id just like to say that i do not appreciate my comments being used as they have been, im a scientist, not a conspiracy theorist, having not understood what a "linked comment" was and googleing it i found my comments from here copied and pasted to other sites, without the original context.
"obamaantichrist (dot) org" can fuck off.
i dont mind people using my words but at least use fucking context.
i do not endorse this site, i only posted here coz i was bored and lookin at "alternative ideas"
Lord Monckton's visit to Australia and appearance on the Alan Jones' radio show on Radio 2GB, I believe, helped to awaken many of the Australian people about this Global Warming scam. This was a big deal as Alan Jones' radio show is as mainstream as you can get but surprisingly has a huge following.
Subsequently, with Alan Jones' support Monckton appeared at several public events, giving lectures on the global warming scam. Well done to both of them as well as Alex.
Why does it say that Monckton is a politician yet he is not a member of the House of Lords or Commons and has never worked as a policy advisor for any government?
i hate lord mockton, his voice is so annoying, and he is a coward saying in an interview that he wouldn't name call against the elites.... the elites are raping us in ever way and your worrying about name calling come on, ever day the elite throw dirt all over truthers names calling them crazy, loons etc
IT HAS COLLAPSED - THE PUBLIC DONT BELIEVE IT - YET THEY HAVE SO MUCH INVESTED AND RIDING ON THIS BULL THEY ARE GOING TO TRY AND RAM IT THROUGH - THATS WHEN THE REAL RIOTS AND REVOLUTIONS WILL BEGIN - BRING IT ON.
I'm only asking genuinely not just for my understanding but for anyone who may take interest in your posts here, it's kinda an oxymoron so hence to the confusion. I don't mix with scientists so your opinion is welcome to me and possibly to others reading these comments. Your spelling is fine and your dictation quite eloquent (for a scientist), again all the best with your R&D.
I hadn't meant to imply that you were a "denier" (I find that rhetoric funny). My own position is that glaciers are melting at and alarming (to me at least) rate and that the satellite images show a lack of old ice in comparison with the past. Now although the Earth on a macro level may be be cooling, it's hard for me to understand why the Poles are shrinking so much during the summer and why Lake Mead has shown a shrinking of it's body also. Can you explain this? I'm not challenging you...
rely on the unbiased opinion of scientist of the UN, as oppose to claims from scientists funded by questionable entities. I like to ask pro quid bono, and in the case of the UN's motivations the answer is all of us. I thank you for offering to help me understand the subject matter better if ever called upon, it's that kind of selflessness that the human race needs, the world will be fine, it's us who I feel are in trouble.
@IMOM1 well reading the UN/IPCC data/reports is a good start. once you have accustomed yourself to the pro-AGW information i sugest that you simply start looking for counter arguments, even blogs are quite usefull (although often full of crap aswell). i believe that you will find that the IPCC temp predictions have all been wrong, computer models are at best hit and miss, temps graphs arent showing positive feedback in relation to co2. of course its a chaotic system so they may still be correct.
@FreeTheRadical I have looked or should watched a documentary on the counter arguments and it seems the arguments against the general consensus don't hold up when investigated. As good as reading is one can also use their own observations of the seasons, for me at least they have changed since I was kid, from what I've read and seen it's not isolated to my own geographical location, and it's impacting on the way of life in dramatic ways especially in the Arctic.
@IMOM1 with respect, ones ovservations of the seasons is irrelevant, my own experience is a noticable cooling of recent years, this is weather not climate. only global climate graphs can provide the required evidence.
i respect that you have remained polite but feel i must question your sudden change of heart, u first compliment and then argue, this seems disingenuous, but perhaps i suffer from a persecution complex due to attacks that i have suffered...
@IMOM1 (part 2) i would like to point out that i respect your perspective, i am no denier of facts and as a scientist i find dogma physically repugnant.
your opinion is not only well grounded but based, mostly, on good science. my opinion, as i have stressed on many occasions, is that you are probaly correct, at least to some degree.
where i disagree is on the extent of the problem and this is my point, the evidence suggests that you are correct, but that the problem is exagerated....
@IMOM1 (part 3) we are DEFINATELY contributing to warming via CO2. the question is wether the warming experienced is conducive of the possitive feedbacks predicted by the IPCC. well it frankly isnt. but still i respect your perspective because it may have been hijacked by polititians but it is still a problem and i try my best as a scientist to improve our standing as a species.
i dedicate my life to creating carbon free energy solutions.
ps, i appologise for my spelling, it is rather late.
@FreeTheRadical Hi, I think I get where you're coming from. If I may I also don't like the fear tactics that have been employed by some so stress their point. The observations are irrelevant as you point out in scientific debate, but for a lay person this is what they can understand on the ground. I wish you well in your endeavours in R&D of fuel cell technology. I most certainly am not a scientist so I couldn't possibly hope to argue with you, and apologise if it seemed I was doing so..........
@IMOM1 ok thanks for clearly stating your position, im a bit defensive because because i do get verbally attacked so its nice to be clear. i can fully understand your concern as to the melting of glaciers and the poles, it is a clear indication of a warming planet, although what the south pole is doing is rather more complicated, growing sea ice and shrinking land ice, or so i have read, im not sure of the reliablility of this at present. the real question is the rate of warming...
@IMOM1 (part2) if we base our concerns only on the IPCC predictions what we should fear is a sudden change in the temp graphs where temp rises upward in a exponential curve (=strong feedback) the IPCC is predicting this sort of relationship between CO2 and temp, all the while the temp graph is roughly straight (=no feedback) or only slightly curved (=weak feedback) we arent showing that relationship and should be fine, well thats a simplification. google "global temp graph" to see what i mean.
@IMOM1 p.s. i mentioned this mostly because it is about the easiest part of AGW to study, the graphs are easily available, some show CO2 ppm. i didnt mention this to claim this is an example of exagerated claims, the IPCC based this on maths and, although i believe it to be flawed, they made a prediction and thats what scientists are meant to do. i personaly believe they have over simplified the chaos of the system, i dont think it can be modeled accurately at all, but at least they are trying.
@IMOM1 another p.s earlier i said "and should be fine" thats not quite what i meant, i meant that we would be in a lot less trouble than most of the predictions are suggesting, but even at these warming rates it could become problematic over longer time frames... i tried quite hard to keep my posts short today and it really hasnt worked hehe
@IMOM1 last one, i promise! the years you should be looking at are about 1900 to present, try looking at several coz many are "tweaked" (kinda) to look cooler or warmer depending on who posted them. probaly best to find ones with only 1year/5 year averages and no drawn on trend lines, make up ur own mind about trends. is temp rising quicker than CO2? (this would be possitive feeback)
@FreeTheRadical (P.1) The global temp graphs this is the hockey stick? As for the south pole the reason I didn't mention it was that there is no human culture in that continent (not sure if scientist apply to this definition), therefore no immediate impact on a way of life. It seems that the more ice less ice argument is based on winter's level of ice with no regard for the summer's statistics in other words selective science (only what I've heard). I strongly suggest to anyone reading these..
Respond to this video (P.2) to watch The Climate Wars Fightback, it's made by the BBC and presented by a geologist, it consists of three episodes explaining the science, the counter science and the summary. I personally found it informative and unbiased. It's shows the global temp graphs and explains them. You're correct about the models at least they are trying. Can one ever hope to nail the chaos factor mathematically?, seems unquantifiable to me like the God question. Have a good day sir.
@IMOM1 personaly i would sugest u avoid the hockey stick as it doesnt show much detail of the recent years and is subject to controversy. i also noticed that i made a few "cock ups" and didnt explain myself very well in my "part2" comment. if you are interested i can have another go at explaining, just let me know. i will have to watch the video u mentioned at some point to check it out.
it makes a nice change to have a polite convo' with somone on this topic so thanks :)
@FreeTheRadical If I recall correctly the documentary mentions the hockey stick and it's controversial findings, that said I think it's just a temp graph and not to do with co2, that said it is implicit that the rise is due 2 the industrial age (it is fair and unbiased) that's why I've inferred from the explanations. I feel from observations of your writings that you'd like to watch it, to save time watch part 2 as this deals with the graphs debate, as U know the rest Hurts no one to be polite.
@IMOM1 well i looked for the video u suggested, i found 2 of the same name. the first argued about current temps, of which the hockey stick is irrelevant, the latter argued that solar acivity alone cannot account for the past temps, it also sugested that this is the only "sceptical" argument. im not really sure where to begin here. the video had some good points but often sugested that the "only alternative" was the official AGW position, this simply isnt true...
@IMOM1 (part 2) ignoring the controversy of the hockey stick, (which is controversial for good reasons) the graph simply puts modern temps into a past context. lets forget for a minute that the past record is very debatable and that it may have been much warmer many years ago (as skeptics often claim).
the question is not if it is warming, nor how fast, nor even if it is warming vastly quicker than in the past, the question is; WILL IT BE A PROBLEM?....
@IMOM1 the answer to these questions is less obvious, as we cannot really answer the skeptics arguments fully, the fact is that we do not know the future, all of the ipcc predictions have been much worse that what we have actually experienced.
lets pretend that the hockey stick is right. temps still fail to rise at the rate that is required for the level of catastrophe that is predicted by the media and the ipcc.
therefore it isnot unreasonable to expect that things will be less catastrophic.
@IMOM1 please understand that not only is the hockey stick graph misleading but there are so many reasons and arguments, which i can easily provide which show that it is the result of bad science and poor data collection that is is pretty well redundant and that its has since been disregarded from the ipcc report because of this.
i dont believe that you will accept this easily, but i asure you that the controvesy is well founded, if not totaly proven, it was removed from the last ipcc report.
@IMOM1 it occurs to me that i have now come accross as a bit confrontational, this is not my intention! i welcome discussion and welcome your participation. for the most part i agree with you and i somtimes find myself talking in a patronisng way, this is accidental, and im sure that you are aware of most of the points that i have posted.
i do see the point in the hockey stick graph but it seems rather too unreliable to me. current temp graphs are however undeniable, they are measurement!
@IMOM1 i try so very hard to keep my posts to a minimum but it occurs to me now that i may have watched the wrong video :( i hope i havent wasted your time.
ps, does ur name mean anything? it seems a little strange to me
@FreeTheRadical Hey FTR at least you watched the video (google videos as it happens) and gave your honest opinion on the presentation. I've no problem disbelieving it or believing it for the simple reason, true or not true there's nothing I can do about it. As you say we can't predict even though that is part of the endeavour undertaken by the scientists in question, there predictions are wrong so far and may continue to be so, or they might have underestimated the impact of co2 i don't know..
(P.2) I don't find you confrontational as I've no interest in having my opinion accepted as fact so I'm easy like Sunday morning. I feel you're just trying to be informative and I most certainly have no issues with that. My own personal opinion is no one can quantify this spinning rock and it's climate too many variables no matter how powerful the computer, but if the UN consensus it leads to carbon free energy for everyone then great....
@IMOM1 lol, fair doos. i totaly agree with you as far as moving away from fossil fuels simply for the reason that its dirty and thousands die extracting it per year (not to mention wildlife). researching into alternative energy sources is essential, for our continued prosperity. personaly, and like most scientists i favour nuclear power, esspecialy fusion, its clean for a start. id say overal im pretty optimistic about our future, would u say ur optimistic or pesimistic about the future?
@IMOM1 (part 2) i would like to hear your opinion based on temp graphs showing the periods where temps have been obtained via measurment rather than using proxies.
if u google image search "global temperature graph" the second pic should be a graph showing temps from ~1850-2000, i find this a good demonstration graph. to me it looks like (from 1900) temps rise, then a little cooling from oceanic oscillation and then continued warming at a similar rate, no obvious acceleration in temps...
@IMOM1 (part 3) currently warming has kinda reduced (a little), shouldnt be suprising, each short cooling phase in the graph is roughly equaly spaced (aprox 60years peak to peak, each warm/cold aprox 30years)
a line of best fit from 1900-2000 would look curved, but treat each phase seperate + draw a line of best fit for each cooling/warming +u should see the warming trends are almost identical. now theres no curve, so no acceleration, the curve is an artifact of the cooling phase...
@IMOM1 (part 4) ...and the curve would dissapear (my own prediction) when we get to the end of the current "cooling" phase.
of course this graph also seems to demonstrate that this overall warming starts at about the same time we started using fossil fuels in large quantities so is in no way evidence that we arent responsible, just that it doesnt seem to be accelerating, and that the scary future predictions seem very false.
by the time it gets bad i rekon we'll have fusion power, so no prob
@FreeTheRadical(P.1) Your observation is absolutely spot on. As a scientist you may not like this but from a Buddhist perspective it's ying yang more or less I'm not a Buddhist but I believe in every action having a equal reaction a scientist said that I believe, but if Newton is right what goes up must come down (he is) then for me there has to be a consequence in relation to the exponential rise of fossil fuel based pollution, hence if it get too hot (the temps rise a lot) then possibly with..
i personaly also quite like the buddist perspective, its certainly less dogmatic a world view than many western theological stances. as for newtons laws, yes every action has an equal and opposite reaction but the question is what the reaction will be, co2 = bit of warming, but the pollution we create scares me much more, pollution from obtaining fossil fuels and other sources.
co2 is non toxic but we dump all sorts of crap into the environment, and its gota stop
@IMOM1 the data and information doesnt need to be gone through with a fine toothed comb, a little reading will improve your knowledge and thats never a bad thing.
i love science and i probaly spend too much time reading about it, but even tho i dont believe AGW will be a problem i must stress that i dont know for sure, this is why i have been researching into new fuel cell chemistry, in fact i have dedicated the last few years of my life to it. i think that best explains my attitude
@FreeTheRadical (P.2) with the heating and melting of the poles the desalination of the Atlantic Ocean may affect the N. Atlantic Drift (I live on the West coast of Ireland) causing another ice age (theory). I'm a optimist, I used to be a pessimist and saw no reason to get out of bed something had to change, probably becoming a father helped. a point on the name thing I had to add the 1 cos the acronym was taken. China massive rise in renewable's is a cause for optimism. Nuclear's good no probs.
@IMOM1 (part 2) as for fission reactor fuel, well yes it is finite, but if we use thorium then theres as much of that in the world as there is lead! (roughly) so it could last us for centuries maybe even millenia. i dont know but its a long time.
when will nuclear fussion become mainstream? well its not my area of expertise but i keep hearing that its somthing like 20-60 or even 100 years, its a wide range but i think it will be sooner than 60, frankly i doubt it will be much more than 25...
@IMOM1 (part 3) ...but then again im not really that up to date with nuclear physics so im not really the right person to ask, as it is i spelled fision wrong just a moment ago (oops!)
@IMOM1 ...fusion even... and now ive mispelled fission too (im beyond "oops" now and am rather embarrassed, what is worse is how long it took to notice the mistake)
@FreeTheRadical Ha ha you're working too hard, never had that problem myself. I'd never heard of thorium, that's very interesting, this may be a stupid question but does it produce radioactive waste on the level of uranium, or is it a given that anything fissioned is radioactive? If so can it be dealt with like conventional waste (mox rods or something like that)?
@IMOM1 well interestingly i have heard that the newly concieved thorium reactors could be used to process the nuclear waste produced from old reactors and (presumably create energy from them) reduce them to isotiopes which are either less radioactive or have a short half life, if this is indeed true then not only would these reactors not have such dangerous wastes but could convert existing radioactive waste into a safer form.
this subject intersts me greatly so i am ready to check up on this...
@IMOM1 ...ive had a sudden increase in my work load so i may be busy for the next few days but i will try and make further comment on either saturday or sunday, kinda depends how much time i can spare for reading about nuclear physics and reactor types... ill see what i can do...
@FreeTheRadical Not much fun on this island at the moment, the nuclear physics sounds interesting I look forward to hearing your take on what you're researching. I like the idea of geothermal plants on a local level, I think it would work in a number of ways. Dorset never been but looks like a nice place, heard something before about Dorset looking for independence a lá Cornwall any truth in it? Don't work too hard.
i havent had time to read as much as i would have liked so ill leave my conclusions to a later date.
either way nuclear physics really is very interesting, but my reading is less "research" and rather fact checking. if you are interested in my actual research just let me know and ill share what i can.
geothermal plants are a great idea and id like to see more of them, as opposed to the more stupid ideas which are unfortunately in abundance....
as for the dorset/cornwal independence thing all ive ever heard is that cornwall wants independence from the uk, coz it aint part of dorset, its not even next door county-wise. frankly i have no idea what the political deal is and it seems to be balls to me and i dont much care.
as for not working too hard, well its a compunction, i kinda have to, if i dont then i might not be stressed but im somhow just not happy. working too hard makes life seem more soft, to me at least.
@FreeTheRadical Hi, I well aware of Dorset's geographical location. Did not mean to imply a joint bid by both counties, just wanted to know of the local politics, local feelings interest me more than national feelings. Reading for nuclear physics would be beyond me I think, or evaluating the research for that matter. I'm interested in what you feel is the most stupid idea that's in abundance. Interesting view on life being more soft, never heard working too hard being described like that.
@IMOM1 when you dedicate your life to something working hard makes you feel good, and thus makes life seem "soft". it was a metaphor, a kinda joke, it makes life hard but it also makes it more worthwhile and more worth living. i know nothing about the Cornwall thing and it is unimportant to me and that is the limit of my opinion on the matter.
nuclear physics is complex but do not assume that it is beyond you
either way still im workin on it, but my work load has increased so its gona be a while
@IMOM1 as for ideas that are in abundance.... well there are ideas which range from the stupid (hho) to the slightly usefull such as wind.
"hho" is balls. it at most increases the output by a couple of percent.
hho is a phrase which provides much annoyance to me, it is unscientific and is used to con the innocent. hydrogen can be useful, but hho generators can be at the most slightly useful and annoyingly expensive....
@IMOM1 more usefull forms of abundantly stupid energy sources are wind and tidal, which arent really that bad,they are really kinda useful, just like solar is to those area which have more sunshine than us, but it is still totaly useless in comparison to nuclear.
e=mc^2 means this, take anything, weigh it, its mass (m) can be times by the speed of light (C) and squared (^2) and that = the atomic energy within that mass.
@IMOM1 ....having said that geothermal energy, solar and even tidal energy in those areas which have an excess of these sources should exploit them... there is no alternative to nuclear except for this, reducing waste and allowing those energy sources which remain to last longer.... i apologise, things are less extreme than i claim but i have just come from a debate where i have been treated as a heretic so maybe i come accross as an extremist, but i try hard not to.
@IMOM1 u have no idea how tired i am of being called a denier, but at least i keep it all online and anonymous but, it sucks out my soul and makes me fear for my future as a scientist, it makes me fear for my carreer. i try really fucking hard to be objective but i have to pretend to everyone else that i believe in catastrophic climate change or ill lose all of my small reputation, and it is a real shitter... btw i just got back from a night out so i apologise for the rant.
@FreeTheRadical P.1 FTR very interesting that it's the catastrophic climate change that is the bone on contention and not the change itself, I hadn't thought that this would affect ones scientific reputation (as scientist disagree on so much) I guess people are scared by the rapid extension of our fellow inhabitants and maybe see a chain reaction, we have as a mass been told of apocalypses and the like so it's deeply ingrained that doom is imminent, not excusing it or condemning it just trying
@IMOM1 well now things get complicated, and that's a good thing really... catastrophic climate change is the issue because non-catastrophic man-made climate change is just a fact, we are affecting the climate to some degree. it affects my reputation because people whom i respect believe that i am ignoring science by claiming that there is no imminent catastrophe, these people include my brother and it really hurts.
the catastrophe is predicted mostly because it sells papers...
@IMOM1 the fact is that catastrophic climate change makes sense in maths, logic and all other forms of science but it has yet to be seen in the temperature record, there is no demonstrable evidence of human caused climate change in the temp record. this to a scientist makes me sound like a lunatic or a heretic.
surely if the science has been done and the consensus forms an agreement that we are the cause then the science is correct?
@IMOM1 but it isnt that simple. the science has been performed by scientists pressured by political funding to provide a political opinion.
here are the facts, we are responsible for some level of warming, it could become or even be a problem, but the lack of unbiased debate leaves the subject obscured by political dogma and general bullshit.
this dogma has reached scientific circles, i am treated as i am because others just asume that the climate scientists are correct
P.2 to understand it, a question on e=mc2 why is the mass times the speed of light? It's weird to me that if your work on other stuff is sound why it would be disregarded and your reputation would suffer, just for having a different view of data on one subject, I mean if Einstein and Newton believed different things on AGW would one be cast out even though their previous body of work was acclaimed? Hey it didn't stop Galileo I know it didn't go well for him but that's life, nice metaphor btw.
@IMOM1 im treated like a heretic because i have questioned the norm and ended up sounding like a daily mail reader, im a freaking socialist! (borderline communist even)
just so happens that the norm aint always correct.
as for why the mass is equal to the speed of light^2, well i dont really know, but things do tend to be somhow related mathematically to seemingly unrelated things, especially seemingly unrelated constants, i duno it seems to be a general theme in science.
at the end of the day im just looking for the truth and the simple truth is this, climate deniers exist, they just talk crap, AGW proponents arent any better, they spew more bullshit, but then there are the people in the middle, scorned by both sides, people who actualy have some idea whats going on, but were ignored by pretty much everybody, because we dont hold a political opinion... were even scorned by scientist because scientific institutions have been bought out by grant money
@IMOM1 ..to put it simply its all just got out of hand. its a trade off, conservative crap vs liberal crap. the truth doesnt matter to those with political positions and so the truth has been lost. (truth has no politics)
and now that its been going on for so long even the scientists are falling for it.
it genuinely makes me despair, if the public knew of this they would never forgive science, but it isnt science that is to blame, its politics, science has given man everything he holds dear.
@IMOM1 hey, sorry for the delay (for onlookers we communicated via "personal messages") anyhoo ive finaly got round to looking up thorium reactors, it looks like (mostly wikipedia) that the "LFTR" (pronounced lifter, liquid flouride thorium reactor) is able to produce energy from thorium, cannot produce weapon material, can use "light water reactor" waste for energy (destroying much of the waste that exists) and produces very little waste itself. the counter claims seem rather weak...
@IMOM1 ...all in all it seems as good as i originally thought. the counter claims seem to come from existing nuclear industries which want to defend thier reactors, which can produce nuclear weapon fuel, seems the powers that be only backed them to begin with coz it was during the cold war and it was a cheap method of making weapon material, now they are loosing the funding they are trying to fight back (verbally), or so it would seem.
@IMOM1 last point, and most importantly, thorium reactors should be able to greatly REDUCE the total amount of waste so even if they are flawed they can at least be used to dispose of existing nuclear waste. so even if they didnt even make any energy they could become the new "recycle bin" for nuclear waste, but they DO produce energy!
@FreeTheRadical Hey FTR just read your comment thanks for the info, it's sounds "great" to me also. just checked wiki seems it's more complicated than the normal system, but should be utilised more, pity that something has to have the power to destroy in order to get public backing, this of course is not surprising.
You've never responded to a single assertion of scientific fact.
1) Global temps have SPIKED the last 35 years with NO explanation EXCEPT global warming due to greenhouse gases.
2) Growth of calcium carbonate forming planktons & corals is ALREADY being slowed by CO2 ocean acidification & will be seriously threatened in just 25 years.
3) Arctic methane release is vastly increasing!
What a WACKO!!!
You've admitted you're bi-polar. I believe you've LOST touch with reality
@IMOM1 no im not a climate scientist, im a chemist. but climate science isnt really that hard to understand, most people could easily get thier heads around it if enough time is spent reading about it. i strongly encourage you to do so if you havent already.
@FreeTheRadical Hi, it does seem simple enough, too much co2, deforestation, more heat trapped. I've seen the experiments that show the effect co2 has on heat. I trust the UN has all our interests at heart, and I believe in the principals of good science, in other words no suppositions just demonstrations of theories in labs. What tome on the topic would you recommend?
@IMOM1 unfortunately ur question is much more complex than perhaps u realize.
there are many areas which you should read about, in fact without my knowing what u know i cannot really advise as to what u should learn.
the point is that it takes a personal and concerted effort to find the information, but if you would like the assitance i am sure i could help via email or whatever.
either way the fact that u search for truth is very much to your credit and this is the foundation of science.
@FreeTheRadical For me knowing the sheer amount of data collect and collated by people who "search for the truth" is kinda proof enough. To understand the subject comprehensibly would be a giant undertaking for someone one like me. I didn't like chemistry or physics but biology was easier to understand. The fact that it takes computers to reduce all the data down to 3 degree rise in global temperatures tells me that I couldn't possible hope to analyse the data. This is why we (I)...
@FreeTheRadical JEEZ, can't you READ??? Can't you use Google???
I have given you INNUMERABLE sources, including NASA, NOAA, MIT, Scripps, U.C. San Diego, Science (Journal), NSA -- National Science Foundation, & the National Academy of Sciences.
@goog2k you have never given a link to a scientific sourse. a paper would be ideal. you have given only innumerable sources of articles, wichh i could also give. even if these are from mit or nasa they are irrelevant if you cannot provide the papers or decent scientific links. i have asked you to google things and u havent, so give links only, coz when i google the crap u give i get only articles.
give links.
this is a scientific subject and can only be resolved with science.
@goog2k ps, if u have given such links and i have missed them please repost and i will respond accordingly.
insults are pointless, i am a scientist, what are you? a school kid? it doesnt matter, if all you can provide is insults then you ignore the point, as u always have.
provide this proof that u claim to have and i will accept it. i am willing to change my mind if i can see evidence that is compelling.
@goog2k ur arguments now rely only on insults and thier implications of idiocy. but upon examination i have disproven or discredited every one of ur rebutals. u fail to discuss the matter at hand and provide no evidence for your opinion, the more you rely on insults the more desperate u seem. u have lost the conversation a hundered times over because im flexible in my opinion and u are not.
and this is the point, as a scientific subject u cannot be sure of the truth, and if u are u r wrong.
@goog2k why do you insist on acting like a child? the only factual and honest conclusion you can come to is that there is no definate answer. I ACCEPT YOUR ARGUMENT, YOU MAY BE CORRECT. accept mine. YOU MAY BE WRONG.
there is still debate, there is still no scientific understanding, there are only questions, and those whom provide only answers are only latter day witch doctors.
you are pathetic, not i. i am sad to say this but it is a result of ur ignorance and i hope u see reason.
@goog2k you have failed to create a cohearant argument, u backtrack, u convolute, u contradict, u acuse me of failing to provide evidence yet u provide none urself. you have proven your ignorance in every subject we have covered (misunderstand psychosis much?) you are equaly ignorant of climate science.
provide me with links
provide me with evidence.
any opinion based on anything other than science is philosophy and is irreleven in the field of science.
@goog2k you know nothing about the complexity of the subject and if you did you would realise that it cannot be easily summed up in simple statements. the factors that affect climate are so varied and complex that NOBODY claims to know what is drivining climate for sure.
i do not say this to anger you, i say this to point out that you are out of ur depth, you do not understand the science and you are ignorant of the facts.
@goog2k i never said you were psychotic, i said u had psychosis, similar but still very different (at least as far as diagnosis). paranoia is a form of psychosis (and is actualy fairly common), as it is an instance of paranoid dissasosiation from reality, even if a fairly minor form of psychosis.
you deviate. the point is that you cannot prove that AGW is as bad as u claim. there is no evidence that clearly backs it up. provide evidence and not insults and you may get somwhere.
@goog2k PLEASE give me evidence, papers, links, any real scientific data that supports your stance. this would support you argument far more than changing the subject.
this is a scientific subject, either discuss the science or go bother somone else, this subject can never be resolved with insults, it requires the study of data and evidence.
@goog2k for a lamebrane i construct my arguments quite well. as time develops your arguments unravel and display thier innate weaknesses, mine show thier innate strengths.
i do not claim that i am right, i simply claim that i have a good scientific basis for my opinion, which i am prepared to alter when facts emerge, you on the other hand are unwilling or unable to accept facts that emerge which should alter your opinion.
if i am such a lamebrain why do i continue to argue better than you?
@goog2k you insist on treating me with absolutely no respect but i insist on at least attempting to show you a little. you try my patience and i occasionaly insult you, for this i appologise, i should rise above it.
but the fact is that you cannot prove me wrong and it infuriates you, this is the reason for ur aggression.
prove me wrong, make a single decent scientific comment, provide a single decent reference and i will review it as a scientist should.
@goog2k i dont claim that ur somhow part of a massive conspiracy but u claim that i am!
if u were to talk to a shrink they would most likely label that "paranoia".
the more u argue with me the more mental u seem.
i admit, i have a slight chemical inbalence in my body that causes me to sufer from depression and hyperactivity, big woop, but u seem to be suffering from paranoid psychosis. everyone who is a scientist who disagrees with u works for an oil company? thats insane, u call me a wacko?!
As Martin Heimann writes in Science: Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.
@goog2k which is why AGW is an interesting and sensible theory, it makes alot of sence. the fact is that we ARE affecting the temp but the extent of this is the issue. follow the tempVco2 graphs, they follow eachother in a LINEAR way, that indicates no obvious strong positive feedback therefore strong positive feedback is theoretical and not based on obervation. this is the whole point. the catastrophe can only occur with strong positive feedback. i do not deny that we are causing warming.
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF, 3/4/10.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
BTW, MIT's new predictions are not based on any additional methane release or other new feedback mechanisms. They are only based on humans continuing the same fossil fuel consumption practices they're doing now -- for the next 90 years.
95% probability = +3.5C (+6.3F)
50% probability = +5.2C (9.3F)
That's probably enough to trigger an uncontrolled arctic Methane release which could cause another DOUBLING of GHG and an additional rise of another +10F.
@goog2k and yet no obvious sign of positive feedback from measured temps. and theres no way that the continuingly steady co2 line in the graphs can lead to +5.2c without positive feedbacks. u say "aditional methane release" + "new feedback" this still relies on the older predicted feedback does it not?
my point therefore still stands (i havent checked ur mit source, a link would help)
ps thanks for reducing the level of insults in ur replies.
@goog2k asking for links isnt somhow unreasonable. i see u have increased ur insults again, so typical of somone unwilling to discuss scientifically. as for me teaching MIT somat, well lindzen is at MIT so it means very little in iteslf.
insufferable ass? me? who here is casting the most insults and the least science? YOU
googled ur info, its from articles, which is entrely biased, whatever side u pick.
again, i dont deny that AGW may be true but the extent is exagerated, prove me wrong! u cant!
@goog2k (part 2) u announce so loudly that i am wrong but u cant prove wrong any one of my points, and yet i admit clearly that i may be wrong and you may be right.
who has the correct scientific attitude here?
i am unsure of my stance, but i believe i am currect but await proof, you are sure of your opinion dispite your inability to provide proof.
here there is only one fact that matters;
neither of us can be sure of being correct, i accept your argument, you should accept mine.
@goog2k (part 3) because both of our opinions are based on good science, if they wernt then i could prove u wrong or u could prove me wrong but neither of us can.i can prove that things have been exagerated at least a bit, i can prove that the MWP has been ignored more than it should be, but to claim to "know" the answer is as bad as admiting ignorance, nobody knows for sure, and none of the experts claim to, and thier probabilities are based on an incomplete understanding
There is a 95% probability global temperatures will rise MORE than 3.5C (6.3F) by 2100.
MIT News, May 19, 2009
MIT Research published in the American Meteorological Society's JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, predicts a median probability that worldwide surface temperatures will RISE 5.2 degrees Celsius (9.3F) by the year 2100.
See the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??
/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
New Study: Melting Arctic Ice almost gone in 10 years.
That's not science. That's propaganda and you're a doofus like Monckton.
You admit that global temps have spiked 0.58C+ in 35 years but can offer NO plausible reason. I've already shown it CAN'T be attributed to solar irradiance or any other known cause EXCEPT Green House gases which have spiked 39% higher than they've been in 650,000 years in just the last 150 years. Duhh???
@goog2k im not going around in circles, im pointing out the same truth you fail to acknowledge. we cannot claim to fully understand a chaotic system like this, your so keen on asking for proof, so where is your proof? can you prove that there is no other possible explanation? well the cru cant and phil jones admits it. plus saying the temps are higher than they have been in 650,000 years cant be proven, there is evidence that it was at least tis warm around 1000 years ago, but again, unproven.
@goog2k you have failed to accept my attempts to share data, and you are begining to irritate me greatly. to say that only ghg has changed is very ignorant as the factors controling climate so numerous we dont yet know what they are, and yes im a scientist, which is why i dont get sucked into name calling and general rudeness like you.
if you wont accept my data with links then have this, but its not so good without context....
@goog2k this is only one of many quotes, it dont look like proof without the links (it really needs about 20 or more) but this shows that briffas graph started with proxies and ended with measured temps, this is DEFINATELY falsification of NOT DATA (this you seem unable to grasp) but falsification of GRAPHS by MISUSING the data,
if you look at the proxies (again, many links needed to show this) u see that the one used is one of the few to show the flat line used in the hockey stick shaped graphs
@goog2k and as for me being a scientist well its not some magical and amazing thing, theres hundreds of thousands of us, to act like me being a scientist is like me being a unicorn is stupidity. your insistance on asking for things that u know i cant give without accepting msn-ing but refusing the offer means that it is YOU who refuses to exhange data. it is YOU who cant verify any fact and it is YOU that gave links which prove nothing simply in the hope of making it look as tho u provide proof
@goog2k factors affecting climate (according to the cru) other than ghg's include (but are not limited to) sulphate particles, carbon particles, volcanoes, dust, water vapour, solar trends, the pacific decadal oscillation, el nino, el nina and many many more.
if u want a better example of proof btw ACCEPT MY OFFER TO MSN! and then i can share to ur hearts content
@goog2k changed my mind again, i will not be beaten by an ignoramus.
you ignore offers of data and reply with crap so i change my approach. i will now counter your every stupid comment with easier to explain truths. u wana spam the site? ill spam it with reasons why you are wrong. the "debate" changes, YOU provide evidence i will PROVE YOU wrong
how does that sound? the reason i nearly gave up? im bipolar and ur insults make me feel bad, ur hatred has caused me great distress but i wont give up.
@goog2k more insults, more pointlessness. u claim theres no reason to debate yet u find reason to be unpleasant, seems odd. i havent proven any point of urs.
u mentiond variables but dont get how complex the system is
news dot bbc dot co dot uk/1/hi/8511670 dot stm;
here jones admits the reason hes "sure" hes right is coz he cant think of anything else to cause it (H) and that is basicly admiting uncertainty.
I've already explained there are many causes of global temp change:
Green house gases, Solar Irradiance, changes in Earth's orbit and axis, El Nino and ocean circulation. Global temps have spiked over 0.58C in just 35 years. WHY? Only GHG has changed.
Last year solar irradiance was at a 35 year LOW! Oops!
@goog2k you do everything you accuse me of, refuse to debate or share data/info, you refuse to do anything except try to get the last word in, and thats not how to win a debate.
all i ask of you is that if you insist on continuing this "conversation" then actualy debate, no more insults, no more pointless facts, and no more insisting that the only change that affects environment has been ghg because even the cru dont agree with that. if it were then the occasional coolings wouldnt occur
@goog2k ps, the main reason i resent your insults is because as a scientist i accept that although i dont agree with AGW i cant disprove it, and because i fear it may be true i have spent hours and hours trying to develop alternative energy ideas, ranging from hydrogen fuel cells to electrochemical cells, i can share my ideas if u want. (my username is a chemistry joke)
but here are the facts: the cru has lied, they have exagerated the data (not directly falsified it) and it makes me angry.
i can prove they have lied to us. the cru emails prove that the claims are exagerated.
does this disprove the theory? NO! (cant stress this enough)
but if u want proof that the CRU emails show exagerations, that i can prove!
u tangle with a scientist, u cannot win this, but feel free to try, i will even send u some of the results of my research if u want, my reasearch into electrochem' cells is quite interesting.
BTW the wacko is the person who speaks without knowledge.
@goog2k as i have explained it is hard to convey on here complicated scientifc facts (and thier evidence), as i have no space to write about it, so i offered you the option to MSN me or whatever.
how have i changed the subject? when have i mentioned ocean acidification?
stop attacking me and debate! all u do is attack, i have tried to be polite.
for me to loose a debate a debate must first exist, u refuse to debate and only insult me and offer irelevant points.
@goog2k ps; when i say "complicated scientific facts" i mean the "one example" u want, it requires alot of links and graphs and quotes from emails. hence not enough room
i am perfectly happy to offer you these examples as i have said!
so why dont YOU "put up or shut up", accept my offer or stop spamming.
i would never dream of being as rude as you are when debating somthing and you are being quite intensely unpleasant and dogmatic. if you really do want my examples but dont wana msn then fine, ill spam this site with posts showing examples but that is gona annoy everone else, but ill do it if u really want.
Climategate was a giant FALSE propaganda campaign. If not, show us even ONE example of falsified data from CRU.
There have been 3 independent investigations and they found NO EVIDENCE of falsified data. What a lamebrain.
Please note that renown skeptic Dr. Christy, at UAH says global Temps are going up +0.14C per decade. Phil Jone at CRU & NASA say +0.16 C per decade. OMG, a discrepancy of 0.02C per decade.
@goog2k i have done no such thing. you have shown your total ignorance of the matter. the investigations were deliberately half arsed. i never said that the data was falsified, its the graphs which are falsified, the point is that we only now know how much they lied because the emails show how they used the data to make false claims by adding different datasets. they added a flat dataset to the measurement record to produce the hockey stick graph, this is now all a matter of public record.
@goog2k (part 2) more to the point the reason why people like me or you cant replicate thier results is because we are not given thier data because they wont share it or thier methods (wich is unusual for a scientific institution). this is the problem.
i am not so dogmatic as to say climate change isnt happening, the point is that the CRU has lied to us and false evidence has been fabricated from the data. i want to know the truth thats all, and i object to being lied too.
@goog2k (part 3) ps; i appologise for calling you ignorant, that was unnecessary.
i do not wish to anger you, but the point is that the CRU emails show that we have been lied to and its just not right. global warming could still be proven right or wrong but (and please look this up and check for yourself) the emails show that we have been kept in the dark, and they even admit that they have deliberately overstated their claims.
@goog2k (part 4) last one i promise, just keep of thinking of stuff ater i press post (i know its annoying when people post so much in one go, so sorry for that 2)
i will happily give you an example of what i speak if you wish, but it will take some time as it needs cross refferencing with graphs etc and is not easy to do with the amount i am allowed to type here. it would be easier to do via email or msn but its up 2 u
@goog2k why do u ignore everything i say? i offer you examples, u ignore me.
therefore you are uninterested in debate surely? any seeker of truth should seek counter evidence, not ignore it, without weighing up BOTH sides you cannot know if you are right.
if you are not going to debate, or even try to see other sides then that is dogmatism and is not scientific.
when you give me links i have at least a look.
ps, christy is irrelevant by ur own reasoning, so why not ignore him?
There are many causes of global temperature change. GHG, Solar Irradiance, Volcanoes, El Nino & ocean circulation, and most important, changes in Earth's orbit & axis perturbations.
ONLY GHG has had a major effect in the last 35 years. Global temps. have spiked +0.58C with NO NET INCREASE in solar irradiance. In fact, last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
There is a great graph of the 11 year Solar cycles.
To see it search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect our Climate system
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the IPCC.
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
For a comprehensive, detailed, worldwide listing, search: "Scientific opinion on climate change"
Dr. Christy, who heads UAH & well-known AGW denier, says warming is +0.14C per decade the last 35 years.
JEEZ, he disagrees with NASA & Phil Jones at CRU by 0.02C per DECADE who say +0.16C per DECADE.
WOW!! A whole +2/100ths degree per DECADE! What a scandal!!
CO2 is rising 2ppm or 0.5% per year and will be 450ppm in just 25 years. Then ocean acidification will STOP the growth of many planktons & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain. Oops!
@goog2k try responding to what i have said (typical for a warmist to not debate) it frankly doesnt matter if its warmed, warming itself proves nothing about causality. and the fact is that the warming HAS slowed since around 2000, and has cooled to an exctent too, tho only a little. please stop spamming this with irrelevant crud!
that noaa page has nothing of any importance, just says co2 has increased, i already knew that.
the reason nobody knows for sure? its a chaotic system, its also a young science, understanding it is like trying to understand the human brain, except weve just discovered that it exists, there is no previous science to base ideas on, and yet we claim to fully understand it? it makes no sence. and take it from me, im a scientist (hey, u believe "all the other scientists" why not me or MIT proffesor of atmospheric physics richard lindzen?)
the reason nobody knows for sure? its a chaotic system, its also a young science, understanding it is like trying to understand the human brain, except weve just discovered that it exists, there is no previous science to base ideas on, and yet we claim to fully understand it? it makes no sence. and take it from me, im a scientist (hey, u believe "all the other scientists" why not me or MIT proffesor of atmospheric physics richard lindzen?)
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But a few ppl make too many billions from our energy needs to let this technology be known,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.5°C (58.1°F) was the warmest January-July period on record. This value is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average.
@goog2k ...the reason nobody knows for sure is because this is a young science and it is full of uncertainty and it is impossible for us to say with any certainty what the hell is going on.
There are many causes of global temperature change. GHG, Solar Irradiance, Volcanoes, El Nino & ocean circulation, and most important, changes in Earth's orbit & axis perturbations.
ONLY GHG has had a major effect the last 35 years. Global temps. have spiked +0.58C with NO NET INCREASE in solar irradiance. In fact, last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
There is a great graph of the 11 year Solar cycles. To see it search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect our Climate system
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the IPCC.
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
For a comprehensive, detailed, worldwide listing, search: "Scientific opinion on climate change"
All the temperature figures are faked, and the WeatherChannel, NASA, NOAA, MIT, Univ.of California, Harvard, Cambridge, the American Geophysical Union, The Royal Society are all part of the conspiracy.
Except no one told the disappearing arctic ice, melting mountain glaciers, early springs, and the plants, animals, and insects all migrating north.
LOL!!!
See the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
@goog2k you deliverately misrepresent my point. the current temperature graphs show that there has at least been a slowing in the rate of warming, this means that natural effects MUST be strong enough to have a STRONG effect. all current AGW arguments claim that natural variability is negligable. the temp is rising, this we know, and so ur "news" of warming (with which you spam this comment section) is irrelevant, the question is; why is earth warming. the answer? NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE!...
(harveybirdmannequin) You are a moron! The nwo isnt offering you a damn thing and it will not take a herculean effort all we have to do is stop complying its just that simple! Stop being zombies and pussies and if necessary liquidate the gov!
Monckton is a fraud and Alex Jones is a crackpot.
synsei1 6 months ago
id just like to say that i do not appreciate my comments being used as they have been, im a scientist, not a conspiracy theorist, having not understood what a "linked comment" was and googleing it i found my comments from here copied and pasted to other sites, without the original context.
"obamaantichrist (dot) org" can fuck off.
i dont mind people using my words but at least use fucking context.
i do not endorse this site, i only posted here coz i was bored and lookin at "alternative ideas"
FreeTheRadical 11 months ago
Lord Monckton's visit to Australia and appearance on the Alan Jones' radio show on Radio 2GB, I believe, helped to awaken many of the Australian people about this Global Warming scam. This was a big deal as Alan Jones' radio show is as mainstream as you can get but surprisingly has a huge following.
Subsequently, with Alan Jones' support Monckton appeared at several public events, giving lectures on the global warming scam. Well done to both of them as well as Alex.
felixq78 11 months ago
Why does it say that Monckton is a politician yet he is not a member of the House of Lords or Commons and has never worked as a policy advisor for any government?
TheGamanic 1 year ago
@TheGamanic We worked as the scientific policy advisor for Margaret Thatcher, what are you talking about?
Applest2oApples 1 year ago
i hate lord mockton, his voice is so annoying, and he is a coward saying in an interview that he wouldn't name call against the elites.... the elites are raping us in ever way and your worrying about name calling come on, ever day the elite throw dirt all over truthers names calling them crazy, loons etc
stopbeingcowards 1 year ago
IT HAS COLLAPSED - THE PUBLIC DONT BELIEVE IT - YET THEY HAVE SO MUCH INVESTED AND RIDING ON THIS BULL THEY ARE GOING TO TRY AND RAM IT THROUGH - THATS WHEN THE REAL RIOTS AND REVOLUTIONS WILL BEGIN - BRING IT ON.
PHONEYPOLITICS 1 year ago
I'm only asking genuinely not just for my understanding but for anyone who may take interest in your posts here, it's kinda an oxymoron so hence to the confusion. I don't mix with scientists so your opinion is welcome to me and possibly to others reading these comments. Your spelling is fine and your dictation quite eloquent (for a scientist), again all the best with your R&D.
IMOM1 1 year ago
I hadn't meant to imply that you were a "denier" (I find that rhetoric funny). My own position is that glaciers are melting at and alarming (to me at least) rate and that the satellite images show a lack of old ice in comparison with the past. Now although the Earth on a macro level may be be cooling, it's hard for me to understand why the Poles are shrinking so much during the summer and why Lake Mead has shown a shrinking of it's body also. Can you explain this? I'm not challenging you...
IMOM1 1 year ago
rely on the unbiased opinion of scientist of the UN, as oppose to claims from scientists funded by questionable entities. I like to ask pro quid bono, and in the case of the UN's motivations the answer is all of us. I thank you for offering to help me understand the subject matter better if ever called upon, it's that kind of selflessness that the human race needs, the world will be fine, it's us who I feel are in trouble.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 well reading the UN/IPCC data/reports is a good start. once you have accustomed yourself to the pro-AGW information i sugest that you simply start looking for counter arguments, even blogs are quite usefull (although often full of crap aswell). i believe that you will find that the IPCC temp predictions have all been wrong, computer models are at best hit and miss, temps graphs arent showing positive feedback in relation to co2. of course its a chaotic system so they may still be correct.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical I have looked or should watched a documentary on the counter arguments and it seems the arguments against the general consensus don't hold up when investigated. As good as reading is one can also use their own observations of the seasons, for me at least they have changed since I was kid, from what I've read and seen it's not isolated to my own geographical location, and it's impacting on the way of life in dramatic ways especially in the Arctic.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 with respect, ones ovservations of the seasons is irrelevant, my own experience is a noticable cooling of recent years, this is weather not climate. only global climate graphs can provide the required evidence.
i respect that you have remained polite but feel i must question your sudden change of heart, u first compliment and then argue, this seems disingenuous, but perhaps i suffer from a persecution complex due to attacks that i have suffered...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 2) i would like to point out that i respect your perspective, i am no denier of facts and as a scientist i find dogma physically repugnant.
your opinion is not only well grounded but based, mostly, on good science. my opinion, as i have stressed on many occasions, is that you are probaly correct, at least to some degree.
where i disagree is on the extent of the problem and this is my point, the evidence suggests that you are correct, but that the problem is exagerated....
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 3) we are DEFINATELY contributing to warming via CO2. the question is wether the warming experienced is conducive of the possitive feedbacks predicted by the IPCC. well it frankly isnt. but still i respect your perspective because it may have been hijacked by polititians but it is still a problem and i try my best as a scientist to improve our standing as a species.
i dedicate my life to creating carbon free energy solutions.
ps, i appologise for my spelling, it is rather late.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Hi, I think I get where you're coming from. If I may I also don't like the fear tactics that have been employed by some so stress their point. The observations are irrelevant as you point out in scientific debate, but for a lay person this is what they can understand on the ground. I wish you well in your endeavours in R&D of fuel cell technology. I most certainly am not a scientist so I couldn't possibly hope to argue with you, and apologise if it seemed I was doing so..........
IMOM1 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical P.S to be clear I was complimenting you on how you asked for evidence from goog2k to prove his points.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 ok thanks for clearly stating your position, im a bit defensive because because i do get verbally attacked so its nice to be clear. i can fully understand your concern as to the melting of glaciers and the poles, it is a clear indication of a warming planet, although what the south pole is doing is rather more complicated, growing sea ice and shrinking land ice, or so i have read, im not sure of the reliablility of this at present. the real question is the rate of warming...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part2) if we base our concerns only on the IPCC predictions what we should fear is a sudden change in the temp graphs where temp rises upward in a exponential curve (=strong feedback) the IPCC is predicting this sort of relationship between CO2 and temp, all the while the temp graph is roughly straight (=no feedback) or only slightly curved (=weak feedback) we arent showing that relationship and should be fine, well thats a simplification. google "global temp graph" to see what i mean.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 p.s. i mentioned this mostly because it is about the easiest part of AGW to study, the graphs are easily available, some show CO2 ppm. i didnt mention this to claim this is an example of exagerated claims, the IPCC based this on maths and, although i believe it to be flawed, they made a prediction and thats what scientists are meant to do. i personaly believe they have over simplified the chaos of the system, i dont think it can be modeled accurately at all, but at least they are trying.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 another p.s earlier i said "and should be fine" thats not quite what i meant, i meant that we would be in a lot less trouble than most of the predictions are suggesting, but even at these warming rates it could become problematic over longer time frames... i tried quite hard to keep my posts short today and it really hasnt worked hehe
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 last one, i promise! the years you should be looking at are about 1900 to present, try looking at several coz many are "tweaked" (kinda) to look cooler or warmer depending on who posted them. probaly best to find ones with only 1year/5 year averages and no drawn on trend lines, make up ur own mind about trends. is temp rising quicker than CO2? (this would be possitive feeback)
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical (P.1) The global temp graphs this is the hockey stick? As for the south pole the reason I didn't mention it was that there is no human culture in that continent (not sure if scientist apply to this definition), therefore no immediate impact on a way of life. It seems that the more ice less ice argument is based on winter's level of ice with no regard for the summer's statistics in other words selective science (only what I've heard). I strongly suggest to anyone reading these..
IMOM1 1 year ago
Respond to this video (P.2) to watch The Climate Wars Fightback, it's made by the BBC and presented by a geologist, it consists of three episodes explaining the science, the counter science and the summary. I personally found it informative and unbiased. It's shows the global temp graphs and explains them. You're correct about the models at least they are trying. Can one ever hope to nail the chaos factor mathematically?, seems unquantifiable to me like the God question. Have a good day sir.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 personaly i would sugest u avoid the hockey stick as it doesnt show much detail of the recent years and is subject to controversy. i also noticed that i made a few "cock ups" and didnt explain myself very well in my "part2" comment. if you are interested i can have another go at explaining, just let me know. i will have to watch the video u mentioned at some point to check it out.
it makes a nice change to have a polite convo' with somone on this topic so thanks :)
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical If I recall correctly the documentary mentions the hockey stick and it's controversial findings, that said I think it's just a temp graph and not to do with co2, that said it is implicit that the rise is due 2 the industrial age (it is fair and unbiased) that's why I've inferred from the explanations. I feel from observations of your writings that you'd like to watch it, to save time watch part 2 as this deals with the graphs debate, as U know the rest Hurts no one to be polite.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 well i looked for the video u suggested, i found 2 of the same name. the first argued about current temps, of which the hockey stick is irrelevant, the latter argued that solar acivity alone cannot account for the past temps, it also sugested that this is the only "sceptical" argument. im not really sure where to begin here. the video had some good points but often sugested that the "only alternative" was the official AGW position, this simply isnt true...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 2) ignoring the controversy of the hockey stick, (which is controversial for good reasons) the graph simply puts modern temps into a past context. lets forget for a minute that the past record is very debatable and that it may have been much warmer many years ago (as skeptics often claim).
the question is not if it is warming, nor how fast, nor even if it is warming vastly quicker than in the past, the question is; WILL IT BE A PROBLEM?....
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 the answer to these questions is less obvious, as we cannot really answer the skeptics arguments fully, the fact is that we do not know the future, all of the ipcc predictions have been much worse that what we have actually experienced.
lets pretend that the hockey stick is right. temps still fail to rise at the rate that is required for the level of catastrophe that is predicted by the media and the ipcc.
therefore it isnot unreasonable to expect that things will be less catastrophic.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 please understand that not only is the hockey stick graph misleading but there are so many reasons and arguments, which i can easily provide which show that it is the result of bad science and poor data collection that is is pretty well redundant and that its has since been disregarded from the ipcc report because of this.
i dont believe that you will accept this easily, but i asure you that the controvesy is well founded, if not totaly proven, it was removed from the last ipcc report.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 it occurs to me that i have now come accross as a bit confrontational, this is not my intention! i welcome discussion and welcome your participation. for the most part i agree with you and i somtimes find myself talking in a patronisng way, this is accidental, and im sure that you are aware of most of the points that i have posted.
i do see the point in the hockey stick graph but it seems rather too unreliable to me. current temp graphs are however undeniable, they are measurement!
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 i try so very hard to keep my posts to a minimum but it occurs to me now that i may have watched the wrong video :( i hope i havent wasted your time.
ps, does ur name mean anything? it seems a little strange to me
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Hey FTR at least you watched the video (google videos as it happens) and gave your honest opinion on the presentation. I've no problem disbelieving it or believing it for the simple reason, true or not true there's nothing I can do about it. As you say we can't predict even though that is part of the endeavour undertaken by the scientists in question, there predictions are wrong so far and may continue to be so, or they might have underestimated the impact of co2 i don't know..
IMOM1 1 year ago
(P.2) I don't find you confrontational as I've no interest in having my opinion accepted as fact so I'm easy like Sunday morning. I feel you're just trying to be informative and I most certainly have no issues with that. My own personal opinion is no one can quantify this spinning rock and it's climate too many variables no matter how powerful the computer, but if the UN consensus it leads to carbon free energy for everyone then great....
IMOM1 1 year ago
To explain my name would defeat the purpose of it, that in itself is a hint. Ha ha. Enjoy your Sunday sir.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 lol, fair doos. i totaly agree with you as far as moving away from fossil fuels simply for the reason that its dirty and thousands die extracting it per year (not to mention wildlife). researching into alternative energy sources is essential, for our continued prosperity. personaly, and like most scientists i favour nuclear power, esspecialy fusion, its clean for a start. id say overal im pretty optimistic about our future, would u say ur optimistic or pesimistic about the future?
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 2) i would like to hear your opinion based on temp graphs showing the periods where temps have been obtained via measurment rather than using proxies.
if u google image search "global temperature graph" the second pic should be a graph showing temps from ~1850-2000, i find this a good demonstration graph. to me it looks like (from 1900) temps rise, then a little cooling from oceanic oscillation and then continued warming at a similar rate, no obvious acceleration in temps...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 3) currently warming has kinda reduced (a little), shouldnt be suprising, each short cooling phase in the graph is roughly equaly spaced (aprox 60years peak to peak, each warm/cold aprox 30years)
a line of best fit from 1900-2000 would look curved, but treat each phase seperate + draw a line of best fit for each cooling/warming +u should see the warming trends are almost identical. now theres no curve, so no acceleration, the curve is an artifact of the cooling phase...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 4) ...and the curve would dissapear (my own prediction) when we get to the end of the current "cooling" phase.
of course this graph also seems to demonstrate that this overall warming starts at about the same time we started using fossil fuels in large quantities so is in no way evidence that we arent responsible, just that it doesnt seem to be accelerating, and that the scary future predictions seem very false.
by the time it gets bad i rekon we'll have fusion power, so no prob
:)
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical(P.1) Your observation is absolutely spot on. As a scientist you may not like this but from a Buddhist perspective it's ying yang more or less I'm not a Buddhist but I believe in every action having a equal reaction a scientist said that I believe, but if Newton is right what goes up must come down (he is) then for me there has to be a consequence in relation to the exponential rise of fossil fuel based pollution, hence if it get too hot (the temps rise a lot) then possibly with..
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 im glad u see my logic ;)
i personaly also quite like the buddist perspective, its certainly less dogmatic a world view than many western theological stances. as for newtons laws, yes every action has an equal and opposite reaction but the question is what the reaction will be, co2 = bit of warming, but the pollution we create scares me much more, pollution from obtaining fossil fuels and other sources.
co2 is non toxic but we dump all sorts of crap into the environment, and its gota stop
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 the data and information doesnt need to be gone through with a fine toothed comb, a little reading will improve your knowledge and thats never a bad thing.
i love science and i probaly spend too much time reading about it, but even tho i dont believe AGW will be a problem i must stress that i dont know for sure, this is why i have been researching into new fuel cell chemistry, in fact i have dedicated the last few years of my life to it. i think that best explains my attitude
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical (P.2) with the heating and melting of the poles the desalination of the Atlantic Ocean may affect the N. Atlantic Drift (I live on the West coast of Ireland) causing another ice age (theory). I'm a optimist, I used to be a pessimist and saw no reason to get out of bed something had to change, probably becoming a father helped. a point on the name thing I had to add the 1 cos the acronym was taken. China massive rise in renewable's is a cause for optimism. Nuclear's good no probs.
IMOM1 1 year ago
(P.3) my one concern with nuclear is that it is a finite resource. Any ideas on when the fusion power might become mainstream?
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 2) as for fission reactor fuel, well yes it is finite, but if we use thorium then theres as much of that in the world as there is lead! (roughly) so it could last us for centuries maybe even millenia. i dont know but its a long time.
when will nuclear fussion become mainstream? well its not my area of expertise but i keep hearing that its somthing like 20-60 or even 100 years, its a wide range but i think it will be sooner than 60, frankly i doubt it will be much more than 25...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 3) ...but then again im not really that up to date with nuclear physics so im not really the right person to ask, as it is i spelled fision wrong just a moment ago (oops!)
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 ...fusion even... and now ive mispelled fission too (im beyond "oops" now and am rather embarrassed, what is worse is how long it took to notice the mistake)
:s
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Ha ha you're working too hard, never had that problem myself. I'd never heard of thorium, that's very interesting, this may be a stupid question but does it produce radioactive waste on the level of uranium, or is it a given that anything fissioned is radioactive? If so can it be dealt with like conventional waste (mox rods or something like that)?
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 well interestingly i have heard that the newly concieved thorium reactors could be used to process the nuclear waste produced from old reactors and (presumably create energy from them) reduce them to isotiopes which are either less radioactive or have a short half life, if this is indeed true then not only would these reactors not have such dangerous wastes but could convert existing radioactive waste into a safer form.
this subject intersts me greatly so i am ready to check up on this...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 2) im fairly sure if got my facts right but i really should check on this before i start to present these things as fact.
like i say, im a scientist, if im unsure of somthing i will tell you.
but its too late to do it tonight, so it must wait, but trust me, i will enjoy reading about this and will share my thoughts.
have fun in ireland, ps, im in dorset atm and we never get as much snow as the rest of the uk.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 ...ive had a sudden increase in my work load so i may be busy for the next few days but i will try and make further comment on either saturday or sunday, kinda depends how much time i can spare for reading about nuclear physics and reactor types... ill see what i can do...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Not much fun on this island at the moment, the nuclear physics sounds interesting I look forward to hearing your take on what you're researching. I like the idea of geothermal plants on a local level, I think it would work in a number of ways. Dorset never been but looks like a nice place, heard something before about Dorset looking for independence a lá Cornwall any truth in it? Don't work too hard.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 hi
i havent had time to read as much as i would have liked so ill leave my conclusions to a later date.
either way nuclear physics really is very interesting, but my reading is less "research" and rather fact checking. if you are interested in my actual research just let me know and ill share what i can.
geothermal plants are a great idea and id like to see more of them, as opposed to the more stupid ideas which are unfortunately in abundance....
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 (part 2)
as for the dorset/cornwal independence thing all ive ever heard is that cornwall wants independence from the uk, coz it aint part of dorset, its not even next door county-wise. frankly i have no idea what the political deal is and it seems to be balls to me and i dont much care.
as for not working too hard, well its a compunction, i kinda have to, if i dont then i might not be stressed but im somhow just not happy. working too hard makes life seem more soft, to me at least.
cya
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Hi, I well aware of Dorset's geographical location. Did not mean to imply a joint bid by both counties, just wanted to know of the local politics, local feelings interest me more than national feelings. Reading for nuclear physics would be beyond me I think, or evaluating the research for that matter. I'm interested in what you feel is the most stupid idea that's in abundance. Interesting view on life being more soft, never heard working too hard being described like that.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 when you dedicate your life to something working hard makes you feel good, and thus makes life seem "soft". it was a metaphor, a kinda joke, it makes life hard but it also makes it more worthwhile and more worth living. i know nothing about the Cornwall thing and it is unimportant to me and that is the limit of my opinion on the matter.
nuclear physics is complex but do not assume that it is beyond you
either way still im workin on it, but my work load has increased so its gona be a while
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 as for ideas that are in abundance.... well there are ideas which range from the stupid (hho) to the slightly usefull such as wind.
"hho" is balls. it at most increases the output by a couple of percent.
hho is a phrase which provides much annoyance to me, it is unscientific and is used to con the innocent. hydrogen can be useful, but hho generators can be at the most slightly useful and annoyingly expensive....
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 more usefull forms of abundantly stupid energy sources are wind and tidal, which arent really that bad,they are really kinda useful, just like solar is to those area which have more sunshine than us, but it is still totaly useless in comparison to nuclear.
e=mc^2 means this, take anything, weigh it, its mass (m) can be times by the speed of light (C) and squared (^2) and that = the atomic energy within that mass.
if u understand this then u get the point....
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 ....having said that geothermal energy, solar and even tidal energy in those areas which have an excess of these sources should exploit them... there is no alternative to nuclear except for this, reducing waste and allowing those energy sources which remain to last longer.... i apologise, things are less extreme than i claim but i have just come from a debate where i have been treated as a heretic so maybe i come accross as an extremist, but i try hard not to.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 u have no idea how tired i am of being called a denier, but at least i keep it all online and anonymous but, it sucks out my soul and makes me fear for my future as a scientist, it makes me fear for my carreer. i try really fucking hard to be objective but i have to pretend to everyone else that i believe in catastrophic climate change or ill lose all of my small reputation, and it is a real shitter... btw i just got back from a night out so i apologise for the rant.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical P.1 FTR very interesting that it's the catastrophic climate change that is the bone on contention and not the change itself, I hadn't thought that this would affect ones scientific reputation (as scientist disagree on so much) I guess people are scared by the rapid extension of our fellow inhabitants and maybe see a chain reaction, we have as a mass been told of apocalypses and the like so it's deeply ingrained that doom is imminent, not excusing it or condemning it just trying
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 well now things get complicated, and that's a good thing really... catastrophic climate change is the issue because non-catastrophic man-made climate change is just a fact, we are affecting the climate to some degree. it affects my reputation because people whom i respect believe that i am ignoring science by claiming that there is no imminent catastrophe, these people include my brother and it really hurts.
the catastrophe is predicted mostly because it sells papers...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 the fact is that catastrophic climate change makes sense in maths, logic and all other forms of science but it has yet to be seen in the temperature record, there is no demonstrable evidence of human caused climate change in the temp record. this to a scientist makes me sound like a lunatic or a heretic.
surely if the science has been done and the consensus forms an agreement that we are the cause then the science is correct?
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 but it isnt that simple. the science has been performed by scientists pressured by political funding to provide a political opinion.
here are the facts, we are responsible for some level of warming, it could become or even be a problem, but the lack of unbiased debate leaves the subject obscured by political dogma and general bullshit.
this dogma has reached scientific circles, i am treated as i am because others just asume that the climate scientists are correct
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
P.2 to understand it, a question on e=mc2 why is the mass times the speed of light? It's weird to me that if your work on other stuff is sound why it would be disregarded and your reputation would suffer, just for having a different view of data on one subject, I mean if Einstein and Newton believed different things on AGW would one be cast out even though their previous body of work was acclaimed? Hey it didn't stop Galileo I know it didn't go well for him but that's life, nice metaphor btw.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 im treated like a heretic because i have questioned the norm and ended up sounding like a daily mail reader, im a freaking socialist! (borderline communist even)
just so happens that the norm aint always correct.
as for why the mass is equal to the speed of light^2, well i dont really know, but things do tend to be somhow related mathematically to seemingly unrelated things, especially seemingly unrelated constants, i duno it seems to be a general theme in science.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM ps
at the end of the day im just looking for the truth and the simple truth is this, climate deniers exist, they just talk crap, AGW proponents arent any better, they spew more bullshit, but then there are the people in the middle, scorned by both sides, people who actualy have some idea whats going on, but were ignored by pretty much everybody, because we dont hold a political opinion... were even scorned by scientist because scientific institutions have been bought out by grant money
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 ..to put it simply its all just got out of hand. its a trade off, conservative crap vs liberal crap. the truth doesnt matter to those with political positions and so the truth has been lost. (truth has no politics)
and now that its been going on for so long even the scientists are falling for it.
it genuinely makes me despair, if the public knew of this they would never forgive science, but it isnt science that is to blame, its politics, science has given man everything he holds dear.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 hey, sorry for the delay (for onlookers we communicated via "personal messages") anyhoo ive finaly got round to looking up thorium reactors, it looks like (mostly wikipedia) that the "LFTR" (pronounced lifter, liquid flouride thorium reactor) is able to produce energy from thorium, cannot produce weapon material, can use "light water reactor" waste for energy (destroying much of the waste that exists) and produces very little waste itself. the counter claims seem rather weak...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 ...all in all it seems as good as i originally thought. the counter claims seem to come from existing nuclear industries which want to defend thier reactors, which can produce nuclear weapon fuel, seems the powers that be only backed them to begin with coz it was during the cold war and it was a cheap method of making weapon material, now they are loosing the funding they are trying to fight back (verbally), or so it would seem.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@IMOM1 last point, and most importantly, thorium reactors should be able to greatly REDUCE the total amount of waste so even if they are flawed they can at least be used to dispose of existing nuclear waste. so even if they didnt even make any energy they could become the new "recycle bin" for nuclear waste, but they DO produce energy!
closing statement;
LFTR seems absolutely great to me!
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Hey FTR just read your comment thanks for the info, it's sounds "great" to me also. just checked wiki seems it's more complicated than the normal system, but should be utilised more, pity that something has to have the power to destroy in order to get public backing, this of course is not surprising.
IMOM1 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical B.S.
You've never responded to a single assertion of scientific fact.
1) Global temps have SPIKED the last 35 years with NO explanation EXCEPT global warming due to greenhouse gases.
2) Growth of calcium carbonate forming planktons & corals is ALREADY being slowed by CO2 ocean acidification & will be seriously threatened in just 25 years.
3) Arctic methane release is vastly increasing!
What a WACKO!!!
You've admitted you're bi-polar. I believe you've LOST touch with reality
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k i believe i have responded to all of these.
global temps have spiked then receeded, why? nobody knows.
growth of calcium carnonate is not global warming, it may be a problem, but it could easily be caused by other man made problems such as pollution.
methane releases are increasing, so is co2 and water vapour, but hasnt led to obvious signs of positive feedback in the temp curves.
it is not that i deny these things may be true, but theres no proof. provide proof!
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k actualy im not sure that water vapour is increasing but it might be, cant remember.
all i want is evidence. this is not unreasonable. you have provided none.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Looks like the idiot gave up. Are you a climate scientist?
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 no im not a climate scientist, im a chemist. but climate science isnt really that hard to understand, most people could easily get thier heads around it if enough time is spent reading about it. i strongly encourage you to do so if you havent already.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Hi, it does seem simple enough, too much co2, deforestation, more heat trapped. I've seen the experiments that show the effect co2 has on heat. I trust the UN has all our interests at heart, and I believe in the principals of good science, in other words no suppositions just demonstrations of theories in labs. What tome on the topic would you recommend?
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 unfortunately ur question is much more complex than perhaps u realize.
there are many areas which you should read about, in fact without my knowing what u know i cannot really advise as to what u should learn.
the point is that it takes a personal and concerted effort to find the information, but if you would like the assitance i am sure i could help via email or whatever.
either way the fact that u search for truth is very much to your credit and this is the foundation of science.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical For me knowing the sheer amount of data collect and collated by people who "search for the truth" is kinda proof enough. To understand the subject comprehensibly would be a giant undertaking for someone one like me. I didn't like chemistry or physics but biology was easier to understand. The fact that it takes computers to reduce all the data down to 3 degree rise in global temperatures tells me that I couldn't possible hope to analyse the data. This is why we (I)...
IMOM1 1 year ago
@IMOM1 p.s to summarise i am more than happy to help you to learn if you are happy to take the time to do so.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical JEEZ, can't you READ??? Can't you use Google???
I have given you INNUMERABLE sources, including NASA, NOAA, MIT, Scripps, U.C. San Diego, Science (Journal), NSA -- National Science Foundation, & the National Academy of Sciences.
You're PATHETIC!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k you have never given a link to a scientific sourse. a paper would be ideal. you have given only innumerable sources of articles, wichh i could also give. even if these are from mit or nasa they are irrelevant if you cannot provide the papers or decent scientific links. i have asked you to google things and u havent, so give links only, coz when i google the crap u give i get only articles.
give links.
this is a scientific subject and can only be resolved with science.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k ps, if u have given such links and i have missed them please repost and i will respond accordingly.
insults are pointless, i am a scientist, what are you? a school kid? it doesnt matter, if all you can provide is insults then you ignore the point, as u always have.
provide this proof that u claim to have and i will accept it. i am willing to change my mind if i can see evidence that is compelling.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k ur arguments now rely only on insults and thier implications of idiocy. but upon examination i have disproven or discredited every one of ur rebutals. u fail to discuss the matter at hand and provide no evidence for your opinion, the more you rely on insults the more desperate u seem. u have lost the conversation a hundered times over because im flexible in my opinion and u are not.
and this is the point, as a scientific subject u cannot be sure of the truth, and if u are u r wrong.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k why do you insist on acting like a child? the only factual and honest conclusion you can come to is that there is no definate answer. I ACCEPT YOUR ARGUMENT, YOU MAY BE CORRECT. accept mine. YOU MAY BE WRONG.
there is still debate, there is still no scientific understanding, there are only questions, and those whom provide only answers are only latter day witch doctors.
you are pathetic, not i. i am sad to say this but it is a result of ur ignorance and i hope u see reason.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k you have failed to create a cohearant argument, u backtrack, u convolute, u contradict, u acuse me of failing to provide evidence yet u provide none urself. you have proven your ignorance in every subject we have covered (misunderstand psychosis much?) you are equaly ignorant of climate science.
provide me with links
provide me with evidence.
any opinion based on anything other than science is philosophy and is irreleven in the field of science.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k you know nothing about the complexity of the subject and if you did you would realise that it cannot be easily summed up in simple statements. the factors that affect climate are so varied and complex that NOBODY claims to know what is drivining climate for sure.
i do not say this to anger you, i say this to point out that you are out of ur depth, you do not understand the science and you are ignorant of the facts.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical OMG!
Do you know what a psychotic is? It's someone who's lost touch with reality.
You're not just bi-polar FTR, you've flipped out, dude.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k i never said you were psychotic, i said u had psychosis, similar but still very different (at least as far as diagnosis). paranoia is a form of psychosis (and is actualy fairly common), as it is an instance of paranoid dissasosiation from reality, even if a fairly minor form of psychosis.
you deviate. the point is that you cannot prove that AGW is as bad as u claim. there is no evidence that clearly backs it up. provide evidence and not insults and you may get somwhere.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k PLEASE give me evidence, papers, links, any real scientific data that supports your stance. this would support you argument far more than changing the subject.
this is a scientific subject, either discuss the science or go bother somone else, this subject can never be resolved with insults, it requires the study of data and evidence.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical LOL!!!
You're not a vapid troll for Oil & Coal. You're just an innocent lamebrain.
Oh, I'm soooooo relieved.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k for a lamebrane i construct my arguments quite well. as time develops your arguments unravel and display thier innate weaknesses, mine show thier innate strengths.
i do not claim that i am right, i simply claim that i have a good scientific basis for my opinion, which i am prepared to alter when facts emerge, you on the other hand are unwilling or unable to accept facts that emerge which should alter your opinion.
if i am such a lamebrain why do i continue to argue better than you?
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k you insist on treating me with absolutely no respect but i insist on at least attempting to show you a little. you try my patience and i occasionaly insult you, for this i appologise, i should rise above it.
but the fact is that you cannot prove me wrong and it infuriates you, this is the reason for ur aggression.
prove me wrong, make a single decent scientific comment, provide a single decent reference and i will review it as a scientist should.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k PS try responding to what i say.
you have provided no evidence.
you have provided no links.
you never answer or respond to my main points and u instead ignore them.
i respond to all of urs.
either make ur point or give up, why continue to add crap when all that read it can see that it means nothing?
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Blah, blah, blah!
JEEZ, I noticed you didn't offer even ONE scientific citation of ANYTHING???
Oops!!!
It really sounds like you're just another pathetic Oil and/or Coal company paid troll.
Duhh???
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k have u ever given a citation? one that actualy linked to somat relavent?
now u claim that im in the pay of the oil companies and i find that funny, i have under 1000 quid in the bank.
u can "jeez" and "duh" all u like but it makes u sound more stupid and me sound less dumb.
provide ONE link to a paper, provide anything of worth and ill comment as a scientist should.
u have provided nothing but insults and pathetic arguments.
i accept ur point so; accept mine, argue against it or loose.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k i dont claim that ur somhow part of a massive conspiracy but u claim that i am!
if u were to talk to a shrink they would most likely label that "paranoia".
the more u argue with me the more mental u seem.
i admit, i have a slight chemical inbalence in my body that causes me to sufer from depression and hyperactivity, big woop, but u seem to be suffering from paranoid psychosis. everyone who is a scientist who disagrees with u works for an oil company? thats insane, u call me a wacko?!
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
As Martin Heimann writes in Science: Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.
goog2k 1 year ago
We make over 90 million tons CO2 each DAY.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising 2ppm per year (0.5%), TWICE that of 50 years ago.
CO2 levels are 37% above the highest levels for 650,000 years.
Dissolved CO2 makes acid.
Ocean pH has already dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 and H+ ion is up over 25%
In 25 years CO2 will reach 450ppm which most oceanographers warn will interfere with growth of calcium carbonate forming plankton and corals.
They make the base of the ocean's food chain
Search: Trends in Carbon Dioxide
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k which is why AGW is an interesting and sensible theory, it makes alot of sence. the fact is that we ARE affecting the temp but the extent of this is the issue. follow the tempVco2 graphs, they follow eachother in a LINEAR way, that indicates no obvious strong positive feedback therefore strong positive feedback is theoretical and not based on obervation. this is the whole point. the catastrophe can only occur with strong positive feedback. i do not deny that we are causing warming.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
Feedback? Duhh???
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF, 3/4/10.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
goog2k 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical
BTW, MIT's new predictions are not based on any additional methane release or other new feedback mechanisms. They are only based on humans continuing the same fossil fuel consumption practices they're doing now -- for the next 90 years.
95% probability = +3.5C (+6.3F)
50% probability = +5.2C (9.3F)
That's probably enough to trigger an uncontrolled arctic Methane release which could cause another DOUBLING of GHG and an additional rise of another +10F.
Oops???
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k and yet no obvious sign of positive feedback from measured temps. and theres no way that the continuingly steady co2 line in the graphs can lead to +5.2c without positive feedbacks. u say "aditional methane release" + "new feedback" this still relies on the older predicted feedback does it not?
my point therefore still stands (i havent checked ur mit source, a link would help)
ps thanks for reducing the level of insults in ur replies.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical JEEZ, do you know how to use Google?
Google: MIT News May 19, 2010
Duhh???
If you can't do that, try: Climate change odds much worse than thought.
However . . . I guess you'd like to teach MIT a thing or two? LOL!!!
What an insufferable ASS!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k asking for links isnt somhow unreasonable. i see u have increased ur insults again, so typical of somone unwilling to discuss scientifically. as for me teaching MIT somat, well lindzen is at MIT so it means very little in iteslf.
insufferable ass? me? who here is casting the most insults and the least science? YOU
googled ur info, its from articles, which is entrely biased, whatever side u pick.
again, i dont deny that AGW may be true but the extent is exagerated, prove me wrong! u cant!
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k (part 2) u announce so loudly that i am wrong but u cant prove wrong any one of my points, and yet i admit clearly that i may be wrong and you may be right.
who has the correct scientific attitude here?
i am unsure of my stance, but i believe i am currect but await proof, you are sure of your opinion dispite your inability to provide proof.
here there is only one fact that matters;
neither of us can be sure of being correct, i accept your argument, you should accept mine.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k (part 3) because both of our opinions are based on good science, if they wernt then i could prove u wrong or u could prove me wrong but neither of us can.i can prove that things have been exagerated at least a bit, i can prove that the MWP has been ignored more than it should be, but to claim to "know" the answer is as bad as admiting ignorance, nobody knows for sure, and none of the experts claim to, and thier probabilities are based on an incomplete understanding
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
There is a 95% probability global temperatures will rise MORE than 3.5C (6.3F) by 2100.
MIT News, May 19, 2009
MIT Research published in the American Meteorological Society's JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, predicts a median probability that worldwide surface temperatures will RISE 5.2 degrees Celsius (9.3F) by the year 2100.
See the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??
/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
New Study: Melting Arctic Ice almost gone in 10 years.
/watch?v=MbyoD9CLn1k
goog2k 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Thanks for going around in circles again.
Blah, blah, blah.
That's not science. That's propaganda and you're a doofus like Monckton.
You admit that global temps have spiked 0.58C+ in 35 years but can offer NO plausible reason. I've already shown it CAN'T be attributed to solar irradiance or any other known cause EXCEPT Green House gases which have spiked 39% higher than they've been in 650,000 years in just the last 150 years. Duhh???
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k im not going around in circles, im pointing out the same truth you fail to acknowledge. we cannot claim to fully understand a chaotic system like this, your so keen on asking for proof, so where is your proof? can you prove that there is no other possible explanation? well the cru cant and phil jones admits it. plus saying the temps are higher than they have been in 650,000 years cant be proven, there is evidence that it was at least tis warm around 1000 years ago, but again, unproven.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical
BTW, I've asked time & time again. Give us even ONE example of falsification of DATA by CRU?
You CAN'T because there is NONE. 3 independent investigations found NO FALSIFICATION OF DATA.
Oops!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k you have failed to accept my attempts to share data, and you are begining to irritate me greatly. to say that only ghg has changed is very ignorant as the factors controling climate so numerous we dont yet know what they are, and yes im a scientist, which is why i dont get sucked into name calling and general rudeness like you.
if you wont accept my data with links then have this, but its not so good without context....
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."....
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k this is only one of many quotes, it dont look like proof without the links (it really needs about 20 or more) but this shows that briffas graph started with proxies and ended with measured temps, this is DEFINATELY falsification of NOT DATA (this you seem unable to grasp) but falsification of GRAPHS by MISUSING the data,
if you look at the proxies (again, many links needed to show this) u see that the one used is one of the few to show the flat line used in the hockey stick shaped graphs
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k and as for me being a scientist well its not some magical and amazing thing, theres hundreds of thousands of us, to act like me being a scientist is like me being a unicorn is stupidity. your insistance on asking for things that u know i cant give without accepting msn-ing but refusing the offer means that it is YOU who refuses to exhange data. it is YOU who cant verify any fact and it is YOU that gave links which prove nothing simply in the hope of making it look as tho u provide proof
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k factors affecting climate (according to the cru) other than ghg's include (but are not limited to) sulphate particles, carbon particles, volcanoes, dust, water vapour, solar trends, the pacific decadal oscillation, el nino, el nina and many many more.
if u want a better example of proof btw ACCEPT MY OFFER TO MSN! and then i can share to ur hearts content
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k u know what? ive just decided i cant be bothered with this anymore, u act like a kid, id happily debate this if you werent so insulting
you are so rude it is genuinely disgusting
you are a fanatic, a zealot, and a brainwashed fool
any reasonable person would accept discussion over insults. you are therefore unreasonable
i hope one day u learn some manners, respect and ultimately grow up, even if only a little
most of all, last word doesnt = "winning"
i might be back but i doubt it.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k changed my mind again, i will not be beaten by an ignoramus.
you ignore offers of data and reply with crap so i change my approach. i will now counter your every stupid comment with easier to explain truths. u wana spam the site? ill spam it with reasons why you are wrong. the "debate" changes, YOU provide evidence i will PROVE YOU wrong
how does that sound? the reason i nearly gave up? im bipolar and ur insults make me feel bad, ur hatred has caused me great distress but i wont give up.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical
Why would I waste my time debating a WACKO? Thanks for proving my point.
Sorry I left out volcanoes. You'll notice I included them previously.
BTW, I did mention El Nino and ocean currents. By far, the biggest effects on global temps is Earth's orbit & axis perturbations.
So, WHY did global Temps. SPIKE +0.58C the last 35 years when solar irradiance was at a 35 year low last year? Duhh??? You forgot to answer.
LOL!!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k more insults, more pointlessness. u claim theres no reason to debate yet u find reason to be unpleasant, seems odd. i havent proven any point of urs.
u mentiond variables but dont get how complex the system is
news dot bbc dot co dot uk/1/hi/8511670 dot stm;
here jones admits the reason hes "sure" hes right is coz he cant think of anything else to cause it (H) and that is basicly admiting uncertainty.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical You're a scientist? LOL!!!
I've already explained there are many causes of global temp change:
Green house gases, Solar Irradiance, changes in Earth's orbit and axis, El Nino and ocean circulation. Global temps have spiked over 0.58C in just 35 years. WHY? Only GHG has changed.
Last year solar irradiance was at a 35 year LOW! Oops!
You DON'T know what you're talking about?
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k you do everything you accuse me of, refuse to debate or share data/info, you refuse to do anything except try to get the last word in, and thats not how to win a debate.
all i ask of you is that if you insist on continuing this "conversation" then actualy debate, no more insults, no more pointless facts, and no more insisting that the only change that affects environment has been ghg because even the cru dont agree with that. if it were then the occasional coolings wouldnt occur
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Blah, blah blah.
What a Wacko.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k ps, the main reason i resent your insults is because as a scientist i accept that although i dont agree with AGW i cant disprove it, and because i fear it may be true i have spent hours and hours trying to develop alternative energy ideas, ranging from hydrogen fuel cells to electrochemical cells, i can share my ideas if u want. (my username is a chemistry joke)
but here are the facts: the cru has lied, they have exagerated the data (not directly falsified it) and it makes me angry.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k (ps part 2)
i can prove they have lied to us. the cru emails prove that the claims are exagerated.
does this disprove the theory? NO! (cant stress this enough)
but if u want proof that the CRU emails show exagerations, that i can prove!
u tangle with a scientist, u cannot win this, but feel free to try, i will even send u some of the results of my research if u want, my reasearch into electrochem' cells is quite interesting.
BTW the wacko is the person who speaks without knowledge.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Why would I argue with you about coral bleaching which is irrelevant to your attack on "ocean acidification."
You want to change the subject because you don't know what you're talking about and you already LOST!
You're a silly FRAUD, FreeTheRadical.
If not, show us even ONE example of falsification of data by CRU.
Duhh???
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k as i have explained it is hard to convey on here complicated scientifc facts (and thier evidence), as i have no space to write about it, so i offered you the option to MSN me or whatever.
how have i changed the subject? when have i mentioned ocean acidification?
stop attacking me and debate! all u do is attack, i have tried to be polite.
for me to loose a debate a debate must first exist, u refuse to debate and only insult me and offer irelevant points.
ur being patronizing, plz stop
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k ps; when i say "complicated scientific facts" i mean the "one example" u want, it requires alot of links and graphs and quotes from emails. hence not enough room
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical Blah, blah, blah.
C'mon dude, put up or shut up. You spew completely false propaganda and when challenged, you claim it's "complicated." You sound just like Monckton.
LOL!!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k I REPEAT:
i am perfectly happy to offer you these examples as i have said!
so why dont YOU "put up or shut up", accept my offer or stop spamming.
i would never dream of being as rude as you are when debating somthing and you are being quite intensely unpleasant and dogmatic. if you really do want my examples but dont wana msn then fine, ill spam this site with posts showing examples but that is gona annoy everone else, but ill do it if u really want.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k he who looses the argument resorts to insults and not much else.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical
You've exposed yourself as a deliberate liar.
Climategate was a giant FALSE propaganda campaign. If not, show us even ONE example of falsified data from CRU.
There have been 3 independent investigations and they found NO EVIDENCE of falsified data. What a lamebrain.
Please note that renown skeptic Dr. Christy, at UAH says global Temps are going up +0.14C per decade. Phil Jone at CRU & NASA say +0.16 C per decade. OMG, a discrepancy of 0.02C per decade.
What a scandal.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k i have done no such thing. you have shown your total ignorance of the matter. the investigations were deliberately half arsed. i never said that the data was falsified, its the graphs which are falsified, the point is that we only now know how much they lied because the emails show how they used the data to make false claims by adding different datasets. they added a flat dataset to the measurement record to produce the hockey stick graph, this is now all a matter of public record.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k (part 2) more to the point the reason why people like me or you cant replicate thier results is because we are not given thier data because they wont share it or thier methods (wich is unusual for a scientific institution). this is the problem.
i am not so dogmatic as to say climate change isnt happening, the point is that the CRU has lied to us and false evidence has been fabricated from the data. i want to know the truth thats all, and i object to being lied too.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k (part 3) ps; i appologise for calling you ignorant, that was unnecessary.
i do not wish to anger you, but the point is that the CRU emails show that we have been lied to and its just not right. global warming could still be proven right or wrong but (and please look this up and check for yourself) the emails show that we have been kept in the dark, and they even admit that they have deliberately overstated their claims.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@goog2k (part 4) last one i promise, just keep of thinking of stuff ater i press post (i know its annoying when people post so much in one go, so sorry for that 2)
i will happily give you an example of what i speak if you wish, but it will take some time as it needs cross refferencing with graphs etc and is not easy to do with the amount i am allowed to type here. it would be easier to do via email or msn but its up 2 u
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical LOL!!!!
The FACTS:
NASA & Phil Jones @ CRU say Global temps the last 35 years have spiked 0.16C per decade.
World renown Denier, Dr. John Christy, and his group @ UAH say they have spiked +0.14C per decade.
Duhh???
Gimme a break! A 2/100 hundrethsC per DECADE difference. What a scandal?
You are ridiculous fools.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k why do u ignore everything i say? i offer you examples, u ignore me.
therefore you are uninterested in debate surely? any seeker of truth should seek counter evidence, not ignore it, without weighing up BOTH sides you cannot know if you are right.
if you are not going to debate, or even try to see other sides then that is dogmatism and is not scientific.
when you give me links i have at least a look.
ps, christy is irrelevant by ur own reasoning, so why not ignore him?
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are many causes of global temperature change. GHG, Solar Irradiance, Volcanoes, El Nino & ocean circulation, and most important, changes in Earth's orbit & axis perturbations.
ONLY GHG has had a major effect in the last 35 years. Global temps. have spiked +0.58C with NO NET INCREASE in solar irradiance. In fact, last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
There is a great graph of the 11 year Solar cycles.
To see it search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect our Climate system
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The National Academy of Sciences found:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the IPCC.
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
For a comprehensive, detailed, worldwide listing, search: "Scientific opinion on climate change"
goog2k 1 year ago
Dr. Christy, who heads UAH & well-known AGW denier, says warming is +0.14C per decade the last 35 years.
JEEZ, he disagrees with NASA & Phil Jones at CRU by 0.02C per DECADE who say +0.16C per DECADE.
WOW!! A whole +2/100ths degree per DECADE! What a scandal!!
CO2 is rising 2ppm or 0.5% per year and will be 450ppm in just 25 years. Then ocean acidification will STOP the growth of many planktons & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain. Oops!
Search:
NOAA, Trends in Carbon Dioxide
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k try responding to what i have said (typical for a warmist to not debate) it frankly doesnt matter if its warmed, warming itself proves nothing about causality. and the fact is that the warming HAS slowed since around 2000, and has cooled to an exctent too, tho only a little. please stop spamming this with irrelevant crud!
that noaa page has nothing of any importance, just says co2 has increased, i already knew that.
why dont u look up the CRU emails?
eastangliaemails dotcom
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
crap, posted more than i intended to, sorry bout that everyone :(
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the reason nobody knows for sure? its a chaotic system, its also a young science, understanding it is like trying to understand the human brain, except weve just discovered that it exists, there is no previous science to base ideas on, and yet we claim to fully understand it? it makes no sence. and take it from me, im a scientist (hey, u believe "all the other scientists" why not me or MIT proffesor of atmospheric physics richard lindzen?)
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
the reason nobody knows for sure? its a chaotic system, its also a young science, understanding it is like trying to understand the human brain, except weve just discovered that it exists, there is no previous science to base ideas on, and yet we claim to fully understand it? it makes no sence. and take it from me, im a scientist (hey, u believe "all the other scientists" why not me or MIT proffesor of atmospheric physics richard lindzen?)
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But a few ppl make too many billions from our energy needs to let this technology be known,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
cadentavaricegrtrj 1 year ago
WHAT COOLING?
August 16, 2010
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.5°C (58.1°F) was the warmest January-July period on record. This value is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k ...the reason nobody knows for sure is because this is a young science and it is full of uncertainty and it is impossible for us to say with any certainty what the hell is going on.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are many causes of global temperature change. GHG, Solar Irradiance, Volcanoes, El Nino & ocean circulation, and most important, changes in Earth's orbit & axis perturbations.
ONLY GHG has had a major effect the last 35 years. Global temps. have spiked +0.58C with NO NET INCREASE in solar irradiance. In fact, last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
There is a great graph of the 11 year Solar cycles. To see it search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect our Climate system
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FreeTheRadical
The National Academy of Sciences found:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the IPCC.
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
For a comprehensive, detailed, worldwide listing, search: "Scientific opinion on climate change"
goog2k 1 year ago
@FreeTheRadical YOU'RE RIGHT!
All the temperature figures are faked, and the WeatherChannel, NASA, NOAA, MIT, Univ.of California, Harvard, Cambridge, the American Geophysical Union, The Royal Society are all part of the conspiracy.
Except no one told the disappearing arctic ice, melting mountain glaciers, early springs, and the plants, animals, and insects all migrating north.
LOL!!!
See the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k you deliverately misrepresent my point. the current temperature graphs show that there has at least been a slowing in the rate of warming, this means that natural effects MUST be strong enough to have a STRONG effect. all current AGW arguments claim that natural variability is negligable. the temp is rising, this we know, and so ur "news" of warming (with which you spam this comment section) is irrelevant, the question is; why is earth warming. the answer? NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE!...
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if you are interested in a REAL free energy machine then
just search for the LT MAGNET MOTOR in the youtube video search , it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
fittingciobb 1 year ago
(harveybirdmannequin) You are a moron! The nwo isnt offering you a damn thing and it will not take a herculean effort all we have to do is stop complying its just that simple! Stop being zombies and pussies and if necessary liquidate the gov!
yahshuah29 1 year ago
LORD Monckton is a phony Lord of Parliament, a liar, and asked for mandatory HIV+ Concentration Camps.
1) Lord Monckton was NOT a member of U.K.