COVID-19 vaccines Intelligent Design Philosophy Science

At Mind Matters News: Why many now reject science… do you really want to know? Part 1

Spread the love

COVID demonstrated — as nothing else could — that the “science” was all over the map and didn’t help people avoid panic:

Science-sponsored panic probably drove up the damage from COVID. Jay Richards, one of the authors of The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe (October 2020), has noted, “In working on the book, we watched social media and platforms such as Google Search manipulate news coverage of the pandemic. It was, honestly, terrifying to watch important stories and studies get buried in real time on Google searches. It was also distressing to watch Twitter and Facebook attach warnings to the advice and viewpoint of scientists who urged calm and caution, while boosting the views of “officials” such as Anthony Fauci and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom.”

And, just as most of the world was getting the impression that the pandemic — and the panic — had largely run their course, up pops a proposal in 2021 for a “reality czar” to fight disinformation and misinformation, as if all of that were coming from non-government or non-science sources. The proposal was (we are told) put on hold after the fear of just consequences prevailed.

News, “Why many now reject science… do you really want to know?” at Mind Matters News (July 17, 2022)

Takehome: As the panic receded, the government started setting up a disinformation board to target NON-government sources of panic, thus deepening loss of trust.


You may also wish to read: Did social media panic drive up the damage from COVID-19? Richards: It was, honestly, terrifying to watch important stories and studies get buried in real time on Google searches. Social media did a very good job of panicking the population about COVID-19, instead of relaying facts, says Jay Richards, an author of The Price of Panic.

215 Replies to “At Mind Matters News: Why many now reject science… do you really want to know? Part 1

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    Officially, the talking points came from a single, narrow view. Unofficially, there were and remain a great deal of scientist who strongly disagreed with what governments and their paid spokespeople claimed. Those who disagreed, no matter how strong their backgrounds in numerous fields, had difficulty in getting their scientifically valid points out.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    It is time that we reflect on the governance of the pandemic — the big issues/decisions, how decisions were made and how they were made to stick. What harm have we done to our economies, societies and people? (Do not overlook, was this a result of evading bans on gain of function research by offshoring to China? [From the perspective of a Communist state where The Party must control every significant institution, what would that look like other than biowar experimentation?]) Where does the cultural support necessary to sustain lawful, constitutional, limited [and democratic] government stand? What is the truth about the pandemic and what is the truth of its impact on civilisation?

  3. 3
    asauber says:

    “Social media did a very good job of panicking the population about COVID-19”

    Yes, so the mission to lobotomize a large segment of the population has been a success. These lemmings just react to scare tactics and are not interested in thinking about anything scientifically.

    Andrew

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    Ever wonder why the so called consensus is so organized.

    That’s what new, for a few people to pull the strings and every source say the same thing. Human beings haven’t changed. The technology has though and a few can control everyone or at least try to.

    Hint: it is not from Washington or WHO. They are just some of the puppets, not the puppeteers. It’s hard to fathom the US government as a bunch of puppets.

    Many people will willingly nod in approval but what they fail to realize is that they will become expendable as soon as they are not needed.

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    The disinformation about science, particularly COVID and climate change, is about political influence and an instinctive resentment of being told what to do by those who know more than you do. The answer is conspiracy theories and telling yourself that you know more about stuff than some ivory tower academic.

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    “resentment of being told what to do”

    In contrast, Sev wants to be told what to do by his betters. It’s only right that he serve them.

    Andrew

  7. 7
    AaronS1978 says:

    @Sev lol spoken EXACTLY like a brainwashed liberal

    By the way I followed nothing but Covid science which was often done by people conveniently from China and often wrong or inaccurate but science is ever changing right?

    What you’ve done there is a liberal character assassination so you can continue to believe that there was nothing wrong with the science

    However our government tried to mandated relatively ineffective vaccine, that now many people know is ineffective, that can be dangerous, has some pretty nasty side effects, and Fauci just recently said “it really doesn’t stop the spread”

    Remember that’s how you kept people safe from the spooky Covid if you didn’t get the vaccine you ran the risk of spreading it to somebody and killing them

    Some conspiracy theorist huh? Oh wait I’m just pointing out a glaring hypocrisy on how this was managed.

    All of these things are true and do not rely on liberal character assassinations of people that descent from your personal opinion

    And yes I am very well aware by calling you a brainwashed liberal I’m character assassinating you no differently than when you said everybody’s answer is a conspiracy theories and don’t believe those ivory tower academics.

    Here’s the reality our government, specifically your Democratic Party, based policies and mandates off science that was inaccurate at the time

    That was a big mistake and people have lost confidence in science and the institution of science because of this

    It’s politics that has directly harmed the credibility of science, and science is a human institution that can be easily bought. (We can start with tobacco companies and go from there if you need examples of science being bought)

    And when a governmental institutions force people to do things based off of science and then that science changes three months later those people might have a tendency to start questioning both the government and science

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Sev

    The disinformation about science, particularly COVID and climate change, is about political influence

    We could apply that to political motives from the left-wing progressives. Science is not politically neutral, unfortunately. It’s a human activity and subject to biases and distortions and non-scientific interests.

    and an instinctive resentment of being told what to do by those who know more than you do.

    Not instinctive but a learned-resistance to people who have proven themselves untrustworthy.

    The answer is conspiracy theories and telling yourself that you know more about stuff than some ivory tower academic.

    Academic knowledge is not the same as wisdom. Having a degree from a credentialing-agency does not mean that you deserve authority over people. Respect must be earned. Respect can be lost when knowledge is abused. Ivory tower academics are known for hubris and foolishness – we see evidence of this almost every day on U.D. with some of the things academics say.
    In those cases, having basic common sense means a person will know quite a lot more than pseudo-scholars do.

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    @8 learned is right

    When you have a government declare that all asymptomatic people must wear masks because you can’t tell if they’re carrying diseases, however they have no symptoms, but six months later our president declares that people that have had the vaccine now can takeoff the mask because they have reduced symptoms and therefore spread the disease less, begs many questions

    There were too many incidents like this from locking down and destroying businesses because Covid, but allow mass nationwide destructive protests of BLM(Covid took a break) coupled with nine new billionaires thanks to Pfizer and Moderna. It’s stuff like this that made people start questioning things

    And instead of trying to rationally flush things out and discuss this with people that had concerns about these types of things people like Sev regurgitated THE EXACT SAME statements like “that’s just a conspiracy theory”, “you don’t understand THE science”,
    and “you are a science denier” which created even more push back

  10. 10
    relatd says:

    No one should listen to no one on social media. So-called social media is NOT a legitimate news source. It is not to be trusted. At all. Social media is designed to create drama and can be manipulated by anonymous elements and NO, I am not talking about the government.

    Throughout the FRYING PAN-SCHMEMIK, your doctor and ONLY your doctor should have been your only source of information.

    THE ABOVE BOOK IS A PILE OF GARBAGE designed to spread the wrong ideas and capitalize on a product called CONFUSION. Avoid it.

    ISN”T IT OBVIOUS that protestors of all kinds were granted instant immunity? Isn’t it obvious that things could have been done differently regarding distributing food and clothing? Isn’t it obvious that certain businesses closed so they could be bought later?

  11. 11
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 7,

    Where the heck are your sources for your statements? I don’t believe anything you wrote based on information I got from people in health care as opposed to the crap on social media.

    The internet is not your friend regarding this subject.

  12. 12
  13. 13
    AaronS1978 says:

    And that was just a quick brief skim

    It took me about two minutes and 30 seconds to find those and copy and paste them to the site
    there’s many many more, is there anything else you would like me to post for you since the Internet is not my friend because I found all of this easily on the Internet I didn’t even have to look into my archive where I save these files at

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/detroit-tv-news-anchor-dies-covid-19-vaccine

    https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/08/news-anchor-dies-of-blood-clots-after-covid-vaccine/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9270125/Former-Detroit-TV-anchor-Karen-Hudson-Samuels-dies-taking-vaccine.html

  14. 14
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 12,

    So what? Elon Musk has billions and is not involved in creating pharmaceuticals. If the answer is vaccines then the answer is vaccines. Someone has to make them.

  15. 15
    AaronS1978 says:

    @14 *sigh*ok

  16. 16
    asauber says:

    “If the answer is vaccines then the answer is vaccines.”

    Relatd

    Which vaccines were the answer and to what question?

    Andrew

  17. 17
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 14,

    Don’t you start, OK? Or are you joining the group of irrationals here?

    Vaccines were produced by various companies and billions have been given out to help protect the people from some virus. That is the whole answer. If you have another answer, let’s hear it.

  18. 18
    AaronS1978 says:

    @Relatd

    Your last comment @17 is a perfect example of what I was talking about before

    Because all you will accomplish by calling everybody “irrationals” here is create more push back

  19. 19
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 18,

    No. I work in a business and monitor the media. I know what I’m talking about. Again, the ONLY source of information that should have been used throughout the current health crisis is your doctor, NOT social so-called media.

  20. 20
    asauber says:

    “the ONLY source of information that should have been used throughout the current health crisis is your doctor”

    Relatd,

    Let me update you: Doctors are not immune from pushing unproven/unnecessary/dubious chemicals on people. They have no special charism for ethics. They toe the party line, worship Mammon, and lie, just like everyone else.

    Andrew

  21. 21
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 20,

    Stop trusting doctors? That’s your answer?

  22. 22
    asauber says:

    “Stop trusting doctors?”

    Relatd,

    The only doctor you have to worry about is your own doctor. And to give that one doctor carte blanche over your life is stupid.

    Andrew

  23. 23
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 22,

    So, I should tell my doctor “I don’t trust you?” That is stupid.

  24. 24
    asauber says:

    “So, I should tell my doctor “I don’t trust you?” That is stupid.”

    Relatd,

    You can tell your doctor whatever you want. If your doctor isn’t trustworthy, you could let them know and find another doctor. It’s not rocket science.

    Andrew

  25. 25
    asauber says:

    Relatd,

    Are you one of those lemmings who watches press conferences and admires the stuffed labcoats and stethoscopes the pols trot out for the cameras? They are real doctors, get it?

    Andrew

  26. 26
    AaronS1978 says:

    @Realtd
    No?
    So you believe you won’t receive pushback about your line of thinking from the people you just insulted by calling them irrationals? And they are irrationals because they don’t have your line of thinking.

    And this is based on you working in business monitoring media.

    I’m sorry I’m very confused on what you mean by 19

  27. 27
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 24,

    Make up your mind. I’m trusting my doctor, but, according to you, they “… lie, just like everyone else.”

    So which is it? What about your doctor?

  28. 28
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 26,

    My point is: I’m not confused.

    Social media is crazy talk for the most part regarding this. Anything that might be factual is buried under crazy talk.

  29. 29
    asauber says:

    “Make up your mind.”

    Relatd

    I have. I try to have a realistic relationship with people. That means Titles like Doctor don’t confer trust. You seem to think they do. Good luck with all the jabs.

    Andrew

  30. 30
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 25,

    I watch 2 minutes of TV news in a 5 day period at most. I do not trust the media at all regarding this. I have ZERO trust in the media regarding this. I have condemned media reports regarding this. Why? Their primary job was and is creating hysteria.

  31. 31
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 29,

    Don’t you dare invent things I didn’t say. Answer the question: Do you trust your doctor? Why?

  32. 32
    jerry says:

    Their primary job was and is creating hysteria.

    They are just following orders.

    Meanwhile, the world is going around in circles. Especially at UD.

  33. 33
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 32,

    That is exactly right. Now that Leftists/Liberals control the media, they have no choice. That and they have to make lots of money.

    The world is going nowhere. People on UD can talk to their doctor and dump social – it’s only there to make money and spread propaganda – media. Social media sows confusion. Fire bad – social media bad. Does anyone here actually want to be confused? Does anyone here think social media is trustworthy?

  34. 34
    asauber says:

    “Do you trust your doctor? Why?”

    Relatd,

    I do not trust my doctor to put me absolutely above all their other concerns, no. I don’t even trust my wife, who I know loves me, that far, that either would never be capable of a selfish act. They and I are both are fallen people, like I have been trying to explain to you. And if the pressure on a Doctor is great enough, there is no reason to think they wouldn’t conform.

    Andrew

  35. 35
    AaronS1978 says:

    @30

    So about mass hysteria just a quick quip back in 2010 I contracted version of H1N1 and the doctor had prescribed to me multiple antiretrovirals to fight it, it was the sickest I’ve ever been

    He told me very specifically not to get onto social media and tell everybody I had this

    This of course was during Obama’s presidency

    COVID-19, exact opposite, get on social media and tell everybody you have it so they stay away from you and quarantine

    This is just my personal experience

  36. 36
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 34,

    So dark forces have forced doctors to give out jabs? Even though you know better?

  37. 37
    AaronS1978 says:

    Well not darkforces but money, jobs, and mandates do

  38. 38
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 35,

    Wha… what? You get one thing and told not to tell anyone. Then if you get the current virus, to tell everyone ???

    Makes No Sense. I know people who listened to the crap on social media and believed it. They were 100% wrong. That’s my point. They read something posted by bobb259 – who is a liar – and believed it.

    *bobb259 is not an actual poster but a made up fake name for this post.

  39. 39
    asauber says:

    “So dark forces have forced doctors to give out jabs?”

    Relatd,

    My employer and regulating authorities were pressuring me to get them. So why couldn’t doctors be pressured to give them?

    Andrew

  40. 40
    asauber says:

    “Well not darkforces but money, jobs, and mandates do”

    Aaron, zactly.

    Andrew

  41. 41
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 39,

    So what’s the plan? Move to a country where they’re not required?

  42. 42
    relatd says:

    AS1978 at 37,

    Will you be moving to a country that does not require them?

  43. 43
    asauber says:

    “So what’s the plan? Move to a country where they’re not required?”

    Relatd,

    That’s the rub isn’t it? If the USA now demands unwanted chemical injections or else imprisonment or living on the street, my options are open.

    Andrew

  44. 44
    AaronS1978 says:

    @Realtd
    Yeah you’re right it doesn’t make sense that’s the whole point and is part of the reason why I stop trusting so many things but that’s what I was instructed to do by my crappy Doctor Who I no longer see

    Now could you explain to me again why you think you won’t receive pushback for calling people irrationals?

    I just feel that your job isn’t adequate reason for thinking you won’t receive pushback by insulting people’s intelligence on something that they don’t agree with you on

  45. 45
    asauber says:

    By the way Relatd, I guess you have conceded my point that doctors can be pressured.

    Andrew

  46. 46
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 43,

    Imprisonment? Whoa… Where the heck did you hear that? Even in the U.S. military, you’re not imprisoned. You are discharged. The end.

  47. 47
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 45,

    So you believe dark forces are applying the pressure?

  48. 48
    asauber says:

    Relatd, Did you miss this?

    “By the way Relatd, I guess you have conceded my point that doctors can be pressured.”

    Did you concede?

    Andrew

  49. 49
    chuckdarwin says:

    The only thing to clearly come out of the ID movement, COVID denial movement, climate change denial movement, government coercion movement and the rest of the manufactured far-right plaints, is a rendering of the word “science” meaningless……

  50. 50
    ET says:

    There isn’t any evidence that CO2 can cause climate change. COVID could have easily been handled if we weren’t so unhealthy.

    I doubt that people like chuckdarwin really understand science.

  51. 51
    ET says:

    COVID-19 could have been easily defeated with OTC supplements, like zinc, ionophores like quercetin and green tea, vitamin D, antioxidants and a multivitamin.

  52. 52
    AaronS1978 says:

    @CD
    Lol Covid denial! Hahahahahahahaha!
    No one is in denial of Covid here you twit. Just the dubious nature of how you left wing nuts handled it

  53. 53
    relatd says:

    CD at 49,

    The only meaningless thing is your post.

    The frying pan-schmemik was planned. Get over it. Millions dead was the goal and more dying every day. Hurray for population control!

    Tell the owners of beachfront property in Florida right now that sea levels are rising. Do it. Tell them to abandon their homes so I can turn them around and sell them for a profit.

    The government is the OFFICIAL COERCION MOVEMENT. They got a taste during the Cold War and can’t stop.

    Meanwhile – barring anything you said – science moves on. There are no protests by the manufactured by Leftists, Far Right outside their doors.

  54. 54
    relatd says:

    ET and 51,

    Is that medical advice? You know you can’t post misleading medical advice anywhere. So stop it.

  55. 55
    AaronS1978 says:

    Anyone that disagrees with current left wing crusade no matter how ridiculous is a denier aka their way of ignoring the criticisms of their stupidity

  56. 56
    ET says:

    Relatd @ 54- It isn’t misleading. MedCram videos discuss it. MedCram videos are used by medical professionals and students around the world. There was a peer-reviewed paper that showed zinc prevents the virus from replicating. There is a plethora of research on ionophores, like quercetin and EGCG. And to top it off, research has found strong correlations between zinc deficiency and bad covid outcomes. Research has also found a strong correlation between vitamin D deficiency and poor covid outcomes.

    I can post facts. And I don’t care who doesn’t like it. Especially when those facts can save lives. It is a given more than 50% of covid deaths were due to a vitamin and/ or mineral deficiency.

  57. 57
    relatd says:

    ET at 56,

    You don’t understand. If what you say is true then why isn’t it recommended by doctors?

  58. 58
    Querius says:

    Watch this and weep!

    Tennessee House Hearing Room II March 1 2022 HB1871 COVID VACCINATED VS UNVAXXED
    https://youtu.be/rhkT99Xa2YE?t=246

    Sadly, the CDC, NIH, and WHO now have zero credibility as far as I’m concerned.

    The U.S. should either apologize for the Neuremberg medical trials and the hanging of Nazi doctors, or agree to initiate a comprehensive set of Neuremberg 2 medical trials.

    The disastrous human experimentation with so-called vaccines led to far more deaths and serious disabilities in violation of the Hippocratic Oath than did the Nazi medical experiments.

    -Q

  59. 59
    relatd says:

    Querius at 58,

    What are YOU going to do about it aside from post here?

  60. 60
    asauber says:

    Relatd,

    Hooray Doctors @58! 😉

    Andrew

  61. 61
    ET says:

    It is recommended by doctors. MedCram videos are put up by doctors.

  62. 62
    Blastus says:

    Seversky at 5:

    disinformation … is about political influence …

    Au contraire. Disinformation is about denying the truth to avoid running afoul of higher authority or even the hysterical mob. It is about keeping one’s job. It is about continuing to make your mortgage payments. It is about keeping your wife. In China it is about avoiding imprisonment and torture. It is about avoiding student protests and even death threats. It is about avoiding professional censure and deplatforming. It is about men (and sometimes women) with small, shrunken testicles who will pervert the truth to save their own skins. And sometimes it is merely dishonest gain.

    In the practice of law it has long been known that any expert opinion can be had for the right price, allowing both sides of a case to proceed to trial with their own army of opposing experts.

    The position of science has rested on an increasingly rickety perch in a post Christian, post truth 21st century. Now COVID and climate change have come and completely ripped down the curtain in front of the commoners, exposing the inner workings.

    And Seversky, please keep writing. While I almost never agree with you, you do occasionally latch on to a morsel of truth. I find you a welcome, even necessary, foil who serves to move the dialog forward.

    To the rest of you, for an example of men with real strength of conviction to uphold the truth, read Daniel 3:17-18 and surrounding verses.

  63. 63
    Querius says:

    Related @59,

    What are YOU going to do about it aside from post here?

    Already done. Did you watch the testimony?

    -Q

  64. 64
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius @58 – thanks for the video.
    There was a time, not long ago, when such information would have had someone banned from YouTube.
    I believe more news will come out about the damage done to people from that experimentation on humans.
    These are the people who have been proclaiming “trust the science”. They’re still insisting that opposition is just a right-wing conspiracy.

  65. 65
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @64,

    Indeed!

    Frankly, I was completely stunned after watching the expert testimonies–I had no idea how bad it really was/is where government and medical bureaucrats brazenly suppress science and intimidate doctors in support of a convenient lie. And the legacy media tirelessly cover for these monsters.

    I can’t begin to express my disgust. And the mounting “mysterious” death toll regarding the human experimentation with the mRNA vaccine is only starting to emerge.

    And the deleterious effects of coerced vaccination of people with natural immunity has hit several of my family members and close friends who became seriously ill afterwards.

    -Q

  66. 66
    Marfin says:

    I am getting pretty tired of hearing the phrase ” denying the science” science not “the science” is a methodology of getting to the possible facts/truth of a matter.
    Someone or some group of doctors, scientists or media folk making bold statement about any given subject is not “the science” how this, the conclusion about the statements that are made are being reached that may be the science , but I would still like to see the methodology , experiments , test etc they used to get to their conclusion so I can make my own mind up as to the actual science.
    A case in point how many climate scientist have actual access to the thermometers or satellites that have measured the earths temperature over the last 100 years , and if they dont have real hands on access to this un-calibrated data how can they call anything they say “the science”

  67. 67
    Marfin says:

    Just one more peeve of mine , most people saying “trust the science”dont know the science behind what they trust , they trust the scientist not the science.
    Its a very dangerous thing to let other`s do your thinking for you , very dangerous indeed.
    Ask yourselves these questions , how do I know I am right ? and what do I , ME , MYSELF know about how the science was done and how the conclusions were reached in the matter I say “trust the science” in.
    If you are honest you will acknowledge you have examined the matter very little or not at all , so why do you say “trust the science , or why do you hold that given viewpoint.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius at 58. Thanks for the video. As you said at 65, (and I couldn’t have said it better), “I was completely stunned after watching the expert testimonies–I had no idea how bad it really was/is where government and medical bureaucrats brazenly suppress science and intimidate doctors in support of a convenient lie. And the legacy media tirelessly cover for these monsters.”

    Spot on!

  69. 69
    kairosfocus says:

    Marfin, there is a yet darker, loaded innuendo in the choice of terms, “denying.” Direct insinuation of a parallel to Holocaust denial. The Holocaust was discovered by witnesses, was filmed, people from nearby towns were made to walk through and see, was subjected to International tribunals. Climate modelling simulations, problems with arrays of weather stations [see WUWT], serious disagreements between experts, evidence of fudging and more do not put climate research findings, ideologically loaded summaries for policy makers, PR releases and textbook or TV confident manner assertions in anywhere near the same ballpark. Science is not a monolith and we must be discerning and prudent. KF

    PS, a WUWT primer https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Glance-Teachers-Students-Prominent/dp/1934791938

  70. 70
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, one of the reviews of Anthony Watts’ book:

    >>Kimberly Johnson
    5.0 out of 5 stars Climate Faithful will get defensive and attack, and won’t realize that THEY are the ones in Denial.
    Reviewed in the United States on April 28, 2022
    Helping to bring honesty to the Lies, half-truths, and attempts to deceive
    I read a PDF release of this book a couple of months ago. Breath of fresh air. I’m a highly published academic scientist, former tenured professor, and know how science works. And it doesn’t work at all when it has been politicized. The climate field suffers from many layers of reinforcing bias. From infancy through grade school through undergraduate to graduate school, orthodoxy is rewarded. After attaining a PhD, grant applications are required, and grants only come to the orthodox, so only orthodox research studies are proposed, funded and performed, by people biased toward a specific outcome. And no one will risk writing a negative paper. A negative paper won’t get published, and if it did, it would only harm ones career. Non-orthodox data therefore sit in a drawer.. The media’s *If it bleeds it leads* assures that only the most highly distilled climate orthodoxy is ever seen by the lay reader. There is no way that the climate field can provide any semblance of the truth. It is too filled with reinforcing biases.
    This book discredits the myths put out by the climate change industry and the political/government body known as the IPCC. It helps us recognize that the climate change pseudoscience is poor science at best and certainly not “truth.” This book is put out by people who have the courage to point out that the so-called consensus is a political construct, and not scientific. And that the science is simply not what the fear mongering collectivist coercers claim. Please get this book into our schools. And help our students to stop being indoctrinated and brainwashed by people who think that lousy science is actually the truth.

    Let the Denial and Defensive assault from the orthodox climate fear mongers begin!
    Read less
    35 people found this helpful>>

    PPPS: PDF https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/CaaG-2022.pdf

  71. 71
    Querius says:

    With the heat wave in Europe, do you think the climate ideologists will revert to “global warming” from the “climate change” narrative?

    Considering the fear mongering among some scientists . . .
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/on-this-date-51-years-ago-climate-scientists-predicted-a-new-ice-age-was-coming

    Oh my! What to do? What to do? Let’s turn to Science!

    1877 Nathaniel Shaler, American scientist
    Suggested rerouting the Pacific’s warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise Arctic temperatures as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit

    1912 Carroll Livingston Riker, American engineer, and William M. Calder, U.S. Senator
    Proposed building a 200-mile jetty into the Atlantic Ocean to divert the warm Gulf Stream over the colder Labrador current to change the climate of North America’s Atlantic Coast; Calder introduced a bill to study its feasibility

    1929 Hermann Oberth, German-Hungarian physicist and engineer
    Proposed building giant mirrors on a space station to focus the Sun’s radiation on Earth’s surface, making the far North habitable and freeing sea lanes to Siberian harbors

    1945 Julian Huxley, biologist and Secretary-General of UNESCO 1946–48
    Proposed exploding atomic bombs at an appropriate height above the polar regions to raise the temperature of the Arctic Ocean and warm the entire climate of the northern temperate zones

    1958 Arkady Markin, Soviet engineer
    Proposed that the United States and Soviet Union build a gigantic dam across the Bering Strait and use nuclear power–driven propeller pumps to push the warm Pacific current into the Atlantic by way of the Arctic Sea. Arctic ice would melt, and the Siberian and North American frozen areas would become temperate and productive

    1958 M. Gorodsky, Soviet engineer and mathematician, and Valentin Cherenkov, Soviet meteorologist
    Proposed placing a ring of metallic potassium particles into Earth’s polar orbit to diffuse light reaching Earth and increase solar radiation to thaw the permanently frozen soil of Russia, Canada, and Alaska and melt polar ice

    1965 President’s Science Advisory Committee, United States
    Investigated injecting condensation or freezing nuclei into the atmosphere to counteract the effects of increasing carbon dioxide

    1977 Cesare Marchetti, Italian industrial physicist
    Coined the term “geoengineering” and proposed sequestering CO2 in the deep ocean

    1983 Stanford Penner, A. M. Schneider, and E. M. Kennedy, American physicists
    Suggested introducing small particles into the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back into space

    1988 John H. Martin, American oceanographer
    Proposed dispersing a relatively small amount of iron into appropriate areas of the ocean to create large algae blooms that could take in enough atmospheric carbon to reverse the greenhouse effect and cool Earth

    1989 James T. Early, American climatologist Suggested deflecting sunlight by 2 percent with a $1 trillion to $10 trillion “space shade” placed in Earth orbit

    1990 John Latham, British cloud physicist
    Proposed seeding marine stratocumulus clouds with seawater droplets to increase their reflectivity and longevity

    1992 NAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
    Proposed adding more dust to naturally occurring stratospheric dust to increase the net reflection of sunlight

    Selected climate engineering proposals, 1877–1992. Source: GAO

    Oh, but NOW science is modern and has all the answers! But what will they say in 50 years about the science of today?

    Back in 2020s when mRNA vaccines were still in their infancy, scientists experimented on a global scale that indirectly resulted in the deaths to hundreds of millions of people over the next 40 years. And then in the 2030s, when climate science was still poorly understood, another well-meaning initiative dramatically reduced the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere inadvertently causing widespread crop failures and millions of deaths by starvation.

    “But now we know so much more than we did back then and we can use science to slowly rebuild our populations. Soon we’ll be able to re-inhabit our cities.”
    – Professor Willard Woolbrane of the University of the Americas, 2072.

    -Q

  72. 72
    relatd says:

    Querius at 65,

    Please explain the details of this “experiment.” Who initiated it? What was its purpose? Who is controlling access to information? Names and dates please. I suppose you can also tell everyone about new, long-term plans so that the experiments can continue.

  73. 73
    relatd says:

    Marfin at 67,

    What is “very dangerous”? You promoting fear or your lack of access to satellite data and lack of access to a global network of scientific instruments so that you can check each one? That’s what you’re saying.

    Some naively believe the internet as if many of those posting are like family members. They are not. Oh, the internet will “save” us because it’s filled with people who will only tell us the truth.

    I’m very interested in the truth. In facts. I’m a professional researcher who has spent decades learning how to find facts. It doesn’t matter what I think beforehand. If I have the documents and the evidence, I can hand them to my employer or use them myself for research in areas that interest me.

    The internet has muddied the waters. There are still places I can go to, like University libraries, and people I can talk to. Actual people who have the knowledge I need to complete an assignment or further a research goal. The average person assumes a lot due to being trained to accept a lack of actual human contact and actual voice communication.

  74. 74
    relatd says:

    Querius at 71,

    What was the point of all that? Do you think the average person cares about that? Average people are used to getting answers now. Or watching the latest celebrity goings-on. I appreciate the effort but I strongly believe I’m in the minority.

    In the 1960s, around this time of year, the temperature got to 98 degrees F. We had a small, three foot high pool in the backyard, some watermelon, and a small metal fan by my bed. That’s it. In August 1983, it got to 103 F. So no, none of this is “new.”

  75. 75
    Querius says:

    Somewhere around 1995-2005, I read an article by a climatologist who complained that historical climate data had been altered. He had previously downloaded the data on his computer and noticed that the published data online was now different.

    In his article (which I’ve not been able to find since then), he produced a plot of how much the historical climate data was recently altered for each year ever several decades, having been massaged to show increasing temperatures.

    Later, I watched a documentary about how historical temperature data was being “adjusted” due to what was claimed to be poorly located recording stations. While I don’t doubt that systematic errors were likely, the problem I had was that the adjustments were made *directly to the historically recorded data* rather than indicating the computations and estimates used in making adjustments.

    These adjustments turned the data into guesstimates of what “prolly musta been” the temperature.

    Not only is this highly unethical, the methodology used removes any subsequent conclusions from the realm of science and into a world of political fantasy.

    -Q

  76. 76
    kairosfocus says:

    Relatd, Q is implicitly pointing to the pessimistic induction regarding theoretical constructs in the context of climate, and has put on the table some unusual evidence in point. UD is not about what focus tested manipulative sound bite can get the attention of how many people. KF

  77. 77
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, they call that cooking or fudging, and it does undermine credibility, long term. KF

  78. 78
    jerry says:

    Today, I watched over 200 coal cars cross the Ohio River heading for power plants. Near Paducah, Kentucky.

    Don’t know origin of coal, but the train was coming from very liberal Illinois.

  79. 79
    relatd says:

    Querius at 75,

    So the data is no longer held as paper records? Have you looked? Again with “politics.” Give people the names of the controllers, or this kind of post does not add anything.

  80. 80
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 78,

    So? And you appear to be another one when you said the coal was “coming from very liberal Illinois.”

    Make a point. The coal, itself, has no political bias.

  81. 81
    kairosfocus says:

    Relatd, often nowadays, no. KF

  82. 82
    asauber says:

    “So the data is no longer held as paper records?”

    Relatd,

    Nope. Records might exist, but their location is unknown.

    Andrew

  83. 83
    relatd says:

    Andrew,

    So now what? Assume the worst? The “bad guys” have gotten away with it? What?

    I’m sure that a few more people besides those who post here are looking into this.

  84. 84
    asauber says:

    “So now what? Assume the worst?”

    Relatd,

    In cases where data has value, records are retained/archived. So you can just conclude the data is worthless.

    Andrew

  85. 85
  86. 86
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @77,

    Q, they call that cooking or fudging, and it does undermine credibility, long term. KF

    Exactly. And the fact that science has become science fiction in the service of political ideology, might sound snarky, but this fraud hurts me personally and deeply!

    It is a massive crime against humanity.

    I would truly prefer to be able to “trust the science,” and I truly loathe having to become a science skeptic. But the flatulent frauds, shameful charlatans, and selfish swindlers that now dominate medicine, climatology, paleontology, nutritional science, public health, and any other science with political utility have poisoned the well of knowledge for all of us. This is grievous to me!

    Someday, these fools will have to stand before the Judge of All, unable to cover their naked shame with any more lies. There will then be no question what eternal destiny they’ve chosen and richly deserve.

    -Q

  87. 87
    Querius says:

    Relatd at 86,

    Thank you for the excellent reference. I also read the referenced report:
    http://icecap.us/images/upload.....tegate.pdf

    The quotes were damning:

    “The data centers then performed some final adjustments to the gathered data before final analysis. These adjustments are in some cases frequent and undocumented. Examining
    raw data versus processed final data shows numerous examples where the adjusted data
    shows a warming trend where the raw data had little change.”

    “He notes there are many iterations of the data sets available from CRU, NOAA and NASA. The differences between them is much greater than the changes over time calling into question our ability to accurately assess climate trends.”

    “SHOULD YOU BELIEVE NOAA/NASA RANKINGS FOR MONTH AND YEAR
    Definitively NO! Climate change is real, there are cooling and warming periods that can be shown to correlate nicely with solar and ocean cycles. You can trust in the data that shows there has been warming from 1979 to 1998, just as there was warming the around 1920 to 1940. But there has been cooling from 1940 to the late 1970s and since 2001. It is the long term trend on which this cyclical pattern is superimposed that is exaggerated.”

    This report followed the one I remembered that plotted out the online versus original paper data. The report you referenced is much more comprehensive.

    -Q

  88. 88
    Alan Fox says:

    A lot of deckchairs being rearranged here.

  89. 89
    Marfin says:

    Related at 73- How exactly am I promoting fear , as I have said before even if I accept the global temperature has increased 1.5 deg c over the last 150 years what has been the effect on the ground so to speak.
    Well the earth is greening , we live longer, are healthier , richer , infant mortality has fallen, deaths by climate disasters have fallen 95% so whats the problem , no please tell me whats the problem.
    My problem with access to the temperature data from satellites etc , is without raw data to allow you to reach a conclusion which someone else can equally get the exact same raw data and also reach a conclusion , without this situation you are not doing science .

  90. 90
    JHolo says:

    Querius: With the heat wave in Europe, do you think the climate ideologists will revert to “global warming” from the “climate change” narrative?

    Scientists have never stopped talking about global warming.

    Increased greenhouse gases ==> global warming ==> climate change.

    Global warming is just one measure of climate change, but it acts as a catalyst for other measures of climate change.

  91. 91
    jerry says:

    A lot of deckchairs being rearranged here

    No!

    The deck chairs nearly always end up in the same place here.

  92. 92
    JHolo says:

    The deck chairs nearly always end up in the same place here.

