Upcoming Interview With Jack Ward -- Global Nova Scotia Warming :)

OK lets talk about the evidence. Do you think a measured rise of 1.2 C in 140 years is a matter of grave concern?

Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 250 ppm to 400 ppm since the 1950's. However the main relevance of CO2 is as a plant food - I reckon I can actually see the difference in Britain - wooded areas are flourishing in a way they didn't when I was a kid.

The so-called greenhouse effect is not what warms greenhouses. A little thought will reveal that warm soil heats the atmosphere in greenhouses, but the greenhouse stops the heat being removed by convection - nothing to do with re-radiation of the energy.

Talk about these if you want to talk about the science, and then perhaps we can move on to Venus' atmosphere, and other related things.

David

I think that the global rise of temperature is an average and that could very well could be a concern. As we've seen in various countries, if it's cooler in one section of the planet and vastly warmer in another, it causes all kinds of massive problems. England's fires. Newfoundland. The problem so much of global warming and climate change I think we're discovering is the instability of the Earth's climate from droughts to ongoing downpours that never seem to end, from hurricanes, to flash freezing. Massive snowstorms to no snow at all. The environment is not used to huge changes. A great documentary from "The Nature of Things" some years ago "Silent Sentinels" I believe it was called spoke of the massive 98%+ destruction of the coral in the Indian Ocean from heating in a short span of time. Nature creates very unique ecological systems allowing a mass web of bio-diversity to exist. That becomes a huge problem when we see climate change effect the way it works.
You're absolutely right that C02 is the oxygen of plants. Hotter soil will certainly provide some species more ability to grow. But the question, has always been for me, not so much of "Well universally this is good so its good".. but understanding how cyclical nature works in regional areas.
For example, if you have an entire bio-diverse jungle environment and the temperature and waterfall turns it nearly overnight into a savannah or a desert, one could argue that desert creatures would arise from those soils and regional climates, but at what cost?
Shouldn't the focus truly be on a kind of stabilization?
After all, that's one of the fair assessments made about the economy.. the idea that the Great Reset doesn't get rid of wealth but it does remove it from the economic ecosystem of the regional areas is very much of concern. Why is it we can make that one understanding when it comes to the health of a community under money, but not under climate change?
That's a rhetorical question not necessarily one for you to answer David.
J
P.S. By the way, sorry if I was testy in last week. It was pretty hectic. I need to learn not to post when I'm overly stressed with other things LOL
 
Justin Trudeau and politicians who were encouraging the useless lockdowns loved to talk about "the science". It is a horrible phrase because it doesn't even begin to touch the complexities of whatever the issue is. It seems to say, "The all knowing scientists have spoken, our task is simply to obey".

It is instructive to notice how the lockdowns worked out in Sweden - they didn't have any, and fared better than average in the COVID epidemic. Likewise, the UK didn't instigate another Christmas and New Year lockdown last year (which would probably have dragged on for months). Despite this the COVID infection rates in the UK promptly dropped in the new year!

Do you really think the capitalists are doing badly out of the climate scaremongering? Diesel is up to £1.83 per litre in Britain, and people are still driving. Some group of capitalists are laughing their heads off. Likewise, there are capitalists 'investing' in windmills. They graze off the subsidies, and then they will move on.

Jack, like you, I don't like out of control capitalism, but it is what we have, and they have their fingers into all these pies - including climate extremism, and they milk them for all they can get, and then move on.

David

I agree with you. I don't see how the lockdowns provided better outcomes. I'm frustrated with forced mandates, and I don't think Trudeau handled either the pandemic or the Trucker situation well.
J
 
Thanks for this. His video was interesting.
As usual, I try to find dissenting voices in all things, and apparently Lomborg's actual numbers don't fit.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminsti...ntastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/

I wonder what Lomborg's response would be. There are other videos where Lomborg speaks at some length about the issues, and he makes a much more convincing case than Ward that it's the current approach ( and not his ) that is propaganda filled. It's no secret that Lomborg has detractors either, so dissenting views will be easy to find. In fact, I looked at Lomborg because he is himself a dissident compared to the mainstream narrative.

