Jun 18, 2023·edited Jun 18, 2023Liked by Jo Waller
It's easy to spin a false narrative about global mean surface temperature history, especially when presenting very misleading graphs of proxy temperatures with instrumental temperatures tacked on the end to show an apparent sharp rise coincident with the Industrial Revolution, implying that CO2 is the culprit. But real world data contradicts that narrative, frequently. Here is just one example:
The fact is, the world started warming rapidly a long time before the Industrial Revolution, just after the coldest period of the Little Ice Age (1645-1715: the Maunder Minimum), which was probably the coldest the planet has been since the beginning of the present interglacial, the Holocene. The Minoan, Roman and possibly even Medieval Warm Periods were all significantly warmer than today. The planet cooled significantly from the 1950s to the 1970s, so significantly that scientists were warning that we might be headed for a new Ice Age. Guess what? 'Scientists' were gearing up to blame man-made aerosols from transport and industry for the 'catastrophic' cooling. Then it started to warm rapidly after the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976, so they switched to blaming CO2 for rapid warming instead! The 'climate crisis' is a confidence trick and too many people have fallen for it. Extreme weather is not becoming more extreme, the Antarctic and Greenland are not melting away and sea level is not rising 'catastrophically'. Facts which can be verified using actual observations and empirical data. We're not all going to die in a man-made Thermageddon any time soon. The biggest threat to humanity comes from the 'crisis' manufacturers and their 'solutions' to those fake 'crises'.
Hiya. I don't know if you can get access to this paper by Hansen in 1981 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17789014/ which shows when volcanoes and sun activity. is taken into account the cooling in the 50s and 60s is consistent with a correlation between co2 and temperature
Jun 18, 2023·edited Jun 18, 2023Liked by Jo Waller
Thanks, those links are not open access so I can't really comment. But as far as ocean heat content is concerned, which is really the more meaningful metric of global warming because 90% of heat is stored in the oceans, the MWP OHC exceeds that of the most recent decades, as does the Holocene Thermal Optimum, by a considerable amount.
Hi, seems to show cores from 2 areas in Indonesia, not world composites, showing 1 or 2 degrees warmer in the HTO than the 1900s and 0.65 degrees warmer in MWP than recent decades (before 2013), when 2016-22 have been hottest ever.
In any case it being hot before doesn't mean that human activity is not also increasing the temperature, especially as the rate is so unusually steep.
There's a wealth of scientific research here published in 2017 which strongly suggests that the current warm period is not exceptional in terms of past warm episodes, globally. In particular, note Rosenthal et al, 2017:
“Here we review proxy records of intermediate water temperatures from sediment cores and corals in the equatorial Pacific and northeastern Atlantic Oceans, spanning 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. These records suggests that intermediate waters [0-700 m] were 1.5-2°C warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than in the last century. Intermediate water masses cooled by 0.9°C from the Medieval Climate Anomaly to the Little Ice Age. These changes are significantly larger than the temperature anomalies documented in the instrumental record. The implied large perturbations in OHC and Earth’s energy budget are at odds with very small radiative forcing anomalies throughout the Holocene and Common Era. … The records suggest that dynamic processes provide an efficient mechanism to amplify small changes in insolation [surface solar radiation] into relatively large changes in OHC.”
The rate of change of OHC as measured over short time scales by Argo floats in the modern era cannot be directly compared to rates of change of OHC or mean surface temperature recorded via proxies. There is considerable bias in the modern instrumental record which gives the impression of 'unusually rapid' or even 'unprecedented' changes. E.g. Buntgen et al, 2017:
“Spanning the period 1186-2014 CE, the new reconstruction reveals overall warmer conditions around 1200 and 1400, and again after ~1850.
Little agreement is found with climate model simulations that consistently overestimate recent summer warming and underestimate pre-industrial temperature changes. … [W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased."
Thank you for bringing to my attention the role of cobalt in electric powered devices like cars and smart phones. The history of Congo is painful, a look at colonialism (which we must realize has been practiced world-wide) and the modern government of Congo’s role in continuing the destruction of the land and of the people. I find myself wondering how that govt. benefits, e.g., who is paying them and how much.
I found the end of the video less than satisfying and ultimately insulting. It was clear to me that the beginning of a solution falls to the likes of Tesla and Apple to (1) create a replacement power source and (2) demand humane mining. Actually the video does not demand either. Instead it pretends that replacing cobalt in batteries is a programming task — which it is not, that is an engineering task. It also ignores the collusion of the national govt. of Congo in this state of affairs and their so-called business partners, which I would not be surprised were international corporations, many headquartered in the USA.
I am still not convinced that the weather is changing because of increased atmospheric CO2. I am not opposed to reducing our consumption of petroleum and coal because mining (extraction), refining, transport, and consumption currently introduce toxins into our environment - toxins that make us sick. Blaming these ills on the 1% is easy, but perhaps more chest-beating than realistic; leading by example is usually the task of religious leaders, not the wealthy. Asking me to do without heat in my home in order to consume less CO2 is cruel: my home was built to codes that assume it will be heated by natural gas and/or electricity (at least in the USA), I have no alternative. Asking me to give up my gasoline-powered car is cruel because it works, it’s paid for, and it does the job I need — and I know I am not at risk of EMR from a damned electric battery.
Getting one or more industries to change their ways without making it financially attractive to them is unlikely to be accomplished with laws and regulations because govts. will resist — those industries regularly pay regulators and, in the US, Congress folk just so the industries are protected from unwanted demands. In the so-called free nations, the public is probably the best place to start, and that with a carrot instead of a stick. However, this constant lying about “climate change” will go only so far. Honesty is a good place to start. Talk about the blood, sweat, and tears that produce the cobalt for those phones and cars — at the same time working with “industry” and govts around the world to effect change. Colonialism is still in play.
For a public worn out by demands to be “woke” and accepting of the LGBQT+ agenda, the attention on batteries may be a reach too far.
And, in closing, I DO NOT AGREE THAT HOMO SAPIENS ARE THE SCOURGE OF THE EARTH!
Read this first thing in the morning. 😬 I still think we are innovative beings with an exponential factor of creativity. Don’t sign us off yet. Gaia can recognise the effort humanity can make toward revitalising her. Maybe we’ll be a part of the greatest love story to come.
Jordan Peterson has taken to Twitter in his criticism of the validity of Pope Francis’ Christianity . . . Never mind that Peterson is supposedly an atheist . . . and that the Popes all wear a yarmulke and all pay homage to the Hebrew god Satan at the Wailing Wall in their obeisance to the Jews . . .
