world) than would have been released by CFC’s
And we replaced the CFC’s with an ongoing litany of ever more worse refrigerants – each incarnation after a ban is less efficient, and makes refrigeration systems less efficient/reliable, thus needing to be larger, and less safe as some are now even based on propane (the YF1234 in new cars for example are explosive in accidents, and can release HF in the combustion of YF1234 which can cause irreparable damage if inhaled).
All spray cans used to use inert non flammable CFC’s as propellants – and what did they replace this with? Highly flammable raw propane and butane – to this day. Oh, and CO2 is not a pollutant.
Supposedly the fluorinated compounds damage the ozone less because it takes a higher energy UV photon to break a fluorine-carbon bond than a chlorine-carbon bond.
I don’t know about swimming pool chlorine. If it’s not exposed to enough UV it won’t break the bonds and it won’t become a free radical. A lot of chlorine compounds are very stable, such as dioxins for example.
Vinyl chloride can also make similar compounds when burned. Did you that Teflon is vinyl fluoride, but with all of the hydrogens replaced by fluorine, and completely polymerized of course. I stopped using Teflon pots and pans because I don’t know how to cook without burning shit and that was probably poisoning me.
Hmm I think I recall reading that the cooking spray I used to make pancakes was flammable. Real smart to make something sprayed in such close proximity to a stove flammable. However it didn’t seem to make the gas burner go crazy when I used it over the pan.
Moon all my teflon pans got burned too! Keep up the good thinking, and set a timer when you turn on the stove!
I usually forget the timer and just watch the clock and keep track of the time in my head.
" I stopped using Teflon pots and pans because I don’t know how to cook without burning shit and that was probably poisoning me"
LOL.
I do not know the answer regarding swimming pools, except to note that they are certainly exposed to a great deal of UV light, with high evaporation and regular replacement required. Prior to a recent move I took care of my pool in a very warm sunny environment. I think Free chlorine is formed, post UV exposure, when the chlorine forms hypchlorite ions. The hypochlorite separates when UV light hits it. This turns the hypochlorite into gas, which is released into the air.
If we stopped wasting trillions on mostly beneficial CO2 mitigation, we could easily afford real research and limitation of legitimate environmental concerns and harms.
I’ve wondered about this, and whether chloride in the sea could cause more ozone depletion. According to my calculations it doesn’t but I wasn’t able to get a clear picture of how much chloride from sea spray is in the air.
Powerful. It's always refreshing to find such a clear argument with solid supporting evidence.
I followed your link from Dr. Malone’s substack. Good hook-up. Thank you.
Why are you calling yourself reasonable horses? I like a nice Percheron myself... David's article is pretty convincing, and here is someone who goes one step further: https://tessa.substack.com/p/geoengineering
Percherons appear to be highly reasonable horses, but I don’t believe Gulliver mentions them in his travels. He does, however, hang out in his final voyage with Houyhnhnms, aka “rational” or “reasonable horses” because “The Houyhnhnms, by contrast [with Yahoos, a race of sub-humans], are the epitome of reason and virtuous simplicity” (Britannica). I went with Reasonable Horses because it’s aspirational and “Houyhnhnm” is super hard to spell and pronounce. Some pronounce it “winnums,” but as far as I know, nobody fact-checked that with Swift.
Thanks for the link. I like the way Tessa Fights Robots. We’re in a fight for life against the sick megalomaniacs toxifying medicine, our food and water, and even the air we breathe. Remember a tv ad campaign that told us, “It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature”? Mostly true and the point we’ve been missing from “Frankenstein” for over 200 years.
Ah! I should have known! I knew someone whose license plate was " Houyhnhnm " so I got the story from her... Swift was pretty swift, eh? then I saw the movie of Gulliver's Travels on TV... none of the horses in the movie version Iook at all like Percheron. Glad you like Tessa.
Great resource.
My starting place doesn’t accept the Warmmongers premise but is a simple obvious question. With a follow up and the subsequent follow-ups which write themselves:
What is the Delta between the current Earth temperature and the optimal Earth temperature? Why is that the optimal temperature?
The truth worked out on the old Mensa Debating Forum, and help from the “Unified Theory of Climate” found that the current Earth temperature and the optimal Earth temperature is determined by air pressure. The Earth’s average surface temperature was much higher during the days of the Dinosaurs, but Solar irradiance was weaker. Bubbles in Amber show that the air pressure at that time was about 3 bar. But the simplest way of proving that Carbon Dioxide does not cause warming by radiative forcing, but by molar mass is the fact that we have that 3 bar pressure, and seven replications of proof using the Scientific method. Which are that the average temperature at the one bar pressure points on each of the planets, is the same, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus.
Paul, that sounds like
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/unified-theory-of-climate-nikolov-and-zeller/
and their PTE, (pressure induced thermal enhancement) paper.
That would be a part of an academic pursuit made far easier if CAGW was not Post Normal, political science. Unfortunately the current state of "science" does not allow constructive ideas and debates.
As mentioned below, there is no optimal T.
Fair question with no simple answer. I do not think there is an "optimal" T as nobody lives in the GAT, let alone can easily define that number. Clearly an ice age is not optimal for human society, However, what is beneficial to some, is harmful to others, and that varies by the individual as well.
First of all the GAT is not known, ( large error bars) and every attempt comes up with very different answers. So, within “climate science “ they simply take a data set, and attempt to calculate the warming rate based on that data set with extrapolating factors from hundreds of miles away. ( Again, error bars are usually not included ) So they calculate an anomaly, not a GAT, and the "adjustments" always continue and tend to cool the past or warm the present. The satellite troposphere readings are likely the best atmospheric T gauge for many reasons, and they show very little warming. (linked in the post)
They generally ignore the option of using only long measured location stations well situated for avoiding errors like Urban Heat Islands, etc. The Ocean Heat content studies are all over the map with very large error bars and very legitimate published peer review criticisms. The entire GAT field is frankly FUBAR with dozens of critical papers published in the Peer Review literature. Much greater resolution would be needed with consistent similar methodology and proper station settings as well as an accurate calculation of global humidity. This is well beyond our current ability now, let alone for the historic past with disparate measuring instruments, practices, and coverage that was very sparse.
The USHCN, or United States Historical Climate Network of well dispersed long running stations shows the 1930s as the warmest. The “optimal” depends on where you live I suppose, and is a rather arbitrary variable. The adjustments used are very controversial. The oceans contain 1000 times the energy of the atmosphere, and the energy residence time is far far longer. Cloud feedback's are heavily disputed and they may even have the sign wrong. The atmosphere is a thin sandwich between space and the oceans. There are at least 20 different papers giving very different estimates on the climate sensitivity to CO2.
Does that help?
Very good, very useful, and very interesting. Makes sense of what is going on..
Thank you Gary. I have two academic friends that only ever listened to NPR, the BBC, etc... They both were shocked to learn how cloistered their "news" is. And so it has opened their minds to re-examine other areas.
😂
LOVE THE PRETTY POOCHIE IN RED!!!
That is the Lorelei, named after Marilyn Monroe in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes".
She taught me a great many things in our 18 years together. We lost her in November of 2021.
Terrific Name and sure does fit...And, Marilyn is the only person who could EVER have carried that role in 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes'. Love the Oldies.
So sorry to hear about your loss...Makes me weep. Our pets become our family...At all times and there's never enough time for those loving unconditionally. I have a white Maltese named Dexter I rescued years ago and he's now going on 16. He's the proverbial good-natured little old man...AND, I adore him. I know my time with Dexter is short...
Wishing you a great Sunday...I KNOW OUR PETS ARE SOMEWHERE IN SOME KIND OF PET HEAVEN.
The only poem I ever wrote...
" My Lorelei die
Semper-fi Lorelei"
Great name for a poem. Remember Styx?
Sorry, David. I'm still new at all this and a bit of a Luddite besides.
There's a long piece here https://jtbernini.substack.com/p/discernment-disease-and-the-destruction-46f , a much shorter one here https://jtbernini.substack.com/p/orwell-is-alive-and-well-and-living and something in between here https://jtbernini.substack.com/p/the-low-road-to-highland
James Fetzer published that last one on his web log. A few days later it (the web log) was attacked. I'm not sure what its status is at this point.
This is another great article. It is amazing how effective control of interest rates also controls the narrative. "Whoever controls the narrative ... controls public opinion... controls the world.”
Monetary study by New York Chamber of Commerce “Special Currency Committee” – 1906, “By the control of its rate of interest and of its issues of notes it would be able to exert great influence upon the money market and upon public opinion. Such power is not possessed by any institution in the United States.”
Here in Western Colorado the weather modification jets keep us from seeing the sun day after day since October 2022 except for the day the jets were grounded 1/11/23. Control of the weather is by corporations in the 21st century. Control of the climate is still up to nature.
WeatherModification.info