But, the climate change narrative was not establishment narrative until round about 2015 or so. Does the evidence for something suddenly lose its value if the establishment takes up the cause*?
*or pretends to
1 Like
Thanks PP. Sorry if I came across as accusatory - I’m accusing a lot of them at the moment 
1 Like
Looking at the oiligarchy Corbett videos it’s clear that Maurice Strong ( Rockerfeller’s front man) kick started a distorted official view of climate in the 1980’s. The move from warming to change ( whenever that occurred) or timing of certain political statements ( whenever they occurred) didn’t change the original planned eugenic destination.
Maybe we have different definitions of establishment?
cheers
By this argument the US justify dropping 2 atom bombs on Japanese population centres and all its warmongering since.
There has to be certainty - using this word in the non-technical interpretation, a subjective judgement of predictive quality given the available information - for taking decisions where human life is at stake. The real question is who is making the judgement call, psychopaths have radically different world views!
At the moment decision makers are using CO2 AGW to destroy economies which this year has been speeded up by the creation of the anti-Russian sanctions- people will die due to freezing and or starvation this winter if this continues. This despite the complete absence of evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that man-made CO2 causes global warming.
Also, action to avoid casualties can be triaged in terms of changing circumstances over time. Action one way now to minimise economic casualties can enable protective measures to be put in place so the policy can be changed to meet alternative scenarios further in the future.
cheers
Hi folks, I couldn’t decide whether this post deserves its own thread, but it definitely relates to the climate debate imo.
The War On Dissent
Online censorship is becoming increasingly normalized as growing restrictions, deplatforming and its other manifestations have become so pervasive that many have simply come to accept it.
Whitney WebbJul 20, 2022
cheers
Sadly Corbett, like Zharkova, is too driven by bias to be trusted on the subject of climate change.
I just did a long post analysing a couple of his videos on the subject here
In case you missed it. Or in case you want to chat about it.
Cheers
I will be happy to respond when you provide links for all the statements that you make, I have yet to see anything from you other than your own religious-like belief in your own opinions , and of course it would help if you dropped your constant snark.
I started this thread hoping to provide a basis for discussion of an alternative to CO2 AGW using the quite recent work of an established scientist as the starting point. I disclosed at the start that her paper had been retracted by the editor under protest from zharkova, she has since shown clearly that the objection related to a side issue and did not affect the subject matter of her paper. In addition her paper was criticised for something she did not say, the critique left out the cautionary words “up to” 0.02au. Finally she has debunked the criticism in her later papers using standard public data.
It seems you believe any dissenting opinion has to be brought down more by character assassination than reasoned precedent based arguments.
Hi CJ
So you need a link from me in order to answer whether Zharkova’s papers predict global warming or cooling?
Why? Either you can answer it or you cant.
You need a link from me in order to explain the significance of this supposed “pause” in global warming?
Why?
Two very simple questions that don’t require any links from me.
You already know that Zharkova’s paper was retracted because of basic errors in her understanding of planetary orbits. What link do you need from me about that?
I’ll tell you what. You answer the two basic questions I posed above, and ill take the very complicated research step of typing
“zharkova co2 climate change”
Into google and share the results here.
Deal?
PP
1 Like
Still no unbiased or any links for all the claims you have made over the last month!
The answers to the questions you just posed have already been covered by the links I suggested in previous posts - Corbett on the Pause, and Zhakrova’s papers showing different predictions for different periods in line with the cycles she covers.
I disclosed the retraction of Z’s 2019 paper when I first linked to it. The reasons for retraction have been debunked in Z’s later papers, she clearly regards the critique as political anti-science, I see no reason to doubt her in today’s trust level in politically and commercially driven science.
Great excuse to do nothing Rhis…Greta is a celeb because the f**king self-regarding adults are stuck too far up their own backsides to be of any use… one gets the government one deserves…
There have been examples of the consequences of man’s exploitation of the Earth’s resources since the apple and the seed…repeatedly we have stumbled forward…three steps forward two steps back…and been forced to respond again and again…but resources are not infinite…there is no choice without consequence…as Greta should say; “Choose beatches!”
Whilst we agree about the state of the resource base Rhis we don’t go in the same direction from the notion that it is dwindling…you go to a Malthusian solution…in other words drastic population reduction (enforced by Gaia -James Lovelock RIP btw-), that those accustomed to consuming less may avoid the worse consequences of… (a not un-attractive proposition at times), … but I see affirmative action and engagement…to you there is no solution because there isn’t a problem…most people will die anyway…you’re not aware of the worse consequences of adherence to the redundant paradigm in science…the dangers and effects of WiFi (5G recently installed around here), particle beam science, nuclear spawned weapons (esp. d.u), or plastic incineration and you claim that viruses don’t exist (so HIV wasn’t created by man), …these threats are real and we’d better get our heads around it…we can’t help the kids if we don’t do our part…sometimes you come across as a eugenicist…and I’ve known others like you…allowing others to die is never going to be a solution… I call 'em as I see 'em…now you know I’m also “Out There” politically…MJ12 and the continuance of a eugenicist NAZI state; “Did the Third Reich continue or the Fourth Reich Commence?” Discuss… is not a joke…!
“Ah symbols on the floor that’ll end well!” #Thelema:
2 Likes
Err…, sorry to be slow, but which of my arguments lead to the use of nuclear weapons and endless warmongering? Saying that there is no such thing as absolute certainty in real life? (This in response to the absolute certainty that Rhis keeps asking for wrt climate change.)
I agree with needing some sort of certainty (interpreted loosely) before acting when those actions have huge consequences for lots of people. The covid saga showed what happens if you don’t. But, in the case of global warming, it’s pretty clearly happening, with all the predicted consequences of that. As I mentioned before, one needs to be extremely wary of the “solutions” the PTB come up with, but that’s a separate issue
1 Like
Here’s an illustration of how the starting point on climate stats can be manipulated. Make of it what you will, but it certainly pushed me more in the skeptical direction…
2 Likes
Crikey, Gerard - and Willem! Will you guys be offering copies of this grotesque caricature of me that you’ve bodged up here, for people to keep as a rag-doll Aunt Sally? You know: to throw things at, like a coconut shy.That would be a giggle; and I wouldn’t demand any copyright payment, or anything like that. 
But where to bleedin’ start, to straighten out this - highly giggle-worthy - distorted cartoon!
- I observe - note the passive, neutral word - that humans are in a population overshoot; that we have not done, and clearly will not do, anything effectual about it; and that the usual Gaian re-balancing processes will take care of it - pretty much whatever we do or don’t do. And I’ll give you good odds that our species will survive OK, as species usually do when they come out of an overshoot episode. I offer ZERO gloating approval of this awkward mess we’ve got ourselves into. In fact I regret it, and have long wished we would volunteer to do something both effectual and humane to resolve the issue. We have the technical means; but we lack the psychological aptitude. Shame; real shame, that! (This is my actual attitude to the overshoot, behind your weird distortions.)
So that makes me an SS sympathiser, a eugenicist, and a Malthusian. Absolutely hilarious, brilliant logic, G!! 
(and total bs).
-
I demand ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY before we should do anything about climate shift. Er - no. I just say it’s inappropriate for anyone to - arrogantly - insist on certainty, when they have no right to it. I also insist that there are arguments against the idea of a climate emergency desperately imminent; and we should hear those dissidents calmly, and see what weight they might have; on the clear understanding that none of us, on any side of the argument, has any right to dogmatic certainty about it; that’s just wilful self-delusion. I also think that even if a very bad climate shift emergency is indeed on us - as it very well may be by my (entirely provisional) guesstimate, because - all dogmatic waffling set aside - we really can’t be certain… but even if authentic disaster is on us, it seems pretty clear that we - the whole global human collective - will not be doing anything fully coordinated and soberly effective about it anyway. The same shiftlessness that characterises our response to the overshoot operates here too. Instead, the usual shysters are monetising the narrative of climate emergency; for profit, and for the further concentration of their power. Those are the only purposes that they’re serving, by jazzing up the ‘emergency’ panic. Nothing whatever to do with actually revering the Earth and helping the common citizens to avoid the worst outcomes.
-
And these cod-arguments falsely attributed to me are supposed to be my excuse for “doing nothing”. Well now, let me see -
First, what I have been doing, for decades, are the things that I actually can do, rather than frothing ineffectually about what everybody ought to do:
A small forest’s-worth of trees established in Britain - and Eire - over the past fifty years or so; and still hard at that guerrilla tree-planting now today. (You’ll be able to see a shot of a grove of my noble cousins, now all big trees, which were little finger-and-thumb whips when I planted them on my moorings nearly thirty years ago, when I post an account - with pics. - of my ‘taters-grown-in-turf’, shortly).
Gave up personal motor vehicles about twenty years ago; nothing but bike, bus-pass, and the odd occasional lift from family/friends now. (No leccy-assist on the bike either; all muscle-driven. Battery production, and especially battery re-charging, are highly iffy activities for environmentalists…)
And my total leccy bill has been hovering at £20 per quarter for some years; just edged up to £25 recently, for the first time (in Summer that is, when I cook on a hotplate; less in Winter, when I’m using guerrilla-gathered firewood from the neglected woodlands hereabouts to heat and cook; where I also plant trees repeatedly…).
I also embraced voluntary poverty long ago, Greer-style, and I find great serenity in it, and a strong sense of having absolutely everything that I need, aplenty; and even everything that I want. No particularly advanced virtue in me for that; I just like the life better than consumer-slavery.
These are just some of the - actually doable - things that I do, to help in alleviating these Interesting Times.
- And nuclear: Let’s get it straight: I don’t like nuclear. Mainly because it’s both a financially and an energetically unaffordable technology; and it’s produced a toxic-legacy for the future, a bundle of intractable radioactive waste, already. But if - as (nuclear professional) Dmitry Orlov insists - Russia is developing next generation nuclear plants which produce ZERO radioactive waste, and which can actually neutralise what we already have in hand, whilst generating electricity in the process, then rational minds will give it at least a bit of cautious house-room, for consideration. Especially since electricity is going to go on being a perennial, popular demand, for as long as the hitech industrial model of human society manages to continue stumbling on a bit further; not much on the long historical timescale, I don’t think. And of course, highly problematic, non-self-renewing ‘renewables’ are proving that they can’t provide that electricity effectively, so as fossil-hydrocarbons get inexorably tighter and tighter, people will demand the nukes; especially if we can now do it cleanly.
Better for the end of industrialism to come with defunct - but non-radioactive - nuclear hulks scattered about the re-foresting landscapes than hulks that still glow faintly at night, like Fukushima…
I don’t know whether I’ve dealt with all of your slather of distortions about my views, guys but that will do for now. I’ll PS you if I notice any more.
PS:
I’m “not aware” of the dangers of startrekkytechietechie nonsenses like 5G? Really? I’m not aware of them! Gerard! You can not be serious! 
Greta: a shyster-abused Aspergic child who was bundled through her quarter-hour of artificial slebbery by cynical, up-sleeve-giggling PRwhores, and who is now being quietly dumped by them, as being past her self-by. She will cringe with embarrassment at the memory of the whole disgusting charade that was foisted on her, when she’s older and wiser.
Viruses: FFS! Don’t you guys do nuance at all? Here’s the actual deal: I don’t know whether viruses exist; they may, they may not. The scamdemic re-vivified a long-running and rather dusty debate about Pasteur, and terrain-versus-germs. This renewed discussion has thrown up some very interesting arguments by sceptics, which deserve serious consideration. They MAY be correct. (Do I need to underline the provisionality of my thinking any more than this?) The claim that there is no such thing as the HIV virus, nor any such illness as AIDS MAY also be true. I don’t know either way!
I hope that completes the PSes! 
So you’re saying you’re definitely not sure?
2 Likes
Absolutely, definitely, unquestionably, established beyond any reasonable doubt - that I’m not sure. 
At least, I think that’s what I’m saying…
Hi Rhis,
I didn’t think I said anything that controversial — perhaps your message was meant more for Gerard. The trouble with texts on websites is that you only have texts to go on; no other visual cues, stress on words, a smile etc. like in real life discussions. In other words, it’s easy to misinterpret what someone means. I don’t profess to know for certain what’s going to happen, nor, in my opinion, did PP say this. It just looks to me, from all the various findings, that we’re in a very bad spot. How to collectively get out of it is a highly non trivial problem.
And I certainly didn’t imply you were “doing nothing”. In fact, I wholeheartedly support all those things you mention. We need more people like you!
2 Likes
Hi @Willem ,
My thought was that all warmongering states use threats of a “ probable or likely” event to justify pre-emptive violence on others e.g Blair in 2003 “ I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he has made progress on WMD, and that he has to be stopped. Saddam has used chemical weapons, not only against an enemy state, but against his own people. ” The US administrations use the term “clear and present danger” to justify the murder of people. Similarly, Hiroshima was obliterated as they declared it seemed the only way to save American lives as opposed to a full invasion of Japan.
They all announced imminent threats current or present - despite the fact that innocents would die in thousands - a threat of something happening is clearly just a possibility or maybe a probability but not a certainty and committing genocide for a less than certain justification is madness imo.
Taking action on the basis of a likelihood is fine when there are no downsides to your action but you need a lot more certainty when planning wars where collateral deaths could be tens or hundreds of thousands.
Where the level of uncertainty in relation to a long term problem is disputed and the proposed action to solve that perceived long term problem creates a more certain risk of short term deaths of thousands then we need to solve the short term issue before continuing with any long term plan, imo.
cheers
1 Like
Yes Will, I was mostly growsing at my old buddy G - who got a bit extravagant with the pics! I have to say I quite agree with what you write here in response to my growse. [Crikey, I must be showing my age: the spell-checker doesn’t recognise the - apparently archaic - northern dialect word ‘growse’, which for those who don’t know means to grumble acerbically! 
]
Loved the Greta pic! And I was delighted to learn that climate change was all your fault Rhis - makes things a lot easier
1 Like