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

Alex,

I disagree with this analysis but let's say ONE study did get lazy or fudged some data or do whatever it is that you think was done. So what? Does that affect that literally thousands and thousands of other studies that mostly point in one direction -- many of which are independent of government and corporate grants and funding? Let me reframe -- so because ONE study on NDEs or PSI or non-local consciousness comes across as flawed, fraud, or exaggerated (or simply has a few issues that give us question marks on the process), we should, therefore, assume all studies on NDEs, PSI, etc are wrong or compromised? C'mon Alex. You are simply finding any way you can to reach the conclusions you already have. Keep the standards consistent. Otherwise, you should hang up the mic and end the podcast because the standards you have for Climate Change are not consistent with the subjects you cover on this podcast.
I'm afraid it reflects extremely badly on the whole of climate science.

Please remember that Alex was quoting from something Judith Curry wrote. This is the woman you are dismissing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

She is not reporting the results of one study, she is reporting the fact that the scientists involved were actually caught - by a release of emails - discussing how to delete some 'inconvenient' data from a graph, how to bully researchers that had discovered information that countered the CAGW narrative, etc etc. Suppose, by analogy, that someone exposed that a number of parapsychologists had deliberately colluded to present evidence for psychic phenomena when none existed. It wouldn't be a small matter, yet ten years ago that is what happened in CAGW research. Here is one corner of this scandal, uncovered by The Guardian (which has since become committed to CAGW) - I suppose things were a bit more honest back then.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science

They paid a guy to do a study, but not actually do a study. Then they pretended the study had been done and given the Climate Research Unit a clean bill of health!

This saga is one of the reasons I am so sceptical of 'climate science'. If I had published a deliberately fraudulent graph as a PhD student or as a post doc, I am pretty sure I would have been chucked out of the university - but maybe not, maybe the rot was already setting into scientific research.

David
 
Last edited:
The Australian wild fires are often attributed to climate change . However, think for a moment, suppose you had a bonfire and had difficulty lighting it. Would it make sense to:

a) Use a hair drier to raise the temperature 1 C round the fire to make it ignite. 1 C is the maximum you can possibly attribute to global warming.
or
b) Stuff paper or other dry inflammable material into the fire and light that.

Utterly obviously the answer is b. The basic problem is that houses have been built in idyllic spots in woodland. This has meant that every forest fire had to be put out pronto to protect property. This in turn means there is a build-up of dry dead material, which reaches the point where the fires are hard to control.

The very fact that these fires are used to justify the idea of CC, illustrates the fraudulent arguments used to justify this vague concept.

David
 
The Australian wild fires are often attributed to climate change . However, think for a moment, suppose you had a bonfire and had difficulty lighting it. Would it make sense to:

a) Use a hair drier to raise the temperature 1 C round the fire to make it ignite. 1 C is the maximum you can possibly attribute to global warming.
or
b) Stuff paper or other dry inflammable material into the fire and light that.

Utterly obviously the answer is b. The basic problem is that houses have been built in idyllic spots in woodland. This has meant that every forest fire had to be put out pronto to protect property. This in turn means there is a build-up of dry dead material, which reaches the point where the fires are hard to control.

The very fact that these fires are used to justify the idea of CC, illustrates the fraudulent arguments used to justify this vague concept.

David
Last week I was talking to an ex fireman, his father was also a life long firefighter. He quit after almost losing his life in a bushfire. He told me the incredible story in vivid detail. It is hard to imagine the ferocity of these things. Most people have never seen fireballs, the speed and power of these things are immense.

I asked him about climate change, he emphatically said no it is not climate change. He confirmed what I had suspected, it is to do with poor land management, a lack of hazard reduction as well as the privatization of water that is drying up river systems that are intensifying droughts.

There are other reasons, paradoxically it is also connected to the disruptions in the southern polar vortex, quite rare but occurred at the beginning of September last year . It was predicted then we would see warmer and drier conditions form spring to early summer. This was true. These disruptions are more rare for the southern hemisphere. It also happened in 2002. Again one of the worst droughts, and again intense bushfires resulted. These cycles are natural. But the government have made things much worse than they should have been.

The extreme weather around the globe has a far better explanation that can fit all of these patterns. Low solar activity. It causes the weather systems to radically mix. We also have the El Nino system that brings in warm air from the ocean. To put it simply there is a great deal of complexity involved. There are other explanations beyond the go to overly simplistic knee jerk reaction that is AGW. The weather where I am is actually quite mild for this time of year. You really have to cherry pick to make this claim of AGW.

I should also mention that not so long ago green activists protested against fire hazard control (controlled burn offs). The ABC is now trying to memory hole and delete their reports about this in the face of this disaster.

Check this out. This is from a previous event 2015, not the current fires. But this is what our fire fighters are dealing with. This is pretty intense to say the least. Look at the speed of this fire front! This is some scary shit!

 
Last edited:
I'm unsure how to interpret this. Do you mean that more people should die earlier, and that is what we are working against -- put another way, should be finding some way to facilitate? How could we without killing them? And if we did find a way, would you be amongst the first to volunteer your services?

Me, I'm an optimist. I don't believe things are as bad as is being made out. Your fears, everyone's fears, are greatly exaggerated, as they have always tended to be. We always seem to have to have a bogeyman of some description threatening us. If the "climate crisis" is proven wrong, sooner or later something else will rear its ugly head.
Hey Michael

Yeah, I was pushing a few buttons with intent here. The logic is that when you have a high attrition rate you need to breed to ensure replacement. I was born in spitting distance of the end of WW2. My mother went on to have 5 kids, all of whom have survived thus far. But we were raised with an allowance of risk. There seemed to be a sense that some of us were expendable. My step daughter has one child. He is not expendable. He has cost a heap to raise, and there is no fallback. Parenting is risk averse, and so the kid has not a lot of resilience.

My point is that you can't sensibly have a breeding rate that is designed to account for attrition and bust your arse to keep the old and ill and inform alive - and then get alarmed about population. If we are sensible we need a balance between birth and death rates.

Anglo breeding rates are below replacement, except in the 'lower classes'. Whites are trending toward comparative minority status in their own lands. Indeed in the US it is projected whites will enter minority status in the next 10-15 years. At the same time the better off are living longer. Oh dear.

I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.

Would I be among the first to volunteer my services? I have always figured I'd pop my clogs when I hit 70. So, if the offer is not untimely .....
 
Hey Michael

Yeah, I was pushing a few buttons with intent here. The logic is that when you have a high attrition rate you need to breed to ensure replacement. I was born in spitting distance of the end of WW2. My mother went on to have 5 kids, all of whom have survived thus far. But we were raised with an allowance of risk. There seemed to be a sense that some of us were expendable. My step daughter has one child. He is not expendable. He has cost a heap to raise, and there is no fallback. Parenting is risk averse, and so the kid has not a lot of resilience.

My point is that you can't sensibly have a breeding rate that is designed to account for attrition and bust your arse to keep the old and ill and inform alive - and then get alarmed about population. If we are sensible we need a balance between birth and death rates.

Anglo breeding rates are below replacement, except in the 'lower classes'. Whites are trending toward comparative minority status in their own lands. Indeed in the US it is projected whites will enter minority status in the next 10-15 years. At the same time the better off are living longer. Oh dear.

I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.

Would I be among the first to volunteer my services? I have always figured I'd pop my clogs when I hit 70. So, if the offer is not untimely .....
When you say:

I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.

Taken at face value, you seem to be saying that if one thinks about the alarm, one will uncover deep seated racism -- presumably in those who say it.

Why, exactly? It's not that I can't think of reasons why, only that I'm unsure what your reasons are. Sometimes I find you quite elliptical and ambiguous, and am often nonplussed by what you say. Could be I'm just dense; but whatever, is there any chance you could say whatever it is you want to say simply and directly for a bozo like me?
 
I posted this in the climate thread. Since the subject came up here, and since most people are being mislead I'll drop this here as well. Climate change is the political scape goat. While emotionally charged people decry inaction on climate change at the politicians. They are loving it because it is actually covering up the true crime of political failure.

From "The Age" way back in 2015

Bushfire scientist David Packham warns of huge blaze threat, urges increase in fuel reduction burns
Forest fuel levels have worsened over the past 30 years because of "misguided green ideology", vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist has warned.

Victoria's "failed fire management policy" is an increasing threat to human life, water supplies, property and the forest environment, David Packham said in a submission to the state's Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

And he argued that unless the annual fuel reduction burning target, currently at a minimum of 5 per cent of public land, "is doubled or preferably tripled, a massive bushfire disaster will occur. The forest and alpine environment will decay and be damaged possibly beyond repair and homes and people [will be] incinerated."

He said forest fuel levels had climbed to their most dangerous level in thousands of years.

Mr Packham produced his submission in response to a review of bushfire fuel management announced last month by the state government and to be conducted by the Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-in-fuel-reduction-burns-20150312-14259h.html

We were warned! This was a powder keg waiting for the imminent spark.
 
Last edited:
Forest fuel levels have worsened over the past 30 years because of "misguided green ideology", vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist has warned.
Yes, I increasingly see Green policies as positively harmful, and this is a tragic example, which I hope gets fully exposed.

Another example was the decision to 'recycle' plastics, even though in general this isn't practical. The result was that large amounts of plastic were shipped to the Third world (BTW ships burn fuel and release CO2), and then these countries recycled a lot of it into the sea!

Bad as the traditional ways of doing things may have been, they at least put people who know what they were doing in charge. Now the orders come via all kinds of emotional arm twisting from Green activists who know very little. The end result is horrible.

David
 
I think this is an excellent question. I tend to look at it from a different angle. When I hear people "arguing for the existence of a Transcendent Realm" (or a spirit realm or an astral realm or heaven or whatever), it feels to me like it downplays meaning and significance in THIS realm.

So I tend to think that any perspective that downplays the Transcendent or the Metaphysical can be a Good Thing.

This is not to say that I want to downplay NDEs and other mystical experiences. But for myself, I want to hold the INTERPRETATIONs of such experiences lightly or provisionally so as not to end up forsaking the realm that is my day to day life.

Obviously, interpreting NDEs, etc can in itself be a useful and meaningful activity, and I don't begrudge anybody who wants to overtly argue that their perspective is the Absolutely Correct perspective and accurately reflects the nature of the universe and the "realm(s) beyond."

Personally, I have been trying to see if there is a way to be neither in the "biological robot in a meaningless universe camp" but also not in the "this world doesn't matter because there's a realm of light and love waiting for us beyond space/time." Something "in between" these camps perhaps.

I have been interested in a book called ZeroTheology, that is written by a minister who considers that religion that is based on belief in doctrine is a rather weak form of religious practice, which is appealing to me:

"If you want or need religious belief you cannot have the liberated religious life. If you lack belief you do not want or need the liberated religious life. The liberated religious life can only be had by those who think that because they neither need nor want belief they are disqualified from living the liberated religious life. A person can choose the religious path as long as that person does not need belief. When you give a reason for having belief, you are expressing a need to have belief. If you need to have belief, you have to have belief, because it is a requirement. The second you express your need for belief, the liberated religious life becomes impossible. If you do not hold a religious belief, you do not need it and therefore, cannot be persuaded to choose it. If you are persuaded that you need it, then what you have been persuaded you need, is not the liberated religious life. Any reason that persuades you is a reason that leads to the idolatry of the belief paradigm."
What a wonderful post, thanks.

Y'know, it's interesting, the best theologians and mystics (very old and very influential ones) from the Christian tradition insist on the immanence AND transcendence of God, strongly condemning both dualism (Gnosticism, etc.) and pantheism (the equating of God with the known/unknown universe, or viewing God as a cosmic mechanism of some sort).

Both dualism and pantheism are theological and intellectual traps. One, dualism, leads to otherworldliness (or worse, world hating) and binary thinking, while the other (pantheism) makes an idol of the human intellect by claiming the limits of existence can be known and circumscribed.

So , the traditional 'non-dual' perspective creates a healthy and humbling recognition of our unavoidable ignorance. Very wise, I reckon.

The good Rev. Dowd's Christian realism is really just a particularly austere form of pantheism, imo.

As for Zero Theology: I get it, something should be freely chosen, and 'need' opens the door to clinging defensively. Then again, biological needs serve an important purpose (like hunger), I'm not sure existential needs are necessarily any different.

