Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Climate Change: The Convenient Lie

"If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting."

27.04.2017 - nearly 10 years later and STILL no evidence.

Question: why is the Autumn Equinox warmer than the Spring Equinox. They should be the same, but they are not. Any explanation? (Louis has one. It's really quite obvious. If you live outside the box - DA).

Climate Change
Climate Change: Debate
Climate Change: Observations
Climate Change: The World Natural Health Organization

Disgraced Nobel Peace Prize
The Nine 'Errors'
Carbon Offset Con
The Global Warming Hoax (Important)

The UQ (aka UK) Ltd government has been ordered by a High Court judge to rewrite the guidance sent out to teachers that accompanies copies of the controversial Al Gore documentary: An Inconvenient Truth. The British judiciary has shown some (occasional) common sense.

Well, almost though seriously
lacking in conviction

The climate change explanation according to Gore has not been banned, but a warning must be issued to students that other opinions about global warming exist. It has been accepted that though "flawed science and partisan views" is not the official description, certainly doubt has been firmly planted. However, Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and 'was being driven by emissions from humans'.

The judge said nine 'errors' in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus. It's an absolute disgrace that this erroneous propaganda (the jury's still out, but the judge didn't notice and returned a verdict anyway) has not been banned. A single major error may be accidental, but a running total of 'nine errors' holds other implications and a single major error is hardly trivial. Almost like the minor error that the Earth is the centre of the Universe. This has to be changed only because the error cannot be realistically continued. But like a good conspiracy if it cannot be proven or disproven (or should that be disproven or proven?) it remains as the truth.

When does an 'error' become a 'lie'?

That should be self evident: when the error has been uncovered and exposed, but ignored and remains uncorrected, it becomes the lie. As time goes on and justifictions are continuously wheeled out in an attempt to cover the accepted lie, but no attempt is made at correcting the lie, the lie just becomes the bi
ggest LIE.

The total disregard of truth to serve the interests of those pushing the erroneous view. It's servitude. Plain and simple and the ease at which tricks can be played becomes all too clear...

...and it is so easy

Any unproven theory can be right or wrong. But until it's proved wrong the assumption is that it must be right. And highly selective by choosing whichever is the most convenient lie or inconvenient truth.

This propagandist untruth can still be sent around schools, but only "with a warning".

Absolutely pathetic

   In a court room, a judge may rule the jury to disregard something said that contravened the rules of law, but once said it cannot be simply forgotten (unsaid - DA). That's how 'facts' can be planted into the mind of a juror. Banning this "documentary" is essential before the damage cannot ever be undone. The real damage is by those like Gore who set themselves up as 'saviours', but are nothing of the kind.

Consider 2000.

A case has been shown that Gore's view is biased, but the typically American view (CBS) tries to suggest a truck driver has not the same weight as a senior US politician. It describes the convenient lie as a "box office sensation, praised as a cinematic wake-up call about global warming".

Truth? Who cares?
Good story though!

The winner is the one with the best arguments and that is clearly not Gore. This news article is just one example of blatant opinion hijack.

Global warming is

not being denied 

simply that the reasons given for it are regarded as

highly suspect

Predictably, Children's minister (Kevin Brennan):

  • "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in the film that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion."
Do you 'see' the hopelessly crude subliminal message you are meant to 'hear'? The construction of the single sentence is so clumsy that it screams contrivance.

  • climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions: unproven
  • serious adverse consequences: unproven
  • vast weight of scientific opinion: unproven, but vigorously challenged
   But climate change has NOT been shown to be caused by man-made emissions. And "the vast weight of scientific opinion" is an untrue statement since it cannot be shown to be true. Names need to be widely published to verify such "truths" or they become part of the alleged and anonymous 'credibility' machine. Our sun warms the seas and dissolved carbon dioxide is released as a consequence. More gas can be dissolved in cold water. Warm those waters and less gas is retained. Carbon dioxide is released into the global atmosphere.

   The (highly suspect) inconvenient truth for Gore is that it's a (very probable) convenient lie. What is claimed is just...

It's more a case of:

Truth? Who cares?
But it makes shedloads of money!

   If more water is held in the atmosphere then consequently the concentration of salt in the sea is increased (what is the origin of salt?). Melting ice fields help to dilute the waters and so restore balance. That can only be a good thing and nature is taking control of a cyclical problem.

  • It's a very neat buffering solution to a permanently recurring problem: the sea warms up and so the ice melts, which requires energy (absorbs heat) and maintains the global water temperature. When water converts to ice, this also requires energy and is taken out of the system, but locked up in the ice ready for future release (cooling). The salt level is more or less constant by dilution (adding water from ice) or concentration (removing water as ice). If this wasn't the case then all the sea life would either perish or be seriously threatened. Past Earth history shows the cyclical nature of cold-warm periods.
   Atmospheric carbon dioxide should eventually return to roughly the original level, but it takes a long time. The Earth has millions of years to adjust. However, it is undeniable that the human desire for more concrete in building, building, building is producing a huge tonnage of carbon dioxide from heating limestone and generating the gas in the process. Drinkable quality water is consumed (chemically bonded so irrecoverable) in concrete and bricks/mortar.

Fossil Fuels

   The 'mythological' Atlantis (a separate theory deals with this - LB) begins to have credibility in that it's all happened before and it is just happening again. Submerged under the sea the depth of which had increased by the cyclical warming and ice field melting. In those days temperatures would have been colder and the ice fields more extensive. The Ice Age comes into view with N. America and Europe under ice. The story that this logically tells is that any cyclical melting, reforming and melting of the ice fields results in the long term reduction of the capacity to cool the Earth's oceans. Perhaps the Earth cannot survive for billions of years, but only a few millions.
   The Sun warming up (naturally) generates more CO2 (released from the raised temperature of the oceans) and by making more and more concrete means equilibrium will take much, much longer to ever be restored. Without the population being reduced (certainly not increased), and unless the chase for more and more money is curtailed, there is little hope for future generations. Little hope for a future that involves humans. There may be some survivors, but most of mankind will perish. That's an obvious conclusion.