RKL: I woke up at 3am thinking I shouldn't have called them liars. I am glad to see they cite Bretz at the place Drew most kindly pointed out. I wouldn't have made that far. I think they misuse Bretz by saying that he said it was one flood, as opposed to many. His theory was preliminary. A geologist friend who met Bretz said he didn't follow up on this idea. He went on to other things leaving other geologists to do the research. Saying the current accepted explanations are compromises is just not fair. If there were to be a compromise, it would be to combine the Bretz flooding events with the comet idea. I am agnostic about that. At sometime, I will watch and read more stuff on these guys. Thanks for putting this up.
Finally, i can't express enough how amazing the Eastern Washington landscape is. If you have the time and can afford it, buy the geo-location guidebooks and take a tour. It is amazing. BTW I have stood at Dry Falls many times and gaped in wonder at it.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
It is said that Einstein once hypothesized about crustal slippage. that is was caused by the unequal weight distribution occasioned by the uneven buildup of large ice masses near, but not directly centered on, the geographical poles. Like a top, unequal weight distribution rotating about the center might cause a shift in the rotation, or a slippage in the crust, to equalize the weight about the axis.
I believe Einstein eventually concluded that even the abnormally large ice caps wouldn't weigh enough to produce the effect.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
He is a very interesting and engaging thinker and speaker. He is correct that impacts from space may have played a role in sudden climate changes throughout time at a greater rate than is now generally acknowledged. He is correct that the Earth and the Sun have cycles of warning/cooling that have gone on long before humans burned fossil fuels. However, after listening to him and being very interested and informed on a few things, DO NOT AGREE - IN FACT FIND DANGEROUS his views that aside from pollution, the burning of fossil fuels [and other human activities] are not responsible for the majority [overwhelming majority] of the current climate change! Sorry! I have trained in Environmental Science to the doctoral level, taken courses in climate science, and also have a hobby of reading about and collecting meteors and other impacts from space; and another interest in ancient civilizations. He is conflating some misunderstood and/or under-studied things [such as floods and rapid climate change due to extra-planetary impacts] and the notion that ipso facto humans don't drastically effect the atmosphere, oceans and climate - as well as other factors. Not convinced by that part of his diatribe at all! ::face.palm::
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Lauren Johnson Wrote:RKL: I woke up at 3am thinking I shouldn't have called them liars. I am glad to see they cite Bretz at the place Drew most kindly pointed out. I wouldn't have made that far. I think they misuse Bretz by saying that he said it was one flood, as opposed to many. His theory was preliminary. A geologist friend who met Bretz said he didn't follow up on this idea. He went on to other things leaving other geologists to do the research. Saying the current accepted explanations are compromises is just not fair. If there were to be a compromise, it would be to combine the Bretz flooding events with the comet idea. I am agnostic about that. At sometime, I will watch and read more stuff on these guys. Thanks for putting this up.
Finally, i can't express enough how amazing the Eastern Washington landscape is. If you have the time and can afford it, buy the geo-location guidebooks and take a tour. It is amazing. BTW I have stood at Dry Falls many times and gaped in wonder at it.
FWIW, I am not totally sold on their theory, but then I am not a geologist or archaeologist, so I am largely having to trust my instincts on this one. I'm quite impressed by the variety of evidence that they have put together, but I would also be interested to see it rigorously challenged by other scholars and researchers. An honest, Socratic debate around this subject would be fascinating, I think.
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.â€
― Leo Tolstoy,
Peter Lemkin Wrote:He is a very interesting and engaging thinker and speaker. He is correct that impacts from space may have played a role in sudden climate changes throughout time at a greater rate than is now generally acknowledged. He is correct that the Earth and the Sun have cycles of warning/cooling that have gone on long before humans burned fossil fuels. However, after listening to him and being very interested and informed on a few things, DO NOT AGREE - IN FACT FIND DANGEROUS his views that aside from pollution, the burning of fossil fuels [and other human activities] are not responsible for the majority [overwhelming majority] of the current climate change! Sorry! I have trained in Environmental Science to the doctoral level, taken courses in climate science, and also have a hobby of reading about and collecting meteors and other impacts from space; and another interest in ancient civilizations. He is conflating some misunderstood and/or under-studied things [such as floods and rapid climate change due to extra-planetary impacts] and the notion that ipso facto humans don't drastically effect the atmosphere, oceans and climate - as well as other factors. Not convinced by that part of his diatribe at all! ::face.palm::
What do you make of this latest video from Corbett, Peter:
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.â€
― Leo Tolstoy,
02-12-2015, 11:24 AM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2015, 12:34 PM by Peter Lemkin.)
Look, I have spent years studying this matter at graduate school level as part of my formal studies - and in the decades afterwards. Even if global warming and climate changes were not anthropogenically driven [which I firmly believe science proves they are], even if it were not due to humans - but to something else WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO FIGHT TO DO ANYTHING/EVERYTHING TO REVERSE OR LESSEN THE EFFECTS - OR PERISH.
Look who you are getting into bed with on this: the major corporations and banks; the oligarchy worldwide; the rightwing thinktanks; the oil corporations; the coal and gas corporations; and groups and individuals like that. Just one specific example:
Quote:Since 1997, Koch, who heads the oil and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries, has also provided at least $79 million in funding to groups that deny climate change and thwart government policies that would address it.
Yes, massive volcanic activity (such as the Decan Traps in India), and meteor strikes have caused sudden climate change in the past. Have you noticed any of either in the last several hundred years? No. This huge spike in CO2, Methane, and other greenhouse gases, causing global heating, climate change, ocean acidification, megadeath and changes of the biota are human driven.
Again, even if they were not, to save humanity and most other creatures on the Planet, we must do all we can to mitigate and negate the changes! Even those who for reasons most climate scientists do not 'buy' believe it is not humans causing this should still be on the same side as those who do to lessen the change and the horrible consequences. If you want to just throw up your hands and say it is out of human control [both cause and mitigation]....then rather than being part of the solution, you are part of the problem. IMHO.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Quote:What do you make of this latest video from Corbett, Peter?
If others don't mind, I have been thinking about this question.
Corbett is just flat wrong about AGW.
This is how I understand his general direction. The globalists have created the false science of AGW to advance their agenda towards global domination. Yes, the world is warming but it is largely not caused by the insignificant gas CO2. It's absurd on the face of it. But by corrupting climate science by various means, they have created this mythological chimera threatening human existence.
So, that is his main point. CO2 is trivial. Duh!
Then there's that hockey stick. Once again, he correctly points out that when the graph is displayed from zero, you see the relatively tiny fluctuation of global average temperatures. What's the big deal?
Well, climate science does indeed say that small fluctuations in average temperature do indeed have huge effects, and their science I find quite persuasive. But then, this begs the question of how do they know what ancient climate was like. Corbett claims that it is based on tree rings. My understanding is that a bigger source of data comes from sophisticated analysis ice core samples taken from very ancient ice on Greenland and Antarctica. This is correlated with lots of other data, like for example tree rings.
I would agree to the extent that globalists would certainly try to benefit from the climate crisis. But jumping from that to denying climate science is just pathetic. F. William Engdahl does the same thing.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Well, there is a lot to be said in response to these three posts so I will have a stab at it. I am, of course, not a climate scientist, but I am certainly equipped to spot logical fallacies and dubious assumptions.
Re: Peter's post: with respect, "I'm a climate scientist" and "look who you're getting into bed with" are not really arguments. You could be 100% correct, in your claims but you're not exactly going to prove them like that. Your first comment is an appeal to authority and the second one is equally true from the other side of the argument. See:
Your comments about volcanic activity etc. are not really valid because Carlson and Corbett bot say that human activity does affect the climate. They would be crazy not to. What they are critiquing is the manipulated science (see the video) that is being used to support the AGW arguments and the wider agenda being implemented as a result of it. If you can legitimately critique the claims in the video--or other such claims of manipulation/selectivity--then I would certainly be interested to read that. I am open-minded about the subject.
Re: Magda's picture: the simple response is to ask why the ruling class should be trusted to implement any of those things in the interest of the people. Where is the historical evidence for that being a valid assumption? Why is scepticism about the intentions of Gates, Rockefeller etc. suspended over this issue alone?
Re: Lauren's post, I don't really understand what "denying climate science" means. They aren't denying it; they are critiquing it. That is entirely healthy. If their reasoning or methodology is faulty then they should be pulled up on that, but in all the replies on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of why they are wrong. Where are they getting it wrong? There is lots of specific information in the Corbett video (with links) but nothing much in the criticisms that I'm seeing here.
The funny thing is, I am 100% on board with the idea of conservation and protecting the environment. When Peter says "Even if global warming and climate changes were not anthropogenically driven... WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO FIGHT TO DO ANYTHING/EVERYTHING TO REVERSE OR LESSEN THE EFFECTS" I couldn't agree more. So we are effectively on the same team where that is concerned. We are just miles apart (or so it seems) on how this issue should be approached.
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.â€
― Leo Tolstoy,
Quote:Re: Lauren's post, I don't really understand what "denying climate science" means. They aren't denying it; they are critiquing it. That is entirely healthy. If their reasoning or methodology is faulty then they should be pulled up on that, but in all the replies on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of why they are wrong. Where are they getting it wrong? There is lots of specific information in the Corbett video (with links) but nothing much in the criticisms that I'm seeing here.
RKL: No, I don't think they are critiquing it. When I hear Corbett say that changes in CO2 levels won't change global average temperatures, he is denying one of the most fundamental principles of climate science. He said this on one of his broadcasts with a dismissive tone. That is far beyond being a critique.
Secondly, he referred to his complaints of the hockey stick graph as accurate but revealing how he fundamentally once again refuting a basic understanding of global climate after decades of research. In other words, the truncated hockey stick graph in fact demonstrates what is physically happening with the planet. Small changes have big effects on life on planet earth.
So, I would be more than happy if you want to put up some of the stuff you find compelling or at least interesting here. My with my.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
