Post: #1

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/01/06/...integrity/

Quote:A climatologist at Georgia Institute of Technology resigned from her post because she could no longer navigate the stifling political orthodoxy on climate change.

Former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech Judith Curry announced her resignation in a blog post on Tuesday. While her resignation is technically "a retirement event," and she is "cashing out" to get her pension, Curry explained that "the deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists."

Curry is known for her scientifically astute explanations of the uncertainties in climate science. Indeed, she has been attacked as "anti-science" by other researchers who repeat the rote "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming is a catastrophic threat to humanity. In a cruel sort of irony, the universities — ostensibly the bastion of academic freedom — have become unsafe for those who, using good scientific methods, are skeptical of the received wisdom on climate change.

"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science," Curry wrote. "Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc." (emphasis added)

Post: #2

There are many others who rather shut up and take the money.

A few venture off into their own businesses offering long-term climate prognosis based on solar activity which is far more accurate than the current dogma. Companies for example are buying that.

Science in our times is utterly agenda driven - not only climate related, but also medicine, engineering (suppressing anything that endangers the petroleum combustion engine), psychology, gender-science (!!!!!), even bloody geology is concerned (they suppress again the true origin of crude oil or the field of catastrophism vs eon-long-geological changes).

In the future you will have generations looking over our disgustingly manipulated science and wonder how mankind was so expertly manipulated. At least in the past you have honest excuses for bloodletting or agenda-driven changes like astronomy (earth center of the solar system vs sun). Now you cannot even let backwardsness and lack of a scientific method count - now you simply have to admit that science is manipulated and the people are swallowing it all.

Post: #3

Ironically it's the older set that are becoming the less wise. I talked to a few old timers the other day and they still get all their news and reporting from the television. They are totally in the dark about how the world beyond their line of sight really operates.

On the other hand I know more than a few internet addicted millennials who aren't red pilled as such but who have a far stronger grasp of what lies behind the stage curtains.

Post: #4

I think we should have a neutral thread on Climate Change where we can have healthy debate.
I basically know what I was thought in school, but inquisition-type of reactions of the community and people to new data make me question the veracity of such facts.

Post: #5

The final back-stabbing hurrah from the baby boomers will be their early, silent and cowardly exit from the workforce and society. The sad thing is these "rage quit" boomers are the slightly braver ones, who will quit on principle and declare it, at least. The majority will rather cower silently as gen x and y take over and make the horrid decisions that cause everyone to suffer, which the boomers know to be wrong.

Very few will choose to stay and fight the good fight, speaking actively about politics, workplace and societal matters, truly putting in the work and sacrificing for their kids and grandkids.

No, apparently the best we can hope for from the boomers is that they'll retire early in a huff and make a blog post about how they can't take it anymore. Seeking praise for the momentous financial sacrifice they made by retiring a few years early to sooth their conscience.

So brave.

Post: #6

There's quite a debate among skeptics of IPCC style Anthropogenic Global Warming (ie, climate realists, REALLY): can a corrupted field be reformed? If so, how?

SEE "Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold"
By James Varney, RealClearInvestigations, at the end of December:
(http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/a..._cold.html )

Varney surveys some expert opinions, evincing some room for optimism, post-Trump.

No so Richard Lindzen of MIT (retired, National Academy of Science), who has argued for perhaps two decades that the field of climatology no long can even answer scientific questions. It's that corrupt.

Quote:...Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field [of climate science] that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected. “They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change.

“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

The other option was sketched out by the late Michael Crichton. He envisioned the funding of competing positions on this highly contested field. For example, one side (let's the 'New Traditionalists') could defend all climate change from the point of view of human influences.

This was required by the brain-child of the super rich Canadian socialist Maurice Strong, when the UNFCCC (or "UN-FUCK" to you and me), the United Nations Framework Commission on Climate Change and the 1992 Rio Conference - the mother of all future COPS (or 'Conferences Of the Parties') that - last left us with the Paris Treaty after COP21 (replacing the odious and impossible Kyoto Treaty).

The opposing side would be similarly funded, but tasked with the purpose of disproving the IPCC-style claims.

The goal would be to spur the field to heal and find its way to sound practice in science. US funded efforts would hope to generate similar efforts around the world.

The first problem with this solution is its higher costs because of redundancy.

But consider that the professional journal in renewable energy estimates that all the small billions spent on US federal research results in a field worth $1.5 trillion annually when all the subsidies, tax breaks and such are included.

And maybe the US spending isn't so small? The non-Partisan Congressional Research Service estimates recent rates of spending on research are as heroic as the best-remembered age of heroic federally sponsored science, the Apollo Moonshot program:

Quote:By way of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the entire Apollo program, from 1962 to 1973 with 17 missions, and 7 of them sending men to the moon and returning them cost $170 Billion, in 2005 Dollars. Using the CPI this works out to be about $200 Billion in 2012 dollars. In “fighting” climate change, the US is spending almost as much as it did on all the Apollo missions, without examining the correct data.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/02/w...undup-253/

If so, then a straight-up competitive, head to head funding scheme is certainly called for.

But the reply to this set of replies was offered by Judith Curry years ago: after the Climategate Scandal of hacked emails in later 2009, she observed that critics of the new orthodoxy are educated and informed, yet use different sets of data from the science to argue their conclusions.

She missed one key exception: the geophysics of carbon dioxide residency time in the atmosphere. Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Norway points out that over 35 studies using well-validated methods of physics show that this period is short, from 5 to 11 years or so.

But following the new dogma of the IPCC, this was increased from 50 to 200 years or more. Why? Because traditional measures of residency time didn't give them the time-spans needed to accommodate Henry's Law of partial equilibrium, about a ration of 1 to 50 carbon sinks, atmosphere to the oceans.



(Segalstad lite: "Models Trump Measurments" 2007, http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?...ef8947fa4e

Segalstad heavy: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/0...lieve.html)

Or perhaps Judith is correct: they DO use contrary methods, too?

At any rate, I recall back in 2005, after hurricane Katrina, when Dr. Curry worried about increasing number of larger hurricanes and spent her science days adding to her now 180 papers trying to show it was so! What happened since is that no strong hurricane (CAT 3 to 5) has struck the US shorelines (SEE https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/03/n...ntinues/).

She called the great founder of seasonal and hurricane forecasting, the skeptical and retired Dr William Gray of Colorado State University, a man "fossilized in the brain" for resisting the core of the field (ie, IPCC "science").

How that quickly that worm has turned.

Post: #7

I think that I am going to put up a major thread on the topic, because when guys like BlackPigeonSpeaks are openly somehow decrying that we as a human species have reached the end of creativity due to a stalemate of technology (cars unchanged, no space exploration etc.), then I have to vomit in my mouth frankly.

Back when I used to research suppressed science I found the following fields were utterly manipulated:

+ various geo-magnetic super-cheap energy inventions that can generate energy with the moving magnetic field of earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKmYqUSDch8
+ points toward magnetic propulsion machines and antigravity (little info on that, but possible enough that it may be true, since they would fight it tooth and nail or they can kiss goodbye their oil scam, their energy restriction scam, their water scam, their global warming scam
+ geology: oil being of mineral and not fossil origin
+ catastrophism vs the current consensus of eon-long continent creations
+ medicine:
- pleomorphism - would change the current virus/bacteria mania and utterly revolutionize medicine
- bio-morphic fields and morphic resonance
- RIFE frequency machine that easily targets any virus via a specialized frequency (they even had tests done in the 1940s with notable doctors and various machines were operational up until the 1960s when the FBI confiscated them all - there are interviews of the doctors who used them)
- space travel via sound and frequency waves
- weather manipulation via HAARP machines (no big secret - I saw the UN treaties from the 1970s which forbade the use of those technologies against other countries, but not their own populations)

This is not the end of creativity or science. It should mean the end of manipulated science.

