Climate Science: Let the Data Speak

Friends of Science

Friends of Science Society’s 18th Annual Event, online, is pleased to present Dr. Guus Berkhout, president of CLINTEL, as our first speaker on Oct. 2, 2021 at 10am MDT. CLINTEL is the international climate intelligence unit operating out of The Netherlands which has more than 900 signatory scientists and scholars who state there is no climate emergency and we do have time.

Dr. Berkhout’s presentation “Climate Science: Let the Data Speak” will be in three parts. The first part looks at key drivers of climate change – not just carbon dioxide – but those beneath our feet and far beyond. Dr. Berkhout will then take us on a journey around the earth to see the temperature changes and to consider whether averaging these makes sense.

And finally, Dr. Berkhout proposes a new independent imaging organization to offer climate information for constructive policymaking. Join us Oct. 2, 2021 at 10:00am MDT with Dr. Berkhout – webcasting from The Netherlands for the live Q&A following the presentation.

4.6 8 votes
Article Rating
66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 2, 2021 10:04 pm

If only !
Just an honest comparison of observations with historical events would be a start.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 3, 2021 2:44 am

Honest? 🤣

Sara
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 3, 2021 8:19 am

OK, sure.

There’s a megadrought in France, an effect of the Dalton Minimum. Marie Antoinette is La Reine. The French government is under attack by les Citoyens, and those on “The Committee”, e.g., Robespierre et al, partly due to Louis’s penchant for overspending. There is literally no wheat or other grainstocks to make bread, which was a staple of the diet of les paysannes, so they start rioting.

When Marie Antoinette, who is quite well-fed herself – never had to miss a meal in her life – asks why the peasants are rioting, the response is “They have to bread.”

Her answer: “Then give them cake to eat” cost her hubby his government and his life and her life, and (under Robespierre’s rampage) in addition, the lives of 30,000++ French citizens who had nothing to do with the famine or the royals. Robespierre himself also met Madame La Guillotine, because the Committee members were tired of him and his rampages.

And this was all because there was no grain to make bread because of a prolonged drought.

Does that work for you? (Not meant sarcastically.) There are plenty of other instances throughout history in which the weather had a very real impact on what happened.

Last edited 2 months ago by Sara
Martyn K Jones
Reply to  Sara
October 3, 2021 9:48 am

Errr… the “Let them eat cake” statement was invented by Jean Jacques Rousseau around 1762 (Book VI of his Confessions) while Antoinette was but a child. There is no evidence that she made any such statement.

Sara
Reply to  Martyn K Jones
October 3, 2021 1:40 pm

Okay, thanks for that tip.

Hans Erren
Reply to  Sara
October 4, 2021 2:24 am

and it wasn’t cake it was brioche.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 3, 2021 12:06 pm

It looks like some readers thought I was an alarmist. An honest comparison would show no cause for alarm.

Nelson
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 3, 2021 12:20 pm

Have you seen the post at Tallblokes?

Dennis
October 2, 2021 10:20 pm

To begin with stop claiming the science is settled.

Dennis
Reply to  Dennis
October 2, 2021 10:23 pm

Investors Business Daily

  • 06:43 PM ET 02/10/2015

Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

Dennis
Reply to  Dennis
October 2, 2021 10:27 pm

Maurice Strong (now deceased) “Climate Crook” …

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/

Steve Case
Reply to  Dennis
October 3, 2021 1:46 am

Here’s the background for that famous quote from Strong:

The Wizard of Baca Grande
Daniel Wood; West magazine

Daniel Wood interviewed Strong for several days in 1990. 
Here’s a synopsis of the last page from that interview:

Strong tells me he has often wished he could write and has a novel he’s been thinking about doing for years. It would be a cautionary tale about the future.

“Each year”, he says, “The World Economic Forum convenes in Davos to set economic agendas for the year ahead. What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries, and if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is no, they won’t. So in order to save the planet, the group decides:”
 
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

“This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. They’re all at Davos. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. Using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, they engineer a panic and prevent the world’s stock from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries to hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos hostage. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…” he trails off and finally says “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.”

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Steve Case
October 3, 2021 2:43 am

Truly evil people. Maybe David Icke has a point?

Anon
Reply to  Steve Case
October 3, 2021 11:25 am

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Along the line of “planet saving“, one huge issue that has seemed to escape attention of environmentalists is the fate of the planet Mars.