Peterson believes that the American Israeli Political Action Committee is the official religion of the United States government . . . which really isn’t that far off the mark . . . but, Peterson is also a Canadian and doesn’t have a kippa like the Pope does, how does he get to claim he has rabbinical authority here? Maybe it’s because he’s over at the (((Daily Wire))) with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin . . .
I don't think human activity affects temperatures in the slightest. I mean, negligible amounts here and there, but there are far greater inputs that people conveniently choose to ignore. On the scale of an individual life, none of this matters. On a larger scale... it matters even less.
This is where I am too, we are but a mere irrelevance compared to all other factors that effect the temperature of the earth. That doesn't mean that we are not dirty and destructive in so many other ways, but that's only because we are all trying to get by within the system that were slaves in.
Yes, pollution is obviously the problem that we are struggling with... we don't really solve it by sweeping it under the carpet (shifting industrial processes to other countries). The temperature cycles have always been there (on other planets too) and were not caused by human activity and will not be tamed because latte sipping liberals choose to drive a prius! Behold the conceit of narcissism!
It's ok to zoom out a little and view our planetary experience here as relatively insignificant when measured on a cosmic scale. That doesn't mean that we have to get all nihilistic and down tools and what not, or abandon the idea that God or Base Level underlies every single function in said cosmos because I certainly believe that's the case (and maybe that's why I take a more humble approach to our "influence" here), but just realize that human activity as it stands today is on a scale of less than an atoms worth of relevance within the Milky Way galaxy which is but one of billions of galaxies in "our neighborhood".
And, of course, the flat earthers are perfectly welcome to shoot down that model and explain to me that all is an illusion and that our "experience" here is even more guided by a deity than I would subscribe to, but then... if that turns out to be true... we end up in the same place! None of this is on us --- Nature makes us do this... God makes us do this... the end result (if there even is one because it can all go south at any time) is beyond our control, again, because there are greater forces at work here.
If humans or our hybrid progeny are to stick around, it'll be because these niggling issues get solved here on Earth (in one way or another) or whatever grows out of our activity expands into nearby space colonies. Some humans don't like that scenario, but I'm just trying to be honest here. If any of you ascribe to evolutionary theory, then why does anyone think this is as far as it goes for this particularly competent branch of adaptive organisms? I believe we're going through a rapid process of change as we speak and what comes out of it may be unrecognizable to us because the chains have been removed from the imagination engine.
I can't agree with you on this. Misreading the very first graph you showed, made me totally unwilling to read most of what else you posited. The graph did not end in 1885. It is to 2004. (the present when it was made) If you look closely you will see that the time line is so compressed that there is no room for another date to be squeezed in by 2004.
Hi Greg I believe the paper was written in 2004 but was using a data set of an ice core that doesn't go up to modern day. It ended in 1855 though there is a typo on the graph saying 1885 which is the last date and has a circle around the data point. The graph is not from the original paper but is using that data. If you watch the video it shows what the graph would look like in the 21st century.
Arrg I broke my promise! So Greg, did you read it? I didn't know much about climate change, just that I'd been told I was a fool to believe it and that it had been sort of been generally debunked. I was completely wrong.
Short answer. "Climate Change" is Globalist control propaganda. "Planetary Pollution" is the real problem. And guess who is most guilty. The Globalist/Corporate/Military Complexes. THEY cause the huge environmental problems and then blame us for using plastic straws.
Here's the 2004 author Richard Alley on this using of the historical ice core data being made into various different graphs 'So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.'
Oh dear. First of all we don't live on a ball. Secondly they've been geoengineering since the early 1900s. That means they're destroying our weather patterns (HAARP, nexrad, etc) and causing weather warfare. Any article trying to help the world wake up needs to tell the truth at this stage of the game. It is important to really do your due diligence, especially now, when time is tight. There is no carbon created climate change, what garbage. Carbon makes plants grow ffs! It is all bullshit science which, I thought you were really good at exposing. Sounds like for you is the deep dive into Flat Earth then you won't get it-wrong next time?
I realise carbon is the basic unit of life, there’s nothing toxic about it, it’s essential. So is water, which when vapour is also apparently a greenhouse gas. I have nothing against water either. It’s lovely, I love drinking it. Some seem to want deliberately misunderstand what's being said. The human activities of cutting down oxygen producing, carbon dioxide receiving trees and burning them seems to be having an effect. That is all. Neither carbon dioxide, nor water are harmful.
Oh wow, Amandha. Not you too? I agree with you on the claims that "climate change" is bs and that any major alterations in weather patterns are most likely due to geoengineering (Dane Wigington my source for this). But…flat earth?!
Flat earth can be easily debunked by traditional metaphysics. As a circle/sphere has no beginning point and no end point, it represents Eternity, and for this simple reason, God would not create a flat object on which life can be created and flourish. It is anti-metaphysical, i.e., unnatural, going against the principles of sacred geometry. In short, only a sphere can be a celestial object on which life can exist.
But now I’m curious about this, as you are the third person in the last week that I’ve encountered who believes in a flat earth. Can you share your sources?
Incidentally, we experienced our own geoengineered mini-hurricane here in Northern Thailand in April (we are 230 miles to the nearest ocean), which we later heard was the result of local cloud seeding. Extensive damage everywhere, including hundreds of felled trees, power lines, roof damage (hole produced in my own townhouse via the storm and some flooding), patio glass doors blown out, etc.
Yeah, I thought at first that the flat earth comment was an ironic joke at my poor scientific understanding and reasoning.
Are all the 'conspiracies' obligatory? Is Macca dying in 1966 the last one that will be proved to be true?
I don't see how we can converse about weather when we don't even have the observable orbits of the moon and the space station (and its pictures- one of which showed my road where I used to live in Wimbledon lit up at night- that's a hell of a long length to go to fool me) in common.
Well, while for me, the earth is a ball, I am open to anyone with a good unexplainable anomoly, and may one day be swayed. With regard to the space station and the orbits of the moon, there are alternate explanations for all this and more when you listen to a died in the wool flat earther, not just one of those crazy types that they debunk on YouTube. As for temperature readings and changes, there are soo many variables, liers, contributing factors that I dont think that any surgs like us will ever really KNOW the truth. All I do know is that those net zero bastards couldn't care less for the earth or us. Im anti pollution, I believe the free clean energy energy is everywhere and that someone somewhere has the blueprints to access it. We, however, will never see those plans, so what do we do.
Me again. Though I'm not convinced by your arguments regarding warming and CO2, I certainly do agree with you regarding the "elites" desire to continue to profit from the degradation of environmental and human systems. Etc.
I wonder, have you come across the website The Consciousness of Sheep? The owner of the site DOES agree with you regarding climate change, though his primary focus is on economics and, significantly, peak oil. He's an exceptional essayist imo, and worth a few of hours of anyone's time. I think you'll very much appreciate his perspective as well as the wealth of information he provides. Better yet, he's Welsh! https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk
OMG 'Money – an awful lot of ill-gotten money – aside, the main achievement of conferences like COP and its techno-psychotic Davos cousin has been to increase the numbers of people who believe the whole thing to be a hoax.' this is AWESOME
I'm a little confused by those here who claim climate scientists have a financial motivation for pushing their theses. Maybe?? But don't you all realize that climate denial is insanely lucrative for the extractive industries? Come on, let's be consistent here folks.
Thanks David, yes! The extractive industries set to earn £trillions more if they're allowed to. The 'renewables' becoming cheaper and cheaper and oil more and more expensive, and lucrative, too.
Hi Jo. Great article. I wanted to reach out to you bc of your well researched writings, especially here regarding climate science. I've been reading Michael Shellenberger's book Apocalypse Never. I was starting to think maybe I'd been wrong about the climate crisis. But the further I got into the book, the more I began to believe that his research and conclusions are wildly off the mark. It's distressing bc I like a lot about his work, especially on free speech and his work on the Twitter files with Matt Taibbi. I'm finding more and more that people who are on the mark on one issue can be wildly off the mark on others. I guess we're all fallible. But I think it's really important to be able to challenge people like him in the public sphere and have them defend their propositions against others. He and others have insisted that Peter Hotez debate RFK on vaccines. I'd like to see some scientists debate Shellenberger on his work. How do you see that possibly happening? I'd love your thoughts and a continued dialogue. Thanks. David
Hey David, thank you so much for your comment, not only for your compliment and encouragement but for letting me know that you also find the presence of clear sightedness on one issue and complete blindness on another in the same person very disorienting. I really like Shellenberger and Taibbi too.
Yes debates are good but they have to based on the literature not opinion. Some of the climate scientists are doing good work picking apart the claims of skeptics, a really good one is Rosh on 'all about the climate', very underrated but full of scientific content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IqfsU0jcI&t=2s it's not a debate but it seems clear to me that if the skeptic was given a chance for a reply they would not be able to support their opinion with evidence.
RFK has got great points on vaccines, they are tested against aluminium adjuvants 'placebos' so toxic effects are masked, there are no long term studies, but in interviews I've seen the interviewer just denies this, so for someone not familiar with the literature, they wouldn't know who it believe.
But there is a wider problem, that we are being deliberately divided into left and right etc and deliberately targeted with social media to hate the other side - Matt Taibbi's book Hate Inc is excellent on how the media do this for profit! Debates might even feed into this taking of sides. That is what I found with the climate science when I looked into it. People just see that I'm saying there's evidence and start countering with all the denial they have picked up from the media they've been targeted with and are not willing to discuss it. They just move on to another soundbite they've picked up from the other 'side'. Or what is now ubiquitous is that any argument for climate change or suggestions to improve the environment are dismissed out of hand as being controlled by the kill joy left wing and/or communists.
You are right no one is discussing the argument. We discredit or admire people etc but there is no space for discussion of the actual arguments involved.
Jo, I agree that we've been divided into teams. Taibbi's book Hate Inc. is what really opened my eyes. When Trump was elected, I watched Maddow and her ilk on MSNBC and bought into the hype, even so-called Russiagate. But his book awakened me. Then, with Covid and my distrust of "conventional" medicine in my struggles with Chronic Lyme., it all became clear. We are being lied to in order to drive eyeballs and make money for the media giants and big Pharma. No debate, no discussion. I think back to the era of Buckley and Chomsky debating. It was so illuminating. And of course the esteemed Phil Donahue who often times had on controversial figures whom he would challenge and debate with. Those days are long gone. I've dreamed for years that our media would spend a few hours each week having debates on important subjects with the rules of debate in place. I was on my high school and college debate teams and learned so much during those forums. But the desire for people to really engage in subject matter, I'm afraid, is gone. the age of the 30 second soundbite and 240 word Tweet is ubiquitous now. I'm afraid most Americans no longer have the capacity OR desire to spend the time necessary to understand the issues. But, with podcasts like Rogan and Brand and Greenwald and the like, maybe, just maybe the younger generation will re-engage. Are YOU hopeful? Thanks again for the dialogue. It's good to know there are others out there who are willing to take the time to discuss.
Hiya, I have never been interested in debating before, certainly not when I was young. I became vegan for the animals 8 years ago and was interested to see how industry funds and designs studies to deliberately show what they want and how the media misrepresents the facts. My distrust of conventional medicine, having worked for the NHS for 20 years, came from then as many cancers, CVD, depression and 'auto-immune' diseases can be prevented with diet but nobody is talking about it, it's all about the interventions and cure. and the money.
Covid I knew from the beginning was a scam to make us take the vaccine but it opened my eyes to other vaccines and chemotherapy. So I guess I became interested in trying to learn how to communicate what I had learned.
I'm not sure about Rogan and Brand. I've seen them 'debate' but really it's just one of them at a time saying what they think. It's nowhere near a scientific debate.
I did see the amazing Kathleen Stock at the Oxford Union debating the right to offend, which she won, although her speech, which is meant to be given as a lecture was continually interrupted. I don't think anyone knows how to debate at all.
I am not hopeful no. Like you say attention has been stolen from young people. I don't see how they can get it back without switching of the internet.
Thanks Jo. I will say briefly that Rogan and especially Brand have had debate formats. Most of their shows are entertainment, which unfortunately is necessary these days to capture peoples attention. But there's some real substance at times. Brands interview with Jordan Peterson was great. Rogans interview with Peter Hotez( before Covid) was very illuminating. Rogan will fact check OR confirm what guests say in real time on his podcast. Few are willing to do that. Greenwald often times has vigorous debates. He had RFK Jr, Marianne Williamson and Cornell West on his show. But all that being said, what we really need is long form debates with moderators in the old Socratic method. But I don't think many Americans have the appetite for that unfortunately. Also, you may be familiar with the Munk debates. Those have been very illuminating.
