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

Well I'm one who has listened to the podcast (twice).

The most important thing that came through from my own spiritual experience is the understanding that we are all connected and not just we as humans. Life review stories after NDE tell us that what we do to others, we do to ourselves. And that's what I experienced - a life force which encompassed everything. So the whole idea of taking care of my own spiritual development is a complete anathema. The whole point to me is to understand there are no borders. We are all one. And I know I can reach anyone. So that means something in terms of the way I enter into the experience of being - I understand this life is a gift, not a distraction from what's important. I ask you to think about that notion - life being a gift. And what is it that sustains this life - yours, mine and that of all the species?
 
Last edited:
Which is exactly the problem and doesn't explain in your own words why what McKitrick said is wrong:

Your most recent posting of other people’s words doesn’t relate to my response to your original request which was:

What I want is your own words on why McKitrick is wrong in saying that the C20th uptick is an artefact of the arbitrary redating of cores” -- ML​

I answered that question by stating the core data was a red herring as it related to the uptick and I explained the reason why. Instead of acknowledging my response you moved away and introduced a 2nd issue from the McKitrick article having to do with the smoothing prior to the uptick.

You then go on to use that quote to say that it explains why McKitrick is right on a 3rd issue: that Marcott didn't show the proxy data replicated the recent instrumentation record as originally claimed. This is another red herring since Marcott never made such a claim. In fact, he stated the opposite by indicating that given the recency, they didn’t have enough proxy data to state that. That was the reason why they used the instrumentation record instead.

In summary, you have managed to conflate three separate issues. At this point I’m not sure if you’re legitimately confused or just trolling me. Either way, I don’t mind since it illuminates the issues pertaining to the reality of global warming so it can only be a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Look, I'm going to parachute back in to defend myself and say that I have listened to most of the podcasts, even the earlier ones, and am a big fan of parapsychological research.

I posted under my Disqus name "Pavonis" a couple of times before the new forums were created. I posted here
http://www.skeptiko.com/219-dr-stephen-law-extraordinary-claims/
and here,
http://www.skeptiko.com/212-clinica...li-treats-trauma-of-alien-contact-experience/
There was nothing nefarious about changing my name for the forums; it was just changed on a whim. Analyze the writing style or whatever if you don't believe me.

I'm just really disappointed in Skeptiko, especially the false claims of fraud against the scientists of East Anglica University. "Climategate" was investigated by eight separate investigations, including ones initiated by the British House of Commons, the US Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation. The scientists were cleared of all wrongdoing by all investigations. If all these organizations were in cahoots, it would require an enormous conspiracy which beggars belief.

I have just been pushing back against what I see as false information and libelous attacks on innocent scientists.

Neither side of the debate in the comments section has discussed spirituality at any length. So you can't accuse just the "believers" and not the "skeptics" of this.

But to humor you ;), here's my take on the spiritual aspects,
I think we here on Earth have been given the freedom to make mistakes, both as individuals and as societies. If society is so narrowminded and greedy that we can't protect our planet, we will reap what we sow. Also, I think there is a question of trust. Are you capable of believing that vast conspiracies of thousands of scientists are capable of defrauding the world? Call me naive, but I believe that scientists who set out on the path to study the world and give up higher pay in private industry (the salary difference is roughly a factor of two on average for working in science versus a job requiring the same qualifications in private industry) are really trying to do their honest best to expand human knowledge. No one becomes a scientist out of greed but out of reverence of Nature and its workings. If you want to distrust anyone, distrust the oil companies which are only after profit, not knowledge.

I don't like the accusation that I haven't been listening to all the other podcasts. Being accused of such by the host of the show feels like betrayal.
 
Last edited:
Your most recent posting of other people’s words doesn’t relate to my response to your original request which was...
Hmm. You're still not getting it. Or maybe you are, but playing the innocent.

First, Marcott publishes a paper that claims to have used 73 "globally distributed records" (proxies, e.g. sedimentary cores) to come up with the graph you originally posted and that set off this whole discussion. It was not apparent from the original paper that the instrumental temperature record was used for the C20th uptick.

Second, Steve McIntyre discovers that the uptick is arbitrarily manufactured by redating some of the cores. Marcott admits to the redating, but says it isn't robust for the C20th.

Third, Marcott belatedly comes up with the explanation that the uptick actually came from the instrumental record all along. You think that means the issue of where the data came from is a red herring. But it's a crucial point. If he'd said that in the original paper, it may never have got accepted for publication, and even if it had, it would have been seen for what it was, the splicing of two different types of temperature data that can't be compared.

Fourth, that's because he's admitted that the proxy data is smoothed and can't resolve to less than several centuries, whereas the C20th instrumental temperature data is continuous and fine-grained. For all we know, during the proxy part of the graph the temperature could have been going up and down like a yo-yo, but there's no way Marcott would have been able to detect that. The graph he published gave the false impression that the resolution was the same all along its length, and derived entirely from the proxy record, and neither he nor any of his co-authors sought to disabuse the press of that notion. It was only because Steve McIntyre found them out that the fireworks started.

As for being a troll, give me a break. You've been bobbing and weaving all over the place and trying to pretend that there's no problem with the graph you posted to start this exchange. Sceptics are making a mountain out of a molehill and yet again this demonstrates how obdurate they are. Yeah, right.

Like I've said, you've done nothing to disconfirm McKitrick's analysis, which is damning, but that's nothing new in the illustrious field of climate so-called science.
 
Look, I'm going to parachute back in to defend myself...

I think we here on Earth have been given the freedom to make mistakes, both as individuals and as societies. If society is so narrowminded and greedy that we can't protect our planet, we will reap what we sow. Also, I think there is a question of trust. Are you capable of believing that vast conspiracies of thousands of scientists are capable of defrauding the world? Call me naive, but I believe that scientists who set out on the path to study the world

Stephen, I accepted your interest in psi once you provided the evidence. I still suspect you're a bit of a parachutist when it comes to the Skeptiko forum, though. As to lots of "innocent" scientists who were exonerated, give me a break. They were guilty as hell, and investigations could hardly have been described as thorough, still less impartial. The problem is, CAGW as an issue is too big to be seen to fail. Sooner or later I'm confident it will fail, but there are too many vested interests to allow that to happen without resistance.

I'm not a conspiracist: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. IMO, it's for the most part down to the madness of crowds.
 
Neither side of the debate in the comments section has discussed spirituality at any length. So you can't accuse just the "believers" and not the "skeptics" of this.

But to humor you ;), here's my take on the spiritual aspects,
I think we here on Earth have been given the freedom to make mistakes, both as individuals and as societies. If society is so narrowminded and greedy that we can't protect our planet, we will reap what we sow. Also, I think there is a question of trust. Are you capable of believing that vast conspiracies of thousands of scientists are capable of defrauding the world? Call me naive, but I believe that scientists who set out on the path to study the world and give up higher pay in private industry (the salary difference is roughly a factor of two on average for working in science versus a job requiring the same qualifications in private industry) are really trying to do their honest best to expand human knowledge. No one becomes a scientist out of greed but out of reverence of Nature and its workings. If you want to distrust anyone, distrust the oil companies which are only after profit, not knowledge.
You will remember I was one who did put forward a spiritual perspective - interestingly it was only the "believers" who responded to my post.
What really surprises me is that the process of spiritually opening up was like plugging my finger into the socket of the suffering in the world - that's why the psychic life is so damn uncomfortable. I don't know a psychic (and I know a lot) who doesn't experience the world in this way. The idea that we should not get involved and let it all go, and somehow float above all the distress in the world and just see to our own process of enlightenment, just doesn't gel with my idea of what this all means. More than that, its completely at odds with my experience of spiritual connection. Because of that connection I am impelled to act.
 
Last edited:
Please take a look at the Muller document...Fracking has actually been going on for a long time: it's only been popularised recently because environmentalists have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that involves oil, coal, or gas. Fracking is actually more environmentally friendly than conventional drilling.

Thank you for the links Mr. Larkin. It helps to have both views on any subject.

When I was reading http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports...riousEnvironmentalistShouldFavourFracking.pdf, section 2. page 6 caugght my attention:
"2. IS SHALE GAS ENVIRONMENTALLY
BENIGN?
Despite the immense potential environmental
value of shale gas, the list of potential
environmental negatives is also significant. We
need to sort out which threats are real and
which ones are based on misunderstanding; the
rapid development of shale gas has been
matched by an equally rapid growth of
misinformation about the potential dangers. The
following paragraphs go through these one by
one and explain why, although all of them must
be addressed, none ofthem are showstoppers."


I also read and watched http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/...ctor-pulls-video-to-hide-inconvenient-truths/.
I followed this up with:
"Affirming Gasland" A rebuttal by Josh Fox.
http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf

I continued my net search and here are a few citations and links I came across. If you have already discussed any of these claims and concerns, I apologize. I haven't read the entire thread.:


"Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules against Act 13"
http://chgis.fas.harvard.edu/frack/?q=node/53
"This decision is a stark acknowledgement from our top court that fracking is indeed hazardous to public health and the environment," said Sam Bernhard, Food & Water Watch's Pennsylvania Organizer. "Today’s decision by the State Supreme Court is a huge victory for communities throughout Pennsylvania that have been fighting desperately against the devastating realities of fracking that big oil and gas corporations – and our bought-off governor – have thrust upon them."
Act 13, the court said, unconstitutionally overrides a municipality's responsibility to protect neighbors and the environment from the fallout imposed by heavy industrial operations.
Thursday's ruling also revived a doctor's challenge to the notorious "gag rule" in Act 13. It prevents doctors from talking freely about cases in which patients might have fallen ill from exposure to chemicals used in drilling, on the theory that the identity of many such chemicals is a trade secret. The court also made it clear that townships can sue on behalf of residents in environmental cases such as this."


"CA Offshore Fracking Uses Dangerous Chemicals, Analysis Finds
California Coastal Commission Has Authority to Halt Offshore Fracking, End Ocean Wastewater Discharge
New Analysis Finds Oil Companies Using Ecologically Hazardous Chemicals, Pumping Wastewater Into Coastal Waters"

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/11/14-3

I checked MIT. MIT is sometimes pro-fracking "...it's safe for the enviroment."
http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044030/pdf/1748-9326_7_4_044030.pdf
But also in that search, a YouTube video is returned, where conflict of interest and ethics violations claims are being put forward.
/watch?v=KQvD0zk7fMo
And here too:
"Tell MIT: Investigate biased fracking research"
http://credo.actionkit.com/sign/MIT_fracking/?akid=7212.1183552.t8xsJ4&rd=1&t=1002

And then sometimes, MIT isn't:
"Harvard Study Gives Failing Grade to Fracking Industry Disclosure Website"
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylv...rade-to-fracking-industry-disclosure-website/

"Pennsylvania Fracking Study Preliminary Results Released"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/25/pennsylvania-fracking-study_n_3813650.html
"A project examining the local health impacts from natural gas drilling is providing some of the first preliminary numbers about people who may be affected, and the results challenge the industry position that no one suffers but also suggest the problems may not be as widespread as some critics claim..."

