Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

There are many problems with PR, not the least of which is that rural areas will always have their interests subordinated to the prejudices of city dwellers. The idea that political power is some sort of popularity contest is both simplistic and dangerous.
3
PR is not fair. It results in city dwellers dictating what happens in rural areas for one thing. Constituency interests have to be protected in a democracy.
2
@barrywebber100 But PR would make a political opinion the sole criteria for representation. The present system is pretty fair. Power shifts from party to party according to performance and although it is true that minority parties do not get a look in, under PR having one or two right-wing or left-wing extremists in Parliament is a recipe for chaos when you think about it.
1
@maxwild1212 Am I? I hadn't realised.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 It's a close run thing, I admit; but PR is essentially a clumsier form of government than the one we have at present. As a member of the " if it ain't broke why mend it brigade" I am suspicious of the motives for change. In the present climate it might well be to Labour's advantage to alter the system but if Labour did get in and then fuck up big time (perish the thought) then such a strategy could well rebound on them. City dwellers increasingly outnumber us country mice and some of them do seem more than slightly insane. I fear the consequences of even more pink-haired climate crisis loonies having a hand in rural affairs than they do at present. Obviously the democratic process requires the electorate to be divided into sections of some sort, but to make that division down to the bone, as it were, at make those units individual persons is probably asking for trouble.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 Minority power? I don't think so. Survival, more like. Electing a government isn't some kind of glorified TV talent show where the winners are chosen by the amount of applause they get. It's far more serious than that. I'm afraid I have come to the conclusion that man-made global warming is a magnificent scam, no more. There is no empirical evidence, only theories and shamelessly manipulated data. It is a con trick whereby an immensely powerful elite is manipulating woolly-minded socialists and other do-gooders into supporting a strategy which will enable them to re-structure capitalism and make even more money on the way by playing the carbon futures market.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 Have you come across Patrick Moore's new book yet? It seems to state the case pretty clearly. You must be aware that there is a considerable body of scientific opinion which casts doubts on various aspects of AGW - and does so for purely scientific reasons. The proponents of the notion, on the other hand, have powerful geo-political reasons for doing so. The kindest interpretation is that yes, fossil fuels will run out one day and carbon scare is one very good way of achieving the transition to whatever we can come up with to replace them. Considering that not a single one of the doomladen predictions has come to pass in forty years the strategy is working very well. The psuedo-science which props AGW up is quite cunningly constructed and several generations of "climate scientists" have been well trained in how to repeat the experiments. The fact remains, however, that the world is warming entirely in accord with cyclic patterns and that the icecaps are not melting and sea levels are not rising and temperatures 1,000 years ago appear to be a degree and more higher than they are today. The only way this situation can be made to appear not to be the case is by altering data, which is done on a regular basis. In the meantime governments can increase their incomes via carbon taxes and speculators can make millions overnight by fixing the price of permissions to exceed carbon emission limits. Have you ever wondered why we always talk about NET zero emissions, by the way? What do you imagine the gross is? I like your last sentence. Your inner Stalinist is showing.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 Well you got me on the last one! JFK??! Really, what was the context I wonder? I see you are doing the usual trick of defaming the messenger without listening to the message. You will probably do the same about Tony Heller while ignoring the hours of proof he presents of data alteration or the historical records and newspaper reports he collates clearly showing that weather conditions were hotter and generally more severe in the 1890's and 1930's than they are today. I expect you would like to see all opposition to the climate crisis scam airbrushed out of history. I see too that you are still stuck on the myth that the fossil fuel industry is in some way opposed to the green economy. Of course it isn't. These industries are heavily involved in wind farms, solar panels and so on. It's called diversification. At climate change conferences the car parks are packed with the Jags and Mercs of oil company executives while the eco-warriors electric cars huddle in a corner. There really isn't such a thing as climate science - it was invented back in the eighties as a vehicle to push the new creed, itself resulting from decisions taken a decade or two earlier by the forerunners of today's World Economic Forum. It works very well. To be a climate scientist you just have to believe in AGW and take it from there. To believe in it without making a living out of it is just plain foolishness.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 As I predicted, all you can do is attempt to disparage the character of those who oppose you, rather than respond to their opinions. Skeptical Science (what an Orwellian name that is) is just another one of those establishment "fact checkers" which is designed to keep you sheepies munching grass in the meadow. It doesn't matter what you say about Tony Heller, the facts he presents are overwhelming. The graphs he shows clearly demonstrate decades of data manipulation. The newspaper cuttings demonstrate the utter failure of all climate crisis predictions, as well as the clear existence of lengthy heatwaves in the recent past. It is quite astonishingly easy to persuade large amounts of people to believe the most arrant nonsense. The techniques are well-established. It is how religions work and the climate "crisis" has become a religion. As long as the leaders of a cult are motivated enough the process is self generating. Hitler and Lenin did it and while Michael Mann isn't as bright as either of them he and his buddies are doing a fair job. (Have you read his latest by the way? It is jaw-droppingly bad.) You couldn't get today's climate scientists and their supporters to stop believing in AGW any more than you could stop medieval monks from believing in God and hell, or Germans in the 1930's from believing the Jews were the source of the nation's ills. The more insane the ideology and the more its predictions turn out to be false, the more fanatical its adherents become. These tens of thousands of climate scientists aren't making things up for money. They believe as medieval monks believed and Nazis believed, because it is what they have been taught and extensive "proofs" have been put before them. The fact that their livelihoods depend upon their loyalty does help considerably of course. The politicians also know what side their bread is buttered on and the speculators don't care either way. As long as the miracle of placing a scarcity value on permissions to exceed carbon outputs is there, they have a new currency to trade with. More than gold or the mighty dollar carbon certificates are the basis of the new order's economy and as long as gullible souls in their millions hold true to the creed they will continue to rake it the cash, while at the same time effecting total control over public behaviour.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 The great majority of "established" scientific theories get proved wrong at one time or another. The situation is especially grave at the moment due to the politicisation of science and problems of reproducibility and so on. Any departures from doctrine are actively discouraged. Have you ever watched a Tony Heller video at all? He cherry picks - not to deceive but to enlighten. He has the original data and shows how new "data" is introduced to make the past cooler and the present warmer. Okay, you can say that temperature data before 1980 or so is suspect because of equipment etc, but then to say the temperature now is such and such and that according to our theory the temperature back then should be so and so is just not the right way to set about things, is it? Even modern satellite data been altered because the original figures showed no warming over a ten year period. There is just so much evidence pointing to the fraud. Tens of thousands of people died of heatstroke in the 1890's and 1930's. Air-conditioning can be the sole answer to that conundrum! The Danes are stubbornly resisting the ridiculous claims about Greenland and insist that ice-core samples show it was 1.5 degrees colder a thousand years ago than it is today. I was much amused recently when a climate hysteria channel revealed that this year the cherry blossom in Tokyo came out a day earlier this year than any other year since 1408 or somesuch. Of course it did. That was the height on the Medieval Warm Period in the Pacific. A team from Switzerland has been mapping the MWP for decades and discovered that the northern hemisphere heated first and the heat was transported slowly south by deep ocean currents. Cosmic events of which we still have little understanding and the behaviour of the earth's various inner layers in relation to them are what cause changes in temperature, not farting cows and belching chimneys. Your creed is mumbo jumbo, got up to benefit the rich and misdirect the rabble. It is not science at all.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 But everyone "cherry picks" when presenting an argument. My point is that blatant alteration of data is another matter. And even if there is no alteration (which clearly there is) then a responsible scientific body should explain why and how the alterations have been made. They should explain why they only select one section of a graph to demonstrate global warming but when the camera pans out the picture looks very different indeed. For a commentator such as Heller there might be some excuse for such behaviour. There is no excuse for a public body to behave in this fashion. The evidence is clear. Interpretation is constantly and shamefully biased towards the climate crisis narrative. Your first paragraph applies exactly to organisations such as NASA and NOAA. I am aware of the explanations offered for the alterations and shifts of emphasis but they are generally as shallow and facile as your ridiculous explanations why tens of thousands died in lengthy heatwaves in the 1930's as opposed to the 2-700 a year who die in the much shorter and less severe heatwaves we experience at present.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 My balls are truly aching to realise that you are trained to recognise the symptoms of heatstroke while supervising activities at a summer camp and are thus competent to judge the effect of severe heatwaves occurring in the first part of the last century. But lets put that aside. Lets put Tony Heller aside. Lets forget the ritual whereby data is offered to the world, along with the algorithms used to interpret it, and how amazing it is that such similar results are obtained and how all the clever, well-behaved boys and girls get together afterwards and congratulate one another for making such nice cakes in cookery class. This guy puts it better than I can (Go to next post. Big Brother YouTube has the nasty habit of deleting heresies these days.)
1
@magnificentbastard5085 Sure enough the thought police have deleted my link to Dr Motaka Nakamura's book "The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis" How does it feel to know that you are on the same side as a bunch of fascists? Dr Nakamura is one of the many heretics who have been disgusted by the work they were expected to do. He has been a climate specialist for 25 years, working in various prestigious institutes and universities. In this extract he explains the position very clearly: Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.” The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.” Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess. The models grossly simplify the way the climate works. As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor. The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood. NAKAMURA ON CO2 He writes: “The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.” Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd. “It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.” SOLAR FORCING Solar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 Once again you are defaming the messenger while ignoring the message. Are the only people who impress you the ones who re-iterate the approved doctrines in paper after paper? YouTube now regularly deletes links to information which goes against those same approved doctrines - and indeed approved doctrines in other areas. We are slipping slowly but surely into totalitarianism. I think your summer camp is very forward thinking in extending its activities into the spring and autumn, by the way.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 Since you are so interested in scientific qualifications I thought you might like to check some of these guys out when you have a day or two to spare from the camp. Or isn't it open yet? SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES — scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82] Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85] Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90] Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91] Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92] David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96] William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97] Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98] Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100] Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106] Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108] Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110] Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112] Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114] Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116] Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118] Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120] Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123] Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125] Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200] Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127] Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131] Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133] Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135] Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137] George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141] SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204] David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22] Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24] Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26] Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29] Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33] Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37] Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39] Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40] Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202] Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42] Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45] Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201] Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54] Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57] Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59] Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61] Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63] Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67] Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69] Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71] Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73] Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75] Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77] Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79] Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 You really ought to get of this habit of shooting the messenger before reading the message. Do you not realise that you are so blinkered by the repressive scientific conventions that exist today that you have become incapable of even listening to non-consensual ideas, let alone being capable of rebutting them? This is how autocracy begins. It is how cults work. Your parameters are defined for you and any suggestion of stepping beyond them makes you fearful and aggressive. Groupthink, cognitive bias and loss aversion suppress the desire for truth which is the essence of science. Just because scientists churn out papers re-iterating the same positions over and over again and keep their jobs and their grants as a result doesn't make them right. Scientists have a duty to consider alternative ideas if they are cogently presented. Peer review has become meaningless; the constant failure to repeat experimental results unless pre-processed data and procedures are followed to the letter has turned so called "climate science" into little more than a cookery school. This is why scientists from proper disciplines should be heard - particularly cosmologists who are appalled at climate science's utter disregard for the enormity and complexity of the solar system and the powerful and still largely uncomprehended forces which hold this organism together as it hurtles through space. Jupiter's gravitational field probably has more effect on the Earth's climate than any amount of atmospheric carbon and temperature changes can clearly be related to regular 11-year cycles of solar energy. To climate "scientists" the sun seems little more than some sort of distant lightbulb. I will add to your potential list of reading material while relaxing from your duties at the club by introducing you to Ronan Connolly, who has published many papers. You can visit him at ronanconollyscience.com. You will see that much of his more controversial work is only in preprint but there are obvious reasons for this, as there are for the fact that Dr Connolly and his father, also a published scientist, have left the sheltered halls of academia to earn their living by designing and building eco-friendly homes and other structures. More noble work that churning out papers full of the same lies and inexactitudes in my view.
1
@magnificentbastard5085 Sorry for sending this twice but I have deleted the link to ronan connolly science and a dot com on the end all one word I included in the other one. Perhaps I am getting paranoid but the YouTube Gestapo algorithm has a nasty habit of deleting all posts with suspect blue writing in them. You really ought to get of this habit of shooting the messenger before reading the message. Do you not realise that you are so blinkered by the repressive scientific conventions that exist today that you have become incapable of even listening to non-consensual ideas, let alone being capable of rebutting them? This is how autocracy begins. It is how cults work. Your parameters are defined for you and any suggestion of stepping beyond them makes you fearful and aggressive. Groupthink, cognitive bias and loss aversion suppress the desire for truth which is the essence of science. Just because scientists churn out papers re-iterating the same positions over and over again and keep their jobs and their grants as a result doesn't make them right. Scientists have a duty to consider alternative ideas if they are cogently presented. Peer review has become meaningless; the constant failure to repeat experimental results unless pre-processed data and procedures are followed to the letter has turned so called "climate science" into little more than a cookery school. This is why scientists from proper disciplines should be heard - particularly cosmologists who are appalled at climate science's utter disregard for the enormity and complexity of the solar system and the powerful and still largely uncomprehended forces which hold this organism together as it hurtles through space. Jupiter's gravitational field probably has more effect on the Earth's climate than any amount of atmospheric carbon and temperature changes can clearly be related to regular 11-year cycles of solar energy. To climate "scientists" the sun seems little more than some sort of distant lightbulb. I will add to your potential list of reading material while relaxing from your duties at the club by introducing you to Ronan Connolly, who has published many papers. You will see that much of his more controversial work is only in preprint but there are obvious reasons for this, as there are for the fact that Dr Connolly and his father, also a published scientist, have left the sheltered halls of academia to earn their living by designing and building eco-friendly homes and other structures. More noble work that churning out papers full of the same lies and inexactitudes in my view.
1
@pansepot1490 Then what is the point of PR? Invariably any decisions made at a local level will still have to gain the approval of the national government. Or our you suggesting total autonomy for British counties say? That might be fun.
1
@thetruth495 But all local decisions have to be ratified by national government - which holds the purse strings.
1
@Checkmeout46 Not a greater influence at all. It's just that rural areas have different needs and priorities than urban areas, but smaller populations. Under PR those needs and priorities would not be properly represented. The question is whether a constituency is defined by geography, or by a set of beliefs. As long as economic realities take precedence over ideologies the former remains the case. For your ideology to succeed you have to convince not a small proportion of the population as a whole but the majority in various geographical constituencies. The Liberals did this in the 1850s and Labour did it in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. It provides a far more solid basis than the sort of nationwide popularity contest which is created by PR.
1
@arturobianco848 The problems created by PR are greater than those created by FPTP in my view. It replaces the under-representation of ideologies with under-representation of localised constituency interests and leads to all sorts of unseemly wheeler-dealing as parties try to combine to form governments and oppositions. At least under the present system an MP can stick with the principles upon which he/she was elected and not be forced into compromises for the sake of expediency. Well, not quite as much anyway!
1
@thetruth495 Constituencies have generally evolved as they are for sound economic and demographic reasons. It is always a mistake to try to form larger artificial entities for purely administrative reasons, I think. Most local government reforms to this end, popular in the 1960's and 70's, have generally led to more unwieldy and unfocussed administrations, unpopular with the populations and often more expensive to run. Evolution from the bottom up is preferable to imposition from the top down in this instance as in many others. Nothing is perfectly fair. PR, even in the form you suggest, would simply replace one set of inadequacies with another and not be worth the immense trouble and vast expense entailed.
1
@arturobianco848 As you rightly say both systems have their pros and cons but I feel the upheaval and expense of turning to PR simply isn't worth it. Democracy is a rickety old animal at the best of times. Push it around to much and it might just die on us.
1
@arturobianco848 Alas I am conservative by instinct and I do not think there are good reasons to change. Better the devil you know.
1
@thetruth495 By evolution from the bottom up I mean systems gradually developing bit by bit as situations demand - and not being radically altered by some over-reaching scheme imposed from above. (A scheme which might well be airy-fairy nonsense, by the way.)
1