re-2/ climate & carbon

[Richard Moore]

Bcc: FYI

rkm website: http://cyberjournal.org

___________________________________

But first:

Ed Goertzen wrote:

Hi Richard:

To be brief:

My son built a telescope, a big one. 

He pointed it at Saturn and asked me to look for a while. 

As I looked, Saturn passed through the 'field of vision. 

Suddenly illumination! Saturn was not moving, the earth was turning. 

The earth moved and I felt as though I was feeling the planet's gears grinding!!!

Earth felt sooooo small.

WOW!

I invite everyone to the illuminating experience 

Thanks so much Ed for this first-hand report of an 'awakening moment', a moment of feeling the world in a whole new way. Your words are inspiring. I've had similar experiences. From a hilltop overlooking the ocean, with clouds on the horizon, I could 'see' the curvature of the Earth. I could see tops of clouds peeking over the horizon, that matched the tops of closer clouds, that were way, way, up in the sky. I could 'see' the bank of clouds folding down to follow the sphere. It was within my perceptual grasp. 

thanks for sharing the moment,

may others share theirs,

rkm

_________

re/ climate & carbon

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cyberjournal/message/532

Peter Koenig wrote:

When I first attended a 'global warming' meeting at the World Bank, soon there after followed by the World Bank administering a Carbon Fund - and when I commented during one of the 'warming' meetings, whether actually there was proof enough that we human beings could cause all that disaster, whether it was considered that natural cycles were taking place... I was given an unfriendly look --- "the guy doesn't understand"... no reply - and never again invited to such meetings....

... when all that happened some ten years ago, I became very-but-very suspicious about the new money game.

And when Al Gore got the Nobel Price for promoting this theory – well, then the dice were cast. And indeed, a few years back, the carbon fund speculations with bonuses and all - on the back of poor countries and in favor of the usual suspects - the occidental, Northern Hemisphere corporate polluters - it was already estimated that the carbon fund speculation business would generate and balloon to between US$ 15 and 20 trillion within no time.... I haven't checked, but wouldn't be surprised if this hot-air balloon were already way up there - ready to burst, and to create a new 'crisis' on the back of average and poor people's pension funds and bank accounts.

  So, of course, continue polluting is not the solution. Of course not. How can somebody so cynical? But the necessary laws need to be established and ENFORCED, because the polluter doesn't pay in our neoliberal world, and the necessary infrastructure needs to be built - a lot of useful investments - but NO MORE CARBON FUNDS and WS speculations - and misleading the public at large. – Again, We the People, can stop this fraud right now.

Thanks for the insider background information. I always love it when folks send in first-hand accounts of 'revealing events'. And it's interesting that both of us identified cycles and patterns as the first thing to be considered, if you want to understand climate change. I suppose there are some people who glaze over when they see a graph, and so they wouldn't think that way. But it is bloody obvious when you think about it. 

You say "We the People, can stop this fraud right now." Please, please tell me how!

rkm

--------

James McCumiskey wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that people have an inability and even a disinclination to think, or question accepted truths. 

Professor x and 120 million scientists say there is global warming, so there is. All the MDS say vaccines are good for babies so they are.

  This is why hierarchies are bad (Escaping the Matrix) and we all need to thinking for ourselves, and not trust in the experts.

  I hope 2012 is some kind of break-thru on all this

Very true. We've had lots of discussions on cyberjournal about why people hold on to beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. We've gotten somewhat deep into consideration of denial, defense mechanisms, role of the unconscious, etc. But, based on some of our recent discussions here, I'm beginning to think there's a simpler explanation that applies to a great many people.

The scenario goes something like this... John reads an article in his usual trusted news source that explains about climate and global warming. He finds it very convincing. Then he reads an article denying global warming, and he finds that convincing as well. So he looks up some more articles, and finds that the ones from the recognized experts all agree with the first article. John has done diligent research, and now 'knows' that global warming is real. 

Our 'John' is basing his judgement on (a) what is convincing, and (b) what comes with the best credentials. What John doesn't do, is to compare two conflicting arguments in detail, and see if one successfully rebuts the other. John doesn't try to do that, because he isn't an expert: he many not really understand the arguments, or he may simply feel that non-experts aren't qualified to figure such things out on their own. "Who am I to decide most scientists are wrong?!" 

