Jan & Richard discuss climate

Bcc: FYI
Jan Slakov (aka rebel jan) wrote:

Dear Richard and readers of the cyberjournal,

Some of you may remember me, as back in the ‘90s I worked with Richard in moderating a “Renaissance” list through via Richard’s cyberjournal efforts.

It’s interesting to see how our thinking has diverged over the years. It got to the point, when I saw Richard’s recent posting refuting climate science that I decided to unsubscribe. Then Richard sent a note to say good-bye and I decided it would be worthwhile making some kind of response so he re-subscribed me.

My initial response is frustration – do we still need to argue over whether or not human activities are threatening life on earth? How does one respond to people who insist on refuting what anyone who has  a basic understanding of natural cycles can see – that if we continue to contaminate the earth (not just with levels of atmospheric carbon never present since humans have lived on earth, but also with radioactive and other wastes) life is and will be increasingly jeopardized?

Richard and I both believe “conspiracies” are possible, have happened. For instance, at the beginning of (and during) pretty much any war there are lies. I’ve read enough about the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. that I’m convinced international lawyer William F. Pepper is correct in seeing that as a state-sponsored killing. (And I would agree with Pepper that evidence for other such killings is credible as well.)

But to believe that all these highly credible scientists and others are wrong about the climate issue belies a kind of hubris I find repellant. It’s all the more upsetting when we know that major fossil fuel producers have actually engaged in a “conspiracy” to hide the truth about the disruptive effects of their activities.
Then I remember what a friend said, when I shared a (to me) credible film on a “conspiracy”. He felt sorry for me, that I could be so paranoid 🙂 And then he added that we  don’t need to believe in such conspiracies to understand that the war on Iraq was wrong. That, and other experiences, has led me to realize it can be a real waste of time trying to convince people of “conspiracies”.

In the case of the climate question, as the 2nd cartoon in this list suggests, we don’t need to believe in climate science to be able to see the benefits of taking action: https://www.liveabout.com/cartoons-and-memes-about-climate-change-2734107
Hi Jan,
How nice to exchange ideas with you after all these years! Though it’s always sad when friends fall out over politics or religion. We act as if beliefs have magical powers, and that believing the wrong thing is directly causing harm. In fact what we believe or don’t believe has very little effect on the world around us. Surely you don’t believe that democracy is real, and that governments jump in response to our opinions and beliefs.
You say:
My initial response is frustration – do we still need to argue over whether or not human activities are threatening life on earth?
You certainly don’t need to argue over that with me. Human activity, or more accurately the activity of industrial civilization, is destroying topsoil, lowering water tables, creating desertification, poisoning our rivers and streams, depleting natural resources, and the list goes on. However despite all these terrible things we are doing, according to the official ice-core data, these activities are not affecting climate.
…the 2nd cartoon in this list suggests, we don’t need to believe in climate science to be able to see the benefits of taking action
If we wanted to make a serious effort to reduce our impact on the Earth, there are a lot of things that we as a society should be pursuing. It would make sense to reform agricultural practices, getting rid of toxic pesticides, industrial agriculture, and factory farming. We could revitalize local and national economies, undoing the ravages of globalization, and minimizing the need for long-distance transport of goods. We could get smarter about light rail, zoning, and minimizing the need for commuting,. I’m sure we could all make a long list here. Instead, the belief in ‘climate science’ has narrowed the vision of environmental activism, concentrating almost exclusively on CO2 levels.
And what actions are governments taking about CO2? They aren’t trying to reduce oil production, except as usual to manipulate the market price. They aren’t even making a serious attempt to reform industrial practices to use less petroleum. Instead they’re implementing carbon taxes, so we pay more to continue doing the same things we’re already doing. And they’re implementing carbon trading, a shell game that keeps our emissions going, while Gore gets rich, and the global South pays the penalty by being denied the resources to pursue much-needed and long-delayed (due to imperialist domination) development. Indeed, carbon trading is just a new form of imperialism, which as usual is creating immense profits for some.
And governments are also subsidizing and mandating ‘green energy’ development. They aren’t doing the math, or considering the environmental impact, of massively increasing the scale of solar and wind sources. It turns out such scaling-up just isn’t feasible. There are many issues involved, such as the scarce metals that are required for solar and for batteries, the relatively short lifespan and non-recyclability of turbine blades, the mass destruction of bird populations that would follow, etc. The bottom line is that oil will continue to be a major source of energy, despite carbon taxes and turbine-blighted landscapes.
Richard and I both believe “conspiracies” are possible, have happened.  … That, and other experiences, has led me to realize it can be a real waste of time trying to convince people of “conspiracies”.
Just to be clear, my article is not really about conspiracies. It’s mainly a science study, examining the data, and identifying what that implies about climate change. In the course of this study, it became clear that the popular consensus about climate is so far wrong scientifically, that some kind of explanation is called for. Otherwise I’d be leaving the reader with the impression that the climate modelers are simply incompetent, and that would be very misleading. It takes more than incompetence to totally ignore the primary source we have for studying climate – the long-term record. By confining their attention to “since [thermometer] records have been kept” (in the 1800s) the only thing they are looking at is our fortunate escape from the Little Ice Age. When we look at Agenda 21 and other published information, the reason for the deception becomes blatantly obvious. This was not a deep dive into conspiracy land, it was simply pointing out the obvious, more as a side-comment than a main theme.
But to believe that all these highly credible scientists and others are wrong about the climate issue belies a kind of hubris I find repellant. 
Hubris – challenging the Gods of climate. I consider that a complement. We need a hell of a lot more hubris in this fake-news, mind-controlled society of ours. We need a lot more people with the courage to think for themselves, rather than surrendering to the group-think mentality of the media-led herd.
As regards ‘credible scientists’ there are only a relative handful that run the models, and they hide their calculations, manipulate their data, and launch a cover-up when released emails catch them with their pants down, ‘hiding the decline’. The rest of the scientific community, not being climate scientists, accept the output of the models as being valid, just as the general public does. Since the models predict run-away warming, the scientific community quite accurately points out all the terrible things that would happen if temperatures did run away. Credibility depends not only on the integrity and knowledge of the scientists, but also on the assumptions they are basing their work on.
It’s all the more upsetting when we know that major fossil fuel producers have actually engaged in a “conspiracy” to hide the truth about the disruptive effects of their activities.
I’ve never understood why people are blaming the oil companies. Would you rather they had closed down the oil fields, shut down all the gas stations, and watched while everyone starved to death as no food could be produced or transported? Or is your concern that they paid for studies that denied CO2 causality? There’s no need to be upset with them about that, as most people dismissed those studies as corporate propaganda. If anything the studies were seen as evidence that the oil companies were hiding something, and that CO2 really is the problem.
In fact, the oil companies are fully behind carbon taxes and carbon trading. They know the price of oil will increase under that regime and they’ll make considerable profits as a result. And they’re investing in green-energy development, which with the help of government subsidies will bring them still more profits.
ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com