In preparation for a "net zero by 2050" debate that my opponent failed to show up for, I created refutations of every myth in support of net-zero that I've every encountered.
I have constructed deductive proofs of the facts that:
a) the argument made by an IPCC climate model violates all three of Aristotle's Laws of thought and
b) the runs of an IPCC climate model generate no information bain about the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth's climate system. In short, these models are completely useless. That they appear to be useful is the result of an application of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness by the argument made by an IPCC climate model under which an "abstract" event of the future for Earth's climate system is mistaken for a "concrete" event of the future for this system, where an "abstract" event of the future lacks a location in space and time whereas a "concrete" event of the future has such a location. The catastrophists avoid discovery of the fact that the IPCC climate models are useless by adopting an anti-scientific posture that replaces hypothesis testing by dogmatic assertion. Iff you or any of the reaaders of your substack wiish to see my proofs of the uselessness of the IPCC climate models you need only to ask mr for for the links for them by phone call or email.
Just finished watching your excellent presentation and must say how magnanimous you were to Tom Rand and other apostles of climate apocalypse that find a way to avoid debating you even when they have agreed to debate and then back out at last minute and don't apologize. There behavior and ad hominem attacks are simply a variant of shouting down an invited speaker because they can not stand to hear another POV. It's totally indicative of how they've been "educated" since K-12. Indocrinated is the more apt description.
I want to thank you - Michael Shellenberger, Lomborg and many others like Obama's chief scientist who I can never remember his name. All of you are speaking truth to power. You know you're over the target when the name calling becomes most ridiculous and hyperbolic.
That the climate fraud has been going on for so long without any real scientific evidence is a testament to how insidious and determined these hucksters are. Some genuinely Pachamama devotees, others knowingly conflicted from a financial/power perspective.
My sense was the auditorium was not that filled (which is not a surprise). The biggest was that your were invited and once Tom cancelled at the last minute, they decided to allow the "conversation" to go on. Props to Young American Republicans.
But what was most distressing was the quality of the questions. It was as though they did not listen or read anything you had said.
How we got here is a product of a 50 year Gramsci-like strategy to not only force feed a particular world-view and way of thinking but a determined effort to implement an updated Coward-Piven set of tactics that will truly impoverish the world - most acutely in Africa. Our Davos Global Elite are truly shameless and when mass starvation is the result of their policies they'll justify it but noting lower CO2 emissions.
Again - thanks for everything you do and let's pray we get a new set of players in 2024 to reign in the madness. Which is what it actually is.
It's not clear from the X (né Twitter) thread you linked that his absence from the venue was due to his not wanting to debate. "Failed to show up" is misleading if he knew there was no event for which to show up because it had been cancelled by the venue. Contractual issues that caused the cancellation are opaque to me from reading only the X exchange. We're not told when you knew of the cancellation.
Disclaimer: I have been and will continue to be one of your admiring supporters.
I have constructed deductive proofs of the facts that:
a) the argument made by an IPCC climate model violates all three of Aristotle's Laws of thought and
b) the runs of an IPCC climate model generate no information bain about the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth's climate system. In short, these models are completely useless. That they appear to be useful is the result of an application of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness by the argument made by an IPCC climate model under which an "abstract" event of the future for Earth's climate system is mistaken for a "concrete" event of the future for this system, where an "abstract" event of the future lacks a location in space and time whereas a "concrete" event of the future has such a location. The catastrophists avoid discovery of the fact that the IPCC climate models are useless by adopting an anti-scientific posture that replaces hypothesis testing by dogmatic assertion. Iff you or any of the reaaders of your substack wiish to see my proofs of the uselessness of the IPCC climate models you need only to ask mr for for the links for them by phone call or email.
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher.
Los Altos Hills, CA
1-650-941-0533
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com
Just finished watching your excellent presentation and must say how magnanimous you were to Tom Rand and other apostles of climate apocalypse that find a way to avoid debating you even when they have agreed to debate and then back out at last minute and don't apologize. There behavior and ad hominem attacks are simply a variant of shouting down an invited speaker because they can not stand to hear another POV. It's totally indicative of how they've been "educated" since K-12. Indocrinated is the more apt description.
I want to thank you - Michael Shellenberger, Lomborg and many others like Obama's chief scientist who I can never remember his name. All of you are speaking truth to power. You know you're over the target when the name calling becomes most ridiculous and hyperbolic.
That the climate fraud has been going on for so long without any real scientific evidence is a testament to how insidious and determined these hucksters are. Some genuinely Pachamama devotees, others knowingly conflicted from a financial/power perspective.
My sense was the auditorium was not that filled (which is not a surprise). The biggest was that your were invited and once Tom cancelled at the last minute, they decided to allow the "conversation" to go on. Props to Young American Republicans.
But what was most distressing was the quality of the questions. It was as though they did not listen or read anything you had said.
How we got here is a product of a 50 year Gramsci-like strategy to not only force feed a particular world-view and way of thinking but a determined effort to implement an updated Coward-Piven set of tactics that will truly impoverish the world - most acutely in Africa. Our Davos Global Elite are truly shameless and when mass starvation is the result of their policies they'll justify it but noting lower CO2 emissions.
Again - thanks for everything you do and let's pray we get a new set of players in 2024 to reign in the madness. Which is what it actually is.
It's not clear from the X (né Twitter) thread you linked that his absence from the venue was due to his not wanting to debate. "Failed to show up" is misleading if he knew there was no event for which to show up because it had been cancelled by the venue. Contractual issues that caused the cancellation are opaque to me from reading only the X exchange. We're not told when you knew of the cancellation.
Disclaimer: I have been and will continue to be one of your admiring supporters.