Peak oil only applied to Texas oil wells and was fallaciously extrapolated globally without due diligence. Laymen continue to regurgitate the claims today.
AGW is not a proven condition in the real world. Selectively run experiments in isolated labs that claim AGW to be a real thing aren't legitimate for claims of open air, AGW-created global warming/climate change/[insert next scary moniker needed to continue this scam]. "Scientists" who claim the climate is changing and doing so because of AGW need to prove the climate is indeed changing in the real world and need to prove that AGW is the cause in the real world to the exclusion of all other factors.
Carbon dioxide fluctuates within a minuscule range, but it hovers at about 0.04% of the atmosphere; that does not translate to the claimed AGW "greenhouse" causes for NOAA/IPCC/HadCRUT claimed increases in global temperatures or cataclysmic weather events.
We are not to be ruled, especially not by arbitrary science nor its credentialed adjutants who refuse to actually exhibit their craft and the claims that are supposedly a product of that craft. Science should be transparent, repeatable, and reproducible - nothing in the climate change problem-reaction-solution scam is any of those things. Honest scientists require challenges of their findings to perfect their craft; embargoing inconvenient challenges is not science - it is totalitarianism.
I'm sure as heck not going to trust the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry whose entire existence is on the line.
There is no proof of any threat to the "fossil" fuel industry (that is running into oil, not out of it) seeing as how that trillion dollar "fossil" fuel industry started the central banks who control the monetary system that is "secured" by our taxes that are being spent to engineer climate change alarmism as a pretext for carbon emissions taxes that will further the banking oiligarchy's grip on the benefits of monetary manipulation. This is an insidious Hegelian dialectic problem-reaction-solution scam that will result in taxes and penalties on life itself that will dwarf the fuel industry if climate change pseudoscience is canonized in academia and blindly adopted by the [can't-be-bothered-to-validate-"expert"-research-for-themselves] laymen. NONE of the pseudoscience that would validate claims of AGW climate change is repeatable or reproducible, meaning some black box of information must exist to prove these claims but most likely does not.
Graham is a eyewash/whitewash artist. Every thing he writes/types is in apologia for the duplicative, plausibly deniable, government departments of mercenaries-posing-as-patriots and he presents his fallacious messaging in gatekeeping fashion so as to say "Nothing to see here. Move along." His duplicitous writing has led to a tremendous amount of archive.is activity for a podunk blog because he keeps changing his messaging after people comment to call him out on his bullshit.
Please don't believe someone or adopt a consensus groupthink belief in someone's expertise just because that someone is proclaimed to be an "expert". More often than not, groupthink-proclaimed experts are compromised puppets who are carrying water for the-powers-that-shouldn't-be. Robert Graham ought to be considered to be a part of the overall problem, not someone clarifies it. Graham's effortless gatekeeping of the Vault 7 situation is an absolute whitewash that favors the "legitimate" spy stuff that the CIA carries out not against foreign adversaries, but against the taxpayers it claims it does things for in the interest of national security, interest of which it can neither confirm nor deny because an alert and avid citizenry is more dangerous than a placid and entranced citizenry.
How exactly does combating climate change "cripple Western civilization"? I think what you really mean is that it inconveniences you and threatens your greedy opulent lifestyle as a privileged species. How can you possibly live without hamburgers and your Ford F350?
Yup, we absolutely need cherry-picking "scientific" studies that are funded by billionaires who consume exponentially more natural resources than entire towns to tell those of us who live significantly limited lifestyles (99% of us) that we are to blame for climate change and that we all should pay to cover for their environmental malfeasance. Yup, everything nowadays is every single human being's fault, except those that fund the studies.
I agree. I can't read the comments there anymore. If people disagree with the article, they get lambasted by The Ars Borg. That's becoming the "increasingly non-natural" norm in society.
"I think we should stop talking about "smartwatches" and just consider Apple Watch a "watch", period."
Apple Watch is neither a "smart" watch nor just a watch. It is an iBeacon device for Apple's other devices. I think the faux-journo collective that John Gruber is referring to as "we" should stop trying to portray these technocratic control switches into being accepted as genuine consumer products.
Slashdot Mirror
Running into oil? Discoveries peaked in the 60s.
Peak oil only applied to Texas oil wells and was fallaciously extrapolated globally without due diligence. Laymen continue to regurgitate the claims today.
Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist working for Shell Oil. He argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner, and once their “peak” was hit, inevitable decline followed. He predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. A modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert’s Curve, and the peak as Hubbert’s Peak. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.
The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It “peaked” because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells in.
The basics of AGW
The earth has been proven to be warming the closer it gets to the sun in its orbit.
AGW is not a proven condition in the real world. Selectively run experiments in isolated labs that claim AGW to be a real thing aren't legitimate for claims of open air, AGW-created global warming/climate change/[insert next scary moniker needed to continue this scam]. "Scientists" who claim the climate is changing and doing so because of AGW need to prove the climate is indeed changing in the real world and need to prove that AGW is the cause in the real world to the exclusion of all other factors.
Carbon dioxide fluctuates within a minuscule range, but it hovers at about 0.04% of the atmosphere; that does not translate to the claimed AGW "greenhouse" causes for NOAA/IPCC/HadCRUT claimed increases in global temperatures or cataclysmic weather events.
The dishonest climate change scam's scientists and sheepish laymen alike have another problem to sort out: "NOAA’s GHCN systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs." After sorting this out, they will still need to prove climate change, AGW and that climate change is caused by AGW
We are not to be ruled, especially not by arbitrary science nor its credentialed adjutants who refuse to actually exhibit their craft and the claims that are supposedly a product of that craft. Science should be transparent, repeatable, and reproducible - nothing in the climate change problem-reaction-solution scam is any of those things. Honest scientists require challenges of their findings to perfect their craft; embargoing inconvenient challenges is not science - it is totalitarianism.
we need to decentralize our P2P commerce exhibit A: https://www.bitchute.com/
I'm sure as heck not going to trust the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry whose entire existence is on the line.
There is no proof of any threat to the "fossil" fuel industry (that is running into oil, not out of it) seeing as how that trillion dollar "fossil" fuel industry started the central banks who control the monetary system that is "secured" by our taxes that are being spent to engineer climate change alarmism as a pretext for carbon emissions taxes that will further the banking oiligarchy's grip on the benefits of monetary manipulation. This is an insidious Hegelian dialectic problem-reaction-solution scam that will result in taxes and penalties on life itself that will dwarf the fuel industry if climate change pseudoscience is canonized in academia and blindly adopted by the [can't-be-bothered-to-validate-"expert"-research-for-themselves] laymen. NONE of the pseudoscience that would validate claims of AGW climate change is repeatable or reproducible, meaning some black box of information must exist to prove these claims but most likely does not.
Graham is a eyewash/whitewash artist. Every thing he writes/types is in apologia for the duplicative, plausibly deniable, government departments of mercenaries-posing-as-patriots and he presents his fallacious messaging in gatekeeping fashion so as to say "Nothing to see here. Move along." His duplicitous writing has led to a tremendous amount of archive.is activity for a podunk blog because he keeps changing his messaging after people comment to call him out on his bullshit.
Please don't believe someone or adopt a consensus groupthink belief in someone's expertise just because that someone is proclaimed to be an "expert". More often than not, groupthink-proclaimed experts are compromised puppets who are carrying water for the-powers-that-shouldn't-be. Robert Graham ought to be considered to be a part of the overall problem, not someone clarifies it. Graham's effortless gatekeeping of the Vault 7 situation is an absolute whitewash that favors the "legitimate" spy stuff that the CIA carries out not against foreign adversaries, but against the taxpayers it claims it does things for in the interest of national security, interest of which it can neither confirm nor deny because an alert and avid citizenry is more dangerous than a placid and entranced citizenry.
How exactly does combating climate change "cripple Western civilization"? I think what you really mean is that it inconveniences you and threatens your greedy opulent lifestyle as a privileged species. How can you possibly live without hamburgers and your Ford F350?
Yup, we absolutely need cherry-picking "scientific" studies that are funded by billionaires who consume exponentially more natural resources than entire towns to tell those of us who live significantly limited lifestyles (99% of us) that we are to blame for climate change and that we all should pay to cover for their environmental malfeasance. Yup, everything nowadays is every single human being's fault, except those that fund the studies.
Ars is a sickening bastion of groupthink, though.
I agree. I can't read the comments there anymore. If people disagree with the article, they get lambasted by The Ars Borg. That's becoming the "increasingly non-natural" norm in society.
Apple Watch is neither a "smart" watch nor just a watch. It is an iBeacon device for Apple's other devices. I think the faux-journo collective that John Gruber is referring to as "we" should stop trying to portray these technocratic control switches into being accepted as genuine consumer products.