As is typical, Wards counterpoint consists of name calling and cherry picked examples that are outside the context of the book, so we don't know if his criticism is valid or not. It might be the case that although the numbers Lomborg uses don't represent what the authors cited intended, that they are still valid as data and therefore do represent a valid point by Lomborg. Certain COVID stats and claims can be similarly interpreted.

Copenhagen Consensus Center
 
I wonder what Lomborg's response would be. There are other videos where Lomborg speaks at some length about the issues, and he makes a much more convincing case than Ward that it's the current approach ( and not his ) that is propaganda filled. It's no secret that Lomborg has detractors either, so dissenting views will be easy to find. In fact, I looked at Lomborg because he is himself a dissident compared to the mainstream narrative.

As is typical, Wards counterpoint consists of name-calling and cherry-picked examples that are outside the context of the book, so we don't know if his criticism is valid or not. It might be the case that although the numbers Lomborg uses don't represent what the authors cited intended, that they are still valid as data and therefore do represent a valid point by Lomborg. Certain COVID stats and claims can be similarly interpreted.

Copenhagen Consensus Center

Perhaps you can be specific about how Mr. Lomborg's inaccurate numbers somehow make it a matter of my own "name calling" and "cherry picking"?
I provided simply someone else's critique of Lombard's assessment. I have no opinion on the man myself. And I think a deeper dive into both claims of the individuals would make more sense than this weird combative perspective where someone's right or wrong is based on an ideological approach. I'm always confused at the anger people provide in these conversations. That strikes me as neither a rational look at the information nor n honest approach.
Have we just abandoned even the pretence of honest discussion on the subject? I hope not.
J
 
Perhaps you can be specific about how Mr. Lomborg's inaccurate numbers somehow make it a matter of my own "name calling" and "cherry picking"?
I was referring to Bob Ward ( the guy in the video ) not you. It's also not a case of the numbers being "Lomborg's numbers". Like Ward ( the other Ward ) says, they are from other people, and it's likely that the case Lomborg makes is in that context. He's got a whole team dedicated to this.
I provided simply someone else's critique of Lombard's assessment. I have no opinion on the man myself.
I get that.
And I think a deeper dive into both claims of the individuals would make more sense than this weird combative perspective where someone's right or wrong is based on an ideological approach. I'm always confused at the anger people provide in these conversations. That strikes me as neither a rational look at the information nor n honest approach.
I don't have a problem with debate. It's even fine if the debate makes people upset to some extent. After all - we're all human beings, and some subjects can become emotionally charged. The important thing is to keep the subject of the discussion in focus and not engage in personal attacks. But if it goes that way, I can dish it out as well as I can take it, and I'll usually hang-in there until a moderator steps in.
Have we just abandoned even the pretence of honest discussion on the subject? I hope not.
Have a look at Lomborg's other vids and the link to the Copenhagen Consensus Center. There's lots of good quality info for consideration there. Ward is connected with The Grantham Research Institute, which looks like it also has a team of researchers. Maybe they're competing with each other — I don't know. Whatever the case, it would be interesting to see what Lomborg's response would be. It's always good to see the pros and cons get hashed out — that's a tried and true way of getting to the bottom of things.
 
Last edited:
Does this mean you want to do the interview? I backed off continuing to ask because I didn't want to lead you into an embarrassing Trish McGregor kind of situation, but at this point don't you feel like it's time to put-up-or-shut-up?

Jack's not going to do either. He will continue trolling the forum.
 
I was referring to Bob Ward ( the guy in the video ) not you. It's also not a case of the numbers being "Lomborg's numbers". Like Ward ( the other Ward ) says, they are from other people, and it's likely that the case Lomborg makes is in that context. He's got a whole team dedicated to this.

I get that.

I don't have a problem with debate. It's even fine if the debate makes people upset to some extent. After all - we're all human beings, and some subjects can become emotionally charged. The important thing is to keep the subject of the discussion in focus and not engage in personal attacks. But if it goes that way, I can dish it out as well as I can take it, and I'll usually hang-in there until a moderator steps in.

Have a look at Lomborg's other vids and the link to the Copenhagen Consensus Center. There's lots of good quality info for consideration there.

Thanks I'll check those out..
It's interesting you bring the "upset" nature up right now. As I am currently in an online conference on Meditative Inquiry, and we're talking about how people get angry when they find new information that breaks their worldview or self-concept. New knowledge always tends to come in a negative way at first. It's part and parcel of my focus to try to take emotional steps back as that's never my intention.
I find there's literally no value in people staking out their territories and sending potshots at each other from that vantage point. And so, I'm more likely to just ignore those kinds of comments. Not because I'm above it (I wish). But rather that I don't want it to be a part of my daily experience.
J
 
Thanks I'll check those out..
It's interesting you bring the "upset" nature up right now. As I am currently in an online conference on Meditative Inquiry, and we're talking about how people get angry when they find new information that breaks their worldview or self-concept. New knowledge always tends to come in a negative way at first.
Like I always say — A good day for me is when someone proves me wrong because it means I've learned something new. I also recognize from experience, that people who think that way are in the minority. Either that, or I've always managed to find the wrong crowd to hang with ( lol ).
It's part and parcel of my focus to try to take emotional steps back as that's never my intention.
For a long time I took it for granted that other people thought the same way as I do — that being informed about what they were doing wrong would be seen as doing them a favor. After all, who wants to walk around all day with their zipper undone? It might be embarrassing to find out, but a friend will at least tell you. Boy — did I ever learn how wrong my assumption was.

A book I found very helpful in minimizing the fallout is Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Coleman. Since then, a few other relevant titles along the same line have come out.
I find there's literally no value in people staking out their territories and sending potshots at each other from that vantage point. And so, I'm more likely to just ignore those kinds of comments. Not because I'm above it (I wish). But rather that I don't want it to be a part of my daily experience.
I know what you mean. I got really tired of people always making the assumption that because I have a different perspective than them, that it in some way translates to me being a worse person. I'm a grown adult and was literally driven to tears by cyberbullies over at the now defunct James Randi discussion forum. That being said, it was also a bit of a trial by fire that helped me learn how to deflect a lot of that negativity.
 
Last edited:
Like I always say — A good day for me is when someone proves me wrong because it means I've learned something new. I also recognize from experience, that people who think that way are in the minority. Either that, or I've always managed to find the wrong crowd to hang with ( lol ).
I think a lot of it is in the delivery. If you think you know something only to find out you were mistaken, its natural for one to feel vulnerable or exposed. If the teacher (i.e., the person who "proved you wrong") is compassionate in the interaction, I think people react much more favorably and even in a similar fashion to how we tend to react when we learn something novel (i.e., no previous ground had been staked): with a bit of awe/wonder.

The challenge in the digital space is the lack of the interpersonal medium. Becomes a much more aggressive and colder interaction. Not a great place to find out you were mistaken; relatively speaking.
 
I think that the global rise of temperature is an average and that could very well could be a concern. As we've seen in various countries, if it's cooler in one section of the planet and vastly warmer in another, it causes all kinds of massive problems. England's fires. Newfoundland. The problem so much of global warming and climate change I think we're discovering is the instability of the Earth's climate from droughts to ongoing downpours that never seem to end, from hurricanes, to flash freezing. Massive snowstorms to no snow at all. The environment is not used to huge changes. A great documentary from "The Nature of Things" some years ago "Silent Sentinels" I believe it was called spoke of the massive 98%+ destruction of the coral in the Indian Ocean from heating in a short span of time. Nature creates very unique ecological systems allowing a mass web of bio-diversity to exist. That becomes a huge problem when we see climate change effect the way it works.
The problem with that, is that nature simply has to create ocological systems that are robust against changes in weather. Plants and animals can only react to what is going on in their locality, and of course temperature and rainfall varies hugely all over the world. Thus Britain has hot summers and cold summers, rainy summers and dry summers, etc. I think the only rational prediction coming from a 1.2C warming would be that the vegetation bands around the planet would shift ever so slightly.

Remember that one definite fact is that our planet has warmed up from the last ice age - the process of gradually warming the planet can't possibly be catastrophic - everything just adapts.


You're absolutely right that C02 is the oxygen of plants. Hotter soil will certainly provide some species more ability to grow. But the question, has always been for me, not so much of "Well universally this is good so its good".. but understanding how cyclical nature works in regional areas.
For example, if you have an entire bio-diverse jungle environment and the temperature and waterfall turns it nearly overnight into a savannah or a desert, one could argue that desert creatures would arise from those soils and regional climates, but at what cost?
Shouldn't the focus truly be on a kind of stabilization?
But as I have already shown, the ecosphere has to be resilient against shocks of various kinds, because locally the variation from year to year can be huge. There are also events in the past such as the Medieval Warm Period, the little ice age, and events such as the eruption of Krakatau, which spread dust into the atmosphere. The Earth's ecology has survived all of these.

Remember also, that it would seem that each doubling of the CO2 concentration will generate the same increase in temperature - so there is a law of diminishing returns - the earth is never going to heat up much from this cause.

I think there is even some reason to doubt the physics of global warming altogether. The atmosphere is not in a state of equilibrium because it constantly receives radiant energy from the sun and of course it radiates heat back into space, so it is very hard to say anything definitive. However, what makes me suspicious that the effect is even real, is that for it to work, CO2 in the troposphere has to re-radiate heat back to the ground, even though the troposphere is at a much lower temperature than the ground. Heat doesn't normally move in this direction!

It is incredibly hard to get definitive answers to some of these questions because the subject has been incredibly politicised, so I'm not attempting to make a definitive statement here, indeed there is a discussion here that might suggest the opposite:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/416297/can-heat-radiate-from-a-cold-to-hot-body

However, as I have pointed out in the past global warming doesn't seem to have happened on Venus, despite the fact that its atmosphere is almost entirely CO2!

P.S. By the way, sorry if I was testy in last week. It was pretty hectic. I need to learn not to post when I'm overly stressed with other things LOL

I think that happens to all of us from time to time!

David
 
Jack's not going to do either. He will continue trolling the forum.
I don't think Jack is trolling the forum because I suspect he has been cocooned in CAGW theory for so long that he has not realised that there are strong reasons to doubt CAGW is valid - he is coming up against rational resistance that he hadn't realised existed outside of Big Oil or Big Coal!

The really hard thing to realise is just how easily scientists will distort the facts to suit the wishes of their sponsors.

David
 
I don't think Jack is trolling the forum because I suspect he has been cocooned in CAGW theory for so long that he has not realised that there are strong reasons to doubt CAGW is valid ...
You guys lost me back there when it got all sciency. I just think it sorta makes sense that if you put 5% more insulation in your attic, that it must have some effect. All other variables being the same, the science predicts a rise in temperature due to the greenhouse effect. If it were just that simple — right?

I get the arguments and counterarguments. It's a subject that matters — but not strictly from an environmental perspective. Lomborg's basic rationale is that if mankind's overall well being is the aim, then there are more effective ways to spend the money. That approach is difficult to argue against.
 
Last edited:
You guys lost me back there when it got all sciency. I just think it sorta makes sense that if you put 5% more insulation in your attic, that it must have some effect. All other variables being the same, the science predicts a rise in temperature due to the greenhouse effect. If it were just that simple — right?

I get the arguments and counterarguments. It's a subject that matters — but not strictly from an environmental perspective. Lomborg's basic rationale is that if mankind's overall well being is the aim, then there are more effective ways to spend the money. That approach is difficult to argue against.

I look forward taking the time to read his work. I think there's an argument to be made once we agree this is an issue as to how much we should throw money at it, or where we should put our emphasis. Maybe we should just innovate ourselves out of the worst part of what's coming down the pipe. I think that's a whole other discussion. Which is why I've never been the "We're totally doomed"... I think humanity will survive. We'll just see more wars, more fights for resources, and more mass extinctions.
 
Interesting discussion with Sirota, producer of "Don't Look Up" the satire about how we're ignoring Global Warming. Weird perspective when you consider much of the argument is that we spend too much time catastrophizing the issue.
 