Do you really think that psychologists are uncapable of studying gender differences and studying the art of seduction and Game as we call it here? Do you really think that they cannot divise studies to prove Game 100%?

Nah - currently scientists can barely say that there are just two genders and that women are less interested in technology - actually they cannot even say that wihout getting fired or shunned as shitlords.

Jeez - I am all for science, but seriously in science you should have 10.000 mad geniuses working on absolutely crazy theories and getting funding - and not firing them when they oppose the 51% consensus. Also the consensus should not be found due to considerations like:
+ how much are we going to lose if he makes combustion engines obsolete?
+ how much will population increase and how much will we lose when he actually cures cancer at rates of 100%?

Those considerations should not enter the fucking picture, dammit!


There should be at least 5 guys with IQs above 160 who are working on that.

Humanity has barely begun to scratch the scientific explorations, we don't need artificial intelligence for the next step. We need the globalists to get the fuck out of science!

Post: #8

(01-13-2017 09:52 AM)Orson Wrote:  There's quite a debate among skeptics of IPCC style Anthropogenic Global Warming (ie, climate realists, REALLY): can a corrupted field be reformed? If so, how?

SEE "Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold"
By James Varney, RealClearInvestigations, at the end of December:
(http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/a..._cold.html )

Varney surveys some expert opinions, evincing some room for optimism, post-Trump.

No so Richard Lindzen of MIT (retired, National Academy of Science), who has argued for perhaps two decades that the field of climatology no long can even answer scientific questions. It's that corrupt.

Quote:...Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field [of climate science] that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected. “They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change.

“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

The other option was sketched out by the late Michael Crichton. He envisioned the funding of competing positions on this highly contested field. For example, one side (let's the 'New Traditionalists') could defend all climate change from the point of view of human influences.

This was required by the brain-child of the super rich Canadian socialist Maurice Strong, when the UNFCCC (or "UN-FUCK" to you and me), the United Nations Framework Commission on Climate Change and the 1992 Rio Conference - the mother of all future COPS (or 'Conferences Of the Parties') that - last left us with the Paris Treaty after COP21 (replacing the odious and impossible Kyoto Treaty).

The opposing side would be similarly funded, but tasked with the purpose of disproving the IPCC-style claims.

The goal would be to spur the field to heal and find its way to sound practice in science. US funded efforts would hope to generate similar efforts around the world.

The first problem with this solution is its higher costs because of redundancy.

But consider that the professional journal in renewable energy estimates that all the small billions spent on US federal research results in a field worth $1.5 trillion annually when all the subsidies, tax breaks and such are included.

And maybe the US spending isn't so small? The non-Partisan Congressional Research Service estimates recent rates of spending on research are as heroic as the best-remembered age of heroic federally sponsored science, the Apollo Moonshot program:

Quote:By way of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the entire Apollo program, from 1962 to 1973 with 17 missions, and 7 of them sending men to the moon and returning them cost $170 Billion, in 2005 Dollars. Using the CPI this works out to be about $200 Billion in 2012 dollars. In “fighting” climate change, the US is spending almost as much as it did on all the Apollo missions, without examining the correct data.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/02/w...undup-253/

If so, then a straight-up competitive, head to head funding scheme is certainly called for.

But the reply to this set of replies was offered by Judith Curry years ago: after the Climategate Scandal of hacked emails in later 2009, she observed that critics of the new orthodoxy are educated and informed, yet use different sets of data from the science to argue their conclusions.

She missed one key exception: the geophysics of carbon dioxide residency time in the atmosphere. Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Norway points out that over 35 studies using well-validated methods of physics show that this period is short, from 5 to 11 years or so.

But following the new dogma of the IPCC, this was increased from 50 to 200 years or more. Why? Because traditional measures of residency time didn't give them the time-spans needed to accommodate Henry's Law of partial equilibrium, about a ration of 1 to 50 carbon sinks, atmosphere to the oceans.



(Segalstad lite: "Models Trump Measurments" 2007, http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?...ef8947fa4e

Segalstad heavy: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/0...lieve.html)

Or perhaps Judith is correct: they DO use contrary methods, too?

At any rate, I recall back in 2005, after hurricane Katrina, when Dr. Curry worried about increasing number of larger hurricanes and spent her science days adding to her now 180 papers trying to show it was so! What happened since is that no strong hurricane (CAT 3 to 5) has struck the US shorelines (SEE https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/03/n...ntinues/).

She called the great founder of seasonal and hurricane forecasting, the skeptical and retired Dr William Gray of Colorado State University, a man "fossilized in the brain" for resisting the core of the field (ie, IPCC "science").

How that quickly that worm has turned.

The post you link for the Segalstad heavy article is from 2010. How does the information there hold up against the latest research?

I was sent this by a guy I'd been debating the matter with: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-...the-world/ . It has all the general snarkiness you'd expect, but from what I understand we have seen an unprecedented amount of warming in the last 100 years. I'd be very interested to get the opinions of those more knowledgeable than me on this.

Post: #9

Good one mate.

Let us all forget conveniently the up to 1980s taught medieval warming period and the mini-ice age. Also let us forget the 1930s and the true temperature peak we had in the last century.



I still remember how we were taught that the Romans conquered so much of Europe due to a temporary warming period and Greenland was settled also due to another such period by the Vikings.

Science - voila:

Post: #10

Judith Curry is not really a climate change skeptic. She generally believed that man-made carbon emissions were affecting global temperatures. However, she advocated cooperation, engagement, and debate with climate change skeptics, and this was considered heresy by the warmists. The blog RealClimate, operated by several extreme warmists like Michael Mann (creator of the infamous "hockey-stick" graph), published a number of political essays critical of Dr. Curry over the years.

She and other moderate warmists, like Roger Pielke, Jr., have been under constant attack by extreme warmists. It's one of the reasons why I'm skeptical of the theory of human-caused global warming. If the theory was so sound, then why do academics, politicians, and their environmentalist allies bully people who don't toe the line?

Post: #11

I'm sure my taxes are going to save a few species of seal, some polar bears, a poor African or maybe they're used as a means to prop up failing industries and financial blackholes via shame tactics.

I'm all for clean environment, sea's, rivers and beautiful natural areas, or garden cities but they can fuck right off with this global warming stuff. We have a star, we have gravity, we have solar winds, we are on a planet that has outlived us countless times over and we believe we're going to fuck it up by driving some cars and blasting furnaces?



Its a money scam.

Post: #12

I've read Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster (which is a very funny book) and he states that it is a combination of several agendas that have produced the global warming green machine. In short, however, it's simply a liberal narrative:

- Humans acting like humans are inherently bad and must be stopped/controlled by "progressive" government and regulation
- Since not all individual nation states can be expected to toe the line, then an overarching, global governance process needs to be established to redistribute wealth, enforce draconian environmental regulations, and punish/banish anyone who gets in the way

Post: #13

(01-13-2017 12:55 PM)C-Note Wrote:  I've read Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster (which is a very funny book) and he states that it is a combination of several agendas that have produced the global warming green machine. In short, however, it's simply a liberal narrative:

- Humans acting like humans are inherently bad and must be stopped/controlled by "progressive" government and regulation
- Since not all individual nation states can be expected to toe the line, then an overarching, global governance process needs to be established to redistribute wealth, enforce draconian environmental regulations, and punish/banish anyone who gets in the way

Yes, C-Note. That's true: the "Global Warming Crisis" is the primary tool for the globalists (ie, global top-down), promoting centralized World Government, a tool positing itself as the solution for the most menacing threat we've ever faced! Therefoe, we must face it down with collectively imposed actions:



With Trump solidly backing the alternative side of genuine science, however, things are gonna change.

The Agenda, for one thing, is going to get re-argued. For another, the public space dominated by True Belief in the crisis is gonna get an alternative one, and it will be heard and re-heard - finally.

And reading the AGW-skeptic (ie, climate change realist) web-sites, there seems to be a lot of opinion that the fact that the past 18 years has seen no net warming has left scientists struggling to come up with convincing explanations for the lack of recording predicted warming, while man made CO2 levels have climbed roughly 25%! Maybe they are ready ot move on, prepping the ground work to reconsider their paradigm....? And the he theory of climate change dominated by man-made atmospheric CO2, through an enhanced 'greenhouse' effect.

See Dr David Whitehouse' brief overview - PhD in astrophysics, Manchester; and prize winning former BBC science reporter and editor - in "Warming Interruptus - What Caused The Pause[?]" in global warming temperatures, here:





Of course, in the past 20 or so months, there has been another El Nino spike in global temperatures, much like in 1998-9. But the consequence, unlike then, appears to be renewal of "the pause." although it is quite early to judge - the rest of the year will provide useful data. But early satellite measurements are still flat for the period, or even very sightly (and insignificantly) declining in trend line.

To back up a bit and answer H1N1's query to me: "The post you link for the Segalstad heavy article is from 2010. How does the information there hold up against the latest research?"

I was at a ICCC7 conference in 2012, where Dr Segalstad, the Norwegian, lectured AGAIN on the topic. He came to the conference because he was asked to.

He says the "facts" about the field - measuring atmospheric residence times for CO2, one of his research specialty's - "had not changed" since he last lectured in North America in 2010. But was asked to come and so came here anyway.





It might be of interest to view the video of the lecture: his frustration is visible in how he rushes though the same material in 16 minutes from two years before (in 22 minutes in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYm6Hv9ZOsU) - albeit with better Powerpoint visual aids in the later one (which had none).

Segalstad is also very pointed in calling out the current corrupt science in the matter of the "the greenhouse dogma." In this lecture at 7 minutes in, Segalstad points out the 'what, where and when' of the IPCC science fraud: by simply deleting contrary scientific data on pre-industrial CO2 levels that failed to conform to this new, now received, climate dogma - ie, it’s all about PROVING (only) man-made causation of CO2 rise....

(As an old baby-boomer era joke goes, "My Karma ran over your dogma.")

Now, H1N1, I have not checked out your link yet. But you might consider a different tack: introduce other relevant science to the wider important question: does added CO2 harm or benefit the planet and humans?

That's what you can get out of the popular great science writer, Matt Ridley's lecture, in last September.

Against the objections of The London Guardian (among others), Ridley gave his talk at the Royal Society (in London) - the UKs original version of the US' National Academy of Sciences and to invited guests: “Global Warming Versus Global Greening.”

Ridley touches on several topics germane here. But the stunning fundamental point is that repeated studies show global greening as measure by satellite observations over three plus decades, coinciding with rising atmospheric CO2 levels. (Originally HERE in HD: http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpftv/?tubepress...5M1qtN62yk )





A famous BBC science presenter, botanist David Bellamy - who has authored some 35 books and presented hundreds of science programs - lost his 'cred' with the UK 'authorities', like the Beeb in the 1990s, when he announced his opposition to the climate dogma on precisely these grounds: as a botanist, he's very heartily for a greener planet! Added CO2 ought to make it greener. (eg, 7m interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuYEJTtbG94)

Now, as Ridley shows, the aging Bellamy (in his 80s now, I believe) was correct back in the 1990s! We see accumulated evidence from a variety of hard-data studies that increasing atmospheric CO2 is benefiting the planet - as well as fertilizing man-made food crops!

I don't recall Ridley giving a dollar estimate of the benefits (from an 8 to 14% greener planet, if I recall correctly), to making staple crops grown for food more abundant at no increase in costs. Thereby giving the poorest in the world more calories and nutrition, benefiting their young developing brains and growing bodies with lifetime of benefit.

Over at Breitbart.com, James Dellingpole presents some excerpts from Ridley's talk, and links to a complete transcript with visuals and references, for your inspection. (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/...e-lecture/)

Finally, another tack is to simply summarize the failure that is the IPCC science, based on exposing all of their disingenuous claims about "advancing” the science through their successive reports (/sacr off).

Hebrew University Astrophysicist and paleoclimatologist Nir Shaviv summed up his reaction to the latest IPCC report (ie, Working Group 1, the science section) in 2013, with this:

Quote:More seriously, let me put this in perspective with the most boring graph I have ever plotted in my life. Below is the likely range of climate sensitivity as a function of time. As you can see, with the exception of AR4 ["the Fourth Assessment Report"] with its slightly smaller range mentioned above, the likely range of climate sensitivity did not change since the Charney report in 1979. In other words, after perhaps billions of dollars invested in climate research over more than three decades, our ability to answer the most important question in climate has not improved a single bit!

(SOURCE http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions)



This graphic most concisely reinforces MITs Richard Lindzen argument (see my OP): that after all of the epic scale of money has been spent and untold man-hours of effort, there’s still no real bottom-line evidence of improving scientific results from it, solving the question of 'what's to come?'

In honest science, when more and more money and labor goes into the pursuit of a given paradigm, and such little-to-none-existent narrowing of bottom-line findings results, this leads to the serious questioning of the hypothesis. Not so with "IPCC science".

"Dogma" indeed, as Dr Segalstad says sarcastically. And QED.

Post: #14

DELETE, please.

Post: #15

(01-13-2017 11:47 AM)C-Note Wrote:  ...
She and other moderate warmists, like Roger Pielke, Jr., have been under constant attack by extreme warmists. It's one of the reasons why I'm skeptical of the theory of human-caused global warming. If the theory was so sound, then why do academics, politicians, and their environmentalist allies bully people who don't toe the line?

More to the point, what business do scientists have insisting how their findings are approached?

That is entirely a matter for policy buffs appointed by the relevant ministers.

But no, they seem to want to make themselves into rock-star activists while sadly forgetting that they have the personalities of boiled potatoes.

Post: #16

Thanks, Orson, for the interesting links! I shall work my way through them. I know very little about the matter, so it's great to get some targeted reading.

Post: #17

(01-13-2017 06:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  There are many others who rather shut up and take the money.

A few venture off into their own businesses offering long-term climate prognosis based on solar activity which is far more accurate than the current dogma. Companies for example are buying that.

Science in our times is utterly agenda driven - not only climate related, but also medicine, engineering (suppressing anything that endangers the petroleum combustion engine), psychology, gender-science (!!!!!), even bloody geology is concerned (they suppress again the true origin of crude oil or the field of catastrophism vs eon-long-geological changes).

In the future you will have generations looking over our disgustingly manipulated science and wonder how mankind was so expertly manipulated. At least in the past you have honest excuses for bloodletting or agenda-driven changes like astronomy (earth center of the solar system vs sun). Now you cannot even let backwardsness and lack of a scientific method count - now you simply have to admit that science is manipulated and the people are swallowing it all.

Zel can you point me in the direction of good arguments for abiogenic oil formation? I was always skeptical of that theory just because generally Conventional reservoirs are usually within a migratory pathway of high TOC source rocks (a good example are the prolific Leduc and Nisku Devonian dolomite reefs in immediate proximity of the organic rich Duvernay shale formation). Or even how the new drilling and completion technologies have allowed the oil industry to unlock hydrocarbons from the organic source rocks themselves such as the Wolfcamp Shale, Marcellus Shale etc. Those rocks are so impermeable I don't see how oil could flow from deeper abiogenic sources to accumulate in them - one would expect hydrocarbons to accumulate BELOW the impermeable barrier, not in the rock itself. I know a guy who is an expert in pressure transient analysis for reservoir characterization and he once ran a simulation on how long it would take to observe a pressure transient in various thicknesses of nanodarcy scale permeability shale and it would take millions of years -- which would suggest that the oil trapped in low perm unconventional source rock reservoirs is in-situ, undergoing diagenesis in the spot of original deposition.

But I am not a geochemist so I have a lot of ignorance on how some oil's geochemical signature could suggest an abiotic origin which I would imagine is the primary argument for some sort of non biological origin. What have you seen that convinced you?

I remember actually in Undergrad we had a lecture in a sedimentology class and the teacher offhand mentioned the Russian theory of abiogenic petroleum but never delved deeper into it... what is the point in hiding this theory in the first place? Oil is actually an infinite resource so the powers that be must act like it is a finite resource to justify colonization or war?

Post: #18

(01-14-2017 05:27 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  Thanks, Orson, for the interesting links! I shall work my way through them. I know very little about the matter, so it's great to get some targeted reading.

If you have an hour to spare or you're doing household crap you can play this one in the background. One of the more informative summaries on the Global Warming scam I have seen.

Post: #19

(01-14-2017 08:35 AM)komatiite Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 06:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  There are many others who rather shut up and take the money.

A few venture off into their own businesses offering long-term climate prognosis based on solar activity which is far more accurate than the current dogma. Companies for example are buying that.

Science in our times is utterly agenda driven - not only climate related, but also medicine, engineering (suppressing anything that endangers the petroleum combustion engine), psychology, gender-science (!!!!!), even bloody geology is concerned (they suppress again the true origin of crude oil or the field of catastrophism vs eon-long-geological changes).

In the future you will have generations looking over our disgustingly manipulated science and wonder how mankind was so expertly manipulated. At least in the past you have honest excuses for bloodletting or agenda-driven changes like astronomy (earth center of the solar system vs sun). Now you cannot even let backwardsness and lack of a scientific method count - now you simply have to admit that science is manipulated and the people are swallowing it all.

Zel can you point me in the direction of good arguments for abiogenic oil formation? I was always skeptical of that theory just because generally Conventional reservoirs are usually within a migratory pathway of high TOC source rocks (a good example are the prolific Leduc and Nisku Devonian dolomite reefs in immediate proximity of the organic rich Duvernay shale formation). Or even how the new drilling and completion technologies have allowed the oil industry to unlock hydrocarbons from the organic source rocks themselves such as the Wolfcamp Shale, Marcellus Shale etc. Those rocks are so impermeable I don't see how oil could flow from deeper abiogenic sources to accumulate in them - one would expect hydrocarbons to accumulate BELOW the impermeable barrier, not in the rock itself. I know a guy who is an expert in pressure transient analysis for reservoir characterization and he once ran a simulation on how long it would take to observe a pressure transient in various thicknesses of nanodarcy scale permeability shale and it would take millions of years -- which would suggest that the oil trapped in low perm unconventional source rock reservoirs is in-situ, undergoing diagenesis in the spot of original deposition.

But I am not a geochemist so I have a lot of ignorance on how some oil's geochemical signature could suggest an abiotic origin which I would imagine is the primary argument for some sort of non biological origin. What have you seen that convinced you?

I remember actually in Undergrad we had a lecture in a sedimentology class and the teacher offhand mentioned the Russian theory of abiogenic petroleum but never delved deeper into it... what is the point in hiding this theory in the first place? Oil is actually an infinite resource so the powers that be must act like it is a finite resource to justify colonization or war?

According to Fletcher Prouty, deep globalist insider but all-round good guy, the concept of oil as fossil fuel was hoisted on the world by Rockefeller before the turn of the century, in order to associate the product he monopolized with scarcity:





Given the influence that Rockefeller holds on the petroleum industry and on higher education and think tanks, he had no problem making this concept stick.

Post: #20

http://www.therebel.media/dr_tim_ball_te...al_warming
Dr Tim Ball, the great Canadian climate skeptic, did a presentation to the Trump Team on EPA. Looks like it is pretty certain Trump will withdraw from the Paris Accord. Great quote by him on how these Climate money grabs simpler "transfer money from the poor people in rich countries to the rich people in poor countries."

Outstanding news!

Post: #21

I did not find a lot of details: https://anticorruptionsociety.files.word...idence.pdf

I read a few articles and actually logic convinced me:

1) So far it was utterly impossible for all our tech to recreate crude oil out of organic or fossil residue - not with any heat, pressure etc. , but we humans have been having technology to create crude oil out of coal since the 1920s - actually Hitler got his oil that way. Germany was not oil rich, but it has plenty of coal. You can probably now create crude out of CO2 and water, but still no organic reproduction.

2) Entire oil fields which have been exploited have miraculously been replenished.

3) We discover ever more fields - as some have said - for every 3 fields exploited, we discover 5 more.

It is really not surprising that if you are in the oil business, actually everyone being in the oil business with their trillions worth of products, then you do not EVER WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. Because otherwise you would face the fact that oil is almost infinitely replenishible and not scarce. We could keep the petroleum age going for millennia with 10 bio. humans on Earth and we would not come even close to using it all up.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/

Also no scientist going into crude oil research would be wanting to start to rock that bed. It is easier to take a job making 200-800k, than to question openly the entire lobby.

That scam is far better paid than the global warming one and there are far more jobs out there.

Strangely enough the global warming scam makes crude oil more expensive despite using less of it due to carbon taxes (new ones coming to Canada right now - USA will have to wait more, but they are coming).

Post: #22

(01-13-2017 12:55 PM)C-Note Wrote:  I've read Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster (which is a very funny book) and he states that it is a combination of several agendas that have produced the global warming green machine. In short, however, it's simply a liberal narrative:

- Humans acting like humans are inherently bad and must be stopped/controlled by "progressive" government and regulation
- Since not all individual nation states can be expected to toe the line, then an overarching, global governance process needs to be established to redistribute wealth, enforce draconian environmental regulations, and punish/banish anyone who gets in the way

This. It's classic Hegelian tactics. In order to do something unpopular you need to create a problem to which your desired action can be advanced as the solution. If your desired outcome is a one-world government you need a problem which requires a global solution - et voila ... anthropogenic climate change.

Post: #23

When I studied at university, I was basically told, as in, some big name climatologist would come in and do a lecture not just for science students, but also include other fields, architecture and construction for example, that climate change was real and that we have to all do this not for us but for our children's children etc. They also presented us with very real arguments that climate change was indeed being caused by humans and that in no uncertain terms it would cause the end of human life as we know it.

I dont know weather climate change is real or not, I can only, if I had to make an educated guess, which would honestly be yes. But in reality I dont know, nor does anyone really unless it happens.

What is wrong though is that children, I guess? And definitely university students that this is basically a fact. This is not some left wing right wing thing. Scientists have a duty and are taught to not be able to give a yes or no answer to anything!

Scientists are getting up there doing their phds etc with a subjective view, they have to be objective always. It all comes down to money and politics now, maybe it always has? Maybe it has to, funding has to come from somewhere.

I still look to science for my answers to alot of things, I guess its the best we have. But I mostly stay out of climate change issues, this is actually the first time in along time I have even thought or talked about it.

Post: #24

For those who are interested in the abiotic oil theory, check out a book by the late Thomas Gold titled ' Deep Hot Biosphere'. Gold fleshes out the theory very well. Late in life, Gold was on a team that tried to find abiotic oil drilling into an impact crater. Gold claims he found evidence of abiotic oil (and the bacteria that lives off it). Detractors claim he just had contaminated drilling fluid.

Some years ago, Vietnam allowed drilling into fractured granite off shore in what is now known as the Black Lion field. This type of rock should not contain oil, but per abiotic theory could due to the fractured nature of the rock. Vietnam is now a net oil exporter.

Detractors however claim this is just igneous rock that overflowed earlier oil bearing formation (sand stone, shale, etc.).

Post: #25

Global Warming spooks today are the equivalent of witch doctors 500 years ago who recommended human sacrifice to appease the volcano Gods so that they may not become angry.

It's the exact same thought process - something I don't understand is happening, I/the human race must have caused it, we need to sacrifice to appease the Gods.