Roger Lewis
1 week ago
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/distinction-rebellion-settled-seance-and-psuedo-climastrology/comment-page-1/#comment-5349 this demonstrates the reality that lions are led by donkeys and feelings trumps clear thinking in modern civil society. So-called Climate Change as a sop for the Psuedo Scientific AGW theories long since falsified, a road to serfdom and idiocracy.

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis
1 week ago (edited)
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/processing-scientific-information-and-getting-the-message-across/6005050 #transcript https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/david-malone-ungarbled-i-hope-pt-1-a-review-of-my-interview-of-david-malone-golemxiv-grubstreetjournal-meet-1000frolly-1000frollyphd-%e2%80%8f/

My initial thought is that linking trend EcoE with prosperity is a BIG claim I’d like more proof please :). EcoE could be the driver here or it’s role could be marginal. How did you untangle all the other factors ?

If pushed I could plot a graph of per capita prosperity versus many metrics that could correlate. For example we know that average IQ has been shown to correlate well with per capita GDP. IQ’s have been dropping in developed countries since the 70’s.
Or i could plot a graph of the average hours spent surfing the net versus per capita prosperity and form a theory that wasting time on social media is preventing us doing more productive things…
Of course such a correlation wouldn’t be absolute proof of a link.
I recognise you have invested heavily in this but with the greatest respect, has that made you susceptible to conformational bias?

Then there are the changes that have occurred since the millennium that are difficult to quantify but can’t be ignored. The doctrine of political correctness (the elevation of the politically correct over the factually correct truth) has been universally accepted. My point is this misguided journey into the sort of bad governance that would shame a banana republic has been hugely costly. I’m thinking of costly wars, attacks on the family and special status of married couples, open door to outsiders that may not share our customs and beliefs. The drive to eradicate perceived notions of ‘poverty’ and ‘unfairness’ that simply didn’t exist a few decades ago.

Of course this environment has fostered the religion of climate change. Two points id like to make.

The scientists relying on tree ring data and ice cores to convince us that we are experiencing unprecedented weather patterns is totally unhinged. Secondly the impact of CO2 is relatively tiny. Oh and a third point is that scientists that don’t stick to the climate change script get frozen out.
The BBC are keen to tell us we have just had the hottest day….then slip in that it was almost as hot back in 1945 before climate change was even invented. ..
This article sums it up very neatly Id urge readers to look at it with an open mind. Sorry for the long winded post!
https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/?fbclid=IwAR0XlA2ZjlEGf6ijtwn1P9Z1H8J54XnzoiCU4rlEaphobXl_ymKscP2MW-o

Reply ↓

drtimmorgan
on July 27, 2019 at 11:18 am said:
What one might call the ‘theory’ tying prosperity to ECoE follows a chain of logic where each link can be tested.

First, the connection between energy and economic activity. It’s impossible to name any product (good or service) that can be supplied without energy.

We know that the cessation of energy supply would cause economic activity to cease.

Additionally, we have historical evidence – the vast take-off in population numbers, and the economic activity (and especially the food supply) that supports them, occurred at the same time that we started using fossil fuels.

Then, ECoE itself.

We know that energy is consumed in any process which accesses energy for our use. We know that materials (steel, plastics, etc) used in energy access cannot themselves be supplied without the use of energy, and we know that processes (putting these things together) also depend on energy.

Where fossil fuels (4/5ths of current energy supply) are concerned, the effects of depletion are observable – oil fields newly brought on stream are smaller, technically more difficult, more remote and of lower quality than the ones that they replace.

This, I’d submit, is a chain of logic in which each link is demonstrable.

drtimmorgan
on July 27, 2019 at 11:24 am said:
On climate change, few people are more sceptical than me about the ‘official’ or ‘consensus’ interpretation of anything.

But I accept it, bearing in mind the following:

– The overwhelming majority of scientific opinion supports the case. This is the science of hard facts, not a social science. This opinion isn’t split 55/45, say, but probably about 99/1.