Right now, humans are probably a few decades away from colonizing Mars and ripping up that planet. Think about what will happen to Mars when corporations like Exxon and Gazprom get access to it? In addition to Elon Musk mining the planet for lithium.

However, we have a unique opportunity to stop this and leave Mars in a pristine state that future generations of deindustrialized people can enjoy.

So, with that in mind, for any conservation minded person reading this, who has the resources and wherewithal, I suggest forming a new NGO called “RED PEACEdedicated to preserve Mars in its current state.

The preservation of Mars should be humanity’s number one concern right now. I have no doubt millions of dollars can be raised from concerned progressives to make this project a reality. And the same methods pioneered by Green Peace can be used in these efforts: for example, gluing one’s self to a nose cone, flying over launch pads to disrupt launches, and most importantly, voting for candidates and political parties that will preserve Mars.

In the new era we are entering, I urge all people to: “Think galactically, but act locally.”

Last edited 2 months ago by Anon
Charles Fairbairn
Reply to  Dennis
October 3, 2021 10:01 am

Christiana Figureres hasn’t got an ethical bone in her body and adheres to the Communist principle that: “The end justifies the means”.

She is one of many of these covert communists that have infiltrated the UN and its acolytes including the IPCC which has over the years promulgated totally false political summaries relating to the climate debate.

The FALSE CAGW Meme which has now gone viral stems from this UN source with its powerful influence and resources.

Honest scientists which dare to speak outside this CAGW “Party line” are now in serious risk of having their career opportunities considerably damaged; such is the way our academic institutions have been infected.

George ,Tetley
Reply to  Dennis
October 3, 2021 12:25 am

DATA. ? What’s that?

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  George ,Tetley
October 3, 2021 2:44 am

Never to be acknowledged by a climastrologist.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dennis
October 3, 2021 9:42 am

And stop claiming CO2 is a “climate driver” at all, since this has never been empirically demonstrated, and to the contrary there is plenty of evidence that atmospheric CO2 level does nothing to the Earth’s temperature.

leitmotif
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
October 3, 2021 10:31 am

There would only be about 5 posters on this blog if you got rid of the lukewarmists.

Martin Cropp
October 2, 2021 11:10 pm

Conclusion Part 1, Point 1
Should read:
Outer space, Inner earth, continents and oceans, and, Atmospheric Dynamics.

Vuk
October 2, 2021 11:40 pm

Government insist: you have to be the guinea pig in testing of new green heating alternative technology or else.
Is comfascism coming to your neighborhood?
“Homeowners who refuse to take part in a hydrogen energy trial will be forcibly cut off by gas network operators, under Government plans to test green heating alternatives.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/02/village-homeowners-may-have-gas-forcibly-cut-refuse-take-part/

Mike
October 3, 2021 12:11 am

The first part looks at key drivers of climate change”

First prove that climate is changing and not weather. The problem still remains. THE DEFINITION OF CLIMATE IS A RIDICULOUS, MADE UP AND MEANINGLESS ONE. As can be seen in this example….

In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area. Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It’s really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.”

Some scientists”

Why 30 years? why not 10 or 1000?

In other words, ”climate” can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.
How can there be a meaningful debate when my definition does not match yours?

My definition…
Climate is the prevailing weather pattern determined by the position of the particular region on the planet. (internal geology remaining equal)
There is no proof that the (modern) climate can be changed in any way other than by the planet’s position in relation to the sun.
That’s not proof that it cannot be changed by a small percentage change in ”GHGs”
We await the proof. So far…..nothing more than conjecture.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mike
October 3, 2021 1:01 am

At best, “climate change” is tautological. At worst it’s equivocation … an appeal to ambiguity. I’ve been saying this for years. The idea that this planet has a climate at all is ludicrous. Change is the default state of all weather ergo … all climates. They just don’t happen to change in concert or for the same reasons at any particular moment.

The first thing required in any scientific enquiry is to define the terms. Alarmists prefer to leave the terms undefined and leave meanings up to individual preference. This provides the required level of ambiguity to keep the discussion constantly at cross purposes. The goal posts have been moved so often it’s almost impossible to follow the narrative. The basis of all alarmist arguments is a well developed collection of logical fallacies intended to keep John Q Public off balance and in the dark.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 3, 2021 6:46 am

As I have previously commented, it is nonsense to speak of climate without qualification and look at our world through averaged temperatures and rainfall. We can speak of the climate of an area or perhaps use the simplification of the Köppen climate classification. This identifies five climate groups with some thirty zones and sub-zones. This is an oversimplification but useful nevertheless.

While for many areas we may have records for the past fifty years, for few we have records going back a couple of hundred years. For a thousand or two or ten we have to reconstruct climate using geology, ice cores, tree rings and the like but this cannot give us the details that modern recording methods do. Even on a farm with each generation of family keeping a meticulous record over 80 years of temperature and rainfall this only gives a snapshot of the climate for this area.

Beyond the impossibility of engineering the ideal climate for each zone we need to recognize both the complexity of the climates of our world and how limited out understanding is. Until both sides can agree on this, there is no way we can begin a meaningful and profitable discussion or on why adaption is a far more sensible way to go.

Last edited 2 months ago by Michael in Dublin
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
October 3, 2021 9:44 am

I concur with everything you’ve said and yet apparently these are all novel concepts to the alarmists.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
October 3, 2021 10:01 am

I don’t think that is true – adaptation is and always has been the only thing humans of any other life on Earth can do about “climate change,” so that should be an easy “sell.” The notion that we are causing any measurable change to the Earth’s “climate,” however you wish to agree to define it, is the ultimate hubris, in particular when the supposed mechanism is a pittance of additional CO2 emission, when atmospheric CO2 level, regardless of source, has never been scientifically shown to drive the Earth’s temperature, and has conversely has been scientifically shown to have no discernible effect on it.

Peter Plail
Reply to  Mike
October 3, 2021 7:47 am

A simple average says nothing really. If it is an average taken of extreme swings of weather – eg +30 to -30, then the climate of that region is markedly different from one where it is a fairly steady value all year long. The distance from the equator is the major factor there I would say.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peter Plail
October 3, 2021 11:11 am

One needs to consider the standard deviation as well as the mean. Yet, alarmists only want to talk about the standard error of the mean. Is the standard deviation changing? Who knows? Nobody reports on it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mike
October 3, 2021 11:07 am

Why 30 years? why not 10 or 1000?

For starters, a Rule of Thumb is that when sampling a distribution, 20 or 30 measurements are recommended to have confidence in statistical significance. That is, one can divide by n, instead of the correction factor, (n-1). Thirty years is approximately one human generation.

Why not 4.5 billion years instead of 1,000? Because it would be a meaningless number with all the changes that have taken place since Earth was formed. If one is dealing with a curvilinear time series, short intervals are necessary to approximate a straight line slope, if there isn’t a differentiable function to use to derive the instantaneous slope. Thirty years seems to me to be a good compromise for enough data to be statistically significant, and to have practical significance. There are some who might recommend a multiple of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Either way, the interval has to be short enough to have utility for someone who will probably live less than 90 years, but long enough to be statistically reliable.

Mike
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 3, 2021 5:43 pm

 Thirty years seems to me to be a good compromise for enough data to be statistically significant,”

Possibly, but still meaningless as far as determining permanent change and/or the need to ”mitigate by cutting emissions”.

Mike
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 3, 2021 5:45 pm

Why not 4.5 billion years instead of 1,000?”

Because most organisms adapted to their particular climate ( particularly the flora) did not evolve over 4.5 billion years.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 3, 2021 7:00 pm

I would respectfully disagree with this. Climate of a region and probably the earth is made up of periodic functions that combine into an overall functions. Just like many frequencies can be added/subtracted to form a complex waveform. The first problem is that none of the components maintain either frequency or phase and the complex result is always changing also.

When sampling is used to develop a sample distribution of a population it requires multiple samples to be made and the size of each sample has a minimum of 30 – 50. To take one sample and call it representative of the population one must insure that each member of that one sample properly represents the whole population.

Additionally, one can not calculate a Standard Error of the Mean (SEM) with only one sample. The SEM is basically the standard deviation of the sample mean distribution. A single sample can not give you a distribution. A sample mean requires a number of different samples be made. Here are a couple of links to demonstrate what I’m trying to relate.

Sampling and Normal Distribution (biointeractive.org)

Sampling Distributions (onlinestatbook.com)

One last thing. If you call all the data you have a single sample, you can not find the standard deviation of that distribution and divide it by the sqrt of N to get a Standard Error of the Sample Mean (SEM). The calculation you just made IS the Standard Error of the Sample Mean. At that point you must multiply the Standard Error of the Sample Mean by the sqrt of N in order to get the Standard Deviation of the population.

This is the point where people, including climate scientists go wrong. Look at this link carefully and look at the formula that defines:
Standard Error of the Mean – SEM
Standard Deviation of the Population – SD
N is a unique number. In this link they use the number of observations. The other links use the sample size taken from a population.

Standard Error of The Mean (Formula & Example) (byjus.com)

Chris*
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 5, 2021 9:27 pm

Around about 1949-50 a group of meteorologists got together and agreed that 30 years should be the time frame to measure climate. Before then it was a haphazard mix between countries; 1951- 1980 became the first 30 year cycle. As readers here would know this was during a solar cooling period. In the 1970’s we were warned that another ice age was coming, the population bomb was about to explode and we were going to freeze and starve to death. In the early 80’s it was noted that the Earth was warming and CO2 concentrations had risen. Therefore CO2 was causing planetary warming -forget the sun had moved into an active phase, we were no longer going to freeze and starve to death, but rather we would have heat waves, droughts and starve to death. And if we had a weather event which we haven’t had for 32 years that was proof that the climate was changing. It all gets a little tiresome.

Paul Rossiter
October 3, 2021 12:36 am

While I applaud your call for a truly independent body to assess the climate data, the IPCC has already demonstrated that it has little interest in what the data says, as evidenced by its ignoring the advice from its own assessment panels, even though they are chaired by hand picked representatives of the alarmist brigade. After all, the whole finding model for the IPCC is predicated upon human emissions causing catastrophic climate change.

Imagine an AR7 that says: “We have examined the data and have now reached the conclusion that there is no immediate threat to society from the burning of fossil fuels. We will require no further funding and recommend that IPCC be terminated forthwith”. REALLY????

Last edited 2 months ago by Paul Rossiter
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Paul Rossiter
October 3, 2021 1:10 am

The IPCC was incorporated with a reasonably well selected collection of credible scientists to head the various study groups. They were gradually weeded out as they drew attention to glaring errors being allowed into the text by representatives of NGOs and other activists … or having their work altered and memory holed. Scientists like Dr. Richard Lindzen distancing themselves from the many glaring inconsistencies and bad science. Donna LaFramboise wrote a brilliant account of the early years of the IPCC’s fraudulent actions.

Paul Rossiter
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 3, 2021 1:53 am

I have read Donna’s excellent book but unfortunately it doesn’t seem to matter what is exposed (think also “Climate Gate”) or what data is presented, the vested interests have comletely captured the public and political dialog and the whole shameful juggernaut just keep rolling along. What Greta says is far more important than any of the genuine scientific presentations.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Paul Rossiter
October 3, 2021 2:42 am

Why the public and arts graduate politicians take any notice of a mentally ill teenage school dropout is beyond me. The insanity of Mr Nut Nut PM is showing.

Sommer
Reply to  Paul Rossiter
October 3, 2021 9:32 am

Take a look at a recent bit of commentary on Greta:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8LlfOzJCs

Activist Greta Thunberg has “nothing to say” on what to do about climate change, according to Sky News host Rowan Dean.

LdB
October 3, 2021 12:52 am

I thought the data did speak …. please sir stop torturing me.

ThinkingScientist
October 3, 2021 1:12 am

Climate Scientists. Torturing data until they confess.

mwhite
October 3, 2021 1:21 am

No, let the computer speak

436 randomly generated ‘peer reviewed’ papers published by Springer Nature – The Daily Sceptic

There follows a guest post by Daily Sceptic contributing editor Mike Hearn about the ongoing problem of apparently respectable scientific journals publishing computer-generated ‘research’ papers that are complete gibberish.”



Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  mwhite
October 3, 2021 1:45 am

Sokal rules …..

