Randall Carlson/Climate

[rileymeisch]

Hi everyone, new to the forum/podcast. I listened to Randall Carlson's episode recently and just had to hear the second half of that conversation so I jumped on Plus.

I've heard a lot of push back on human-caused global warming and he makes some great comments about it in this episode. I've gotten into his work through Graham Hancock's book "Magicians of the Gods" and Randall seems to speak to evidence and not so much speculation. So hearing him make the case for global cooling as I've heard so many others argue, (Ben Davidson, Tony Heller, David DuByne, Dr. Roy Spencer, etc) makes me question what I've been seeing in mainstream media, which in my mind is usually a good thing.

I keep having this question in my mind:
Hypothetically, if 100% human-caused global warming is a lie, then who does it serve? Is it such a bad thing to corral the public into an environmentally minded mass movement which could only lead us to using more sustainable energy, having more respect for nature, cleaning up the oceans, etc? Would it work, or would it cripple the economy?

And how does anyone relate these ideas to their friends and families? Everyone is so dogmatic they won't even consider the other side of the argument.

It seems like the one subject on which everyone agrees and doesn't question, because to do so is to be labeled a "climate denier", completely crazy, or an anti-environmentalist of which I am none (I think)

Would love to hear some thoughts on this. Much love to all the truth seekers.

 

[enjoypolo]

Welcome to the Forum, and glad you made the jump over Plus
Here's my 2-cents on regarding your question:

The issue with man-made climate change is many-folds. On the conspiracy-side of things, it's putting the onus on the people (aka taxpayers) around the world, through measures like tax-increases on fuel, carbon-tax, etc.
And yet, when we look at Industries (aka corporations in the energy sector, but also manufacturing, and beyond) they don't seem too affected by it, or if they are, they seem to figure a way to put the burden on the people.

The other sneaky thing is, even if you don't accept the mainstream theory of man-made climate change, it's hard to deny how much modernization in the past two-centuries has affected the environment: The whole fossil-fuel paradigm has wrecked havoc everywhere on its path. To talk of only one major area: Food Systems. Modern agriculture, with its oil-guzzling machines, and its artificial fertilizers, a weapon-ammunition industry by-product aimed with the sole purpose of eradicating Life (in the soil, and beyond) has depleted soils around the world of its biodiversity and nutrients, to the point where we're losing soils at an alarming rate (what a great way to create famines). I could go on-and-on about the commoditization of food, to how industrial agro creates a debt-based system for farmers, as Vandana Shiva points out in her countless books.

My point being, a new paradigm is urgently needed to reverse the destruction made, even without accepting man-made climate change scenario (and I mean, these things do have an effect on the climate I'm sure, but probably not nearly as much as things like Randal Carlson points out, including Sun cycles).

Another disturbing trend that I see more frequently, is the justification to cull the herd because of over-population (with the assumption that the burden is too great), which inevitably leads to eugenics (thru transhumanist agendas, or DNA reverse-engineering, and such). When really, if we only shifted our mindsets from get-rich-die-tryin'-style competitive capitalism to more localized, decentralized systems promoting resilience and cooperation, we could not only provide abundant food locally, but distribute it more equitably as well. Over-population thing is really scary in my mind. I've read headlines where academics are openly promoting cannibalism as a means to and end (luciferianism).

Another point before I finish, are the so-called UN's SDG (Sustainable Development Goals). There's a number of them, all with seemingly good intentions and motives behind them. But I fear that's yet another one-world-government type of agenda, meant to cull the herds, basically turning the current free-range democracy, into factory-farming cage tyranny. The final step to a Brave New World.
And don't even get me started on some of the proposed solutions, like geoengineering, or banning private means of transportation, etc. under the same auspices.

So anyways, that's just my condensed 2-cents on cui bono, but at the same time, realizing that while we can disagree on the mainstream theory, there's not much excuse regarding about Earth suffering from an infection (Us), and needing some TLC.

 

[jack_daft]

Love it. I have the sneaking suspicion that both sides stand to gain immensely and are backed by equally powerful entities..if not the same entity. I just feel that if the climate change movement were authentic, it would look more like the Green Peace I remember as a child. There is no real underdog in this fight and makes me question.

Maybe we are destroying the world. Maybe we are driving flora and fauna into extinction at an alarming rate. Maybe we will stand stupidly in a sterile world someday soon. Maybe we are making room for the evolution of a more persistent and capable species. And maybe this is just another instance when Man thinks he is the all important center of the Universe when we are really just clinging to a tertiary mass of hope whipping around an indifferent star, slowly creepy toward the hungry hole at the center of our galaxy.

The more I contemplate these things, the more I believe that the bookmarked memories in my mind may be the thumbnail images of my Saved Game archive...and if I just remember how to load....

 

[rileymeisch]

Great points, thanks for the responses. Definitely in agreement with the modernization factor, and the pollution caused by fossil fuels and conventional agro is undoubtedly terrible. In my mind the only solution is regenerative agriculture, permaculture, localized, community-based economies and so on, but what percentage of this world would even consider that? And do we just stay silent and let the masses spend trillions on this green new deal?

Excellent quote from Randall Carlson's essay:

"Flenley’s declaration that “There comes a time in any subject when enough evidence accumulates for a dramatic change in orthodoxy to be appropriate” is as relevant now as it was then, for as it was in 1979 – so it is again – time for a dramatic transformation in orthodoxy. The change for which more than ample evidence has accumulated has to do with a deeper understanding of the forces of global change and the realization that change on all scales has been a dominant factor in climatology, geology, biology, and in human history. However, vested interests have intervened in the scientific process to promote an agenda in which anthropogenic forces are now seen as the prevailing driver of global change to the virtual exclusion of natural factors that have been operational on all time-scales since the world began. To bolster this agenda, carbon dioxide has been portrayed as the purveyor of global doom, for carbon dioxide, being a byproduct of the energy industry that powers our emerging global civilization, provides an effective means to secure control over all aspects of society, industry, and the resources of this planet. Add to that the quasi-religious belief on the part of certain environmental factions in an imaginary scenario of a pristine, unchanging world to which balance and harmony would be restored if only the influence of humans could be eliminated and industrial progress curtailed in the name of saving the Earth."​

http://geocosmicrex.com/global-change/

 

[rani]

 

[threeeyedturtle]

I think the issue is that if you don't think climate change is 100% caused by humans people automatically jump to thinking you are denying EVERYTHING man has done to the globe. Like it's an all or nothing. It's is likely a combination of many factors, humans, the sun, and other natural cosmic and planetary cycles.

Randall has made it clear that humans have definitely negatively impacted the planet. We pollute plastics, spray harmful chemicals on the soils, destroy forests for farmland, I could go on and on. We are definitely making quite a mess, but many of the changes we see would happen with or without us here.

That is the polarizing position that the climate warriors cannot seem to grasp as an option. They think you either fight with them and drink the koolaid or you deny it all.

 

[enjoypolo]

https://www.rt.com/news/475351-new-zealand-volcano-eruption/

There's been a few mentions of global cooling scenario happening as a result of synchronous earthquake and volcano activity happening. And now, in NZ a volcano is in fact erupting. (There's been quite a few who made the headlines just in this past year).

Interesting timing for sure.