Aegina climate discussion challenges

[Wayne Hall]

There are two separate types of challenge to mainstream positions on climate change. One of them is expressed by climatologists such as Judith Curry, who gave an interview last October with the heading "there is no emergency", in which she argued that danger-mongering over climate is a "manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policy makers".

The other challenge comes from people who until recently were dismissed as conspiracy theorists, although a shift seems to be underway such that political activists such as Robert Kennedy junior are beginning to enter into dialogue with them (scroll down).

According to this second group the state of the climate is really much worse than admitted because the damage that is caused by the burning of fossil fuels is exacerbated by geoengineering programmes, which are not mere proposals but are being conducted on a massive scale globally.

The following is a question for the Greek climatologist Dimitris Lalas

Which of these two types of critic would be preferable to you as an interlocutor?

If Judith Curry is preferable, bear in mind that she says: "Danger-mongering over climate is a 'manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policy makers'". She also says that "climate alarmism" is wreaking havoc with the mental health of young people, who are greatly influenced (among others) by Greta Thunberg (according to a Dr. Rohen Kapur the great-great-granddaughter of Baron Rothschild, the first, and great-granddaughter of Joachim Rothschild-Thunberg) and are inclined to believe that humanity is doomed.

If Dane Wigington is preferable, bear in mind that citizens and a small minority of specialists such as Dane Wigington maintain that solar radiation management is not just a proposal but a global reality and that the earth's atmosphere is being sprayed on a huge scale with wastes from coal-fired power stations.

The positions of these two critics are mutually contradictory. If no clear preference can be expressed as to the value of debating them, what should the public believe?

W.H.

[Wayne Hall]

The two categories of critics of mainstream climate change "science" say either that the climate "problem" is exaggerated or that it is much worse than admitted. If a climatologist like tomorrow's Dr Lalas should seek to propose that all critics should get together for a roundtable on the subject of climate change (something extremely unlikely if not impossible), the proposal would not in any case achieve anything. Neither category of critic wants to talk about "climate change" on the basis of "mainstream" assumptions. It there were a discussion, they would both try to change the subject: the first group would want to say that the subject is not science but politics, because science has been turned into politics. The second group would want to charge "mainstream science" with a coverup on the basis of the accusation that the planet is being sprayed with poisons on a huge scale, and this is not being admitted. Some kind of dialogue, however, heated and rude, might be possible with each of these groups taken separately, but a would-be roundtable discussion would inevitably turn into a confused mess.

[Wayne Hall]

As it turns out, Dr. Lalas didn't want to choose "because he likes both vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream". But to tell the truth he did make some attempt to answer the question. Nevertheless, the basic fact is that neither of the two categories of dissidents from the "official line" on climate change are interested in discussion on the basis of the dominant interpretations.

[Wayne Hall]

The Aegina climate change discussion centred on Dr. Lalas was, precisely, a confused mess.