Wim Röst
Reply to  mwhite
October 3, 2021 2:58 am

Incredible – if true:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-021-08181-1

Distribution of earthquake activity in mountain area based on embedded system and physical fitness detection of basketball (WR: bold added)

An Editorial Expression of Concern to this article was published on 28 September 2021

Google Search opens this search for the journal “Springer Arabian journal of geosciences” with an advertisement:
Arabian Journal Of Geoscience – Springer Journal
Advertentie·
https://www.springer.com/springer/journal

Arabian Journal of Geosciences – peer-reviewed, original and review articles. Earth Sciences with particular focus on the Middle East and the Euro-Mediterranean Zone. Register for email alerts. Stringent peer review. No page restrictions. Rapid publication. Open access option. (WR: bold added)

Oldseadog
October 3, 2021 2:37 am

Now how do we get the MSM to publish this?

Steve Case
Reply to  Oldseadog
October 3, 2021 2:46 am

The same way the mice hung a bell around the cat’s neck.

Peta of Newark
October 3, 2021 2:45 am

So the idea is to Take Down Capitalism.
OK

What is going to be put in its place……
Something better than Cronyism I do sincerely hope – all that’s doing is replacing the supply of (tangible) stuff with a supply of money.
What then happens to this money – it’ll become the same problem that King Midas had

Very similar to how, harking back 20 years, that the interweb and Information Technology was going to make everyone rich – British politicians were raving about how everyone could get rich by selling stuff on ebay.
aka The Dot.Com.Bubble.
What a treat that turned out to be. not.

But what stuff? Where does it come from. Who what where mines, manufactures & makes it.
Are they actually proposing a society where people endlessly sell each other Money and Information? How is that going to work when anyone gets hungry or needs the toilet?
Do they Tweet and/or sell that information on ebay and The Job is Done?

Somebody is not thinking very clearly in all this thing….
Are they even thinking at all – apart from obviously, themselves and money money money

Primal Scream saw it coming with their track: Loaded
Two versions, which is your fave:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNvUQka4wk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygvl8drjtaU (is that girl familiar somehow)

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
Sara
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 3, 2021 9:15 am

“What is going to be put in its place……” ??

Why, that’s quite simple: feudalism returns to the fore. It was capitalism that made the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries prosperous, not a bunch of self-important, heavy-handed despots hellbent on ruling everything they see.

I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop on Those People. They are not nearly as “special” as they think they are…. nor do The They – any of them – know better than you and I do what is best for US.

Marchon, les Citoyens!!!!

Rod Evans
October 3, 2021 3:12 am

The problem for science and the world of scientific investigation is, vested interest.
There are now too many scientists (sic) that have invested so much of their careers and so much of their credibility in this Climate Crisis hoax, they are unable to row back from the lie. They have too much invested in the falsehood, both in career credibility and in bank account terms, to ever speak out. The pseudo science they have been actively engaged in progressing is down to them and they have to deny truth and defend faux study at every turn.
We are living through a very dangerous anti science period. Feynman and others who are respected scientists and rightly, for their inputs into human understanding of our place in the universe, would be disgusted by what the IPCC is guilty of promoting. If he was alive today he would be no platformed, he would have no chance of speaking in televised open lectures as he did.
He would be declared a blasphemer like so many of us are, for just reporting what he saw as he looked through his radio telescopes.
Galileo wasn’t the first scientific martyr, and clearly he wasn’t the last.

Last edited 2 months ago by Rod Evans
2hotel9
Reply to  Rod Evans
October 3, 2021 6:11 am

It is no longer science, it is just another revenue stream to be exploited by those who can not hold real jobs or do anything useful.

fretslider
October 3, 2021 3:33 am

Dr. Berkhout proposes a new independent imaging organization to offer climate information for constructive policymaking.

Has he not understood?

Dr. Berkhout is proposing heresy

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  fretslider
October 3, 2021 5:07 am

The world needs a lot more Climate Heresy!

fretslider
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 3, 2021 5:14 am

It certainly does

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 4, 2021 1:26 pm

Pamela,

Climate Heresy may in a way be like beauty, “beauty in the eye of the beholder” and not someone else around. It is a subjective matter usually with no connection to measured observations and the scientific deductions that follow.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fretslider
October 3, 2021 5:42 am

“Has he not understood?”

The problem is our politicians are going and destroying our societies in an effort to control CO2 output, when there is no evidence to support doing any of this.

