Rev. Michael Dowd, Death-Cult Environmentalist? |435|

ok but again the point of the interview was that death cult environmentalist like Michael aren't interested in the science... and he helped me out by saying exactly that.

so here's an extensive study done by Dr Judy Curry showing no sea level rise. I don't need to pound my fist on the table and suggest this the definitive answer, but I think it should give us pause:

Special Report on Sea Level Rise | Climate Etc.
No Alex -- he is SETTLED on the science. He isn't interested in the debunkers. There is a difference.
 
How much are sea levels rising?

There is no correlation between CO2 and sea level rise. None. There is however a correlation between sunspots and sea level rise, most likely due to thermal expansion. Sea level rise is much slower now than in the past. This of course has no congruence with AGW theory. in 1990 even the IPCC stated that "There is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the twentieth century". The other factor is that some land masses lower while others rise.


Take a look at how amazingly accurate these maps from the 17th to 19th century are with that of today. Simply stunning. I don't think I need to point out the obvious here.

Marthas-Vineyard-Nantucket-Shoreline-Changes-1857-vs-2019.jpg

Isle-of-Man-Sea-Level-Changes-1893-vs-2019.jpg

New-York-Long-Island-shoreline-changes-1802-vs-2019-annotated.jpg

Taiwan-sea-level-changes-1640-map-vs-2019.jpg



Globally, coasts have grown since the 1980s
Between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations indicate the world’s coasts gained 13,565 km² more land area than they had lost to the seas (Donchyts et al., 2016).

Duvat (2019) also identified a global trend in island shoreline net growth since the 1980s despite recent sea level rise, as none of the globe’s islands larger than 10 ha – and just 1.2% of the 334 islands larger than 5 ha – have decreased in size since the 1980s.


https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/05...or-higher-than-now-during-the-little-ice-age/

You can also bet your bottom dollar that the Banks know for a fact that the coastlines are not about to be submerged due to AGW. They absolutely know it is BS, otherwise they would never, ever be giving out mortgages for land that would be underwater. They need to make their money from nothing, otherwise they may just throw that debt directly into the ocean!
 
Last edited:
How much are sea levels rising?

There is no correlation between CO2 and sea level rise. None. There is however a correlation between sunspots and sea level rise, most likely due to thermal expansion. Sea level rise is much slower now than in the past. This of course has no congruence with AGW theory. in 1990 the even the IPCC stated that "There is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the twentieth century". The other factor is that some land masses lower while others rise.


Take a look at how amazingly accurate these maps from the 17th to 19th century are with that of today. Simply stunning. I don't think I need to point out the obvious here.

Marthas-Vineyard-Nantucket-Shoreline-Changes-1857-vs-2019.jpg

Isle-of-Man-Sea-Level-Changes-1893-vs-2019.jpg

New-York-Long-Island-shoreline-changes-1802-vs-2019-annotated.jpg

Taiwan-sea-level-changes-1640-map-vs-2019.jpg



Globally, coasts have grown since the 1980s
Between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations indicate the world’s coasts gained 13,565 km² more land area than they had lost to the seas (Donchyts et al., 2016).

Duvat (2019) also identified a global trend in island shoreline net growth since the 1980s despite recent sea level rise, as none of the globe’s islands larger than 10 ha – and just 1.2% of the 334 islands larger than 5 ha – have decreased in size since the 1980s.


https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/05...or-higher-than-now-during-the-little-ice-age/

You can also bet your bottom dollar that the Banks know for a fact that the coastlines are not about to be submerged due to AGW. They absolutely know it is BS, otherwise they would never, ever be giving out mortgages for land that would be underwater. They need to make their money from nothing, otherwise they may just throw that debt directly into the ocean!


thank you Lone. a voice of reason is much appreciated.
 
I hope all the debunkers and deniers can read my thread. Happy to send links on any of my points.

Not all Science and Science funding is equal. Try and get scientific funding for the paranormal and UFOs. You see my point? The same was true for climate change for a long time. Yes, the world of Science is full of competing interests for grants, is beholden to political and economic and capitalist influence, is mired with corruption and fraud, and whatnot. But the climate change debunkers and deniers do NOT understand that funding has long been difficult to secure for climate change, and results were often suppressed and ignored. One only needs to look at the science coming out during the Bush II admin that actively sought (successfully) to suppress the gov't data (plus earlier, the oil companies that did their own science). The climate change science is often done under corporate and government funding -- funding quite often dependent upon fossil fuel money. Plus, all of this funding and research is done under that cloud of the religions of Progress, Technological Utopia, Infinite Growth Economy (on a finite planet -- which makes no sense), and the idea that painting too negative a future would lead to panic in the stock market (and possibly people in general). Once again, Climate Change as a reality destroys the modern religions of Americanism, American Exceptionalism, Progress, Technotopian Futures, Infinite Growth, along with many theistic and New Age religions. Thus, it must be contained in its own safe zone with mellowed realities of the future.

