Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Sid's Post # 1525 - 23/7/27

1. Video URL - My mistake in my earlier post; now corrected. I did watch it! It is not that I don't get to every video Sid posts. And there are two major video's he is waiting for me to watch, and I will get there......but I have a limitation re audio/video format, which makes it challenging for me to watch longer than about 10 min. at a stretch. So this needs some time for me to accomplish.

2. Relationship Between NWO/GR and Negative Climate Change - There is a difference between someone "generating" an issue, and someone "using" an issue. For example, Sid holds that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was deliberately released on humanity by the Covert Power in order be available to be used to frighten humanity into falling in line with the creation of a new world order. I believe that there were tests going on in Chinese (And likely other) labs, but that it escaped by mischance. However, it was seen as a great vehicle for the Covert Power to continue to implement its agenda for world domination.

3. Relationship between the CCP and the Covert Power - Xi Jinping, President of PRC, is the most influential national leader on the planet. I believe that people in many countries are freely electing differing political parties, operating in their own right (Capitalist, Social Democratic, Socialist, and in the past, Fascist). I am not satisfied with Sid's assertion that the World Economic Forum (WEF - Private Organization - Klaus Schwab) is the puppet of Xi. I believe there are other strong covert forces also involved in controlling WEF. And in my view, the ultimate Covert Power dwarfs Xi (& Schwab) in influence and power.

4. Near and Long-Term Negative Effects of Vaccines/Approval Process Issues - Sid's Video - There is a lot of conflicting information on this. My personal view, as someone in the highest risk of death category re COVID-19, is that I'd rather die from the vaccine's effects, than immediately die from COVID-19.

5. I am not a hard-core left theorist. I am a pragmatist. As Marx said, policy comes out of practice (Praxis). Survey my left wing friends (Some pretty wedded to their "political theory") to determine how much of a headache they find me.....don't just take my word for it! I like to march to my own drummer.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

Sorry about the wrong URL..............Will correct when I get back to the Internet again......no time at the moment.

Addendum: Now has correct link.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Heat Records re Earth


This [July] Looks Like Earth’s Warmest Month. Hotter Ones Appear to Be in Store.

July is on track to break all records for any month, scientists say, as the planet enters an extended period of exceptional warmth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/c...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid's Australian Video

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-extreme-heat

In my view, this video is more directed at the NWO/GR problem, though it deals with Negative Climate Change. I have re-posted it there.

The conclusion that the covert power seeking to establish world domination is wanting to implement Old-Style USSR Communism is wrong.

It seeks to establish, I fear, a Beneficent Dictatorship.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Wrong video Bob; you posed Dillip's Fox News video; this is my "Australian Video".

"The conclusion that the covert power seeking to establish world domination is wanting to implement Old-Style USSR Communism is wrong."

Pity you do not bother listening to the videos I post else you would not be trying to divorce the climate change scam from the CCP-controlled WEF.


"Most Countries in our World have a captured ‘Election System’…that oddly only produces Mao-Marxist WEF/UN/WHO/CCP Agents of Chaos…that are armed with ‘Bioweapon Vaccines’. They’re also forcing us to live in a Pedophilic, Sexless, Godless and Carbon Footprint Tracking Society." Time to stop playing "secretary" and reallocate the time to educating yourself ie; listen to said videos you promised to do

New peer-reviewed paper one in thirty-five booster vaccine recipients have myocarditis. It is critical to be aware of this as not exercising means you might get out of it alive. Exercising causes heart attacks and often sudden death, as with many formerly fit young athletes. FDA and health agencies hid this result even though court-ordered released documents show they new of these risks.
All vaccine manufacturing facilities are under the control of the CCP owned Fosum and resolutions have already been passed by some counties in the US declaring these injections bioweapons.
Bbb you prefer to prioritize political beliefs over even your very own well-being. You see Dr's in Ontario can't talk about this else they lose their license from the fascist College of Physicians and Surgeons. As my video above points out all of this is interwoven. For your health take 15 minutes of your precious time and listen carefully below.

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid's Australian Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZFQLdeRzg

In my view, this video is more directed at the NWO/GR problem, though it deals with Negative Climate Change. I have re-posted it there.

The conclusion that the covert power seeking to establish world domination is wanting to implement Old-Style USSR Communism is wrong.

It seeks to establish, I fear, a Beneficent Dictatorship.

Note re editing: Link above replaced with correct link.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

The New Warming Climate State

Multi-Century Temperature Periods

Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.

Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.



https://theconversation.com/is-it-re...=pocket-newtab

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Please don't leave the audience hanging with fudged data, as amply shown by Sid, and in this video:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-extreme-heat (wait for the video after the ads)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Oh, does that mean we are finished our simple math exercise?
I wouldn't want to leave the audience hanging, so FYI

The hottest 10 years on record according to NOAA are:

2016, 2020, 2019, 2017, 2015, 2022, 2018, 2021, 2014, 2010

Please don't leave the audience hanging with fudged data, as amply shown by Sid, and in this video:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-extreme-heat (wait for the video after the ads)

[Bob Gillanders]

You are right. The only point is: don't let CNN's obsession with 'broken day records' make you anxious...

Oh, does that mean we are finished our simple math exercise?
I wouldn't want to leave the audience hanging, so FYI

The hottest 10 years on record according to NOAA are:

2016, 2020, 2019, 2017, 2015, 2022, 2018, 2021, 2014, 2010

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

[Part III of 3; Parts I & II above]

Supplement 5 to Challenge # 2 – Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1508 – 23/7/25 (Re Defence 7)

“You are right. The only point is: don't let CNN's obsession with 'broken day records' make you anxious...”

Note: Bob Armstrong, Defender of the Statement # 2, made an intervention re the above “Cities Discussion” - Post # 1500 – 23/7/24

Re the Cities Argument

It may be that there is something of interest here. If the Earth is in a warming phase, one would expect all cities to be consistently breaking heat records. Dilip claims that the evidence is contrary (And it seems he is supported to some degree by Sid Belzberg, though Dilip did not accept his Challenge 2 Supplement). Why is this, since it is definitely relevant to "global warming". I'd like those interested in this factor to consider if they can come up with some "commonly accepted" Statement on this, using the Challenge 2 and the various Defences posted above.

Statement # 3:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)

"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."

Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)

"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."

Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)

"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."

Statement # 4

From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"Bob, concerning statement [4 – formerly 3]. Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”
[Note: Bob's Comment: Sid's statement seems a support for the statement # 4 saying that the UK MO recordings are good to use. Unless there are objections, this post of Sid's has been changed to a “support” from a Challenge, which was a mistake of the Secretary of the Group, Bob.]

Statement # 5

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"Concerning statement [5 – formerly 4], what is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statement 3 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

Statement # 6

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Support # 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415 – 23/7/2)

“Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.”

Support # 2 - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 1417 – 23/7/2)

“It is essential to have alternate sources of energy, as fossil fuels, including coal, won't last for very long.”

Support # 3 – Sid Belzberg (Post # 1419 – 23/7/2)

“In theory, this is a finite resource, but it is not scarce and likely would take several hundred years to deplete entirely.”

Support # 4 – Bob Armstrong (Post # 1423 – 23/7/2)

“Please note that I have introduced ....... including in renewables, "tidal" & "water turbines". “

5. CT'ers Immediate Task

CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to choose between. You can also just post confirmation that you believe the particular statement to be true.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements"!

6. CT'ers' Local Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change

You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!

a. When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!

b. You can also re-post the tentative STATEMENTS above.

~ Bob A. (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

[Part II of 3 – see Part I above]

4. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate statements on climate change that will gain general acceptance....we are using the "Conversation Format" protocol.

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger. The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the defence to the first Challenge.

The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted

We have reached now 6 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).

All are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are no outstanding proposed revisions, and so they currently stand unchallenged, or challenges have previously been defeated. So, for this forum, a number of the statements are now “generally accepted” as “fact”.

"Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Challenge 1 : Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 – 23/4/29

"Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."

Defence – Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 – 23/7/22

“Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.”

Challenge 2 – Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 – 23/7/22

"Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

Defence 1 - Fred Harvey - Post # 1487 - 23/7/23

"Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well....."

Defence 2- Bob Gillanders - Post # 1488 - 23/7/23

"...taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real."

Supplement 1 to Challenge # 2 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1489 - 23/7/23

“I think Dillip's point was as follows

1. Dillip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact if even 1% had record temperatures it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1
insofar as for practical purposes almost no climate change but enough so that on the same days every year you would see "record Temps".
So statement 1 is not unreasonable based on real-world data.
So even if a small percentage of cities around the world experience record-breaking temp on their hot days, it leads to a significant number of reporting events. For example, in Scotland and the UK alone, there are over 5000 towns. One percent of this (50) allows for a weekly news story of record-breaking temp, whether it is the coldest day of the year or the hottest day of the year.”

Supplement 2 to Challenge 2 - Dilip Panjwani- Post # 1491- 23/7/23 (Re Defence 2)

“You are on the right track [Bob G], but you forget that there are 365 days in a year. If you look at only one city, over 120 years, every year would have 3 record breaking days, even if there is no climate change. But if you are looking at records of 10000 cities, 3 record breaking days in each of 10000 cities for any particular calendar date (like the hottest ever July 5, or the hottest ever August 1, or the hottest ever Christmas Day etc), or given the inconsistencies of nature (nothing is uniformly distributed), it could be 30 record breaking days in just 1000 cities....which would also lead to every year of the 120 years having the same number of record breaks; yet CNN will get anxious about it...”

Supplement 3 to Challenge # 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1492 - 23/7/23 (Re Supplement 1)

“Sorry, Sid, not so...maybe I was not clear enough. It does not have to be the same 1000 cities each year or the same 30 days each year...even cool cities can have 'hottest ever' dates (calendar dates, not the other type of dates which you would consider the hotter the better) in any season, and when CNN cites records, it is generally referring to records for particular dates, I think)... Please see my explanation to Bob G, above.

Defence 3 – Bob Gillanders – Post # 1496 – 23/7/24

“Oh, no no no no, you promised simple math, so keep it simple.

Just take it one day at a time, that way my argument holds.
Given 10,000 cities and 120 years of historical data, if more than 100 cities have new daily highest temperature, then that confirms climate change is real.”

Supplement 4 to Challenge # 2 – Dilip Panjwani – Post # 1498 - 23/7/24 (Re Defence 3)

“Don't be so simple as not to understand variability... by your logic, if less than 100 cities have a new daily high on a particular day, the earth would be cooling!”

Defence 4 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/24

"Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future."

Defence 5 – Fred Harvey – Post # 1502 - 23/7/24

“I'm not sure, but thanks for trying! I think your simple math would require that within an overall constant climate, specific events are quite random? But there are many influences on specific climate events that surely render them non-random. So I have trouble accepting simple math as useful in this situation.”

Defence 7 – Bob Gillanders – Post # 1507 – 23/7/25 (Re Supplement 4)

“Good, excellent. I do understand variability, which was going to be next argument.
We can agree then that a single datapoint would be insufficient to form a conclusion, right?
How many days do you propose would be sufficient?

Or would it be better to look instead at it on a yearly basis?
Perhaps global average temperatures, compare year by year.”

[See Part III of 3 below]

Bob Armstrong (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)

Overview & Update

[Part I of 3 – see Parts II & III below]



1. Weekly Stats:

Week # 29 (23/7/17 – 23: 7 days)

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(29 wks.)___________

........76...................32.........................30.....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (29 wks.)__________________

.............6.......................2.......................2............................5.


Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats have shown a substantial jump over the stats of the prior week, and the 2023 average so far. There is much more “response” activity. This is generating a growing viewership.

There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

2. The Anthropogenicist Position

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

The core issue:

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

The Large Picture Solutions

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?


3. The Naturalists' Position

Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

[See Part II below]

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

"I'll set my dad on your dad...nyeh nyeh nyeh!"

For pities sake try and grow up! I'm outta here.....

LOL!!!!, that would be quite a feat as my Father is long dead!
Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Fred Harvey]

My father fought in Word War 2 against the likes of you. You have not seen anything yet!

"I'll set my dad on your dad...nyeh nyeh nyeh!"

For pities sake try and grow up! I'm outta here.....

[Sid Belzberg]

You're a real piece of work, aren't you!

My father fought in Word War 2 against the likes of you. You have not seen anything yet!