Unhappy 50th, global warming! Or Climate Crisis or Climate Emergency or Climate Chaos or whatever you’re calling yourself at this hour.
Before October 26, 1975, actual scientists (and government and media and schools) UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY that the weather is an infinitely complex set of local, global and solar cycles and random changes. Before October 26, 1975, some religions attributed weather to the capricious actions of malicious gods, and tried to propitiate the gods with money and gold and human sacrifice.
Here’s a 1938 statement by scientists in a government publication, part of the WPA geography and history series.
Recent years of almost unprecedented drought have led to the often expressed belief that the climate of Kansas is changing. Geologists and meteorologists, however, point out that weather runs in cycles, the most pronounced being about a third of a century in length. Conditions during a cycle are easily mistaken by laymen for permanent changes. Despite year by year fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, recorded evidence shows that general climatic conditions remain unchanged.
= = = = =
After October 26, 1975, actual scientists (and governments and media and schools) attributed weather to the capricious actions of malicious gods, and tried to propitiate the gods with money and gold and human sacrifice. Unfortunately religions didn’t switch the other way to compensate.
Primitive superstition became official law at a conference orchestrated by government agencies and CIA-funded corporations.
In 2010 I bought the book that summarized this conference. ‘The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering.’ I wanted to be sure I could refer to the information, since we know what happens to info online.
The conference was sponsored by the Public “Health” Service, which later carried out its assigned mission by strangling us in 2020. The participants came from a variety of government agencies, NGOs and universities. Several belonged to the MITRE Corporation, which still exists. Per its own website, MITRE is a Deepstate contractor that optimizes tech for war. It has dual headquarters at MIT and CIA.
In 1975 warming wasn’t yet the official consensus. Some of the essays talked about warming, some about cooling. The conference didn’t take sides on the trend because it was meant to announce a broader official finding about ALL weather. Weather is caused by human sins, requiring universal global government.
The narrower official consensus for warming came around 1990. Judging by the headlines in New Scientist, warming has now been replaced by Chaos. The warming consensus was inadequate, leaving too much room for heretics to notice that current conditions are NOT warmer than most of the world’s history. Chaos is a much more effective approach. Now EVERY STORM or NON-STORM leads inescapably to the necessary mandate to kill all life.
Real weather IS chaotic in the mathematical sense. It’s partly periodic with random variations. When we see weather we see chaos, so now we must eliminate CO2 to stop all WEATHER. Even better, the result itself is scientifically consistent. If we eliminate CO2, life will die and the earth will be like the moon, stable and non-chaotic. QED.
= = = = =
As Polistra has noted before, the Carbon Cult began in 1975 with a conference organized by long-time anthropological fraudster Margaret Mead, and attended by several of the current players including Obama’s “science” adviser John Holdren. The conference was recorded in a govt-published book, which I took the trouble to buy and read. Much of it is rather dull speculation, but the preface by arch-criminal Margaret Mead lays out the roadmap for the crime.
We are facing a period when society must make decisions on a planetary scale. … Whereas in the recent past a whole continent could have been submerged, decimated by plague, or ravaged by earthquakes and the rest of the world remain untouched and unnoticing, today’s natural catastrophes and environmental interventions affect the whole of human society, interconnected as it is in reality though not yet politically capable of acting in concert.
And your goal was to conduct the concert.
As such, manmade interventions depend upon the application of science to technology; scientists become doubly responsible, both for the immediate uses made of their discoveies and for the well-being of their fellow citizens. Whether they be citizens of a free enterprise state, a socialist state, a dictatorship or a hereditary monarchy, they need inforation to make decisions, either for an intelligent choice among alternatives or for guidance in carrying out decrees by their ruling group. Even in the most arbitrary and authoritarian forms of government, a comprehension on the part of the leadership and an understanding on the part of the people are both essential. Unless the peoples of the world can begin to understand the immense and long-term consequences of what appear to be small immediate choices – to drill a well, open a road, build a large airplane, make a nuclear test, install a liquid fast breeder reactor, release chemicals which diffuse through the atmosphere, or discharge waste in concentrated amounts into the sea – the whole planet may become endangered.
Well, you’ve closed off nearly all those choices by now, haven’t you?
What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts or grow thicker coats before a severe winter.
Must admit I like the animal analogy. Shows a respect for natural knowledge that has been lost lately, as scientists have come to rely purely on manufactured data plugged into imaginary computer models.
