97% of scientists agree that should they fail to worship the climate change demon, they will be sacrificed

I kind of stopped reporting on the climate change hoax years ago, because everyone based knows the truth, but after so long, deserves a recap.

Behavior reveals belief. The behavior of the climate priesthood reveals that they do not believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as a scientific material fact, but treat it partly like a scam for profit and power, and partly like sincere demon worship. The falsification of empirical evidence has been documented at enormous length elsewhere, and I will not repeat it unless someone makes some empirical claims in the comments. A better indicator is the sale of carbon indulgences. Precisely none of the money paid goes to things that would actually offset carbon emission, such as fuel removal from forests. which would be highly effective in removing carbon from circulation. Mostly it goes to people flying around in private jets telling the peons to turn off their heating. If these guys believe that anthropogenic climate change was bad the way they believe that earthquakes are bad, they would be worried by fake carbon indulgences. Rather, they believe that the indulgences are real if they go to worship of the climate change demon, rather than real if they actually went to offset carbon emissions. Observe how the nuclear power and fuel reduction arguments flow off them like water off a ducks back.

Also, we are just not seeing anyone bothering with empirical and scientific claims very much any more. They are now increasingly comfortable with the mask and robes of empirical science and empirical this-worldly fact dropping off.

Climate change is real. There are warm days and cold days, warm years and cold years, warm decades and cold decades, warm centuries and cold centuries, warm millenia and cold millennia. And some of those cold centuries were terrible, and most of those cold millennia were very terrible indeed. all of the warm millenia and warm centuries were nicer.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant effect on the earth’s temperature, because the effect is saturated. Each doubling of carbon dioxide levels produces about the same noticeable but not very alarming rise temperatures.

Each bomb during nuclear testing created a fair bit of carbon fourteen in the atmosphere, but the carbon fourteen in the air disappeared fairly fast, indicating the atmospheric carbon dioxide equilibrates with an enormous reservoir. So worrying about human emissions of carbon dioxide affecting atmospheric levels is like worrying about causing a flood by spitting in lake Michigan.

What does cause changes in carbon dioxide is temperature. When the climate changes for warmer, carbon dioxide levels rise for the next century or two, and when it gets colder, they fall. Because cold rain dissolves more carbon dioxide than warm rain, and carries it into the enormous reservoirs of which I spoke.

Plants hunger and thirst for carbon dioxide. Green houses for agricultural production generally raise the level substantially above current atmospheric levels. Conversely, when carbon dioxide falls to levels typical of ice ages, most plants can barely survive.

During the period that satellites have been observing the earth, it has become seventy percent greener. Partly due areas that were formerly white with snow turning green because the snow melts, mostly areas formerly too hot and dry, now wetter, and everywhere because plants like carbon dioxide.

The world has been getting warmer, greener, wetter, temperatures less extreme, and extreme weather events like hurricanes less frequent, for two or three centuries. Because of year to year and decade to decade fluctuations, it is impossible to say if it is still getting warmer, but it has been getting warmer over the last century or so and probably still is. However, over recent decades, warming has been far less than advertised, and the warming trend may have ended. Or paused for a few decades. Hence the need to manufacture wildfires and burn rural and exurban people out of their homes, as we recently saw in Hawaii and California.

Cold centuries tend to be unpleasant because in response to low rainfall levels, entire populations pick up everything they have, move onto someone else’s land, and kill off everyone. Conversely, warm centuries tend to be peaceful and civilization rises. Or decadent civilizations manage to linger on because the barbarians are comfortable enough in their own lands. (This time around, the barbarians will probably be after pussy, rather than grazing lands for their cattle, since we have a pussy shortage, not a grass shortage.)

Sea levels are rising. They have been rising at about the same rate for about two centuries. They have been rising at three millimeters a year, or one inch a decade. Don’t sell your seafront property just yet.

