Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Dilip Panjwani]

The Attempt to Ferret Out "Truth/Fact"

You have defined their Reasons as "opinions". This is very ambiguous.

Bob A (As Participant)

Bob,
There are always reasons behind opinions (unless one is trolling). But still opinions could be wrong or non-determinable. So you cannot say that two persons having some opinion should be 'accepted' as an 'agreement' (consensus, in your terms), ignoring the possibly correct opinion of the minority of one person....
This is why Sid also wishes to step back... despite your truly sincere efforts on this process.

[Bob Armstrong]

The Outlier

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1700 - 23/8/26

"In Libertarianism all what a troll would end up with is paying an appropriate compensation to those whose 'process' (like your statements-building effort) they disrupt with deliberately non-sensical (hence called trolling) arguments..."

My Response

I am a Democratic Marxist. I like to believe I am not a troll, but a contributor to my society.

I have very many detractors in society........I have been called "The Scourge of the Earth". I have been accused of being unnecessarily disruptive by making both Statements of Fact and Statements of Opinion. I have been told talking to me is a waste of time......I am a waste of space . My Statements have on occasion been deemed "deliberately nonsensical" (I come within your definition of a "troll").

In the current Capitalist society of Canada, fortunately, I do have free speech, and I am entitled to march to my own drummer. I have never had a court case launched against me for my speech or writing (No Libel [Published]; No Slander [Oral]).....not yet anyway..........though my Fb page just got a warning from Mark that somehow my TRN group is breaching Fb Standards ????

It sounds like under a Libertarian government, I am going to be making all kinds of "compensation payments" to my peers (sigh) who believe that I am harming them, somehow, and that the Natural Law is not going to protect me.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

The Attempt to Ferret Out "Truth/Fact"

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1699 - 23/8/26

(Edited slightly) "[A member of our CT Group proposes a Statement, with Reasons, that they believe to be generally accepted on negative climate change [or the issue could be, for example, whether Libertarianism would lead to more court-time or less]. One person supports the Statement with Reasons. One person Challenges the Statement.] Result: 2 persons in the group (Proposer and Supporter) support the Statement, using only "opinions"; 1 person opposes the Statement (also using opinions). Question: Would that speaking up by the two supporters (The majority) mean anything worthwhile to anyone?"

My Response

You have defined their Reasons as "opinions". This is very ambiguous.

It is generally accepted in science that all "Fact Statements" [ E.g. Unicorns exist] are simply what we believe to be true at this date. We have drawn this conclusion based on all available scientific and experiential evidence we have been able to gather together. Such Statements are always tentative - open to challenge as new inconsistent data emerges. But their main characteristic is that they are extensively "evidence-based". So we call these Statements, with the evidence as Reasons, "Statements of Fact".

"Opinion" is quite different.

Definition - https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/ - "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

So you are maintaining that all CT'er Statements/Reasons are mere "opinion". You hold that we CT'ers never research, have no expertise, don't go to scientific sources, and have neither fact nor knowledge when we say something. Basically we are ignoramuses blathering words together, meaning nothing.

I can only ask that you look at your elitism.

The Work of this CT Negative Climate Change Group

The Statements we have produced on negative climate change have been lauded by a number of my friends as "great" and "keep the process going". I guess they also know nothing, and it is just "opinion".....no facts or knowledge there....nope!

Bottom Line - CT'ers in our group often compose very good scientific Statements of Fact (Not just mere opinions).
[Note: Sid's Statements and Supporting Reasons have to be broken into parts, given the character limitation for a post on CT, given they are so extensive. I may think he is using bad scientific research, or that he is misinterpreting it. But I do believe that Sid believes his Statements are "Statements of Fact" (Not just mere opinion). He is a good researcher and uses many citations of his sources. He castigates me regularly for ignoring his "factual information". As a matter of fact, I often assume Sid's facts are correct, and if so, I usually see this as problematic, since we are often on opposite sides of an issue. The task is how to position facts, what is the context, are they complete, are they significant on the issue in play, etc?]

Bob A (As Participant)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

Libertarians believe that Pargat Perrer (And maybe others who the Libertarians determine to be trolls) should, in this CT thread on negative climate change:

1. Have his posts retroactively deleted/with no right to post in the future - reason - his posts never make any valid contribution, he is only trying to cause trouble, and always is just wasting the time of this CT group?

2. Be banned from the CT negative climate change thread forever (Even if other CT'ers in the group, and elsewhere on CT, believe he sometimes does have legitimate contributions)?

3. Have his membership in CT revoked, and be forever banned from rejoining?

No. These three actions would be reasonable only in a system we now have (a strange mix of Capitalism, Socialism bordering on Marxism, and neo-Fascism). In Libertarianism all what a troll would end up with is paying an appropriate compensation to those whose 'process' (like your statements-building effort) they disrupt with deliberately non-sensical (hence called trolling) arguments...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Sid & Dilip:

1. By "consensus" do you both mean what I want to reach for "SOME" Statements, "general acceptance by the majority of a group"? I say time and time again ad nauseam that I do not seek "unanimity" (Though that is nice to achieve when possible).


2. If yes, why are the two of you against a group managing to reach, for SOME Statements, general acceptance? The Statements are definitely enlightening to those with little knowledge of the issue. I have sent friends of mine the various lists of various Statements, and the unanimous result has been: "These Statements are great!" and "Keep these projects going!" Yes it takes both time and effort to compose these Statements. Are you both saying that the groups that have adopted the Conversation Format are just wasting their time? That they should never have adopted it? That the Statements the groups, through sweat and tears, have made, are not worth the pixels to show them on any monitor?

3. Intelligently composed generally accepted Statements, with scientific sources, have nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with science. And people are sorting out which scientists are doing real science, and which scientists are prostrating themselves to some ideology.

4. We'd be making some fu*king progress " in both the pandemic and climate change in the wider public discourse [Sid's words]" if they adopted TCFP instead of both sides just yelling at each other, and demonstrating against each other with sloganeering placards.

Bob A (As Participant and originator of "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)

Bob, if 2 support a statement using only opinions, and 1 opposes it (also using opinions), as in the issue of weather Libertarianism would lead to more court-time or less, would that 'agreement' (your consensus) by the majority mean anything worthwhile to anyone?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Some little questions...........



So..........Libertarians fight for freedoms.......and, especially free speech? Right?

BUT.........

Libertarians believe that Pargat Perrer (And maybe others who the Libertarians determine to be trolls) should, in this CT thread on negative climate change:

1. Have his posts retroactively deleted/with no right to post in the future - reason - his posts never make any valid contribution, he is only trying to cause trouble, and always is just wasting the time of this CT group?

2. Be banned from the CT negative climate change thread forever (Even if other CT'ers in the group, and elsewhere on CT, believe he sometimes does have legitimate contributions)?

3. Have his membership in CT revoked, and be forever banned from rejoining?

Dilip....do you see nothing wrong with this picture?

If you are not saying this, then please be more concise in your posts, and advise us what you do mean re the participation in groups of individuals who someone considers a "troll" (And I have seen you operate quite independently of Sid, at times).

Bob A (Somewhat surprised CT'er, who just contributed time and effort to compile a good set of STATEMENTS on Libertarianism, which generally imply good intentions on the part of this particular political philosophy)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid & Dilip:

1. By "consensus" do you both mean what I want to reach for "SOME" Statements, "general acceptance by the majority of a group"? I say time and time again ad nauseam that I do not seek "unanimity" (Though that is nice to achieve when possible).


2. If yes, why are the two of you against a group managing to reach, for SOME Statements, general acceptance? The Statements are definitely enlightening to those with little knowledge of the issue. I have sent friends of mine the various lists of various Statements, and the unanimous result has been: "These Statements are great!" and "Keep these projects going!" Yes it takes both time and effort to compose these Statements. Are you both saying that the groups that have adopted the Conversation Format are just wasting their time? That they should never have adopted it? That the Statements the groups, through sweat and tears, have made, are not worth the pixels to show them on any monitor?

3. Intelligently composed generally accepted Statements, with scientific sources, have nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with science. And people are sorting out which scientists are doing real science, and which scientists are prostrating themselves to some ideology.

4. We'd be making some fu*king progress " in both the pandemic and climate change in the wider public discourse [Sid's words]" if they adopted TCFP instead of both sides just yelling at each other, and demonstrating against each other with sloganeering placards.

Bob A (As Participant and originator of "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)")

[Dilip Panjwani]

the emphasis would be on the exchange of ideas rather than agreement.

And what purpose would 'agreement' serve, anyway? After all, we are not in a Democratic Marxism society (thankfully) where there has to be an agreement on every aspect of our complex lives which everyone has to acknowledge and abide by (in other words, a myriad of unnecessary and often contradictory laws, helping only the lying lawyers)…

[Dilip Panjwani]

Sorry Bob, but the whole essence of your approach, "consensus," has now been abused in both the pandemic and climate
change in the wider public discourse.
Consensus has zero to do with science and everything to do with politics. I am no longer interested in participating.

And also Bob, trolling must be making your task very frustrating, as you cannot make the troll pay for wasting everyone's time...

[Sid Belzberg]

trying to reach majority agreement Statements.

Sorry Bob, but the whole essence of your approach, "consensus," has now been abused in both the pandemic and climate
change in the wider public discourse.
Consensus has zero to do with science and everything to do with politics. I am no longer interested in participating.

[Bob Armstrong]

Decision on Style of Discussion in this Negative Climate Change Thread



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).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid:

1. "Controversy within the Group" - it is true that you and I seem to be the main conversationalists and Statement Producers at the moment. But others have also participated actively in the past - Bob Gillanders, Dilip Panjwani, Pargat Perrer, Fred Harvey, and some others (Sorry if any name has slipped my very bad memory). Then, there are daily about 40 CT viewers who have not come forward to participate, but are obviously feeling that it is worth their time, and the few extra clicks, to keep up with the Negative Climate Change issue (This is most common on many social platforms......silence does not mean non-interest.....some prefer to avoid "conflict", while others seem to get a rush from it ; some CT'er in this category might let me know if I am right on this point). So, though I agree that the "Controversy" seems to be that the two of us have a few /many differing opinions and seem often in opposing camps that already exist in society, we do reflect a larger controversial conversation going on in the world. So I don't think we can just simply reduce the issue to our little differing of opinions!

2. "Discrepancy" in Secretarial Approach to Statements - I acknowledge that when I wrote that particular reason (Controversial - no common statement possible), I had a flash of concern about it, but didn't know what it was, so charged on. The difficulty, I think, is our taking on Challenging both by Revision Challenge, and by Opposition Challenge.....they are different animals, though appearing similar.

So let's examine:

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.

Secretary's Question

We must have some principle to guide the Secretary from this group in declaring "Conclusions" on behalf of the group. Does the above protocol satisfy the majority of this group re a 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.

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.

Secretary's Question

We must have some principle to guide the Secretary from this group in declaring "Conclusions" on behalf of the group. Does the above protocol satisfy the majority of this group re an Opposition Challenge?

[Note: Sid asked for a discussion on the Protocol. I hope this launches a good one.

But Sid also raised whether our Protocol was being inconsistently applied in the case of my comments on procedure re Statement # 9. Once we are agreed on the protocol, and I have firm direction, then I will answer Sid's 2nd concern.]

Processing: There is one week for determining guidance for me by settling our Protocol (Deadline: Saturday, Sept. 2 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Hi Bob ,

After following the detailed protocols and the discussions around them, I've started to wonder if the attempt to reach "generally accepted statements" might actually be hindering the primary objective of this group: to engage in rich, nuanced conversations about complex issues.

Given the limited number of active participants and the wide range of opinions—both within this group and in the wider public—it may be an insurmountable challenge to find statements that are truly "generally accepted."

Here's my proposal: What if we switch to a free-form discussion model? This would allow each participant to express their views fully without the necessity of arriving at a consensus. 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.

I believe this could open up the dialogue, encourage more participation, and possibly be more engaging for the silent observers among us.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

1. "Controversy within the Group" - it is true that you and I seem to be the main conversationalists and Statement Producers at the moment. But others have also participated actively in the past - Bob Gillanders, Dilip Panjwani, Pargat Perrer, Fred Harvey, and some others (Sorry if any name has slipped my very bad memory). Then, there are daily about 40 CT viewers who have not come forward to participate, but are obviously feeling that it is worth their time, and the few extra clicks, to keep up with the Negative Climate Change issue (This is most common on many social platforms......silence does not mean non-interest.....some prefer to avoid "conflict", while others seem to get a rush from it ; some CT'er in this category might let me know if I am right on this point). So, though I agree that the "Controversy" seems to be that the two of us have a few /many differing opinions and seem often in opposing camps that already exist in society, we do reflect a larger controversial conversation going on in the world. So I don't think we can just simply reduce the issue to our little differing of opinions!

2. "Discrepancy" in Secretarial Approach to Statements - I acknowledge that when I wrote that particular reason (Controversial - no common statement possible), I had a flash of concern about it, but didn't know what it was, so charged on. The difficulty, I think, is our taking on Challenging both by Revision Challenge, and by Opposition Challenge.....they are different animals, though appearing similar.

So let's examine:

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.

Secretary's Question

We must have some principle to guide the Secretary from this group in declaring "Conclusions" on behalf of the group. Does the above protocol satisfy the majority of this group re a 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.

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.

Secretary's Question

We must have some principle to guide the Secretary from this group in declaring "Conclusions" on behalf of the group. Does the above protocol satisfy the majority of this group re an Opposition Challenge?

[Note: Sid asked for a discussion on the Protocol. I hope this launches a good one.

But Sid also raised whether our Protocol was being inconsistently applied in the case of my comments on procedure re Statement # 9. Once we are agreed on the protocol, and I have firm direction, then I will answer Sid's 2nd concern.]

Processing: There is one week for determining guidance for me by settling our Protocol (Deadline: Saturday, Sept. 2 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid's Statement # 9 is not generally accepted It is subject to controversy outside, and inside, this group. Statement # 9 should be stricken from the list of Statements.
"Thank you for your input on this important matter, Bob. However, I'd like to point out a discrepancy in your approach. The criterion you use to strike off Statement #9—namely, 'controversy outside and within the group'—appears to be inconsistently applied. One must question whether this is a universally agreed-upon criterion or one that you're employing selectively when a statement challenges your perspective.

Furthermore, the term 'controversy within the group' seems to be narrowly defined in this context as disagreement between you and me. That's not an adequate representation of 'group consensus.' If we're collecting statements that are generally accepted, then we should either rigorously define what 'generally accepted' means or ensure a more democratic process for determining which statements meet that criteria.

Would you be open to discussing a more structured methodology for including or excluding statements?"

[Sid Belzberg]

https://vigilantnews.com/post/why-ar...s-is-behind-it


Why Are There So Many Fires? Dr. David Martin Unveils What He Thinks Is Behind It


These fires may just be the smoke signals of a bigger problem lurking beneath the flames.
By
The Vigilant Fox
The whole world seems like it's on fire. Fires are ravaging Maui, Canada, Greece, France—you name it. But when you dig deeper, something's off. Government mismanagement, questionable land acquisitions, and even newly minted laws raise eyebrows. Are we witnessing a bad wave of natural, runaway wildfires, or is there something else going on?

Maps lit up with fire indicators tell a worrying story; this is a global crisis, affecting our air, our health, and potentially, our future. We're not just talking about isolated events or simple accidents. The world's attention needs to be on this issue because when you connect the dots, it's evident that these fires may just be the smoke signals of a bigger problem lurking beneath the flames.
So, what's really fueling these fires, and who stands to gain from the ashes?


Seth Holehouse, AKA Man in America, invited technologist and entrepreneur Dr. David Martin to his program recently. Dr. Martin suggested that this wave of fires is not just a mere natural calamity, but that a deeper, darker agenda is at play.

Dr. Martin made an intriguing comparison between the current series of forest fires and historical events like the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression. While popular narratives label the Dust Bowl as an environmental catastrophe, Dr. Martin argues that it was actually a banking crisis aimed at crippling family farms to benefit industrial agriculture.
A farmer and his two sons during a dust storm in Cimarron County, Oklahoma, April 1936. Iconic photo entitled "Dust Bowl Cimarron County, Oklahoma" taken by Arthur Rothstein. Credit: Wikipedia.
When you observe the puzzling behavior of those leading the scare campaign about CO2 emissions, it's strange to see them allowing forest fires to ignite and spread unchecked. It makes you question their intentions, considering we've always been told that carbon dioxide is harmful. So why are they contributing to increased CO2 levels by allowing trees, which absorb carbon, to be destroyed?
“Well, the answer is land reappropriation,” Dr. Martin concluded.


“That's what it's about. It's about reappropriating land. And the best way to reappropriate land is to have a fire. That has been the case since the Old Testament. So, this is not a new thing. This has been around for thousands and thousands of years. When humans cannot win on a fair playing field, they use fire. And they use fire to destroy an old appropriation of land and reappropriate it to a new use.”

“There's no question that what is going on in Canada right now is a massive, massive, massive land grab,” continued Dr. Martin, “where the state will come in its largesse and propose new development of what? Of things that will be pro-state. That's not a human recovery.”

“And by the way, as much as Maui may or may not be the sum of a series of electrical failures, there is no question that the power systems in Maui were not managed to diminish the risk of fire. We will not say, and I will not say they necessarily intentionally set them. I'm not going to get into that conversation. What I will say is that very simple safety protocols, like if lines are down, don't send energy back into a down line. Those kinds of things were not done. So, were some of those fires, without question, at least negligently set? The answer is without question. The evidence is unambiguous. And by the way, even NPR talks about that evidence.”

“So the fact is we know that what we have is a situation where this ongoing campaign of terror is about reallocating, redistributing, and reappropriating resources into state control,” Dr. Martin concluded. “And there's no question that that's what happened in Maui. There's no question that's what's happening in Canada. And there's no question that that's what's happening in fires that are going on all around the world, remarkably, in places where climate change activists say they're the most concerned with climate change. They're pumping CO2 into the air. So, this hypocrisy is necessary to create the cognitive dissonance.”

Dr. Martin’s full interview with Seth Holehouse is available to watch via the video below:

Want to see more content like this? Subscribe to Vigilant News below to receive updates on the latest and most newsworthy stories.