Global Warming deniers: Get a grip

From the data I’ve seen and been able to verify, it does seem that humanity’s greatest challenge is Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW – Humanly caused Global Warming). The data supporting AGW is overwhelming. Still there are those who choose to deny it or remain sceptical.

I can understand and appreciate the sceptics – as long as they make an effort to inform themselves – by being open to the underlying data and science and dig down into the underlying physics and statistics.

But when I encounter deniers, uniformily they come across as very certain that either 1) there is no Global Warming, or 2) the Global Warming is not caused by humans. They also tend to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to forward the idea of AGW to funnel money into research and green energy. I have yet to meet a denier that has been to areas affected by Global Warming or who has any scientific knowledge to understand the physics or statistics involved.

It seems the belief in conspiracy theories is the driving force for the majority of deniers. They loudly proclaim that one should “follow the money trail”, because money is the driving force of conspiracies. It baffles me how they do not heed their own advice. The amount of money to be gained by oil companies in denying AGW totally dwarves the money gathered into scientific research and Green Energy – by a factor of at least ten. Much, much more is gained by “The Establishment” in lobbying against AGW than for it.

For some deniers, it seems safest to kill AGW at its roots by denying there is any rise in temperatures at all – citing local “cold spots” as evidence, or simply just invent data or opinions to counter facts. This type of deniers are marginalized and may soon find themselves as scarce as the Flat Earthers.

The majority of deniers would admit there is warming going on but deny there is any human connection. Again, the data and science is mounting against this position. The problem is that they almost never try to actually defend their position with any facts. They use opinions, hand waving or Internet memes trying to “discredit” science.

The deniers I’ve met are usually right-wing extremists. Denying AGW seems to be a political position and has very little to do with facts. It is the old conflict between propaganda and science.

It’s strange how people still would defend the fossil energy industry when there are more jobs to be made in the green industry. And wouldn’t the deniers also want cleaner air and water at least? And wouldn’t you rather err with science than take a position that could potentially be catastrophic for mankind?

I have been to the arctic and seen the effects of AGW with my own eyes. I understand the statistics and physics involved. The deniers I’ve met rely on second hand information and none have been able to show any signs of understanding the underlying science. If anything would motivate me to man the barricades, this issue would be it.

70 thoughts on “Global Warming deniers: Get a grip

  1. > The data supporting AGW is overwhelming.

    Well, yes. And, no.

    The radiative properties of CO2 are not in dispute. The effects on a massively complex, quasi-random, quasi-stochastic climate are. It’s simply not a binary “believe”/”don’t believe” position.

    The fact that a surface forcing perturbation the size that is prescribed to AGW should result in a moistening of the upper atmosphere {and hence a strong warming of the upper atmosphere} is not disputed either. But so far the rate of warming there is less than that of the surface. The theory there is simply wrong. The models are simply wrong.

    The “deniers” are those who are denying that the models are wrong. As a geek, you’ll know that “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. Well these are both wrong, and not useful as many important climate processes are sub grid scale (cumulo-numbus towers for example), and cannot replicate many natural oscillations convincingly (the AMOยน, for example) as they assume they are internal variability, while they are likely triggered by external variability.

    ยนAMO with NH & SH SSTs:

  2. I completely understand where you’re coming from. This is actually a good site which directly addresses some of the “denier” rhetoric:

    Speaking from my own educational background and distrust of the words “scientific” and “consensus” being used together I also tend to look for alternate hypotheses. It does not matter to me if 98% or the scientific community “believes something.” What matters is the evidence which supports the hypothesis and more importantly the evidence that may disprove the hypothesis.

    These are my random thoughts on the subject:

    1. Global weather and temperature are obviously changing.
    2. There are competing hypotheses to the CO2 cause for these changes and it doesn’t matter how controversial they are. What matters is whether the data supports them. Here are some counter theories:

    The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Solar Activity and Cosmic Rays behind Global Warming

    The strongest alternate theory is Solar activity is causing these temperature changes.

    3. Shouldn’t we move towards clean energy sources ANYWAY?! No matter what theory ends up being correct?

    4. There is another factor often obfuscated by these arguments is that we have possibly passed peak oil, peak natural gas and are running out of usable land for trees for producing coal and firewood (could not support the present population).

    5. There is also an alternate solution to the problem with geoengineering and the global dimming theory:

    I really don’t like the idea of geoengineering when we don’t really fully understand global weather, but it is a possible last resort if the world cannot change it’s basis of energy usage.

    1. Good post. It got me thinking. I watched the shorter video but still need to watch the longer one.

      1. It’s an extremely interesting topic (scientifically I mean).

        I kept viewing skeptics as deniers until I saw data from a number of different sources that CO2 (and other trace greenhouse gases) may not be the cause of Climate change but the effect of climate change. The largest output of greenhouse gases (far outweighing all human output combined) is the world’s oceans. The amount of dissolved CO2 (and other gases) in the oceans is enormous. When the ocean warms, gases are released and also massive amounts of water vapor, the largest greenhouse gas.

        It seems possible that the changes in atmospheric CO2 may be the result of temperature change and not the cause.

        The videos I have linked also contain some conspiracy theory talk, which I don’t like to be included in scientific discussions, but there is some merit to the idea of “scientific consensus” driving research instead of actual data.

        For example. The Diet-Heart hypothesis. If you eat saturated fats, you get heart disease. Although there is almost no scientific support for this hypothesis it was politicized in many countries of the world. No research was supported which may produce data counter to the Diet-Heart hypothesis. And in every country where efforts were made to put people on a Low Fat diet, heart disease increased. Much of my data is based on the US population, but so it goes. Since the 1950s “Everyone knows” that cholesterol and fat causes heart disease! It is slowly coming to light that it’s all bullshit. That a high fat low sugar diet lowers heart disease risk and obesity.

        Another example: If a patient has high blood pressure ask any doctor and the first item in the protocol is Put them on a low sodium diet. Even though there is no scientific basis for this treatment, has been repeatedly disproven and lowering sodium does not reduce blood pressure it is still the first treatment worldwide.

        My only point is, if there is a popular theory going around, there is funding available to support it. If you have an unpopular theory, you will not find funding. This is not how science works. You need parity between Prove Theory A and Disprove Theory A.

        But that violates “common sense” so it may never happen.

  3. I am sceptical.

    But i always liked solar panels, water dams, and wind turbines for energy generation, and any other more natural source for energy. I like Thorium too, but that may be just a “new-age science”.

    Even 15 years ago, to me it seemed always that propaganda was used to blacken uses of fuels and coal. Yet somehow we still have them used everywhere, and i do not see anybody having solar panels on roofs here, or i do not see wind turbines around. I do not know why.

    1. You know, I believe many scientologists are deniers or sceptical to science. Hubbard told so much anti-science bullshit that the only way a scientologist could remain a believer would be to disbelieve science. The first science crash was right there in the Study Tapes.

      1. I am a believer, and i like science-fiction. For me it is beyond current science.

        So i am not anti scientist, i just think that today science is too much controlled and limited (intentionally), and that real science is the thing!! The beyond, space opera science, space travel, easy inhabitable planets all over the galaxies.

        I believe that science can do much more than it is doing currently. Far much more.

        But things like global warming simply do not click for me, i admit that i did not research it. My opinion does not matter anyway.

        I did research for example Moon landing and i am 70% convinced it was faked and 30% it happened. I do believe that humans can go to Moon now.

        I hope really now that this time Elon Musk and his company will go to Mars, i want to believe they will succeed. Like i said on Facebook i have great hopes for this guy, even if i believe that he is the “chosen one” from the “shadow rulers” to push technology greatly in the coming times. I also like the other technologies he proposed like the 4000 satelites for faster internet everywhere. Electric cars. And hyper fast traveling. I am excited for all that. That is a science fiction, or was, but in future it will become reality.

      2. Geir, why do you say Hubbard was anti-science? My impression was that he was very much in favor of the scientific method but criticized various sciences for not following it.

        1. If you think Hubbard applied actual science to any of his research you are missing data. If you are an active Scientologist I could only point you sources that are critical of your faith so I’m not sure you would accept it.

          But, if you are open to it, read Bare Faced Messiah

          1. What data am I missing as to how he did his research?

            I actually started to read *Bare-faced Messiah* just recently but haven’t finished it yet. I do realize Hubbard had some definite character flaws.

            1. Bare Faced Mesiah is not a good book.

              I can tell you the truth, Ron was kidnapped and replaced with a fake one somewhere in 1972, then CIA and FBI did with Scientology whatever they wanted to do once they had their “Ron” in position. Since then everything and was introduced to Scientology and CofS, and nothing good.

              People think that Ron went totally nuts, but he was just replaced, and the new “Ron” was completely different thetan, a puppet one.

            2. “””I like the Pilot too. Is he now your guru/mentor? And are you solo processing using his methods?”””

              Ken, the Pilot, he died in 2007, but his works are so good and useful. I consider him most advanced spiritual being on planet, and he probably reincarnated with keeping the learned stuff.

              I would say he is my guru, god, or guide. To me he is much more important than Ron.

              Yes i do my own solo processing using Ken’s ideas, guides, insights. He has some absolutely wonderful ideas and quotes, it’s a shame they are not quoted here and there on FB, forums and blogs.

              I can make a post in my blog, about 16 dynamics that Ken delineated, it’s very simple, but much better system than traditional Ron’s 8 survival Dynamics. (just one very useful things amongst many)

              My solo processing approach is something like a coffee shop Scientology mixed with Buddhism.
              I mostly do not finish processes, and i start whenver wherever i like, i am not very organized. That is also why i focus more on the positive and good things, and creative mockups, rather than on engrams and overts.

              But somehow it works, and it always produces some ITSA, and cognitions. ๐Ÿ™‚

              “”” * Regarding Bare Faced Mesiah *
              Actually, itโ€™s extremely well documented and a lot of it is direct quotes โ€“ not just negative quotes but some favorable ones and other positive data about Ron. There are also a good number of excerpts from the journal Ron kept as a child and teenager, which clearly show how bright and creative he was โ€“ and how he stretched the truth sometimes or made things up altogether. “””

              Good then. Maybe i am too much biased. I did look at the pages of that book around 5 years ago, i spent probably 10-20 hours reading some pages. But i did it with an emotion of how the guys is wrong about Ron, because Ron is such a wonderful being for me. ๐Ÿ™‚

              Well, if you find the book inspiring, and useful, ๐Ÿ™‚ good.

              One thing though i want to mention, is that i think that Ron used alot of creative processing (as a writer but also later), and the effects of that is that he begins to trust his mock-ups more than this universe’s mock-ups. He describes that in Scientology 8-8008 which i love, such an amazing book.

              I am getting to that stage when i also agree more on my own rather than trusting universe’s mock-ups.

              I think this is an advanced understanding, and a good thing, one just should not insist that his own mock-ups are real or important for others.

            3. thetanforever: “Yes i do my own solo processing using Kenโ€™s ideas, guides, insights. He has some absolutely wonderful ideas and quotes, itโ€™s a shame they are not quoted here and there on FB, forums and blogs.”

              Good for you on the solo processing. I like the unstructured approach you take that is working for you. Also, like yourself, I love Scn 8-8008, and what you wrote here: “I am getting to that stage when i also agree more on my own rather than trusting universeโ€™s mock-ups.”

              Yes, it’s a shame Ken Ogger isn’t quoted more and isn’t appreciated more. I’ve read what he wrote about 16 dynamics and even posted some of it here on Geir’s a couple years ago. But since then, I’ve come to think most people who got into Scientology, or its offshoots, did not do so for the purpose of pursuing lofty ideas. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            4. With regard to “Bare-Faced Messiah,” I do agree with you about the bias of the author Russell Miller. He uses a lot of sarcasm to sort of lead the reader into his cynical interpretation of many things regarding LRH that aren’t already clearly negative. But Miller does give direct quotes of the many people he interviewed (which I give him credit for) and the quotes I can interpret for myself.

              One interview was of Ken Urquhart, who said some positive things. You probably know Ken was an early Scientologist. I decided to do a Google search and find out more about him. He was involved in scientology from 1956 to 1980, and worked closely with LRH from 1964 to 1978 (14 years!) in such posts as Butler and Communicator. Also, in a 2011 youtube interview, I learned he is a Class IX auditor and that he still audits. The most interesting thing I found was an article he wrote that was on the freezone site, where he summed up his view of LRH with this amazing statement:

              โ€œI state again that I have no defense or excuse for the trouble LRH caused his own people, their families, and the world. I still hold that in LRHโ€™s work there is a kernel of truth and sanity of universal and eternal value. I do not believe that he deliberately used his access to this level of truth to fool his followers and to attempt to fool the world. My considered opinion is that the side of him that could know and promote Truth lost the fight with his egotistical and material side โ€“ and then the demons took over.

              โ€œIt all played itself out as it did, and perhaps there was no other way for it to go. The evolution has a lasting value, though: we can deduce better ways to support, serve, and discipline such a one, should we be fortunate enough to have another come our way.โ€

              The part about “his access to this level of truth” shows that Urquhart perceived the wisdom as well as the ego. I have the idea that not many people do, or else they don’t want to admit it.

              On that cheerful note – cheers!

        2. His conduct shows he was actually anti-science by not forcibly killing any notion of the scientific method in Scientology. KSW is but one good example of this.

          1. Thing is, he wrote KSW in 1965 and for a couple of decades after that he did continue to do research on the tech. While it is true that he only wanted research to be done under his direction, I suppose that doesn’t violate the scientific method per se. Here’s a basicdefinition:

            “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

            There have been a number of comments posted on different sites by old timers who stated that LRH did pool the data of auditors who were assigned to try out new processes. And as you know, in later years he had pilots done on new processes and rundowns.

            1. He was never open to having his theories (bluntly offered as truth) falsified. This invalidating the scientific method. And he w our come down on alternative methods or “squirreling” like a ton of bricks. Thus anti-science.

            2. Yes in order for something to be scientific it must stand up to scrutiny.

              In Scientology “What is true is what is true for you” is the SLOGAN, but if you disagree that something works, you are sent to ethics for investigation (sec checking).

              Also, his idea of “research” is far different from what you think.

              You know the stories about LRH in the hospital after the war because he was wounded? And he said he was auditing on other people in the hospital? Doesn’t look like that ever happened. He wrote Dianetics over a short period of time when he was broke and used ideas from many others thrown together in a soup and made huge claims. That is not Scientific. Nothing about it is scientific. (and he was in the hospital for a short time because of an ulcer, he was never wounded).

              If you hold up anything in Scientology to scrutiny (from Bk 1 to the e-meter to OT III) it fails the test. If someone makes it to OT III and then brings up some doubts about whether it’s working an attempt is made to recover that person and if it fails they are shown the door and branded an SP. This is done obviously for the fact that just one person in Scientology who has made any real progress on the Bridge (where they become an opinion leader to others or looked upon with jealousy) and then they start to doubt if it works can poison the minds of every Scientologist they meet. All you need to do is begin to doubt and The Tech falls apart. Every single procedure or belief.

              This is why scrutiny is not only discouraged in Scn but actively fought. Take the LRH’s redefinition of the word reasonable. If you attempt to “reason” there is something WRONG WITH YOU!@ “YOU ARE BEING REASONABLE!”

              I just realized this is a thread on Climate Change! What the hell are we talking about this for?

            3. John: “I just realized this is a thread on Climate Change! What the hell are we talking about this for?”

              It’s all Geir’s fault. He had to go and say something about Hubbard and his “anti-science bullshit.”

              He started it! ๐Ÿ˜€

          2. OK marildi I agree, It’s Geir’s fault. Haha

            On any future posts I will try to stay on topic though. The post on Climate change was actually a good one until it was poisoned.

            1. Poisoned? Seems like a strong word, John. People could have continued to comment on climate change if they had wanted to. Even Geir had very little to add, or to say or ask in reply to others’ comments. You see – it was Geir again! (Kidding, Geir! ๐Ÿ˜€ )

  4. About responsibility.

    Even if Global Warming is real, I personally do not feel responsible at all for it. I do not feel that it is my concern, i do not feel that it is my duty to do anything about it, except maybe to use machines and resources in accordance to it.

    Just like i do not feel responsible for things beyond my scope, for example: for the percentage of hungry and poor people in Africa, and for victims of violence all around the world, etc.

    That is none of my business. I wish them good, but i refuse to feel responsible for their problems, they are not my guilt.

    Same for global warming, IF it was real. None of my business.

    1. You seem to mix responsibility and guilt. You can take responsibility for your own actions regarding anything. As concerns global warming, you can take responsibility for getting yourself informed and to help others get informed. It’s those small steps, when propagated, that can move mountains.

    2. thetanforever, your comment got me wondering which approach to a black panther it would fit under. Do you remember this from the Dianetics book:

      โ€œLet us suppose that a particularly black-tempered black panther is sitting on the stairs and that a man named Gus is sitting in the living room. Gus wants to go to bed. But there is the black panther. The problem is to get upstairs. There are five things that Gus can do about this panther: (1) he can go attack the black panther; (2) he can run out of the house and flee the black panther; (3) he can use the back stairs and avoid the black panther; (4) he can neglect the black panther; and (5) he can succumb to the black panther.

      โ€œThese are the five mechanisms: attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb. All actions can be seen to fall within these courses. And all actions are visible in life.โ€

      1. Yes i remember that. Dianetics is often close, but not precise enough. Was my first big eye opener book! ๐Ÿ™‚

        But here is a spoiler for you Marildi:

        Black panther is an illusion. ๐Ÿ˜€
        Especially in this case.

        Nothing to worry about, the danger is nonexistent.

        Black panther is a scarecrow, and a restimulation of one of wholetrack implants.

        Most of the time that black panther does not really exist.

        1. Well, I was talking about the times there really is a “black panther” – a real situation in life that needs to be contended with. Would you attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb?

          And no theetie-wheetie answers are allowed. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          1. Ok, i don’t know. Avoid probably, and then increase my skills and knowledge to eventually be able to handle the panter. I can admit that i may be cowardly, and have insufficient confront power. ๐Ÿ™‚

            But panter is an idea here where the problem is very big. In real world i see that we need to first focus on the lesser problems that we CAN handle, then gradually increase awareness, knowledge, responsiblity, skills.

            Teetie wheetie is good, it is one thing i like in “new age”. Positivity works!!! Scientology ideas helps me to analyze and understand this deeper. New age by itself is very shallow. ๐Ÿ™‚

            1. thetanforever: “Ok, i donโ€™t know. Avoid probably, and then increase my skills and knowledge to eventually be able to handle the panter. I can admit that I may be cowardly, and have insufficient confront power.:) ”

              Well, I have to admit – I like you. ๐Ÿ™‚

              And from the rest of your comment, it doesn’t look like you are actually in avoid mode. You wrote:

              “But panter is an idea here where the problem is very big. In real world i see that we need to first focus on the lesser problems that we CAN handle, then gradually increase awareness, knowledge, responsiblity, skills.”

              That sounds good, but the trouble is there may not be enough time to implement it, if the theorists of man-made climate change are right. Then again, if enough people had “positivity,” as you put it in your last paragraph above, such an approach might be the least “practical” but the most workable solution. I actually like it. Thanks for giving me optimism about the issue. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          2. Even if Global Warming was 100% true and dangerous, we should always try to be optimistic and positive. With high toned attitude we are helping people and mankind more than with a low toned attitude.

            I’m sure that scientists will solve the problem if it is real. People that are responsible can make the difference. A carpenter cannot repair broken cars, it is a job for car mechanics.

            GW looks just like another conspiracy theory. A play move from shadow rulers. Nothing to worry about. I do believe in conspiracies but they do not have much importance any more. ๐Ÿ™‚ It’s like another 2012 world ending prophecy, but this one is supposedly “scientific” and not a fantasy.

            It’s silly that Geir avoids all conspiracy theories but falls for this one. Everybody has some weak spots. ๐Ÿ™‚

            Marildi, did you ever looked at Pilot’s books? Especially his great Cosmic history chapter ?

            1. Sorry, but maintaining an irresponsible “jolly happy” attitude while claiming it’s all a conspiracy will not change the facts. It will also not help you understand the science behind this – which you clearly do not understand. Ignorance is not bliss. Wishing to be “special” by claiming access to “hidden” and “secret” knowledge will not change the reality either. Only directed, focused action will change reality.

            2. Thetanforever, I agree with your first paragraph. Re the second, I would say the problem is real โ€“ which means that Geir hasn’t fallen for a conspiracy theory. ๐Ÿ˜‰

              Re The Pilot, I did read some of his writings about five years ago, but I’m glad you reminded me about him. Tonight I read his version of Incident II (the OT III incident) โ€“ which seems more plausible than Ron’s. For one thing, he describes a bit about the high-tech “exotic hardware” involved:
              “Simple implant devices consist of a projector and a crystal (with the implant recorded on it) and possibly some sort of energy beam and most important, a bunch of entities built into the machine to do the telepathic projection. They will aim one of these things at a โ€˜criminalโ€™ or prisoner of war and condition him to be a good boy or whatever. These are common in advanced civilizations and are simple affairs to buy, setup, and run.

              “A mass implant, on the other hand, requires tons of exotic hardware and super implant devices capable of blanketing a planet. These are placed in satellites (so they wouldn’t be destroyed, the implant dealers save them and carry them from place to place) which are set in geosynchronous orbit (meaning the satellite remains over one spot). Devices are also placed in volcanoes…โ€

              He also explains the volcano discrepancies:

              “The list of volcanoes given on OT3 is not very accurate. The Earth has shifted around a bit. You get away with it because the names of the volcanoes are not in the bank and the being spots what he needs to. Someone like a geologist who actually knows very precisely where the modern volcanoes are might actually have a lot of trouble on OT 3 because he may force things to match the locations he knows and that could act as a wrong location. Most people only have a vague idea where Krakatoa is located, for example. So if they need to spot a volcano somewhere in that part of the world, they call it Krakatoa and that’s good enough. I never bothered assessing a volcano list when running an entity through incident 2. It works just fine to have them point without bothering to put a name on it. The best way to do any volcano handling on OT3 is to simply have the being point to the volcano where he was implanted and don’t do any assessments.”


              As for Bare-faced Messiah, why do you say it isnโ€™t good?

          3. I did read many of Pilot’s writings many times. Especially his version of OT3 which makes much sense, and is also fun to read.
            Ron’s ideas are confusing and often are not good enough.
            I stick with Pilot’s ideas because he makes tons of sense, and is very inspiring and supportive of solo processing.

            Solo processing should be more envoruaged, and Pilot is encouraging, he really is the guide and saviour. ๐Ÿ™‚

            “”As for Bare-faced Messiah, why do you say it isnโ€™t good?””

            Because it is full of anti Ron Hubbard. Devoted to make him look like an egoistic asshole, idiot, liar etc.
            I think in that book the writer never admits anything good about Ron and or Scientology.
            That is not real, and not fair. And not even truthful.

            1. thetanforever: โ€œSolo processing should be more encouraged, and Pilot is encouraging, he really is the guide and saviour.โ€

              I like the Pilot too. Is he now your guru/mentor? And are you solo processing using his methods?

              Regarding *Bare-Faced Messiah*, you wrote, “I think in that book the writer never admits anything good about Ron and or Scientology.”

              Actually, it’s extremely well documented and a lot of it is direct quotes โ€“ not just negative quotes but some favorable ones and other positive data about Ron. There are also a good number of excerpts from the journal Ron kept as a child and teenager, which clearly show how bright and creative he was – and how he stretched the truth sometimes or made things up altogether.

              As an adult, Ron basically comes across as a charismatic con artist who used charm and wit to get where he wanted to go. My impression is that because of how precocious and lovable he was as a child, he was very spoiled by his parents and other relatives – and the attitude he developed carried forward into his adult life (a little amateur psychology for you ๐Ÿ˜‰ ). So far, I don’t see that he did things in a very mean or evil way, and I still believe Ron wanted to help people – even if there was a major first dynamic purpose as motivation.

              I’ve only read about a quarter of the book and am up to the point in Ron’s life where he and his first wife Polly have two children (Nibs and Kathleen) and Ron is a hard-working, very prolific writer. This biography of him gives a close-up picture of him, and I am enjoying getting to know him as a human being, I can really see why many people have described him as “bigger than life.”

  5. Third thing, (i expressed this one already before on Trump discussions)

    Is that i believe that “shadow rulers” have it all under control. If the global warming is real then they probably planned it. It will serve a purpose. It is a great worldwide topic for manipulation.

  6. Good blog post, Geir. The last paragraph sumarized the issue in a nutshell, and you punched it up perfectly in the last sentence with the way you expressed your passion about it:

    “If anything would motivate me to man the barricades, this issue would be it.”

    I had a similar feeling of frustration the other day when I watched a white nationalist being interviewed by a news reporter. The man was adamant about there being big differences between races, and the reporter just tried to argue with him with questions like “What difference could skin pigment make?” I wondered why he didn’t just ask the guy what he based his beliefs on – i.e. was there any scientific data to back it up, etc. His answer would have been interesting.

    Anyway, I thought your presentation about global warming was a good public service. ๐Ÿ™‚

  7. Hi Gang ๐Ÿ™‚ Iss all goott, ja? Mebbe not!! Mebbe the cause is, that for the very first time in Earth’s history, we find ourselves currently saddled with an “excessive human pandemic ” — you familiar with it? >>> “I WANT” <<<

    1. Hi, Calvin. Good to see you back from your long honeymoon. ๐Ÿ™‚

      As for your comment above, it’s good to have an understanding of the ultimate root of the problem, which you summed up as “I WANT” (by which I assume you mean greed?) – and you are probably right about that. But the climate issue seems to demand a more immediate handling than to reverse the most deeply rooted aberrations of mankind. Doncha think? ๐Ÿ˜‰

      1. Well hi, me lassie. good tae see yoo too. ๐Ÿ™‚ Also good to see you as sharp as ever! Actually, for me (some while back) our friend Adyashanti, cleared up so much of “the most deeply rooted aberrations of mankind.”– I think!! His masterpiece: “The Gift Of Wanting” -( a wake up call video) INDIRECTLY points out the “cause” of climate degradation, and yes, M, me love, greed would just happen to be another “add-on”in the mix! Watch, then tell me Watchoo think? Your suggestions on “a more immediate handling” may just be influenced by a cognition had while watching this revelation by Adya. ๐Ÿ™‚

      2. Hmmm. me lassie …. aye see v’ve yet tae respond t’ mae question thenn?

        Purrhaps (ahem! Pardon me while I revert to primary beingness…. ๐Ÿ˜€ ) …..

        Perhaps, my dear Marildi, in addressing the REAL issue, at the root of the OP presented by Geir, we would fare better, by recognizing and thereby, undercutting the apparency of our globally ‘shared’ dilemma.

        To wit — Wealth, power, greed, influence, materialism, control, convenience, comfort, possession/s etc, etc, — are typically the end goal of what, exactly?

        — GETTING what “I WANT” seems to resolve the problem of NOT having, which neatly ends a particular cycle/episode of “I want” … at least … for a while. ๐Ÿ™‚

        … However (lol),….me, being the malcontent I am, as a member of the more ‘advanced’ species of Earth’s fascinating organisms, am not subject to her ‘Laws’!
        …… No Siree…. why should I be?.. After all, am I not part of the “superior race?” …That race (of Earth’s organisms) that are supposedly more ‘advanced’/’dominant/ ‘intelligent’, than all others?

        Is it not that ‘man’, may therefore create and subject ALL other life to ‘man’s laws’?

        Oh boy! Do we just love getting aboard that never-ending carousel of problems/solutions, that have typically engrossed us, (fixedly!!!) ever since?

        Well, M, me love, since you feel that “the climate issue seems to demand a more immediate handling….” (I THINK that you cannot separate that from) “…than to reverse the most deeply rooted aberrations of mankind.”

        Incidentally, should it be surprising, that I believe that the scn GRADES 0-IV:

        0 — Communication.

        1 — Problems.

        II — Overts/Witholds.

        III.. Relief/Release.

        IV Ability Release.

        So Marildi, me heart, perhaps we now need to keep pressing (TR-3) ‘the question’ # “is it not ‘aberration’ that is therefore NEGATING all efforts (of logic) to resolve the issue of “climate change?” — Isn’t THAT(#) the REAL PTP????

        — duh.. o.0

        1. Calvin: “So Marildi, me heart, perhaps we now need to keep pressing (TR-3) โ€˜the questionโ€™ # is it not โ€˜aberrationโ€™ that is therefore NEGATING all efforts (of logic) to resolve the issue of โ€œclimate change?โ€ โ€” Isnโ€™t THAT(#) the REAL PTP????”

          No, Cal honey, I wouldn’t call it “the real PTP,” because it isn’t the actual PRESENT TIME problem – even though aberration may be the root of the problem.

          As an analogy, let’s take the neighborhood you used to work in, which you told us had a lot crime and was dangerous to even drive through. I’m sure your solution to the problem wasn’t to start a campaign to get everyone in the area audited, at least not as an immediate action. Obviously, that would have taken way too long, and by then a lot of crime would have been committed – assuming the plan could even have been carried out before the area was devastated. Knowing you, I’m pretty sure you DID take some actions that were effective in protecting yourself and your loved ones on an immediate basis.

          Perhaps global warming isn’t something we can be complacent or theetie-wheetie about, either. Am I right, laddie? ๐Ÿ˜‰

          1. Thanks, Lass. Pretty good summation too! ๐Ÿ™‚

            However, as I recall in 1993, while having an intimate chat had with one of the key figures behind the scenes during South Africa’s transition to democracy, “Oscar”, had this to say, when I asked him his definition of “democracy”: “Democracy, is something that can begin with two cells of agreement, on how they can mutually interact together, for a better, wider benefit.If successful, the two may become four, then eight, etc and so spread the concept of agreeable co-existence” Nice concept, if truly practical!

            Campaigns, as a tool, often DO work! Though they tend to come apart for lack of sustained implementation, right? — No create-create-create to follow! ๐Ÿ™‚

            A PTP on the other hand, is not necessarily perceivable to the broader public, if they happen to be out of PT!! — “Noooo, what problem? Everything’s just fine thanks….” — Until say, there’s suddenly no running water available to the city, or worse, a deadly poison has contaminated the supply. Then watch a PTP suddenly emerge!

            Perhaps, M, me heart, the following pitch may even say it better:
            ” D’ese palookas runnin’ da show dunno wot dey doin’ Dey sed dey be puttn’ up dem microwave tower thangs, ta make life betta in da neighbor hood. Dunno ’bout dat, cos six of my best ol’ buddies gone by cancer dis year. Dey was all stayn’ close by dem tower thangs.” (suss out the deadly impact of microwave radiation on our environment, and this is not even mentioning the collective repercussions on Earth’s delicate balance of ‘natural’ electrical energy utilization right down to primordial cellular life, vital for it’s proper, uninterrupted communication systems to even function and upon which, all higher level complex organisms depend for their survival.

            Sorry, love, but I think even a casual ‘look’ around your immediate environment, will confirm that we are already in serious trouble. Just connecting the dots.. “Climate change” IS a man made phenomenon, primarily the result of appeasing our new “pandemic” mentioned earlier! “I WANT” is at the heart of the problem. It is an aberration, in that it is illogical for man to WANT that which also destroys him and his fellow Earthlings and their joint habitat. The PTP is that he is in denial, of HIS (OUR) collective role in said destruction.

            “Contentment” on the other hand, is seen as an obstacle to “I WANT” so is shunned as an obstacle to “progress”

            We’re “CAUSE” of this new unsustainable “pandemic” and so need to take responsibility for that, before we are ALL just total “EFFECT” of it.aka “DEAD”

            …. As I was saying in the beginning…..

            1. “Weโ€™re ‘CAUSE’ of this new unsustainable ‘pandemic’ and so need to take responsibility for that, before we are ALL just total ‘EFFECT’ of it. aka ‘DEAD’.

              That’s good, lad – you’ve stated the problem. Now let’s take it a wee bit further and talk about a SOLUTION that extends beyond THOUGHT.

              That is to say, after we admit global warming IS a problem and that it is MAN-MADE, then we have to DO something about it – AND it has to be done on a more IMMEDIATE basis than the handling of BASIC ABERRATION in all of humanity.

              โ€ฆ. As I was saying in the beginningโ€ฆ.. ๐Ÿ˜€

              Hope we’re on the same page now. โค

            2. Hey, me love > Same page, okay? Speaking of which, there’s that liddle ol’ ‘game changer’ I’m aware of. —Dunno if you’ve heard of it ?(LOL) — It’s called a “BEST SELLER”, one of the few things that, given the talent and drive, CAN “DO” something about it! — only prob there is, it has the latent potential to place one smack in the middle of media attention! — And that, M me dearest, requires not only the shedding of one’s anonymity (shudder!), but the willingness to assume ‘CAUSE’ for the sake of the greater ’cause’. Would you be prepared to even consider such a bold venture?
              โค — C.

            3. “And that, M me dearest, requires not only the shedding of oneโ€™s anonymity (shudder!), but the willingness to assume โ€˜CAUSEโ€™ for the sake of the greater โ€™causeโ€™. Would you be prepared to even consider such a bold venture?”

              It would depend on what I felt was the greatest good – as I have said many times. People have tried to bully me on this matter, or they’ve tried to covertly use it as a way of getting back at me, but I see those things for what they are.

              Regardless, cheerio and you take care.

            4. Thank you for your origination, Marildi. And no bullying, no covert intentions here to thwart your being CAUSE. I hope you can simply duplicate and understand that I was merely paying you a sincere compliment, in your capacity as a prodigious writer. I have no need of playing silly 1.1 games, or to subject you to being defensive. Your suspicions with my intent are way off the mark, sorry. ๐Ÿ™‚

              I simply, genuinely, feel that your extraordinary talent, and knowledge, COULD be used for a “blockbuster”(best seller), were you to willing (certainly able) to put together (DO!) a literary piece for some much needed and focused public attention!

              Thank you and have a great time over the silly season, will ya?

              Luv, — C.

            5. Thank you, Cal. I appreciate your reply.

              I guess we’re all members of the “work in progress” club, eh? ๐Ÿ™‚

              Hugs and wishes for a very Merry Christmas! โค

            6. Huggg! (squishh!!) — Mcwaah! Mcwaah! ๐Ÿ˜€

  8. Geir, thanks for the great work you continue to do, especially in the way you relate to people. I feel refreshed each time I pay a visit here! It’s been that way ever since finding your site.

    Kudos, my friend. ๐Ÿ™‚

  9. Here’s another debunking video on climate change.

    I really enjoy this guy’s videos even though I find him interesting and annoying at the same time.

    1. There are thousands of debunking videos on climate change. Just as there are videos in favor of a flat earth. They still don’t change facts.

      1. (Geir: this video is debunking the deniers and alternate theories, not the consensus hypothesis. This guy is a nuclear physicist from Australia. He makes educational movies on Science and has a Youtube channel)

        1. There are scientists claiming the Earth is flat. There are scientists claiming all kinds of stuff. Facts are still facts. I have taken the stance that unless the person can demonstrate an understanding of two Wikipedia articles (global warming and greenhouse gas) I will not bother to discuss the issue.

          1. You might find that video makes the case for man-made global warming – and does so far more succinctly than the Wikipedia articles – and it is less than 7 minutes long. Watch it and see what you think. It might be the best dissemination tool there is on the subject, since few people are going to wade through scholarly articles.

          2. Geir, you have it backwards. This video is a decent response to different Climate Change Denier claims and random ridiculousness from the internet. He fairly rapidly responds to many of the “datums” on climate change that deniers use to discredit the CO2 hypothesis.

            The way I look at it is this:

            There’s a theory.
            People attempt to poke holes or disprove the theory.
            If the theory survives it has a chance of being on the right track.
            Rinse, repeat.

            He is just showing that other “claims”, especially bullshit ones, do not poke holes or disprove the theory.

            In the case of climate change you also have money and politics and pseudo science involved, so many of the attacks on the theory are bullshit.

            1. Just because I post some alternate theories doesn’t mean I’m a denier, because I’m not.

              But I also accept the notion that data may be presented which pokes holes in a theory and I welcome them.

              Something really terrible is happening in the scientific community. If you want to publish a study which shows no results or a duplication study, most journals do not accept them. This is contrary to basic scientific theory.

  10. โ€œjolly happyโ€ attitude is helpful. I believe that with high toned attitudes i am helping this world more than if i tried to operate with low toned attitudes.

    I am not a naive new-age newbie. I am still researching, but experience tells me this is the way to go.

    “”It will also not help you understand the science behind this โ€“ which you clearly do not understand.””

    On this topic i may be ignorant, but it is not my responsibility, and ignorance may be the right answer and “bliss”.

    I aim for understanding beyond this. Shadow rulers and their “higher level” games. While you and Marildi and many many others “works” to solve AGW (good), i will play the game at a higher different level. ๐Ÿ˜€

    See? My jolly happy attitude is working, i can relax and chill and think positive, and people like you will deal with the AGW assuming it is real. Who says that my happy attitude is not reaching to the subconsciousness of all these scientists, and helping them ? ๐Ÿ™‚ Any way i am all for green energy.

    “”” If anything would motivate me to man the barricades, this issue would be it.”””

    Btw, what is “man the barricades” ?

  11. Some scientists are looking at the calcium carbonate solution which is an engineered climate brought about but pouring tons of carbonate dust into the atmosphere. They estimate that at the cost of four billion dollars they can bring the average temperature down by one degree Celsius. The danger is it is an irretrievable step with unknown outcomes.
    If we are to believe the snowball earth hypothesis run away cooling did take place about two billion years ago and life was saved by the skin of its teeth due to carbon dioxide pushed out by volcanoes.
    Science is very smart but nature grinds on making what changes she is forced to make and at this moment in history we are on the edge of a knife.

  12. Hey, Gang. its already the 26 th December. Happy Xmas for yesterday ๐Ÿ™‚ hope y’all didn’t get tooo plastered with your inebriashin’ LOL! Geir, You had a special Christmas with your beautiful young daughter enjoying her first? XXX to her and proud Annette and to you, the boys & all who visit here, – high fives all round ๐Ÿ˜€

    ML, Calvin.

  13. Completely off topic here but I think this debate is interesting and was wondering what the smart guys here make of it. Jordans argument regarding truth seems similar to what Hubbard was saying.

    1. aotc. Interesting debate indeed! Especially in hearing the gradual build up to an intense crescendo (around 1hr.17min) of making self “right” while making the other “wrong” (serfac). Both agree on the collective imperative of “survival”, while apparently getting thoroughly and uncontrollably animated, as they espouse their respective views on the essential / non- essential reversion to their Darwinian / Newtonian duels over opinions on “truth” I feel both “combatants” would have fared better, or at least better appreciated, the value of DUPLICATION (and the nine Axioms pertaining thereto), were they to have done a little basic exercise called the “comm course” ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. Hi racing, Jordan has posted a short follow up on Youtube if you’re interested. Sam is a famous atheist but he seems to me to be too emotionally invested in it.

        Don’t know about you but I listen to a diverse range of podcasts on different topics and I often hear something that makes me think “mmm Hubbard said something similar’. I reckon he was in the right ball park on a lot of issues.

        1. And a polite (if belated) Hi back to you too , aotc. ๐Ÿ™‚ Oh, I can fully agree with you on the diverse coverage of Hubbard, especially as being in “the right ball park on a lot of issues.” In fact, I tend to ignore much of the ‘noise’ generated around his work, while reflecting on whether there is anything concrete or useful or ACTUALLY helpful, or capable of effecting needed change, by anyone positing they have come up with something to top the”truths” I have discovered in the Dn & Scn Axioms, Logics, Pre-Logics, Auditor’s Code, etc, etc. Seeing and experiencing the dramatic results of stock standard auditing, by a flublessly, standardly trained Classed Auditor, using the power of exhaustively tested & proven workability of standard tech, is no feat of mumbo-jumbo quackery, deceitful ‘mind-control’, hypnosis, or any other thing, than OBSERVATION on at least 3 flows! ( One has only to use all nine Axioms of Duplication, to establish beyond any doubt, ‘truth’ in any given situation presented in communication/s .)

          “The Truth shall set you *free” is simply the EP of “As-isness” (duplication), followed by understanding, and thereby a vanishment of “charge” (mass, pictures)

          Anything said or ‘invalidated’ beyond an FN, merely serves to add back /re-create SOMETHING back into existence upon an achieved state of *’nothing’ (erasure) ๐Ÿ™‚

          1. ‘I tend to ignore much of the โ€˜noiseโ€™ generated around his work, while reflecting on whether there is anything concrete or useful or ACTUALLY helpful, or capable of effecting needed change’

            Amen to that racing ๐Ÿ™‚

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s