Upcoming Interview With Michael Dowd About Global Warming

#21
I mean, wouldn't it take World War 3 to implement this plan. ()
Under a traditional vertical (borders) government ideal yes.

But what we are exercising here with climate change is a new form of international governance. We are writing the constitution of how the globe will be managed for the future. In a traditional sense, it would take a WW III to effect such an entity. But I think that this entity will be forced upon us regardless.

Our task is to ensure we do not create a monster (nor Beast).

'Get rid of fossil fuels' as a statement -

1. Bears very little meaning in a market sense - it just sounds good and makes 'holy-mandate' minds feel better - words as weapons​
2. Bears no method of implementation, or even real possibility of being done​
3. Bears no assessment of the unintended consequences​
4. Is based upon some other political agenda/hatred than climate health​
5. Serves to displace the combustion of hyrdocarbons to places which are out of sight so we can pretend it doesn't happen, and​
6. Will ultimately cause more harm than good.​
This is what happened with 'Zero Landfill' mandates over the past decade. You paid someone to take your VOC waste, and come back and tell you 'Yep, it did not go into a landfill (but we have no idea where it is now)'.

It is analogue to 'Kill all the lawyers'. It is stupidity. So, this is what we are comparing to.
 
Last edited:
#22
Love this! I agree a stakeholders analysis brings a new spin to the species threatening challenges we face.

Along the same lines it seems like some kind of broader examination of other species crippling/ending threats is also in order. Not in a fake way. Not to minimize environmental issues, but in order to gain some proportionality.

Here are a couple off the top of my head.

1. Pole shift... I think you have an idea where I'm going with this :)

2. Solar Radiation bursts... Sure to happen again just a matter of time

3. Meteor strikes... We've had some close calls

4. Ice age onset from some future as yet not understood cause

This is obviously a partial list and I know there's many others out there
 
#23
we are exercising here with climate change is a new form of international governance.
I see no reason to believe we can get there from here... unprecedented! heck, we couldn't even get the American people to take on Hitler and enter WWII without a quasi-false-flag event... and now yr talking about joining hands with out biggest enemies to take on "climate."

and again, why would we ever place our faith in the hands of these proven climate fraudsters. they have an almost insurmountable burden of proof... moreover, they have in no way adequately addressed those who hold opposing points of view.

and that's not even getting into... 9/11 was an inside job... RFK was killed by a MKULTRA Manchurian candidate... and on and on. and don't even get me started with the the 12/17 UFO disclosure psyop, but we might wanta ask ET about this before we jump.
 
#24
Max Clarke is a friend of the show who experiences "license plate synchronicities" connected with Skeptiko. He sent me this after the last one :)
 

Attachments

#25
Rick took me up on the challenge and connected me with Michael Dowd who has agreed to come on and chat about it :)

from Michael's website: THE REVEREND MICHAEL DOWD is an evolutionary theologian, bestselling author, and evangelist for Big History and an honorable relationship to the future.
Michael and I have already begun an email exchange. he's a bright guy with a lot of ideas I agree with, then again, he has this crazy global warming death cult thing going on as well
Alex, with the greatest of respect for Michael, who looks to be a man of conviction and intelligence, I think that you need to involve at least one more person in this discussion, and that is a highly-qualified consensus climate scientist. If you feel the need to balance that person out with a (highly-qualified) denialist/skeptical climate scientist, then that's fine, but without somebody who genuinely qualifies as an expert in the field and accepts the consensus, I don't think that you are going to be able to come to any meaningful conclusions - or, at least, your listeners/readers won't.
 
#27
Alex, with the greatest of respect for Michael, who looks to be a man of conviction and intelligence, I think that you need to involve at least one more person in this discussion, and that is a highly-qualified consensus climate scientist. If you feel the need to balance that person out with a (highly-qualified) denialist/skeptical climate scientist, then that's fine, but without somebody who genuinely qualifies as an expert in the field and accepts the consensus, I don't think that you are going to be able to come to any meaningful conclusions - or, at least, your listeners/readers won't.
I've tried. they won't come on. maybe you will have better luck... let me know.

but Michael is on yr team, right? I'm going by Rick Archer's recommendation, and Rick is a hard-core committed climate alarmist and proud of it.
 
#28
I've tried. they won't come on. maybe you will have better luck... let me know.
I hadn't thought of trying to invite scientists on your behalf, but now that you suggest it, I'll see what I can do. The problem might be that they simply see you as a denialist who will only unnecessarily deplete them of time that they could have spent working. You are, after all, pretty hard-core in your stance. There's not a lot of nuance to be debated.

but Michael is on yr team, right?
Yes, but - again, with the greatest of respect for Michael - he's not the most qualified man for the debate. He doesn't even (again, respectfully) have a degree in science, let alone climate science.

Why would you compromise? When you discuss NDE science, you bring on the guys actually studying NDEs. When you discuss presentiment, you bring on the guys running the experiments. Climate science should be no different. You should be bringing on the top climate scientists - the guys who have published multiple papers, maybe even the guys whose GCMs have been used in the IPCC reports - if you want to maintain the credibility with your listeners that you have built up on other issues.
 
#29
Alex, with the greatest of respect for Michael, who looks to be a man of conviction and intelligence, I think that you need to involve at least one more person in this discussion, and that is a highly-qualified consensus climate scientist. If you feel the need to balance that person out with a (highly-qualified) denialist/skeptical climate scientist, then that's fine, but without somebody who genuinely qualifies as an expert in the field and accepts the consensus, I don't think that you are going to be able to come to any meaningful conclusions - or, at least, your listeners/readers won't.
Laird, this is part of the story - not just with CC, but with ψ, the various medical science scandals, etc. It is incredibly hard to get sonsensus-scientists to debate their position - any 'consensus'. I would say that is always a hint that they are defending a very weak position. All the ad-hominems seem to work to cover up this reluctance to debate - either in public, or at conferences.

David
 
#30
Laird, this is part of the story - not just with CC, but with ψ, the various medical science scandals, etc. It is incredibly hard to get sonsensus-scientists to debate their position - any 'consensus'. I would say that is always a hint that they are defending a very weak position. All the ad-hominems seem to work to cover up this reluctance to debate - either in public, or at conferences.

David
I see it differently, David. I have a friend who has turned into a publishing scientist. Almost every time I try to talk to him now, he asks me something like this: "Are you talking to me for a reason? Because if you're not, I've got papers to write".

It wouldn't surprise me to find that most scientists are similarly geared. Their time - in which they could be publishing - is precious, and they are going to use it wisely.
 
#31
I've tried. they won't come on. maybe you will have better luck... let me know.
Alex, here, in my view (and it took only from my last post until this one to identify him) is an example of the sort of scientist you should have on your show to discuss global warming (and yes, with Michael Dowd as co-guest; they would riff off each other): Brian Soden (via a news report).

He's lead author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and author of over 100 peer-reviewed papers on climate science, including papers on climate models. This man appears to be one of your Pim van Lommels of climate science; one of your Sam Parnias of investigations into global warming.

Shall I reach out to him?
 
#32
I see it differently, David. I have a friend who has turned into a publishing scientist. Almost every time I try to talk to him now, he asks me something like this: "Are you talking to me for a reason? Because if you're not, I've got papers to write".

It wouldn't surprise me to find that most scientists are similarly geared. Their time - in which they could be publishing - is precious, and they are going to use it wisely.
Well do you think someone like Feynman would have reacted like that? I don't suppose you wanted to consume hour after hour discussing CC! Almost all scientists feel flattered to answer questions about their subject - I know I liked to do that when I was actively in science, and of course I am still keen to discuss a range of subjects on here. If he knows you post on here, he could have supplied you with a set of killer questions and facts ...... or maybe he couldn't! It is fascinating that you have encountered that reaction. Possibly you have tried to put some of the points LS, Michael and I have raised with you - or maybe some of the points I raised earlier in the PM thread.

Try chatting about something else, and then change topics somehow - my bet is he will clam up.

Look, I suspect a lot of them are seriously scared that they have been manoeuvred into an absurdly extreme position and don't know what to do. Science has become extraordinarily hackable by pressure groups with money.

None of us are arguing this point because we want to despoil the planet, we are arguing the way we do because we hate to see the planet despoiled with windmills, bio-fuel plantations, etc. Also, Britain, unlike Australia, can get damn cold in winter time, and intermittent power could be seriously deadly.

You might also - perhaps - get your friend to talk by promising him anonymity.

David
 
Last edited:
#34
If he knows you post on here, he could have supplied you with a set of killer questions and facts
Oh, oops, I conveyed the wrong impression: my friend is a publishing scientist, but not in climate science. I was just giving an impression of how scientists "in general" react to demands on their time, although, admittedly, it is a sample of one. ;-)

we hate to see the planet despoiled with windmills
Right. I get you, man. Because, of course, coal-fired plants are so beautiful. Those elegant spires; the saintly smoke; the smog; the heavenly white plumes.
 
#35
Hope is rational – Germany’s radical shift to renewables and efficiency

Germany has put a lot of focus on improving the energy efficiency of homes and cars, which saved the average German household 30 per cent off their energy bills in 2017 – that’s a saving of $520 every year.

Despite the gains that we’ve already achieved, we estimated that if we invest a further 9 billion euros in improving the efficiency German industry, it would save 65 billion euros in energy costs. As a result, 90% of the German citizens support the “Energiewende”.
Now, don't jump on me David for veering off-topic: you broached the subject yourself; I have a right of reply.
 
#36
Oh, oops, I conveyed the wrong impression: my friend is a publishing scientist, but not in climate science. I was just giving an impression of how scientists "in general" react to demands on their time.
That is a shame - but I will go so far as to say that I think all science has been sort of roped in on this, Remember this guy objecting that the APS wanted to sign him up as a supporter of GW - I posted him before.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2011/0...r-groups-promotion-of-manmade-global-warming/

Stuff like that should not be happening - scientists should be free to express any opinion or none as they think is appropriate.

I know a retired scientist who hates the dreadful state of modern science. He is also an incredibly hair shirt guy, who seems to think it will do people good to have to try to survive on much less energy. However when I push him on the science of GW, he reluctantly admits it is crap!

David
 
Last edited:
#37
Germany has put a lot of focus on improving the energy efficiency of homes and cars, which saved the average German household 30 per cent off their energy bills in 2017 – that’s a saving of $520 every year.
Oh we have put a fair bit of effort into the same sort of thing. Why do you think that tower block in London was clad - it wasn't done to make it look nicer - it was for insulation. Of course the insulation caught fire and burned 97 people to death.

That isn't meant as a quip - saving energy usually has to be done at the expense of other things. A very well insulated building may have no opening windows and re-circulated air. That isn't nice for those who live/work there and it probably spreads disease of various sorts.

Either we really are in a climate emergency, or green energy is an abomination.


Many of our wild places are festooned with windmills by now, the view from the coast is also spoiled by literally hundreds of the things.

David
 
Last edited:
#38
Remember this guy objecting that the APS wanted to sign him up as a supporter of GW - I posted him before.
No, I don't. I probably didn't look at it.

However when I push him on the science of GW, he reluctantly admits it is crap!
Or maybe he's just being polite... "Alright, alright, David - climate change is crap. Now, maybe, we can talk about stuff we see eye-to-eye on".

Why do you think that tower block in London was clad
Wow, that's pretty shameless, David, to imply that efficiency entails death by fire... so, maybe we can't even trust the guys who come to install insulation in our roofs? It's not a conspiracy, it's an inspiracy!
 
#39
Alex, here, in my view (and it took only from my last post until this one to identify him) is an example of the sort of scientist you should have on your show to discuss global warming (and yes, with Michael Dowd as co-guest; they would riff off each other): Brian Soden (via a news report).

He's lead author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and author of over 100 peer-reviewed papers on climate science, including papers on climate models. This man appears to be one of your Pim van Lommels of climate science; one of your Sam Parnias of investigations into global warming.

Shall I reach out to him?
Here's a fantastic presentation of Brian's which I think deserves to be placed on the record. I'll cross-post it to the other climate thread:

Brian Soden - Climate Feedbacks: Magnitude & Uncertainty in Global Warming (April 10, 2013)

 
#40
Here's a fantastic presentation of Brian's which I think deserves to be placed on the record. I'll cross-post it to the other climate thread:
From the video: Three things which could have served to precipitate/explain a 'leveling' in global temperature rise... expressed in my language (the language of model development).

I. Uncertain Forcings - the net arrival rates and distributions in terms of VOC's, alkanes and carbon dioxide which we are prescribing to these models, are not accurate.
II. Natural Variability - the confidence bands of our models should be much larger in magnitude as we have not reflected sufficient model variability, neural dynamic, confidence interval or structure.
III. Deep Oceans Acting as Heat Sinks - deep ocean warming is capturing atmospheric kinetic energy and temporarily having a concave effect on an inherently convex atmospheric temperature dynamic.

Really, I is belied by the Mauna Loa CO2 measures - as the carbon dioxide ppmv increases are following a square law. Moreover, II and III are really the same thing (III just simply being a species of II). Deep Ocean Heat Sink effects should have already been a part of the model to begin with - and the variability provided therein should have already been accounted for, in a multivariate model.

So in essence what he is saying, is a complexification of the syllogism 'Our models did not incorporate what they should have'.

This is not comforting at all. If this was presented to me in a Monday 10 am series-tesing update, I would be very uncomfortable with what the team was doing.

In addition, he has neglected the Necessary Alternative #4 - the deductive alternative... Yes, deep ocean temperatures are rising faster than they should. But that could be attributable to ANOTHER factor. Another factor which we are ignoring because we are in a professional panic, not simply an emergency.

IV. Another contributor is ALSO affecting both carbon ppmv's as well as global temperatures, and we have not adequately reflected the impact, nor sensitivity dynamic contribution for that supplemental contributor.​
This also is the ethical and necessary challenge to the models. Until one has conducted deductive science - one cannot claim comprehensive-exclusive knowledge based upon a consilience of induction alone (Hempel's Paradox).
 
Last edited:
Top