We’re routinely told that the science behind climate change is settled, that the models are reliable, and that the institutions behind it would catch and correct any errors.
In 1975 I was possibly one of the first Scientist in America to declare that not only do long term temperature models not work, they can't work. I was doing a Corps of Engineers project predicting long term temperatures and the results were so bad, I actually canceled the project. I wouldn’t even take Government money because the underlying science of long-term forecasting was so bad as to be unfixable.
Basically small errors in the beginning create huge errors in the end (temperature forecasts error ranges of plus or minus a hundreds degrees) and since the input data is so poor, as noted, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
There is an article I published on American Thinker if you want more details:
Decades later the UN IPCC (aka Climate Gods) agreed.
"When the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made even a pretense of being science-based, they used to admit it.
From the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
Even the UN admitted forecasting long term temperatures is a Scam. i.e "not possible"
So the whole basis of the Climate Scam is a Scam. To get around models that can’t work, the current modelers cheat. Given that the whole thing is an impossible Scam, it doesn’t matter because the WHO/UN can use the now well established, bogus risks of Climate Change on Human, Animal, and Plants (ONE Health) to impose draconian losses of Freedom rules and to steal fortunes.
Anastassia Makarieva's blog, wherein she explains the "Biotic Pump" effects on transcontinental movements of moist air across continents,towards large old forests, where precipitation of moisture onto the forest, primed by forest evapotranspiration, creates low-pressure at the altitudes of precipitation, providing the "pull" for the large moist air mass to move from ocean to forest.
ETC, this is an extraordinary write up. The trap is the systems we allow to envelop us and our trust in authority. You’ve unraveled their procedures for anyone to comprehend and provided the blueprint of their methodology.
What percentage of people do you figure are beholden to these parasites and do you see a way to transformation?
awareness is key. the main battleground at present is that of information. it's why they're becoming hyper-censurious.
google, twitter and facebook at this stage would have been acceptable to the leaders of the Soviet Union. they outright hate free speech.
and i see zero hedge now speak positive of the foundations, that they have 'stood up for the american way', which just blows my mind. they foundations WANT socialism.
michael armstrong, too, is out with a recent very strange essay on rothschild and rockefeller. he, fundamentally, is completely missing the point. whether that's by intent... that's the real question.
99.6% of scientists agree that they do not want their funding cut.
"One of the first lessons we learned in grad school was to beware of truncated graphs. Such behavior is typically associated with intentionally trying to "massage" the data. If you torture the data, they WILL confess." -TVMADoc
“… empirical approximations tuned until the model output matches the historical record”
Does anything more need to be said about the character and integrity of the climate fraudsters than that? This represents the negation of the scientific method. It is the essence of scientism, the control of science for political purposes. It is not science.
There are only two ways known to man that can increase temperatures. One is to add thermal energy by burning fossil fuels or from nuclear reactions. Explosives also release thermal energy. A second way is through work - a force moved through a distance. An simple example of this is a bicycle pump. The pumping action is a force moving through a distance which compresses the air. The pump will get warm. This is not heat from our hands it is due to the compression of a gas. Exactly the opposite happens when a compressed gas is released. Its temperature falls, and this can be observed with inflating a car tyre with compressed air. The is the ideal gas law. Gravity compresses the atmosphere creating what is called the lapse rate, a fall in temperature with increasing height.
Our emissions of carbon dioxide are said to be causing the warming. Carbon dioxide cannot increase temperature since not of the above methods apply. The global climate alarmists use Venus as an example of carbon dioxide causing high temperatures. Venus has a very dense atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide. It is not the carbon dioxide that causes the high temperature it is gravity compressing the atmosphere.
Everything we are told about humans causing climate change through emissions is wrong. It doesn't even need complex science.
You are incorrect, since you assume that our industry would have to provide the actual energy to raise temperatures, either by releasing thermal energy or by losses associated with work. But ours is not a closed system: there is an external source of energy, the Sun. By, for instance, manipulating albedo, temperatures can be increased or decreased. This is akin to amplifier operation. In an amplifier, a small control current controls the flow of the power current, supplied externally.
Disclaimer: This is not to be construed that I buy into anthropogenic climate change as it is propagandized---I do not. I am merely pointing out that your argument is invalid.
The energy radiated by the sun in various spectra,and also high energy protons, is NOT constant over short or long periods of time. Our planet absorbs that energy as it arrives, unevenly absorbs it...
"Solar cycles" is the term for what you describe. Said cycles are real, documented, and impactful in terms of the amount of radiation our sun releases.
A conundrum that I encounter in reading this article is that I don’t have any problem, in theory, with teaching children to respect and care for the planet. I have taught my own children this, and modeled this ethic to them in the way that I live my life. The *ethic* is not the problem. The *control structure* is the problem. Since respect and caring for the planet is a part of my personal ethic, I keep it in mind as I make choices daily — I almost always use my own cloth bags when shopping and started this over 15 years ago, before it was a social trend, and I received a lot of annoyed and odd looks from store clerks in the first few years. Making a lifestyle choice so that my actions are congruent with my personal ethics builds my identity and strengthens me. Complying with a rule that has been imposed from above does not engender positive benefits.
that's the 'ethic' doing exactly what it's meant to do. it's why no-one objects to 'sustainable development goals' or 'clean oceans', because what's the alternative.
but you have absolutely no influence on how this is translated into the standards which will affect your life.
The reason this particular ethic has been chosen as the excuse for the oppression framework is precisely because it is so intuitively sound. All normal people want to protect the natural environment. The twist is taking this benign attitude, salting it with false, pseudoscientific threats, and turning it into oppressive dogma to control these same normal, well-intentioned people to serve evil overlords.
Your comment reminded me of the intentional change in education globally, both K-12 and higher ed, from a body of knowledge to a set of beliefs and values that are designed, at a level so no one recognises the design and imposition from above, to be felt and to guide perception in unseen ways.
In fact, before I responded I went and found my notes on what a systems theorist, Paul van Geert, called the simplex system. He always italicized that term and it really gets at both the link to education and why Esc is pointing out that neither the science nor the model need to be factually true to be useful.
The simplex system, which is to be (and has been) imposed via education policy was defined in Geert's paper "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" from 2014, is the "connected whole of beliefs, representations, values, emotions, habits, practices and material tools that serves as a simplifying representation of the overall [me: internalized at a neural level] overarching complex system in which a person participates and that organizes the participants' actions."
Systems thinkers are absolutely targeting what they call a 'guiding fiction' which is what the simplex system can be and function as an individual's predictive scheme to orient oneself in the world. It is a great way to steer students and the adults they will become everyday actions at an unconscious level.
And boy have they admitted it through the decades.
that's interesting - are you saying that education itself has been laid on system theory rails? it would make perfect sense, but i havent really looked into it to that extent.
i know bogdanov spoke of using input constraint on the teaching of science itself, but you appear to suggest a deeper integration. thanks for that hint.
It is less a matter of 'saying' since that suggests it is merely my opinion. It is more a matter of being familiar with the extensive documentation that lays out explicitly the deep integration of systems 'science' and cybernetics into education reforms, templates, standards, aspirations, legislation. Anything and everything to make the practices known to target the neural basis for perception and human decision-making.
Just as examples, Kenneth Boulding lays it out graphically in his book Human Betterment. Bela Banathy laid it out in his 1991 book Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future that was even published by Educational Technology Publications. When following what was really going on in mandated education reforms and reading footnotes and then the cited sources takes me all the way to CyberSyn we have overlap and integration.
Surely it's basic knowledge from childhood that you cannot predict the weather if you see and understand exactly what it is. Much like you cannot predict tomorrow.
Anastassia Makarieva is a Russian climate physicist who does math, not just computer "models". Anastassia is co-originator of the "Biotic Pump" Model, whereby large forests draw rain to themselves from distant oceans, across continents. She does rigorous work and spends summers off grid in Siberian forests, where she and her husband, Andre are now.
Anastassia is almost unofficially shunned in the "community", apparently because her models include forests and field evapotranspiration, and that is not part of the agreed-upon system.
Those kinds of considerations have been sidelined for 20 years.
They Are Working: Forests, Rainfall, and Rethinking “Sustainable Forestry”
An edited MEER Podcast conversation on the biotic pump, intact forest resilience, the climatic work of natural ecosystems, and the pace of scientific change
In 1975 I was possibly one of the first Scientist in America to declare that not only do long term temperature models not work, they can't work. I was doing a Corps of Engineers project predicting long term temperatures and the results were so bad, I actually canceled the project. I wouldn’t even take Government money because the underlying science of long-term forecasting was so bad as to be unfixable.
Basically small errors in the beginning create huge errors in the end (temperature forecasts error ranges of plus or minus a hundreds degrees) and since the input data is so poor, as noted, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
There is an article I published on American Thinker if you want more details:
The Blunt Truth about Global Warming Models - American Thinker(https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/the_blunt_truth_about_global_warming_models.html),
Decades later the UN IPCC (aka Climate Gods) agreed.
"When the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made even a pretense of being science-based, they used to admit it.
From the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
Even the UN admitted forecasting long term temperatures is a Scam. i.e "not possible"
So the whole basis of the Climate Scam is a Scam. To get around models that can’t work, the current modelers cheat. Given that the whole thing is an impossible Scam, it doesn’t matter because the WHO/UN can use the now well established, bogus risks of Climate Change on Human, Animal, and Plants (ONE Health) to impose draconian losses of Freedom rules and to steal fortunes.
The models worked.
Good people don’t routinely take down bad people- we simply refuse to be bad personally and feel incredulous at the wrong-doing.
All models, even if the model is correct, need a set of consistent starting conditions and that is the problem.
Anastassia Makarieva's blog, wherein she explains the "Biotic Pump" effects on transcontinental movements of moist air across continents,towards large old forests, where precipitation of moisture onto the forest, primed by forest evapotranspiration, creates low-pressure at the altitudes of precipitation, providing the "pull" for the large moist air mass to move from ocean to forest.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-198948808
ETC, this is an extraordinary write up. The trap is the systems we allow to envelop us and our trust in authority. You’ve unraveled their procedures for anyone to comprehend and provided the blueprint of their methodology.
What percentage of people do you figure are beholden to these parasites and do you see a way to transformation?
awareness is key. the main battleground at present is that of information. it's why they're becoming hyper-censurious.
google, twitter and facebook at this stage would have been acceptable to the leaders of the Soviet Union. they outright hate free speech.
and i see zero hedge now speak positive of the foundations, that they have 'stood up for the american way', which just blows my mind. they foundations WANT socialism.
michael armstrong, too, is out with a recent very strange essay on rothschild and rockefeller. he, fundamentally, is completely missing the point. whether that's by intent... that's the real question.
Please do see the evapotranspiration "Biotic Pump" explanations, if you have not already. https://bioticregulation.substack.com/
99.6% of scientists agree that they do not want their funding cut.
"One of the first lessons we learned in grad school was to beware of truncated graphs. Such behavior is typically associated with intentionally trying to "massage" the data. If you torture the data, they WILL confess." -TVMADoc
https://old.bitchute.com/video/J6IznHFqEiEm [13mins]
“… empirical approximations tuned until the model output matches the historical record”
Does anything more need to be said about the character and integrity of the climate fraudsters than that? This represents the negation of the scientific method. It is the essence of scientism, the control of science for political purposes. It is not science.
There are only two ways known to man that can increase temperatures. One is to add thermal energy by burning fossil fuels or from nuclear reactions. Explosives also release thermal energy. A second way is through work - a force moved through a distance. An simple example of this is a bicycle pump. The pumping action is a force moving through a distance which compresses the air. The pump will get warm. This is not heat from our hands it is due to the compression of a gas. Exactly the opposite happens when a compressed gas is released. Its temperature falls, and this can be observed with inflating a car tyre with compressed air. The is the ideal gas law. Gravity compresses the atmosphere creating what is called the lapse rate, a fall in temperature with increasing height.
Our emissions of carbon dioxide are said to be causing the warming. Carbon dioxide cannot increase temperature since not of the above methods apply. The global climate alarmists use Venus as an example of carbon dioxide causing high temperatures. Venus has a very dense atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide. It is not the carbon dioxide that causes the high temperature it is gravity compressing the atmosphere.
Everything we are told about humans causing climate change through emissions is wrong. It doesn't even need complex science.
You are incorrect, since you assume that our industry would have to provide the actual energy to raise temperatures, either by releasing thermal energy or by losses associated with work. But ours is not a closed system: there is an external source of energy, the Sun. By, for instance, manipulating albedo, temperatures can be increased or decreased. This is akin to amplifier operation. In an amplifier, a small control current controls the flow of the power current, supplied externally.
Disclaimer: This is not to be construed that I buy into anthropogenic climate change as it is propagandized---I do not. I am merely pointing out that your argument is invalid.
The energy radiated by the sun in various spectra,and also high energy protons, is NOT constant over short or long periods of time. Our planet absorbs that energy as it arrives, unevenly absorbs it...
"Solar cycles" is the term for what you describe. Said cycles are real, documented, and impactful in terms of the amount of radiation our sun releases.
Yes,and sunspots and flares and more... ;-)
A conundrum that I encounter in reading this article is that I don’t have any problem, in theory, with teaching children to respect and care for the planet. I have taught my own children this, and modeled this ethic to them in the way that I live my life. The *ethic* is not the problem. The *control structure* is the problem. Since respect and caring for the planet is a part of my personal ethic, I keep it in mind as I make choices daily — I almost always use my own cloth bags when shopping and started this over 15 years ago, before it was a social trend, and I received a lot of annoyed and odd looks from store clerks in the first few years. Making a lifestyle choice so that my actions are congruent with my personal ethics builds my identity and strengthens me. Complying with a rule that has been imposed from above does not engender positive benefits.
that's the 'ethic' doing exactly what it's meant to do. it's why no-one objects to 'sustainable development goals' or 'clean oceans', because what's the alternative.
but you have absolutely no influence on how this is translated into the standards which will affect your life.
The reason this particular ethic has been chosen as the excuse for the oppression framework is precisely because it is so intuitively sound. All normal people want to protect the natural environment. The twist is taking this benign attitude, salting it with false, pseudoscientific threats, and turning it into oppressive dogma to control these same normal, well-intentioned people to serve evil overlords.
Your comment reminded me of the intentional change in education globally, both K-12 and higher ed, from a body of knowledge to a set of beliefs and values that are designed, at a level so no one recognises the design and imposition from above, to be felt and to guide perception in unseen ways.
In fact, before I responded I went and found my notes on what a systems theorist, Paul van Geert, called the simplex system. He always italicized that term and it really gets at both the link to education and why Esc is pointing out that neither the science nor the model need to be factually true to be useful.
The simplex system, which is to be (and has been) imposed via education policy was defined in Geert's paper "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" from 2014, is the "connected whole of beliefs, representations, values, emotions, habits, practices and material tools that serves as a simplifying representation of the overall [me: internalized at a neural level] overarching complex system in which a person participates and that organizes the participants' actions."
Systems thinkers are absolutely targeting what they call a 'guiding fiction' which is what the simplex system can be and function as an individual's predictive scheme to orient oneself in the world. It is a great way to steer students and the adults they will become everyday actions at an unconscious level.
And boy have they admitted it through the decades.
that's interesting - are you saying that education itself has been laid on system theory rails? it would make perfect sense, but i havent really looked into it to that extent.
i know bogdanov spoke of using input constraint on the teaching of science itself, but you appear to suggest a deeper integration. thanks for that hint.
here's the paper, ftr
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329725200_The_Good_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly_The_Dynamic_Interplay_Between_Educational_Practice_Policy_and_Research
It is less a matter of 'saying' since that suggests it is merely my opinion. It is more a matter of being familiar with the extensive documentation that lays out explicitly the deep integration of systems 'science' and cybernetics into education reforms, templates, standards, aspirations, legislation. Anything and everything to make the practices known to target the neural basis for perception and human decision-making.
Just as examples, Kenneth Boulding lays it out graphically in his book Human Betterment. Bela Banathy laid it out in his 1991 book Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future that was even published by Educational Technology Publications. When following what was really going on in mandated education reforms and reading footnotes and then the cited sources takes me all the way to CyberSyn we have overlap and integration.
As usual😁 you have hit the ball out of the park,Escape,🙏❤️
I can delete all my other links except for a few videos.
Surely it's basic knowledge from childhood that you cannot predict the weather if you see and understand exactly what it is. Much like you cannot predict tomorrow.
Anastassia Makarieva is a Russian climate physicist who does math, not just computer "models". Anastassia is co-originator of the "Biotic Pump" Model, whereby large forests draw rain to themselves from distant oceans, across continents. She does rigorous work and spends summers off grid in Siberian forests, where she and her husband, Andre are now.
Anastassia is almost unofficially shunned in the "community", apparently because her models include forests and field evapotranspiration, and that is not part of the agreed-upon system.
Those kinds of considerations have been sidelined for 20 years.
Here is here latest on her Substack: https://substack.com/home/post/p-198948808
They Are Working: Forests, Rainfall, and Rethinking “Sustainable Forestry”
An edited MEER Podcast conversation on the biotic pump, intact forest resilience, the climatic work of natural ecosystems, and the pace of scientific change
Superb, non-hysterical, mathematics-based analysis.
Any time the original collected data is destroyed, we should assume that a scam is enabled.