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

Here's a powerful presentation from Will Happer mentioned in my second last post.

He makes reference the book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay first published in 1841.

"Men it has been well said think in herds, it will be seen that they go mad in heards. While they only recover their senses slowly and one by one."

What could be more apt given the madness we see with bizarre cultish behaviour. In my own city people are chaining themselves up in the streets and go out of there way to disrupt normal people. Doing nothing but exposing how absurd they are and doing nothing but breeding contempt for that which they believe in.

"...recognized by the Greeks, by the romans, presumably by many previous people..."

"Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad" - Euripides.

Happer makes the clear distinction between what is actual pollution, which we should do something about and CO2, N2O or CH4. This is precisely the point. These issues have been blended together to the detriment of very real environmental issues.

Happer presents a CO2 chart and suggests that doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will have very little impact on climate. This is what I outlined concerning the absorbtion range of CO2 and logarithmic scale of accumulating CO2. Basic well established science from the likes of Max Planck and Karl Schwarzchild.

He states...

“I can guarantee that no one who knows anything about science can dispute this curve. That’s the truth....”
“...absolute madness.”


Happer called the often claimed 97% consensus among scientists “phony” and that science is determined by observation, “not votes”. “Scientific consensus is often wrong,”.


Final word "We have nature on our side so in the end we are going to win this."
William Happer has since resigned his post as a senior director on the National Security Council over climate change.
 
Thanks! The C13 methane graphs are good news. It demonstrates the massive effort to convert methane bleed, into flares, and then flares into methane capture. The reduction in volume of methane released into the atmosphere from oil and gas initiatives has been enormous. What bothered me, was the fact that, despite this enormous capture of methane which used to be flared and expressed - there was almost NO reduction in atmospheric methane which resulted. This again bothered me -

1. We identified the culprit
2. There was consensus as to whom the culprit was, and how the mechanism worked
3. We developed laws and regulations to fix the issue - and everyone complied, spending a lot of money on fixing it...
4. There was no positive effect from it. Methane kept marching along with the 2007 pace.


My fear is that, because we do not understand where the methane and carbon are really coming from, that we are going to repeat something like this in the 2020's, with an even worse set of actions which are ineffective. Yet we had consensus.

The graphs show the 2011 - 2015 oil boom in TX, ND and OK... which concentrated C13 into the northern hemisphere, AND as well shows that the ambient methane increase is coming from another source.
 
Please don’t delete them, just move them.
Thanks for your interest in this Steve. However I find it excruciatingly frustrating for the reasons I have mentioned. I spent years on the issue. I do not want go down that rabbit hole once more. I was going to present my findings at AULIS, to take it to the next level beyond the frustrations of a internet forum. If anyone is interested in the subject I suggest they look here.
https://www.aulis.com/
Many people will be surprised at some of the remarkable and widespread arguments and in depth analysis from extremely qualified professionals on this subject. There is good reason why theory has never faded. It is vast to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Hi David, LoneShaman, and Steve,

I agree that discussion of lunar landing hoaxes/anomalies does not belong in this thread. I didn't intend to start an intense discussion on it when I asked LoneShaman whether he still considers the landing(s) to be a hoax, nor when I asked an incidental question re his extended answer. That said, I totally understand LoneShaman's desire to defend himself, and I don't mean to impute any wrongdoing on his part.

My suggestion: that all of the posts exclusively devoted to this issue be moved (by David) into either a new thread or into the existing "Wagging the Moondoggie" thread, and that one of us (presumably David) indicates that that is where the discussion has been diverted to. This includes the following posts:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-136902 (LoneShaman's)
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-136905 (Mine)
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-136907 (LoneShaman's)
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-136908 (Mine)
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-136909 (LoneShaman's)

Any objections/amendments?

Laird

P.S. (ETA) I reserve the right to respond in that thread, as I'd like to clarify a couple of things. LoneShaman, of course, would be free, as always, not to respond in turn, or to respond as he sees fit.
 