"Study concludes that fracking wastewater disposal can cause earthquakes"
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/s...cle_8fa51466-1ffb-11e3-861e-0019bb30f31a.html

"Some states confirm water pollution from drilling"
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-drilling
"Among the findings in the AP's review:
Pennsylvania has confirmed at least 106 water-well contamination cases since 2005, out of more than 5,000 new wells. There were five confirmed cases of water-well contamination in the first nine months of 2012, 18 in all of 2011 and 29 in 2010. The Environmental Department said more complete data may be available in several months.
Ohio had 37 complaints in 2010 and no confirmed contamination of water supplies; 54 complaints in 2011 and two confirmed cases of contamination; 59 complaints in 2012 and two confirmed contaminations; and 40 complaints for the first 11 months of 2013, with two confirmed contaminations and 14 still under investigation, Department of Natural Resources spokesman Mark Bruce said in an email. None of the six confirmed cases of contamination was related to fracking, Bruce said.
West Virginia has had about 122 complaints that drilling contaminated water wells over the past four years, and in four cases the evidence was strong enough that the driller agreed to take corrective action, officials said.
A Texas spreadsheet contains more than 2,000 complaints, and 62 of those allege possible well-water contamination from oil and gas activity, said Ramona Nye, a spokeswoman for the Railroad Commission of Texas, which oversees drilling. Texas regulators haven't confirmed a single case of drilling-related water-well contamination in the past 10 years, she said."


"Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals Found At Fracking Sites Linked To Cancer, Infertility: Study"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/fracking-chemicals-cancer-study_n_4468243.html
"Hormone-disrupting chemicals linked to cancer, infertility and a slew of other health problems have been found in water samples collected at and near hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," sites in Colorado, according to a new study published in the journal Endocrinology (http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/en.2013-1697) this week."

A list of chemicals used for fracking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_for_hydraulic_fracturing


There seems to be a clear acknowledgment of danger by the fracking industry, which validates concerns. You appear to have a heavy investment in fracking, but do you support any alternate energy production industries or technologies?

-cont-
 
Please take a look at the Muller document...Fracking has actually been going on for a long time: it's only been popularised recently because environmentalists have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that involves oil, coal, or gas. Fracking is actually more environmentally friendly than conventional drilling.

-cont-

I can understand the conviction and motivation to promote what is believed to be a genuine solution. I would not equivocate , I fully support LENR or Cold Fusion, but these terms really do not adequately convey the scope and these emerging sciences. IMO, Field Energy might be broad enough and comprehensive. But I'm not fully vested in just one area of Field Energy. So I like to keep abreast with new ideas and innovations at; Pure Energy Systems News (PESN) http://pesn.com/. It's an informative site that I would strongly recommend Alex Tsakiris to be aware of and possibly consider interviewing Sterling D. Allan.

I would also recommend;

Dr. Paul LaViolette has written four books and has published many original papers in physics, astronomy, climatology, systems theory, and psychology. He received his BA in physics from Johns Hopkins, his MBA from the University of Chicago, and PhD from Portland State University, and at the time of this interview was president of the Starburst Foundation, an interdisciplinary scientific research institute. He is the developer of subquantum kinetics, a novel approach to microphysics that accounts for electric, magnetic, gravitational and nuclear forces in a unified manner and resolves many long-standing physics problems. Based on the predictions of this theory, he developed an alternative cosmology that effectively replaces the Big Bang theory. Dr. LaViolette has also developed a new theory of gravity that replaces the deeply flawed theory of general relativity.

Colonel Bearden is a leading conceptualist in alternate energy technologies, electromagnetic bio-effects, unified field theory concepts, and other related areas. He is a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the US Army and holds a Ph.D. and an M.S. in Nuclear Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. At the time of this interview, he was CEO of CTEC, Inc., Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists, and Fellow Emeritus of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study. In Colonel Bearden's testimony he speaks extensively about how it is possible to derive useable energy from the vacuum without violating any currently known laws of physics. He and others have built electromechanical devices which actually demonstrate this technology.

Dr. Tom Valone is the President of Integrity Research Institute and Editor of the well respected Future Energy newsletter and Enews. He has authored 6 books and numerous scientific studies, articles and papers related to energy in all forms. He provides consultations on electrical product design/development, engineering testing, environmental/electromagnetic field/energy, expert testimony and opinion. He meets regularly with congressional and senate leaders and briefs them on the latest energy developments. Dr. Valone holds a PhD in General Engineering from Kennedy-Western University (now Warren National), an M.A. in Physics from SUNY at Buffalo, B.S. Physics and B.S. in Electrical Engineering, from SUNY at Buffalo and is a Licensed Professional Engineer with the state of New York.



From all I have read, known previously, and now concerning fracking, I can not endorse it. IMO, the risk is to high and the danger too great. Humanity would remain at the mercy of petrol-chemical corporations while suffering continued and increasing pollution.


It's time for the people of Earth to move forward and take the next step...


Matt
 
Last edited:
-cont-

I can understand the conviction and motivation to promote what is believed to be a genuine solution. There's no equivocation of my part, I fully support LENR or Cold Fusion, but these terms are really do not adequately convey the scope and these emerging sciences. IMO, Field Energy might be broad enough and comprehensive. But I'm not fully vested in just one area of Field Energy. So I like to keep abreast with new ideas and innovations at; Pure Energy Systems News (PESN) http://pesn.com/. It's an informative site that I would strong recommend Alex Tsakiris to be aware of and possibly consider interviewing Sterling D. Allan.

I would also recommend;

Dr. Paul LaViolette has written four books and has published many original papers in physics, astronomy, climatology, systems theory, and psychology. He received his BA in physics from Johns Hopkins, his MBA from the University of Chicago, and PhD from Portland State University, and at the time of this interview was president of the Starburst Foundation, an interdisciplinary scientific research institute. He is the developer of subquantum kinetics, a novel approach to microphysics that accounts for electric, magnetic, gravitational and nuclear forces in a unified manner and resolves many long-standing physics problems. Based on the predictions of this theory, he developed an alternative cosmology that effectively replaces the Big Bang theory. Dr. LaViolette has also developed a new theory of gravity that replaces the deeply flawed theory of general relativity.

Colonel Bearden is a leading conceptualist in alternate energy technologies, electromagnetic bio-effects, unified field theory concepts, and other related areas. He is a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the US Army and holds a Ph.D. and an M.S. in Nuclear Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. At the time of this interview, he was CEO of CTEC, Inc., Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists, and Fellow Emeritus of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study. In Colonel Bearden's testimony he speaks extensively about how it is possible to derive useable energy from the vacuum without violating any currently known laws of physics. He and others have built electromechanical devices which actually demonstrate this technology.

Dr. Tom Valone is the President of Integrity Research Institute and Editor of the well respected Future Energy newsletter and Enews. He has authored 6 books and numerous scientific studies, articles and papers related to energy in all forms. He provides consultations on electrical product design/development, engineering testing, environmental/electromagnetic field/energy, expert testimony and opinion. He meets regularly with congressional and senate leaders and briefs them on the latest energy developments. Dr. Valone holds a PhD in General Engineering from Kennedy-Western University (now Warren National), an M.A. in Physics from SUNY at Buffalo, B.S. Physics and B.S. in Electrical Engineering, from SUNY at Buffalo and is a Licensed Professional Engineer with the state of New York.



From all I have read, known previously, and now concerning fracking, I can not endorse it. The danger, IMO, is too great and humanity remains at the mercy of petrol-chemical corporations while suffering continued and increasing pollution.


It's time for the people of Earth to move forward and take the step...


Matt
Thank you.
 
Well, Matt, Greens don't want coal; oil or gas fracked or no; nor nuclear power. They're often opposed to hydropower, too.

They like windmills even though they kill birds and bats, have bad effects on peat lands, and Neodynium mining has deleterious effects. They like solar too, but neither of the above can realistically supply energy demands.

They like fuels from crops, even though that despoils forests, drives up food prices, and some say generates more CO2 when you do all the sums.

Maybe they'd like LENR if and when it eventuates, but the "N" stands for nuclear, so I wouldn't bet on it.

There's no satisfying the buggers. I say screw them. While ostensibly worrying about grandchildren, they're doing all they can to kill as many of them as possible--just not their own: but that doesn't matter because we're only talking, in the main, about people of colour in distant lands who have the unforgivable temerity to want the standard of living we have.

Those people will say screw them, too, so in the end, they can't win. On depressing days, that thought cheers me up enormously.
 
pwnage2011_logo2.png

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

Vision
A society that lives within the limits of the natural world, where people understand the impacts of their way of life on the environment, and are involved in decision making about sustainable development. Sustainability will take precedence over growth in GDP, and will be measured and reported.
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealan
 
Thank you.

I appreciate the gratitude, but I'm also not endorsing either polarized view of AGW. My concerns encompass the entire framework of global ecological, sociology-economic, political, philosophical, and spiritualism.

Field Energy extracts from the quantum vacuum. IMO, this could be derived from something related or possibly the same source of energy for what is being explored in this forum; psi, duality consciousness bridge, remote viewing, NDE etc... Everything requires energy, even "paranormal."

So, from my perspective, since the divide in AGW is environmentalist vs petrol-chemical and from years of of my own research and study of others more qualified, I think that debate is rudderless. The hidden agendas, corruption, obfuscation, compromised science, and irrational solutions on both sides all seem the intended result as the stagnation demonstrates. To be honest though, I'm concerned by the belief global climatology is this closed-system controllable thing humanity can just do this or that and make it all better. And I'm disturbed by willful-disregard and ignorance of ecological depletion and pollution.

Shifting to a new energy paradigm is natural, it's more apart from AGW, but still connected. However, it's being delayed and is long over due, for reasons and suspicions I'll assume I don't have to explain.

The AGW debate, as I view it, is not solvable. My gut tells me it's not what I should be focused on and as it is sensationalized in the MSM, my focus continues to decrease proportionally.

Matt
 
The only point I'd make re: solar power is that it only makes electricity when the sun shines (which it doesn't that much at high latitudes, particularly in winter) and so can't be a good and reliable power source. Nor do we have very effective means of energy storage for when it's dark. Solar power arrays take up a lot more space than conventional power stations watt for watt, and the panels don't last forever. Like windmills, you still need conventional backup power, and that can end up generating more CO2 than if you didn't have them at all. Solar panels are okay for private homes if one can afford them, but your average Joe probably won't be able to, and it can take decades for them to pay back the investment, by which time they may be at the end of their useful working lives.

Agreed. Key point though is that solar costs are coming down very quickly. It won't be long until it is much more common. Solar could move the needle. I don't think it can move the needle enough but it can move the needle.

At the moment, the most effective way to go if one really wanted to replace fossil fuels is nuclear power stations, and maybe Thorium-powered ones would be the way to go as they're probably safer than ones using other power sources. An increasing number of environmentalists are coming to this conclusion, but there's strong opposition from some others. In the end, some environmentalists are opposed to practically any really effective source of power: coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. Take it to its logical conclusion, and the only solution is going back to the dark ages and losing a large proportion of the human population.

Agreed. Thorium seems the way as it is comparatively safe and can be done now. The real scandal is that it isn't being pursued as a matter of priority.

Which some actually say in so many words they want, by the way.

True.

What I really want to say:
-Arguing about what "should" happen is fun but I find it pointless. I am more interested in what will happen. As a species we have a terrible short sightedness. It will take a clear and imminent catastrophe to get us to act and then it will be too late (as this is the supertanker scenario). This is true. Think of all the angst there has been about the tiny meaningless baby steps we have taken. Here in the UK there is an uproar over increases in electricity prices. They are talking of scrapping the green taxes that have been introduced. The UK can't even make the small meaningless baby steps stick.
-Also, we don't really know what is happening and we have no way to find out. Taking meaningful action will also cause human harm (food price increases, freezing elderly people etc). These short term in your face effects means we aren't going to take meaningful action.
-So, we're gonna roll the dice. Everybody cross your fingers!
 
