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

Do you mean by "this lesson" that we should not expect a news source to be neutral or unbiased "these days"? If so then you are correct, 'news' is no different to 'opinion' and what is presented as one could easily be the other. So what is 'true news' and what is personal opinion is now indistinguishable. That is convenient for mass manipulation.

You're right, I should have used a small 'c' for communism, as in an ideology that promote the rights and shared ownership of the working class, as proposed by Marx and Lenin. Stalin and mao's images in the New American video were used as visual 'alarms' to instil anxiety by association with the green policy that the commentator was denouncing, as if by subscribing to those ideals, we would be in for Communism. China's current govt is not communism as Marx intended it. I do not support it, it is a fascist regime. I do not support Communism or Capitalism as both are corrupt. But I strongly doubt that calling for a halt on fossil-fuel use will ban barbecues, so that too is 'alarmist'.

Meanwhile Capitalism does not fulfil the true definition of democracy, despite the public opportunity to vote every 3,4,5 years, because the structure of society and economy doesn't change, many are disadvantaged under it, despite promises for the mostly unreachable carrot of 'equal opportunity'.
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.
I think the ideology behind with these two systems of govt is long dead, disassociated by corruption and it is naive of the public (including Greta Thunberg) to believe there is any hope of redemption by the perpetrators. The public's perception is shallow because most do not know and cannot comprehend the reality. They just want to have a nice life on a pleasant planet and they don't know how else to achieve it. It is selfishly motivated in a way, but it is the self-absorption of the ignorant. And perhaps a primal love of life and nature drives us. Fox news and New american are not really alerting us to the truly heinous situation we are faced with, they are leading with small-scale scares and it is another petty distraction. They do not show us how to challenge it, so they too are part of the problem.

Yes I think Ronald Bernard is good and true, because he has awoken, and is the more remarkable coming from a place of such darkness.
I believe him too.
So what do you propose we do?
 
Do you mean by "this lesson" that we should not expect a news source to be neutral or unbiased "these days"? If so then you are correct, 'news' is no different to 'opinion' and what is presented as one could easily be the other. So what is 'true news' and what is personal opinion is now indistinguishable. That is convenient for mass manipulation.
Indeed.

You're right, I should have used a small 'c' for communism, as in an ideology that promote the rights and shared ownership of the working class, as proposed by Marx and Lenin. Stalin and mao's images in the New American video were used as visual 'alarms' to instil anxiety by association with the green policy that the commentator was denouncing, as if by subscribing to those ideals, we would be in for Communism. China's current govt is not communism as Marx intended it. I do not support it, it is a fascist regime. I do not support Communism or Capitalism as both are corrupt. But I strongly doubt that calling for a halt on fossil-fuel use will ban barbecues, so that too is 'alarmist'.
Glad you cleared that up.

It really has nothing to do with calling for and end on fossil fuels, it is not really about that. The Oil tycoons are at the foundation of this movement. They know that the era of oil will die, they however do not plan on dying with it.

Meanwhile Capitalism does not fulfil the true definition of democracy, despite the public opportunity to vote every 3,4,5 years, because the structure of society and economy doesn't change, many are disadvantaged under it, despite promises for the mostly unreachable carrot of 'equal opportunity'.
I can agree with that.

I think the ideology behind with these two systems of govt is long dead, disassociated by corruption and it is naive of the public (including Greta Thunberg) to believe there is any hope of redemption by the perpetrators. The public's perception is shallow because most do not know and cannot comprehend the reality.
Perhaps it is really not the systems that are the problem but the corruption they allow to creep in. I think under any system the potential is there. The overseeing system for all these systems is the monetary system. Global usury and debt enslavement.

Fox news and New american are not really alerting us to the truly heinous situation we are faced with, they are leading with small-scale scares and it is another petty distraction. They do not show us how to challenge it, so they too are part of the problem.
I really don't think this issue is petty, this is about a global transformation that will effect everything.