John's learning method, then, is based on deciding which articles to believe, and which to dismiss. Once a certain belief has been repeatedly 'verified' by lots of credible sources, any article that disagrees with that can be dismissed without reading it. Who cares if it might be convincing? John has already dismissed convincing arguments with that conclusion, why bother plodding through another one?

So many times, people have said to me, "Your article is all wrong, and the proof is this other article by Jim Hansen" (for example). So I read the other article and it has no bearing on my article. I now understand this situation. Since John's criteria is 'what is convincing', he assumes that is 'the criteria', that everyone uses. His 'strategy' for arguing with me is to send me the most convincing article he knows of, because that is the strategy that would work on him. When I point out that his article doesn't rebut mine, that doesn't have much meaning for him; he doesn't evaluate articles in that way. 

From John's perspective, his reading time is most efficient if he can find ways to quickly reject material that he won't need to read. Sources are a start; he ignores all sources that regularly disagree with what he 'knows'. Next comes article titles, which can be a rejection flag. 'Looking for a way to dismiss' becomes a habit, an efficient way to get on to the next thing.

So many times, when I've posted an argument, some 'John' will pick out one tiny error, that has no bearing on the overall argument, and he'll announce that's his reason for dismissing the article. I always thought this was very illogical, but I see now that it's just the habitual way that John deals with new material. He didn't see any need to read the whole argument, once he had found a way to dismiss it. So he never noticed that the error was immaterial. Besides, paying close attention to arguments just isn't John's thing.

This 'eagerness to dismiss' plays right into the hands of propagandists. Indeed, it explains why certain propaganda tricks are used so often. Like in our previous posting, where David – an obvious propaganda-agent intruder on some list – was poking fun at the name 'Yahoo' and employing heavy sarcasm against me, all aimed at making it easier for a reader to dismiss my article. For anyone who found my article credible and interesting that kind of propaganda has no effect. It is seen for what it is. But anyone who is looking for a reason to reject, is very likely to respond to the techniques of a David. Propaganda arguments are always designed for John; they never try to be serious rebuttals. If there were a serious rebuttal, they wouldn't need to resort to propaganda.

rkm

--------

Ray Songtree wrote:

Hi Richard,  

The glaciers are melting in Tibet and the Andes.   Mt Everest has no ice on south side in summer now. The Hopi said long ago that a time was coming when farmers would not be able to know when to plant as the climate would be so mixed up. 

An anthropomorphic input we must consider is chemtrails, some from space shuttles. Global dimming from chemtrails themselves, and then heating which is what HAARP does with the ionized atmosphere.  These alterations are unprecedented which equals fucking radical.  Sorry, but it is that mad.

How insane are the elite... well, you won't be surprised... 

Bill Gates funds technology to destroy your sperm

http://www.naturalnews.com/034834_Bill_Gates_sperm_infertility.html

--------

Arthur Topham wrote:

What I find throughout these snippets of dialogue that stands out due to its total lack of presence is the issue of chemtrail spraying that has been ongoing now throughout north America and Europe and elsewhere for well over a decade. This phenomenon definitely is affecting weather and temperature patterns. Is there a reasonable explanation for why it doesn't appear anywhere throughout this discussion?

Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham

Publisher/Editor

The Radical Press

Canada's Radical News Network

A discussion of chemtrails and HAARP becomes a lot more interesting to people if they have come to understand that global warming isn't happening. They then have an interest in understanding what's causing unusual 'natural' events, if warming isn't the cause. As long as they 'know' warming is the cause, it becomes very easy to dismiss 'irrelevant speculations'.  

Cyberjournal has a certain focus; it isn't about everything. The focus is social transformation, which gets us into social movements, people's beliefs, the nature of the current regime, ideas about better futures, and various other topics. We're talking about climate as an exercise, to see how people deal with challenges to accepted dogma, to better understand why people ignore evidence, and to try to find ways to get through to people. 

Global warming is ideal for such an exercise, because it has become an almost universally accepted 'truth', held fiercely by the majority of people, and yet it is so absurdly and shallowly wrong. A classic case of the Emperor's New Clothes. Why do people insist they see clothes, even after the nakedness has been pointed out by the child, the non-expert (me)? That's what we're looking at, and learning about.

The problems involved in social transformation have to do with us. We are the problem. We are the problem because we should be transforming society and we're not doing it. We are the ones that need to be studied, not chemtrails. People know change is needed without believing in chemtrails. That isn't what's holding them back. 

That isn't to say chemtrails, HAARP, free energy, and UFOs aren't very interesting topics of discussion. I get involved in them occasionally myself, but not here on cyberjournal, not unless something seems particularly interesting from a scientific point of view. 

rkm

--------

Vera Gottlieb wrote:

Whether climate chaos is man-made 100% or not, I still am of the opinion that it would not hurt if we started cleaning up the mess we have been making all over the globe. Another benefit from this world-wide clean-up would be the creation of a lot of jobs that are badly needed.

I have a feeling everyone here agrees with you about cleaning up our mess. You're absolutely right about employment. We could have full employment tomorrow, building the sustainable society of our dreams. But that can't happen while the regime is still in power.

rkm

--------

M.A. Omas Schaefer wrote:

From "The First Global Revolution," Club of Rome.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

- Club of Rome

I practice a lifestyle that would make 90% of your readers "carbon hogs" in comparison. Yet, I am a firm believer in REAL science, not agenda-driven science that started with white papers from The Report from Iron Mountain and The Club of Rome. And yes, I've been asked for my opinion of global warming. When I have answered that it is a scam, you guessed it, the response was "Oh, so you believe in pollution!" And yes, the people who made the accusation were living lifestyles that caused a lot more pollution and consumed a lot more resources than yours truly.

From the very beginning of this scientific fraud, I always thought that two things were rather fishy:

A. Water vapor is conveniently not listed as a greenhouse gas, which of course, accounts for about 90% of greenhouse gas.

B. The IPCC proclaimed that the sun had NOTHING to do with warming or cooling!

 

You know the old saying, "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story." As I say, it was never about the facts. It was about using guilt to put humanity in a state of fear so that we would willingly go along with those who resent a free humanity.

  Your outraged readers can take comfort in knowing that the carbon agenda will continue. They can marvel at the elites (who put the agenda in place) as they fly around to their various mansions in their Gulfstream G8's, or sail the seas in their 300-foot yachts, while we the "useless eaters" are reduced to living lives of controlled deprivation, much like ants in a high tech hive. Meanwhile, their Pavlovian conditioning will leave them feeling good about their deprivation because it is "for the greater good."

  I highly recommend the film "Thrive."

 

Thanks or the Club of Rome quote. That is what led to the grand global-warming propaganda project. The propaganda was first launched on progressive networks, where it became an activist cause against 'the powers that be'. Once this was firmly implanted in progressives, Gore's film came out, timed to generate 'At last!' responses, and to firmly establish global warming as a recognized cause célèbre. Duh? Al Gore? Is he against 'the powers that be'? What is wrong with this picture? That was what first caused me to become skeptical about warming.

Your A and B are another case of a child pointing out about the emperor. Very simple observations, not reflecting expertise, and yet in themselves devastating critiques that are not answered by mainstream climate science.

Oh my, have you been taken in by Thrive? How sad. Once again, an elite propaganda project is being released first on progressive channels. Once again, they want progressives to take on as a cause, precisely what the elites are planning anyway. Zeitgeist was the first release in the project, and Thrive is a more sophisticated offering in the same genre. 

Above I was talking about the techniques of propagandists. I mentioned how sarcasm and other techniques can be used to make it easier for a reader to dismiss material. There are other techniques they use to make it easier for people to accept material.

In the case of Thrive/Zeiteist, the technique works this way: they lead off with stuff that the target audience, people like you and me, very much agree with. They pick controversial subjects, like 9/11 and the New World Order, and they show themselves to be people who really knows what they're talking about. They show themselves to be 'one of us', only they've done more research.

This is all the 'frame', just as David's frame was insults and sarcasm. The content of the frame is irrelevant to the propaganda message of the films. The message is about something else entirely, it's about the nature of a better society. Because the filmmakers have become 'one of us', and because they're 'so knowledgeable', and because they've done 'so much research', and because we've agreed wholeheartedly with all that went before, it is very very easy to continue watching in a receptive, believing state of mind. There's even a hypnotic element involved, which is carefully crafted in those two films, with repetition of symbols, voice style of narrator, etc. 

In the case of 'John', my plea to him would be to really dig in and compare the substance of arguments. But he won't, because his habit is to not go that deep. In your case, my plea would be to forget how much those folks are 'one of us', and think instead seriously about what their proposed new world would really be like, and whether it is at all realistic. In your case, I have a feeling my plea will make more sense than my plea would make to John. I'd be curious as to the outcome if you do re-view that part of the film.

rkm

--------

Peggy Conroy wrote:

Just so you get a balanced pic of this issue. Some ideas are of the religious sort (believed in spite of all facts) but a few contain morsels of truth.   Most noteworthy for geologists is "continental drift". It was marginalized for a long time but when evidence dictated it, resurrected in the form of plate tectonics.

  Thanks for all your efforts to improve the planet. And Yes, I would agree that I'm "very disturbed" as one of your members suggested! I'd like to "fix" a lot of things like pollution, war, etc.but as Obama said, you can move the ship of state only incrementally these days, not like we "hoped". What some people don't realize is that there are a fantastic number of "dixiecrats" in the GOP that are determined to get that n-------- out of the white house and don't care a hoot about the country/planet in their quest. 

As for overpopulation; the extinction of species & animal abuse on the planet is at an all time high. Billions less people would automaticlly correct that but governments/wealth have always been corrupt, with exceptions along the way, so minimizing that with billions of people make it even harder. We thought the internet would help but it looks like warfare will just move to the video game status there along with the drones.....

   All the best in finding your survival niche,

Peggy Conroy

West Chazy, NY

The continental drift controversy is an interesting one. The obvious conformance of South America's east coast, with Africa's west coast, was of course the observation that sparked interest in the the theory that continents might drift. A lot of serious science was then carried out, such as identifying strata of related flora and fauna, and rock types, that lined up latitude-wise on the two continents. The case was a strong one then, just as the case against global warming is a strong one now.

The scientific community rejected the theory, and dismissed the evidence, because no one could think of a credible explanation for how drifting could happen. This is actually quite illogical and unscientific. The scientific attitude is to say, "We've got a problem here. We've got all this evidence, and no explanation for it. We are temporarily unable to say whether or not there is drift. We better check the evidence again and start searching for an explanation". To dismiss the evidence, and to decide 'there is no drift', is sticking one's head in the sand. That is not science.

And then, when a mechanism was discovered – floating on the magma – then all that formerly dismissed evidence was dug up from the archives, and claimed as further proof of plate tectonics. 

Please everyone, realize that the process of science in our society is flawed. Partly because of corporate research funding, partly because of media treatment of science, and partly because of the socio-political nature of the academic community. Climate is only one of the areas I've poked my non-expert nose into. And in almost every case, I've run into dogmas that are as fragile as the Co2-causation thesis. 

Oh my, were you taken in by Obama? I guess it happened to a lot of good people. 'move the state incrementally' sure doesn't sound like the campaigner who PROMISED change you can believe in, and who exuded confidence that 'the ground of politics has shifted'. I could tell he was fake from the very beginning, because no one who actually wanted real change would be allowed to become a prominent figure. Like Ron Paul (not that I'm a Ron Paul fan), he would be marginalized by the press regardless of how much people liked him.

But of course the real thing that 'takes most people in', is the political game itself. It makes not one iota of difference who you vote for, except perhaps in local elections. They've already decided who will get the two nominations, how the campaign will be run, what each candidate will emphasize, and who the winner will be. We're watching an orchestrated event at the moment, with scripts being acted out by Romney, Gingrich, Obama and the rest. They even have backup plans, revelations of past misdeeds in reserve, in case the wrong fellow gets too popular. And then there's always the cincher, electronic, easily-hacked, voting machines. 

Quit worrying about whether the Republicans might get in. You can't change it, and it won't make any difference anyway. The same policies will be pursued whoever gets in.

rkm

__________