Put them in a new thread. I would like to see other people argue the points, and if possible actually falsify my most significant finding. The tapping of the rock, using actual science. Go for it! I can't say I will engage but I may drop some more papers from Aulis for people to scrutinize.

I would rather invest some time in a few other fringy topics I had planned personally. Carve out some new ground rather than what for is for me old news.
 
Last edited:
I don't see an easy way to move an individual post, so I suggest people just copy/paste each post to the new thread that I have created:

Here is a thread to discuss the evidence that the moon landings were faked.

After you are sure everything is in place, then delete the posts from here. Obviously we don't want any of these posts to be lost.


David
 
Laird,

For the last time, if you are going to continue to post on this thread, please keep to the topic, and stop treating this as somehow a moral issue. Neither LS nor I believe that CAGW is genuine, so it would surely be reprehensible for us not to say so. This scam may consume ludicrous amounts of money and possibly result in large numbers of deaths from hypothermia in northern countries.

Surely the central issues are:

Is the rise in CO2 primarily due to burning fossil fuel - LS has presented evidence that this probably isn't true.

Is there any evidence (beyond the notoriously inaccurate climate models) to expect the average temperature, that has risen just 0.8-1.0C in 140 years to suddenly rocket up in the next 12 years to produce a 'climate catastrophe'.

It is said that a 2.0C rise would be catastrophic for life on earth, yet in most places this would obviously not be true.

David
 
For the last time, if you are going to continue to post on this thread, please keep to the topic
For the last time? When has there been any other time in this thread where you have asked me to "keep to the topic"? I haven't posted on the lunar landings since your generic message to "everybody", so that can't be it.

And why blame me for the diversion? Yes, I asked LS whether he still believed the moon landings were a hoax, but I didn't force him to write an extended post with embedded videos in response, and I certainly didn't expect it! That was at least as much of a contribution to the diversion as my short, simple question. He then continued to respond when I asked another question about one of the videos he'd posted - again, why single me out?

and stop treating this as somehow a moral issue.
This is so hypocritical, David, and so oblivious of you, when immediately afterwards you write:

Neither LS nor I believe that CAGW is genuine, so it would surely be reprehensible for us not to say so. This scam may consume ludicrous amounts of money and possibly result in large numbers of deaths from hypothermia in northern countries.
Such a moral framing! So, it's fine for you to treat it as a moral issue, but not for proponents. Message received: the moderator of this forum is a hypocrite who lacks impartiality.
 
For the last time, if you are going to continue to post on this thread, please keep to the topic, and stop treating this as somehow a moral issue. Neither LS nor I believe that CAGW is genuine, so it would surely be reprehensible for us not to say so. This scam may consume ludicrous amounts of money and possibly result in large numbers of deaths from hypothermia in northern countries.
David, I too could say this about you, but that you have (privately) claimed that my disagreement with LoneShaman on some of his points is comparable with "attacking" him. So, I feel unable to discuss issues with him, in case you biff me out for not having the same beliefs as him or you about reasons for climate change. I don't believe it would be 'reprehensible' for me not to say what I think in contrast. I am just exercising the right to 'my say'. Please tell me you don't have 'favourites' to blame if a conversation goes a bit 'off-track' :(
 
David, I too could say this about you, but that you have (privately) claimed that my disagreement with LoneShaman on some of his points is comparable with "attacking" him. So, I feel unable to discuss issues with him, in case you biff me out for not having the same beliefs as him or you about reasons for climate change. I don't believe it would be 'reprehensible' for me not to say what I think in contrast. I am just exercising the right to 'my say'. Please tell me you don't have 'favourites' to blame if a conversation goes a bit 'off-track' :(
The point is, CAGW is either real and should be attended to, or unreal and should be ignored.

