August 14th, 2020

Importance of open-mindedness

By Lethbridge Herald Opinon on July 31, 2020.

Consider CO2 contributions from non-human resources in climate debate

Cosmos Voutsinos

Universities are called “higher-learning institutions” because, in addition to their research, their teaching process includes the examination of all sides of a problem, then the professor assists his students to reach a conclusion. This way, the students are learning how to think, instead of what to think, and this enables them to push the envelope of society’s knowledge later.

Professor Roussel, in his July 15 guest column, is dismayed that The Herald would publish an opinion piece with analysis that he does not agree with, and he is attempting an insidious censorship to silence the messenger. His explanation seems to be that CO2 has been rising since the Industrial Revolution and will continue to rise because of human activities – no other reason. He gives not even a passing thought or reference to CO2 contributions from non-human resources. His mind is made up, yet after making several assumptions, his example seems to reach the same conclusion I did: our lockdown savings of CO2 likely had no effect on the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

In order for the increasing CO2 curve to be rolled back to 2000 or 1990 levels, as Dr. Roussel states, there has to take place a noticeable change, like a reset. The fact that a reset was not detected means that either human-produced CO2 might not be as dominant as the IPCC assumes, or there is a problem with Mauna Loa readings – (delay, error or insignificant signal). The Cape Grim CO2 monitoring station in Tasmania agrees with Mauna Loa’s readings and increases the confidence in the CO2 readings taken by both. This in turn increases the doubt of the relative dominance issue assumed for the anthropogenic CO2.

Reset signals were expected from the data from Mauna Loa, from February to July this year, as the lockdown was progressing. This has not been observed so far, neither instantaneous nor delayed. It makes no difference to such signal if CO2 has been increasing or decreasing. Professor Roussel is correct in believing that humans produce CO2 that causes some warming to our atmosphere. The question is how significant is our contribution relative to other CO2-contributing mechanisms, and how dominant is the CO2 factor relative to some 20 other celestial mechanisms that influence our Earth’s temperature?

In terms of carbon, our environment is divided into four reservoirs: 1) land, 2) atmosphere, 3) shallow seas and 4) deep oceans. These reservoirs don’t behave as if they were isolated, because they continuously exchange carbon from one to the other. Each transfer has its own mechanism and timeframe. The whole system is very complicated with delays and feedbacks that make it difficult to fully understand. Models help us to get an idea, but their predictions cannot be considered as “oracles” because they are “adjustable” according to the biases of the programmer. Within this uncertain picture and without proof, the IPCC assumed that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant mechanism that controls the Earth’s thermostat. Does Professor Roussel have peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence that supports this IPCC assumption?

Looking at an amplified Mauna Loa curve of CO2 measurements, one can see the reset signals of the naturally occurring seasonal oscillations of CO2 in our atmosphere, in spite of rising CO2. For example, leaves fall from trees and vegetation in October, decay releasing CO2 to the atmosphere. By May, new leaves are growing and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. In parallel, an opposing oscillation takes place, where a cooling ocean absorbs CO2 in the winter from the atmosphere and a warming ocean in summer releases CO2. These exchanges of carbon involve hundreds of gigatons of CO2 and we can detect them in a timely manner. If the 35 gigatons of annual anthropogenic CO2 represent the most dominant mechanism, why can we not even detect it, like the CO2 from tree leaves? Human and natural CO2 molecules are identical chemically, therefore they must follow the same physics.

I am also dismayed that Professor Roussel does not see the opportunity to fact check the basis for the alleged climate “emergency” and “crisis.” He should be welcoming studies of the atmospheric CO2 levels that better our understanding. Instead he chooses to silence the messenger – a behaviour not in line with the open-mindedness of a higher-learning institution. It is a case of damn the facts, I am right – or perhaps, facts say what I want them to say.

The Lethbridge Herald should be congratulated for publishing consistently all news and views without biases. The topic of climate is complex enough. The last thing we need is falling for the enforced mob rule of groupthink.

Cosmos Voutsinos is a Lethbridge-based professional engineer whose career included work ranging from system designs in the Canadian nuclear industry to construction management of U.S. power plants in Taiwan.

Share this story:


54 Responses to “Importance of open-mindedness”

  1. chinook says:

    Shameful that the Herald would publish a letter from a well known climate denier. Insulting too at the lengths Mr. Voutsinos has gone to in attempt to discredit a respected scientist. Mr. Voutsinos in case you are not aware, natural causes have been factored in to all models. The difference for the spike in C02 is human caused …burning fossil fuel for over 300 years the troposphere is so polluted that is trapping heat as never before. While Mr. Voutsinos might understand ocean pollution; he certainly has no clue about the polluted watery layer above us.

  2. Socrates says:

    Chinook, Could you please explain few things:
    a) Please list what cosmos has denied, I thought he was only presenting observations without firm conclusions.
    b) how do you factor in the models complicated processes that you have not fully understood. Can you name specific models that include this factoring? and
    c) Scientists have always thought that GHG’s slow down the departure of outgoing long wave radiation heat. (OLR). The unfortunate use of the term “trap” is misleading The heat is always going out of our atmosphere, although slower.

    With the development of Information Technologies the amount of misinformation has exploded and one cannot be careful enough, unless he does extensive fact checking. The problem is that most people cannot Fact-Check and they talk by parroting what others say, without understanding. As they say ” the devil is in the details”. That is why I am asking you to check your details.

    • Fescue says:

      Despite your steady support for Cosmos, I’m heartened by your acknowledgment that he is simply providing opinions without scientific evidence.

      Maybe we can move on from the ‘sceptical’ position to the scientific position that demands a conversation on mitigation and, as time passes, adaptation to the climate crisis.

  3. Seth Anthony says:

    “Computer Climate Model” is somewhat of a misnomer.

    Computer models are only relevant in a closed system with clearly understood parameters. In contrast, the climate is an open and chaotic system with numerous complex variables that are often poorly understood and highly debatable. How much so? Well, visit a web site that has scientists discussing and debating climate issues. You’ll find that even the tiniest aspects of our climate leads to a deep rabbit hole of scientific discussion that is full of debate, doubt, and assumptions.

  4. grinandbearit says:

    A “reset” signal was not expected by scientists from the transient inactivity in certain parts of the globe due to coronavirus.

  5. Seth Anthony says:

    One winter can be mild and snow free, while the next winter is a frozen wasteland, and vice versa. One summer can be blistering hot, while the next is rather cool, and vice versa. Why such a massive difference? The earth’s axis is the same in those time periods The earth’s topography hasn’t changed in those time periods. Solar output is the same for those time periods. Why wouldn’t the weather be at least somewhat similar in those time periods?

    When I’ve posed this question to a couple of climatologists, I received the suspected answers of ocean currents, uneven heating, cloud formation, etc, yet, those answers are effects, not causes.

    Some possible answers?

    1) A type of fluctuating solar output that we’re aware aware of, but are underestimating its affect on earth’s climate.

    2) A type of fluctuating solar output that we are NOT aware of, to which drastically affects the climate.

    3) As our solar system rockets through space at 800,000 km/hr, our atmosphere encounters “random” pockets of hydrogen, helium, electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust, dark matter, dark energy, cosmic rays, etc, etc. What affect would those have on earth’s atmosphere, hence its climate as those are encountered?

    4) Below ocean volcanoes and heat vents causing ocean temperature variations. We have no idea how often they occur. However, the consensus from scientists is that we’ve only touched the surface on how many there are.

  6. Socrates says:

    SA You are hitting the nail on the head with your questions. Our climate and weather seem to be defined by some 20 (so far known) rotating warming/cooling mechanisms that rotate each with its own speed and size. The CO2 mechanism is one of them. None of these mechanisms has the power to overcome the rest alone. But like a slot machine you need three wheels to align in 7 to get a jackpot. Here 2 or 3 mechanism’s maxima or minima seem to coincide and form a superposition on warming or cooling, that overpowers the rest. NASA has hinted for such a cooling coincidence by 2025.

    The IPCC ‘s purpose has been to examine only anthropogenic causes, so they ignore the other rotating mechanisms because none is strong enough to dominate alone. They are focusing on ways to make CO2 the dominant force, by making the needed assumptions – some of which violate the laws of Physics. Increasing number of scientific papers pointing to these violations, fall on increasingly deaf years. To the best of my knowledge they have never considered a coinciding superposition. One can excuse them because this topic is extremely complex and chaotic to even understand each individual forcing – never mind the combination of several forcing mechanisms simultaneously.

    In addition we have the Renewables industry marketing lobby that influence some professors to promote their wares and some billionaire investors in renewables – shown in Moore’s movie “Planet of Humans”- that control the media. These are the ingredients for a perfect crisis, much worse than the changing climate. I hope I am wrong.