Remember those low lying lands that were going to disappear by the year two thousand creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees? They have actually grown significantly – because most low lying lands reflect sediment accumulating, and with fewer extreme weather events, it continues to accumulate, but is washed away less often. Sea level has very little effect. Sediment accumulation is by far the dominant factor. If you check out your beach, you will notice the sandhills and the beach grow or drop by about the height of a human over a decade or so. Severe and prolonged bad weather is the major factor causing big drops, and with the world milder than it was, we have less severe and prolonged bad weather. Low lying lands have been growing for a long time, and will keep on growing, like the forests, and for similar reasons.

33 Responses to “97% of scientists agree that should they fail to worship the climate change demon, they will be sacrificed”

  1. Steven C says:

    A warmer climate can cause migration from regions which become more arid as a consequence of that climatic change. The Great Plains of North America would become dryer in the west, but gain a longer growing season in the north. Likewise northern Europe would have a longer growing season, but lands around the Mediterranean would receive less precipitation. There have always been winners and losers with climate change.

  2. Climate Fraud CamWhores says:

    Though some do think about resource depletion, toxification, overpopulation…

    THIS, good Sers, is a picture of a straight up climate fraud camera WHORE…


    No less than six cameras rolling tight for the lights camera action on this fuckslut.
    This Globalist theatrical porn production clearly pays so well I’m seriously considering a new job.
    Bonus: Lots of euroleft globo poon available for those willing to slum it up with a little faux climate concern.

    • Climate Fraud CamWhores says:

      Fuck… missed one… make that 7 paid producers rolling on this staged hoe, lol.

  3. Otter says:

    “Severe and prolonged bad weather is the major factor causing big drops, and with the world milder than it was, we have less severe and prolonged bad weather.”

    Can you unpack this? Are warmer temps driving less severe weather? More CO2? Both? What’s the mechanism?


    • jim says:

      Weather and climate is complicated. I don’t understand the mechanism and am pretty sure no one does.

      When the world warms, atmospheric flows in the tropics and subtropics become more dominated by water vapor, water vapor being lighter than air. Water vapor is what drives hurricanes, so there is a plausible argument we should get more hurricanes, and we do in fact get the hurricane belt expanding. But the hurricanes have been getting less severe, and why this should be so is unclear. Hurricanes are driven by the difference between cold water and warm water, wet air and dry air. Maybe their supply of cold water and dry air is depleted more than their supply of warm water and wet air is expanded? No idea.

    • siberiancat says:

      Earth is a heat engine that works not on temperature but on the difference in temperatures.

      The greenhouse effect raises the temperature but reduces the difference (think about wrapping Earth in a blanket)

      At any rate the effect is not high. Consider the temperature of Earth around 300K, and the warming is at worst 1.5 degrees. This is less than a percent. Expect a small linear effect at such a small relative change.

  4. Mayflower Sperg says:

    Sorry Micronesia, anyone who lives on a coral reef does so on borrowed time. The ground beneath your feet was formed below the lowest low-tide line, and will someday be under the sea again.

    • jim says:

      Not what I see happening. The seas have been rising for a very long time, and there were times when they rose shockingly fast. And yet coral islands are still around.

      I see vast areas of shallows built and maintained by corals, and in a small area of those shallows, wind and waves piles up small pulverised bits of coral. All existing coral islands are on land that has risen as the seas rose quite fast, and the seas are now rising considerably slower. I actually see this happening with my eyes, and my feet touch the beach, which I see ebb, flow, and rise, on timescale vastly faster than the now very slow rising of the seas.

      The coral islands are growing, growing fast enough that I can see the growth. They grow in normal weather, and shrink in hurricanes. We now have fewer hurricanes. I see this with my eyes and touch it with my feet.

      That the islands are on borrowed time is faith in demons. You believe in demons, I believe in my eyes and my bare feet. When the seas were a hundred meters lower, ten thousand years ago before the great flood, the islands were a hundred meters lower. They grew back after the great flood, during which the oceans rose twenty meters within a period much shorter than a human lifespan. Is one inch a decade going to drown them?

