Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

Statement # 11 (Proposed - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1670 - 23/8/21)

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it,we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons:

Greening of the Earth and its drivers


Abstract

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services^1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO₂ fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO₂ fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.


https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.

Opposition Challenge Reasons

CO2 is a major component of the greenhouse gas canopy around Earth. This canopy (Methane is actually the more serious component however) is causing heat to be trapped in the Earth's air/atmosphere, and is raising the temperature of Earth's air/atmosphere, oceans and seas, soil, etc. this is the greatest threat to his existence that man has ever faced.

Humans cannot handle "heat prostration" (Definition: A condition marked by weakness, nausea, dizziness, and profuse sweating that results from physical exertion in a hot environment. Heat exhaustion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). Only now, the "heat prostration" is not due to "physical exercise".....it is due to the simple inability to escape the heat. Even if Humans are able to go underground, the technology for inside air quality and temperature control will brake down under the stress on the energy system.

The fact that CO2 is good for Earth's vegetation is not relevant. Continued existence of the human species is more important than the greening of the planet.

For the Role of CO2 from 500 million years ago, see the video of YouTuber Pothole54.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg&t=38s

So CO2 is a "dangerous pollutant", and Statement # 11 is false.

Processing

Statement # 11 is paused in Processing, due to the decision pending by CT'ers here, on the type of Protocol they wish to use on this board. Once decided, the one week processing period will again begin.

Request of Challenger

At the moment, one CT'er supports the Statement # 11 (Sid Belzberg, the Proposer). One CT'er has launched an opposition challenge (Me as Participant), arguing the Statement is not true, and so should NOT be generally accepted by this group.

Under our current protocol, this Statement # 11 is going to be ruled by the Group Secretary, to be "generally accepted" unless one other CT'er comes forward with "Supplementary Challenge Reasons".

I would ask all CT'ers here to take a second look at the proposed Statement # 11, and the arguments, and if you decide the Statement is not true, then please post so that the Challenge is supplemented by at least one other CT'er in the group, other than just me (Having two CT'ers voting against the Proposer [Sid] would give us a majority vote, and the Statement will be ruled NOT generally accepted and will be dismissed).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Statement # 10 (Proposed) - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1654 - 23/8/15)

Part 3 [Of 3 Parts; See Parts 1 & 2 above]

The Climate Money Machine



Asked why there would be a need to censor, alter, and cherry-pick data to support the global warming narrative,

Mr. Lindzen said “because it’s a hoax.”
Mr. Clauser said of the climate consensus, “We are totally awash in pseudoscience.”

“There is this huge fraction of the population that has been brainwashed into thinking this is an existential threat to the planet,” Mr. Happer said. “I don’t blame the people; they don’t have the background to know they are being deceived, but they are being deceived.”

The World Bank announced in September 2022 that it paid out a record $31.7 billion that fiscal year to help countries address climate change, a 19 percent increase from the $26.6 billion it paid out over the previous fiscal year. And according to Reuters, the United States is projected to spend about $500 billion to fight climate change over the next decade, including $362 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, $98 billion from the Infrastructure Act, and $54 billion from the CHIPS law.

“What would happen to sustainable energy, the worthless windmills and solar panels if suddenly there were no climate change emergency,” Mr. Happer said. “They’re really not very good technology and they’re doing a lot more harm than good, but nevertheless people are making lots of money.”

Many investors, most notably BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have cited government regulations and subsidies as a key reason why investments in “green” energies would be profitable.

Research grants to study climate change are offered by many government agencies, including the EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as by non-profits including Bloomberg Philanthropies and the MacArthur Foundation, which paid out $458 million since 2014.

“Going back to [19]88 to ’90, funding went up by a factor of 15,” Mr. Lindzen said. “You created a whole new community.

“This was a small field in 1990; not a single member of the faculty at MIT called themselves a climate scientist,” he said. “By 1996, everyone was a climate scientist, and that included impacts. If you’re studying cockroaches and you put in your grant, ‘cockroaches and climate,’ you are a climate scientist.”

Asked to respond to the professors’ comments, an EPA spokesperson stated: “The Agency will review all comments we received as we work to finalize the proposed standards.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/articl...a-hoax-5460699

[Secretary Note: Where Challenge, Defence, Support and Supplement texts are extensive, in future only the reference to the extensive Post Number will be posted (Otherwise updates become unwieldy). But it is open to the author to post an Executive Summary of the text to replace the extensive text. The Executive Summary text will be added in.]

