5 Filters

For P, and anyone else inclined to give too much weight to scientific consensus just now

Hi @CJ1 . Thanks for the links. I’m a fan of James Corbett but don’t usually have time to listen to all his material. I found the “What Is The Average Global Temperature” fascinating and didn’t really try and understand all the detail. The thrust of it was enough to convince me (not that I needed convincing) that climate change is another NWO tool and while there may be a modicum of truth in it, most of it is complete BS.

Thanks again.

1 Like

Great comment on The Conservative Woman (h/t @CJ1 ).

“Hot? …has no one told Greta?
Greta’s Home, Sweden, Is 3°C COLDER Today Than Nearly All of The Last 9000 Years.
According to peer-reviewed science, Sweden was at least 3°C warmer than it is today about 6000 to 9000 years ago, when CO2 concentrations lingered around 265 ppm. At 410 ppm CO2, 21st century Sweden is colder now than almost any time in the last 9000 years.
No Tricks Zone 26th September 2019”


Interesting material Pat. Thanks. Though of course it too falls under the stricture of determined scepticism about everything, that I’ve been reiterating ad nauseam lately.

Poor young Greta is an epitome of the sort of incautious thinking against which I inveigh: She is - reportedly - a bit aspi (I sympathise, as lately I’ve come to realise, belatedly, that I’m a bit that way myself). So she has a proclivity for earnest study, and constant adoption of ‘facts’ - without understanding, perhaps, that they’re ALWAYS provisional…

And she’s horrified; as any half-way decent and responsible person would be - if you take these ‘facts’ with too much instant credulity, and too little salt. So she ticks us all off, sharply. God help her when she’s older, and just another obscure face in the crowd. She’s going to look back on this time of her youth when - cruelly abused by elders who should know better - she’s going to cringe and think: “Oh my god! HOW could I have said all that!”

The Viz magazine guys, with their happy penchant for piss-taking coarse comedy (which I luuurve!) nail it dead accurately, if a little cruelly, with their strip cartoon titled: ‘Oh No, It’s The Pathetic Sharks’…


Tickles my - utterly deplorable - funny bone almost as much as ‘The Fat Slags’… :smile:

PS: The guys who write Viz are obviously laddish proles, with a sharp eye for the endemic ridiculousness of the bourgeois intelligentsia; although to be fair, Sandra and Tracy are obviously coarse proles as well. The Viz lads piss-take wherever they see a case: equal-opportunity piss-takers. :wink: :smile:

Reading this thread is so depressing. How easily otherwise canny folk get taken in.

Oh well. Lets have this conversation again in a few years when the temp in England hits 45 degrees, then 50 degrees…how utterly stupid.

A question to Pat and Cj and others:

What data would you need to see to convince you that the planet is indeed warming at an alarming rate? What evidence would change your mind?

Its a simple question. If you cant answer it or the answer is “none” then ask yourself what you are basing your faith (what else can you call it?) on.

I hope no one on this thread has children who can read. They would be completely ashamed of you.

As am I


Given the acknowledgment that you’re corresponding with ‘canny folk’ - and the guys in this thread are indeed canny - do you not reckon there’s a smidgen of a possibility that you are the duped one, PP?

Maybe you believe you’re gifted with some kind of infallibility gene - that would go some to explaining the manner in which you cast shame upon your interlocutors.

Evidence that it’s possible to read the future of such a complex matter with absolute, confident certainty would be a good starter, P. I’ve seen no scintilla of such - inherently-impossible - evidence. It doesn’t do to be so confident, in the face of such self-evident imponderability.

We don’t know what’s going to happen; not to the extent of falling out about guesstimates. I refuse to fall out about it; but I remain settled on the ‘just don’t know’ posture. I think that it’s the only intellectually meticulous one that I can see. As I’ve said before, I’ll give you odds-on that there are Interesting Times coming; already started, in fact; but just HOW Interesting, and in which ways precisely, simply can’t be proven. Just prepare.

Well, it’s quite simple really and there are just a few things.

a) I’d like to read about global warming (which as I keep repeating has morphed into climate change), on a news or politics site which I trust (not too many of those as they have all been censored as thought is dangerous)
b) I’d like to hear about from an expert who does not rely on research grants, university positions, big oil/big tech consultancy, or BBC regular interviews (not too many of those left either?)
c) I’d like to be able to make up my own mind without being told children who can read would be ashamed of me


As far as a) is concerned, James Corbett’s site is one I trust and I hope you have listened to the first link posted by CJ1 on measuring average global temperatures

For b) Denis Rancourt seems to me to fit the bill well and having spent quite a few years in sales, I learnt to read lots of little signs. He believes everything he says and is not emotional about it

Finally on c), what can I say. My kids were horrified when I said Sept 11th 2001 was an inside job. Took them nearly a decade to come round.

As AlanG said, “I will never believe any ‘scientific consensus’ ever again”

PS. I’ll be convinced when Rockerfellers, Vanguard, Blackrock and the WEF (for which there are many unpublishable names) all say climate change is not happening. Then I’ll believe it is real!

1 Like

I find it sad when honest inquiry into Global Warming, producing answers from independent sources, is regarded as a problem and should be hidden from innocents - this is the fundamental aspect of this site, free and open discussion of alternative views not easily available anywhere in the MSM. If views are fixed and not open to challenge then we have another Covid-like crisis, imo.

The answer to your question is perhaps to point out that data depends upon on the accuracy of our tools and their capacity to measure moving targets consisting of trillions of variable objects and states of being contained within our Universe. In other words certain things or events can never be measured and presented as data they can only be expressed as observations and opinions.

It appears that there are some very complicated processes involved in compiling information on global average temperatures in all of the methodologies currently being used and that these processes are being regularly revised to deal with conflicting compilations of information. So even the data compilers have different views as time goes by as to current and historic global temperatures - and since global annual average temperature changes are often measured in tenths of a degree, warming can quickly change to cooling from one year to the next.

If I did select a particular set of data convincing me of alarming global warming I have to wonder how long would it be before the compilers of that data would want to revise and erase the original data and replace it with the new and improved version.

For the moment I have to go with experts I intuitively trust e.g.:
Judith Curry:

where she says:
" The climate crisis can be summarized as:

  • Its warming
  • The warming is caused by us
  • Warming is dangerous
  • We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming
  • Once we stop burning fossil fuels, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme

A few weeks ago, the Intergovernmetal Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, issued its 6th Assessment report. In response, the secretary general of the UN stated that

“This is code red for humanity.”

Slide 3 what’s wrong with this narrative

In my talk today, I’m going to present you with a different perspective on the climate change problem and how we can approach solutions.

So what’s wrong with the crisis narrative? It is my assessment that

  • We’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions
  • The complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change is being kept away from the public and policy debates.
  • Rapid reductions in emissions are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale
  • And it overemphasizes the role of climate change in societal problems, distracting from real solutions to them.

Slide 4 97% consensus

Even people that don’t know much about climate science have heard that 97% of climate scientists agree. But exactly what do they agree on? Not nearly as much as is portrayed in the media. Everyone agrees that:

  • Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
  • Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and
  • Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet

However, there is disagreement on the most consequential issues:

  • How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans
  • How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
  • Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
  • And how we should respond to the warming, to improve human well being"

" In conclusion, a personal statement. I regard my job as a scientist to critically evaluate evidence and to challenge and reassess conclusions drawn from the evidence. While I regard manmade climate change as a cause for concern, I do not view this as a crisis or an apocalypse."

For the record my adult children and grandchildren have grown up with the ability to make up their own minds on subjects that they deem important but have never expressed shame over my periodic rants - although my youngest grandchild, a teenager, insists I put 20p in his jar whenever I talk politics!


How about warming means more carbon dioxide? A similar scenario to the arse-about consensus concerning disease and bacteria. As Tom Cowan likes to say, you don’t accuse firemen of starting the fires just because you see them around when fires break out.

Wouldn’t damn all consensuseses out of hand mind, just don’t believe in them unthinkingly.

Thanks PatB & CJ. You go to a lot of trouble for the sake of true science!


Am on the fence with this.

We clearly do not live in harmony with nature, and we generate an awful lot of heat. But, it’s also clear that Greta is a construct for money and research cannot be trusted anymore because of endemic corruption.

To be honest, it doesn’t matter which outcome it is, neither will end well. DB is now pricing in the effects of Germans using firewood this winter (which isn’t the best outcome for Greta, is it?)

Someone above mentioned Viz. The climate situation reminds me of 8 Ace. It’s gonna end in tears, pissed against the wall And if we’re lucky, we’ll get a packet of fuses for Christmas (won’t our little faces light up).

Interesting times.

1 Like

Nice to see a less shrill post, I’m on the fence too but deeply suspicious about the agendas. Which was why my reaction to the thread quoting Media Lens, some time ago now, was to scoff.

What is the DB that’s now pricing in the effects (etc). Is it Deutsche Bank?

Stats…and bankers… DoubleGoodThink??

Hi @NewSi

Well. Im basing my conclusions on literally thousands of careful studies over decades, millions of actual atmospheric, oceanic and surface measurements over hundreds of years, and basic, well-known chemistry and physics.

The canny folk here are basing their arguments on shills like Monckton and charlatans like Rancourt.

Every single source folks like @CJ1 cite have been shown many times to be wrong. And yet they still cite them.

How often does someone need to be shown to be wrong before they are finally and.completely dropped from the argument?

Ill leave you to decide who have been duped here.


Hi @PatB

So unless climate change makes it to off-guardian or a similarly scientifically illiterate source, you’re not even going to look at the evidence?

You want a wealthy, independent person who is not a university member to run millions of pounds worth of experiments and do the climate studies? To go over decades of work and thousands of experiments.

Otherwise, once again, you’re not even going to look a the data…?

Great. The sign of a truly open mind, I’d say.

I havent listened to Corbett on climate, but having read some Rancourt, I can tell you that he’s way off mark. You need to read a bit wider.

Making up your own mind sounds great, but you need to put some information into it first, no?

Otherwise its what the computer scientists refer to as garbage in, garbage out.

Hi @CJ1

I’m not saying we shouldn’t we shouldn’t debate climate change. But thats not what we’re doing. We are very far from honest in our discussions.

You cite a bunch of people who make bogus claims like Monckton, McIntyre, Rancourt etc. I point out (often in detail) that they are wrong. You ignore that and move on to next set of people making bogus claims.

And repeat.

For example are you ever going to answer my question about the significance of the cherry-picked period of 18 years you mention above? Why did you mention it if you don’t want to talk about it?

How is this debate? What is honest about this approach?

Will you acknowledge that Monckton has been shown to be wrong?
Will you accept finally that McIntyre was wrong about the hockey stick?

I’m 100% sure you won’t. You’ll just move onto the next thing and the next thing. Now Rancourt and now Curry. Even though Curry explicitly disagrees with Rancourt.

Who’s right? Curry or Rancourt? They cant both be right.

Clinging to discredited commentators, refusing to notice that they have been discredited and quietly moving to the next one is not arguing in good faith, its arguing from a position of a closed mind.

I’ve asked you before, but ill ask again - have you read any of the evidence from the other side? If not, how do you expect to come to a good understanding of the true picture?

In answer to my question, then, as to what would constitute convincing evidence that global warming is happening, you say this:

So… there is no evidence that would be convincing to you? No data you would accept. I’m not surprised. Its obvious that both you and others here have made up your minds and cannot be convinced.

How is this different to a religious position on climate change? Are you and others here not just saying:

If it ain’t in the bible (or Off-Guardian) I just ain’t believin’, and none of your fancy so-called evidence or data will shake my faith!

I can’t see how that’s different.

Incidentally, as a final point, you say:

Is there any actual evidence that would support a global *cooling trend at any point over the last couple hundred years? Anywhere? Has warming ever quickly changed to cooling since people have been studying this?


A sinking ship is a complex, highly nonlinear process. The outcome, however, is not in doubt.

A burning building likewise.

Folks on 5F are a group of people who are sitting on the deck of a sinking ship saying

“Well. Ships go up and ships go down all the time. Its a natural cycle”

“Yeah. The ocean is highly complex. Ships are very complex machines. Who can really model every little detail of what’s happening?”

“Yeah. And and no one had ever been shown to drown from a ship before” (This is Rancourt’s level of contribution)

“Yeah. And no one can even prove that water is wet anyway, so what are we worrying about?”

“Yeah. Look at all those idiots trying to build a lifeboat. Look at how they’re all caught up in the ship sinking scam”

As I said, watching a group of otherwise intelligent people have such a stupid discussion is very depressing…

The human capability to ignore mountains of incontrovertible evidence and argue about meaningless details (like the 18 years that @CJ1 is apparently concerned with) never ceases to shock me.


You’re doing a lot of bashing

These comments are predicated on your belief that you have ‘won’ the argument. It doesn’t seem that they accept this. I don’t remember you demonstrating that Rancourt was a charlatan. For my money, he isn’t.
For example in our discussion (though I’m way behind the others on the detail), we got as far as his main paper, for which I could find no reponse online, despite him having put it round as a plea for a rebuttal. I was expecting you to pull it to pieces (an expression you used) but you pulled out a blog post to his faithful and disparaged that.

Rather than move to portraying your adverseries in the debate as like flat earthers, can’t you make more of an effort to, you know, lay down more of these stepping stones on that irrefutable path to truth that you belive you have access to? It would be more enlightening for the rest - and also, I think, more true to the ethos of the forum, which is suppoed to be not about adhom.



It does sound a bit like someone outraged because a sacred article of religious faith has been traduced, P. Angry dogmatic certainty isn’t really justified.

Fwiw, I don’t find that Rancourt smells like a special-pleading charlatan, either.

1 Like

PatB mentioned Monkton, not knowing him I referred to McIntyre’s work and how you can describe the latter as bogus is beyond me - particularly in the light of the support he got from North and Wegman in the congressional inquiry! And yet you ask me to take your word for his standing without citing anyone without an axe to grind.

I’m more than happy to talk about what is apparently recognised by many as “the pause” or as the IPCC call it “hiatus” this is why I mentioned the data revision which suddenly removed it by what appears to be a flick of the pen! Convenient to remove a thorn in the side of the global warming theory when for 18 years 9 months from 1998 there was no discernible increase in the RSS calculated global mean temperature according to James Corbett in his video The Global Warming Pause Explained - not something I cherry-picked but the IPCC and Corbett. I’m sorry you haven’t checked this out.

Again I haven’t commented on Monckton.

As I said about McIntyre the argument I put forward was that he and McKitrick were judged by 2 independent panels to be right in their critique of Mann’s work in 1998 and 1999. The papers by Mann led to the iconic hockey stick which was found to be justly critiqued by those same panels. The IPCC is still using the hockey stick image and McIntyre maintained until 2021 that he continues to be right. You have presented no evidence to change that.

I don’t recall Curry saying McIntyre was wrong - quite the reverse in fact ( whatever she may have said about Rancourt) perhaps you can tell me where she disputes what McIntyre has said?
Did Rancourt comment on McIntyre?

As I said in the post above I have intuitively opted to go with Curry’s view as expressed in her 15 minute talk. This is my opinion which as always could change if the facts change, this is not a closed mind approach. The “official view” has shown itself to have been derived from devious and misleading statements that have been revealed in the Climategate affair - why would I trust these people. Hence my request for you to recommend someone without an axe to grind I should read - I’m still waiting!

  • I have suggested in the post why it is difficult to accept data that has trillions of variables BUT if you read on I have opted to go with the views expressed by Curry - these seem eminently sensible, imo. You have yet again failed to produce any evidence from people without an axe to grind which challenges her view.

You need to look at the graph shown by Corbett in the above mentioned video at 3:38 minutes in - 2008 and 2012 were years below 0.

The real problem with the IPCC and all that flows from it is that it has been created by the very people we should all agree should have been kept well away from positions of power.


Hi Rhis

A last point to you on this. Which commentator has explicitly said that

“If thia doesnt appear in my holy book I wont accept it?”

Not me.

Which commentators has e explicitly said

“There is no evidence that can change my mind because there is no data anywhere that I deem reliable”

Not me

Who is displaying religious fervour here?

Its worth thinking about.

Who is actually reading data, research and following the models? Which commentator here can explain what a principal component is, what an eigenvalue is, how the centering process affects the outcome, what the chemical mechanism is that allows CO2 to trap heat?

In short, who is actually doing the necessary work to understand the issues?

Here we are on the sinking ship my friend. You can keep mumbling on about we cant ever fully understand anything or you can trust the mountain of evidence in front of your eyes.


1 Like