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

[LoneShaman]

LS,
Can you give us a summary of how Big Oil will make its money out of a 'carbon-free world'. I can well believe that someone with money is behind this hoax, but I don't understand how they gain.

David

It's even broader than just monetary gain.

Remember who we are talking about at the top of the food chain here, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the British and Dutch royal families. To these people money is no longer the issue, it is about monopolizing every aspect of life. Control. It has never been about oil.

In the short term by controlling the resources of oil, they can create or rather impose a scarcity, in the longer term not just for oil but all resources under guise of environmental protection.

Through "leveraging" they can impose costs on all of industry and force them to play the game. This is like the mob running a protection racket.

Ultimately it's about restructuring the economy in their favor.

"Energy, on the other is the driving force in an economy; money is simply its surrogate. There is surely a strong argument at this stage of human development for devising a new economic theory based on the flow of energy.'
"The First Global Revolution" - A report by the council of the club of Rome. p-99.

There we have it, control the flow of energy and you control the world.

I'd really recommend watching both How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World, it is worth talking a few hours to invest in. The subject is so deep and vast. I can't really do it justice with my words.

To add even minions such as Al gore have profited greatly from the scare, Just like any other false flag if you are the perpetrator you know ahead of time where to invest your money.

 

[David Bailey]

In the short term by controlling the resources of oil, they can create or rather impose a scarcity, in the longer term not just for oil but all resources under guise of environmental protection.

Through "leveraging" they can impose costs on all of industry and force them to play the game. This is like the mob running a protection racket.

But any carbon taxes will not go to them, but to governments, or conceivably on 'climate reparations'. China thinks it is owed $100Bn in climate reparations!

Surely if anything they will be controlled as to how much oil they can pump?

David

 

[LoneShaman]

But any carbon taxes will not go to them, but to governments, or conceivably on 'climate reparations'. China thinks it is owed $100Bn in climate reparations!

Surely if anything they will be controlled as to how much oil they can pump?

David

Carbon tax is just part of the story. Governments are not at the top of the food chain, this is the trick. We are meant to believe they are in control. Money makes the world go around as they say, but in fact it is energy. Global government is absolutely a part of all of this. Countries do not print their own money, countries that do attempt to take matters into their own hands have been the victims of imperialism. This is actually one way we could free ourselves from this situation by insisting governments can print their own money. It would not end corruption but it would end it for these few internationalists. Take the US for example it is not the US who are in control of their own money it is a private group of international bankers. The central banks do not really care who is writing the laws.

Debt = Money, including Government debt. Banks are the major beneficiary of money created from air, governments are their customers as well.

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."

James A.Garfield
​

Where do the tax dollars go? To pay for services right? Think again.

"...100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services that taxpayers expect from their government."

The Grace Commision 1982
​

The Government then borrows yet more money from the fed in order to pay for said services. It is a beautifully constructed scam, the result is slavery with a few international bankers at the helm.

And you guys want to argue about presidents? All the while this is what is really happening. While this is in place it does not matter who you vote for, These guys don't give a shit about that, they are still in control.

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

It's even broader than just monetary gain.

Remember who we are talking about at the top of the food chain here, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the British and Dutch royal families. To these people money is no longer the issue, it is about monopolizing every aspect of life. Control. It has never been about oil.

In the short term by controlling the resources of oil, they can create or rather impose a scarcity, in the longer term not just for oil but all resources under guise of environmental protection.

Unlike tobacco, oil is not just one collaborative/allied industry and financial-technological interest. The industry at the very least is segmented into heavily competing facets.

Big Oil​

Primary Commercial Tectonic Recovery​

Primary Private Tectonic Recovery (Commercial Execs own this privately)​

Secondary Commercial/ Natural Gas Fracking​

​

Little Oil​

Secondary Private/Fracking​

Tertiary Recovery Private​

Shale Oil Private​

Little Oil (or what the media incorrectly calls 'Fracking'), or tertiary recovery private companies are the group which has propelled the US to become the leading exporter of crude oil globally. Approximately 40% of the 'shale oil' formation which exists between the Eagle Ford formation in Texas, all the way through Alaska, exists in a form of shallow encapsulated formations recovery called 'Tertiary Recovery' - This is big in Central Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota right now.

This Little Oil recovery category was also responsible for the collapse in oil pricing in late 2014 - as new Tertiary recovery technologies came online.​

For this reason above, Primary Commercial oil wants this category of production shut down and they will gladly employ climate change as the lever used to accomplish this - as Little Oil is causing lower global pricing on crude oil than they ideally want. So, accordingly here are the bullshit campaigns you see underway:

'Fracking' Fracking BAD! Bad sounding word is BAD! ('Fracking' is misdefined as 'every other method of recovering crude oil except for large commercial tectonic recovery')​

'Fracking' Natural Gas is BAD! Blue flames in your kitchen sink - BAD!​

Pipelines from Tertiary and Shale Fields run across native lands BAD!! Must pay $$$ for this...​

High-tar oils BAD! (The tar is collected and used at cracking - there is no difference)​

Shale oil BAD! Greehouse Gas!​

Earthquakes are caused by 'Fracking' - BAD!​

Methane escape BAD! Greenhouse Gas! (No oil recovery has allowed methane escape for decades... your wells and collection mechanism must be inspected and certified for this...)​

​

In this manner they seek to get crude oil prices back over $120 per barrel, and shut down smaller competing interests through climate change laws. This constitutes nothing more than a Crony wealth play to head off taxes being used to stimulate competing energy mechanisms.

‣ Under the Big Oil/Crony high price oil method - Cronies 'tax' (extraction payments) the oil user and keep the premium for themselves as wealth.​

​

‣ Under a use-taxation method - a governing body administers the tax, and allocates 92% of the tax revenues to investment in the alternative energy space.​

​

Nothing that a Crony does is about anything other than increasing their power, unaccountability and wealth. These are NOT capital entities, as capital is re-invested in small local development (actually not far off Laird's dividend idea...) - Big Oil Cronies oppose the tax because they are Global Socialists (Globzi's), not capitalists. They do not want competing technologies. But they will use Climate Change to accomplish this wealth build.

This is why you will see me both be a climate change proponent - but also be suspicious of those who vehemently/mindlessly push its concerns...

​

 

[LoneShaman]

A very concise run down of the scam.

Global Warming Scam | IPCC Banker Mafia | Carbon Tax | Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai​

So who is behind the IPCC? well we have already covered that.

 

[David Bailey]

I still think this explanation is too hand-waiving for me.

I mean, if the climate hysteria grows in intensity, crude oil is just as vulnerable to being turned off as any of the newer methods of extraction - the primary justification for shutting any of them down is the CO2 emissions.

Furthermore, they would potentially be vulnerable to any half decent low carbon energy source. The only one I can immediately think of would be conceivably be cold fusion, but there could be others. This is so low tech (if it works) that any country might start to exploit it and that would spread.

Carbon credits are supposed to be spent on planting trees or whatever - so again it isn't clear to me that Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai's scheme would work either. It also seems just too complicated.

Put it this way (and maybe this is a bad way of looking at it), if I was explaining to someone that CC was a hoax - basically for all the reasons we have already discussed - I can't imagine myself satisfactorily answering the their final question - who gains from this hoax.

David

 

[LoneShaman]

I still think this explanation is too hand-waiving for me.

I mean, if the climate hysteria grows in intensity, crude oil is just as vulnerable to being turned off as any of the newer methods of extraction - the primary justification for shutting any of them down is the CO2 emissions.

Once again it is not really about oil.

Furthermore, they would potentially be vulnerable to any half decent low carbon energy source. The only one I can immediately think of would be conceivably be cold fusion, but there could be others. This is so low tech (if it works) that any country might start to exploit it and that would spread.

Cold fusion has a very interesting history.

Carbon credits are supposed to be spent on planting trees or whatever - so again it isn't clear to me that Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai's scheme would work either. It also seems just too complicated.

Common Dave that's just hand waving as well, piling up red tape is a great way to put people off. Planting trees! Are you serious? The fact is carbon trading is a commodity so there is profiting being done. You can then start to search for things such as the world banks relationship to this and Rothschilds documents to set up an international body to coordinate the trading. As well as calls for a world carbon bank. It calls for an immense amount of digging and sifting through documents, I have done a little, I have no doubt. It's quite obvious. There are documents going back to 73, some I have posted and quoted. Does it not mean anything? Do you really expect to see a nice neat trail leading to the culprits? I mean really? You gotta give them some credit, they have dominated the financial sector for over 200 years. They basically run countries through their system of central banks and the general public are still none the wiser.

Put it this way (and maybe this is a bad way of looking at it), if I was explaining to someone that CC was a hoax - basically for all the reasons we have already discussed - I can't imagine myself satisfactorily answering the their final question - who gains from this hoax.

Do you accept that the organisations and people I've mentioned are at the root of this movement? If so your pretty much 75% of the way there. My next question would be why do you think they would shoot themselves in the foot? It does not make sense does it?

 

[Laird]

I still think this explanation is too hand-waiving for me.

Well, hopefully LoneShaman is able to address your concerns with plausibility, because he simply ignores mine.

 

[LoneShaman]

Well, hopefully LoneShaman is able to address your concerns with plausibility, because he simply ignores mine.

Hah! You won't even look at the evidence against your religion Laird.

I have already given plausibility, what is not plausible is the denial. I can't give site to the blind. It is simply hand waved away as David puts it. Maybe you can answer Laird.

Do you accept that the organisations and people that are documented thoroughly are behind this movement? Do you simply deny this?

And then why do you think they would shoot themselves in the foot?

Then we can weigh plausibility.

 

[LoneShaman]

Perhaps you should direct your questions of plausibility to the Vice Chairman of Rothschild.

Vice-Chairman of Rothschild: “Carbon trading must be globally regulated”​

Simon Linnett, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, has called for a new international body, the World Environment Agency, to regulate carbon trading.

In a recently published paper, Trading Emissions, for the Social Market Foundation, Mr Linnett argues that the International problem of climate change demands an international solution.

Unless governments cede some of their sovereignty to a new world body

, he says, a global carbon trading scheme cannot be enforced and regulated.

“An urgent global response.” This was how Nicolas Stern described the problem of carbon dioxide emissions, in his recent review of the economics of climate change. The sense of an impending crisis infuses our all debates on this issue.

The first step must be to recognise the scope of the problem. Unlike other pollutants, such as litter or nuclear waste, CO2 emissions have impact on a global level – and only on a global level.

The pollutant that is plant food, is compared to nuclear waste!

This means we have to deal with the issue internationally. The problem is literally too big for any one country to handle. Old alliances, divisions and ‘special relationships’ are a meaningless hindrance.

I believe it is essential that governments and the private sector work together to solve the problem. As a banker, I suppose I would say that, but only such a partnership will we be able to harness what Al Gore called the multitude of little solutions, which all add up to a better outcome.

Only the private sector can successfully develop those solutions, but only governments can provide a framework for them to be applied internationally.

As a banker, I also welcome the fact that the ‘cap-and-trade’ system is becoming the dominant methodology for CO2 control. Unlike taxation, or plain regulation, cap-and-trade offers the greatest scope for private sector involvement and innovation.

Furthermore, taxation and regulation can only be levied at local or national levels, whereas cap-and-trade can operate on a global level. And remember, the problem is global.

But for the private sector to participate enthusiastically in a global carbon trading market, governments must collectively establish a robust framework within which trading can occur. It must be long, loud and legal:

• Long: it is going to be around for a long time;
• Loud: it will be the dominant mechanism for sponsoring changes in behaviour and we are going to make this perfectly clear to the world’s people; and
• Legal: we will enforce it through law.

A key implication of creating a legal yet global system of trading, is the loss of sovereignty it implies. Governments must be prepared to allow some subordination of national interests to this world initiative, on the issue of emissions. This need not mean a new system of government, above individual nations.

But it would mean a change to the way treaties are agreed and worded. Instead of saying “we will cut emissions by x per cent by date y” (pledges which are inevitably broken), such statements will have to morph to “we will make our contribution to a scheme which cuts, across certain industries and gases, emissions by x per cent by date y.”

The European nations already do this, on certain issues, yielding sovereignty to the EU. And in time, the EU itself will eventually have to yield to a larger body – one which includes the economic powerhouses of India and China.

Perhaps they will gain a new appreciation of their burden on the broader world. Similarly, if the scheme were to expand geographically to include India, China and, ultimately, the US, so too could the prospect be realised of such allowances becoming the reserve currency of the world, taking over that role held for most of the 20th century by gold.

So emissions trading could establish a new world order for a sustainable planet, one based on the sharing of the earth’s ability to absorb harmful emissions. To allocate that ‘resource’ fully and properly will, in turn, require resourcefulness and imagination across the globe.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/vice-...rbon-trading-must-be-globally-regulated/14294

 

[Laird]

Hah! You won't even look at the evidence against your religion Laird.

I looked at it years back, and concluded that it was not worth my time to look any further.

I have already given plausibility

No, you haven't. You have not once answered my question, asked in various forms which all amount to this: "If it all began with Maurice Strong, and it is all - including the science - a hoax, then how did he (Maurice Strong) convince 9 out of 10 top-publishing climate scientists to join his hoax?"

If you care to meaningfully answer that question, then I will answer the questions you put to me.

 

[LoneShaman]

I looked at it years back, and concluded that it was not worth my time to look any further.



No, you haven't. You have not once answered my question, asked in various forms which all amount to this: "If it all began with Maurice Strong, and it is all - including the science - a hoax, then how did he (Maurice Strong) convince 9 out of 10 top-publishing climate scientists to join his hoax?"

If you care to meaningfully answer that question, then I will answer the questions you put to me.

A lot has changed since "years back" including the discovery of a vast amount of data manipulation and fraud.

How am I know to know what happens behind closed doors? Possibly the same technique that is used time and time again. Money. The IPCC was setup to establish the link of human caused warming and not natural possibilities. The scientists are politically selected. Behind closed doors. The government controls the scientific establishments through funding. It is not immune to corruption. To think otherwise is just naive.

If we look back at how this all started on a scientific level it began with James Hanson. How are his predictions doing? There are two issues here. I am more than happy to look at the science but you are not.

Like I said maybe you can direct your questions of plausibly to the Vice Chairman of Rothschild.

You cherry pick Laird. You ignore all the most crucial pieces of evidence that are now right in your face. You have to ask yourself why do I do this?

 

[LoneShaman]

I have a very similar question for you Laird. It is essentially the same question you are asking me.

How is it possible that most scientists support adding a known neurotoxin to vaccines? Why is it that pharmaceutical companies are not held liable for damages when every other product is? I mean how could this be? I mean did the pharmaceutical companies just call up scientists and ask them to get in on this with us?

Do you see how stupid that sounds?

 

[Laird]

How am I know to know what happens behind closed doors? Possibly the same technique that is used time and time again. Money.

Money? It doesn't seem plausible to me that Maurice Strong or his cohorts could have bribed 9/10ths of the climate scientists of the world, and continued to bribe newcomers over the subsequent decades.

What else have you got?

The IPCC was setup to establish the link of human caused warming and not natural possibilities.

"Establish" is a loaded word. "Assess the risk of" is less loaded.

The scientists are politically selected. Behind closed doors.

Sounds ominous. But how do you think they ought to be selected?

And why focus solely on the IPCC? The 9/10ths consensus amongst climate scientists extends beyond the IPCC.

The government controls the scientific establishments through funding. It is not immune to corruption.

So, let me try to get this straight. I'm trying to understand exactly what you're suggesting, because it honestly doesn't make sense to me. Here's a start which you can hopefully clarify better:

Maurice Strong corrupted/directed the governments, who in turn corrupted/directed the scientific establishments, who in turn [fill in the blank] and got the vast majority of publishing climate scientists to promulgate a scientific (and sociopolitical) hoax.

If we look back at how this all started on a scientific level it began with James Hanson. How are his predictions doing?

Apparently, pretty well.

Like I said maybe you can direct your questions of plausibly to the Vice Chairman of Rothschild.

I'd rather direct them to the person making the implausible claims (you).

You cherry pick Laird.

I practice discernment.

 

[Laird]

I have a very similar question for you Laird. It is essentially the same question you are asking me.

How is it possible that most scientists support adding a known neurotoxin to vaccines?

I'm not well-read on vaccines, so this question doesn't mean much to me. If this were to be an analogous question, surely you should have confirmed that I am alleging a vaccine hoax based on neurotoxins?... but I'm not - perhaps I would if I knew more, but as it stands, this is far from "essentially the same question" that I am asking you.

 

[LoneShaman]

Money? It doesn't seem plausible to me that Maurice Strong or his cohorts could have bribed 9/10ths of the climate scientists of the world, and continued to bribe newcomers over the subsequent decades.

This 9/10ths fallacy does not seem to stand up with the growing number of published papers saying otherwise. Is this something you have measured? No, you are assuming it to be true. A card carrying meteorologist is not adequately equipped. The rest is just your opinion. You really have nothing except this 9/10ths thing and religious zealotry. And some pretty active denial. That it in a nutshell.

Apparently, pretty well.

Oh yes the media, I know you won't watch this, it has actual facts.

I'm not well-read on vaccines, so this question doesn't mean much to me. If this were to be an analogous question, surely you should have confirmed that I am alleging a vaccine hoax based on neurotoxins?... but I'm not - perhaps I would if I knew more, but as it stands, this is far from "essentially the same question" that I am asking you.

Well you are not well versed in climate science either. The reasons why are inconsequential, because you have apparently no reasons except the tired old consensus argument. This is also a consensus. So it is the same question, because it is not about facts but beliefs. It is just not possible for you to answer with any level of credulity.

 

[LoneShaman]

Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information

Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

Process and method were orchestrated to single out CO2 and show it was causing runaway global warming.

In the 1980s I warned Environment Canada employee Henry Hengeveld that convincing a politician of an idea is a problem. Henry’s career involved promoting CO2 as a problem. I explained the bigger problem comes if you convince them and the claim is proved wrong. You either admit your error or hide the truth. Environment Canada and member nations of the IPCC chose to hide or obfuscate the truth.

Thousands of careers have been established that involve promoting CO2 as a problem. This is undeniable.

IPCC Definition of Climate Change Was First Major Deception

People were deceived when the IPCC was created. Most believe it’s a government commission of inquiry studying all climate change. The actual definition from the United Nations Environment Program (article 1) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) limits them to only human causes.

“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”

So when you rig the deck it is actually quite easy.

IPCC Infer And Prove Rather than Disprove a Hypothesis

To make the process appear scientific a hypothesis was inferred based on the assumptions that,

• CO2 was a greenhouse gas (GHG) that slowed the escape of heat from the Earth.
• the heat was back-radiated to raise the global temperature.
• if CO2 increased global temperature would rise.
• CO2 would increase because of expanding industrial activity.
• the global temperature rise was inevitable.

Meanwhile cold and snow records are dropping like flies.

As Karl Popper said,

It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.

I have asked it before and no one has answered, has the null hypothesis been falsified? And how is the hypothesis falsified? This is pretty basic scientific principles right here.

Procedures to Hide Problems with IPCC Science And Heighten Alarmism.

IPCC procedures and mechanisms were established to deceive. IPCC has three Working Groups (WG). WGI produces the Physical Science Basis Report, which proves CO2 is the cause. WGII produces the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report that is based on the result of WGI. WGIII produces the Mitigation of Climate Change Report. WGI and WGII accept WGI’s claim that warming is inevitable. They state,

Five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios if they are to be useful for impact researchers and policy makers are suggested: Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).

So they have to tow the line if they are to be "useful".

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

An example of this SPM deception occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, as lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,

“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

to read,

“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

The phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline as planned.

Initially it was assumed that constantly increasing atmospheric CO2 created constantly increasing temperature. Then it was determined that the first few parts per million achieved the greenhouse capacity of CO2. Eschenbach graphed the reality



Just as I clearly demonstrated earlier, there are simple physical reasons why this is so.
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-136409

To get around this....

The IPCC created a positive feedback to keep temperatures rising. It claims CO2 causes temperature increase that increases evaporation and water vapour amplifies the temperature trend. Lindzen and Choi, discredited this in their 2011 paper which concluded “The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”

Furthermore...

Climate sensitivity has declined since and gradually approaches zero. A recent paper by Spencer claims “…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11...-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/

Yeah, but none of this really matters does it? We are no longer in the realms of true science, that ship sailed long, long ago. This is about politics and peoples vulnerability to feel good about themselves by standing for a just cause. Let's not forget the "Consensus". How perfect it is. Never mind it's the very same en slavers of the Earth and human race that have been at it for hundreds of years dangling the bait. "I don't see how it's possible therefore it is not!" they scream as the net closes around them, and the cold approaches.

I really have to ask myself once again why I waste my time here.

 

[Steve]

Meanwhile cold and snow records are dropping like flies.

Assuming you’re correct in your overall argument about this topic.

What are the most urgent problems in the area of environment that we face, and in which order should we attempt to solve them?

I’m attempting to clear muddy waters in my mind LS.

 

[LoneShaman]

I’m attempting to clear muddy waters in my mind LS.

Indeed the waters on this issue is also muddied. You can clear it by looking at the actual evidence and how that evidence has been muddied. This is just one way it is done.

Here are all the graphs and historic news articles that support them. This is not conjecture it is history. History simply refutes the claims, it really is that easy. You do not have to be a scientist to realize this. Hell we were supposed to be in the early stages of an ice age when CO2 was rising! How do we justify that, how is that plausible?
https://iowaclimate.org/2019/02/14/extreme-fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment/

AGW is false, this is very clear to me, it should be to all that actually look. Look at those graphs, you can see how they are misused then you can see the actual reality. I recommend you check out more from this channel. There is little conjecture and mostly just historical facts that have little room for spin.

The other issue is the well documented fact of just who is behind all this. The response just seems to simply shrug the shoulders and say Meh! Even there own words tend to have little effect on the zealots. Meh! Nothing to see here.

Then we have the other illusion of apparent noble and truth seeking scientific institutions that are beyond corruption. And that big lies can never possibly exist. Because... well simply because. Never mind history's lessons, and how we have been duped time and time again. This time we can be sure right? 9/10ths of scientists agree. And the Earth was once flat and the center of the universe too.

So look at this situation. Ask your intuition, and try to strip all of the mental conditioning that has been perpetrated against us. What is it telling you? The science has been muddied, the motive and perpetrators are muddy as hell, the social conditioning is muddy, the reasoning is absolutely muddy.

The claim against me is one of plausibility, even from a denier. But from where I stand there is no plausibility to found anywhere in the counter arguments. If you accept some of the premises, which in at least some they have to be, otherwise denial is simply worn on the sleeve, we can't have that though. If they are accepted then certain other consequences must logically follow. If people are able to hold just a fraction of these things in their mind at once then plausibility indeed refutes those positions to the point of absurdity. And so cognitive dissonance forms. Look at the psychology that is taking place, it is on full display. Some will think I am a conspiracy nut, but have I not shown sources at every point to justify my reasoning? I am not making anything up, nothing. It is just ignored, and the argument is steered and redirected away from inconvenient facts so as not to acknowledge them.

Assuming you’re correct in your overall argument about this topic.

What are the most urgent problems in the area of environment that we face, and in which order should we attempt to solve them?

I have mentioned several other environmental issues before, they are vast. So why are these same people Rockefeller's, Rothschild's, Royals and other oilagarchs that are so concerned with environmental disaster not addressing these at all? Because there is an agenda, it was laid out even before it was promoted as an issue. it is actually there for all to see if we truly step back and look and leave our emotions aside.

This is my major gripe with the CO2 thing. It is being framed as a pollutant, this is absurd. it detracts from all of these other much more important issues. We most definitely should change our ways, but this is not the way to do it. It should involve education but not indoctrination. A radical change is required but we should be very careful about how and who implements it.

I have even worked at places before that were dumping the most toxic chemicals directly into natural streams. I quit, and reported it. As far as I know nothing happened.

You can see that between the lines are implications for nuclear power. I have reservations about that, there are again two sides to that. All I can say is that it does make me a bit squeamish. We don't have the technology to control it when it goes wrong and the impacts are far reaching and long lasting. On the other hand it would stem CO2. Is that the price we should pay for something so ambiguous and unfounded?

Fossil fuels also contribute to harm in different ways, but CO2 is not one of them.This cause only puts more power into the hands that have plundered the planet in the name of profit, and even if these measures were taken it will not hold back the damage that is being caused. It is being used against us and not for us, it is for "them". This is not the way. This is the way to technocratic tyranny not a cleaner Earth.

I am going to hopefully be off grid within a year, I will be working on permaculture principles, this is my choice. I cannot tell the world they need to the same. But yep they need to do the same. :)

I left the Trump thread because it is a pointless exercise in futility. Nothing is so divisive than politics and religion, no we can add this subject to that. They all have the same things in common. One being Dogma and blind faith.

 

[LoneShaman]

Here's a little extreme weather and falsification update. The GSM may be giving us a taste. What did those 9/10ths of scientists tell us about warming winters and melting glaciers and disappearing arctic ice and kids growing up without snow and deteriorating ski industry? :)

Hell, I might guy for a ski trip, in summer no less!

AUSTRALIA JUST SUFFERED ITS COLDEST SUMMER DAY ON RECORD — MAINSTREAM MEDIA SILENT

Australia’s record lowest Summer daily-max temperature has just been broken, as reported by www.weatherzone.com.au.

A brutal Antarctica air-mass blasted southeastern Australia during the opening days of summer, pumping deep snow into parts of Tasmania, Victoria and NSW, as well as limiting temperatures to as much as 15C below the seasonal average.

On Tuesday, December 03, Thredbo Top Station‘s highest recording was a mere -1.0C (30.2F) — this was Australia’s lowest summer daily maximum temperature of all time, busting the -0.8C (30.6F) measured at Mount Buller on Dec 25, 2006 (approaching the historically deep solar minimum of cycle 23).

Furthermore, an overnight low of -4.0C (24.8F) was observed at Tasmania’s Mount Wellington early Wednesday morning, Australia’s lowest summer temperature in four years.

HEAVY SUMMER SNOW BURIES PARTS OF SOUTHEAST AUSTRALIA

An unseasonable “cold snap” -ha- is still delivering significant dumps of summer snow across the Victorian Alps, as well as rare flurries as low as Mount William in the Grampians.

Many Aussie ski resorts have reported large accumulations of summer snow over the weekend, as the Grand Solar Minimum continues its intensification down-under.

Mount Hotham had a healthy 30+ cm (11.8+ inches) on the ground by Monday morning, with more snow expected throughout the day. Falls Creek registered 25+ cm (9.8+ inches) and Mount Buller saw 21+ cm (8.3+ inches).


GREENLAND’S SMB GAINED 14 GIGATONS OVER THE PAST 2 DAYS ALONE, PUSHING THIS SEASON ABOVE THE 1981-2010 AVERAGE

Despite decades of doom-and-gloom prophecies, Greenland’s Ice Sheet is currently GAINING monster amounts of snow — 14 gigatons over the past 2 days alone (Dec 01 – Dec 02).

Crucial to the survival of a glacier is its surface mass balance (SMB) — the difference between accumulation and ablation (sublimation and melting). Changes in mass balance control a glacier’s long-term behavior, and are its most sensitive climate indicators (wikipedia.org).

On December 01, 2019 Greenland’s SMB gained 8 gigatons.

While on Dec 02, the ice sheet amassed another 6 gigatons.

According to climate alarmists, this simply shouldn’t be happening in a warming world.

SNOWIEST AUTUMN ON RECORD IN GREAT FALLS, MT — MORE THAN DOUBLING THE PREVIOUS MARK

It was the snowiest meteorological Autumn on record in Great Falls, Montana (which runs from Sept 01 through Nov 30) according to National Weather Service data.

A whopping 60.4 inches (153 cm) landed in the city during the three month period, which was more than four times the seasonal average of 13.4 inches (34 cm).

This year’s total also blew away Great Falls’ all-time Autumn snowfall record — the 29.1 inches (74 cm) set back in 1985 (solar minimum of cycle 21).

NEBRASKA CITIES ALMOST DOUBLED THEIR PREVIOUS SNOWFALL RECORDS LAST WEEK

IPCC, 2001: “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms …”

Grand Island and Hastings are two cities confirmed to have smashed daily snowfall records early last week as a major Arctic storm tore through the Midwestern U.S. state of Nebraska.

Grand Island was blanketed by a whopping 8.2 inches (20.8 cm) of snow on Tuesday, Nov 26, annihilating the city’s previous record of 4.9 inches (12.4 cm) set in 1978 (solar minimum of cycle 20). While Hastings measured 7.1 inches (18 cm) of powder, comfortably eclipsing the 4 inches (10.2 cm) that fell back in 1944 (solar minimum of cycle 17).

SAN FRANCISCO TIES 1896 RECORD FOR COLDEST NOVEMBER DAY EVER!

The mercury in San Francisco reached a high of just 8.8C (48F) on Thursday, November 28, tying the 1896 (solar minimum of cycle 12) record for the city’s lowest-max temp ever recorded in November.

And San Francisco wasn’t alone in dealing with below-average temperatures late last week. According to the National Weather Service, much of the interior North Bay suffered sub-zero readings overnight Thursday:

Novato Airport recorded a nipple-hardening -5C (23F).
Santa Rosa and Napa County Airport dipped to -3.3C (26F).
Sonoma Airport bottomed out at -2.8C (27F).
While temps touched freezing point at Livermore Airport.
2.8C (37F) at Oakland Airport and San Jose.
And 5C (41F) in San Francisco.

(Readings all highly unusual for the time of year).
Furthermore, Bay Area peaks, including Mount Diablo and Mount Hamilton, remained blanketed with snow from the most recent storm. And it was more than chilly enough for snow in the Sierra as well — temps in South Lake Tahoe, for example, fell to -8.3C (17F) early Friday morning and settling snow was reported.

HUNDREDS OF THANKSGIVING SNOWFALL RECORDS SMASHED ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

“You’ve never seen a Thanksgiving like that before,” reads the opening line of an Albuquerque Journal article dated Nov 28.

The Albuquerque area smashed its previous Thanksgiving snowfall record of 1.5 inches, set way back in 1934 (solar minimum of cycle 16), when a comparatively mammoth 3.9 inches accumulated by mid-day Thursday at the Albuquerque International Sunport, said Alyssa Clements, meteorologist for the NWS.

By noon, the city had already easily recorded its snowiest Thanksgiving in history.

Furthermore, the airport –the city’s official climate site– actually had one of the lower snowfall accumulations recorded in Albuquerque, Clements added. The entire city was in fact blanketed with 6+ inches of snow, with several locations on the West Side recording 7 inches, while the area around Academy and Tramway registered a staggering 8 inches of snowfall by Thanksgiving afternoon.

HISTORIC SNOWFALL FORCES MANY NORTHERN COLORADO COMMUNITIES TO “ALL BUT SHUT DOWN”

Historic amounts of snow have buried Boulder and Fort Collins this week, and many areas along the Front Range have seen their most snow in years. The storm quickly moved into Nebraska Tuesday afternoon leaving very cold air and big piles of snow behind, reports denver.cbslocal.com

With more than 15 inches of snow falling in just 15 hours, Northern Colorado communities such as Loveland, Timnath, Wellington, Estes Park, Boulder, and Fort Collins were brought to a standstill.

Many towns and cities all but shut down Tuesday as they battened down the hatches in preparation for a record-breaking snowstorm — a storm which wound up closing schools and government offices across Northern Colorado, left grocery store shelves empty, and made travel impossible in parts of the state, according to reporterherald.com.

“EXTREME” NOVEMBER COLD ENGULFS RUSSIA — LOWS OF -54C (-65.2F) RECORDED

A brutal Arctic outbreak has developed over Russia, the result of a Meridional (wavy) jet stream flow itself associated with the historically low solar energy earth is currently receiving (the lowest in 200 years — NASA).

Bone-chilling lows swept transcontinental Russia during the first half of this week. The nearby nations of Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and eastern China have also suffered.