News & views not related to the wars in Ukraine and Palestine …
Back to Main
September 4, 2024
Open (Neither Ukraine Nor Palestine) Thread 2024-211
Comments
@ Walt | Sep 5 2024 1:32 utc | 102 who learned a new trick, congrats!
Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 5 2024 1:34 utc | 102
From scienceofclimatechange.org
by researcher Dai Ato of Osaka
Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase:
The Sea Surface Temperature Rules
I have no information on veracity or independent confirmation.
Posted by: necromancer | Sep 5 2024 1:45 utc | 104
Why Macron refuses to comply with elections results:
https://www.politico.eu/article/frances-deficit-could-be-worse-than-expected-this-year/
Belonging to the EU is not compatible with a voting system of popular representation.
Posted by: Tom | Sep 5 2024 1:47 utc | 105
Posted by: Phil R | Sep 4 2024 23:48 utc | 92
You’ve utterly misunderstood my post.
Posted by: Patroklos | Sep 5 2024 2:09 utc | 106
Posted by: canuck | Sep 5 2024 0:36 utc | 99
The inability to grasp my post philosophically demonstrates the incapacity to grapple with the narratival nature of their utterances. Canuck proves my point without the slightest understanding why. The fatigue I feel at the prospect of never being able to explain it is overwhelming.
I understood why Bevin bailed, but nevertheless:
1. if climate change is natural and has nothing to do with human activity, what should our response to a changing climate be?
2. Why does it mean so much to you that climate change is natural as opposed to man-made?
Now, if your answer is that a man-made event justifies social and economic policy decisions that have to do with a sinister (WEF) agenda, then you need to spell that out. Proving that climate change is natural doesn’t do that. If you don’t understand the logical and rhetorical subtleties, and instead insist on reducing it to a territorial pissing war about which side of the debate has greater claim to be the truth-teller (so boring), I recommend reading Nietzsche On the Genealogy of Morals to grasp my point. But I ain’t holding my breath.
Posted by: Patroklos | Sep 5 2024 2:19 utc | 107
Never too old.
I learn something new every day.
🙂
Posted by: Walr | Sep 5 2024 1:38 utc | 104
Chuckle, learning something new, but forgetting something old, like spelling your name?
Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Sep 5 2024 2:38 utc | 109
Some questions I can’t get out of my head.
Everyone eventually dies. Like the saying: death and taxes, they are inevitable.
So, if everyone dies – and you and I eventually will – what difference does it make if everyone else dies with us (nuclear annihilation)? After one dies, does one care that everybody else lives?
If we are stupid enough as a specie to allow ourselves to that outcome [nukes], then we deserve it. We are not worthy of life if we don’t cherish it. We are not worthy of life if we don’t live it.
I say this with a heavy heart, as I’m talking about my own family/species are headed for a certain outcome.
Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Sep 5 2024 2:41 utc | 110
@111
Modern philosophy has been simplified for us to the condensed statement:
“You are safe or I blow everything up”
Attention getting basically, and there is little or nothing anyone is able to do about that.
Such is life on earth.
Posted by: Ornot | Sep 5 2024 3:11 utc | 112
JAB@1518
Thanks for the latest and the newest regarding the incarceration racket. Alabama’s modern-day serfdom is but a peewee in comparison with UNICOR, which happily victimizes Federal prisoners. Working on numerous projects, both laboring and analyzing patent applications as an example of jobs for the more intellectually uncompromised; the per hour pay-scale is minuscule.
Interestingly, the Feds have long been developing globalism is the UN in Unicor is not even headquartered here in the U$$A but in Canuckistan. And yes, the UN in Unicor stands for THE UN…the United Nations. The Di$trict of Corruption bi-party regime is proud to do its bit to bring in more funding for the Rottenfeller Crime Clan founded United Nations…as most members have been so financially sucked-off that their contributions are of little consequence.
Also of fascinating import,,,with less than 4% of the world’s population the U$$A holds a full quarter (25%) of its incarcerated men, women and children. The two most populous lands, China and India which combined sport well over two billion subjects and citizens as against a relatively mere 350,000,000 (counting perhaps 20 million illegal migrants, openly greeted by government and corporations…have FEWER imprisoned individuals than the U.$.
The Murrikkkan law n’ order racket employs tens of thousands and enjoys power over millions…and not just prisoners, but taxpayers and small enterprises as well. Prison wardens are well compensated off the books, as they generally control contracts with various “providers” of goods and services for those nefarious institutions. They are quite the money-makers for those who are inside of those who are held “inside”.
Such a racket…and the vast majority of deliberately dumbed down Murrikkkans have not a clue or even a cue.
Posted by: aristodemos | Sep 5 2024 3:13 utc | 113
No life that we know of has ever existed without carbon. You are the carbon that they want to get rid of.
Posted by: Immaculate deception | Sep 5 2024 3:16 utc | 114
Patroklos@219
If you cannot explain the intricacies of cosmic cyclicality and its affect on climate change; why bitch about the subject which has been worn-out by the schemers with an agenda which they have the balls to explain as a “Green” Agenda. As for Nietzsche; I much prefer the intrepid common sense of Alfred North Whitehead.
Posted by: aristodemos | Sep 5 2024 3:18 utc | 115
Re: psychohistorian @87,
that’s a nothing story, the NDP have threatened the Liberals with “withdrawing their automatic support” for the past 3 minority governments when the Liberals needed them. In a practical sense all this means is that the NDP wants the Liberals to toss some money at the NDP’s backers (which is basically immigrants in big cities, minimum wage earners in big cities and health care workers (but only those who work in big cities)).
There’s a small chance of a fall election (more likely spring/summer next year, after the US election), the issue is that no one wants an election now and none of the major parties have anything to run on since they agree on all of the major public policies. to get an election before 2025 they would need either a huge liberal political scandal that the other parties could run on (i.e. throw the bums out) – OR – the Liberals would have to do something really stupid, like try to force through an extremely unpopular piece of legislation (which is unlikely since the Liberals have historically only pushed through legislation once they have overwhelming support from the other parties and after 3 terms of Liberal governance, they’ve effectively achieved all of their major legislative objectives already, there is simply nothing left worth going to the mat over).
even if Trudeau and the Liberals lose an early election (now or in 2025 or 2026), i dont see anything changing in Canada regardless of who is in charge. Canada follows, it never leads or sets an example, whoever is appointed during the next US election will set the course for Canada
Posted by: Kadath | Sep 5 2024 3:24 utc | 116
Tom@147
Vs the E.U. you are on the right track. That entity is not controlled by those who serve their national constituencies in their “congress”. Generally, the Brussels Bureaucraps are catching the blame.
However, those place-holders are mere minions for the banksters, the Talmudists and the Old Black Nobility which actually dates back to Imperial Rome by suchlike as the ancient crime clans such as the Colonnas. Numerous popes and myriads of cardinals, archbishops and bishops were younger sons from those family lines…the elder ones always dominating geopolitical and financial affiliates.
Posted by: aristodemos | Sep 5 2024 3:25 utc | 117
Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Sep 5 2024 2:38 utc | 110
Not so much a loss of memory as failing eyesight and trying to compose on my phone.
But memory certainly is a worry now. Whole tracts from recent years have gone and yet I can still clearly remember some occurrences from 60, 70 years ago, but going places now in China my wife say we went here, there, ten years ago, five, whatever, and I have not the faintest recollection. And every morning, I start to fill in our daily diary, and my first question to my wife is “What did we do yesterday?”
Posted by: Walt | Sep 5 2024 3:42 utc | 118
Nemesis and Malenkov:
The logical response to all the hormone explosions in junior high school settings can be readily solved by eliminating co-education in that 12-15 age-group. It certainly would make progressing into high-school more attractive and would have some success in reducing premature pregnancies and abortions.
Under such a revised program, it might be possible to engage highly talented teachers…and highly motivated ones as well. Imagine 7th, 8th and 9th grade kids actually LEARNING history, geography and other culturally critical subjects.
Posted by: aristodemos | Sep 5 2024 3:47 utc | 119
Why the US Army requires proxy foreign armies.
from Stars & Stripes . . .
Obesity among troops costs Pentagon more than $1 billion per year, new study finds
Obesity was the leading cause for disqualification among hopeful military recruit applicants, and the top driver of separations among active-duty troops in 2023, according to the new American Security Project study. The Washington-based think tank that studies modern national security issues found the Pentagon spent some $1.25 billion last year treating military patients for dozens of diseases related to obesity, and another $99 million in lost productivity among hospitalized overweight troops.
“America can no longer afford to ignore this [obesity] crisis,” American Security Project researchers wrote. “The United States armed forces face an unprecedented challenge as obesity prevalence among service members continues to rise. As combat and incidental injuries become less prevalent year-over-year, rates of obesity-related conditions, including diabetes, osteoarthritis, hypertension and steatotic liver disease increasingly meet or exceed civilian trends.” . .here
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 5 2024 3:50 utc | 120
@Posted by: fnord | Sep 5 2024 0:39 utc | 100
Being an actual historical materialist tends to get me into problems with both conservatives and bourgeois progressives alike, especially when I ask for facts and then check them. I note your attempts at “shoot the messenger” by asserting that I am angry and that I am of conservative disposition, both attempts to discredit me rather than deal with my criticisms.
– You stated that the majority of homeless people are LGBT; they may be over-represented in the homeless population but your reference actually supports my assertion that LGBT are not the majority of homeless youth. I never said that such individuals may not suffer abuse, I accurately identified your now proven hyperbole (by your own reference) that “the majority of homeless people are LGBT”. I note your attempts to manipulate, misrepresent and twist my words here.
– With respect to de-transitioning, there is no scientifically reliable research and anyone quoting numbers is being disingenuous at best. This lack of reliable research leads to large variations between studies due to methodology and sample size differences and issues. We simply don’t know the number and large scale, longitudinal studies are required to answer that question. What we do see is actual people recounting their experiences of de-transitioning.
– The issues of LGB individuals and T individuals are very separate, with the former having gained overwhelming acceptance within North America in the past decades. There may be some who contest gay marriage, but the view of them as deviants is now thankfully seen as beyond the pale. My issue here is with the identification of gender change as a “fix all” with respect to vulnerable individuals, your assertion that there is no possibility of intended or unintended manipulation is starry-eyed at best.
– There are numerous laws in the US and other nations defining what parental rights are, so your comments on this are not based in facts; a simple google search proves you wrong. Your assertion that “reactionaries” on this site believe that children are property requires actual examples rather than unsupported statements.
– Below is a paper detailing how Freud was at first absolutely correct in interpreting female “hysteria” as predominantly the product of childhood sexual abuse in “The Aetiology of Hysteria”. But then within a year he walked it all back, because the acceptance of his findings would mean that the good bourgeois families of Vienna were hotbeds of childhood sexual abuse, and to make such accusations would be very detrimental for his income and possibly his health. All of Freud’s work then stemmed from this refusal to accept the reality of his patient’s statements.
https://healinghonestly.com/memory/freud-was-right-about-childhood-sexual-abuse-until-he-was-disastrously-wrong-about-it/
– You absolutely affirm your utter bigotry in your generalized attack upon Christians.
– So you see no problem with 12, 13, 14 year-olds and younger being able to watch hyper-explicit pornography free on the internet? WTF.
– The Soviet Union, China, Vietnam were/are all extremely progressive feminist nations and also provided full support for female bodily autonomy with respect to female reproductive rights. But that seems to escape you as all you seem to care about is LGBT rights. They also greatly raised the living standards, educational standards etc. of the general population – a great freedom from widespread illiteracy and semi-feudalism. Goldman is a pigmy compared to the leaders of these nations.
I do actually fully support the rights of adults to change their gender identity if that makes them happier, and the right of sub-18 teenagers to have proper mental health support to deal with psychological issues – including gender dysphoria. In many cases gender dysphoria is mixed up with other conditions that needed to be treated holistically, not just focused on “gender affirming care”.
fnord@039
A huge plurality if not full majority of those who claim to be Christians can righteously be accused of being historically ignorant. They have been programmed from parents, schools and churches to believe in the deracination and degradation of European tribal peoples and tribes by the process which I consider as the JudieChristie MagickMindfuck.
So-called “Pagans” (the word meaning rural folk) were tribal people who lived close to the miraculous majesty of the natural world. They didn’t need to believe in Creator…they knew by daily interaction with Creation. Their concepts of Cosmic Consciousness was also at a level which had not begun to be openly retrieved until publication of Richard Bucke’s book: “Cosmic Consciousness” in 1906. The Great Awakening is occurring as a growing majority of European descended individuals are no longer forcibly enthralled by the JudieChristie MagickMindfuck. Magic is simple. It is based upon observation of the natural world and of the entire cosmos. It is a form of atonement…at-one-meant…and of attunement with all that is.
The Roman emperor Constantine commissioned a gaggle of would-be leaders of the Christians into choosing, editing, redacting and interpolating various mostly “acceptable to the state” scriptures and shitcanning those which were Jesusite, Gnostic or the writers of those scrolls which needed to be hidden away from vengeful “Christians” in Nag Hammadi in Egypt. The most prominent amongst those almost successfully “disappeared” by the Roman and religious “authorities” were highlighted by the Gospel of Thomas. “Doubting Thomas”, as religionists prefer to label that astute disciple, frequently quoted numerous purely spiritual (NOT organized religion) sayings of Jesus which were almost eliminated by the “Builder”…the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Most Christians are not individuals of faith, which is innate, rather they are BELIEVERS in the tenets of their own now deeply held indoctrinations. They are not free thinkers, but mere subjects of those who would treat them as a flock of sheep.
Posted by: aristodemos | Sep 5 2024 4:05 utc | 122
@Posted by: Ahenobarbus | Sep 4 2024 20:32 utc | 78
Trotsky and Trotskyists are two very different things, in fact Trotsky was two very different things (i) in power and doing what was required for implementing actually existing socialism and (ii) out of power and dreaming about the “perfect” revolution, rejecting everything he himself had done in power and slandering the communist state.
The first Trotsky and his insights and understandings of the reality of revolutionary methods was excellent, the latter not so much. The Trotskyists follow the latter, or at least their understanding of the latter. No successful revolution is ever pure enough for them, they are lovers of failed pure revolutions.
@ aristodemos | Sep 5 2024 3:47 utc | 120
Ha! That might work if you locked them up in boarding schools, with 24/7 exposure to only the same sex.
Only trouble is that the boys start looking awfully good to each other, as anyone familiar with English “public schools” can attest.
Posted by: malenkov | Sep 5 2024 4:16 utc | 124
fnord@1923
Perhaps you can read between the lines of the original early American Revolutionary version of the previous British put-down song “Yankee Doodle” with key lyrics being “Yankee Doodle went to London, just to ride a pony, stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni”.
Historical note needed here. Riding a pony probably was referent to the more contemporary British term of “Rent Boy”. Plenty of horses in New England, so we must look elsewhere.
The Macaroni were somewhat akin to what contemporary Brits refer to as “Toffs”…Upperclass dandies, often samesex oriented men who had done the Grand Tour into Italy and there discovered comparatively acceptable sexuality. So back in London they took on “cotumerie” as the French might describe it…lots of fancy and fanciful, somewhat feminine dresss and all that.
Revolutionary minded Americans of the Buker Hill era were cultural revolutionaries…quite possibly even before political and military ones. So here goes: “Father and I went down to camp, along with Capn Goodin and there we saw the men and boys as THICK as hasty puddin. Yankee Doodle keep it up, Yankee Doodle Dandy, mind the music and the step and with the girls be HANDY”. My emphasis on Thick and Handy.
Quite obvious if one is capable of reading between the lines. “Frottage”, a French term, described men and boys engaging in crotch to crotch release of the hormonal imperative while tenting tonight together on the old camp grounds. On leave back to civil society, the younger ones engaged in “spooning” with females of their preference…an occasion where both the boys and the girls were handy with each other.
The bisexual release of tensions while preventing unsustainable pregnancies was most probably culturally commonplace during the latter part of the 18th century.
Prove me wrong. Come up with more compelling evidence.
Posted by: aristodemos | Sep 5 2024 4:25 utc | 125
2023 Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223001915
The claim that a suite of supposed indicators is unique to that moment is not substantiated with data. There is no obvious evidence of environmental cataclysm at that time in the vast published geomorphic or paleobotanical records. There is no support for the basic premise of the YDIH that human populations were diminished, and individual species of late Pleistocene megafauna became extinct or were diminished due to catastrophe. Evidence and arguments purported to support the YDIH involve flawed methodologies, inappropriate assumptions, questionable conclusions, misstatements of fact, misleading information, unsupported claims, irreproducible observations, logical fallacies, and selected omission of contrary information. In this comprehensive review of the available evidence, we address and draw attention to these critical failings. We demonstrate that research in numerous fields has shown the YDIH should be rejected.
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 4:27 utc | 126
@ Patroklos | Sep 5 2024 2:19 utc | 108
“The fatigue I feel at the prospect of never being able to explain it is overwhelming.”
The ‘never being able to explain it’ prospect is only fatiguing if you assume it can
be explained to everyone. If your two questions there are considered by other readers,
and certainly they are, then you should gain energy by knowing you have enlightened some.
Repeatedly pushing the rock up the hill is not your responsibility. Just spread a little
good earth around as you go and trust things will grow. G’day!
Posted by: waynorinorway | Sep 5 2024 4:49 utc | 127
Walt | Sep 5 2024 3:42 utc | 119
“And every morning, I start to fill in our daily diary…”
Better to do a daily diary late in the evening and review it in the morning.
It’ll help you sleep, remember, and plan.
(And if you’ve had too much fun in the evening it will help you moderate, heh.)
Keep up with the substack and thanks for the bevin heads-up.
Posted by: waynorinorway | Sep 5 2024 4:56 utc | 128
So they say that Earth has had 17 ice ages in the last 2 Million years which we know had nothing to do with man made activities. Similarly the massive Krakatoa volcanic explosion had nothing to do with man made activities either. But it still it caused thousands to die anyway. The ice ages caused likely millions of deaths of humanoids and homo sapiens along the way too. Weather and climate extremes kill flora and fauna on a regular basis as well as mass extinctions.
Unfortunately there is clearly, self-evidently, no analogous relationship between Krakatoa or ice ages and todays rapid record breaking man made (Anthropogenic) global heating crisis climate change impacts and ecological mass destruction and extinctions. None whatsoever. It’s called a false comparison. A kind of straw man fallacy.
So it is many deluded uneducated ignorant people continue holding on to illogical thinking and ideas that have been absolutely proven to be inaccurate and false. What does one do with such irrational creatures? You pity them. You never believe them. You humor them. And pat them on the head often and say “There there.”
False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Irrational and Illogical Comparisons
Description: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.
The one shared characteristic in the case is the notion of “Climate Changes Occur” – DOH! Yeah, they do. Since the earth had an atmosphere climate change shave occurred for all kinds of different reasons and drivers and changes. DOH!
This time it’s the world’s humans causing it! And that’s the real story here. Not the Ice Ages!
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 4:59 utc | 129
walt@130, well put. The so called “climate deniers” shall be burned at the stake! Because we all trust the “science”, don’t we?
Posted by: Immaculate deception | Sep 5 2024 5:08 utc | 130
While some cannot tell the difference between the thinking behind Unreasonable Irrational and Illogical Comparisons and politically motivated head in the sand denial and disinformation. It’s a fine line.
“Excuse me, you got a light?” 🙂
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 5:39 utc | 132
The Monroe Doctrine is kicking off in Honduras.
Honduran President: ‘2009 forces organizing to stage new coup’ ==> https://youtu.be/IjEog0NSC6g
Posted by: too scents | Sep 5 2024 6:24 utc | 133
@canuck | Sep 5 2024 0:36 utc | 99
Norwegian, what does one do with such irrational creatures?
I have tended to see Patroklos as fairly rational, but his posts on supposed man made climate change was some of the most irrational I have ever read. You cannot discuss rationally against such confusion. So unless people show some ability to argue within the bounds of scientific rationality, you have to leave them alone.
The claims about “man made climate change” are claims. It scientific language it is a formulation of a hypothesis that claims humans, via our activities are significantly changing the climate to the degree it causes the end of times. If the hypothesis is falsifiable, it is a scientific claim and the burden of proof (based on the scientific method) is on those who make such claims. If the hypothesis is not falsifiable it is not a scientific hypothesis but instead a religious idea that lives in someone’s mind only, and thus completely alien to my understanding of reality.
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 6:26 utc | 134
@Roger | Sep 5 2024 4:07 utc | 124
Trotsky like all the revolutionaries was just a stooge for the anglosaxon oligarchy’s struggle to attain hegemony.
It is a permanent feature in the leftist community to deliberately blinding themselves to that very very important aspect: That the oligarchy is playing both sides and those who pick one side and doesnt want to see the whole picture is not doing themselves or anybody a favour.
Posted by: petergrfstrm | Sep 5 2024 6:49 utc | 136
@steven t johnson | Sep 5 2024 0:16 utc | 96
Patroklos@79 drew a powerful parallel between tobacco companies denying the causes of cancer and modern anthropogenic climate change deniers. Well put.
Calling people “climate change deniers” is simply throwing derogatory labels around and disqualifies anyone who using such crude methods from participating in a rational debate about a scientific question.
Some of us simply uphold the null hypothesis: What we observe today wrt. climate is within normal, natural variation in comparison to geologic history and even recent human history.
Would you like to be labeled a “null hypothesis denier”? I don’t think so, so I will not do it. I simply trust that you realize it is up to you to falsify the null hypothesis.
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 6:58 utc | 137
@Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 6:26 utc | 135
If you understand basic physics relating to molecular radiative transfer in the athmosphere the climate science predictions of a net effect from added CO2 is a fact. Not something dependent qualitatively on cumbersome multicell (often hundreds of meters in size) calculations.
Some scientists have used Schwarzschilds radiation transfer formulas but this approach could be investigated by more ambitious programs than is presently the case.
This because there are few uncertainties in that case. All possible to quantify empirically.
The actual climate science mostly employs other less exact methods since they want to calculate the effect of the climate system as a whole. But since many skeptics doubt the science it would be valuable to convince people by putting more emphasize on a separate proof for added CO2, with suitable premisses.
The difficulties with using such radiation transfer calculation is that the presence of the spectrum of heat complicates the calculations but far less than the complications actually used for predictions.
As is often the case, it seems to me, there are many branches of science where the understanding and willingness to dig into physics aspects are lacking.
And that lack of proper understanding handicaps the development and organisation of scientific programs.
In my view, that problem also exists in cellular biology seriously handicapping medical science.
Posted by: petergrfstrm | Sep 5 2024 7:14 utc | 138
137 – Any documented proof of that? I mean, something other than florid conspiracy theories about all-powerful Jews?
Posted by: Waldorf | Sep 5 2024 7:44 utc | 139
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 6:26 utc | 135
“Man made climate change” is a cultural and ideological phenomenon in a growingly fanatical ideological milieu here in the West, so forget about the null hypothesis. The scientific component of this cultural and ideological phenomenon is ancillary.
“Man made climate change” is comparable to the old ideas that the Earth is at the center of the universe and that humans are the single animal for which the whole universe was created by an old guy in sandals. These two old ideas are no longer tenable but then idea that we are the main determinant in the functioning of the whole biosphere has replaced them as a downgraded version.
Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Sep 5 2024 8:09 utc | 140
The most significant “Deniers”, in my view are the Biology Deniers in the Socio-Political realm. There is a reason, hidden from most, of the success of the Icelander on a volcanic rock verses the failure of Haitians in a tropical garden.
BTW, I just measured the sky temp at -12C, 0100hrs. We’re in the middle of a heatwave here in SoCal.
Denier Ron
Posted by: Stones | Sep 5 2024 8:25 utc | 141
Many of us climate skeptics have a pretty good handle on radiation, spectrum and other relevant aspects of physics. None of the slobbering alarmists mention that at near 400 parts per million, CO2 is near saturation in its effect on temp. Once the air is black at the tiny sliver of spectrum characterized by CO2 , the effect of more CO2 is greatly diminished.
I agree with post 147 that there is more than a bit of a physcho angle to this business. And I am sure, money and prestige as well.
Be Well.
Posted by: Stones | Sep 5 2024 9:06 utc | 142
Posted by: feeble fnord | Sep 5 2024 0:39 utc | 100
You make no sense whatsoever.
A child cannot vote , smoke a cigarette, get married or drink a light beer before reaching age of maturity but, in your feeble idea they can choose to take puberty blockers at 11 years of age or get their respective cock or tits chopped off. (1)
You are either a Monster or an idiot-considering the quality of your prose and logic I strongly suspect the latter.
1. In the case of Keira Bell. now aged 25, she was prescribed puberty blockers aged 16, then received testosterone shots a year later, and aged 20 had a double mastectomy.
She later changed her mind over her decision to transition to male. She argued the clinic [Tavistock Institute in England that has now been shut down because of its harm to children) should have challenged her more over her decision to transition.
Puberty blockers, which can be used to put a pause on puberty while a young person thinks about their gender identity, were first introduced into transgender care by specialists in the Netherlands in 1988.
In Ms Bell’s case, the High Court ruled under-16s lacked capacity to give informed consent to the treatment. This was later overturned by the Court of Appeal which ruled doctors could judge if under-16s could give informed consent to puberty blocker use.
Ms Bell told BBC Radio 4 World at One: “I went through a lot of distress as a teenager. Really I just needed some mental health support and therapy from everything that I’ve been through. There needs to be mental health support first and foremost.”
Keira Bell, a former Tavistock patient, said there needs to be more mental health support for young trans and gender-questioning people
Dr David Bell – not related to Keira Bell – is a former consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock NHS Foundation Trust, where he raised concerns. He said it was a “good thing” the service was closing down.
Proper funding was needed for mental health services for children and adolescents, he said.”
Posted by: Jo | Sep 4 2024 11:46 utc | 19
Germany is a mystery – just today, speaking on the Eastern Economic Forum, Vladimir Putin had to admit he is puzzled by the logic of our decisions. There still exists one tube of North Stream 2 which the yankees failed to destroy – it can transport 27.5 billion cubic meters of gas per year. Putin keeps offering to deliver gas to Germany through this existing pipeline, but, in Germany, allthough we are starving for gas, no one seems interested.
This is something I can’t understand about my countrymen – not even the curiosity exists to understand who destroyed the pipelines – while, outside of the Western hemisphere, everybody knows the answer.
At the German regional elections of September 1st, the three governing parties reached, taken together, some 12 percent of the vote! Over 30 percent in both Thuringia and Saxony went to the AfD, which is the major true opposition party we have. Simultaneously, the newly founded party BSW (Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht) reached 15.7 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of the vote in these two regions. So this election has revealed a landslide in favor of the pro-Russian momentum in our country – giving me some hope for the federal elections of 2025.
Sahra is one of the politicians who choses her wording very carefully, as you must do these days in Germany if you are in opposition to the mainstream narrative. At the same time, she is very outspoken on issues such as her refusal of the weapon deliveries to Ukraine, or of the US request to station medium range nuclear capable missiles in Germany beginning in 2026.
She enjoys huge public support and has excellent debating skills. Makes me concerned for her physical safety, since of course our country is full of Atlanticists and US friendly secret services like the BND.
Posted by: grunzt | Sep 5 2024 10:11 utc | 145
@petergrfstrm | Sep 5 2024 7:14 utc | 139
If you understand basic physics relating to molecular radiative transfer in the athmosphere the climate science predictions of a net effect from added CO2 is a fact.
Yes, the predictions are a fact (i.e. computer model guesses), but when you compare those predictions to observations, they don’t match.
The Key to Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 10:14 utc | 146
@Johan Kaspar | Sep 5 2024 8:09 utc | 141
Yes, pretty much so. It is an ideology.
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 10:15 utc | 147
If you understand basic physics relating to molecular radiative transfer in the athmosphere the climate science predictions of a net effect from added CO2 is a fact.
Posted by: petergrfstrm | Sep 5 2024 7:14 utc | 139
Predictions are not facts. If you want a prediction get a crystal ball. They’re at least as accurate as climate change models.
Posted by: Phil R | Sep 5 2024 10:29 utc | 148
CO2 is near saturation in its effect on temp – so what’s there to be worried about? Nothing!
So what are y’all so scared of? If the world isn’t warming and their is no man made climate change due to CO2 or whatever they allege it is, it will be obvious to everyone with eyes it’s a big fraud same as peak oil was.
Won’t be getting hotter. No climate changes. No dying reefs. No rising sea level. Bountiful fish catches. No failed crops. Normal number of wild fries. Avg floods now and then. No new temp records. No heatwaves The stupid slobbering alarmists will eventually be silenced and then die off. Be patient. It’s all good. Vote Trump and the Repubs. Simple.
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 10:32 utc | 149
Stones @ 142:
Iceland became a wealthy society only within the last 80 years, after gaining independence from Denmark and hosting a US military base in Keflavik, near Reykjavik. Before 1944, Icelanders were some of the poorest people in Europe because of Danish laws stopping them from selling their produce to anyone other than Danish merchants.
As for the Haitians, they were compelled after independence in 1805 to pay huge reparations to France. Haiti was also occupied by US forces on and off since 1914, which occupation disrupted the country’s politics and economic development.
Carlton Meyer, who occasionally visits these forums, made a YouTube documentary about how US invasion and occupation of Haiti in the early 20th century stifled the country’s development.
Posted by: Refinnejenna | Sep 5 2024 10:37 utc | 150
Calling people “climate change deniers” hurts their feelings. Don’t be so cruel and nasty.
Should be a banning offense, yes?
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 10:38 utc | 151
Yes, the predictions are a fact (i.e. computer model guesses), but when you compare those predictions to observations, they don’t match.
The Key to Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 10:14 utc | 147
I agree with your post but just to clarify, predictions are not facts, and I think that’s where a lot of the confusion and contention rears its ugly head. Empirical observations are facts. Many people for some reason think computer models are infallible truth when they’re not. All models are wrong, some are useful.
Posted by: Phil R | Sep 5 2024 10:42 utc | 152
If the hypothesis is falsifiable, it is a scientific claim and the burden of proof (based on the scientific method) is on those who make such claims. If the hypothesis is not falsifiable it is not a scientific hypothesis but instead a religious idea that lives in someone’s mind only, and thus completely alien to my understanding of reality.
So what is the null hypothesis? Show it to me. These climate scientists must have written it down often.
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 10:46 utc | 153
F16 put into combat in Russia-Ukraine war, Taiwan F-16V and Chinese J-10C full PK ==> https://youtu.be/hedkTeot4J8
Posted by: too scents | Sep 5 2024 10:51 utc | 154
Trolling level:1st class
“Biden was our favorite, but then he was removed from the race. He recommended that all his supporters support Harris, which means we will support her too. She laughs so infectiously that it means that everything is fine with her,” Putin said.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
https://t.me/intelslava/66030
Posted by: Mary | Sep 5 2024 10:54 utc | 155
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 10:46 utc | 154
So what is the null hypothesis? Show it to me.
This is the null hypothesis: H0. So I’m showing it to you now. You like it don’t you?
Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Sep 5 2024 11:02 utc | 156
@Phil R | Sep 5 2024 10:42 utc | 153
I agree with your post but just to clarify, predictions are not facts, and I think that’s where a lot of the confusion and contention rears its ugly head. Empirical observations are facts. Many people for some reason think computer models are infallible truth when they’re not. All models are wrong, some are useful.
Agreed 100%, my point was simply that it is a fact that predictions were made 🙂
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 11:06 utc | 157
@Fred | Sep 5 2024 10:46 utc | 154
So what is the null hypothesis? Show it to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 11:09 utc | 158
I know what a ‘null hypothesis’ means.
I am asking for the specific ones that relate to the “climate science” scientific claims you and others refer to. eg Johan is either very confused or a very funny man.
Every ‘theory’ / ‘paper’ has a null hypothesis. Yeah? What are the ones you object yo as not being good enough as a proper scientific ‘null hypothesis’?
Let me know if you still don’t understand what (examples) I am asking for and want to see.
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 11:22 utc | 159
If the hypothesis is falsifiable, it is a scientific claim and the burden of proof (based on the scientific method) is on those who make such claims. If the hypothesis is not falsifiable it is not a scientific hypothesis but instead a religious idea that lives in someone’s mind only, and thus completely alien to my understanding of reality.
So what is the null hypothesis? Show it to me. These climate scientists must have written it down often.
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 10:46 utc | 154
If you don’t understand what a null hypothesis is, go read an introduction to statistics book. The onus is not on the people you disagree with to educate you.
Posted by: Phil R | Sep 5 2024 11:25 utc | 160
Let me know if you still don’t understand what (examples) I am asking for and want to see.
Posted by: Fred | Sep 5 2024 11:22 utc | 160
Ho = variations in weather over the last (insert favorite cherrypicked time period here) years are within the normal range of natural historical observations.
Posted by: Phil R | Sep 5 2024 11:30 utc | 161
“If you understand basic physics relating to molecular radiative transfer in the athmosphere the climate science predictions of a net effect from added CO2 is a fact.”
Posted by: petergrfstrm | Sep 5 2024 7:14 utc | 139
Total nonsense.
You don’t understand physics whatsoever or climate history for that matter-kindly please educate yourself by reading the below or stay ignorant and keep faith with the MSM propaganda, your choice:
“Overview
Green plants grow faster with more CO2 . Many also become more drought resistant because higher CO2
levels allow plants to use water more efficiently. More abundant vegetation from increased CO2
is already apparent. Satellite images reveal significant greening of the planet in recent decades,
especially at desert margins, where drought resistance is critical. This remarkable planetary greening
is the result of a mere 30% increase of CO2 from its preindustrial levels. Still higher CO2 levels will
bring still more benefits to agriculture.
Plants use energy from sunlight to fuse a molecule of CO2 to a molecule of water,
H2 O, to form carbohydrates. One molecule of oxygen O2 is released to the air for each
CO2 molecule removed. Biological machinery of plants reworks the carbohydrate
polymers into proteins, oils and other molecules of life. Every living creature, from
the blooming rose, to the newborn baby, is made of carbon from former atmospheric
CO2 molecules. Long-dead plants used CO2 from ancient atmospheres to produce
most of the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas that have transformed the life of
most humans – moving from drudgery and near starvation before the industrial
revolution to the rising potential for abundance today.
The fraction of the beneficial molecule CO2 in the current atmosphere is tiny,
about 0.04% by volume. This level is about 30% larger than pre-industrial levels in
1800. But today’s levels are still much smaller than the levels, 0.20% or more, that
prevailed over much of geological history. CO2 levels during the past tens of millions
of years have been much closer to starvation levels, 0.015%, when many plants die,
than to the much higher levels that most plants prefer. Basic physics implies that
more atmospheric CO2 will increase greenhouse warming.
However, atmospheric processes are so complicated that the amount of
warming cannot be reliably predicted from first principles. Recent observations of
the atmosphere and oceans, together with geological history, point to very modest
warming, about 1 C (1.8 F) if atmospheric CO2 levels are doubled.
Observations also show no significant change in extreme weather, tornadoes,
hurricanes, floods, or droughts. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate as in
centuries past. A few degrees of warming will have many benefits, longer growing
seasons and less winter heating expenses. And this will be in addition to major
benefits to agriculture.
More CO2 in the atmosphere is not an unprecedented experiment with an
unpredictable outcome. The Earth has done the experiment many times in the
geological past. Life flourished abundantly on land and in the oceans at much larger
CO2 levels than those today. Responsible use of fossil fuels, with cost-effective
control of genuine pollutants like fly ash or oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, will be a
major benefit for the world. (1)
1. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC7C4946-11A3-4967-BF28-8D0386608D3E
with less than 4% of the world’s population the U$$A holds a full quarter (25%) of its incarcerated men, women and children.
A grade school buddy of mine is a Deputy DA is a small Southern California Town. He enjoys telling stories of some small time thief that signs a no-jail-time plea bargain never realizing that the small print in the plea bargain results in thief giving away all rights plus sets the thief up for a lifetime of “breaking” the plea bargain agreement .
My buddy cynically calls it creating a repeat customer.
Posted by: Exile | Sep 5 2024 11:45 utc | 163
“Man made climate change” is comparable to the old ideas that the Earth is at the center of the universe and that humans are the single animal for which the whole universe was created by an old guy in sandals. These two old ideas are no longer tenable but then idea that we are the main determinant in the functioning of the whole biosphere has replaced them as a downgraded version.”
Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Sep 5 2024 8:09 utc | 141
Well put.
These modern believers of anthropological climate change would have shot and pissed on Galileo (1) for explaining the the earth revolved around the sun -such that these people who think they are modern are actually atavistic views shared by the Roman Inquisition-and they think themselves ‘free thinkers’-what a farce!!!
1. “Galileo’s championing of Copernican heliocentrism was met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that his opinions contradicted accepted Biblical interpretations.”
Democrats Playing the Hunger Games in the Worse Cities in America.
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/democrats-playing-the-hunger-games
Posted by: Dogon Priest | Sep 5 2024 13:18 utc | 165
What you deniers of climate science don´t understand is that climate changes in the history took thousands of years to change the climate for some natural reason.
Now something different is taking place, it started with the industrial revolution by burning fossil fuels, we have put huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere very quickly, and that has spurred warming, in an extremely short time, not even 200 years.
Posted by: Northern Eve | Sep 5 2024 13:28 utc | 166
@Northern Eve | Sep 5 2024 13:28 utc | 167
What you deniers of climate science don´t understand is that climate changes in the history took thousands of years to change the climate for some natural reason.
You disqualify yourself from rational debate by throwing out derogatory labels like that. And you are factually very wrong. Read up on the Younger Dryas event for just one example.
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 13:39 utc | 167
Posted by: Northern Eve | Sep 5 2024 13:28 utc | 167
Quite so.
I pointed out a few days ago that the concentration of carbon dioxide, a very effective greenhouse gas, unlike the majority nitrogen and oxygen, has increased by almost 50% in my lifetime, how can this not have a dramatic effect on temperature, and hence climate? But it passes over the heads of the deniers I’m afraid.
What you deniers of climate science don´t understand is that climate changes in the history took thousands of years to change the climate for some natural reason.
Now something different is taking place, it started with the industrial revolution by burning fossil fuels, we have put huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere very quickly, and that has spurred warming, in an extremely short time, not even 200 years.
Posted by: Northern Eve | Sep 5 2024 13:28 utc | 167
What you climate doomers don’t understand are 1) the concept of temporal resolution, and 2) not every response is linear projected into the distant future. Any effect of CO2 is logarithmic, meaning it takes more and more CO2 to provide less and less of an effect.
This may be a wasted example but if you assume 1) original CO2 concentration of 280 ppm in 1860 (or whatever your favorite start date is), 2) a CO2 equilibrium climate response (ECS) of 2°C per doubling, and 3) a current CO2 concentration of ~420 ppm, then we have only gotten to 75% of the first doubling in 164 years. We haven’t even gotten to the first doubling. How long do you think it would take to get to the next doubling to 1,120 ppm? And even if the assumed ECS was correct (hint: it isn’t) that would only be an increase of 4°C in how many centuries?
Posted by: Phil R | Sep 5 2024 13:51 utc | 169
Walt,
If you really REALLY believe that man made climate change is a catastrophe …..then 2) driving a car.
Mass Motoring is responsible for -40% of all CO2. Tailpipe and other Emissions plus oil extraction/transport plus manufacturing of motor vehicle = ~40% of CO2
3) Eliminate A/C at home and at work
Get back to us on these 2 items
Posted by: Exile | Sep 5 2024 13:52 utc | 170
What you deniers of climate science don´t understand is that climate changes in the history took thousands of years to change the climate for some natural reason.
Now something different is taking place, it started with the industrial revolution by burning fossil fuels, we have put huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere very quickly,
Posted by: Northern Eve | Sep 5 2024 13:28 utc | 167
I am far from a climate change denier, but there is a very big weakness in the anthropogenic climate change argument, and that is that there is no curve for the effects of differing quantities of CO² on atmospheric heating. It can hardly be a straight line relationship. In the similar case of C14 decay (though a different process), the curve is pretty complex. I’d expect a similar complex relationship for quantities of CO² and effects on heating, but I doubt that this has ever been looked at(there is nothing well known), and it means that climate change enthusiasts make vague statements like yours. It ought to be the case the rise in CO² means such and such heating, but does that effect provably happen? I don’t feel very much hotter, bearing in mind all the CO² that’s gone into the atmosphere.
Posted by: laguerre | Sep 5 2024 14:00 utc | 172
Exile 13.52
I don’t have a car
I don’t use aircon
I don’t work.
Posted by: Walt | Sep 5 2024 14:02 utc | 173
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4719139-nanc-etf-invest-like-a-democratic-congress-member
Look, guys, an investment opportunity ! While you ( or Martha Stewart) might go to jail for insider trading, the matter is a bit different for Congress. Here’s a fund that matches their ethically corrupt acts and it seems to have pretty well. Gee, I wonder why that might be?
As to imitating corruption, I always think back to what Yossarian (Catch 22) said. “What if everyone did what you’re doing? Then I’d be a fool to do any differently”.
Posted by: Eighthman | Sep 5 2024 14:17 utc | 174
Infra red absorption is proportional to the quantity of reagent. Linear. Not logarithmic. Beer Lambett Law. The path length and concentration are directly proportional to its absorption of light.
If this was not the case then measurement of gases by IR would not work.
So heat retention is proportional to the concentration of reagent. The more carbon dioxide the more the heat trapping effect, linear.
And yes, I am a chemist who has worked with infra red equipment.
Posted by: Walt | Sep 5 2024 14:17 utc | 175
Exile 13.52
I don’t have a car
I don’t use aircon
I don’t work.
Posted by: Walt | Sep 5 2024 14:02 utc | 174
You’re absolutely wrong in your post at 169, but this response made me smile. thanks,
Posted by: Phil R | Sep 5 2024 14:18 utc | 176
If one wanted a snapshot of the jewed-up West’s Mock Democracy, one could take one’s camera to the burnt-out husk of London’s Grenfell Tower.
The recently inquiry concluded that everything which could have gone wrong, with 20 years of ‘improvements’, did go wrong. And all because of corruption at every level of regulation. Greasing of palms was de riguer and everyone who could sell out for money did so – from MPs to site supervisors and official testing authorities.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 5 2024 14:22 utc | 177
Posted by: Northern Eve | Sep 5 2024 13:28 utc | 167
tldr: western governments have openly displayed the null hypothesis by placing tarriffs on parts of the solution, they have outlined.
What choice have western governments made in regards to climate change, when placing 100% tarrifs on chinese EV, solar panels and practicaly anything that might be useful in combatting their claim that our grandchildren will burn if drastic measures arent taken?
Are the adherants to man made climate change aware their governments have chosen to sacrifice grandchildren? Do we need an albright moment before we recognize an actual moment; a verifiable truth as its observable by all. That at best what we have been sold has become dubious. mmcc and any argument for or against are moot atm. Imo.
Posted by: Tannenhouser | Sep 5 2024 14:26 utc | 178
Phil R 14.18
Thanks for the compliment, it should shut him up for a while.
Perhaps you would tell me what qualification you have that enables you to pronounce on the physical chemistry of infra red absorption?
Posted by: Walt | Sep 5 2024 14:29 utc | 179
Infra red absorption is proportional to the quantity of reagent. Linear. Not logarithmic.
Posted by: Walt | Sep 5 2024 14:17 utc | 176
Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration
1. Introduction
It is well known that the radiative forcing from carbon diox-
ide is approximately logarithmic in its concentration, produc-
ing about 4 W m22 of additional global-mean forcing for
every doubling. There are, however, two different explana-
tions in the literature for this logarithmic dependence. Given
the dominant role that CO2 plays in global warming, this
mechanistic uncertainty merits resolution.
Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation is that the
logarithmic behavior stems from the particular absorption
spectrum of CO2 (Pierrehumbert 2010, 2011; Wilson and
Gea-Banacloche 2012; Jeevanjee et al. 2021). Many absorp-
tion bands of greenhouse gases can be approximated with an
absorption coefficient k (m2 mol21 ) that decays exponentially
from the band center as a function of frequency or wavenum-
ber (Edwards and Menard 1964a,b) and the 15-mm band1 of
carbon dioxide is a particularly good example of this (Crisp
et al. 1986).
https://romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubdata/2020/logarithmic/20logarithmic.pdf
As a bonus, this is from Berkeley, not known to be a far right-wing, climate-denying, fascist school.
Posted by: Phil R | Sep 5 2024 14:33 utc | 180
Why would we NOT want to maniage our planet sustainably ?
For future generations.
Instead of runaway planned obsolesence.
Pillaging the earth for short term profit, valuble recoures all to soon ending up as landfill.
Its insane.
Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 5 2024 14:36 utc | 181
1. “You disqualify yourself from rational debate by throwing out derogatory labels like that.”
2. “And you are factually very wrong. Read up on the Younger Dryas event for just one example.”
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 13:39 utc | 168
1. So is Phil R @ 13:51 utc | 170 also disqualified for using the term ‘climate doomers’?
2. Does reading up on the Younger Dryas include the 2023 Comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH) linked to by Fred @ 4:27 utc | 127? Lotsa ???? there!
Posted by: waynorinorway | Sep 5 2024 14:38 utc | 182
@Mark2 | Sep 5 2024 14:36 utc | 182
I agree with your last, short sentence. But not what came before it.
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 14:39 utc | 183
I know enough science to understand that the 95% of the cosmos we only have theories about is not factored into your discussions and wonder if this is a form of masturbation for many of you.
Why in hell can’t you all talk about the problems with our form of social organization and what we might do about changing things?
Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 5 2024 14:40 utc | 184
@waynorinorway | Sep 5 2024 14:38 utc | 183
You can choose to accept the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH) or not, but it is irrelevant to this part of the ‘debate’. The fact is that the climate changed drastically overnight 12800 years ago, whether you accept YDIH or not. It refutes the claim that it takes “thousands of years to change the climate for some natural reason”, because it did change virtually instantly by falling -15C. It wasn’t SUV’s that did it.
Now, I happen to offer a credible hypothesis for what happened (YDIH), which is more than what the other side does. But it doesn’t matter in this context, because everybody agrees that the climate changed very quickly for whatever reason, right?
I don’t answer for what others say. But it is kind of funny to be labeled “climate change denier” when all I do is insist that the climate is changing and has gone through radical and fast changes many times over millions of years. Somehow It feels like some kind of projection from those who insist that the climate is not supposed to change.
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 14:52 utc | 185
Posted by: canuck | Sep 5 2024 0:36 utc | 99
Using “loony leftist” as a descriptor to attack another’s scientific viewpoint just reduces the credibility of your argument.
It appears that the US socialist conspiracy psychosis might be spreading northwards.
Posted by: Jon_in_AU | Sep 5 2024 14:52 utc | 186
Hoarsewhisper @ 178
Thanks for that i agree, what a shamefull cataloge of curruption and criminal neglagence. Grenfail towers.
Now should come prosacution and long prison sentences.
Grenfail Towers fire was 7 years ago,
“Justice delayed is justice denied”
I hope not.
RIP the victems of Grenfail Towers.
Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 5 2024 15:00 utc | 187
@185
People don’t much like change. Occasional foray and new things given to them yes, but major reorganisation is not usually something looked forward to, especially if they have to make extra effort or accept losses.
Posted by: Ornot | Sep 5 2024 15:01 utc | 188
@waynorinorway | Sep 5 2024 14:38 utc | 183
If you can point to concrete arguments in the “comprehensive” paper, I am all ears. All I am seeing is statements like “There is no obvious evidence of environmental cataclysm at that time in the vast published geomorphic or paleobotanical records”, which to me is an uncorroborated and false statement given the existence of the Channeled Scablands in NW USA, and much more.
The ‘missing crater’ argument is disingenuous given the fact that the YDIH claims the impact happened on the 3000+ m thick Laurentide Ice sheet, causing it to shatter and create the Carolina Bays + annihilate the megafauna (yes I know the accepted theory is that the Clovis people ate the megafauna, but I am somewhat skeptical about that).
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 15:10 utc | 189
This time the climate hoo-hah was set off by comment 16 which links to a really badly written low-quality paper which is mostly propaganda. Says me, who believes in climate science.
Climate science is in deep shit. Those who want to do basic basic work, as the effect of aerosols, the effect of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gasses, even something as basic as water vapor analyses, are being told to go stand in the corner and keep their yaps shut while the narrative scientists obsess over carbon and net zero. Honesty, sincerity, hard work will not advance your career. Political loyalty will.
Climate has been hijacked. Greta is a Rothschild. Anything the mainstream says about climate is propaganda and bullshit.
But those who think that only deniers know what the Younger Dryas was or only deniers know what a heat island is are just idiots. All scientists know what epistemology is and why data must be interrogated. I fear idiots just as much as politicians.
Posted by: oldhippiewilsontaxi@ | Sep 5 2024 15:10 utc | 190
I cannot offer a learned response to the climate change issue. However, there is one fact about what is claimed to be science that no one seems to confront: lying and dishonesty. I probably grew up a bit autistic and OCD and the commonality of lying bothered me – down to this day. The public word of any “expert” or Ph.D seems to be worth nothing these days – and that could be deadly in a technological age.
Calling people “climate change deniers” is dishonest. I’m not aware of any skeptic that thinks that climate doesn’t change. The question is how much, how soon.
The next point is mass psychosis – because I don’t know what to call it otherwise. The threat of nuclear weapons is widely treated as nearly trivial and cavalierly dismissed. Climate change can’t be the greatest threat if Manhattan could be destroyed in two hours rather than being underwater in maybe twenty years. The fact of this blindspot forces me to think climate science is heavily politcized rather than objective. That doesn’t mean there aren’t threats, just that the matter is wildly unbalanced in popular thinking. It’s ‘deck chairs on the Titanic’ stuff. Something is very, very wrong.
Posted by: Eighthman | Sep 5 2024 15:10 utc | 191
@Eighthman | Sep 5 2024 15:10 utc | 192
Thank you, excellent post with a lot of insight. I agree.
Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 15:18 utc | 192
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim that changes that occurred naturally in the past are “different” now, caused by humans and will cause the end of civilization as we know it.
Not quite. — As the topic will remain contentious and highly volatile, I shall try and sort out semi-correct arguments such as this. I hope it may help to reduce friction on the MoA threads.
The above is faulty. Would you wait for complete evidence (for whatever now that is) when dire warnings arrive, say that a dam broke upstream and a floodwave will soon smash the towns in its path? Panicked and conflicting reports arriving at a decision center is a known issue of modern warfare. The solution is to keep all apparently possible scenarions floating in parallel and work to sort them out as more information comes in. Reading the newspapers works well with a similar approach, by the way; I believe it should be taught at schools.
This means there is an element of uncertainty at play, which is a basic issue in desaster response. The climate doomers brimg forth just such a scenario. Dismissing it out of hand for ‘lack of evidence’ (however derived at) unduly returns certainty and control. The various arguments by the doomers must instead be carefully examined, weighed, studied and perhaps acted upon, even if their true role in the unfolding desaster is not presently clear. To forego such would be ignorance and amount to criminal neglicence; which is why the doomers are so alarmed and often engaging aggressively.
Doomers often feel compelled to fight for an almost absolutely important cause, which may facilitate undue forms of action on their part. The classic example is an ‘appeal to authority’ type of argument, taking of the form “But the science!” Climate discussions between doomers and deniers usually become stuck at this point, because there are so many arguments involving empirical measurements and study that none truly resolve the situation (with current EEI measurements being the closest to that which I’m aware of). Indeed it then easily will turn into a confrontation of believe systems: science for some, and critical thought for others. Truly ignorant people are rather rare in prolongued discussions, I seem to observe, though both sides readily call their opponents such names.
Truly sensible discussion must therefore accept that the question may remain unresolved in that particular dispute. Such debate can be very fruitful for all involved (including lurkers), because it helps to refine one’s position with new angles and arguments. As the topic atvhand is exceedingly complex AND loaded with ethical fury, it should be clear that a truly convincing stance on the topic must require a lot of patient work, with due diligence in examination of the various arguments from all sides.
I believe there are strong reasons to be careful with the political agenda drive. The science is a bit overhyped, and also at times wobbly (temperature measurements), if not outright fabricated (simulation of cloud coverage is a fatal weak point to the climate models). It bears uncanny resemblance to historical mind control themes, like original sin and general threat of apocalypse. The political agenda has a motive which makes sense to some, as probably most barflies on the Moon of Alabama, and the wider alu cap community. And finally, the actual policy planning for the event is absurdely impractical: focusing on the carbon cycle while ignoring concrete preparations for mass emigration, sea level rise mitigation, and local environmental clean-ups is so off target that is renders one suspicious of the whole agenda all of its own.
On the other hand, the data may very well report a changing climate; in fact it does, I say, as wine crops are clearly affected in the region where I grew up (so it does change). This is of course very interesting and should cause major political efforts to prevent the worst outcomes, whatever exactly they are. The less than convincing science behind the anthropogenic hypothesis – I say this having spent time at the MPI-Met in Hamburg, a premiere research institute – would suggest we don’t force that angle on the discussion as a priority, but wait out while further data comes in. In the meantime we could do innumerable helpful things, mostly local in nature and focused on reducing harmful effects of human population. Again, the lopsided discussion is on its own a major point for scepticism.
As you can see, there is an opening for the debate that doesn’t need falsification of one side or the other.
I hope this merits my again unduly longish comment, for which I’d like to apologize. But honestly I’m quite happy now about my ability to convey difficult considerations in the english language with good success; however mastering true brevity is a much deeper skill to develop. I certainly enjoy trying to acquire it! so will welcome the efforts of grammar and spelling nazis on my part.
Posted by: persiflo | Sep 5 2024 15:25 utc | 193
The two currently prevalent sides to the climate change debate:
– Climate change is completely natural and has happened multiple times before so we should do nothing.
– Climate change is a man-made phenomenon and we can totally stop it if we reduce our CO2 output below an arbitrary amount.
If both sides agree that climate change is indeed happening, does it matter whether or not it’s anthropogenic?
– The consensus should be to adapt ourselves and build infrastructure to protect against the increase in severe weather phenomenon and minimize loss of life and property.
– If there are any resources left over (which is unlikely), they should be used to build wildlife habitats to retain biodiversity. After all, if humans aren’t adapting well to climate change, dumb animals aren’t going to do much better.
Posted by: Sid Victor Cattoni | Sep 5 2024 15:26 utc | 194
Strange that so-called conscious people do not trust scientific consensus, the influence of greenhouse gases on the climate goes back to the middle of the 19th century.
Are you sure that you are not being manipulated by those who have an interest in denying it, i.e. the fossil industry.
Posted by: Northern Eve | Sep 5 2024 15:30 utc | 195
Lets all learn from the dinosoures.
Look what happened to them.
Duh.
Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 5 2024 15:35 utc | 196
Norwegian:
Are you aware that the impact hypothesis for Younger Dryas is quite a bad spot for you, because it means that for climate to shift that massively in a century, you basically need a major cosmic event. Current warming and greenhouse gases increases aren’t tied to a big comet trashing half a country, or to a major series of huge volcanic eruptions across an entire subcontinent. In a way, it’s even more frightening, because it means things would get real bad if we get hit by another asteroid or some catastrophe we just can’t avoid.
I think Dryas is interesting (and I’ve no opinion about its cause, I’m waiting for genuine scientific proof or at least long-lasting consensus), but I don’t see it having much relevance when it comes to what causes current climate observations. The main point to be taken is the risk to the Atlantic current and a possible – and temporary – major cooling across parts of Europe (and N America).
As for N America megafauna, the jury might be out. The trick is that the same occurred in Australia and in South America, and I don’t think the entire continents were crashed or set ablaze by other comets/asteroids. So over hunting by humans, which were totally alien to said megafauna, which hadn’t learned to fear puny little bipeds (unlike, say, African megafauna), and had an easier way to hunt them to extinction. Though it’s probable that other causes helped as well – they might already have been in a tricky spot, and adding the human factor was the final nail in the coffin.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Sep 5 2024 15:38 utc | 197
@ Norwegian | Sep 5 2024 14:52 utc | 186 & 15:10 utc | 190
That’s fine. I stay out of most of these types of discussions as I don’t have the qualifications.
It’s no slight on me to admit that either as few people do have the knowledge, yet they bable i vei.
I’m inclined to think Gould and Eldredge were correct with their ‘punctuated equilibrium’ and I agree with the prominent geologist (name?) who said after photos from space confirmed J Harlen Bretz’s work,
“We are all catastrophists now”.
Posted by: waynorinorway | Sep 5 2024 15:45 utc | 198
Amidst all the doom and gloom, the outlook looks bright…for ‘defense‘ industries…
*European officials vow to boost defense production, but some worry it won’t be enough [sic]
*Is Defense the sector for the decade ?
September 4, 2024 3 min read
Defense: A Strong Performer in the Market
*One of the most consistent sectors in the U.S. stock market over the past 35 years has been aerospace and defense. This sector has seen a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12%, outperforming the S&P 500, which itself has yielded a 10% CAGR. Many might assume that industrials would outpace aerospace and defense, but this chart from Bank of America proves otherwise. Despite the ups and downs in the global economy, the defense sector has shown remarkable resilience and growth.
*Global Aerospace and Defense Industry to See Rapid Growth During 2024-2034: Prophecy Market Insights
Hmmm..
This climate thingee…
Sigh, both sides can argue until the cows come home, with no conclusion in sight !
Posted by: denk | Sep 5 2024 15:46 utc | 199
The global warming, green new deal nonsense is just another way for the globalist to create a one world government run by the WEC freaks.
Fossil fuels are absolutely essential in running a modern electrified society.
Kamyhoe Harris is just a deep state green new deal stalking horse for the Soros globalist police state.
Ask the poor folks in the UK and Ireland how it is to have tripled utility rates, with more on the way, all because they closed their coal fired power stations.
Burn coal live better, drill baby drill……..live warmer and cheaper too. And by the way I love my V8 pickup truck……….
Posted by: Tobias Cole | Sep 5 2024 15:47 utc | 200