I appreciate the gratitude, but I'm also not endorsing either polarized view of AGW. My concerns encompass the entire framework of global ecological, sociology-economic, political, philosophical, and spiritualism.

Field Energy extracts from the quantum vacuum. IMO, this could be derived from something related or possibly the same source of energy for what is being explored in this forum; psi, duality consciousness bridge, remote viewing, NDE etc... Everything requires energy, even "paranormal."

So, from my perspective, since the divide in AGW is environmentalist vs petrol-chemical and from years of of my own research and study of others more qualified, I think that debate is rudderless. The hidden agendas, corruption, obfuscation, compromised science, and irrational solutions on both sides all seem the intended result as the stagnation demonstrates. To be honest though, I'm concerned by the belief global climatology is this closed-system controllable thing humanity can just do this or that and make it all better. And I'm disturbed by willful-disregard and ignorance of ecological depletion and pollution.

Shifting to a new energy paradigm is natural, it's more apart from AGW, but still connected. However, it's being delayed and is long over due, for reasons and suspicions I'll assume I don't have to explain.

The AGW debate, as I view it, is not solvable. My gut tells me it's not what I should be focused on and as it is sensationalized in the MSM, my focus continues to decrease proportionally.

Matt

We are agreed that finding a new energy solution is fundamental. Who cares what gets us there.

So field energy may be the same as kundalini energy? I'm feeling the love already. Can I please be plugged into the national grid?

Jules
 
Again, I'm a Brit. We don't have the Tea Party in England. I don't go to Tea Party sites, and I don't have much of a clue about them apart from the fact that they're right-wing. I speak my own mind, and despise the way all major western political parties have bought into the CAGW meme. Please stop projecting your own mindset and terminology onto me. As to how the poor are affected, I've already given examples. You said you'd read my posts, but I don't think you can have. We're done here.
S'allright...(had a feeling i was talkin' to myself anyhow) It's okay, I work better alone. And I still really want to find out how a prudent yet proactive strategy toward possible global warming could ever harm my poor brothers and sisters. But no idea where
to look. So.....

I remember post #6. It reads in part: "....this boondoggle is going to kill millions......rising cost of food production. . . biofuel. . . . thousands may have already starved to death. . . "

I guess the concern is that - if poor farmers use their land to grow corn, and then all that corn is sold to make ethanol, then there won't be enough corn to eat. Then, because of 'supply & demand' the cost of the left-over edible corn will go up sky-high, and the poor people will starve. And that is terrible.

So I google "deaths related to biofuel production." Right away I'm taken to the 'Watts Up With That'web site where I read a report about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons who claim that bio-fuels might lead to the deaths of 200,000 people every year. The report is written by a PHd, and it's even based on data assembled by the UN. . . . Looks like I might be wrong. . .

But first I google "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons." It is a 3000 member non-profit organization dedicated to fighting... socialized medicine.. . Hunh ? One notable member is Ron Paul. Okay. . . . They oppose mandatory vaccination, and electronic medical records. uh-oh. . . . published an editorial accusing Obama of using hypnosis to get people to vote for him. hunh? thinks abortion leads to breast cancer, and illegal aliens import 2000 cases of leprosy a year. . . ????

Okay, so it's not the AMA - so what ? The PHd author, Dr. Indur Goklany is real. Right ? Well, google him and find out the PHd is not in agronomy, but electrical engineering. So what ? Intelligent laymen can work outside their fields. He's worked for four different right wing think tanks. He could still be honest. Some evil hackers found out he was accepting money from Heartland Institute while also working for the governemnt. Uh-oh, That's a no-no. Still, it's just ad hominem. So google his report. . . .
http://www.jpands.org/vol16no1/goklany.pdf
It may be argued that these are overestimates since biofuel use should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby, hypothetically, reducing the contribution of man-made global warming to death and disease. However, the above estimates exceed the WHO’s estimate of the contributions of global warming to death and disease. . . . . Although there are reasons to be skeptical of these global warming estimates, even if one were to assume that they are valid, it is unlikely that global warming policies that encourage biofuel consumption and production would save more than a small fraction of this toll, primarily because of the inertia of the climate system. Because of this climatic inertia, decades would have to elapse before emission reductions are manifested as any temperature reductions. Moreover, greenhouse gas reductions effected by biofuels seem marginal at best. Nevertheless, if one assumes, unrealistically, that biofuel policies eliminate man-made greenhouse gas emissions would roll back global warming to 1990 levels, biofuel policies would still result in a net increase of 51,000 deaths . . . . .
Yeah, he's no English Major. What does all that MEAN ?
If you go to Page 3, Table one, you see the number one risk factor for poverty related deaths is. . . . global warming. Wut ?!
Yeah. This paper says that 141,000 people are already gonna die due to poverty and hunger. The author hypothesises that biofuel production would cause an extra 51,000 deaths. But these are ON TOP of the deaths due to the problems partially caused by global warming.

This cannot be accurate -- can it ?

Maybe we should take another look at the assumption that bio-fuel production increases poverty. I mean, this paper by Goklany went EVERYWHERE. Even Mother Jones reprinted it as a condemnation of ethanol. But there's no proof here - no corpus delecti.

But there is certainly death connected to global dependence on fossil fuels. How many soldiers, British and American, died in order to maintain a supply of oil ? And the tyranny of dictators propped up on petro-profits.. . How many jihads are born under that oppression ? All the tons of mercury and sulfur pumped into the air. . .So much more research needs to be done. . .