I’m not sure how Dr. Berkhout’s new organization would change this, unless he is going to debunk the need to regulate CO2. We need short-term solutions to political insanity.

fretslider
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 3, 2021 7:11 am

“The problem is our politicians “

And in the case of the [dis]United Kingdom, it is the mediaeval political system itself. You could put a saint in Parliament and before a week was up their soul will have been sold for something.

Nobody has ever been consulted on the green agenda. Nobody gets to vote on it.

Parliament is its own judge and jury; it is above people and monarch and it can remove the right to vote tomorrow if it so chose. Its removed many rights in the last 18 months. This is the Parliamentary new normal. Flexing its dictatorial muscle.

Although I grew up receiving enlightenment Judeo-Christian values I became an atheist in my teens. The values are fine, I just don’t believe Yeshua Ha Notsri was the son of god. He was a radical man for his time for sure, one that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin wouldn’t tolerate.

I can understand people believing in a god or something, but the trouble with the devout – be it Jehovah, the climate or whatever – is they are determined to impose their truth on everybody else.

Sara
Reply to  fretslider
October 3, 2021 9:24 am

Absolutely, fretslider. Carry on!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fretslider
October 4, 2021 4:31 am

“determined to impose their truth on everybody else”

Fanatics are always a problem. Look at the radical Left. They want to impose their truth on everyone, too. Look at the climate alarmists. They want everyone to conform to their blurry vision.

I don’t want anyone imposing anything on me, religious, political, scientific, or otherwise. I’ll make up my own mind about things.

Questioning everything is not a bad thing.

Sara
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 3, 2021 9:22 am

You are close, Tom Abbot, but it is not about controlling CO2,

It is about controlling the human equation: the populace, the free thinkers (even the radicals, yes), the innovators, the inventors — you name it, The They want to control it all and dispense permission to proceed.

They count on the sheer stupidity of the greenbeaners and ecohippies to do the dirty work for them, without realizing that they, too, like Robespierre or anyone who Stalin thought might be a “problem”, are just as likely to be judged for their “malfeasance”.

Is this what it means when someone says “May you live in interesting times”? 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sara
October 4, 2021 4:47 am

We are certainly living in interesting times.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 4, 2021 3:21 pm

Tom,

I wonder if a really good economic case could be made and sold to business people about how we can adapt and benefit from climate changes? If this were shown to be more profitable and with insignificant increases in pollution perhaps those who do not grasp the science would buy into this rather than going for speculative and exorbitant green-renewable schemes.

Last edited 2 months ago by Michael in Dublin
2hotel9
October 3, 2021 6:08 am

Politicians can’t stop crime, or racism, or anything else. Why? Because they cause these things to get worse, therein lies the power they so desperately pursue.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  2hotel9
October 3, 2021 7:08 am

or maybe…..Politicians won’t tend to be very effective fighting those election campaign societal issues which, after the election, are instrumental in maintaining their pay check….

2hotel9
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 3, 2021 9:11 am

Never attribute to incompetence that which is clearly done with malice aforethought.

Nick Schroeder
October 3, 2021 6:59 am

Geoengineering data says –
more albedo and the Earth cools,
less albedo and the Earth warms,
no albedo and the Earth cooks much like the Moon, 0.1 albedo and 400 K lit side
so says Nikolov, Kramm and UCLA Diviner mission data.

All of the above refutes the greenhouse effect that claims the Earth with no albedo becomes a ball of ice.

Oh, now I get it.
NOT that data.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
October 3, 2021 8:03 am

Relegated again to the bottom of the thread.

I’m going to post this here ’cause that’s just how I am.

Did you know that nanometers and Joules are the same thang??

Yep. E, J = h * c / lambda

The longer the wavelength, the lower the energy – duh!

Consider the attached solar spectrum ranging from 200 nm (short UV) to 2,500 nm (IR)

It is painfully obvious that CO2’s contribution to the overall atmospheric energy input is somewhere below 0.0001%.

More of that pesky data.

Solar Spectrums.jpg
DocSiders
October 3, 2021 7:29 am

Environmentalists admit that their desire to destroy capitalism exceeds their earnest desires to preserve the environment…seeing capitalism as the main driver of environmental destruction.

But the only places where the environment even gets close to the amount of attention and resources it requires…is where capitalism (and freedoms and just laws that capitalism requires) is present in large measure.

Consider China and the (old) USSR and (the old) Eastern Europe…vs. the US and Canada and Western Europe.

%d bloggers like this: