tube-globe-headingWE DIDN’T DO IT!

Well as we all know there is no such thing as climate change and if there were WE have NO IMPACT on our earth.

Earth changes are the EARTH’S FAULT and if not, then at least the Russians!

Now forget about Fukushima. Nuclear Power is CLEAN and yes at the moment Fukushima is still pumping tons and tons of radio active material into the Pacific Ocean but don’t you worry …… it’s a big ocean.

And now that we have CLEAN COAL we can all rest and we’ll have our in coming Orange President promoting it and all the coal miners that voted to bring back their BLACK LUNG disease will have jobs.

And hell, less trees world wide only means more toothpicks and less oxygen over the long haul but you’ll get used to it!

No. Climate change is just the earth telling you to move to another planet, soon. But has nothing to do with we humans and our life style.

It’s all those scientists who have made it all up! JUST HOW COULD WE HUMANS BE DOING IT?













  1. Jay says:

    I mean, it seems like we’re pretty guilty, but if you say we’re not, I know lots of folks who are so happy to be business as usual. IT’s nice and warm when you’re head’s in the sand!

    Liked by 3 people

    • tubularsock says:

      Well Jay, Tubularsock has always like the statement, “Mother Nature bats last!”
      Seem the only way we’ll really understand that is when it is too late. And then who will be left to write the hit song …..”you’re going to miss me when I’m gone?”

      Oh well.

      Thanks for your comment.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Norman Pilon says:

    Hmm. It’s not that climate doesn’t change, it does. And it’s not that humans don’t have an impact, they do. And it’s not that CO2 isn’t a “green house” gas, it is. Rather, it’s how much of an impact, not regionally, but on the scale of the entire planet, that humans are having on the climate.

    Have a look here, for example:

    Coral bleaching debate — Jim Steele | Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)


    A presentation on the climate effects of local ecologies — Jim Steele speaking to the IEEE | Landscapes and Cycles

    And don’t neglect this:

    The 2015 Arctic Report Card: NOAA Failed Walrus Science! — Jim Steele | Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

    And then there is this, too:

    Henrik Svensmark: Cosmic Rays, Solar Magnetic Field, and Cloud Formation as Drivers of Climate Change

    And along with that:

    The Cloud Experiment at CERN – Jasper Kirkby follows up on Henrik Svensmark’s work

    And then you probably don’t want to miss this, too:

    Global Warming: How It All Began — Richard Courtney | Still Waiting For Greenhouse

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Norman Pilon says:

    And if it’s permissible to quote oneself at length, this kinda, sorta sums up my take on the whole issue of “climate change” per se:

    As a person who is neither a scientist nor well-versed in the minutia of climatology, it is interesting to survey the field of contentions over AGW, but in particular, how, on the one hand, the IPCC (sold to the public as a body of bona fide climate scientists solidly united in a singular consensus) publicly professes 95% certainty on the issue of AGW, while, on the other hand, measured observations and disagreements between highly credentialed climatologists belie both the professed ‘certitude’ of and the ‘consensus’ over ‘anthropogenic global warming.’

    The imputations of deviousness leveled by the faithful of either side of the debate against the blasphemies of the other are also interesting: those who either deny or question AGW are accused of being in league with Big Oil or other such business interests. And those who ardently affirm the AGW hypothesis are accused of being extortionists who understand how to use fear to exact funds from terrified publics. Each side is right and each side is wrong, of course: some who deny AGW are indeed doing it at the behest of some political and business interests, but not all; and some who ardently affirm AGW as undeniably and catastrophically upon us are doing it also as cynical professionals intent upon eking out a comfortable living for themselves, but not all. Regardless of the side of the debate on which you stand, money is always a great temptation. And yet not everyone feels starved enough to compromise themselves in their honesty, whether in denying or affirming AGW to any degree of certitude. There are genuine holdouts: some climate specialists are skeptical of the AGW only because their method of approach to the data of climactic phenomena does not yield much support for the ‘attribution;’ other equally competent specialists, working from a different set of assumptions, ‘know’ that the data sets, properly understood, ‘must’ confirm AGW, and they ‘know’ this in all sincerity.

    And then to add more muck to the embroilment, there is this propensity that we ‘all’ share, which is simply to talk one another into this or that consensus of opinion, rightly or wrongly. Everyone knows that consensus is not science, and yet it is both reasonable and possible for a group of people, collaborating in a spirit of critical thinking with one another, to come to a consensus of opinion on the basis of scientifically rigorous methods of analysis and investigation, as inherently dangerous and misleading as any kind of group consensus may be, scientific or otherwise.

    Therefore, what sometimes appears to be bad faith, whether in an act of agreement or disagreement, is merely a manifestation of the ‘social’ nature of what ‘we’ are as humans in cultural terms, intellectually and cognitively. We cannot ‘think’ alone but under the discursive influence of others, many of whom with which on many things we come to agree, although we must at the same time, for the sake of finding our collective way forward to a more adequate understanding of ourselves and our world, be wary of deriving too much comfort from thinking too much as others do, that is to say, conventionally, however astute and sophisticated that general outlook or mindset might be. If consensus is not science, the scientist cannot always avoid being under its sway and, moreover, if the ‘truth’ is eventually to win out over our collective cultural benightedness, it must eventually tempt and enthrall the reasoning assent of more than just a few and thereby itself become the basis of a consensus. If consensus is not science, science cannot for all that dispense with it.
    The ‘global warming’ debate, then, is fractiously multidimensional in its appeals and interests. The political dimension itself bifurcates into at least two phyla or subspecies: the politics of competing for research funds and the politics of which business interests stand to gain or lose from policies that might be elaborated and instituted on the basis of the prognostications of ‘climate science.’ Most of what appears of the debate for broad public consumption is driven by these two highly politicized ferments.

    On the one hand, scientific research must go begging for the resources it needs to further its inquiries, and it secures these resources to the degree that it can persuade prospective patrons or backers of the usefulness or necessity of its initiatives. Depending on who is being wooed as a prospective supporter, his understanding of the ‘usefulness or necessity’ of the initiatives being proposed can be very different from that of another, because different ‘interest groups’ do have different and often conflicting interests. What is ‘useful and necessary’ from a public policy standpoint is not always what is ‘useful and necessary’ from a business standpoint, and even between business interests, what may be an opportunity for one sector of the economy may portend catastrophe for another. One only has to think of the economic implications of serious curtailments of CO2 emissions for, on the one hand, hydrocarbon intensive industries and, on the other, the burgeoning ‘green technology’ business consortia. It is not to be wondered at that Big Oil and related business interests and foundations – assuming that reductions in emissions would negatively impact their bottom lines, which is not necessarily the case, as ‘climate alarmism’ can be turned to account by even these industries, if only by providing a pretext for creating conditions of ‘scarcity’ in hydrocarbon markets – will want to seek out and support ‘climate scientists’ skeptical or incredulous of the claim that CO2 is the main or sole driver of climate change. Likewise, ‘green technology’ interests will find their natural allies to be ‘climate scientists’ who are pushing the AGW line, sincerely or otherwise.

    ‘Climate scientists’ who manage to sell their theses to the wealthiest or politically most powerful patrons will receive the most by way of research dowries, but perhaps also more importantly, will be the ones whose ‘viewpoints’ will come to dominate public opinion, or at least appear to do so, since the uniformity of public opinion (through the mechanisms of the corporate media and universal education, tightly under the control of the dominant sources of funding in our society) is also a phenomenon under the sway of the wealthiest and most powerful patrons in our midst. Consequently, the ‘truth’ or ‘untruth’ of the hypothesis of AGW has little to do with its dissemination and acceptance in a broad cultural sense. That dissemination and acceptance is predominantly determined by ‘political’ factors, by who it is that controls the main channels of information distribution. In our society, regardless of which position on the issue of ‘global warming’ becomes prominent, that control ultimately rests with the corporate capitalist cartels. One can therefore expect that irrespective of the scientific validity or invalidity of the AGW hypothesis, the version deemed most propitious to advancing both the short- and long-term interests of the ruling elite will also be perceived to be, whether in ‘fact’ or not, the dominant ‘scientific consensus.’ The ‘truth value’ of this politically generated ‘consensus,’ then, whatever it may be, is and will continue to be incidental, largely arbitrary and coincidental, in a word, an accident, like so much else that is characteristic of our age and era.

    It remains, however, whether ‘global warming’ is actually happening, and if so, whether it is being driven by an anthropogenically induced accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Apparently, most climatologists agree that in the last 150 years or so, there has been a measurable increase in the mean global temperature. But to say that the increase in that mean is measurable is to say nothing about its magnitude or its actual relevance for determinate changes in climate. NOAA estimates that the global mean temperature of the earth has increased by about 0.85ºC, allowing for a probable error of 0.2ºC. [NOAA] [Lindzen] But as Richard Lindzen observes, this measurable increase in the mean global temperature is actually so small as to be invisible in its effects in either local weather or climate events: it is simply impossible, given the extreme inherent variability of climate and weather events, to determine the impact of an increase of 0.85ºC in the mean global temperature in any one location or area on the surface of the planet. [Lindzen] If the effect of a measurable increase in the mean temperature of the earth is in any real sense inappreciable, it is as if it hasn’t happened. With confidence, climatologists can say that coinciding with the rise of industrialization and the exponential increase in CO2 emissions, a warming of the planet has indeed occurred. But it is so far very slight and remains well beneath instrumental notice in its actual local climactic effects.

    But is CO2 a greenhouse gas? According to climate scientists on all sides of the debate, it is. Is the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere for which we are responsible in the last 150 years or so the reason why the earth’s mean temperature has risen by roughly 0.85ºC? To my mind, this is highly improbable as well as unprovable. For to make that claim is by implication also to claim that over the last 150 years, in the absence of our CO2 emissions, the mean global temperature would have remained more or less stable. Is there a climatologist anywhere who claims as much and on what grounds? To confidently state as much would entail knowing all of the relevant cumulative factors terminating in the measure we call ‘the mean global temperature.’ Furthermore, it would entail knowing not only that the cumulative effects and interactions of these factors had to have been stable for the last 150 years, but the mechanics of that stability. But this is simply impossible, not merely on account of the intractability of the complex interactions that go into generating climate and weather on our planet, but because many phenomena that we suspect implicate important weather generating mechanisms and climate effects have yet to be properly deciphered.

    One such suspected phenomena or correlation (and keeping in mind that it only takes one anomalous observation to falsify a theory) is the one being investigated by the teams of Henrik Svensmark and Jasper Kirkby: the apparent synchronicity between solar magnetic cycles and cycles of global warming and cooling. Svensmark has established that when the solar magnetic field peaks in strength, the surface temperatures of our planet tend to be markedly warmer; and when the solar magnetic field ebbs to its weakest, the surface temperatures of our planet tend to be markedly cooler. Svensmark’s hypothesis for explaining these correlations is that cosmic rays raining down on our planet from disparate parts of the sky play a crucial role in building up the particulate aerosols necessary to the genesis of clouds. The denser the flux of cosmic rays raining down on us, the denser become the cloud forming aerosols in our atmosphere, and the more clouds we have overhead to counter our sun’s radiative heat emissions. And the density of the incoming cosmic flux, given its ionized and therefore electrically charged state, varies according to the intensity of the sun’s fluctuating magnetic field: the more intense the solar magnetic field, the more attenuated, because deflected, the cosmic flux will be, and conversely. It remains for the Svensmark hypothesis pertaining to the influence of cosmic rays on aerosol formation to be confirmed or disproved. ‘The Cloud Experiment’ at CERN being conducted under the supervision of Jasper Kirkby intends to do just that.

    Now consider that if Svensmark’s speculations find corroborative support from Kirkby’s experiments, climate and weather events on earth will be shown to be influenced by distant cosmic events. Such events lie beyond the scope of any reliable weather or climate forecasting methods we currently possess. If it is demonstrated that distant cosmological events are themselves a source of significant climactic ‘forcing,’ climate forecasting becomes at least in part dependent on being able to forecast astronomical events such as, for example, super novae, but not only that, but also on being able to predict or map the probable paths of interferences of the cosmic rays generated by those events. Suddenly, if Svensmark turns out to be right, a whole other layer of confounding complexities superimposes itself on an already incredibly complex system of energy redistributions. At this point, though we actually would have arrived at a better understanding of the what and how of weather and climate, forecasting climate on a scale measured in years would become what perhaps it currently is and will forever remain, little more than the occult reading of signs and auguries.

    If experiments are being conducted to better determine the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation, it is clear that ‘climate science’ is not at an end or complete, and it cannot possibly be stated with any high degree of confidence as yet that, in the absence of anthropogenic CO2, the mean global temperature of our planet would not have increased by 0.85ºC over the last few hundred years. Svensmark’s theory about cloud formation is but one of what must surely be many examples of pivotal questions yet to be resolved by climate science. I hereby then assert with a certitude of 95% that ‘climate science’ remains a very long way from being able to assert with 95% certainty that ‘global warming’ is already upon us and that its consequences will be nothing short of catastrophic, and that mankind and mankind alone will have been the cause of that catastrophe.

    To my mind, because our world and its weather systems are so complex, and because our knowledge of those systems will always be a lot less than perfect, the most that we can aspire to in terms of understanding our planet’s climates is akin to what we can aspire to in terms of understanding the evolution of earthly life: though we have a pretty good grasp of the underlying mechanics, because the diversity of life on the planet is so sprawling, because the drivers of mutations are so numerous and random, our comprehension of evolution as a process, as profound as it may be, must remain for the most part spectatorial or contemplative. Mutations, inherently random as they are in and of themselves, and even more so in their heritability, cannot be predicted in terms of the actual diversity of species that they will surely generate in the future that remains to life on this planet. Likewise, because of its intractable complexities, though we may eventually understand a great deal more about them than we currently do, the emergence and distribution of climate patterns years into the future will remain largely beyond our measure, as is certain that they currently do.

    Thank you very much for your time. I’d been hanging on to that book-length comment for just this opportunity.

    Regards to all, whichever side of the debate you may be on,

    A reactionary denier of what (perhaps) may (possibly) be “politically motivated science


    Disclaimer: I also happen to believe in evolution as a fact, and neo-Darwinism as the “theory” explaining the progression of the data that taken together amounts to the fact of evolution.

    And remember, as V.L. (a.k.a. “Jim’s uncle”) once put it, “There can be no proletarian revolution without a theory of revolution.” (I’m paraphrasing, okay.)

    Liked by 2 people

    • tubularsock says:

      Well, well, well …….. Norman you have once again filled up the Bunker with more literature than Tubularsock can file! It does look like in time Tubularsock will be FULL of it! (sojourner! You say out of it ….. you already think Tubularsock’s full of it!)

      Holy shit ……… What has Tubularsock done now ……… a word tsunami! RUN, RUN, RUN!

      Norman, you know you even sound like you know what you are talking about. Tubularsock’s impressed. You have been holding this in? Wow, you must be only 38 lbs. now!

      But all kidding aside, extremely interesting and well done.

      Tubularsock had to get out his Literary Lift Truck just to get it on the library shelves. Filed under ….. “politically motivated science”!

      Thank you.

      Liked by 4 people

      • sojourner says:

        See, Tube, you need to learn from me; I never ever write about anything that is controversial or not part of the current “IN” narrative agenda! No…. Wait… That’s not me, that’s the msm talking heads.

        Never mind, Tube! Continue on!

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Norman Pilon says:

    But lets be clear about one thing: if we were the primary cause of global warming, with the capitalists in charge of everything, if it meant the curtailment of profit to save humanity and the planet, you can be sure that the increase in temperature would be ignored until it really was too late.

    Liked by 4 people

    • sojourner says:

      Thanks, Norm!

      It always amazes me how folks who continually, and rightly, slam the government and main stream media (the real “fake news”), and warn everyone in ear shot not to listen to the government/corporate propaganda, will not only listen to it but become its mouthpieces, when it comes to “AGW”. Al Gore was Bill Clinton’s other bitch, by the way!

      I can hear this same kind of eugenics bullshit argument on every network and cable ‘news’ channel during the week. So I guess, when it comes to “AGW”, the Tube is, unbelievably, on board with the government/corporate owned media?

      And I guess all these scientists are wrong as well, right, Tube?

      It pays to listen to a dissenting voice every once in a while.

      And using TRUMP to make this point is pathetic, to say the least!

      Trump only knows how to “grab pussy” and make money for doing absolutely fucking-nothing. And being the pig Trump is, you can bet his position on this subject is just another one of his bald-faced lies. You know, like Obama’s “Yes we can!”

      Liked by 1 person

      • tubularsock says:

        Ahh, sojourner now you have provided enough information for Tubularsock to have to put an upper floor under the Bunker’s Library just to house the information you have provided. Well, it’s raining here so plenty of time to read.

        Now are you saying that the “scientists” who disagree with climate change are MORE correct than the ones who believe that climate change is real?

        It just may be another example of “follow the money”.

        Now all Tubularsock is pointing out is that HUMANS have effect on the earth and in most cases it is NEGATIVE unless sojourner, you feel that asphalt is a positive result of man’s advancement.

        Tubularsock feels that the main stream media and the government are both a beacon of truth! They both point out what NOT to believe.

        But NOT EVERY climate-change scientist is incorrect. This is way to complex to have only one side being presented as you know. So don’t negate an entire branch of study just because the government might see some merit in it. At least you’ll know that it will be profitable for somebody!

        One thing IS TRUE! Using ANYTHING TRUMP to make a point is pathetic ….. but Tubularsock couldn’t help himself!

        Thanks for you comment.

        Liked by 2 people

      • sojourner says:

        This is why we flock to the Tube, even us assholes like me!

        Tube wrote:

        “Now all Tubularsock is pointing out is that HUMANS have effect on the earth and in most cases it is NEGATIVE unless sojourner, you feel that asphalt is a positive result of man’s advancement.”

        And I want you to know, Tube, I am in full agreement with this. “Follow the money” is key here. We have all sat by and taken part in the destruction of the environment, every last one of us, including me. But this push by the elite and their stooges (the ones who set up this system of abusing the planet) are not concerned with the planet or humanity. They are only concerned with having this world to themselves.

        I am no lover or supporter of big oil/corporate capitalism. get rid of this corporate capitalism, and all the other god-like isms, whether religious or political, and nature will rule once again!

        Without going on and on qany further, this is why I cannot buy into the “green/CO2/AGW” bullshit.

        Follow the money, and it’s eugenics lurking behind the scenes once again, just like during the 1930s and ’40s. Depopulating the planet of those whom the elite consider to be “unfit to live” is behind all this convoluted AGW bullshit.

        Get rid of the inbred elite (give the world back to its people), and I believe we can turn around the damage we have done, to each other and the planet.

        This is, if we will learn from our mistakes, and not continue on with this age old world system?

        I’ll leave it at that!

        Liked by 1 person

      • tubularsock says:

        Oh sojourner, when “people” flock to Tubularsock they just seem to know that Tubularsock is FOR the birds!

        ” if we will learn from our mistakes” are you attempting to be a comedian here? WHEN HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED?

        No sojourner, the only positive take away here is we are happily doomed and all’s good!

        Liked by 1 person

      • sojourner says:

        ” if we will learn from our mistakes” are you attempting to be a comedian here? WHEN HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED?

        I know, Tube! My mother, while pregnant, was heavily influenced by Shirley Temple movies.

        “No sojourner, the only positive take away here is we are happily doomed and all’s good!”

        Oh, Tube, always the eternal optimist! You make Sojourner feel like a happy-go-lucky kinda guy, and that ain’t easy!

        Liked by 1 person

    • tubularsock says:

      Now that is even simple enough even for Tubularsock to understand,Norman! So fucking true!

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Michael Fuhrig says:

    There is climate change! There is climate change? There is climate change! But the biggest climate change of late is Trump’s continual shift of positions on nearly everything. Much what he advocated in his campaign he has gone back on or waffled or obfuscated on. Trump is not the first politician to do this, but he’s taken it to a new level. He’s for something until he isn’t’. He’s against something until he’s for it. He’s beginning to make slippery, tricky Dick Nixon look like the Rock of Gibraltar.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. swo8 says:

    China is having a bad time with smog. They use a lot of coal and you can hardly breath the air there.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. sojourner says:

    Tube, ignore my less than friendly comment above.

    I apologize not for the info, but for the way I presented the info to you.

    It is time for me to concentrate solely on posting! And my days are numbered doing that!

    Liked by 1 person

    • tubularsock says:

      sojourner, don’t even go there. You can express the way shit hits you anyway you like!
      Tubularsock is a big boy and doesn’t take anything personal on the web.

      At times, Tubularsock is even thought to be WRONG by many. Tubularsock knows it is difficult to believe but it has happened! But hey, being wrong in a “right world” is a sign of the correct direction.

      Anyway, Tubularsock thanks you for your contribution and thanks you for taking the time to comment.
      And you keep posting and posting and positing even if you believe no one is paying attention. Trust Tubularsock on this ….. Tubularsock posts hoping someone will hear and the more he posts the greater the flow and the greater the flow the greater the chance that the information will reach the outer realms of our galaxy where intelligent life exists AND they’ll realize that Tubularsock exists and they will SAVE ME and then …….. fuck you earthlings, Tubularsock is out’a here!


      Liked by 3 people

  8. Tubularsock, I’m convinced! Now I just have to figure out what I am convinced of …
    All this is starting to feel like a religious war to me … and all I know about climate is I kind of like breathing … so far. But maybe not in China. Anyway, a great post, and impressive comments! Or am I just impressionable these days? – Linda

    Liked by 2 people

  9. sojourner says:

    “Impressed, or compressed?:

    I was wrong again, Linda, compressed was right. But now I’m depressed!

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Fascinating post that sparked people’s interest, Tubularsock!

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Michael Fuhrig says:

    When Nixon went to Pejing in 1972, and its streets were filed with bicycles, American newsmen marveled at the clarity of China’s air. Now when we see a Chinese person moving in Pejing’s streets it’s so hazy we can’t tell if they are on a bike, in a car, or piggybacking on their uncle’s shoulders. Is that a portent of our future too?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s