🙂
Thank you for your comments.
I followed one of the links put up by warrjon earlier and its a pro CO2 website claiming higher CO2 will make the Earth greener and more productive.
What they failed to mention is desertification in Africa (already and issue for 40 years) and the destruction of the Amazon over already many years and now accelerating under the current administration in that country. I do not think more CO2 = a greener world. This is the kind of crazy anti-reality world we live in.
Just look at the images, they speak for themselves!
Las imagenes del Amazonas brasilero en llamas - Clarin.com
More
Las impactantes imagenes de la zonas destruidas por el fuego en el Amazonas - Clarin.com
That office was the personification of evil! They will say the biblical ones who supported Bolsonaro spreading fake news and contributing money !
Nuevos fuegos en la Amazonia en medio del clamor mundial contra Bolsonaro - Clarin.com
Ofidio, Google traductor, no office !
Las imagenes del Amazonas brasilero en llamas - Clarin.com
More
Las impactantes imagenes de la zonas destruidas por el fuego en el Amazonas - Clarin.com
That office was the personification of evil! They will say the biblical ones who supported Bolsonaro spreading fake news and contributing money !
Nuevos fuegos en la Amazonia en medio del clamor mundial contra Bolsonaro - Clarin.com
Ofidio, Google traductor, no office !
😱😱😡
Mann has just had his $1.2m lawsuit against Tim Ball dismissed because Mann refused the courts request to table his data.
Last edited:
How is that different than deforestation of a developed world? You don't want that to happen? Provide Brazilian peasants with the resources to live on the Quatar , Saudi Arabia or Norway level . Simple like that. And deadly logical isn't it? They have ZERO obligation towards the world. Z E R O
Prepare the exit strategy for your family and leave the fools to die if you believe so. Saving the world was never a strong suit of it's population.
Last edited:
The last century, as I think your temperature chart in post #555 covered about that span, and the last forty years, when the temps shown in post #555 really take off, seem relevant.
These papers were published in the last year; may not be perfectly relevant, as neither address CO2 in isolation, and I've only skimmed them. Figure 1 in the first paper is interesting.
In the U.S., as to the last century:
U.S. Agro-Climate in 20 th Century: Growing Degree Days, First and Last Frost, Growing Season Length, and Impacts on Crop Yields | Scientific Reports
" ... Overall, we find that the observed changes in agroclimate, were beneficial for crop yields in the CONUS, albeit some crop and region specific exceptions. ..."
In the U.S., as to the last forty years:
Peculiarly pleasant weather for US maize | PNAS
" ... US maize has benefited from weather shifts since 1981. Improvements are related to lengthening of the growing season and cooling of the hottest temperatures ... "
I didn't look for papers on your part of the world, but I expect they are there.
Sounds like the anti-climate science brigade wanting to subpoena the emails of some academic a few years ago because they disagreed with him. IIRC the judge turned it down.
When we start demanding academia bend to accommodate those with differing views we are on dangerous ground. It’s different if the whole discussion is not politicized and you have academics going head to head. But in this debate you have lobbyists funded by wealthy patrons going against university professors and researchers and in some cases hauling them before governrmt committees and so forth. And after the first ‘climategate’ hockey stick debacle, no wonder Mann is reluctant to hand over data - he was quite clear about the data and its sources but all that was ignored of course. His findings have since been ratified and even the Berkeley Group which is skeptical have acknowledged that the science was not flawed. Academics don’t ‘hand over data’ when they write a paper and nothing compels them to do so. They gather data, draw conclusions and publish their findings which are then accepted or refuted based on their arguments. The system of peer review is designed to wheedle out garbage and maintain standards (we could of course go into a major digression on this but let’s leave it for the minute). I can imagine how a bunch of paid climate skeptics and lawyers not in touch with science would treat him in court in order to score points: not kindly. This says more about the state of society’s relationship with science than it does about climate change - something Feynman’s prescient ‘cargo-cult science’ foretold decades ago. The internet has made everyone an expert and only amplified the problem.
When we start demanding academia bend to accommodate those with differing views we are on dangerous ground. It’s different if the whole discussion is not politicized and you have academics going head to head. But in this debate you have lobbyists funded by wealthy patrons going against university professors and researchers and in some cases hauling them before governrmt committees and so forth. And after the first ‘climategate’ hockey stick debacle, no wonder Mann is reluctant to hand over data - he was quite clear about the data and its sources but all that was ignored of course. His findings have since been ratified and even the Berkeley Group which is skeptical have acknowledged that the science was not flawed. Academics don’t ‘hand over data’ when they write a paper and nothing compels them to do so. They gather data, draw conclusions and publish their findings which are then accepted or refuted based on their arguments. The system of peer review is designed to wheedle out garbage and maintain standards (we could of course go into a major digression on this but let’s leave it for the minute). I can imagine how a bunch of paid climate skeptics and lawyers not in touch with science would treat him in court in order to score points: not kindly. This says more about the state of society’s relationship with science than it does about climate change - something Feynman’s prescient ‘cargo-cult science’ foretold decades ago. The internet has made everyone an expert and only amplified the problem.
Last edited:
What it shows is the divide in the scientific community regarding the causes of the current warming.
So are you saying that these scientists are incorrect.
NEIL FRANK, PH.D. Atmospheric scientist; Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) and Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, the CBS affiliate in Houston, TX (1987–2007)
RICHARD LINDZEN, PH.D Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change.
WILLIAM HAYDEN SMITH, PH.D Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McDonnell Center for Space Sciences
GENE MCCALL, PH.D. Chief Scientist with Air Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado in 2003
Just a couple of the members of the CO2 Coalition. Do you really think these Scientist would put their reputations at stake disseminating incorrect information.
Here is the bit about the request for Mann to release his data that I referred to earlier
“Based on the CRU email leak, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli initiated a Civil Investigative Demand against the University of Virginia to obtain documentation relating to Mann's work at the university. The demand sparked widespread academic condemnation as a "blatantly political" attempt to intimidate and silence Mann,[51] and was denied in August 2010 by a judge for failure to state sufficient cause.”
Source Wiki
“Just a couple of the members of the CO2 Coalition. Do you really think these Scientist would put their reputations at stake disseminating incorrect information.”
Yes
Here is the Mann case in perspective. Again, it’s an academic (Mann) versus a vociferously anti-AGW periodical (National Review) and an individual claiming his data was ‘fraudulent’ (Tim Ball).
“In 2011 the Frontier Centre for Public Policy think tank interviewed Timothy Ball and published his allegations about Mann and the CRU email controversy. Mann promptly sued for defamation.[59] In June 2019 the Frontier Centre apologized for publishing, on its website and in letters, "untrue and disparaging accusations which impugned the character of Dr. Mann". It said that Mann had "graciously accepted our apology and retraction".[60] This did not settle Mann's claims against Ball, who remained a defendant.[61]
As attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libeled. In July 2012,[62] Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blogger Rand Simberg accused Mann of "deception" and "engaging in data manipulation" and alleged that the Penn State investigation that had cleared Mann was a "cover-up and whitewash" comparable to the recent Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, "except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data." The CEI blog editor then removed the sentence as "inappropriate", but a National Review blog post by Mark Steyn cited it and alleged that Mann's hockey stick graph was "fraudulent".[63][64]
Mann asked CEI and National Review to remove the allegations and apologize, or he would take action.[62] The CEI published further insults, and National Review editor Rich Lowry responded in an article headed "Get Lost" with a declaration that, should Mann sue, the discovery process would be used to reveal and publish Mann's emails. Mann's lawyer filed the defamation lawsuit in October 2012.[63]”
Source: wiki
Timothy Ball was the defendant in the case brought against him by Mann. Here is Ball’s view on CO2:-
“Ball rejects not only CO2 greenhouse gas–induced climate change but the existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect itself.”
And yet green house gas IR opacity is well documented and the physics extremely well understood. Would NASA send satellites up to measure this phenomenon (GHG heat entrapment) is it was bonkers?
Here is a black body radiation explanation for the phenomena Ball denies
“Based on the CRU email leak, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli initiated a Civil Investigative Demand against the University of Virginia to obtain documentation relating to Mann's work at the university. The demand sparked widespread academic condemnation as a "blatantly political" attempt to intimidate and silence Mann,[51] and was denied in August 2010 by a judge for failure to state sufficient cause.”
Source Wiki
“Just a couple of the members of the CO2 Coalition. Do you really think these Scientist would put their reputations at stake disseminating incorrect information.”
Yes
Here is the Mann case in perspective. Again, it’s an academic (Mann) versus a vociferously anti-AGW periodical (National Review) and an individual claiming his data was ‘fraudulent’ (Tim Ball).
“In 2011 the Frontier Centre for Public Policy think tank interviewed Timothy Ball and published his allegations about Mann and the CRU email controversy. Mann promptly sued for defamation.[59] In June 2019 the Frontier Centre apologized for publishing, on its website and in letters, "untrue and disparaging accusations which impugned the character of Dr. Mann". It said that Mann had "graciously accepted our apology and retraction".[60] This did not settle Mann's claims against Ball, who remained a defendant.[61]
As attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libeled. In July 2012,[62] Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blogger Rand Simberg accused Mann of "deception" and "engaging in data manipulation" and alleged that the Penn State investigation that had cleared Mann was a "cover-up and whitewash" comparable to the recent Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, "except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data." The CEI blog editor then removed the sentence as "inappropriate", but a National Review blog post by Mark Steyn cited it and alleged that Mann's hockey stick graph was "fraudulent".[63][64]
Mann asked CEI and National Review to remove the allegations and apologize, or he would take action.[62] The CEI published further insults, and National Review editor Rich Lowry responded in an article headed "Get Lost" with a declaration that, should Mann sue, the discovery process would be used to reveal and publish Mann's emails. Mann's lawyer filed the defamation lawsuit in October 2012.[63]”
Source: wiki
Timothy Ball was the defendant in the case brought against him by Mann. Here is Ball’s view on CO2:-
“Ball rejects not only CO2 greenhouse gas–induced climate change but the existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect itself.”
And yet green house gas IR opacity is well documented and the physics extremely well understood. Would NASA send satellites up to measure this phenomenon (GHG heat entrapment) is it was bonkers?
Here is a black body radiation explanation for the phenomena Ball denies
Attachments
It was the British Columbia Supreme Court who requested Mann submit his documents in support of his case against Ball. Mann is now facing contempt of court charges.
I see you have made up your mind on this subject and no amount of alternatives have made you question anything. Science is questioning every hypothesis and experiment. If Einstein used the same methodology as the IPCC "The Science is Settled" we would still be using Newtons law of gravity for all gravitational forces, Einstein would never have theorised Spacetime, and current research into the missing bits of gravity and curved Spacetime that do not fit some of the Physics would not be happening.
This is nonsense with all due respect.
Put the data up that shows there is no link between an additional 2.5 trillion tons of CO2 in the last 150 years and global warming and I am all ears. I looked and cannot find any legitimate papers that are accepted by mainstream academia or papers that are reported in the mainstream press as receiving widespread academic approval that support this position.
The issue is people don’t want to hear this stuff because it gets in the way of making money. And their attempts to stifle or change the narrative are where the real conspiracy lies.
===
For those of you that are interested, here is the link to the NOAA data set. You can plot graphs etc directly from the webpage - it’s a bit more accessible than the HadCRUT data set IMV.
Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Put the data up that shows there is no link between an additional 2.5 trillion tons of CO2 in the last 150 years and global warming and I am all ears. I looked and cannot find any legitimate papers that are accepted by mainstream academia or papers that are reported in the mainstream press as receiving widespread academic approval that support this position.
The issue is people don’t want to hear this stuff because it gets in the way of making money. And their attempts to stifle or change the narrative are where the real conspiracy lies.
===
For those of you that are interested, here is the link to the NOAA data set. You can plot graphs etc directly from the webpage - it’s a bit more accessible than the HadCRUT data set IMV.
Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Indeed. And, follow the money - always look see who sponsors people. I don't know about these guys but a number of "deniers" have turned out to be funded by big oil....
The Amazon forest is 50 million years old and it just gets burned down like that.
Just recalling from a few years ago I stumbled on and article on NASA's web site where they had concluded from satellite pictures spanning over many years the earth overall really has become greener, fake news?
Farmers who create his own local micro-climat feels good
Healing the Soil
Farming Sustainably with Regenerative Agriculture - Restoring Paradise
Healing the Soil
Farming Sustainably with Regenerative Agriculture - Restoring Paradise
I hope that by now everyone also realized that CO2 is only one of the many toxic pollutants we all irresponsibly dump into the biosphere.
Incredibly Abundant Permaculture Garden in the City | The Plummery
Permaculture garden example 400 kg of great food a year and all without artificial synthetic "fertilizers"
Permaculture garden example 400 kg of great food a year and all without artificial synthetic "fertilizers"
Oh phlease ! Big Oil this , Big oil that . Big oil finances all of your green energy projects and 80% of gas price is a tax. Get a grip!
Why all the attention on the atmosphere? We should be far more alarmed by the destruction of the oceans. Aren't they the major contributor to a healthy atmosphere? The debatable influence of industrial C02 to global warming is the smoke screen keeping our focus away from what's really taking place on the planet right now. This is how it will happen... first the oceans, then the land, and finally the atmosphere.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.