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/29/1

"A Merril Lynch study published by the Wall Street Journal has shown that biofuels kept oil from rising 15% higher than its already brutal peak in 2008, denying OPEC more than $180 billion in oil revenue. That money was helpful to us but vital to the poor."
"If you want to know the real enemy of the world poor, look at OPEC."
"People need to understand this: OPEC's price rigging amounts to a huge extremely regressive tax on the entire world economy. Setting oil prices at $100/bbl is harmful to the advanced industrial countries, but it is brutally destructive to the third world. It is one thing to pay $100/bbl for oil when you live in a country where the average worker makes $45,000 per year. It is quite another when
you make $1000 per year. Effectively, the high oil price amounts to taking hundreds of billions of dollars away from the world's poorest people and giving it to the world's richest people."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels
 
I think I should quote Robert Anton Wilson's opinion on eco-religion here. He described the problem with it with the such clarity, intelligence, wit and humour that he surely deserved to be quoted in full here (emphasises are mine). The quote is quite long, so I decided to make three posts to provide it (but it deserves it!)

True ecological science, like all science, is relativistic, evolutionary, and progressive; that is, it regards all generalizations as hypothetical and is always ready to revise them. It seeks truth, but never claims to have obtained all truth.

Pop ecology, or ecological mysticism, is the reverse in all respects. It is absolutist, dogmatic, and fanatical. It does not usually refer its arguments back to ecological science (except vaguely and often inaccurately); it refers them to emotions, moral judgements, and the casual baggage of ill-assorted ideas that make up pop culture generally. Ecological mysticism, in short, is only rhetorically connected with the science of ecology, or any science; it is basically a crusade, a quasi-religion, an ideology.


.....It is my suspicion that the usefulness of the ideology to the ruling elite is no accident....The tax-exempt foundations which largely finance Pop Ecology are funded by the so-called Yankee Establishment -- the Eastern banking-industrial interests of whom the Rockefellers are the symbols. If this Yankee financing is not "coincidental" and "accidental" (based on purely disinterested charity)--if the ecological-mystical movement is serving Yankee Banker interests--a great deal of current debate is based on deliberately created mutual misunderstanding.

...Consider the following widely-published and widely believed propositions: "There isn't enough to go around." "The Revolution of Rising Expectations, since the 18th Century, was based on fallacy." "Reason and Science are to be distrusted; they are the great enemies." "We are running out of energy." "Science destroys all it touches." "Man is vile and corrupts Nature." "We must settle for Lowered Expectations."

Whether mouthed by the Club of Rome or Friends of the Earth, this ideology has one major social effect: people who are living in misery and deprivation, who might otherwise organize to seek better lives, are persuaded to accept continued deprivation, for themselves and their children.

That such resignation to poverty, squalor, disease, misery, starvation, etc. is useful to ruling elites has frequently been noted by Marxists a propos pre-ecological mysticism; and, indeed, people can only repeat the current neo-puritan line by assuming that the benefit to the Yankee oligarchy is totally accidental and not the chief purpose of the promulgation of this ideology.

"I don't think humanity deserves to survive," stated one letter to Co-Evolution Quarterly. ....The only rationale for continuing the neo-puritan Lowered Expectations, in the light of these data, would be (a) to prove that Fuller, Gabel and their associates have been fudging or corrupting their figures--a demonstration none of the eco-puritans have attempted; or (b) a blunt assertion that most of humanity deserves to live in misery.

...For perspective,it should be remembered that the ideology of Lowered Expectations arrived on the historical scene immediately after the upsurge of Rising Expectations. That is, after the Utopian hopes of the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, almost as if in reaction, an employee of the British East India Company, Thomas Malthus, created the first "scientific" argument that the ideals of those documents could never be achieved. Malthus had discovered that at his time world population was growing faster than known resources, and he assumed that this would always be true, and that misery would always be the fate of the majority of humanity.

The first thing wrong with Malthus's science is that "known resources" are not given by nature; they depend on the analytical capacities of the human mind. We can never know how many resources can be obtained from a cubic foot of the universe: all we know is how much we have found thus far, at a given date. You can starve in the middle of a field of wheat if your mind hasn't identified wheat as edible. Real Wealth results from Real Knowledge, which is increasinng faster all the time.

Thus the second thing wrong with Malthus's scenario is that it is no longer true. Concretely, more energy has been found in every cubic foot of the universe than Malthus ever imagined; and, as technology has spread, each nation has spontaneously experienced a lowered birth rate after industrializing.
Unfortunately, between the 28th century inventory of Malthus and the 20th century inventory of Fuller et al., the Malthusian philosophy had become the pragmatic working principle of the British ruling class, and a bulwark against French and American radicalism. Malthusianism-plus-Machiavellianism was then quickly learned by all ruling classes elsewhere which wished to compete with the British for world domination. This was frankly acknowledged by the "classical" political economists of that period, following Ricardo, which led to economics being dubbed "the dismal science" Benjamin Jowett, an old-fashioned humanist, voiced a normal man's reaction to this dismal science: "I have always felt a certain horror of political economists since I heard one of them say that he feared the famine of 1848 [in Ireland] would not kill more than a million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do much good." In fact, the English rulers allowed the famine to continue until it killed more than two million.

(to be continued...)
 
Last edited:
Here is the continuation of the opinion piece of RAW:

In the 1920's, Karl Haushofer studied Malthusian-Machiavellian political economy in England with Prof. H.J. Mackinder--whose coldblooded global thinking coincidentally inspired Bucky fuller to begin thinking globally but more humanistically. Haushofer took the most amoral aspects of Makinder's geopolitics, mingled them with Vrill Society occultism, and forged the philosophy of Realpolitik, which Hitler adopted as part of the official Nazi ideology. The horror of the Nazi regime was so extreme that few ruling classes dare express the Malthusian-Machiavellian philosophy openly anymore, although if is almost certainly the system within which they do their thinking.

As expressed openly by British political economists in the 19th century, and maniacally by the Nazis, Realpolitik says roughly,"Since there isn't enough to go around, most people must starve. In this desperate situation, who deserves to survive and live in affluence? Only the genetically superior. We will now demonstrate that we are the genetically superior, because we are smart enough and bold enough to grab what we want at once. Since the fall of Hitler, this combination of Malthus and Machiavelli is no longer acceptable to most people. A more plausible, less overtly vicious Malthusianism is needed to justify a system in which a few live in splendor and the majority are condemned to squalor. This is there pop ecology comes in.

The pop ecologists now state the Malthusian scenario for the the ruling elite, since it sounds self-serving when stated by the elite. There is an endless chorus of "There isn't enough to go around...Our hopes and ideals were all naive and impossible... Science has failed...We must all make sacrifices," etc., until Lowered Expectations are drummed into everybody's head.

Of course, when it comes time to implement this philosophy through action, it always turns out that the poor [those making $200,000 or less] are the ones who have to make the sacrifices, not the elite. But this is more or less hidden, unless you are watching the hands that moves the pea from cup to cup, and if you do notice it, you are encouraged to blame "those damned environmentalists." Thus, the elite gets what it wants, and anybody who doesn't like it is maneuvered by the media into attributing this to the science of ecology, the cause of environmentalism, or Ralph Nader. The Ultimate implications of eco-mysticism are explicitly stated in theodore Roszak's "Where the Wasteland Ends". Roszak argues that science is phychologically harmful to anybody who pursues it and culturally destructive to any nation which allows it. In short, he would take us back, not just to a medieval living standard, but to a medieval religious tyranny where those possessing what he calls "gnosis" -- the Illuminati -- would be entirely free of nagging criticism based on logic or experiment. The Inquisition would not try Galileo in Roszak's ideal eco-society; a man like Galileo simply would not be allowed to exist. The similarity to the notions of Haushofer and the Vril society is unnerving." "(On the Vril Society, see L. Pauwels and J. Bergier, "Morning of the Magicians". On the parallels between the Vril society and Roszakian pop ecology, see the excellent novel, "The Speed of Light", by Gwyneth Cravens.).

Or consider this quotation from Pop Ecologist Gary Snyder, 'But what I'm talking about is not what critics immediately call 'the Stone Age.' As Dave Brower, the founder of Friends of the Earth, is fond of saying, 'Heck, no, I'd just like to go back to the 20's.' Which isn't an evasion because there was almost half the existing population then, and we still had a functioning system of public transportation." ("City Miner", spring 1979).

In short, Snyder wants to "get rid of" two billion people. Those who believe that none of the Pop Ecologists realize that their proposals involve massive starvation for the majority should consider this question profoundly. Benjamin Jowett, who experienced horror at the deliberate starvation of one million Irishmen, would have no words to convey his revulsion of this proposed genocide of millions.

(to be continued...)
 
Last edited:
In this context, note that the only ideology opposing eco-puritanism usually well-represented by the mass media is that of the Cowboys-new Western wealth, which is still naive and barbaric in comparison to the Yankee establishment. The cowboy response to Pop Ecology, as to any idea they don't like, is simply to bark and growl at it; their candidate, now in the White House, is famous for allowing vast destruction of California's magnificent redwoods on the grounds that "if you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all." Other and more intelligent criticisms of Pop Ecology, such as have come form some Marxists and some right-wing libertarians, are simply ignored by the media, with the consequence that ecological debate - as far as the general public knows it - is, de facto, debate between the Yankees and the Cowboys. Once again, it may be "happy coincidence" that keeps the debate on that level is just what the elite wants, or it may be more than a "happy coincidence." George Bernard Shaw once noted that an Englishman never believes anybody is moral unless they are uncomfortable. To the extent that Pop Ecology shares this attitude and wishes to save our souls by making us suffer, it is just another of the many forms of puritanism. To the extent, however, that it insists that abundance for all is impossible (in an age when, for the first time in history, such abundance is finally possible) it merely mirrors ruling class anxieties. The ruling class elite shares the "Robin Hood" myth with most socialists; they do not think it is possible to feed the starving without first robbing the rich.

Perhaps these ruling class terrors and the supporting cult of Pop Ecology will wither away when it becomes generally understood that abundance for all literally means abundance for all; that, in Fuller's words, modern technology makes it possible to advantage everybody without disadvantaging anybody. In this context, look for a minute at some very interesting words from Glenn T. Seaborg, representative Yankee bureaucrat, former chairman of the Atomec Energy Commission. "American society will successfully weather its crises and emerge in the 1990's as a straight and highly disciplined, but happier society. Today's violence, permissiveness and self-indulgence will disappear as a result of a series of painful shocks, the first of which is the current energy crises... Americans will adjust to these shortages with a quiet pride and a spartan-like spirit."
Is it necessary to remark that phrases like "highly disciplined" and "spartan-like" have a rather sinister ring when coming from ruling class circles? Does anybody think it is the elite who will be called upon to make "spartan" sacrifices? Is it not possible that the eco-mysticism within this call for neofascism is a handy rationalization for the kind of authoritarianism that all elites everywhere always try to impose? And is there any real world justification for such medievalism on a planet where, as Fuller has demonstrated, 99.99999975 percent of the energy is not yet being used?

We live in an age of artificial scarcity, maintained by ignorance and fear. The government has been paying farmers not to grow food for fifty years - while millions starve. Labor unions, business and government conspire to hold back the microprocessor revolution - because none of them know how to deal with the massive unemployment it will cause. (Fuller's books could tell them.) The utilities advertise continually that "solar power is at least forty years in the future" when my friend Karl Hess, and hundreds of others already live in largely solar powered houses. These propaganda advertisements are just a delaying action because the utilities still haven't figured out how to put a meter between us and the sun.

And Pop Ecology, perhaps only by coincidence, keeps this madness going by insisting that scarcity is real, and nobody wonders why the Establishment pays the bill for making superstars of these merchants of gloom.

Sorry if this text is too long to be quoted here (If this not be done here, I'm sorry - just tell me it, and I won't do it again!). But shortening it would very probably lead to the loss of (part of) its meaning, and RAW's view on this topic really deserves to be mentioned.

I can add from myself: I usually describe myself as "sociocultural libertarian". I do so to prevent confusion of my view with political-economic libertarianism, whether right-wing type, classic "capitalistic" librtarinism (presented here by Enrique Vargas) or left-wing type, advanced "socialistic" lbertarianism (defended by people like Noam Chomsky). I consider this right-left, capitalist-socialist political and economic dichotomy to be badly outdated and archaic. We have already entered the era when we can provide economical profusion to everyone, to create a world there nobody would have to starve. And we can do it without "redistribution of wealth" that is regularly mentioned by Enrique. We do NOT have to rob the rich ones out of their wealth to feed the poor ones; we now have a potential to create such quantities (and qualities) of the new wealth that they would be enough to eliminate all poverty.

Gosh, we already have a range of new technologies to generate energy! We have a (relatively) developed, ready-to-be-used technology of LENR ("cold fusion"), which can potentially solve the energy problems of our time! We have even better possibilities which can be developed in the future, such as zero-point energy... But we refuse to apply these technologies - simply because of fear, hated, defamation, misinformation and deceitful propaganda that is spread by the cliques of the merchants of dogma, such as "paranormal skeptics". I wonder: do these people really misunderstand what they are doing?!! They, even if unwillingly, became the social and cultural barrier which does not allow us to reach the heights which are long ago accessible. We can advance ourselves to the new levels of development, to create a better world - and we do not need to ignite a new war and violence to do so. We simply need to overcome our own fear, prejudice, and inertia of thought. The new possibilities do not wait for us in some hypotetical future - they are here and now for us to realize!

The "horror of our situation" (as George Gurjieff liked to say) is the fact that this is only our own mental blindness that prevent us from seeing them.
 
Last edited:
Look, I'm going to parachute back in to defend myself and say that I have listened to most of the podcasts, even the earlier ones, and am a big fan of parapsychological research.

I posted under my Disqus name "Pavonis" a couple of times before the new forums were created. I posted here
http://www.skeptiko.com/219-dr-stephen-law-extraordinary-claims/
and here,
http://www.skeptiko.com/212-clinica...li-treats-trauma-of-alien-contact-experience/
There was nothing nefarious about changing my name for the forums; it was just changed on a whim. Analyze the writing style or whatever if you don't believe me.

I'm just really disappointed in Skeptiko, especially the false claims of fraud against the scientists of East Anglica University. "Climategate" was investigated by eight separate investigations, including ones initiated by the British House of Commons, the US Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation. The scientists were cleared of all wrongdoing by all investigations. If all these organizations were in cahoots, it would require an enormous conspiracy which beggars belief.

I have just been pushing back against what I see as false information and libelous attacks on innocent scientists.

Neither side of the debate in the comments section has discussed spirituality at any length. So you can't accuse just the "believers" and not the "skeptics" of this.

But to humor you ;), here's my take on the spiritual aspects,
I think we here on Earth have been given the freedom to make mistakes, both as individuals and as societies. If society is so narrowminded and greedy that we can't protect our planet, we will reap what we sow. Also, I think there is a question of trust. Are you capable of believing that vast conspiracies of thousands of scientists are capable of defrauding the world? Call me naive, but I believe that scientists who set out on the path to study the world and give up higher pay in private industry (the salary difference is roughly a factor of two on average for working in science versus a job requiring the same qualifications in private industry) are really trying to do their honest best to expand human knowledge. No one becomes a scientist out of greed but out of reverence of Nature and its workings. If you want to distrust anyone, distrust the oil companies which are only after profit, not knowledge.

I don't like the accusation that I haven't been listening to all the other podcasts. Being accused of such by the host of the show feels like betrayal.
glad you listened... sorry to have offended. But your take on Climategate is hard to listen hear... we have the freak'n emails! just read and decide for yourself (along with the earlier report I included).

Of course the larger point that keeps getting lost (at least from my perspective) is that the connection between these wacky ideas on global warming and policy make absolutely no sense. So, rage all you want about the climate apocalypse, but I challenge you to tell me how you will implement, manage and enforce the worldwide policy changes you seek.
 
What I really want to say:
-Arguing about what "should" happen is fun but I find it pointless. I am more interested in what will happen. As a species we have a terrible short sightedness. It will take a clear and imminent catastrophe to get us to act and then it will be too late (as this is the supertanker scenario). This is true. Think of all the angst there has been about the tiny meaningless baby steps we have taken. Here in the UK there is an uproar over increases in electricity prices. They are talking of scrapping the green taxes that have been introduced. The UK can't even make the small meaningless baby steps stick.
-Also, we don't really know what is happening and we have no way to find out. Taking meaningful action will also cause human harm (food price increases, freezing elderly people etc). These short term in your face effects means we aren't going to take meaningful action.
-So, we're gonna roll the dice. Everybody cross your fingers!

There's some truth in the opinion that as a species, as well as individuals, we learn by our mistakes. I don't think rising fuel prices is a baby step: as you will know, excess winter deaths, particularly in the elderly, have increased since they went up. We don't live in a very warm country and the gap between the rich and the poor has been increasing of late. Rising fuel prices are no problem for the affluent.

You're right: we don't know what is happening for sure, but the precautionary principle works both ways. There's a price for taking precipitous action, and if the CO2 panic is unwarranted (which is my opinion based on my best understanding of the science), then on a global basis many millions could die needlessly.
 
Back
Top