Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

hi LS... welcome back. I have scheduled a great guest to revisit this topic but I figure there's a 50% chance he'll back out of the debate.

Thanks Alex!

If you do get that interview I hope you can bring up these new developments, we are not hearing about it in the media of course but it seems to be making waves in academia. I would love to see if your guest was aware and what the response would be. The bottom line being that this missing element would have been by default attributed to human influence, so it is a spanner in the works of that argument to say the very least.

I'd just like to add that my personal issue with the CO2 debate is that it forces other more serious environmental issues to take a back seat or be ignored completely. I am all for less pollution, clean air, clean water, conservation etc.. Who wouldn't be,? I think we could all agree here. It's just that this CO2 thing completely misses the mark and actually does nothing but help hinder these other issues.

And thanks as well to Dave and Michael, I look forward to once again sharing some thoughts.
 
If you do get that interview I hope you can bring up these new developments, we are not hearing about it in the media of course but it seems to be making waves in academia. I would love to see if your guest was aware and what the response would be. The bottom line being that this missing element would have been by default attributed to human influence, so it is a spanner in the works of that argument to say the very least.
My bet is that people are busy burying all those new ideas as fast as they can go, because the whole thing is political - I hope I am wrong!

To me, one of the problems is that the ground temperature data was extremely dodgy from get go. Because the locations have to remain fixed for comparison purposes, when these locations become urbanised they are given a computer correction that is supposed to correct for the fact that weather temperature measurements are always higher in urban areas - the Urban Heat Island Effect. These corrections are often many times larger than the CO2 'signlal' they claim to be measuring.
I'd just like to add that my personal issue with the CO2 debate is that it forces other more serious environmental issues to take a back seat or be ignored completely. I am all for less pollution, clean air, clean water, conservation etc.. Who wouldn't be,? I think we could all agree here. It's just that this CO2 thing completely misses the mark and actually does nothing but help hinder these other issues.
I certainly agree with that comment. When we started collecting plastic for 'recycling' the Greens vetoed incinerating the stuff for energy. Their main reason was the extra CO2. So we ended up with plastic 'recycling' firms that shipped the stuff somewhere poor abroad, where it seems to have got dumped in the sea. This is just one egregious effect of the obsession this CO2.

Over the next few days, I am also going to add a few posts here that I shared privately with people

David
 
My bet is that people are busy burying all those new ideas as fast as they can go, because the whole thing is political - I hope I am wrong!

To me, one of the problems is that the ground temperature data was extremely dodgy from get go. Because the locations have to remain fixed for comparison purposes, when these locations become urbanised they are given a computer correction that is supposed to correct for the fact that weather temperature measurements are always higher in urban areas - the Urban Heat Island Effect. These corrections are often many times larger than the CO2 'signlal' they claim to be measuring.

Yes, the video you posted with Dr Soon, who was a really entertaining character btw, did a great job of exposing some of the tricks being used, from satistics to out right fraud. The thing is as mentioned in the video's I posted they even let the data manipulation through, giving them the benefit of doubt and still with these new data sets the human factor was no where to be found. I'm sure we'll see further attempts to control the narrative and damage control at the very least to save face. The positive sign is that some 700 plus papers are forcing the narrative, which seems to be coming from major universities. Some real mental acrobatics are going to be needed, I not sure they can be so blatant as time goes on you end up just looking foolish. As well this extremists culture is actually working against the movement in the public eye.

We are due for dramatic cooling this century, it's only a matter of time. Not that this is a good thing because a grand solar minimum will be far more devastating.

I certainly agree with that comment. When we started collecting plastic for 'recycling' the Greens vetoed incinerating the stuff for energy. Their main reason was the extra CO2. So we ended up with plastic 'recycling' firms that shipped the stuff somewhere poor abroad, where it seems to have got dumped in the sea. This is just one egregious effect of the obsession this CO2.

