Eschatology and Global Warming

The interviewees, principals in the IPCC process, were simply asked to tell their stories. And btw, not a single interviewee has complained that he was misquoted or quoted out of context.

 

Watch out for

 

Are you peer reviewed? What measures do you take to minimize bias in your remarks?
I believe you once said you do not hold a degree in climate science. Still the case?

It is always interesting to learn who is trying to frighten the people of the planet we live on.

 

Were they? Without access to the book and texts how can I evaluate that? Who did he interview? Were they lead authors or only contributing authors? How many did he interview?

see what makes me suspicious is that if this actually contained anything of substance publishing houses would have been breaking their necks to take on this text. Pitch it right and every denialist in the world would be buying a copy. Instead it was self funded by a group with a very shady history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

 

Which Nicely demonstrates your understanding of research

 

Ahhh poetic justice!
Marc Morano back in 2012 was busy posting the private emails of climate scientists on his blog https://www.scientificamerican.com/...f-climate-change-hate-mail-rally-for-support/. Many got got hate mail and more than a few got death threats

https://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/13/morano-abets-threats/

 

That is false and you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to support it.

Prior to the Mid-Pleistocene Event, Glacial Periods lasted ~40,000 years and Inter-Glacial Periods ~12,000 years.

I would point out that scientific fact misleads people to erroneously conclude that the Milankovitch Cycle --in particular the 41,000 year cycle for axial tilt where Earth moves from ~21° to about 24° off the vertical then back -- is what triggers Inter-Glacial Periods.

The Mid-Pleistocene Event occurred 600,000 years ago for reasons unknown and from that point on, Glacial Periods lasted 80,000 to 120,000 years and Inter-Glacial Periods 12,000 to 32,000 years.

I would also point that the 80,000-120,000 year Glacial Periods "averages" to 100,000 years which again deceives people into believing the Milakovitch Cycles play a role. They do not. The 80,000 year Glacial Period abruptly ended for reasons unknown. Excluding a statistical outlier from the data set puts Glacial Periods at 100,000 to 120,000 years.

Your entire theory is based on the Logical Fallacy of "Ought."

Temperatures ought not rise above current levels.

Sea levels ought not rise above current levels.

This Inter-Glacial Period ought to be ending since 12,000 years have elapsed.

There is no science to support any of those clams. If temperatures continue to rise, the only scientific truth you can utter is that this Inter-Glacial Period is perfectly normal. If sea levels rise another 3-8 meters, the only scientific truth you can utter is this Inter-Glacial Period is perfectly normal.

And this Inter-Glacial Period could easily last another 3,000, 5,000, 10,000 or even 20,000 years and that would be perfectly normal, too.

It isn't my fault morons put hotels 2 inches from the high tide mark on coastal areas before you started launching satellites and had the scientific know-how to gain some understanding of how Earth actually works, including the fact that there are Glacial and Inter-Glacial Periods.

Do you realize that it wasn't until the 1970s that anyone had any idea of the existence of Glacial/Inter-Glacial Periods?

Sure, they knew what an Ice Age was, but they had no idea we were actually in an Ice Age and in this Ice Age, we cycle from Glacial Periods to Inter-Glacial Periods and back.

The first clue was the remnants of a big-ass delta about 3 clicks south of the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

The Space Shuttle found that on its ground-penetrating radar Earth mapping missions in the early 1990s.

Yeah, that's right. The Persian Gulf is something new on Earth. 12,000 years ago, it was the Persian Valley and a big-ass river flowed through into the Arabian Sea creating that delta.

 

Um, the IPCC's use of "Climate Change" is the Straw Man.

 

Buy it. Read it. That's what I did.

"The importance of this book is reflected in its acknowledgements, in context of assistance and contributions from early leaders and participants in the IPCC:

This book would not have been possible without the documents obtained via Mike MacCracken and John Zillman. Their abiding interest in a true and accurate presentation of the facts prevented my research from being led astray. Many of those who participated in the events here described gave generously of their time in responding to my enquiries, they include Ben Santer, Tim Barnett, Tom Wigley, John Houghton, Fred Singer, John Mitchell, Pat Michaels . . . and many more. . . . "

Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.

 

You dodged the question

Now again where in the IPCC does it say climate change has not happened in the past?

 

Why should I spend my money on a text that is unlikely to be valid? Especially since at least one of those names was not only a noted climate science denier but also played a role in the tobacco industry misrepresentation of science Fred Singer - he is dead now but see his name associated with anything amd you know it is as dodgy as
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S._Fred_Singer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

 

So far what is missing is any validation for you claims

Since the IOCC reports are what the governments around the world are basing decisions on can you show me where in those reports are they at variance with YOUR claims

 

Singer was at the time in the IPCC. Since your opinion of the book is by your own admission uninformed, it may be dismissed. And btw, please note the other sources quoted.

 

In Germany the rush back to the Middle Ages is picking up speed.
Euro Courts Infringing On Freedom Of Science…Climate Science Being Decided By Courts Instead Of By Proof
By P Gosselin on 19. June 2021

Share this...
An outstanding essay…

An extremely dangerous political development is in full swing in Europe: Legal courts are now taking it upon themselves to decide the questions of science.
================================================

Europe‘s climate courts infringing on the freedom of science
While constantly claiming they are “following the science”, climate change partisans are in reality suppressing it.

By Fred F. Mueller

This has been blatantly demonstrated in a decision of the Karlsruhe-based Federal Constitutional Court of Germany on March 24, 2021. For many years, “Climate change Chancellor” Angela Merkel had the opportunity to staff this court with her devoted followers. The recent ruling on the Climate Protection Act of Germany’s government will certainly set a mark in history. Although the word “climate” is nowhere to be found in the current version of the German Basic Law (= Germany’s Constitution), “climate protection” and, moreover, even the “establishment of climate neutrality” have now been virtually elevated to constitutional articles. In the view of Germany’s highest court, compliance with the “2-degree target” and, if possible, even the “1.5 -degree target” of the Paris Climate Agreement even justifies considerable state interference with the civil liberties enshrined in the Basic Law.

The first right of freedom now to be marginalized is the freedom of research and teaching, as is documented in the written opinion of court President Stephan Harbarth and his seven fellow judges in the first chamber: The Federal Constitutional Court considers itself authorized to decide on scientific questions by judgement instead of by scientific proof, as is usually the case. This might be regarded as a kind of reversion to the Middle Ages, when people who relied on their own intellect were considered as a thorn in the side of the religious and political rulers of that era. Such independent spirits dared to put into doubt everything that was put before the people by princes and priests. . . .

 

Your PREJUDICE is your problem, it prevents you from learning.

Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy and other occult nonsense during his career, shall we ignore his laws of motion because he was dabbling in Pseudoscience?

 

Um, the science you ignore is the validation.

Governments around the world basing their decisions on the fraudulent science proffered by the IPCC isn't any different than earlier times when governments around the world based their decisions and policies on Eugenics proffered by other scientists.

In other words, the fact that government might accept the science is not validation of the science. It's only validation of the fraudulent claims proffered by devious miscreants.

If you understood Academia, and very obviously you don't, it's way too late for the climate change nutters to walk back their claims.

To do so would destroy their credibility and reputations, so rather than man up and admit their errors, they continue to push a bad position.

It's not like we haven't seen this before. It happens all the time in Academia. You need only look at the Land Bridge Nutters.

In 1968, a woman archaeologist from the University of Pennsylvania was digging at a site in the northern Chilean desert. She Carbon-dated the site to 30,000+ years.

That destroyed the Land-Bridge Theory and she paid the price. She was black-balled, black-listed and drummed out of her position at the University of Pennsylvania and ended up teaching at a private high school in PA. She died around 1984.

About 10 years later, another team following-up on her research used three different dating techniques to come up with 35,000 to 32,000 years ago.

She was vindicated. And then you got people hunting giant sloths in Brasilian jungles 25,000 years ago, and to add insult to injury, three of the groups in the Amazon Basin have Y-DNA Haplogroups and mt-DNA Haplogroups proving they're Australasian in origin, meaning they came from the islands between Indonesia and Australia, and not from eastern Asia.

And now it's been proven the Bering Strait was glaciated, so there was no "land-bridge" and I won't even get into the Aleuts and Inuits who say, "Land-bridge? What the hell people, we came by boat."

Still, you have nutters clinging to a failed theory because it's their life's work.

So, no, I would not except the climate change nutters to give up so easily, even in the face of failed prediction after failed prediction and nothing happening very slowly and anything that might happen is just normal.

There are numerous articles on the Mid-Pleistocene Event. No one is sure exactly what it is or what caused it, although there are lots of hypotheses without any evidence. What is known is that the lengths of both Glacial and Inter-Glacial periods increased dramatically.

You can see the photos from the Space Shuttle mapping missions using ground-penetrating radar. Some of it is classified, because the US was looking for underground command/control structures used by foreign governments -- including our Allies -- during a future potential conflict and to get better data on ICBM missile silos.

The remnant of the River Eden delta are visible in the Arabian Sea as is the remnants of the now-named River Kuwait, which solved two geologic mysteries. The first being sand dunes on the Saudi Peninsula. Below some invisible line of demarcation, sand dunes where aligned in one direction, but aligned in a different direction north of this invisible line of demarcation. The second was the minerals in the Basra Delta Region in Iraq. Those minerals were not organic to the mountains in Turkey or Iran, but were organic to the Hijazz Mountains in western Saudi Arabia. That begged the question how those minerals got from western Saudi Arabia to the Basra Delta.

Simple. A river that died sometime between 8,000 BCE and 5,000 BCE flowed from the Hijazz Mountains across the Saudi Peninsula where it merged with the Rivers Euphrates, Tigris and Karun, forming the River Eden which flowed over a cataract about 100-120 feet high, then through the Persian Valley to the Arabian Sea.

"Climate change" caused sea levels to rise obliterating the Persian Valley and creating the Persian Gulf and laying waste to the Saudi Peninsula causing the River Kuwait to dry up. The Iranian Plateau, the Sahara and a number of other areas were also laid waste.

What we should probably do is artificially seed the upper atmosphere to induce a Glacial Period and then 6 Billion people will die, but on the bright side, the Saudi Peninsula, Sahara, Iranian Plateau and numerous other areas will be lush tropical paradises and the River Kuwait can flow once again and re-created The River Eden to flow through the Persian Valley.

 

No I do not go to medical officers who wish to treat me with crystal therapy and homeopathy

 

Not one citation

 

Another post by a denialist blog

 

Which, if correct, shows how inclusive the IPCC is.

 

.

Global warming reminds me of this Bible verse which makes me think of a much longer growing season.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.

Amos 9:13

.

 

Do you dispute the facts?

 

Still dodging the topic.

 

Environmentalism has run off the rails, becoming more religion than science.
Environmentalism and the Fringe
David Mountain, Skeptical Inquirer

". . . It’s worth remembering that the megamachine doesn’t just destroy the natural world. Indeed, as science and technology get to grips with the scale of environmental crisis facing us, they are coming up with many ingenious solutions. Genetically modified crops have been developed that use 25 percent less water than their unmodified counterparts. State-of-the-art herbicides such as glyphosate improve crop yields while reducing costs, all without harming humans. Even nuclear power plants, once the supervillain of the environmental movement, have dramatically improved in terms of safety and reduced waste. In fact, a 2017 study found that the world will probably fail to meet the emissions targets set by the Paris Agreement without relying on nuclear power to some extent (Peters et al. 2017).

And yet, time and time again, we have witnessed the embarrassing spectacle of hazmat-clad Greenpeace activists ripping up genetically modified crops or of countries outlawing glyphosate on the basis of unfounded environmental concerns or of environmentalists simultaneously demanding that countries dramatically cut emissions while abandoning nuclear power. We have to contend with green activists regarding organic food as a matter of principle and not privilege or insisting that the solution to the climate crisis lies in the wholesale “decommercialization” of the West’s “toxic economic system.” This is the legacy of the environmental fringe. . . . "

 

For climate alarmists, the topic is a matter of religion, not science.
Progressives Get Defensive on Climate Change Religion

Christian Whiton, Substack

". . . Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, climate change for progressives is more like a religion than a political belief that might be debatable. To the extent that some religion is hardwired into the human brain, climate change alarmism is the perfect substitute for those who wish make a religion out of politics instead of God. You have Earth in its pristine state (Eden) before the evil internal-combustion engine (the snake and the apple), a forlorn savior (previously Al Gore, now Ugly Greta), man’s current mostly sinful existence (non-Tesla drivers), and a prophesized apocalypse if we don’t straighten up and fly right to close out the allegory.

Yes, these guys ripped off the Bible. . . . "