I haven't accused anyone of wishing to deliberately hype up CAGW knowing it to be false, but I sense that LS, and I and the other 'deniers' are somehow assumed to be uncaring. I mean, I think the people who are really at fault, are those who coined terms like 'denier' in the first place, but please realise that that word 'denier' presupposes that CAGW is true - we don't accept that CAGW is true.

David
 
Such a moral framing! So, it's fine for you to treat it as a moral issue, but not for proponents. Message received: the moderator of this forum is a hypocrite who lacks impartiality.
I don't want to treat it as a moral issue - I want to discuss whether it is true or not.

If you want to discuss that, go ahead, otherwise please leave this thread to those who do.

David
 
Two things temper my vehemence regarding social virtue charged arguments, even bearing good science which I am inclined to believe.

Alinsky’s Rule #9 - from Saul Alinsky's work Rules for Radicals, the contention that “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” This apothegm was expanded upon by Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel in 2011, inside his corollary, “Never allow a good crisis to go to waste."​
Parsimony Regarding Oppression - we must remember that the opposite of conspiracy theory, is an even worse mistake called 'oppression'. Oppression makes the very same mistakes in inference as does the conspiracy theorist - except in the case of oppression, usually a lot of people are harmed as a result.​
 
Last edited:
The point is, CAGW is either real and should be attended to, or unreal and should be ignored.

I haven't accused anyone of wishing to deliberately hype up CAGW knowing it to be false, but I sense that LS, and I and the other 'deniers' are somehow assumed to be uncaring. I mean, I think the people who are really at fault, are those who coined terms like 'denier' in the first place, but please realise that that word 'denier' presupposes that CAGW is true - we don't accept that CAGW is true.

David
So is it just coincidence that the two people you have chastised on this thread do not agree with you and LoneShaman?

I am feeling somewhat oppressed regarding your parsimonious objection to my contrary view.

I think CAGW is real and should be attended to and you think it is unreal, so why not just ignore me?
 
Last edited:
So is it just coincidence that the two people you have chastised on this thread do not agree with you and LoneShaman?

I am feeling somewhat oppressed regarding your parsimonious objection to my contrary view.

I think CAGW is real and should be attended to and you think it is unreal, so why not just ignore me?
I haven't 'chastised' anyone, nor will I just because they express another view. What I do rather object to, is the suggestion that one side are somehow less caring if they don't agree with CAGW. I tell you, a lot of people will die if decarbonisation is put into effect, and a great deal of environmental damage will occur too. I certainly care about that.

The question really is, whether there is evidence to reluctantly accept those deaths (mainly from hypothermia) and environmental damage for the greater good of avoiding CAGW.

David
 
David, I too could say this about you, but that you have (privately) claimed that my disagreement with LoneShaman on some of his points is comparable with "attacking" him. So, I feel unable to discuss issues with him, in case you biff me out for not having the same beliefs as him or you about reasons for climate change. I don't believe it would be 'reprehensible' for me not to say what I think in contrast. I am just exercising the right to 'my say'. Please tell me you don't have 'favourites' to blame if a conversation goes a bit 'off-track' :(
Well you don't give a specific link, so it is hard for me to respond. The word 'attack' can cover anything from finding a weak point in an argument, to all-out nuclear warfare - it is totally context dependent!

I think the moon landing fake thread is a great example of a thread that focuses on technical points, rather than implications that the other 'side' is guilty of moral turpitude (as they say). I thinkt these are both primarily technical questions.

David
 
The question really is, whether there is evidence to reluctantly accept those deaths (mainly from hypothermia) and environmental damage for the greater good of avoiding CAGW.
Global warming/global cooling.. all these projections, and humans are still unable to predict next weeks weather with more than 50% accuracy.
There is already environmental damage. People can die from excess heat or extreme cold (altho it easier to warm up a body than cool it down)
Arguing about what will most likely kill us is both denial and alarmist. Let's hope one of us is wrong.
 
Top