Hi David, I was going to say 'you're joking aren't you?' Rogan's fact checking involves getting his minion to google things. However when looking for the link which mocks this, I came across an actual literature based discussion on Rogan about the Gamechangers film between its director James Wilks and an 'ancestral' nutritionist Chris Kresser- it's a bit unfair as Wilks obviously has a much stronger grip of the science and he wipes the floor with him. Here's a review of the interview which is apparently 4 hours long https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3zHsve9jFo
Hi Jo. So am I correct in assuming that you are acknowledging that on occasion Rogan does have good vigorous debates? I think that’s what you’re saying here. And that was my point. A lot of his show is entertainment. But he does have opposing sides debate, which is exactly what I think we need. By the way, I met AND spoke with Kresser years ago, here in Boulder, at a Paleo conference, and was not impressed.
Jo, I would also say that although I agree that doing fact checking on the fly on Google is fraught with problems. However, sometimes he does link to credible sites, not just someone else’s opinion on the Internet. It’s certainly not an ideal format for debate. But at least he doesn’t allow as guests to just spew garbage unchallenged, which is what most media does in 30 second soundbites.
Thanks so much Maybe. Yes I have haven't I. I didn't know much about this subject till this weekend but now I see the same objections repeated, such as taking a couple of sediment estimates in one area and drawing conclusions instead of talking global means.
People seem to accept climate has been debunked cos other people, like. JP. say so, but haven't looked into it for themselves.
I've read a ton about climate this past year. Unfortunately, the science is way, way, way beyond me, but I can recognize a good website when I see it: What's App With That?
They have debunked everything the alarmists and the alarmed are saying. In studying the major markers over the last 30 years, they have all either improved or stayed the same.
We've been subjected to end-of-the-world scenarios since my mother told me they were being told (in the 1960s) we'd be living underwater by 2000. Only one guy that I know of lived under water, and that was in a lagoon for maybe 100 days.
Then Greta said we'd be dead, and I think that deadline also passed.
The increase in CO2 (and guess what, even that is debatable) has led to a massive increase in agriculture. As has the warmer weather. Far, far more people die of the cold than the heat.
Just like with the corona, we're being fed a new set of lies. And these ones tap into a whole different set of fears. Once our fears have been tapped into, we skim over the good things out there and have a magnifying glass on the fear-stoking "evidence".
The climate lies may be entirely fed to us to garner control over us and take things away for the sheer pleasure of taking them away from us (there are people like that), or the elites may also be scared. The godless are prone to fear to a degree the far exceeds that which they'd feel if they felt God was in charge.
I have spent my life without a car and being very careful with every single thing I use, but as soon as Al Gore came on the scene with his book and his $20,000 electric bill, I knew there was a massive scam afoot.
Even your post is beyond me science-wise. I like to understand things completely, and there are basics in any climate claim that involved knowing a lot about the climate. I'd have 1,000 questions and need to research this for years. So instead I'm going by pattern recognition (there's a script), money trails, are the pushers leading by example, is the effort being led with fear, etc? And are the people who believe it afraid? So all of this registers to me as scam and control-grabbing. Members of congress years ago supposedly invested in LED light bulbs, security cameras, wind and solar.
I think you speak for a lot of people. This whole field has become politicised and tribal. The facts of the climate debate are a very long way from being resolved and counter-claim soon follows claim by one side or the other. You are right to believe none of it.
We might have hoped that our governments would realise by now that policies hastily made in an atmosphere of fear turn out to be very bad for most of us.
Maybe the view from a private jet at 35000 feet is different.
I am all for protecting the environment and the technology is already available to solve a lot of the problems. Solar panels are amazing 25 years of totally free electricity is a no brainer. Small modular nuclear reactors can fill any gaps in the renewable grid. The major problem is the environment has been hijacked, and is being tortured to further the globalist agenda of a bunch of pyschopathic billionaires who could not care less about the environment. With the WEF in charge it is sure to be a bigger shitshow than the "The Great Leap Forward" millions are going to be starved to death.
As Kenneth Vinther pointed out in his review of Scott Howard’s The Transgender-Industrial Complex (2020) at Counter Currents, transgenderism is a thoroughly kosher campaign: “at the top of the [transgender] pyramid rests a series of charming Jewish billionaires...”
The race between total destruction and the great awakening that's occurring is neck and neck right now. When things seem hopeless, I like to remind myself that we are consciousness. All life is part of the larger consciousness system and consciousness cannot be destroyed. It's so important to do our best to care for the planet and the creatures on it because we want to leave a world where there are more beautiful experiences and choices for future generations to inherit, but we're going to reincarnate into some body, somewhere no matter what happens.
For what it's worth, I think humanity will wake up in time to heal ourselves and the planet. To usher in a time when freedom flourishes, love pervades, and biodiversity heals through getting back to regenerative farming and ditching all the chemicals and plastics. It seems like we're out of time, but the greatest societal shifts often happen in months, not decades. The lies have become too obvious to ignore and once a certain percent of humanity sees them, the domino effect begins and the oligarchs' centuries of oppression stops dead in its tracks.
We need all the people with beautiful hearts like yours to continue the fight no matter what !!!
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol No. 6 – Take-Over Technique (agriculture) . . .
❝We shall raise the rate of wages which, however, will not bring any advantage to the workers, for, at the same time, we shall produce a rise in prices of the first necessaries of life, alleging that it arises from the decline of agriculture and cattle-breeding: we shall further undermine artfully and deeply sources of production, by accustoming the workers to anarchy . . .❞
It's easy to spin a false narrative about global mean surface temperature history, especially when presenting very misleading graphs of proxy temperatures with instrumental temperatures tacked on the end to show an apparent sharp rise coincident with the Industrial Revolution, implying that CO2 is the culprit. But real world data contradicts that narrative, frequently. Here is just one example:
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/austrian-summers-were-3-6c-warmer
The fact is, the world started warming rapidly a long time before the Industrial Revolution, just after the coldest period of the Little Ice Age (1645-1715: the Maunder Minimum), which was probably the coldest the planet has been since the beginning of the present interglacial, the Holocene. The Minoan, Roman and possibly even Medieval Warm Periods were all significantly warmer than today. The planet cooled significantly from the 1950s to the 1970s, so significantly that scientists were warning that we might be headed for a new Ice Age. Guess what? 'Scientists' were gearing up to blame man-made aerosols from transport and industry for the 'catastrophic' cooling. Then it started to warm rapidly after the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976, so they switched to blaming CO2 for rapid warming instead! The 'climate crisis' is a confidence trick and too many people have fallen for it. Extreme weather is not becoming more extreme, the Antarctic and Greenland are not melting away and sea level is not rising 'catastrophically'. Facts which can be verified using actual observations and empirical data. We're not all going to die in a man-made Thermageddon any time soon. The biggest threat to humanity comes from the 'crisis' manufacturers and their 'solutions' to those fake 'crises'.
Hiya. I don't know if you can get access to this paper by Hansen in 1981 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17789014/ which shows when volcanoes and sun activity. is taken into account the cooling in the 50s and 60s is consistent with a correlation between co2 and temperature
The latest 2021 shows that the latest analysis of the Medieval warm period shows that it wasn't that warm https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34759364/
Thanks, those links are not open access so I can't really comment. But as far as ocean heat content is concerned, which is really the more meaningful metric of global warming because 90% of heat is stored in the oceans, the MWP OHC exceeds that of the most recent decades, as does the Holocene Thermal Optimum, by a considerable amount.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837
Link to full text:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258215955_Pacific_Ocean_Heat_Content_During_the_Past_10000_Years
Hi, seems to show cores from 2 areas in Indonesia, not world composites, showing 1 or 2 degrees warmer in the HTO than the 1900s and 0.65 degrees warmer in MWP than recent decades (before 2013), when 2016-22 have been hottest ever.
In any case it being hot before doesn't mean that human activity is not also increasing the temperature, especially as the rate is so unusually steep.
The hockey stick reanalysis paper reviewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqtZdnpfgIc and Hansen's very important paper here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvGQMZFP9IA though I sense we agree to disagree
🙏🏽
There's a wealth of scientific research here published in 2017 which strongly suggests that the current warm period is not exceptional in terms of past warm episodes, globally. In particular, note Rosenthal et al, 2017:
“Here we review proxy records of intermediate water temperatures from sediment cores and corals in the equatorial Pacific and northeastern Atlantic Oceans, spanning 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. These records suggests that intermediate waters [0-700 m] were 1.5-2°C warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than in the last century. Intermediate water masses cooled by 0.9°C from the Medieval Climate Anomaly to the Little Ice Age. These changes are significantly larger than the temperature anomalies documented in the instrumental record. The implied large perturbations in OHC and Earth’s energy budget are at odds with very small radiative forcing anomalies throughout the Holocene and Common Era. … The records suggest that dynamic processes provide an efficient mechanism to amplify small changes in insolation [surface solar radiation] into relatively large changes in OHC.”
https://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming
The rate of change of OHC as measured over short time scales by Argo floats in the modern era cannot be directly compared to rates of change of OHC or mean surface temperature recorded via proxies. There is considerable bias in the modern instrumental record which gives the impression of 'unusually rapid' or even 'unprecedented' changes. E.g. Buntgen et al, 2017:
“Spanning the period 1186-2014 CE, the new reconstruction reveals overall warmer conditions around 1200 and 1400, and again after ~1850.
Little agreement is found with climate model simulations that consistently overestimate recent summer warming and underestimate pre-industrial temperature changes. … [W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased."
I've put some of the graphics from the 2021 in and how they think they've solved the Holocene conundrum
Thank you
Thank you some really good points I've added in
🙏🏽
Thank you for bringing to my attention the role of cobalt in electric powered devices like cars and smart phones. The history of Congo is painful, a look at colonialism (which we must realize has been practiced world-wide) and the modern government of Congo’s role in continuing the destruction of the land and of the people. I find myself wondering how that govt. benefits, e.g., who is paying them and how much.
I found the end of the video less than satisfying and ultimately insulting. It was clear to me that the beginning of a solution falls to the likes of Tesla and Apple to (1) create a replacement power source and (2) demand humane mining. Actually the video does not demand either. Instead it pretends that replacing cobalt in batteries is a programming task — which it is not, that is an engineering task. It also ignores the collusion of the national govt. of Congo in this state of affairs and their so-called business partners, which I would not be surprised were international corporations, many headquartered in the USA.
I am still not convinced that the weather is changing because of increased atmospheric CO2. I am not opposed to reducing our consumption of petroleum and coal because mining (extraction), refining, transport, and consumption currently introduce toxins into our environment - toxins that make us sick. Blaming these ills on the 1% is easy, but perhaps more chest-beating than realistic; leading by example is usually the task of religious leaders, not the wealthy. Asking me to do without heat in my home in order to consume less CO2 is cruel: my home was built to codes that assume it will be heated by natural gas and/or electricity (at least in the USA), I have no alternative. Asking me to give up my gasoline-powered car is cruel because it works, it’s paid for, and it does the job I need — and I know I am not at risk of EMR from a damned electric battery.
Getting one or more industries to change their ways without making it financially attractive to them is unlikely to be accomplished with laws and regulations because govts. will resist — those industries regularly pay regulators and, in the US, Congress folk just so the industries are protected from unwanted demands. In the so-called free nations, the public is probably the best place to start, and that with a carrot instead of a stick. However, this constant lying about “climate change” will go only so far. Honesty is a good place to start. Talk about the blood, sweat, and tears that produce the cobalt for those phones and cars — at the same time working with “industry” and govts around the world to effect change. Colonialism is still in play.
For a public worn out by demands to be “woke” and accepting of the LGBQT+ agenda, the attention on batteries may be a reach too far.
And, in closing, I DO NOT AGREE THAT HOMO SAPIENS ARE THE SCOURGE OF THE EARTH!
Read this first thing in the morning. 😬 I still think we are innovative beings with an exponential factor of creativity. Don’t sign us off yet. Gaia can recognise the effort humanity can make toward revitalising her. Maybe we’ll be a part of the greatest love story to come.
Hiya VA, that's so lovely, what a beautiful thought. Yes maybe ♥️ though I don't find the thought of her moving on without us depressing at all xxx
Soberingly fair.
Juden Peterstein . . . LOL!
Jordan Peterson has taken to Twitter in his criticism of the validity of Pope Francis’ Christianity . . . Never mind that Peterson is supposedly an atheist . . . and that the Popes all wear a yarmulke and all pay homage to the Hebrew god Satan at the Wailing Wall in their obeisance to the Jews . . .
Peterson believes that the American Israeli Political Action Committee is the official religion of the United States government . . . which really isn’t that far off the mark . . . but, Peterson is also a Canadian and doesn’t have a kippa like the Pope does, how does he get to claim he has rabbinical authority here? Maybe it’s because he’s over at the (((Daily Wire))) with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
You're welcome 🙏🏽
I don't think human activity affects temperatures in the slightest. I mean, negligible amounts here and there, but there are far greater inputs that people conveniently choose to ignore. On the scale of an individual life, none of this matters. On a larger scale... it matters even less.
This is where I am too, we are but a mere irrelevance compared to all other factors that effect the temperature of the earth. That doesn't mean that we are not dirty and destructive in so many other ways, but that's only because we are all trying to get by within the system that were slaves in.
Yes, pollution is obviously the problem that we are struggling with... we don't really solve it by sweeping it under the carpet (shifting industrial processes to other countries). The temperature cycles have always been there (on other planets too) and were not caused by human activity and will not be tamed because latte sipping liberals choose to drive a prius! Behold the conceit of narcissism!
It's ok to zoom out a little and view our planetary experience here as relatively insignificant when measured on a cosmic scale. That doesn't mean that we have to get all nihilistic and down tools and what not, or abandon the idea that God or Base Level underlies every single function in said cosmos because I certainly believe that's the case (and maybe that's why I take a more humble approach to our "influence" here), but just realize that human activity as it stands today is on a scale of less than an atoms worth of relevance within the Milky Way galaxy which is but one of billions of galaxies in "our neighborhood".
And, of course, the flat earthers are perfectly welcome to shoot down that model and explain to me that all is an illusion and that our "experience" here is even more guided by a deity than I would subscribe to, but then... if that turns out to be true... we end up in the same place! None of this is on us --- Nature makes us do this... God makes us do this... the end result (if there even is one because it can all go south at any time) is beyond our control, again, because there are greater forces at work here.
If humans or our hybrid progeny are to stick around, it'll be because these niggling issues get solved here on Earth (in one way or another) or whatever grows out of our activity expands into nearby space colonies. Some humans don't like that scenario, but I'm just trying to be honest here. If any of you ascribe to evolutionary theory, then why does anyone think this is as far as it goes for this particularly competent branch of adaptive organisms? I believe we're going through a rapid process of change as we speak and what comes out of it may be unrecognizable to us because the chains have been removed from the imagination engine.
I can't agree with you on this. Misreading the very first graph you showed, made me totally unwilling to read most of what else you posited. The graph did not end in 1885. It is to 2004. (the present when it was made) If you look closely you will see that the time line is so compressed that there is no room for another date to be squeezed in by 2004.
Last reply I promise! Thank you so much for saying why you stopped reading, it's really really helpful. I've edited it to make it clearer.
🙏🏽
Hi Greg I believe the paper was written in 2004 but was using a data set of an ice core that doesn't go up to modern day. It ended in 1855 though there is a typo on the graph saying 1885 which is the last date and has a circle around the data point. The graph is not from the original paper but is using that data. If you watch the video it shows what the graph would look like in the 21st century.
Cheers,
Jo
Arrg I broke my promise! So Greg, did you read it? I didn't know much about climate change, just that I'd been told I was a fool to believe it and that it had been sort of been generally debunked. I was completely wrong.
Short answer. "Climate Change" is Globalist control propaganda. "Planetary Pollution" is the real problem. And guess who is most guilty. The Globalist/Corporate/Military Complexes. THEY cause the huge environmental problems and then blame us for using plastic straws.
Here's the 2004 author Richard Alley on this using of the historical ice core data being made into various different graphs 'So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.'
Oh dear. First of all we don't live on a ball. Secondly they've been geoengineering since the early 1900s. That means they're destroying our weather patterns (HAARP, nexrad, etc) and causing weather warfare. Any article trying to help the world wake up needs to tell the truth at this stage of the game. It is important to really do your due diligence, especially now, when time is tight. There is no carbon created climate change, what garbage. Carbon makes plants grow ffs! It is all bullshit science which, I thought you were really good at exposing. Sounds like for you is the deep dive into Flat Earth then you won't get it-wrong next time?
I realise carbon is the basic unit of life, there’s nothing toxic about it, it’s essential. So is water, which when vapour is also apparently a greenhouse gas. I have nothing against water either. It’s lovely, I love drinking it. Some seem to want deliberately misunderstand what's being said. The human activities of cutting down oxygen producing, carbon dioxide receiving trees and burning them seems to be having an effect. That is all. Neither carbon dioxide, nor water are harmful.
Oh wow, Amandha. Not you too? I agree with you on the claims that "climate change" is bs and that any major alterations in weather patterns are most likely due to geoengineering (Dane Wigington my source for this). But…flat earth?!
Flat earth can be easily debunked by traditional metaphysics. As a circle/sphere has no beginning point and no end point, it represents Eternity, and for this simple reason, God would not create a flat object on which life can be created and flourish. It is anti-metaphysical, i.e., unnatural, going against the principles of sacred geometry. In short, only a sphere can be a celestial object on which life can exist.
But now I’m curious about this, as you are the third person in the last week that I’ve encountered who believes in a flat earth. Can you share your sources?
Incidentally, we experienced our own geoengineered mini-hurricane here in Northern Thailand in April (we are 230 miles to the nearest ocean), which we later heard was the result of local cloud seeding. Extensive damage everywhere, including hundreds of felled trees, power lines, roof damage (hole produced in my own townhouse via the storm and some flooding), patio glass doors blown out, etc.
Yeah, I thought at first that the flat earth comment was an ironic joke at my poor scientific understanding and reasoning.
Are all the 'conspiracies' obligatory? Is Macca dying in 1966 the last one that will be proved to be true?
I don't see how we can converse about weather when we don't even have the observable orbits of the moon and the space station (and its pictures- one of which showed my road where I used to live in Wimbledon lit up at night- that's a hell of a long length to go to fool me) in common.
Well, while for me, the earth is a ball, I am open to anyone with a good unexplainable anomoly, and may one day be swayed. With regard to the space station and the orbits of the moon, there are alternate explanations for all this and more when you listen to a died in the wool flat earther, not just one of those crazy types that they debunk on YouTube. As for temperature readings and changes, there are soo many variables, liers, contributing factors that I dont think that any surgs like us will ever really KNOW the truth. All I do know is that those net zero bastards couldn't care less for the earth or us. Im anti pollution, I believe the free clean energy energy is everywhere and that someone somewhere has the blueprints to access it. We, however, will never see those plans, so what do we do.
Hi Jo,
Me again. Though I'm not convinced by your arguments regarding warming and CO2, I certainly do agree with you regarding the "elites" desire to continue to profit from the degradation of environmental and human systems. Etc.
I wonder, have you come across the website The Consciousness of Sheep? The owner of the site DOES agree with you regarding climate change, though his primary focus is on economics and, significantly, peak oil. He's an exceptional essayist imo, and worth a few of hours of anyone's time. I think you'll very much appreciate his perspective as well as the wealth of information he provides. Better yet, he's Welsh! https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk
With love and best regards,
Kali.
Hi Kali, thank you so much for your comments and the the link. I shall most certainly look into this dude.
jJo
OMG 'Money – an awful lot of ill-gotten money – aside, the main achievement of conferences like COP and its techno-psychotic Davos cousin has been to increase the numbers of people who believe the whole thing to be a hoax.' this is AWESOME
I'm a little confused by those here who claim climate scientists have a financial motivation for pushing their theses. Maybe?? But don't you all realize that climate denial is insanely lucrative for the extractive industries? Come on, let's be consistent here folks.
Thanks David, yes! The extractive industries set to earn £trillions more if they're allowed to. The 'renewables' becoming cheaper and cheaper and oil more and more expensive, and lucrative, too.
Hi Jo. Great article. I wanted to reach out to you bc of your well researched writings, especially here regarding climate science. I've been reading Michael Shellenberger's book Apocalypse Never. I was starting to think maybe I'd been wrong about the climate crisis. But the further I got into the book, the more I began to believe that his research and conclusions are wildly off the mark. It's distressing bc I like a lot about his work, especially on free speech and his work on the Twitter files with Matt Taibbi. I'm finding more and more that people who are on the mark on one issue can be wildly off the mark on others. I guess we're all fallible. But I think it's really important to be able to challenge people like him in the public sphere and have them defend their propositions against others. He and others have insisted that Peter Hotez debate RFK on vaccines. I'd like to see some scientists debate Shellenberger on his work. How do you see that possibly happening? I'd love your thoughts and a continued dialogue. Thanks. David
and thank you so much for your pledge. I had one other, but they had got me confused with another substack!
Hey David, thank you so much for your comment, not only for your compliment and encouragement but for letting me know that you also find the presence of clear sightedness on one issue and complete blindness on another in the same person very disorienting. I really like Shellenberger and Taibbi too.
Yes debates are good but they have to based on the literature not opinion. Some of the climate scientists are doing good work picking apart the claims of skeptics, a really good one is Rosh on 'all about the climate', very underrated but full of scientific content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IqfsU0jcI&t=2s it's not a debate but it seems clear to me that if the skeptic was given a chance for a reply they would not be able to support their opinion with evidence.
RFK has got great points on vaccines, they are tested against aluminium adjuvants 'placebos' so toxic effects are masked, there are no long term studies, but in interviews I've seen the interviewer just denies this, so for someone not familiar with the literature, they wouldn't know who it believe.
But there is a wider problem, that we are being deliberately divided into left and right etc and deliberately targeted with social media to hate the other side - Matt Taibbi's book Hate Inc is excellent on how the media do this for profit! Debates might even feed into this taking of sides. That is what I found with the climate science when I looked into it. People just see that I'm saying there's evidence and start countering with all the denial they have picked up from the media they've been targeted with and are not willing to discuss it. They just move on to another soundbite they've picked up from the other 'side'. Or what is now ubiquitous is that any argument for climate change or suggestions to improve the environment are dismissed out of hand as being controlled by the kill joy left wing and/or communists.
You are right no one is discussing the argument. We discredit or admire people etc but there is no space for discussion of the actual arguments involved.
Except perhaps here.....?
Jo
Jo, I agree that we've been divided into teams. Taibbi's book Hate Inc. is what really opened my eyes. When Trump was elected, I watched Maddow and her ilk on MSNBC and bought into the hype, even so-called Russiagate. But his book awakened me. Then, with Covid and my distrust of "conventional" medicine in my struggles with Chronic Lyme., it all became clear. We are being lied to in order to drive eyeballs and make money for the media giants and big Pharma. No debate, no discussion. I think back to the era of Buckley and Chomsky debating. It was so illuminating. And of course the esteemed Phil Donahue who often times had on controversial figures whom he would challenge and debate with. Those days are long gone. I've dreamed for years that our media would spend a few hours each week having debates on important subjects with the rules of debate in place. I was on my high school and college debate teams and learned so much during those forums. But the desire for people to really engage in subject matter, I'm afraid, is gone. the age of the 30 second soundbite and 240 word Tweet is ubiquitous now. I'm afraid most Americans no longer have the capacity OR desire to spend the time necessary to understand the issues. But, with podcasts like Rogan and Brand and Greenwald and the like, maybe, just maybe the younger generation will re-engage. Are YOU hopeful? Thanks again for the dialogue. It's good to know there are others out there who are willing to take the time to discuss.
Hiya, I have never been interested in debating before, certainly not when I was young. I became vegan for the animals 8 years ago and was interested to see how industry funds and designs studies to deliberately show what they want and how the media misrepresents the facts. My distrust of conventional medicine, having worked for the NHS for 20 years, came from then as many cancers, CVD, depression and 'auto-immune' diseases can be prevented with diet but nobody is talking about it, it's all about the interventions and cure. and the money.
Covid I knew from the beginning was a scam to make us take the vaccine but it opened my eyes to other vaccines and chemotherapy. So I guess I became interested in trying to learn how to communicate what I had learned.
I'm not sure about Rogan and Brand. I've seen them 'debate' but really it's just one of them at a time saying what they think. It's nowhere near a scientific debate.
I did see the amazing Kathleen Stock at the Oxford Union debating the right to offend, which she won, although her speech, which is meant to be given as a lecture was continually interrupted. I don't think anyone knows how to debate at all.
I am not hopeful no. Like you say attention has been stolen from young people. I don't see how they can get it back without switching of the internet.
And I'm still amazed there is no anti-war (as opposed to anti- Putin) movement in the UK at all, in any generation.
Thanks Jo. I will say briefly that Rogan and especially Brand have had debate formats. Most of their shows are entertainment, which unfortunately is necessary these days to capture peoples attention. But there's some real substance at times. Brands interview with Jordan Peterson was great. Rogans interview with Peter Hotez( before Covid) was very illuminating. Rogan will fact check OR confirm what guests say in real time on his podcast. Few are willing to do that. Greenwald often times has vigorous debates. He had RFK Jr, Marianne Williamson and Cornell West on his show. But all that being said, what we really need is long form debates with moderators in the old Socratic method. But I don't think many Americans have the appetite for that unfortunately. Also, you may be familiar with the Munk debates. Those have been very illuminating.
Hi David, I was going to say 'you're joking aren't you?' Rogan's fact checking involves getting his minion to google things. However when looking for the link which mocks this, I came across an actual literature based discussion on Rogan about the Gamechangers film between its director James Wilks and an 'ancestral' nutritionist Chris Kresser- it's a bit unfair as Wilks obviously has a much stronger grip of the science and he wipes the floor with him. Here's a review of the interview which is apparently 4 hours long https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3zHsve9jFo
Hi Jo. So am I correct in assuming that you are acknowledging that on occasion Rogan does have good vigorous debates? I think that’s what you’re saying here. And that was my point. A lot of his show is entertainment. But he does have opposing sides debate, which is exactly what I think we need. By the way, I met AND spoke with Kresser years ago, here in Boulder, at a Paleo conference, and was not impressed.
Jo, I would also say that although I agree that doing fact checking on the fly on Google is fraught with problems. However, sometimes he does link to credible sites, not just someone else’s opinion on the Internet. It’s certainly not an ideal format for debate. But at least he doesn’t allow as guests to just spew garbage unchallenged, which is what most media does in 30 second soundbites.
Thanks for the good article. Looks like you hit a lot of nerves with this one. Keep up the good work.
Thanks so much Maybe. Yes I have haven't I. I didn't know much about this subject till this weekend but now I see the same objections repeated, such as taking a couple of sediment estimates in one area and drawing conclusions instead of talking global means.
People seem to accept climate has been debunked cos other people, like. JP. say so, but haven't looked into it for themselves.
Thank. you for your encouragement
🙏🏽
I've read a ton about climate this past year. Unfortunately, the science is way, way, way beyond me, but I can recognize a good website when I see it: What's App With That?
They have debunked everything the alarmists and the alarmed are saying. In studying the major markers over the last 30 years, they have all either improved or stayed the same.
We've been subjected to end-of-the-world scenarios since my mother told me they were being told (in the 1960s) we'd be living underwater by 2000. Only one guy that I know of lived under water, and that was in a lagoon for maybe 100 days.
Then Greta said we'd be dead, and I think that deadline also passed.
The increase in CO2 (and guess what, even that is debatable) has led to a massive increase in agriculture. As has the warmer weather. Far, far more people die of the cold than the heat.
Just like with the corona, we're being fed a new set of lies. And these ones tap into a whole different set of fears. Once our fears have been tapped into, we skim over the good things out there and have a magnifying glass on the fear-stoking "evidence".
The climate lies may be entirely fed to us to garner control over us and take things away for the sheer pleasure of taking them away from us (there are people like that), or the elites may also be scared. The godless are prone to fear to a degree the far exceeds that which they'd feel if they felt God was in charge.
I have spent my life without a car and being very careful with every single thing I use, but as soon as Al Gore came on the scene with his book and his $20,000 electric bill, I knew there was a massive scam afoot.
God is in charge.
I would say that they blinding you with science in that case. It should be understandable so that you can explain exactly how anything is debunked.
I agree with you about Al Gore collecting his Nobel peace prize in Sweden for services to climate arriving in private jet being a massive hypocrite.
🙏🏽
Even your post is beyond me science-wise. I like to understand things completely, and there are basics in any climate claim that involved knowing a lot about the climate. I'd have 1,000 questions and need to research this for years. So instead I'm going by pattern recognition (there's a script), money trails, are the pushers leading by example, is the effort being led with fear, etc? And are the people who believe it afraid? So all of this registers to me as scam and control-grabbing. Members of congress years ago supposedly invested in LED light bulbs, security cameras, wind and solar.
I think you speak for a lot of people. This whole field has become politicised and tribal. The facts of the climate debate are a very long way from being resolved and counter-claim soon follows claim by one side or the other. You are right to believe none of it.
We might have hoped that our governments would realise by now that policies hastily made in an atmosphere of fear turn out to be very bad for most of us.
Maybe the view from a private jet at 35000 feet is different.
And what about those expensive lightbulbs that lasted two months political g the land fills!
I am all for protecting the environment and the technology is already available to solve a lot of the problems. Solar panels are amazing 25 years of totally free electricity is a no brainer. Small modular nuclear reactors can fill any gaps in the renewable grid. The major problem is the environment has been hijacked, and is being tortured to further the globalist agenda of a bunch of pyschopathic billionaires who could not care less about the environment. With the WEF in charge it is sure to be a bigger shitshow than the "The Great Leap Forward" millions are going to be starved to death.
As Kenneth Vinther pointed out in his review of Scott Howard’s The Transgender-Industrial Complex (2020) at Counter Currents, transgenderism is a thoroughly kosher campaign: “at the top of the [transgender] pyramid rests a series of charming Jewish billionaires...”
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/03/25/jewish-loot-and-neglected-fruit-how-the-mainstream-right-serves-jews-and-betrays-whites/
The race between total destruction and the great awakening that's occurring is neck and neck right now. When things seem hopeless, I like to remind myself that we are consciousness. All life is part of the larger consciousness system and consciousness cannot be destroyed. It's so important to do our best to care for the planet and the creatures on it because we want to leave a world where there are more beautiful experiences and choices for future generations to inherit, but we're going to reincarnate into some body, somewhere no matter what happens.
For what it's worth, I think humanity will wake up in time to heal ourselves and the planet. To usher in a time when freedom flourishes, love pervades, and biodiversity heals through getting back to regenerative farming and ditching all the chemicals and plastics. It seems like we're out of time, but the greatest societal shifts often happen in months, not decades. The lies have become too obvious to ignore and once a certain percent of humanity sees them, the domino effect begins and the oligarchs' centuries of oppression stops dead in its tracks.
We need all the people with beautiful hearts like yours to continue the fight no matter what !!!
Crikey, I am gob-smacked. I thought pushing veganism was bad enough but now you are going the full nine yards and becoming a WEF groupie.
I despair.
I have written a lot about climate change narratives. Here is one:
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/olympias-speech-at-wef-davos
It is Episode 49 of my novel about a social media influencer who dares to confront the beast.
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol No. 6 – Take-Over Technique (agriculture) . . .
❝We shall raise the rate of wages which, however, will not bring any advantage to the workers, for, at the same time, we shall produce a rise in prices of the first necessaries of life, alleging that it arises from the decline of agriculture and cattle-breeding: we shall further undermine artfully and deeply sources of production, by accustoming the workers to anarchy . . .❞
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-no-6-take-over-technique
That's a pretty nihilistic take. I don't agree. Here's my take: https://reaction.life/letters-net-zero-needs-to-be-parked/