As the Davids say: Pythonesque: 
From the same ML post, quoting Caitlin J:
" As Johnstone observed, we cannot say with certainty how things will turn out. We cannot be sure that nothing can solve or ameliorate the crisis we are in."
Exactly! Like - for instance - a slow realisation that maybe the āclimate catastropheā has been - erm - well, a bit over-hyped by axe-grinders pushing fear-porn for authoritarian purposes that are more to do with Peak Everything and the upcoming Long Descent, than heading off āclimate catastropheā. Er - perhaps; and perhaps all the supposedly āterminally-alarmingā stats are really just misappropriated measurements of cyclical changes that are always happening to the Earthās climate, not a runaway positive-feedback apocalypse after all, perhapsā¦?
I begin lately to suspect that thatās the real story behind the official āeverybody panic!ā narrative. Could be wrong, of course. But if it turns out to be true, isnāt that something of a deep soul-relief? Escape from despair?
Currently, Iāve no fecking idea what to believe. Open-minded scepticism can be a bitch, canāt it; as any REAL user of the true scientific method knows only too wellā¦ 
Meanwhile, the excellent Davids (absolutely no sarc intended; I really do see them like that!) continue with their limpid faith that itās all really happening, and itās the ultimate catastrophe. No wonder theyāre always battling despairā¦
2 Likes
Exactly my position Rhis. As for the policemen, musnĀ“t lart really, hee, hee.
1 Like
Follow the money my friend!
I was interested in this article on this subject:
I picked it up from this rant by Doug Brodie:
So looking at the ML article:
From the Medialens article: āA summary of the state of the global climate in 2022, prepared by the authoritative website Carbon Brief, reveals ā¦.ā
About Us - Carbon Brief
āFunding
We are grateful for the support of the European Climate Foundation, which provides our funding. In the spirit of transparency, we voluntarily declare that this funding totalled Ā£853,442 for the financial year of 2021.ā
Here we see European billionaire foundations (hidden from view), including the ex-boss of Sunak ā C Hohn, Bloomsberg, and of course a liberal dose of Rockefellerās and Growald Rockefeller ā the founders of the climate change movement. ( For one of the best reports on this family see James Corbett here:
)
Carbon brief Ltd is the go to source for DC of Medialens for some reason when its funding comes from the billionairesā club!
Iām not surprised Zeke Hausfather is writing for Carbon Brief with his background and interests!
(
āDr Zeke Hausfather is a climate science contributor for Carbon Brief. Zeke has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and a PhD in climate science from the University of California, Berkeley. He has spent the past 10 years working as a data scientist and entrepreneur in the cleantech sector.ā)
Looking at the team in Carbon Brief
I couldnāt see a physicist in the list although I did see quite a few ex Grauniad and Indy journos.
So no-one will be talking about the findings of people like Valentina Zharkova or Hermann Harde ā the latterās comments here are quite relevant:
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m.pdf
I have added the bold text.
āAbstract
We present quantitative measurements for the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide under comparable conditions as in the atmosphere and we compare them with radiation transfer calculations.Our experiments allow clear detection of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, at the same time they show its limited influence with growing concentration of these gases.ā
concluding :
ā The presented measurements and calculations clearly confirm the existence of an atmospheric GHE, but they also demonstrate the only small impact on global warming, which apparently is much more dominated by natural impacts like solar radiative forcing (see, e.g., Connolly et al. 2021 [16]; Harde 2022 [17]). Therefore, it is high time to stop a further indoctrination of our society with one-sided information, fake experiments, videos or reports, only to generate panic. Instead we have to come back to a consolidated climate discussion, which concentrates on facts and also includes the benefits of GH-gases.
