Disclaimer: As a not-very-scientifically minded person this post is written from a sense of minimal understanding but hopefully there aren’t any serious errors in the basics put forward.
I used to be very much on board with AGW, too, even believed Greta was for real, until I learned that in past climate cycles, CO2 has risen AFTER temperature increases, not before--and by hundreds of years. CO2 can't possibly be the or even a cause of warming. This has been the psyop from the beginning, a way to manipulate people into accepting reductions in their freedom of movement and other life activities, and even population culls because "we have met the enemy and he is us." We are so illiterate about physics and other science knowledge--I mean, true science knowledge--and that is due to centuries of indoctrination that "it's too complicated for us to understand." Sure, there are complicated aspects of all knowledge, and the details of climate science are probably complicated and somewhat arcane, but the basics of it don't need to be that difficult. Like the flaws that make virology pseudoscience, which an ordinary person with a high school education can grasp, the basics of climate are not beyond understanding by everyday people. There are sun cycles, that's been documented, and we appear to be in a warming phase now--nothing whatsoever to do with burning so-called fossil fuels. Geomagnetics may well also be a contributing factor. There are many very real threats to life on Earth due to pollution and activities that entirely disregard nature--"climate change" is not one of them, but aerosol spraying is. My 2 cents. Thanks for providing different perspectives.
Skeptical Science argues, however, that CO2 doesn't effectively lag temperature. What they say happens is that increased heat initially warms the oceans which later start to release CO2 because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. Thus initially it's heat driving it even if that heat isn't reflected in the atmospheric temperature. However, if you look at the comments you will see some argument that that situation could still simply be one of correlation rather than causation and that there are other possible explanations for rises in temperature, eg, Points 3. and 7. in the comments on the first page from StanislavLem.
To me, it's so much more complicated than the virology fraud. Nevertheless, I choose at this point to treat AGW as a fraud too and not really care whether it is or not because, after covid, I'm simply incapable of getting onboard with any draconian measures they will try to implement. Also, as I say in another comment, SkS completely undermines its seeming scientific and objective attitude with complete nonsense in its foray into covid, in addition to actually censoring and banning me although my comments were perfectly reasonable.
All you need to know about “climate change” is that the predicted negative consequences are based on models. And those same models cannot be back-tested to confirm them.
I'm not sure about the "can't be back-tested" - they can be back-tested to a reasonable degree, however, the testing doesn't work well. There is not a great fit as is pointed out.
Most of the long(ish)-term temperature records are based on thermometers that started out in grassy fields that wound up on buildings or in parking lots built since, according to the Heartland Institute's Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming – Second Edition.
Its binary with regards to back-testing. Your model either produces the same results as known historical climate patterns (given those historical inputs to your model) or it doesn’t. There is no in between.
Climate change or say rise in global average temperature, precipitation, sea level rise etc can be measured. Has been measured. Hence, all that has been "back tested". In fact, we now have a fair amount of peer-reviewed information about all that, from the last 150 years.
Not at all based on models but actual peer reviewed information from the last 150 years, and in some cases earlier. They can be "back tested" as much as you wish. However, speaking of models, read, THE LIMITS TO GROWTH by Donella Meadows, written in 1972, which was based on models, and was spot on. In essence, a stupid hollywood movie cannot refute what science has know for more than 3 decades now.
The models are necessary for projections and they certainly do use models.
Please do not put forward "peer-reviewed" as any kind of argument, OK? As we can see with the fraudulent virology and vaccinology, peer-reviewed is utterly meaningless and that is even said by mainstream commentators.
Is how science or say scientific studies advance - by "peer-reviewed" efforts and scrutiny. When proved wrong, a new review may ensue. Hence, any kind of argument aside, your basically ' talking crap ' by conflating climate change with fictional hollywood movie with " fraudulent virology and vaccinology,". Which is totally subjective and partly ridiculous. Yet Science is not some religion, that we must follow to the word, however worse are all such pathetic movies and set of denials that go with. It is your bogus argument, no content, which is a total waste of time.
It does not matter what I personally believe in or disbelieve. I merely pointed out that most scientific study, evidence and verity is usually done, by a process of peer review. Sometimes takes years. Given there are many conflicting information, claims, ideas and conspiracy theories based around "virology and vaccinology" - Why blame science? It is the scientists or mainstream science you may have a problem with? Blame them. However, climate science, climate change and aspects of global warming, loss of ice, loss of habitat, mass extinction are not fictional nor someone's imagination. The actual proof and proof in numbers is all there.