So what do you propose we do?
I don't know how to save the world. All I can do is to liberate myself and hopefully serve as a role model for my children and others close to me. True change begins with the self, ultimately to be a beacon for others.

But i'll throw a few idealistic thoughts about for fun. I have sometimes suggested very simplistic things that seem far reaching. As I mentioned it is the monetary system that is the overlord to these other social systems. I would like to see an end to central banking an end to the usury debt based system. An end to centralized government. Yeah a total global transformation of a different kind. A archaic revival that would include liberating technologies that would free us from corporate monopolies. I would envision it something like how nature works, it would be fractal without centralized power. Like an organism. Similar in ways to a permaculture philosophy for all aspects of life. I really don't know how it would work, different people want different things. We would have to recognize those fundamental things we all agree on, they do exist, and they are quite simple really. I am a dreamer.

In the end this world is a reflection of our collective consciousness, so the crisis is a crisis of consciousness. Perhaps Ayahuasca and psilocybin for all who can! Haha.
 
Sure, the issue is not petty, but your newamerican guy blaming "it's the commies!" is a distraction from the whole truth. Howabout he say "it's a bunch of ugly old men (and women) who own the oil and rape children. You know them well, some of them are American, on corporate boards and in congress." But he probably wouldn't last long in that case.
I would like to see an end to central banking an end to the usury debt based system. An end to centralized government. Yeah a total global transformation of a different kind. A archaic revival that would include liberating technologies that would free us from corporate monopolies. I would envision it something like how nature works, it would be fractal without centralized power. Like an organism. Similar in ways to a permaculture philosophy for all aspects of life.
I agree with all of the above. Bring it!
[edit:] And sounds something akin to Robert Hockett's proposition (boasted about David?) that Tucker Carlson laughed at/shouted down - a complete change of socio-political-economic structure. Quote: "A resolution calling for a set of programs to transition the economy into a state-of-the-art green infrastructure economy" Do you have a problem with that?
Perhaps Ayahuasca and psilocybin for all who can! Haha.
Sure. But who's going to spike the real nasties? And do you really think there is still some good in them, as Ronald Bernard seems to? I think their long-term self-perpetuating 'bad behaviour' may have led to dna-based changes..
 
Last edited:
And should that not happen with a vengeance on Venus - at the point in the atmosphere corresponding to 1 atmosphere on Earth?
Returning to this after thinking about it a little, here is a back-of-the-envelope analysis. My physics is very rusty, so there may very well be an error of understanding or logic in this, but here's a possible way of looking at it:

The ideal gas law (equation) is:

PV = nRT,

where P, V, and T are pressure, volume, and temperature respectively, n is the number of moles of gas, and R is the ideal gas constant.

Now, we are comparing the temperature of a certain volume of Venus's atmosphere (gaseous) with the temperature of the same volume of Earth's atmosphere (also gaseous) at the same pressure (one atmosphere, but the actual number is irrelevant). The above equation applies because both Earth's and Venus's atmospheres are gaseous, at least at the given pressure.

Next, rearranging the ideal gas equation, we have:

T = PV/nR

And, because in both cases, P, V, and R (a constant) are identical, the only way for the temperatures to vary is if n varies (note though that this assumes that the gases in the atmosphere of both Venus and Earth have the same molar weight, which isn't true, because they have different compositions, but this is just a rough analysis, so let's make that assumption for now).

So, the only way for the greenhouse effect to cause the temperature to increase in this scenario is for it to decrease the value of n, but to me, this doesn't seem to be a plausible way for it to take effect (to where are the extra moles of gas going to go? Does the atmosphere expand away from the surface? Hmm, doesn't seem likely), especially because Venus's atmosphere is in general much denser than Earth's - yet, despite that Venus's atmosphere is much denser than Earth's in general, n must in this scenario be lower on Venus than on Earth, because Venus's temperature in this scenario is higher (unless our above assumption is wildly unreasonable, in which case this higher temperature could be due to the different molar weight of the different composition of gases).

I think the more plausible way for a greenhouse effect to cause a temperature increase in an atmosphere is for it to increase pressure (which, by the ideal gas law, is proportional to temperature). In other words, I don't think it is valid to compare the temperatures of Earth and Venus at the same pressure in an attempt to assess how significant the greenhouse effect of the latter is, simply because a greenhouse effect would work more by increasing both pressure and temperature simultaneously - which, indeed, is what we find on the surface of Venus.

Anyhow, those are my preliminary thoughts on this. If you think I've made a mistake (very possible) then please let me know.
 
Last edited:
Laird, the Venus Greenhouse effect was a concocted explanation of Carl Sagan's to dispute Velikosky's claim that Venus was hot due to be a young planet. There is really no science behind the "Venus Greenhouse" effect claim.
Now as to the rest, I am enjoying the discussion:)
 
Laird, the Venus Greenhouse effect was a concocted explanation of Carl Sagan's to dispute Velikosky's claim that Venus was hot due to be a young planet. There is really no science behind the "Venus Greenhouse" effect claim.
Well, in that case, Venus couldn't anyway function as a disproof of the greenhouse effect on Earth, so David's argument doesn't work even then. (I know little to nothing of Velikosky and his claims, so I am neither endorsing nor condemning them).

Now as to the rest, I am enjoying the discussion:)
:)
 
Your last several posts, LoneShaman, deserved far more of a Thanks than just clicking the Like button.

Everything I read in these posts suggests the same view I hold. My eyes opened in 2003. Ever since, I have studied deeply into the world and the scene behind the scenes. No corporate owned media will ever touch the serious stuff as Ronald Bernard (and many other incredibly brave folks have pointed to.

I understand the "feet on the ground" approach to the tricky stuff that Skeptiko has explored for what, over ten years? I understand how so many members come from the science background and need science to resolves so many things like "climate" issues... but (opinion time), it seems to me that unless enough folks wake up to the bigger picture, they are assisting the handing over of this Earth and all life on it to that which, if they knew the true nature of what "that" is... they would never find themselves unwitting minions in "their" game.
 
they are assisting the handing over of this Earth and all life on it to that which, if they knew the true nature of what "that" is... they would never find themselves unwitting minions in "their" game.
So, I look at it like this:

AGW is a real problem. The solution is to minimise our carbon emissions. One minimally invasive way to do this is for each sovereign political entity to implement a fee-and-dividend scheme, which taxes carbon emissions but returns those taxes to the people who paid them in the first place. Other minimally invasive ways include public education and social incentives to change carbon-intensive practices.

None of that (all of which I endorse), it seems to me, involves "handing over" anything. If power elites demand unreasonable solutions which are only going to entrench their power further, then I oppose them.

So, where, exactly, is the political problem, and how, exactly, am I a minion?
 
So, I look at it like this:

AGW is a real problem. The solution is to minimise our carbon emissions. One minimally invasive way to do this is for each sovereign political entity to implement a fee-and-dividend scheme, which taxes carbon emissions but returns those taxes to the people who paid them in the first place. Other minimally invasive ways include public education and social incentives to change carbon-intensive practices.

None of that (all of which I endorse), it seems to me, involves "handing over" anything. If power elites demand unreasonable solutions which are only going to entrench their power further, then I oppose them.

So, where, exactly, is the political problem, and how, exactly, am I a minion?
You are avoiding the critical component that ensures your utopian dream is doomed... and the controllers know this about you and folks like you (which are a significant percentage of the human population)... that you never seem to consider this one, single, critical component. Let's see if you can nail down what that is.
 
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).
Hahaha, I bet you do (forget, that is). (Just like I believe that you "accidentally" invited me to a private conversation on this subject). The guy has no expertise or training in the area, and formed his conclusion after a few hours browsing online. What a joker. "Experts" like this are worth nothing compared to guys 'n gals who have spent their lives investigating this subject, at least nine out of ten of whom disagree with this pretender.
 