    Right next to the tinfoil hat dispenser.

  93. 93
    Marfin says:

    Can all the folks here who accept man made climate change please , state what you know for a fact , not guess, not speculate , not believe , please clearly lay out the actual know facts about climate change.

  94. 94
    asauber says:

    “Global warming is just one measure of climate change, but it acts as a catalyst for other measures of climate change.”

    Indeed. All you have to do is throw the correct catch phrases in a sentence, and you’ve got a cause to troll religiously for. It’s the talking points that JH is devoted to, not scientific inquiry.

    Andrew

  95. 95
    kairosfocus says:

    Marfin, one fact of the domain is that climate is defined as a 30 or 33 year moving average of weather. Trivially, climate always changes. The real issue is patterns of change or trends, and their causal drivers. That involves understanding and studying the climate system’s dynamics well beyond current and recent understanding. Issues of negative, stabilising feedback, nonlinear system oscillations and phase space attractors, cycles, solar cycles, and human behaviour are all relevant and several are far more open to the pessimistic induction that we would like to imagine. That said, we should be prudent on energy, and I point to geothermal resources, butanol fuel for gasoline engines, various biodiesels, and to pebble bed modular nukes. If fusion can be rolled in not just Tokamak but Bussard polywell, we may have serious breakthroughs. A Bussard drive could put us at the gas giants in 3 months of flight. Solar system colonisation should be the long term vision for this century but too many power seekers hope to profit from a panicked, fear driven, polarised public policy climate. KF

  96. 96
    asauber says:

    “that climate is defined as a 30 or 33 year moving average of weather”

    …and a completely arbitrary fact, at that.

    Andrew

  97. 97
    ET says:

    JHolo:

    Increased greenhouse gases ==> global warming ==> climate change.


    Greenhouse gasses affect the LOW temperature by delaying the onset of equilibrium. And the latest satellite data says that all alleged warming is gone! And yet atmospheric CO2 keeps increasing.

  98. 98
    Alan Fox says:

    …clearly lay out the actual know facts about climate change.

    The most convincing fact for me is that, in one of my first science classes back in 1961-2, I was taught the composition of the atmosphere. 78% nitrogen, 21%oxygen, 1% argon and 260 ppm carbon dioxide (we weren’t using latest textbooks). Today CO2 is at 420 ppm and rising. Way beyond any previous cyclical change in the last million years.

    Now JoeG will chime in to say that is better for plants. The dead plants in my garden disagree.

    But I have ceased to worry. It is far too late to do anything about it. We just have to live – and die – with it. That is why I mentioned deckchair rearrangement. The Earth isn’t sinking but the human race is in for trouble…

    Whatever we do, it’s too late.

  99. 99
    asauber says:

    “The dead plants in my garden disagree.”

    Plants can’t disagree, brainiac.

    Andrew

  100. 100
    asauber says:

    “Today CO2 is at 420 ppm and rising.”

    And this causes Alan to believe in every stupid/false story that has the phrase Climate Change attached to it.

    Andrew

  101. 101
    Alan Fox says:

    Plants can’t disagree, brainiac.

    You keep rearranging those deckchairs. It’s useless but therapeutic. When you get bored you could look up metaphor

  102. 102
    asauber says:

    “When you get bored you could look up metaphor”

    Alan,

    Why the poetry, though? Like reading your own writing?

    Andrew

  103. 103
    Alan Fox says:

    Anyone interested in glaciers? The mountains I can see from my terrace used to have plenty. There are fewer today and all are on the retreat.

  104. 104
    ET says:

    Only scientifically illiterate fools think that CO2 can cause global warming/ climate change. Take a course in physics. CO2 is so minimal it still gets very cold in deserts at night. CO2 is the primary GHG in deserts.

    Alan Fox is totally clueless. He could never present any science that shows CO2 is the culprit.

  105. 105
    ET says:

    Soot and dirt on snow and ice cause them to melt even when the ambient temperature is below freezing. All glaciers are dirty. It is very telling that Alan can’t put the two together.

  106. 106
    asauber says:

    “all are on the retreat”

    AF,

    This is just a lie. Pathetic.

    Andrew

  107. 107
    Alan Fox says:

    Ice in the Arctic? Predictions now are for the Arctic to be ice-free by 2040.

  108. 108
    ET says:

    Alan’s dead plants are due to Alan. NASA says the vegetation is increasing

  109. 109
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Ice in the Arctic? Predictions now are for the Arctic to be ice-free by 2040.

    Based on what? The people making the predictions don’t have any science to support their asinine claims.

  110. 110
    Alan Fox says:

    I used to hear that we needn’t worry about ice loss from the Arctic as Antarctica was gaining ice to compensate. But a new method of measuring Antarctic ice shows…

    https://earth.esa.int/eogateway/news/transforming-space-data-into-climate-action/antarctica-s-ice-loss

  111. 111
    asauber says:

    “Predictions”

    So now Alan has switched to scary predictions. Yawn. Any fake scientist can make those.

    Andrew

  112. 112
    Alan Fox says:

    Mount Kilimanjaro?

  113. 113
    Alan Fox says:

    The oceans? Change in sea level? Temperature? Acidity?

  114. 114
    Alan Fox says:

    So now Alan has switched to scary predictions. Yawn. Any fake scientist can make those.

    You can check all those facts yourself. But I’m not trying to be scary. It doesn’t matter what we do now, it’s already too late to reverse the trend.

  115. 115
    asauber says:

    “Transforming space data into climate action”

    From Alan’s link. Weird because there’s no political climate action agenda, is there.

    Andrew

  116. 116
    ET says:

    Alan- you clearly do not know anything about greenhouse gasses and climate change. The atmosphere actually needs more CO2. And the real problem is how we farm the land. The overuse of pesticides and fertilizers are the real problems. But Alan has a one-track mind. Unfortunately, he is on the wrong track.

  117. 117
    asauber says:

    “You can check all those facts yourself. ”

    Predictions aren’t facts.

    Andrew

  118. 118
    Marfin says:

    We all know correlation is not causation , ice cream consumption and shark attacks being a case in point.
    The climate change fear mongers need to prove sea levels are rising, planet is heating up, increase in hurricanes, droughts, , etc,etc , and after that prove man is causing these changes , the two may not be related .
    Just reflecting on the fact that who knew that all a James Bond villain need to control the worlds weather was a automobile with an internal combustion engine . ha ha Mr Bond you are helpless for I have a machine to control the climate on all of the earth climbs into car and put foot on the gas, Vroom Vroom ha ha , villainous laugh

  119. 119
    Alan Fox says:

    Alan’s dead plants are due to Alan.

    We’ve run out of rainwater reserves as we’ve had no significant rain for more than three months and there are restrictions on water use. Our tomatoes are magnificent as I have them on a drip feed from the house water supply but there may be further restrictions announced soon.

  120. 120
    Alan Fox says:

    The climate change fear mongers need to prove sea levels are rising, planet is heating up, increase in hurricanes, droughts, , etc,etc , and after that prove man is causing these changes , the two may not be related .

    Don’t worry. It’s far too late for that. Do you have kids?

  121. 121
    asauber says:

    “no significant rain for more than three months”

    Weather, by definition.

    Andrew

  122. 122
    Alan Fox says:

    “no significant rain for more than three months”

    Weather, by definition.

    I’ve lived in this area for twenty years. The first year we were here, I didn’t need to water the plants at all except in August.

  123. 123
    ET says:

    Blame La Nina for the lack of rain in Europe. Alan doesn’t even understand how the weather works.

  124. 124
    asauber says:

    “I’ve lived in this area for twenty years. The first year we were here, I didn’t need to water the plants at all except in August.”

    Still weather, Alan.

    Andrew

  125. 125
    asauber says:

    We had a dry spell in Midwest, USA until it rained.

    Andrew

  126. 126
    ET says:

    Again, for the learning impaired: The latest satellite data says that all alleged warming is gone!

    Reality Refutes Alan’s Fear Mongering

  127. 127
    Alan Fox says:

    Blame La Nina (sic) for the lack of rain in Europe.

    Odd that Europe doesn’t get a mention here.

  128. 128
    Alan Fox says:

    Again, for the learning impaired: The latest satellite data says that all alleged warming is gone!

    Do you look at your own links? The graph in that article shows a clear and significant rising trend.

  129. 129
    Alan Fox says:

    Alan- you clearly do not know anything about greenhouse gasses and climate change. The atmosphere actually needs more CO2. And the real problem is how we farm the land. The overuse of pesticides and fertilizers are the real problems. But Alan has a one-track mind. Unfortunately, he is on the wrong track.

    My prediction is confirmed! Thanks, Joe.

  130. 130
    Alan Fox says:

    Asauber

    Predictions aren’t facts.

