UK Blogger Finds Error in Climate Change Study

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Most corporations are or at least should be neutral.

There are different kinds of corporations. Privately held native companies must be allowed to operate per their convictions. The progressive tendency has been to attack and undermine such companies, groups, and individuals when they are right leaning, and even more so when they hold to Christian principles, while allowing left leaning entities of all kinds to be as politically bent as they want.

 

[church mouse guy]

There are different kinds of corporations. Privately held native companies must be allowed to operate per their convictions. The progressive tendency has been to attack and undermine such companies, groups, and individuals when they are right leaning, and even more so when they hold to Christian principles, while allowing left leaning entities of all kinds to be as politically bent as they want.

A good example is the Masters of the Universe in Silicone Valley who can silence whomever they please but they would be quick to violate religious freedom by forcing someone to bake a cake for a sodomite wedding albeit the Masters of the Universe don't have enough courage to force Mohammad to bake a cake for sodomites.

 

[Covenanter]

Global warming "science was designed to get a predetermined outcome.

Of course. That's why they had to cook the books...and got caught.

Exactly. It's a hoax just as the 'destruction of the ozone layer' was.

Why should I respect your opinions, rather than world scientists? As a professional scientist (NOT climate or weather) I have taken an interest in these things for many decades. I'm quoting from memory so I can't give links.

Regarding destruction of the ozone layer, back in the 80s a school science experiment on inert gases, supposedly unreactive fluorocarbons found that fluorocarbond did react with ozone. As these compound were being used massively in aerosols, they wondered if there was a serious danger to the ozone layer.
I raised this with a Shell rep at an "interlab" meeting & he assured us that if there were any such danger, Shell would know about it first.
Satellite experiments were set up to measure the ozone layer over Australia & the results were dismissed as being too low to be reliable. 10 years later the ozone panic started & they were able to review their results - reliable & giving unheeded warnings. Fluorocarbons were seen to be the danger the school had predicted.

 

[kyredneck]

fluorocarbond did react with ozone

Lol, and UV rays from the sun create ozone (O2 to O3) in the upper stratosphere every day. When the sun 'goes down' the ozone layer immediately begins to dissipate (O3 back to O2), and reforms (O2 back to O3) the next day when the 'sun comes up'. The cycle has been repeating itself like that for a bery bery long time.

ozone depletion hoax a preparation for global warming hoax

 

[church mouse guy]

Why should I respect your opinions, rather than world scientists? As a professional scientist (NOT climate or weather) I have taken an interest in these things for many decades. I'm quoting from memory so I can't give links.

Regarding destruction of the ozone layer, back in the 80s a school science experiment on inert gases, supposedly unreactive fluorocarbons found that fluorocarbond did react with ozone. As these compound were being used massively in aerosols, they wondered if there was a serious danger to the ozone layer.
I raised this with a Shell rep at an "interlab" meeting & he assured us that if there were any such danger, Shell would know about it first.
Satellite experiments were set up to measure the ozone layer over Australia & the results were dismissed as being too low to be reliable. 10 years later the ozone panic started & they were able to review their results - reliable & giving unheeded warnings. Fluorocarbons were seen to be the danger the school had predicted.

Another big source is smoking--it is worse than driving a French diesel for a day. Look at all the damage that the potheads are doing. The USA is greatly cleaned up but dirty China is a hot mess and the Chinese think that the Europeans should spend their last money on this wild goose chase so the commies can rule the world.

 

[carpro]

Why should I respect your opinions, rather than world scientists? As a professional scientist (NOT climate or weather) I have taken an interest in these things for many decades. I'm quoting from memory so I can't give links.

.

The fact they cooked the books to show "global warming" and got caught is not an opinion. It's a documented fact.

 

[FollowTheWay]

There are different kinds of corporations. Privately held native companies must be allowed to operate per their convictions. The progressive tendency has been to attack and undermine such companies, groups, and individuals when they are right leaning, and even more so when they hold to Christian principles, while allowing left leaning entities of all kinds to be as politically bent as they want.

Under the law, employees of privately held companies ( no matter whether they are liberal or conservative) give up most of their constitutional rights

 

[InTheLight]

Under the law, employees of privately held companies ( no matter whether they are liberal or conservative) give up most of their constitutional rights

You have an example? Just one example of this, please.

 

[church mouse guy]

Why should I respect your opinions, rather than world scientists? As a professional scientist (NOT climate or weather) I have taken an interest in these things for many decades. I'm quoting from memory so I can't give links.

Regarding destruction of the ozone layer, back in the 80s a school science experiment on inert gases, supposedly unreactive fluorocarbons found that fluorocarbond did react with ozone. As these compound were being used massively in aerosols, they wondered if there was a serious danger to the ozone layer.
I raised this with a Shell rep at an "interlab" meeting & he assured us that if there were any such danger, Shell would know about it first.
Satellite experiments were set up to measure the ozone layer over Australia & the results were dismissed as being too low to be reliable. 10 years later the ozone panic started & they were able to review their results - reliable & giving unheeded warnings. Fluorocarbons were seen to be the danger the school had predicted.

So, did you believe in nuclear winter back in the seventies?

Do you think that the EU and Russia should invade China to stop their massive pollution? Would you advocate prison for life for smokers? What about useless eaters?

 

[church mouse guy]

Gore has noted that for every 100,000 Europeans who can be reduced to the stone age, 14 can keep their private jets, 10 their yachts, 8 their remote villas, 2 their mistresses and we will still be carbon neutral! (Borrowed)

 

[carpro]

You have an example? Just one example of this, please.

Out of thin air...

 

[Covenanter]

Lol, and UV rays from the sun create ozone (O2 to O3) in the upper stratosphere every day. When the sun 'goes down' the ozone layer immediately begins to dissipate (O3 back to O2), and reforms (O2 back to O3) the next day when the 'sun comes up'. The cycle has been repeating itself like that for a bery bery long time.

ozone depletion hoax a preparation for global warming hoax

The concern for disruption of the ozone layer was real. action was taken to cease the use of fluorocarbons 25 years ago, to some extent restoring the natural balance you are describing. I don't think the cycle you are describing was unknown.

The fact they cooked the books to show "global warming" and got caught is not an opinion. It's a documented fact.

I doubt if NASA would agree with such statements.

Are some scientists "cooking the books" to dispute the generally accepted scientific reports of climate change & gain approval & funding from Trump? Global warning is now generally referred to as "climate change." Man's activity is significant leading to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

So, did you believe in nuclear winter back in the seventies?

Do you think that the EU and Russia should invade China to stop their massive pollution? Would you advocate prison for life for smokers? What about useless eaters?

There was a real concern about global cooling in the last quarter of the last century, based on historical recorded temperature cycling, & observations thank indicated that possibility. However there was also an awareness of the potential for global warming based on human activity particularly increased CO2, smoke & dust.

Most nations are concerned with the fact of climate change, though the willingness to take national action varies. Isolated factors are significant. Deaths & ill-health from pollution in cities due to coal fires were very serious. We couldn't eat apples from our west London garden. The introduction of smoke control laws & subsidizing non-polluting heating systems improved air quality massively & we could enjoy our apples.

 

[carpro]

I doubt if NASA would agree with such statements.

Which doesn't matter at all. The proponents of so called "global warming" lied about the temperatures and got caught.

That's a fact. No way around it.

 

[church mouse guy]

The concern for disruption of the ozone layer was real. action was taken to cease the use of fluorocarbons 25 years ago, to some extent restoring the natural balance you are describing. I don't think the cycle you are describing was unknown.



I doubt if NASA would agree with such statements.

Are some scientists "cooking the books" to dispute the generally accepted scientific reports of climate change & gain approval & funding from Trump? Global warning is now generally referred to as "climate change." Man's activity is significant leading to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.




There was a real concern about global cooling in the last quarter of the last century, based on historical recorded temperature cycling, & observations thank indicated that possibility. However there was also an awareness of the potential for global warming based on human activity particularly increased CO2, smoke & dust.

Most nations are concerned with the fact of climate change, though the willingness to take national action varies. Isolated factors are significant. Deaths & ill-health from pollution in cities due to coal fires were very serious. We couldn't eat apples from our west London garden. The introduction of smoke control laws & subsidizing non-polluting heating systems improved air quality massively & we could enjoy our apples.

Well, I have an inkling what you mean about coal smoke because I lived in Chicago forty years ago when their Commonwealth Edison made electricity from coal without all the advanced cleaning scrubbers that we have now. Also, Chicago had miles of big apartment buildings that had coal-fired boilers for steam heat, which is nice and cozy.

Indiana is # 5 in coal mining and exports cheap electricity to nearby states from coal-fired plants that are now very clean. Coal is now cheap and dependable, especially in the winter when the demand for electricity goes up. I live in a semi-rural area and yet I have cheap electricity.

The blizzards of the late 1970s--Indianapolis suffered a waist-deep blizzard in January of 1978 that did not begin to thaw until mid-March--filled the newspapers of talk of nuclear winter. About five years later, the blizzards were forgotten and it was all global warming. Then about ten years ago global warming became climate change. But this year we have had a very cold and nasty fall and now one wants to talk about climate change.

I think that Europe is much more concerned about this than the USA. We have actually reduced our carbon emissions while maintaining our industrial production. The real culprits in carbon emissions are China and India, but I agree with Gore in case that the Europeans want to commit economic suicide for some quixotic reason.

Gore has noted that for every 100,000 Europeans who can be reduced to the stone age, 14 can keep their private jets, 10 their yachts, 8 their remote villas, 2 their mistresses and we will still be carbon neutral! (Borrowed)

So will the UK commit hari-kari in order to allow the Chinese to continue their dirty ways or will the UK declare war on China? What about smoking, which is worse than driving a diesel SUV? Will the UK do something about the hash smokers and potheads?

 

[church mouse guy]

Which doesn't matter at all. The proponents of so called "global warming" lied about the temperatures and got caught.

That's a fact. No way around it.

NASA is a joke. They talk about 800,000 years when the earth is only 6,000 years old. They talk about sea levels but the election of ob@m@ stop the rise of the seas. They talk about human activity but it is potheads who pollute more than cars and Californians burning down their forests who put out a years worth of particles in two days. And they talk about the glaciers receding but they have been growing and receding small amounts for centuries but they are mostly receding as they are leftovers from the Ice Age and the judgement of human sin wherein all life was destroyed except marine life and the animal life and the lives of the eight humans on the ark during the Genesis Flood. There is no proof that God intended the earth to always have ten percent ice cover year around. Don't you get tired of heathen scientists like the ones at NASA? NASA should move to Barrow, Alaska, just to make sure that they will be okay and we can send them tankers of whiskey so that they can continue their research.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Why should I respect your opinions, rather than world scientists? As a professional scientist (NOT climate or weather) I have taken an interest in these things for many decades. I'm quoting from memory so I can't give links.

You shouldn’t. But that is not the question, and as a professional scientist and Christian you should know better. Here is a 2007 article detailing some of the steps in the ozone depletion hypothesis development. Obviously biased in justifying the initial alarm, it unwittingly reveals reasons why we should not listen to scientists, even renowned ones, just because they are scientists, even world-renowned ones.

1. Even other scientists don’t believe just because a scientist claims something.
2. They call the other scientists skeptics that wanted to wait for real evidence.
3. The political alarm was sounded way before there was firm evidence.
4. The unproven hypothesis was based on many unproven sub-hypotheses.
5. Much of the data was from single experiments, not repeated ones.

You may note others. In addition are the following:

1. NASA claimed they missed evidence because they purposely ignored data.
2. Many conclusions/assumptions are based on modeling, not on actual raw data.
3. Scientists, even large groups of scientists, can and do make mistakes.
4. Scientists are subject to all other human frailties: greed, ambition, pride, etc.
5. Most scientific hypotheses take quite a long time to be proved out.

Scientists do not necessarily look at the big picture, nor do they have a corner on rational thinking. And they are just as biased in their own worldview as the next person. It is even worse, and potentially more dangerous, when someone does not realize this.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Why should I respect your opinions, rather than world scientists? As a professional scientist (NOT climate or weather) I have taken an interest in these things for many decades. I'm quoting from memory so I can't give links.

BTW, if the link I provided is any indication, then your memory sounds rather faulty here. I suggest you should provide those links, if you want to be taken seriously, professional scientist or not.

 

[kyredneck]

Man's activity is significant leading to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

You're a scientist. Do you agree that nuclear power is a 'green energy'? I think it's inevitable that nuclear power will ultimately be the answer to all these concerns about CO2 emissions, once the truth triumphs over the radical environmentalist's lies.

If you ever get the opportunity to watch the documentary 'Pandora's Promise', do so!

 

[Covenanter]

You're a scientist. Do you agree that nuclear power is a 'green energy'? I think it's inevitable that nuclear power will ultimately be the answer to all these concerns about CO2 emissions, once the truth triumphs over the radical environmentalist's lies.

If you ever get the opportunity to watch the documentary 'Pandora's Promise', do so!

I agree that once a nuclear power station is running, the electrical energy is green. How much energy is used in building it, mining the fuel, disposing of the spent fuel - still highly radioactive?

Would the reactors be more efficient if they weren't designed to produce weapons grade biproducts? A major use is DU war heads in addition to stockpiled explosives.

Is the cooling water contaminated?

Do your sources, & mine, ask all the relevant questions?

 

[FollowTheWay]

You have an example? Just one example of this, please.

Hobby Lobby.