Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Polar Ice: Stable, not melting catastrophically.
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
World Now Wasting $1 Trillion Or More Per Year Investing In Useless "Renewables"
I thought it was worthwhile to host this June 29th Article from Francis Mention here on my site. You can find the original here.
World Now Wasting $1 Trillion Or More Per Year Investing In Useless "Renewables"
/The world is currently filled with government-, corporate-, and billionaire-funded organizations advocating for a transformation of the energy system to “clean” and “abundant” renewables. In my post a week ago, I described the International Energy Agency — a consortium of governments (now 40+ of them, including all the major ones) originally formed in the 70s to combat the OPEC oil embargo of the time, but since transformed into a “a center of advocacy for elimination of fossil fuels from the world’s energy supply.” For today, here’s another one you may or may not have heard of — the Energy Institute. EI is a London-based advocacy organization set up under the UK charity laws. It appears to receive its funding largely from corporations and wealthy individuals. On its home page, it describes its mission as “creating a better energy future for our members and society by accelerating a just global energy transition to net zero.”
Let’s review the latest from these 2 groups.... Read More
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
Everywhere is warming faster than everywhere else
When claims of warming seem outrageous, they probably are. There is no better way of demonstrating this than comparing those claims against each other to see if they support each other by being factually consistent in the larger context. What I am regularly discovering is that when the claims are actually followed through many of them directly contradict EACH OTHER, casting doubt over whether the data is sourced by unaligned scientists or by clowns that have escaped from the circus.
The latest is the amazing discovery that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!Yes, you read correctly."Everywhere".It's all warming at double the rate of...Well, ......everywhere else?The latest concerns Europe, the entire continent, from Phys dot org
https://phys.org/news/2023-06-europe-world-fastest-continent-climate.html
The latest from Nature.com has the Arctic warming at a tearing rate, Up to 4 times faster than the global average.
Another case in point the urgent case of Canada warming at twice the global average, that nobody wanted us to know so it was clearly leaked and was not meant to get out...Half way across the world Sweden are having the same problems:As are Norway:As are Russia a bit further East yet:Moving North to the arctic we have the same phenomenon:And of course Alaska taking us back near Canada where we began:But I would never leave out my home country South Africa:In fact Africa in general:Lets go back to the East to China, also warming twice as far as the rest of the world:Just like Tibet:Japan:Singapore:And Korea:What about Iceland?Britain?Can we get even more specific? How about the Adirondacks near NYC?Or sunny Spain?Even sunnier Australia:Or Freezing Finland?How about the Himalayan mountains?Or even just "mountains in general"
...Bottom line?
Wherever you are it is you that is in the MOST danger. Got family overseas? They are in even MORE danger! Everyone else in the world is in yet even MORE DANGER STILL!
Homepage: https://dwahts.blogspot.com/
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
Putting it all together
The latest justification of failure of the James Webb Space Telescope to reconcile observation with predictions of the Standard Model are not good enough. Its being proposed that the telescope cant resolve the individual median starlight only the mean of the net starlight. Pathetic. Why would they launch a defeatest mission if they knew beforehand it would be unresolveable but still announce that it would be the entire point of the mission? Clearly if the results had been what they were hoping for we would never have heard such nonsense.
This is simply the latest in a long line of failed predictions. I propose that the notion those models with a similarly long line of spot on predictions, most notably in this case Plasma Cosmology, are not even entertained.
Plasma Cosmology hasn't had a single principle falsified in 2 decades while ^cdm cosmology (big bang dark matter/ dark energy cosmology of the standard model with it's monopoly on public funding amounting to almost a trillion dollars since the 50's) has has to adjust or "tweak" it's model on every point where new tech has gathered better data, JWST being the latest.
How is it scientific to keep the worst predictive success on life support and with zero justification have the gold standard model maligned as "fringe" based on no evidence put forward whatsoever, justified purely on "Fiat Science" or in other words stating it as such by "experts". Does it not matter that those experts are funded by same grants that the institutions crafted by the model has a monopoly over? Can someone please explain how this is not a conflict of interest?
Where else have we seen this? I will tell you. We see the exact same thing in climate science and with the big pharma R&D grants for vaccines. Who can deny the overwhelming failure of these 3 consensus science establishment institutions funded (thanks to insidious creeping death public policy legislation) by the taxpayer, the same taxpayer these nepotism fueled bureaucracies work against in the most deceitful way imaginable. Is it then really surprising that they have together occupied the bottom 3 places in predictive success or had clinical trials THEY OVERSEE not match up in any way to actual data? No it's not surprising. Who gives the decision-making role in both funding and public understanding of science (including the education syllabus/curriculum) to those who have a stakeholding or some sort of skin in the game? Does it not matter that they have a history of never ever having pulled their own funding to instead fund more promising successful options of competitors?
Is it a long line of total morons all making thousands of repeated mistakes over decades just so happening to always err on the side of the same special interests who benefit? No. That is so improbable as to effectively be impossible. Clearly the answer is FRAUD AND CORRUPTION. This will NEVER change until oversight structures are brought back that would in effect criminalise nepotism in government again.
Climate, Cosmology, Big Pharma and the Military Industrial Complex don't at first glance appear to share the same dynamics, but once you see them they can never be unseen.
Change will be an unprecedented shock to the cottage industry of sycophantic media and NGO's that have sprouted like weeds to support this unscientific or anti-democracy pop culture crime structure which is the precise means by which the corporate and state Frankenstein monstrosity has been enabled.
Take it seriously. We can no longer lament the outcome while turning a blind eye to the cause. I do my best to link cause and effect together in politics and I learned that from science. It beggars belief that the consensus scientific establishment has the gall to malign the principles of the scientific method as "fringe" on the basis of the scientific method which (despite self evident reality contradicting it) they simply claim as to be the sole domain of the current power structure.
All challengers are by their papal decree "Pseudoscience". This is a 180° reversal of actual reality.
One person can be given credit beyond simply recognising it, and it comes from the most unlikely of places, the pinnacle of the establishment itself.
Let's take a trip back in time to when the unholy alliance of the corporate state was still in its infancy and the experts in this tactic, the central bankers who had long since established private unelected corporate takeover of the most important government instrument (money) were diversifying into military socialism (ie requiring libertarian capitalist countries to become socialist nations whose beneficiary list of the poor, the sick and the old would be replaced by rich banks needing bailouts and rich military contractors needing perpetual wars to develop a potential market, and competitors to the government awarding them their funding seemed the perfect place to start.
Here is his famous warning about the potential to form what he first coined as a "Military/Industrial Complex" now in common parlance as the "MIC"
But there was another lesser known warning about the danger facing science we now recognise as the "Consensus Science" Complex, I have never seen a pop culture reference to any CSC though...
Dwight Eisenhower: The Consensus Science & Tech public funding incentive replacing intellectual curiosity and forming a "Frankensteins Monster" with corporate research motives and methods.
I found this quite stunning. Eisenhower has been able to grasp something about the subtle sanitizing, taming and ultimately the owning of science as a tool purchased for the express purpose of lending legitimacy to whichever propaganda campaign it's purchasers require. At the time science (defined in contemporary pop culture of the late 50's principally as a method and despite the Manhattan Project having probably set off a series of events that would forever change this understanding)
He anticipates this in 1961. Even as I write this in 2023 there are many reasonably bright people I know who (despite having science degrees) are sociologically or politically naive about the nature of the special interests which steer both the funding for research grants and public policy.
Through projecting concerns and extrapolating social pop culture/ institutional emerging behaviour patterns Eisenhower and JFK had extaordinary intuitive powers of being able to anticipate trends in social architecture
Eisenhower's successor John F Kennedy would give a similarly visionary speech on "secret societies" 《=click text but skip to 6.30 for the actual since he opens with banter and anecdote to the Press Club which was customary.
JFK's iconic speech (which is never cited and rapidly being scrubbed from the internet to my utter disbelief!) was one of the best ever. Every word was considered. The lead up and structure and progress of themes was carefully considered. Nuance, metaphor and euphemism were literary devices that were all called upon and used it the best possible way. He succeeded in crafting two speeches in one, and in many ways was reaching to the media and public to resound with them the need for support if they wanted the establishment to be taken on. It would have to be together. But he was ahead of his time and neither were ready.
The speech was outwardly an assessment on the freedom of the press and its importance in resisting capture, as well as allusions to the communist threat of the day. But by this time it was already more difficult to speak openly and JFKs speech was delicately phrased, every word carefully chosen to reflect rather the need for vigilance in society against the transatlantic Anglo American dynastic elite and other cabals like the Intelligence Agencies and Dynastic power behind what would later be known as the "Deep State". This is the type of vigilance his predessor equally warned us of in the scientific and military industrial complexes.
If we had such vigilance, in a fantasy land where public interest shapes public policy, we would not be in this mess. But lets pretend we can the lance the boil of the corporate state merger. If achieved would we not be well positioned having learned immensely from the tactics and players who conspired to bring such a state of affairs to fruition as they already have?
In other words...
Do We Already Have The Solutions?
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
If there were such a thing as "Global Average Temperature " how would we measure it? Could that determine public understanding of science regarding Climate Changes?
Sounds legit right?
Not so fast, getting such a figure of any worthwhile accuracy is frought with practical limitations. So many limitations as to render it a nonsense concept in every practical sense.
Here is a good case against the reasoning put forward to create a weaponised principle for use in the Climate Change propaganda arsenal.
This is English version I'm hosting of the Danish
original (appearing HERE )which proposes:
The global temperature does not exist, and every different strategy to work it out yields a different result. The best merhod is explained and by that we see the temperature has decreased
(since 2015)
woodfortrees.org is a website that collects temperature data from all the major players involved in this. The HADCRUT data is one of several such temperature data series.
One of the others is RSS (Remote Sensing Systems), which processes NASA's satellite data (from several satellites). These data provide a similar picture:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015/to:2023/plot/rss/from:2015/to:2023/trend
Perhaps the best satellite data group is at UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville). I have already mentioned John Christy and Roy Spencer who are particularly known for having developed and been responsible for the operation of satellite measurements of parameters in the atmosphere. They have both worked at UAH in collaboration with NASA. Their satellite data has been verified several times by comparing the data with temperature measurements from weather balloons (we therefore have two independent systems). The plot from the RSS data also gives us a downward trend:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2023/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2023/trend
Note that satellite data has a much better coverage of the earth than ground measurements.
In addition to this, it can be said that neither the sea ice in the Arctic nor the inland ice in Greenland has decreased in recent years (apart from the usual seasonal variations). In fact, an increase has been recorded with both.
The Danish Meteorological Institute is responsible for monitoring the ice in Greenland. Here we see a clear increase: https://electroverse.co/ezoimgfmt/i0.wp.com/electroverse.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20220829-crop.png?w=846&ssl=1&ezimgfmt=ng :webp/ngcb1
The average temperature in the large part of Antarctica has been fairly stable for the last 40 years (You must subscribe to TV2 Play to see the full article):
https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/det-har-vaert-donn-stabilt-i-40-ar/13960869/
The essence of the article is:
The CO2 measurements under the auspices of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration):
woodfortrees.org is a website that collects temperature data from all the major players involved in this. The HADCRUT data is one of several such temperature data series.
One of the others is RSS (Remote Sensing Systems), which processes NASA's satellite data (from several satellites). These data provide a similar picture:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015/to:2023/plot/rss/from:2015/to:2023/trend
Perhaps the best satellite data group is at UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville). I have already mentioned John Christy and Roy Spencer who are particularly known for having developed and been responsible for the operation of satellite measurements of parameters in the atmosphere. They have both worked at UAH in collaboration with NASA. Their satellite data has been verified several times by comparing the data with temperature measurements from weather balloons (we therefore have two independent systems). The plot from the RSS data also gives us a downward trend:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2023/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2023/trend
Note that satellite data has a much better coverage of the earth than ground measurements.
In addition to this, it can be said that neither the sea ice in the Arctic nor the inland ice in Greenland has decreased in recent years (apart from the usual seasonal variations). In fact, an increase has been recorded with both.
The Danish Meteorological Institute is responsible for monitoring the ice in Greenland. Here we see a clear increase: https://electroverse.co/ezoimgfmt/i0.wp.com/electroverse.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20220829-crop.png?w=846&ssl=1&ezimgfmt=ng :webp/ngcb1
The average temperature in the large part of Antarctica has been fairly stable for the last 40 years (You must subscribe to TV2 Play to see the full article):
https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/det-har-vaert-donn-stabilt-i-40-ar/13960869/
The essence of the article is:
Well, you have good results from 1980 until today, and the measurements of the last 40 years are probably surprising to many. - In some areas we see strong melting, but in the area we are focusing on and which we think is some of the most important areas to study, it is still stable, says Østerhus.
There is far too much activism that characterizes the media image and provides feedback both to politicians and ordinary people. Those who believe this propaganda are those who do not investigate for themselves. The Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet compares the state of the unsuspecting population and politicians to a psychosis. Humanity has experienced a similar influence mechanism, he says, both during the witch persecutions, under the Hitler regime, Stalin, Mao and the Khmer Rouge. For my own part, I would like to add the Bjugn case.
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)