Natural Climate Change, Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom
GeoengineeringWatch.Org…..for more information
There is an additional point most people miss : the real source of all this climate hysteria, the main media and big money pulling the strings. Isn’t it weird that those who spend fortunes manipulating what people are supposed to believe, have invested huge amounts of money creating and fueling this big hysteria! There are huge hidden benefits attached to it, generating collective fear makes people easier to control, and help distract their attention from real issues.How come people get so blind!
Nobody could have said it better.In numerous articles I have referred to these cycles – solar-activity fluctuations induced – and if anything, got only negative flack – “climate denier” and much worse. The only thing perhaps missing in your explanation was the SUN….
How should the future be powered? This analysis presents a fact based summary of the science, economics and environmental consequences of available alternatives:Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia
Well Richard…. what do you want us to do?
I’m not inclined to be a CO2/methane denier, but I do agree that governments have for the most part been captured by Corp interests and will only be marginally helpful in remedying planet-wide issues. You used to be a vigorous advocate of community and consciousness building… but you seem to be stuck in defending your Climate insights instead of advancing positive efforts these days.
As someone who also gets stuck this way from time to time, I can only advise re-reading Journey to the East by Hesse. I first read it in my youth in the midst of Berkeley 60s and only much later did it make sense to me. Even when we wander off, the path remains.
And then there was a follow-up posting, with reader feedback. The problem is that I’ve run out of ideas for how to pursue that agenda. I worked for several years with various activist groups giving it a try, but nothing worked. Building community in our over-individualized society seems to be impossible. But I keep hoping new ideas will emerge, new things to try. Meanwhile I work on other things. What can you do? Work on building community and share whatever you learn about that.
thanks for peeling the agw/acc onion for us, you have an eloquent writing style that makes the complicated understandable to us non-scientists.
i used to write a column for the local paper where i pointed to government enabling corporate mayhem and the msm lying that made it all possible – deforestation, pollution, corporate welfare, war and occupation, etc. in the late 80’s i started writing about greenhouse gases and global warming as another inducement to take the issues seriously…
when gore joined in i began to smell a rat, but wrote it off as just another rich man getting richer. even james corbett’s early warning about the climate “hoax” didn’t change my belief that agw/acc were real existential threats. it wasn’t until the thunbergs leapt to stardom that i started reading and listening to the “deniers”, a word that should have alerted me to the agenda.
cory morningstar’s research into the origins and financing of the young phenom’s meteoric rise was most illuminating – i don’t know if it was morningstar or corbett who coined the phrase “financialization of nature” but i now see the bigger picture – the green new deal and various cops and agendas are, in their words, the “fourth industrial revolution”.
and then along comes bank of england governor, mark carney, who spent 13 years at goldman sachs, appointed as a the u.n. special envoy “climate action and climate finance”.
The heart of the issue (for those who need it elaborated) is this: the future of $90 trillion of energy infrastructure investments [over 10 years] and the $1 trillion green bond market and the multi-trillion dollar carbon trading market and the $391 billion (and growing) climate finance industry hangs in the balance.
This is all I could get from friend Albert Bates regarding your paper.
You should read his 1989 book, ‘Climate in Crisis.’ He has done a lot of good work over the years.
Trolls and idiots are infinite in number. I vow to ignore them all. You can’t argue with drunks. It hardly matters now as it seems likely we have already missed or will soon miss the deadlines imposed by physical reality. And so we will all soon be extinct, some of us sooner than others.Albert
This is all just too much.
I’m sorry, but you’re not more committed to climate science than are thousands of climate scientists worldwide.
Please remove me from your mailing list. I tire of your ridiculous claims.
So sorry, but goodbye please.Paul Cienfuegos
Here is Marc’s reply. He has good points when asking how to get so many scientists going along with incorrect data, and who will benefit by the scam? Certainly the fossil fuel industry would have denounced it by now.Best, Sergio
rkm: My article is not an attempt to reach out to climate scientists. There’s no point in that. They would have no more interest in a ‘denier’ perspective than you or I would have in a flat-Earth perspective. I’m not trying to seek credibility in that community.And then there are all those people who are absolutely convinced we face a climate crisis – and who can blame them given the non-stop alarmist media coverage? I’ve found that such people are not reachable with logic, and any attempt to change their minds would require a different approach than the one taken by my article. I’m not going to try to change those people’s minds.What I’m doing in the article is simply presenting what I see as the facts, of climate science and climate politics, intended for those who are open-minded enough to consider the material seriously. From such people the feedback I get is that the analysis is clear and understandable, and that it makes sense to them. I see my role here as educator rather than debater.
As I understand it, the scientific concern is that we are measuring these increases in greenhouse gasses and global temperatures from one decade to the next whereas the cold-warm cycles in past eras required many thousands of years.
Let’s look at our interglacial period again:
I am skeptical of anyone who accuses the scientific community of “manipulation,” “exaggeration” and conducting “scams.” Scientists have strong incentives to maintain their reputations for objectivity and accuracy under the scrutiny of peer review. It is hard to imagine any incentive they would have for falsifying data. That may have occurred occasionally, but large numbers of scientists, universities and government agencies have participated in the climate change studies, so the risk of falsification seems extremely remote.
You, Sergio, of all people should be skeptical of Richard’s claims. After all, you subscribe to the view that oil companies and other big corporations exercise undue influence in the world. From that perspective, one might suspect the scientific community would UNDERSTATE climate change to protect the interests of their corporate overlords. Why on earth would they join in a “scam” to exaggerate global warming when it would hurt so many big corporations, including oil & gas companies, coal miners, car-makers, airplane manufacturers, airlines and the entire travel and leisure industry? Food for thought.
Rather than wasting his time discussing this topic with us, I would urge Richard to submit his data and conclusions to an appropriate scientific journal or popular science magazine, from which he might get some useful feedback (pro or con) from other experts. To facilitate the discussion within the scientific community, I would urge him to drop the expressions of contempt and conspiracy theories…
As I explained above, my article is not intended for climate scientists, nor is it intended to persuade those who are totally convinced the climate crisis is real. I would expect neither a fair hearing nor useful feedback from such people. Take yourself for example. You bring up interesting issues, but you’ve given no feedback on the analysis. You consider only the conclusions, and of course you reject them. What surprises me is how much effort you put into your dismissal. Why not just say all the conspiracy stuff is nonsense because there’s been no wrong-doing to explain?
Also, I wonder if Richard has really thought through the conclusion in his last line. After predicting that we are entering a period of “rapid cooling,” he ends his article with the following comment:
“This cooling crisis will be particularly hard for us to deal with if our energy sources are grossly diminished by a totally unjustified ban on petroleum-based energy, a ban enabled by the warming-crisis hoax.”
I am not aware of any “ban” on petroleum (quite the contrary, production continues to grow), but more importantly if Richard expects “rapid cooling” shouldn’t he advocate CONSERVING irreplaceable fossil fuels during the current warm period so we will still some left during the big chill ahead?