Jump to content


The Universe

And Other Stuff

  • Please log in to reply
1085 replies to this topic

Klaatu_Nicto #1041 Posted Dec 04 2018 - 08:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Six Strange Facts about our First Interstellar Guest, `Oumuamua
https://arxiv.org/ft.../1811.08832.pdf


California creepin’
A bubbling pool of mud is on the move, and no one knows why
https://www.national...ow-why-geology/


The US Military Is Genetically Engineering New Life Forms To Detect Enemy Subs
https://www.defenseo...0/?oref=d-river


2.4-million-year-old tools found in Algeria could upend human origin story
https://www.telegrap...d-human-origin/

 

 


Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling
https://www.investor...ing-media-bias/


A “Little Ice Age” Is Where We Are Heading, According To Multiple Scientists
https://www.collecti...top-scientists/


Scientists have new plan to fight global warming: Dimming the sun
https://www.rt.com/n...arming-dim-sun/




PugnaxAlbere #1042 Posted Dec 04 2018 - 15:24

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3440 battles
  • 55
  • [W-UN2] W-UN2
  • Member since:
    02-01-2015
You ever figure out your three body problem?

Klaatu_Nicto #1043 Posted Dec 04 2018 - 20:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Amazon is reportedly in talks to pay US$1bn to acquire the rights to the Chinese science fiction trilogy The Three-Body Problem and produce three seasons based on the books.
https://gbtimes.com/...oblem-for-us1bn

 

In 2016 it was announced that the film was indefinitely postponed due to the company's internal shuffling and the rumored "bad quality" of the film's first cut. The right's holder, YooZoo Pictures, has not been able to complete the film, nor has it sold the rights to a new company to complete the work.

 

 

The Expanse - How The Show Will Be Better On Amazon
https://screenrant.c...s-improvements/

 

 

 



PugnaxAlbere #1044 Posted Dec 07 2018 - 16:55

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3440 battles
  • 55
  • [W-UN2] W-UN2
  • Member since:
    02-01-2015
Huh? A scifi movie show us scifi in real life? How about you answer the question?

Klaatu_Nicto #1045 Posted Dec 07 2018 - 21:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostESQD_Pugnax, on Dec 07 2018 - 07:55, said:

Huh? A scifi movie show us scifi in real life? How about you answer the question?

 

I don't understand the question?

Klaatu_Nicto #1046 Posted Dec 08 2018 - 21:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Killer robot BOMBSHELL: New models go 'off the rails in deadly malfunction errors'
https://www.dailysta...ligence-weapons



 



Allegra #1047 Posted Dec 09 2018 - 19:28

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8142 battles
  • 628
  • [W-S] W-S
  • Member since:
    12-17-2010

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Oct 28 2018 - 14:35, said:

 

So... until your "sky is falling" predictions come true we will just continue to enjoy our moderate winters and summers I guess.

 

.

 

 

Well George

 

Firstly, it is not 'my predictions', so there's that.

 

Secondly, I have to say that as a former pilot and all, I'm surprised that you have taken this stance here and on the link:

http://forum.worldof...2#entry11515472

 

After all, the aviation industry is quite concerned about Climate Change. :confused:

 

Cheers

 


Edited by Allegra, Dec 09 2018 - 19:30.


Klaatu_Nicto #1048 Posted Dec 09 2018 - 23:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

There will come a day within the next decade or two when everyone will know the truth about climate change and how corrupted climate science has become.

 

Former U.N. IPCC lead author speaks out.


One thousand years ago was the period called the Medieval Solar Maximum, when average global temperature was as high or higher than today, but then earth began cooling. Some claim that cooling began due to volcanic activity, some claim it was due to a grand solar minimum and others claim both were to blame. What is not in dispute is what is called the Little Ice Age began. What is also not in dispute is the Little Age got worse in the 1600s due to a grand solar minimum and that period is called the Maunder Minimum.

 

In the 1800s the earth began to warm and continued to do so until the 1940s when three decades of global cooling began despite the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Those three decades of cooling erased the warming of the preceding one hundred years. In the 1970s the Modern Solar Maximum began and by the 1980s warming had resumed. The 1980s and 90s saw the highest solar activity in several thousand years.  

