Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Scientism and Siberia or would it be Climate Hell?

Scientism is simply a religious devotion to using methods and technology, to understand and manage the material elements of our world.  Scientism as a religious doctrine espouses that only the material exists, and that metrics, mathematics, calibrations, and application technology should be used to understand, manage and control the world and humans.  No other doctrine, point of view, spirituality, faith dogma, emotionality, or Christian observance of the world of the 5 senses and beyond, is allowed.  Everything must be measured, categorised, labelled, using technology and ‘science’.  That is all which matters in life.  Further, the human is not unique according to scientism.  You are simply a node on a system, part of the cybernetics, and the ‘Internet of Things’ and in the ‘things’ on the network of surveillance and control, you the human, are not even the most interesting or worthy.  Far from it.  You are a pestilence, a consumer, an eater, a burden.  Your humanity must be changed, upgraded, hacked and replaced by a post-human, transhumanism.

If ‘science’ is so ‘precise’ why so many failed predictions dating back to 1880 on ‘climate’ and ‘weather’?  Or is science just another viewpoint, prone to egocentricity, fraud, money and lust for power like all other doctrines and systems?

Remember the ‘science’ in 2004 declared that unless action was taken ‘immediately’, Britain would become Siberia by 2024. 

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

The ‘experts’ of course. ‘Abrupt climate change’, from plant food.  2024 is one year away.  The ‘science’, settled and consensus based, has already moved on to the raging fires of climate-hell, with unstoppable increases in temperatures of say 0.5C, resulting in the liquidation of Gaia.  What happened to the 2004 fixation on Siberia for the UK?  Wasn’t the science ‘settled’ back in 2004?

But the ‘science’ was also unequivocal just a few years later, when the former Prince of Wales, now King Charles III famously predicted in 2009 that the world would end in July of 2017.  He assured the peasants that the ‘science’ fully supported his view.  We went from the UK becoming Siberia to a warming hell in just 5 years. 

Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned in a grandstand speech which set out his concerns for the future of the planet.

The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.

And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the "age of convenience" was over.

Notice the conflation of unrelated factors.  Capitalism with environmental collapse.  The most modern societies are the most environmentally aware.  A former Prince, now a King, who flies in private jets, sails in private and quite massive yachts, has enormous palaces and estates kitted out with the latest and most expensive technology, is hectoring people over their lifestyle and ‘consumerism’ because of ‘climate’.  Why would anyone put up with this charade?  When King Climate sells his assets, dons the hairshirt and goes shoeless into nature, maybe then his declarations might carry some validity. 

Consensus fraud and making a sausage

Why the litany of climate-geddon forecast failures?   Fake models, faker data, and philosophy parading as factual science for starters.  Then we have the operational aspects of producing reports outlining the impending climategeddon of the week, month or year, all of which are akin to making a sausage, and all which must use the most ‘extreme’ language possible to get ‘attention’ with each year battling the year previous for outrageous statements of doom and gore.  And in each case the well paid, comfortable, upper middle class and elite which write such reports, happily imbibing almost every minute of their lives the benefits of hydrocarbon energy, mightily declaim against ‘capitalism’ and ‘consumerism’ as they work on $1000 laptops, sitting in upholstered chairs, warm in their heated and quite large homes, overlooking their BMWs and Land Rovers parked outside.

These well clothed Prophets of Climate doom all agree that the end is nigh due to ‘capitalism’ or ‘consumerism’ which somehow has destroyed climate.  Usually, they give us 12 years.  The 12 years charade dates to 1988.  Sometimes the religious intensity is so powerful that 5 years is given, or as a recent UK Prime Minister intoned, the one-minute-to-midnight imagery is invoked.  This has an old history dating back to the 1990s.  Apparently, it takes a very long time for that minute to expiry.  As with most fake-news reporting on ‘climate’, a large part of the material and sermons on the end times, are simply recycled from previous announcements and declarations, many of those can be found as far back as the 1920s (peak oil for example).  A reading from the Old Testaments of Climate as it were, interspersed with some new gospels from the New Testament of Climate such as a recent weather event, or a warmer or colder season than usual. 

The climate true in their righteous Jihad against Satanic Co2 and the ‘climate-denying’ heretics who believe not; also believe that they have the overwhelming power of ‘consensus’ on their side.  Real science however is not a game of numbers.  Einstein’s theories were denounced by hundreds of Nazi scientists.  Copernicus was opposed by hundreds of academics whose power and livelihoods were based on Ptolemy’s universe.  Abiogenesis was supported by most post ‘enlightenment’ science.  Semmelweis was murdered for challenging ‘the science’ which disagreed with his views on hospital hygiene, clean sheets and the washing of hands to reduce infection and death.  It is even worse for the climate cult.  They had to invent their consensus, creating yet another fraud.

In 2014 John Cook and some Australian university researchers conducted a search of 11,944 peer reviewed papers on ‘climate change’.  They evaluated the papers position on the same and concluded quite implausibly, that 97% agreed on AGW or anthropocentric global warming which was causing the climate to change for the worse.  But none of it is true.

Richard Tol lead author in the 2014 IPCC report, analysed the data and found quite the opposite.  His research found that only 64 papers out of the 11,944 supported AGW (Energy Policy 73, October 2014 p. 709).  Antony Watts, a meteorologist who runs the world’s most viewed site on Climate Change (Wattsupwiththat.com) asked Cook for his data and was refused most of it.  What he did receive was full of errors, poor data quality, and inconsistent ratings.  This is nothing new with the climate cult, it is famous for fraudulent data.

Englishman Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation analysed Cook’s data commenting on the data errors and that, ‘The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate’ (thegwpf.org 2013 ‘What Consensus’).  Another Englishman Sir Christopher Monckton analysed Cook’s data and found that only 41 of the 11,944 endorsed the claim that more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic.  This means that only 0.5% of the papers analysed by Cook’s team actually supported the idea of AGW. 

A consensus means nothing in science.  However, the fraud of the 97% claim that ‘thousands of scientists’ support AGW or climate change is nonsense and irrelevant anyway.  Very few support AGW and those who do may do so more to get grant money or funding from vested interests, than supporting an objective analysis using a scientific method (there are variations on said method).

Fossil fuels as an example of scientism

Fossil Fuels is a chimera or lie, set up to give the impression of limited supply.  Fossils are only made from a rush of water (a flood) and sand mixing to form a cement.  That has nothing to do with ‘hydrocarbon’ fluid which is the second most plentiful fluid on the planet.  Oil and gas are self-regenerating resources, and we have hundreds of years of supply if not more.  ‘Peak oil’ has been a failed forecast every year since 1920.

Hydrocarbon formation is abiotic not organic:

Oil comprises 85% carbon, 13% hydrogen and 0.5% oxygen with traces of sulphur and nitrogen. Most chemists used to believe it originated from the decomposition of organic matter – layers formed from the remains of dead animals. Hence the name ‘fossil fuel’.

Oil comes from ‘basement rock’, a mile underground, and is well below the fossil layer. Despite conventional wisdom around fossil fuels, the argument for non-biologically produced oil was not a new one.

In 1951, the Russian scientist N.A Kudryavtsev, announced the theory that deep petroleum was produced abiotically. His theories were consolidated with the exploration of the oil fields of Dneiper-Donets in the early 1990s.

World-renowned geologist, C Warren Hunt’s ‘Anhydride’ theory of 1996, asserted the idea of biogenesis from living microbial forms, as opposed to fossilized forms. If oil is constantly replenishing, why should it run out?

The bottom line is that using the term ‘fossil fuels’ is anti-science and irrelevant but is employed for a reason to give the impression of great scarcity and long ages.

Greenhouse Myth

Another pernicious and quite obvious lie is the idea of a ‘Greenhouse’ ceiling, or effect.  In 2007 Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.  He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2 and …It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."  Indeed.

The Earth’s climate has undergone some big changes, from global volcanism to planet-cooling ice ages and dramatic shifts in solar radiation. And yet life, for the last 3.7 billion years, has kept on beating.

A recent study by MIT researchers in Science Advances confirms that the planet harbours a “stabilizing feedback” mechanism that acts over hundreds of thousands of years to pull the climate back from the brink, keeping global temperatures within a steady, habitable range.

Just how does it accomplish this? One mechanism is “silicate weathering” — a geological process by which the slow and steady weathering of silicate rocks involves chemical reactions that ultimately draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into ocean sediments, trapping the gas in rocks.

Scientists have long suspected that silicate weathering plays a major role in regulating the Earth’s carbon cycle.  But not much is known about it until recently.  In any event it is ridiculous that any serious person poses the view that Co2, a trace chemical, which falls out of climate processes, is somehow acting as a blanket or ‘greenhouse’ and smothering Gaia with heat. 

Much of the propaganda around GHG is simply junk science, based on a proposition that feedback loops are only positive and multiply at a high rate based on trace chemical accumulation. This theory is simply not backed up by historical records or common sense.  There is much myth and little fact with this argument including the inconvenient truth that 75-90% of ‘greenhouse gases’ is water vapour.  Co2 is maybe 6% of the total, methane 3 or 4%.  There is simply little to no impact from rising Co2 levels.  Also, in the physical, real world, neither water vapour, nor Co2 ‘trap heat’.  It is an outrageous non-science claim to say they do.

Consider your backyard greenhouse.  It works by physically blocking heat transfer (by convection) from inside to outside - the same effect that heats the inside of your car when it's parked in the sun on a hot day.  Opening the doors and windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate. Neither the atmosphere nor "greenhouse gases" block convection, so there is no atmospheric "greenhouse effect."  Currents and flows are allowed to occur and this naturally would dissipate any ‘heating’.  How does the atmosphere actually work?

·        Incoming solar radiation is partly absorbed by the Earth's surface, partly absorbed by various atmospheric gases (particularly oxygen and ozone) and partly reflected back out to space.

·        Solar radiation isn't significantly absorbed by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere and so doesn't directly cause the greenhouse effect.

·        The ‘greenhouse effect’ is largely caused by energy emitted by the Earth's surface, most of which is subsequently absorbed by greenhouse gases and clouds.

·        The greenhouse gases and clouds transform that absorbed energy into heat that warms the lower atmosphere and into energy that is radiated back to space and also back to the Earth's surface.

These radiative processes, if they acted alone, would warm the Earth's atmosphere to about 77 degrees Celsius.  Fortunately, other atmospheric processes including updrafts and circulation carrying heat upwards and toward the poles facilitate energy escape into space so that our atmosphere cools to around 15 degrees Centigrade.  The earth’s average temperature in 2022 is still under 15 C.  Without these complex negative and positive feedback loops and systems, we would indeed be fried on Gaia’s tender, delicate skin.  In essence the idea that humans and our eco-system live in a greenhouse which uses Co2 to grow plant life in controlled conditions, is to be diplomatic, ignorant.

NASA even admits that the most abundant GHG is water vapour….yet Co2 is the trace chemical that controls ‘all climate’ and is ‘blanketing’ poor little Gaia in endless heat.  The nonsense overwhelms.  But scientism is primarily a religion of blind and ignorant dogma.  Worse, it lies and deceives to push its anti-human agenda.