In the long term, an economic shift to new forms of energy generation, of whatever kind, is inevitable, since the supply of fossil fuels is finite. However, there is no need to drive this process blindly and hastily; otherwise there is a risk of deindustrialization, which would then really trigger a dire future for the next generationsā
So, like Chomsky and the TLN, Medialens has contributed greatly to our understanding of the world but all 3 seem to have fallen into the trap they were previously warning us about in relation to all the major geo-political events this century ā between them, they accept great dollops of media manipulated information on 9/11, 7/7, Covid, and Global Warming and contribute to the āmisinformation/disinformationā climate in which we are immersed. IMHO.
cheers
1 Like
Hi @CJ1 The second link (metatron substack) has a wealth of links worth retaining for debate, future reference and evidence. Thanks for posting.
2 Likes
I love that line from the Harde/Schnell paper: āā¦the benefits of GH-gasesā just dropped in at the end.
I remember being hit between the eyes by something Patrick Moore presented in one of his vids: That the paleontological ārecord of the rocksā (and, more pertinently, the record of the ice-cores) shows that CO2 concentrations in the air have been falling steadily over a long period, and by the beginning of the industrial age had sunk to where they were getting close to emergency shortage levels for the continuation of photosynthesis. Sic!
Once that stops, of course, everything starves to deathā¦
Which obliges the gob-smacking conclusion: Maybe humankindās sudden swift releasing of so much of the sequestered hydrocarbons in the Earthās crust was a just-in-time appearance of the cavalry, to save a dire situation of actual severe atmospheric CO2 shortage! 
Soā¦ did Mam Gaia actually decide to put us up to thatā¦?
I know that idea will kick up immediate ācrazy tinfoiler!ā responses from many. But consider: Jim Lovelock, when he published his Gaia Hypothesis said that he personally took it as a metaphore; not literally true. But others could interpret it more literally, if they chose. Many of us with some degree of shamanic experience have much less of a reductive-materialist problem with the idea of Mam Gaia as an actually-real, super-human, living, conscious being who occupies, tends and cherishes her planet (not ours), the Earth.
Sheldrake, of course, goes further and suggest that ALL the heavenly bodies - the Sun, all stars. planets, asteroids, space-bodies generally - can be seen as actually-living, conscious beings - literallyā¦)
Even Lovelock conceded that the Gaia system on the Earth actively manages the homeostasis of conditions on the planet, to maintain its lifeweb from age to age, whatever happenstance shocks cosmological fate throws at it. And - as Lynn Margulis famously put it - Mam, far from being a fragile entity in great danger, has proved herself time and again to be āa tough bitchā, who doesnāt let go of life on Earth easily; and who keeps bringing it back to fulsome thriving after every one of the - sometimes terrifying - challenges that she has faced - and has overcome, every time! - over the paleontological time-scale of life on Earth.
Think of the end-of-the-Permian-Era hyper-shock, when - we think - around ninety percent of life-forms on the planet were extinguished. Does the present climate-shift āthreatā come anywhere near that? Yet Mam beat it, and re-fecundated her planet; as she has done again, several times sinceā¦
See why Iām edging round to the thesis that the climate panic is a heavily over-hyped con, more to do with the public-perception manipulation-efforts of the gics for their own abiding criminal-psychopath purposes than with any real physical threat?
If thatās true, then the relief from despair which it offers is palpable. Feel it! 
1 Like
Well ferretted, CJ! Lots of pertinent findings presented here. Thanks!
1 Like
PS: Never forget that the Club Of Rome - who were indeed a bunch of gics no better than they should be - were emphatically not the same as the Meadows team whom the Club funded to do their classic āLimits To Growthā study (followed eventually by āTLTG - The Thirty-Year Updateā).
In those days, it was still reasonably possible for a team of scientists to do honest science, whatever their piper-paying funders might wish to see. Iāve no doubt that they would have been leant-on even then to produce the ārightā results. But as I remember, in those times (1972) it was easier for scientists to maintain their professional integrity in the face of axe-grinders trying to get them to skew their results.
Today, the standard assumption has to be that, unless they can demonstrate conclusively that itās not so, the āscientistsā will have been got at - routinely! - to produce results which their funders like; and - mostly - the āscientistsā will have caved, for the sake of career, mortgage, social-standing, marriage-saving, kidsā school fees, etcā¦
1 Like