Friday, 18 May 2018

That Old Chestnut, It's all Lies but not the Climate Change Thing? Go Figure.







If there is one thing that my years immersed in alt media has taught me, it’s that much of what I ‘know’, is fake knowledge. So I would agree with the idea of re-evaluation. It may or may not lead to new ideas. I know that I accepted for the longest time all of the propaganda about North Korea, until recent years when alt media began reporting real news about it’s leaders and the country, as one example. And in the last 2 days, I have been given some info that makes me see climate crisis in a different light. Yes, I believe that there’s a climate crisis, if only because How can there not be? (You can’t throw a wrench into complex, operating machinery and get a good outcome.) But Barbara McKenzie sure gave me some food for thought in regard to that subject. I’m now a little less disappointed with the folks (or is it just Patrick Henningsen?) at 21st Century Wire for their pooh poohing of preachers of climate crisis.
Like
1
0

Rate This

  • Mulga Mumblebrain
    Sorry, Arrby, but Mckenzie’s thesis is cobblers. A regurgitation of long disproved denialist tropes, the quoting of outright denialist charlatans, very hoary denialist smears (‘Gore made money’!)all cobbled together with a stupid thesis that war somehow (no science, of course, just ideological belief and hope) ‘warms’ the planet, but NOT by its massive use of fossil fuels, which would only strengthen the anthropogenic climate destabilisation caused by emissions of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion hypothesis.
    Like
    0
    0

    Rate This
  • https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/re-framing-war-on-carbon-carbon-surplus.html
    There is a pedagogical deficit in public education on Climate evidenced by ignorance of the Carbon Cycle, this is hampering debate on solutions such as those proposed by Tony Lovell in the soil carbon video (At the end of this post). Partial solutions are often attacked vigorously as a climate (no pun intended) of ad hominem dominates responses to anything not fitting the bag of nails demanded of the War on Carbon, ´´CO2 as pollution´´, hammer.
    http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/06/was-inconvienient-truth-always.html
    Al Gores Movie, An Inconvenient Truth has been comprehensively De-Bunked, Particularly Michael Manns Hockey Stick. It has been discredited so much in fact that one British High Court Judge recommended it should not be shown in schools without an appropriate erratum message.
    “The judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained nine scientific errors and thus must be accompanied by an explanation of those errors before being shown to school children. The judge said that showing the film without the explanations of error would be a violation of education laws.”
    “BBC News. October 11, 2007. Retrieved March 21, 2015.
    How You Can Be Absolutely Certain That Mainstream Media Lies About Everything
    Caitlin Johnstone
    28355
    One thing that puzzles me is why when draws the conclusion that the MSM is a lie machine, Which I agree with. Then why is it the Anthropogenic Global Warming due to the CO2 Hypothesis is somehow a Truth that the MSM is Consistently Telling? I can not reconcile that contradiction, I am curious how you do yourself?
    Addicted to Distracted By Bruce Charlton Makes for compelling if Uncomfortable reading.
    http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.se/
    It will offend most readers but he has a very good point, I do not share his pessimism but the rest is hard to argue with.
    “People and events presented by the media as Good are always, in reality, bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually (but not always) Good — and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
    Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
    Thus, the major output of the modern International Mass Media consists of only four categories:
    1. Good presented as bad
    2. Bad presented as Good
    (That is to say simple inversion)
    3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
    4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
    (That is to say explanatory inversion)
    These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high-impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.
    Therefore those who want to free their minds from the Mass Media must first avoid as much Mass Media output as possible, and secondly develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the Mass Media output which they cannot avoid”.
    https://off-guardian.org/2017/06/17/the-revolution-is-being-televised-but-why/
    Like
    0
    0

    Rate This
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
12

Awaiting moderation
The Nuclear bomb testing actually provides some interesting challenges to the Global Warming AGW hypothesis which claims that Human-caused CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere longer than natural emissions by tracking the Carbon Isotopes unique to Nuclear atmospheric detonations these residency time conjectures are empirically falsified.
Here are two PDF’s I put together with a lot of the relevant science
For me the very best Scientific SIte challenging the HYpothesis is The Rocket Science Journal.

Updated 13.01 pm Swedish Time.


    • Mulga Mumblebrain
      Your repeated disinformation efforts are quite fanatical-I wonder what drives you. You speak of soil carbon as a ‘solution’ (true, and one that must be undertaken) but a ‘solution’ to what? You have vociferously denied that there is an anthropogenic climate destabilisation problem, so why search for solutions to a problem that does not exist? The ‘hockey-stick’ distribution in regard to global average temperatures is settled science, reproduced by scores of other climate scientists. Moreover, the pattern, of a long steady-state in the Holocene, punctuated by excursions explained by science, but accelerating sharply upwards, at increasing pace, from 200 years ago, has been demonstrated now in innumerable other natural systems. It’s like denying the Laws of Physics, but you’re down to that task I am sure.
      One ‘judge’ ELEVEN years ago is the best you can do-who can deny that denialists fanatics are nothing if not nostalgics? Got anything more recent, and do you go to ‘judges’ for health matters, or consult them on other matters of science?
      Where I live, at least half the fakestream media, the Murdoch cancer, talk-back radio, and the business Fairfax press, are still denialists, like you, of varying toxicity, and the non-deranged media more or less ignores it, as if it will go away. I see plenty of fakestream media swill, which you no doubt deeply imbibe, in the UK and USA, that is also ferociously denialist. Your thesis becomes even more shabby when one applies the ‘follow the money’ trail. Where is the money in regard to the question of anthropogenic climate destabiliation caused by greenhouse gas emissions? Why, with the fossil fuel industry, the greatest concentration of wealth and power in all end-stage capitalism, whose assets are valued in the tens of trillions. That’s why creatures like you can suck on the teat of a vast industry of disinformation, doing your little bit to hasten your own (I suppose) species’ end.
      Like
       
      0
       
      0
       
      Rate This