Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

A

Aliceinunderland

Yeah, sorry but it is intellectually dishonest to state it was demonstrated. How can you be certain these other factors are not giving misleading interpretations of said mechanism? How do we justify the fact CO2 follows temperature change in geological time? How does this not equate to a runaway warming effect? Increased temperature, followed by increased C02, and then increased temperature again?

There are many observations that do not fit with such a mechanism, such as in periods of modern times when temperatures have remained generally constant, while CO2 rises? Does the mechanism take time off?
It is 'scientific' to say cause and effect defines/is defined by(?) Time. But what if 'time' travels both ways?
 
A

Aliceinunderland

I accept that the experts could be right, and perhaps they are, but it would be normal and natural in my experience if the vast majority of ciimate scientists were experiencing a shared hallucination.
This could also be said of anti-climate change scientists*..just a smaller-based biased consensus?
Climate science is a polarizing topic (ironically). So let me just generalize the point to say that compared with the average citizen, trained persuaders are less impressed by experts.
Good point. And *ditto
 
A

Aliceinunderland

Sans any relevant 'quals' but have read a bit, incl still reading the excellent Bauer interview pt.1 by Vortex ;;/?

It seems to me that Science is itself divided not just by the conclusions drawn from their prognoses, but by the methods by which they arrive at them. So how do we 'the public' discern their 'proofs' if on the one hand we cannot confirm predictions drawn from elaborate computational equations without having had a similar education and on the other, predicted outcomes do not always 'come out' until many years, decades on -in the case of climate change possibly lifetimes.

Everything must be speculation, within parameters of verification, falsification and openess, but who amongst us is free of bias or desire? Like Vortex said (#1,006) scientists are like he rest of us, only human. Something make some especially much more driven by bias than others. And that is an issue of personal integrity. Mutual truth and trust among humans is currently often absent, in fact, they are sitting at the very back and rarely summoned, except in the arena of contention when we claim exclusive entitlement, so long as we can provide 'proofs'. There is also a quality to truth, that cannot be measured, only 'known'.. Perhaps this is negative-thinking.. a George Eliot quote from 1876: 'There is a great deal of unmapped country within us, which would have to be taken into account, in an explanation of our gusts and storms'

We are also bound by the laws of duality, the black and white dichotomy in our societies law, govt and education, wherein in order to 'win' we must withold truths that don't support our view and denounce any 'opponent' who is equally invested in a preferred outcome. It is fight upon fight, endless contention with triumphant egotism if the 'victor' and frustrated dismay of the 'loser'. (to use a Hopi proverb)'This calls for another way of being'

In the closed group of political-corporates funding the info-gatherers and using the (once) noble trade as vac and pill-pushers, I hope there are individuals free to roam the fringes of science, the one-offs who are the 'crackerjacks' to spark a movement in the world. Greta is an anomaly in this consensus-riddled, financial-based, science-as-political-tool world, a member of 'the public' ('dead peasants' I heard one insurance company describe us) She is for the Planet and her future. And we are Pagan deep-down and love to have an individual to focus on. I hope she can weather it.
 
This could also be said of anti-climate change scientists*..just a smaller-based biased consensus?

Good point. And *ditto
Yes and so I fall back on what I have learned from history and the hard way. Humans lie to gain advantage, humans increase their advantage by increasing numbers (what I call "groupifying"), humans increase their advantage by using all available forms of persuasion and coercion to benefit their group. And when I look at the incredible madness I experience from the alarmists and I consider the massive power grab that would result if they get their way... I smell a rat.

To decide which to bet on, for me, is an easy no-brainer.
 
Without confounding factors, when you kick a ball, it will fly off on a certain parabolic arc, just like when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the temperature will increase in a certain way.
And should that not happen with a vengeance on Venus - at the point in the atmosphere corresponding to 1 atmosphere on Earth?

The mechanism for the ice ages is still uncertain, and yet we are supposed to believe that the CO2/climate relationship is understood - notwithstanding the fact that increases in CO2 generally follow increases in temperature (on a geological timescale).

BTW, I suggest we all stop calling each other "intellectually dishonest" - we are all coming to this from different backgrounds.

BTW2, I hope that nobody came away with the idea that the AIDS/HIV issue consists of the fact that there is no paper that makes this claim in the literature. It is just that this behaviour is not typical of science at its best - people want to claim ideas as their own. For the full story, go to Henry Bauer's website, or buy his book on the subject.