Opposition Challenge 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1720 - 23/8/28)

I think statement # 10 is outrageous.

If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
As the church lady says, "how convenient".

I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

So instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.

Opposition Challenge 2 - Bob Armstrong (As Participant) - Post # 1732 - 23/8/31

Our revised group Statement # 6 will be on our list of generally accepted Statements at 12:00 AM tomorrow:

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Sid's Statement # 10 (Proposed) is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2:

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Sid's Statement # 10! This is a big spike recently in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. They see the spike as due to anthropogenic activity (The Industrial Revolution). And they clearly link the increase in CO2 to the increase in temperature (Part of the Non-Porous Greenhouse Gas Canopy argument):

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

So CO2 DOES have an impact on the climate as it is one of the causes of the rising heat level on Earth.

I agree with Bob G - it is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Processing: Statement # 10 is paused in Processing, due to the decision pending by CT'ers here, on the type of Protocol they wish to use on this board. Once decided, the one week processing period will again begin.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Statement # 10 (Proposed)

Part 2 (Of 3 Parts; Part 1 above) of Supporting Reasons (Belzberg Post # 1654 - 23/8/15)

In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” Mr. Happer said. “If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s.

“If you look at the data today, that is no longer true,” he said. “People in charge of that data, or what the public sees, have gradually reduced the temperatures of the ‘30s, then increased the temperature of more recent measurements.”

An example of misleading data used by the EPA as proof of global warming is shown in the chart below, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen claimed.
EPA data shows an increasing ratio of daily record high-to-low temperatures in order to indicate rising global temperatures (Source: NOAA/NCEI).
“This chart does not actually show ‘daily temperatures,’” they state. “Instead it shows a ‘ratio’ of daily record highs to lows - a number that appears designed to create the impression that temperatures are steadily rising.”

By contrast, the scientists presented the following table, which indicates significantly higher temperatures in the 1930s versus today.
This data indicates that heat waves were more severe in the 1930s than today. (Source: EPA).The Scientific ‘Consensus’ for Climate Change


Proponents of the global warming narrative often state that it is “settled science” and that nearly all scientists agree that global warming is real and the result of human activity.

According to an official NASA statement, “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists—97 percent—agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.”

A report by Cornell University states that “more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”

But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

“Science has never been made by consensus,” Mr. Happer said. “The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.

“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong,” he said. “And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”

The National Library of Medicine cites a speech by physician and author Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 in which he said, “consensus is the business of politics.”

“Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world,” Dr. Crichton said. “In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”

“The initial predictions of climate disasters had New York flooded by now, no ice left at the North Pole, England would be like Siberia by now,” Mr. Happer said. “Nothing that they predicted actually came true. You have to do something to keep the money coming in, so they changed ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’”
The Price of Dissent


Regarding the consensus in published literature cited by Cornell University, some experts counter that academic publications routinely reject any submissions that question the global warming narrative.

“I’m lucky because I didn’t really start pushing back on this until I was close to retirement,” Mr. Happer said. He had already established himself at that point as a tenured professor at Princeton, a member of the Academy of Sciences, and director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.

“If I’d been much younger, they could have made sure I never got tenure, that my papers would never get published,” he said. “They can keep me from publishing papers now, but it doesn’t matter because I already have status. But it would matter a lot if I were younger and I had a career that I was trying to make.”

In an interview with John Stossel, climate scientist Judith Curry said she paid the price for contradicting the narrative and called the global warming consensus “a manufactured consensus.”

Ms. Curry, the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, said that when she published a study that claimed hurricanes were increasing in intensity, “I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star; I was flown all over the place to meet with politicians and to give these talks, and lots of media attention.”

When several researchers questioned her findings, she investigated their claims and concluded that her critics were correct.

“Part of it was bad data; part of it was natural climate variability,” she said. But when she went public with that fact, she was shunned, she said and pushed out of academia.

Mr. Lindzen tells a similar tale, once he began to question the climate narrative.