 

Greater-than-expected solar activity heated the outer layers of Earth's atmosphere and increased drag on Skylab. By late 1977, NORAD also forecast a reentry in mid-1979; a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist criticized NASA for using an inaccurate model for the second most-intense sunspot cycle in a century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab

 

In the early 2000s solar activity began to decrease rabidly and has continued to do so. It was also in the early 2000s when the global warming pause began. The solar activity we are seeing today is exactly like the solar activity seen at the beginning of the Maunder Minimum. The abnormal weather we have been seeing the past few years is exactly like the abnormal weather they saw at the beginning of the Little Ice Age.    

 

While the headlines are all about record warm temperatures and heat waves little, if any press, is given to the record cold temperatures and massive crop losses due to cold. The press makes a big deal if a record high is set by one degrees but ingnores records set that are 10+ degrees below the old record. Over the past several years there has actually been more record lows set than record highs set.   

 

You can believe the real world data and real science or you can believe the computer models which don't explain past climate and whose predictions for the future have failed. If you choose the latter than you are an example of what Jonathan Gruber said about how, more or less, they can lie because the America public is "stupid." (He's only talking about the left side of the American public). Gruber was not talking about climate change but it still applies on this issue. If you don't know who Johnathan Gruber is copy and paste his name in the youtube search bar.

https://www.youtube.com

 

 

Some real science:


SABER monitors infrared emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air 100 to 300 kilometers above our planet’s surface. By measuring the infrared glow of these molecules, SABER can assess the thermal state of gas at the very top of the atmosphere–a layer researchers call “the thermosphere.” As 2018 comes to an end, the Thermosphere Climate Index is on the verge of setting a Space Age record for Cold. “We’re not there quite yet,” says Mlynczak [of NASA’s Langley Research Center], “but it could happen in a matter of months.”
https://spaceweather...-solar-minimum/


From this linear regression we estimate a range in UV flux of 9.3% over solar cycle 22 and a reduction of 6.9% below solar cycle minimum under a grand minimum. The 95% confidence interval in this grand-minimum estimate is 5.5%–8.4%.
http://iopscience.io...213/aaa124/meta


On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles
http://computing.unn...tal_jastp17.pdf


The Solar Wind and Climate: Evaluating the Influence of the Solar Wind on Temperature and Teleconnection PatternsUsing Correlation Maps: The influence of the solar wind on climate should be considered much stronger than conventionally believed. Once its mechanism is elucidated and incorporated in to climate models, it will greatly contribute to policy development. In other words, the effectiveness of climate models is greatly reduced when the influence of the sun (and moon) is not adequately represented.
https://arxiv.org/ft.../1807.03976.pdf


 


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, Dec 09 2018 - 23:12.


Allegra #1049 Posted Dec 10 2018 - 06:33

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8142 battles
  • 628
  • [W-S] W-S
  • Member since:
    12-17-2010

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on Dec 09 2018 - 17:10, said:

There will come a day within the next decade or two when everyone will know the truth about climate change and how corrupted climate science has become.

 

Former U.N. IPCC lead author speaks out.

 

<Snip>

 

Would this be the same Richard Lindzen who wrote a letter to the US President in 2017 urging the US to pull out of the UN's climate change because global climate action was 'not scientifically justified'?

 

Would this also be the same Richard Lindzen whose former colleagues wrote an open letter stating: 'As [his] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science'?

 

Would this be the same Richard Lindzen who spoke at the Campaign To Repeal the Climate Change Act in in 2012 and a team of climate physicists: Professor Brian Hoskins at Imperial College; Professor John Mitchell of the University of Reading and the UK Met Office; Professor Keith Shine University of Reading; Professor  Tim Palmer, University of Oxford; and Professor Eric Wolf British Antarctic Survey Science Leader collaborated and stated:

'A pervasive aspect of [his] presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe [he] does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century'?

 

Would this be the same Richard Lindzen who even talked about how weakly lung cancer was linked to cigarette smoking?

