P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger you do realize you are carbon based and you emit CO2 and methane... Right?
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
How Silly is Climate Change Denial?
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger can you relate to Greenpeace Lady?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
As the warmist's here hang their heads in defeat and slink away I urge those on the fence to check the actual recorded data to get your facts and not the failed man made climate models that do not contain all variables involved in climate. Look behind the green mask of this global scam and learn the truth.
I love the way these warming jihadists label you, denier, i mean i aint making any claim, the jihadists are, but once they fail to convince you that our 3% contribution to a trace gas that makes up only 0.04% of our atmosphere is catastrophic news, and needs trillions of dollars thrown at it, you are a DENIER, anti science scum.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
You can't fix stupid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
P
pixelsmith
Guest
We are doomed, impeach this idiot. Chemtrails are real.
"A heavily redacted copy of a classified report titled "America Cools Down on Climate" (ACDC) and obtained by TheGreenGrok outlines the audacious plan to use commercial air traffic to mitigate the growing impacts of climate change across the United States.
The plan falls under the category of what is known as geoengineering: the attempt by humans to slow, stop, or even reverse global warming by manipulating the environment instead of aiming to slow greenhouse gas emissions themselves.
Geoengineering examples include injecting particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space and dumping iron into the ocean to enhance the uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by oceanic phytoplankton. The ACDC plan, code-named "Rainmaker," is considered by experts to be groundbreaking not only because it did not require the construction of a vast industrial infrastructure; it also helped keep flights on time."
Obama Takes Bold Step to Geoengineer Climate Change | Bill Chameides
"A heavily redacted copy of a classified report titled "America Cools Down on Climate" (ACDC) and obtained by TheGreenGrok outlines the audacious plan to use commercial air traffic to mitigate the growing impacts of climate change across the United States.
The plan falls under the category of what is known as geoengineering: the attempt by humans to slow, stop, or even reverse global warming by manipulating the environment instead of aiming to slow greenhouse gas emissions themselves.
Geoengineering examples include injecting particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space and dumping iron into the ocean to enhance the uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by oceanic phytoplankton. The ACDC plan, code-named "Rainmaker," is considered by experts to be groundbreaking not only because it did not require the construction of a vast industrial infrastructure; it also helped keep flights on time."
Obama Takes Bold Step to Geoengineer Climate Change | Bill Chameides
P
pixelsmith
Guest
So there you have it. Chemtrails are real.
Look at this bit, no wonder 30/40% of Americans believe their climates are changing, they are changing, and it is man-made change.
Between the several distinct ariel geoengineering methods, and using Harp to intensify storms, no wonder they believed big Als bullshit, and no wonder the ''rest'' of us just dont get 'it'.
Key to the program were apparently specially designed flexible cords made out of nanofibers (basically high-tech bungee cords) and a personnel team from the Navy, Air Force, and U.S. Weather Service. Unwitting participants included: the airline industry and anyone who took a transcontinental flight this winter. NSA expert James Winkywinc explained that the program exemplified the spirit of military/civilian partnership even if the partnership was a secret to the public participants. Through a process that remains top secret, the Navy and Air Force tied one end of the bungee-like cords to commercial jets and the other to the jet stream and then used the jets' trajectory to pull that baby southward to form the polar vortex.
It may seem incredible, but it worked. Last winter the United States saw repeated intense polar vortex episodes (see also here) with one of the coldest winter in 20 years and snowfall breaking records in many areas of the Northeast and Midwest.
Between the several distinct ariel geoengineering methods, and using Harp to intensify storms, no wonder they believed big Als bullshit, and no wonder the ''rest'' of us just dont get 'it'.
Key to the program were apparently specially designed flexible cords made out of nanofibers (basically high-tech bungee cords) and a personnel team from the Navy, Air Force, and U.S. Weather Service. Unwitting participants included: the airline industry and anyone who took a transcontinental flight this winter. NSA expert James Winkywinc explained that the program exemplified the spirit of military/civilian partnership even if the partnership was a secret to the public participants. Through a process that remains top secret, the Navy and Air Force tied one end of the bungee-like cords to commercial jets and the other to the jet stream and then used the jets' trajectory to pull that baby southward to form the polar vortex.
It may seem incredible, but it worked. Last winter the United States saw repeated intense polar vortex episodes (see also here) with one of the coldest winter in 20 years and snowfall breaking records in many areas of the Northeast and Midwest.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I wonder if the pilots wear tin foil hats like the rest of us?
Wade
FeralNormal master
@pixelsmith @manxman With the understand that I am more on your side of the fence when it comes to climate change, I have to say it world be a tough sell to convince others that the US military is almost single handedly (Russia &China as well? ) managing to do what the entire rest of the world cannot accomplish.
In the end I think it the whole point is sorta moot. For commercial and mitary purposes there is a very strong interest to have an ice free Arctic...or nearly ice free... and it's likely to happen one way or another. I don't see any reason to think that industry wouldn't be expected to chip in. Either way it's still man made change.
In the end I think it the whole point is sorta moot. For commercial and mitary purposes there is a very strong interest to have an ice free Arctic...or nearly ice free... and it's likely to happen one way or another. I don't see any reason to think that industry wouldn't be expected to chip in. Either way it's still man made change.
flipper
Paranormal Adept
Yes you got it right. This year we have had on average per month, since April, 12 rainy days, 1o cloudy days, 5 hazy days, and maybe three sunny days. In the 1990s we thought that we would be able to walk over to the U.S. because or the high temperatures and low rainfall but the past two years of constant snow or rain have made the lake above the 98 year average. Today we had more snow in November than we have ever had. This is the second year of no sun and lots of rain, snow and cloud.
Lake levels continue to rise | Owen Sound Sun Times
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
I can see the trajectory of this as being merely a case of 'dueling links'. I do not presume to be in a dialog of persuasion, but rather one of being informed about the wider issues. It's a fascinating tangle of ideas.
An unusual scientific presenter. I found him hard to follow. In trying to get some background on him I came across his website -
LINK: About Ben Davidson - Suspicious0bservers - Climate Change | Space Weather | Astronomy He's a lawyer. He has the honesty at one point - when talking about cosmic rays - to admit that what he is presenting is 'not settled science'. Fair enough, but it seems to go a bit further.
I came across this article from Scientific American as a rebuttal to your video of Ben Davidson -
LINK: Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change - Scientific American
Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change: Cosmic rays can have played at most a very small part in global warming, new research finds November 11, 2013 |By Paul Brown and The Daily Climate
TEXT: "LONDON – Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds have contributed no more than 10 percent to global warming, according to two British scientists.
"The findings, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reconfirm the basic science that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing most climate change. They also reexamine the alternative case made by climate deniers: that it is the Sun's changing activity and not us that is causing the Earth to heat up.
"The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.
"Clouds and their role in keeping the Earth's surface cool by reflecting sunlight back into space have been one of the biggest uncertainties of climate change science.
"The acknowledged role of sunspots and cosmic rays in forming clouds has been fertile ground for climate deniers, who have cast doubt on whether anthropogenic climate change (in other words, change caused by humans) is occurring at all.
"Sunspot activity, which ebbs and flows on an 11-year cycle, decreases the cosmic ray flux by periodically increasing the solar wind – a stream of charged particles emitted by the sun.
"The solar wind's greater magnetic field deflects away some of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the Earth from elsewhere in the galaxy. So, if the theory linking cosmic rays and cloud formation is correct, increased sunspot activity could potentially reduce cloud cover.
"To try to quantify the effect that solar activity – whether directly or through cosmic rays – may have had on global temperatures in the 20th century, Sloan and Wolfendale compared data on the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere with the record of global temperatures going back to 1955.
"They found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause of the temperature rise might not be attributable to cosmic rays and cloud formation, but could be caused by the direct effects of the sun.
"By comparing the small oscillations in cosmic ray rate and temperature with the overall trends in both since 1955, Sloan and Wolfendale found that less than 14 percent of the global warming seen during this period could have been caused by solar activity.
"To check their findings they reviewed their own previous studies and all the other work they could find on the subject, to see whether they could find other evidence of a link between solar activity and increasing global temperatures.
"Their findings indicated that, overall, the contribution of changing solar activity, either directly or through cosmic rays, was even less and cannot have contributed more than 10 percent to global warming in the 20th century.
"Sloan and Wolfendale also discussed the results from an experiment at CERN in Switzerland called CLOUD, where researchers are looking at ways in which cosmic rays can ionize, or charge, aerosols in the atmosphere, influencing how clouds are formed. They also examined instances where real-world events produced large-scale ionization in the atmosphere.
"Events such as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and nuclear weapons testing would have been expected to affect aerosol production in the atmosphere, but no such effects could be seen.
"Said Sloan: "Our paper reviews our work to try and find a connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation with changes in global temperature.
" "We conclude that the level of contribution of changing solar activity is less than 10 percent of the measured global warming observed in the 20th century. As a result of this and other work, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change state that no robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified." "
The above is but one rebuttal, and it, of course, invokes the IPCC which out-of-hand is dismissed as without merit, so it's a bit of a dilemma.
Skeptical Science remains an invaluable source (imo) for some rational scientific dialog - check it out for the cosmic ray discussion. I won't supply the text. Strongly recommend reading the comments section which is chockfull of elucidations and links to actual scientific papers, etc.
LINK: What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?
One Comment, with author response: "I always thought this hypothesis seemed unlikely, but...What about the last 10 years of global not warming? Why does CO2 get an 800 year wrong direction lag and the sun has to be exactly in step to be a viable hypothesis?
Response: The point is that because the sun has correlated so closely with temperature in the past, when the correlation ended in the 1970's, it's reasonable to conclude some other forcing imposed itself on the climate. Re the CO2 lag, the ice core records actually confirm the amplifying effect of atmospheric CO2. As for the last 10 years of global not warming, you'll find the warming rate is the same over the last 10 years as over the last 30 years."
Here is an interesting back-and-forth -
Comment: "CERN CLOUD project results are published [....] I suspect they are not all that was hoped for."
Response: "Their experiments produced between ten and a thousand times fewer aerosol particles than found in nature, which basically means that they have not determined the cause of the aerosol formation in our atmosphere. The results were not what they hoped for in that no climatic conclusions could be drawn from their work. But as any good scientists will tell you, this study will inspire more research in the area."
Comment: "I completely agree (I try to be a good scientist, but I try to avoid talking to myself as much as possible ;o) as do the RC chaps. The really interesting thing about the CLOUD project as far as the climate debate is concerned is that it is a good example of how science and science funding actually works. Skeptic often say that government agencies will not fund their work, but CLOUD is a big project (see the number of authors) with big funding (about 12MECU IIRC), that aims to investigate the very most basic physical underpinnings of an alternative hypothesis (for which there is only the most circumstantial evidence). It also shows that skeptical hypotheses can and do result in good basic science of general interest to the research community. It also shows that the outcome of an experiment can be very interesting and useful, even if it doesn't provide much support for the working hypothesis (and hence suggest new lines of enquiry or provide support for an existing line etc). A really good experiment is one that has a 50-50 chance of corroborating or refuting an hypothesis as these are the ones that provide the most information about science (in an information theoretic sense). This means we should expect experiments to reject the working hypothesis on a regular basis (a significant minority of experiments); it shows that the research is "sharp". "
An unusual scientific presenter. I found him hard to follow. In trying to get some background on him I came across his website -
LINK: About Ben Davidson - Suspicious0bservers - Climate Change | Space Weather | Astronomy He's a lawyer. He has the honesty at one point - when talking about cosmic rays - to admit that what he is presenting is 'not settled science'. Fair enough, but it seems to go a bit further.
I came across this article from Scientific American as a rebuttal to your video of Ben Davidson -
LINK: Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change - Scientific American
Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change: Cosmic rays can have played at most a very small part in global warming, new research finds November 11, 2013 |By Paul Brown and The Daily Climate
TEXT: "LONDON – Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds have contributed no more than 10 percent to global warming, according to two British scientists.
"The findings, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reconfirm the basic science that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing most climate change. They also reexamine the alternative case made by climate deniers: that it is the Sun's changing activity and not us that is causing the Earth to heat up.
"The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.
"Clouds and their role in keeping the Earth's surface cool by reflecting sunlight back into space have been one of the biggest uncertainties of climate change science.
"The acknowledged role of sunspots and cosmic rays in forming clouds has been fertile ground for climate deniers, who have cast doubt on whether anthropogenic climate change (in other words, change caused by humans) is occurring at all.
"Sunspot activity, which ebbs and flows on an 11-year cycle, decreases the cosmic ray flux by periodically increasing the solar wind – a stream of charged particles emitted by the sun.
"The solar wind's greater magnetic field deflects away some of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the Earth from elsewhere in the galaxy. So, if the theory linking cosmic rays and cloud formation is correct, increased sunspot activity could potentially reduce cloud cover.
"To try to quantify the effect that solar activity – whether directly or through cosmic rays – may have had on global temperatures in the 20th century, Sloan and Wolfendale compared data on the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere with the record of global temperatures going back to 1955.
"They found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause of the temperature rise might not be attributable to cosmic rays and cloud formation, but could be caused by the direct effects of the sun.
"By comparing the small oscillations in cosmic ray rate and temperature with the overall trends in both since 1955, Sloan and Wolfendale found that less than 14 percent of the global warming seen during this period could have been caused by solar activity.
"To check their findings they reviewed their own previous studies and all the other work they could find on the subject, to see whether they could find other evidence of a link between solar activity and increasing global temperatures.
"Their findings indicated that, overall, the contribution of changing solar activity, either directly or through cosmic rays, was even less and cannot have contributed more than 10 percent to global warming in the 20th century.
"Sloan and Wolfendale also discussed the results from an experiment at CERN in Switzerland called CLOUD, where researchers are looking at ways in which cosmic rays can ionize, or charge, aerosols in the atmosphere, influencing how clouds are formed. They also examined instances where real-world events produced large-scale ionization in the atmosphere.
"Events such as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and nuclear weapons testing would have been expected to affect aerosol production in the atmosphere, but no such effects could be seen.
"Said Sloan: "Our paper reviews our work to try and find a connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation with changes in global temperature.
" "We conclude that the level of contribution of changing solar activity is less than 10 percent of the measured global warming observed in the 20th century. As a result of this and other work, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change state that no robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified." "
The above is but one rebuttal, and it, of course, invokes the IPCC which out-of-hand is dismissed as without merit, so it's a bit of a dilemma.
Skeptical Science remains an invaluable source (imo) for some rational scientific dialog - check it out for the cosmic ray discussion. I won't supply the text. Strongly recommend reading the comments section which is chockfull of elucidations and links to actual scientific papers, etc.
LINK: What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?
One Comment, with author response: "I always thought this hypothesis seemed unlikely, but...What about the last 10 years of global not warming? Why does CO2 get an 800 year wrong direction lag and the sun has to be exactly in step to be a viable hypothesis?
Response: The point is that because the sun has correlated so closely with temperature in the past, when the correlation ended in the 1970's, it's reasonable to conclude some other forcing imposed itself on the climate. Re the CO2 lag, the ice core records actually confirm the amplifying effect of atmospheric CO2. As for the last 10 years of global not warming, you'll find the warming rate is the same over the last 10 years as over the last 30 years."
Here is an interesting back-and-forth -
Comment: "CERN CLOUD project results are published [....] I suspect they are not all that was hoped for."
Response: "Their experiments produced between ten and a thousand times fewer aerosol particles than found in nature, which basically means that they have not determined the cause of the aerosol formation in our atmosphere. The results were not what they hoped for in that no climatic conclusions could be drawn from their work. But as any good scientists will tell you, this study will inspire more research in the area."
Comment: "I completely agree (I try to be a good scientist, but I try to avoid talking to myself as much as possible ;o) as do the RC chaps. The really interesting thing about the CLOUD project as far as the climate debate is concerned is that it is a good example of how science and science funding actually works. Skeptic often say that government agencies will not fund their work, but CLOUD is a big project (see the number of authors) with big funding (about 12MECU IIRC), that aims to investigate the very most basic physical underpinnings of an alternative hypothesis (for which there is only the most circumstantial evidence). It also shows that skeptical hypotheses can and do result in good basic science of general interest to the research community. It also shows that the outcome of an experiment can be very interesting and useful, even if it doesn't provide much support for the working hypothesis (and hence suggest new lines of enquiry or provide support for an existing line etc). A really good experiment is one that has a 50-50 chance of corroborating or refuting an hypothesis as these are the ones that provide the most information about science (in an information theoretic sense). This means we should expect experiments to reject the working hypothesis on a regular basis (a significant minority of experiments); it shows that the research is "sharp". "
Last edited:
flipper
Paranormal Adept
All I know is, is that there is a blizzard outside in November. It is the first that I can remember for this month.
Check the definitions of climate and weather. 
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
Seems like GW/CC is all about bring out new technology by the way of setup the mechnism similar to old fossil fuels . The fact China and USA signed a Climate Change deal just paper behind the fuel Corprations keep rolling along.
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
Sorry, I'm not making fun of anyone. It's just that I've seen this pattern of debate so many times before.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Is that what's going on? For the first time (ever) I've put two posters on 'Ignore' and so what I see here is very civil and pretty innocuous. Given the video you've just posted I can only imagine the posts I am missing out on.
Happy me! 
I will say it would be handy if people posted stand-alone posts so that others can respond to them. As it stands - I (anyway) can only infer what the exchanges might be about. For example, I am assuming that the fact that we are having cold is being delivered up as evidence that the earth is not warming. This one is an old one and very transparent: Global Warming will mean extreme fluctuations in weather - so, yes, sometimes very hot, sometimes very cold.
Last edited: