There is no such thing as climate change...

More data points. Original articles with associated media coverage.

1-From the US federal agencies

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html

Thanks a lot. Obligatory read I must say. At least the executive summary of the report.

Aberhound · November 8, 2017

Viktor Schauberger in 1933 agreed that there would be man caused climate change but for reasons entirely different than mainstream expectations. Accordingly nothing has changed in regards to his warnings and certain policies such as vast mining operations and bore-holes to search for water in China, fracking in the US and mono-culture farm practices with NPK fertilizers and chemicals, and in Canada and elsewhere building AC power transmission lines over vast distances through forests and farms only accelerate the process. He predicted that the modern farming, mining and forestry techniques would eventually cause a period of warmth and agricultural productivity followed by an ice age. Is the ice age next? It is arguable that his prediction is the only one that has predicted closely the events we have experience since 1980 or so. Perhaps we should be more humble and consider whether we all have the causes and effects backwards. Some of his solutions are simple: basically leave the forest canopy undisturbed, shade creeks and rivers with forests, add certain mineral ores especially copper and silver to water courses, don't harm earthworms with agriculture practices and use implosion forces for energy instead of explosion or nuclear.

From Nature as Teacher translated by Callum Coates about p. 35

Note Carbone is defined earlier by Callum Coates:

15'Carbones': In contrast to the normal use and definition of 'carbon', Viktor Schauberger grouped all the known elements and their compounds, with the exception of oxygen and hydrogen, under the general classification of 'Mother Substances', which he described with the word 'Kohle-stoffe', normally spelt 'Kohlenstoffe' and meaning carbon. Apart from the above definition the hyphen also signifies a higher aspect of carbon, both physically and energetically or immaterially. The additional 'e' in the English word is therefore intended to redefine and enlarge the scope of the usual term 'carbon'

in accordance with Viktor's concepts. - Ed.

“Temperatures prevailing in the interior of the Earth are the product of interactions that take place between carbones contained in the Earth and oxygen entrained by infiltrating water. Were the last reserves of highly organised carbones eventually to be totally stripped from the Earth, these interactive processes could no longer take place and the Earth would cool off.

Since it is practically impossible to remove all carbones from the Earth however, these cooling phenomena can only occur to an extent commensurate with the severity of disturbance to these inner interactions. These disturbances are caused by the removal of carbones, or by ventilating the Earth. Conforming to natural law, the effects of today's technological and industrial intrusions into the Earth must therefore lead to the following results:

If various external influences such as bore-holes, deep wells, shafts and open-cut mines, excessive extraction of coal, metals and minerals, all act to inhibit these interactions, they will provoke a cooling of the Earth's crust. The atmosphere will also cool off as a further consequence. These causes, which ensure an excessive accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere, must also result in its concentration due to the influence of cold. In the course of time air strata normally subjected to low atmospheric pressure will become heavier in the absence of upward-streaming groups of carbones. These strata will sink downwards, over-saturating both the vaporous and the fluid hydrosphere with oxygen. If, having now become over-saturated with oxygen and heavy, this water succeeds in infiltrating into deeper strata of the geosphere, into the carbonesphere for example, then under the prevailing high temperatures the accompanying oxygen will trigger off lively oxidative events.

The cumulative effect of these will result initially in localised explosions, eruptions or earthquakes, and subsequently in ruptures of the Earth's surface. This will provoke the sudden release and elevation of gaseous carbone groups. These relatively elementary substances will first interact with atmospheric oxygen only at great altitudes, and in various hot zones will trigger off a regional redistribution, causing sudden cold spells and the movement of stronger or weaker air currents.

In equatorial zones the ascent of these carbones will be enhanced by the stronger reflection of heat. Under certain circumstances the reciprocal effects thus provoked can become so large and so aggressive that the zone of interaction in the lower levels of the atmosphere extends downwards in the form of funnel-shaped clouds. This leads to the general formation of tornadoes and the violent cyclonic storms which have long been known in equatorial regions. Through these powerful interactions, water-vapour will be forced into localised concentrations, resulting in the formation of heavy thunder- storms and the occurrence of cloudbursts. Apart from large quantities of carbones, substantial amounts of water-vapour are also expelled into the atmosphere during strong eruptions, offering increased resistance to the Sun's radiant energy, and hence to an increase in heat (through the heat- absorbing function of atmospheric water-vapour).

The sequel to this phenomenon is a short-lived, luxuriant profusion of vegetation (a phoney agricultural success) in which consumption of gaseous carbones (carbon dioxide) is intensified. These substances, however, can no longer he produced from the Earth's interior in the necessary and regular proportions. This leads to a qualitative decline in various forms of vegetation, and to a decomposition of the dynagens reflected back by the Sun, namely to a systematic cooling-off, and therefore to the inauguration of a new ice age.21 These developments will soon be brought about by the devastating activities of those involved in forestry, agriculture, water and energy- resources management because, as a result of their predominantly one-sided way of looking at things, the regularity of the water cycle will be inhibited, and with it the energy cycle and the upward flow of carbones. As already mentioned, it is inevitable that humanity's present absurd practices will bring about a drop in the quality of dynagens reflected back by the Sun. Ultimately, by arresting the oxidative processes in the atmosphere, the generation of heat will also be reduced.

21'Dynagen': Belongs to the higher formations of energy described elsewhere as Ethericities: The term 'ethericity' refers to a supra-normal, near non-dimensional, energetic, bio-electric, bio-magnetic, catalytic, high-frequency, vibratory, super-potent entity of quasi-material, quasi-etheric nature belonging to the 4th and 5th dimensions of being. As such it can be further categorised as a fructigen, qualigen and dynagen, which respectively represent those subtle energies, whose function is the enhancement of fecundity or fructification (fructigen), the generation of quality (qualigen) and the amplification of immaterial energy (dynagen). According to their function or location these may be male or female in nature.

Readers are reminded that all this was written by Schauberger long before science had the vaguest inkling of such phenomena as 'global warming' and the 'greenhouse effect'. - Ed

It can thus reasonably be asserted that the next ice age will be virtually dragged in by contemporary science and technology. For this reason the manifestations of economic decline, familiar the whole world over, must logically keep pace with the advance of technology. This state of affairs will worsen at the same tempo as the sources of energy required to maintain technological progress are removed from the Earth. The greater the progress we achieve in technology, the deeper we will and must sink culturally and economically. However, this is not the end of the matter!! With the curtailment of the absolutely essential oxidative processes in the Earth, enormous amounts of water must make their appearance, initially in the atmosphere and subsequently in the Earth, because in neither case can it be assimilated or reconstituted. Now heavily over-saturated with oxygen and poor in carbones, this water, which either infiltrates into the Earth or quickly re-evaporates and streams upwards into the atmosphere, will reach its freezing point due to the absence of its partner, the carbones. This results in an unavoidable and fundamental change in general climatic conditions.

Furthermore, when the potential of the groundwater, now possessing a uni-polar charge, has been reduced though lack of carbones, it is forced to sink down to depths where carbones may eventually still be present. There it shifts its boiling point, oxidises prematurely and gives rise to violent eruptions. With the final subsidence of the water, all vegetation will gradually disappear in the same way that it once appeared. After the occurrence of immense catastrophes, which will manifest themselves in the form of earthquakes, cloudbursts, whirlwinds and so on, the vegetation zone, in conformity with natural law, will slowly but surely be covered with ice. Deluges and catastrophic inundations are already on the increase everywhere today, to which approximately 20 million human lives will fall victim. Presently these are only harmless events compared to the disasters which can be expected in the future. These must inevitably occur if humanity continues to allow itself to be guided and controlled by contemporary science.

As a case in point, the present explanation for the formation of rain is so incomplete that it is hard to believe how such a hypothesis could have been upheld for so many centuries. Science explains the origin of rain as the condensation of atmospheric water-vapour due to the presence of cold. This explanation is approximately true in its widest sense, but in the final analysis it actually describes only a very unimportant secondary effect. Even the formation of rain, as elementary experiments prove, must be attributed primarily to the above interactions. These can only arise when ascending carbones intersect with descending oxygen groups attached to microscopic particles of ice.

Were the scientific view correct, then in the higher strata of the atmosphere it ought to rain in winter and snow in summer, since it is well known that air and ground temperatures swap places with each other with the alternation of the seasons.

In consideration of the events described only in broad outline here, there is only one practical option left. That is to make humanity either suspicious or rebellious. Only thus, at the eleventh hour, will it still be possible, perhaps, to trigger off the necessary impulse towards recognition of the unimaginable danger that exists. This is a danger which today threatens a hoodwinked humanity regardless of race or nation. There are people, endowed with an almost God-given cluelessness, who have brought us to this terrible impasse and would lead us on into chaos also. Those apart, there ought to be people with enough humanitarian sensitivity to prevent our children from being led unawares into such frightful cataclysms. The possibility still remains to rip the blindfold from the eyes of sensible individuals and with their help, to undertake a rescue attempt. Our young people would doubtless energetically support this because it is their future that is at stake. There is no herbal remedy for stupidity, and therefore the unconsciously insane can hardly be called to account. However, if the causes of decline appearing everywhere are recognised for what they really are, then any continuation of these per- verse practices, which are consciously leading all humanity towards disaster, would unquestionably be deemed a criminal act.

Conforming to natural law, the systematic disturbance of the water balance will reliably happen as a consequence of current industrial, technological and economic practices, leading to the increasingly extensive suppression of interactions that condition all life in Nature. The logical outcome of the cessation of oxidative processes occurring between basic formative substances is an increasingly widespread cooling and desolation of the all-nourishing vegetation zone. If the present modi operandi continue to be applied, then apart from the emergence of disease and degeneration, world- wide famine must inevitably follow.

The insights gained from the preceding explanations must force us to a decision. We renounce the grievously damaging achievements of contemporary science and technology and we strip our reigning intellectual masters of their power. Alternatively we allow them, little by little, to strip us of ours, and by every trick in the book to put us on ice (in the true meaning of the term). In this scientifically contrived, conserved form, we will be preserved for as long as conceivably possible. At the very least we will eventually provide a future humanity with the cautionary end-product of a bygone 'culture'. Vienna, November 1933.

Cigarbutt · November 9, 2017

"The perpetual tendency in the race of man to increase beyond the means of subsistence is one of the general laws of animated nature which we can have no reason to expect will change."

That was from Malthus (1798). Quite a while ago.

I would also tend to agree with the perpetual tendency to hope for more human ingenuity.

Productivity is not necessarily a dirty word.

With radical solutions, one has to worry about throwing out the baby with the bath water. No?

Disclosure: optimist.

MrB · November 9, 2017

I think climate change is more complex than economics, making “experts” in the field less reliable than economists. Not exactly a compliment.

rukawa · November 9, 2017

I think climate change is more complex than economics, making “experts” in the field less reliable than economists. Not exactly a compliment.

I think the problem is more politicization than complexity. Early reports on climate change were far more balanced like for instance the one:

https://www.nap.edu/read/18714/chapter/1#xii

But today the reports lead, William Nierenberg is considered to be according to Oreskes, a Merchant of Doubt, for his role in leading the report.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nierenberg

To me though he was a fairly objective scientist operating in a time before hysteria and politics took over.

Cigarbutt · November 9, 2017

https://newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty

"Restricting our vision of reality today to just the core content of science or the core content of the humanities is being blind to the complexity of reality, which we can grasp from a number of points of view. The two points of view can teach each other and, I believe, enlarge each other."

If pressed for time, here's a summary: An open mind can go a long way.

jeffmori7 · November 9, 2017

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/11/07/opinions/climate-report-opinion-mann/index.html

rukawa · November 11, 2017

https://newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty

"Restricting our vision of reality today to just the core content of science or the core content of the humanities is being blind to the complexity of reality, which we can grasp from a number of points of view. The two points of view can teach each other and, I believe, enlarge each other."

If pressed for time, here's a summary: An open mind can go a long way.

Its an excellent article. Let's go off-topic.

I would summarize it somewhat differently. He is basically saying that the problems of science are as much conceptual as they are about fitting theories to data. Science has become divorced from philosophy to such an extent that this conceptual questioning and understanding is dying and what's basically happening is a kind of curve fitting which doesn't really work that well. Steve Keen has made similar points about the problems that have happened when physicists entered economics and created econophysics:

http://www.academia.edu/8020587/Worrying_trends_in_econophysics

Essentially the physicists in econophysics ignore basic concepts in economics completely and create models aren't grounded in any way in an understanding of what actually happens in economies. They are just curve-fitting exercises. Its an awful way to do science.

To me this isn't surprising. I'm not a socialist but here I find myself agreeing with Alfie Kohn (God I really hate that fact) who writes about how rewards and competition narrow people's thinking. Incentives, competition and money in science our narrowing our approach to these problems. In a hugely detrimental way I'm afraid.

Cigarbutt · November 12, 2017

« Let's go off-topic. »

OK.

Interesting link and did not know Alfie Kohn and his work.

Realize that a lot of "choices" that he describes are available in my environment (alternative schools etc).

Optimist but have doubts about spontaneous intrinsic motivation as most of us need a hand (albeit invisible sometimes).

Question: Is economics a science?

I’ve often felt that uncertainties about conceptual weaknesses and generalization issues of economic models are often concealed under the illusory precision of fancy equations.

Here’s a link that offers food for optimism:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/nov/06/is-economics-a-science-robert-shiller

BTW, that’s why I think/hope that we will get through the coming energy transition.

rukawa · November 13, 2017

To get back on-topic. I think there might be a better way for us to settle this debate on AGW. Instead of arguing about what the science says...who is right etc, lets do the following:

Tell me what evidence you would need for your beliefs to change

I'll start. I've tried to think of something simple, measurable that would be an un-mistakeable sign that something very unusual was happening, humans were responsible and the effects were dangerous. Right now I already believe C02 warms the Earth and I believe humans are responsible but I don't believe its dangerous.

I don't consider sea level rises dangerous unless the exceed 20mm a year (2m a century). For context, after the last ice age sea levels increases 120 meters over 13000 years or 1m a century on average. Actually I'm not even sure that is dangerous but definitely anything below that wouldn't be cause for concern. The current rate is 4mm a year.

For temperature I would probably need something in the order of greater than 7 degrees of global increase or a rate for 20 years that would imply that increase over 100 years.

Cigarbutt · November 13, 2017

"Tell me what evidence you would need for your beliefs to change".

Loaded question with "beliefs" used as an end-point.

Don't have the knowledge base to factually continue this conversation.

But, in terms of uncertain events that could have a major significance, here's a quote from somebody you called brilliant in another thread:

"By "uncertain" knowledge, let me explain, I do not mean merely to distinguish what is known for certain from what is only probable. The game of roulette is not subject, in this sense, to uncertainty; nor is the prospect of a Victorybond being drawn. Or, again, the expectation of life is only slightly uncertain. Even the weather is only moderately uncertain. The sense in which I am using the term is that in which the prospect of a European war is uncertain, or the price of copper and the rate of interest twenty years hence, or the obsolescence of a new invention, or the position of private wealth owners in the social system in 1970. About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know. Nevertheless, the necessity for action and for decision compels us as practical men to do our best to overlook this awkward fact and to behave exactly as we should if we had behind us a good Benthamite calculation of a series of prospective advantages and disadvantages, each multiplied by its appropriate probability, waiting to be summed."

(my bold)

I know this is a subjective (or a degrees-of-belief 8)) statistical approach.

You don't have to agree and, for more consensus on the public side, it may take a while before probabilities refine enough.

The race is on.

Cigarbutt · November 25, 2017

Here's a link which provides data suggesting that a "climate change" stance should not be necessarily be thought as an equivalent to capitalism demise.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-crisis-capitalism/

Cevian · March 23, 2018

The attached one pager from Nassim Taleb sums up my thinking on this topic.

climateletter.pdf

rukawa · March 23, 2018

The attached one pager from Nassim Taleb sums up my thinking on this topic.

I have heard this argument repeatedly but I don't think it makes sense. The argument form itself is strange because appears to get something from nothing. It comes up with a desired course of action based on ignorance of the actual situation. The error made in the argument is the assumption that warming the planet carries risks but not warming the planet carries no risks.

However that isn't the case. We could for instance be avoiding an ice age by warming the planet. In this case the alternative to global warming is catastrophic cooling. Generally speaking the whole precautionary principle argument has similar problems. You always have this default assumption that the status quo is riskless. But that assumption is baseless. So you aren't really getting something from nothing...you are getting something from the assumption that doing nothing carries minimal risk.

I also find it a very strange assumption given the fossil record. The fossil record is hugely discontinuous. What you see is species just disappearing completely and new ones appearing. The original interpretation of this before Darwin was that there were regular catastrophic floods and that God then came in and specially created species through a divine act. But its pretty clear that regardless of interpretation, there are regular naturally occurring events where large numbers of species are wiped out.

Finally I find the whole philosophy of environmentalism to be somewhat incoherent. The basic idea of environmentalism is that there is an undisturbed environment that is this beneficent, ideal place which is highly stable over thousands of years and everything is hunky dory. Then you get this evil humans who "artificially" interfere with this delicate equilibrium disturbing it and causing havoc.

But where did the humans come from? They themselves came from nature. And everything they do is as "natural" as anything else in nature. Saying humans "disturbed" nature is basically the same as saying that nature disturbed itself. And of course it begs a huge question. If nature could produce this horribly disturbing havoc causing species called human beings...why only once? Why could it not have done this many many times. And then why would anybody assume nature is stable? The simplest explanation is there is no stability in nature and there is nothing particularly special or unusual in what humans are doing compared to what happened before.

There are other stupid ideas. Like the idea that if humans misbehave then nature's experiment of humans will by eliminated by nature because she will get angry or something. Nature though has no memory and no will. It can therefore recreate the "failed" human experiment thousands of times either with humans themselves or other species. It also has no sense of a "global optimum"....only local success. For instance, the end point of cancer is the destruction of the host in which the cancer has managed to "win". You would think that nature would learn from this or the cancer would. But that isn't how natural selection works...there is no memory....no concept of past failures. So cancers keep popping up and killing humans even though in the end its a failed strategy...the cancer genes don't really get a chance to propagate beyond the human. Every single time a human is born...cancers have to begin their evolutionary struggle from scratch. But the reason this keeps happening is that the cancer never ever learn...they just keep repeating themselves because it leads to local successes even though in the end it results in a global failure.

My point is that if humans are a tremendously stability destroying species and we happened once...it implies nature is inherently unstable. And if that is the case there is no reason to believe the status quo is safe for us.

Sign In

There is no such thing as climate change...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation