Politics of Global Warming

Tyger · Apr 11, 2015

Why Corporate America is reluctant to take a stand on climate action
The EPA’s Clean Power Plan might be the only hope the US has to make a real dent in the climate change battle. So why aren’t more companies onboard?

TEXT: "Many environmental groups consider the Obama administration’s plan to regulate carbon-spewing coal plants, which aims to cut carbon pollution by 30%, as one of our last chances to win the fight against climate change. But the vast majority of their top corporate partners – companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, FedEx, UPS, Target and Walmart, which have worked with environmental NGOs for years – aren’t backing them up, according to a Guardian survey.

"The survey consisted of calls and emails to nearly 50 corporations that work with three environmental groups – Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund US – that have identified the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan as a top priority. These are Fortune 500 global companies that tout their sustainability efforts and celebrate their environmental partnerships. Just three of them – Starbucks, Mars and Google – support the Clean Power Plan, which is a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s climate change efforts. Caterpillar and CSX Corp, a coal-carrying railroad, oppose the EPA plan. The vast majority take no position.

"The reluctance of companies to take a stand raises questions about the depth of partnerships between companies and NGOs. By remaining quiet, these companies make it harder for the EPA to roll out the plan in the face of vehement opposition from fossil fuel companies and Republicans. “Silence isn’t neutral,” says Anne Kelly of Ceres, who is organizing companies to support the EPA. The lack of public support could jeopardize the clean power plan, and – if the US isn’t able to make a strong climate commitment as a result – could ultimately undermine the success of the global climate talks in Paris this year.

"The companies that won’t get involved say it’s because the regulation of power plant emissions is not core to their business. Environmentalists maintain that climate change is everybody’s business. The Environmental Defense Fund, for example, says the EPA Clean Power Plan is “the most significant step in US history toward reducing the pollution that causes climate change”. More than 480,000 EDF members have signed petitions backing the EPA. Fred Krupp, EDF’s president, said: “Hiding from challenges is not what Americans do.” Yet EDF’s corporate partners would appear to be doing just that. AT&T, DuPont, KKR, McDonald’s, Ocean Spray and Walmart are all sitting out the debate over what some activists describe as a make-or-break climate change initiative.

"It’s the same story with the corporate allies of The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund. Lou Leonard, vice president for climate policy at WWF, says: “We think that companies should, absolutely, be engaging on climate policy.” Their silence means the loudest business voices on climate policy issues in Washington or the state capitals come from conservative trade groups, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which strongly oppose the EPA’s rules.

"The stakes are high. Electric power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution in the US, accounting for roughly one-third of US domestic greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled that the EPA was required to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, and in 2013, Obama announced the agency’s intention to reduce power plant emissions. Since then, the EPA has proposed regulations for new and existing plants, while delegating many of the particulars to states to permit flexible rule-making.

"For the most part, supporters and opponents agree that the rules would make it all but impossible to build new coal plants, requiring some existing coal plants to shut down and raising the cost of electricity. That’s where the agreement ends. The EPA says the climate and health benefits from its plan far outweigh the estimated annual costs, a position embraced by green groups. Aside from EDF, WWF and The Nature Conservancy, activist groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace also support the plan. US climate action, they say, is especially important as the world moves closer to global climate talks later this year in Paris. “It is an enormously high priority for The Nature Conservancy,” says Mark Tercek, the group’s president and CEO.

"The EPA’s opponents, who have organized as the Partnership for a Better Energy Future, say that the power plant rules will raise energy costs to unacceptable levels, put US manufacturing at risk, threaten the reliability of the electricity grid and accomplish little in the way of greenhouse gas reductions. The issue has become a partisan battleground. This month, US Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican and the Senate majority leader, urged governors to refuse to enact the power plant rules.

The partisan nature of the debate is one reason why green groups have proven unable to enlist the support of their corporate allies. Businesses would rather not alienate powerful Republicans like McConnell.This month, US senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican and the Senate majority leader, urged governors to refuse to implement the power plant rules. As Glenn Prickett, chief external affairs officer for the Nature Conservancy, says: “Big companies that might be willing to join a bipartisan legislative effort are not going line up behind an initiative of the Obama administration strongly opposed by Republicans.” The Nature Conservancy and EDF are working together on a longer-term plan to build a bipartisan coalition for climate action in Congress, which is unlikely until after the 2016 presidential election.

"The other reason why companies have stayed out of the fight is that they tend to save their lobbying power for matters that directly concern their interests. FedEx, for example, as an operator of trucks, supported the first-ever fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for US commercial vehicles, which were enacted in 2007. FedEx is also one of the 20 biggest commercial users of solar energy, according to the Solar Electric Industries Association. But Mitch Jackson, who leads FedEx’s sustainability efforts, explained by email that the company isn’t taking a position on the power plant rules because they are “not directed at our industry sector”. Likewise, the head of government relations for one of the world’s biggest companies told the Guardian: “There’s a reluctance if a regulation doesn’t get into your core competency to get into somebody else’s backyard. It’s an unspoken acknowledgment that you stick to your knitting.”

"Bank of America, Citi and JPMorgan Chase all have high-profile sustainability programs and NGO partners, but they won’t engage in the coal-plant fight. “We have not taken a policy position on climate, or any other issue not directly related to finance,” says Matthew Arnold, head of environmental affairs at JPMorgan Chase. By contrast, Google, Mars and Starbucks publicly support the EPA plan. In comments filed with the EPA, Google asked that the plan be strengthened. “EPA’s assessment of the potential for cost-effective, renewable energy opportunities is, if anything, conservative,” the company said. Mars and Starbucks signed a letter to Obama put together by Ceres’ Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy project. Other companies with $1bn or more in revenues that signed the letter include EMC Corp, IKEA, KB Home, Kellogg, Levi Strauss, Nestle, Novelis, SunPower, Symantec, Unilever and VF Corp.

"Some companies have staked out a middle ground. Dow Chemical and GE filed comments on the EPA rules recommending improvements. Boeing and 3M have joined companies in the power sector in a small group called the National Climate Coalition, which support EPA’s goal of significantly reducing power-plant emissions, but are trying to influence the rules to insure that electricity remains reliable and affordable, according to Robert Wyman, an environmental lawyer with Latham & Watkins, who coordinates the coalition. “We’re here to get to yes,” he says. “We’re not here to fight about the science.”

"The fact that so few companies are willing to push for coal-plant regulation frustrates some environmentalists. The Environmental Defense Fund organized a webinar to explain the importance of the EPA plan to its corporate partners, says Tom Murray, who leads the nonprofit’s corporate partnerships. “The next step up the corporate sustainability leadership curve needs to be aligning what you’re doing on corporate sustainability and strategy with policy advocacy,” he says."

Tyger · Apr 11, 2015

The argument for divesting from fossil fuels is becoming overwhelming
As progressive institutions, the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust should commit to taking their money out of the companies that are driving global warming, says the Guardian’s editor-in-chief as he launches our climate campaign
LINK: The argument for divesting from fossil fuels is becoming an overwhelming one | Alan Rusbridger | Environment | The Guardian

TEXT: "The world has much more coal, oil and gas in the ground than it can safely burn. That much is physics. Anyone studying the question with an open mind will almost certainly come to a similar conclusion: if we and our children are to have a reasonable chance of living stable and secure lives 30 or so years from now, according to one recent study 80% of the known coal reserves will have to stay underground, along with half the gas and a third of the oil reserves. If only science were enough.

"If not science, then politics? MPs, presidents, prime ministers and members of congress are always telling us (often suggesting a surrender of civil liberties in return) that their first duty is the protection of the public. But politics sometimes struggles with physics. Science is, at its best, long term and gives the best possible projection of future risk. Which is not always how politics works, even when it comes to our security. Politicians prefer certainty and find it difficult to make serious prudent planning on high probabilities.

"On climate change, the public clamour is in inverse proportion to the enormity of the long-term threat. If only it were the other way round. And so, year after year, the people who represent us around the UN negotiating tables have moved inches, not miles.

"When, as Guardian colleagues, we first started discussing this climate change series, there were advocates for focusing the main attention on governments. States own much of the fossil fuels that can never be allowed to be dug up. Only states, it was argued, can forge the treaties that count. In the end the politicians will have to save us through regulation – either by limiting the amount of stuff that is extracted, or else by taxing, pricing and limiting the carbon that’s burned. If journalism has so far failed to animate the public to exert sufficient pressure on politics through reporting and analysis, it seemed doubtful whether many people would be motivated by the idea of campaigning for a paragraph to be inserted into the negotiating text at the UN climate talks in Paris this December. So we turned to an area where campaigners have recently begun to have marked successes: divestment.

"There are two arguments in favour of moving money out of the biggest and most aggressive fossil fuel companies – one moral, the other financial.

"The moral crusaders – among them Archbishop Desmond Tutu – see divestment from fossil fuels in much the same light as earlier campaigners saw the push to pull money out of tobacco, arms, apartheid South Africa – or even slavery. Most fossil fuel companies, they argue, have little concern for future generations. Of course, the companies are run by sentient men and women with children and grandchildren of their own. But the market pressures and fiduciary duties involved in running public companies compel behaviour that is overwhelmingly driven by short-term returns.

"So – the argument goes – the directors will meanwhile carry on business as usual, no matter how incredible it may seem that they will be allowed to dig up all the climate-warming assets they own. And, by and large – and discounting recent drops in the price of oil – they continue to be reasonably good short-term businesses, benefiting from enormous subsidies as they search for even more reserves that can never be used.

"The pragmatists argue the case on different grounds. It is simply this: that finance will eventually have to surrender to physics.

"If – eventually – the companies cannot, for the sake of the human race, be allowed to extract a great many of the assets they own, then many of those assets will in time become valueless. So people with other kinds of fiduciary duty – people, say, managing endowments, pension funds and investment portfolios – will want to get their money out of these companies before the bubble bursts.

"Of course, the financial risk comes not simply from the threat of regulation, but could also be hastened by the march of alternative clean energy. Global investment in clean energy jumped 16% in 2014 to £205bn, but because of the rapid drop in the price of that energy (the cost of solar has dropped by two-thirds in 6 years), the money invested last year bought almost double the amount of electricity capacity as in 2011.

"So there’s a risk calculation to be done by anyone invested in fossil fuels – which, one way or another, is probably most of us. Get out too early and you might forgo the reasonable returns based on current performance and the book value of the assets that are notionally exploitable. But what of the risk of being a late exiter? Do you wait and judge when the politicians could finally summon the will to start making regulatory and market interventions … and then get out? And at the same time as everyone else is trying to do the same?

"This is why the divestment movement has changed from being a fringe campaign to something every responsible fund manager can no longer ignore. How could they, when even the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has warned that the “vast majority of reserves are unburnable” and the bank itself is conducting an inquiry into the risk that inflated fossil fuel assets pose to the stability of the financial system? When the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, urges: “Be the first mover. Use smart due diligence. Rethink what fiduciary responsibility means in this changing world. It’s simple self-interest. Every company, investor and bank that screens new and existing investments for climate risk is simply being pragmatic”? When the Bank of England’s deputy head of supervision for banks and insurance companies, Paul Fisher, warns, as he did this month: “As the world increasingly limits carbon emissions, and moves to alternative energy sources, investments in fossil fuels – a growing financial market in recent decades – may take a huge hit”?

"Or listen to Hank Paulson, no bleeding liberal, but secretary of the Treasury under Bush and former CEO of Goldman Sachs: “Each of us must recognise that the risks are personal. We’ve seen and felt the costs of underestimating the financial bubble. Let’s not ignore the climate bubble.” President Obama puts it most pithily: “We’re not going to be able to burn it all.”

"So the argument for a campaign to divest from the world’s most polluting companies is becoming an overwhelming one, on both moral and pragmatic grounds. But the divestment movement is sometimes misunderstood. The intention is not to bankrupt the companies, nor to promote overnight withdrawal from fossil fuels – that would not be possible or desirable. Divestment serves to de-legitimise the business models of companies that are using investors’ money to search for yet more coal, oil and gas that can’t safely be burned. It is a small but crucial step in the economic transition away from a global economy run on fossil fuels.

"The usual rule of newspaper campaigns is that you don’t start one unless you know you’re going to win it. This one will almost certainly be won in time: the physics is unarguable. But we are launching our campaign today in the firm belief that it will force the issue now into the boardrooms and inboxes of people who have billions of dollars at their disposal.

"It’s clear, from our researches over the past few weeks, that many company directors and fund managers have had a nagging feeling that this is something coming up the agenda that – one day – they will have to think about. As the Guardian’s campaign mounts, we hope they will appreciate that there is some urgency about the choices they make. Who will take the lead? Some huge endowments and investment funds have already announced that they will be decarbonising their portfolios, exiting fossil fuels altogether and/or investing in cleaner alternatives. They include the Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Stanford, Glasgow and Australian National Universities; the British Medical Association; Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, which has sold off 32 coal companies on climate and environmental grounds; AP4, the giant Swedish pension fund; and many other faith groups, local councils and asset managers. The World Council of Churches has committed not to invest.

"Our own campaign will give readers the information they need to make their own investment decisions and to apply pressure on the workplaces, unions, schools, colleges, churches, NGOs, pension advisers and charities in their lives. But we also want to try to change minds at one or two institutions that have demonstrated inspiring thought leadership in other spheres of life. The Wellcome Trust handles a portfolio of more than £18bn and invests around £700m a year in science, the humanities, social science education and medical research. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has an endowment of $43.5bn. Last year it gave away $3.9bn in grants towards health and sustainable development. In 2014 the Wellcome Trust had £564m invested in Shell, BP, Schlumberger, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton alone. The Gates Foundation has a financial stake of over $1bn in fossil fuel companies.

"By most standards, these are huge sums of money, helping to fund the extraction of unusable oil gas and coal on a massive scale. But, as a proportion of the foundations’ own endowments, they are relatively small – just a few percent for the fossil fuel investments we know about. So they could, we think, be divested without damaging overall returns. Indeed, we think they could achieve higher and, over time, safer returns by putting their money into other investments with real opportunities for growth in a world tackling climate change

"Because both foundations are a) so progressive in their aims and actions and b) have human health and science at the heart of everything they do, we hope they, of all institutions, will see the force of the call for them to move their money out of a sector whose actions, if unchecked, could cause the most devastating harm to the health of billions. A landmark report by the Lancet and University College London concluded in 2009: “Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”

"The ask of them is, we think, both modest and simple. We understand that fund managers do not like to make sudden changes to their portfolios. So we ask that the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust commit now to divesting from the top 200 fossil fuel companies within five years. And that they immediately freeze any new investment in the same companies. We will, of course, suggest that the Guardian Media Group does the same, and keeps you informed about its own deliberations and decisions.

"Please sign, retweet and generally spread news about the petition. In everything we say to these foundations, we will emphasise that we come in admiration for what they have done, and continue to do for human health and wellbeing. They aren’t the “bad guys”. But they could certainly show themselves to be the good guys in this matter of life and death."

Tyger · Apr 11, 2015

If We Dig Out All Our Fossil Fuels, Here’s How Hot We Can Expect It to Get
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/u...t-to-get.html?ref=science&_r=3&abt=0002&abg=1

TEXT: "World leaders are once again racing to avert disastrous levels of global warming through limits on greenhouse gas emissions. An agreement may be in reach, but because of the vast supplies of inexpensive fossil fuels, protecting the world from climate change requires the even more difficult task of disrupting today’s energy markets.

"The White House last month released a blueprint to reduce United States emissions by as much as 28 percent by 2025. The plan lays the groundwork for the formal international climate talks this December in Paris, where the goal is a treaty on emissions that will seek to limit the rise in global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. Beyond 3.6 degrees, scientists say, the most catastrophic climate consequences will occur, possibly including the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

"Forging a treaty in Paris would be no small task, yet would be just the beginning of a solution. The greater challenge will be deciding how much of the world’s abundant supply of fossil fuels we simply let lie. (Bill McKibben and more recently The Guardian have taken a maximal position in their Leave It in the Ground campaign.)

"To understand the scope of this challenge, I’ve tallied the projected warming from fossil fuels extracted so far and the projected warming capacity of various fossil fuels that can be extracted with today’s technology. This accounting was done by taking the embedded carbon dioxide in each energy source and using a standard model for the relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and long-run temperature changes based on a 2009 Nature article. (More detail on the method is available here.)

"For those who don’t like suspense, here’s the total: an astonishing 16.2 degrees. And here’s how that breaks down. Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuels have warmed the planet by about 1.7 degrees. We are already experiencing the consequences of this warming. In recent weeks, we have learned that the world had its warmest winter on record and that Arctic sea ice hit a new low, even as intense storms continue to inflict harm on communities globally.

"Next, look at fossil fuel reserves, the deposits we know to be recoverable under today’s prices and technology. That is, they are inexpensive to access. If we were to use all of this coal, natural gas and petroleum, the planet would warm by an additional 2.8 degrees. Add the heat from those reserves to the 1.7 degrees from what has already been emitted, and you get a world that is 4.5 degrees warmer since the industrial revolution; this is beyond scientists’ recommended 3.6-degree threshold.

"The next set of fossil fuels in line is referred to as resources, rather than reserves. The difference is that they are recoverable with today’s technology, but not at current prices. There is 3.1 degrees’ worth of warming if the oil and natural gas in this category are utilized, which would lead to a total increase in global temperatures of 7.6 degrees.

"This warming does not even consider our coal resources. A middle-of-the-road estimate of the coal that qualifies as resources indicates that its use would lead to an additional increase of 8.6 degrees. Thus, the use of all reserves and resources would lead to a total increase of 16.2 degrees. Today’s climate and planet would very likely be unrecognizable.

"Without pricing carbon to reflect expected climate damages, all of this coal, oil and natural gas is worth many trillions of dollars, so keeping it in the ground would mean passing up economic opportunities that are waiting to be taken and turning our backs on a long history of going to great lengths to recover these energy sources. A January study in Nature developed estimates of which fuels would have to be abandoned to stay below the 3.6-degree threshold. It found that most Canadian tar sands; all Arctic oil and gas; and a significant share of potential shale gas would need to stay locked up. It also found that major coal producers like the United States would need to keep 90 percent of their reserves in the ground.

"There are essentially only three long-run solutions to the climate challenge. The first is to price carbon emissions to reflect the damages from climate change. In practice, this means pricing carbon in as many parts of the world as possible — and ideally, globally — so that there is a level playing field for all energy sources. There has been important progress in this area, including in the European Union, individual American states and regions (for example, California and the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), and parts of China. And there are several ways to introduce carbon pricing, as a New York Times Op-Edby David Hayes and James Stock underscored. But we are a long way from a global price on carbon, and the prices in existing carbon markets are lower than the projected damages from increased carbon emissions.

"The second way to disrupt the energy market is to have low-carbon energy sources like nuclear, wind and solar become cheaper than their fossil fuel competition. Although there has been much progress in reducing the costs of wind and solar recently, they generally remain more expensive than fossil fuels. Further, the fracking revolution makes it clear that there will be continued technical advances that reduce the costs of recovering fossil fuels. Indeed, it is well known that there are ample supplies of coal deeper beneath the Earth’s surface that do not yet qualify as resources, and there is increasing evidence that energy from methane hydrates may become relevant commercially. In other words, it seems unlikely that today’s low carbon energy sources will play a major role in the solution without significant public investment in research, development and test deployments of new technologies.

"The third approach is to continue using those fuels, but capture and store the carbon before it is released or pull it out of the atmosphere after its release. Neither approach has yet been proved to work at scale, and costs remain high. Even if costs come down, it will very likely remain more expensive than using fossil fuels without capture and storage, so a carbon price would be necessary for it to be applied broadly. A related idea is to reflect sunlight away from the earth so temperatures do not rise as much. This approach does not reduce the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and there is agreement that further research is necessary.

"If we use all of the fossil fuels in the ground, the planet will warm in a way that is difficult to imagine. Unless the economics of energy markets change, we are poised to use them."

pixelsmith · Apr 12, 2015

What the hell are you doing back here?

manxman · Apr 12, 2015

This is what he is, a full blown climate change troll, no even attempting to justify the walls of copy and paste climate sophistical graffiti.

Well lets inject some sober reality.

First the Greenhouse effect Myth.

Lets look at the Connolly family think tank.

Then Pixel i would like to introduce Joseph Postma, a quite remarkable young man, and my first case of ''man love''.

Never really gotten into anyone's writing in particular, but ive read every blog entry of his, over a 3 month inbetween troll hunting.
Joe is an Astro-Physicist, he measures and defines atmospheres on far off worlds.

You will like the comments sections, its not tyger thats there getting another climate debate humiliation, his nonsense wouldnt even get thru.
Climate of Sophistry | Climate science is sophistry…i.e., BS.
About Climate of Sophistry | Climate of Sophistry

About Climate of Sophistry
I chose the title for my URL to represent the sophistry that is apparent which underlies alarmist and even most of climate science.

From the Wiki page:

A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deception. It might be crafted to appear logical while actually representing a falsehood, or it might use obscure words and complicated sentence constructions in order to intimidate the opponent into agreement out of fear of feeling foolish. Other techniques include manipulating the opponent’s prejudices and emotions to overcome their logical faculties.

An example of sophistry in climate science is how climate scientists misrepresented the correlation between carbon dioxide and geological temperature variations. As we saw in “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore, which leading climate scientists with the IPCC used to hold up as one of their best representative documentaries, we were told that because CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperature were correlated, that increases in CO2 would therefore cause an increase in temperature.

What they didn’t ever tell us until independent scientists checked it out, is that the direction of correlation was from temperature TO carbon dioxide, which meant that temperature caused the changes in CO2, rather than the other way around, like they tried to present. It is a very major scientific error to not distinguish correlation from actual causation. So, the idea they promoted that changes in CO2 would cause changes in temperature had no historical basis, because the causation in all history was the opposite direction. This isn’t quite sophistry, although it might just be called that anyway, but it is definitely extremely poor science, so poor to the point of being pseudoscience (fake science).

In answer to this scientific rebuttal of their claim, climate scientists said that while the temperature caused the CO2 to change in the first place, there is no reason why CO2 wouldn’t have caused the rest of the temperature increase. This is sophistry. Without knowing how much temperature affected CO2 in the first place, and without knowing what was causing the temperature increase itself in the first place, and how much it was going to be, and all the other factors, there is absolutely no scientific or logical justification for claiming what they did. It was pure BS, in other words.

That is just one of probably thousands of examples of sophistry in alarmist climate science. It should actually be called climate pseudoscience instead.

This type of sophistry is something we’ll be exposing and correcting on this blog, among other things. Through this process we will arrive at a reality-based understanding of climate change and the environment, which because it is based on reality, acknowledges climate change as the natural and beneficial process it is, and how human-caused change is a benefit to the planet, the universe, and human quality of life.

manxman · Apr 12, 2015

I really find the comments interesting because joe only talks with other classically trained scientists, who all from the science's, but mainly they us their own names, unless they work in american government funded science, such is the vindictiveness of Skeptical sciences trolls, they get hunted down Phil Klass style as heretic's, such is the absurd lengths these fuckwit trolls will, mass emailing their employers etc.

Joe

In Part II you say “Other climate scientists, on the other hand, have admitted that the flat Earth/cold Sunshine model isn’t actually real, and that they’re only used for teaching, and that it was silly for me to criticize it.”

My question is, do the modelers not use the flat earth/cold sunshine model equations in their computer code? Have you checked to verify this? Perhaps they use some version similar to your integrated sunshine model in their GCM modeling code.

[Reply: Yes we’ve been over the GCM thing with them and they never actually give the code up. They just say that “it is very sophisticated”. Oh ok. They probably just fabricate CO2 forcing and insert it into the model…and the CO2 forcing is the value based on the flat-earth “average” assessment of the energy flow, which means nothing. There is a lot of good criticism you can find out there on the whole model problem…]
John in France says:
2013/06/26 at 7:07 AM
I don’t know if it’s part of the definition or a symptom of sophistry, but it seems to me that an important component is the absolute determination to win an argument at any cost which necessarily leads to the lying, ad hominem attacks and piss-taking we so often encounter.
Joseph E Postma says:
2013/06/26 at 8:25 AM
Good point John.
Jim McGinn (AKA Claudius Denk) says:
2013/10/21 at 10:11 AM
Here is an example of the sophistry of the IPCC. Note the date, May 2006.
Google Groups
It is interesting to note that the day after I posted this to the sci.environment newsgroup the page I quoted (and decyphered) from the IPCC website was taken down! This told me two things. It told me that somebody working for IPCC was monitoring the newsgroup (actually it was two NGs, sci.environment and alt.global-warming) and that I had struck a nerve. They were embarassed that by clarifying their sophistry I was exposing their incompetence/fraudulence. This escalated a continuing flame war between myself and a bunch of climate frauds that I subsequently identified as being associated with CRU, Realclimate (Schmidt, Tobis), Wikipedia (William Connelly). Eventually they realized they couldn’t take the heat anymore. They abandoned these two NGs and started their own (global change) which was and still is largely ignored.

I now realize that they were using the NGs to establish and maintain their illusion that they were winning the debate against their detractors. By exposing their sophistry I had started a domino effect. Soon (2007, 2008) blogs were starting to see through the sophistry of the global warming fraud. Eventually the realization (that CO2 forcing is immeasurable pseudo-science) started making it through to the major media. And more recently we see the emergence of websites (Principia Scientific and Climate of Sophistry) that deal directly with this issue).

It is interesting to note that if they did not change the IPCC website the day after I made the above post (to sci.environment and alt.global-warming) I would not have known I’d drawn blood and I might not have gone into attack mode to further expose the fraud (I, essentially, drove them off these two NGs). At the time nobody on the planet was discussing the fact that CO2 forcing is/was immeasurable and untestable. Now this notion is a common part of the dialogue.
Joseph E Postma says:
2013/10/21 at 10:13 AM
Thanks for that Jim…interesting stuff! Schmidt et al. are the BIGGEST sophists imaginable.
Peter says:
2013/11/21 at 4:54 AM
Joseph, Hi. I am a mechanical engineeering lecturer and have been following your work and that of Principia-scientific for some time now. I am from the UK where it is impossible to get decision makers or indeed anyone to consider checking the validity of the greenhouse theory. It seems they want to believe we are destroying the planet and that, if anyone questions this, then he must be happy for his grand children to suffer unmentionable environmental contamination! Our politicians are technically illiterate coming mostly from a legal or philosophy/economic background. I suggested to my local representative that this was a problem and that we need a better mix of skills for those governing us. Paraphrasing his reply he said simply that “we’ll have to get better at asking questions”! He is not concerned that he would not be able to understand the answers! The broadcast media and the newspapers are on the side of the warmists and don’t seem to print letters that question the greenhouse theory. Even those who question the extent of predicted warming seem to avoid questions about the validity of the greenhouse theory -“everyone knows that must be correct or we would all freeze to death” – is the depth of their thought. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is beyond their comprehension and of many lecturers in science and engineering. We have a big communication problem here. I’d be grateful if you have any ideas on how to educate people who have a scientific/engineering background and those who haven’t through easily understood principals that force them to question their position. Perhaps you will be prepared to comment on any ideas I have. Peter
Joseph E Postma says:
2013/11/21 at 8:07 AM
Hi Peter,

Yes I would be happy to comment on any ideas that you have for fixing the problem of communication. You are correct that this is an issue that people WANT to believe in, and somehow part of that belief is that the sunshine is not what heats you up. So, since people WANT to believe that humans are bad an evil, we’re dealing with a religion. How do you take away a person’s faith? We’re dealing with the triumph of post-modernism and materialism, where human value has been completely negated out of the equation and the only thing left to do is to figure out how to make ourselves not exist. That is their goal. Carbon dioxide is plant food? What of it! Feeding plants must be evil, then. You are right – stupid people are in charge of the hen house and their best friends are scorpions and foxes. How do you tell a person that sunshine is hot if their faith goes against that? You can’t. If faith says that the Sun is cold then it is.
So I don’t really know. I just keep plugging away. See my latest post…this is as unassailable and as clear as you can, one day I’ll hit the right nerve. People talk about the harm climate alarm is doing to science – this isn’t the picture, it is academic science that already had the problem.
Peter says:
2014/01/26 at 5:35 AM
Joe, are you still in business? I haven’t seen anything this year.
Peter
Joseph E Postma says:
2014/01/26 at 9:40 PM
Yep, no worries. More will be coming.
John Thorpe says:
2014/04/12 at 2:35 AM
I wandered onto this blog from a twitter link about Antony Watts. Still somewhat befuddled because I was under the impression he hunted down alarmists, not reinforced them. However what really felt like coming home (I’m a Physics grad) was the return to first principles with the laws of thermodynamics in that article – which seem to have been ditched in the climate cocophany. A perfect example of this prostitution of science is this classic from (un)skepticalscience.com:

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

It is stunning that they parallel CO2 with a blanket, when anybody with a basic grasp of physics knows that the effect of a blanket, and indeed an actual greenhouse, is to block CONVECTION, which is a major process of cooling.

I still regularly have to reinforce the point that they are thermodynamic LAWS and anything in climate is a THEORY. Most don’t get it, and the BS touted by the likes of the link above are not going to make it easy to get the point across.

Keep up the good work.
Joseph E Postma says:
2014/04/12 at 9:11 PM
Hi John,

Well this may sound ridiculous, but you have to consider the scope of what we’re dealing with here. Read my “religion of climate change” series. And watch Star Wars episodes 1 – 3. Seriously. Crazy, I know.

They’re creating a false reality. Outright alarmism is an obviously false reality, to anyone with a slightest sense of reason. Well, just think of the operation and the forces mustered to establish that false reality, promote it, fake it, have people running websites promoting it, having James Hansen promote it, etc. This is a big deal.

It ALL rests on the alarmist version of the greenhouse effect (see here for clarification). There is a real greenhouse effect inside a real greenhouse, and then there is the fake “alarming” greenhouse effect of climate pseudoscience, something pretended to be the same but which is not.

It all rests on that. So, you put people in place to look like skeptic, but what they’re actually doing is defending the very basis of the alarming theory, the basis of which is fundamental to every single aspect of the religious, political, and financial platform. Religious: belief in a false reality. Political: give up rights and freedoms for that false reality. Financial: Pay for the luxury of believing in the false reality.

That’s what people like Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Robert G. Brown, Tim Folkerts, Joel Shore, etc etc, are all doing.
millennia97 says:
2014/04/13 at 3:16 AM
Actually isn’t solar input even more simple and obvious to the layman? In the UK it’s a favourite pastime in hot weather to show pictures of eggs frying on pavements. If the total potential heating is -18C then how does that happen, through intense local “greenhouse” warming?
Taking your model and running a perfectly simple experiment of the actual surface (not 2m above) temperature at noon in a desert climate near enough to the equator to provide maximum solar energy input, and a surface type giving a reasonable albedo to compare with the average for the Earth, and you’d find a temperature well into the 80s deg C. However it’s unlikely you would find an ever increasing temperature because there is not enough input wattage to allow this to happen.
This seems basic stuff to me, intense input heat on one side of the planet, none on the other, and a mechanism for redistribution of that heat (latent heat of water) cannot be reduced to a “divide by 4″ fudge to make the basis for all climate science. It doesn’t explain where all the heat comes from to drive our weather, and the energy they have put in to create a false theory to make up for their erroneous over simplification right at the start could have been so much better utilised in understanding the dynamics of our climate.
As the old joke goes when an Irishman was stopped and asked the best way to Dublin, he thought about it and then replied “Well I wouldn’t start from here”.
Joseph E Postma says:
2014/04/13 at 7:33 AM
You got it millennia97!

Tyger · Apr 12, 2015

The US Department of Defense and the CIA weigh in, warning that earth warming is a national security threat to the US. Insurance Companies will no longer insure in coastal areas. About 40% to 50% of the world's population live in coastal cities/areas that will need to move as the sea level rises. (Ocean salt-sea water is invading the sewer system in South Florida as we speak).

What is being delineated in this video is partly why I feel that there is no real possibility for the world to roll back the warming that is already 'baked in' until the year 2050. Were we - by some miracle - able to effect a change in the face of the denial counter-forces always at play now in treble force - we are still looking at significant heat rise and increasing coastal flooding as a result, to the point of population displacement. I say that based solely on what appears to be intractable corporate forces at this crucial time, paying off politicians to look-the-other-way, and take-the-money-and-run.

"The Republican Party has typically been in favor of giving the Pentagon and the Department of Defense as much money as possible. But now that these experts are telling us that climate change is a national security threat, Republicans suddenly believe that it is time to cut their budgets. America’s Lawyer, Mike Papantonio, explains how this leaves us all at risk with Farron Cousins, editor of The Trial Lawyer Magazine."

Papantonio: Republican Stupidity Might Kill Us All

TEXT: "Published on Apr 8, 2015: The Republican Party has typically been in favor of giving the Pentagon and the Department of Defense as much money as possible. But now that these experts are telling us that climate change is a national security threat, Republicans suddenly believe that it is time to cut their budgets."

Tyger · Apr 12, 2015

Tesla electric cars cannot be sold in 4 US states by law to protect gas-powered car dealerships, and by extension the oil companies.

Thom Hartmann on Science & Green News: February 16, 2015

TEXT: "Published on Feb 17, 2015: Thom Hartmann brings you science and green news for the week of February 16, 2015."

Tyger · Apr 12, 2015

The consequences of the political machinations to deny the warming and the very real events local communities are confronting on their doorsteps - literally.

One Small Town's Fight to Survive Climate Change...

TEXT: "Published on Oct 23, 2014: Thom Hartmann talks with Walter Harris, Commissioner & Vice Mayor-South Miami, FL, Website: South Miami, FL - Official Website whose city commission has voted to secede from the state of Florida in order to be in control of how climate change is affecting their city."

Tyger · Apr 12, 2015

Republicans Hit CIA On ... Climate Change?
Posted: 03/17/2015 Updated: 03/17/2015
LINK: Republicans Hit CIA On ... Climate Change?

TEXT: "WASHINGTON -- The budgets of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense have landed themselves in the crosshairs of Republican budget slicers, but not for reasons you might expect: The GOP isn’t happy with the money the two national security agencies are spending on climate-change research. “The Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, two of the most important agencies in our national security apparatus, currently spend part of their budget studying climate change,” the Republican budget proposal reads, under its section on “Eliminating Waste.”

"At first glance, climate change doesn’t seem like it would naturally fall under the mandates of the CIA and Defense Department, but it's actually not far removed. A study published in March underscored a theory many had already embraced: that environmental impacts may serve as catalysts for regional instabilities. The study saysa devastating drought likely fueled discontent and contributed to shortages and urban overcrowding that sparked the Syrian revolution. “The joint chiefs of staff have testified repeatedly that climate change is a serious national security threat, and it accelerates problems of unrest and instability around the world,” said Senate Intelligence Committee member Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who added that he hadn’t seen the specific part of the budget proposal. “If we weren’t researching it, it would be a dereliction of our responsibility.”

"The intelligence community’s delve into climate change research isn’t new-- it was orchestrated largely by former vice president Al Gore during the Clinton Administration, with a new push to examine environmental impacts on national securities issues such as revolutions, radicalism and state stability. Operationally, it has changed over the years -- for example, Google Earth imagery wasn’t around to canvass for international environmental factors -- but its premise has remained largely the same. Those initiatives have seen their ups and downs since then, largely subject to the political party controlling the budget. The Bush Administration cut off funding for the Clinton-era project in its early years in the White House, and the Obama Administration bolstered the operations during its tenure. But that doesn't mean the research is a political effort.

"Simply by virtue of being in the executive branch, the intelligence community tends to lean toward the White House’s policy stances, but the agency’s climate change efforts don’t delve into the science of climate change, at least according to its charter. Rather, the environmental arm of the spies focuses on impact -- for example, what environmental changes like drought or severe weather could do to state stability. The CIA declined to comment. The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"The two agencies are not the only ones looking into the political impact of climate change. The State Department's Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, spearheaded by former Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), will focus on the role climate change is having in global affairs. "Anyone who looks at conflicts around the world understands the role changing climate is playing," Perriello told HuffPost last year as he embarked on the study."

manxman · Apr 12, 2015

The New Religion of Climate Change. The New Boss is the Same as the Old, Part 1
Posted on 2012/11/22 by Dr Joseph E Postma Astro Physicist Esquire.
Setting the Landscape
As we have learned in my ongoing series on the fraud of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, climate pseudoscience invented an artificial, fictional scheme by which the atmosphere can heat itself up without the Sun, so that they could create an alarmist political movement to vilify the life-creating-gas of carbon dioxide. What we are going to learn now is that this is not just a political movement. It is something much more profound.

I first want to speak on the level of insanity that we’re dealing with on this issue: The people who believe in the greenhouse effect, believe it makes no difference to think of the planet as either flat, or spherical, and they believe that a flat planet Earth must actually do a better job at explaining the “average system” than a spherical planet Earth. They believe it makes no difference whether we model the input power of sunshine at -18oC, or at +49oC. They believe that if you fictionalize the input power of the Sun to -18oC, on average, on a flat Earth, and then create a greenhouse effect to explain why it is so much warmer than this on the ground, that this is a more valid way of thinking about the planet Earth than its reality of actually being spherical with +49oC of heating input. I have literally had to write out differential calculus equations proving that the Earth can be modeled as a sphere, and with real-time power from the Sun, and that it makes things very hot, and that this produces wildly different results than a flat Earth requiring the invention of a greenhouse effect. But still, some people prefer to believe in thinking of the planet as flat.

That is as simple as my criticism is: I look at the standard atmospheric greenhouse schematic and energy budget from climate science, see that it has a flat Earth and that sunshine is cold, and so I ask, “What difference does it make if you treat sunshine as hot, its real strength, and the Earth as a rotating sphere?”.

That is the entire essence of my criticism. Do these things make a difference? Why wouldn’t they? (read my Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect). Hot is different than cold: QED. The essential idea is that real Sunshine is hot, and can melt water from ice and keep it melted (liquid), whereas the Sun is not strong enough to do that by itself in the climate-science model which uses a reduced power of sunshine. How much of a difference does it make? I don’t honestly know exactly, but I am trying to figure it out. Already, it is clear that heat-trapping from latent heat is the only real place heat gets trapped, and that this keeps the poles and other cool places much warmer than they would otherwise be if no liquid water was present, and that the Sun can keep the oceans liquid all by itself. I would like to know why it “doesn’t” make a difference, when it is so clear that it does? I see no reason to continue assuming the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, especially one based on a flat Earth model and which has no clear or realistic physical description, and who’s definition constantly changes depending on what the criticism is.

So let us think about that. We are having a debate between whether the Earth is round, versus if it is flat, and whether Sunshine is hot, versus if it is cold, and if these differences make a difference… And people take this debate seriously, and in fact they would prefer to not have it at all! I take the debate seriously because I can’t believe how insane people must have to be, in order to believe that a flat Earth with cold sunshine actually means anything scientifically.

The people who believe in a flat Earth greenhouse effect take the debate seriously because they are mentally deficient, notwithstanding whatever sophistic excuses they invent to justify their beliefs.

These are the simple facts. In the 21st Century, with space stations orbiting the Earth, robots looking for life on Mars, and space probes visiting the planet Pluto, you literally have to be mentally deranged to defend an idea that rests on the planet Earth being flat.

Every sane person should be perfectly happy and ecstatic to see if we still need an atmospheric greenhouse effect when treating the Earth dynamically with real inputs. But there is a reason this is not so, as we will see.

Thus, it becomes very apparent that what we are dealing with is not something which can be communicated or debated within the realm of rationalism, but is something else entirely outside the realm of conscious rational awareness. We have to identify where such a profound degree of insanity exists similarly in other places and find where people can be so insane such as to believe in the opposite of reality with fervent zeal.

Basic Human Psychology and Philosophy
I would like to introduce you to the concept of an “archetype”. From Wikipedia:

“An archetype is a universally understood symbol, term, statement, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.”

Archetypes are thought patterns which are subconsciously held by the human population, spanning all barriers of space and time and culture, which unconsciously direct our customs, desires, belief systems, etc. The most common archetype of the entire human race, spanning all history, cultures, and locality, is the “Hero Archetype”. (See the documentary film “Finding Joseph” for more explanation.) Almost all of our movies, all of our books, all of our entertainment, etc., tell exactly the same story: the story of the archetypal hero. It is a story of a single and very infrequent individual, the one person in a billion, who through some form of internal strength that they never knew they had, overcomes both internal and external challenges and obstacles, and radically transforms both them-self, their soul, and even sometimes the outside world. They overcome the obstacles and self-limiting beliefs which kept them from being free and kept them from living the real life which was out there waiting for them. Neo, in the first Matrix movie, is the perfect hero, and he tells the perfect archetypal story of overcoming the world, and his own beliefs about it, as an illusion. So, archetypes are important, and it is important to know that we humans have them, seemingly built-in to the way we live out our lives. We’ll come back to this.

Next, if you are familiar with philosophy you may have heard of the “Hegelian Dialectic”. From Wikipedia:

“The Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.”

The Hegelian dialectic explains that every phenomenon that exists, exists along-side its “dialectical twin“, which is its opposite. For example: love vs. hate; anarchy vs. statism; good vs. evil; etc. One phenomenon can be called a thesis, and its dialectical twin is then called the antithesis. The thesis and antithesis basically vie for supremacy, but because they’re dialectical twins, neither of them wins-out in totality in the end. What does occur in the end is called the synthesis, and this is where the battle gets resolved. For example, anarchy vs. statism may end in the synthesis of a republican democracy. The Hegelian dialectic is thus a process of thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis. The synthesis then becomes a new thesis, which generates a new antithesis, and these will contrast with each other until yet a new higher synthesis is achieved. It is basically a form, or even an exact description of, archetypal evolution, and the idea is that as the thesis/antithesis pairs become resolved, in the synthesis, better and more powerful archetypal conditional states are achieved. For example, republican democracy is better than either statism or anarchy.

Can anyone state what the dialectical resolution (synthesis) is between good and evil? If you can, put it in the comments below; there is certainly an answer, but you must think about it to realize it. Or as another example, what is the antithesis to republican democracy?

Lastly, we must understand the psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance. From Wikipedia:

“Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of people when holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.”

Almost every single person alive suffers from some form of cognitive dissonance, and we will discuss these ahead. It is not a state a person needs to be consciously aware of, and is generally a psychological state that is only subconsciously present, and it can lead to extremely irrational and outright dangerously insane behavior if the dissonance is not resolved. The manifestation of dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, etc., can literally break a person’s mind. One way of resolving the cognitive dissonance is, obviously, via the dialectical method, or in other words just by thinking about the problem and its options. But the important point is that most people are not consciously aware that they are holding mutually contradictory ideas as true, and it is as if they have compartmentalized these cognitions, to keep them separate. Many people can simply live their entire life in such a state as this, because of the fact that rational resolution of internal thought patterns is the last thing most people think or care about. It requires a conscious, active love of rationality, reading, philosophy, psychology, logic, science, mathematics, self-awareness, and self-criticism, to become aware of all this in the first place, but the vast majority of people, including most scientists, aren’t mentally capable of this type of cogitation. The only personality types which you will find consciously improving their mental fidelity are Myers-Briggs INTP and INTJ types: introversion (as opposed to extroversion), intuition (as opposed to sensing), and thinking (as opposed to feeling) are the hallmarks of idealist rationalism, and this combination represents less than 5% of the population. Everyone else watches American Idol, or “sports”, or is otherwise busy following their friends, seeking physical thrills, or believing in faith. To be sure, most scientists are actually not of the idealist-rationalist type, but are more generally “sensing” types. And by the way, don’t worry if you have the “right type” of personality or not; that’s not what this is about…and I am sure rationalism actually extends to more types that the two I stated, so apologies for being so exclusive about it.

So that’s where I’ll end it for now, before beginning to put it all together. The important concepts are: archetypes, the Hegelian Dialectic, and cognitive dissonance. When properly unified these form the basis of religion; we will go through the main example of such, and then explain how it relates to the modern meme of climate change alarm and carbon vilification, and what the true purpose of these are.

Stay tuned…

About these ads
Gallery | This entry was posted in Religion of Climate Change and tagged climate change religion, climate cult, Climate Religion, climate slave, environment, environmental religion, greenism, Hegelian dialectic, hero, hero archetype, religion. Bookmark the permalink.

Outstanding Quote.

We have to identify where such a profound degree of insanity exists similarly in other places and find where people can be so insane such as to believe in the opposite of reality with fervent zeal.

manxman · Apr 12, 2015

Mr postma reply's in comment bolded.

Doug cotton deleted.

This is why theres a lil man love here, see how the clinical mind works,
with the on going comments about good and evil, constance and steve would love joe, i get it, and i never used to.

27 Responses to The New Religion of Climate Change. The New Boss is the Same as the Old, Part 1

Simon Conway-Smith says:
2012/11/22 at 2:02 PM
Again, a good write-up. A couple of points…

It flows out from the cold-sun theory that AGW believers should therefore have no problem with the poles, as even the summer sun (-18degC and at a low angle of incidence) could not melt them. Yet they want it both ways.

The holding of a religious faith and being a thinker are not mutually exclusive. I live in Cambridge, UK, where there are a great many Christian scientists, many more than in your average town (& much to Richard Dawkins consternation).

[Reply: It should be mutually exclusive, and I can provide reading material for why this is so, and it is FAR beyond anything Richard Dawkin’s has ever said…he doesn’t get the tenth of it!]
chicagoja says:
2012/11/22 at 2:22 PM
Nice post. You’re right, it goes beyond politics. No matter how it may appear on the surface, it’s really not irrational (merely diabolical).
Pingback: Joe Postma: Taking Climate Back from the Flat Earthers | johnosullivan
John in France says:
2012/11/23 at 2:19 AM
Joe,
Your definition of archetype is much better than Wikipedia’s, but it can and should be expanded. The “hero archetype” is only one of many which influence not only human attitudes, but productions. I suppose I can temper that by saying that at some time everyone aspires to be a hero in his or her chosen field and subsequent perceived failure in reaching a goal either through inadequacy or or through realisation that one has acquired it or part of it through false pretenses is what leads to bitter and twisted older people – a real Hell on Earth.

Anyway you’ve made a good start and I am looking forward to seeing how you develop this.

[Reply: Thanks for the expansion on archetypes. I will be discussing it more in the next post. Cheers!]
Max™‮‮ says:
2012/11/23 at 3:43 AM
Good and evil are just words, what is done really isn’t either, unless you know how to perform a subjective action I suppose. I live in a happy universe, there’s no such thing as good or evil, sin is just opposite over hypoteneuse, and I have only myself to answer to. A truly representative democracy, such as that which may some day evolve from the internet, is superior to anarchy, but I’ll keep my lack of gods and kings until then, but then all forms of government are still too easily twisted towards the direction of irrationality and powerseeking for my taste.

Ultimately there is an issue with beliefs, I think, when I booted up my self, I guess I didn’t have the repositories for the belief package and it’s dependencies, because the idea of holding something to be true when I know that it is not actually certain to be true is one of the craziest damn things I’ve ever heard of.

For that matter, why do we define knowledge as “justified true belief”, isn’t a belief just unjustifiably claimed knowledge? I don’t believe that certain things are how they are, I simply am unable to show how they could not be that way, and so I accept them to be true… at least to some extent.

Rational idealists unite! Death to the unjustifiable claims of knowledge!

Oh, I think I’m going to begin describing people as flat-earthers for believing GHE alarmism, thanks for the idea!
John Marshall says:
2012/11/23 at 4:10 AM
Good post.
Arthur Peacock says:
2012/11/24 at 2:34 PM
Perhaps holding a religious faith and being a thinker are the two sides of a Hegelian dialectic?

[Reply: Indeed. Basically, mythos vs. logos…stupidity vs. rationality. But that’s not to say atheism is correct either. I prefer Gnostic Illuminism – 100% rational, and YOU are on your way to becoming God!]
Russell says:
2012/11/24 at 4:23 PM
Looking forward to more on this theme.
Mindert Eiting says:
2012/11/25 at 4:16 AM
Joe, if you tell me something about Cepheids, I accept that as true because I do not know anything about the subject. Almost everybody has to accept knowledge in fields where he is not an expert. This also makes people vulnerable to charlatans. Even among experts there exists the stubborn belief that if a theory makes correct predictions, that theory must be true. A false theory like a paradox (or AGW) implies both p and not-p. Fifty percent of its predictions are true (variation of the clock standing still). I have seen a whole list of falsifications of AGW, including yours, and find it quite amazing that these do not count. What makes some experts obstinate believers of a falsified theory? Perhaps Popper has more to say here than Hegel. Added your site to my list of favorites.

[Reply: Indeed….how does one falsify a religion?]
Ron C. says:
2012/11/25 at 7:31 AM
You are correct in exploring the ethical and religious dimensions of the climate change movement. It is also important to recognize the human journey regarding morality.

The ethic of Good vs. Evil is a teleological paradigm, going all the way back to Plato, but still a reference for some today. This model asserts that values can be determined as eternal truths, applicable in all times and places.

Most people have moved to an ethic of Right vs. Wrong, a legal paradigm. Here morality is relative to a society that determines what is morally acceptable or not. And of course, there are variations both among different places, and within a single society over time.

Modern ethics has taken an additional step to an ethic of Responsiblity vs. Irresponsiblity, a contextual paradigm. Now moral behavior seeks the largest possible context: “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This can lead to some strange choices, such as suicide bombers or pro-life advocates who justify murdering abortion clinic doctors.

It should be clear that when climate alarmists appeal to saving the planet for future generations, they are applying contextual ethics. Less obvious is the ancient religious notion that by making sacrifices, we humans can assure more favorable weather. These days, fossil fuels have become the sacrificial lamb required by Mother Nature to play nice with human beings.

[Reply: Precisely!]
Max™‮‮ says:
2012/11/25 at 10:52 AM
I was just explaining to someone on a forum that his claim about how “if a deranged model makes a confirmed prediction it isn’t deranged” breaks down in the face of things like earth centric models making successful eclipse predictions using epicycles.

Wonder what his response will be.

[Reply: LOL!! The insanity of these people! The stupidity! Sense perception is NOT truth. You can fit an N’th order polynomial perfectly to N+1 data points…does that mean the polynomial actually describes the reality of the underlying physics? No! Great example you thought of there with epicycles.]
Truthseeker says:
2012/11/28 at 10:40 PM
Joe, you ask …
“Can anyone state what the dialectical resolution (synthesis) is between good and evil? ”
To answer that, you first have to define “good” and “evil” as they are concepts that change from person to person, culture to culture.

[Reply: Within the context of any person and culture, the contrast of good and evil exists. So within this all-embracing definition, what is the resolution of good and evil? Of course, this doesn’t extend to the nihilists who are unable to place value upon anything, even their own lives.]
Truthseeker says:
2012/11/29 at 9:28 PM
My first pass resolution of good vs evil is pragmatism. Do I win a prize?

[Reply: Pragmatism might, under certain explanations, be the antithesis of the synthesis I am thinking of. The resolution between good and evil is also the opposite of the antithesis of republican democracy…that was the hint. What is it that makes republican democracy NOT work? It is the opposite of that which resolves evil, at least in much of its current manifestation.]
Truthseeker says:
2012/11/30 at 4:19 PM
Joe, I think that putting republican democracy in the same philosophical arena as good and evil is mixing apples with fish (apples with oranges implies that both items can be at least categorised as fruit and I do not think you can even make that analogy in this case). Good and evil are concepts that are independent of any political system. However, I think what you are looking for is idealism which I can see as a synthesis of good and evil.

[Reply: It is more subtle than that. Good and evil is resolved by the opposite of the antithesis that republican democracy suffers from. Idealism is close…mental idealism. But what is that, really? It is rationalism. Reason. The solution to evil is reason. Republican democracy necessitates reason. Truly, evil is caused by stupidity. Can you really point out some human engaging in evil and say, “Oh hey, that’s really smart…”. You can’t. Was Abraham obeying the order to kill his son “smart”? Many Jews, Christians, and Muslims think so…but of course to think that you have to be a complete idiot. Stupidity is also the antithesis to democracy, as many have stated before. Once you have a stupid population, votes mean nothing. And that’s where we are now: an extremely dumbed down and stupid population in which the ideal of republican democracy is meaningless; this is happening everywhere votes are conducted, not just the US of course. Perhaps Plato’s “Philosopher King” is the solution to democracy failed by the stupid mob? That’s what he thought anyway…

The example we have, from Abrahamism, of an “infinite god” is rather poor: just read the Torah (Old Testament) and you will read a litany of crimes against humanity. If the “god” presented in the books of Abrahamism (Torah, Bible, Koran) isn’t actually Satan himself, the Demiurge, then I don’t know how one would define Satan. And if that’s the best we have for an infinite god, then we’re really in trouble. The truth of course, in this context, is simply that Jehovah is actually Satan, and why hence he was such a weak, sensitive, and jealous “being” that needed worship “before the other gods”. Huh? Other gods?! lol There is no science, math, morality, nor reason in any of Jehovah’s (Satan) books. It is all pure mythos, 100% devoid of logos and reason. Therefore, since it is obvious that Mythos is the purview of Satan (Jehovah) as openly stated in his books, then Logos must be the purview of the true God, and being the opposite of Satan (Jehovah), therefore being the opposite of evil. So, logos reason is the solution to evil, and is the good. That’s why Satan (Jehovah) hated that Eve chose to have knowledge, because she then was able to figure out that the master of the garden was actually Satan. The task for a human is to master their Dionysian “satanic” side, with reason, instead of having “reason” be the slave of passion. You can be passionate, just do it intelligently. ]
Truthseeker says:
2012/12/01 at 6:54 PM
So, I was right the first time when I said “pragmatism”.

[Reply: No, you were entirely incorrect. Checking the wiki page on pragmatism: it denies the ontological existence of the mind, and it is a philosophy based in, essentially, materialism. There is nothing pragmatic or practical in Plato’s conception of the Republic…it is entirely a work of rational idealism. Pragmatism is also supportive of faith-based belief systems, and will incorporate such if found practical. Whereas there is no room for faith-based beliefs in rational idealism.]
Truthseeker says:
2012/12/05 at 3:34 PM
Joe, my perception of “pragmatism” is probably closer to “rationalism” as you define it. I think I used to the wrong term for the right concept.

[Reply: Yes I suspected what you intended, but I used the opportunity to make the clarification. Cheers! ]
Myrrh says:
2013/07/22 at 5:18 PM
The AGW Greenhouse Effect’s cold Sun is calculated by planckian skullduggery on the thin 300 mile wide atmosphere of visible light around the Sun – it is so ludicrous it hurts to think this is not only not questioned by ‘climate scientists’ or those great bodies of science, but actively promoted by them ..

The Greenhouse Effect is an impossible world with its Sun a cold Star of 6000°C, around the temp of Earth’s innards, but they have a good reason for this science fraud – to eliminate the direct radiant heat from our real millions of degrees hot real Star our Sun, so they can then pretend all real world measurements downwelling are from “the atmosphere backradiating by greenhouse gases”, and not from the Sun.

So, the Greenhouse Effect Illusion is “shortwave in longwave out”, and they have two ‘explanations’ for radiant heat from the Sun not reaching the Earth’s surface.

The ‘original’ of the KT97 and ilk cartoons, that there is an “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing longwave infrared heat entering”.

This invisible barrier is unknown to traditional physics, which teaches that the heat we feel from the Sun is the electromagnetic wavelength of heat, longwave infrared, which is why it is called thermal.

By more science fraud sleight of hand the AGWScienceFiction version says that thermal refers to the heat source.. The AGWSF meme to hide this fraud, and others, is “all electromagnetic radiation is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”.

The second explanation which I have been told is the AGW version which disdains the ‘original’ which is CAGW. Shrug. Their explanation is even more ludicrous – the cold “Sun of 6000°C which gives off insignificant longwave infrared and insignificant of insignificant reaches TOA”

To hide all their, both versions, shenanigans of using the real direct radiant heat measurements for their “backradiation by greenhouse gases” claim, they have had to create the fiction that visible light from the Sun is the source of heat and what we feel as heat. This is physically impossible in the real world, it is gibberish nonsense but is believed because it was introduced into the education system through teaching the Greenhouse Effect. It is now ‘official’ and in dictionaries and encyclopedias and taught at university level.

Visible light works on the electronic transition level, that is, on the electron level, and not on the bigger molecular vibrational level which is what it takes to heat matter up. The whole molecule has to be vibrated, internal kinetic energy which is heat.

Rub your hands together, that is mechanical energy moving the molecules of your skin into vibration, which we can feel as heat, because it is heat. This is what radiant heat, aka longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared which is heat transfer by radiation, does to our skin, and, we absorb it and it heats the water in us internally. This is the direct heat of the Sun in transfer by radiation which heats up land and water of the ocean and us.

We cannot feel visible light, it is not a thermal energy, it is not hot, it is not heat. Heat from the Sun is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us transferred by radiation.

Light is not heat, that is why we have these two basic categories already defined in traditional physics, we get light and heat from the Sun.

Near infrared is 1% of the “Solar shortwave in” in the AGWSF comic cartoon energy budget, in real world physics this is not thermal either, that is why infrared was divided into thermal and non-thermal, because not all infrared was Heat. Near infrared is classed with light as Reflective not Thermal.

Electronic transitions of visible light from the Sun – visible light is much tinier than longwave infrared heat and is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere, which are briefly energised by this and move in their orbit. Always wanting to return to ground state they do and in doing so emit the same light they took in – this is how we get our blue sky. This is the electronic transition of reflection/scattering. This is not moving the whole molecule into vibration. Visible light is not ionising as is some uv, which means it is too weak to move the tiny electron out of its orbit..

Visible light from the Sun cannot heat the water of the ocean, water is a transparent medium for visible light which means the water molecules do not absorb it at all, not even on the electronic transition level, it is transmitted through unchanged.

There is an extra twist to this sleight of hand trickery – the comic cartoon uses the figure for the solar constant for its “shortwave in” at TOA – but this is a traditional physics measurement of radiant heat energy at the Earth’s surface, calculated by how much heat energy from the Sun heats up the surface.

So, we have the weird KT97 which places that at TOA and calls it “shortwave in mainly visible light”, then subtracts from that figure the shortwave scattering etc. to get its surface figure “absorbed and converted to heat”, and so, ends up with more heat energy upwelling from the Earth than they have energy coming in..

This is an old page from NASA which was taken down from their site, but still exists in isolation.., someone did not want traditional real world empirically well understood physics of heat and light to disappear:

NASA traditional physics teaching:

“Infrared light lies between the visible and microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths that range from red light to violet. “Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.

“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
Infrared Waves

The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect has fraudulently changed basic physics, and this has been brainwashed through the general education system.

Which is why it is not questioned, the memes have become the new ‘scientific basics’ and taken for granted so never thought about.

Just as the real gases of nitrogen and oxygen and carbon dioxide have been replaced by sleight of hand by the real world physics imaginary “ideal gas”, without mass therefore not subject to gravity and without weight, and without volume and attraction, which means, their Greenhouse Effect atmosphere is empty space, which is why they have no sound.

To stop their massless hard dots of nothing disappearing to the ends of the universe at great speed under their own molecular momentum, they have created another invisible “container” against which these molecules miles apart from each other in empty space bounce back from and off each other at great speeds, so “thoroughly mixing they cannot be unmixed” – hence their “well mixed carbon dioxide” and “carbon dioxide accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years”..

Carbon dioxide is a real gas with real properties and processes in traditional physics, it is heavier than air and so will always sink in air, and will not readily rise in air, it takes work to change that.

Carbon dioxide is also fully part of the Water Cycle, which AGWSF has disappeared as it has the real direct heat from the Sun. The residence time of water in the atmosphere is 8-10 days, all natural unpolluted rain has a pH of around 5.6-8 because water and carbon dioxide have a great attraction for each other, forming cabonic acid.

And, the problem is the “Greenhouse Effect” ‘theory’.

It has never been shown to exist.

Real, empirically well tried and tested up to date modern physics as still traditionally taught shows this “GHE” is faked physics.

The -18°C comes from real physics and is the temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, it is not the temperature without the AGWs “greenhouse gases” – compare with the Moon -23°C.

The real atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but minus water, think deserts, is 67°C.

It is the heavy voluminous real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen which is the real thermal blanket around the Earth.

Not the trace real gas carbon dioxide which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere.

They have removed the Water Cycle and have no rain in their Carbon Cycle, they have no direct heat from our millions of degrees hot Sun and they have excised the whole of the real gas atmosphere in which real gases expand when heated and so rise because lighter than air, and condense when cooled so sink, which is how we get our heat transfer by convection and winds, and replaced it with “empty space populated by massless ideal gas miles apart from each other” – their impossible imaginary Earth goes straight from the surface to empty space, hence their “radiation physics”..

Which is why they have trouble hearing this..

The dogma of the new religion’s The Greenhouse Effect..
chicagoja says:
2013/07/22 at 5:33 PM
A parallel to the saying, “Where there’s smoke there’s fire” is the saying, “Where bad science is being practiced, there’s an agenda.” I’ll let you connect the dots.
Mary says:
2013/10/02 at 12:02 AM
Joe, I think this history of the rise of the Gaia Theory and the religion of “green” is interesting:
The biocentric philosophy of the gaia hypothesis and the rise of global green religion | [ open myth source ]
Edward W. Bergonzi says:
2014/08/08 at 6:05 AM
Hegel was positing the relationships between philosophical categories; essence/appearance, chance/necessity, particular/universal to name a few. Good and evil are relative terms, and like all moral constructs have a social origin. Howver, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a dialectical relationship between such terms,as twentieth century history has tragicaly demonstrated. Incidentally, I am a left-wing opponent of global warming hysteria and hype.
Ray Susilo says:
2014/12/01 at 9:26 PM
The resolution of good and evil… Amorality?