Many of the scientific models used to study and predict climate change, are indeed
"back-tested to confirm them". Not only by one or two scientists, but many as peer reviewed conclusion. However, people who do not read nor study worse never look around their world, can go on bickering, speculating and watching trash movies to go!
Since covid I realise that science can be completely fraudulent, that peer-review is meaningless and science isn't consensus and consensus isn't science. The consensus argument didn't particularly influence me even when I believed in AGW (and I'm not saying at this point I absolutely disbelieve but I certainly don't actively believe and I know I will not be able to get behind any of the measures that they introduce to control us in relation to it,).
I started waking up to all the lies we've been fed in 2014 after watching the 3.5 hour film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick, but steadfastly since that time I've maintained belief in two things:
--- the moon landings (which I'll never change my mind on as the evidence is simply overwhelming and no argument against them is remotely valid)
--- AGW
I believed in AGW because the arguments put forward for it made sense and seemed validated by the data and although I checked the arguments against it as best I could none of them seemed to stand up. I treated the website Skeptical Science as my bible. I liked the way they put up all the naysaying arguments and presented what seem like clear arguments to debunk them ... but then I had my own experience with SkS on the subject of covid into which they made a foray. The "moderator" ludicrously edited my comments and deleted one where I made a case against the pandemic with 10 numbered points on the basis that it was a Gish Gallop. The complete unreason of this censorship completely undermines the objective and scientific aura SkS likes to portray.
So now I wonder how "moderated" the comments are in all their naysaying posts. If AGW really is cause for alarm, SkS massively undermine themselves Boy Who Cried Wolf style with the nonsense they put forward for the covid scam.
I used to believe that the vast majority of naysaying arguments came from people funded by fossil-fuel companies or simply people who didn't like the idea of suffering a big transition in energy sources. I now see though that it's not just those people. There are very serious scientists who speak against it who are clearly not funded. This isn't to say either side is right, however, the argument is much less clear to me now.
You speak of "models" as if a number of models is perfectly valid whereas Koen argues that the fact that 9 models were considered by the IPCC and that two were chosen rather than one is an undermining factor in the theory.
Questions
1. What is your argument for a significant number of models for back-testing rather than one?
2. How do you explain the flattening of the temperature curve that Koen points out post WWII?
modellers don't make predictions but projections. they'll put assumptions, speculations and guesses into a (climate) model and make lots of 'what if'-scenarios, called projections.
what we should really be doing is address all the pollution that off-balances the natural environment and start cleaning out the toxins that sicken us. powerful eugenicists seem to be playing a crucial 'dirty' role in all of that.
I did have a look but can't remember if I watched the whole thing or not. Shocking as I only had a look recently. I don't remember if I watched it all without developing any opinion about it which would seem strange, got sidetracked or simply stopped watching because there was something I strongly disagreed with or simply didn't like about the presentation. I shall take another look.
You might look into the art of Paltering.... the devious art of lying by telling the truth. "The risks and reward of using truthful statements to mislead others or convey a misleading impression." Paltering differs from lying by omission (the passive omission of relevant information) and lying by commission (the active use of false statements). Paltering is common in negotiations and many negotiations prefer to palter than to lie by commission. Paltering, however may promote conflict, fueled by self-serving interpretations: Palterers focus on the veracity of their statements. Expect paltering to be a particularly effective form of deception because the use of active, truthful statements, is likely to both distort a target's beliefs and is often very difficult to detect. the best lie is the one that has the most truth in it.
If you're wondering what is causing the climate to change - it's called Geoengineering... high altitude atmospheric aerosol injection... spraying us like bugs with Aluminum, Barium and Strontium - and more - "potash" from China. It'll be fine.
Yes, I know they're geoengineering but presumably aerosols would be cooling us and that doesn't seem to be happening ... at least not yet. Yes, the geoengineering is probably a big factor ... but what is it doing exactly other than poisoning us? Also, it's difficult to understand why they're doing it in the sense that they can't escape that poisoning themselves.
... perhaps we should ask the bio-fascists what reason they are injecting bio-weapon death-jabs that transfer to others through shedding and cause eventual death... surely they are suicidal and intend to kill everyone just the same as the sky sprayers. The metals they spray is superheated by ionization - HAARP... which dehydrates the atmosphere - causes excess evaporation - the aluminum goes into the ground and prevents plant-roots from absorbing what water is left in the ground. It'll be fine.
Quite honestly, the science is simply too complicated for me to be entirely sure of what's going on I think but my attitude now is - on principle - never be scared of anything those in power tell you to be scared of, especially when it involves control measures.
... the real truth about the who-what-wheres about "climate change" is they want the idea firmly engrained in our heads and must accept that we all have a carbon footprint that will be enumerated and passed on to you or sold by your government to central bankers.
