- This topic has 25 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A couple of articles & an interview critiquing much that is being ushered in under the international “green” agenda:
“Nice to see you out, Murray, & full of fighting ‘spirit’ from the sounds of it.
“We’ve been conditioned to think that only politicians can solve our problems. But at some point, maybe we will wake up and recognize that it was politicians who created our problems.”
— Dr Ben CarsonThink you can replace “politicians” with “corporatists” or “globalists” or “private sector” or whatever,,,,, they’re one & the same now anyway,,,,, that is, in essence, what all these “Private-Public Partnerships” are about.
All this COP26, ID 2020, UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals, Carbon social credit system, Central Bank Digital Currencies, digital ID ‘freedom’ permissions, blanket surveillance & mass censorship, all this fluffy “Green” “health” bollox looks more & more like camouflage for a truly vile ideological highjacking of the global Commons & financialisation of the natural world in it’s entirety,,,,,, pity the useful idiots gluing their faces to the pavement, waving their Soros funded flags & mindlessly imagining that the greedy minority will suddenly become ‘benevolent’ rulers with only the well being of Mother Earth & the ‘great unwashed’ on their minds.
Couple of articles & an interview with Iain Davis dig into the laborious detail involved:
https://in-this-together.com/global-commons-part-1/
https://in-this-together.com/global-commons-part-2/
https://odysee.com/@InThisTogether:d/Seizing-The-Global-Commons:8
& all rolling out under the cover of a most convenient, neverending & uncontestable ‘crisis’, who’d have thought??!?”
This is a repost of a comment deleted from the front page, sadly deemed verboten as it “leads down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole”, according to ‘official sources’.
so, Beware!
…although those of you with your critical faculties intact should be in very little danger :-)))))I find the rationale for this decision quite alarming, but clearly & honestly explained by the moderator.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/my-posts-have-gone/#post-82129
At the end of the day, ‘your house, your rules’, so no hard feelings, just a sense of sadness at the loss of a forum for the analysis & critique of the agendas & motivations behind that which is deemed ‘acceptable’ establishment narrative….
You risk giving a false impression of the reasons for the relocation advice. See the clarification under the topic “My posts have gone”.
Hello Josh R. You wrote:
– “pity the useful idiots gluing their faces to the pavement, waving their Soros funded flags & mindlessly imagining that the greedy minority will suddenly become ‘benevolent’ rulers with only the well being of Mother Earth & the ‘great unwashed’ on their minds.”
Well, that’s me, that is. Thanks to a tip-off from a friend I was at the very first Extinction Rebellion (“XR”) public action in Parliament Square, Westminster on October 31 2018, and I have been active ever since. I also know some people in Insulate Britain. I recently got home from protesting at COP26; I was in Glasgow for nearly two weeks.
Please tell me, do you have any direct, personal experience of XR? For instance, do you know any activists or supporters, or have you attended any actions or meetings, or have you perhaps been stuck in traffic due to an XR action?
– “…Soros funded flags…”
We make our own flags, patches and props. The Red Rebels make their own costumes, and the samba bands use their own drums. Things you have read about XR may not be accurate.
Are You Angry Yet? – Speech at #COP26 (3.11.21), YouTube, 15 minutes.
Josh R, that’s Rob Callender. Do you think he’s a “useful idiot”?
Here’s a graph I think you’ll enjoying looking at, Clark:
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
The implications are rather huge. It sets out the hisorical increase of temperature per decade over time. We’re up to about one degree per decade, and, far from levelling off or going back down, it is increasing.
How anyone can be blasé of such a disastrous trend is beyond me.
Glenn_UK, thanks for linking to this tool. Actually, I don’t enjoy looking at it at all; quite the opposite – as you say, the implications.
But thankfully I’m getting numbers around one or two degrees per century rather than per decade, even picking the steep section from 1980 to the present. Have I made a mistake; can you check me on that please?
But yes, it’s an accelerating trend, which is what I’d expect – I’ll explain if anyone’s interested.
Josh R, I really wish you hadn’t just abandoned this thread after starting it. I share a lot of your concerns about attempts to privatise ie. to own the world itself and everything in it.
C: “Josh R, I really wish you hadn’t just abandoned this thread after starting it.”
Isn’t that what denialists and minimisers always do? Every single time, without fail? Apart from the much unmissed and unlamented N, of course, who never bothered even acknowledging a response to his interminable claptrap.
C: But thankfully I’m getting numbers around one or two degrees per century rather than per decade, even picking the steep section from 1980 to the present. Have I made a mistake; can you check me on that please?
I fear you are misinterpreting it. Try a graph from – say 1970, so we get a 50 year window. Use NOAA data. The trend is 0.18 C/Decade. So over 5 decades, we would expect a rise (in terms of degrees/decade) of 0.9, which is roughly what we see in the top right of the graph. We’ve gone from 0 degrees rise/decade 50 years ago to near enough 0.9 degree now (i.e. starting now – that’s what we’re anticipating for the 2020s).
The rise in the first decade was more or less nothing, followed by about 0.1, then 0.2, 0.45 and 0.6, giving us about 1.35 degrees. We can’t include this decade because it’s only just started. The trend is within the margin of error that gives us the observed slightly > 1 degree global rise we have now.
The increasing rate of increase looks pretty unmistakeable. Any rate of increase at all would be a cause for huge concern, but it looks as if we’re going to be blowing through an extra 1 degree per decade within the lifetimes of people who are not already well into retirement.
Please show me where I’m wrong! I would love to be shown wrong about this!
Glenn_UK, I’ve tried to reply twice but Wordfence keeps eating it. I’m giving up for the night.
Glenn_nl, I’ve set the “Start date” field to 1970 and selected NOAA data, but I still can’t work out where you got the figures ~0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.45, 0.6. I don’t see 0.9 at the top right of the graph*, and I don’t understand what you wrote:
– “The trend is 0.18 C/Decade. So over 5 decades, we would expect a rise (in terms of degrees/decade) of 0.9…”
Well, +0.18 centigrade per decade over five decades is certainly 0.18 x 5 = 0.9, but that’s a rise, not a rate. Lapsing into amateur dimensional analysis:
(centigrade / decade) x (decades) = (centigrade)
Although the vertical axis is unhelpfully labelled merely “NOAA”, I’m pretty sure that the bold blue line is “temperature anomaly” in centigrade, rather than “increase per decade” in centigrade per decade.
– – – – – – – –* – I wrote: “I don’t see 0.9 at the top right of the graph.”
I see:
– Grey dots, which are individual temperature data points;
– A wiggly red line, which by default is the 12 month average temperature;
– A straight, bold blue line, which I take to be the closest straight line fit to the grey dots;
– Upper and lower slightly curved thin blue lines, which I take to be the confidence interval for the bold blue line.It’s true that the highest grey dots on the graph are at the top right where five or six are above 0.8, the highest nearly 1.0. At the right-hand end (2020), the bold blue line reaches up almost to 0.6 which could be the 0.6 figure you mentioned, but that’s the temperature increase above NOAA’s chosen average, not the increase per decade.
Bloody Wordfence again, and the Captcha is positively paranoid this morning. I lost another post.
Try a search on the name and year of the paper referred to immediately below the graph*. The graphs in the original paper show temperature anomaly in centigrade rather than a rate in centigrade per decade.
[ * For definitions and equations see the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011 ]
Thanks Clark – that’s certainly some respite anyway. There’s a lot of difference between total change and change per decade. Wonder why it was mislabelled like that?
No sign of your erstwhile correspondent either, it seems. Ho hum.
Wait – I see what I’ve done wrong. The label across the top indicates the total trend per decade, about 0.18 -> 0.2 degrees/decade. I mistook that for the Y-axis itself. Sorry!
Glenn_nl – “Wonder why it was mislabelled like that?”
Because it’s just some professor’s personal space on the York Uni website; he probably wrote and published the tool himself for his own use and amusement, he knows what he means so it hasn’t occurred to him that it’s ambiguous, and he explains it to anyone he shows it off to so they’ve never noticed it either. No one else much looks at it so he hasn’t had any feedback.
Note “cowtan” in the URL; it’s this bloke:
https://www.york.ac.uk/chemistry/staff/academic/a-c/kcowtan/
Note that the subdomain is “ysbl” – York Structural Biology Lab. Their public-facing site will probably be checked by staff experienced in public outreach, but they don’t check nerdy doodles on academics’ personal webspace.
How did you find it?
Back in the 1980s I knew various people at York Uni, two being fairly close friends. I was just an oik living on the Tang Hall estate, one of these friends was doing her PhD in formation of planets; I’ve still got a line-printer output of her thesis. The physics department was just across the main road and over the playing fields; anyone could wander in, I’d just drop by her office for a chat. One day she showed me the Pons and Fleischmann cold fusion experiment they were replicating in a room down the hall; she said it seemed to work.
All universities were like that then; you could just walk in. Not any more; it’s all “security” and “papers please” these days; Craig couldn’t even get me into Dundee Students’ Union building in 2014. I’m sure this has contributed to the rise of conspiracy theory.
Glenn_nl, Dec 17, 20:47
– “Isn’t that what denialists and minimisers always do? Every single time, without fail?”
It’s certainly a consistent pattern. Another is, “the government policies about name-a-problem amount to a massive transfer of wealth from public funds to private interests, therefore the problem has to be a hoax”, and suddenly the target has been shifted from policies and governments to science and technicians. Covid? Enemy = Ferguson and Fauci. Global heating? Enemy = IPCC and the University of East Anglia. 9/11? Enemy = NIST. It’s very consistent; never a politician, a media baron or a rich tycoon to be seen. Except Bill Gates, but I thought he got his fortune from software, not vaccines.
There’s Soros too, of course – isn’t he behind everything?
I heard a theory from some behaviourologist which sounds plausible. A lot of people react with fear and confusion to all the unwelcome and unexpected events life keeps throwing at us. If one is a religious dulusionist, it’s easy enough to say these are all some weird tests from God. So keep praying, smite the heathens and keep giving money to the Church or whatever.
Others get very frightened, and simply cannot cope with the randomness of life. It’s far preferable to believe that someone or something is in fact ultimately in control, shifting things, planting false evidence, working thousands of ‘agents’ or what-have-you, in some massive plot. “They” are shifting things around, fooling everyone (except the conspiracy theorists of course!), controlling, plotting, and acting.
It’s better to have a bad person or group in charge than absolute chaos. Since there isn’t anyone actually in charge, the conspiracists invent them.
“Apophenia” is the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful patterns between unrelated or random things.
Oh yes – I got that link from a comment in an article online at the NYT.
– “I got that link from a comment in an article online at the NYT”
Aye, a comment; I thought it would have to be some obscure source. Academics are allocated these pieces of personal webspace on their universities’ domains.
Weird tests from God or a convoluted plot by some omnipotent but secret Elite are really very similar. Both are untestable, and both claim to explain absolutely everything. God is supposedly ultimate goodness whereas the Elite are ultimate evil, but in both cases, adherents insist, all that matters is that we believe – which presumably explains why conspiracy theorists are so evangelical.
Oh yes, Soros; I’d forgotten about him. I wasn’t covering up; honest!
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full
This is an excellent article, summarising where we are and where we are heading. I’m sure Clark in particular will enjoy reading it.
Grief. I hope they’re overly pessimistic, or that Nature has some trick up her sleeve.
It’s pretty well referenced, they don’t seem to be alarmists.
Incidentally, did you know about the climate scientists’ worldwide protest on 8/April? I heard nothing about it at the time.
They’re particularly unhappy about the IPCC watering down their latest report at the behest of governments that don’t like the idea of people being concerned that we’re on the road to hell.
From the paper, section “Sixth Mass Extinction”:
– The background rate of extinction since then [66 million years ago, the death of the dinosaurs] has been 0.1 extinctions per million species per year (Ceballos et al., 2015), while estimates of today’s extinction rate are orders of magnitude greater (Lamkin and Miller, 2016). Recorded vertebrate extinctions since the 16th century — the mere tip of the true extinction iceberg — give a rate of extinction of 1.3 species per year, which is conservatively more than 15 times the background rate (Ceballos et al., 2015). The IUCN estimates that some 20% of all species are in danger of extinction over the next few decades, which greatly exceeds the background rate. That we are already on the path of a sixth major extinction is now scientifically undeniable (Barnosky et al., 2011; Ceballos et al., 2015, 2017).
Extinction Rebellion placard:
– “You’re next, human.”
Seriously, there is no good reason to assume that the human species would survive a mass extinction. From the introduction to Planet of the Humans by Jeff Gibbs:
(Narrator, Gibbs) – I’ve got a question. How long do you think we humans have?
(Various interviewees) –
“How long does the human race have?”
“Ooh.”
“Umm,”
“ah wow..”
“I don’t exactly know, but maybe two…”
“I have no clue, I hope I give me at least fifty more years!”
“I think, there’s an infinite amount of time.”
“Infinite. It’s infinity, yeah.”
“I give us a million, a million years.”
“Being kind, I’d say about probably ten years.”
“Ten, twelve years.”
“Thousands of years.”
“Forty seven years three months five days, it’s approximate.”
“We’re kinda like cockroaches on the planet; no matter how much damage we’ll do enough of us will survive to procreate and keep it going.”
“Unless we can get to another planet but then we’re just gonna Fuck it up like we did Earth.”
“Well I think we’ll be here for a long time but we will change. We’re gong to turn back into apes!”
(Gibbs again) – Have you ever wondered what would happen if a single species took over an entire planet? Maybe they’re cute, maybe they’re clever, but lack a certain, shall we say, self restraint? What if they go too far? What if they go way, way, way, way, way, too far?
How would they know…
when it’s their time,
to go?Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary (1h 39m 56s) | Directed by Jeff Gibbs
The film makes various outdated statements about “renewable” energy, but I fear that its overall message may be correct.
Glenn, I had heard of the scientists’ global protest. The corporate media have barely mentioned it.
Planet of the Humans is linked below. It covers only energy production and the associated greenwash.
Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary (1h 39m 56s) | Directed by Jeff Gibbs
Mods, apologies for my duplicated link. Rather preoccupied and disturbed about mass extinction and the fate of all humanity, I forgot about the forums’ automatic embedding. I don’t even see the embedded videos because I have external scripts blocked.
—
[ Mod: The videos have been converted to links, but it wasn’t clear which of the duplicates you would want removed. Might as well retain both. ]Thanks mods.