      • Mayflower Sperg says:

        Ah, so waves break off pieces of coral and pile them up to heights that the ocean has never reached. Didn’t know that.

        I wonder how people survive hurricanes on those islands. Perhaps storm surges and tsunamis just flow around small islands, only piling up when they encounter a land mass significantly wider than their wavelength.

    • jim says:

      You are not responding to the facts and argument I presented at the end of my post.

  5. Archer Sterling says:

    “Green houses for agricultural production generally raise the level substantially above current atmospheric levels substantially.”

    It may be substantial, but it isn’t that substantial.

    • jim says:

      Is that substantial. Atmospheric CO2 is around four hundred parts per million, The guys selling supplementation systems say one thousand to twelve hundred.

      From which we may say that plants are getting about a third as much CO2 as they would like to have. If you were giving them a third as much water as they would like to have, they would be mighty thirsty.

      From the point of view of plants, the earth is a desert that is desperately low in CO2. The quite small recent increase in CO2 (caused by past warming since the little ice age, not by humans, nor by recent warming if there has been any recent warming, which is far from clear) is a major factor in the massive recent increase in green seen by satellites. (70% increase in leaf area seen by satellites)

      • Fidelis says:

        Hes being cheeky about you using the word ‘substantially’ twice.

        • f6187 says:

          “Hes being cheeky about you using the word ‘substantially’ twice.”

          Ah, good catch, didn’t notice. Still a good response from Jim.

  6. f6187 says:

    Sea levels are rising. They have been rising at about the same rate for about two centuries. They have been rising at three millimeters a year, or one inch a decade. Don’t sell your seafront property just yet.

    True. On a longer time frame, sea levels have risen about 400 feet in the last 20,000 years. They rose rapidly for a while, and then slowed considerably in the last 6,500 years (i.e. one inch per decade):


    By the way I think Patrick Moore does a great job here:


  7. Vlad says:

    I have lived entirely on hydro electric with solar backup for over 30 years. The technology has come a long way. I wanted to live in extreme nature so remote so no grid for 12 miles. I looked for a property that could produce hydro electric. Now that works well. I can run an entire homestead on less than ten gallons a minute. In fact I have to shunt most of that into a hydrogen electrolyzer for gas production. Most of the year I have 50-300 gallons a minute but the trend is less water every year and some this year driest yet. Or maybe just weird hydrological shit underground but finally installed 1600 watts of solar panels for late summer back up. Ironically the inland Rockies of Pacific Northwest is worst place in world for solar except for the late summer when I might need them. Bought a mile of 4” pe pipe and welder and the 40 acres above me to extend my intake and gain another 300’ of head. That should increase power and reduce gpm needed. Anyway solar panels are a joke. If one panel in a string is shaded it pulls entire string down if one corner of one panel catches shade it pulls that panel down and so the string. They have yet to produce more than 50% of rating. Admittedly my angles a bit steep for summer use but it’s absolute south roofs gambrel so the other leg wouldn’t have shed snow and been under six feet of snow all winter and destroyed. If a little cloud passes we go to zero if wildfire smoke we go down 25%. But the mppt controllers are nifty co,pared to the stuff I had to build myself 35 years ago. Panels are dirt cheap and I already have the rest of system for the hydro side so adding panels costs me little. But rest of the Pacific Northwest hippies who didn’t look for hydroelectric site spend 30k on systems get so little solar they destroy batteries in no time and running generators 12 hours a days lol these off grid green idiots reality is running cheap generators all day. But if you explain the PNW is a rain forest not suited to solar they scoff. Propaganda is real effective.

    • Vlad says:

      My brothers a wildlife biologist he used to be conservative but went from blue collar to university late in life and changed he actually believes all this crap he got insanely triggered that the science said anything false about the Covid and we fell out over climate garbage but worse was his insistence that if the science says grizzlies in Yellowstone don’t fuck grizzlie girls west of the highway then they don’t and Canadian grizzlies won’t fuck a grixie south of the border. Genes can’t flow dontcha know.
      Point is sure control of energy like control of medicine is a big deal if totolatarianism is goal. But meantime there’s a huge side benefit. It’s not simply the grants but when you have these nebulous issues the science and those who control them gains a lot of power. If you want to stop a guy building a bridge across his creek when hard facts are on his side but he’s obviously impious it’s handy to have these cloudy theories that are untouchable like climate change and endangered species who knows what a species is let alone have temerity to define its borders. In other words just start baffling with bullshit and shut it down. What’s great as the scientists get dumber this helps because they needn’t get all mathy just recite the incantation. It gives incredible power to losers who work in the various offices like USFS EPA etc ever been in one of those offices lol ever see that show parks and recreation that’s them. Btw the solution to getting your bridge permitted is to bury them in FOIA requests it will blow their budgets

      • Archer Sterling says:

        I regret to inform you that your brother is in fact a non-player character.

        • Vlad says:

          He’s a fucking moron which is why it’s safer for him to sing along if you don’t know the game just act as if. But he’s credentialed and has a company that is licensed to write indulgences. What did Twain say about convincing a man of something that’s contrary to his pocketbook

      • skippy says:

        Modern academic scientists are actually mostly just losers who are ahppy to get paid in head pats from actually powerful people, self-referential status among other losers in their field (no hot chicks) and a median salary for very rarified and often difficult, time-consuming work. they will say anything because they are weak people. They are mostly not getting paid.

    • Your Uncle Bob says:

      Man, there’s still so much I don’t know. I didn’t know micro hydroelectric was even an option. And I used to be hippy adjacent, the left hippy/right homesteader U is real.

      I was intrigued once by non-electric solar water heaters. Just a black box with a glass top and maybe an interior mirror around a water tank. Obviously does the least when you want it the most (winter) so I never pulled the trigger, but if late summer is your bottleneck it might be up your alley.

      I do know solar ovens work in the summer, but that’s a little more niche for a little less gain.

      • Mayflower Sperg says:

        Damming a river is difficult. Getting permission from state and federal agencies to dam a river is impossible.

        • Vlad says:

          It’s more of a stream than a river and since there’s a culvert before it joins larger creek fish not an issue but people do run hydro on rivers my bigger creek has “endangered species” bull trout so they use that as leverage when building bridge still I won.
          Lot of rules make sense but just as congress allows civil servants to write codes the code is then interpreted by local services
          Supreme Court cut a bit of this bs back on a case of people near me. Thing is there’s a real arrogant mindset of civil servants that people should not be asking to use kings lands

      • Kunning Druegger says:


        Gaze in wonder and despair at the future denied which the past portended.

        • Mayflower Sperg says:

          Wow, that guy’s hobby list is very similar to mine. Nice to see that he included paramotoring, because old age is a miserable way to die if you have no grandchildren.

  8. It’s almost as if … the planet can regulate itself! And it’s been doing that for eons!

  9. skippy says:

    Interesting article.

    Climate appears to me to be the weakest of the demons. I mean this spiritually rather than logically, because logically it gives grounds for complete human genocide, turning the whole world into a giant death camp in which food and water are progressively withheld, but in practice, seems to appeal to low energy people, who cannot summon anything like the energy required to execute such a dreadful plan. As soon as climate gets “annoying”, it gets switched off. They have been unable to enforce even the right to lie in the middle of the road. Normies pulled them to the curb or even beat them up in front of cameras. Did not hear of them being prosecuted. Now the police are doing the same.

    Low spiritual energy, people.

    • Fred says:

      Global warming has always struck me as an extremely strong globohomo loyalty test – possibly the strongest loyalty test, rivalled only by maybe gay rights. It definitely isn’t being “switched off” in eg. Germany or Australia, two countries that are absolutely obsessed with global warming.