Last edited:
Sure, the issue is not petty, but your newamerican guy blaming "it's the commies!" is a distraction from the whole truth. Howabout he say "it's a bunch of ugly old men (and women) who own the oil and rape children. You know them well, some of them are American, on corporate boards and in congress." But he probably wouldn't last long in that case.
True, it is not the whole truth. Perhaps if people actually new that it was the oil oligarchs constructing this it would prompt more reasonable thought from them. They don't know however, they believe the opposite and have fallen for the propaganda, using the method of controlled opposition. These power elite do have admitted socialist inclinations though, but yeah the issue is bigger than that.

I agree with all of the above. Bring it!
[edit:] And sounds something akin to Robert Hockett's proposition (boasted about David?) that Tucker Carlson laughed at/shouted down - a complete change of socio-political-economic structure. Quote: "A resolution calling for a set of programs to transition the economy into a state-of-the-art green infrastructure economy" Do you have a problem with that?
What is so insidious about this is that it does sound very appealing. You have to give them credit for their psychological understanding of how to push peoples buttons. The devil is in the details though. The end game is total concentrated power, the complete opposite of what I was suggesting. As we can see we do want the same simple things, but as Ronald says we have to stop looking outside ourselves, we have to stop asking for more government control. They are feeding of of us, I really believe we have the power to starve them of power by empowering ourselves.

Sure. But who's going to spike the real nasties? And do you really think there is still some good in them, as Ronald Bernard seems to? I think their long-term self-perpetuating 'bad behaviour' may have led to dna-based changes..
We all come from the source, we all have the potential for evil and good. I really don't know if this extreme level sociopath and psychopathic behavior is reversible. I would like to think so, but I doubt it. That would be the philosophers stone of psychiatry.

Mother Aya would surely kick their ass. It has helped with criminal behavior, but these guys are next level. Maybe their is something to be said for archonic possession as in the Gnostic mythology. The 2 thirds light and 1 third darkness duality game of the Demiurge. In the bigger scheme of things perhaps it is necessary for us, and they are playing their part for our own spiritual evolution.
 
Do we really think the IMF and World bank have our best interest at heart or the planet?
So, the IMF warns about the problem of AGW. And Hitler was a vegetarian towards the end of his life. Even those among us humans who are predominantly evil can embrace good. This proves nothing (and the video wouldn't even play for me).

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."
I haven't watched the video, but based on your description, I don't see the relevance. It seems to me that it is only relevant if we believe in the first place that the entire science behind global warming is a hoax, which, as I've written already in this thread, is a silly idea. The science goes back well over a century, as I've also pointed out already in this thread. Was Arrhenius back in 1889 a part of the hoax? If so, how is it that so few have seen through his lies over a century later?
 
Last edited:
"Maurice Strong" The godfather of Climate Change
I listened to the first ten or twenty seconds of this. The narrator sounds like an arrogant tosser. I'm not interested in listening to him any further. Perhaps you could summarise this video for us. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
This is long, impeccably researched and should stand as a wake up call. Do yourself a favour and invest the time to watch this.
Have watched this in the past, but can't recall its relevance (if any) to climate change. Again, perhaps you could provide a summary of its relevance.
 
Hey Laird,

Ok I get it, you are committed to your own narrow perspective. It is not my job to convince you of anything. I see that any interaction on this is pointless with you. You have made this abundantly clear. I direct my input to those who have an open mind, who do not have a full picture but are willing to listen, who understand that not everything is as it is being portrayed in the media. I have shown indisputable facts about the origins and people behind this movement, I realize that it must be inconveniant truths that are hard to swallow, but none the less it is true.

Peace bro.
 