Hope you had a good festive period.
 
Last edited:
When you say:

I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.

Taken at face value, you seem to be saying that if one thinks about the alarm, one will uncover deep seated racism -- presumably in those who say it.

Why, exactly? It's not that I can't think of reasons why, only that I'm unsure what your reasons are. Sometimes I find you quite elliptical and ambiguous, and am often nonplussed by what you say. Could be I'm just dense; but whatever, is there any chance you could say whatever it is you want to say simply and directly for a bozo like me?
Sorry Michael

Its not you, its me.

Apparently in the US whites will be a minority come circa 2030. There seems to be a general reaction against declining white birth rates in Europe as well, and in a deeper analysis of geopolitics some argue the Putin is seeking to tap into the fear of white decline to stir right wing political movements.

It's way more complex than this, of course, but we do have a cultural mentality that asserts the superiority of whites - the best expression of human being was white, Christian, male and English - upper middle class and better.

In a brutally simple way I am not so sure that the human soul is quite that fussy. White Europeans have had around 1,000 years of self- constructed lime light and now things are changing and we should be resisting the transition? We find claims of superiority everywhere and through history, so taking ours as a serious and literal claim to divine virtue does seem like racist conceit.
 
Sorry Michael

Its not you, its me.

Apparently in the US whites will be a minority come circa 2030. There seems to be a general reaction against declining white birth rates in Europe as well, and in a deeper analysis of geopolitics some argue the Putin is seeking to tap into the fear of white decline to stir right wing political movements.

It's way more complex than this, of course, but we do have a cultural mentality that asserts the superiority of whites - the best expression of human being was white, Christian, male and English - upper middle class and better.

In a brutally simple way I am not so sure that the human soul is quite that fussy. White Europeans have had around 1,000 years of self- constructed lime light and now things are changing and we should be resisting the transition? We find claims of superiority everywhere and through history, so taking ours as a serious and literal claim to divine virtue does seem like racist conceit.

You initially said:

I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.

Based on this response, I'm wondering if "minority" was a typo: whether you meant to say the complete opposite, "majority", in fact...
 
Alex,

I disagree with this analysis but let's say ONE study did get lazy or fudged some data or do whatever it is that you think was done. So what? Does that affect that literally thousands and thousands of other studies that mostly point in one direction -- many of which are independent of government and corporate grants and funding? Let me reframe -- so because ONE study on NDEs or PSI or non-local consciousness comes across as flawed, fraud, or exaggerated (or simply has a few issues that give us question marks on the process), we should, therefore, assume all studies on NDEs, PSI, etc are wrong or compromised? C'mon Alex. You are simply finding any way you can to reach the conclusions you already have. Keep the standards consistent. Otherwise, you should hang up the mic and end the podcast because the standards you have for Climate Change are not consistent with the subjects you cover on this podcast.
Don't forget poor controls
 
You initially said:

I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.

Based on this response, I'm wondering if "minority" was a typo: whether you meant to say the complete opposite, "majority", in fact...
No. Its not my data. US trends show already that many states are shifting to non-anglo majorities. Globally the trend for Anglo/European populations is a decline as birth rates fall. In fact pro 'development' advocates say the best form of birth control is education and economic development. That means that in Anglo/European countries there are higher birth rates among 'lower class' people than upper/middle class. And that seems to be a global trend.

Generally speaking you have higher birth rates among people exposed to higher risks - so immigrant and refugee populations do tend to have a higher birth rate in countries they move to. Here we have two trends. For example, in Australia we tend to see high aspiration and high discipline cultures [Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese] pushing academic attainment for their children. In contrast low discipline cultures seem to push a more family/social/cultural aspiration.

The trend seems to be that those in power constitute a lower proportion of a contemporary multicultural society - with a resultant problem in a genuinely democratic culture. This is why 'voter suppression' tactics are common in the USA.

As adverse reactions to multiculturalism grow we do see a growth in xenophobic responses and consequent organisations. If we accept current analysis, Russia does seem to be the global cheerleader for this cause. How we position ourselves matters in ways more complex than we may care to consider.
 
No. Its not my data. US trends show already that many states are shifting to non-anglo majorities. Globally the trend for Anglo/European populations is a decline as birth rates fall. In fact pro 'development' advocates say the best form of birth control is education and economic development. That means that in Anglo/European countries there are higher birth rates among 'lower class' people than upper/middle class. And that seems to be a global trend.

Generally speaking you have higher birth rates among people exposed to higher risks - so immigrant and refugee populations do tend to have a higher birth rate in countries they move to. Here we have two trends. For example, in Australia we tend to see high aspiration and high discipline cultures [Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese] pushing academic attainment for their children. In contrast low discipline cultures seem to push a more family/social/cultural aspiration.

The trend seems to be that those in power constitute a lower proportion of a contemporary multicultural society - with a resultant problem in a genuinely democratic culture. This is why 'voter suppression' tactics are common in the USA.

As adverse reactions to multiculturalism grow we do see a growth in xenophobic responses and consequent organisations. If we accept current analysis, Russia does seem to be the global cheerleader for this cause. How we position ourselves matters in ways more complex than we may care to consider.
I'm gonna try again.

You initially said:

I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.

That implies that whites are currently a minority but quite soon won't be (their birth rate could be increasing, for example). However, what you're implying in this second response (and your first one) to me is that whites are currently in a majority but quite soon won't be. This latter is also my understanding of the situation, because whites' birth rate is decreasing, primarily on account of better education and standard of living. In other words, we both share the same understanding, and yet you insist that your use of the word minority in the first instance was what you meant to say.

I'm left completely nonplussed. "Minority" and "majority" have diametrically opposed meanings. The point I'm trying to make isn't merely one of grammar. It's about semantics. You're arguing as if the two words have the same meaning, as if they're synonyms. Which makes no sense to me. I can only make it make sense if I assume that initially you typed mINority whan you really meant mAJority.

If you insist you didn't, then maybe that will explain why I often have such a hard time with your posts. Maybe you have some kind of word blindness or something, which makes some of your arguments seem elliptical. You might think you're saying one thing, but what you are writing might not actually say that.

Please don't think I'm trying to be pejorative here: I'm genuinely baffled and want to get to the bottom of it. Either there's something wrong with your apprehension, or something wrong with mine. If the latter, I want to know it, so it's as much about me as you.
 
Wow! That was almost painful to listen to all the way! Several cringe worthy mo.
Moments made me feel almost bad, but ......inspired me to finally come check out the forum after listening to you for quite sometime. Thanks for keeping it interesting Alex! Keep up the great digging you are so appreciated! ❤
 
I'm gonna try again.

You initially said:

I notice a lot of folk being alarmed that Whites will no longer be in a minority. Why? Unpick that logic and you will find deep seated racism.

That implies that whites are currently a minority but quite soon won't be (their birth rate could be increasing, for example). However, what you're implying in this second response (and your first one) to me is that whites are currently in a majority but quite soon won't be. This latter is also my understanding of the situation, because whites' birth rate is decreasing, primarily on account of better education and standard of living. In other words, we both share the same understanding, and yet you insist that your use of the word minority in the first instance was what you meant to say.

I'm left completely nonplussed. "Minority" and "majority" have diametrically opposed meanings. The point I'm trying to make isn't merely one of grammar. It's about semantics. You're arguing as if the two words have the same meaning, as if they're synonyms. Which makes no sense to me. I can only make it make sense if I assume that initially you typed mINority whan you really meant mAJority.

If you insist you didn't, then maybe that will explain why I often have such a hard time with your posts. Maybe you have some kind of word blindness or something, which makes some of your arguments seem elliptical. You might think you're saying one thing, but what you are writing might not actually say that.

Please don't think I'm trying to be pejorative here: I'm genuinely baffled and want to get to the bottom of it. Either there's something wrong with your apprehension, or something wrong with mine. If the latter, I want to know it, so it's as much about me as you.
Michael

You are perfectly right. Too distracted by bushfires to take care to write what I mean. And then just as distracted to not pick up on your correction.
 
Anyone else nearly got a seizure when he said : Reality is my god. DEFINE REALITY PLEASE. Is it only what we can see, hear or touch? Is there any consensus on what reality is?
 
Top