    The changes I referred to are historic. CO2 has gone up from 260ppm to an unprecedented 420ppm in my lifetime. Glaciers are not predictions. There are old photographs. You can look up the observed changes. Changes in sea ice and level are facts. People keep records.

  131. 131
    asauber says:

    “unprecedented 420ppm”

    Been higher in the past, according to (proxy)records. Another lie.

    Andrew

  132. 132
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Do you look at your own links? The graph in that article shows a clear and significant rising trend.

    Are you blind? The graph shows that all alleged warming is gone. There hasn’t been any warming trend in years.

  133. 133
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Odd that Europe doesn’t get a mention here.

    Perhaps you should learn how to think.

  134. 134
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    My prediction is confirmed! Thanks, Joe.

    You predicted that you are too stupid to respond to comments? Really?

    Nicely done, then.

  135. 135
    Alan Fox says:

    The deck chairs nearly always end up in the same place here.

    Sorry, Jerry, I missed this before.

    Well, that’s true. 😉 It’s too late, now, but perhaps the way to have sold the idea of reducing carbon emissions was to have promoted the ancillary benefits of leaving fossil fuel in the ground. But the fossil fuel industries have been too rich and powerful and thus run politics, especially in the US. Look at Joe Manchin. Look at his campaign funds. Look at the source of those campaign funds. Look how he delivers for his puppet-masters.

  136. 136
    ET says:

    Again, only scientifically illiterate fools think that CO2 has anything to do with global warming/ climate change. Physics says that it is impossible for such low concentrations of CO2 to have any noticeable effect on temperatures. There is a reason why it still gets cold at night in deserts even though CO2 is the primary GHG there. I doubt that Alan understands physics.

  137. 137
    Marfin says:

    Alan honest question , say temperature has increased by 1.5 deg c in last 150 years , would you prefer to raise a family 150 years ago or now , if so why.

  138. 138
    ET says:

    Only scientifically illiterate fools thin k that fossil fuels are a problem. The earth is getting greener. However, our misuse of the land is a problem. Animal agriculture is a problem. Trash is a problem. Yet the moron politicians are focusing on CO2 because they are just ignorant. Makes my think that Alan is a politician.

  139. 139
    Alan Fox says:

    You predicted that you are too stupid to respond to comments? Really?

    Nope, in comment 98, I wrote:

    Now JoeG will chime in to say that is better for plants. The dead plants in my garden disagree.

    You chime in at comment 116.

  140. 140
    ET says:

    Alan needs to learn how to read.. There isn’t anything in comment 116 that supports hos alleged prediction.

  141. 141
    Alan Fox says:

    Asauber

    AF,

    This is just a lie. Pathetic.

    Andrew

    No, it’s a fact. I didn’t name the mountain range but the mountains I see from my terrace are the Pyrenees.

    https://phys.org/news/2021-09-documents-loss-pyrenees-glaciers.html

  142. 142
    Alan Fox says:

    ET

    Alan needs to learn how to read.. There isn’t anything in comment 116 that supports hos alleged prediction.

    Anyone can look for themselves.

  143. 143
    relatd says:

    JH at 90,

    Baloney. The first rule of Fight Club is to talk about “climate change” as if it’s real.

    “Climate Change” is just a propaganda campaign to get people to spend trillions of dollars on electric cars, and other things. In real, actual news, General Motors is building charging stations for the day when everyone will have no choice but to buy an electric car.

  144. 144
    ET says:

    And, unlike you, they should be able to read for comprehension.

  145. 145
    Alan Fox says:

    Are you blind? The graph shows that all alleged warming is gone. There hasn’t been any warming trend in years.

    You must be looking at a different graph. Anyone can follow your link and look for themselves.

    It’s all too late, anyway. I wish I was wrong but here we are.

  146. 146
  147. 147
    ET says:

    Right Alan. Anyone but you, apparently. The “warming” is 0.06C above some arbitrary line.. Anyone can see that.

    And it is too late for you. You are too stupid to understand the science involved.

  148. 148
    relatd says:

    Guys,

    There are rules for confusing people. First, throw graphs at them. Then you bury them in data, followed by more data. Then you mix that all together and promote vague interpretations. Just make sure you have plenty of vague interpretations.

    Meanwhile, Tesla exceeded expectations, and more electric cars and charging stations are coming. It’s all about money. Just money.

    From today’s The Street:

    “Tesla (TSLA) – Get Tesla Inc. Report shares jumped higher Thursday after the carmaker topped Wall Street’s second quarter earnings forecasts and reiterated its goal for full-year delivery growth despite input price pressures and narrowing profit margins.”

    “The group also said it expects full year deliveries to grow 50% from 2021 levels, implying a target of 1.4 million vehicles that Tesla CFO Zachary Kirkhorn said has become “more difficult but remains possible with strong execution.”

  149. 149
    Marfin says:

    I live in Ireland , now I play golf and ride a motorcycle so I check the weather forecast regularly to see if it will be dry on the weekend so I can golf or motorcycle (yes I am a wimp) .
    The meteorological office in Ireland use weather models to predict the weather but I find they change the weekend forecast 3 or 4 times during the week and its really only come Friday they will be sure of the forecast come the weekend.
    So if the computer models they use cannot predict the weather a week in advance why on earth would I believe they can predict the climate 100 years from now, seeing that climate models are much more complex and have far more variables.

  150. 150
    relatd says:

    I stopped believing in TV weather a long time ago. Even with Improved Technology (TM) they are just as likely to get it wrong as to get it right. I now use an “old” method. I look out the window before going out. Easier. Cheaper. And no commercials.

  151. 151
    Querius says:

    We’re being spammed by an unending stream of vacuous posts by a suspiciously familiar trollbot now named “Alan Fox.”

    The actual facts are:

    1. Historical temperature data have been fiddled. This has been proven.

    2. The #1 greenhouse gas by far is water vapor.

    3. CO2 is plant food. In return, plants give off O2. This is a good thing.

    4. When CO2 levels drop below 200 ppm, the plants on earth will die. This is not a good thing.

    5. The ideal CO2 level for plants is about 2000 ppm.

    6. The Biggest Factor affecting climate is the bright yellow ball in the sky visible from Alan Fox’s room at the asylum.

    7. Climate stasis is pure science fantasy developed by and for bureaucrats with authoritarian ambitions.

    8. Climate interventions commonly proposed by eminent scientists will most certainly kill the planet.

    -Q

  152. 152
    Querius says:

    And great posts from Lieutenant Commander Data, ET, Relatd, and Marfin @146-149!

    Thank you!

    -Q

  153. 153
    relatd says:

    Querius at 151,

    I completely disagree with 8. No one knows. Literally no one knows. I did read the early How to Fiddle With The Climate ideas. They ran from ridiculous to more ridiculous.

    Most people have no clue how climate works. Some just know that ‘it’s complicated.’ Nothing more. I’m not saying most people are or want to be stupid but there are more important – to the average person – things to deal with on a daily basis.

    Example: I was told Russian ICBMS were about to fall on my head at any time during the 1960s. I barely gave it a second thought. Same here – for most people.

  154. 154
    Alan Fox says:

    Relatd

    I was told Russian ICBMS were about to fall on my head at any time during the 1960s. I barely gave it a second thought. Same here – for most people.

    What difference would it have made had you given it any thought? Like everyone else, including me, you are powerless to change events, be they nuclear war or destruction of the human environment due to climate change. Money rules and money decides.

  155. 155
    Seversky says:

    Climate Change: Global Sea Level

    […]

    HIGHLIGHTS

    Sea level has risen 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880.

    In 2020, global sea level set a new record high—91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels.

    The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015.

    In many locations along the U.S. coastline, high-tide flooding is now 300% to more than 900% more frequent than it was 50 years ago.

    If we are able to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. sea level in 2100 is projected to be around 0.6 meters (2 feet) higher on average than it was in 2000.

    On a pathway with high greenhouse gas emissions and rapid ice sheet collapse, models project that average sea level rise for the contiguous United States could be 2.2 meters (7.2 feet) by 2100 and 3.9 meters (13 feet) by 2150.

    […]

    Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of melt water from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. In 2020, global mean sea level was 91.3 millimeters (3.6 inches) above the 1993 average, making it the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).

    The global mean water level in the ocean rose by 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015, which was 2.5 times the average rate of 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century. By the end of the century, global mean sea level is likely to rise at least one foot (0.3 meters) above 2000 levels, even if greenhouse gas emissions follow a relatively low pathway in coming decades.

    In some ocean basins, sea level has risen as much as 6-8 inches (15-20 centimeters) since the start of the satellite record. Regional differences exist because of natural variability in the strength of winds and ocean currents, which influence how much and where the deeper layers of the ocean store heat.

  156. 156
    Alan Fox says:

    We’re being spammed by an unending stream of vacuous posts by a suspiciously familiar trollbot now named “Alan Fox.”

