CLIMATE CHANGE

Guest Post by Hardscrabble Farmer

On Saturday morning after chores we set up on the dock of the sugar house and prepared to slaughter turkeys. We started out with 20 poults this year. In April we slipped them into their pen under the deck of the milk house and watered and fed them twice a day until they were old enough and fast enough to let loose in the orchard. We lost one about three days in when it managed to get itself stuck between the heat lamp and the brooder wall, another one a couple of days later when it jumped up onto the rim of the water bucket and then fell in and drowned. The last one disappeared from the count around the middle of June and we wound up with a final count fully grown birds ready for Thanksgiving, 7 hens and 10 toms between 12 and 35 pounds.

Doing the turkeys is one of my least favorite annual rites; the birds are heavy, the feathers difficult to pull even when they’ve been scalded and it’s a cold time of year to be working all day with water. This year I had plenty of people ask if they could help, but none of their schedules lined up the right way so I found myself having to do the work by myself. The air was crisp, the sky so blue that it was hard on the eyes, but you could see the first of the distant contrail lines being etched across its surface, and invisible jet cursor like the one on an etch-a-sketch, leaving a scar on the face of the day.

If you work out of doors you get to be very familiar with the weather, especially in a climate where the seasons dictate the cycles of life. Certain kinds of clouds precede specific types of weather, the way the wind comes in ahead of a front carries smells with it that tell you what kind of rain it will be, or how heavy the snow will fall. If you pay close attention to the variety of clouds, their density and the speed with which they cross the sky you can almost set your watch by the arrival of a cold front, or a break in the patterns. On some days, not all mind you, the jets that leave the trails will cross the sky repeatedly, zig-zagging back and forth across the sky, usually they begin in the south, from east to west and slowly as the day progresses they will rise up across the horizon from somewhere in Massachusetts until they are directly above us.

These delicate scrimshaw drawings on the horizon will bleed into bands, whitish at first but then oily looking, like gasoline on a puddle, leaving sun dogs and attenuated curtains of wispy fog across what was only moments before crystal clear. I have watched them often enough now to know the difference between normal air traffic and these deliberate actions. Though they are more often seen in the daylight, there are times when they come out after dark. From the front of the house you can see, on a clear night, 75 miles or more.

You get to recognize the normal air traffic far to the south, the back and forth at certain elevations and the direction where they originate and where they vanish. Normally you might see three in an hour, maybe four, never more, day or night. On the days when they fill the sky with their scrim of clouds from dissipated trails there are usually three or four aircraft working together, one behind the other at slightly different altitudes, back and forth, rising higher by the hour back and forth until the sky is completely obscured. One afternoon we watched as one jet made repeated loops at thirty thousand feet, leaving circular trails above us that linked into a chain before it finally headed off to the seacoast, the blurry ovals melting into each other until every last trace of clear sky was utterly gone.

Lately whenever you hear some authority figure mention the term climate change they have begun to amend their lecture long enough to repeat the refrain that it is “settled science”. Sometimes they will give the percentage of scientists who say that this is so and the number is always north of 97%. Their voices will lower, deliberately, I suspect, and they will often repeat that phrase for emphasis. “Settled science” in the way that a parent will tell a demanding child that the matter is no longer up for discussion- “it’s settled.” they will say with the same gravity, as if the pronouncement itself has decided the matter rather than the merits of the argument. I find that kind of rhetorical posturing to be a kind of signal, not that the argument is definitive, but rather that the door of inquiry is no longer open.

Our betters have decided, for better or worse, that the bothersome population needs to move on to other topics still open to free discussion, like favorite TV shows or which platform is superior, Samsung or I-Phone. Politically it is settled, of course, a tax is coming and we are going to pay for it through increased costs for the most fundamental services to the most obscure behaviors. There is no democracy when it comes to revenue, only compliance and anyone who points out that it looks more like a money grab than a solution had better keep their head down. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. The United Nations, one of the leading proponents of the political solution to climate change is located in on an 18 acre complex that sits on the East River of Manhattan Island.

Unknown to most of the members is that several blocks west of their headquarters there sits a massive stretch of exposed bedrock known as the Roches Moutonees, where ten thousand years earlier massive glaciers once scraped their surfaces under the pressure of a half mile thick body of ice. Were it not for global warming the rooftop where the elites land their luxury helicopters prior to attending their climate summit would, at just over 500 feet, still be some 1500 feet beneath the top of the glacier that once buried the entire northeastern seaboard. On that particular point, the science is settled.

Preparing a turkey for Thanksgiving is a task that most people will never undertake in a lifetime. Everyone eats turkey, but getting one from the field to the table is a process better left to others. My son, bless his heart, gave up his day to give me a hand with the birds and we set up a system to behead the turkeys, bleed them out and scald them before beginning on the plucking. A 35 pound tom turkey will not lay his head on the chopping block as dutifully as a Carmelite nun and the sounds that accompany this task create a cacophony that sets the rest of the flock into responses and calls of their own. Turkeys signal each other through a complex system of vocalizations, a chirping from the hens that always sets off in unison at the smallest sounds around them and a gobble from the toms in concert to establish their presence and availability.

Once the slaughter begins the sounds change and the toms lead and the hens stay silent. Towards the end the flock grows quieter until there are no sounds whatsoever, a deafening silence. We talk while we work, stopping to warm our hands in a bucket of hot water, changing latex gloves as they tear or fill up with a pink mix of blood and water. The process takes all day, about forty minutes per bird no matter how fast you are. My wife had told me about her last trip to the grocery store and stopping to check on the prices of turkey there, “Fifty-nine cents a pound”, she told me.

I tried to figure it out in my head, how you could even feed a turkey for 59 cents a pound, never mind the associated costs of labor getting it to harvest weight, the slaughter, the transportation, refrigeration, the stocking and the markups at every step along the way before it made it to the conveyor belt at the checkout. It simply isn’t possible, under any circumstances to provide that price for that commodity and not lose money. Unless there is some massive subsidy somewhere along the way where money is pumped into the system in order to suppress the price, it simply cannot be done.

That of course is coming from someone who has done this often enough to have a fairly good idea of what is involved. Since turkeys are not widgets, it’s inconceivable that any kinds of shortcuts can be taken to trim the price down to that degree. To get a thirty pound tom turkey you need 100 pounds of feed. At the rock bottom prices the cost of feed exceeds the cost of the turkey by 41 cents a pound without factoring in any other cost or process. Like all things in America these days, there is a disconnect between reality and perception. The mechanisms behind this are open to debate, but the reality is what it is.

I have noticed that while the official organs of the State and its apparatchiks are unanimous when it comes to climate change, they are equally on board with debunking the aircraft I see routinely blotting out the blue sky with their vapor trails. I see what I see and I’m not the kind of person who can deny reality no matter how many scientists agree on a particular topic. If climate change is a concern I would suggest they start with the most obvious source available and that’s whatever those planes are painting the heavens with every month, every year. I understand greenhouses and how that effect has supposedly determined the temperature of other planets, notably Venus, so pretending that a cloud covered sky isn’t a contributing factor is a kind of denial you wouldn’t expect from this crowd, but deny they do.

I don’t speculate on what it is that comes out of the back of these aircraft, that is for other people to determine, what I do know is that they alter the weather when they operate, if clouds are part of weather, that is. Maybe they too have been redefined and clouds no longer count in the world of meteorology, but whatever the purpose or intent, the outcome is undeniable. Man made aircraft can change the weather from a cloudless sunny day to an overcast one filled with horizon to horizon cover that blocks the sunlight and does whatever else it may.

When you’re all done with turkeys the last thing you want to do is eat one, that feeling goes away in a day or two when your hands no longer smell like feathers and feet and that’s when you start to think about how those birds were able to convert grass seeds and crickets, apples and pumpkins, corn meal and earthworms into a meat so juicy and flavorful, so packed with L-tryptophan, a precursor to seratonin, that literally tens of millions of Americans drift off to sleep before kick-off on the last Thursday of November. We like to part our bird into breast and leg quarters and brine them for a couple of days. We slow roast them at 200 degrees for about twelve hours until tender and then coat them with sea salt and fresh ground pepper and set the roasting pans under high heat until the skin blisters and browns.

The finish is beautiful, each section cooked to perfection and the quality of that bird unlike anything I have ever eaten in my life, even at 59 cents a pound. My son and I finished working in the dark and above us the coverage of the sky was complete. Not a star was visible in the sky, only a blanket of hazy, milky whiteness and a rising half moon surrounded by a ring, like Saturn. When I was younger my Grandfather used to tell me that this was a sure sign of snow, but that was before the planes with aerosol dispersal systems criss-crossing the sky whenever the mood strikes.

I’m not a scientist and I don’t claim to be one, but I know that CO2 isn’t a pollutant as the Settled Science Climate Change Affirmers, it’s a bi-product of living breathing creatures and I do know that whatever is coming out of the back of the airborne dispersal systems of if it is for our benefit or detriment, but I do know that it is definitely unnatural and controllable if someone is looking for a place to start that isn’t in my wallet. I don’t usually include links to other websites on the Internet because I can only vouch for my own words and don’t want to discredit or endorse someone without their tacit approval, but hey, it’s almost Thanksgiving and I’m grateful for their work in supporting what I see.

142
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Rise Up

starfcker says: “… Rise up, barium and aluminum are common ingredients in agricultural fungicides. Any lab rat ought to know that.”
——————————————–
@starfuck, High levels of barium and aluminum are also known ingredients in Solar Radiation Management aerosols and have been found in soil samples OUTSIDE of agricultural areas (forests, deserts, etc.).

Gryffyn
Gryffyn

Yesterday on my lunch break I reported here that we were enjoying a cloudless, contrail and chemtrail free sky. Some twit gave me a thumbs down. Today, with virtually identical conditions, the late afternoon sky is full of long persistent trails stretching from west to east. As I look out my office window I see long parallel trails, one in progress, expanding and turning the sky from blue to white.
I am a photographer, always looking for super skies in the landscape images I favor. Before digital cameras and Photoshop I would curse the occasional jet stream that temporarily ruined a good shot. It meant waiting a few minutes for the contrail to evaporate and hoping nothing else changed, but often things changed and the image was lost. Now, good skies are a rare and welcome treat.

Olde Virginian
Olde Virginian

https://www.flickr.com/gp/137994236@N03/11s4V7

Oh look… Right outside my window here somebody was playing tictactoe in the sky just now… and they took out their chalk piece that’s darker than water vapor… hmmm

Olde Virginian
Olde Virginian

comment image

Try again…

Ghost

Olde Virginian…good image to illustrate something just doesn’t add up to CONTRAILS.

Araven
Araven

Holy crap! TPTB putting it right out in the open! It’s not about global warming, it’s not even about climate change (whatever that it) IT IS ABOUT THEM SQUEEZING AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY CAN GET OUT OF US! Next thing you know they’ll be taxing us for breathing.

“Charges for carbon emissions should become the major tool for fighting climate change, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Christine Lagarde said in a statement on Wednesday.”

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/environment/20151126/1030764717/carbon-price-climate-conference.html#ixzz3sXzli4Dd

hardscrabble farmer

It’s always about the money.

FWIW, you ever notice that the big scare is “rising sea levels”?

Google a modern photo of the Rialto Bridge spanning the Grand Canal in Venice. It was built almost 500 years ago. Then look at Canaletto’s painting below.

comment image

Ghost

Okay, if this works, then explain why

Ghost

comment image&sp=7a0fd69e1c4ec989b0c693947c498091

Ghost

What I meant to ask, HSF, is if you think there is a visible “rise” in the water in this photo?

Ghost

Never mind… I see that it appears to be several feet higher.

hardscrabble farmer

No, there isn’t. Half a millennium, nada. It helps to find one where you can count the steps, but you get the idea. The sea level isn’t changing, the temperature isn’t rising and they couldn’t do anything about either even if it were. They just want everything that isn’t bolted down and they’ll do whatever they have to until the beets are bled dry. Then it’s off to the next planet.

I found the IMF involvement very telling. Does NASA get involved in EU monetary policy? Does the NFL stick their nose into Finnish Immigration Laws? The IMF is the world’s largest Gypsy clan and they want to pave your driveway.

It’s a long con, like the Spanish Prisoner.

Montefrío
Montefrío

Where I live, Thanksgiving is just another Thursday, but in any case: Happy Thanksgiving to y’all!

Here’s a thought: shitcan all those turkeys and go for goose, if you can find it! Goose used to be the traditional Christmas meal, particularly in the British Isles of long ago, and given that my family came from there, we followed that tradition until it became nearly impossible to find goose unless you shot it/raised it yourself or went down to some pond and poached (not as in cooking) it.

Stuff it with apples, prunes, some sausage, celery, etc. and you’ve got a meal with flavor. Remember the saying “As full of shit as the Christmas goose”? Yeah, well, if you don’t, ponder it for a bit, because at times it’s true of every single one of us, yours included.

Goose has real flavor; turkey, even the best of it, pales by comparison imho and experience. Even a domestic goose is a nasty mo-fo, but turkeys in my experience are dumb and docile. Marinate it for a day or two in red wine with herbs, then cook it nice and slow in a clay oven outdoors. Tru it: you’ll like it!

hardscrabble farmer

Montfrio, Happy Just Another Thursday to you! We shoot a couple of geese right around this time of year, a real chore to pluck clean though. Our turkeys are quite good, nothing like the kind from the grocery store. They ate apples for the last couple of months so they really fattened up, the biggest was over 40 pounds. We just part them up, brine them for a couple of days, cook them overnight at 200 degrees and then roast them for half an hour at 400 to get the skin nice and blistered.

The house is redolent with the smell of it tonight. I’ve been slow cooking the broth for gravy since early this morning. Can’t wait.

Montefrio

HSF: Gotta admit, sounds awfully good! No denying that geese are a pain to pluck, but, damn, man, a well-stuffed, slow-cooked goose… Come hell or high water, we’re havin’ one for Christmas, the 80+º weather outside be damned! Family’s away for Turkey Day, and being all by myself, I’m afraid it’ll be just another Thursday. But for all of you up there, well, Have a great one and ship the leftovers down this way!

cz
cz

Nasa’s lies run deep. I believe nothing from them. Take note. Is stucky listening…?

EL Coyote
EL Coyote

Maggie, I was at the Venetian in October, the water doesn’t seem any higher than ten years ago.

Ghost

well, HSF pointed out that the angle was not a good one to get a good idea of the level. I believe he is absolutely right. It is all about taking everything we have.

If they can.

#turkeylivesmatter
#turkeylivesmatter

Stores have been promoting Afro-American Friday all month. I guess they decided to be honest and skip the pretend homage to Native American hospitality. In the end, nobody will remember why we celebrate turkeys on turkey day.

hardscrabble farmer

That name is great.

Keith Elder
Keith Elder

I posted a comment that used the word “believe”, and some commenters had a problem with that. I didn’t mean believe in the religious sense, I meant that I trusted the data.

I also used the word “know” and what I meant by that was either direct observations of the weather where I live, or news reports of extreme weather in other parts of the world. Droughts, floods, etc. Check out seemorerocks.com for articles with photos. I don’t believe they were photoshopped.

I didn’t post any links supporting my claims, and am glad I didn’t bother. One commenter castigated me for not providing them, then proceeded to claim that the data is rigged. Which is what I expected.

I have great respect for HSF, brilliant writer, but how does he know that the sea level isn’t rising and global temperatures aren’t increasing?

The question I should have asked is “does anyone think the weather is getting more extreme?” I do, and think it’s because of human activity.

Another question, “do you believe arctic is is melting more each year?”. I do, but I don’t fly over the arctic every day measuring it, and trust the data collected by http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I live in SW VA, and last winter during a cold snap the temperature was 20 F lower than in Alaska. I believe weatherunderground.com is reporting correct data. This happened because the jet stream is being deformed by changing arctic conditions. So I believe that the temperature in any one location can be lower and still the global average temperature is increasing.

Most humans have an incredible capacity for denial, especially when accepting reality would entail personal inconvenience. There are a lot of smart people here, but I think you are denying reality because there’s really no solution to this predicament.

At any rate, let’s see where we stand in 2 years, when I think arctic ice will melt completely in the summer. Ever heard of the albedo effect? Once sea ice melts completely, then the frozen methane will come bubbling up (it already is), and increase the greenhouse effect even further.

My prediction is that the earth will be uninhabitable by 2035.

Have a nice day!

Billah's wife
Billah's wife

Hardscramble must be smokin some homegrown organic weed ternight, cuz he’s speakin in wild ass metaphors and obviously got some turkey munchies.

Congrats on yer comment count Hardscramble. Yer startin ter git the hang of it. Hopefully Maggie doesn’t pile on and screw it up fer you.

cz
cz

In regard to Keith Elder,
Anyone here who has cited geoengineeing dot com has agreed with keith, knowingly or not, that is dane’s stance.
I’m truly amazed by what we don’t know. We are not idiots, and yet there is so much we just don’t know. It’s not from lack of curiousity. Some things just seem to be hidden. I’m not happy with that.
Stucky’s fake article is fun i guess, but not satisfying. Most of that crap we already know..
I’m glad to see these discussions and hope for more.
Do not limit your imaginations as to how bad things are much less how depraved man can be.

James the Wanderer

Dear Keith Elder,

Here is the problem. Science and the scientific method were devised to provide a failure-proof method for determining facts. There are basic underpinnings of the scientific method:

(1) The data used should be provided, as collected / uncorrected, for others to review, understand, and perform their own calculations upon. Dr. James Hansen is guilty of hiding original datasets, in violation of this requirement.

(2) The method used should be transparent, and openly available. It only took a couple of scientists to run uncorrelated, random data through Dr. Michael Mann’s “hockeystick” algorithm to get – a hockeystick graph. If “real” temperature data and totally fabricated data both produce a unique result, what does that say about the algorithm used?

(3) Collusion between scientists is not allowed; you can collaborate, but the results should bear the names of all the collaborators. When one scientist writes an article that his friend and colleague in ideology then reviews favorably, the “peer reviewed” process is defeated. When they get together and deny critical articles a review and publication in the same journals that review and publish favorable articles, the peer review process becomes inexorably biased.

Do you see the problem yet? You are depending on altered, non-original data, goal-seeking algorithms, corrupted peer-review and biased reviewers to provide an accurate assessment of climate change. You are lost before you begin; you are asking partisans for impartiality.

Also. on a previous comment I mentioned anomalies reported by contemporary observers back during the Medieval warming period and the last Maunder minimum. You continue to believe that you can see climate change in your lifetime, greater than before. If AGW is real, will we be able to grow grapes in Greenland again? Would that be a bad thing?

I suspect you are trying hard to understand really complex phenomena. Climate may not be reducible to pollution, CO2 and ozone as you said before. It may be a result of a thousand factors, big and small, in combination and opposition in a thousand thousand relationships. It is human nature to wish for simple explanations, but Nature is under no obligation to comply. And if you believe climate is due to pollution, CO2 and ozone, or arctic ice, albedo and hydrates, or even all six; do you care to say why you are ignoring solar activity? Volcanism? Water vapor in the atmosphere?

If you wish certainty, I’m afraid you won’t find it. Many researchers start off with a noble, simple hypothesis only to find fractal complexity and interactions that can barely be listed, let alone understood. Galileo was able to understand friction, ballistic motion and air resistance, and postulated the motion of the planets (by observing the motion of Jupiter’s moons in an early telescope). It had to wait until Kepler and Newton for more accurate explanations, using math and instruments Galileo had no access to. Climate may be in that condition now, that we lack the [instruments / math and complexity modeling / sheer volume of data] needed to explain it properly. I don’t know, but I do know that the existing theories and computer models generally fail to predict climate well: remember we are supposed to be warming, but have stalled out at approximately the same temperature for over a decade? Doesn’t that indicate something is wrong / missing from the model?

Keep trying to understand, but realize that someone who wants money from you may pose with “the answer” when all they really have is greed. I put Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann and the IPCC all in that category, and suspect anything they say as coming from a compromised source. YMMV.

Ghost

A very reasonable reply, Jamesthewanderer! And your points about datasets are absolutely spot ON.

IndenturedServant

Keith Elder opened his piehole to excrete the following:
“I have great respect for HSF, brilliant writer, but how does he know that the sea level isn’t rising”

Why are none of the worlds most treasured seaside beaches being closed and abandoned due to flooding? Why are no new harbors being built in the recently flooded areas? Why are the atolls still standing proud of the sea? Look at the painting HSF posted and go search on modern images of the same scene. Go search on Admiral John Franklin and see how far and when he sailed on his Northwest Passage Expedition. Did he experience gloBULL warming back then? Why aren’t fresh water estuaries being inundated by sea water? Where are the coastlines changing?

Weather, including warmer and cooler periods, is changing constantly. Always has, always will. You want to do something meaningful? Fix your own personal space on this planet, you know, the part you actually have some real control over and teach your children the same. After that go prepare for the fight against the coming global tyranny that will have a much more dramatic and lasting effect on your family’s lives that gloBULL warming.

GloBULL warming is a fucking con by the owners to STEAL more of your personal wealth WITH your approval. How much more can you personally afford to give up? If you can afford to give up some then by all means go give it to Uncle Al and get your filthy fucking hands out of my pockets! For fuck sake, pull your head out of your ass and breathe in some air so your brain can function. Your brain is not supposed to be a place marker for someone else’s ideas and propoganda. If you don’t use your own brain yourself, someone else will.

Araven
Araven

Keith Elder, putting it in earth perspective rather than human lifetime perspective might help.

About 12,000 years ago was the end of the last ice age. That is a very short time in geological terms and a moderate amount of time in climatological terms. At that time sea level was about 400 feet lower than it is now. That is why people are doing archeology in hundreds of feet of water off of the coast of India and other places.

The base model used for all of the predictive models for “global warming” for the past 30 years or so has been proven to be wrong by at least a power of 10, read the link I provided way up there in a previous comment. But, even if you take the models without applying the fix they are talking about a sea level rise on the order of a few inches over the next 50 to 100 years or so.

So even if you choose to believe everything they are saying the global warming alarmists are talking about a potential noise level change and they are making mountains (that they can use to tax us to death, see the link a few comments up) out of mole hills.

BTW, the Antarctic ice is gaining size and mass and is the largest it has ever been: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151030220523.htm

Tucci78

Writes Keith Elder in a panic of faith – pure faith, bereft either of factual support or familiarity with the principles of scientific method – “My prediction is that the earth will be uninhabitable by 2035.”

Hardly. Despite what’s expected of a Dalton-like minimum (and predicted recapitulation of something like the Little Ice Age) during Solar Cycle 25, all of humanity will be back to the combustion of fossil and other petrochemical fuels, and we will save ourselves in spite of you blitheringly idiotic “global warming” panickers and the con artists who’ve suckered the fuck out of you.

…the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

— H.L. Mencken (1918)

Tucci78

Writes jamesthewanderer: ” When one scientist writes an article that his friend and colleague in ideology then reviews favorably, the “peer reviewed” process is defeated. When they get together and deny critical articles a review and publication in the same journals that review and publish favorable articles, the peer review process becomes inexorably biased.”

Oh, it’s more than that.

When an author submits a manuscript to a journal for publication, the editor selects two or more “peer reviewers,” who are specialists in the pertinent area of scientific discipline. If the paper is on a new approach to treating breast cancer, the reviewers are likely to be people with training and experience in medical and/or surgical oncology, with strong backgrounds in research. These utterly unpaid associate members of the journal’s editorial staff receive copies of the manuscript with the names of the authors removed. This is called “blinding.”

The reviewers go over the manuscript, and when they find matters with which they disagree, they make comments, with supporting references whenever possible, and much of the time they make suggestions to focus more closely on one element, or even incorporate an additional element that their familiarity with the subject gives them cause to consider valuable. He sends all this to the editor. He doesn’t know who the author(s) is/are. These comments are all critical as well as collegial, and commonly involve a helluva lot of work on the part of the reviewer.

The author of the manuscript (or if there are several authors, the one chosen to serve as corresponding author, the “designated hitter” for the group) receives the comments, writes or collects replies from the authors involved, and sends ’em to the journal editor for distribution to the respective reviewers. All of this process is blinded – “anonymized.”

Eventually the critique and the comments are reconciled, the manuscript attains its final “drop dead” form, and the editor accepts it for publication. But ideally, the authors and the reviewers never know the identities of their respondents throughout the process.

That’s how it works. Blinded and adversarial. When blinding is broken – as the Climategate emails confirm that had been connived-at by the charlatans sliming around as “the consensus in climate science” – we call it “PAL review,” and the pretense of peer review is nothing more than a sick joke that violates all intellectual integrity in the process of academic publishing.

These guys have built their careers on a malpractitionate tissue of lies, and the great “man-made climate change” contention is nothing but a fraud, wholly criminal and worthy of prosecution and punishment, including civil cases pursued for compensatory and punitive damages.

gm
gm

Just my idle thought. But as far as sea ice is concerned , lets say it all melts. Um wouldn’t sea levels get lower ? As far as I know water EXPANDS when it freezes . So if it melts , It CONTRACTS?

Maybe I don’t remember my physics classes correctly from the 1980’s .

As far as U.N documents , globull warming is indeed stated as a taxing method .

So here I am in GA , weather report said rain , Didn’t rain . 24 hour forecast and they missed it , no biggie , yet I’m supposed to worry about their fucking 50 year weather report ? lol . Bite my ass lol

Methane making the world uninhabitable ? um doesn’t seem to have happened in all the recorded history on high and low tempatures , Which were hotter and colder , yet here we are .

I think I will take my chances without someone sticking there hand in my wallet lol .

Tough crowd here Keith , tough crowd . But good to see you SIR! Altho I am just a cook , welcome aboard . )))))

Keith Elder
Keith Elder

Seems like folks have missed a major point that I was trying to make; the difference between believing and knowing. I look at a lot of data about the climate, and believe most of it. I don’t know that it’s true. You believe other data that says my data is wrong. How do you know for sure your data is right and the data I look at is wrong?

What about your personal experience? Have you noticed the increasingly wonky weather that’s been occurring in the last half dozen years? What are your personal observations? No one has commented on my questions about those. Yes, it’s anecdotal in the singular, but I see a trend towards increasingly erratic weather.

And why do TPTB need to promote climate change in order to tax us? They can and will tax us however they wish.

I see the attempt to cast this as due to sunspots or whatever as a desperate attempt to let ourselves off the hook.

Predictions are difficult, especially about the future. 2035 is a belief of mine, but I certainly don’t know that.

Tucci78

Writes Keith Elder: “I see the attempt to cast this as due to sunspots or whatever as a desperate attempt to let ourselves off the hook.”

If you’re sincere about your “believe most of it” with regard to the elaborate (if clumsily confected) pure bullshit rammed down your throat by “the consensus on climate,” you’re too fucking gullible to live, and there’s an end to it.

Why, then, is there this world-wide bed-wetting about the climate?

The reason is that various people in the climatological community together with various politicians with whom they are financially as well as politically linked in various ways have decided over the last twenty or thirty years to fabricate a case that we have a problem with the climate.

You may have heard of the publication recently by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia of thousands of highly compromising emails between all of the leading scientists who have been part of this conspiracy to tamper with the scientific data and whose activities I have been following with some interest for the last two or three years, and those emails reveal:

· Incompetent programming
· Tampering with data
· Bullying of journal editors
· Lying to the public
· Blocking Freedom of Information requests for data so that other scientists could verify it
· Destroying data that had been requested, procuring others to destroy data that had been requested
· Scientific and financial fraud running into the millions
· Racketeering

That is what these emails reveal. But not if you believe Nature, which said “well, this a storm in a teacup and the whole thing is the only reason these people behaved in the least bit in the way scientists shouldn’t is because they were under pressure from all those nasty denialists and skeptics.”

Well, the fact is they’re crooks. That’s what they really are. I call them the Traffic Light Tendency. They call themselves “green” because they are too “yellow” to admit that they’re “red.”

— Christopher Monckton, 2nd International Climate Conference (4 December 2009)

James the Wanderer

Keith, believe whatever you want to believe. Just don’t call it science, or yourself a scientist. You haven’t verified your sources, done your own calculations, paid any attention to details like previous fraud and collusion, or even done your own measurements, at least none you have discussed here. I can’t find anything scientific about your belief.

I went camping as a Boy Scout in Beech Grove, TN during a hard winter. INSIDE a hunting cabin we spread our sleeping bags around the central double fireplace, and stowed our back packs against the outer walls. When I woke up the next morning, I had to break through a crust of ice at the neck of my canteen to get a drink of water – and this was INSIDE the cabin. I’ve never been camping in colder conditions since – does that confirm global warming? OF COURSE NOT! There are normal variations in weather severity and there are abnormal (rare, once every X years) variations. And there are real, wild variations in weather that may never recur (we just had a hurricane (typhoon) cross Mexico to saturate central Texas, and I can’t remember hearing about that before). Usually, hurricanes form in the Atlantic, cross the Gulf of Mexico and then saturate central Texas (one chased me from Houston to Dallas in the 80’s, and was still strong enough to kill a man in Dallas). That doesn’t confirm global warming either.

I give up. Believe what you want to believe, worship Al Gore and anyone else you want to, just don’t call it science. Science means something entirely different.

gm
gm

Simple question Keith . I drive a car and a motorcycle . My personel experience is when I was 30 years younger I was constantly cleaning BUGS off my car and bike. Now , very rarely .
Why ?

Seems the chemical cocktail is from the chemtrails is not very condusive to life . Life is hard on the little things. Why are the Bee’s dying ? Monsanto and a shitload of aspirants in the atmosphere.

Why are there a POCB Non-GMO Seed banks started about damn near the same time as said chemtrails started ?

Where are the bugs at?

If you are 50 years of age , and can recollect your childhood , where are the fucking bugs at that used to splash into your windshields so often that you had to constantly wash them away ?

I rarely have enough hit my car etc that it is an issue nowadays .

Kieth get rid of your normalcy bias from what you think should be, and look at what is and compare that data with what was . Talk to your actual elders . PEEL the ONION to the most basic truth , without regard for what you WISH it to be .

For example , I think a Honda is a good car , all my research will indeed say it is a good car . I will never look at any possible detriments that it is a good car . So I only get at best ,my bias that it is a good car . I will not look at data that says it is a bad car . Hence , normalcy bias .

IndenturedServant

Keith Elder said:
“You believe other data that says my data is wrong. How do you know for sure your data is right and the data I look at is wrong?”

I am 100% in favor of ensuring the data is accurate. I’m also 100% in favor of no one being taxed, fined or punished to enrich the govt or their cronies.

Once the data is trusted and consensus reached, you still don’t need to tax, fine of punish anyone or force people to enrich the oligarchs via carbon exchanges. Simply decide what sort of reduction is required to achieve the goal and raise rates on goods that contribute to the problem to a level that cause people to self regulate to those levels.

Govt fucks up everything it touches so there is no reason to have them involved in the science or the solution. Just set a goal and let the free market fix it. Forcing stolen wealth through the hands or criminal oligarchs is not the answer.

Until that time, if your undies are in a knot, then begin living with the cuts and restrictions you want to impose on everyone else. Lead from the front.

hardscrabble farmer

“Another question, “do you believe arctic is is melting more each year?”. I do, but I don’t fly over the arctic every day measuring it, and trust the data collected by http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Have you seen NASA’s satellite imagery? They claim over a half million square miles of increased ice cover in a single year based on the images in this link. This press release is approximately three weeks old. I don’t own any satellites, so I can’t confirm or deny the claim, but there it is.

http://billsinsider.com/2015/11/02/4660-mass-increase-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

Keith also said-

“I have great respect for HSF, brilliant writer, but how does he know that the sea level isn’t rising and global temperatures aren’t increasing?”

Thank you for the compliment, I’m not sure I deserve that kind of praise, but it’s Thanksgiving so I’ll just be grateful. The answer is I don’t know, but I do know what I can see and I have stood on the bottom step of the Rialto Bridge without getting my shoes wet and it was built 500 years ago at sea level. If there had been some perceptible rise, it would stand to reason that the original base level would be underwater, no? As for temperatures I have two unique sets I have referenced before, one being the journals of my Grandmother who dutifully kept record of the weather daily for over 80 years in her journals- she was an avid gardener and liked to record the events of her life. The other is the start dates for tapping the sugar maples on my farm and the end dates from 1903 until 1955 which were written on the wall by the previous owners. As you may be aware the sap flow coincides with a very narrow temperature window in late Winter/early Spring that requires above 40 degrees during the day and below freezing each night. As soon as temperatures rise above freezing during the overnight or above 50 during the day the season comes to an end. We have kept similar records since we re-booted the operation in 2009. The average start and end dates as well as length of run indicates a slight cooling pattern (later start, later end) and based on the local history of when sugaring season starts- Town Meeting Day in March- it’s been fairly consistent for at least 175 years. So there’s that.

As to extreme weather events I would write that off as extreme coverage of weather related events. A hundred years ago Dan Rather wasn’t strapping himself to palm trees for an incoming hurricane to milk the maximum viewership out of something that happens to be exciting, at least in meteorological terms.

All things said, my point wasn’t that there is or isn’t a cooling or warming trend, that’s how planets in space orbiting distant Suns behave, especially over the long term and without any help or hinderance from mankind. My point was that a) it appears, as is always the case, that governments are using whatever happens to be handy and fear inducing to accumulate more power, establish even greater control and extract ever more from the hapless populations without being honest, transparent or presenting any solid plans for correcting something that is, to be frank, perfectly natural. The greed and hubris connected with their plans is stunning in light of the fact that they deny even the most obvious fixes they themselves engage in- like the vapor trails they pretend do not exist, the carbon wasting modes of travel they prefer, the environmentally destructive wars they wage.

As for me and mine, we try to fix what we can on a level that is possible and if more people turned to that, something I try and encourage through my words and actions, then maybe we’d see something positive at no cost and without the loss of our remaining freedoms. But what do I know, I’m just a farmer.

Bostonbob

Happy Thanksgiving HSF.
Bob.

Ghost

@Keith… hang around and meet the rest of the smart folks here. You are obviously intelligent and don’t seem to be completely immovable in your opinion.

There are some really informed people here. Not all of them write like HSF, but on good days, we try.

Ghost

My place is beginning to smell pretty good too. Happy Thanksgiving TBP friends and freaks.

Araven
Araven

Keith Elder, you are obviously missing our major points. Others have described them in depth so I will not do that, I will summarize:

“How do you know for sure your data is right and the data I look at is wrong?” 1) Empirical evidence; 2) As far as science goes, we don’t have to prove our data we only have to prove yours wrong to disprove the hypothesis you are working from. 3) Just the fact that they keep calling it settled science proves that it is not science because real science is never settled.

“What about your personal experience?” 1) It’s not relevant to proving or disproving the hypothesis because it is too small of a data set. 2) Normalcy bias means that each of us colors our perceptions based on what we are expecting to see, again making it not relevant to proving or disproving the hypothesis.

“And why do TPTB need to promote climate change in order to tax us? They can and will tax us however they wish.” Negative. There are a lot more of the rest of us than there are of TPTB. They have to pull some kind of a scam or there would be a revolution.

“I see the attempt to cast this as due to sunspots or whatever as a desperate attempt to let ourselves off the hook.” You’re indoctrinated into the religion of anthropogenic “climate change” to the point where you refuse to look at anything that refutes it. It is painfully obvious that most of the warmth on the surface of this planet and the other planets comes from the sun, ergo any change from the sun should be factored into any model used to model the climate and the current models do not.

Keith Elder says:

“I believe that industrial civilization is destabilizing the climate. I don’t know what mix of CO2, pollution, and ozone are causing it.” TPTB are restricting their “fight” against “climate change” to CO2 and ignoring pollution, ozone, and everything else. So why do you believe anything they say about the subject?

Stucky

comment image

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading