Politics of Global Warming

[manxman]

Quote : Why do I know that this will just go on and on.

Because you will keep making noise, spamming, and avoiding meaningful, debate.
With sophistry.

moving on Dr Postma's 4th paper.

The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 4: Heat Flow
Posted on 2012/11/08 by Joseph E Postma
As we have discussed, climate scientists artificially invent an atmospheric greenhouse effect by the simple expedient of artificially reducing the actual power of sunshine from its high temperature, into something else meaninglessly low. In a very significant way, climate scientists reverse the actual flow of energy from the Sun and through the Earth system, such that what are climatic cooling effects from weather in the proper direction, turns into an artificial self-heating mechanism from the same climate in the reverse direction.

A point on “climate science”: As we have already identified that mainstream climate science is based on fiction and making things up, we shouldn’t actually be doing the honor of calling it “science”, since it isn’t. (Of course, this is what all the alarm and the vilification of the beneficial plant food carbon dioxide is all based upon.) So from now on, I will try to always remember to write “climate-pseudoscience”, to distinguish the fabricated atmospheric greenhouse effect paradigm from whatever real science that might actually come out of studying the climate in reality by actual scientists.

In the climate-pseudoscience understanding of the energy flow from Sunshine, the sequence of heat generation on the planet Earth goes as thus:

1. The Sun heats the Earth like a flat surface, uniformly and globally with no day & night, with a freezing cold and low power of energy (-18oC).
2. The atmosphere gets heated by the surface via conductive contact and surface output radiation.
3. The atmosphere then heats the surface some more even though it is colder or at the same temperature as the surface.
4. The surface then heats the atmosphere some more.
5. The atmosphere ends up heating the surface with twice the power of the input sunshine.
6. Energy leaves the Earth at the same rate it comes in.

The most fundamental and primary understanding of thermodynamics and engineering, is that you can never get more work out of some energy than the first time that energy is used to do said work. What is the work the energy is doing in this case? And what is the energy? The energy is the light-waves coming from the Sun. The work it does is in raising the temperature, as it gets absorbed by the Earth on the surface and in the atmosphere. After that, the input energy isn’t capable of doing any higher degree of work – that’s the best you’ll get out of it.

However, climate pseudoscience ignores these rules, and creates a scheme they call the “greenhouse effect” inside the system, which allows them to arbitrarily self-amplify the temperature in order to get to the temperature that they want. They’re able to hide this fictional scheme of “over-unity” work production by ending the flow with point #6, so that it all looks okay from the outside. But of course, we now know that looks can be deceiving.

The actual flow of energy performing work through the system is this:

1. The Sun heats the Earth non-uniformly over a hemisphere, at a very high level of power and energy (+49oC on average, +88oC for a very large fraction).
2. The system & atmosphere reacts to this heating (heating is the work performed by the Sunshine), and produces and sustains the climate.
3. Energy leaves the Earth, the same amount leaving over two hemispheres, what comes in over a single hemisphere.

The only model which represents this reality and is amenable to real-time characterization of heat flow with differential calculus is the diagram presented in the previous posts on this subject.

The point is: Why would we invent an atmospheric greenhouse effect self-heating mechanism from artificial freezing cold Sunshine, when it is perfectly apparent that the real power of Sunshine is already strong enough to heat the climate by itself? There must be a better reason why the atmospheric greenhouse effect was invented, rather than simply due to an obvious mistake which should have been correctable…

 

[manxman]

Wonderful comment this.
Look at the time this commenter took to explain working man style, just really good, as people do not give the very basis of climate science a second thought, taken as a given, until you see the absurdity's like the sun NOT being able to warm your face after getting out of a car[greenhouse] and looking at it, we all know it does, and its a sophistry of modern physic's over classical physicc's.


Myrrh says:
2013/07/22 at 5:18 PM
The AGW Greenhouse Effect’s cold Sun is calculated by planckian skullduggery on the thin 300 mile wide atmosphere of visible light around the Sun – it is so ludicrous it hurts to think this is not only not questioned by ‘climate scientists’ or those great bodies of science, but actively promoted by them ..

The Greenhouse Effect is an impossible world with its Sun a cold Star of 6000°C, around the temp of Earth’s innards, but they have a good reason for this science fraud – to eliminate the direct radiant heat from our real millions of degrees hot real Star our Sun, so they can then pretend all real world measurements downwelling are from “the atmosphere backradiating by greenhouse gases”, and not from the Sun.

So, the Greenhouse Effect Illusion is “shortwave in longwave out”, and they have two ‘explanations’ for radiant heat from the Sun not reaching the Earth’s surface.

The ‘original’ of the KT97 and ilk cartoons, that there is an “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing longwave infrared heat entering”.

This invisible barrier is unknown to traditional physics, which teaches that the heat we feel from the Sun is the electromagnetic wavelength of heat, longwave infrared, which is why it is called thermal.

By more science fraud sleight of hand the AGWScienceFiction version says that thermal refers to the heat source.. The AGWSF meme to hide this fraud, and others, is “all electromagnetic radiation is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”.

The second explanation which I have been told is the AGW version which disdains the ‘original’ which is CAGW. Shrug. Their explanation is even more ludicrous – the cold “Sun of 6000°C which gives off insignificant longwave infrared and insignificant of insignificant reaches TOA”

To hide all their, both versions, shenanigans of using the real direct radiant heat measurements for their “backradiation by greenhouse gases” claim, they have had to create the fiction that visible light from the Sun is the source of heat and what we feel as heat. This is physically impossible in the real world, it is gibberish nonsense but is believed because it was introduced into the education system through teaching the Greenhouse Effect. It is now ‘official’ and in dictionaries and encyclopedias and taught at university level.

Visible light works on the electronic transition level, that is, on the electron level, and not on the bigger molecular vibrational level which is what it takes to heat matter up. The whole molecule has to be vibrated, internal kinetic energy which is heat.

Rub your hands together, that is mechanical energy moving the molecules of your skin into vibration, which we can feel as heat, because it is heat. This is what radiant heat, aka longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared which is heat transfer by radiation, does to our skin, and, we absorb it and it heats the water in us internally. This is the direct heat of the Sun in transfer by radiation which heats up land and water of the ocean and us.

We cannot feel visible light, it is not a thermal energy, it is not hot, it is not heat. Heat from the Sun is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us transferred by radiation.

Light is not heat, that is why we have these two basic categories already defined in traditional physics, we get light and heat from the Sun.

Near infrared is 1% of the “Solar shortwave in” in the AGWSF comic cartoon energy budget, in real world physics this is not thermal either, that is why infrared was divided into thermal and non-thermal, because not all infrared was Heat. Near infrared is classed with light as Reflective not Thermal.

Electronic transitions of visible light from the Sun – visible light is much tinier than longwave infrared heat and is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere, which are briefly energised by this and move in their orbit. Always wanting to return to ground state they do and in doing so emit the same light they took in – this is how we get our blue sky. This is the electronic transition of reflection/scattering. This is not moving the whole molecule into vibration. Visible light is not ionising as is some uv, which means it is too weak to move the tiny electron out of its orbit..

Visible light from the Sun cannot heat the water of the ocean, water is a transparent medium for visible light which means the water molecules do not absorb it at all, not even on the electronic transition level, it is transmitted through unchanged.

There is an extra twist to this sleight of hand trickery – the comic cartoon uses the figure for the solar constant for its “shortwave in” at TOA – but this is a traditional physics measurement of radiant heat energy at the Earth’s surface, calculated by how much heat energy from the Sun heats up the surface.

So, we have the weird KT97 which places that at TOA and calls it “shortwave in mainly visible light”, then subtracts from that figure the shortwave scattering etc. to get its surface figure “absorbed and converted to heat”, and so, ends up with more heat energy upwelling from the Earth than they have energy coming in..

This is an old page from NASA which was taken down from their site, but still exists in isolation.., someone did not want traditional real world empirically well understood physics of heat and light to disappear:

NASA traditional physics teaching:

“Infrared light lies between the visible and microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths that range from red light to violet. “Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.

“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
Infrared Waves

The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect has fraudulently changed basic physics, and this has been brainwashed through the general education system.

Which is why it is not questioned, the memes have become the new ‘scientific basics’ and taken for granted so never thought about.

Just as the real gases of nitrogen and oxygen and carbon dioxide have been replaced by sleight of hand by the real world physics imaginary “ideal gas”, without mass therefore not subject to gravity and without weight, and without volume and attraction, which means, their Greenhouse Effect atmosphere is empty space, which is why they have no sound.

To stop their massless hard dots of nothing disappearing to the ends of the universe at great speed under their own molecular momentum, they have created another invisible “container” against which these molecules miles apart from each other in empty space bounce back from and off each other at great speeds, so “thoroughly mixing they cannot be unmixed” – hence their “well mixed carbon dioxide” and “carbon dioxide accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years”..

Carbon dioxide is a real gas with real properties and processes in traditional physics, it is heavier than air and so will always sink in air, and will not readily rise in air, it takes work to change that.

Carbon dioxide is also fully part of the Water Cycle, which AGWSF has disappeared as it has the real direct heat from the Sun. The residence time of water in the atmosphere is 8-10 days, all natural unpolluted rain has a pH of around 5.6-8 because water and carbon dioxide have a great attraction for each other, forming cabonic acid.

And, the problem is the “Greenhouse Effect” ‘theory’.

It has never been shown to exist.

Real, empirically well tried and tested up to date modern physics as still traditionally taught shows this “GHE” is faked physics.

The -18°C comes from real physics and is the temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, it is not the temperature without the AGWs “greenhouse gases” – compare with the Moon -23°C.

The real atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but minus water, think deserts, is 67°C.

It is the heavy voluminous real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen which is the real thermal blanket around the Earth.

Not the trace real gas carbon dioxide which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere.

They have removed the Water Cycle and have no rain in their Carbon Cycle, they have no direct heat from our millions of degrees hot Sun and they have excised the whole of the real gas atmosphere in which real gases expand when heated and so rise because lighter than air, and condense when cooled so sink, which is how we get our heat transfer by convection and winds, and replaced it with “empty space populated by massless ideal gas miles apart from each other” – their impossible imaginary Earth goes straight from the surface to empty space, hence their “radiation physics”..

Which is why they have trouble hearing this..

The dogma of the new religion’s The Greenhouse Effect..

 

[Tyger]

Quote : Why do I know that this will just go on and on.
Because you will keep making noise, spamming, and avoiding meaningful, debate. With sophistry.

How does one spam one's own thread?

Manxman, I have a real job with real obligations. I don't have time for your need to to have a 'meaningful debate' with me. You are perseverating - saying the same thing again and again and again. It never changes. You are hung up on the same 'facts' you were hung up an a year ago. You never ever 'move on'.

Take time to read all the links and view the videos and all your burning questions will be answered - maybe. I'm not sure because you do not seem to be able to suss out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the science.

It looks like you've taken over yet another thread, choking off free speech, with your insistent 'debate the science' posts. Unwittingly, you are demonstrating the politics of global warming. It's a sorry affair but a perfect demonstration. So I say grudgingly, thank you for supplying the demonstration.

P.S. You should be aware that I never read your 'science' posts. I haven't for a very, very long time, certainly since they have been spam choking up threads. You have never convinced me that you have anything of merit to share.

I will be putting you and pixel back on ignore. Have a good day.

 

[manxman]

No, you are giving yourself a reason to just spam endlessly again.

You cannot even debate the very basis of climate science, just your activist spam, you are simply doing all you can to avoid looking foolish, and your sophistical science shown for what it is, old tired and mainly baseless, and endlessly regurgitated.


moving on

Mr Postma's 5th paper on IPCC Greenhouse Gas Theory, the basic tenet of the climate alarmist claims, and the one alarmist troll's run a mile from.



The science is settled. The science is settled
The science is settled. The science is settled

All the SS commie's cry.




The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 5: Zero Energy Balance and Latent Heat Trapping


Posted on 2012/11/09 by Dr Joseph E Postma Astrophysicist Esquire
Specializing in Planetary Atmospheres.


In Part 4 we discussed the reality-based sequence of energy flow into the system, which does work and provides heat for the planet, and compared it to the fictional set-up that climate-pseudoscience has invented so that they can vilify the beneficial, life-creating-gas of carbon dioxide. Here, let us take another look at heat-flow in the system and learn how heat is transported from the equatorial regions where sunshine is the strongest, to the polar regions where it is weakest.

In the reality-based heat flow model presented in previous posts, we see that the power of sunshine is ninety-percent as strong as +88oC for a very wide swath of the planetary diameter. The actual function which describes the power of sunshine, going from directly underneath to the Sun (which we call the “solar zenith”), to the side where the Sun’s rays just glance the edge of the Earth, is called the “cosine”. It has a value of 100% when at the zenith, and 0% when at an angle of 90 degrees, as you can see here:


Heavy line is just to indicate the range of greater than 90%; it is a width of about 50 degrees.

It is very important for a real scientist to understand how sunshine gets distributed upon the planet, because geologists and meteorologists have observed something which they call the point of zero energy balance (ZEB). This “point” is the latitude, i.e., the angle away from the equator, at which the local amount of incoming solar energy is equal to the local amount of outgoing energy from planet Earth. This is shown the next diagram:


From: Briggs, Smithson, and Ball, Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 1989, Toronto: Copp Clarke and Pitman.

What the ZEB diagram explains is that more solar energy is being absorbed on the planet near the equatorial regions, than is actually emitted by the planet in that region. Or in other words, this means that the planet isn’t getting as hot in the equatorial regions as it could be, given the actual power of Sunshine heating measured there. But then, once you get past about plus or minus (±) 35 degrees in latitude, where the point of ZEB is, then there is more energy leaving the planet than is coming in from sunshine.

All meteorologists know that heat flows from the equator to the poles, and the ZEB diagram, which is based on real-world data, shows this. Given the most fundamental law of science, the Law of Conservation of Energy, we know that the solar energy which “goes missing” around the equators has to be equal to the energy which “shows up” near the poles, and we already know that heat flows from the equator to the poles.

How does the energy flow from the equator to the poles? That’s easy! It flows via, and in, the weather. But specifically, a large amount of that energy is being transported by the latent heat of the molecule H2O. There are 3 phases that water exists in on the planet, and between them, from ice to liquid, and from liquid to vapor, are regions of latent heat where water will absorb or emit energy without changing its own temperature. The amount of energy which is stored in latent heat is incredibly large. The oceans contain about 121 years’ worth of solar energy trapped inside the latent heat of liquid, and the atmosphere has about 10 days’ worth of solar energy trapped inside the latent heat of vapor.

The ZEB diagram shows that you need a mechanism for transporting that energy from the equator to the poles without showing up as actual temperature radiation until it is required. If there was ever a concept that needed to be invented to help us out, nature has created one to fit the bill for us in latent heat, and in the weather itself. What could be more efficient? Both the oceans and atmosphere circulate heat to the polar regions and bring with them an enormous amount of stored solar energy collected from the equatorial region and trapped in latent heat. This keeps the polar regions much warmer than they would otherwise be.

What does all this have to do with the fraud of the atmospheric greenhouse effect? Well, 121 years’ worth of trapped solar energy that prevents the system from dropping below 0oC can create the illusion of a “greenhouse effect”, but it is really just a natural phenomenon keeping the system much warmer in cooler regions than they would be without it. Of course, you’ve heard time and time and time over again that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, and that it even causes the temperature to magically increase itself too. But they’ve never told you that the ocean has literallytrapped 121 years’ worth of latent heat!

Carbon dioxide is supposed to trap heat by scattering infra-red light waves, so, let’s see how long this effect can trap light waves for: The thickness of the atmosphere until it gets so thin that light waves can escape freely to space is about, say, 20km in altitude. Given that the speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per second, it would take an unobstructed light wave 66.6 microseconds to get through the atmosphere. Let’s be really generous here, and say that some of the photons of the right wavelength get scattered by CO2 one-hundred times on their way out. It will then take them, rounding, about 7 milliseconds to escape from the surface to outer space. So, for just a fraction of the entire actualspectrum of outgoing infrared light, some of the light waves are trapped inside the atmosphere for 7 milliseconds.

Seven milliseconds, compared to 10 days of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the atmosphere, compared to 121 years of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the oceans.

So where is the actual heat trapping?

By inventing an artificial atmospheric greenhouse effect, and labeling both carbon dioxide and water vapor as “greenhouse gases”, they perform a trick of attributing to carbon dioxide, what in truth only water is capable of doing.

 

[Tyger]

No, you are giving yourself a reason to just spam endlessly again.

Remember, this is my thread that is dedicated to politics. It's not possible for me to spam my own thread. I have some small hope that you will wander on off to the appropriate thread with your posts. Might that be possible do you think?

You cannot even debate the very basis of climate science

If that is so, and you clearly believe it is so because you state it every chance you get (every post), why not simply 'move on'. Go somewhere else. What keeps you here? Are you stalking me?

and your activist spam, you simply doing all you can to avoid looking foolish, and your sophistal scece shown for wat it is, old tired and mainly baseless, and endlessly regurgitated.

You may find this uncomfortable but what I am posting is merely a sampling of what the world is thinking these days. You may not like it, but it is so. Sorry.

moving on

If only that were so. You are still posting debate items on the politics thread. Not 'moving on', I think.

Mr Postma's 5th paper on IPCC Greenhouse Gas Theory, the basic tenet of climate alarmism, and the one aarmist troll's run a mile from.
The science is settled. The science is settled
The science is settled. The science is settled
All the commie's cry.

Really? Commies? You mean as in Communists? I'm clearly out of my depth here. Commies.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Remember, this is my thread that is dedicated to politics. It's not possible for me to spam my own thread. I have some small hope that you will wander on off to the appropriate thread with your posts. Might that be possible do you think?

If that is so, and you clearly believe it is so because you state it every chance you get (every post), why not simply 'move on'. Go somewhere else. What keeps you here? Are you stalking me?

You may find this uncomfortable but what I am posting is merely a sampling of what the world is thinking these days. You may not like it, but it is so. Sorry.

If only that were so. Still posting debate items on the politics thread. Not 'moving on', I think.

Really? Commies? You mean as in Communists? I'm clearly out of my depth here. Commies.

This has gotten really weird here. Constance and I were stalked briefly as well and it basically ruined my enjoyment to share/learn from others. Wish you well on this one.

 

[manxman]

Remember, this is my thread that is dedicated to politics. It's not possible for me to spam my own thread. I have some small hope that you will wander on off to the appropriate thread with your posts. Might that be possible do you think?

You are right and i apolgise, i thought this was the other thread, you have started that many threads to double/triple post your spam on, i lost track, Mr Postma posting's are about the IPCC fraud, thats political fraud

I will debate if you wish on Greenhouse Gas Theory over there.

Otherwise Dr Postma on GHG theory is pure [as in clean] science.

 

[Tyger]

This has gotten really weird here. Constance and I were stalked briefly as well and it basically ruined my enjoyment to share/learn from others. Wish you well on this one.

Thank you, Heidi. Yes, this has gotten seriously weird. I am just waiting for moderator intervention. It does ruin the experience.

Sorry to hear you (and Constance) have been stalked. I hope you alerted moderators. The moderators need to be alert to that kind of stuff. When a complaint is lodged they need to act on it rather than let it roll on-and-on like this.

I've only just begun to understand the scope of what manxman has been doing with my persona - with a moderator, no less. It's gotten very, very squirrely. All because I insist on posting about climate change and will not back down apparently. Go figure.

 

[manxman]

Get this right.

You as a man, pretending to be a woman, accused me of stalking you, 3 times, im a 56yr old man, and you knew as a man, how filthy a job that was.

So THEN i hunted you nice and quiet, so yeah i stalked your bullying psychotic history right back to 2007 and your JREF account, how much of it do you WANT to see ?.

 

[Tyger]

You are right and i apolgise, i thought this was the other thread, you have started that many threads to double/triple post your spam on, i lost track,

I have two active thread on climate change - one political, one on climate change as a fact. Neither of these threads are about debating the science. I have stated ad infinitum - there are scores of threads for climate change debate, take your pick. I won't be following you over there, wherever you land, but that's my choice. I post on the Paracast Forum as a hobby. I post and talk about what gives me enjoyment. Debating climate science is not one of those topics I choose to engage. My choice. You need to start accepting that answer and just leave me be. Okay?

I do not have 'so many threads' btw. I left the Denial Silly thread because of you and pixel being very rude. I started my own thread and you started spamming that thread. I was advised to start another thread to get away from you, yet you began spamming that thread, too. (What World under Climate Change). I started this politics thread because there is a distinction between the science and the politics around the science. But even here you have brought in your science debate. Off topic.

Mr Postma posting's are about the IPCC fraud, thats political fraud

That's fair. Yes. I may not agree but it's the politics. Yes.

I will debate if you wish on Greenhouse Gas Theory over there.

Debate over where over there? I have no thread that I have started that is debating the science of climate change.

"I will debate you if you wish" - I don't wish. Bloody hell, manxman, you are as thick as a plank, I swear (and swear, I did, using a favorite British swear, too).

Otherwise Dr Postma on GHG theory is pure [as in clean] science.

Very good. Place it where that science will be appreciated and commented on. It wont't be here - or there - or wherever I am. Have you got that? Dare I hope? Manxman, you need to get a job. Something. You've got way too much time on your hands.

 

[Tyger]

Get this right. You as a man, pretending to be a woman

I am not pretending anything, manxman. I am not what you say say and I have people on the Paracast who know me and can vouch for me. This is absolute insanity, manxman. You are seriously unhinged with this.

accused me of stalking you, 3 times, im a 56yr old man, and you knew as a man, how filthy a job that was.

Because that's what your'e doing, buddy. You're so caught up in your fantasy you aren't even aware of how damaging what you're doing is to yourself, never mind potentially to the person you're obsessed with. BACK OFF! Put me on ignore, please.

So THEN i hunted you nice and quiet, so yeah i stalked your bullying psychotic history right back to 2007 and your JREF account, how much of it do you WANT to see ?

I am curious what it is exactly you think you have found. I have never posted on JREF - and even if I did it wouldn't be as 'Tyger'.

My 'psychotic history'? I have none that I know of - but then, that would make me psychotic, right? Unless you've been skulking around Jane Austen and Royalty chat sites, you haven't seen my postings anywhere. That's a fact.

Manxman, this is where I think you have a disconnect with reality. You can't follow me anywhere. I post on the Paracast with a moniker I chose for the Paracast. I post on other chat sites - only one or two and its NOT JREF - with other monikers. No one posts with the same moniker on every chat site they use. I would say doing so would be rare. As I mentioned, the few times I've sometimes tried to sign up to a site using the moniker 'Tyger' I've found it's in use. It seems to be a popular moniker.

If you are a 56 year old man, I will now try to understand you. You once told me you like to say things that cause a stir. As you have gone down the rabbit hole about me - who I am - am I male or female, etc. - I have assumed you are playing a game - being provoking just to cause a stir. But maybe you believe what you're saying - and if you're doing this level of 'investigation' I would have to say you have lost some perspective. Pixel probably didn't help - but he is being a jerk as a 'profession' on the Paracast Forum - sort of like a badge of honor, I think. Thing is, he may not have picked up that you are tippy-tippy, not quite seeing things straight and clear.

My advice is to back off, put me on ignore, and post on other threads to do with climate change that I have not started. I think it would be best for everyone. This dust-up is causing too much of a strain for others. Agree?

P.S. You might start by deleting the ridiculous text you are purporting to be my text from some other chat site. It isn't me. And I think you owe a new poster who has done nothing to deserve your ire an apology. You are just going over the edge, man. Chill.

 

[manxman]

You are what you are son, and if you are who you say you are, you will have a works email on a website somewhere, teacher of the science's like you, maybe you could let a mod mail you on it.

You know put old manxie in his box good style.

Until then and i mean this, i enjoyed that gadget thread, no idea why you posted it, but it was ok.

 

[Tyger]

You are what you are son, and if you are who you say you are, you will have a works email on a website somewhere, teacher of the science's like you, maybe you could let a mod mail you on it.

As I say, I have people on the Paracast who know me. There are three golden rules of the internet, and that goes in spades for chat sites: 1. never state your true identity (meaning full legal name); 2. never state your true birth date; and 3. never state your true location. As for the last on that list the administration of this chat site knows my location via my IP Address (within a 50 to 75 mile radius or so) - though I know a good deal about IP Addresses and they can be misleading upon occasion.

You know put old manxie in his box good style.

Why is it that you think I should be 'proving' my identity to anyone? Why should I care to put you in your box? What exactly has happened here that would put me on the defensive - except wild speculation and accusations from you. Even then, your accusations seem to be that I have posted elsewhere. I don't have time to really explore who you think I am and why who you think I am is someone awful.

What's fascinating about this is that you think that stalking a poster on a chat site and then making accusations about them when they don't play ball with you the way you want somehow then translates into that poster having to 'prove' their identity.

You seem to be following me a bit too closely, manxman. What makes you think I am a 'teacher of the sciences'? You are making things your business which are not your business. That's worrisome. And because the moderators are not acting to stop this, it suggests that this chat site may not be safe when someone like you can drive something this far afield. It starts to be threatening. No one should have to put up with this stuff.

Until then and i mean this, i enjoyed that gadget thread, no idea why you posted it, but it was ok.

What 'gadget thread'? You mean the technology of the future thread? Why I posted it is because that stuff interests me. Should there be any other reason?

Anyway, last time: put me on ignore and stay off my climate change threads. Enuf.

 

[manxman]

Thats right son, you dont, but yet we are to believe somehow, the information you drop in your very fist post here,

sex and location, a couple of posts 'age', i.e. the 60/70s ''you had to be there'' all voluntary, scene setting.

You see son you had the same 57 yr old male california for 7yrs, thats what you should of changed, thats what tied your accounts together muppit, the same blag profile.

Only here you became miriam your quite famous trolling partner.


Be lucky son

 

[Tyger]

Thats right son, you dont, but yet we are to believe somehow, the information you drop in your very fist post here, sex and location, a couple of posts 'age', i.e. the 60/70s ''you had to be there'' all voluntary, scene setting. You see son you had the same 57 yr old male california for 7yrs, thas what you should of changed, thats what tied your accounts together muppit, the same blag profile. Only here you became miriam your quite famous trolling partner. Be lucky son

You're deluded, sorry to say. Nothing is tied together because nothing of the kind you suggest exists in the real world. You have concocted a fantasy.

You are not well.

Hallmark of the troll: No point but to keep the pot stirred.

On ignore.

 

[manxman]

Anyone here or departed that you have trolled, Randall, being a prime example, knew or knows they were being trolled by a man, the only person that out smarted you was constance, when it got heated between you, so you disappeared for a few days, that old credibility hang-up you have, do you think mike thought your gazza thread troll of him was by a woman.
he knew i was a man as i too know i trolled him, no oterway to put it really.

My signature says it all, you actually backed out humbly, when murdered by a real physicist in type play, murdered by professional speak.

But the bolded part is what happens when they are not physicist's, and you are not scrabbling for credibility.
Then male/female, you just simply forget they are human.

.

 

[Tyger]

A Republican Won a Courage Award for Admitting Climate Change is Real
— April 14, 2015
LINK: A Republican Won a Courage Award for Admitting Climate Change is Real

TEXT: "Bob Inglis, a former senator from South Carolina (R), has won the 2015 Profile in Courage Award for the “political courage he demonstrated when he reversed his previous position on climate change, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation (JFKLF) announced yesterday. While simply admitting that something accepted by the scientific community as fact is real might not seem courageous, Inglis is a Republican and knew he would be essentially committing political suicide by reversing his stance.

"According to a statement from the JFKLF,

"A member of the House Science Committee who served as Ranking Member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Inglis initially opposed efforts to address climate change. But interactions with scientists in Antarctica, Australia and elsewhere, along with encouragement from his five children, changed his views on climate change, and he began advocating for a carbon tax to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

"In Washington and South Carolina, Inglis’s acknowledgment of the scientific reality of climate change drew intense criticism from within the Republican Party, and in June 2010, he was defeated for re-election in the Republican primary. He went on to found and currently directs the Energy & Enterprise Initiative to encourage conservatives to accept the reality of climate change and to promote market-based innovations to address the challenges it poses.
​

"Climate change should not be a partisan issue. Policies and practices by people on both sides of the aisle caused the problem, and both sides need to be working together to fix it. Simply ignoring it, like many states are currently trying to, will not make it go away. Neither will denying its existence or using the “I’m not a scientist” excuse, tactics which have been used by all three current Republican presidential candidates.

"The fact that Inglis lost his campaign because he reversed his stance on climate change, combined with winning an award for that reversal, shows just how ridiculous the partisan bickering has become."​

 

[Tyger]

Mounting Evidence Has Republican Climate Change Deniers on Thin Ice for 2016 : Subhankar Banerjee and Michael E. Mann reveal a mounting body of evidence that disruptions in the Arctic sea ice are impacting not only the Northern Hemisphere but are also connected to what is happening to the water supply in California - April 5, 2015
LINK: Mounting Evidence Has Republican Climate Change Deniers on Thin Ice for 2016

TEXT: "Political posturing among climate-change deniers in the Republican Party is heating up, leading up to the 2016 presidential elections. The Republicans are all repeating the same position. They're saying that our climate is changing; yes, we can see that. In fact, the climate is always changing, says Mark Rubio, senator from Florida. But they say that humans have little to do with it. Any effort to link the two is seen as an effort to destroy the economy.

"The new Republican Senate in January passed a climate-change resolution for the first time in eight years on this topic. They voted 98 to 1 to approve a resolution stating that climate change is real and not a hoax. If that sounds good, it is. But then the Senate rejected a second amendment that stated climate change is real and it is significantly caused by humans.

"Jeb Bush, who is seen as a frontrunner, according to The New York Times, is on record saying, what I get a little tired of is that on the left, this idea that somehow science has decided all this is so, so you can't have an opinion. That is according to the Washington Post article by Paul Waldman. Further, Ted Cruz, who recently announced his candidacy for president in the 2016 election, is on record at CNN saying, in the "last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming." Well, science tells us otherwise. It has recorded 2014 as the warmest year in recorded history.

Now joining me to discuss what is really going on here among the Republicans is Michael E. Mann and Subhanker Banerjee. Subhanker Banerjee is coming to us from Port Towsend, Washington. And Subhankar is an environmental and humanities scholar and activist. He founded ClimateStorytellers.org and is editor of the anthology Arctic Voices: Resistance at the Tipping Point. We're also joined by Michael E. Mann, joining us from State College, Pennsylvania. Dr. Michael E. Mann is a distinguished professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University and author of the book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. " [Transcript of interview follows within above link.]​

Mounting Evidence Has Republican Climate Change Deniers on Thin Ice for 2016

TEXT: "Uploaded on Mar 31, 2015: Subhankar Banerjee and Michael E. Mann reveal a mounting body of evidence that disruptions in the Arctic sea ice are impacting not only the Northern Hemisphere but are also connected to what is happening to the water supply in California."

 

[Tyger]

Climate Rally in Canada Brings National Attention to the Problem of Tar Sands and Lack of Federal Action
LINK: Climate Rally in Canada Brings National Attention to the Problem of Tar Sands and Lack of Federal Action | Joshua Axelrod's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

TEXT: "In one of the largest climate gatherings on record in Canada, more than 25,000 people took to the streets of Quebec City to demand that Canadian premiers begin taking bold actions to address climate change. The march, organized by Act on Climate--a coalition of more than 80 environmental, union, indigenous, and student organizations and communities from across Canada--represented the largest public protest on Quebec City's streets in more than a generation. It comes as federal and Alberta policymakers continue to drag their feet on climate policy, especially in regard to the tar sands, which are on their way to making Canada's oil and gas sector the country's largest source of climate pollution. It also comes as Canadian premiers gather to discuss energy and climate policy, issues that in Canada are indisputably linked to Alberta's tar sands industry. This is because Canada's tar sands continue to be the major impediment to the country meeting its international climate targets. As climate pollution linked to the tar sands continues to rise at alarming rates, the message delivered over the weekend adds to the clarion call for aggressive climate action worldwide. And for Canada, that will mean taking aggressive action to limit the rising emissions from the tar sands industry.

"Across Canada, climate action has taken place in certain areas for certain sectors. Provinces such as British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec have adopted climate programs that have put a price on carbon, ratcheted down emissions from coal-fired power plant emissions, or encouraged clean energy production and use. But while other economic sectors achieve climate pollution reductions, Canada's oil and gas sector has almost single-handedly wiped out Canada's nationwide emission cuts (compared to 2005 emission levels). Indeed, even within the oil and gas sector, it is the tar sands alone that are driving rising climate pollution. For this reason, any climate solution in Canada mustby definition include strong limits on current climate pollution from the operating tar sands industry as well as major limits to proposed new expansion.

"Calls to slow and stop tar sands expansion make sense. The current swing in oil prices have dealt a serious blow to Alberta's under-diversified economic structure, and are expected to have national ramifications as well. Shifting economic and political priorities toward developing a strong, stable, sustainable, renewable, and low-carbon energy sector is not antithetical to Canada's ambition of being a world energy leader. Indeed, it is simply a choice of the kind of energy leader that Canada wishes to be.

"This week's summit of Canadian leaders to discuss climate change--with notable absences from Alberta, British Columbia, and the federal government--is a positive first step. Pledges to cut climate pollution and transition to low-carbon economy signal growing political will on the part of Canadian leaders to face the reality of a warming globe and the part Canada can play in stopping this trend. Now, an honest conversation about the role that new pipelines play in the expansion of carbon-intensive tar sands must begin.

"Real climate action requires standing up to tar sands expansion and plotting the course for an energy alternative for Canada and the rest of the world. This will naturally require the participation of both the Alberta and federal governments. Alberta's failure to stop emission increases in the tar sands cannot continue to undo the progress being made across the rest of the country as provinces begin to commit to climate action. Thus, it is high time that the Canadian federal government take action. With Canada's 2020 Copenhagen commitments almost certainly out of reach, Canada must honestly assess its past failures at limiting climate pollution and plot a course that will drive overall emission down in both the short- and long-term. While current province-by-province action is commendable and necessary, an overarching strategy allowing for flexible, subnational implementation is urgently needed to ensure that all Canadian provinces are working to curb Canada's climate pollution. In doing so, pursuit of a low-carbon economy and low-carbon energy sources are essential paths for Canada to follow moving forward. However, the work and expense of making this transition cannot be undermined (as it currently is) by continuing expansion of tar sands production."

Marche Action Climat : Le thermomètre sur le point d'éclater / We've reached our boiling point!

TEXT: "Published on Apr 14, 2015: April 11, 2015, more than 25,000 people from across Canada, the First Nations , environmentalists, artists and families gathered in the streets of Quebec and formed a giant thermometer outside parliament to send a clear message to our leaders : There is urgency to act on climate. Mercury will explode. It is impossible to fight against climate change while developing the oil from the tar sands and pipeline projects as East Energy.

YES to climate protection
NO to the extreme oil
FOR renewable energy

"Walk Climate Action was the largest demonstration that took place in Quebec in 15 years and one of the largest markets for the climate of Canada's history . 25,000 times bravo!

"On Saturday April 11, 25,000+ beautiful people marched for climate action in Quebec City, as well as 15 other Canadian cities. It was one of Canada's biggest climate protests ever. We told premiers a simple thing: they can't act on climate and approve tar sands pipelines at the same time. And we want clean energy solutions, now. The day was emotional, beautiful, powerful. This is what 25,000 people for climate protection looks like."
​

 

[Tyger]

Activism is having an impact - reversing a trend. From 6 months ago.

THE TAR SANDS BUBBLE: Without KXL, tar sands are a bad investment. By fighting the pipeline, activists have disrupted the industry’s bottom line.
LINK: Oil companies are abandoning tar sands. Why? No KXL, no profit