Thanks Petra. It's a good post. CO2 is only 5% of green house gas, water vapor is near 95%, But he sun is the biggest cause of temp cycles. CO2 always rises about 800 yrs after temp rises. This is a good quick docuvid. https://www.bitchute.com/video/lIu5lvd2KAnZ/
Changes in geomagnetism take tens of thousands of years and flips average once in 450,000 years.
You might want to actually watch Koen's videos or read his paper to be certain on what you think about geomagnetism.
The climate scientists recognise that water vapour is by far the greatest greenhouse gas, however:
--- They argue the analogy of a person consuming fat and water - no matter how much water a person drinks they won't put on weight whereas fat will slowly build up - water comes and goes in the atmosphere, it doesn't build up - I'm not sure how good this argument is but it's not that they don't recognise water vapour as having the strongest GHGE.
--- As argued by Joseph Postma it seems water vapour has both warming and cooling effects.
"It couldn’t be any more clear: In the desert there is very little water vapour, and water vapour is the strongest heat-amplifying so-called greenhouse gas, especially considering it’s overwhelming radiative properties as compared to CO2. Yet in the desert, much higher temperatures are reached than are achieved at similar latitudes in areas where there is an abundance of water vapour. If the greenhouse effect was really in operation, regions with more water vapour in the air should get much hotter than regions without, yet the reverse is seen to be the truth. It doesn’t get any more simple or clear than this: where there should be a stronger greenhouse effect, the opposite is what is actually found.
In fact, recent scientific findings by independent researcher Carl Brehmer has shown that water vapour, the strongest greenhouse gas according to climate theory, actually behaves as an ANTI-greenhouse gas because of its strong negative-feedback effects upon temperature increases. This is therefore actually a double-whammy to alarmist climate irrationality, because in addition to requiring water vapour to act like a heat-amplifying greenhouse gas, it also requires water vapour to act as a positive feedback factor! The data clearly shows that water and water vapour is a strong negative feedback factor in the climate, and that its presence reduced temperature, not increases it."
Yes I agree with the gh gas stuff, it is mainly a diversion from other things. Mainly the sun but the geomagnitism may likely have a role. BS from the Club of Rome probably has the highest role! As a writer it is good to get into other things, helps us take our head out of the dirt!
Yeah, I became good friends with someone through climate activism but - like me - having since discovered all the other frauds she simply turned on AGW when she learnt of the Club of Rome thing - didn't give the slightest heed to science - it was just a case of Club of Rome, end of.
You mean she became against Anthropogenic Global Warming? That alone yes is not enough. The Fall Cabal vid I linked above is only 15 min at 2x, I strongly recommend it.
Honestly, I also don't know what to say about the geomag idea. However he is a, "there is global warming, its just not CO2" guy, then peppers the vid with equations that were connected only in a theoretical way. That is eerily like covid propaganda: "There is a pandemic, it's the bioweapon, not a the wet market." Then give out all kinds of complex genomics. Both leave the lingering thought in the masses, "Oh anyway it's real". And no one could understand his equations (and his dry reading a text the whole time), so he was mixing a talk for the masses with too much math, made it seem real but he really didn't prove it. Thats one of those "door #2" gigs IMO. But who knows? I can say GW as a concern for humanity at this juncture is BS.
Still what ever our audience takes on outside info we just have to accept the mix of friendly opinions.
Yeah, good video. I watched most of the Fall of the Cabal series but not that one.
I don't think my friend believes in GW at all particularly, she's not bothered whatever's happening or not with the temperature, me too.
CNN: Be prepared, it's coming [climate change]. UN: We own the science.
It's not quite the same. Notice my heading wasn't temperature rise but climate anomalies. He points out where the temperature hasn't risen, in fact, against the CO2 temperature-rising model. The thing is it seems since the beginning of last century the temperature has risen very slightly but so what? There are numerous climate cycles that operate over different timespans and the temperature is always going to be following one trend or another. No doubt those in power became aware of this trend of temperature rise and thought of the ingenious idea of blaming it on CO2 and thus us - we're to blame and we have to suffer for our sins.
I don't know if what Koen Vogel says about geomagnetism is valid because I simply don't understand the science well enough but I think what he says about the invalidity of the CO2 attribution models is correct. I don't think you can blame him for complicated science - I think the science simply is complicated and I really don't think he's some kind of controlled opposition agent as he seems to be essentially ignored.
Agreed. On Koen, his presentation with the equations made it unnecessarily difficult to grasp and VERY strange to put in a YT vid that was not for professionals. In my pole reversal reading of about 6-7 professional papers, there was little math. Magnetic line excursions are common, there was no talk about warming. I just think his presentation/demeanor was strange and he didn't really tie all the clear GW nonsense to his talk, in fact he was clear at the start to brush away any conspiracy idea. So he's brilliant but not insightful? IDK.
I think it's important not to get sidetracked and lose sight of the big picture. Which is historical and subversive in nature, and goes all the way back to the late 60s (counter-culture), followed by the establishment of the GW narrative (Club of Rome, along with the WEF and all those other NGOs) in the early 1970s, in advance of their longer-term plan to inflict neoliberalism on the world (which really got going ten years later in the 80s).
In the meantime, they needed to control the new emerging opposition to their plans. The thing they are most scared of is of course a kind of liberal socialism, which was, indeed, epitomised by the early environmental movement and the original Green parties. So, they needed to infiltrate and take control - in the UK this happened in the late 1970s with the likes of Johnathon Porritt and the people who would become the so-called Green 2000 movement, which, after taking control over the party in the late 80s, did their best to ditch all the progressive socialism, and in so doing ensured that the party would be wiped out at the 1992 election, thus depriving people of genuine progressiveness (they already had their mainstream controlled opposition in the Labour Party - similar thinking applies for other countries, naturally). 1992, of course, being the year when the AGW thing went mainstream.
Up until then, environmentalism had been focussed on the genuine issues - all of which, we should note, were directly and solely caused by the corporates/multinationals. This was the environmentalism I grew up with and it was real, genuine, and hopeful. Combine this with progressive socialism, and you have neoliberalism's real enemy.
So, conveniently, when AGW hijacked the narrative, neoliberalism effectively escaped, whilst all attention was diverted onto 'fossil fuels' (note also this conveniently attacks the oil-producing nations, which have always been a target for the Americans/neoliberals/neocons). And so today you have an entire generation of young people who have no idea what genuine environmentalism really is, let alone what the important issues are. They have all been brainwashed with the AGW narrative - plus, equally importantly - they have also discovered that none of their protests or activism achieve a damn thing - thus generating our old friend 'learned helplessness'.
So this psyop, over fifty years old now, has been extraordinarily successful for the bad guys. And again, the fact that they've managed to foist it on the general public and have them believe it on the basis of extremely flimsy 'science' is likewise psychologically telling. AGW, when they 'first thought of it' was hardly even a 'scientific hypothesis', let alone something based in any facts or data. The 'data' naturally, would then have to be selectively chosen to 'fit the hypothesis' (cf. also the UEA climate department scandal for falsifying data and controlling the peer review process).
This is why it is completely impossible to even say that there is 'temperature rises' or 'a change in the climate' because we simply cannot trust any of the data - the idea that they wouldn't falsify data is, after all, not believable. What I personally can say, though, is that having lived here in a rural setting for the last 15 years it's that old cliche of 'the climate/weather is always changing' - which is true - each year is different, each month a variation on what that month was the previous year. It fluctuates, in other words, it does not follow a 'trend'. Most people, living in cities, don't even know what weather is, let alone climate.
Anyhow, ramble ramble. I think I've made my point. I'll spare you the rest.
As stupid as mainstream entertainment gets.. this is a great surrogate activity, in terms deconstructing b&llsh&t movies. And now, lets go back to "business as usual" also known as collapse denial and collective psychosis. Here come the deadly rays from outer space, but only on a high definition screen.
I used to be very much on board with AGW, too, even believed Greta was for real, until I learned that in past climate cycles, CO2 has risen AFTER temperature increases, not before--and by hundreds of years. CO2 can't possibly be the or even a cause of warming. This has been the psyop from the beginning, a way to manipulate people into accepting reductions in their freedom of movement and other life activities, and even population culls because "we have met the enemy and he is us." We are so illiterate about physics and other science knowledge--I mean, true science knowledge--and that is due to centuries of indoctrination that "it's too complicated for us to understand." Sure, there are complicated aspects of all knowledge, and the details of climate science are probably complicated and somewhat arcane, but the basics of it don't need to be that difficult. Like the flaws that make virology pseudoscience, which an ordinary person with a high school education can grasp, the basics of climate are not beyond understanding by everyday people. There are sun cycles, that's been documented, and we appear to be in a warming phase now--nothing whatsoever to do with burning so-called fossil fuels. Geomagnetics may well also be a contributing factor. There are many very real threats to life on Earth due to pollution and activities that entirely disregard nature--"climate change" is not one of them, but aerosol spraying is. My 2 cents. Thanks for providing different perspectives.
Skeptical Science argues, however, that CO2 doesn't effectively lag temperature. What they say happens is that increased heat initially warms the oceans which later start to release CO2 because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. Thus initially it's heat driving it even if that heat isn't reflected in the atmospheric temperature. However, if you look at the comments you will see some argument that that situation could still simply be one of correlation rather than causation and that there are other possible explanations for rises in temperature, eg, Points 3. and 7. in the comments on the first page from StanislavLem.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
To me, it's so much more complicated than the virology fraud. Nevertheless, I choose at this point to treat AGW as a fraud too and not really care whether it is or not because, after covid, I'm simply incapable of getting onboard with any draconian measures they will try to implement. Also, as I say in another comment, SkS completely undermines its seeming scientific and objective attitude with complete nonsense in its foray into covid, in addition to actually censoring and banning me although my comments were perfectly reasonable.
All you need to know about “climate change” is that the predicted negative consequences are based on models. And those same models cannot be back-tested to confirm them.
I'm not sure about the "can't be back-tested" - they can be back-tested to a reasonable degree, however, the testing doesn't work well. There is not a great fit as is pointed out.
Most of the long(ish)-term temperature records are based on thermometers that started out in grassy fields that wound up on buildings or in parking lots built since, according to the Heartland Institute's Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming – Second Edition.
Thats another problem…precise measurement.
It is only a problem if one is simultaneously dependent on it and incapable of it.
Lol, indeed.
Its binary with regards to back-testing. Your model either produces the same results as known historical climate patterns (given those historical inputs to your model) or it doesn’t. There is no in between.
So when you say "can't be back-tested" do you mean that there's sufficient data to back-test but the data doesn't align with the models?
Climate change or say rise in global average temperature, precipitation, sea level rise etc can be measured. Has been measured. Hence, all that has been "back tested". In fact, we now have a fair amount of peer-reviewed information about all that, from the last 150 years.
Models are used to replace data never collected.
Not at all based on models but actual peer reviewed information from the last 150 years, and in some cases earlier. They can be "back tested" as much as you wish. However, speaking of models, read, THE LIMITS TO GROWTH by Donella Meadows, written in 1972, which was based on models, and was spot on. In essence, a stupid hollywood movie cannot refute what science has know for more than 3 decades now.
The models are necessary for projections and they certainly do use models.
Please do not put forward "peer-reviewed" as any kind of argument, OK? As we can see with the fraudulent virology and vaccinology, peer-reviewed is utterly meaningless and that is even said by mainstream commentators.
In essence, your argument has no content.
Is how science or say scientific studies advance - by "peer-reviewed" efforts and scrutiny. When proved wrong, a new review may ensue. Hence, any kind of argument aside, your basically ' talking crap ' by conflating climate change with fictional hollywood movie with " fraudulent virology and vaccinology,". Which is totally subjective and partly ridiculous. Yet Science is not some religion, that we must follow to the word, however worse are all such pathetic movies and set of denials that go with. It is your bogus argument, no content, which is a total waste of time.
So you believe in the sciences of virology and vaccinology which are both supported by peer-review papers?
It does not matter what I personally believe in or disbelieve. I merely pointed out that most scientific study, evidence and verity is usually done, by a process of peer review. Sometimes takes years. Given there are many conflicting information, claims, ideas and conspiracy theories based around "virology and vaccinology" - Why blame science? It is the scientists or mainstream science you may have a problem with? Blame them. However, climate science, climate change and aspects of global warming, loss of ice, loss of habitat, mass extinction are not fictional nor someone's imagination. The actual proof and proof in numbers is all there.
You talk in meaningless generalities and have no concern for the truth.
Many of the scientific models used to study and predict climate change, are indeed
"back-tested to confirm them". Not only by one or two scientists, but many as peer reviewed conclusion. However, people who do not read nor study worse never look around their world, can go on bickering, speculating and watching trash movies to go!
If that were true, the extensive predictions of gloom and doom by 2010 would have occurred, they did not.
Further, expecting “scientists” to debunk what they are being paid to prove, is a fool’s errand.
But then, you believe the weather can be predicted 50 years in the future.
I recommend you observe reality and not place your faith in debunked “studies”.
Since covid I realise that science can be completely fraudulent, that peer-review is meaningless and science isn't consensus and consensus isn't science. The consensus argument didn't particularly influence me even when I believed in AGW (and I'm not saying at this point I absolutely disbelieve but I certainly don't actively believe and I know I will not be able to get behind any of the measures that they introduce to control us in relation to it,).
I started waking up to all the lies we've been fed in 2014 after watching the 3.5 hour film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick, but steadfastly since that time I've maintained belief in two things:
--- the moon landings (which I'll never change my mind on as the evidence is simply overwhelming and no argument against them is remotely valid)
--- AGW
I believed in AGW because the arguments put forward for it made sense and seemed validated by the data and although I checked the arguments against it as best I could none of them seemed to stand up. I treated the website Skeptical Science as my bible. I liked the way they put up all the naysaying arguments and presented what seem like clear arguments to debunk them ... but then I had my own experience with SkS on the subject of covid into which they made a foray. The "moderator" ludicrously edited my comments and deleted one where I made a case against the pandemic with 10 numbered points on the basis that it was a Gish Gallop. The complete unreason of this censorship completely undermines the objective and scientific aura SkS likes to portray.
So now I wonder how "moderated" the comments are in all their naysaying posts. If AGW really is cause for alarm, SkS massively undermine themselves Boy Who Cried Wolf style with the nonsense they put forward for the covid scam.
I used to believe that the vast majority of naysaying arguments came from people funded by fossil-fuel companies or simply people who didn't like the idea of suffering a big transition in energy sources. I now see though that it's not just those people. There are very serious scientists who speak against it who are clearly not funded. This isn't to say either side is right, however, the argument is much less clear to me now.
You speak of "models" as if a number of models is perfectly valid whereas Koen argues that the fact that 9 models were considered by the IPCC and that two were chosen rather than one is an undermining factor in the theory.
Questions
1. What is your argument for a significant number of models for back-testing rather than one?
2. How do you explain the flattening of the temperature curve that Koen points out post WWII?
modellers don't make predictions but projections. they'll put assumptions, speculations and guesses into a (climate) model and make lots of 'what if'-scenarios, called projections.
what we should really be doing is address all the pollution that off-balances the natural environment and start cleaning out the toxins that sicken us. powerful eugenicists seem to be playing a crucial 'dirty' role in all of that.
Yep, that's all we need to focus on, cleaning up generally.
I presume You have watched Climate: The Movie?
https://odysee.com/@TonyHeller:c/climate-the-movie:4
No, Humans are not impacting the climate 0.01% and much as the sun is.
I did have a look but can't remember if I watched the whole thing or not. Shocking as I only had a look recently. I don't remember if I watched it all without developing any opinion about it which would seem strange, got sidetracked or simply stopped watching because there was something I strongly disagreed with or simply didn't like about the presentation. I shall take another look.
I do look forward to Your thoughts.
You might look into the art of Paltering.... the devious art of lying by telling the truth. "The risks and reward of using truthful statements to mislead others or convey a misleading impression." Paltering differs from lying by omission (the passive omission of relevant information) and lying by commission (the active use of false statements). Paltering is common in negotiations and many negotiations prefer to palter than to lie by commission. Paltering, however may promote conflict, fueled by self-serving interpretations: Palterers focus on the veracity of their statements. Expect paltering to be a particularly effective form of deception because the use of active, truthful statements, is likely to both distort a target's beliefs and is often very difficult to detect. the best lie is the one that has the most truth in it.
If you're wondering what is causing the climate to change - it's called Geoengineering... high altitude atmospheric aerosol injection... spraying us like bugs with Aluminum, Barium and Strontium - and more - "potash" from China. It'll be fine.
Yes, I know they're geoengineering but presumably aerosols would be cooling us and that doesn't seem to be happening ... at least not yet. Yes, the geoengineering is probably a big factor ... but what is it doing exactly other than poisoning us? Also, it's difficult to understand why they're doing it in the sense that they can't escape that poisoning themselves.
... perhaps we should ask the bio-fascists what reason they are injecting bio-weapon death-jabs that transfer to others through shedding and cause eventual death... surely they are suicidal and intend to kill everyone just the same as the sky sprayers. The metals they spray is superheated by ionization - HAARP... which dehydrates the atmosphere - causes excess evaporation - the aluminum goes into the ground and prevents plant-roots from absorbing what water is left in the ground. It'll be fine.
We appear to have entered a Grand Solar Minimum period...
When the propaganda story-line was changed from 'Global Warming'
to 'Climate Change' the possibility of Global Cooling may have had
something to do with it (A bob-each-way bet ?)...
Fossil Fuels have a leading role in the 'climate change' (aka- 'global
warming') propaganda...
There's much talk about 'Peak Oil' having been reached (ie All the
cheap and easy to extract oil has peaked. What's left is costing a heck
of a lot more to extract)...
'Climate Change' appears to be the cover story to bring in restrictions
on private transport...It certainly is being used as such (Civilian claims
on the remaining cheap oil are competing with those of the State's
repressive and military forces)...
That being said, i'm 'A New Ice Age Cometh !' person, myself !
Quite honestly, the science is simply too complicated for me to be entirely sure of what's going on I think but my attitude now is - on principle - never be scared of anything those in power tell you to be scared of, especially when it involves control measures.
... the real truth about the who-what-wheres about "climate change" is they want the idea firmly engrained in our heads and must accept that we all have a carbon footprint that will be enumerated and passed on to you or sold by your government to central bankers.
'Paltering', you say ? I've considered using fact (aka - truth) to deceive (or mislead) as
the main dis-information tactic, since the early 1980's...That's when it's use began to
enter the popular mind via local Press pieces about "What The Hell Is Going On In The
Soviet Union ?"...At the time US intelligence agencies applied the term to their belief
Gorbachev was trying to deceive them with his Glasnost (& Perestroika)...Naturally the
spooks got it wrong !! Glasnost wasnt being used to deceive them...
("The chronically suspicious are easily fooled by their suspicions." ... (anon) ...
Thanks Petra. It's a good post. CO2 is only 5% of green house gas, water vapor is near 95%, But he sun is the biggest cause of temp cycles. CO2 always rises about 800 yrs after temp rises. This is a good quick docuvid. https://www.bitchute.com/video/lIu5lvd2KAnZ/
Changes in geomagnetism take tens of thousands of years and flips average once in 450,000 years.
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/pole-reversals-coming-to-a-theater
You might want to actually watch Koen's videos or read his paper to be certain on what you think about geomagnetism.
The climate scientists recognise that water vapour is by far the greatest greenhouse gas, however:
--- They argue the analogy of a person consuming fat and water - no matter how much water a person drinks they won't put on weight whereas fat will slowly build up - water comes and goes in the atmosphere, it doesn't build up - I'm not sure how good this argument is but it's not that they don't recognise water vapour as having the strongest GHGE.
--- As argued by Joseph Postma it seems water vapour has both warming and cooling effects.
https://principia-scientific.com/postma-debunks-skeptical-science-greenhouse-gas-defense/
"It couldn’t be any more clear: In the desert there is very little water vapour, and water vapour is the strongest heat-amplifying so-called greenhouse gas, especially considering it’s overwhelming radiative properties as compared to CO2. Yet in the desert, much higher temperatures are reached than are achieved at similar latitudes in areas where there is an abundance of water vapour. If the greenhouse effect was really in operation, regions with more water vapour in the air should get much hotter than regions without, yet the reverse is seen to be the truth. It doesn’t get any more simple or clear than this: where there should be a stronger greenhouse effect, the opposite is what is actually found.
In fact, recent scientific findings by independent researcher Carl Brehmer has shown that water vapour, the strongest greenhouse gas according to climate theory, actually behaves as an ANTI-greenhouse gas because of its strong negative-feedback effects upon temperature increases. This is therefore actually a double-whammy to alarmist climate irrationality, because in addition to requiring water vapour to act like a heat-amplifying greenhouse gas, it also requires water vapour to act as a positive feedback factor! The data clearly shows that water and water vapour is a strong negative feedback factor in the climate, and that its presence reduced temperature, not increases it."
Yes I agree with the gh gas stuff, it is mainly a diversion from other things. Mainly the sun but the geomagnitism may likely have a role. BS from the Club of Rome probably has the highest role! As a writer it is good to get into other things, helps us take our head out of the dirt!
Yeah, I became good friends with someone through climate activism but - like me - having since discovered all the other frauds she simply turned on AGW when she learnt of the Club of Rome thing - didn't give the slightest heed to science - it was just a case of Club of Rome, end of.
You mean she became against Anthropogenic Global Warming? That alone yes is not enough. The Fall Cabal vid I linked above is only 15 min at 2x, I strongly recommend it.
Honestly, I also don't know what to say about the geomag idea. However he is a, "there is global warming, its just not CO2" guy, then peppers the vid with equations that were connected only in a theoretical way. That is eerily like covid propaganda: "There is a pandemic, it's the bioweapon, not a the wet market." Then give out all kinds of complex genomics. Both leave the lingering thought in the masses, "Oh anyway it's real". And no one could understand his equations (and his dry reading a text the whole time), so he was mixing a talk for the masses with too much math, made it seem real but he really didn't prove it. Thats one of those "door #2" gigs IMO. But who knows? I can say GW as a concern for humanity at this juncture is BS.
Still what ever our audience takes on outside info we just have to accept the mix of friendly opinions.
Yeah, good video. I watched most of the Fall of the Cabal series but not that one.
I don't think my friend believes in GW at all particularly, she's not bothered whatever's happening or not with the temperature, me too.
CNN: Be prepared, it's coming [climate change]. UN: We own the science.
It's not quite the same. Notice my heading wasn't temperature rise but climate anomalies. He points out where the temperature hasn't risen, in fact, against the CO2 temperature-rising model. The thing is it seems since the beginning of last century the temperature has risen very slightly but so what? There are numerous climate cycles that operate over different timespans and the temperature is always going to be following one trend or another. No doubt those in power became aware of this trend of temperature rise and thought of the ingenious idea of blaming it on CO2 and thus us - we're to blame and we have to suffer for our sins.
I don't know if what Koen Vogel says about geomagnetism is valid because I simply don't understand the science well enough but I think what he says about the invalidity of the CO2 attribution models is correct. I don't think you can blame him for complicated science - I think the science simply is complicated and I really don't think he's some kind of controlled opposition agent as he seems to be essentially ignored.
Agreed. On Koen, his presentation with the equations made it unnecessarily difficult to grasp and VERY strange to put in a YT vid that was not for professionals. In my pole reversal reading of about 6-7 professional papers, there was little math. Magnetic line excursions are common, there was no talk about warming. I just think his presentation/demeanor was strange and he didn't really tie all the clear GW nonsense to his talk, in fact he was clear at the start to brush away any conspiracy idea. So he's brilliant but not insightful? IDK.
If it weren't for the multiple emissions of the sun, there would be no one on Earth to be concerned with the mostly solar-driven planetary climates.
https://youtu.be/pPyNOnn9ELY?feature=shared
Suspicious Observers channel touches on this.
I think it's important not to get sidetracked and lose sight of the big picture. Which is historical and subversive in nature, and goes all the way back to the late 60s (counter-culture), followed by the establishment of the GW narrative (Club of Rome, along with the WEF and all those other NGOs) in the early 1970s, in advance of their longer-term plan to inflict neoliberalism on the world (which really got going ten years later in the 80s).
In the meantime, they needed to control the new emerging opposition to their plans. The thing they are most scared of is of course a kind of liberal socialism, which was, indeed, epitomised by the early environmental movement and the original Green parties. So, they needed to infiltrate and take control - in the UK this happened in the late 1970s with the likes of Johnathon Porritt and the people who would become the so-called Green 2000 movement, which, after taking control over the party in the late 80s, did their best to ditch all the progressive socialism, and in so doing ensured that the party would be wiped out at the 1992 election, thus depriving people of genuine progressiveness (they already had their mainstream controlled opposition in the Labour Party - similar thinking applies for other countries, naturally). 1992, of course, being the year when the AGW thing went mainstream.
Up until then, environmentalism had been focussed on the genuine issues - all of which, we should note, were directly and solely caused by the corporates/multinationals. This was the environmentalism I grew up with and it was real, genuine, and hopeful. Combine this with progressive socialism, and you have neoliberalism's real enemy.
So, conveniently, when AGW hijacked the narrative, neoliberalism effectively escaped, whilst all attention was diverted onto 'fossil fuels' (note also this conveniently attacks the oil-producing nations, which have always been a target for the Americans/neoliberals/neocons). And so today you have an entire generation of young people who have no idea what genuine environmentalism really is, let alone what the important issues are. They have all been brainwashed with the AGW narrative - plus, equally importantly - they have also discovered that none of their protests or activism achieve a damn thing - thus generating our old friend 'learned helplessness'.
So this psyop, over fifty years old now, has been extraordinarily successful for the bad guys. And again, the fact that they've managed to foist it on the general public and have them believe it on the basis of extremely flimsy 'science' is likewise psychologically telling. AGW, when they 'first thought of it' was hardly even a 'scientific hypothesis', let alone something based in any facts or data. The 'data' naturally, would then have to be selectively chosen to 'fit the hypothesis' (cf. also the UEA climate department scandal for falsifying data and controlling the peer review process).
This is why it is completely impossible to even say that there is 'temperature rises' or 'a change in the climate' because we simply cannot trust any of the data - the idea that they wouldn't falsify data is, after all, not believable. What I personally can say, though, is that having lived here in a rural setting for the last 15 years it's that old cliche of 'the climate/weather is always changing' - which is true - each year is different, each month a variation on what that month was the previous year. It fluctuates, in other words, it does not follow a 'trend'. Most people, living in cities, don't even know what weather is, let alone climate.
Anyhow, ramble ramble. I think I've made my point. I'll spare you the rest.
As stupid as mainstream entertainment gets.. this is a great surrogate activity, in terms deconstructing b&llsh&t movies. And now, lets go back to "business as usual" also known as collapse denial and collective psychosis. Here come the deadly rays from outer space, but only on a high definition screen.