    People like Chinook are frightened and all they can do is call names anybody that doesn’t abandon his house and go and live in caves in order to save CO2. Of course he still lives in his house, since he has electricity to behave like a troll.

    At least Grindandbearit made an effort to look for some information from official sources, but here again he does not recognize that we don’t expect an actual reduction of the CO2 due to lockdown.. We are expecting a reduction in its rate of increase, which is a change in the slope of the increasing curve, which has not happened yet. So we wait. The quality of information in Grindandbearit reference has a serious error. The natural CO2 is not in equilibrium in the atmosphere on a short geological time basis, and I will give two examples: a) NASA has shown that increasing CO2 causes increased green spaces that absorb additional CO2. and b) since the sea is warming then it must be releasing proportionally more CO2 to the atmosphere. Either one or both of these examples destroy the argument of equilibrium of Natural CO2 for short Geological time basis.

    Seth do not worry. The truth to such a significant issue will eventually surface. I only whish I am around when it happens.

  7. Seth Anthony says:

    Like I’ve said before Socrates, the climate is so complex and ambiguous, that trying to form coherent conclusions about it, is like trying to the count the bubbles in pot of boiling water. That is part and parcel of why I cringe when computer climate models are brought up (as detailed in a previous post of mine in this thread).

    The complexity, ambiguity, and assumptions can be found on web sites in which scientists are discussing and debating climate change, For every hypothesis presented, there are numerous and valid counter arguments by various types of scientist, and then it just gets more convoluted from there. As such, I honestly don’t have much faith in Climatologists. Not because of the reasons I just said, but rather their attempts at focusing in on human caused CO2. Granted, human caused CO2 is causing a warming effect, but I just don’t see the evidence that proves it’s anywhere near the effect of natural phenomena. I also get the feeling that if CO2 couldn’t be taxed, then the whole climate issue would not be nearly as prominent and pronounced as it has been.

    Above and beyond all that, I think the whole issue is misguided. We should acknowledge ALL forms of pollution and address them accordingly. Narrowing in on one alleged aspect, is well, “narrow”.

  8. Seth Anthony says:

    Also Socrates:

    The scenario I presented is an example of how unpredictable and chaotic the climate system is. It seems to me that if we truly understood all the factors, then the climate system/weather should be a lot more predictable and uniform. Yet, it’s highly chaotic and highly unpredictable. As such, I suspect 1 or more random factors that we’re unaware of, or random factors that we are aware of, but miscalculating or underestimating their affect. Hence, the list I posted of those other possible factors.

    With all that said, “predictably” and “uniformity” are subjective terms in this regard, so someone else may find that that the weather / climate is highly predictable and uniform, and dismiss my argument all together. However, that doesn’t by necessity dismiss the list of other possible factors.

    • Socrates says:

      Tris, You seem to consider the Guardian as a reliable scientific paper. I don’t. because it is a news paper, not a scientific one. So if this pleases you, go ahead and give them the subsidies they are asking.

    • Fescue says:

      I wonder if one of the types might include the ‘conspiracy-addled’.

      The ones that muddle data, or just make it up; the ones who can ignore the obvious interests of capital, but invent a worldwide conspiracy of academic scientists; the ones who think corporate media are leftist radicals.

      Laughable until they set the standard of living back a few centuries for their own grandchildren, for lack of preparedness caused by their selfishly deluded grandpappies.

  9. Seth Anthony says:

    Sheesh Fescue. You really need to work on your sarcasm 🙂 I’ll give you a hint though:

    “When utilizing sarcasm, be sure it actually applies to the recipient”.

    See what I mean sunshine?

  10. Socrates says:

    Fescu, either you represent a Super-genius or a Super-ignorant, and I am wondering if you are prepared to assist us in finding out. I say this because you have shown extreme brilliance in using sarcastic expressions and submit astonishing data like the one from The Narwal (By the way who is posting that website?) yet, in-spite of the impressive cut and paste collection that you seem to have accumulated,, you don’t seem to really understand them – sometimes you quote data that contradict your very own arguments.

    A normal scientific debate starts by finding and proving errors in your opponent’s claims. So, the way we can solve the Fescu question is for you to go to a Library or website and find any “peer reviewed study, published, that proves that the anthropogenic CO2 cycle controls the Earth’s thermostat. Nothing else. If you do just that you will have proven beyond question the worth of your stature. You will validate all your arguments, and I will bow to you with apologies for underestimating you.

    • Fescue says:

      Well, as you have said, ‘Falling down is not a failure. Failure comes when you stay where you have fallen.’ I think my teachers in my finishing school would have thought ‘super-ignorant’. Things probably haven’t changed much in that regard in the past thousand years since then …

      As for your request: considering science doesn’t ‘prove’ things, here is a open article from the peer-reviewed article in Science. If you want more about forcings, James Hanson has published oodles on them (except, maybe, space gas).

      If you ever see me referring to a paper that seems to contradict my point, please feel free to point it out.

    • Fescue says:

      Also, you made a curious, and telling, comment that scientific debate is about finding and proving errors in your opponent’s claims.

      In actuality, science is about trying to replicate a claim. If the scientist fails to do so, then it is tried again, with perhaps more control of confounding conditions or interactions. In other words, science is collegial (though competitive at times). When it is not, it is no longer science.

  11. Socrates says:

    Fescu, the intent to try to poke holes exists when a paper/study is used to validate and prove a theory. Sometimes there is a lot of collegiality and at other times there is a lot of competition/disagreement. In extreme cases we have name calling and even court actions but let me get to the Hansen/GISS paper.
    First of all, this paper is ten years old and a lot of research has taken place in the interim. For example, a lot of climate predictions and events made by Hansen and others have never materialized. Nevertheless, this paper/study is based on mathematical modelling and cannot be used as evidence. Math models are useful in helping us understand complex problems, but as scientists know, they are not good as evidence or to make accurate predictions. Models are loaded with assumptions that reflect the biases of the modeller- they are called “fudge factors”. Normally, I could stop here and close this case; however, I have kept the notes of my review of this paper from ten years ago and can thus list some of my findings for anyone interested.
    Hansen divides green house gases (GHG) into condensing and non- condensing ones and concludes that the non- condensing GHG control the condensing ones.

    1) The air of our troposphere contains mostly gases largely transparent to solar radiation. Only 1.05% of our atmosphere is made from GHG. All these GHG are made up from 95%(volume) water in various phases (vapor, droplets and ice), 4.5%(volume) CO2, and 0.5% (volume) of other gases.
    2) The atmosphere has the potential to retain water moisture proportional to its temperature. As atmospheric temperature increases by roughly 10 C the retaining potential doubles. However, this potential is materialized depending on the existence of large surfaces of unfrozen water nearby. A good example is Canada. The further from Vancouver, a prairie city is located, the dryer and cooler it becomes during the winter.
    3) In order to be switched by CO2, the H2O must not have its own significant interaction (absorption of heat) with the incoming solar light energy (visible or IR spectrums). However, a spectroscopic analysis of the GHG gases showed that there is interaction of the water molecules with incoming light and it rapidly absorbs energy regardless whether CO2 is present or not.
    This means that by the time the CO2 starts warming the atmosphere, to absorb GHG moisture, the atmosphere has already warmed on its own, through increased moisture and direct solar radiation/water interactions which are faster, have more energy and more volume. Observations support this conclusion and I will submit two examples.
    a) Flying over the clouds one clearly sees the rising vapor of re-evaporated water in a cloud resulting from the absorption of visible light spectrum from the sun.
    b) The early morning fog “lifts” as the sun comes up. Again here we have a sun light/water interaction.
    In conclusion, Fescu, your reference fails as evidence on two counts. A) it is based on models, and B) contains wrong assumptions.

    • Fescue says:

      Actually, no, scientists do not ‘poke holes’ in science – this is my point. Scientists make a hypothesis, they gather data according to a methodology, and they test that data against the hypothesis. Another scientist does the same. If they cannot support the results of the first experiment, they try again, try better, towards a reproducible outcome.

      The effort of ‘poking holes’ is called politics. This is common in the denial industry which, after twenty years of effort, have provided remarkably little evidence to support their claims. In the scientific world, we would say we have rejected the denialist’s hypothesis with a given certainty (which is pretty high, by now).

      As for the peer-reviewed paper for Science, this paper could be thirty years old and still be relevant, as it is fundamental atmospheric science. You might say that Newtonian physics is as valid today within allowable parameters, as when Isaac published his results some 300 years ago. The paper describes what is observed – empirical evidence. Your dismissal of scientific modelling is aligned with Seth’s “I can write a model to lie about anything.” It’s a corrupt argument.

