Thanks Albert...great story...BUT...I didnt see any counter arguments there? Or was it an invitation only supporting only one narrative. Where was Jordan Peterson? Ian Plimer? and the millennia arguments?
Thanks for the laugh, Steve. I assume you are no more serious than my parents were when they said the tooth fairy came for my tooth during the night. I never believed them but I took their money. Pilmer and Peterson are likely in that same camp. They don''t believe their own bullshit but they'll take the money. https://science.feedback.org/review/no-doubt-on-co2s-role-despite-peterson-rogans-claims-2/
To laugh at a serious comment is a great sign of derision. Not constructive or respectful at all. But in saying that I too laugh in derision at the narrow mindedness of many a debate. I ask if there is another view to the entire subject of CC or must everyone be enslaved into one view point. My stance is more from a millennial view looking at 1000 yr cycles. Much akin to debating the evolution of the Khazarians and Bolshiveks when people argue against communism and socialism when they are confused and need to be using the more correct meanings and terms of their argument by using Stalinsim. Howz ya views forming on Ibrahim Traore
Let's start with Climate in Crisis (1990). I had more than 3000 references in the bibliography at the end, but those were cut down from the more than 8000 studies, books and papers I reviewed in writing that book. I didn't mind using that much paper on the references since it was the first book in the world printed on a web roll press from recycled paper that included 100% of the inks, so no chemical bleaching, all reuse.
Then read The Biochar Solution, Carbon Farming and Climate Change (New Society: 2010); The Paris Agreement: the best chance we have to save the one planet we've got (Ecovillage 2015); and Burn: Using Fire to Cool the Planet (Chelsea Green Publishers, 2018).
Once you have read those, we can talk about climate science.
Albert: Thanks so much for a first day report. Here's hoping you can add for the following three days.
I've spent an hour looking for anything else. Your's is the only report I have found. Nothing yet in the Guardian!
I'll ask more later, but I'm guessing you've read the new Lenton book. Do you recommend it? (From a biochar perspective only, please. If no mention of biochar, I can skip it - unless you strongly recommend.)
Tim's latest book is not out until September so I don't know if it will contain the e biochar strategy. Thanks for flagging it. It looks to be interesting. I am not actually in the UK, so can only report on the Exeter conference from what I can glean remotely.
Im not for one second arguing your capacity to pull a great story together. I have always applauded that skill set you have. I have been observing the CC debate for many years. My preference from my psyche is to consider every side of any story. I often say there is always four sides to a story, his side, her side the other side and the truth...which is invariably never known. So I wonder Albert have you explored the third and forth dimension of the whole CC debate and wondered if there is energy pushing an agenda to distort the truth. Have you read any of Michael S King's work? I enjoy his banter which digs deep into history and the playmakers and their agendas. I also like digging deep and joining the dots then extrapolating. There is no doubt we have been lied to and lied to and lied to for a very long period of time. Seemingly 98% of species man have bought into these lies. Very smart propaganda getting smarter and more aggressive by the day. So can I assume that all your research has taken only one side of the debate and multiplied it. Have you ever considered there may be another side with some degree of merit? From my research the other side certainly has greater merit which is becoming more obvious by the day. Many are very slowly waking up to the lies we have been fed for a very long period of time. Here is a good example. https://www.bitchute.com/video/s1nPYDj7KBEQ/ I like this one too, https://www.bitchute.com/video/BNRrmYrG2p2p/
If you read this substack with any regularity, you will see that I speak often of "very smart propaganda getting smarter and more aggressive by the day." Thanks for the links and here is one for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP2lH2EEr9I&t=765s
I want my hair on fire. Maybe when 20% behave that way, enough others will wake up.
Thanks Albert...great story...BUT...I didnt see any counter arguments there? Or was it an invitation only supporting only one narrative. Where was Jordan Peterson? Ian Plimer? and the millennia arguments?
Thanks for the laugh, Steve. I assume you are no more serious than my parents were when they said the tooth fairy came for my tooth during the night. I never believed them but I took their money. Pilmer and Peterson are likely in that same camp. They don''t believe their own bullshit but they'll take the money. https://science.feedback.org/review/no-doubt-on-co2s-role-despite-peterson-rogans-claims-2/
To laugh at a serious comment is a great sign of derision. Not constructive or respectful at all. But in saying that I too laugh in derision at the narrow mindedness of many a debate. I ask if there is another view to the entire subject of CC or must everyone be enslaved into one view point. My stance is more from a millennial view looking at 1000 yr cycles. Much akin to debating the evolution of the Khazarians and Bolshiveks when people argue against communism and socialism when they are confused and need to be using the more correct meanings and terms of their argument by using Stalinsim. Howz ya views forming on Ibrahim Traore
I have a small reading assignment for you, Steve.
Let's start with Climate in Crisis (1990). I had more than 3000 references in the bibliography at the end, but those were cut down from the more than 8000 studies, books and papers I reviewed in writing that book. I didn't mind using that much paper on the references since it was the first book in the world printed on a web roll press from recycled paper that included 100% of the inks, so no chemical bleaching, all reuse.
Then read The Biochar Solution, Carbon Farming and Climate Change (New Society: 2010); The Paris Agreement: the best chance we have to save the one planet we've got (Ecovillage 2015); and Burn: Using Fire to Cool the Planet (Chelsea Green Publishers, 2018).
Once you have read those, we can talk about climate science.
Albert: Thanks so much for a first day report. Here's hoping you can add for the following three days.
I've spent an hour looking for anything else. Your's is the only report I have found. Nothing yet in the Guardian!
I'll ask more later, but I'm guessing you've read the new Lenton book. Do you recommend it? (From a biochar perspective only, please. If no mention of biochar, I can skip it - unless you strongly recommend.)
Ron
Tim's latest book is not out until September so I don't know if it will contain the e biochar strategy. Thanks for flagging it. It looks to be interesting. I am not actually in the UK, so can only report on the Exeter conference from what I can glean remotely.
Im not for one second arguing your capacity to pull a great story together. I have always applauded that skill set you have. I have been observing the CC debate for many years. My preference from my psyche is to consider every side of any story. I often say there is always four sides to a story, his side, her side the other side and the truth...which is invariably never known. So I wonder Albert have you explored the third and forth dimension of the whole CC debate and wondered if there is energy pushing an agenda to distort the truth. Have you read any of Michael S King's work? I enjoy his banter which digs deep into history and the playmakers and their agendas. I also like digging deep and joining the dots then extrapolating. There is no doubt we have been lied to and lied to and lied to for a very long period of time. Seemingly 98% of species man have bought into these lies. Very smart propaganda getting smarter and more aggressive by the day. So can I assume that all your research has taken only one side of the debate and multiplied it. Have you ever considered there may be another side with some degree of merit? From my research the other side certainly has greater merit which is becoming more obvious by the day. Many are very slowly waking up to the lies we have been fed for a very long period of time. Here is a good example. https://www.bitchute.com/video/s1nPYDj7KBEQ/ I like this one too, https://www.bitchute.com/video/BNRrmYrG2p2p/
If you read this substack with any regularity, you will see that I speak often of "very smart propaganda getting smarter and more aggressive by the day." Thanks for the links and here is one for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP2lH2EEr9I&t=765s