And, as Reverend Down mentions, Climate Change is merely ONE of the major ecological issues being presented in the press. In order for humanity to safely exist on this planet, we also need to (IMMEDIATELY) address the issues of nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, global fresh water use (which includes ground water supplies in major cities quickly drying up), biodiversity loss, atmospheric aerosol loading (which is better than it was in the 80s but still an issue), chemical pollution, change in land use, as well as the above-mentioned issue of climate change/global warming/global weirding. Many of those listed have already passed the threshold of expected tipping points. Hold your breath. I don't see collective culture doing much in response. Banning plastic bags and straws ain't gonna do it.

All of the above is why Reverend Down is done discussing these issues. Another spiritual author Carolyn Baker has also moved beyond debating the science (she wisely gave this up a decade ago) and has written two very important books about post-collapse consciousness. She would be an EXCELLENT guest for this show. Sacred Demise can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Demise-Spiritual-Industrial-Civilizations/dp/1440119724/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=carolyn+baker&qid=1577489760&sr=8-8 And the book Collapsing Consciously can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Collapsing-C...?keywords=carolyn+baker&qid=1577489893&sr=8-4 . These are very spiritual books.

And Alex. You brought up Climategate? That was debunked as a hoax a decade ago. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies -- I can provide all kinds of independent news media sources that have poured through the data and provide those links if you don't want the Guardian's take.

And even if some of the "Climategate" accusations by debunkers and deniers were real (they aren't, but let's pretend). Okay. So that means that a few paragraphs from one study the fudged some data now tears down all the science of climate change? That is ridiculous. Imagine if we did the same with UFOs or the paranormal or consciousness science? There are a lot of hoaxers and fraudsters and exaggerators and (god bless them) ignorant souls working in these fields. It is easy to debunk many of them. So, based on the "rigorous approach and standards" taken against Climate Change, I guess we can now debunk ALL research on UFOs and the Paranormal and Consciousness being independent of the brain. Time to close up shop Alex. Your work is done. All your shit is debunked.

If anyone wants to read perhaps the best book on the question of "What if severe climate change happens and humans survive," I would recommend Frank Landis's book Hot Earth Dreams. Most of the interpretations by current science is still pretty conservative (which is why they claim to be shocked at how much worse things really are after every follow up study). This book doesn't do that. And it gives very very long-term interpretations of the data, never claiming to be gospel. https://www.amazon.com/Hot-Earth-Dr...2?keywords=frank+landis&qid=1577490979&sr=8-2 Things may be even worse than this author surmises if we do not take in consideration energy decline. But this issue can't be raised in the psychopathic economy of Infinite Growth. But let's move on.

Does all of the above mean that the government and corporate responses to this very real issue will be handled well, or with our consent? No. I think this is something we can all agree on. (But bad responses from bad corporate and elitist players does not mean something is a hoax. Conspiracy theorists need to remember this. It simply means they control the solutions to any crisis.) The responses will likely stay in "pretend" mode for a while. Thus the do-nothing concepts of shorter showers, recycling, cap and trade, etc. We will also see the growth of BIG GREEN energy, which is a masquerade of clean energy -- thus fake solutions like solar, wind, ethanol, hydrogen, and others will be expanded. These "green energies" are simply a rebranding of fossil fuels. Anyone who has no clue what I am talking about, thinking that these technologies will save the day, should read Green Illusions by Ozzie Zehner. It is the book the Left and the Right, the corporate world and the environmental movement hate. https://www.amazon.com/Green-Illusions-Secrets-Environmentalism-Sustainable/dp/0803237758 . We may also see the continuation of rising authoritarianism (with maybe a break here and there) in response to this issue (though climate change certainly is NOT needed for this rise -- look at climate denier Trump and climate ignorer Obama). Responses could manifest into spraying the skies (assuming we are not already doing so) with metals, spraying the oceans with metals, putting microwave mirrors on the moon (assuming we can get there), and all kinds of stupid corporate-government "solutions" to a predicament that cannot be solved (and that will likely make the situation worse). What we do know is this: every solution given serious consideration will NOT drastically affect Infinite Growth, despite the fact that the only way to appropriately deal with the predicament will have to be centered around LESS ENERGY, period. And this is why the Reverend has moved beyond talking about solutions, focusing instead on building local communities. He knows government and corporate solutions are pointless. Smart man.
 
Last edited:
Lucky for us we can just use our eyes and look at the old maps.

Meanwhile climate hypocrites like Obama, Al Gore and others buy beach front properties. :)
 
This is the EXACT response used by Flat Earth. I thought that was pretty funny.

That is called a strawman argument. Obviously the "Conspiracy" was initiated a couple of hundred years ago by early navigators. :)

You might want to do some looking into how and who started this movement. Who Maurice Strong is and how he made his money.

The 20th century was the century of oil. From farm to fork, factory to freeway, there is no aspect of our modern life that has not been shaped by the oil industry. But as the "post-carbon" era of the 21st century comes into view, there are those who see this as the end of the oiligarchy. They couldn't be more wrong. This is the remarkable true story of the world that Big Oil is creating, and how they plan to bring it about.

Watch from about 36:30. By all means fact check what is well documented here. This documentary has impeccable research. This is what is not talked about. It may be difficult for you to watch I think. The facts are undeniable. Flat Earth fallacies won't help you here.

 
Does anyone else notice that many of these arguments begin with a stance on what science says, and then when alternate scientific views are presented it becomes about "special interests" and who is funding the science? Which is actually quite true. But somehow it is not that way at the begging of the argument.

In other words it is not really about science but ideology.
 
That is called a strawman argument. Obviously the "Conspiracy" was initiated a couple of hundred years ago by early navigators. :)

You might want to do some looking into how and who started this movement. Who Maurice Strong is and how he made his money.



Watch from about 36:30. By all means fact check what is well documented here. This documentary has impeccable research. This is what is not talked about. It may be difficult for you to watch I think. The facts are undeniable. Flat Earth fallacies won't help you here.

It wasn't an argument, silly goose. It was just an observation I found funny.
 
That is called a strawman argument. Obviously the "Conspiracy" was initiated a couple of hundred years ago by early navigators. :)

You might want to do some looking into how and who started this movement. Who Maurice Strong is and how he made his money.



Watch from about 36:30. By all means fact check what is well documented here. This documentary has impeccable research. This is what is not talked about. It may be difficult for you to watch I think. The facts are undeniable. Flat Earth fallacies won't help you here.

I have already watched this video, right after it came out. It raises some important issues. I agree with some of it, but I disagree with much of it. It is not worth me revisiting to nitpick the nuances. And it is funny that you talk about how alternative science gets dogged down with who is funding the research (which should be mentioned) but that Big Science does not (which I agree is hypocrisy). It is why I have done the exact opposite in my post above. Did you read it?

Post Edit: Corporate-funded research often gets pointed out by more progressive and radical elements of the Left, but rarely the Right. Both the Right and Left like to point out private funder boogeymen like Soros and Koch. Alternative science and medical research (when funded by an institution) always gets mentioned by the Debunker Police. If done by individuals, they simply claim foul of the scientific approach (even when it passes all scientific standards normally).
 
Last edited:
I have already watched this video, right after it came out. It raises some important issues. I agree with some of it, but I disagree with much of it. It is not worth me revisiting to nitpick the nuances. And it is funny that you talk about how alternative science gets dogged down with who is funding the research (which should be mentioned) but that Big Science does not (which I agree is hypocrisy). It is why I have done the exact opposite in my post above. Did you read it?

Fair enough, it is difficult for dissenting scientists to get there work published in such a "climate". However things have changed, there is a silent coo among the major universities. More and more dissenting opinions are being published and is increasing. They are reading the writing on the wall. This agenda is in its death throes. It will only be a couple of years before the rest of the world realizes. The Sun will have the last word.
 
My stance on climate change or global warming is in the middle, in order to attack a perceived problem we have to know how where and when to attack it and the cost and implications. I don't believe there is enough evidence to attack the problem the way politicians want us to.
It's all fear mongering to get a quick cash grab, with that said I'm not denying temperatures are rising or if it is a temporary effect. I'm in the opinion of let's find out the exact causes and come up with solutions. We have time, well not according to the money hungry politicians like al Gore
 
I respect everyone's opinion. And so did the Reverend Dowd. But just like him, it does seem rather worthless to discuss climate change. And, for some, it is rather pointless. I think we can all agree that, no matter what, building strong local communities within urban areas, in small and medium towns, and in rural scapes is a benefit no matter what the future may bring. Community-building is long ignored and even frowned upon in this individualized technosphere we have built.
 
My stance on climate change or global warming is in the middle, in order to attack a perceived problem we have to know how where and when to attack it and the cost and implications. I don't believe there is enough evidence to attack the problem the way politicians want us to.
It's all fear mongering to get a quick cash grab, with that said I'm not denying temperatures are rising or if it is a temporary effect. I'm in the opinion of let's find out the exact causes and come up with solutions. We have time, well not according to the money hungry politicians like al Gore

A very reasonable and rational position.

My position is that there is no real correlation between CO2 and temperature. Only that it is in fact inversed. When temperatures rise more CO2 is out gassed from the oceans, lagging by several centuries.

I believe we are heading into a grand solar minimum, if not this cycle then the next. It is only a matter of time. This will be far more dramatic for the global population than a mere few degrees of warming. China is the only country so far to acknowledge this.
 
I respect everyone's opinion. And so did the Reverend Dowd. But just like him, it does seem rather worthless to discuss climate change. And, for some, it is rather pointless. I think we can all agree that, no matter what, building strong local communities within urban areas, in small and medium towns, and in rural scapes is a benefit no matter what the future may bring. Community-building is long ignored and even frowned upon in this individualized technosphere we have built.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Unfortunately in my country this is being undermined by corporate greed with flood plain harvesting and privatization of water. Exasperating drought and fire while destroying river systems and in turn eco systems. Farmers are committing suicide because of this pressure!! All the while the public not knowing these things blames it on climate change. This is what agenda 2030 will do to us. It is already underway. Tribal peoples who have lived close to nature for generations are being displaced in the name of environmentalism.

Under this agenda, 21/30 these things we should all agree on will not be possible. It is not about the climate, it is about power and control of every resource.

This is the danger that this narrative is imposing. It is already happening.
 
Last edited:
Not risen?

Curry’s opening paragraph in her conclusion:

“Mean global sea level has risen at a slow creep for more than 150 years; since 1900, global mean sea level has risen about 7-8 inches.”

So what does this mean? Is the water getting higher or the land lower? I suspect the logic is that if there was a catastrophic melting of ice then water level rise would be indisputably significant, even if land was sinking [which it does].
 
ok but again the point of the interview was that death cult environmentalist like Michael aren't interested in the science... and he helped me out by saying exactly that.

so here's an extensive study done by Dr Judy Curry showing no sea level rise. I don't need to pound my fist on the table and suggest this the definitive answer, but I think it should give us pause:

Special Report on Sea Level Rise | Climate Etc.

So Alex, which ‘science’ are we talking about? I do have a sense that ‘climate science’ has become profoundly problematic as a source of truth, but I can’t comment because I don’t have the knowledge to evaluate - and I won’t believe because I am seriously not into believing.

I am into experiencing. I am experiencing a change in climate, not just weather. From my perspective there’s not much of a sea level rise. I’d be freaking out if I noticed it, given I live at 3,100 feet.

I think Dowd has to be deconstructed - rationally dismantled - and then maybe sold for scrap. I really do not think science fits into his schema, and its a pity that so much attention in this thread focuses on what he was not really on about. Personally I found his reimagining of Christianity to be intriguing, but hardly a topic for general conversation.

We are left with the politics of community and compassion? What was your takeaway from the chat?
 
I agree wholeheartedly with that. Unfortunately in my country this is being undermined by corporate greed with flood plain harvesting and privatization of water. Exasperating drought and fire while destroying river systems and in turn eco systems. Farmers are committing suicide because of this pressure!! All the while the public not knowing these things blames it on climate change. This is what agenda 2030 will do to us. It is already underway. Tribal peoples who have lived close to nature for generations are being displaced in the name of environmentalism.

Under this agenda, 21/30 these things we should all agree on will not be possible. It is not about the climate, it is about power and control of every resource.

This is the danger that this narrative is imposing. It is already happening.
I've heard of Agenda 21? For me at the time it was just too far down the rabbit hole for me. And would require a vast network of cooperation. As time creeps on I'm beginning to suspect it might be easier done than said. The human population is beyond docile and idiotic especially dare I say it it the left. I'm not sold on fema camps or Chem trails, or weather modifications (seen a youtube preview that claims USA said China has controlled the weather) few nights ago I watched a video by brother Phil Valentine who should be a guest on this show as brother panic has stated he doesn't care about doing podcasts, interviews etc. Phil's lucid and knowledge is something I envy in a good way. He puts in work and would be an interesting guest
Here's his latest tidbit
 
Back
Top