Tyger · Apr 12, 2015

The politics regarding the new alternative fuels is mentioned in this video. Anyone watching the politics of alternate energy across the US can see this playing out. Alternate energy is all about local control - and sharing on the grid. These are concepts that the power companies are bucking - because local control and sharing means less corporate profits.

Why Faster Melting Glaciers Should Worry You

TEXT: "Published on Nov 28, 2014: The latest episode of Thom Hartmann's documentary series, Green World Rising: Why Faster Melting Glaciers Should Worry You."

Tyger · Apr 12, 2015

Dear Readers of this Thread - It has been brought to my attention that manxman is spamming the thread. Just so you know, I am aware of that. While I cannot see his content, I do see - occasionally - that he has posted something. I don't see what he has posted, of course, since he is on ignore. That's fine with me, though I do understand that it is clogging the thread up. (It's called spamming - the intent is to clog up the thread - a thread I started).

However, manxman appears to be doing something a bit more nasty and subversive. I have been told he has placed into his signature some text he is purporting to be mine. The text has been quoted to me and my response is pure disbelief. :rolleyes:

Anyone familiar with my writing style will recognize that I could not have written the quoted text. He is also ascribing text to me that says preposterous things about my personal life at a time when I wasn't even here on the chat site. The problems with what he is quoting are legion. But you already see that.

Anyway, until moderators put an end to manxman, I would suggest that posters put him on ignore so that the thread can be read without the spam. As for the rest - and that includes pixel (also on ignore) - my view is that we are looking at seriously obsessed and (potentially) unhealthy people. I know of no one in RL who could behave the way they are and not meet with consequences.

I appreciate the pm's but my interest is in posting the reading I find. I have no interest in engaging the spammers.

pixelsmith · Apr 12, 2015

You are the spammer Tyger. You have deceived moderators and forum members here and you should be banned.

manxman · Apr 12, 2015

Leave it quiet, he is just starting to troll again, because i am posting real science written by a most credible physicist, the only way to detract from the topic is to troll, he wants 'talk' to about 'the' science, but what he means is he wants to post only his out dated alarmist nonesense, and only talk with those who buy the abserdity of it, rational logical science is an anathema to him.

He is doing no harm whirling in a torrent of what boils down to mainly sophistical nonsense, when he starts to try and gag RATIONAL science, then get Goggs involved.

Now we get to see what an Astrophysicist whose job it is to understand atmospheric's of far away planets, makes of our own atmosphere, and the Mann and Trenbreth fraud of the GHE.
The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 1: The Failure of IPCC Energy Budgets
Posted on 2012/11/06 by Joseph E Postma
This will be “Part 1″ of my summary of some of what I’ve written about on the false paradigm of the greenhouse effect (GHE) upon which “climate science” is based. My latest paper can be found at this link:

A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect

(My previous papers can be found here:

Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect

The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect

Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect)

Given how much I have written it is not possible to cover the entire gamut in a single post; however, going to single posts on specific topics gives me the opportunity to highlight certain important aspects of my research.

Let us consider energy budgets. If anyone is familiar with my work, then they know about the so-called “P/4 issue”, which indicates that the standard approach of climate science is to average-out the actual real-time power of sunshine by dividing its real power, P, by the number 4. Now to be sure, the real power of sunshine is this value we call “P”. It has a numerical value of about 1370 Watts per square meter. This is the real power of sunshine and it can be converted into a temperature, which has a value of 121 degrees Celsius – boiling hot! Some of this sunshine power is actually reflected by the Earth though, about 30%, and therefore doesn’t cause any heating; when you factor this in, the real power of sunshine is about 960 W/m2 which is a temperature of about 88oC.

Out of the mathematical convenience of not having to treat the system in real-time, and with the real power of sunshine, climate scientists average the real-time power of sunshine over the entire surface of the Earth at once, so that they can get rid of day and night, and also so that they can treat the Earth as flat, which makes things easier for them in the math. By spreading the power of sunshine over the entire Earth at once, so that they don’t have to worry about the difference between day and night, the mathematical number required to do this works out to a division of the real incoming power P by the number 4. It is a result of a geometric math problem of transforming a sphere into a flat plane, which is how climate scientists make the simplifications of the real system to something which is not real but is a convenient “approximation”.

Wait a minute…let’s back up here. Climate scientists take the real power of sunshine, of P = 960 W/m2, equal to +88o Celscius, but divide the power by the number 4 so that they can make the Earth flat and get rid of day and night – for convenience. When they do this, they artificially (it is artificial because it is no longer real, and only a mathematical simplification to make the Earth flat) decrease the power of sunshine to 960/4 = 240 W/m2 which is equal to -18oC.

After having taken a real number, and then converted it into something which is not real – the flat Earth approximation – climate scientists then go on to think that the power of sunshine is far too cold to heat anything by itself because it is only as strong as -18oC. They forget that the simplification they made doesn’t actually correspond with reality, because they’ve taken the real numbers which are actually from reality in the first place, but then mathematically diluted them into very small numbers which aren’t actually found or measured in real-life.

This puts climate scientists into a predicament, of having to figure out why it actually feels so warm under the Sun, and why the temperatures are far above -18oC for most of the planet, particularly on the day-time side where there is actual real sunshine. Instead of questioning if their approximation of no day and night and a flat Earth with cold sunshine is valid or not, climate scientists instead invent an internal mechanism for the surface and atmosphere to self-amplify their own temperatures. This mechanism is called the “Greenhouse Effect”, even though this effect doesn’t actually have anything to do with how a real greenhouse works. They just used the same name for this effect they invented, that makes you think of something else that is warm. But the climate science “Greenhouse Effect” and a real greenhouse do not actually work the same way in any way at all (see pages 49-51, 68, and 77 in “On the Absence of“). So they use base sense-perception, imagining something warm, to get you to think that their new effect is the same thing, when it actually isn’t.

To distinguish the effect of what happens in a real greenhouse, versus the effect that climate science invented that isn’t actually the same as a real greenhouse, we will call the climate science version the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”, or “AGHE”, for clarity.

The disparity between this climate-science approximation and the real-world is so great, that climate scientists have to postulate that the atmosphere provides twice as much heating power to warm itself up than they think the cold sunshine does in the first place. They even publish this result in their “peer-reviewed” journals, such as this paper here (see the last page).

Nowhere else in science can a substance heat itself up without having a source of chemical or nuclear or other energy, but in climate science a gas can warm itself up spontaneously with its own passive energy by warming up an already-warmer ground surface by some mysterious recycling of its own internal energy. Everybody outside of climate science knows that this is wrong, because you can never get more work (i.e. more heating) out of the energy than what you initially put in and the first time it is used, from the sunshine. So because this is obviously ridiculous, but climate scientists have never been able to either admit or discover their original mathematical error, they have created terms such as “greenhouse effect”, “back-radiation heating”, “delayed cooling”, and many others, to explain this phantom self-heating process they were accidentally forced to invent. In fact, they have all sorts of ways of trying to explain their AGHE, as can be seen here, and most of them contradict each other. This is a result of the AGHE not being based in reality but based on a fictional approximation of a flat earth and cold sunshine, and so by its very nature you can make up almost anything you want to say about it because there is no actual reality-based single way that it exists.

I will end this post with a diagram of a reality-based model I have created which represents the Earth and power of sunshine as it actually exists in reality. It is somewhat more complex than the flat-earth models which create the AGHE, but, it also corresponds with reality, and so the increased complexity is a good thing. If you want to read more about why this model was created, before I write Part 2, you can see this paper here: Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect.

This is a model of the real world, with the real power of sunshine. It is more complex than a flat-earth model, but it is also real rather than fictional, which is a much better starting point!

In Part 2 I will explain this model and show that, because it is based on actual reality, it is far superior to the fictional flat earth models of climate science and the AGHE. I will also explain how a reality-based model does not create the need to invent a self-heating mechanism and that the heat is generated solely by sunshine, unlike the climate science models where they have to invent the AGHE.

Until then, take care!

pixelsmith · Apr 12, 2015

Thanks manxman real science is refreshing.

Tyger · Apr 12, 2015

pixelsmith said:
You are the spammer Tyger. You have deceived moderators and forum members here and you should be banned.

Okay - I've been pm'd about this post so I have de-cloaked you. What are you talking about, Pixel?

How have I "deceived moderators and forum members here"? This is going to completely derail this thread but that is always your aim anyway. This is starting to go too far. How am I being deceptive and why should I be banned? Because I dare post on global warming? You have to be kidding me! :rolleyes:

P.S. Just to say - one cannot spam one's own thread. I started this thread remember - not you (or manxman).

manxman · Apr 12, 2015

STOP feeding him pixel, you are playing HIS game.

pixelsmith · Apr 12, 2015

HIS game? I thought he was a woman.

Politics of Global Warming

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

pixelsmith

Guest

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

pixelsmith

Guest

Paranormal Adept

pixelsmith

Guest

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

pixelsmith

Guest