There is no equivalent scientific paper that demonstrates that psychic phenomena cannot exist, and we can all see that this diffuses that belief and makes it harder to attack.

David
 
[/QUOTE]

Lone Shaman - thanks for this video! It does seem that there is considerable evidence for this. Here is an interview that Tucker Carlson did with a guy who actually prepared AOC's Green New Deal policy.


Like the people in your video, he more or less gives the game away as a boast. Maybe these people can't really wait to boast about their wonderful political plan.

If this was the 'right' discussing this issue, I wouldn't bother to post it here, but we have climate activists condemning themselves out of their own mouths, so before anyone gets 'triggered' by the Fox News logo, please listen. Both videos are quite short.

David
 
And should that not happen with a vengeance on Venus - at the point in the atmosphere corresponding to 1 atmosphere on Earth?
I don't know the science, and all of the relevant factors, so I can't give you a definitive answer. I can only offer a couple of thoughts:

Firstly, the temperature is a lot hotter than on Earth at corresponding pressures - and your contention that this can be attributed solely to Venus's being closer to the sun is - at present - an unproven conjecture.

Secondly, there may be some (lack of) relationship that you and I don't know of between pressure and warming due to greenhouse gases that explains the situation on Venus.

Finally, there may simply be some unknown factors or relationships that we just don't know about that explain it.

I don't think we can jump to conclusions here. But I'm anyway not the person to challenge on this: a qualified climate scientist who has also studied Venus's climate would be.

[Edit: after thinking about this more carefully, I came up with an analysis in a later post in this thread which more rigorously and comprehensively addresses David's contention: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-135973]
 
Last edited:
A

Aliceinunderland

Your comment is either not honest or it is ill-informed or was made without thinking.

The Alarmists are the folks trying to usurp power, the deniers just want to be left the hell alone. That's an incredibly huge and obvious difference.
That's right..the Deniers are already in power and have an interest in fossil-fuel use being maintained..no wonder they just want the hell to be left alone. Such a nuisance the public's had enough of their bull
 
I don't know the science, and all of the relevant factors, so I can't give you a definitive answer. I can only offer a couple of thoughts:

Firstly, the temperature is a lot hotter than on Earth at corresponding pressures - and your contention that this can be attributed solely to Venus's being closer to the sun is - at present - an unproven conjecture.
I presume that was meant in jest! The point is Venus has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2, so the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be working on steroids. I use the term in quotes, because as I pointed out before, greenhouses work by stopping convection - nothing to do with radiation!
Secondly, there may be some (lack of) relationship that you and I don't know of between pressure and warming due to greenhouse gases that explains the situation on Venus.
Well I'd really like LS to take a long hard look at this, because I confess I can't be sure, but as far as I can see, CO2 will have the same spectrum wherever it is found. The only obvious difference on Venus, is that there is very little water in the atmosphere.
Finally, there may simply be some unknown factors or relationships that we just don't know about that explain it.
Well maybe, but if you look up Venus and climate change, you get the usual story with no mention of the pressure at the surface!
https://www.space.com/42570-venus-model-for-climate-change.html

This confirms the pressure and temperature at the surface.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-018-0467-8

There used to be a nice pair of graphs on the internet with temperature and pressure plotted as a function of altitude. Using them it was easy to estimate the temperature at the point in the atmosphere where the pressure was 1 atmosphere. I estimated it at 66C, I saw another estimate of 75C, but by then the graphs had been removed, and I haven't found a replacement.
I don't think we can jump to conclusions here. But I'm anyway not the person to challenge on this: a qualified climate scientist who has also studied Venus's climate would be.
Climatology is a very specialised area of science, and I think physicists should get more involved in this - both because of the basic physics, and because of the way the raw data has been handled. Of course, there is a video of a Nobel Prizewinning physicist discussing Global Warming, but you found some reason to dismiss him (I forget what it was).

https://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobe...ver-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever

David
 
Well I'd really like LS to take a long hard look at this, because I confess I can't be sure, but as far as I can see, CO2 will have the same spectrum wherever it is found. The only obvious difference on Venus, is that there is very little water in the atmosphere.
I have investigated the situation on Venus some years ago, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details. I'm guessing at some of the figures below. True to my nature I do not side with orthodoxy on this subject either, and for good reason.

The most apparent thing to me is that Venus is in a state of thermal imbalance, it radiates far more heat than it receives. The dense clouds have a very high albedo 0.8 or so, about the same as fresh snow! It reflects most of the sunlight back into space, maybe 75% or more, . A runaway greenhouse effect is the standard explanation. However for it to be true we should see a balance between solar input and infrared thermal output. We don't, it is in imbalance. Multiple probes have confirmed this to the horror of many scientists. So much so that they refused to accept the data for some time being committed to the runaway greenhouse effect theory. Data was actually "corrected" to fit with this theory. Big surprise huh?

If we could build a greenhouse on Earth with Venus atmospherics and reflect the majority of sunlight away from it, do we think that we could generate such extreme temperatures.? If so we may solve the energy crisis I think.

We have to ask the question of how Velikovsky so accurately predicted the extremely high temperatures at a time when scientists thought Venus may be like Earth on a balmy summers day? Velikovsky was not correct about everything of course, but personally I think he was correct about Venus, it is a young planet and is still emitting heat from its fiery birth and electrical close encounters with both Earth and Mars.

Velikovsky stated that the greenhouse effect would only be a minor contributor to the overall temperature of Venus, and that a greater thermal imbalance would be present as we get closer to the surface. And this is exactly what the Venera probes found! About 40 times more heat than what enters the Venetian atmosphere. Something like white hot metal! Yet these regions should have a weaker greenhouse effect. The regions of greater solar absorption should have a greater greenhouse effect and the regions of less solar absorption should be of weaker effect.

I really think Velikovsky was correct here.
 
Last edited:
That's right..the Deniers are already in power and have an interest in fossil-fuel use being maintained..no wonder they just want the hell to be left alone. Such a nuisance the public's had enough of their bull
Again, you miss the elephant in the living room. That some benefit financially from the continuation of fossil fuel usage as a significant current source of energy may be annoying to those who doesn't validate the alarmist alternative.

The entire global economy and life as you know it will be completely upended if, for example, Ocasio-Cortez's "green new deal" were implemented and remember, we're all dead in 12 years if we don't. Do you really want that sort of mentality in charge? Seriously?

So, as I see it, I am forced to make the best worst choice (quite a simple one when comparing the easy to predict results) which is - to rely on mankind's ability to actually discover and/or develop alternative energy sources while discovering/developing more efficient was to use energy without having a "12-year" gun held to our heads or, support that which would most certainly result in massive economic upheaval of the entire planet while empowering the lunatics that want you to buy into the emotionally driven BS (we're all gonna die!!!) while "they" maintain (and perhaps enhance) their lifestyle of hypocritical exception to the rule. That's the choice and its a no-brainer to see it.
 
I have investigated the situation on Venus some years ago, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details. I'm guessing at some of the figures below. True to my nature I do not side with orthodoxy on this subject either, and for good reason.

The most apparent thing to me is that Venus is in a state of thermal imbalance, it radiates far more heat than it receives. The dense clouds have a very high albedo 0.8 or so, about the same as fresh snow! It reflects most of the sunlight back into space, maybe 75% or more, . A runaway greenhouse effect is the standard explanation. However for it to be true we should see a balance between solar input and infrared thermal output. We don't, it is in imbalance. Multiple probes have confirmed this to the horror of many scientists. So much so that they refused to accept the data for some time being committed to the runaway greenhouse effect theory. Data was actually "corrected" to fit with this theory. Big surprise huh?

If we could build a greenhouse on Earth with Venus atmospherics and reflect the majority of sunlight away from it, do we think that we could generate such extreme temperatures.? If so we may solve the energy crisis I think.

We have to ask the question of how Velikovsky so accurately predicted the extremely high temperatures at a time when scientists thought Venus may be like Earth on a balmy summers day? Velikovsky was not correct about everything of course, but personally I think he was correct about Venus, it is a young planet and is still emitting heat from its fiery birth and electrical close encounters with both Earth and Mars.

Velikovsky stated that the greenhouse effect would only be a minor contributor to the overall temperature of Venus, and that a greater thermal imbalance would be present as we get closer to the surface. And this is exactly what the Venera probes found! About 40 times more heat than what enters the Venetian atmosphere. Something like white hot metal! Yet these regions should have a weaker greenhouse effect. The regions of greater solar absorption should have a greater greenhouse effect and the regions of less solar absorption should be of weaker effect.

I really think Velikovsky was correct here.
That is fascinating - do you have a good reference to the thermal imbalance? Does the heat imbalance provide any estimate of the age of Venus, I wonder.

As I point out from time to time, the word greenhouse needs quotes round it because it is only an analogy at best - I think it is a deliberately misleading analogy because, of course, greenhouses actually work rather well!

Let me try to get the standard ('scientific') position right then:

1) Except for the thermal imbalance, the situation on Venus might be consistent with a severe 'greenhouse' effect combined with the high reflectivity of the atmosphere.

2) With the thermal imbalance, you don't need the 'greenhouse' effect in the explanation.

All in all, what this shows is how little science really knows, and I love the concept of correcting data obtained from a very expensive space probe to fit the theory!

I am not very well up on Velikovsky - where did he start his discussions from?

David
 
Last edited:
That is fascinating - do you have a good reference to the thermal imbalance? Does the heat imbalance provide any estimate of the age of Venus, I wonder.
This was a central argument between Carl Sagan who put forth the runaway greenhouse theory and Velikovsky. You can read a little about here, some references to the imbalance are within.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/F78ptTPCxi0/wOEzUn78EoUJ

Here's one specifically. Interestingly titled
Venus: highly radioactive or just cooling down?
https://www.science-frontiers.com/sf014/sf014p03.htm

I don't think the imbalance can tell us anything about age, although if it is in fact cooling perhaps some projection could be done. Venus is thought to be old because of it's cratering. But the kinetic impact theory of cratering is just that and does not fit with the observations of crater chains, overlapping craters, hexagonal craters, flat craters etc.. Electric discharge machining can account for all of these things.

As I point out from time to time, the word greenhouse needs quotes round it because it is only an analogy at best - I think it is a deliberately misleading analogy because, of course, greenhouses actually work rather well!
Ha, yeah, plants love em. They especially love them when you install Co2 tanks as well.

1) Except for the thermal imbalance, the situation on Venus might be consistent with a severe 'greenhouse' effect combined with the high reflectivity of the atmosphere.
High reflective doesn't help, you want to capture that energy. There's still problems of balance and diminishing returns, the more you increase a blanket effect of heat trapping insulation the more you reduce solar input to the surface. So there's a trade off. Think of what a runaway effect means, something akin to overunity.

2) With the thermal imbalance, you don't need the 'greenhouse' effect in the explanation.
It's possible to have both, but a thermal imbalance like this implies there is another source of heat. There should be some greenhouse effect, but it is not normal, that is why we call it a runaway effect. I don't think it's possible for reasons I've mentioned. Surely we could do a experiment for that?

All in all, what this shows is how little science really knows, and I love the concept of correcting data obtained from a very expensive space probe to fit the theory!

I am not very well up on Velikovsky - where did he start his discussions from?

David
He was an independent scholar from Russia. An outsider, you could say. Velikovsky was way ahead of his time, even still in this time. So much so that scientists wanted to burn him at the stake. A heretic among religious zealots. Truly not an understatement and an apt description I must say. He really did expose the problem with science that we are too well aware of.

He wrote the best selling book "Worlds in collision", even though it was a best seller the scientific community forced it to be removed from publication. Famous for his feud with Sagan. He made many incredible accurate predictions that were inconceivable at the time, they were so outside of the "norm" he was attacked for it. His accurate predictions stand testament to his genius.

You know my views on cosmology, it is a religion. Not much different to the epicycles of Aristotle and Ptolemy where matter is invented and physics is deformed by meaningless mathematical abstractions all built one upon another in a magical house of cards to the point of absurdity. This is the religion he challenged.
 
A

Aliceinunderland

So, as I see it, I am forced to make the best worst choice (quite a simple one when comparing the easy to predict results) which is - to rely on mankind's ability to actually discover and/or develop alternative energy sources while discovering/developing more efficient was to use energy without having a "12-year" gun held to our heads or, support that which would most certainly result in massive economic upheaval of the entire planet while empowering the lunatics that want you to buy into the emotionally driven BS (we're all gonna die!!!) while "they" maintain (and perhaps enhance) their lifestyle of hypocritical exception to the rule.
Sam, you certainly sound alarmed, as is no surprise if you listen to the sort of 'news' put out by Fox. Tucker Carlson continually interrupting and shouting-down his interviewee, whenever he made statements that sounded reasonable and to the point -that the global and US economy have to change if we want to mitigate the consequences of fossil-fuel use.

Meanwhile, there is simplistic fear-mongering going on at the bottom of the screen in large-print 'alarmist' statements such as 'Dems are using Climate Change to usher in Socialism'. This is blatant mind-manipulation, it is no wonder you're afraid. But what of? Clearly it is whatever Fox news tells you to be afraid of.

The previous video called 'New American' may or may not be a 'news' source, it looks like an opinion slot posing as such, where the commentator used words like "shocking" and "arrogant" to describe green policy, with well-planted images of Mao and Stalin, two murderers who gave Communism a bad name, and a picture of a barbecue, whilst implying -this is what we will have to give up. Get real, they are playing you.

Take a deep breath, the world is not going to end in 12 years. The world also did not end at the turn of the year 2000 or in 2012. This is equally alarmist, but that seems to be the currency Americans love to fling about. You need to take a vacation, come and live in the Pacific for a while, on an island, where people are calm. Then you'd see that those places are actually under threat from climate change and are dealing with rising sea levels and salination of their drinking water for e.g.. But they're not shrieking and wasting time hurling insults at anyone with a proposed solution. They are dealing with their reality. I think it's time America did too.
 
The previous video called 'New American' may or may not be a 'news' source, it looks like an opinion slot posing as such, where the commentator used words like "shocking" and "arrogant" to describe green policy, with well-planted images of Mao and Stalin, two murderers who gave Communism a bad name, and a picture of a barbecue, whilst implying -this is what we will have to give up. Get real, they are playing you.
Firstly being a news source does not in anyway legitimize it. I would have thought everyone had learnt this lesson these days. Secondly you ignore direct quotes from the vultures behind this movement, This is hardly an opinion. you also ignore the fact that the biggest name in oil is in on this agenda.

What really shocked me here was this. "Mao and Stalin, two murderers who gave Communism a bad name"

If you like the idea of global socialism or communism then by all means keep supporting this agenda, or immigrate to China. But don't think for a minute this is about a greener world, that is delusional. That is the hook that is being dangled in front of you. you'll be giving up much more than BBQs,

It is admitted, climate policy is being used for the redistribution of wealth. It will not be the billionaires giving up a single dollar, it is the middle class who are the target. It is so obvious what this is about, they are basically telling us straight up.

The wealth will not be distributed to the poor it will be distributed to tyrant dictators of third world countries who also sit at the table of the UN.

Believe it or not but it is possible to want to have a cleaner world, want an end to the dependency on fossil fuels, to have reverence for the planet and also be against this sheep in wolves clothing that is nothing more than a power grab of the highest level. As you said they don't give a flying F#ck about the Earth. These are global institution at the helm, the IMF, the world bank, The world health organisation, the UN etc..

The social engineers have constructed this, so that uniformed and uneducated masses will actually plead for total control. The Agenda 2030 outline makes this clear, children need to be "educated' to become the "agents of change". Just like every single war of the 20th and 21st century it has been justified through propaganda and lies and then people actually rally to support these gross criminals who profit from it. This is no different, no different at all.

How much history do we have to live through until we finally wake up? Who is really being "played" here?
 
Last edited:

Do we really think the IMF and World bank have our best interest at heart or the planet? Do you think the people that dominate the power structure of this world think as you do? Do you really think they are trying to save us?

I'm posting this here because it is this same power structure that is behind Agenda 2030 and Agenda 21 that is discussed here. it also has a strong spiritual message. Ronald Bernard was an insider in this elite power structure. The very same that is behind this agenda.

Believe it or not. That is your choice of course. For me, my heart and soul tells me this man is telling the truth.

In his words "Nature was nothing, it was to be destroyed."


"If you want liberation, don't look outside anymore, the change will be from inside." Wise words from Ronald Bernard.
 
Last edited:
I keep hearing about the oil companies and their propaganda from the faithful who have absolutely no idea about the history and major players that are behind the environmental movement. They are absolutely clueless as to what is going on here, it's not their fault the argument is emotionally appealing and well crafted.

Willfully ignorant? I hope not. Gullible? maybe. Naive? maybe. Uniformed? Absolutely!

In actuality It is the oligarchs of the oil industry that are at the root of the environmental movement. They do not care about oil, they know this era is coming to an end, they only care about power.

This is long, impeccably researched and should stand as a wake up call. Do yourself a favour and invest the time to watch this. By all means do the research yourself, fact check, dig your heels out of the sand and just consider, do whatever you need to do in order to wake up. This may be difficult for some to watch. Facts do not care about your feelings.

Part 1 The Rise of Eugenics. (Yes it is connected.)

Part 2 Oiligarchs for climate change. (A history lesson. begins at the 36 minute mark)

Part 3 Agenda : Technocracy (1:09 mark)

 
Top