Rev. Michael Dowd, Death-Cult Environmentalist? |435|

Maybe denying a metaphysical dimension would help? And not being as systematic or as smart?

Good point.

And, I must say, without a metaphysical or supernatural element, what exactly is religion? Stripped of the 'transcendent' it is, at best, just another refraction of contemporary society (liberal, conservative, patriotic, nationalist, consumerist, etc.). And then I have to ask, what is the point?
 
. Semantic models as art? Why not? But, conversely, I'm not sure that all art can be viewed through the lens of semantic models, or, at least, that if it can be, there can be and are alternative criteria as to whether an artwork's semantic model is (or even ought to be) "clear": as you point out, some art legitimately expresses ambiguity and conflict, which my existing criteria don't support.
I agree with you that the criteria for clarity probably wouldn't be extremely useful for ALL kinds of arts, especiallly as they seem to practiced today. Different arts seem to have developed all sorts of different criteria for evalution, etc.

Clarity in art is, perhaps, a different matter than clarity in, say, a scientific (semantic) model or an academic paper that implicitly builds a semantic model in the form of a supported argument. I agree, then, with your suggestion that "trying to find a form that supports what one is actually trying to do seems like a worthwhile pursuit". A play or a novel is typically not going to take the form of a semantically clear model, though it might well reference or contain such models.
And it's a minor detail, but I just want to mention that the "art form" I'm trying to explore here is not writing a play or a novel. I am still doing what a lot of people on this forum do: developing a personal way of looking at things--I guess we could call it a model of sorts. But instead of asserting that this model corresponds with the way things are in the universe, I am trying to explore what happens when I consider the model to only have limited usefulness to myself (instead of having Ultimate Correctness or Absolute Truth Value). For me, this represents a somewhat different FORM, as I am trying to see if I can articulate the model (and the form), and get feedback on them, without specifically arguing for their Absolute Truth.
 
Last edited:
I think this is called philosophical pragmatism. Or perhaps existential empiricism. Whatever.

EDIT: Have you come across David Bohm's essay, Reality and knowledge considered as process? If not, you should look it up. It's included in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Right up your street, I reckon.

On the interview: It is my understanding that evolutionary Christianity grew out of Whitehead's process philosophy and process theology (with maybe a little Pierre Teilhard de Chardin mixed in for good measure). I'm not sure how one can build one's faith on Whitehead and end up being quite so boring. It's an achievement, really.

Yes, I have been reading quite a bit of Richard Rorty, and he is often labelled as a "neo-pragmatist". At the end of the day, I think the pragmatists, including Rorty in some instances, make the mistake of trying to position their ideas as "absolutist arguments" in competition with other Absolutist Arguments. For me, the idea works best when it is itself presented as a useful idea; but once a person starts to argue it as an Absolute Truth, it starts to contradict itself.

I expect this is a problem that Donald Hoffman may have as well.

I have studied Bohm as much as I am able, though haven't read the essay you mention. I like Bohm a lot, but the finer details of his ideas seem to slip through my fingers before I can really get ahold of them.

Good point.

And, I must say, without a metaphysical or supernatural element, what exactly is religion? Stripped of the 'transcendent' it is, at best, just another refraction of contemporary society (liberal, conservative, patriotic, nationalist, consumerist, etc.). And then I have to ask, what is the point?

I think this is an excellent question. I tend to look at it from a different angle. When I hear people "arguing for the existence of a Transcendent Realm" (or a spirit realm or an astral realm or heaven or whatever), it feels to me like it downplays meaning and significance in THIS realm.

So I tend to think that any perspective that downplays the Transcendent or the Metaphysical can be a Good Thing.

This is not to say that I want to downplay NDEs and other mystical experiences. But for myself, I want to hold the INTERPRETATIONs of such experiences lightly or provisionally so as not to end up forsaking the realm that is my day to day life.

Obviously, interpreting NDEs, etc can in itself be a useful and meaningful activity, and I don't begrudge anybody who wants to overtly argue that their perspective is the Absolutely Correct perspective and accurately reflects the nature of the universe and the "realm(s) beyond."

Personally, I have been trying to see if there is a way to be neither in the "biological robot in a meaningless universe camp" but also not in the "this world doesn't matter because there's a realm of light and love waiting for us beyond space/time." Something "in between" these camps perhaps.

I have been interested in a book called ZeroTheology, that is written by a minister who considers that religion that is based on belief in doctrine is a rather weak form of religious practice, which is appealing to me:

"If you want or need religious belief you cannot have the liberated religious life. If you lack belief you do not want or need the liberated religious life. The liberated religious life can only be had by those who think that because they neither need nor want belief they are disqualified from living the liberated religious life. A person can choose the religious path as long as that person does not need belief. When you give a reason for having belief, you are expressing a need to have belief. If you need to have belief, you have to have belief, because it is a requirement. The second you express your need for belief, the liberated religious life becomes impossible. If you do not hold a religious belief, you do not need it and therefore, cannot be persuaded to choose it. If you are persuaded that you need it, then what you have been persuaded you need, is not the liberated religious life. Any reason that persuades you is a reason that leads to the idolatry of the belief paradigm."
 
I have intentionally not read the other comments. I know I will be in the minority with my opinions but I THANK YOU, Alex, for getting on the Reverend Dowd. I think this is perhaps the most important interview I have ever heard you do (and I have heard 90% of them). I knew very little about Reverend Down before this interview, so once again THANK YOU! I will get right to my thoughts.

I believe the Reverend was very clear and focused on his message and did not wish to waste time nitpicking with a certain version of Jesus or Christianity. I understood and respected this. I wish Alex had a little more. (I really don't understand Alex's obsession with trying to "get" the Reverend on his version of Christianity -- he explained it clearly enough for me to understand. I was getting embarrassed with some of the silly questions Alex was asking and kept yelling into the speaker, "He already answered that. Quit being so literal. And quit giving ownership to your version of Christianity -- there are many and he makes that clear.") I think the Reverend has the best interpretation of Christianity that I have ever heard (though I enjoy the occasional Gnostic interpretation) and I hope to go deeper into his philosophy in the near future.

I also like how Dowd is EXTREMELY open to changing his belief system when the facts point in a different direction. When God, or reality, points a certain direction, he listens and changes with it. That is wonderful. It seems like he has spent his life making those changes and only recently is wrapped in his current paradigm. And how did he get in that paradigm? Consistent data pointing in a clearer and clearer direction.

I know a lot of people that listen to Skeptiko are deniers of human-caused climate change, but I am not one of them. I believe in a spiritual and daemonic reality. I believe in some conspiracies. I believe in a "manufacturing of consent." I also believe in the material world. I believe in the science that clearly shows that shit is already starting to hit the fan. I wish more listeners would look at the same data that I have. Most scientists are not hoaxers. They are not tricked by magicians. They want to keep their jobs but climate scientists have always been able to be pretty independent with their thinking. You know why? BECAUSE NO ONE WAS LISTENING for decades. Since very few people gave a shit, and the mainstream media laughed at the science (or buried it on page 35), they did NOT have the same level of constraints that much of mainstream science has. Mainstream media still laughs at these scientists. And so do the politicians. Politicians answer the predicament with stupid little proposals like energy caps and trading. That's a joke as it is a proposal to do nothing to lessen the issue. But that, I suppose is the point: to make people think something was being done while continuing with business as usual. Even left-wing media is pitiful. They mention Green New deals without noting how horribly dirty and imperial "Green Energy" truly is. And they don't mention the only that can truly help: less energy. What is needed is energy decline. You can't mention that in a market economy.

I agree with the guest that there is a very large collective denial going on surrounding this issue, even among climate change believers. Too many still think that Technology or Progress or Christ or Government or Pleaidians or Science or Scientists or Democrats or Republicans or Free Energy or Karl Marx or Green Energy will save us. They won't. It won't. It/they can't. And since 99% of humanity keeps looking to saviors, we won't be able to save ourselves.

Speaking of saviors, why did Alex go off on a tangent about savior complex? It was incredibly embarrassing because he clearly did not understand the beliefs of the guest. Dowd's opinion is not that social justice warriors or immediate government action will somehow save the day. It won't. He understands this. There is no "saving the day." Things will unfold as they unfold. And some of us will take time going through the stages of grief. Some of us will learn how to consciously collapse and build communities to weather the literal and metaphorical storms that are coming. And some of us will get angry and scapegoat. We can see it already happening.

I also liked the Reverend's take about the difference between mythology under oral tradition and the written word; between hunter-gatherer societies and civilization. Past cultures had living myths because they were dynamic and changed with the times. Today, mythology is written and too often literalized. It becomes stuck in meaning and unchangeable. It becomes dogma. It becomes a control mechanism.

Recommendation: get Michael Greer back on your show. I think a nice conversation about Civic Religions, ecology, collapse, and appropriate forms of spirituality (and technology) that fit this paradigm, would be excellent. Not only is Greer an occultist and Druid, but he also wrote the excellent book The Long Descent (about the long drawn out collapse that is coming) and the equally important After Progress. He is also well-versed in the cyclic understanding of civilizations and, like Dowd, is influenced by such prophetic historians Arnold Toynbee and Oswald Spengler.

Thank you again Alex. You made at least one fan of the Reverend. What a joyous guest!
 
Last edited:
Long time listener to Skeptiko. Just have to say first that I'm a big fan of the podcast and your book, Alex! It's because of your book that I tried Bengston therapy (through Bernadette) and eventually found a few more truly unbelievable healers who are doing extraordinary work and have worked miracles for me. If you ever want more info on some of these people, or if you want me to try and connect you with one or more of them, just let me know. I'm happy to ask if they're interested in talking about their work and sharing their extraordinary life stories.

Regarding this interview: Maybe it's just me, but this man is so disagreeable, obnoxious, condescending, and arrogant. He acts like he's doing you a huge favor by coming on your show. I'm about halfway through and he's simply insufferable. I had to stop and join the forum. I have never disliked a guest more than this guy. He continually talks to you as if you're a child. And what is this sarcasm nonsense he's talking about? I would not have been able to keep my cool with an interviewee like this. Kudos to you, Alex -- really shows how professional of an interviewer you are and how serious you are about constructive discussion, even under very difficult circumstances.
Long time listener to Skeptiko. Just have to say first that I'm a big fan of the podcast and your book, Alex! It's because of your book that I tried Bengston therapy (through Bernadette) and eventually found a few more truly unbelievable healers who are doing extraordinary work and have worked miracles for me. If you ever want more info on some of these people, or if you want me to try and connect you with one or more of them, just let me know. I'm happy to ask if they're interested in talking about their work and sharing their extraordinary life stories.

Regarding this interview: Maybe it's just me, but this man is so disagreeable, obnoxious, condescending, and arrogant. He acts like he's doing you a huge favor by coming on your show. I'm about halfway through and he's simply insufferable. I had to stop and join the forum. I have never disliked a guest more than this guy. He continually talks to you as if you're a child. And what is this sarcasm nonsense he's talking about? I would not have been able to keep my cool with an interviewee like this. Kudos to you, Alex -- really shows how professional of an interviewer you are and how serious you are about constructive discussion, even under very difficult circumstances.

It is nice to see another who practices the Bengston method!! I don't understand why people think the guest was rude or obnoxious. I think the opposite. I think Alex was rude and obnoxious. Alex clearly changed the topics on the guest. When the guest made that clear, Alex still continued. It was only when the guest threatened to hang up the phone that Alex backed off a bit. And I really didn't hear any sarcasm at all. Like zero. I heard the exact opposite. He was genuine and honest. And even the couple times he got defensive, he didn't get passive-aggressive or make any quick asides. Alex did BOTH. The guest was far more respectful and even apologized for getting defensive on a couple of occasions.
 
Here's the thing. Too often conspiracy theorists
there is no man made global warming. the sun is entering a solar minimum and it will be colder.

A very large percentage of scientists, both embedded within the establishment and outside of it, would disagree. I find your certainty a bit distressing.
 
Ah, Malf and his famous one liners. :) When it get too hard he shuts up.

No lets not ignore the climate scientists, let us remember.

Here are some predictions from the very top tier climate scientists, climate organisations and media. The list is by no means exhaustive, but I think it makes the point quite well. Remember this when the double think begins and the "experts" start telling you global warming creates extreme cold.

THE SCIENCE OF SNOWFALL WAS ‘SETTLED’ BY THE ‘97% CONSENSUS’

2000 - Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event… Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)

2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankind. THEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”

2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose up to 40% of their snow by 2020 …

2000 - “Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif

2000 - Spiegel“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”

2004 - “Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” Mark Lynas

2005 - Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / SpiegelPlanning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”

2005 - George Monbiot on climate change and snowWinter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…

2006 - Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg…“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”

2006 - The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”… The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…

2007 : BBC “One Planet Special”It Seems the Winters of Our Youth are Unlikely to Return” presenter Richard Hollingham … speaks to climate scientists to get their views. Their conclusion? In the words of the BBC, they all give “predictions of warmer winters, for UK & the Northern Hemisphere”.

2007 - Schleswig Holstein NABU“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”


2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office… Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”

2007 : Die Zeit“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”

2008 : Another predictionA study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow. It found a dramatic “step-like” drop in snowfall at the end of the 1980s which has never recovered, New Scientist magazine reported…. In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records. “I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.

2012 :

d7kouquu0ao0dam.jpg

2012 - Griffith associate professor Catherine Pickering says snow is rapidly disappearing because of global warming and by 2020 Australia may not have any left. “We’ve predicted by 2020 to lose something like 60 per cent of the snow cover of the Australian Alps,” Professor Pickering, from the Griffith School of Environment, said. “Unfortunately because our current emissions and our current rises in temperatures are at the high end of the predictions, it’s definitely coming to us sooner and faster.”

2014 : the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?”…“The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level. This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks…”

Full article... It includes yet more dramatic and falsifying reports of early winters and snow from a variety of locations. It talks of the polar vortex and the excuses used and how it was also used in the 70's to push global cooling. It's truly comical, how embarrassing for the "experts" and climate science in general.
https://climatism.blog/2019/11/18/snowfall-will-signal-the-death-of-the-global-warming-movement/
 
I find it difficult to decide whether Endenhofer wants it that way, or is being a critic of the IPCC. What do you think?

From what I gather from other high rollers behind these policies, is that it's a means to an end, and we should be pushing it regardless if it was true or not.
 
See, Malf, here's your problem as I see it. You make judgements about people, and then you seek to encourage others to make the same judgement. You seem to inhabit a world where for the most part only your opinions can be correct and shut everything else out. My advice, for what it's worth, is to learn to suspend judgement. You never know, you might be wrong more often than you think.
I’ve learned from the best. ;)
 
Ah, Malf and his famous one liners. :) When it get too hard he shuts up.

No lets not ignore the climate scientists, let us remember.

Here are some predictions from the very top tier climate scientists, climate organisations and media. The list is by no means exhaustive, but I think it makes the point quite well. Remember this when the double think begins and the "experts" start telling you global warming creates extreme cold.

THE SCIENCE OF SNOWFALL WAS ‘SETTLED’ BY THE ‘97% CONSENSUS’

2000 - Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event… Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)

2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankind. THEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”

2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose up to 40% of their snow by 2020 …

2000 - “Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif

2000 - Spiegel“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”

2004 - “Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” Mark Lynas

2005 - Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / SpiegelPlanning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”

2005 - George Monbiot on climate change and snowWinter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…

2006 - Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg…“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”

2006 - The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”… The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…

2007 : BBC “One Planet Special”It Seems the Winters of Our Youth are Unlikely to Return” presenter Richard Hollingham … speaks to climate scientists to get their views. Their conclusion? In the words of the BBC, they all give “predictions of warmer winters, for UK & the Northern Hemisphere”.

2007 - Schleswig Holstein NABU“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”


2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office… Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”

2007 : Die Zeit“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”

2008 : Another predictionA study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow. It found a dramatic “step-like” drop in snowfall at the end of the 1980s which has never recovered, New Scientist magazine reported…. In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records. “I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.

2012 :

d7kouquu0ao0dam.jpg

2012 - Griffith associate professor Catherine Pickering says snow is rapidly disappearing because of global warming and by 2020 Australia may not have any left. “We’ve predicted by 2020 to lose something like 60 per cent of the snow cover of the Australian Alps,” Professor Pickering, from the Griffith School of Environment, said. “Unfortunately because our current emissions and our current rises in temperatures are at the high end of the predictions, it’s definitely coming to us sooner and faster.”

2014 : the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?”…“The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level. This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks…”

Full article... It includes yet more dramatic and falsifying reports of early winters and snow from a variety of locations. It talks of the polar vortex and the excuses used and how it was also used in the 70's to push global cooling. It's truly comical, how embarrassing for the "experts" and climate science in general.
https://climatism.blog/2019/11/18/snowfall-will-signal-the-death-of-the-global-warming-movement/

I am immediately reminded of the 19thC claimed comment by the French Academy of Science to the effect that meteorites could not be real because, if there were rocks up in the sky, they would have already fallen down.

Well of course, except that...................
 
I have intentionally not read the other comments. I know I will be in the minority with my opinions but I THANK YOU, Alex, for getting on the Reverend Dowd. I think this is perhaps the most important interview I have ever heard you do (and I have heard 90% of them). I knew very little about Reverend Down before this interview, so once again THANK YOU! I will get right to my thoughts.

I believe the Reverend was very clear and focused on his message and did not wish to waste time nitpicking with a certain version of Jesus or Christianity. I understood and respected this. I wish Alex had a little more. (I really don't understand Alex's obsession with trying to "get" the Reverend on his version of Christianity -- he explained it clearly enough for me to understand. I was getting embarrassed with some of the silly questions Alex was asking and kept yelling into the speaker, "He already answered that. Quit being so literal. And quit giving ownership to your version of Christianity -- there are many and he makes that clear.") I think the Reverend has the best interpretation of Christianity that I have ever heard...
yeah, well I personally don't have any problem if somebody wants to don a green shirt and Christian collar and announce that they've created a new Christian cult... but I suspect that a lot of people didn't know his stance on Jesus (doubter) and the supernatural (denier). so I'm glad we were able to bring that forward in this interview.
 
Alex. Do I need to send you some links on sea level rise? There is so much out there.
ok but again the point of the interview was that death cult environmentalist like Michael aren't interested in the science... and he helped me out by saying exactly that.

so here's an extensive study done by Dr Judy Curry showing no sea level rise. I don't need to pound my fist on the table and suggest this the definitive answer, but I think it should give us pause:

Special Report on Sea Level Rise | Climate Etc.
 
ok, but sea levels have not risen. and the alarmists have been caught faking science.

Not risen?

Curry’s opening paragraph in her conclusion:

“Mean global sea level has risen at a slow creep for more than 150 years; since 1900, global mean sea level has risen about 7-8 inches.”
 
Back
Top