How It All Ends: No Holds Barred (Pt 6 of 6)

[mpfyffe]

I agree that all your arguments on climate change are correct however when you factor in the population problem the only clear solution is to take no action because the end result of uncontroled global warming is the only thing that can control the larger problem of exponential growth of population.

[itchynights]

@mpfyffe

You're basically advocating for birth control via induced disaster. This is one of the most morally sick arguments around, and a true test of your cynical laziness to come up with a genuine solution to help fellow beings. Like, gee, education (especially for women), sexual education (especially for women), policy, technological development, ethical purchasing, consciousness raising, and I'm sure about 5 other better ones I haven't thought of.

Use your brain AND your heart. Geez.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

I'd rather be side-lined as a conspiracy theorist, than give away my freedoms as a human being -scared shitless of a proveably flawed and manipulated hypothesis.

Still - I would never deny your right to stand up for your beliefs.

I have taken the time to listen to your aurgument. The more I hear, the less impressed I become.

You have admitted that you dismiss conspiracies out of hand, whilst claiming to be a free thinker.

You have admittedly limited your reality.

There is the flaw.

[itchynights]

@bribeanbabybopdelux

Um, you just dismissed him out of hand for not believing conspiracies.

By the way, he would also say if you gave reasonable EVIDENCE, then he would believe a conspiracy theory. Weren't you listening?

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

@itchynights I did not dismiss him. I have given him hours of my time by watching his videos.

The evidence for the conspiracy is incredibly huge and detailed if you people would only open your minds and have a look.

If we are to fix these problems in our world, we need to have a full understanding of them.

Get out of the box people!

Why wont YOU listen?

[shodanxx]

not sure why you are questionning the credibility of the skeptic here, he's already at the bottom of your credibility chart, obviously he has none therefore should not be concerned about having less

[Staranand]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has been producing pro CO2 commercials with funding from fossil fuel organizations, has previously been supporting big tobacco after having gotten funding from them. Goodness, some people would say that makes them a bunch of Wh**es. They do however have experts on psychological warfare techniques. Many people fall prey to such. Still the best way to counter it is to shine light on it. We can not, nor do we need to convince everyone. Peace.

[qqquigley]

Very true!

Why are the climate change skeptics around here more concerned with arguing their points (even though they're not climate scientists themselves), and not more concerned with running a manpollo project?

If I were a skeptic, I would definitely want a manpollo project - why are most skeptics not in favor of this?

Answer: belligerence and stubbornness and arrogance.

I await a skeptic to say that they support a manpollo project. *I will applaud you if you are as such.*

Thanks =)

[nn123654]

6:07 - I'm reminded of the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[solidsnakeno1]

lol shouldent u be commited for watchin it to then ? :)

go watch what u wanna

im watching cuz i wanna

[AGWisBS]

Oh man... this guy in that video is a complete luney toon.. You guys should be committed just for watching him, let alone listening to anything he says. To anyone who thinks that GW is a crisis and that we must act now to stop it is brainwashed by the media and politicians, especially you gullible Britts... grow up and look for yourself, stop taking the talking head's opinions as fact. Idiots.

[manufactured123]

its enough now. you posted the same comment on the last 10 vids ive seen

[zanzibartraveler09]

OK. Prove it. And while you're at it, explain exactly and SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with what he said. Please. Because what you just said proves his point that you have no credible evidence, and are frustrated to admit your own being incorrect. So please, explain it to me.

[peterbourgon]

there is a book called HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS. There is a chapter called MUCH ADO ABOUT PRACTICALLY NOTHING. Global warming falls into this catagory. It's a hoax. I not saying we should not develop wind, solar and geothermal energy sources. there is money to be made and a higher standard of living that will come from that because of the free energy. thumbs down for nucular

[ctenophor]

their is a book called the cat in the hat, and their is a page labeled 2. global warming falls into this category!

[dbrotman]

The burden of proof belongs to those that throw out skeptical claims. Without some reliable alternative explanation that has been tested independently, the skeptics posting comments here are simply spouting off.

