Politics

[deewayne2003]

This is a Joe Rogan podcast from a few days ago in which he spends a couple of hours discussing climate with Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at MIT and Dr. William Happer, Professor of Emeritus of Physics at Princeton. Neither are what one would call internet influencers or selective "fact" dispensers.

Obviously, it is a lot to listen to, though if you have not seen or heard one of Rogan's discussions, this would be a good one to try out.

Highly qualified views on climate and mankind's potential influence on it such as these were largely banned from social media during last decade. While any idiot with a keyboard, juvenile with her parent's money, or former Vice President with a BA in Government from the University of Tennessee could get an audience to spout their latest prophesies of doom and destruction, real scientists like these were consigned to a form of public banishment.

The discussion includes the hardly remarkable observation that the climate system is complex, and the claim that we can fine-tune global temperature with carbon taxes and wind turbines is fantasy. Lindzen reminds us that climate warming is actually quite modest, that there has actually been no increase in extreme weather (though more people have populated areas that are subject to extreme weather), and that the benefits of CO2 fertilization is a worldwide agricultural good.

The climate industry and the politics advantaging itself from it, particularly those associated with control in all its forms, has metastasized due to the lack of scientific rigor, experimentation, and debate that normally accompanies scientific assertion. Indeed, the blind acceptance of the whole climate crisis represents something more akin to religious fervor than anything remotely like investigative science. How many times have all of us heard "I believe in climate change," said with the same unquestioning fervor as "I believe in God."

The power of Rogan should not be underestimated by those vested in the climate industry. CNN garners roughly half a million viewers. Rogan's podcasts reach 14-15 million, and the vast majority of those are not Boomers. For many, this will be the first time that they have heard facts and reasoned argument offering an alternative climate thesis. Perhaps this pendulum is beginning to swing as well.

Well said!

In 2019 Dr. Susan Crockford was fired/contract not renewed by the University of Victoria because she she published her findings on polar bear populations; she found that polar bears were thriving and the slight warming increased their hunting areas and breeding.

https://martlet.ca/assistant-adjunc...r-politically-incorrect-views-on-polar-bears/

Needless to say this didn't fit the status quo of "Sky is Falling" set forth by mainstream academics.

When confronted by the brain trust of UT graduate students that haunt the bars of Austin as to my views of climate change I would simply state......

"I believe in climate change because the climate has always been changing and this we know for a fact."

Glaciology is a science that is less than 50 years old yet people believe these scientists have figured everything out, remember just a few hundred years ago leading scientists thought the world was flat and if you said different you could be burned at the stake; now by some form of reverse miracle of evolution we have people believing again that the earth is flat.

 

[deewayne2003]

This would be one of the most pivotal rulings in US history. The consequences taken to their logical ends would be countless bills are void, almost all the pardons are invalid, etc, etc.

Also a very good reason why Trump has had himself filmed signing his executive orders.

 

[MS 9x56]

No one can refute your "facts" because they are opinions based on your own sad reality of being a moral crusader.... just look how that has worked out for Minnesota.

I on the other hand am an optimist at heart.

Example - Average life expectancy in the USA is 79.4yo..... So I'm hoping the law of averages works out that time will silence you within the next year.

Now that is just cold my dear man and rude.

 

[jruby]

Frosty has been on my ignore list for a while now.. but I can see several are still engaging him..

What I find super amusing is that the entire spectrum of AH politics has refuted him… everyone from the furthest of right wingers to our more moderate centrists to our more left leaning members…people that love Trump, people indifferent about Trump, people that hate Trump… US Citizens, Canadians, and Europeans alike all agree that his “facts” and his “knowledge” are indisputable drivel..

And yet he insists he has the only correct position on pretty much anything/everything..

Clearly a clown with the emotional intelligence and actual intelligence of a box turtle…. or a purposeful troll…

It is a rare, rare occurrence that the entire AH community agrees on anything in the politics thread… and yet, here we are… agreeing that frosty is both a moron and a turd of a human..

Funny the things that bring a community closer together lol…

Overstatement- I am enjoying and in many cases agree with him.

 

[rookhawk]

Well said!

In 2019 Dr. Susan Crockford was fired/contract not renewed by the University of Victoria because she she published her findings on polar bear populations; she found that polar bears were thriving and the slight warming increased their hunting areas and breeding.

https://martlet.ca/assistant-adjunc...r-politically-incorrect-views-on-polar-bears/

Needless to say this didn't fit the status quo of "Sky is Falling" set forth by mainstream academics.

When confronted by the brain trust of UT graduate students that haunt the bars of Austin as to my views of climate change I would simply state......

"I believe in climate change because the climate has always been changing and this we know for a fact."

Glaciology is a science that is less than 50 years old yet people believe these scientists have figured everything out, remember just a few hundred years ago leading scientists thought the world was flat and if you said different you could be burned at the stake; now by some form of reverse miracle of evolution we have people believing again that the earth is flat.

@deewayne2003 I've been trying to research climate change to get an actual understanding of the processes at work and their consequences. I'm far from at a conclusion, but where my mind is at right now is that if the lefty-loonies are 100% correct about man-made climate change, it doesn't matter one iota. When we think of climate change, the most significant form happens about every 30 million years and results in the end of the planet as we know it. Triassic, Jurassic, Cambrian...catastrophic events terraformed earth exterminating entire branches of the tree of life and allowing for the emergence of other life forms. Clearly, if that was all we were worried about, then man-made climate change would matter because those epochs take millions of years. But what about the smaller world-wide catastrophies? The younger dryas happened 11,600 years ago and we barely understand it. But at that time, the great northern shield glacier covered all of Canada and the Sahara desert was a lush, jungle like paradise. What happened? Lots of theories including comet impacts for a thousand year's of living hell on earth with the net result that all of America's megafauna had a mass extinction and scientists believe Homo Sapiens may have been reduced to as few as 3000 living souls worldwide. That was only 11,600 years ago and the world was devastated, nearly irrecoverably.

So when I hear about man-made climate change causing *slight* warming over centuries, my response is that this is not the biggest worry for our planet's climate because natural processes are FAR more probable that would be FAR more devastating. Other examples: "The year without a summer" about 150 years ago, the eruption of mount Pinatoubo <sp?>, etc.

This blue marble we live on is susceptible to devastating natural processes that could end not just human life, but all life on this planet. The frequency of these mass devastation events isn't millions of years, its roughly every hundred years. A CME as big as the event of the 1850s occurring today would probably kill 2/3rds of humans on earth.

 

[mdwest]

Overstatement- I am enjoying and in many cases agree with him.

ok... I'll retract and give him 1 member in occasional agreement vs pretty much everyone else in disagreement lol..

although were I the only person agreeing out of hundreds.. especially considering the diversity of the group in disagreement.. I'd probably reconsider my positions and at least question why I so obviously have a difference of opinion with so many others..

that said, like stated before.. he's been on the ignore list for a bit... so Im only seeing the responses to his statements (clearly all in refute).. so I have no idea what he has personally been saying of late.. I can only assume, based on the very obvious drivel and unsubstantiated bullshit like "there is no evidence that Pappe is a communist" (even after presented evidence that Pappe himself admits that he was a communist) that he continues to spout obvious drivel and unsubstantiated bullshit..

 

[steve white]

@deewayne2003 I've been trying to research climate change to get an actual understanding of the processes at work and their consequences. I'm far from at a conclusion, but where my mind is at right now is that if the lefty-loonies are 100% correct about man-made climate change, it doesn't matter one iota. When we think of climate change, the most significant form happens about every 30 million years and results in the end of the planet as we know it. Triassic, Jurassic, Cambrian...catastrophic events terraformed earth exterminating entire branches of the tree of life and allowing for the emergence of other life forms. Clearly, if that was all we were worried about, then man-made climate change would matter because those epochs take millions of years. But what about the smaller world-wide catastrophies? The younger dryas happened 11,600 years ago and we barely understand it. But at that time, the great northern shield glacier covered all of Canada and the Sahara desert was a lush, jungle like paradise. What happened? Lots of theories including comet impacts for a thousand year's of living hell on earth with the net result that all of America's megafauna had a mass extinction and scientists believe Homo Sapiens may have been reduced to as few as 3000 living souls worldwide. That was only 11,600 years ago and the world was devastated, nearly irrecoverably.

So when I hear about man-made climate change causing *slight* warming over centuries, my response is that this is not the biggest worry for our planet's climate because natural processes are FAR more probable that would be FAR more devastating. Other examples: "The year without a summer" about 150 years ago, the eruption of mount Pinatoubo <sp?>, etc.

This blue marble we live on is susceptible to devastating natural processes that could end not just human life, but all life on this planet. The frequency of these mass devastation events isn't millions of years, its roughly every hundred years. A CME as big as the event of the 1850s occurring today would probably kill 2/3rds of humans on earth.

AND...we are no more ready for a Carrington level solar event than we are an EMP attack.....

 

[steve white]

ok... I'll retract and give him 1 member in occasional agreement vs pretty much everyone else in disagreement lol..

although were I the only person agreeing out of hundreds.. especially considering the diversity of the group in disagreement.. I'd probably reconsider my positions and at least question why I so obviously have a difference of opinion with so many others..

that said, like stated before.. he's been on the ignore list for a bit... so Im only seeing the responses to his statements (clearly all in refute).. so I have no idea what he has personally been saying of late.. I can only assume, based on the very obvious drivel and unsubstantiated bullshit like "there is no evidence that Pappe is a communist" (even after presented evidence that Pappe himself admits that he was a communist) that he continues to spout obvious drivel and unsubstantiated bullshit..

And the poster you just answered has been on MY ignore list. Life is too short for a bunch of nonsense.

 

[jruby]

ok... I'll retract and give him 1 member in occasional agreement vs pretty much everyone else in disagreement lol..

although were I the only person agreeing out of hundreds.. especially considering the diversity of the group in disagreement.. I'd probably reconsider my positions and at least question why I so obviously have a difference of opinion with so many others..

that said, like stated before.. he's been on the ignore list for a bit... so Im only seeing the responses to his statements (clearly all in refute).. so I have no idea what he has personally been saying of late.. I can only assume, based on the very obvious drivel and unsubstantiated bullshit like "there is no evidence that Pappe is a communist" (even after presented evidence that Pappe himself admits that he was a communist) that he continues to spout obvious drivel and unsubstantiated bullshit..

I have rarely cared what others think especially those I dont know.

 

[Red Leg]

To add a bit more accelerant to the climate epiphany that may slowly be occurring among the millennial generations, this essay or editorial that originally was published in "The Ecomodernist" back in August, has been added to the solidly doctrinaire environmentalist Breakthrough Journal site. The author, Ted Nordhaus, is what makes the read so compelling. He is the director of the Breakthrough Institute, and over the last several decades has been an outspoken supporter of virtually any and all the "save the planet" initiatives. The article's title, "Why I Stopped being a Climate Catastrophist," reads like the prelude to a confession.

Why I Stopped Being a Climate Catastrophist

And why so many climate pragmatists can’t quit catastrophism

www.breakthroughjournal.org

I should also note that this is a far shorter read than Rogan is a listen. Several of his observations are worth noting.

For instance, he now decries the nonsensical assertions that fossil fuel use would somehow collapse the Amazon rainforest. He further acknowledges that the widely embraced predictions of global warming of 5 degrees by 2100 were never realistic. He goes further to say that despite 1.5 C warming since the end of the pre-industrial era, climate related mortality per capita has actually fallen dramatically worldwide rather than risen. Local disaster increases are the result of more of a given population deciding to live in high threat areas - i.e. the Gulf Coast.

He also grudgingly now accepts the reality of human engineering and adaptation in helping preclude a climate catastrophe.

I any case, the worm seems finally to be starting to turn. The industrial and political forces vested in climate alarmism will be sure to continue to beat the drum of impending doom. But finally, informed voices are beginning to be heard and some of the true believers are willing to question doctrine.

 

[deewayne2003]

Now that is just cold my dear man and rude.

I regret NOTHING........

 

[Frostbite]

the entire spectrum of AH politics has refuted him…

No.

Not even once.

Name-calling and rabid disagreement and butthurt whining..........none of that is refutation.

Study this to learn what refutation is........

refutation:​

A refutation proves that something is false. Refutations pop up often in law debates and philosophical arguments.

While a validation tells you something is true, a refutation does the opposite: it says or proves that something is untrue, refuting the claim. In court, a witness might offer a refutation of a suspect's alibi to show he's lying.

 

[Red Leg]

@deewayne2003 I've been trying to research climate change to get an actual understanding of the processes at work and their consequences. I'm far from at a conclusion, but where my mind is at right now is that if the lefty-loonies are 100% correct about man-made climate change, it doesn't matter one iota. When we think of climate change, the most significant form happens about every 30 million years and results in the end of the planet as we know it. Triassic, Jurassic, Cambrian...catastrophic events terraformed earth exterminating entire branches of the tree of life and allowing for the emergence of other life forms. Clearly, if that was all we were worried about, then man-made climate change would matter because those epochs take millions of years. But what about the smaller world-wide catastrophies? The younger dryas happened 11,600 years ago and we barely understand it. But at that time, the great northern shield glacier covered all of Canada and the Sahara desert was a lush, jungle like paradise. What happened? Lots of theories including comet impacts for a thousand year's of living hell on earth with the net result that all of America's megafauna had a mass extinction and scientists believe Homo Sapiens may have been reduced to as few as 3000 living souls worldwide. That was only 11,600 years ago and the world was devastated, nearly irrecoverably.

So when I hear about man-made climate change causing *slight* warming over centuries, my response is that this is not the biggest worry for our planet's climate because natural processes are FAR more probable that would be FAR more devastating. Other examples: "The year without a summer" about 150 years ago, the eruption of mount Pinatoubo <sp?>, etc.

This blue marble we live on is susceptible to devastating natural processes that could end not just human life, but all life on this planet. The frequency of these mass devastation events isn't millions of years, its roughly every hundred years. A CME as big as the event of the 1850s occurring today would probably kill 2/3rds of humans on earth.

We really do need to figure out the Younger Dryas. For at least a thousand years prior to and perhaps during the early stages of the event, the Clovis Culture had spread across North America. All that remains are the beautifully formed fluted dart and spear points that they employed to take down mega-fauna. They do not exist in post Younger Dryas deposits. The continentwide distribution of a single style of point indicates that they almost certainly were representative of a single culture. The myriad of point designs following the Younger Dryas reflect the pre-Columbian diversity discovered by the first European expeditions.

I found this Clovis point in the bed of the San Gabriel River behind our house two years ago. It could have washed down from miles upstream. The nearest excavated Clovis site is the Gault Site only about forty miles from this property. Because of its rarity, I had this point authenticated. Interestingly, this particular flint material is almost certainly not local, and may have been sourced as far away as Oklahoma. It also was almost certainly about an inch longer originally and the owner re-knapped it when the tip was broken or blunted - perhaps against the ribs of something like a giant ground sloth.

In West Texas, it is easy find the black matt layer which is a thin black deposit layer of organically rich sediment that coincides with the Younger Dryas. Similar layers are found elsewhere across North America. Debate continues on the meaning and results of this fairly narrow period of a lush environment. Scientists estimate this period lasted for 1000-1500 years.

 

[PARA45]

I found @Frosbite's image.

 

[Tanks]

This would be one of the most pivotal rulings in US history. The consequences taken to their logical ends would be countless bills are void, almost all the pardons are invalid, etc, etc.

Biden is not the only POTUS that has used the autopen. I doubt they can make a case to just void his usage. I wish the GOP would learn about Pyrrhic victories and spend their time productively. They have a bit over a year before the midterms and most likely will lose the House.

 

[rookhawk]

We really do need to figure out the Younger Dryas. For at least a thousand years prior to the event, the Clovis Culture had spread across North America. All that remains are the beautifully formed fluted dart and spear points that they employed to take down mega-fauna. They do not exist in post Younger Dryas deposits. The continentwide distribution of a single style of point indicates that they almost certainly were representative of a single culture. The myriad of point designs following the Younger Dryas reflect the pre-Columbian diversity discovered by the first European expeditions.

I found this Clovis point in the bed of the San Gabriel River behind our house two years ago. I could have washed down from miles upstream. The nearest excavated Clovis site is the Gault Site only about forty miles from this property. Because of its rarity, I had this point authenticated. Interestingly, this particular flint material is almost certainly not local, and may have been sourced as far away as Oklahoma.

View attachment 723036

In West Texas, it is easy find the black matt layer which is a thin black deposit layer of organically rich sediment that coincides with the Younger Dryas. Similar layers are found elsewhere across North America. Debate continues on the meaning and results of this fairly narrow period of a lush environment. Scientists estimate this period lasted for 1000-1500 years.

Very cool find, @Red Leg. I am not a paleontologist, but I believe the "official" explanation is that the megafauna died, therefore the Clovis people stopped making large points that were very difficult to craft and very heavy, thus they adapted to typical mammals and that is why the large points are not found thereafter.

The problems with the "official" accounts are two fold in my opinion. 1.) It is all predicated on the ironclad collective opinion of "Clovis first" migration to the Americas via the Asian land bridge. That hypothesis has been destroyed by the findings of far more ancient footprints in White Sands, NM. 2.) It requires a farcical belief system that waves of Asian geniuses and morons came over to the new world in waves, or that they went from geniuses to morons once they found a place to live in the New World as evidenced by incredible genius (e.g. Olmec) and not-so smart (e.g. Taino) gaining or losing knowledge at break neck speed.

If you leave science and enter mythology, there are a few global myths that seem to appear in virtually every culture. 1.) A worldwide flood/catastrophe around 11,600 years ago, 2.) A group of people, usually 7 wise people that were very tall, visiting groups and depositing lost knowledge on them, then leaving.

Now leaving the mythology and going back to the science, we do see startling evidence to support the mythology, debunking Clovis first and the entire story of the Americas. Some of this evidence includes the fact that nearly un-contacted tribes of the Amazon share DNA with those from New Guinea, the discovery that bio-char in the soil and the types of trees/plants indicates that the Amazon was built by man, for man, etc.

In short, scientists are afraid to publish anything that doesn't conform to the group think of archeology and they are not even digging in the right strata to look for pre-Clovis evidence because why would they since its settled science?

 

[steve white]

We really do need to figure out the Younger Dryas. For at least a thousand years prior to and perhaps during the early stages of the event, the Clovis Culture had spread across North America. All that remains are the beautifully formed fluted dart and spear points that they employed to take down mega-fauna. They do not exist in post Younger Dryas deposits. The continentwide distribution of a single style of point indicates that they almost certainly were representative of a single culture. The myriad of point designs following the Younger Dryas reflect the pre-Columbian diversity discovered by the first European expeditions.

I found this Clovis point in the bed of the San Gabriel River behind our house two years ago. It could have washed down from miles upstream. The nearest excavated Clovis site is the Gault Site only about forty miles from this property. Because of its rarity, I had this point authenticated. Interestingly, this particular flint material is almost certainly not local, and may have been sourced as far away as Oklahoma. It also was almost certainly about an inch longer originally and the owner re-knapped it when the tip was broken or blunted - perhaps against the ribs of something like a giant ground sloth.

View attachment 723036

In West Texas, it is easy find the black matt layer which is a thin black deposit layer of organically rich sediment that coincides with the Younger Dryas. Similar layers are found elsewhere across North America. Debate continues on the meaning and results of this fairly narrow period of a lush environment. Scientists estimate this period lasted for 1000-1500 years.

Now isn't this a lot more interesting than anything Frostbite has to say?

 

[mdwest]

I have rarely cared what others think especially those I dont know.

Who said anything about caring what others think?

What was said was related to having enough sensibility to critically evaluate what YOU think and believe when it becomes clear that pretty much everyone else thinks something completely different?

Its one thing to consider clearly divisive issues where there are substantial numbers of people on either side of an aisle.. those things are easy to take a position on and hold ground..

Its something else completely when people are largely unified, regardless of their religious, political, ethnic, cultural, geographic, etc differences and you stand alone in your beliefs..

A sensible man would step back and evaluate why that is.. what are they seeing that Im not seeing? what are they understanding that Im not understanding? and why are they seeing and understanding things differently?

That doesnt mean you change positions.. It simply means you have enough common sense to evaluate the situation, determine actual facts and truths, and then move forward (while at the same time putting yourself in a position to better defend your position.. primarily to yourself)..

whether the rest of the world determines that youre an obstinate fool, or a genius with vision and understanding beyond measure is irrelevant.. its not about everyone else.. its about you..

Otherwise youre just the proverbial pigeon.. and offer no value to anyone, to include yourself..

 

[Red Leg]

Very cool find, @Red Leg. I am not a paleontologist, but I believe the "official" explanation is that the megafauna died, therefore the Clovis people stopped making large points that were very difficult to craft and very heavy, thus they adapted to typical mammals and that is why the large points are not found thereafter.

The problems with the "official" accounts are two fold in my opinion. 1.) It is all predicated on the ironclad collective opinion of "Clovis first" migration to the Americas via the Asian land bridge. That hypothesis has been destroyed by the findings of far more ancient footprints in White Sands, NM. 2.) It requires a farcical belief system that waves of Asian geniuses and morons came over to the new world in waves, or that they went from geniuses to morons once they found a place to live in the New World as evidenced by incredible genius (e.g. Olmec) and not-so smart (e.g. Taino) gaining or losing knowledge at break neck speed.

If you leave science and enter mythology, there are a few global myths that seem to appear in virtually every culture. 1.) A worldwide flood/catastrophe around 11,600 years ago, 2.) A group of people, usually 7 wise people that were very tall, visiting groups and depositing lost knowledge on them, then leaving.

Now leaving the mythology and going back to the science, we do see startling evidence to support the mythology, debunking Clovis first and the entire story of the Americas. Some of this evidence includes the fact that nearly un-contacted tribes of the Amazon share DNA with those from New Guinea, the discovery that bio-char in the soil and the types of trees/plants indicates that the Amazon was built by man, for man, etc.

In short, scientists are afraid to publish anything that doesn't conform to the group think of archeology and they are not even digging in the right strata to look for pre-Clovis evidence because why would they since its settled science?

The Gault "Clovis" site also has produced artifacts that predate Clovis as have at least two in the Southern Hemisphere.

I suppose it is possible to conclude form followed function across a continent creating the same projectile/spear points. However, the primary argument against that is it never happened again during pre-Columbian North America - even regionally where the same animals were hunted.

Below are Kinney and Pedernales points (ignore the bullet). Both designs are found on our property. Both cultures are considered transitional archaic dating from 3,000 - 2,000 BC. The points were used with Atlatl darts on the same game, but each culture had its own design for that purpose. Neither is widespread, and are found from Central Texas to the Gulf Coast. Dozens of other designs are found in Texas alone.

The Clovis design, on the other hand, is found continent-wide. I believe that identical design had to reflect a common culture.

 

[Frostbite]

...whether the rest of the world determines that youre an obstinate fool...

There is significant controversy over Dr. Susan Crockford's scientific work, particularly concerning polar bears and climate change, and she is not regarded as a respected scientist by the mainstream scientific community. While she has a Ph.D. in zoology, her published, peer-reviewed work is not in the field of polar bear population dynamics or climate change.

Lack of relevant expertise

• Zoologist, not a climate or polar bear population expert: Crockford is a zoologist with a background in paleoecology and forensic zoology. Mainstream scientists note that she has no expertise in the effects of sea ice on polar bear populations, a crucial component of her climate-related claims.
• No original peer-reviewed research on polar bear populations: Unlike the established experts she debates, Crockford has not conducted or published original, peer-reviewed research on the specific population dynamics of modern polar bears.

Controversy over polar bear claims

• Claims contradict scientific consensus: Crockford's main position, articulated on her blog Polar Bear Science, is that polar bears are not endangered by climate change and are in fact thriving. This directly contradicts the consensus of the vast majority of polar bear experts, who find that polar bear populations will decline drastically as their sea ice habitat disappears.

And LOL over the whole spectrum of ignorant flat earth notions about Global Warming.