What a load of dogs bollocks... the degree by which EXTRA co2 causes warming DECREASES the high the concerntration of c02 becomes, going from 450 ppm to 560 ppm won't do shit, calm the fuck down and stick to writing novels you alarmist kook, this is chicken little all over again
What about all these people running around and airing gas-farts from between their buttock-cheeks? Why can't people just hold them in? Problem solved! Only Al Gore should be allowed to fart; he and his spawn and minions, 2-B sure.
As for what to read... Here's a good place to start. Read what our respected scientific institutions say. Wiki has their position statements but you can Google their web sites and/or available articles.
I also recommend reading books to develop a foundation about how humans affect the biosphere. There are many good ones available. Avoid those from the vested interests. There are many of them too as they spread doubt where no credible doubt exists.
Perhaps with your expertise you can tell me why NASA, NOAA, EPA, AAAS, AGU and all the rest of our historically reliable scientific institutions got it wrong. These institutions span the globe and decades of research. Perhaps its a world-wide conspiracy or a global commie plot to enslave the people. Or maybe the NWO has infiltrated the research departments and forced all the scientists to falsify their data and conclusions.
read what? a consortium of scientist pd by the governments to prove global warming?
and how they prove it mostly is the completely defunct fucking computer model bullshit or the completely defunct hockey stick claim? or the now defunct tree ring bullshit? whiuch proof of global warming is truth? oh wait climate change. created by the SUN! retard
Consider why it is necessary for We The People (governments) to fund research. Maybe its in our best interest and maybe it isn't profitable for private interests?
You'd have to be nuts to think that the many, many global studies that have been completed over the last 30+ years were all falsified. Yes, this goes back to at least 1979 with NAS's, The Charney Report.
MOST of the GW science is NOT computer model based. Didn't know that did ya?
this was nothing more than political posturing. Most of the so called scientists for global warming are not even scientists. they are just on the list as contributors. tell me what has benefitted you since they started this? Nothing but a bunch of scientists sure were able to line their pockets with a lot of cash and take a ton of trips off other peoples backs.
none of the science is solid when a corrupt government is funding this bull shit. all i keep hearing from these idiots is that the sun has no effect on earth's climate. hahahahahaha! get a life and quit spreading the filth that other people trying to prove, cause your doing the same shit.
So, are you saying it is better to take the word of the vested interests even though they have no studies to back it up?
Sorry. That kind of irrational thinking is not for me.
I'll continue to rely on what ALL our respected scientific institutions have been saying. They base their findings on over 30 years of global research.
On what do you base your opinion on? You're right because you know you're right.
and you don't think the governments have a vested interest in it?
called cap and trade?
which england already has done. and was supposed to fuel more green stuff and jobs and has actually done nothing more than be another politcal bungle on their part. and now the united states wants to do the same thing? they don't have a vested interest okay.
because chainey and bush new it was a bunch of bunk.
democrats are pushing this to the point that it is ricockulous. do you realize that a carburetor is more efficient than an injector?
all this crap about climate change is bunk, i have no problem with cleaning up the environment but don't try and force a bunch of crap that some guy in congress is set up to make billions on. and is the biggest hypocrite in the subject. which just tells me it is bunk. just a scam to make money from
Yea, cheney and bush are experts, right? Well, they were experts at catering to their energy sponsors.
Find ONE respected scientific institution that sees it your way and I'd love to have the link. Otherwise, consider why ALL of them understand that a human-caused climate crisis is occurring.
What was the last book you read about this or a related issue?
if you are going to participate in a discussion requiring a modicum of intelligence and knowledge, don't make yourself look like a fool absolutely poor spelling and grammar. I'm not even going to comment on the substance of your post, since it's even more baffling.
@s3ntient93 In a debate about global warming why are you trying to score points picking on peoples spelling?, you're grasping mate. people only pick on spelling when they get desperate
u r reading this, then u will find a dead bloody body hanging in ur closet. Her Name is Monique U will be haunted and killed by her . SEND THIS TO 12 OTHER VIDEOS AND YOU´LL BE FINE!! AND MONIQUE IS GONE!
Way back in 1894, a little girl named Madeline Crothe was skipping through the woods when a mysterious man in black snatched her. He brought her to his house, tourtered her, and starved her to death. Send this to 6 videos in the next 30 min. and you will be safe, but if you don't... at approximately 1: 34 tonight you will wake up to see an aneorexic child holding a bloodied up knife and she will kill you" less sorry this scares
PLEASE DONT READ THIS!In 1971 a guy named Kyle an his girlfriend Emily were in side a house that was said to claim peoples lives if they entered the house.The next morning a guy named Alex saw fingernail marks on the door.if you dont post this to 5 videos, youll be getting a visit from Kyle and Emily tonight!WARNING:this has been proved to be real,i value my life!whoever reads this may God be with you! I TRULY DO APOLOGIZE!!! PS i got this from another vid ( i am not taking my chances
The thing about France is that the polytechnocrats are bleeding the economy in place of Wall Street in America. The French like to talk, but the reality is not much different from back home.
The world has bee ncooling since 2005 - the nexrt ice age is com,ing. I tel lthe wordl how to do molecular nuclear fusion on this blog anyway! Power with no CO2 or toxic death.
1/8 of the world glaziers are advancing. LaST YEAR WAS A RECORD YEAR FRO SEA ICE FORMATION: oN MY BLGO i TEL;L YOU HOW TO DO SAFE, CHEAP, CLEAN NUCLEAR FUSION FROM WATER: pOWER WITH NO co2.
Even if your 1/8 statistic were true, that still leaves 88% of the worlds glaciers that are retreating. Above all if you want to adopt a scientific perspective you must look at overall trends and the data in totality, rather than isolated factoids. While 2008 might have been a record year for sea ice formation, the ice caps have been retreating in general as well as giving way to increasing ocean surface temps around the poles.
That being said I am sure you will ignore this or post something
fleebenworth, and I suggest that you consider the political agenda of the organization that wrote the IPCC report. When you view it in this light, then you must take everything it says with a grain of salt. In other words, it's probably full of crap and cannot be trusted.
No summer in the UK for 4 years. THe world 20 C cooler, so what we ahve here is weather, adn teh start of teh next ice age. Extract you heat from the oven, and go outside!
I really liked your channel and this video. If you need any help getting this video exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. Its nice.
Sheffeild Univeristy in the UK, has patented the steam plasma as a CO2 free way to make H and O gases! Wtih no external power. Some of the water ennds up as He and O, as we do nuclear fusion.
Ice at the South Pole increased by 30% this year, as the world cooled fro tthe thrid year running. Nuclear power smashed their way through the Northern passage using an ice breaker. They always could of, this is not evidence of warming! More plants grow in the warm, and they take in CO2, so more CO2 = more life.
A tax theory which is unproven, moisture is far more a contributor than Co2 which plants absorb. Canadians also discovered clouds with snow falling via LIDAR so are cars warming Mars? and melting the remaining surface ice as seen since '96? Proof before stiffling 3rd world progress which we have already benefitted from. Where is the North pole ice on Google Maps Google? LOL!
It makes sense to re-examine what a digital democracy would look like. The wisdom of the people is only as wise as the technology used to gather that wisdom. Companies like Google who power over knowledge at the global scale have the responsibility to efficiently organize collective knowledge to where it can be redily utilized.