“Funding and publication became almost impossible,” he said, “and I was holding the most distinguished chair in meteorology,” which was MIT’s Sloan Professorship of Meteorology.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser told The Epoch Times that he, too, was abruptly canceled from giving a speech on climate at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on July 25.

Mr. Clauser had stated during a previous speech at Quantum Korea 2023 that “climate change is not a crisis.”

He said that climate is a self-regulating process and that more clouds form when temperatures rise, resulting in a compensatory cooling effect. Although he agrees that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, he argued that the gas's effect on global warming is swamped by the natural cloud cycle.

However, only days before his IMF discussion was to take place, Mr. Clauser received an email indicating that the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) director, Pablo Moreno, didn't want the event to happen. An assistant who was coordinating the event wrote to Mr. Clauser: “When I arranged this the Director was very happy about it but things have evidently changed.”

The IMF’s current policy on climate change is that “large emitting countries need to introduce a carbon tax that rises quickly to $75 a ton in 2030, consistent with limiting global warming to 2° [Celcius] or less.”

[See Part 3 below; See Part 1 above].


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics); they represent a spectrum of partisan political opinion, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms")

Statement # 10 (Proposed)

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

Supporting Reasons

Part 1/ 3 [See Parts 2 & 3 below] (Belzberg Post # 1653 - 23/8/15)

Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America



Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”



“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
Modeled climate predictions (average shown by red line) versus actual observations (source: J.R. Christy, Univ. of Alabama; KNMI Climate Explorer)
“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
Why Climate Change Policies Could Be Even Worse Than the COVID Lockdowns: Andrew Montford
Play Video
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.

Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA does not have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous impact on Americans without clear direction from Congress. Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen, however, have taken a different tack, arguing that the EPA regulations fail the “State Farm” test because they are “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they stated. The case they referred to is the 2003 case of State Farm v. Campell (pdf), in which the Supreme Court argued that “a State can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment based solely upon bias or whim.”

According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures than today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are historically at a low point.
This chart shows CO2 levels (blue) and temperatures (red) over time, indicating little correlation and current levels of both at historic lows. (Source: Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese; Earth's Climate: Past and Future by Mark Peganini; Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleocene, Science magazine vol. 309.)
“The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,” they stated.

In addition, the scientists' testimony to the EPA stated that the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider the fact that CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.

“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they stated. “Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.”
Synthetic fertilizers (dotted line) have increased crop yields dramatically since their introduction. (Source: crop yields from USDA; fertilizer usage from Food Agriculture Organization).
More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they argued. In addition, synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half the world’s food production today. “Net zero” goals would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40 gigatons per year, reducing the food supply proportionally, they said.
The world's population is increasingly dependent on synthetic fertilizers, a derivative of fossil fuels. (Source: ourworldindata.org)
In addition to disregarding the benefits of CO2, they stated, the EPA’s emission rules and the global warming narrative that has been used to justify them are based on flawed data.

In addition to teaching physics at Princeton, Mr. Happer’s decades of work in physics has focused on atmospheric radiation and atmospheric turbulence, and his inventions have been used by astronomers and in national defense.

“Radiation in the atmosphere is my specialty,” Mr. Happer said, “and I know more about it than, I would guess, any climate scientists.”

His expertise, he said, “involves much of the same physics that’s involved in climate, and none of it is very alarming.”

The global warming narrative argues that as people burn fossil fuels, they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere, which absorbs sunlight and creates a “greenhouse effect,” trapping the sun’s radiation and warming the earth.

But one aspect of CO2 emissions that global warming models fail to take into account, Mr. Happer said, is a phenomenon called “saturation,” or the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere at higher concentrations.

“At the current concentrations of CO2, around 400 parts per million, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have if you took it all away,” Mr. Happer said. “So that’s enough to cause quite a bit of warming of the earth, and thank God for that; it helps make the earth habitable, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.”

“But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only one percent,” Mr. Happer said. “Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well known for a century.”
The "greenhouse effect" of additional CO2 does not increase in proportion to the amount of CO2 added (source: William Happer).
In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

[See Parts 2 & 3/3 below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Decision on Style of Discussion in this Negative Climate Change Thread



Update

Protocol # 1 - "Generally Accepted Statements" Model (Originally Proposed by Bob Armstrong, and currently in use in this group)

The Operation of the Model

a. Revision Situation

Statement on Libertarianism proposed, with Support Reasons; Dilip (A Libertarian) objects that the Statement is slightly "inaccurate" and not Libertarian policy as he understands it. So he proposes a "Revision Challenge" - he puts forward a "Revised Statement", with Reasons. So we now have two competing positions. At this point only 2 CT'ers have publicly come forward.

If other CT'ers now weigh in on each side, we get some view, at least by participants, as to the leaning of the group (We assume in our protocol, that the CT'ers not participating go with the majority....they don't care, they don't know, they are too busy to currently participate, etc. ..... the principle is that if you are part of the group, and don't like something, and don't speak up, the group is entitled to assume that you do agree).

What should the Secretary rule? My protocol is that if the weight of opinion from participation is clear (The proposer on one side; 10 participants opposing & supporting the revision), then this Statement should be rejected and replaced.....the Libertarians in the group have spoken.

What if the weight of opinion is not clear to the Group Secretary when the deadline of one week has passed?.........The Libertarians are fighting among themselves! It seems to me that neither of the competing Statements has been able to muster majority support (sigh). Since our standard that we're trying to achieve with Statements is "generally accepted by the group", the threshold has not been met.

So the decision must then be that the proposed Statement is NOT generally accepted, due to controversy within the group, and the group's, and Secretary's, knowledge that there is also "Controversy Outside the Group. Thus, first, the proposed Challenge must be dismissed (No clear Majority).

What about the Proposed Statement? Our protocol is based on the idea that when a Proposer proposes a Statement, they truly believe it to be generally accepted (Surely they would not put onto our plate a Statement they definitely knew was "Controversial"! After all, our goal is not for one side or the other to "win".....we are looking here for cooperation and agreement (Majority agreement will do; needn't be "unanimous, though that is always nice). It is given the benefit of the doubt due to our trusting our proposers. So even if there is "controversy", we have decided that we will agree, under our protocol, that the Statement IS generally accepted, and will join the list of Libertarian Statements. Of course, a Statement is always open to a "new" Revision Challenge.

b. Opposition Situation

In this case, it is not accuracy of the Statement that is the issue. It is considered an accurate Statement if no Revision Challenge has been launched.
It would also remove the administrative burden of managing challenges and revisions, allowing for a more organic flow of conversation. We could still aim for intellectual rigor and respectful debate, but the emphasis would be on the exchange of ideas rather than agreement.
But some member of the group is apoplectic that the Statement is just simply false, untenable, unworkable, not a correct Statement about the Multi-verse. So their first step is to launch an "Opposition Challenge", with Reasons (Explaining respectfully why the proposer just doesn't understand life, opposing the Statement, and tearing apart the Proposed Statement's Supporting Reasons).

Again, if there is active participation by CT'ers, the Secretary conclusion will be clear as to whether the Challenge should be dismissed.

But if the situation is unclear to the Group Secretary, what does s/he do about the proposed Statement? It has clearly failed to show majority support. We need a principle as to what to do with the proposed Statement. I suggest it should be the same as for the proposed Statement, for which there was a Revision Challenge. The Statement gets the benefit of the doubt, is generally accepted, and joins the list of Statements.

Support Reasons

A general exchange of ideas between participants of a group is very beneficial.

But it generally does not produce anything else concrete because of controversy within the group on various issues.

This Protocol # 1 invites the group a step above and beyond! It asks if, among the debate against other participants, leading to an agreement to disagree, the group can produce something more? Cooperation is proposed........come to what all commonly agree on in generally accepted Statements! This is helpful to all participants, and shows where the real sticking points are. As well, if wanted, a member can share the list of generally accepted Statements they have achieved with others, for their evaluation. It is clear that this protocol does not put forward any insurmountable task - generally accepted Statements abound here now on negative climate change, in my TRN thread on Facebook, in my Democratic Marxist Global Forum on Facebook, and here on CT in the Human Self-Government thread (On government, Libertarianism and now Democratic Marxism)......far from being insurmountable, it is being wildly successful. It is a most valuable tool in a polarized group, and in a polarized society, where all that is happening is that the two sides yell at each other, and neither side listens to the other......both sides just keep yelling, knowing they will never convert over the opposition.

This protocol is based on the belief that people of good faith can have a "conversation", be respectful despite disagreement, and agree on some things both sides believe to be true. AND they can remain friends, and go have a beer together.

The free expression of ideas, as is usual in social media formats, is in no way removed.......put forward your opinions.

It is true, perhaps, that this does alter somewhat the flow of discussion (It has not done that here......lots of opposing views). But if something "concrete" is being produced, along with free discussion, then the inconvenience to the flow of discussion seems acceptable, and worthwhile.

Protocol # 2 - "Free Form Discussion" Protocol (Proposed by Sid Belzberg - Post # 1692 - 23/8/26)

Each participant can express their views fully, sometimes in opposition, without the necessity of trying to reach majority agreement Statements.

Support Reasons

This protocol better allows participants to engage in rich, nuanced conversations about complex issues.This protocol aims for intellectual rigour and respectful debate, with the emphasis on the exchange of ideas (rather than on agreement).

It would also remove the administrative burden of managing challenges and revisions, allowing for a more organic flow of conversation.

It may be an insurmountable challenge to find statements that are truly "generally accepted."

Decision to Be Made by CT'ers

Which Protocol is preferred by you? And why?

Processing

There will be one week for comments (Deadline: Sat., Sept. 2 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Consequences of Outstanding Vote on Protocol Adoption

The following Statements are put on hold until there is a decision on this issue:

Statement # 10 (Proposed)

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it,we would be a dead planet.

Once a decision is made on which Protocol the CT'ers here are going to adopt, a new one-week deadline will apply to all 3 Statements re dealing with Challenges, if any.

[Note re Statement # 6:

Statement # 6

Original Statement (Proposed)


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.]

Revision Statement (Proposed)

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Since the deadline for the processing of Statement # 6 is already upon us (Midnight tonight), this Statement will not be affected by the Protocol Choice pending.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics); they represent a spectrum of partisan political opinion, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms")

Statement # 9

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Processing

There was an Opposition Challenge to this Statement # 9.

But within one week, not one CT'er came forward with a "Supplement to Challenge Reasons".

Conclusion

Under our Protocol, which gives an initially proposed Statement the benefit of the doubt that it is generally accepted, subject to processing, Statement # 9 is generally accepted and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob G., is this what is really bothering you ? (you put it right on the top in your post).
I thought you would say: if false, the climate would really suffer...
Instead of having sympathy for the fuel industry which is being attacked all around by well-meaning as well as ill-meaning entities, you are dismayed at the possibility of them getting a respite, even if it is true that CO2 is not the culprit...
Please explain!
If you meant to convey that "if everybody 'wrongly' believes that it is true, the fuel industry would benefit, and hence you suspect that they are spreading this 'false' notion", that would be an expected statement, but the statement as you put it really surprises me …

Explain! What?

I think my comments are easy to understand. I will pass on your kind invitation to explain myself.

Give it some thought if you wish, or just ignore me. That's okay.
It's a nice cool 14 degrees out this morning, so I am heading over to Tim's for a coffee.

Have a nice day.

[Dilip Panjwani]

It has been child's play to destruct LIbertarian viewpoints

That is what you and Bob A try to convince yourselves of... in Bob's case it is because he is subconsciously afraid of losing his love of democratic Marxism, and the reason in your case I have already mentioned a number of times...

[Dilip Panjwani]

"Generally accepted" is as meaningless today as it was in times of persecuting Galileo for not conforming with "generally accepted." Science does not progress with the "generally accepted." 20+ million people are now dead from the adverse events of slow-kill bioweapons aka "vaccines" These, too were "generally accepted".

And dear Bob A, please read this para by Sid carefully to understand that making Marxism democratic does not make it much better than non-democratic Marxism....

[Dilip Panjwani]

If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
As the church lady says, "how convenient".

.

Bob G., is this what is really bothering you ? (you put it right on the top in your post).
I thought you would say: if false, the climate would really suffer...
Instead of having sympathy for the fuel industry which is being attacked all around by well-meaning as well as ill-meaning entities, you are dismayed at the possibility of them getting a respite, even if it is true that CO2 is not the culprit...
Please explain!
If you meant to convey that "if everybody 'wrongly' believes that it is true, the fuel industry would benefit, and hence you suspect that they are spreading this 'false' notion", that would be an expected statement, but the statement as you put it really surprises me …

[Sid Belzberg]

This information is from an anonymous contributor. It describes the evidence from the GIS (Geographic Information System) of extreme precision and selectivity of the Lahaina fire. It also points to the plans of potentially moving all low-income residents off their properties and into a concentration camp, ahem, a 15-minute city.

GIS system is a computer system for capturing, storing, checking, and displaying data related to positions on Earth’s surface. GIS can show many different kinds of data on one map, such as streets, buildings, and vegetation. This enables people to more easily see, analyze, and understand patterns and relationships. US Government has all these data layers in extreme detail for all developed areas in the country.

As of today (Aug 25, 2023) if you navigate your web browser to Google Maps, select "satellite view", then select "globe view". It appears that the aerial imagery was recently updated to reflect the damage from the recent "event", that took place in Lahaina Hawaii earlier this August. Out of curiosity I also looked at GIS information on Lahaina, (link below) and wanted to see if there is correlation between damaged structures and particular zoning. I found some interesting things here.

GISLink: https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Ap...e=450210130000

Starting at the North end of Lahaina, I see the Fire Station, Courthouse, Civic center, Police Station where all spared from fire damage despite very clear fire damage to surrounding undeveloped land around these buildings.

What I found interesting is the surrounding undeveloped land with extensive fire damage, are parcels owned by "Department of Hawaiian Homelands", "Housing Finance and Dev Corp", which both appear to be the same and fall under Hawaii's HUD authority. HUD appears own property running south from the civic center down to the Lahaina Bypass.

Everything west of HUD owned parcels are hundreds of small residential lots which where all destroyed seemingly from fires on originating from that HUD land.

Only a small home community was spared and appears intact between Leiali Pkwy and Kaniau Road. Interesting thing about this community is it appears to fall
Under HUD authority as well!

Large inland parcels south of the Lahaina Bypass are owned by large developers and trusts, and everything west of these parcels were hundreds of small residential lots which were all destroyed as well.

What’s most interesting about looking at the aerial imagery, is that amongst the destruction are various structures still standing with green grass & green trees, nearly right up to edge or property line. Looking at GIS data & street view some don't make sense, as a few have all wood construction! In other cases, condo complexes that appear to be of concrete construction, completely destroyed.

The large commercial area in the center of Lahaina appears to be untouched, the schools on eastern end of Lahaina also appear untouched. This could also very well be due to the construction of these buildings.

A standout of precise destruction is a cluster of what appear to be recently constructed townhomes and condominiums, called "Kahoma Village". The entire community appears intact, intact homes, green grass. Yet four of the buildings in the center completely destroyed, with cars in the adjacent parking areas looking untouched.

Overall if you're in a residential zone, commercial mixed use, industrial, hotel zone, damage or destruction is heavy. It appears the government is assigning a "Destroyed 823" code to a lot of these parcels as well.

I can't help but notice the destruction of buildings is almost following the property lines, even extents of building exteriors. It would be akin to clicking a parcel or structure in GIS and selecting the "terminate" option.

I was looking at this more last night and discovered some drone footage uploaded earlier this week. 18 min of drone footage taken the day after:



Footage is mainly the southern end of Lahaina:

-At 2:05 you can see the Komoha Village I referenced. 4 buildings burned to the ground, yet no evidence of surrounding damage to remaining buildings fully intact. Buildings to the right don’t even have soot on the roof or burned shingles! I’m guessing this complex was being built sometime after March 2020 based on parcel data.

-At 2:18 he flies drone south over front street apartments, according to GIS these are low-income homes completely destroyed.

-At 2:32 he’s flying east, structure on the left in foreground was formally a 4-story condo complex. On the top left of the screen on background you see new homes being constructed, this is on HUD owned land according to parcel map.

-At 4:42 he’s now flying south; you see the fully intact Lahaina Shores beach resort. Directly north to this resort was formally a bunch of small businesses in two story structures you can see on street view. Appears the only thing remaining is the elevator shaft. What’s interesting about this is according to GIS, Lahaina Shores also owned this but had their parcel subdivided into hotel & historic. The structure sat on historic, yet the hotel is fine. Still, I see no smoke damage, heat damage, nor soot on the hotel.

I was looking more at GIS map as well. Looks like there is a right of way cutout for the Lahaina bypass to continue north at some point. In addition, the road adjacent to the gov building is called Lelali Pkwy and looks designed to handle high traffic. If I continue on GIS map north into Kaanapali, parcels owned by private developers appear the have a right of way for a roadway that could connected to Lahaina bypass.

What’s unique about this is the infrastructure of this town is intact. The gov buildings are fine, all roadways are fine and usable. Bridges are intact. The water treatment plant on top of the hill adjacent to school (east end of Lahaina) is fine. School is intact. The substation and solar farm next to school are intact. The commercial area and new low-income homes being built off Lahaina bypass are fine. Wastewater treatment plant appears to be north of Lahaina in Kaanapali is intact. Essentially, it’s a turnkey community ready to be “redeveloped”. I call it weaponized GIS, because to me it looks like parcels and buildings were clicked and destroyed in a GUI program (much like they would be in my CAD programs).

My 2 cents: government signs emergency order to rezone the agri land owned by HUD on northeast end of Lahaina, all the displaced indigenous and low-income residents are put there. The is all expediated due to urgent need for homes. All the land west of them adjacent to the water is redeveloped into condos to pay for the project. Residents are hit with some kind of “hazardous environment fee” to financially prevent them from rebuilding their property. The other partially destroyed condo complexes file massive insurance claims for damaged buildings. New structures will also have to conform to some kind of environmental sustainability regulations which will also be cost prohibitive to low-income native residents. Aside from the water, the community has two main points to enter and exit, residents have their very own new 15-minute city.

https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p...m_medium=email

[Sid Belzberg]

[Sid Belzberg]

I think statement # 10 is outrageous.

If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
As the church lady says, "how convenient".

In recent weeks, I've just been scrolling thru this thread mostly out of curiosity. There really is no point in arguing with Sid, he is not going to convince me, and I am not going to convince him. I have more productive ways to spend my time. Some of the debate has been interesting, I'll give you that. But statement #10, c'mon?

I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

So, instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.
I am probably not going to say anything more, so good luck with your debate.

If you have evidence that refutes peer-reviewed science, please show it to me. "Generally accepted" is as meaningless today as it was in times of persecuting Galileo for not conforming with "generally accepted." Science does not progress with the "generally accepted." 20+ million people are now dead from the adverse events of slow-kill bioweapons aka "vaccines" These, too were "generally accepted".

I could not give a damn about what is considered "generally accepted statements" by those who cite health problems that do not enable them to listen to viewpoints that do not conform with their views. What is your excuse BobG?

[Bob Gillanders]

Group Secretary Ruling

Statement # 10

[B]Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

I think statement # 10 is outrageous.

If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
As the church lady says, "how convenient".

In recent weeks, I've just been scrolling thru this thread mostly out of curiosity. There really is no point in arguing with Sid, he is not going to convince me, and I am not going to convince him. I have more productive ways to spend my time. Some of the debate has been interesting, I'll give you that. But statement #10, c'mon?

I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

So instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.
I am probably not going to say anything more, so good luck with your debate.

[Bob Armstrong]

Group Secretary Ruling

Statement # 10

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

Statement # 11

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it,we would be a dead planet.

Both Statements # 10 & # 11 deal with the issue of CO2.

But this group is also dealing with a related earlier Statement # 6:

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.]

This Statement # 6 is now subject to a Revision Challenge. The proposed Revised Statement is:

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

Comment

All deal in some way with CO2. We should avoid any inconsistent Statements on CO2.

Secretary Ruling

There will be set a new one week deadline for dealing with Statements # 10 & # 11, both currently under Challenge. The date of starting of the new one week processing for these Statements will be the date of the determination of the fate of Statement # 6.

[Note: This ruling in no way affects the processing of proposed Statement # 9 of Sid Belzberg; the deadline for additional challenges to that of Bob Armstrong (
As Participant) still stands: 11:59 PM EDT tonight (Monday, Aug. 28)]

Processing

There will be one week to Challenge this Secretary Ruling extending the deadlines for processing Statements # 10 & # 11; deadline: Monday, Sept. 4 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Only after this Ruling is settled, will the new deadlines for one week processing for Statements # 6, # 10 & # 11 be reset.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)