5 Filters

For those willing to read and understand Zharkova nails AGW Co2 based global warming into a coffin here:

Science
#41

Hi @RobG,

The trouble is that there seems to be a very small window of time for us to actually debate anything which questions the establishment narrative. There are moves world wide to close down all alternative debate, very soon we could literally be living in the dystopia of 1984 where covid-like snitches ( possibly close relatives!) could be turning in friends and family for utterances live or digital which breach the rules established by all our new legislation!
At which stage we can say goodbye to any debate of importance.

As with the Covid moves, the Climate moves are put in place to justify the establishment removing all our rights - for the Greater Good! Hypnotised with fear and propaganda Covidians bent over to be kicked into shape without a squeak from the media, with a few exceptions only small sites like this have been undisturbed so far! We don’t have long before our time arrives, imo.

Debates like this are, imo, absolutely vital and should be continued until we all really understand what is happening here and how we got here. To do that we need to be clear on what we are talking about.

We are not talking about visible pollution from man-made activities, as you say we should all agree on steps to clean up our world. But pollution of this kind is not the driver of control and power plays - like Covid the enemy has to be hidden from view . CO2 caused by man - ultimately his use of oil - is the key to the new feudal gates. A hidden “poison” which everyone must accept as their enemy and which justifies anything up to and including global holocausts to get to zero carbon.This is the ultimate wet dream for our eugenic masters and we all need to bear this in mind, imo.

The 2 videos on Oiligarchs by James Corbett set the background imo. No matter how annoying JC’s presentations are to some I think we need to fix the facts in our minds whilst looking at today’s moves to chain us to our atomised concrete digital spaces devoid of actual life.

We need to be clear that 99.99% of people have got no idea about the reality of the CO2 AGW con and the proximity of the WEF’s promised land! If everyone accepts the official narrative that we must be prepared to do anything to save mankind’s presence on Earth then the feudal gates are opened and we will sleep-walk hypnotically through them. This could be the final “Mass Formation” as Mattias Desmet describes it. But as he has also said, to prevent Mass Formations progressing to the “holocaust” stage people of conscience must stand up and quietly but persistently speak out and show people the alternatives. If people fail to be warned about the causes of their starving and freezing they will all fall into the trap of Mass Formations and be persuaded to turn on the denialists.

We have to bottom out all the details of this major conspiracy before it is too late - we start with debate while we can.

cheers

2 Likes
#42

Hi RG

Have I not addressed your point about the difficulty in predicting complex systems several times already?

I’m pretty sure I have…

Have you acknowledged my reply that some complex systems are hard to predict and some are more predictable?

How about the metaphor of the sinking ship?

Im still waiting for your response. A conversation should go both ways, no?

Cheers

#43

P, my response is that you and I have to agree not to speak about the subject because it’s pointless. You have my leave to crow that I’m just doing what people do when they have no anwers: walk away and refuse to talk. :slight_smile:

Wrong, actually. I just see that you’re not going to acknowledge that you don’t - and can’t - know for sure what’s going to happen; just as I can’t. So - no point in going on with it. And I won’t be doing that.

No need to fall out about it, though. I don’t intend to do that. Luuurve! :innocent:

#44

Hi CJ

You made several points in several posts, but for now I’m just going to stick to the narrow point of Zharkova’s paper, which is actually the subject of this thread.

…is totally wrong on the most basic points of planetary orbits and her paper was thrown out.

She was wrong about the sun/earth distance, and as a result her paper was retracted. That has nothing to do with the politics of climate change. Common or garden astronomers laughed her out of the room.

Incidentally, she was also wrong when she suggested that the seasons on planet earth were due to the earth getting closer to the sun… a truly elementary mistake for a professor to make. There is a thread where she tries to defend her nonsense, and professor after professor tries to point out her elementary mistakes and she just doubles down… it was a bloodbath. Very embarrassing to read.

It’s basic planetary orbit theory. You know, Kepler, Newton etc. Incidentally, I don’t think it was fraud, I think it was more likely incompetence, caused by confirmation bias on her part, and failure to use software correctly. As I pointed out above, some of her graphs were reverse engineered and it looks very much like she just got the length of the sidereal year wrong.

However. Don’t take my word for it. Use your encyclopedia britannicas or whatever you want to use instead of Google and look it up. Zharkova was embarrassingly wrong and refused to admit it until her paper was retracted and she couldn’t hide it any longer.

She then issued an erratum to her paper (because she was wrong), in which she made even more mistakes, and when pressed for data, she apparently plagiarised another researcher’s graph as her own and didn’t even understand what she was showing.

Holy moly. What a farrago…

I mean, outstandingly, stunningly bad.

Oh dear… just oh dear.

In fact, in the real world, they agree to a remarkable degree

No confusion. And you’ve still been unable to explain the significance of this fake pause. I’m interested. What is the significance of the pause, CJ? Surely you can explain that much, right? For example, did the arctic ice stop melting during the pause?

Actually, I was kidding. But maybe take it up with Rob. He’s the one who had a problem with “mathematicians”. Something about the square root of two. He can explain it to you. Or maybe he can’t. Apparently maths (or measurements) cant be trusted when they show obvious and overwhelming evidence for climate change, but somehow can be trusted as gospel if they show the opposite. A bit like the ONS data for covid. Strange that, eh?

Anyway. So Zharkova was a bust. Her paper was more or less worthless and proves precisely nothing at all. I think we can safely ignore this particular error-ridden effort.

Her previous paper on the model of sunspot activity was interesting but apparently doesn’t do a particularly good job of predicting sunspot minima in the past, so its far from clear whether she’s right on that, either. Whether she is ot not, its pretty clear that sunspot activity will just be a slight effect compared to the much larger effect of CO2 driven climate change.

And that leaves me with a question, and given you’re the expert on Zharkova, I’ll direct it at you:

Do Zharkova’s papers (including the one that got binned) mean that the earth will warm or cool over the next 50 years?

It’s far from clear to me. Can you clear that up?

Cheers

#45

I’m disappointed, Rhis. It’s a shame…the ship analogy was pretty easy to understand, I thought.

Oh well. Fair enough then - I’ll stop trying to explain my POV to you if you’re not interested in hearing it.

Be well

#46

Maybe because folks close their eyes to all the evidence, and declare maths useless?

That doesn’t seem like a way forward to me, but hey… lets see where it gets us.

What about next summer when people are dying in 50 degree heat and their homes are burnt down in bush fires?

Perhaps they’ll give a shite then…

Being popular is not as important as sounding the alarm my friend… as loud as we can

Cheers

1 Like
#47

It’s not that I’m not interested, P. The issue grabs me quite strongly. It’s just that it’s obvious to me that we have different takes on the matter; and there simply isn’t any absolutely conclusive information to come to any certain decision about it; so I think, though I get that you think that there is.

In that deadlocked situation, we just have to give it a rest. I’m not going to be like Doctor dan, and get snarky with you; I don’t want that. But further endless nitty-gritty dispute about it seems pointless. I fold. I’m in wait-and-see mode.

Pity I don’t have another twenty years left (this time round) I don’t think. I suspect - note the tentativity! - that there will be some red-faced surprises in the pipeline soon over unexpected temperature switchbacks. I’d love to be around when/if that happens… :open_mouth: :grinning:

#48

Hi ED

Oops. Sorry.

Yes, I think CO2 is a fundamental driver. Methane is also important and becoming more so because of permafrost melting, but the first cause is CO2

There are lots of discussions on how we know that co2 causes warming… have a look. Orherwise ill pick a couple and drop them on the forum. They are very easy to find.

Cheers

#49

PS: Feeling too bloody fragile after Finny’s hand-fasting celebration last Saturday, so haven’t yet broached what was supposed to be my birthday present, on Sunday. Still aiming to get too it, when I’ve pulled myself together. Look forward to reporting to you, and everybody, what happens! :slight_smile: Peace!

2 Likes
#50

True, we never know that. I don’t know with absolute certainty I’ll be alive tomorrow or that he sun will rise tomorrow. Yet I act on the assumption both events occur. Without thinking even. If I see huge thunder clouds gathering I act similarly, by putting things inside the house I don’t want to get wet or blown away. We act on what we see is likely to happen, never on absolute certainties (I don’t even know what that means).

1 Like
#51

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
#52

Thanks PP. Sorry if I came across as accusatory - I’m accusing a lot of them at the moment :smiley:

1 Like
#53

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

#54

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

#55

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

#56

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

#57

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.

#58

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
#59

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.

#60

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…

Eat the Bugs!

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…!

Hans Kemmler

“Ah symbols on the floor that’ll end well!” #Thelema:

Black Sun1

Black Sun
Black Sun658×662 46.1 KB

2 Likes