Climate Change: A Catastrophist’s Perspective (Part 1)
Note: Due to difficulties being reported, please watch the video from the Vimeo link below.
Since the release of Al Gore’s disquieting documentary An Inconvenient Truth, the extent of humanity’s influence on the earth’s climate has become one of the most pressing topics in the public discourse. Hotly contested from the start, it is also one of the most polarizing. Arguments for and against the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming often divide along ideological or partisan political lines. Not since the days of Copernicus has such zealous rhetoric colored the discussion around a scientific theory.
Amid all of this politicized and impassioned debate, where does the actual science stand? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N.-appointed group of international scientists, has issued a consensus agreement stating that anthropogenic global warming is significant and poses a grave and growing threat to the biosphere. However, other researchers adamantly disagree with this conclusion and have published data that call into question some key global warming claims. Controversies of political and financial agendas, flawed research, and cover-up scandals have recently arisen on both sides surrounding this beleaguered theory, further complicating an objective appraisal of the facts.
“Renegade scholar” Randall Carlson brings a unique perspective to this dichotomized debate. Carlson’s interest in climate change arose out of decades of investigation into catastrophism, the idea that the Earth has been dramatically altered in the past by sudden, cyclical cataclysmic events. His extensive research depicts an extremely volatile climatological history of our planet, long before human interference through industrialization. This view, based on peer-reviewed data and documented sources, offers a challenging counterpoint to the prevailing beliefs about global climate change.
I recently sat down with Randall Carlson for a video interview, presented here on Reality Sandwich in three parts. Following our discussion, Randall led me through a detailed presentation of some of the data he has compiled to support his claims.
Randall Carlson interview on Reality Sandwich: Climate Change, Part 1 of 3 from Sacred Geometry International on Vimeo.
Click here to watch part two of the interview, or here to view the presentation.
More info on Randall Carlson and his work can be found at SacredGeometryInterntional.com.
Tweet
Comments
Thanks for presenting this,
Thanks for presenting this, it's nice to hear alternative views. I've been skeptical about the reality or scope of anthropogenic global warming for some time, and the climate gate incident kind of confirmed for me how bias the IPCC is as well as media, governments and academia in general.
I've tried to understand the scientific arguments for both sides but find it very time consuming and I get out of my depth with it, yet it does seem that we contribute a very small proportion of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the influence on climate of the solar cycles is not fully understood.
Anthony Watts provides an informative blog on the skeptical view called 'Watts up with That?', for instance one thing he mentions is that the global temperature data is often unnaturally high due to weather stations being placed in urban locations surrounded by tarmac which raises the temperatures.
It bothers me when I hear well meaning environmentalists warning us and fear mongering about something which might not actually be happening, I'm all for society drastically reducing the amount of oil we use and using green sustainable energy but I'd like us to make sure we're doing it for the right reasons.
When I hear people talking about anthropogenic global warming as if it is an established fact I wonder where they get their certainty from, do they blindly believe the IPCC which has shown itself to be very bias, are they themselves expert climate scientists, how can they be so sure?
Much as I respect the work that Daniel Pinchbeck does I feel that he does tend to promote the notion that anthropogenic global warming is a certainty.
I wonder if the recent oil spill in the Gulf will do more to impact people's view on oil consumption than the prospect of global warming has done, the spill seems much more real and immediate, devestating and shameful, especially after what has seemed like (at least where I live) a very cold snowy winter.
I agree ada
Its nice for there to be a solid debate.I mean we ultimately want the same things. To protect our planet. Its our home. To think that there is information being kept from the general public to defuse any debate on the relevance of CO2 in the atmosphere in relation to the change in climate suggests that there is an alternate agenda. We're not scientist ( not all of us) we're depending on those who ARE to tell us of their findings and we make decisions based off of what they as experts say. If its being painted in a light that makes any debate seems like you're anti-"green" then its possible to miss the important things. I'm not saying we shouldn't search for alternatives to burning fossil fuel. Smog is very real, oil spills are VERY much a reality and with this BP spill its obvious our attentions have been put in the wrong direction.
