That’s absolutely fine PP. I am in sympathy with a lot of what the sceptics say on climate, because the yoking of scientific evidence to power grabbing and carving out new markets is shameless.
The warning signs that the planet is in shock have been clear for a very long time.
Simpler, less damaging ways of life would be a wrench for us comfortable Europeans, and claiming the problem is exaggerated is true, but also not very helpful. The lying liars are still lying, yes, but…
The media shock tactics, red weather maps, and the rest, are fine examples of propaganda at work. If softening us up for some genuine sacrifices is the real agenda I actually have some sympathy with that. But this is running in parallel with wholesale theft on a scale never seen as fiat currency is powered towards implosion. Which makes the whole edifice look suspect.
Thank you for the excellent precis of the James Corbett materials. I have never been able to tolerate his videos for more than a short while.
I’ll only comment on one quick thing: the reliability or otherwise of data gathered via weather stations. A while back I posted a photo of the Brogdale weather station and casually mentioned it’s not in a built up area so reflected heat from concrete etc is not distorting the readings. I mentioned this because a line of argument I have heard, superficially plausible, is that many weather stations are sited in built-up areas, airports, near busy roads, etc. The local heat trap effect is sending readings higher.
That may well be true but it’s in built-up areas and near busy roads that lots of people are trying to make their way in life. We occupy the bottom ten feet or so of the space above the land surface. If that is uninhabitable it doesn’t really matter how much cooler it is on an offshore rig, at Kew Gardens, or in an orchard.
Forgive me: to spread what? Do you mean to dissipate heat?
Wind may blow hot or cold, depending on where the low pressure and high pressure areas are in relation to each other. If the poles are gradually less cold then I’d surmise less cooler wind from that direction in any case.
Even if at a global level things tend to even out, the issue surely is that areas that have been habitable/sustainable may become less so, with potential for widespread disruption?
I don’t think much has happened yet … until now as they first need to get the land freed from the farmers. Perhaps the Covid saga (and now Ukraine) has slowed things down too. And given the talk of global food shortages and accompanying inflation, I don’t think killing off the Dutch food economy is very popular.
To me, it sounds like the elites have become chaotic in their thinking, with increasingly ludicrous (and delusional) ideas/projects, quite detached from reality. The backfiring sanctions response to Russia is one such example.
The siting of weather stations is a very important point, actually, and all groups who try to create the global temperature record have to deal with it somehow. This is a perfect example of raw data that has to be calibrated before it can really be used. There are different techniques being used to try and reduce artificially high readings that you get from such weather stations.
I thought that this was a pretty good article talking about the issue of data adjustments
According to these classifications, urbanization accounts for 14–21% of the rise in unadjusted minimum temperatures since 1895 and 6–9% since 1960.
and then proposes one technique to adjust for it. I’m not sure if any of the groups building the temperature record use this exact technique, but it clearly shows that the issue is important and has to be addressed somehow.
Thank for the response on Corbett PP, it looks very good. I’m not aligned on this subject but I’d like to see the debate crystallise to tangible points of dispute, hoping that I can somehow pick the right one by judicious, or fortuitous, piggy-backing. Like what I usually do anyway, I just don’t usually start from so far back
Given the vagaries, is there much gained by measuring ground temperatures at all, and using them for modelling and predictions - why not stick to sea temperatures, it seem to matter most anyway?
I couldn’t agree more. Not just detached but immune from reality, and a key reason why seems to be several generations of inbreeding and nepotism.
An alternative way of looking at astroturfing is to frame the State funding of oppositional groups as a way of planting ‘reality’ probes. If an NGO consistently pushes back on use of electric vehicles, for example, maybe looking at that evidence and changing tack might be worth considering.
If none of the NGOs or Foundations or community groups or prominent Twitter personalities send such signals the gullible Slide Readers are quite understandably going to conclude that they are on the right course. (The job of ‘Leader’ is to read the PowerPoint slides, though not the bits that say “repeat with forceful gesture” or “pause for planted question”)
Stifling those signals is kind of like taking a strong narcotic to numb pain. Unpleasant though it is, pain is a way to protect complex organisms and encourages them not to sit their asses down on the Aga. The befuddled leaders, bombarded with as many things to be terrified of as the rest of us, are going to be soothed by people who handle the set decoration, shore up consensus, create the PowerPoints, and make the Bad Facts go away.
And here we are.
On the plus side I gather that Joe Biden ate a hearty breakfast and wiped the platter clean.
Interesting, thanks for that. In a way it’s rather like the adjustments made to polling to correct for Shy Tory respondents. I recall seeing the amateur weather station on the Chatsworth estate in Derbyshire. (Well worth a visit if you haven’t.) It was and probably still is locked away in a wooden structure a bit like a log store. Clearly this was to prevent the unwashed masses from tinkering.
I was reminded of the stopped clock that tells the right time twice a day. But it makes perfect sense to make a consistent adjustment (eg based on number of sunlight hours that cause the box to overheat by more in July than in April). When this sort of context is added it helps defuse some of the wackier denier claims.
The other thing that tends to get Greenwashed (because the old paradigm fossil fuel industry constantly attempts to control the agenda), is the continuing depletion of the “unsustainable” resource base…mainly (I am sure), because such is driving the majority of the World’s conflicts…myself and my fellow campaigners worked for years (in the “wilderness”), to get the science of man-made climate change accepted…I’m b**gered if I’ll stop campaigning now simply because such offends liberal sensitivities…imho we don’t go far enough in examining the assumptions of the old scientific paradigm that is still trying to dictate the agenda…it is time to grow-up and consign the exploitative philosophies to the dust-bin of history…this will not be easy…we’ve given ourselves very little wiggle-room (as I’m sure Rhis would agree), yet we have no choice…one major battle ground being atomic physics (and the “science” surrounding its exploitation), quantum applies…it cannot be a partial debate…the solution cannot be a compromise…the nuclear industry can be relied upon to do one thing without fail…lie… its intrinsic you see…the “science” is (very literally), non-sense…
“To me, it sounds like the elites have become chaotic in their thinking, with increasingly ludicrous (and delusional) ideas/projects, quite detached from reality. The backfiring sanctions response to Russia is one such example”
Those the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
I’m with you P…but we must not ignore the implications of all this… as Bruce Lee would say; “It’s like a finger pointing to the Moon…don’t concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory!”
The context is that a lot of the scientific reality of climate change has been co-opted to enforce an agenda of control of the masses, and does nothing to actually solve the underlying problems we face.
It is very possible to accept both the reality of our global predicament and fight against the programme of those like the WEF who would turn us all into feudal slaves in the name of climate change.
"It is very possible to accept both the reality of our global predicament and fight against the programme of those like the WEF who would turn us all into feudal slaves in the name of climate change"
It’s not supposed to be easy folks…or immediately obvious how to proceed…
I’ve mentioned John Bryant ("Astrotometry), and his CME/Volcanism/Seismic-activity link research before (shame he’s AWOL now-a-days), it’s even possible (he insisted that he was being surveilled as he slowly went…well…“flat-earth”), that the Deep State use CME prediction re: their geoengineering attempts…this is truly “out there” but John was adamant he was being “hacked” and “watched”…he was publishing whilst living in California…so very visible…happens all the time as one should be aware!
The square root of 2 is what is politely termed as ‘an unresolved number’ (ie, there’s no answer to it).
I can give many more examples. Point is, mathematics is a (very) flawed language. Mathematicians use all kind of clever tricks to get around this fact, none of which really add-up (ha!).
Climate change stuff is based on this maths; and to make the S show worse, it’s all done on the Universal Turing Machine (aka digital computer), which is a deterministic device.
It’s all five-year-olds on LSD.
But I know what they’ll say about me:
Witch! Witch! It’ll be the ducking stool for you, my lovely
“Climate change stuff is based on this maths” There are easy measurables like the rate of loss of ice from Antarctica and Greenland and the desalination of the Gulf Stream* Rob, it’s not rocket science to compare these (both historically, presently and in to the future), with historical, present and future CO2 production, those that haven’t should see this documentary, I’ve just been watching it again on Freeview this morning:
*Nb. Not mentioned in the documentary, however (and somewhat ironically), in the makers’ defence the actual temperature of both our surrounding seas and landmass, even if considerably lower as in some desalination models (inspiring one of the Holywood Climate Change Armageddon blockbusters), will, being mostly local to British seas, actually have virtually no effect on the loss of ice and consequent rise in sea levels.
It’s simply the number (usually the positive number) whose square is 2. I’m not sure what’s “unresolved” about it though. One can prove that it’s not rational; i.e. it’s not the ratio of two whole numbers. Like pi, or e, or infinitely many other numbers.