      To your comments – as far as I can tell in your contorted prose, you are saying there is humidity in the world. Well, I have to agree. But it is irrelevant to the conversation. Quite simply, there are forcings, and there are feedbacks and amplifiers. Carbon Dioxide is a major forcing – so major that it acts as a thermostat for earth systems. And, relevant to our concerns, it is a forcing we could actually control if we were to care about future generations of humans.

      This might be comprehensible to y’all:

      Or this:

      But at least I know why you get along with The Coalegium.

  12. Seth Anthony says:

    Fescue said,

    Your dismissal of scientific modelling is aligned with Seth’s “I can write a model to lie about anything.” It’s a ridiculous argument.

    Ah yes, Fescue. Once again, it’s your proverbial “lying by omission”. In my previous discussions with you on other matters, I’ve noticed that lying by omission and cherry picking is your M.O.

    My position on computer climate has always been: exactly what I FULLY wrote. Which is:

    “Computer Climate Model” is somewhat of a misnomer.

    Computer models are only relevant in a closed system with clearly understood parameters. In contrast, the climate is an open and chaotic system with numerous complex variables that are often poorly understood and highly debatable. How much so? Well, visit a web site that has scientists discussing and debating climate issues. You’ll find that even the tiniest aspects of our climate leads to a deep rabbit hole of scientific discussion that is full of debate, doubt, and assumptions.

    If one cares to research it, there are other factors in addition to the above that explain why computer climate models are fundamentally meaningless, and most certainty, not evidence.

    Speaking of evidence, let’s have a look at the “evidence” perpetuating to show a 1 degree rise in global average temperature range over 100 years or so. The methodology and logistics used to determine such is chock full of holes. The accuracy of the equipment, the placement of the equipment, and human error, would result in an error margin that far exceeds the alleged 1 degree change. Here’s a short paper written by an expert in the field, that further explains the non-sense temperature readings that I’m speaking about.

    Evidence should be empirical. Evidence is not a computer model, nor is old temperature readings from antiquated instruments in combination with impossible logistics and seriously flawed methodology.

    If it wasn’t for the fact that there’s trillions to be made if one can prove the relevancy of anthropogenic CO2, then the whole topic in of itself would be far, far more subdued.

    • Fescue says:

      You’ve also said ‘I can make a computer model say anything.’

      That’s like saying ‘I can make data say anything’ in a scientific study.

      It’s corrupt.

      And pleeeeeez no more FOS articles. I’m trying to enjoy a Mavis Gallant novel, and keep my supper down.

  13. Seth Anthony says:

    So what that I also said, “I can make a computer model say anything”? Any computer programmer can. The point is, 1) It’s true, and 2) You lied by mission and cherry picked by leaving out the major reasons I opposed computer climate models. You deliberately did so to falsely undermine my position. It’s disingenuous and it’s corrupt.

    In regards to the paper I posted: Well, you’ve delighted me yet again in this thread by trying to discredit the expert facts based on the website it was posted on. It shows that along with cherry picking and lying by omission, you’re the type that tries to discredit the messenger or their host instead of addressing the arguments presented (Fallacy of Origin) It’s also disingenuous and corrupt.

    BTW: Were you able to keep your supper down, or was the humble pie too hard to swallow? 🙂

    • Tris Pargeter says:

      I’m not a scientist, but it strikes me as a true “discipline” in that its methodology requires unflagging openness, and is characterized by a reluctance to ever “settle.” This level of rigor is unparalleled, and runs so counter to human nature as to make it a bona fide ideal, and so in a class by itself.
      In that spirit, how about you read the Narwhal link Fescue posted? The source is always paramount, and this one is impeccable, as is the National Observer that it quotes. The “Friends of Science” is outed in this article, especially if you “follow the money,” your entire mantra apparently. So is Michelle Stirling, who has commented here.
      These sites are impeccable because they’re both run by women, who are largely more objective by virtue of usually being outsiders, but they are also consummate journalists.
      Sandy Garrosino for example, wrote the piece that debunked the entire basis for the UCP war room, for one. Also, these two news sites are solidly “made in Canada,” unlike the American-based FOS, which is just another of the countless shills for the monstrous fossil fuel industry, where those trillions you speak of are actually in play.

    • Fescue says:

      Ha. Humble pie. That was good : )

  14. Seth Anthony says:


    Regarding your first paragraph:

    I have no idea what point it is you’re trying to make.

