Climate science and the myth of renewable energy

Below the fold here is a 45-minute video supplied by Gaia that I watched a couple of times. The speaker is Steve Goreham of a group called Friends of Science. It is the first I have heard of either, and kind of chuckled at the name “Goreham” as this guy is smooth, very very smooth, even more so than Al Gore.

The data behind the presentation is impressive. As a non-scientist, I can only say that I was moved but not qualified to pass judgment on this other than to ask for your views.

33 thoughts on “Climate science and the myth of renewable energy”

  1. it’s all mainstream, the usual pseudo scientific arguments, fake statistics, etc. What if there is no such thing as climate at all? What if it is merely a suggestion? The calculation of an average temperature make as much sense as the calculation of a average phone number. What we observe is weather. It changes of course constantly. The Earth though is a closed system. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out. Can human actions make any difference there? From an airplane you can barely see human activities and this is only 10 km above the surface of the Earth. They focus on the highest temperatures to prove the global warming (some 40 years ago it was the global cooling). Heat can cumulate. A car in the sun can gets 80°C hot, where the air around it never gets that hot. If it was scientific they would have to focus on the lowest temperatures. Cold cannot be tricked. A car in winter cannot get colder inside than the air around it. And if there was such thing as global warming it would manifest itself also in the lowest temperatures, no? What they claim is, that they can calculate an increase of temperature in the range of 0.1°C within decades. Based on measurements made with different, not adjusted sensors often placed on not suitable places. Measurement of temperature has an absolute error greater than their calculations. The same thermometer used twice will show you difference of up to +-1 grade. Try it with the good old fashioned fever thermometer, which you have to shake down before the next measurement and you will see. Digital displays create an illusion of precision which is not there. Relative measurements are a completely different thing. This can be very accurate. But all the climate or weather temperatures outdoor are based on absolute measurements.

    Like

    Reply

    2. I agree about how unreliable their measurements are. And the power of suggestion. Maybe even over the scientists themselves? Or the low level ones anyway. I wonder if they’re some of the most heavily indoctrinated, and least skeptical of minds — “good students” who proved their obedience to dogma.

      On the point about the 70s cooling flip flop… Their response to this, I think, is that Yes a couple scientists advanced this idea, but it was never broadly and fully supported. Rather, the blame is to a sensationalist media that hyped it as they do such things. But THIS TIME, they say, there’s a broad long-running consensus. PLUS, the idea of global warming goes back to the 1800s, so the 70s thing was just a blip, distorted by the media.

      Like

      Reply

  2. do you know this one?:

    video/1
    there is this usual confusion about video tricks, were they laughing at him or at her, etc. But the main point is, this guy was send there on purpose and not because Trump is so stupid. The purpose is to check how stupid the audience is. Will they blindly reject fossil fuels in favor of wind turbines and solar panels? And they obviously did. They did similar things in the medicine and basically in every other religion in the past. This is a religious test. Are you a believer or a denier. There still is this campaign promoting electric cars going on. Tesla vs. others, and such. People really believe the batteries do not contain any acid or lead anymore and can be charged within minutes.
    It became a religion already.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I tend to agree with all of that, the immaterially of historical data and selectivity with which it is used anyway. There is a broader agenda at work with so-called climate change, and at least part of it is that we must always worry about something. When I was younger, it was communism and nuclear war. Then came terrorism and AIDS … never relax,always have some background dark clouds.

      I just cannot get past the name “Goreham,” as if they are mocking. I back away from such glib presentations. I think the guy is just an actor. No way did he plot the locations of 5,000 windmills in Denmark, but he offered no credit to whoever actually did that work, if it is real. But if he is a fake, to what end? I am free now of worry about climate change, and his presentation was slick and appealing. I feel as if I am on someone’s leash.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I only watched the first few minutes (prefer written pieces to long video),but he seemed to be debunking man made global warming? Although perhaps from within a mainstream frame as Muller says?

        Like

        Reply

    2. I think they’re obviously promoting the story to make skepticism socially embarrassing. Standard operating procedure. Might be part of Trump’s role, to blackwash the view, assiciate it with someone almost universally acknowledged as clownish and boorish, even among his supporters to some extent… Controlled opposition.

      Like

      Reply

  3. It seems, to me at least, that the endgame is embodied in the (carbon) tax and “the law,” less so the the “bouncing balls” of science, religion, or energy policy. Taxes are forced by man-made law, and paid in fiat money only. You cannot pay your taxes in gold, pounds of potatoes, or tulip bulbs. To have a single global government, there will be new global laws, global currency and a global tax to ensure universal participation — global voluntary slavery (global “citizens”). This has been a winning combination for our masters at the national level. The slave masters are obviously not satisfied with almost-total, “full-spectrum” dominance. They want it all, making the earth a virtual dungeon underneath the usurious single treasury, nothing less than a global, debtor’s prison, or put another way, global hell.

    Like

    Reply

    2. Yes and in addition to the tax, CC is rationale to redesign cities and transit. They have some long range social engineering plans, and are just using this mantra like any other simplified propaganda idea — to focus the mob’s attention, motivate some of them with a religious zeal, and bring the rest along with a complacent shrug of acquiescence.

      Like

      Reply

  4. derived from a German saying, that’s the new Obol we have to pay. Obol was a small currency in the antique which was later called the money one had to pay to the church. And it was not that small anymore. People payed the Obol to the church to buy a clean conscience. That’s what we have to do now. We have to pay to have a clean conscience considering the environment. And people do believe in it. My colleagues are happy to pay more for electricity if the company claims it is made with environment friendly methods. The network is global so the same current is being delivered to everybody. The company is not even producing the current itself. It is just a name for a trader who makes contracts with other traders. All real producers are actually state controlled companies even if they appear as stock companies. The network is also global and state controlled. It’s but a big illusion and yet still people gladly pay the Obol for a clean conscience. The original sin got replaced by pollution.

    Like

    Reply

  5. Mark, when I saw you post late last night I was planning to write down my points today, but I see that Seagull Müller has vomited it over already.

    I came to this blog to add a bit more research, from a scientific and logic point of view, to exactly reduce these clownesque claims and ridiculous statements pulled out of a black hole, seen too much in these “conspy circles”.

    You seem to like her con-tributions and it’s your blog, but I am not wasting my time debating with trolls, have spent time with them for years already. You can have her “intelligent” ideas, have fun with them.

    It was nice for a while, but time to move on from yet another trolled place.

    Thanks for the good times.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I wish you good fortune in your search for a “troll”-free online environment. Reason is given all, employed by few. The age of information has been replaced by the age of entertainment. School plays everywhere you turn, all “free.”

      Like

      Reply

    2. I don’t get too involved in the personalities behind the names until they go off into whackado subjects. BM and I have had our disputes, but this is not one of them. I thought the video contained lots of good information, but was put off by the glibness and said so. It struck me as too smooth and polished to be just offhandedly put together. There is tons of research and graphics behind it. I want to know more about the people putting it together to avoid the bounce, which is where when it is assumed one side is all wet (anthropogenic global warming) then the other side must be AOK. As a nonscientist I need to be careful.

      Anyway, do as you wish. We all love a good storm out.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      2. I haven’t watched the linked video yet but I am always open to suggestions from Gaia. I have learned a lot from his contributions here and on other blogs.
        I am going to find the links to a series of articles I read a couple years ago about Global Warming and the Cash Machine that is primed and ready to go. The usual Crooked Crew is behind the carbon crap tax, smart meters, the companies monitiribg and making Envirinmental must haves they will be forcing on us. The Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Gore, a ton of Senators, and all the regular rottens have companies set up to siphon every cent they can. Its been in the works since about 2002. I hope I can find the links cuz its disgusting. They care about cash not the earth. I must go find those links. And watch the video. Oh and I remember being told we were minutes from a permanent Ice Age if the world didn’t warm up all thru elementary school. And we were gonna be nuked by Iran or Libya or USSR any minute now.

        Like

        Reply

        1. It is important to empasize that Gaia was offered this forum unconditionally, and only one time, when he broached the subject of the Holocaust, did I advise him to treat it gingerly and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. It had nothing to do with honest inquiry, but rather was because I knew the power of the Holocaust industry to slime and demean any who cross them, just as can the climate change industry or the Miles Mathis industry.

          He has moved out voluntarily. He still has privileges. His primary slow burn on me appears to be that I don’t accept certain individuals at face value… AB, Shack, Dave McGowan, Miles Mathis, but rather think them part of a larger agenda. He then went off on Barbara Muller as his release point. People have been after me to jettison her for a long time, and I see no reason. They tell me I should not accept her at face, but who says I do? I merely evaluate her on content, and frankly enjoy her remarks, even when they hold me in low regard. (I don’t accept Miles Mathis at face but enjoy the work at that site.) [The link S.Volpetti 0ffers directly above seems to indicate that Gaia, writing of himself in third person, is not transpartent as well.]

          Anyway, the blog started out as me alone, and it appears that it will be that way anyway despite my efforts to broaden the scope with new writers. There was a time when 82 hits in one day was thrilling. We were up into the 2500 range when the Miles Mathis affair knocked us back down to 1,500 and lower. Those are, by Internet standards, paltry numbers, but I have said repeatedly over the years that I do this because I like to write and argue. That has not changed. My own views have changed dramatically over time due to my exposure here, and that will not change. Everything is fluid, always.

          Gaia owes us an apology. I do not hold my breath. If he disappears from the sidebar of writers, it will be his choice, not mine, but also not unwelcome given his shitty remarks yesterday to both me and Muller.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Most of have never met or will ever meet. We share point of views, ibfo, laughs tips etc. I won’t ever know for sure where people’s heart or loyalty or their end goals are. All I can do is digest the info given, do my own research and draw my own non permanent conclusions. Which will change as I learn more and get a better handle on this weird world we live in. Everyone who contributes takes a risk and offers a different perspective than our own. When our world view is challenged I feel the best thing is to ask myself why am I so invested in this idea or theory or time line. Putting emotions on the shelf is really easy sometimes. But when we are strongly invested in something and we want others to share in our excitement or outrage or suspicion and they don’t feel the same way, it can be upsetting. The are 4000 things that could have affected Gaia in a negative way the other day and his response may have been a release of stress and not his usual thoughtfulness. Who knows. But I think his past actions show he is committed to exploring truth and the journey it takes us on. Bad days, bad responses, hurt feelings, they all suck. But the depth of knowledge Gaia has consistently shared with us here at POM makes the bad days and not so nice responses, tolerable to me.
            Why are two of my fave contributers always on the hot seat? BM and G must be doing something right cuz they make everyone get all Mariah Carey Emotions up in here.

            Like

            Reply

        2. I remember the earth cooling scare too. One of the suggestions of climate scientists at the time was to spray the poles with carbon black. We were headed for an ice age and we all would be starving sooner rather than later.

          Like

          Reply

  6. For the record, I do not regard B Muller as a “troll” and enjoy her comments. Sometimes we disagree on stuff and usually she will not back down. So what.

    I think that the video presented above was very useful, well constructed and understandable to me, the layman. I sat through it twice. I began to get that ‘Al Gore is talking down to me’ feel about it, but it could be that the people who made it wanted to match Gore in production values. I am sorry if Gaia took that mild criticism personally.

    I do not believe, based on this and many other longer videos and books and articles that I have read, that human-caused global warming is real, or that global warming is any kind of problem. I thought that going into the video. As recently as 2013, maybe even later, I too had fallen for the hoax.

    Like

    Reply

    1. From appearances they appear to regard “climate change” in line with the climate change indsutry, as future gloom and doom. However, if they do not, they have no funding. That is how science works these days, maybe always.