Madness, from all available evidence more CO2 is actually beneficial to the planet. What an absurd situation we have.
I have deep reverence for nature, it's part of my spirituality. This was once true for all. Animism was global. It was and is built into us. I think this is why so many feel alienated and a bit lost. We have forgotten our connection and our ancestral roots leading to a spiritual crisis that is reflected in society. And it in turn reflected in mother Earth. We could actually be a benefit to the planet instead of a virus. If people want to make a difference we should be looking at becoming as self sufficient as possible connecting with nature and find once again those old ways. Since I left the forum I have embraced Paganism and I have to say it has been incredibly trans formative, I feel complete. It is far more than just enjoying clean air and water and it's beauty. But that is another subject. .
Over the next few days, I am also going to add a few posts here that I shared privately with people

David

Please do.
 
Please do.

OK, each of these is unedited, so some may overlap a bit with things already discussed.

I am sure you have heard the story - Venus' atmosphere is almost all CO2, and the temperature at the surface of the planet is hot enough to melt lead - all absolutely true, except for one thing - the pressure of the atmosphere at the surface of Venus is 92 times that on earth!

There used to a website that showed the full set of data, but the link doesn't seem work - but I'll give you the link in case that is just a glitch

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

Alternatively there is a table (right hand column some way down) in this article. The article discusses the supposed runaway greenhouse effect, and yet you obviously need to compare Venus and Earth at 1 Atmosphere pressure. As you can see, the temperature comes out at 75C (66C on the original set of data). This is probably accounted for by the fact that the planet is much closer to the sun!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

The second observation that stunned me when I first heard it, is that when you think about it, actual greenhouses don't retain heat because of the greenhouse effect (if one really exists) but because the glass stops heat escaping by convection. Open the doors, and the heat escapes!

However, perhaps this video is the most convincing. This is a guy who got the Nobel prize in physics, tearing into the idea of GW:

http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel...ver-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever

The introduction of the idea of Climate Change as opposed to Global Warming, effectively made the theory untestable - because the climate is constantly changing. Thus back in Roman times, people in the North of England could grow grapes for wine! The climate was considerably warmer then, and between then and now, there was the period when the Thames froze hard enough for people to set up fairs on the surface:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs

To me, the tragedy of the green movement, is that it has been sent off on an expensive wild goose chase, to the detriment of the topics that it should concentrate on - nuclear weapons and the destruction of the rain forest! Overpopulation can also wreck the planet regardless of how frugally we all live.

I can give you some interesting websites if you want more details. I try to avoid these discussions in the forum, because they tend to create enormous passions in some people, and to draw in others who are hell bent on overwhelming any reasonable discussion of the issue. For example they sometimes wrote posts that were several pages long with lots of links. In the end they had to be banned. I checked and the worst offenders had not written one post about our primary topics such as ψ.

More to follow.

David
 
OK, each of these is unedited, so some may overlap a bit with things already discussed.

I am sure you have heard the story - Venus' atmosphere is almost all CO2, and the temperature at the surface of the planet is hot enough to melt lead - all absolutely true, except for one thing - the pressure of the atmosphere at the surface of Venus is 92 times that on earth!

There used to a website that showed the full set of data, but the link doesn't seem work - but I'll give you the link in case that is just a glitch

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

It's archived on the Wayback machine...

https://web.archive.org/web/20180128074727/http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

So, in spite of the surface temperature of Venus being on the order of 864 degrees Fahrenheit, and the Venusian surface pressure being on the order of 90 earth atmospheres,
 
Since I left the forum I have embraced Paganism and I have to say it has been incredibly trans formative, I feel complete.
Can you describe that a bit - did you join any organisations, or simply accept animistic ideas.

Paganism certainly sounds potentially interesting, but that might be that it is the spiritual movement that is furthest from Christianity and Islam!

David
 
Can you describe that a bit - did you join any organisations, or simply accept animistic ideas.

Paganism certainly sounds potentially interesting, but that might be that it is the spiritual movement that is furthest from Christianity and Islam!

David

I was thinking of writing a bit about it, it is a huge topic and I'm not sure where to begin. No I didn't join any organisation I'm sticking to the left hand path. As you know I was always interested in Shamanism, and started looking into Teutonic shamanism since much of my ancestry stems from northern Europe. Ancestry is a big part of both animism and paganism. Animism is the foundation of paganism. I think my ancestors were guiding me. I am still some what eclectic but use Norse traditions as a framework you could say. I found it to be incredibly rich, and deeply psychologically symbolic. It spoke to me.

Something I had experienced hundreds of times during shamanic journeys I found in the ancient myths. it then became very real for me. My experience converged with something for the first time ever and I finally understood what was once impossible to put into words. This was the ǫnd, the spirit, sometimes called breath or soul. In mythology it is the cosmic serpent the Ouroboros. Think of kundalini of Hinduism, the Aether of the Greeks, Phanes or Protogonos of the Orphic. I'd been interacting with this thing for years and not knowing what was happening. It is like a web of energy that connects all life. Our ancestors were very aware of it.

So it was not just accepting a concept but actually experiencing it, even seeing it. As real as anything in the physical world. It is right here with us now.

I have always been a spiritual inclined person but was never satisfied with religion, it seemed far removed from experience, far from this world, detached, it did not offer anything for me except confusion and contradiction. I wanted experience not just have faith or believe something for no reason.
 
Last edited:
Hi again, LS. I've watched the video on radiative forcing now, and have been trying to find where it might have been discussed on WUWT, but can't, which is surprising since it seems like a big deal. Can you find coverage of it at WUWT? Maybe I've been searching using the wrong terms there...
 
Hi again, LS. I've watched the video on radiative forcing now, and have been trying to find where it might have been discussed on WUWT, but can't, which is surprising since it seems like a big deal. Can you find coverage of it at WUWT? Maybe I've been searching using the wrong terms there...

Only had a quick look so far, I could not find any specifics to the data sets. There are some articles on cosmic rays. This has been building for a long time,These 700 or so papers span around a decade. The big news is the IPCC has now been forced to include these data sets. Perhaps look for any news on the 2022 report?

Here's a link to cmip6 for the data sets, maybe you can find some search terms here?
https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip6/
 
I'd just like to add that my personal issue with the CO2 debate is that it forces other more serious environmental issues to take a back seat or be ignored completely. I am all for less pollution, clean air, clean water, conservation etc.. Who wouldn't be,? I think we could all agree here. It's just that this CO2 thing completely misses the mark and actually does nothing but help hinder these other issues.
agreed... I know this may sound over-the-top conspiratorial but I have to wonder if this isn't part of the plan... i.e. focus on the carbon trading so as to distract from the other stuff that might threaten friendly business interests.
 
Last time we got a group of people on the forum that were really about disrupting debate and concealing the truth. Their actions included:

Pasting pages and pages of bumf into threads, with no attempt on their part to discuss the relevance of their material.

One guy reported about 100 innocuous posts in one evening just for the sake of disrupting the moderation process. It took several hours for me to clean up afterwards.

You have made this claim (that which I've bolded) multiple times. Often, you claim that this "group", or at least multiple independent fanatics, joined for the sole purpose of climate change propaganda. I have seen no evidence for your claim. Certainly, there was a single guy who, after a discussion about an alleged cult infiltrating an NDE organisation - between K9!, myself, and several others - in one thread, later joined a discussion on climate change in another thread. And, indeed, he posted a lot of reference material, but that it is "bumf" depends on your perspective on this issue. And I take your word for it that in frustration with the way the discussion turned, including, if I remember correctly, his posts being unfairly reported (a frustration with which I am sympathetic), he reported a bunch of posts, for which you banned him (the justice of which I don't intend to start a conversation on).

But how you get from this single guy who joined for a purpose other than climate change, and then happened to get involved in that conversation, which he was obviously very concerned about, to groups of people, or at least multiple fanatics, joining the forum for the sole purpose of propagandising on climate change, I don't know.

Maybe you are right. Maybe these people exist. And maybe you have evidence for that. But if so, I haven't seen it. Perhaps you could provide it. And if you can't, perhaps you would agree to stop making this claim, for which you are unable to provide evidence?
 
Last edited:
Climate forcing. 2 years ago data sets were released to the public that now include solar particles and cosmic rays (due to be included in ipcc 2022 report), this undermines every single climate model up until that time. Since that time not a single peer reviewed paper using these data sets has been able to show any human influence on the climate.
Here's is a short summary.

Hi, LoneShaman, and welcome back!