    Now named? I’ve had the name, Alan Fox, since forever. It’s on my birth certificate. Bet your mum didn’t call you Querius.
    Just sayin,

  157. 157
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AF

    It’s all too late, anyway. I wish I was wrong but here we are.

    What do you mean “it’s too late”? What does that mean and how do you know it?

  158. 158
    asauber says:

    “I didn’t name the mountain range”

    Alan,

    Right. The word you used was “all”.

    Andrew

  159. 159
    Querius says:

    Relatd @153,

    I completely disagree with 8. No one knows. Literally no one knows. I did read the early How to Fiddle With The Climate ideas. They ran from ridiculous to more ridiculous. Most people have no clue how climate works.

    Ok, I concede that 8 was a bit overstated. I should have written the following:

    “Previous climate interventions proposed by eminent scientists had a strong likelihood of disastrous consequences. For example, nuking the poles to avoid a new ice age or nuking hurricanes traveling across the Atlantic toward the U.S. would likely have had negative consequences for humanity.”

    Is that any better?

    -Q

  160. 160
    Alan Fox says:

    Alan,

    Right. The word you used was “all”.

    Andrew

    Yes. All glaciers remaining in the Pyrenees (the mountains I can see from my terrace) are retreating rapidly. I wonder if there are glaciers elsewhere that are growing. I haven’t researched that so let me try a prediction first.

    Glaciers are no longer growing in any mountain range, currently.
    Now, I’ll see if I can find an exception.

  161. 161
  162. 162
    Alan Fox says:

    The Himalayas could prove me wrong as there is discussion about some Himalayan glaciers growing.

    https://eos.org/articles/himalayas-are-experiencing-an-exceptional-loss-of-glacial-mass

  163. 163
    relatd says:

    Oh please. Is this a “discussion” or just more confusion? Example: “It could be this, but then again, it could be that.”

    That’s not science or a real discussion.

  164. 164
    ET says:

    Again, all glaciers are dirty. And it is well known that dirty snow or ice will melt even when the ambient temperature is below freezing. It’s called the albedo effect.

    Glaciers melting doesn’t have anything to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

  165. 165
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: With the Cuban crisis, the world came to within 12 hours of a nuclear exchange. At some point the 1973 ME war could have been close. KF

  166. 166
    ET says:

    CO2 only has an effect on 8% of the infrared the earth emits. IR is fully absorbed by CO2 @ 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. 15 is the only significant thermal IR wavelength.

    See here for the details

  167. 167
    relatd says:

    ET at 166,

    Which means what in average, everyday person terms? I doubt the average person discusses infrared wavelengths.

  168. 168
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 155,

    I want you to contact all owners of Florida beachfront property. Tell them sea levels are rising and to abandon their homes now. Do it. That way I can turn them around and sell them for a profit.

  169. 169
    ET says:

    Relatd- It means that 92% of the IR emitted by the earth is unaffected by CO2. It’s like having a cargo net for a roof and ceiling. That is why it gets so cold in deserts at night. CO2 is the primary GHG in deserts. On the other end, humidity prevents the 120F we see in deserts, it’s also the main GHG in those regions and why it stays warmer at night there than in deserts.

  170. 170
    relatd says:

    ET at 169,

    Pardon the reply but so what? Please answer the question: Is everyone going to die soon? As in the next year or two?

    Recent past reports, allegedly from scientists, stated that we have “passed the point of no return” already. That’s all the average person cares about. Will I die soon – within one to two years.

  171. 171
    JHolo says:

    Andrew: It’s the talking points that JH is devoted to, not scientific inquiry.

    Greenhouse gases ==> global warming ==> climate change is the scientific inquiry. Claiming that scientists switch from “global warming” to “climate change for political reasons is playing the rhetorical talking points game.

  172. 172
    relatd says:

    JH at 171,

    There is no evidence “climate change” or “global warming” is occurring.

  173. 173
    kairosfocus says:

    JH, systemic interactions and degenerative vs regenerative feedbacks and nonlinearities are also material. It is no accident that one of the early cases of chaos had to do with atmosphere/weather modelling. The model you suggest is too simple. KF

  174. 174
    JHolo says:

    KF: The model you suggest is too simple. KF

    It wasn’t intended as a model. I just raised the issue to point out that the term “global warming” is appropriate when referring to trends in temperature, and “climate change” when referring to the far more complicated and chaotic consequences of an increasing temperature trend. They are not used, as the cynics here imply, as some rhetorical game.

  175. 175
  176. 176
    vividbleau says:

    Follow the money, climate change is a 1.5 trillion dollar industry based off one failed prediction after another. It is nothing but a power grab. Always ask yourself “who benefits”? Watching the unfounded hysteria reminds me of the tulip craze, the Salem witch trials, the crusades,the Mississippi scheme and many other popular delusions and the madness of crowds. Human nature never changes it just expresses itself in different ways.

    https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/

    Vivid

  177. 177
    ET says:

    Regional difficulties, Alan. Humans made a bad situation worse.

  178. 178
    ET says:

    Relatd @ 170- If we don’t get a handle on the real problems, like killing the soil, trash, and animal agriculture, we are doomed to failure. Unless of course there is synthetic food, insects and soylent green.

  179. 179
    JHolo says:

    You have not lived until you have tried soylent green on a Ritz cracker. A low salt Ritz, of course.

  180. 180
    vividbleau says:

    I especially liked this one from the UN.

    “1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000”

    Vivid

  181. 181
    Alan Fox says:

    @Vividbleau 180.

    That Al Gore remark misrepresenting/misunderstanding someone else’s prediction doesn’t pass a fact check.

  182. 182
    vividbleau says:

    Al Gore, another climate change grifter.

    Gotta love the climate czar John Kerry as well with his mansions, yachts, cars and his private jet. He has a carbon footprint bigger than King Kong.

    Vivid

  183. 183
  184. 184
    kairosfocus says:

    JH, you presented a chain of arrows, 171: “Greenhouse gases ==> global warming ==> climate change is the scientific inquiry.” Precisely because of what an arrow is used for, and given other dynamical factors such as I pointed out, that is most ill advised. Further, as noted above, climate by definition is a 30 or 33 year moving average and necessarily always changes. The issue is trends, dynamics, causes and structural patterns, hence considerations as noted. There is far too much trust in simplistic models and in a claimed consensus when it is an easily established fact that science does not work by the politics of alleged consensus [= collective authority and power balances of factions], at least not well. KF

  185. 185
    Marfin says:

    No one on the “we are all doomed” side has responded to my post stating the facts not predictions that although temperatures possibly have risen by 1.5 deg C in the last 150 years , we are all richer , healthier , better fed and safer from climate disasters .
    Not one of them has expressed a preference to live 150 years ago, without the huge benefits which fossil fuels have brought to mankind , we live like kings compared to people just 100 years ago.
    Please , please someone tell me what the issue is I just cannot see it behind , my car , motorcycle , golf , central heating , vacations, food every day , education , hospital , medicines , air conditioning , computer , job, NOT DYING FROM FAMINE, FLOOD, HURRICANE, etc etc please tell me how better thing would have been for me if we did not use fossil fuels and how great it would be for me if the global temp had not risen by 1.5 deg C

  186. 186
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, simplistic, again. The reality is, there are few energy sources as concentrated and convenient as fossil fuels, especially oil and its derivatives, diesel, kerosene [jet fuel], gasoline. The oil industry is high risk on exploration and has high associated challenges. I think, we need to look at a spectrum of possibilities and options, bearing in mind that if fusion ever comes through it will be after over a century of trying to come up with viable technologies. If algae fuel [and byproduct food] come through that would be big; such may be a big part of how oil came to be. Butanol is viable as a replacement for gasoline. Biodiesels are comparably important. Battery replacement costs and implications of the sources of key metals for batteries give me pause and point me to fuel cell hopes, esp. alcohol fuel cell hopes. Pebble bed modular reactors should not be overlooked. Nor should Ocean Thermal Energy conversion [with byproduct fish farming], and more. Energy storage including pumped water load levelling, and more also come to mind. KF

  187. 187
    Alan Fox says:

    KF

    Energy is not in short supply. We are awash with it. The key is storage. But as in all technological R & D, politics and money decide priorities. I agree fossil fuels (gasoline and diesel) have their advantages as fuel but the rapid advance in electric vehicles and batteries shows what is possible with the right incentives. I agree fuel cells should be at the forefront of development but how hydrogen is generated is an issue.

  188. 188
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, notice, “awash” vs “concentrated”? The solar energy and wind or tidal energy are diffuse and in low concentrations that would require serious infrastructure to harvest and store to provide baseload and peaking, load following power. EVs are fashionable but I noted the issue of battery replacement after what 60k miles? Huge capital cost that could be more than the vehicle’s depreciated value (which will be affected by that limit). There are range and recharge time and grid loading issues, also storage . . . which is what batteries are. Those issues don’t go away with politically driven “incentives.” Then, the materials required for such batteries require elements that put you in thrall to dangerous powers, and require truly dirty processes. Fuel cells are something and alcohol fuels are something. There is a reason I point to pebble bed reactors and to fusion when we can get it. KF

  189. 189
    Marfin says:

    Changing tack I have just read death in New Zealand from Covid have reach an all time high.
    They had one of the strictest lock downs in the world , but alas you cannot outrun the virus , it seems
    Sweden were on the money all along.

  190. 190
  191. 191
    asauber says:

    This about sums it up:

    “We are now in such collective psychosis that it is taken for granted that whatever you see: hotter , colder, wetter ,drier is always caused by CO2 and naughty human behaviour.

    There is not longer any attempt at analysis.”

    Andrew

  192. 192
    asauber says:

    And these same psychos probably think that extreme weather events will stop if… something politically correct happens.

    Andrew

  193. 193
    PaV says:

    Alan Fox:

    You say, “It’s too late now,” but you’re saying this amid very high European temperatures. When people are freezing to death this winter, might that change your mind?

    I find it interesting (or is ‘disturbing’ the better word) that when it ‘snows’ in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, it’s called nothing more than ‘weather,’ but when it’s abnormally hot, it becomes a confirmation of “climate change.” Always a double-standard.

  194. 194
    relatd says:

    This is all silly and pointless. There is no discussion here. A few are attempting to hypnotize the rest by posting random bits of data but the average person could care less. Terms like “climate change” are just background noise. There’s no reason to believe it.

    What should be focused on is people like John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. How he became the richest man in the world. And on what Elon Musk – the current richest man in the world – is doing.. He’s only worth $219 Billion. He can do what he wants. And he is.

    The questions are:

    Who is planning and implementing the future?

    Who benefits.

    Meanwhile, Ford and BMW are getting solid state batteries by the end of this year. Higher energy capacity, high charge-discharge cycles, but not just for cars but ANY type of electrical storage, including solar and wind.

  195. 195
    Querius says:

    Vividbleau @176

    Follow the money, climate change is a 1.5 trillion dollar industry based off one failed prediction after another.

    You mean like the hockey stick? All due to simple and totally understandable decimal point and round off errors. It can happen to anyone.

    But now . . . now we REALLY know with high precision that we must fundamentally change the planet in the next 10 years, 2 months, and 14.225 days or we will all be doomed! (smirk)

    Vividbleau @180,

    UN: “1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000”

    And therefore, we need to spend 100 trillion dollars on consulting fees to create a council to investigate the implications of a Time Machine to save humanity . . . . and baby ducks.

    -Q

  196. 196
    Querius says:

    Marfin @185,

    No one on the “we are all doomed” side has responded to my post stating the facts not predictions that although temperatures possibly have risen by 1.5 deg C in the last 150 years , we are all richer , healthier , better fed and safer from climate disasters .

    You need to understand that it’s NOT about facts at all. It’s all about the absolutely critical maintenance of a positive Karma balance while fattening oneself with Cheetos and Oreo cookies, collecting unemployment, and watching daytime TV without feeling guilt! For that, one needs the following:

    • Belong to a victim class
    • Give money to a cause that will save the world from something
    • Keep up-to-date on the latest vocabulary and narrative

    The hypocrites and grifters inside and outside government, academia, and big media actually provide an INVALUABLE service to a huge number of people in maintaining various fictions and rationalizations for which they are paid millions of increasingly worthless dollars.

    And when it all comes crashing down, they can complain about bad luck, that things aren’t fair, and that once again, it wasn’t TRUE socialism!

    -Q

  197. 197
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @188,

    Exactly. All I have to do is extract the gold that’s abundantly present in seawater and I’ll be rich! And we’re so close to a perpetual motion energy source . . . all we need to do is reduce friction to the negative. Haha.

    It’s my understanding that the reactor “pebbles” tend to fracture, but salt reactor technology looks interesting.

    I agree with you that current storage cells are short lived and extremely polluting to manufacture. and that nuclear power is pretty much inescapable.

    -Q

  198. 198
    relatd says:

    Querius at 195,

    Brilliant. And who told you about the time machine?

  199. 199
    relatd says:

    Querius at 196,

    “Keep up-to-date on the latest vocabulary and narrative”

    I have an always growing list of words and terms to never use. The Global Cabal of Relabelers and Repackagers are always busy coming up with these to give people the illusion that they are living in “the future.”

    And the narratives are easy to spot and expose.

  200. 200
    jerry says:

    Who is planning and implementing the future?

    That’s obvious.

    All the strings are being pulled from Switzerland. Have provided several links over last few months but all here go about their merry way.

  201. 201
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 200,

    This is a big place. Things get lost easily. Switzerland? OK. I want contact information for The Controllers.

  202. 202
    jerry says:

    Things get lost easily

    Should be

    Things get ignored easily

    People are here to hold forth, not understand.

  203. 203
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, molten salt reactors are another good technology. KF

  204. 204
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 202,

    Darn it. I’ve spent my entire life learning and understanding. “Holding forth” was never a goal.

    I’m not getting contact information for The Controllers, am I?

  205. 205
    asauber says:

    “Holding forth” was never a goal.

    Relatd,

    Except when you lecture on COVID. 😉

    Andrew

  206. 206
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 205,

    You don’t like it? Fine.

    🙂

  207. 207
    jerry says:

    Solar and wind not so environmentally friendly?

    The price of solar panels & wind turbines came down 88% & 68%, respectively, 2010-21, and yet they made electricity more expensive everywhere they were deployed at scale. Why? Because they are weather-dependent, and thus highly unreliable, requiring far more people & machinery

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1550212444332601344

    If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/?sh=3b1a0179121c

  208. 208
  209. 209
    jerry says:

    One of the most informative sites on the internet exposes the sustainability nonsense proposed by the climate change advocates.

    And the Winner is, Germany.

    All these places, despite their wealth and seeming sophistication, are embarking on their ambitious plans without ever having conducted any kind of detailed engineering study of how their new proposed energy systems will work or how much they will cost. Sure, a wind/solar electric grid can function with 100% natural gas backup, if you’re willing to have the ratepayers foot the bill for two overlapping and redundant generation systems when you could have had just one. But “net zero” emissions means no more fossil fuel backup. What’s the plan to keep the grid operating 24/7 when the coal and natural gas are gone?

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-6-29-and-the-winner-is-germany

    Battery storage is a joke as current capacity is enough for just a few minutes.

  210. 210
    Querius says:

    Jerry @207,

    Thanks for posting the links.

    I didn’t know that disposing solar panels is so eco-unfriendly. But I do like multi-purpose use of solar panels to augment other sources of energy.

    For example, solar panel roofing on homes and parking lot covers. Sweden powers at least some bus stops individually with solar/wind generators.

    Paul Polak noticed that in some parts of the world, people were spending around a third of their income on kerosene for lighting. As a result, he advocated designing products for the economically disadvantaged 90% of the world a smart alternative, the following product is inexpensive, rugged, and effective (we bought a couple of these, which has served us well for years):

    https://www.amazon.com/d-light-S30-Solar-Rechargeable-Lantern/dp/B00BJELHS0?ref_=ast_sto_dp

    But I also know how wind turbines require a lot of maintenance and can fail spectacularly:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nemy4TD4I3A

    But there’s always hope in human ingenuity:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNp21zTeCDc

    -Q

  211. 211
    Querius says:

    Oh, and watch this: Wind turbine vs. lightning
    https://twitter.com/i/status/1550578309947342850

    Spoiler alert: lighting wins.

    -Q

  212. 212
    JHolo says:

    Oh, and watch this: Fuel tank vs. lightning.

    https://youtu.be/hyrVqFIDxYA

  213. 213
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 209,

    Do you think people are stupid? Do you? Based on that post, it’s obvious you do but I’d like confirmation from you.

    Lithium-Ion is the current battery formulation. Solid-state batteries are coming by the end of the year.

    https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/06/07/solid-power-begins-pilot-production-of-solid-state-batteries-for-ford-bmw/

    Backup power for private homes.

    https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/energy/best-home-battery/

    I suggest you stop now or I will post more links. Don’t think I won’t.

  214. 214
    jerry says:

    Do you think people are stupid?

    No, but many generally do not read and have opinions that they cannot justify.

    I suggest you stop now or I will post more links. Don’t think I won’t.

    I have been posting here for 16 years and never saw a threat like this.

    Such a threat reminds me of the Monty Python torture threat of the comfy chair. But here the threat is to inundate with links.

  215. 215
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 214,

    You call that a threat? I could have wrote: I will bury you under hundreds of links; but I didn’t.

    “… posting for 16 years…”! Wow.

    No, that wasn’t a threat.

Leave a Reply