Ok I get it, you are committed to your own narrow perspective.
I think you're mischaracterising my perspective when you say that it is "narrow", LS. I have allowed that global players who don't have our best interests at heart could be exploiting the science; I would also allow that they may be successfully pressuring certain elements of the media to over-exaggerate the immediacy of the problem's effects (though the problem is becoming more and more immediate).

But I also think that the idea that the science itself was (all) hoaxed (presumably by those global players) is unreasonable. The science goes back over a century. Does the hoax too? Serious question directed at you, not rhetorical. I mean, maybe you think that this is a long-term, inter-generational hoax which goes all the way back to Arrhenius.

Likewise. Though we disagree on this, I think you're a good guy - otherwise, I wouldn't be sharing Beatles songs with you.
 
I think you're mischaracterising my perspective when you say that it is "narrow", LS. I have allowed that global players who don't have our best interests at heart could be exploiting the science; I would also allow that they may be successfully pressuring certain elements of the media to over-exaggerate the immediacy of the problem's effects (though the problem is becoming more and more immediate).
Fair enough.

But I also think that the idea that the science itself was (all) hoaxed (presumably by those global players) is unreasonable. The science goes back over a century. Does the hoax too? Serious question directed at you, not rhetorical. I mean, maybe you think that this is a long-term, inter-generational hoax which goes all the way back to Arrhenius.
I think this is overstating things. Arrhenius was quite brilliant but he was also a Eugenicist, another psuedo science that was overturned, no one is perfect. It is really no different to the many many consensus views that have been overturned in the history of science, but there really is no consensus. Every generation thinks they have it right and then is shown to be wrong. We have so much so called settled science that is in error IMO.

Remember the entire basis is founded on computer models prone to an enormous amount of tweaking that can produce any outcome. They have been shown to be overemphasizing things and all the while omitting major factors that impact the outcome. Their has been shown to be fraud from the beginning, from Al Gores correlation of Co2 and temperature, to the Hockey stick graph, up until the recent audit on the IPCC. You really need to understand the restrictions placed on the IPCC by Maurice Strong and how this process works, it is rigged for just one conclusion only. It is corrupted to the core. I think the science is in the process of correcting itself actually as I suggested in my earlier posts. We'll have to wait and see. There are plenty of legitimate scientists who dispute the IPCC, You really do not have the complete support of science on your side. You really don't sorry. Their voices are getting stronger I hope it can get above the noise.

Likewise. Though we disagree on this, I think you're a good guy - otherwise, I wouldn't be sharing Beatles songs with you.
I appreciate that, I think the same. I was impressed with your openness in another thread, As I in my reply, I think you may have a gift. A difficult beast to tame yes, but a gift none the less. I think you know what I'm talking about.

I'm sure we would find more agreement than disagreement on many topics. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
 
I think the science is in the process of correcting itself actually as I suggested in my earlier posts. We'll have to wait and see.
Yep. I'll be very interested in particular to see whether the IPCC comes out and says that all of its models have been broken by the data to which your man Ben refers, as he seems to suggest it will. I'm not expecting it, but as you say, we'll see. It will be interesting.

I appreciate that, I think the same. I was impressed with your openness in another thread, As I in my reply, I think you may have a gift. A difficult beast to tame yes, but a gift none the less. I think you know what I'm talking about.
I'll respond in that thread. I hadn't realised that your reply in that thread was - at least partly - directed at me. Now that I know, I have a better idea of how to construct a response.

I'm sure we would find more agreement than disagreement on many topics.
Absolutely, man.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
And thanks for yours.
 
Yep. I'll be very interested in particular to see whether the IPCC comes out and says that all of its models have been broken by the data to which your man Ben refers, as he seems to suggest it will. I'm not expecting it, but as you say, we'll see. It will be interesting.
I got to say the more I have learnt about this issue compels me to think that an admission from the IPCC like this is very unlikely. The saving grace may come from the rest of the scientific community and major journals, it will take time. Yep interesting times.
 
Top