After taking some time to consider... I think that the topic is too important and if there is going to be an interview then the following has to be in place:
1. We agree upon parameters. That way the goal post doesn't just change.
2. Provide your best evidence against Climate Change beforehand to prove your point.
3. If there is counter-evidence disproving it. We're done.
Or else this just becomes someone's ideology chasing to any evidence to support it like the pandemic has become :(
J
 
After taking some time to consider... I think that the topic is too important and if there is going to be an interview then the following has to be in place:
1. We agree upon parameters. That way the goal post doesn't just change.
2. Provide your best evidence against Climate Change beforehand to prove your point.
3. If there is counter-evidence disproving it. We're done.
Or else this just becomes someone's ideology chasing to any evidence to support it like the pandemic has become :(
J

Isn't it obvious that the reason for the debate is disagreement about validity of various evidence, and an opportunity to scrutinize it over long form in-person dialogue?
It seems to me like your above restructuring could serve to back yourself out.
Who cares if you both believe your opponents are disproven?
Good faith means Lets Hash It Out Anyway!
Man up

I do like the idea of attempting to establish agreed goal posts. But good faith debate always includes nudging of goal posts. The whole thing about good faith is saying "Ok, you pushed well and I cant defend so I'll let you take a little ground there, and maybe I gotta come back better equipped in that area next time.."

Bad faith is trying to give excuses as to why you're conclusion shouldn't be afforded scrutiny.


Edit: I listened to the video up until 11:30 where she used the word "calculus" twice in 1 minute to describe political deliberation/compromise.
But they both sound like they truly believe what they're saying, which is cool.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it obvious that the reason for the debate is disagreement about validity of various evidence, and an opportunity to scrutinize it over long form in-person dialogue?
It seems to me like your above restructuring could serve to back yourself out.
Who cares if you both believe your opponents are disproven?
Good faith means Lets Hash It Out Anyway!
Man up

I do like the idea of attempting to establish agreed goal posts. But good faith debate always includes nudging of goal posts. The whole thing about good faith is saying "Ok, you pushed well and I cant defend so I'll let you take a little ground there, and maybe I gotta come back better equipped in that area next time.."

Bad faith is trying to give excuses as to why you're conclusion shouldn't be afforded scrutiny.


Edit: I listened to the video up until 11:30 where she used the word "calculus" twice in 1 minute to describe political deliberation/compromise.
But they both sound like they truly believe what they're saying, which is cool.

Both are very dedicated in their worldview.
I was listening to the recent show with Alex, and wonder if there's been a very large survey done on those who follow these things. I'm willing to bet there are some very telling trends that operate within political ideology and beliefs as it comes to the extended experiences.
Nothing as simplistic as "believe/unbeliever" mind you, but rather very deep ruts that various ideas come down upon.
I don't think that there has been such a survey put out, and I'm interested in putting one together. Alex doesn't feel that has anything to do with the evidence, but what evidence is accepted and what is discarded is VERY MUCH in my opinion, identified by someone's worldview.
I wonder if there's interest here by folks to fill out a survey if I cook one up?
I'll be happy to test out the wording with people here so MY bias doesn't infect it too much.
I'll give you an example... now I haven't finished the latest show yet so I can't say definitively but there is one possibility that no one was talking about. That being that there could be something in the human experience that does it's best to deny, obfuscate, and forget paranormal experience. Other than viceral Near-Death experiences and the like, simple encounters with the unknown often get forgotten or downplayed, or even re-written in our heads. I can't tell you how many times friends of mine who had an experience in the past hand wave it away now. Denial? Part of the Archon programming? Part of the imposition of a virtual setting role to try to minimize glitches? All of these things have to be on the table. There are just too many accounts to simply assume that it always is and always has been nefarious governmental forces.
J
 
doesn't feel that has anything to do with the evidence, but what evidence is accepted and what is discarded is VERY MUCH in my opinion, identified by someone's worldview.

I tend to agree on this point, however, how does Sam Harris’s worldview bring out his irrational behaviour where Trump (and other things) are concerned?

In my case, I think my worldview influences my thinking on the big issues like death and that maybe influences how I tend to think about other linked things, but I don’t think it is the reason I feel strongly about some things, though it may make a difference to how I act as a result. Interesting stuff Imo.

edit: Thinking about this, I feel more strongly about Sam Harris’s arrogance than I do about Trump’s - yet I know that Trump is a narcissistic fool, (though he’s no fool). Perhaps Sam is just as bad if not worse because his ‘academic prowess’ impresses so many - where to me he’s basically full of shite! I see the same thing with Jimmy Dore, pals of mine dislike him and accuse him of being a ‘right winger’ simply because he is constantly highlighting the democrats hypocrisy. It’s tribal bullshit..
 
Last edited:
Back
Top