    Regarding your second paragraph:

    I haven’t even looked at Fescue’s link, as it was intended for Socrates and has nothing to do with the arguments I presented (which are computer climate models and temperature reading methodology and logistics).

    I have no opinion on the FOS, and I don’t outright reject arguments based on what the author has previously said, or what the author’s host is. To do so is disingenuous as more thoroughly explained in my previous post.

    99% of my arguments on the matter have nothing to do with money. Yet, you claim that following the money is my entire Mantra? WTF????

    Regarding your third paragraph:

    The brilliant women of science are largely ignored. If I had my way, such a topic would be required reading in the education system,

    Regarding your last paragraph:

    The money to be had in proving anthropogenic global warming pales in comparison to proving otherwise. The only reason fossil fuel industries support a carbon tax is optics, and most importantly, an excuse to get more money out of the end user.

    • Tris Pargeter says:

      I will try and explain. My first paragraph is attempting to create a perspective on this topic, a bigger picture, rather than getting into the weeds, as an array of science buffs and/or armchair scientists continuously do in these comments with various arcane bits of information from the internet, or from their various careers in a variety of areas.
      I am simply lauding science as unique due to its exacting methodology, that when applied through decades by highly experienced and educated people is simply beyond reproach, not to mention that the gist of what was predicted is currently happening. These decades of work took a myriad of forms, with a multitude of tools used, so to quibble, and put yourself on a par with these people strikes me as ludicrous and arrogant. Credit where credit is due appears to wing right by the staunch male ego I have repeatedly noticed. There absolutely are degrees of credibility.
      Scientists don’t go into it for the money any more than teachers do, or journalists. This recommends their sincerity and genuine interest, augmented by the methodology they work within.
      Bottom line, Seth, is whether or not you are one of the denialists, period. Friends of Science IS, period. Read that article, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Fescue is right. You guys are all wrong. Period.
      On your outrage about me saying that money seems to be your entire mantra, note in your earlier comment, “If it wasn’t for the fact that there’s trillions to be made if one can prove the relevancy of anthropogenic CO2, then the whole topic in and of itself would be far, far more subdued.” Why is it that you can’t comprehend ANYTHING happening without money driving it? Why not life on earth as we have known it? We’ve been warned, and anyone who dismisses that is either so terrified that they can’t contemplate it, so has to reject it wholesale, and shoot all THOSE messengers, or too dumb to live….and consider the line, that “people protest in sprawling, lightless ways.” And consider that male entitlement, like any other entitlement is NOT something the entitled are even aware of, so blinkered are they. That’s half the men I’ve ever known.

  15. Socrates says:

    The effect of pocking holes in the assumptions of others, knowledgeable people will see it as a form of Quality Control process that brings up the truth in sciences.
    Society has hired professors, placed them in their ivory towers, provided them with a good salary, and gave them tenures. All that is expected from them is to think, to push the envelope of knowledge and to teach our children how to think. They are expected to be collegial to each other but not to the point where their output is compromised by political correctness or too much collegiality.

    Coming to you Fescu, the fact that you could not understand the significance of moisture in the atmosphere- while we discussed GHG, plus the fact that you cannot differentiate between established and evolving knowledge of sciences, tells me that you have the talent for, but no idea of sciences. Yet, you like to keep busy arguing about sciences by using a cut- and- paste collection that you keep. I have found your contribution to these dialogues destructive. Hence, I have decided not only to terminate our discussion here, but also to ignore any future inputs from you.

      • Tris Pargeter says:

        Back to that novel, Fescue. It’ll be more rewarding….

        • Fescue says:

          Dear Censor,

          The reference of ‘sacrificing a cock to Asclepius’ is a reference to (the real) Socrates’ last words according to Plato’s Apology. This is appropriate to the conversation as Socrates said that he would no longer speak to me (something I know I will be grateful for).

          It is also appropriate as Asclepius was the god of health, helping Socrates’ bruised ego as he deals with a devastating scientific refutation to his disinformation on climate science which detracts from meaningful action in mitigation. Socrates (and the coalegium) are irresponsible in this regard and should not have a voice in the Herald, as Chinook suggested above.

          Certainly, this is not as clever as Seth’s keeping my humble pie down, but it is the best I could do.

  16. Tris Pargeter says:

    Two laugh emojis….

  17. Seth Anthony says:


    Most of what you wrote in your last post is ludicrous and/or non-sensical. So much so that I question if you’re losing your mind or were intoxicated when you wrote it.


    Ya, that humble pie thing was pretty damn good. lol

  18. Tris Pargeter says:

    That’s not a reasonable or fair assessment of what I wrote at all, but simply relegating me as being drunk or crazy actually underscores my point about the steadfastly blinkered male ego.
    It also puts you squarely in the same camp as baxter, oblivious wielder of kneejerk misogyny punctuated by LOL’s.

    Being able to see the forest isn’t the be-all and end-all, but neither is only seeing the trees, since both exist equally.

  19. biff says:

    and in the end, another issue that boils down to hashing out the degree to which tris hates men? is there not yet a term coined for that outrage, (seeing as we have misogyny)…women that hopelessly and irrationally hate men?
    given tris’s expressed intelligence on a very many occasions, i would have thought that tris was wiser than to be one to lump an entire group into a simple stereotype. and, moreover, to exalt one particular colour of men based on confusing a personal taste preference on an unfounded stereotype, serves to undermine her otherwise well deserved credibility. seriously, can tris really not acknowledge that most men in canada are as decent as most canadian women, and are as wholly respectful of women as women are of men? and yes, there are some glaring exceptions in every group. but intelligent people do not colour an entire group based on the nasty exceptions.
    leads me to wonder how is it even acceptable that it is ok to express hatred of “men”, let alone doing so in a time when it is not ok to express hatred of any identifiable group. tris, i believe you are better than this.

  20. Seth Anthony says:

    Tris said:
    Particularly the Narwhal one that Fescue offered regarding the “Friends of Science,” which Seth dismissed

    Due to your reading comprehension issue, among other things, I’ll have to answer that yet AGAIN:

    I have no opinion on the FOS, and I don’t outright reject arguments based on what the author has previously said, or who the author’s host is. To do so is disingenuous and a “Fallacy of Origin”.

    I haven’t even looked at Fescue’s link, as it was intended for Socrate’s question and has nothing to do with the arguments I presented (which relate to computer climate models and temperature reading methodology / logistics).

    You’re obviously confused.

    • Socrates says:

      Tris, You write: those “…..who deny science of climate change, starting with the writer of this article in question, -who has the temerity, or ego, to refuse to defer to the consensus of the majority of climate scientists…”

      All this eloquence on the surface, tends to indicate some kind of intellectual, commanding respect. But before we examine it further, lets define the problem of Climate Change:

      On the one side it is SCIENCE and on the other side is PURE POLITICS.. IPCC is mostly, a political organization. Some people like you follow the POLITICALLY CORRECT route, while other people, like me, follow the SCIENCE approach since I have studied in this area.

      THE SCIENCE SIMPLY DOES NOT ADD UP. There is not point for me to get into scientific details because you will not understand them. I will try with principles:
      a) Before Sherlock Holms starts elimination investigations, firstly he rounded up all suspects. IPCC did not. They picked up only one suspect mechanism, the CO2, and investigated it -neglecting twenty others.
      b) They claim that CO2 only activates water moisture to form additional GHG, while spectroscopic analysis of water molecules shows that water molecules interact directly with the high energy sunlight spectrum to rapidly increase the GHG independently from CO2.
      c) IPCC tells us that the extra heat is stored (accumulated) in the deep Ocean. But we know that heat causes warming and a warming ocean releases a lot more giga-tones of CO2 to the atmosphere, compared to humans. The atmosphere warms and warms more the ocean who releases more CO2 to the atmosphere……and so on. Here we have a giant positive feed back that if true, would have boiled the Earth millions of years ago when the first volcano erupted.
      d) The number of 2 degrees C limit was picked out of a hat. There was not any study. So what is the basis for the “emergency” and “crisis”?
      e) Hundreds of peer reviewed technical papers have been published pointing out to those discrepancies to IPCC’s theories, but IPCC has chosen to ignore them.
      I can go on and on on with the scientific errors. Any logical person would have conclude that IPCC’s Sciences SIMPLY DON’T ADD UP. The simplest evidence of it is inside the IPCC reports AR4 & AR5. Every one of their predictions and key conclusions is escorted with the word “likely” which indicates doubt. Here again what is the basis for the tooted emergency and crisis.

      Why some scientists have accepted IPCC’s theories? I don’t know and I don’t care. As the Einstein and the Galileo incidents have proven “science does not progresses with percent acceptance of theories”. When these scientists decide to explain the basis for their decision, I will tell you.

      THE POLITICAL SIDE DOES ADD UP if one is a street sheep that adheres to “political correctness”. I don’t adhere to “political correctness because it advocates that for every problem there is only one correct opinion. “yours”. You then can force it on me. The problem is that we live in the western world where the freedom of thought, and freedom of expression are cherished in the constitutions. So, what gives you the right Trish to call me names if I am not a sheep??????? Burring your audacity in eloquence does not make it more palatable of more forgivable. So I am sentencing you to sacrifice two cocks to Asclipiou, or in second thought two chickens.

      • Fescue says:

        A good list of long-ago debunked talking points from shills for the fossil fuel industry.

        The reason that 97% of scientists accept the IPCC summary of their work is, quite simply, because they understand the science. (Compared to a few old curmudgeons meeting in a garage in Coaldale).

  21. biff says:

    tris, to be fair and honest, have you not disparaged “men” a very many times in this forum? is that not as unreasonable and unacceptable as disparaging any entire group, notwithstanding specific individuals that belong to whatever group who may deserve a bashing because of their actions and intentions?
    it is the intention of my entry that i wish for you to understand that bashing an entire group, or exalting a group, based strictly on the nature of the genetics they have inherited, is without any rational or acceptable foundation. i know you are evolved enough to understand this to be so. hence, when one bashes an entire group, one is demonstrating something less than evolved and rational thought; in fact, one is instead demonstrating a certain hatred founded upon ignorance. i truly do not feel this is your heart, nor your intention. and if this is indeed not you, i expect you will come to understand my concern.

  22. biff says:

    tris – no condescension intended in either of my entries on this matter. as well, in my second entry i did move away from men worldwide to men in canada.
    i agree inasmuch that worldwide it is far more difficult to try and defend male behaviour; it is all the worse, ironically, in the more religiously structured societies. but is it also not even more on the mark to say that it is human behaviour that is too often indefensible? meanwhile, perhaps you might acknowledge that worldwide, when it comes to power, women in positions of power have demonstrated the same wicked tendencies as men…throughout history, no less.
    i will stand by my take that canadian men are no more or less worse than canadian women, despite your strong statement that there is a greater bad-male tendency to be found among those that identify as right wing, and even among those that identify with neo-liberalism, which is right wing only still somewhat in disguise.
    you mention trudeau, and not sure if your take on him is positive or negative, but for the record, and not because i am a man’s man, he is a bum – so not like his dad. what i see in him is a sociopath, ready to represent as everything to everyone, but in actuality, just another scammer like the slippery sidekick, morneau. now there is a double heap of privilege and privilege begetting privilege.
    you will not weep for me, but i hit the job market during a time when being a white male gave me only disadvantages. i was denied numerous jobs due the double speak that is called equal opportunity employment; the reality of that was you are out of luck if you are white and male, save for various ethnic pockets that hired their own. which brings me to your statement that white men control all the main levers of power in the world; well, like the rap against hollywood for being too white is too general, i will suggest the levers of power and wealth and culture are disproportionately held by jewish males and females, not simply white people. now of course i will be told i am antisemitic, but i do not hate jewish people; as with any peoples, we will find that the most are good, but there will also be the bad and the ugly. it is irrational to hate a group because of the bad ones.
    i am a white male, but not one that is hateworthy. in fact, i am and have long been quite outside any in-grouping of privilege, and yet, i may be an object of scorn because simply because i am a white male. i pose no threat to another, nor do i have a hate on for another, and yet i am to be scorned because i am a white male? it is unjust to generally hate a group.
    what i am hopeful for, tris, is a world where we stop our juvenile, navel gazing tribalism, and come to see the bigger picture. tribal alignments are a large piece of the big lie, the illusion upon which hate thrives. tribalism can only exist in a realm of in and out groups. consequently, we become easily led astray from our true unity and sameness, and instead fall prey to the effects of insecurity, suspicion, and separation.
    a wise person once said something along the lines of: when you are able to look into the eyes of another and see yourself, you have awakened. while i will require more lifetimes to be among the awakened, your entry has served to remind that being a female is wrought with more danger and disadvantage than being a male. and yet, i will continue to take offense to be lumped into any group that does not reflect my nature. it is not men that are wicked; it is that there are wicked men, and people. in sum, the issues you demonstrate a passionate attention for boil down to the human condition. and if do not approach our issues as wholly, we will forever be competing, digging trenches and battle lines, only to dig up more reasons to hate one group and exalt another.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.