Upcoming Interview With Michael Dowd About Global Warming

#1
My friend Rick Archer from Buddha at the gas pump and I have had this ongoing thing about global warming. you may remember these past episodes:
Global Warming, Climate Change and Our Illusion of Control ...
He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on ...

... well Rick has been pretty relentless in pursuing his global warming death-cult agenda. my response has always been the same - anytime anywhere. I told Rick that my experience with global warming alarmists is that they're never are open to hard questions about the science behind their beliefs. so Rick took me up on the challenge and connected me with Michael Dowd who has agreed to come on and chat about it :)

from Michael's website: THE REVEREND MICHAEL DOWD is an evolutionary theologian, bestselling author, and evangelist for Big History and an honorable relationship to the future.
 
#2
Michael and I have already begun an email exchange. he's a bright guy with a lot of ideas I agree with, then again, he has this crazy global warming death cult thing going on as well :)

I want this to be as much of a full-disclosure-in-advance discussion as is practical, so I like the idea of sharing points here before I talk about them with Michael. I'd also like your help an understanding his position. here are two videos Michael thinks are very important. what do you guys think?


 
#3
I haven't listened to these videos yet, but just to get the ball rolling, why do use the pejorative phrase "crazy global warming death cult"? From Scientific American: "Researchers believe that global warming is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world, and fear that the number may well double by 2030 even if we start getting serious about emissions reductions today". If that number is accurate, that's a jumbo jet crash just about every day, moving towards two a day. Are the writers and editors of Scientific American a bunch of crazies?
 
#4
I haven't listened to these videos yet, but just to get the ball rolling, why do use the pejorative phrase "crazy global warming death cult"? From Scientific American: "Researchers believe that global warming is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world, and fear that the number may well double by 2030 even if we start getting serious about emissions reductions today". If that number is accurate, that's a jumbo jet crash just about every day, moving towards two a day. Are the writers and editors of Scientific American a bunch of crazies?
thanks for joining in Rick. glad you're here.

Yr question is what they call a lob -- yes, they are a bunch of crazies! wrong about almost everything. of course, you've been right there with me regarding science's totally out-to-lunch, soul-denying position regarding consciousness, but you seem to flip into True Believer mode when it comes to the New World order's fake science of global warming.
 
#5
Maybe that's because I'm not with you that there's a New World Order. There seems to be a spectrum of conspiracy theories, with some at one end being worthy of debate, and those at the other end, such as Flat Earthers, being absurdly delusional. As you know, most scientists align with the materialist paradigm. That doesn't necessarily invalidate their science (at least not entirely). It just means they are out to lunch regarding consciousness. Give them time to either die or change their minds. One way or the other that paradigm is doomed.

Then again I know people who understand that consciousness is fundamental who think the moon landing was faked and Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. So you really have to treat these issues in a thoughtful, nuanced, discriminating way, and not assume that because someone is wrong about some things, they're necessarily wrong about everything.
 
#6
Maybe that's because I'm not with you that there's a New World Order. There seems to be a spectrum of conspiracy theories, with some at one end being worthy of debate, and those at the other end, such as Flat Earthers, being absurdly delusional. As you know, most scientists align with the materialist paradigm. That doesn't necessarily invalidate their science (at least not entirely). It just means they are out to lunch regarding consciousness. Give them time to either die or change their minds. One way or the other that paradigm is doomed.

Then again I know people who understand that consciousness is fundamental who think the moon landing was faked and Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. So you really have to treat these issues in a thoughtful, nuanced, discriminating way, and not assume that because someone is wrong about some things, they're necessarily wrong about everything.
may I politely say "yada yada" while drawing attention to yr credibility (only on this issue) gap:

Alex Tsakiris: I have to nail that down a little bit more, Rick. The position I’m taking is that the 90 or 97% consensus is completely false. That’s the position I’m taking. So if I am able to significantly undermine that fact–that data point–then do you think your beliefs will change?

Rick Archer: Yes. We’re not going to do it in the course of this conversation. We’re obviously going to do it in subsequent exchanges.

Alex Tsakiris: Right. And I just have to share with folks, I’m going to lay my money on the fact that we will prove that conclusively, and your beliefs will not change at all. But that’s just my opinion based on the exchanges that we’ve had. We’ll see how it all turns out.

(this next excerpt is from the follow-up interview)

Alex Tsakiris: … now that you’ve conceded on the 97% consensus idea (after reviewing the data Rick agreed that the study by Dr. John Cook showing a 97% consensus among climate scientists was bunk), has that significantly changed your opinion on man-made global warming?

Rick Archer: No, not significantly.

Alex Tsakiris: Perfect.
https://skeptiko.com/science-proved-him-wrong-about-global-warming-310/
 
#7
I am a climate change proponent. I hold that anthropogenic methane and carbon are significant contributors to the global rise in temperatures. I have done my own analyses which have helped convince me of this fact. I am part owner in an oil exploration and exploitation company as well, where I have done a couple market and physical studies.

In fact, I believe it so much that I have invested a lot of money in companies I have founded and/or own developing alternative energy technology - methane and carbon mitigation (not sequestration) - and waste remediation technologies and systems. Companies developing markets which eliminate the need to haul products such long distances before final disposition - and into unaccountable landfills. Companies offering sustainable agricultural approaches which eliminate the need to haul produce 3,500 miles on average and inject natural gas, growth accelerants and pig manure into depleted industrial farm soils, which are displacing natural forests and carbon-binders in the soil.

So - in terms of being pro-CAGW, I am there.

But there are two problems (aside from the reality that scientists are advisors of the public trust - and not defacto rulers). As a professional market strategist....

1. Climate Scientists do not know, nor do they bear consensus, on the sources of carbon nor its sub-segment, anthropogenic carbon. These are MARKET MODELS (and geophysical/petrol models), not climate models. Climate models involve what the carbon and methane do AFTER they are generated.​
2. Climate Scientists do not know, which solutions will effect the greatest total impact to methane, carbon and VOC's being introduced into our atmosphere. These are MARKET MODELS (based upon a little bit of organic chemistry). They are nothing akin to climate studies - save for atmospheric catalytic hydrocarbon decay into carbon dioxide.​

The contention that climate scientists are experts in the above is false. This is like saying that the sex therapist down the street, since he is a PhD, now has the rights to bang your girlfriend on a regular basis. I don't care if 20,000 sex therapists 97% bear consensus that he should be allowed to have sex with my dog either. This is not their professional discipline - and such boasts need to end, if we are going to have credible and solution-oriented debate on this issue.
 
Last edited:
#8
If pseudo-experts keep brainlessly screaming 'fossil fuels' and 'capitalism' over and over - like this is some kind of expertise or solution set on their part - we are all going to fail. The people who repeat this mantra over and over are worse enemies than are denier opponents by far. Some of them know this, as the issue is simply a football they employ to attack their political opponents. In fact, in the Climate Change Emergency paper released today - they declare these six solutions to climate change. This quote from The Hill, today:

According to the publication, the letter focuses on six major objectives that scientists believe are crucial: replacing fossil fuels, cutting pollutants, restoring and protecting ecosystems, eating less meat and making the world economy carbon-free.

In a bit of contrast with the myths, below are the sources I have modeled in my markets work - to be carbon and methane generators globally. For example, if we are going to eat less meat - then we have to find alternatives to the pig and cow manure we inject into till-free soils in industrial agriculture - and that choice substitute will be natural gas. We will have to frack and haul that natural gas very long distances as cows and pigs are near the agri-field, natural gas is not. Most of this methane (along with the hydrogen sulfide and higher alkanes which will decay into methane and finally into carbon dioxide across two decades) will leach into the atmosphere. That will be far more greenhouse inducing than manure which holds much of its methane captive... And one has to have run cow manure decay curves, the agri-inputs models for a farm or developed a natural gas re-blending practice for their oilfield production in order to understand this. Not just conduct academic poli-speak.

Another myth spun by these political types is that there is nothing going on with regard to climate change. This is false... there is a shit-load of activity around reducing methane and carbon emissions. In energy, in fossil fuels, in manufacturing, in agriculture. You actually have to be in these industries and working there in order to know it. My terror resides in this - I am not sure that the things we have done, have had any effect at all. The Manua Loa carbon curve is accelerating, not simply increasing. I worry that another factor is at play and in our 'emergency' - we have turned this into a panic instead, which has made us irrational, apothegm-spouting and blind.

And the final myth about it all being the fault of 'capitalism'. These issues (below) are not caused by capitalism - they are caused by a lack of accountability and hyper population growth in developing nations, along with our mad rush into exporting Mega Gov-Corp Global Socialism... (and their buddies, the Cronies). Local, sustainable, smaller, ethical, culture based, integral capital-driven businesses are the solution to our carbon crisis - not the sole cause.

And by the way - we do not have to shut down the fossil fuel industry in order to address these (US) market factors below... (from EPA.GOV with my annotations added).

greenhouse gasses.png
 
Last edited:
#10
may I politely say "yada yada" while drawing attention to yr credibility (only on this issue) gap:

Alex Tsakiris: I have to nail that down a little bit more, Rick. The position I’m taking is that the 90 or 97% consensus is completely false. That’s the position I’m taking. So if I am able to significantly undermine that fact–that data point–then do you think your beliefs will change?

Rick Archer: Yes. We’re not going to do it in the course of this conversation. We’re obviously going to do it in subsequent exchanges.

Alex Tsakiris: Right. And I just have to share with folks, I’m going to lay my money on the fact that we will prove that conclusively, and your beliefs will not change at all. But that’s just my opinion based on the exchanges that we’ve had. We’ll see how it all turns out.

(this next excerpt is from the follow-up interview)

Alex Tsakiris: … now that you’ve conceded on the 97% consensus idea (after reviewing the data Rick agreed that the study by Dr. John Cook showing a 97% consensus among climate scientists was bunk), has that significantly changed your opinion on man-made global warming?

Rick Archer: No, not significantly.

Alex Tsakiris: Perfect.
https://skeptiko.com/science-proved-him-wrong-about-global-warming-310/

Most of this response is not relevant to what I posted about conspiracy theories, but let's see what Michael says about the consensus thing. When are you scheduled to interview him?
 
#13
Insolation counter arguments should address Solar Spectral Index.... that is the sensitivity-to-risk exposure, not Total Solar Irradiance. One can see an initial analytical confidence comparative from 2018 here: Lean, J.L. Estimating solar irradiance since 850 CE

A lot less is known about changes in the SSI (μ, arrival distribution and degrees of freedom) and the SSI's interaction with infrared binding frequencies historically. Our assumptions bear a large Type II Risk Horizon regarding the scant 1σ SSI measures we do hold - verus numerous 4σ TSI measures, which bear a much lower risk horizon.

insolation_curve smaller.png
 
Last edited:
#14
I am a climate change proponent. I hold that anthropogenic methane and carbon are significant contributors to the global rise in temperatures. I have done my own analyses which have helped convince me of this fact. I am part owner in an oil exploration and exploitation company as well, where I have done a couple market and physical studies.

In fact, I believe it so much that I have invested a lot of money in companies I have founded and/or own developing alternative energy technology - methane and carbon mitigation (not sequestration) - and waste remediation technologies and systems. Companies developing markets which eliminate the need to haul products such long distances before final disposition - and into unaccountable landfills. Companies offering sustainable agricultural approaches which eliminate the need to haul produce 3,500 miles on average and inject natural gas, growth accelerants and pig manure into depleted industrial farm soils, which are displacing natural forests and carbon-binders in the soil.

So - in terms of being pro-CAGW, I am there.

But there are two problems (aside from the reality that scientists are advisors of the public trust - and not defacto rulers). As a professional market strategist....

1. Climate Scientists do not know, nor do they bear consensus, on the sources of carbon nor its sub-segment, anthropogenic carbon. These are MARKET MODELS (and geophysical/petrol models), not climate models. Climate models involve what the carbon and methane do AFTER they are generated.​
2. Climate Scientists do not know, which solutions will effect the greatest total impact to methane, carbon and VOC's being introduced into our atmosphere. These are MARKET MODELS (based upon a little bit of organic chemistry). They are nothing akin to climate studies - save for atmospheric catalytic hydrocarbon decay into carbon dioxide.​

The contention that climate scientists are experts in the above is false. This is like saying that the sex therapist down the street, since he is a PhD, now has the rights to bang your girlfriend on a regular basis. I don't care if 20,000 sex therapists 97% bear consensus that he should be allowed to have sex with my dog either. This is not their professional discipline - and such boasts need to end, if we are going to have credible and solution-oriented debate on this issue.
love this... But feel like we're mashing a lot of issues together... and for me this was the problem all along.

TES, you seem like a pretty freaking smart guy and I bet you're going to figure out how to make that technology work. from an investment standpoint, mitigating CO2 and other pollutants on an industrial scale seems like like a homerun investment opportunity... great for you... hope you crush it. but none of this gets us closer to understanding the highjacking of science by climate alarmists.

At the end of the day this seems to be about the role that science can and should play in policy-making. after all, none of us really care about climate change per se, we care . What we're going to do about it... i.e. we care about policy decisions. for example, we want to know if we should, or will be allowed to drive our cars, fly on planes, and heat our homes. in the extreme, we want to know if we should go to war with China if they refuse to tow the line regarding the global policy decisions that we make with our allies. so now that we know what's at stake we can look at the science and how it might inform such policy decisions... and here's where it starts to get tricky... more later :)
 
#15
TES, you seem like a pretty freaking smart guy and I bet you're going to figure out how to make that technology work. from an investment standpoint, mitigating CO2 and other pollutants on an industrial scale seems like like a homerun investment opportunity... great for you... hope you crush it. but none of this gets us closer to understanding the highjacking of science by climate alarmists
Thanks Alex, and good points. Yeah, I am a foot in both worlds - developing/filing the patents for this technology now - and working with our team to develop the schematics/designs. It is (in part) groundbreaking science and engineering. At regular points in the process, I have to make sure I am doing this for the right reasons - and not deluding myself, so that I can make money off what in essence might turn out to be nothing more than a global tulip panic. So I am not an alarmist. However, seven things would solve mankind's carbon contribution (but not all carbon contribution) if we would pursue them

1. Route organic, petrol based and methanogenic waste to LOCAL energy producing centers. Stop making large plastic crap.​
2. Reforestation back to 1910 levels.​
3. Decentralize manufacturing OUT of China (/India) and back to regional small scale manufacturing.​
4. End industrial farming and resurrect local sustainable agriculture - end soil injection with natural gas and growth accelerants creating rotting methanogenic biomass rather than nutrition. Do not allow farming on microphyla depleted soils.​
5. End mega-work centers in cities and tall buildings, with people stacked on top of each other, driving long distances in order to conduct work.​
6. Triple the price of airline travel - eliminate super-economy rates.​
7. Mineral tax nations/arrest socialist mafias who grow irresponsibly in population and dump their excess humanity on their neighbors and the rest of the globe. This should be treated as equivalent to a war crime - the worst thing a human can do.​

The thing that scares me about this is, that another factor appears to be in play with carbon - and we are so foaming-at-the-mouth mad - we won't examine it.
 
Last edited:
#16
Thanks Alex, and good points. Yeah, I am a foot in both worlds - developing/filing the patents for this technology now - and working with our team to develop the schematics/designs. It is (in part) groundbreaking science and engineering. At regular points in the process, I have to make sure I am doing this for the right reasons - and not deluding myself, so that I can make money off what in essence might turn out to be nothing more than a global tulip panic. So I am not an alarmist. However, seven things would solve mankind's carbon contribution (but not all carbon contribution) if we would pursue them

1. Route organic, petrol based and methanogenic waste to LOCAL energy producing centers. Stop making large plastic crap.​
2. Reforestation back to 1910 levels.​
3. Decentralize manufacturing OUT of China (/India) and back to regional small scale manufacturing.​
4. End industrial farming and resurrect local sustainable agriculture - end soil injection with natural gas and growth accelerants creating rotting methanogenic biomass rather than nutrition. Do not allow farming on microphyla depleted soils.​
5. End mega-work centers in cities and tall buildings, with people stacked on top of each other, driving long distances in order to conduct work.​
6. Triple the price of airline travel - eliminate super-economy rates.​
7. Mineral tax nations/arrest socialist mafias who grow irresponsibly in population and dump their excess humanity on their neighbors and the rest of the globe. This should be treated as equivalent to a war crime - the worst thing a human can do.​

The thing that scares me about this is, that another factor appears to be in play with carbon - and we are so foaming-at-the-mouth mad - we won't examine it.
sounds good to me... sign me up give me my M16 and point me towards the commies. I mean, wouldn't it take World War 3 to implement this plan. I think it would... which is another reason to make sure we have the science right.

And, by the way, why no rise in sea levels ()
 
#17
love this... But feel like we're mashing a lot of issues together... and for me this was the problem all along.

TES, you seem like a pretty freaking smart guy and I bet you're going to figure out how to make that technology work. from an investment standpoint, mitigating CO2 and other pollutants on an industrial scale seems like like a homerun investment opportunity... great for you... hope you crush it. but none of this gets us closer to understanding the highjacking of science by climate alarmists.

At the end of the day this seems to be about the role that science can and should play in policy-making. after all, none of us really care about climate change per se, we care . What we're going to do about it... i.e. we care about policy decisions. for example, we want to know if we should, or will be allowed to drive our cars, fly on planes, and heat our homes. in the extreme, we want to know if we should go to war with China if they refuse to tow the line regarding the global policy decisions that we make with our allies. so now that we know what's at stake we can look at the science and how it might inform such policy decisions... and here's where it starts to get tricky... more later :)
more...

So the first thing I'd like to talk to Michael about is the relationship between science and policy making.

The second thing I'd like to talk to him about is conspiracy. the 97% consensus... Climategate 1 2 and 3... the hijacking of science the name of global warming makes me very suspicious regarding who's driving this train. the great political / social engineering battle of our time seems to be Global versus National. and you can't say global warming without saying who's behind this project

and the third and final point I'd like to talk about is the disconnect between spirituality and environmentalism. how many times are our well meaning Christians friends going to fall for the "God needs our help" plea.
 
Last edited:
#18
Everyone,

Please remember that this is a thread to help in planning the interview with Michael - not to argue the pros and cons of CC!

more...

So the first thing I'd like to talk to Michael about is the relationship between science and policy making.

The second thing I'd like to talk to him about is conspiracy. the 97% consensus... Climategate 1 2 and 3... the hijacking of science the name of global warming makes me very suspicious regarding who's driving this train. the great political / social engineering battle of our time seems to be Global versus National. and you can't say global warming without saying who's behind this project

and the third and final point I'd like to talk about is the disconnect between spirituality and environmentalism. how many times our will meaning Christians going to fall for the "God needs our help" plea.
I think all those issues are excellent subjects to discuss.

On the subject of hijacking of science, my view is that science has become more and more vulnerable to being hacked for a number of related reasons:

Too much science uses data that is almost pure noise. Frantic attempts to extract a signal out of such noise, is just asking for trouble. IMHO, if the corrections are > 0.5 x expected effect, the research should not go ahead. Maybe the criterion should be tighter than that.

Most scientists want to maintain a career, and simply need to tow the line in order to do that. The director of the lab can in effect control what his staff publish.

So much 'easy' science has been cherry picked over the years, that people end up doing 'hard' science. The problem is, it may be hard because it is impossible to get decent data, or because there are way too many variables to handle. The ink of economic 'science' - nobody bats an eyelid if they get it dead wrong - as they often do.

I guess all of those could be talking points.

David
 
#20
Perhaps another way to prepare for the discussion with Michael about Climate Change - and its underpinning issues, is to outlay the camps which are stakeholders in the argument. When I do a national strategy or seek to fund an international business, I will often run into these three competing camps globally. Below I have conjectured a placeholder perspective for each. They are propositions.

I am of the Fordism camp. I hold that Gramscian Objectivists and Social Justice Caballeros are not qualified forms of governing entities. They are influences, not choosers. They often have no skin-in-the-game (rarely exposed to risk, but always exposed to their own gain). The nations in which they gain too much power, consistently fail and their people suffer.

The key principle is this - an entity who chooses, must also bear risk of that choice. Otherwise they can only be an influence.
A flow of profit or margin, must be met with an equal and opposite flow in provision of value and/or undertaking of risk.

This is the core ethic I use in development of recommendations inside a new or changing market. However, once we set aside the artifice (valid or not valid) of the state - the question is - 'who is best suited to govern cross-boder entities and transactions/decisions?' (like climate change).

The problem with Bolivarianism and Gramscianism is that they both believe they are operating under a holy mandate. That their every action is right, because they are righteous... by some external standard - Science or Justice. You cannot enter into an argument with a Gramascian or Bolivarian because they start moralizing. This is dangerous. ( I suppose Monarchy, with God as their mandate would be a fourth form of chooser/governance - one certainly cannot argue with a Monarchy or God).

So given the mandate choices of God, Science, Justice or Markets... I choose Markets every time. The other three are incompetent or malicious.

Markets are neutral (as long as they are not dominated by Cronies/Cartels/Mafias/Cabals)... and possess a better hand at managing - provided they are structured with constraints as to their bias and agency. If we use science as advisor to the market, and let the market take action with the best-outcomes for all involved at play - we have a better chance at surviving this - than by fatalistic or visceral reactions. Climate panic, rather than climate emergency.

Climate Change.png
 
Last edited:
Top