      There are supposedly “dissident right” figures (eg. Anatoly Karlin comes to mind) who say with a straight face that global warming isn’t a scam, which is how I figured out that Karlin was a shill. It also implies that global warming is extremely high up as a loyalty test – globohomo doesn’t even allow their controlled opposition (again, Karlin) to defect on it.

      We should use global warming as a shill test – it’s so transparently fake and gay that no-one could be sincerely confused – so it’s perfect as a shill test.

      • skippy says:

        That’s my observation as well. Climate is a ubiquitous and important belief among *important* people inside the regime structure. Middle and lower class normies are not allowed to oppose gays or blacks, but may oppose climate. The reason is what you say, to allow them to exclude themselves from the group, at least the inner group.

        However, even in Germany and Austria, climate has not succeeded in doing 10% of what it wants to do. Unlike, for example, covid, which did indeed succeed in turning these countries into open air prisons for a time.

  10. TheDividualist says:

    Hi Jim,

    >Behavior reveals belief.

    But you said before that libs believe so fanatically in their quasi-religion, that they are willing to take personal costs, willing to sacrifice their interests, like, sending their kids to “diverse” schools?

    >Green houses for agricultural production generally raise the level substantially above current atmospheric levels

    IMO they are more about raising temperatures, but yes, this is why I always found talking about a “greenhouse effect” as something bad hilarious.

    Now, water can be sometimes a problem and I think the only legitimate concern is droughts. Some goods news on this front: Israel solved the problem of cheap desalination. Now that desert country is exporting water. Now the Sahara could be turned into farmland if there was any coordinated will to do so.

    The problem is with “cost disease”. That is, technological and social decline. Even rapidly rising sea levels should not be a problem, if that would be the case, well, the Dutch were reclaiming land from the sea with 500 years old technology back then. With shovels and wheelbarrows. But today London cannot build a bridge. Meaning New Orleans probably cannot build a dam. If it would be necessary at all, I mean. Even if not, reclaiming is a good idea to get some cheaper land to build on. But it is not happening.

    If “cost disease”, if technological and social decline, of course the agriculture will suffer, too. Needs a convenient excuse, and that is “climate change”.

    • jim says:

      > But you said before that libs believe so fanatically in their quasi-religion, that they are willing to take personal costs, willing to sacrifice their interests, like, sending their kids to “diverse” schools?

      They believe in the climate change demon. They don’t believe in climate change as a material this worldly physical effect of material causes. If they did, would have more concern with the scientific evidence and be concerned with fuel reduction in forests and nuclear power.

      What they care about is sacrifice to the demon, not whether the sacrifice has any material effect on carbon dioxide emissions, nor the basic physical and material processes whereby carbon dioxide emissions might have any particular consequences for carbon dioxide levels.

      • FrankNorman says:

        But is it really a belief?
        Or is it just virtue-signalling to the group?

        • bane says:

          virtue signaling to display proper belief (ortho-doxy) should be considered as separate from “actually” believing the “belief” that is being virtue signaled. let us call actual belief, Abelief and virtue signaling belief Vbelief

          the key is in “material causes”, in economic terms this would be revealed vs stated preferences

          the issue is, for you and most other truth-enjoyers, it is impossible to Vbelieve what you don’t Abelieve

          for most people, this is not the case – they can Vbelieve that Climate Change Is Real and Abelieve that buying property in a tropical area is a fantastic idea. if they Abelieved in climate change, in terms of material causes, they would never buy that property.

          their Vbeliefs don’t interact with Abeliefs, nor do they ever think through the consequences of their Vbeliefs, because they are wholly unconscious, mediated through their social instincts. they believe it, as long as tribal pressures are more salient than physical constraints. once the latter take over, they go back to not believing it, without noticing the differemce

Leave a Reply