Stephen is right this movement is " highjacked " with end game being We the people pay more taxes because we ( just by breathing) are pollutants. Now that's purely a hypothesis on my part but i'm really thinking its leading there.When the real issues of environmental safety , clean up, and prevention & protection are totally ignored because the solution comes in the guise of a carbon tax. I'm so grateful for insight towards a real solution. Thank you reality sandwich for posting this. Its like people are investing in this whole 350 parts per million and its probably not even relevant....
Global Warming or Global Governance
cargocollective.com/pinkelephantcollective
"An Elephant Never Forgets...."
RE: What is this about?
Dear E Sam.
First things first.
Yes this is a very intricate subject matter and does require more than a superficial knowledge if not expertise of various related fields to comprehend and discuss adequately.
Therefore I would advise you watch the entire video (about 2 hours with the presentation)
and then ask yourself why you are skeptical of skeptics being that by your own admission you don't know what to believe. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Criticizing someone without taking the time to comprehend their position is poor sport.
By the way Science does not operate by Majority rule as mentioned by Randall in the video.
So please start there and reconsider your "argument".
Again lets look at what you are presenting.
"If I personally had great expertise in any of the fields in which Mr. Carlson frequently works, then I would not hesitate to promote his or any other independent scholar's viewpoints, if indeed there is good EVIDENCE"
Again I think you may want to watch the entire presentation and you will see that an immense amount of Evidence is in fact presented by him and that it is coming from the peer reviewed literature. Don't you think it is interesting that the IPCC and their hired PR people always say there are no "Peer Reviewed" papers to support skepticism? And yet magically many exist. It's almost like they were just lying to us or something....
Again if you want to know you can read the back groundstory herehttp://www.disinfo.com/2010/02/ipcc-international-pack-of-climate-crooks...
Or watch the film Global Warming or Global Governance.
And one more thing... Don't you think it's odd we rarely here these perspectives from mainstream media? Only because of Indy Journalism and folks like us busting our asses to bring out different perspectives, does it ever eventually carry over to mainstream broadcasts. They only present what they have to and we have to force their hand to hear two divergent, let alone multiple sides on any issue.
Thank you
-Camron
PS> Reality Sandwiches site is glitching and I can't write all that I like here so please forgive the formatting issues (not my fault)
PS> I know of 4 other Climate Scientists here in Atlanta who all completely disagree with my perspective and that of anyone who questions there dogma. They are related to the Ga Tech Earth And Atmospheric Sciences Dept. there and I have actually brought up much of this contrary info to them without satisfaction.
Mr. Carlson as any good scientist should be, is always willing to engage in discussion and debate related to these critical issues of Earth Change and Catastrophe.
As a professional designer/builder, student of Sacred Geometry and long time Freemason, Randall is uniquely qualified to i
Dear E. Sam
It seems like we have gotten off on the wrong foot.
I appreciate your comments though I disagree with some of your assumptions.
I'm sure Randall would be more than happy to speak with Ms. Curry or any other climate scientists about this information.
I am all for fair representation in all areas of human discourse. Unfortunately there is an incredible amount of information pointing to the deliberate obfuscation of data and avoidance of FOIA F
(Freedom of Informationa Requests) by the pro AGW "consensus" therefore they are not adhering
to this fundamental agreement of scientfiic discourse. In doing so they are culpable for the decline of scientific integrity in service to a political agenda of mass disenfranchisment via the cap and trade system and the funding that would be misdirected as a consequence of this exagerated threat.
Thank you for your time.
I'm really not a bad guy, I just don't like people leading with assumptions or assertions which are not fair and our slanderous. You said in your first post rather dismissiively that this was done as a means of self promotion and then as some type of climate skepticism.
In doing so I thought you were simply attacking him without making the time to see what he was saying. If you would like to comment on what he actually presented and the scientific merits of his postion please feel free to do so. Otherwise it is a distraction from the purpose of the message and given the circumstance and the severity of the issue I felt you must be corrected.
Take care
-Camron
As a professional designer/builder, student of Sacred Geometry and long time Freemason, Randall is uniquely qualified to i
Hi Sacredgeometry
Hi Sacredgeometry, you said -
'Don't you think it is interesting that the IPCC and their hired PR people always say there are no "Peer Reviewed" papers to support skepticism? And yet magically many exist. It's almost like they were just lying to us or something....'
It seems the IPCC are not too fussy about the source of the data that they use to support their own claims either, one example being the so called 'glacier gate'.
In the IPCC’s 2007 report thay said - “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
Yet the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist in 1999, and the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist who has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research.
Also glaciologists found the figures ludicrous, most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower. But Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, had dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”.
Story reported here by Timesonline -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?tok...
Since then the IPCC had to admit it's mistake saying -
'It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.'
I think this is just one good example of how unreliable and alarmist some of the claims of the IPCC are.
A Guise for a solution
RE: E. Sam
"I am not skeptical of skeptics (I am skeptical of denialists, however). Read what I wrote in answer to PinkGanesh below -- you will also see that I am not that interested in climate science."
"I myself am skeptical of some aspects of climate science, but recognize that I really don't know anything about it, and I TRUST the scientific community when they say we should take it seriously. Some argue that climate scientists are part of a massive propaganda campaign. To such people, I ask, ``How many scientists do you know personally, not ones you have read about on Disinfo or Evolver or wherever? And how many of those do you know in the field of Climate Science? 5? 10?''Wow.... So let me get this straight. You admittedly have no idea what your talking about when it comes to Climate Change and yet you feel confident enough to challenge what you refer to as "the denialists"... interesting. Did you know that a was a term cooked up by PR mind controllers like James Hogan for the sole purpose of stifling dissent via slander and name calling.
This is always the last resort of those who are not willing to discuss the facts of the matter. If you don't believe us you're (insert epithet of choice)
"I am not skeptical of skeptics (I am skeptical of denialists, however). Read what I wrote in answer to PinkGanesh below -- you will also see that I am not that interested in climate science."So being that your not interested in climate science may I borrow your own phrase and ask "What is the (your) goal?" You have stated that you understand that science does not operate on majority rule and yet you advocate that because the IPCC has made it's own "Coalition of the willing" and repeated so often that there is a consensus that it must be true. If you want things to be true just repeat them often enough right? don't let the facts get in the way...
If you care to know you can do some research here and reconsider your position by becoming informed and not relying on the hearsay of your fellow academicians (by proxy scholarship?) or you can continue to make nonsensical retorts while hiding behind titles and affiliations in place of reasoned discussion.
"To be perfectly honest, I don't really care that much about the climate change issue. I CARE, just not as much as proponents on either side of the issue. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe it is a manufactured consensus of scientists.Well then you may enjoy reading this scientists perspective as he definitely does not do as he is told and also presents thoroughly the illusion of consensus on this matter and it's origins throughout the history of the global warming fear mongering campaign.
"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do." -Richard Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary SciencesYou can read the entire article here if you CARE to.. (sorry had an Austin Powers moment here)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Again being that the IPCC is a political body that is comprised of primarily non-climate scientists your assumptions as to their majority rule over the facts is again poorly founded.
I hope you will make the time to become better informed as to the massive amount of dissent amongst climate scientists that exists and not rely on the press releases and conjurings of PR firms to form your arguments.
The real threat is that we will not do our due diligence and that our corrupt system will gain an unprecedented access to tax our already imperiled citizenry literally driving millions into the poor house and creating the grounds for a new dark age. All in the name of saving the Earth. Double speak and the Hegelian dialectic as tactics of population/mind control must be understood to be diffused.
-Camron
As a professional designer/builder, student of Sacred Geometry and long time Freemason, Randall is uniquely qualified to i
RE: E. Sam
"I am not skeptical of skeptics (I am skeptical of denialists, however). Read what I wrote in answer to PinkGanesh below -- you will also see that I am not that interested in climate science."
"I myself am skeptical of some aspects of climate science, but recognize that I really don't know anything about it, and I TRUST the scientific community when they say we should take it seriously. Some argue that climate scientists are part of a massive propaganda campaign. To such people, I ask, ``How many scientists do you know personally, not ones you have read about on Disinfo or Evolver or wherever? And how many of those do you know in the field of Climate Science? 5? 10?''Wow.... So let me get this straight. You admittedly have no idea what your talking about when it comes to Climate Change and yet you feel confident enough to challenge what you refer to as "the denialists"... interesting. Did you know that a was a term cooked up by PR mind controllers like James Hogan for the sole purpose of stifling dissent via slander and name calling.
This is always the last resort of those who are not willing to discuss the facts of the matter. If you don't believe us you're (insert epithet of choice)
"I am not skeptical of skeptics (I am skeptical of denialists, however). Read what I wrote in answer to PinkGanesh below -- you will also see that I am not that interested in climate science."So being that your not interested in climate science may I borrow your own phrase and ask "What is the (your) goal?" You have stated that you understand that science does not operate on majority rule and yet you advocate that because the IPCC has made it's own "Coalition of the willing" and repeated so often that there is a consensus that it must be true. If you want things to be true just repeat them often enough right? don't let the facts get in the way...
If you care to know you can do some research here and reconsider your position by becoming informed and not relying on the hearsay of your fellow academicians (by proxy scholarship?) or you can continue to make nonsensical retorts while hiding behind titles and affiliations in place of reasoned discussion.
"To be perfectly honest, I don't really care that much about the climate change issue. I CARE, just not as much as proponents on either side of the issue. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe it is a manufactured consensus of scientists.Well then you may enjoy reading this scientists perspective as he definitely does not do as he is told and also presents thoroughly the illusion of consensus on this matter and it's origins throughout the history of the global warming fear mongering campaign.
"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do." -Richard Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary SciencesYou can read the entire article here if you CARE to.. (sorry had an Austin Powers moment here)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Again being that the IPCC is a political body that is comprised of primarily non-climate scientists your assumptions as to their majority rule over the facts is again poorly founded.
I hope you will make the time to become better informed as to the massive amount of dissent amongst climate scientists that exists and not rely on the press releases and conjurings of PR firms to form your arguments.
The real threat is that we will not do our due diligence and that our corrupt system will gain an unprecedented access to tax our already imperiled citizenry literally driving millions into the poor house and creating the grounds for a new dark age. All in the name of saving the Earth. Double speak and the Hegelian dialectic as tactics of population/mind control must be understood to be diffused.
-Camron
As a professional designer/builder, student of Sacred Geometry and long time Freemason, Randall is uniquely qualified to i
IPCC
Keep in mind that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is NOT comprised solely of climate scientists. When William Schlesinger was asked at the JLF/Reese Institute climate change forum on how many of the 2,500 members of the IPCC were climate scientists, he approximated about 20%. Three quarters of the remaining body are Economists, Sociologists, Politicians, etcetera. The chair of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is an Economist, and his education began with railway engineering! Mr. Pachauri's lack of climate science credentials clearly back up his alarmist reports as mentioned by ada's comment above.
The IPCC\UN was set up for the promotion of World Government, and to make everyone pay a "carbon tax" to the IMF and World Bank, PERIOD. Does anyone remember the recent Copenhagen conference? Remember when all the developing countries walked out and suspended the conference temporarily? A Danish text document was leaked and revealed that the funds from climate financing, originally allocated to go to the UN and then be doled out piecemeal to third world nations, would instead be paid directly into the coffers of the World Bank and IMF - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
This is why the IPCC is comprised of less than a quarter of climate scientists. It has hardly anything to do with climate science and everything to do with international governance.
RE: IPCC
Thank you for responding. I appreciate everyone here filling in the blanks for those unaware.
-Camron
As a professional designer/builder, student of Sacred Geometry and long time Freemason, Randall is uniquely qualified to i
GW legislation only empowers repessive global governance
Many reasons exist to question the legitimacy of claims of global warming being a man-made phenomenon.
A large scientific industry has grown around the study of climate change which depends on fears of global warming to further the industry, and powerful establishment globalist elite individuals are depending on fears of man-made climate change to implement legislation which further empowers a repressive global government.
It is shown that the potential effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated, and the proposed legislation would not actually have any significant effect on the warming no matter what the cause of the warming is.
For a summary of such topics see http://newsofinterest.tv/global_warming/index.php
love it
Connecting the Dots...
Thanks everyone for the
Thanks everyone for the comments and for thoroughly digesting the material. This was a difficult stance for me to embrace, coming to grips with an entrenched belief in something that seemed to make intuitive sense to me, but that I'd never really investigated myself. My belief in global warming was founded on the deep understanding that we are perverting natural processes and critically endangering all life on earth. This speaks clearly to all people who are concerned for the future of the planet.
I was very resistant to the information at first, but Randall is an uncompromising thinker and researcher. His certainty alone would be enough to give me serious pause. With the research laid out, its more than compelling. We'll be doing more interviews with Randall, highlighting his primary focus as a scholar of ancient civilizations, esoteric wisdom, and cycles of catastrophe on earth. For now, check him out at the Sacred Geometry International site: http://cargocollective.com/sacredgeometryinternational
Cheers,
ST
RE: Thanks to everyone for the comments
Thank you Stephen for making this conversation possible. We must remember the machine behind the propaganda and look for ourselves at the power of their manipulation. I myself was caught up in the hype and hyperbole of "An Inconvient Truth" until thankfully I was able to research different perspectives on the issue and see for myself the deliberate obfuscation of the peer review process.
I hope that everyone who reads this will share it with those who may still be in the dark as to what the real intentions of the IPCC and the UN are in regards to Cap and Trade and Global Governance.
Power rarely (if ever) has the best interest of the common people at heart. It should not surprise any student of history the levels to which this corruption may reach. We are seeing a corruption of true Environmentalism that will only create a new form of taxation to fight a manufactured crisi in place of the litany of real crises we face.
This perversion is evident at all levels and must be faced down with Reason and open forums of discussion and debate.
Thank you Stephen Thomas and Reality Sandwich for enabling this.
If there are any scientists who wish to continue this conversation with Randall Carlson please contact us @ sacredgeometryatlanta@gmail.com
-SGA
PS> My CAPTCA was Madonna the (Black Madonna I wonder...)
Questions, Questions, Questions....
RE: Questions Questions Questions
is troubling because his vision continues to focus on what he calls the big picture of climate change. Heating in the yawning debate if it being natural, human, or non existent. For me, the cap and trade policies would help mitigate the pressing trouble on human civilization. Isn't this the greater point of all the debate? Why is there no focus on this?
Thank you for taking the time to watch the interview. I may be able to assist here with your questions. The bigger picture Randall alludes to here is the reality of Massiven non Anthropogenic climate change that we have been faced with throughout our short time on the face of the Earth.
For example the sudden heating that ended the last ice age ~13,000 years ago has not yet been adequately explained and serves as one of the more recent events which shifted our climate completely without the influence of mankind. If you are interested to learn more please visit cosmographicresearch.org. It is within this Catastrophic context that Randall is framing our concerns of a small enhancement of a trace gas (Co2) that is not proving to have a deleterious effect on climate or human health.
As for Cap and Trade. If there is in fact no threat due to the small enhancement of the trace gas Co2 then we have to ask the question cui bono?, who benefits? As Randall layed out in the interview those who are releasing the most alarming predictions are conveniently ignoring any contrary data while setting out to capitalize as much as possible if this despotic system (which would actually not reduce Co2 or help the environment discernably) were employed.
Please check out the following article which does well to counter every assumption and illogical theory that the IPCC presents in their various proclamations about global warming/climate change.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3732-climate-change-science
I believe that this yet another manufactured crisis designed to create a new form of taxation and that the most recent oil spill is most likely another manufactured crisis to force people to have an emotional reaction and sign away their rights via cap and trade or whatever else they offer up in their problem-reaction-solution system of population control.
"Goldman Sachs dumped 44% of its shares in BP Oil during the first quarter – shares that subsequently lost 36 percent of their value, equating to $96 million."
cargocollective.com/pinkelephantcollective
"An Elephant Never Forgets...."
Our Evolution