THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

[TECSHARE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2y4nxpng2A

While I don't agree with everything this guys says I do agree with the general premise about global warming efforts acting as a front for socialism.

[TPTB_need_war]

Read all the 27 comments at the provided link. You can't just be lazy to read only what I commented here. I can't copy this entire linked page of comments into this thread.

There is no science of man-made global warming. Period. The comments at the linked thread are irrefutable.

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause. Duh!

Al Gore lied. He didn't show his chart zoomed in.

Carrying on from the posts I made in the past refuting AGW:

5427
Blog/Uncategorized
Posted Apr 25, 2016 by Martin Armstrong

New-York-Under-Water

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I have read your thesis on global warming and that this is only part of a natural cycle. I admit that you have persuaded me whereas the claims are false especially that New York City should have been under water by now according Al Gore. You mentioned that there was global warming which enabled the Vikings to reach America because the ice melted. My question is rather blunt. If we are headed now into a global cooling period, what is the historical evidence that society also declines?

Thank you in advance

PD

ANSWER: I have reported that the peat fires in Borneo and Sumatra have now exceeded all the emissions from the entire U.S. economy. This whole movement is simply to raise taxes on the bogus theory of global warming. We are not so powerful to alter the course of cyclical movement of the planet. Bouts of global cooling (ice ages) as well as warming periods predate the combustion engine and mankind. It is rather questionable analysis to claim we have altered the climate. We are capable of polluting things, true. But actually altering the climate is something beyond our power.

Volcanoes are a major issue in climate change. Yes, studies reveal that the Hawaiian Kilauea volcanoe eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day, which has been going on for more than 20 years. However, gas studies worldwide by volcanologists have calculated that global volcanic CO2 production on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. But this is really in the absence of any real catastrophic eruptions.  Volcanoes emit also Sulfur dioxide  SO2 which automobiles emit very little. When Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18th, 1980, it produced 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide on that one day and about 2 million metric tons for the entire event far more than automobiles.

Moreover, volcanic production of CO2 is by far not really the issue in climate change. Instead of global warming from  CO2, it is the plume of ash in the sky which actually blocks the sun and reverses the climate from warm to cold like sitting under an umbrella at the beach. I have discussed Mount Tambora  which erupted  in 1815 and threw into the air so much ash that it snowed during the summer of 1816 in New York City. It became known as 18-hundred-and-froze-to-death. I have shown the correlation of that eruption to wheat prices.

I have also written about the Maunder Minimum (<--- returning again in 2030!) which sent the Earth into a cold period 300 years ago from the perspective of the cycle energy output from the Sun. I have also gone into the evolution of science which has been set in motion by the very discovery of a frozen woolly rhinoceros which altered science in many fields. I have explain how the temperature at the time of the American Revolution was at its lowest point in the cycle.

All of that said, the ice core samples have revealed that there were two major volcanic eruptions in 536 and 540 AD which sent Europe into an ice age and wiped out the Roman civilization. Flavius Odoacer (433–493) was a soldier who in 476 became the first King of Italy (476–493) after deposing Romulus Augustus, the last official Roman emperor in the West.

Odoacer was overthrown by Theodoric the Great (454-526), the Ostrogoth. He was followed by Athalaric (526-534), and a few others then finally Baduila (541-552). So while Rome officially ends in the West with Romulus Augustus in 476AD, the Ostrogoths fade out after 552 due to the climate changes. In the East, the change in climate appears to have also possibly been linked to the Plague of Justinian (541–542) which was a pandemic that afflicted the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, especially its capital Constantinople, the Sassanid Empire, and port cities around the entire Mediterranean Sea. I have written about the political turmoil there in Byzantium which preceded the plague during the Nika Revolt of 532AD. I have also written about how empires die. It does seem that when temperatures decline, civil unrest rises and this increases the risk of revolutions.

When Thera erupted around 1645-1650BC, this created a climate change and marked the end of the Minoan civilization. They were conquered by the Mycenae who also captured Troy. As the weather turned cold, Greece goes into a Dark Age. The Greeks migrated and other places called them the “sea people” since they did not know where they came from as the invaded Northern Africa. Homer wrote about the period before the Dark Age known as the Heroic Period. Scholars thought this was fiction about Troy and Mycenae until Heinrich Schliemann (1822 – 1890) set out and discovered what Homer wrote about was history.

The historical evidence is rather extensive. It does appear that as we enter into a global cooling period, governments will fall, disease will increase, and the risk of Western Civilization declining sharply all become historically possible.

[mOgliE]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

[blablahblah]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

The science behind it may be science, but a lay-person's faith in it would be religious expression. By being sceptical and questioning the self-styled experts in the field, lay people are actually being more scientific than they would otherwise be if they blindly believed the paid scientific professionals.

Besides, from a philosophical point of view, science is a personal endeavour where a person seeks objective knowledge about the world. Even incredulity or emotional reactions could be thought of as a kind of experimentation, where the participants exert pressure on the system, and then they find out what happens in response.

[Spendulus]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

The science behind it may be science, but a lay-person's faith in it would be religious expression. By being sceptical and questioning the self-styled experts in the field, lay people are actually being more scientific than they would otherwise be if they blindly believed the paid scientific professionals.

Besides, from a philosophical point of view, science is a personal endeavour where a person seeks objective knowledge about the world. Even incredulity or emotional reactions could be thought of as a kind of experimentation, where the participants exert pressure on the system, and then they find out what happens in response.

The beginnings of science was not with a rigid caste system in which only some could voice an opinion on a problem.  Quite the contrary.  Look at Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Kepler. 

[TECSHARE]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something.

[Spendulus]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something.

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.


However, moggie presents a different type of issue.  He argues from ignorance and believes that has moral and ethical standing because of a preconceived "righteousness."  Ignorance is bliss, since the devout can just take the word of the Sciencies about whatever.  Think of how wonderful this is.  There are no difficult issues to understand, you are simply told what to think, and if you are a good person, you obey.

I know that after you think it over, you will repent of your thinkcrimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgl1HOxpj8

[TPTB_need_war]

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.

Read what Armstrong wrote as quoted in my prior post. It is the ash, not the CO2 that matters.

[Spendulus]

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.

Read what Armstrong wrote as quoted in my prior post. It is the ash, not the CO2 that matters.

The ash and particulate from volcanoes creates a 2-3 year cooling effect which can be world wide.  however, this is not a permanant change. 

Climate, the phrase, refers to weather conditions over 10 year periods.  A volcano can indeed change the numbers of a decade.  But the next decade will be back to "normal."  The problem the Warmers have with the trace gas CO2 is that it sort of stays in the atmosphere and accumulates.  Thus, ignoring the logarithmic decrease in response for each doubling of Co2 in the atmosphere, they cry alarm.

A true "supervolcano" such as that supposedly under Yellowstone, is a different matter.

[TECSHARE]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something.

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.


However, moggie presents a different type of issue.  He argues from ignorance and believes that has moral and ethical standing because of a preconceived "righteousness."  Ignorance is bliss, since the devout can just take the word of the Sciencies about whatever.  Think of how wonderful this is.  There are no difficult issues to understand, you are simply told what to think, and if you are a good person, you obey.

I know that after you think it over, you will repent of your thinkcrimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgl1HOxpj8

I may have overstated it slightly, but the point about volcanic activity producing more greenhouse gasses than humans is quite legitimate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l5A_E3CA1
http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/

[mOgliE]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something.

Seems like you're not. This why you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a clue about.
"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. " http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes

It means it would take 1000 years of eruption to compensate one year of human made CO2.

But please, continue to show us how educated you are.

[mOgliE]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

The science behind it may be science, but a lay-person's faith in it would be religious expression. By being sceptical and questioning the self-styled experts in the field, lay people are actually being more scientific than they would otherwise be if they blindly believed the paid scientific professionals.

Besides, from a philosophical point of view, science is a personal endeavour where a person seeks objective knowledge about the world. Even incredulity or emotional reactions could be thought of as a kind of experimentation, where the participants exert pressure on the system, and then they find out what happens in response.

There is a difference between discussing the result and refusing to look at the evidences provided by a worldwide scientific community xD

[mOgliE]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

The science behind it may be science, but a lay-person's faith in it would be religious expression. By being sceptical and questioning the self-styled experts in the field, lay people are actually being more scientific than they would otherwise be if they blindly believed the paid scientific professionals.

Besides, from a philosophical point of view, science is a personal endeavour where a person seeks objective knowledge about the world. Even incredulity or emotional reactions could be thought of as a kind of experimentation, where the participants exert pressure on the system, and then they find out what happens in response.

The beginnings of science was not with a rigid caste system in which only some could voice an opinion on a problem.  Quite the contrary.  Look at Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Kepler. 

The main difference being that those men were educated in the field of science which they were talking about....
Thanks to the internet, every random dumbass can just spray their bullshit at the face of everyone without having to have even studied the subject they're talking about. Which is exactly what's happening with climate change. Millions of people like you suddenly became both climatologist and chimists xD

[mOgliE]

What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.

We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.

Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.

So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?

I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something.

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.


However, moggie presents a different type of issue.  He argues from ignorance and believes that has moral and ethical standing because of a preconceived "righteousness."  Ignorance is bliss, since the devout can just take the word of the Sciencies about whatever.  Think of how wonderful this is.  There are no difficult issues to understand, you are simply told what to think, and if you are a good person, you obey.

I know that after you think it over, you will repent of your thinkcrimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgl1HOxpj8

I may have overstated it slightly,

Yeah slightly xD
That's the least you could say! Being wrong by a factor of 10 000 is not exactly a "slightly" mistake ^^

but the point about volcanic activity producing more greenhouse gasses than humans is quite legitimate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l5A_E3CA1
http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/

I looked at your sources a bit. And I see nothing like a demonstration.
Here is the extract of your "sources":

It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

It's a complete bold statement! I mean maybe it's right I don't know, there is 0 explanation about that. They don't say why it's "ten times likely" they don't compare the amounts emited or explain how they measured it or anything. They just say it's "ten times more likely".

Am I missing anything? For me it's not exactly what I would call a scientific demonstration.
There "explanation" is simply a comparison of two curves saying that in fact... Well sun activity impacts CO2 realease? Yeah well we already knew it thanks, that's not the point! The point is to know if man made CO2 is negligeable, not to know if rise of sun activity will rise CO2 level!

[TECSHARE]

Seems like you're not. This why you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a clue about.
"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. " http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes

It means it would take 1000 years of eruption to compensate one year of human made CO2.

But please, continue to show us how educated you are.

So you you are telling me that they are accurately gauging every volcano on Earth including on land and under the ocean when they are only actually studying a handful of volcanoes? One of the rules in science is you need to have an appropriate sample size in order to get any kind of reasonable estimate, and they have neither. Try again comrade.

[TPTB_need_war]

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.

Read what Armstrong wrote as quoted in my prior post. It is the ash, not the CO2 that matters.

The ash and particulate from volcanoes creates a 2-3 year cooling effect which can be world wide.  however, this is not a permanant change.

Armstrong's supercomputer and $billion of historical data has correlated that in fact it is a more permanent change or inflection juncture (perhaps not climate but societal). Science (data) trumps guesswork.

It must kick off a cascade of effects.

[mOgliE]

Seems like you're not. This why you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a clue about.
"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. " http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes

It means it would take 1000 years of eruption to compensate one year of human made CO2.

But please, continue to show us how educated you are.

So you you are telling me that they are accurately gauging every volcano on Earth including on land and under the ocean when they are only actually studying a handful of volcanoes? One of the rules in science is you need to have an appropriate sample size in order to get any kind of reasonable estimate, and they have neither. Try again comrade.

They have the exact number and size of volcanoes on earth. Then they studied a volcano. Then they just made an estimation of the CO2 emited by the whole volcanoes. What's so hard to understand?
Of course they're not precise! They can't be! But you're arguing they're wrong by a 10 000 order? ^^

Oh and btw I'm not your comrade, you surely don't deserve my friendship

[mOgliE]

And let's all take a moment to appreciate how you avoided answering on the quality of the "study" you showed us and their "arguments" xD

[Spendulus]

They have the exact number and size of volcanoes on earth. ...

No, they don't.

[TPTB_need_war]

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.

Read what Armstrong wrote as quoted in my prior post. It is the ash, not the CO2 that matters.

The ash and particulate from volcanoes creates a 2-3 year cooling effect which can be world wide.  however, this is not a permanant change.

Armstrong's supercomputer and $billion of historical data has correlated that in fact it is a more permanent change or inflection juncture (perhaps not climate but societal). Science (data) trumps guesswork.

It must kick off a cascade of effects.

Follow-up by Armstrong with charts:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/we-are-headed-into-a-new-ice-age-but-when/


Correlate with the scientists' recent discovery of a backtested predictive computer model for the sun's emission Maunder Minimum which predicts Mini Ice Age starting again 2030ish:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmstrongeconomics.com+maunder+minimum