'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[Joe Hillshoist]

So Neil Oliver reckons it was once well over 50 C in Paris because some old dead cunt quoted some other old dead cunt in a book 150 years ago?

But other people are doing bad science?

JHFC.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
How eloquent.

Except, unfortunately it's not just 'some old dead cunt' conveying these data points. Others (who don't subscribe to the new Secular Religious Dogma) also indicate the same, or similar.

2 pages ago, the content I posted in this thread touched on similar themes:

...

Chris Martz
@ChrisMartzWX

Three quick facts on U.S. temperature extremes:

1. 39 states set their all-time TMax records prior to 1970.

2. 33 states set their all-time TMin records prior to 1970.

3. There has been no measurable increase in TMax nor TMin extremes. Despite claims, it's not more variable.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status ... 88866?s=20

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/ ... ipulation/

The claim that July 3-4, 2023 were the hottest days in the past 125,000 years is based on satellite data and computer modeling by the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer. But there seems to be a problem with the Climate Reanalyzer.



The chart (above) is a screenshot from this morning. I highlighted the August 20, 2022 date because of what I tweeted below on that date.



My August 20, 2022 tweet from the Climate Reanalayzer shows that average global temperature anomaly on that date was -0.1°C.

But the screenshot from today, says the anomaly was 0.25°C — a 0.35°C difference. What happened? Is the Climate Reanalyzer reanalyzing temperatures to fit the narrative?

Edit to add a couple more:

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

Certain places on our planet get hot at times. It doesn't mean the world is on fire. Just like it wasn't on fire in 1905, 1913, 1931, or 1960. This is pure unsubstantiated fear-mongering.



Debbie Kalata
@DebbieKalata
·
Agree.

Miami has only hit 100 F once on 07/21/1942.

Hottest in Arizona was 128 F on 06/28/1994.

Hottest in California was 134 on 07/10/1913.

Hope those freaking out notice both the time of year (summer) and the year (not one in this millennium).

https://twitter.com/MatthewWielicki/sta ... 77920?s=20

...

Or this:

@ChrisMartzWX

Washington, D.C. topped off at 97° today at 3:10 PM EST. It fell short of my forecast high of 99° and of the daily record 100° from 1940.

It hasn't hit the 100° mark since August 15, 2016 or in 2,537 days, the sixth longest stretch on record since 1872 and longest since 1977 (note, the chart below does not include today's data yet).

DCA will make another run for it tomorrow and again on Saturday. If we don't hit the mark either tomorrow or on Saturday, it's a pretty safe bet that we'll climb up to 5th place by August 11th.

To get 4th place, we'll have to wait until August 22 of next year. I can't guarantee that'll happen. To get first, we'll have to wait until July 30, 2027. That most likely will not happen.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status ... 79521?s=20

Or this:

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

Heat waves are the new polar bears. And like with polar bears the data doesn't fit the narrative.

The daily percent of area, in the mid latitudes, with temperatures 3 standard deviations above the baseline have actually DECREASED since 1981.

https://twitter.com/MatthewWielicki/sta ... 52192?s=20

Or this:

@Kenneth72712993

New study:

Scientists set out to verify there is a current human-induced "climate crisis" using 200 years of Greece climate data.

Instead they find decreasing extremes.

"The current period can be characterized as normal without notable climatic events".
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15091711

https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993/sta ... 84928?s=20

The above are just samples. There are other studies/datapoints out there that will counter the dominant narratives Re: "climate alarm". And, of course, there will be loud BLARINGS -- as there are here in RI -- broadcasting pro-'climate alarm' storylines.

It's up to each of us to discern where we may land on this topic.

(it may help, as well, to ask: "who are the key players pushing these dominant narratives and to what extent does this weaken or strengthen these positions, if at all?"; "Do certain entities stand to benefit, monetarily or via increased controls/power -- or both -- if the protocols/initiatives promoted by media/govts are realized?") etc.

You know, the standard type of scrutiny that should be applied to matters of clear import to the majority.

(Also: asking the above rhetorical questions does NOT, of course = being in league with the oil/gas industries, FFS. We are in a new era, folks -- if not already painfully obvious. Time to discard antiquated thinking.)

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Another example of the sheer hypocrisy among those that decry 'fossil fuels' but are OK with Military deployments. Apparently 'fossil fuels' are only an issue when THE PLEBES use it, but when the Military uses it (far, far more so than any grouping of plebes) there's SILENCE by the "climate activists".

NOTE: the below metrics are from 2017, well before recent activities in the Ukraine (among other overseas activities).

@cordeliers
The dead giveaway that the "Just Stop Oil" activists are doing the work of the ruling class is that they never protest use of fossil fuels by the US military and NATO.

Report: The U.S. Military Emits More CO2 Than Many Industrialized Nations [Infographic]

Niall McCarthy
Jun 13, 2019
...

https://twitter.com/cordeliers/status/1 ... 49824?s=20

[Joe Hillshoist]

.
Another example of the sheer hypocrisy among those that decry 'fossil fuels' but are OK with Military deployments. Apparently 'fossil fuels' are only an issue when THE PLEBES use it, but when the Military uses it (far, far more so than any grouping of plebes) there's SILENCE by the "climate activists".

NOTE: the below metrics are from 2017, well before recent activities in the Ukraine (among other overseas activities).

@cordeliers
The dead giveaway that the "Just Stop Oil" activists are doing the work of the ruling class is that they never protest use of fossil fuels by the US military and NATO.

Report: The U.S. Military Emits More CO2 Than Many Industrialized Nations [Infographic]

Niall McCarthy
Jun 13, 2019
...

https://twitter.com/cordeliers/status/1 ... 49824?s=20

Yeah cos everyone here loves the military.

Anyway don't quote me out of context. There's a 400 year old tree in Paris that wouldn't survive a 50 degree C day like the one that Neil Oliver claimed happened in Paris in 1840-something.

This is typical of you clowns. All the "data" you provide is barely data at all.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Also the climate disaster had started by 2000.

The fire seasons in Australia were already becoming more dangerous and more severe in the 1990s.

[Belligerent Savant]

My comments related to ‘climate activists’ and support of the military are not directed at RI members, but to those deluded fools blocking traffic (or emptying cartons of milk on the floor at food markets) in the name of ‘climate action’..

The data speaks for itself. As I stated, the above are samples of the data out there. You can opt to hand wave them away or consider re-assessing your (apparently entrenched) positions.

Once more I will reiterate: my core position is NOT that climate/temps aren’t shifting of late. They may be shifting — I’ve no firm position at this time on the extent of temp changes and lasting impacts, especially globally, given the myriad variations in climate-related factors per region. My core argument is that human-generated CO2 (or any CO2) is NOT nearly the influential driver of ‘climate change’ as advertised by the WHO, WEF, most 1st world govts, etc. As of now, I’d place the impact of CO2 on temperature as negligible, or perhaps less than negligible, as a DRIVER of temp changes.

AND — importantly —- NONE of the current claimed ‘mitigation’ measures will have any positive impact on climate fluctuations. They will, however, grossly/negatively impact essential human rights and threaten our free agency.

There is no justification for any restrictions imposed on humans on behalf of ‘climate mitigation’.

Pollution is separate and apart from this, to be clear, but once again, most pollution-related harms are caused by multi-national corporations and a number of countries (China, India), well before the actions of individuals, though I’m always an advocate for environmentalism and efforts to curb pollution, both individually and collectively.

[Joe Hillshoist]

My core argument is that human-generated CO2 (or any CO2) is NOT nearly the influential driver of ‘climate change’ as advertised by the WHO, WEF, most 1st world govts, etc. As of now, I’d place the impact of CO2 on temperature as negligible, or perhaps less than negligible, as a DRIVER of temp changes.

Why not?

[Belligerent Savant]

.
A number of factors, based on information I've assessed/deliberated on over the last several years. The heavy reliance on models is one red flag for me, among others. As with any topic, my position is subject to change in time.

In addition to prior content shared in this thread Re: CO2, there is the below sample commentary. It's possible these 2 scientists are compromised or captured in some way (I haven't looked into either of these individuals in detail as their positions/expressions were not part of my reading material on this topic). In other words, I don't necessarily fully endorse these individuals, but rather factor in their commentary among other data points.

As with any commentary related to "climate change", the potential for capture/ulterior motives is always in play, regardless of position. Which is why -- as with any topic -- assessing information across numerous sources is generally my approach.

Dr. John Clauser, Nobel Prize Recipient for Physics, 2022

"Contra the IPCC and other major institutions, he argues that climate is primarily set by what he refers to as the “cloud cover thermostat,” a self-regulating process whereby more clouds start to enshroud the Earth when the temperature is too high, and vice-versa. Although he accepts observations showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, he believes that gas’s effect on heat transfer is swamped by a great natural cloud cycle.
“It [the carbon dioxide] may or may not be made by human beings,” Ms. Clauser said. “It doesn’t really matter where it comes from.”
The physicist believes that objective science on climate has been sacrificed to politics. The preeminence of politics is all the worse, he said, because so much money has already gone to climate.
“We’re talking about trillions of dollars,” he said, adding that powerful people don’t want to hear that they’ve made “trillion-dollar mistakes.”
Concerns about such mistakes may have been relevant after Mr. Clauser was slated to speak before the U.N.’s International Monetary Fund (IMF) on July 25."

And this:

CLIMATE SCIENTIST Dr. Mototaka Nakamura:

"Climate models are useless pieces of junk or worse."
“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”
"Solar input is modelled as a “never changing quantity”!!!

“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”

Dr Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.

"In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura.

“Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.

He has published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics. There is no questioning the man’s credibility or knowledge base.

Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.

Nakamura writes, “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.” And while climate models are useful tools for academic studies, “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”

Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess. The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.

As well as ignoring the sun, the modelling also drastically simplifies large and small-scale ocean dynamics; aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover being one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling); the drivers of ice-albedo (“Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet”); and water vapor.

Climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.

NAKAMURA ON CO2
“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics,” continues Nakamura.

“The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”

Additionally, solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.

“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

You can read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle.

Arm yourself with the facts, and then spread them–facts such as the three collated below (all lifted from the book):

“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”

“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”

“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”

SOLAR FORCING
Solar output isn’t constant, IPCC — and the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence.

During solar minima, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al), with clouds known to play a crucial role in Earth’s climate system.

As Roy Spencer, PhD. succinctly writes:

“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

https://electroverse.info/climate-scien ... aks-ranks/

NOBEL WINNING SCIENTIST HAS IMF TALK CANCELLED OVER CLIMATE VIEWS, GROUP SAYS.
...

Dr. Clauser was due to speak to the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office under the title: “Let’s talk – How much can we trust IPCC climate predictions?”, the CO2 Coalition said – adding that “it would appear that “not a lot” isn’t the politically correct answer”.

“Clauser is a longstanding critic of climate models and criticised the award of the Physics Nobel in 2021 for work on them. He is not alone, since many feel that climate models are primarily based on mathematics, and a history of failed opinionated climate predictions leave them undeserving of recognition at the highest level of pure science,” the Coalition said.

...

Dr Clauser recently criticised the climate emergency narrative calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

He has criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming, according to a coalition of scientists and commentators who argue that an informed discussion about CO2 would recognise its importance in sustaining plant life.

In a statement issued by the CO2 coalition, Dr. Clauser said that “there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world.”

He criticized the prevalent climate models as being unreliable and not accounting for the dramatic temperature-stabilizing feedback of clouds, which he says is more than fifty times as powerful as the radiative forcing effect of CO2.

https://gript.ie/nobel-winning-scientis ... .%E2%80%9D

One more, related to the above:

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

Not only was it not helpful, but it was unscientific.

"Jim Skea, the new head of the UN's IPCC climate panel, said it was not helpful to imply that temperature increases of 1.5 degrees Celsius posed an existential threat to humanity"

Don't overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says

07/30/2023July 30, 2023

https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do ... er-sharing

[Joe Hillshoist]

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura.

Every single measurement since 1980 shows increasing temperature year on year. Its almost a straight line increase. So while 1.5 C isn't a huge extinction level increase what happens at 2.5 C, or 5 C? What about 10 C?

When does this increase in temps end?

Anyway what you've said isn't really an answer to my question. You've said these two other blokes don't agree with it. But that doesn't answer why not. There is a specific theory - radiative forcing from CO2 heat emissions- do you understand it and of you do why is it wrong?

[Belligerent Savant]

Every single measurement since 1980 shows increasing temperature year on year. Its almost a straight line increase.

"every single measurement" is flat wrong. Perhaps most of the measurements presented in major media outlets and news channels, yes. But this by no means indicates it's necessarily accurate, inclusive of all metrics, or the 'consensus' view.

Also: the LOCATION of the temp readings utilized absolutely factor into the accuracy/validity of metrics presented. Many weather stations are near asphalt runways at airports, which, for a variety of reasons tend to report higher temps. Most temp readings widely shared in mainstream sources also tend to focus on surface temps rather than air temps. Airports also tend to grow in size -- in the 1950s an airport may have been much smaller, surrounded by far less man-made structure. This, in turn, impacts temperature readings over time.

The following, too, will certainly impact temp readings and will cause bias in temperature metrics:


There are simply too many variables in play, not only with reporting criteria, MODELS utilized, and potential for bias in reporting, but also with respect to solar/volcanic/oceanic/cloud coverage activities impacting temperature fluctuations, to frame CO2 as PRIMARY cause for such fluctuations, and more importantly, to justify adoption or enforcement of policies/directives that will negatively impact livelihoods and increase control mechanisms (via 'net zero', et al).

You have your take, I have mine. Let's agree to disagree.

@FreeInduna

Fascinating when analysing the actual observed data and not "re-analysing" or "modelling". Hottest northern hemisphere June in 2023? Not by a long way.



...

https://twitter.com/FreeInduna/status/1 ... 50881?s=20

@MatthewWielicki

Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 (~250ppm) was remarkably low compared to the last 450 million years. We should have every expectation that CO2 levels will naturally rise again... like they have every time levels have been that low.


Source: Foster et al., 2017

https://twitter.com/MatthewWielicki/sta ... 36544?s=20

@MatthewWielicki

When over 66% of scientific abstracts shows the humility to not state that anthropogenic CO2 drives #climate because they appreciate the complexity of the climate system, it requires some serious mental gymnastics to claim there is a consensus... But that's exactly what happened.

https://twitter.com/MatthewWielicki/sta ... 83171?s=20




This here does not seem to support "global" warming narratives:

https://snowbrains.com/antarctica-exper ... ince-2017/

-118ºF: Antarctica Experiences World’s Lowest Temperature Since 2017
SnowBrains | July 28, 2023

The Concordia Research Station in Antarctica recorded a provisional low temperature of -117.76ºF (-83.2ºC) on July 25, marking the world’s lowest temperature in six years. The figure, still subject to official validation, was shared by Italy’s Antarctic Meteo-Climatological Observatory, along with data from the nearby Dome C II Automatic Weather Station, which also registered sub 112ºF (-80ºC) temperatures on July 24 and 25.

The Concordia Research Station, managed jointly by French and Italian scientists, is located roughly 685 miles (1,100 km) inland from Australia’s Casey Station, sitting at an elevation of approximately 10,607 feet (3,233 m) above sea level on the Antarctic Plateau. The station’s low-temperature reading is particularly remarkable, considering the last sub -117.4ºF (-83C) reading globally was in 2017.

The -117.76ºF (-83.2ºC) reading on July 25, if validated, would rank as the fifth-coldest daily value in the operational life of the Concordia Station, surpassed only by a handful of readings from 2010 and 2017, and marks a continuation of the Antarctic continent’s cooling trend.

Related to earlier commentary, on the topic of "fires":

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-ch ... w-713ad3a6

Climate Change Hasn’t Set the World on Fire
It turns out the percentage of the globe that burns each year has been declining since 2001.

By Bjorn Lomborg
July 31, 2023

And:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... me-weather

Most fires in Greece were started ‘by human hand’, government says
Official blames negligence or arson for majority of 667 blazes that spread in extreme heat

Fri 28 Jul 2023

[Grizzly]

European Parliament meeting on the W.H.O and their coup d’etat.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetsilver/comments/15ga6tk/european_parliament_meeting_on_the_who_and_their/

Guess somebunall will find a way to defend this, too...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetsilver/comments/15ga6tk/european_parliament_meeting_on_the_who_and_their/

From the last post about a gentleman paying with cash, I see there are still some people who literally don’t understand what’s going on. Maybe it’s all too much to take in, maybe it’s so totalitarian and egregious, it’s hard to believe, maybe because people don’t have the bandwidth to understand…either way, due diligence post here. Get to know what’s going on.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
This person essentially echoed and neatly summarized many of the sentiments I’ve expressed over the last ~10 or so pages of this thread in the following series of tweets.

Northern variant
@FUDdaily

I am what many would describe as a "climate denier" because I'm unconvinced the wall of climate propaganda bears any relation to what is happening in the real world. I also don't think that computer simulations stuffed with assumptions and estimates give us a real picture of a chaotic system like climate. But you are free to disagree with me and call me a climate denier if you wish. I don't mind.

I'm entitled to object, though, when I'm being asked to sacrifice my economic freedoms for this agenda, when there is so little evidence that the proposed remedial measures will meaningfully improve the environment.

I'm not by any means an environmentalist, but I am a conservationist. I do believe in preserving habitats and controlling pollution. Having watched green ideology take control of the legislative agenda I've been horrified by its real world effects.

Recycling, for starters, is an energy intensive process that requires an enormous amount of heat, electricity and water. It's very often not a cost effective process and because we offshored it, it's done in light touch regulatory regimes which leads to massive pollution. We can also see how our exported waste ends up in Malaysian and Turkish landfill - and we see how our discarded garments end up in African rivers.

As for Net Zero, we're talking about a transition to a mineral intensive energy system that will require 900x the current levels of mineral extraction. To get at these minerals we end up either strip mining the Congo using child labour, or mining the seabed, destroying ocean habitats. Worse still, China controls all of these minerals so we're reliant on a despotic communist regime where human rights and democracy simply don't exist - where slave labour is employed in the production of most solar panels.

Worse still, we end up wasting many of these minerals because many cannot be profitably recycled, and we waste valuable materials on long transmission cables to recover pitiful amounts of intermittent energy from remote windfarms. Then if you're bothered about carbon emissions, you need to take a closer look at mining and mineral extraction. It is not by any means green. It's highly polluting and ends up poisoning groundwater sources and rivers.

As for "green energy" none of it functions without fossil fuel backup, and nobody serious thinks vast battery storage facilities are in any way an answer to long term wind droughts. Even if they were, that's an awful lot of virgin minerals and metals we would need.

Even if you could persuade me that the world is heating up because of human activity, I simply don't buy that the Net Zero transition is affordable, clean or green. It's an abomination and it will not make an iota of difference to the climate. To then insist that we should be robbed blind to implement it is nothing short of psychopathic.

8:13 AM · Aug 2, 2023

https://twitter.com/FUDdaily/status/168 ... 14690?s=20

[Joe Hillshoist]

The fucken Wall St Journal. Its a Murdoch owned paper for the 1% and you've got the nerve to come post it on here.

You dickhead! Its the most establishment MSM rag there is and you're posting it here while claiming everyone else is fooled by the MSM. You've got less self awareness than the average amobea.

Because I'm not giving Murdoch any more of my moeny than I have to, i can't read that, but if they're claiming that in 2022 less of the world burned than any other year is that any surprise? At the very start of 2022 a volcano erupted in Tonga and pumped megalitres and more of water into the stratosphere in the biggest eruption since Krakatoa.

That's why so many floods have happened since. Its also why the weather is slightly cooler this year. All the dust in the atmosphere... Its a pity we can't rely on these 1 in every 150 year eruptions to keep things cooler all the time.

Of course you'd know that if you ever actually thought about any of this instead of being a CNS free conduit for whatever propaganda catches your fancy this week.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Of course I know what the fucking WSJ is, and who owns it. I share it here as a REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE. The actual data still exists outside of the WSJ. You do realize that, right? The WSJ piece will have its slant -- as ALL news sources will, skewed according to whatever their objectives/directives are -- but the raw data exists elsewhere.

The point of ANY information shared HERE is that it is never intended to be exhaustive or complete. These are pieces of data among many other pieces of data and sources that should be assessed when forming a position (stating what I presume is self-evident, blah blah blah)

(Once more, though, I'll point out that my objections are not with the current temperature/climate, per se, but the reasons provided for why there may be fluctuations in temps, and the proposed 'solutions' offered by all those big entities out there -- yes, much bigger than Murdoch, even.)

[stickdog99]

I don't think that we know the exact details of how Gaia's temperature regulation system works.

In the past, Gaia has recovered completely from far greater cataclysms than the bad case of dandruff that human activity represents to Gaia, including far greater concentrations of, CO2, methane, and nitrogen byproducts.

It is typical human-centric hubris not to acknowledge both this fact and the limitations of our own knowledge of Gaia's self-regulation.

Now imagine how laughable "worse fires in one part of the world during one human's lifetime" is to Gaia in determining her self-regulation trends. It's like imagining that a single sunspot means the Sun is definitely dying.

That said, humans do have the ability to fuck up their environment for other humans, and thus should make every attempt to be more circumspect in their impact on the Earth.

But how many times must the dogma that right now definitely represents Gaia's millennial tipping point in one fashion or another play out in human history before humans begin to acknowledge their self-aggrandizing delusional psychosis?

In short, humans are causing environmental problems, but that doesn't mean that humans are causing a "scientifically proven" existential environmental crisis. And we need to act accordingly.

Most importantly, we need to actively resist any Shock Doctrine implementations of otherwise unacceptable policies that restrict the rights and lower the quality of the average human's life in the name of "saving Gaia."

It is simply not rational to believe that climate change is the one and only crisis of our lifetimes in which the elites are only trying to do what is best for us.

So please wake up from your dream.