– Glacier melting is visible

– So is species loss

– and pollution

rogerglewis
on July 27, 2019 at 12:01 pm said:
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/con-in-consensus.pdf

What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and
contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core
issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.
3
Second, it is obvious that the “97%” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is
ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of
greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phoney claim of 97%
the consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.

The Glacier Position is Half a dozen of one and six of the other.
https://iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

On Species Loss, again this is an ill-defined domain and whilst one accepts the damage done by deforestation and monoculture Agriculture, and concern for Say the Bees, these are unrelated to the AGW CO2 hypothesis which is the Contents of the #WrongKindofGreen Trojan horse of misanthropic Green fascism.
Pollution is Bad , of course it is, CO2 is not pollution and also the CO2 Emissions policy focus lets polluters off the hook this is the basis of Clive Spashes, Brave new world paper.

https://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE1.pdf

ewaf88
on July 27, 2019 at 1:33 pm said:
One thing that you have omitted is that although there have been past periods of warming and ice ages these have been 1000s – millions of years apart.

Don’t you think it’s a big coincidence that the current period of warming coincides with industrialisation given the time frame we’re talking about.

Given the huge timeframes of the Earth it’s statistically unlikely that we’d have a warming period that exactly matches a tiny period of our industrial activity

Also the rate of change is far faster that any in history.

Of course we could argue about this indefinitely but I am totally convinced that we are to blame and not cycles in the Earth’s climate.

drtimmorgan
on July 27, 2019 at 1:42 pm said:
Agreed.

Where climate change itself is concerned, it’s up to each of us whether we believe in it, and in human activity as a significant contributory factor. I do believe this.

The point of this article, though, is this. Just say you don’t believe in climate change, or our role in causing it. So what do you do? Carry on relying on fossil fuels? Doing that will, beyond all doubt in my opinion, destroy the economy. We’re already having to engage in truly freakish financial behaviour to kid ourselves that the economy is “growing”.

Therefore, continued reliance on fossil fuels look to me a lose-lose combination.

rogerglewis on July 27, 2019 at 1:46 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@ewaf88 I do not claim to know definitively regarding human contribuitoon? O am however convinced of the arguments that CO2 has been cynically put in the frame and much more heinous Human activity and indeed other large influencers of Climate have been ignored.

I suspect the CO2 Narratives are all along related to what is known as #TheCarbonCurrencyEndGame.

Debt-based money has caused many more deaths than CLimate change, the Green Lobby is largely silent on matters such as War and the Military-Industrial Complex .

Political Economy is Making people who think differently or believe different things to agree on ways of acting, Its a point Roger L Pelke Junior makes in this Talk.

remember Walter Lippman on politics the
57:56
goal is not to get everyone to think
57:57
alike the goal is to get people who
57:59
think differently to act alike

Reply ↓

Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.” 1. This simple calculation clearly demonstrates that there are not enough stations to model the surface temperature of the globe, and satellites cannot replace surface stations. The reduction in the number of sensors being used is fundamentally unsound: temperature varies from one place to another, from one hour to the next, and this natural variability can be tracked only by a very dense network of sensors. p.16 2. Determining an average temperature for a system as complex as the Earth has no physical meaning. Unfortunately, this question, fundamental though it is, has never been tackled by organizations involved in meteorology. For them, the answer is simple: you take all the sensors and calculate the average! p.23 3. According to the British Met Office, ‗The global average temperature is the arithmetic mean of the northern hemisphere average and the southern hemisphere average.‘ This type of reasoning is being used by all the international bodies, and one might legitimately question its validity. The thermodynamic mean, for its part, is too complicated to apply and requires the use of models (with all their limitations and uncertainties). We might, however, wonder why the arithmetic mean is also being used in areas that are less well provided with sensors or have very high or very low temperatures. If we content ourselves with an unweighted arithmetic mean, then areas with the highest density of sensors are going to be over-represented! Our conclusion here is very clear: SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 – to calculate the arithmetic mean for the entire planet makes no sense and can only lead to errors; – you can calculate the arithmetic mean for areas well provided with sensors (Europe and the US), and compare the values from one year to another. This might provide information on local climate variation. p.26/27 4. On CO2 Measurement and concentration, Our conclusion is very clear: the entire methodology used to observe CO2 has to be overhauled before we can even think about the results that have been obtained by these observations. The first step is to correctly document the natural variability of CO2 concentrations (what affects them, and how do they manifest?). We must not forget that the aim here is to make a global assessment of CO2 concentrations in the entire atmosphere. Let us use a simple comparison to explain this. Let us imagine that we want to document incidents of sins committed by human beings. Before concluding that ‗we can restrict our investigations to the areas around cathedrals‘, which would at least have the merit of simplicity, we would have to find out about the ‗natural‘ variability of sin. Perhaps, in fact, more sins are committed far away from cathedrals? p.57 5. Cyclones. 3. Critical analysis In this case, we have been able to obtain raw data and conduct our own analysis, which clearly demonstrates, contrary to what we are all reading all the time, that there has been no increase in the number of cyclones over the past 40 years. We have found a slight increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 cyclones (the strongest), but the numbers are very small each year, and the increase might simply be due to changes in ‗accounting methods‘. A common deception is as follows: you begin by looking at cyclones that reach the US mainland (the ones that affect people and insurance companies) and you count them. Then you change the perimeter and include all cyclones in the North Atlantic, including ones that disperse at sea. Of course, the second group is bigger! As we said earlier, the statistics presented here cover all cyclones in the North Atlantic. p.67 6. Sea Level Rises. a. Two kinds of instruments are used: • Marigraphs, which have been around for 200 years; • Altimetry satellites, which measure the height of the satellite above the ocean; they have been around for 20 years, namely Topex/Poseidon (1992), Jason 1 (2001), Jason 2 (2008). The water level varies naturally: • Due to the tides (lunar attraction) • Due to wind and storms • Due to sea currents This being so, the estimates provided by marigraphs and satellites can be no more than averages, if possible over one year or several years, as phenomena such as El Niño affect the sea level for a year or more. p.68 b. E. Be careful! On Models. ( https://www.bitchute.com/video/dv8avoovsHqr/) As this issue has taken on a major political dimension, all kinds of statements are made by absolutely anyone at all. Great care is therefore called for when accepting information. 1. Models Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as 76 SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTK0LHclNFs Critical analysis The rising sea level is a basic thesis for journalists, to support the doctrine of global warming. They say, ―Look, the sea is rising, and so we are in danger‖. It is perfectly true that the sea level is rising, but essentially this is due to the cooling down of the core of the terrestrial globe which has been taking place gradually for five billion years. As a result of this contraction, the lighter areas (the oceans) tend to rise up in relation to the heavier areas (the mountains). This is simply a consequence of buoyancy, and human beings have nothing to do with it. p.77 That’s Chapter 1 summarised and is sufficient for responding to the Pariah Status proffered upon me by Ron. I would close only by Pointing interested and critical thinkers at the work of Clive Spash and his Paper The Brave New World of Carbon Trading. https://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf https://youtu.be/FTEaXBnXLts “A FIRE, A FIRE IS BURNING! I HEAR THE BOOT OF LUCIFER, I SEE HIS FILTHY FACE! AND IT IS MY FACE, AND YOURS, DANFORTH! FOR THEM THAT QUAIL TO BRING MEN OUT OF IGNORANCE, AS I HAVE QUAILED, AND AS YOU QUAIL NOW WHEN YOU KNOW IN ALL YOUR BLACKHEARTS THAT THIS BE FRAUD – GOD DAMNS OUR KIND ESPECIALLY, AND WE WILL BURN, WE WILL BURN TOGETHER!” ― ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE

@AdjyLeak
@storjproject
@ErikVoorhees
@WeAreChangeNYC
@alexandria
@KimDotcom
@BlocktechCEO
@OpenIndexProto 
@FLOblockchain
@Suitpossum
@ActivistPost
@DanDicksPFT
@IluvCO2
@Piers_Corbyn
Ian56789
@juanbenet
@Free_Ross
@realbitcoinwiki
@aantonop
@Brett_Shavers
@OpenIndexProto 
@Suitpossum
@MrTardigradeUK
@2013Boodicca
@financialeyes
@JoeBlob20

@RealM_Shrimpton
@Albion_Rover
@RichieAllenShow
@briangukc
@markwindows
@JoeBlob20
@TonyGosling
@davidicke
@Ian56789
@MrTardigradeUK
@IanRCrane
@_Spinflight_
@deYook
@ShoebridgeC

#ConquestofDough #NaziPug #AlisonChabloz #LabourAntiSemitism #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy #FreeAssange #OnLineHarmsAct #Section13 #EUssr #StalagLuftBlighty #MAGA #MEGA

@ErikVoorhees @WeAreChangeNYC @alexandria @KimDotcom @BlocktechCEO @OpenIn…

#GrubStreetTags
#GrubStreetJournal
#GrubStreetPolitics
#GrubStreetGeoPolitics
#GrubStreetPoliticalEconomy
#GrubStreetMoneyandFinance
#GrubStreetFilm
#GrubStreetMainStreamMedia
#GrubStreetSamizdat
#GrubStreetDissidentContent
#GrubStreetWeb3
#GrubStreetonAlexandria
#GrubStreetIPFS
#GrubStreetOIP
#GrubStreetDunciad
#GrubStreetObjectiveKhunts
#GrubStreetHumour
#GrubStreetErotica
#GrubStreetArtandLetters
#GrubStreetExegesis
#GrubStreetFaithandSpitituality
#GrubStreetCensoredindEADtREEANDhttpiNTERWEBS
#AgrubStreetPublishedScribler
#GrubStreetMultiMedia
#GrubStreetVideo
#GrubStreetPolemic
#GrubStreetRhetoric
#GrubStreetSatire
#GrubStreetComediaVulgaris
#GrubStreetCallOutCallsBS
#GrubStreetPamphlets
#GrubStreetEssays
#GrubStreetPhilosophy
#GrubStreetScience
#GrubStreetEnergy
#GrubStreetGreenFascism
#GrubStreetWrongKindOfGreen
#GrubStreetWikiBallot
#GrubStreetPDC
#PersonalDestinyControl
#GrubStreetInfoWars
#GrubStreetRadio
#GrubStreetSteppinOuttaBabylon
#GrubStreetEscapingTheMatrix
#GrubStreetRedPill
#GrubStreetLyrics
#GrubStreetPoetry
#GrubStreetMusic
#GrubStreetSapereAude
#GrubStreetThroughtheGiftShop

@AdjyLeak
@storjproject
@ErikVoorhees
@WeAreChangeNYC
@alexandria
@KimDotcom
@BlocktechCEO
@OpenIndexProto 
@FLOblockchain
@Suitpossum
@ActivistPost
@DanDicksPFT
@IluvCO2
@Piers_Corbyn
Ian56789
@juanbenet
@Free_Ross
@realbitcoinwiki
@aantonop
@Brett_Shavers
@OpenIndexProto 
@Suitpossum
@MrTardigradeUK
@2013Boodicca
@financialeyes
@JoeBlob20

@RealM_Shrimpton
@Albion_Rover
@RichieAllenShow
@briangukc
@markwindows
@JoeBlob20
@TonyGosling
@davidicke
@Ian56789
@MrTardigradeUK
@IanRCrane
@_Spinflight_
@deYook
@ShoebridgeC

#ConquestofDough #NaziPug #AlisonChabloz #LabourAntiSemitism #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy #FreeAssange #OnLineHarmsAct #Section13 #EUssr #StalagLuftBlighty #MAGA #MEGA

@ErikVoorhees @WeAreChangeNYC @alexandria @KimDotcom @BlocktechCEO @OpenIn…

#GrubStreetTags
#GrubStreetJournal
#GrubStreetPolitics
#GrubStreetGeoPolitics
#GrubStreetPoliticalEconomy
#GrubStreetMoneyandFinance
#GrubStreetFilm
#GrubStreetMainStreamMedia
#GrubStreetSamizdat
#GrubStreetDissidentContent
#GrubStreetWeb3
#GrubStreetonAlexandria
#GrubStreetIPFS
#GrubStreetOIP
#GrubStreetDunciad
#GrubStreetObjectiveKhunts
#GrubStreetHumour
#GrubStreetErotica
#GrubStreetArtandLetters
#GrubStreetExegesis
#GrubStreetFaithandSpitituality
#GrubStreetCensoredindEADtREEANDhttpiNTERWEBS
#AgrubStreetPublishedScribler
#GrubStreetMultiMedia
#GrubStreetVideo
#GrubStreetPolemic
#GrubStreetRhetoric
#GrubStreetSatire
#GrubStreetComediaVulgaris
#GrubStreetCallOutCallsBS
#GrubStreetPamphlets
#GrubStreetEssays
#GrubStreetPhilosophy
#GrubStreetScience
#GrubStreetEnergy
#GrubStreetGreenFascism
#GrubStreetWrongKindOfGreen
#GrubStreetWikiBallot
#GrubStreetPDC
#PersonalDestinyControl
#GrubStreetInfoWars
#GrubStreetRadio
#GrubStreetSteppinOuttaBabylon
#GrubStreetEscapingTheMatrix
#GrubStreetRedPill
#GrubStreetLyrics
#GrubStreetPoetry
#GrubStreetMusic
#GrubStreetSapereAude
#GrubStreetThroughtheGiftShop

Modern investigations of mass extinctions often emphasize a plurality of causes. Erwin’s “complex web of causality” (8, 37) addresses how a combination of volcanism, climate change, marine anoxia, methane release, and other environmental stressors may have contributed to the end-Permian extinction. Recent studies of the end-Cretaceous extinction consider massive volcanism (38) in addition to a bolide impact (39). Flood basalt eruptions are also clearly associated with the end-Triassic (40) and end-Permian (15) extinctions, but their contribution to CO2 levels is ostensibly modest (41). Evidently, the carbon cycle both indicates and excites Earth system change. These dual roles merge, however, if external perturbations cause the cycle to respond by magnifying the initial disturbance. System-wide instability may then follow. Because the critical rate rc bounds qualitatively different dynamical regimes, perturbations that exceed rc (at time scales much greater than τx) suggest such unstable evolution. The carbon cycle thus becomes one of many environmental stressors, and an array of causes is naturally implicated.”

The Discussion part of the Paper is interesting in that it concedes, “Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle” (2).

I would add to that last quote “If at all”

And point those interested in the Ocean Chemistry of Carbon Sequestration to Prof. Glassmans Acquittal of CO2 particularly Ocean Solubility of CO2 and Henry’s Law.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190402051937/http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

ABSTRACT
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

Modern investigations of mass extinctions often emphasize a plurality of causes. Erwin’s “complex web of causality” (8, 37) addresses how a combination of volcanism, climate change, marine anoxia, methane release, and other environmental stressors may have contributed to the end-Permian extinction. Recent studies of the end-Cretaceous extinction consider massive volcanism (38) in addition to a bolide impact (39). Flood basalt eruptions are also clearly associated with the end-Triassic (40) and end-Permian (15) extinctions, but their contribution to CO2 levels is ostensibly modest (41). Evidently, the carbon cycle both indicates and excites Earth system change. These dual roles merge, however, if external perturbations cause the cycle to respond by magnifying the initial disturbance. System-wide instability may then follow. Because the critical rate rc bounds qualitatively different dynamical regimes, perturbations that exceed rc (at time scales much greater than τx) suggest such unstable evolution. The carbon cycle thus becomes one of many environmental stressors, and an array of causes is naturally implicated.”

The Discussion part of the Paper is interesting in that it concedes, “Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle” (2).

I would add to that last quote “If at all”

And point those interested in the Ocean Chemistry of Carbon Sequestration to Prof. Glassmans Acquittal of CO2 particularly Ocean Solubility of CO2 and Henry’s Law.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190402051937/http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

ABSTRACT
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.