more dialog re/ climate change

Everyone seems to have a lot to say on this topic. I’ve had to trim a bit to keep to a reasonable length here, so sorry if you feel slighted. I want to move on in the next posting to talk about the real causes of climate change.
Steve Campbell wrote:
Natural Climate Change, Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom
Thanks Steve, that looks like a very informative site. Karlstrom presents some of the same arguments I do, plus he covers a whole lot more about the economics, politics, and other related issues. I’m not necessarily endorsing everything he says, but there’s definitely worthwhile information there if anyone wants to dig in and find out more about climate & its controversies.
Biophilos wrote:

GeoengineeringWatch.Org…..for more information

I haven’t had time to track what’s going on with geoengineering. This site seems to be quite comprehensive, and I’m sure it will of interest to those who are tracking. I don’t have any opinion myself on how reliable the site might be. All I know about geoengineering is that they’re spraying all the time all over the globe, an immense and expensive operation, and they’re using HAARP technology to intervene in weather patterns and events. The word diabolical comes to mind.
Laurence Imbash wrote:

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!
Yes, it does seem strange that people see climate activism as an anti-establishment movement, when it is being managed and financed from the top, and promoted non-stop by corporate-owned media and entertainment channels. But keep in mind that unless someone has a healthy dose of skepticism, and takes the time to search out and evaluate other sources of information, they are exposed only to mainstream narratives.


The mainstream media is the voice of the powers-that-be, and it aims to control minds, not inform them. At CIA headquarters there’s the famous saying in the tile floor, “The truth will set you free”. Given the nature of the CIA I’ve always found that saying puzzling. I’m thinking now there must be an unwritten insider version: “The truth will set you free, and that’s why we hide it”.
Peter Koenig wrote:

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….
I haven’t said anything yet about the causes of climate change. That will come in the next posting. And yes, radical as the notion may be, the Sun is involved in heating the Earth.
Jeff Jewell said:

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
Thanks Jeff, that’s a very informative video. It’s important for people to understand that the Green New Deal is not feasible. But I’d much prefer natural gas to nuclear as a fuel source. Evidently nuclear is what they have in store for us, or they wouldn’t allow this Ted Talk, which attacks the normally sacrosanct call for solar and wind. It’s bait and switch – first they convince us oil is bad and they tell us they have a clean solution. What’s not to like? Then once we’re hooked in their game, they switch to another solution, not so clean.
Claudia Woodward-Rice wrote:
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.

My interest in community remains as always. Just last month I posted about that:

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.

Ernie Yacub wrote:
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.

Thanks Ernie, for sharing how you came to see the light, as well as for the links on the money angle. I find it interesting that feedback from non-scientific readers, such as yourself, has been that the material is clear and easy to understand. And yet, as we shall see below, feedback I’ve gotten from scientists shows little understanding of the material, as if it is beyond their ability to evaluate. They seek to dismiss on all sorts of grounds, if grounds they be, without actually refuting anything in the analysis.  And of course some responded without looking at the material at all, apart from noticing that it was ‘denialist’. For example…
Howard Switzer wrote:
Hi Richard,
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.

Albert wrote:
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.

In my response to Brian Hill in a previous posting, I suggested that climate scientists would have no interest in ‘denialist’ arguments. Thanks for giving it a try, however, as it is informative to see how they do choose to respond. I certainly expected dismissal, but I’m surprised in this case by the intensity of his defensive outburst. He seems to feel personally threatened by the idea that some people don’t share his climate anxiety. There’s no room there for any kind of dialog.
Paul Cienfuegos wrote:
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
It’s OK Paul, and I’ve taken you off the list. You’re getting this via Bcc, as you addressed your unsubscribe message (above) to the list. As I said to Jan, I don’t really understand this business of cutting off communication with someone because you disagree on some beliefs. It is of course a common thing. I’ll take a stab here at sussing out the thinking it seems to reflect:


Society is a battle between those who believe one thing, and those who believe the other. Whichever side wins the battle will determine public policy. If you believe the opposite of what I believe, then you are in the battle against me. And because climate is a life-and-death issue, you are a personal threat to me. Persona non grata.


We must keep in mind that divide-and-rule is the oldest control technique in the book. Blaming one another for our problems is exactly what they want us to be doing. And let’s be realistic, public policy is not determined by what you and I believe or want. It’s just the opposite. Public policy is determined first, and then the media is unleashed to persuade us to like it, or at least to accept it. Politics 101.
Sergio Lub wrote:
Hi Richard,
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
Thanks Sergio for forwarding the article. I appreciate that Marc has a lot to say, as that provides an opportunity to clarify a number of issues.  I’ll comment on his various points separately. But first, I’d like to explain the intent behind my article:
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. 
Marc wrote:
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.

Hi Marc,

Let’s look at our interglacial period again:

The three spikes on the right all show rapid warming, 1 or 2 degrees in a couple of hundred years. And that’s exactly what we’ve experienced over the past couple of hundred years. The current era is the same as past eras. But that was explained in the article. Did you skip that part?
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.
I’m not accusing the scientific community of manipulation etc. I’m attributing responsibility to a small core of people, the ones maintaining the orthodox models. Like those at East Anglia – whose manipulations were exposed in leaked emails. The work of the rest of the community is based on the flawed models, so they can’t be blamed for coming up with exaggerated projections. This presentation shows the kind of data manipulations that are going on:
Before it makes sense to ask what incentive someone might have for manipulating data, we need to first settle the question of whether or not any manipulation has occurred. If you think the models are valid, and you reject my analysis, then there’s been no manipulation and no reason for us to be discussing any of this. Obviously I’m off on a wild goose chase. Why waste your time with me?
On the other hand, if my analysis is valid, and the data has been manipulated, then you’d have to admit that it makes sense to identify who was in a position to do the manipulating. We might be surprised by who the perps are, and we might have a hard time understanding their motives, but we couldn’t then dismiss the case on the basis that ‘no scientist would behave that way’. Some scientist did behave that way, if manipulation occurred.
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.
Once again your argument is that there can’t be a scam, because you can’t imagine what the incentive would be. I could explain the incentives, and I’ve written articles on the subject, but there’s no point in explaining if you’re convinced there’s been no manipulation and that no scam exists. Such a discussion between us would be pointless.
You say:
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?

In Ireland they’ve set a date, after which only electric cars will be permitted, and oil heating of homes will be banned. Do a little google searching and you’ll find this kind of thing is coming down the pike all over the place. It’s all part of Agenda 21/30.

In order to save the planet, there are many reasons why we need to reduce our consumption of energy and other resources. But the place to start with that is by reducing our energy requirements, not by restricting or over-pricing the supply. And reducing our requirements calls for infrastructure changes, such as a return to less energy-intensive agriculture methods, and a relocalization of economics and production, minimizing the need for long-distance transport of goods. I talked about this in my discussion with Jan.

Instead we get carbon taxes, carbon-credit trading, and a future based on electric cars – which perpetuates our over-dependence on automobiles for transport. I’m not saying cars should be banned, but I am saying serious investment is needed in transport infrastructure that can minimize the need for cars. Even if we ignore the energy it takes to operate cars, immense amounts of energy and petroleum-based materials go into the production of cars and tires, and in the construction and maintenance of our excessive highway systems.

Considerable amounts of energy would be required in the short term to pursue the infrastructure developments that would be needed to reduce our long term energy requirements. That’s why restricting the supply early on is counterproductive.
thanks for the dialog
ekbonus bahis forum