One truth about Global Climate Change

[Richard]

Hi Lou Anne, All

It seems to me you invited a conversation on the science of global warming
and then "weren't willing to go there."

I was thinking you'd engage with some questions or something like that.
Nope!

What I found, instead, was forging ahead, ignoring the genuine science...
WHY invite a discussion on the topic and then not engage in it?

Why can I explain in the most simple terms imaginable what's happening and
people who just don't accept consensus on global warming refuse to accept
it, EVEN WHEN they could easily confirm the reality of it. And they won't
even engage in dialogue about the details. NOT ONE WORD!

Why NOT confirm for yourself or at least explore the reality of those
things YOU CAN confirm? WHY NOT discuss it, openly, directly. This is NOT
the difficult material many believe it to be. Computer models? NOT
NECESSARY to understand it. It's really trivial stuff - exactly the things
I've been sharing - to no perceptible effect.

Sometimes, like all of us, I'm slow to see what's directly in front of me.

I'm not picking on you, Lou Anne, it's just that our recent dialogue - if
you can call it that - and your post (included below) happened to get it
to more fully click in my head what you and others on this list have been
saying. NONE of you have been willing to explore a single sentence of how
they, personally, could investigate the truth of it. BUT you DO say SOME
things that give good clues to where you're at.

What many of you who aren't willing to agree with the consensus on this
topic, have been saying in your emails - _literally_ writing - very nearly
always includes a focus on disagreement on the "human" aspect to these
discussions. Sometimes this shifts to "it's government," such as the
recent proposal that it's caused by weaponization of weather. So it's not
OUR fault, not MY fault; "Sure, it's humans but I'm not a part of it!"

I finally got it to FULLY click in my head: Logic? Science? Whatever
it is is NOT the issue.

At one of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meetings I attended (in San
Francisco) I was engaged in a conversation where one of us cracked a joke
that sparked a serious discussion. Here's the joke:

"98% of scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is real, and
100% of Earth scientists wonder why the percentage is so low!"

And what just clicked in my head is that the facts don't matter, the
science doesn't matter, LOGIC doesn't matter... What matters for those
that feel this way is primarily that they have an emotional problem with
the idea. Perhaps they don't want to feel culpable, or don't want to
change their way of life, want someone to blame someone, ANYONE else.

It's emotional, not logical, not factual. And no science, no fact, no
logic can overcome a person's emotions unless they are, themselves,
willing to face it themselves.

So, I'll be kind as I can and not call you out any further on how you're
not seeing the forest for the trees, etc, etc, etc.

I'd be wasting my time, yours, AND maybe upsetting or offending you. And I
DO NOT intend to offend.

I DO, however, hope you'll consider these words and muse on it from time
to time.

Regards, and truly best wishes,
Richard


On Sat, 11 Nov 2023, Lou Anne McKeefery wrote:
>
> I think the reason the controllers want and need to have humans be the
> reason for climate change is to implement carbon credits as the new
> measuring stick.  Spraying the sky to block the sun yields carbon credits. 
> Companies will be tied to their carbon usage and purchase carbon credits
> earned by spraying the skies by the commercial airlines. We'll be able to
> locked down on "spare the air" days. Their systems of shaming humans are
> already in place.  Now to convince us we deserve the punishment and beg for
> it.
> Lou Anne

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

Richard

I did get involved in discussions.  I don't support the idea that it's human endured. If I didn't make that clear by mentioning other planets having weather and storm changes as well as my last post about volcanic eruptions. I also mentioned carbon footprint lockdowns and carbon credits 

Also. I didn't begin this conversation. 

Not sure how I was not engaged  

Lou Anne

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sf911truth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf911truth+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/4680f80a-a362-ba23-3f04-5156004e40d5%40ScienceTools.com.

[Peter Gill]

https://www.thepulse.one/p/detaching-from-scientific-consensus
--
Sent from my Android phone with mail.com Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Dana Carson]

I personally refuse to even consider any explanation of the climate based on physics, chemistry and thermodynamics because it might spoil my it’s-the-government-out-to-get-us world view just sayin

dc

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 11, 2023, at 6:39 PM, Richard <Ric...@sciencetools.com> wrote:
>
> 

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

Hi Richard,

I don't think we can find a provable climate change position.   Remember the Big Bang theory of the creation of our universe?  Well it was recently disproven. The James Web Space telescope is making astrophysicists rewrite their textbooks.  That's science, always pushing the boundaries of what we think is true.

It's said the earth is warming based on historical patterns of temperature and many other measurements.  That's where this story begins.  Scientists measure what they have tools to measure, the rest is by modeling based on agreed assumptions. The result becomes a narrative for people to argue between them for more divide and conquer.

Lou Anne

[Dana Carson]

Can any of you explain the reason why the Big Bang Theory has held sway over the cosmological community for so many decades WITHOUT LOOKING ANYTHING UP?

What observations led to the conclusions that support the Theory and why are scientists questioning it?  What basic observations have been made, and why would they have led to this Theory?  Are scientists abandoning the Theory or just nibbling around the edges where a better explanation can explain the same observations?  And if it’s really being abandoned, what new observations are at play?

Dana

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 13, 2023, at 5:42 PM, Lou Anne McKeefery <lou...@mckeefery.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/CANJH31OdwjGKPrp6hc3EDFWGUN%3DaH-ObPOiFUaxggUNvL38%3DuA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dana Carson]

By the way, “Disproven” is a really strong word; does anyone really think THAT’S what we’re seeing?

Dc

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 13, 2023, at 6:26 PM, Dana Carson <danaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Can any of you explain the reason why the Big Bang Theory has held sway over the cosmological community for so many decades WITHOUT LOOKING ANYTHING UP?

[Dana Carson]

I think some people really don’t want their questions answered.  And if they are, the answers are neither accepted nor rejected; they’re just IGNORED.  It’s amazing.

Dc

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 13, 2023, at 6:28 PM, Dana Carson <danaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:

By the way, “Disproven” is a really strong word; does anyone really think THAT’S what we’re seeing?

[netw...@aol.com]

Dana -

If this comment was directed to me, here's my response.

I asked for a critique of a presentation by a PhD provost climatologist from Caltech, not exactly a nobody from nowhere.  He made a case using widely accepted empirical data, not models which are notoriously flawed and have been for decades.  This is actual science.

You dismissed him and the case he makes out of hand, without addressing any of the points he made...not exactly a scientific response...

So, yes, I have better uses of my time and choose to ignore someone whose idea of science is closer to religion than data driven science.

(Just as the mounting empirical data shows that the mRNA injections are, in fact, a bioweapon and causing massive deaths and injuries. The life insurance industry just raised an alarm about the very high excess death rates in just about every age group , especially the younger cohorts)

Be well,

John

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/97F04E33-0B6B-49A8-BED4-D53E39EBB64E%40yahoo.com

.

[Peter Gill]

I also have numerous times asked for a critique of the work of Professor Denis Rancourt, a top scientist and ardent climate change debunker, and a clear explanation of why I should pay him no mind, and have numerous times gotten no response. Peter

--
Sent from my Android phone with mail.com Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/1143530666.4306762.1700097514653%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Dana Carson]

My comment was a general lament, and was not directed at any particular individual.  But I’ll freely admit that I don’t really understand how group Email work.

DC

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 15, 2023, at 5:46 PM, 'netw...@aol.com' via sf911truth <sf911...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/1143530666.4306762.1700097514653%40mail.yahoo.com.