Marvin Herndon and Ian Baldwin

[Wayne Hall]

Marvin Herndon and Ian Baldwin have diametrically opposite views on climate change.

But the only thing Marvin has said to us so far about Ian is that Ian is a respected colleague of his. Is that all there is to say? Who is right about climate change, Ian or Marvin?

[Dylan]

It would seem from his articles that Ian Baldwin, whilst open to the idea of geoengineering for warming, still seems to  hold to anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 whilst Marvin, also convinced the planet is heating up, downplays the role of human emitted CO2, ascribing the rise in temperatures to a combination of natural cycles and geoengineering for warming.

[Wayne Hall]

Is it possible to start somewhere the demand that the term "climate change" be replaced by "climate change and/or modification"? By an organized political entity? I am going to try anyway.

[Dylan]

I don`t think we can demand anything. We have to first convince a sizeable number of the general public that climate modification is indeed going on alongside climate change and may be the cause of it. You need a critical mass of people to demand the truth effectively. This is when the organized political parties will step in. What has happened to the Cyprus Greens by the way? They made a lot of the right noises and now, nothing...

[Wayne Hall]

There is no shortage of people belonging to the "general public" who are aware of the spraying. One big problem is that they are not organized, despise political parties, having as they do the mentality of "conspiracy theorists" and in brief have a life stance that can only be described as superstitious. The Cyprus Greens have 1) been diverted by Cyprus' big geopolitical problems, 2) been demoralized by the negative media and ultimately official reactions to their initiatives in parliament 3) been wary of the conclusion that there is something wrong with Dane Wigington's analysis and something right with Marvin Herndon's analysis. I have not yet seen much of a positive response from them to the ideas that I have been floating that one of the reasons for the anti-spraying movements' insufficient progress is that we have treated the spraying as a problem of the commons (the sky being part of the commons) and not as a threat to property. I have some kind of semi-hope that the threat to property posed by massive wind farms may provide a better road into the climate change/climate manipulation problematic.

[Wayne Hall]

The direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fiberglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

[Wayne Hall]

In the meantime, even Defend Democracy Press has descended to promoting this kind of disinformation input into the "climate debate".


www.defenddemocracy.press/fossil-fuels-are-powering-trumps-foreign-policy/

And Bill McKibben keeps banging away: readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/45400-focus-the-unimaginable-is-now-possible-100-renewable-energy-we-cant-settle-for-less

[Dylan]

What is the "mentality of conspiracy theorists?"

I failed to find anything on the defend democracy article about wind turbines.

Is this part the disinformation that you think they are peddling?

"Market forces will play a crucial role in this process, since the price of renewable energy—especially solar—has been dropping quickly and is already, in certain circumstances, a cheaper way to go than using coal to generate electricity."

I think Ian Baldwin has similar stance on the future of coal as our energy source.

What is your opinion, not on wind turbines, but on coal?

[Wayne Hall]

The mentality of conspiracy theorists is Manichean. "We" are good. "They" are evil.

Admittedly evil exists, but the clash of evils normally takes the form of wars. Where does that leave political activity?

It seems that coal will remain a necessity for the foreseeable future, even a wind-turbined future.

But there seems to be even more misrepresentation on the anti-coal side of the debate at the moment than on the pro-coal. The pro-coal side at worst wants business as usual and in most cases more of it. But the anti-coal side provides no solution to the problem. Only censorship, deceit, self-deception, taxation and extortionate subsidization. .

Can we get involved with this? judithcurry.com/2017/07/03/what-is-red-teaming/

[Wayne Hall]

halva.proboards.com/thread/353/judith-curry

[Dylan]

The way I see it is that a "conspiracy theorist" is someone who theorises about conspiracies. The clue is in the name. This alone does not make one superstitious or "Manichean". Three children planning to rob a sweet shop is, in legal terms, a criminal conspiracy. Is the police officer called in to investigate a superstitious Manichean?

When someone formulates or adheres to a plausible conspiracy theory such as powerful political and commercial interests colluding to benefit themselves at the cost of the general public they are not exhibiting pathological behaviour. On the contrary, they are far more likely to be in much better psychological condition than the vast majority of people who are unaware or unwilling to look into these matters. The general public are still mostly uninformed on these matters.

Of course there are opinionated conspiracy theorists who see things in the black and white fashion you describe and do not employ logical principles. These ones also tend to be the most vocal. However, we should be very wary of lumping all conspiracy theorists in together with these opinionated ones. This is a tactic employed by our enemies and yes, we do have enemies, as all promoters of the truth have had since the beginning of history.

Onto the fuel discussion:

It only seems that coal will remain a necessity for the foreseeable future. And this is entirely because of the pro-coal lobby not because of some underlying reality.

"But there seems to be even more misrepresentation on the anti-coal side of the debate at the moment than on the pro-coal. The pro-coal side at worst wants business as usual and in most cases more of it. But the anti-coal side provides no solution to the problem. Only censorship, deceit, self-deception, taxation and extortionate subsidization."

I think Wayne, that you have trapped yourself here entirely in the Manichean mode of thought that you railed at previously. There is no viable anti-coal side. The exact same interests are invested in wind turbine as are invested in the fossil fuel industry. Censorship, deceit, taxation and extortionate subsidisation all belong to them. This is the "business as usual" you talk of. Lets not forget also the usual business, of suppression, intimidation and murder of all those figures that would bring about an alternative version of our fuel based lives.

I wholeheartedly recommend this article written in 2001 that changed my viewpoint on such matters forever.

The World of Free Energy
By Peter Lindemann, D.Sc.

free-energy.ws/lindemann-1.html

If you really want to practice red-teaming, I suggest you read it.

[Wayne Hall]

Yes. Thanks. I'm not unfamiliar with the free energy discussion. In fact I had a bit of correspondence with Jeane Manning years ago and I would welcome evidence that they are making a political breakthrough. Also one of my close friends, neighbours and collaborators is attached to the promise of nuclear fusion and always willing to be optimistic about its potential.

Petros Zografos is the name most mentioned in Greece in connection with free energy, and his disciple Greg Maltezos actually has a house in Aegina. But particularly in the last case what motivates them seems to be the desire to avoid political arguments by revealing, or rather proposing, technical solutions.

I don't really have much of an idea where to move the discussion from this point. Perhaps we should try to open it on another front.

[Wayne Hall]

"The exact same interests are invested in wind turbine as are invested in the fossil fuel industry."

Respective spokespersons in Greece:

The Greek Lignite Blog: greeklignite.blogspot.gr/

ELETAEN eletaen.gr/

Try telling them, or anyone, they are on the same side. They are deadly enemies, and rational discussion between them is not on the cards. Where is a referee to be found? Neither side will accept you, or me, as referee.

[Dylan]

"I'm not unfamiliar with the free energy discussion. In fact I had a bit of correspondence with Jeane Manning years ago and I would welcome evidence that they are making a political breakthrough. Also one of my close friends, neighbours and collaborators is attached to the promise of nuclear fusion and always willing to be optimistic about its potential."

"Petros Zografos is the name most mentioned in Greece in connection with free energy, and his disciple Greg Maltezos actually has a house in Aegina. But particularly in the last case what motivates them seems to be the desire to avoid political arguments by revealing, or rather proposing, technical solutions."

The point I am trying to make is that free energy technology is not something that merely holds promise in the future, it is here now. I would also welcome evidence that it is making a political breakthrough but that was the other point, it is not making a political breakthrough because of the reasons discussed in the article. It has been suppressed at every turn by the very same political machinery. This is why free energy scientists, very sensibly, steer clear of political arguments because politicians have been compromised and corrupted.

As to the fossil fuel versus renewables debate:

"Try telling them, or anyone, they are on the same side. They are deadly enemies, and rational discussion between them is not on the cards. Where is a referee to be found? Neither side will accept you, or me, as referee."

Who is the "them" you refer to here? Is it the individuals polarised against each other and oblivious to the bigger picture, whose livelihoods or emotional investment is at stake depending upon what side they have chosen? Or is it the small group of financial corporations that decide where the funding will go, which industry thrives or declines, who actually own the majority of stakes in both sides, who own all the referees as well?

There are people willing to listen to logic. The ones who are not are not worth wasting time on.

[Wayne Hall]

Perhaps a discusson of Al Gore's new film will help us move forward: halva.proboards.com/thread/355/al-gores-new-film