I have some questions for you based on your post, but first, it's only fair that I reveal my perspective: on the issue of global warming and climate change, I understand that the vast majority (somewhere around 97%) of those qualified to conduct and adjudicate the science have assessed that human beings are contributing to this phenomenon in a significant way, with all of the ramifications that that has, including the possibility of dramatic threats to our quality of life, and to that of our fellow inhabitants of planet Earth. Because I am not qualified to conduct and adjudicate this science, I defer to those who are.

So, basically, I need to know whether the information that you're sharing here has changed or would change the views of the 97% to whose expertise I, as a non-expert, defer. I watched the first video that you posted, but it is very difficult for me as a non-expert to assess. A few questions in this regard then:

  1. Who is the author of this video/documentary series, which, if any, relevant qualifications does he have, and why should I trust him?
  2. Can you point me to any other sources which are saying the same thing, and can you especially point me to any other sources which are saying the same thing and are part of "The Climate Science Establishment", so to speak?
  3. Can you play Devil's Advocate and point me to anybody - especially anybody well-qualified - who rejects the view of this video/documentary-maker?
  4. Can you point to a significant number (or any at all) of those who would previously have been counted amongst the 97% who have assessed that human beings are contributing significantly to climate change who have changed their minds since the supposed revelations in the data set to which this video/documentary-maker refers?
  5. If so (and even if not), do you have any evidence that the 97% figure is or would be changed by this supposedly new data?

Cheers.

[Edit: amended 99% to 97%, which is the more correct figure]
 
Last edited:
A key paper in the latest IPCC sub report had to be retracted.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5

Hello again, LoneShaman. Following up on my last post:

You seem to be implying that the retraction of this "key paper in the latest IPCC sub report" was due to the public release of "data sets [...] that now include solar particles and cosmic rays". Can you help me to understand how this is the case, and what its significance is?

Reading the retraction, I see that the authors say that "reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors". Are the "certain systematic errors" due to "solar particles and cosmic rays" (amongst other "included" phenomena)?

Also, what do you make of the authors' claim that "correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming", even though it "led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties"?
 
Hello again, LoneShaman. Following up on my last post:

You seem to be implying that the retraction of this "key paper in the latest IPCC sub report" was due to the public release of "data sets [...] that now include solar particles and cosmic rays". Can you help me to understand how this is the case, and what its significance is?

Reading the retraction, I see that the authors say that "reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors". Are the "certain systematic errors" due to "solar particles and cosmic rays" (amongst other "included" phenomena)?

Also, what do you make of the authors' claim that "correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming", even though it "led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties"?

The defining feature of science is that it bases its pronouncements on evidence and reasoning, not on majority and / or authority.

Recall Ignaz Semmelweis, the pioneer of anticeptics:

https://semmelweis.org/about/dr-semmelweis-biography/

When he came out with his views, he was not just in a small minority, he was literally a minority of one - virually all other doctors and scientists rejected his views, and when he became too much of a nuisance for them, he was declared him "mentally ill" and thrown in psychiartic prison... or so-called "hospital"... where he died soon after.

Now it is acknowledged that he - a single person viewed as "insane" by his contemporaries - was objectively correct in his statements, while everyone else around him - including all "experts" of science and medicine - were objectively incorrect.

So, it simply never bothered me how much scientists agree on the anthropogenic global warming / climate change, and how "respectable" are they within academia. Maybe it is 99%, or even 99,99% of scientists (even if these numbers are as controversial and contestable as anything else concerning this emotionally-stirring-and-upsetting, vested-interests-endangering, entrenched-wordviews-challenging debate), each of them as eminent as one can get; but their positons are still not immune to the empirical and rational criticism. And it does not matter who the critics are; they may be just uneducated hobbyist laypersons, but if they are objectively correct, then the objectivity of the evidence and argumentation they present trumps (no political pun intended!!!) all the subjective appeals to "authority" and "majority".
 
if they are objectively correct, then the objectivity of the evidence and argumentation they present trumps (no political pun intended!!!) all the subjective appeals to "authority" and "majority".

The question is: who among us is qualified to assess that evidence and argumentation? I know that I am not. Are you? Is anybody else in this thread?
 
Vortex, to elaborate on my last post: Ignaz Semmelweis was a physician who studied in the field in question. He could reasonably be presented as an expert or at least as somebody qualified to have an opinion. I am trying to decipher whether the video producer to whom LoneShaman directed us could be characterised in the same terms. Otherwise, why would I listen to him? For every Ignaz Semmelweis, there are a thousand Ignorant Semi-wises to whom it is foolish to direct my attention.
 
Hi, LoneShaman, and welcome back!

I have some questions for you based on your post, but first, it's only fair that I reveal my perspective: on the issue of global warming and climate change, I understand that the vast majority (somewhere around 99%) of those qualified to conduct and adjudicate the science have assessed that human beings are contributing to this phenomenon in a significant way, with all of the ramifications that that has, including the possibility of dramatic threats to our quality of life, and to that of our fellow inhabitants of planet Earth. Because I am not qualified to conduct and adjudicate this science, I defer to those who are.

So, basically, I need to know whether the information that you're sharing here has changed or would change the views of the 99% to whose expertise I, as a non-expert, defer. I watched the first video that you posted, but it is very difficult for me as a non-expert to assess. A few questions in this regard then:

  1. Who is the author of this video/documentary series, which, if any, relevant qualifications does he have, and why should I trust him?
  2. Can you point me to any other sources which are saying the same thing, and can you especially point me to any other sources which are saying the same thing and are part of "The Climate Science Establishment", so to speak?
  3. Can you play Devil's Advocate and point me to anybody - especially anybody well-qualified - who rejects the view of this video/documentary-maker?
  4. Can you point to a significant number (or any at all) of those who would previously have been counted amongst the 99% who have assessed that human beings are contributing significantly to climate change who have changed their minds since the supposed revelations in the data set to which this video/documentary-maker refers?
  5. If so (and even if not), do you have any evidence that the 99% figure is or would be changed by this supposedly new data?

Cheers.
Thanks Laird,

We have to remember that Science is not a democracy but is about evidence. The history of science has shown that consensus has routinely been wrong. It should be said also that these consensus studies have also been challenged on methodology, perhaps we could look into that further. Anyway what compels a large number is based on a presumption that climate sensitivity is very high. However in all IPCC reports we see that if you double the amount of CO2 the temperature increase should be between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. The fact is all estimations, if we look at the first reports from 1990 which should still be valid, show that these estimations were wrong, the reality is actually under the lower limits. The projections and models from those who would be included in so called consensus have proven to be false. There is no evidence climate sensitivity is high.

This is still without the inclusion of particle forcing which by their methodology would by default be calculated as being human influence because it has been absent from their models. This is why this data undermines all climate models to date and no papers have been forthcoming showing any human influence using these data sets since they have been released. The climate is incredibly complex and without all the factors, it is of course impossible to model with any accuracy. This is indeed the case.

1.The author of the videos is Ben Davidson, he runs the Observatoryproject.com, Suspicious Observers, SpaceWeather.com, Quakewatch.com, MagneticReversal.org and probably more. In this case he is just reporting, this is not a theory as he says, this has already happened. I have been following his work for some time, he is quite astute.

2. This is an accumulation of over 700 papers spanning a decade, the data sets are here.. https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip6/ and the IPCC will be including it in the 2022 report, it's already accepted.

3. This is really just a report and not the point of view from Ben Davidson. Please do watch the full documentary.

4. I think we'll have to wait and see who changes their minds, but we are starting to see a change from the major universities on these issues. The consensus is not as great as has been promoted, recently 500 scientist petitioned the UN stating there is no climate emergency.

Also it is note worthy the UN secretary general statements, who created the IPCC, condemning the extreme-ism that the IPCC itself created.

5. I don't believe this percentage is a true reflection of the state of the debate. There are many qualified dissenters but I can't give you a percentage.

Long term data shows that Co2 follow temperature changes and not the inverse. We know statistics and data sets have been manipulated and misrepresented, I am no expert when it comes to this, I have seen equally using these methods that what we are experiencing falls easily into natural variability.

The Paper that was retracted has nothing to do with the data sets, it was merely a tid bit of news I added. I think it reflects the change that is happening within academia concerning this subject. That is all.

We should be happy about this, and finally we can get back to shining a light on the very real problems the environment is facing.
 
Back
Top