If you plot the past 7 years, you will see a clear cooling trend ... and of course no temp increase since 1998 ... despite what the models forecast for this period !!
Why doesn't the IPCC 2007 report show temps for the past decade ?? (Anyone who claims that it does should quote a reference page number !)
But when you go to North Pole the Northern passage is now year round and the Russian coast is passable all year. Go there before you trust any info! carbon tax is $ nothing more. Water vapour is up one of the largest contributors to warming. Mars polar caps are going fast as well, solar heating out of our control.
ACCORDING TO THE ICE CORE RECORDS, CO2 LEVELS HAVE NEVER GONE OVER 300PPM...WITHIN THE LAST FEW DECADES THEY HAVE GROWN TO 383PPM...!GET THAT? !!ALMOST 1/3 HIGHER IN A FEW DECADES AFTER 1 MILLION YEARS OF MINIMAL NATURAL CHANGES!!!
Take a look at 'any image of earth' (from space) that thin 'film membrane' happens to be 'OUR ATMOSPHERE'...'Pollution ain't perty'...and it can't cause extinction, but at least this ol' world would get rid of these pesky (& filthy, greedy) human 'fleas'...
The percentage taken in is dependent on the mass of plants available, and that mass has been reduced, 70% of the worlds forests have been cut down, and the deserts are growing slowly. The oceans are rising, that is measurable and reproducible and has been well documented. Stop spreading lies.
Right now fusion doesn't produce more energy out than is put in. Maybe somebody here could learn about it and join in, and North American funding of fusion is paltry.
If that's the case, then the people who denounce global warming aren't scientists either. Both groups have a mix of scientist and non scientists, except global warming skeptics are often, factually, paid off by oil companies whereas this is just a fantasy in your mind.
Prof Zimmerman, my old PhD suipervisor, has had articles published on globla warming. After my PhD, he no longer believes in it! There si onyl 0.00037% CO2 in the air, 2000 times less than required to have an effect. Get educated: It opens the mind up to thinking, rahter than reciting nuclear power PR!
I have a masters in earth and planetary science and a BS in astronomy. I've worked at NASA Goddard with climate models and climate scientist as well as my own work. I think I know something of the "debate" and you are spouting nonsense. Nothing is made up. What's the first name of this professor? What university? I have serious doubts about the existence of this person based on your lack of answers to simple questions before.
Good: Then you will know there is only 0.00037% CO2 in the air - which is pegged by plant life! In the Jurassic ferns pegged CO2 at 0.0004%, there was 60% more life on Earth, and sea levels were 675 meters lower. CO2 levels onyl rise in an ice age! GW was just nuclear power PR!
You have no idea what climate is. That is weather. Climate is long term, which is a basic fallacy doubters always use. NASA studies show that even though we had a cold weather, it is still warmer on average than earlier.
Oh, and global warming does predict a colder UK if the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic is shut down.
Lastly, Western Antarctic Ice sheet is on the verge of collapse, with a big chunk coming of it, 15 years before earliest, most dire estimates.
The climate is controlled by God and the sun. We should get all our power from molecular nuclear fusion, like the deep sea has done for 200 million years, and man started doing with steam power. Or hadn't you noticed? Yuo do it every time your heart beats.
Nope. Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory and Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center both have different studies showing the sun has very little correlation to warming temps. Find some new reason to deny the mounting evidence.
No, your view is more what people funded by oil companies like to use. No proof that you are an oil guy, so I guess I can say it's true because that is exactly what you are doing.
Trouble is, GW was phantom sciecne thought up by nuclear power, We should get all our heat from doing molecular nuclear fusion, liek teh deep sea has done for over 200 million years, and your own heart does every time it beats!
The earth cools and warms naturally. GW was teh last gasp pby nuclear power to get more plants. So everybody talknig about GW as man made is a paid nuclear stooge.
So the scientist who predicted Global Warming in 1896 was a paid nuclear stooge? The amount of time you spend blowing smoke & B.S. has me wondering who pays your bills.
maybe you ought to look at oils look at global warming a little closer.
they are in fact with the global warming.
why? what does it take to make plastics?
what does it take to refine the copper,aluminum,steel and other products to make green products? meanwhile morons like you just tripled co2 out put. spouting what has been proven defunct and falsified work by non scientists pd. by governmental posturing.
Climate change was fiction from nuclear power, whe nglobla warming was so wrong! LIfe depends on plants taking in CO2, and there is only 0.00037% of it in the air!
Where in this video is any mention of nuclear power? Where? You spout out nonsense with no proof of these absurd claims. There is no nuclear here. Watch the video and make an argument against something presented, not bring in some silly statements. Oh, and everything is not fusion.
What study? I ask you again to show me that and so far you have refused. I'd like to see what they found. Because boiling water emits infrared, not gamma radiation. It is not energetic enough. I'd be happy to learn more but so far your info is just empty air.
Two more things: geiger counters most of the time measure alpha and beta radiation. Are you sure you are not mistaking that for gamma?
Second: NASA is doing studies on global warming. If your study is not bogus, why is that bogus science?
So, a method that has no CO2 emissions is bad, like your "nuclear fusion"? Is solar and wind power "nuclear death" as well, since that is what a lot of climate change proponents are pushing, and not nuclear.
Leave life to CO2. Let man enerate power, like the sun, or deep sea does! And don't do nuclear fgission, whic hkills big time! Nuclear fusion is safe,m clean and cheap - nuclear power is none of those!
I don't want to do fission. There are too many problems with waste and storage. But your fusion is a boondoggle. No one can do it at this stage that generates more energy than you put in. Show me a paper that says it, or the discoverer. That person would be up there with the greats if they could. So it's years away at best, maybe decades. How is solar power bad then, since we can do it now at a large scale and it is very clean?
Good Grief!...Look at the rate thyat we are losing the earth's 'LUNGS'...it's phenomenal to imagine rainforest being cut down as quickly as they are...these woods end up mainly as veneers on plywood...the plywood is a whole 'nother problem (radon)...kinda' like the correlation between plastics and petroleum...Again...THIS IS THE MAIN THING TO REMEMBER AND PRACTICE..."FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS A RE-ACTION"...IT'S A FACT...
So results published in Science this past week by the Scripps Institute are "phantom" science. You can argue the results but to name it this means you have little understanding of the peer review process. After all these years, if there was a hoax it would have been found. Otherwise, thousands are suspect. You claim to be a scientist but slander the process with unsubstantiated statements that just distract from real discussion.
Plants take in CO2 to support life on Earth. THere is only 0.00037% CO2 in the air, plants want all they can get! To say 'CO2 is bad' is to do phantom talk, don't you think/ No CO2, and you, and life on Earth are dead!
No one is saying remove all CO2. That's idiotic. Looking at the absolute amount is wrong, as well. A small amount of added CO2 can have large effects because it fills holes in the absorptions spectrum that were empty before. A 30% gain and growing in 150 years of industrialization is a lot and is faster than what would happen in nature. That is the problem, the rate, not CO2 itself. And plants can't take it up fast enough. We are adding it too fast.
Life si supported by plants taking in CO2: THe infre red propeties of CO2 at 0.00037% are too tiny to ahve an effect! I say gnerate power using molecular nuclear fusion, so we take CO2 out of the equatiopn! Power with no CO2 or toxic death.
Again, it's not the amount that is important. That is wrong. By filling bands that are empty, you don't need a lot of CO2. IIRC, an increase in ppm of CO2 can have an effect. So going from 0.00037% to 0.00038% is important, even if it is a very tiny overall amount.
CO2 level is pegged by plant growth, and goes up and down with the climate! emissions just increase he life on Earth, they do not change the weather! Only the stupid would think it did! Are you that man?
Ah, now I'm "stupid." Are your arguments that weak? Guess so. Emissions just increase life? Then we don't need your misnamed fusion. CO2 does follow or lead climate in the past, it is unclear, but if you understood the actual facts and the graph you reference you'd know that those graphs show changes over thousands of years, not decades. We are in uncharted territory now. That is the problem.
Did you watch the video? Do you have any good comments on what Mr. Robinson says on economics, society, remedies for change (and no nuclear was mention if you noticed)? Or did you just look at the title and post your comment?
This is a ridiculous statement. You can argue against climate change, but this kind of belief doesn't promote anything it just distorts the discussion. No one says that in the climate change community. Watch the video. It doesn't promote nuclear energy as you think it does.
Plants take in CO2, and release oxyen, so supportin g all life on Earth. Nuclear power is toxic and dangerous, so profits from the death of life on Earth. What is your problem with life?
That is idiotic. I'm not talking about nuclear. Climate change proponents stress other forms of energy as well. If you actually watch the video instead of just trolling you would see this. This is obviously not going to kill all life on earth, and you are making that charge up. But, it can potentially affect everyone, displacing millions, and causing mass extinctions, but not everything. Why do you hate people? (See how silly that is?)
Waterfalls give out radiation, produce gamma wave radiation, and heat the water by 20 C - despite the drop. Adn they produce ozone, like the dee psea does, fro the same reason! THey d onuclear fusion.
Everything does not produce gamma radiation. If it did we'd all be dying of cancer. And ozone production is not fusion. Fusion deals with nuclei changing. Ozone production changes O2 to O3. That's a molecule and a chemical reaction. Not fusion.
Again, you are bringing in things that have nothing to do with this video. Go to 35:14, see no nuclear plants mentioned. Just solar, geothermal, high altitude, carbon capture, ethanol, etc. Your arguments are distractions as you just post without watching the video.
Let's say you're right. How does that change what the video is saying? If climate change is a myth, why change systems? We don't need nuclear fusion or systems with no CO2 emissions, right? We can stay as is with oil and coal, right? You said CO2 is needed for life, so power with no CO2 would be bad, right? Your arguments make no sense unless you have an agenda of your own.
No. But the mining, and processing of U ore is carbon heavy! As is shipping the fuel rods, and buyilding the power plants! Ther guys with the data are nuclear power. And they won't tell you that they produce more CO2 than conventional power plants.
Doing a little research, totaling all sources from construction to decommissioning you can get numbers from 1% of typical plant emissions (Vattenfall, an energy company with equal amounts fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydrodynamic production, see Environmental Effects of Nuclear Energy on wikipedia) to parity (Storm and Smith 2005, criticized for using older data and overestimating results).
Nuclear power has never done a carbon audit! It si on record waht a carbon hit building is! Mining and concentrating U into fuel rods, onyl the nuclear boys with have CArbon data on: And as they dreamed up the phantom science of global warming, tehy are not gonig to release the data. Dig. Ask. It is out there! Do some work!
So I did some research already and posted what I found. The Vattenfall study was released and peer reviewed. Why doesn't that count? Because it doesn't fit in your belief system? So, what records are you looking at to back up this statement. Prove it, don't just repeat the same stuff over and over. By the way, a lot of people who believe in global warming want solar and wind power, not nuclear. If this is all a conspiracy they are doing a lousy job.
I was taught about the reelase of radiation on my engineering degree: This has been known about for 50 years! I repeat it, as nuclear fusion doesn't release any CO2, whe nit makes power. I share my thoughts with the world, hope you enjoyed taking your mind for a run!
Look, I have no problem with the claim that hydrogen combustion, which is what you are suggestion, is clean for the most part. What I do have a problem is your calling global warming junk science. I've gotten an advance degree in Earth and Planetary Sciences. No one I studied with, talked with, learned from, or read papers by was anyone's tool or doing bad science. If you are going to repeatedly say that, prove it. Show me evidence.
I have an engineering masters, and I was taugh tthat boiler rooms gave off radiation. Also you breathe out he, and your arteries give out gamma radiaiton. this is molecular nuclear fusion. Not combustion! Get over it! Nujclear fusion.
As a scientist you know that you have to be very exact with your words, and you just can't label it fusion. That has a specific meaning which the process you mention doesn't meet. True fusion happens at really high temperatures, like in stars. The radiation from humans is normal radioactive decay of natural elements. Not fusion.
Yuo breathe out He as your bl0ood system gives out gamam radaition. Both signals that we are doing nuclear fusion. But we don't see, or need high temperatures, only fusion. Boil a kettel, and hold a giga counter to it as it boils! Then get back to me!
You are connecting phenomena that are not connected. The exhaled He is from the air we breathe in and the radiation is from radioactive decay. Not fusion! If we were making He during respiration, our voices would be higher in pitch when we take in a big breath than a small breath. Your definition of fusion is wrong.
Yuo give out burst of radaition as your heart beats.You breath out He, but breath in very, very little. Your body does biological molecular nuclear fusion. Steam engines do molecular nuclear fusion: Power with no CO2 or death!
Come on. Steam is formed by vaporization of water. That's a phase transition, not fusion. Everything is not "molecular nuclear fusion."
Who came up with this? Can you give me a peer reviewed paper or the name of the discoverer, because it goes against everything I have ever read in several fields of science.
NASA confirmed that boilign water gave out Gamma waves. Boiler rooms giv e out radiation. THe dee psea produces radiation, He and O. Where sis I get it from? Science books. Where did you get your ignorance from?
So when I ask for a source it is ignorance? You are connecting phenomena that have no connection. Radiation does not mean fusion. Basic physics. Ever hear of radioactive decay?
What NASA study? I can't find it. Give me a link or the researcher that did it. And I spent a summer working at NASA Goddard with the people who worked on climate research. If you don't believe them when it comes to climate change, then your being extremely hypocritical.
Oh, and do a google search with "respiration step by step" and the first link gives a very detailed webpage about the entire process. There is no He involved.
Yuo breath out He, adn your heart gives out gamam radiation as it beats. AS does every water boiler in thwe world, as water boils. Try hard sceince. THe dee psea also produces so much He, and you breath ito out, whe nyou really don't breath it in!
No. You state it as fact but there is no research I can find anywhere that back up anything like this. Give me specifics at this point, not vague statements. Or just give me a link if not a paper reference. Not one of my Physics textbooks ever mention anything about this. Again, where in the breathing process, exactly where since the whole process is known, do you produce He? You are proposing cold fusion, which is a joke.
My next door neighbour worked for BNFL, and he told me that your arteries give out radiation -= which was confiremnd by a high school student. At university it is well k nown you breath out He! Stop reading the Beano. Do science.
BNFL, a nuclear power company so part of the climate change conspiracy? And what you are saying is not well known. At the schools I went to, it never came up and we were doing hard science (I got degrees in Astronomy and Physics and Earth and Planetary Sciences). Show me some reference to it, which if it's so common someone has at least made a webpage. I've been searching for days and I've found none.
He no longer works for BMFL, and left before GW was out. I was taught a load of this at university. Not high school. And ti still required 5 months of work before I would accept molecular nuclear fusion.
MY friedn no longer works for BNFL. THey are the onyl people trying to gain from the phantom sciecne of GW! Whic hwas invented by their friends in academia. As t orefereences - you are on your own, they have covered their tracks well.
Go into the video 5:04 minutes. You'll see "ideology = an imaginary relationship to a real situation. You have convinced yourself of a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Lack of proof is not evidence. If you really do science you'd know this.
This has been flagged as spam show
Every year 2,500,000 people die of car exhaust. And car exhaust is destroying the nature! We know how to stop it!
youtube.com/watch?v=sHw7XSz2OGI
Stop the global warming !!!
MediaCryptix 1 year ago
I really loved it
semsima 1 year ago
What a load of dogs bollocks... the degree by which EXTRA co2 causes warming DECREASES the high the concerntration of c02 becomes, going from 450 ppm to 560 ppm won't do shit, calm the fuck down and stick to writing novels you alarmist kook, this is chicken little all over again
moomar1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What about all these people running around and airing gas-farts from between their buttock-cheeks? Why can't people just hold them in? Problem solved! Only Al Gore should be allowed to fart; he and his spawn and minions, 2-B sure.
TheCannonofMohammed 1 year ago
This looks more like a tread than a U-Tube comments section. I'll read it all later. Has NE1 read the Red/Green/Blue Mars?
eastcoaster54 1 year ago
As for what to read... Here's a good place to start. Read what our respected scientific institutions say. Wiki has their position statements but you can Google their web sites and/or available articles.
I also recommend reading books to develop a foundation about how humans affect the biosphere. There are many good ones available. Avoid those from the vested interests. There are many of them too as they spread doubt where no credible doubt exists.
FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
THe wordl started cooling, naturally from 2005. The sun gives climate cahnge, we cope with it! Nuclear power kills, so don't even touch that!
JonThm 2 years ago
You need a science fiction writer to comment in favour of global warming because man made global warming is science fiction.
Notice that the "scientific method" is never applied in these speeches - its all about consensus and politics.
I want the UN to form a consensus that 1+1=3.
Just for fun, maybe if we can pay them enough they will do it.
DouglasHPlumb 2 years ago
Human caused warming fiction? What?
Perhaps with your expertise you can tell me why NASA, NOAA, EPA, AAAS, AGU and all the rest of our historically reliable scientific institutions got it wrong. These institutions span the globe and decades of research. Perhaps its a world-wide conspiracy or a global commie plot to enslave the people. Or maybe the NWO has infiltrated the research departments and forced all the scientists to falsify their data and conclusions.
Get a grip, get real, READ!
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
@ReduceGHGs
read what? a consortium of scientist pd by the governments to prove global warming?
and how they prove it mostly is the completely defunct fucking computer model bullshit or the completely defunct hockey stick claim? or the now defunct tree ring bullshit? whiuch proof of global warming is truth? oh wait climate change. created by the SUN! retard
juggernautxtr 1 year ago
Consider why it is necessary for We The People (governments) to fund research. Maybe its in our best interest and maybe it isn't profitable for private interests?
You'd have to be nuts to think that the many, many global studies that have been completed over the last 30+ years were all falsified. Yes, this goes back to at least 1979 with NAS's, The Charney Report.
MOST of the GW science is NOT computer model based. Didn't know that did ya?
Think they just overlooked the sun? LOL!
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
this was nothing more than political posturing. Most of the so called scientists for global warming are not even scientists. they are just on the list as contributors. tell me what has benefitted you since they started this? Nothing but a bunch of scientists sure were able to line their pockets with a lot of cash and take a ton of trips off other peoples backs.
juggernautxtr 1 year ago
what is political about nay sayers NOT having studies to back up their claims?
the science is solid. all you deniers can do is sit back, not like it, and just say it isn't so. Thanks for nothing.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
none of the science is solid when a corrupt government is funding this bull shit. all i keep hearing from these idiots is that the sun has no effect on earth's climate. hahahahahaha! get a life and quit spreading the filth that other people trying to prove, cause your doing the same shit.
juggernautxtr 1 year ago
So, are you saying it is better to take the word of the vested interests even though they have no studies to back it up?
Sorry. That kind of irrational thinking is not for me.
I'll continue to rely on what ALL our respected scientific institutions have been saying. They base their findings on over 30 years of global research.
On what do you base your opinion on? You're right because you know you're right.
Good luck with that. You'll need it.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
and you don't think the governments have a vested interest in it?
called cap and trade?
which england already has done. and was supposed to fuel more green stuff and jobs and has actually done nothing more than be another politcal bungle on their part. and now the united states wants to do the same thing? they don't have a vested interest okay.
juggernautxtr 1 year ago
Remember when the w/cheney administration edited OUT climate change warnings from the EPA?
No, governments would prefer not to have to deal with the problem like they would prefer not to have to deal with natural disasters.
If England hasn't done all that well what does it prove? Does it prove that we don't need to do anything? No. It proves their approach is flawed.
Try reading Hot, Flat, And Crowded.
It's a wonderful book, that is, IF you read. If you don't, you should.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
because chainey and bush new it was a bunch of bunk.
democrats are pushing this to the point that it is ricockulous. do you realize that a carburetor is more efficient than an injector?
all this crap about climate change is bunk, i have no problem with cleaning up the environment but don't try and force a bunch of crap that some guy in congress is set up to make billions on. and is the biggest hypocrite in the subject. which just tells me it is bunk. just a scam to make money from
juggernautxtr 1 year ago
Yea, cheney and bush are experts, right? Well, they were experts at catering to their energy sponsors.
Find ONE respected scientific institution that sees it your way and I'd love to have the link. Otherwise, consider why ALL of them understand that a human-caused climate crisis is occurring.
What was the last book you read about this or a related issue?
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
like i said above.
the bigger the lie the easier it is to believe.
juggernautxtr 1 year ago
if you are going to participate in a discussion requiring a modicum of intelligence and knowledge, don't make yourself look like a fool absolutely poor spelling and grammar. I'm not even going to comment on the substance of your post, since it's even more baffling.
s3ntient93 1 year ago
@s3ntient93
just another moron worried more about bullshit than the realities
juggernautxtr 1 year ago
@juggernautxtr sorry I have no time for dumb as bricks internet trolls
s3ntient93 1 year ago
gee look at you, thinking your all that and the cake too.
kiss my ass when it comes down to reality, i'd put you to shame in brains.
juggernautxtr 1 year ago
@juggernautxtr lol, funny! unfortunately you've already tipped your hand with all your comments, so all I can say is: come back once you're educated.
s3ntient93 1 year ago
@s3ntient93 In a debate about global warming why are you trying to score points picking on peoples spelling?, you're grasping mate. people only pick on spelling when they get desperate
moomar1 1 year ago
Mill the Polar ice, sort out the world climate. Though nature already is.
JonThm 2 years ago
THe world has been coolnig since 2005: Nuclear power made up GW to kill the stupid!
JonThm 2 years ago
Mill the South POole, even out solar heat across the planet.
JonThm 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
u r reading this, then u will find a dead bloody body hanging in ur closet. Her Name is Monique U will be haunted and killed by her . SEND THIS TO 12 OTHER VIDEOS AND YOU´LL BE FINE!! AND MONIQUE IS GONE!
BuddahBohdiLove4eva 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sorry this scared me..
Way back in 1894, a little girl named Madeline Crothe was skipping through the woods when a mysterious man in black snatched her. He brought her to his house, tourtered her, and starved her to death. Send this to 6 videos in the next 30 min. and you will be safe, but if you don't... at approximately 1: 34 tonight you will wake up to see an aneorexic child holding a bloodied up knife and she will kill you" less sorry this scares
kentuckygurl150 2 years ago
try to search for Kim Doc Trailer on Youtube
P00GAMER 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONT READ THIS!In 1971 a guy named Kyle an his girlfriend Emily were in side a house that was said to claim peoples lives if they entered the house.The next morning a guy named Alex saw fingernail marks on the door.if you dont post this to 5 videos, youll be getting a visit from Kyle and Emily tonight!WARNING:this has been proved to be real,i value my life!whoever reads this may God be with you! I TRULY DO APOLOGIZE!!! PS i got this from another vid ( i am not taking my chances
Sothe16 2 years ago
Nuclear power seized on some discredited sceicne in 1980, to say CO2 caused waming therefore we needed more nuclear: Only if we wish to die!
JonThm 2 years ago
The thing about France is that the polytechnocrats are bleeding the economy in place of Wall Street in America. The French like to talk, but the reality is not much different from back home.
eatthis92 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out my campaign to help raise awareness...it get's a little messy :D
"douchebag pie"
copy and paste this URL;
watch?v=7gPfQEnnuUk
Filmapprentice 2 years ago
The world started cooling in 2005, as CO2 emissions went up: Explain.
JonThm 2 years ago
say please
plebshadowofra 2 years ago
Please: But I don't matter, the globe is cooling what ever we do!
JonThm 2 years ago
JonThm:
Could be a number of things, solar dimming for one - caused by the impurities in coal emissions.
Missed point anyway, namely - the Earth is our home and we shouldn't crap all over it.
plebshadowofra 2 years ago
The world has bee ncooling since 2005 - the nexrt ice age is com,ing. I tel lthe wordl how to do molecular nuclear fusion on this blog anyway! Power with no CO2 or toxic death.
JonThm 2 years ago
'Climate Change' is fiction from nuclear power - your boss!
JonThm 2 years ago
Every mention of natur4es production of natural radaition, has been removed from the web, by whom? Why? On who's orders.
JonThm 2 years ago
New Scientist Oct 2nd 2008: 'THe globe has been COOLING since 2005'
JonThm 2 years ago
And yet 95% of the world's glaciers are in retreat, simply fascinating!
fleebenworth 2 years ago
1/8 of the world glaziers are advancing. LaST YEAR WAS A RECORD YEAR FRO SEA ICE FORMATION: oN MY BLGO i TEL;L YOU HOW TO DO SAFE, CHEAP, CLEAN NUCLEAR FUSION FROM WATER: pOWER WITH NO co2.
JonThm 2 years ago
Even if your 1/8 statistic were true, that still leaves 88% of the worlds glaciers that are retreating. Above all if you want to adopt a scientific perspective you must look at overall trends and the data in totality, rather than isolated factoids. While 2008 might have been a record year for sea ice formation, the ice caps have been retreating in general as well as giving way to increasing ocean surface temps around the poles.
That being said I am sure you will ignore this or post something
fleebenworth 2 years ago
New scietist Oct 2nd 2008, 'the world has been cooling since 2005'. GW wasa to take no breaks, so is WRONG
JonThm 2 years ago
fleebenworth, here's my position. No matter what is happening with the Earth's weather, man has a nominal or non-existent effect on it.
Until you can PROVE that statement wrong, you and the NWO can go fly a kite.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
I suggest you start by reading the IPCC report. It already has been proven as much as empirical fact is 'provable'.
fleebenworth 2 years ago
fleebenworth, and I suggest that you consider the political agenda of the organization that wrote the IPCC report. When you view it in this light, then you must take everything it says with a grain of salt. In other words, it's probably full of crap and cannot be trusted.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
And you are qualified to say this how?
fleebenworth 2 years ago
No summer in the UK for 4 years. THe world 20 C cooler, so what we ahve here is weather, adn teh start of teh next ice age. Extract you heat from the oven, and go outside!
JonThm 2 years ago
Since 2005, how much have the seas FA:LLEN?
JonThm 2 years ago
CO2 has gone up since 2005: As global temperatures have gone down! Buy a working thermometer.
JonThm 2 years ago
this guy is an idiot
tHoM0r 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really liked your channel and this video. If you need any help getting this video exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. Its nice.
that is very awesome i love this
Calcasxcg 2 years ago
GW adn 'climate change' are spin from nuclear power, put about by paid stooges - as here!
JonThm 2 years ago
The world is cooling, as more CO2 is emitted. I thin kwhat we got here is weather!
JonThm 2 years ago
Sheffeild Univeristy in the UK, has patented the steam plasma as a CO2 free way to make H and O gases! Wtih no external power. Some of the water ennds up as He and O, as we do nuclear fusion.
JonThm 3 years ago
I like turtles
Agogaraxis 3 years ago
Classic ;-) - I thought JonThm was some sort of prank but apparently he's real.
TankUni 3 years ago
The world has bee ncooling from 2005, as CO2 emission from China have gone up!
JonThm 3 years ago
Ice at the South Pole increased by 30% this year, as the world cooled fro tthe thrid year running. Nuclear power smashed their way through the Northern passage using an ice breaker. They always could of, this is not evidence of warming! More plants grow in the warm, and they take in CO2, so more CO2 = more life.
JonThm 3 years ago
A tax theory which is unproven, moisture is far more a contributor than Co2 which plants absorb. Canadians also discovered clouds with snow falling via LIDAR so are cars warming Mars? and melting the remaining surface ice as seen since '96? Proof before stiffling 3rd world progress which we have already benefitted from. Where is the North pole ice on Google Maps Google? LOL!
DIGIBOYTV 3 years ago
'Climate change' is fatal ficiton from nuclear power: You are their stooge.
JonThm 3 years ago
It makes sense to re-examine what a digital democracy would look like. The wisdom of the people is only as wise as the technology used to gather that wisdom. Companies like Google who power over knowledge at the global scale have the responsibility to efficiently organize collective knowledge to where it can be redily utilized.
mistahchillah 3 years ago
There is only 0.00037% CO2 in the globla air: But nuclear power wants new plants of death. But the wordl has been cooling since 2005.
JonThm 3 years ago
If you plot the past 7 years, you will see a clear cooling trend ... and of course no temp increase since 1998 ... despite what the models forecast for this period !!
Why doesn't the IPCC 2007 report show temps for the past decade ?? (Anyone who claims that it does should quote a reference page number !)
sydneydoc 3 years ago
According to New Scientist, the world is cooling: Explain.
JonThm 3 years ago
But when you go to North Pole the Northern passage is now year round and the Russian coast is passable all year. Go there before you trust any info! carbon tax is $ nothing more. Water vapour is up one of the largest contributors to warming. Mars polar caps are going fast as well, solar heating out of our control.
DIGIBOYTV 3 years ago
the audio quality in this video is absolutely horribly google needs to stop mangling sound, it absolutely disgusting
phrikety 3 years ago
There are no academic members of teh IPCC anymore. It is there to do nuclear PR.
JonThm 3 years ago
According to New Sceintist, CO2 is at 3.7 parrts per million: And since 2005 th world ahs been cooling. The ice age is next!
JonThm 3 years ago
ACCORDING TO THE ICE CORE RECORDS, CO2 LEVELS HAVE NEVER GONE OVER 300PPM...WITHIN THE LAST FEW DECADES THEY HAVE GROWN TO 383PPM...!GET THAT? !!ALMOST 1/3 HIGHER IN A FEW DECADES AFTER 1 MILLION YEARS OF MINIMAL NATURAL CHANGES!!!
Take a look at 'any image of earth' (from space) that thin 'film membrane' happens to be 'OUR ATMOSPHERE'...'Pollution ain't perty'...and it can't cause extinction, but at least this ol' world would get rid of these pesky (& filthy, greedy) human 'fleas'...
SirVertual 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Plants take in the 0.00037% max CO2 in the globla air, to support all life on Earth: More CO2, more life. Amd lower seas.
JonThm 3 years ago
The percentage taken in is dependent on the mass of plants available, and that mass has been reduced, 70% of the worlds forests have been cut down, and the deserts are growing slowly. The oceans are rising, that is measurable and reproducible and has been well documented. Stop spreading lies.
jackjen1 3 years ago 2
i am on the right place here i think there are some rumors about a poleshifting in 2012 what you say about it? send me msg pls
Markus2976 3 years ago
prof Zimmerman can tel lyou how to do nuclear fusion: Power with no CO2.
JonThm 3 years ago
Right now fusion doesn't produce more energy out than is put in. Maybe somebody here could learn about it and join in, and North American funding of fusion is paltry.
jackjen1 3 years ago
Welcome to the next ice age. 'Global Warming' was just PR from nuclear power, dressed up as sceicne by the IPCC who are so not sceintists!
JonThm 3 years ago
If that's the case, then the people who denounce global warming aren't scientists either. Both groups have a mix of scientist and non scientists, except global warming skeptics are often, factually, paid off by oil companies whereas this is just a fantasy in your mind.
sandread 3 years ago 2
Prof Zimmerman, my old PhD suipervisor, has had articles published on globla warming. After my PhD, he no longer believes in it! There si onyl 0.00037% CO2 in the air, 2000 times less than required to have an effect. Get educated: It opens the mind up to thinking, rahter than reciting nuclear power PR!
JonThm 3 years ago
I have a masters in earth and planetary science and a BS in astronomy. I've worked at NASA Goddard with climate models and climate scientist as well as my own work. I think I know something of the "debate" and you are spouting nonsense. Nothing is made up. What's the first name of this professor? What university? I have serious doubts about the existence of this person based on your lack of answers to simple questions before.
sandread 3 years ago
Good: Then you will know there is only 0.00037% CO2 in the air - which is pegged by plant life! In the Jurassic ferns pegged CO2 at 0.0004%, there was 60% more life on Earth, and sea levels were 675 meters lower. CO2 levels onyl rise in an ice age! GW was just nuclear power PR!
JonThm 3 years ago
You can't spell scientist. Take a look at Greenland, and note the accelerating rate of melt.
jackjen1 3 years ago 2
CO2 supports your life. Nuclear power kills it, and with your consent, YOU!
JonThm 3 years ago
Snow in the UK at Easter, is what you call weather. Spookey not!
JonThm 3 years ago
You have no idea what climate is. That is weather. Climate is long term, which is a basic fallacy doubters always use. NASA studies show that even though we had a cold weather, it is still warmer on average than earlier.
Oh, and global warming does predict a colder UK if the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic is shut down.
Lastly, Western Antarctic Ice sheet is on the verge of collapse, with a big chunk coming of it, 15 years before earliest, most dire estimates.
sandread 3 years ago
The climate is controlled by God and the sun. We should get all our power from molecular nuclear fusion, like the deep sea has done for 200 million years, and man started doing with steam power. Or hadn't you noticed? Yuo do it every time your heart beats.
JonThm 3 years ago
Nope. Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory and Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center both have different studies showing the sun has very little correlation to warming temps. Find some new reason to deny the mounting evidence.
sandread 3 years ago
'Climate Change' is PR for nuclear power, sppread by Google: Hope you are stupid rather than being paid well!
JonThm 3 years ago
No, your view is more what people funded by oil companies like to use. No proof that you are an oil guy, so I guess I can say it's true because that is exactly what you are doing.
sandread 3 years ago
Trouble is, GW was phantom sciecne thought up by nuclear power, We should get all our heat from doing molecular nuclear fusion, liek teh deep sea has done for over 200 million years, and your own heart does every time it beats!
JonThm 3 years ago
GW was first predicted in 1896.
TexanCyclist 2 years ago
The earth cools and warms naturally. GW was teh last gasp pby nuclear power to get more plants. So everybody talknig about GW as man made is a paid nuclear stooge.
JonThm 2 years ago
So the scientist who predicted Global Warming in 1896 was a paid nuclear stooge? The amount of time you spend blowing smoke & B.S. has me wondering who pays your bills.
TexanCyclist 2 years ago
maybe you ought to look at oils look at global warming a little closer.
they are in fact with the global warming.
why? what does it take to make plastics?
what does it take to refine the copper,aluminum,steel and other products to make green products? meanwhile morons like you just tripled co2 out put. spouting what has been proven defunct and falsified work by non scientists pd. by governmental posturing.
juggernautxtr 1 year ago
Thanks for the vid.I have absolutley loved Mr. Robinson's books and I appreciate this chance to see him in person, well via a screen anyway,,
CaptPorridge2 3 years ago
Climate change was fiction from nuclear power, whe nglobla warming was so wrong! LIfe depends on plants taking in CO2, and there is only 0.00037% of it in the air!
JonThm 3 years ago
'Climate Change' is fiction from nuclear power, given publicity by Google!
JonThm 3 years ago
Molecular nuclear fusion, power with no CO2 - or global warming fiction! Google should talk life, rather than nuclear power DEATH!
JonThm 3 years ago
:O Biggest video of Youtube!!
Caru4ever 3 years ago
:O Biggest video of Youtube!!
Caru4ever 3 years ago
Steam power is teh easiest way man has found to do nuclear fusion - power with no CO2. And now you need burn nothing to raise steam.
JonThm 3 years ago
Molecular nuclear fusion, power with no CO2 or toxic death - see my blog!
JonThm 3 years ago
Google does nuclear PR! GW is their fiction.
JonThm 3 years ago
Molecular nuclear fusion. Safe, clean cheap power, with no CO2 or the toxic death of nuclear power.
JonThm 3 years ago
The deep sea does nuclear fusion from water on Earth, we can do it from high pressure water or steam!
JonThm 3 years ago
We should do molecular nuclear fusion, and turn water into power, with no CO2 or toxic death!
JonThm 3 years ago
Holy shit is this video actually 75 minutes?
wazzaa4u 3 years ago
High pressure or temperature water in turbulent flwo does nuclear fusion - power with no CO2! Google should be ashames of backiogn nuclear death!
JonThm 4 years ago
Where in this video is any mention of nuclear power? Where? You spout out nonsense with no proof of these absurd claims. There is no nuclear here. Watch the video and make an argument against something presented, not bring in some silly statements. Oh, and everything is not fusion.
sandread 4 years ago
Boil water, and hogl a Giga counter to it - like NASA did. It gives off a belt of radaition as the water boils. WAtger boilers do it all day.
JonThm 3 years ago
What study? I ask you again to show me that and so far you have refused. I'd like to see what they found. Because boiling water emits infrared, not gamma radiation. It is not energetic enough. I'd be happy to learn more but so far your info is just empty air.
Two more things: geiger counters most of the time measure alpha and beta radiation. Are you sure you are not mistaking that for gamma?
Second: NASA is doing studies on global warming. If your study is not bogus, why is that bogus science?
sandread 3 years ago 2
Boil water with a handy giga counter. Boiling water gives off gamma rays, and makes a bit of He and O from wwater. Go see for yourself!
JonThm 3 years ago
Hold a Giga counter to any water boiler in the world, and wear an edible aht, as you will be eating it!
JonThm 3 years ago
CO2 supports life on Earth, nuclear power, who invented the fiction of global warming, kill it!
JonThm 4 years ago
So, a method that has no CO2 emissions is bad, like your "nuclear fusion"? Is solar and wind power "nuclear death" as well, since that is what a lot of climate change proponents are pushing, and not nuclear.
sandread 4 years ago
Leave life to CO2. Let man enerate power, like the sun, or deep sea does! And don't do nuclear fgission, whic hkills big time! Nuclear fusion is safe,m clean and cheap - nuclear power is none of those!
JonThm 4 years ago
I don't want to do fission. There are too many problems with waste and storage. But your fusion is a boondoggle. No one can do it at this stage that generates more energy than you put in. Show me a paper that says it, or the discoverer. That person would be up there with the greats if they could. So it's years away at best, maybe decades. How is solar power bad then, since we can do it now at a large scale and it is very clean?
sandread 4 years ago
Good Grief!...Look at the rate thyat we are losing the earth's 'LUNGS'...it's phenomenal to imagine rainforest being cut down as quickly as they are...these woods end up mainly as veneers on plywood...the plywood is a whole 'nother problem (radon)...kinda' like the correlation between plastics and petroleum...Again...THIS IS THE MAIN THING TO REMEMBER AND PRACTICE..."FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS A RE-ACTION"...IT'S A FACT...
SirVertual 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice Movie Guys - hes a legend! atomicfeedback.com
bubbles29118226 4 years ago
Nuclear power kills, using their phantom science of 'global warming', and now 'climate cahnge': As teh world is so not warming!
JonThm 4 years ago
So results published in Science this past week by the Scripps Institute are "phantom" science. You can argue the results but to name it this means you have little understanding of the peer review process. After all these years, if there was a hoax it would have been found. Otherwise, thousands are suspect. You claim to be a scientist but slander the process with unsubstantiated statements that just distract from real discussion.
sandread 4 years ago
Plants take in CO2 to support life on Earth. THere is only 0.00037% CO2 in the air, plants want all they can get! To say 'CO2 is bad' is to do phantom talk, don't you think/ No CO2, and you, and life on Earth are dead!
JonThm 4 years ago
No one is saying remove all CO2. That's idiotic. Looking at the absolute amount is wrong, as well. A small amount of added CO2 can have large effects because it fills holes in the absorptions spectrum that were empty before. A 30% gain and growing in 150 years of industrialization is a lot and is faster than what would happen in nature. That is the problem, the rate, not CO2 itself. And plants can't take it up fast enough. We are adding it too fast.
sandread 4 years ago
Life si supported by plants taking in CO2: THe infre red propeties of CO2 at 0.00037% are too tiny to ahve an effect! I say gnerate power using molecular nuclear fusion, so we take CO2 out of the equatiopn! Power with no CO2 or toxic death.
JonThm 4 years ago
Again, it's not the amount that is important. That is wrong. By filling bands that are empty, you don't need a lot of CO2. IIRC, an increase in ppm of CO2 can have an effect. So going from 0.00037% to 0.00038% is important, even if it is a very tiny overall amount.
sandread 4 years ago
CO2 level is pegged by plant growth, and goes up and down with the climate! emissions just increase he life on Earth, they do not change the weather! Only the stupid would think it did! Are you that man?
JonThm 4 years ago
Ah, now I'm "stupid." Are your arguments that weak? Guess so. Emissions just increase life? Then we don't need your misnamed fusion. CO2 does follow or lead climate in the past, it is unclear, but if you understood the actual facts and the graph you reference you'd know that those graphs show changes over thousands of years, not decades. We are in uncharted territory now. That is the problem.
sandread 3 years ago
380/1,000,000 = 0.00038 if you wish to speak in terms of percentage you multiply your ratio by 100. So one half is 50%. And 0.00038 would be 0.038%.
bluetwinky 3 years ago
Global Warming and climate change were names madfe up by nuclear power to kill us!
JonThm 4 years ago
Did you watch the video? Do you have any good comments on what Mr. Robinson says on economics, society, remedies for change (and no nuclear was mention if you noticed)? Or did you just look at the title and post your comment?
sandread 4 years ago
CO2, life on Earth: Nuclear power, death on Earth: You choose!
JonThm 4 years ago
This is a ridiculous statement. You can argue against climate change, but this kind of belief doesn't promote anything it just distorts the discussion. No one says that in the climate change community. Watch the video. It doesn't promote nuclear energy as you think it does.
sandread 4 years ago
Plants take in CO2, and release oxyen, so supportin g all life on Earth. Nuclear power is toxic and dangerous, so profits from the death of life on Earth. What is your problem with life?
JonThm 4 years ago
That is idiotic. I'm not talking about nuclear. Climate change proponents stress other forms of energy as well. If you actually watch the video instead of just trolling you would see this. This is obviously not going to kill all life on earth, and you are making that charge up. But, it can potentially affect everyone, displacing millions, and causing mass extinctions, but not everything. Why do you hate people? (See how silly that is?)
sandread 4 years ago
We should all be doing safe molecular nuclear fusion - the power of teh waterfall: Power with no CO2 or toxic death end products.
JonThm 4 years ago
Speaking about phantom sciences. Your "fusion" doesn't exist and is not practical at this time. The actual power of the waterfall is hydroelectric.
sandread 4 years ago
Waterfalls give out radiation, produce gamma wave radiation, and heat the water by 20 C - despite the drop. Adn they produce ozone, like the dee psea does, fro the same reason! THey d onuclear fusion.
JonThm 4 years ago
Everything does not produce gamma radiation. If it did we'd all be dying of cancer. And ozone production is not fusion. Fusion deals with nuclei changing. Ozone production changes O2 to O3. That's a molecule and a chemical reaction. Not fusion.
sandread 4 years ago
Proposing building new nuclear fission plants, which cause pollution and death on Green grounds is rediculous! As is the whoel phantom science of GW!
JonThm 4 years ago
Again, you are bringing in things that have nothing to do with this video. Go to 35:14, see no nuclear plants mentioned. Just solar, geothermal, high altitude, carbon capture, ethanol, etc. Your arguments are distractions as you just post without watching the video.
sandread 4 years ago
We all should be doing molecular nuclear fusion - like nature does: Power with no CO2!
JonThm 4 years ago
Let's say you're right. How does that change what the video is saying? If climate change is a myth, why change systems? We don't need nuclear fusion or systems with no CO2 emissions, right? We can stay as is with oil and coal, right? You said CO2 is needed for life, so power with no CO2 would be bad, right? Your arguments make no sense unless you have an agenda of your own.
sandread 4 years ago
THe natura lworld abounds in the emission of radiation from high pressure water or steam: Power with no CO2 - see my blog.
JonThm 4 years ago
Nuclear kills. CO2 supports life on Earth!
JonThm 4 years ago
We shoul do molecular nuclear fusion - power with no CO2! And no toxic death.
JonThm 4 years ago
Nuclear power produces as much cO2, as conventional power - mostly by mining, transporting, and processing U ore.
JonThm 4 years ago
Do you have numbers supporting this statement?
anotherelvis 4 years ago
No. But the mining, and processing of U ore is carbon heavy! As is shipping the fuel rods, and buyilding the power plants! Ther guys with the data are nuclear power. And they won't tell you that they produce more CO2 than conventional power plants.
JonThm 4 years ago
Doing a little research, totaling all sources from construction to decommissioning you can get numbers from 1% of typical plant emissions (Vattenfall, an energy company with equal amounts fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydrodynamic production, see Environmental Effects of Nuclear Energy on wikipedia) to parity (Storm and Smith 2005, criticized for using older data and overestimating results).
sandread 4 years ago
Nuclear power has never done a carbon audit! It si on record waht a carbon hit building is! Mining and concentrating U into fuel rods, onyl the nuclear boys with have CArbon data on: And as they dreamed up the phantom science of global warming, tehy are not gonig to release the data. Dig. Ask. It is out there! Do some work!
JonThm 4 years ago
So I did some research already and posted what I found. The Vattenfall study was released and peer reviewed. Why doesn't that count? Because it doesn't fit in your belief system? So, what records are you looking at to back up this statement. Prove it, don't just repeat the same stuff over and over. By the way, a lot of people who believe in global warming want solar and wind power, not nuclear. If this is all a conspiracy they are doing a lousy job.
sandread 4 years ago
I was taught about the reelase of radiation on my engineering degree: This has been known about for 50 years! I repeat it, as nuclear fusion doesn't release any CO2, whe nit makes power. I share my thoughts with the world, hope you enjoyed taking your mind for a run!
JonThm 4 years ago
Look, I have no problem with the claim that hydrogen combustion, which is what you are suggestion, is clean for the most part. What I do have a problem is your calling global warming junk science. I've gotten an advance degree in Earth and Planetary Sciences. No one I studied with, talked with, learned from, or read papers by was anyone's tool or doing bad science. If you are going to repeatedly say that, prove it. Show me evidence.
sandread 4 years ago
I have an engineering masters, and I was taugh tthat boiler rooms gave off radiation. Also you breathe out he, and your arteries give out gamma radiaiton. this is molecular nuclear fusion. Not combustion! Get over it! Nujclear fusion.
JonThm 4 years ago
As a scientist you know that you have to be very exact with your words, and you just can't label it fusion. That has a specific meaning which the process you mention doesn't meet. True fusion happens at really high temperatures, like in stars. The radiation from humans is normal radioactive decay of natural elements. Not fusion.
sandread 4 years ago
Yuo breathe out He as your bl0ood system gives out gamam radaition. Both signals that we are doing nuclear fusion. But we don't see, or need high temperatures, only fusion. Boil a kettel, and hold a giga counter to it as it boils! Then get back to me!
JonThm 4 years ago
You are connecting phenomena that are not connected. The exhaled He is from the air we breathe in and the radiation is from radioactive decay. Not fusion! If we were making He during respiration, our voices would be higher in pitch when we take in a big breath than a small breath. Your definition of fusion is wrong.
sandread 4 years ago
Yuo give out burst of radaition as your heart beats.You breath out He, but breath in very, very little. Your body does biological molecular nuclear fusion. Steam engines do molecular nuclear fusion: Power with no CO2 or death!
JonThm 4 years ago
Come on. Steam is formed by vaporization of water. That's a phase transition, not fusion. Everything is not "molecular nuclear fusion."
Who came up with this? Can you give me a peer reviewed paper or the name of the discoverer, because it goes against everything I have ever read in several fields of science.
sandread 4 years ago
NASA confirmed that boilign water gave out Gamma waves. Boiler rooms giv e out radiation. THe dee psea produces radiation, He and O. Where sis I get it from? Science books. Where did you get your ignorance from?
JonThm 4 years ago
So when I ask for a source it is ignorance? You are connecting phenomena that have no connection. Radiation does not mean fusion. Basic physics. Ever hear of radioactive decay?
What NASA study? I can't find it. Give me a link or the researcher that did it. And I spent a summer working at NASA Goddard with the people who worked on climate research. If you don't believe them when it comes to climate change, then your being extremely hypocritical.
sandread 4 years ago
Oh, and do a google search with "respiration step by step" and the first link gives a very detailed webpage about the entire process. There is no He involved.
sandread 4 years ago 2
Biological record: You breathe out He. It is in the university text books.
JonThm 4 years ago
What books say that? Give me a text name, because respiration only takes oxen from the air and produces CO2. Where in
C6H1206 + 6 02 -> 6 CO2 + 6 H20 +36 ATP
do you get He? Not in Glycolosis or the Krebs cycle. So at what point does it come in?
sandread 4 years ago 2
Yuo breath out He, adn your heart gives out gamam radiation as it beats. AS does every water boiler in thwe world, as water boils. Try hard sceince. THe dee psea also produces so much He, and you breath ito out, whe nyou really don't breath it in!
JonThm 4 years ago
No. You state it as fact but there is no research I can find anywhere that back up anything like this. Give me specifics at this point, not vague statements. Or just give me a link if not a paper reference. Not one of my Physics textbooks ever mention anything about this. Again, where in the breathing process, exactly where since the whole process is known, do you produce He? You are proposing cold fusion, which is a joke.
sandread 4 years ago
This is in response to the comment "NASA confirmed that boilign water gave out Gamma waves. Boiler rooms giv e out radiation..."
not the video, which I heartily enjoy and support.
sandread 4 years ago
My next door neighbour worked for BNFL, and he told me that your arteries give out radiation -= which was confiremnd by a high school student. At university it is well k nown you breath out He! Stop reading the Beano. Do science.
JonThm 4 years ago
BNFL, a nuclear power company so part of the climate change conspiracy? And what you are saying is not well known. At the schools I went to, it never came up and we were doing hard science (I got degrees in Astronomy and Physics and Earth and Planetary Sciences). Show me some reference to it, which if it's so common someone has at least made a webpage. I've been searching for days and I've found none.
sandread 4 years ago
He no longer works for BMFL, and left before GW was out. I was taught a load of this at university. Not high school. And ti still required 5 months of work before I would accept molecular nuclear fusion.
JonThm 4 years ago
MY friedn no longer works for BNFL. THey are the onyl people trying to gain from the phantom sciecne of GW! Whic hwas invented by their friends in academia. As t orefereences - you are on your own, they have covered their tracks well.
JonThm 4 years ago
Go into the video 5:04 minutes. You'll see "ideology = an imaginary relationship to a real situation. You have convinced yourself of a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Lack of proof is not evidence. If you really do science you'd know this.
sandread 4 years ago