Climate Change

[Notch7]

Like I said - if you had watched the Youtube vid then you will of heard that paragraph spoken
So hows this -- but the problem is if I put it in a quote this looks like I am quoting another poster

So sometimes I do this
"Now higher resolution records were indicating considerably less than half a century for a climate warming further studies narrowed the time frame even further James White in nature July of 1993 found the new ice cor ice core results bring rapid climate change to our doorstep changes up to 10° centigrade in a couple of decades or perhaps in less than a decade appear possible the data now revealed that the climate was able to change a full 10°Centigrade in perhaps less than a decade
the ancient warming far outpaces what the world is currently experiencing keep this fact in mind when you hear or read someone some journalist or some paid off scientist arguing that the current global warming rate is unprecedentedly fast or severe which you no doubt will if you engage in any kind of inquiry or dialogue into the subject of modern climate change"

So for future reference which one do you think best makes it clear that I am quoting from the Youtube vid I post along with it or maybe a link I post.

You haven't addressed the fact you are dishonestly trying to compare regional temp change with a global average temp change.

 

[Notch7]

That's right there was no climate tax. If the gov are really serious about it they would levy zero VAT on everything to do with mitigating the climate disaster they say we face.

Aveatry hasn't addressed the fact that energy bills went up during 2022 from around £1250 to £2500

And the reason they went up was because of increases in price of gas and oil.

Odd really that ficko Aveatry thinks prices have gone up so much due to green taxes.

 

[aveatry]

You haven't addressed the fact you are dishonestly trying to compare regional temp change with a global average temp change.

I am not dishonestly trying anything its a Utube vid discussing the results of ice cores. I have nothing to "address"

 

[aveatry]

Aveatry hasn't addressed the fact that energy bills went up during 2022 from around £1250 to £2500

And the reason they went up was because of increases in price of gas and oil.

Odd really that ficko Aveatry thinks prices have gone up so much due to green taxes.

What's that got to do with me saying we all pay climate levy on domestic fuel - - nufing- that's what -ficko

 

[noseall]

discussing the results of ice cores

Ice cores you say.....

Read more

 

[MNW67]

Ice cores you say.....

@aveatry

This raises an interesting question. Is there any equivalent ice core data from Antarctica for the period 13,000 years ago in Greenland which you have been referencing. I would be very interested to know what it shows by comparison.

 

[noseall]

@aveatry

This raises an interesting question. Is there any equivalent ice core data from Antarctica for the period 13,000 years ago in Greenland which you have been referencing. I would be very interested to know what it shows by comparison.

Ice core samples show CO2 going through the roof.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

Who put 50 pence in the dick head “noseall” ?

He can waffle ****, and as far as I can tell, he’s the only poster who continues to quote his own quotes

What’s the first sign of being crazy ?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I came across this, very sensible, and rational post in a newsgroup, posted by someone using the name 'Indy Jess John'. I hope he doesn't object to my reposting it here...

'I did a bit of digging a few weeks ago, and I discovered that the global warming claim for CO2 is because it blocks certain wavelengths of infrared from escaping into space. The same source of information also pointed out that water vapour also blocks a range of wavelengths of infrared, spanning and a bit wider than the range that CO2 blocks. There is many times as much water vapour than there is CO2 in the atmosphere. It varies by location from almost zero across the polar ice to maxima over rain forests, but the global average is at least 10 times as much as CO2. So even if the amount of CO2 doubles it would make only an insignificant contribution to global warming yet it would considerably improve crop yields.

The reason why CO2 was made the villain is because humans can do nothing about water vapour but they can be blamed for CO2; and that power allows governments to impose "green" taxes or legislate controls on behaviour and have the mugs who pay for it happy to do so to save the planet.

The initial trigger was a mathematical model which got named the hockey stick graph because it predicted runaway temperature increases in the future and that prediction section looked similar to a hockey stick. The other (attempted to be suppressed by the IPCC but it had been leaked) thing I found out was a doubtful scientist who managed to get some research time on the model discovered that there was a fault in the calculation process and it didn't matter what data he fed in, even different sets of completely random numbers, the output was always exactly the same. The whole global warming fiasco has been based on faulty arithmetic. The IPCC timescale was the change since the Industrial Revolution, so about 200 years or so, which is far too short to recognise that climate changes recur to a pattern. I found a scientific report from 1995, updating previous research in 1969, which shows that the pattern of change since the Industrial Revolution is almost identical to the pattern of change from 8000 years earlier. This is roughly the time when humans migrated from hunter gatherers to a crop growing agrarian existence, so they can't be blamed for global warming.'

 

[denso13]

Better looking at science, there is no doubt any more.

 

[aveatry]

I came across this, very sensible, and rational post in a newsgroup, posted by someone using the name 'Indy Jess John'. I hope he doesn't object to my reposting it here...

'I did a bit of digging a few weeks ago, and I discovered that the global warming claim for CO2 is because it blocks certain wavelengths of infrared from escaping into space. The same source of information also pointed out that water vapour also blocks a range of wavelengths of infrared, spanning and a bit wider than the range that CO2 blocks. There is many times as much water vapour than there is CO2 in the atmosphere. It varies by location from almost zero across the polar ice to maxima over rain forests, but the global average is at least 10 times as much as CO2. So even if the amount of CO2 doubles it would make only an insignificant contribution to global warming yet it would considerably improve crop yields.

The reason why CO2 was made the villain is because humans can do nothing about water vapour but they can be blamed for CO2; and that power allows governments to impose "green" taxes or legislate controls on behaviour and have the mugs who pay for it happy to do so to save the planet.

The initial trigger was a mathematical model which got named the hockey stick graph because it predicted runaway temperature increases in the future and that prediction section looked similar to a hockey stick. The other (attempted to be suppressed by the IPCC but it had been leaked) thing I found out was a doubtful scientist who managed to get some research time on the model discovered that there was a fault in the calculation process and it didn't matter what data he fed in, even different sets of completely random numbers, the output was always exactly the same. The whole global warming fiasco has been based on faulty arithmetic. The IPCC timescale was the change since the Industrial Revolution, so about 200 years or so, which is far too short to recognise that climate changes recur to a pattern. I found a scientific report from 1995, updating previous research in 1969, which shows that the pattern of change since the Industrial Revolution is almost identical to the pattern of change from 8000 years earlier. This is roughly the time when humans migrated from hunter gatherers to a crop growing agrarian existence, so they can't be blamed for global warming.'

Its exactly as I have been saying for ages on here - its almost like I was the author

 

[MNW67]

I came across this, very sensible, and rational post in a newsgroup, posted by someone using the name 'Indy Jess John'. I hope he doesn't object to my reposting it here...

The final paragraph is just made up nonsense. The first two paragraphs on water vapour are worth discussing because the role of water vapour is complex and difficult to understand.

 

[denso13]

The final paragraph is just made up nonsense. The first two paragraphs on water vapour are worth discussing because the role of water vapour is complex and difficult to understand.

Harry dismisses hundreds of thousands of climate scientists as liars.

But he found a news group post by Indy Jess John as very sensible.

Do me a favour.

 

[MNW67]

Harry dismisses hundreds of thousands of climate scientists as liars.

But he found a news group post by Indy Jess John as very sensible.

Do me a favour.

It is worth explaining the role of water vapour and why Indy Jess John is wrong. Water vapour is currently the biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and contributes about 50% of the natural greenhouse effect.

 

[Highway Man]

Harry dismisses hundreds of thousands of climate scientists as liars.

But he found a news group post by Indy Jess John as very sensible.

Do me a favour.

I suppose it all depends on how credible Indy Jess John is and what his qualifications are. If he has written a paper and had it published on the subject then it shows that he must know something or be some sort of expert in this field.