Scientists themselves may value making a fine point against a rival more than the possible consequences of the intra-scientific battle; or be extremely cautious so as to protect their reputations (among scientists) which is a modern equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. Or they may simply despair of ever connecting effectively the nature of science, with its built-in requirement for validation by other scientists, into the political bureaucracies of the world.
Margie girl, you’d never have made it without a totally corrupt and incestuous “validation”. Modern scientists depend equally on the corrupt “validation” of peer review. Hasn’t changed.
= = = = = END 2010 REPRINT
Here’s a 2012 piece illustrating how chaotic weather can be made to appear “endangering” by manipulating stats.
A recent big lottery brings up randomness again. Lotteries are a very rare case, maybe the only situation in common experience, where a mathematical randomizer shows up in PURE or raw form.
The vast majority of “randomized” events in our lives are THRESHOLDED random.
Let’s see if I can illustrate the difference.
This first animation shows some bars rising and falling by a pure mathematical random process. The height of each bar is decided separately at each frame of the movie. Notice that this set of motions looks fully random; you can’t see any pattern in it.
Now I’ve added a THRESHOLD across the bars. This makes the situation far more realistic, corresponding to many random-driven events in ordinary life. From this angle it still looks unpatterned.
Now we’re looking at the same THRESHOLDED situation from the top. Now we can see all sorts of patterns! At each moment we can see CLUSTERS of bars that have popped above the threshold, and we can’t see the bars that are below. Most importantly, we don’t see the continuously variable heights any more; we only see the DECISION. Each bar has turned into a yes-no vote.
Everything we sense is thresholded. These bars might represent sounds coming from all sorts of things (crickets, doors, cars, dogs in your yard, dogs in China, rivers in Argentina.) All of those things are in the air, but you only hear the nearest and strongest. Same with points of light, or weights on your hand, or differences in income and status between you and your neighbor. You only sense values that pop up above your internal threshold.
The most direct analogy for this image might be a field of grass seeds popping through the soil. They are driven by temperature and moisture, so they will tend to sprout within a limited range of time; but each one has a unique micro-climate depending on shadows, bacteria, earthworms, etc.
Another prime example: Cancer clusters. Each bar corresponds to one person, with a varying number of cancerous cells. Everyone has some cancerous cells all the time, but we don’t register a case of cancer until the number of cells pops through the threshold of a screening test. Each frame in the animation might correspond to a map of cancer cases in one year. Some of the frames show very definite clusters of cancer cases! Better look for known carcinogens where those clusters formed! Is there a power line? A kerosene lamp? A cell phone? No, it’s most likely just random stuff.
Or we could be talking about weather events. Rivers rise and fall all the time, but we don’t call it a flood until a river rises above the line of the nearest occupied land. Some of these bars seem to be flooding several years in a row! It’s global warming! No, it’s most likely just random stuff.
But not always. In some cases a repeated flood is just part of this clustering effect, but repetition is actually more likely than plain clustering would imply. Everything in Nature depends in infinitely complex ways on previous events. If Wildcat Creek floods in March, the ground is still wetter than usual in May, so it takes less rain than usual to bring the creek up to flood stage. The threshold has moved. There are also long-term trends like sunspot cycles and El Nino / La Nina ocean oscillations. If conditions favor big rains this year, the trends are likely to favor big rains next year as well. Probably have to wait several years until the cycles return to a dry phase.
To illustrate, I’ve moved the threshold up and down in a sine wave. First as seen from the side, just to show what’s really happening:
Now from the top. Wow! We got 500-year floods everywhere, for several years in a row! And then we have terrible droughts everywhere, for several years in a row! This can’t be random!
Yes it can. The bars are still moving in the very same pattern; the driving forces haven’t changed. It’s just that the conditions for popping each event above the threshold are changing from year to year as they do in Nature.
People who see life through the prism of statistics have trouble handling thresholds. Abstract academics have to shoehorn life into closed-form real-number equations, and you can’t use a threshold in that context. Thresholding is perfectly natural to a binary computer. An on-off choice is easy to write as code, and the computer can handle it more precisely than a continuous number. But this naturalness doesn’t penetrate the academic mind. If you can’t write a continuous function suitable for a slide rule, you can’t begin to think about the problem.
= = = = = END 2012 REPRINT.
Polistra's Mill 