      Like

      Reply

  8. Apologies, here’s the actual study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jbi.13364

    Data is data. I see no real value in ignoring hard-earned data for beLIEf or socio-cultural-political bias. One should conclude whatever one likes, but out-of-hand dismissal is a dead end, IMO.

    To quote one of my favorite bloggers:
    “There is nothing for sure except that nothing is for sure. ” – Mark Tokarski, Dec. 11, 2018

    Like

    Reply

    1. I wasn’t criticizng the findings which I will look at, just the idea that they have to pay homage to “climate change” as the expression is used these days to be viable.

      Back when I was a kid working in a grocery store, another worker constantly said “One thing’s for sure … nothing’s for sure.” I have forgotten his name, but I think he went on to become a Yellowstone County commissioner … very likeable man.

      That is just to say that another thing is for sure, and that is that nothing is original.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Which leads me back to a previous comment (can’t recall who’s) discounting what I consider the the greatest weapon of all: words. Surely, the term “climate change,” formerly “global warming,” has been weaponized beyond any reasonable definition. Words, as weapons, in action. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” -Rom Emanuel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-YuhFWCr4 Especially a crisis invented and hyped for a grand purpose/scheme.

        Like

        Reply

  9. Couple random comments on CC if I may…

    -My skepticism is less about the science per se, and more about the obvious establishment propaganda around it. But somehow true believers can’t see that… And will even tell you, that the “evil establishment” in this case is Big Oil, buying off hack scientists.

    Their bias is to see all anti- scientists as bought hacks of Oil. Whereas my bias is to see those guys (many) as some kind of controlled smokescreen, blackwashing.. Part of a larger game. The “normies” and believers don’t see how they’re persuaded to get on board, supposedly ahead of Government and Corporations.. Chris Kendall used to get into that, or maybe John Adams, how the laws and actions dance with public opinion, and ultimately ratify it, once it hits a critical mass.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. -it’s been noted that CC is another fear mongering, doomporn enterprise, which seems like a major method of how mass societies are run.. Many current and former examples abound as readers here often point out. What’s funny to me in the case of CC, is that it reminds one of Christian or religious apocalypse predictions.. Millenialist “the end of the world is nigh” talk… Yet believers don’t see themselves in this role, or the parallel.. Because they regard themselves as rationalist.. Followers of science.

      Actually I recall now that even Rush Limbaugh has compared them to religious believers. Still it’s so sickening how they have this smug moral highground sense of themselves, because they identify with (they believe) the Great Scientists.. Arch rationalists.. Not understanding the PR uses of that imagery, and how they’ve just been sold a mythology about science from childhood on. So before you can even talk to them you have to try to deconstruct their whole unexamined assumptions about academia, science etc. (Granted as Gaia says there’s more nuance to that priesthood, and I’m an outsider to it, but I’ve at least tried to pierce its veil, not just accept it uncritically.)

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Good points. I used to think that the ugliest human emotion is jealousy, and it is ugly and I hate it even as I am capable of it. But I think there is something even worse … smugness.

        Like

        Reply

  10. Ego is the correct term, Mark. And these pro CC followers (swallowers a bit graphic?) tend to be the snowflake crowd. Science is another false religion. Disagree & you are heretic. Speaking of false faith/heretic SOB, that Jesuit Pope Franny is selling this big whopper lie as well. Deindustrialize the white nations w/it. Exploit the 3rd world/commie nations’ slave labor force & further the profit margin. Somewhere in the ‘net surfing of the past I read where these PTB have the word ‘god’ stand for this: Gold Oil Drugs. Be goddamned if that is not the devil in disguise.

    Like

    Reply

  11. I’m quite busy this days and couldn’t answer Gaia immediately, now seems to be to late. Well, never mind. Thanks to Charlie Townsend for his kind words. I think the same way. To bad nobody picks up my arguments and tears them apart.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to steve kelly Cancel reply