[peterbourgon]

we more likely to nuke each other or an astroid could hit the planet

Check out this graph:

live search this:

Is Global Warming on the Wane?

How Solar Goes Polar

found on farmers almanac page.

mean temp. increase over last centry:

about 1 deg

[sniped101]

if we nuke each other then we all die...

whats the point of that?

[dbrotman]

The farmers almanac page? That is your source? You can do better than that.

[peterbourgon]

My souce can predict the weather a year and a half in advance. Weather forcasters have a hard time to predict it a week in advance. I chose them because I think they know a thing or two about a thing or two

[dbrotman]

"Top-Secret" formula is by definition not subject to open peer review and cannot be evaluated independently.

I am not saying the Farmer's Alamanac is wrong on their predictions. However, because their methodology is closed to the public, it does not meet the criteria of being a scientific journal.

[peterbourgon]

are you saying my source should be ignored because for lack of disclosure when the system clearly works? can you name a more accurate source? is not the point of science to accurately understand what happens in nature? where the result are predictable and repeatable? the result speak for themselves don't they?

[dbrotman]

I didn't say it should be ignored. However, because it is secretive, its methodology cannot be tested and torn apart independently. Doesn't it strike you as kind of odd that they choose to be secretive about their formula and not open like the rest of the scientific community? Science does not work like that which is the reason why there is no more reliable way to understanding the world.

[peterbourgon]

The "method" is the Farmer's Almanac's trade secret. Patents only last 17 years in the US. Trade secrtes are free to implement and they never run out. Besides, the results are more accurate than any other source. There is no possible line of attack, since it is the most accurate method known.

[dbrotman]

Whether their results are accurate or not is not actually relevant here. They do not deny that global warming is occurring. They merely say that it doesn't affect their climate prediction model, whatever that may be. Even if they did deny it, so what? Any Joe Shmo can deny something. Point is, you still have not produced a scientific journal that arrives at a different conclusion than 99% of the scientific community regarding global warming.

[peterbourgon]

See the top of the gragh. "Well within the margin of error." That was enough for me but I looked again and found this "We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes." under "Is Global Warming on the Wane?" I rest my case. You did not even read it. The point: The most accurate long term forcaster says nay to GW and some Joe Shmo say "so?" UR funny.

[monje222]

I think this has been rather fun to watch as you don't seem to be the very least sceptic to anything for your cause, the pentagon has nothing to do with climate and I guess you haven't read the full 1000-page NAS report of 2003, please go and read it before you make those claims. I'm not saying climate change isn't happending, but the CO2 outlet is far from enough to make that change happend. Please read page 24-29 of Nr 5 2009 Illustrated science too.

[monje222]

Hmm ran out of space... Anyhow the cows farting might contriubute to the climate change, should we kill all the cows just to be on the safe side? Doesn't sound like a very good idea does it. Anyhow, you've read up alot about this, so I guess you don't mind reading what heartland institute sais about it either, read the 3 things I've said now, tell me what's wrong and prove it and I'll belive you. If you don't I'll keep convincing people of what I belive, just like you (just not as many).

[passycot]

badly read mate.

[Starstreamtracker]

Guess we're just doomed and we are all dishonest. It is about the individual. Then the solution is clear. Anyone that wants to save the world should just leave the world. A sure way to avoid any result. And one thing is for sure, a comet will hit the earth someday.

[eddiequest2]

"Anyone that wants to save the world should just leave the world."??? How would that save the world? WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP THIS MADNESS. WE do not have the ability (yet) to stop a comet.

[braunblender]

excellent set of videos. well done

[jdhofstra]

My test for falsifiability centers on the GCM's that underpin the AGW hypothesis. Let's see how these models do with data prior to 1900 in predicting the temperatures from 1900 to the present. They can use any data they want prior to 1900 (hockey stick included) and any assumption for CO2 from 1900 onwards - but no temperature data past 1900. The source code, run environment, initial conditions, and input data must be published, along with the year-by-year temperatures for 1900 to 2100.

[wwickeddogg]

Why would yearly average temperature matter when previous drastic climate changes have occurred suddenly?

[chamallowbleu]

HI EVERYBODY!

BBC News 'Have your say' in the climate change section is still quoting many people who are impassioned and ill informed!! Any suggestions how to effect this problem and address these skeptics??

ANY SUGGESTIONS??

[cumulusdiscord]

Fuck yeah! That's really what it comes down to. Either prove us wrong, or get out of the way.

[dawkinsfan41]

The denialists call themselves "skeptics"; this is ananlogous to creationists calling themselves "scientists". If you prove a true skeptic wrong, he will shake your hand and say thanks. If you prove a denialist wrong, he will deny it more.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Still waiting for conclusive evidence that it's the increased levels of Carbon Dioxide commonly correlated with temperature rise (and fall) and not the drop in the number of pirates in the world since the age of sail, or the increase amounts of out of the closet gays causing the 1-2 degree increased global average that "CO2 Armageddoners" say proves "Man induced Global Warming". I mean, 1or 2 degrees change falls way under the "Margin of error" for piloting average temperatures for 160,000 years

[dawkinsfan41]

I rest my case.

[TheRealArchAngel]

How so? THe relation between parts per million of Carbon Dioxide over 200 years & the tempature Swings of Earth through that same period is Corrolated data,not hard evidence. The Tinyurl thing is a Pure Carbon dioxide environment tempature going up 5 degrees against a Air Environment with .04% Carbon Dioxide by Volume & not Air with

.036% Carbon Dioxide by Volume v.s. Air with

.04% Carnon Dioxed by volume showing actual,hard, die in the wool proof of a 1-2 degree change from a +.004 increase

[dawkinsfan41]

OK, so you can answer questions that were never asked. Now answer the question asked by this video: "How could the most trusted and established scientific organizations in the world get it so wrong?" I suppose it was Satan.

[TheRealArchAngel]

"How could the most trusted and established scientific organizations in the world get it so wrong?"

Because, just like the fucken "Global Cooling" thing in the 70's it isn't Scientist saying this, it's Media Hyped bullshit saying Scientists and Scientific Organizations are saying "Global Warming". I am a Scientist concerned about the enviroment and I talk about the Environmental impacts of blatant dumping of fossil fuel emissions and the need to fix that problem...Co2 caused GW is Media B.S.

[TempestStormwind]

If you don't think the scientists are saying this, please look at the peer-reviewed literature, the science organizations, or even the IPCC. Go directly to them, not through the media.

Or, go back to before it was in the media -- google up the Charney Report, for instance, from 1979, that reached the same conclusion... by analyzing the papers that were available at the time.

Where's the media in all of that?

[dawkinsfan41]

I'll bet every time he comes here, he pauses the video or turns the sound down.

[TheRealArchAngel]

No, actually watched the whole series and wonderingmind42 is a good speaker though I disagre with the main point of the presentation which is to ban together, spead the word and unite to get the politicians and governments to "do something". Politicians tax and fine,and cause a lot of them are catering to the environuts gas will be $4 a gallon by Spring and the Price for grain and products made and supported by it will go up as R&D makes Cars compete for the same resources used for food and Tech

[TheRealArchAngel]

Oh and as far as my faith in "big Brother" goes in solving the Global warming issue, I belive FEMA sent 5 feet of rope to Kentucy help Baby Jessica out of the well just last week (Trust government to do to little,to late, and fuck it up altogether..if you didn't get the joke)

[TheRealArchAngel]

Okay, so you just Sighted the IPCC and their "peer revied" thing and the Charney Report thing again, and are saying I should "believe the Authority"cause they must be infallible and right cause tthey have "Peer review" and credibility by consensus?

You know, that is just a Pope,a Bible,& priests from being part of a mindless religious nut. Oh Wait. Al Gore is the Pope who doesn't practice what he preaches,all those reports are the Bible,and the "scientist" are the self acrediting priest...lol

[wwickeddogg]

Scientists don't believe in infallibility, only theists believe in that.

The difference between science and religion is that scientists can do experiments, make models, perform mathemetical calculations and check each other's work. The pope does not claim to know any more about god than anyone else and in fact says that no one can know god.

Your argument does not apply here.

[thecrass79]

When a statement, teaching, or book is called 'infallible', this can mean any of the following: 1. It is something that cannot be proved false 2. It is something that can be safely relied on 3. It is something completely trustworthy and sure

there are more definitions of infallibility outside its uses in christianity

[wwickeddogg]

? People can use words incorrectly and they often do. Something that can be safely relied upon is not infallible despite the use of the word in such circumstances. Something completely trustworthy and sure does not actually exist despite any colloquial uses of the word in reference to real things.

Prove that some particular thing (anything you want) is infallible.

[thecrass79]

self-awareness

[wwickeddogg]

I will take that to mean:

Whenever self-awareness occurs the self must exist.

Certainly seems like an infallible proposition, but can you prove that it is true for any self other than you?

[thecrass79]

the burden of proof lies in your hands, prove it doesnt

[wwickeddogg]

Very well. Last night I dreamed that I was a man named Yousellius Mogdy who lived in the late seventeenth centruy in a castle that was also a McDonalds, I thought I existed, but I was wrong.

In elementary school, my friend Seth had a friend named Roger who thought he existed, but Roger was imaginary.

I will admit I am wrong if you can prove that anyone other than you is self aware and that they exist.

[thecrass79]

mental capabilities, specifically those mental tasks that we cant but that other people can. For example consider proving an obscure theorem in topology. I probably cant do it, even after hours of effort, even if a great deal depends on me being able to prove it. However if I open up a topology textbook I can probably find a proof of the theorem and be able to understand that proof. If my life is a dream where did that proof come from? Clearly it wasnt part of my conscious mind.

[thecrass79]

Likewise the idea that somehow I unconsciously knew the proof all along seems unlikely, since I didnt have any proof intuitions helping me out.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Satan doesn't exist. You SHOULD know that...lol. Oh, and in 20 years their may be a paper showing that,like Global Cooling, it was media hype sayiing "all scientist agree". Being a dawkins fan, it's funny you trust "Authority" or the word of Media what the supposed authoity says...lol

[TheRealArchAngel]

At the "total meltdown point" of 20 degrees hotter then now the Seas are actually only 20 feet higher on average worldwide and the North pole is a Swamp land ruled by Dinosaurs(about 75 million years ago this was the case) and Greenland was actually "Green" at one point in History during a "peak" making the Earth 7? degrees hotter then now. Human cilvilization won't collapse but we will lose a lot of Coastal cities that can't somehow "elevate"

[TempestStormwind]

You're all over the place; I'm having a hard time following.

However, what I can pick out is wrought with errors.

1) Greenland's ice sheet is 10,000 years old. Tales of the place being 'green' originated as a PR story from Eric the Red (was he really red?) to get people from Iceland (is it really just ice?) to emigrate.

2) CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for centuries. Oceanic uptake is slower than human emissions.

3) CO2 as a "fuel source"? WTF?

[TheRealArchAngel]

Co2 doesn't linger in the Air, it is 5x heavier than Air (which includes the "Green house gas") and is solible in water,Ice,and wet Soil/sand and if all CO2 was still "lingering" it would be deadly at 15% by volume in any given area. Co2  Carbon+Oxygen+Oxygen... and therefore it is possible to use a oxygen to burn the carbon and release the remaining Oxygen as a byproduct.

[TempestStormwind]

Your lack of understanding of climate science is matched only by your lack of understanding of basic chemistry. Both of these are dwarfed by your arrogance -- you are openly stating that your understanding of one of the most complex scientific topics in the world is greater than those who have studied it longer than you have been alive.

I honestly don't know where to begin (answering all of these claims would take pages upon pages).

I'll let it stand with this:

youtube com/watch?v=vRgmPcEBvW4

[TheRealArchAngel]

Humans burn Oil products and Release Co2, Co2 which is 5x hevier then air hangs as smog until it is blown into the Oceans or sinks into the Soil/ICe, a percentage of Co2 goes up with Water vapor and "rains" all over to feed plants but it is separate from the Air's "green house" gases that has Co2 and Inert Co2 from Humans doesn't add to the "Green House" or make the piss ant 1 degree up in 100 years happen...did I miss Something?

[TheRealArchAngel]

As far as Greenland, I just said it was once "Green" much like the Great Barrier Reef used to be a forest and the Persian Gulf used to be the "Garden of Eden". The major fallacy of the "Experts" is that Climate Change is unusual when long term history shows that the 10,000 years of relatively stable climate that modern Humans civilization arrived in is actually the "fluke' as Earth can and did change rapidly before the "stability" which now seems to be unstabilizing.

[wwickeddogg]

Why does that matter?

If we can act to keep the climate stable and able to support human life, or let the climate change and all die, then shouldn't we act?

[theangryocelot]

How excellent!

[xGhaastx]

Only the U.N would ever have the authority to enforce any law on all nations.

[TheRealArchAngel]

You mean like how they were giving stern disaproval to Saddam's mysterious white trucks fleeing suspected Nuclear research sites for 20 years?

[xGhaastx]

There is not enough room in a comment, nor, enough audience to warrant the amount of typing I would need to do to give you poor people some idea of what the "rich men of the earth" have in mind to do this century.

All I can tell you is that humanity will not be entirely destroyed by global climate disruption, but millions will die.

If you want the truth of the "environment threat" you must read "the report from Iron mountain".

[TempestStormwind]

The Report from Iron Mountain, as in the one that's in the Guiness Book of World Records as the world's most successful literary hoax, debunked in 1972?

Or were you referring to a different one?

Also, RE: the UN: Not necessarily. All that needs to happen is that individual nations agree to enforce themselves under internationally agreed-upon comittments. This is fundamentally the same thing that happened with CFCs.

[xGhaastx]

The only fear I have of this man's otherwise pristine thoughts on saving our asses, is that the anti-christ may use "the environment" to "unify" everyone.

I will not resist saving the environment, but I will never on pain of death, join the anti-christ, no matter what his campaign platform might be.

[TempestStormwind]

No one except the anti-AGW lobby is talking about world unification. None of the people proposing solutions are supporting world government.

Remember the CFC scare over the ozone? How multiple nations banned CFCs in order to address the problem? That didn't unify the world, and it was a global policy change. What's different now?

[xGhaastx]

Only the United Nations would ever have the authority to enforce a law on all nations.

[hobocarl]

you fail to understand the human nature behind all this. in any given scenario where people are sinning, there is a huge bias towards it being real. the framework for a real answer isnt there, because of human nature. humans will find a nightmare scenario, they need it, they need to feel important. again, the persistence of religious memes through the centuries proves this. it wouldnt matter if we were safe from every possible threat. like god. without one, we create one.

[hobocarl]

yes, i am aware that makes my position unfalsifiable. oh well. doomsday scenarios are a constant with humankind.

damn 500 character limit.

[TempestStormwind]

Even if a doomsday scenario is consistent with humanity, there's a difference between "repent, the end is nigh! ...because I say so...!" and the mountain of scientific evidence and statements from credible sources casting climate change as a threat.

Accepting the former would, in your theory, fulfil the human need for a nightmare scenario.

Accepting the latter is in people's rational best interest, and ignoring it wouldn't be.

[hobocarl]

right, i expect that the necessary evidence will always be found.

[TempestStormwind]

If I follow, you claim that scientists, the MOST trained people in avoiding confirmation bias and the most concerned with their own thinking, have deliberately sought out some doomsday scenario simply because they have a deep need to feel threatened, and then perpetuated this hoax on everyone despite that being professional suicide AND uncharacteristic advocacy?

On the other hand, our actions could have had an unforeseen effect that science shows to be a very real problem.

Occam's Razor, pal.

[hobocarl]

not deliberately. just like people do not deliberatly love jesus. humans just tend to find certain results. original sin, redemption, guilt, these sort of things. humans will always be dealing with a doomsday scenario. they will always find evidence for it.

[TempestStormwind]

If I understand what you're saying, your reasoning would have argued against the Manhattan Project because humans are *always* looking for doomsday scenarios and will always find evidence for them.

Even if they turn out to be real?

(There's also more peer-reviewed evidence for AGW than there is for anything related to original sin, but that's beside the point.)

Are you absolutely certain? Where's your allowance for error? By what reasoning are you arguing against taking action?

[hobocarl]

the manhattan project ends a war, there is nothing theoretical about it, no guessing. there is no risk of the manhattan project being unnecessary. that is a fucking terrible analogy.

[TempestStormwind]

1)

No, it wasn't, because BEFORE it produced the bomb, no one was certain that such a bomb was even physically possible. The science of the time was UNCERTAIN on nuclear physics. (If you want a readable firsthand account of it, I'd suggest looking into Richard Feynman's books.)

Therefore, the threat of Germany producing the bomb was an uncertain (and many argued unlikely) DOOMSDAY SCENARIO. If the bomb was impossible, Manhattan would have been unnecessary.

[TempestStormwind]

2)

However, it happened to be real, and our reaction to it, the Manhattan Project, led to an Allied victory in WWII.

I'd hardly call it a bad analogy, since both a Nazi bomb and AGW are "doomsday scenarios" and your argument would press for inaction against both, dismissing them since 'we need them'.

The big difference between those two? Today, the science is FAR more certain about AGW than it was on the bomb during Manhattan's planning.

[hobocarl]

1. i have already read everything ever put in print regarding feynman, as well as hans bethe account of the whole thing. i know the story better than almost anyone.

2. the analogy makes no sense. trying to develop a weapon has nothing to do with preventing a climate change.

[TempestStormwind]

The analogy makes perfect sense. Both the Manhattan Project and action against AGW are reactions to an uncertain threat to most, if not all, of humanity -- 'doomsday scenarios' as you call them.

Sometimes, the doomsday scenario is actually real.

Therefore, isn't it worth figuring out if AGW is a real threat or not, regardless of your personal beliefs?

See also: How It All Ends: The Manpollo Project.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Both involve diverting belief into authority. The Religious nut deferring to the Pope and the Bible and the Priest and the Environut to a bunch of fellow Environuts posing as Scientist pulling theory out of their ass based on Correlated data,wrong data fed into computer models based on Assumption,and now politics trying to earn the vote of those that belive in the Philosiphy that we can fuck up the earth with it's own material components,so in turn we can fix it with taxes,laws,and regulations.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Come on. Make that Video of Air with 300ppm of Carbon Dioxide v.s. Air with 380ppm of carbon Dioxide in the tinyurl experiment and show me a .004% change in Carbon Dioxide can make the Earth's Biosphere fluctuate 1.5 degree when it took a Pure Carbon Dioxide Environment to just raise 5 degrees.

If it happens I'll admit I am wrong.

So far all that experiment as is proved that it takes 100% to go up +5f degrees. Logic would say 50% CO2= +2.5, 25% Co2=+1.25F, 12.5%=.625F &.004% would be +.002441F

[TempestStormwind]

Just a minor note: No one's disputing CO2, on its own, is weak. However, a weak force in a sensitive spot is enough to cause tremendous impact.

The experiment I showed was merely to dispute your claim that CO2 doesn't trap heat. It does. The experiment was not meant to show how big that impact would be on the planet.

For that, you need to handle feedbacks, like water vapour, which that little experiment doesn't handle -- but the models do. And congratulations, modern warming agrees with them.

[ChameleonDave]

There's just no way that any denialists are still around at this point. They are yelling "naa naa naa" with their fingers in their ears.

[wonderingmind42]

[Sigh] I know. Perhaps this will at least server the function of inspiring others to make greater efforts, so that we can save ourselves DESPITE the denialists. We deny the moon hoaxers a serious debate. People need to see that denialists perhaps belong in the same category.

[TempestStormwind]

"Conspiracy theories are a known glitch in human reasoning... their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believer's certainty. For some reason, sometimes when people think they've uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form. They cut context away from facts and arguments and assemble them into reassuring litanies.

Dear God: I would like to file a bug report."

--Randall Munroe, xkcd #258

[TheRealArchAngel]

Denialist of What? Humans releasing Inert Co2 into the Oceans (as that's were it ends up when the Trade wind takes in out to sea) doesn't increase the heat asorbing power of "green House" gas as Inert Co2 is 5x heavier then the "Air" that "green house" Co2 is mixed into..but wasting all that CO2 as a potential fuel source and product is a bad thing and it should be refined and recycled instead of just dumped.

[1nnsider]

This is... stagering....

I'm out of words...

CO2 as a fuel source... why I didn't hear about this one before, you MUST BE GENIOUS!

..or.. isn't it then when you actualy burn carbon as a fuel, you will end up with CO2?

CO2, as i can remember from my chemistry classes, actually sufocated flame in closed jar. Or maybe the fire wasn't potent enough?

Maybe burning it in several milion degrees of celsius would make some fusion reaction?

Have some reference? I would love to read something on this

[nicerdesigns]

grate views, would love to talk further. mabey though email??

[JamesYOUTOOBER]

good job

[wanderingmind21]

Last of N.

Heres a free hint for living in world with geeks, If your standing in tunnel(aka testube) looking at the other end and the trainspotting Geek beside you says Eeeek, Act now, dont walk blindly into the oncoming light. In the GCW testube the train spotting geeks(NAS etal) have said eeeek, then EeeeK, and most recently EEEEEK!. Last seen they were tapping the microphone wondering why no ones listening?

[wonderingmind42]

I like.  :-)

[wanderingmind21]

5/n

Actually there is an enormous number of things anyone _could_ show that would falsify my scientifically held opinion, that messing with CO2 as we _have_ done is causally very likely to mess with the climate, badly.

That trends are actually observable in the weather, is what tipped me from only being worried and alert to alarmed.

as in Eeeek! not ureeka or geek, Eeeek!

[wanderingmind21]

4b/n

Anyway demonstrate a new strong negative feedback which essential makes the earths climate a very stable very heavily damped system that wont be perterbed by us emitting 300M years of carbon sequestration in 200.

or

[wanderingmind21]

4a/n

Demonstrate the existance of new as yet unknown strong negative feedback mechanisms such that when CO2 is forced up by humans, and that raises temperature bit, which evaporates more water, which is a green house gas which warms it up a bit which, (a decreasing geometric series aka finite sum)

...

[wanderingmind21]

3/n

Demonstrate that as blackbody radiators the sun is not at 5000K, or deep space is not at 4K, and thus that the earth is not held data dynamic equilibria between those two by a bunch of essentially black body radiation equations one of which involves CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Personally Im not real keen on even getting little bit closer to 5000K (earths approx at 290K)

or ....

[wanderingmind21]

2/N

To sway me all you need to do is demonstrate that the say CO2 does not absorb the infra red radiation the earth emits much more effectively than than it does the raditaion the sun emits. [est P(<<0.000000001) ] Oh and it would handy to show how when anyone else ever measured that they had had gotten a different wrong result.

or ...

[wanderingmind21]

1 of N (if its a repeat sorry)

Im somewhat Easier, or perhaps harder to sway from my current position in support of AGCC.

To sway me all you need to do is break the chain of causal logic behind AGCC, if it was just correlation of recent climatic temps Id be way back in the hmmmm let me see camp.