 

Would this be the same Richard Lindzen who has charged oil and coal lobbyists $2,500 a day for his consulting services; whose trip in 1991 to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC?

 

'Cause if it is the same Richard Lindzen in all cases, I tend to think you need a new argument.

 

Oh, and a few links:
http://www.realclima...n-from-lindzen/
https://skepticalsci...ard_Lindzen.htm
https://skepticalsci...puff-piece.html

 

Edit: Oops, forgot Gruber. I have no idea what the relevance he is to the climate change discussion, so .....

 

Cheers


Edited by Allegra, Dec 10 2018 - 06:55.


Klaatu_Nicto #1050 Posted Dec 10 2018 - 08:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostAllegra, on Dec 09 2018 - 21:33, said:

 

Would this be the same Richard Lindzen who wrote a letter to the US President in 2017 urging the US to pull out of the UN's climate change because global climate action was 'not scientifically justified'?

 

 

Would this also be the same Richard Lindzen whose former colleagues wrote an open letter stating: 'As [his] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science'?

 

Would this be the same Richard Lindzen who spoke at the Campaign To Repeal the Climate Change Act in in 2012 and a team of climate physicists: Professor Brian Hoskins at Imperial College; Professor John Mitchell of the University of Reading and the UK Met Office; Professor Keith Shine University of Reading; Professor  Tim Palmer, University of Oxford; and Professor Eric Wolf British Antarctic Survey Science Leader collaborated and stated:

'A pervasive aspect of [his] presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe [he] does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century'?

 

Would this be the same Richard Lindzen who even talked about how weakly lung cancer was linked to cigarette smoking?

 

Would this be the same Richard Lindzen who has charged oil and coal lobbyists $2,500 a day for his consulting services; whose trip in 1991 to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC?

 

'Cause if it is the same Richard Lindzen in all cases, I tend to think you need a new argument.

 

Oh, and a few links:
http://www.realclima...n-from-lindzen/
https://skepticalsci...ard_Lindzen.htm
https://skepticalsci...puff-piece.html

 

Edit: Oops, forgot Gruber. I have no idea what the relevance he is to the climate change discussion, so .....

 

Cheers

 

That's the same Richard Lindzen who was one of 16 members of the team authoring the National Academy of Sciences 1975 publication Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action.


That's the same Richard who was contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment.


That's the same Richard Lindzen who was the lead author of Chapter 7, Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks, of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Third Assessment Report on climate change.


That's the same Richard Lindzen who was Professor Emeritus of Meteorology at MIT until he retired.


Lindzen has never denied warming has been taking place or claimed that CO2 is not causing some warming. One of his complaints about current climate science, and the complaint from many other scientists, is the global warming theory and climate models don't take into account, because nobody knows for certain, the effect solar activity and natural ocean cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation have on climate change.


That's the same Richard Lindzen who once stated "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good".... "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."

 

That's the same Richard Lindzen who was invited to speak at MIT's Centenary Celebration of Jule Charney and Ed Lorenz held in February 2018. 

 

 

Lindzen is undercharging. Al Gore charges $100,000+ for a 75 minute lecture on climate change.


Folks like you always engage in fallacious ad hominem arguments which always includes oil company money when the issue is climate change. The fact is the amount of money oil companies have paid researchers disputing the human caused climate change theory, or paid individuals who dispute to right papers or make speeches, is minuscule compared to the amount of money paid by rich individuals, NGOs, environmental organizations and governments to scientists or others who support the human caused climate change theory.


You "have no idea what the relevance is to" the climate change issue and Gruber's comments?   Thank you.:great:


It is important to remember there is no empirical evidence to support the theory that CO2 caused the warming that began after the Little Ice Age ended in the 1800s.

 


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, Dec 10 2018 - 09:15.


Allegra #1051 Posted Dec 10 2018 - 11:15

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8142 battles
  • 628
  • [W-S] W-S
  • Member since:
    12-17-2010

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on Dec 10 2018 - 02:23, said:

 

<Snip>


Folks like you always engage in fallacious ad hominem arguments which always includes oil company money when the issue is climate change. The fact is the amount of money oil companies have paid researchers disputing the human caused climate change theory, or paid individuals who dispute to right papers or make speeches, is minuscule compared to the amount of money paid by rich individuals, NGOs, environmental organizations and governments to scientists or others who support the human caused climate change theory.

You "have no idea what the relevance is to" the climate change issue and Gruber's comments?   Thank you.:great:


<Snip>

 

Friend, I like this part: Folks like you always engage in fallacious ad hominem arguments which always includes oil company money when the issue is climate change.

 

Yep – mainly because it’s a fact.

 

And this section: The fact is the amount of money oil companies have paid researchers disputing the human caused climate change theory, or paid individuals who dispute to right papers or make speeches, is minuscule compared to the amount of money paid by rich individuals, NGOs, environmental organizations and governments to scientists or others who support the human caused climate change theory.

 

Yep I agree with this as well.

 

After all, 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a very real concern and they are attempting to provide suggestions on how to overcome it – but we’ve been down this road before haven’t we, friend? I’ll even include one of the same links I did before:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

But unfortunately I do have to say that things are changing in the US and from my perspective, not for the best.

 

  1. A Gallup Poll in March of this year showed that over 50% of Americans do not believe in global warming:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top-stories

  1. The EPA - admittedly now led by a former coal lobbyist - announced more rollbacks regulations on coal-fired power plants.

 

Ya know, you do really have to think about the second point, because the EPA and 12 other Federal Agencies recently put out a report indicating the need to reduce emissions from fossil fuels because of the significant threat of climate change. (:amazed:) However, now the EPA is reducing the restrictions on how much carbon dioxide new coal power plants can emit – a rule that was established in 2015 and stated coal plants couldn’t emit more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour.

 

I’ll be honest - both of these points worry me immensely.

 

In the case of refuting secondhand tobacco smoke....really? In this day and age Lindzen is arguing that the case for secondhand tobacco smoking is not very good? Really?

 

Concerning Lindzen and his talk to MIT.... yep…invited because he knew both scientists and he talked about atmospheric dynamics, not climate change - as an emeritus professor. I mean why wouldn’t he be invited? Because his former colleagues at MIT wrote the open letter as outlined in my previous post? Hmm.

 

As for Gruber’s comments, enlighten me.

 

Just as a matter of interest, why is that the people you trot out continually to prove your belief, seem to be supported by oil and coal companies? It wouldn’t have anything to do with those companies having vested interests, would it? :confused:

 

Cheers



GeorgePreddy #1052 Posted Dec 10 2018 - 14:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 11,220
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostAllegra, on Dec 09 2018 - 15:28, said:

 

 

Well George

 

Firstly, it is not 'my predictions', so there's that.  They're predictions that you seem to express an agreement with, so there's that.

 

Secondly, I have to say that as a former pilot... I am not a "former" pilot, my License has simply been downgraded from "Airline Transport Pilot" to "Commercial Pilot" due to my age being over 65, as per FAA and ICAO regulations. I am very much still a pilot, and could legally still fly for pay in operations that are NOT Airline Transport type (like business planes or smaller aircraft charter ops), but I am retired from professional flying by choice. There is an "old saw" in the Airline Biz... "Once a Captain, always a Captain".

 

I'm surprised that you have taken this stance here and on the link:

http://forum.worldof...#entry11515472  Thank you for posting this link for everyone to get another chance to read it. It's very informative.

 

After all, the aviation industry is quite concerned about Climate Change.  I'm pretty, pretty, pretty sure I know volumes more about aviation than the average non-pilot. The "industry" is concerned about being taxed for their carbon emissions, because of that, they would be thrilled if the general public understood that global warming is a grant money scam.

 

"Climate change" is part of our world and has been with our world from day one, the "global warming" scare is a specific type of claimed climate change which is very debatable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Klaatu_Nicto #1053 Posted Dec 10 2018 - 21:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012
B94x0MJ.png

Klaatu_Nicto #1054 Posted Dec 10 2018 - 22:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

In the last decade or two an agency of the U.S. government issued a report on second hand smoke. In that report is was stated, and the headlines read, 19% increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to second hand smoke. Here is how they came up with that number.

 

They wanted to release a report showing exposure to second hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer. What they did is called a meta-analysis which entailed gathering from around the world thirty-six studies and research done on exposure to second hand smoke. After they compiled all the numbers from the thirty-six studies they found no increase in risk so they threw out a some of the studies and tried again and again they found no increase in risk. By they time they got the numbers they wanted they were using only nine studies and had increased the error factor to 50% which gave them a range of numbers of -.83 to +.19.

 

If this was an honest analysis they would have gone with a number in the middle but instead choose to go with +.19 and announced a 19% increased risk. A dishonest analysis using those same numbers could have gone with -.83 and announced a 17% less risk.


97% of scientists say the earth has been warming but 97% are not saying it was all caused by human activity.

 

Much of what Lindzen says and believes is based on what is found in high school and college text books. Did the fossil fuel industry pay for those text books? Reports that what scientists like Lindzen are saying is solely because of fossil fuel money is more fake news.

 

 

If you want to believe what people like Al Gore, who received $500 million in fossil fuel money when he sold his TV network, the Science Guy or Michael Mann who has been caught committing scientific fraud that's your choice.

 

 

The overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.

 

Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.
https://www.national...ey-henry-payne/

 

Here is a result of that big money given to advance a public policy outcome - the Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph.

 


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, Dec 10 2018 - 22:46.


Klaatu_Nicto #1055 Posted Dec 11 2018 - 02:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Richard Lindzen comments on the fossil fuel industry - "The current issue of global warming/climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special interests that opportunistically have strong interests in believing in the claims of catastrophe despite the lack of evidence....even the fossil fuel industry is generally willing to go along.....As long as fossil fuel companies have a level playing field, and can pass expenses to the consumers, they're satisfied. Given the nature of corporate overhead, the latter can even form a profit center." 

 

You can find the above quote at 00:12:30 in the following video.


The Language of Alarm and the Irrelevance of Science. May 18, 2015, University of Oslo, Norway.



Allegra #1056 Posted Dec 11 2018 - 04:01

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8142 battles
  • 628
  • [W-S] W-S
  • Member since:
    12-17-2010

George

 

You’re a remarkable person – seriously. For someone who is as fastidious with the English language as your good self, I would have thought your need to be precise, would be mandatory and yet you initially posted (#1047): ‘So… until your “sky is falling” predictions’ and then when your error was highlighted, you post: ‘They’re predictions that you seem to express an agreement with’?

 

<Shakes head>

 

Of course I agree with them, otherwise I wouldn’t have used them. Now why would I possibly have more faith in either Llyods of London or NASA against your ‘feelz’? Hmm?

 

As an apparent former pilot, I like the ‘old saw’ you have given. A form of deference is certainly one that’s important, providing a person has earned it.

 

The link - and I again post it just for you: http://forum.worldof...2#entry11515472 - was done to show that anyone can indeed make pronouncements and claim what they are saying is factual :sceptic: – but really friend, did Coleman publish a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science? (Oh, BTW, that’s a rhetorical question in case you go madly scrambling in an attempt to find out the answer)

 

As for the statement: ‘I'm pretty, pretty, pretty sure I know volumes more about aviation than the average non-pilot’, I believe that you do George – and I sincerely mean that. As you’ve pointed out, the aviation industry would indeed be ecstatic about the carbon emissions, but they would also be happy with numerous other issues that cut into their profits – none of which are going away – at least in the foreseeable future.

 

And finally your statement: “Clmate change” is a part of our world and has been with our world from day one, the ‘global warming” scare is a specific type of claimed climate change which is very debatable.

 

Well George, apart from the typo, the repetition and the fact that something is either debatable or not, not very debatable – it doesn’t add anything to the sentence (man, did you actually do any proofing here?) I get the gist of your sentiment though it’s very poorly expressed.

 

To be honest, I think I’d rather listen to the 97% of actively publishing climate scientists who believe that climate change is a concern – more-so than 3% who either don’t publish peer-reviewed documents; who make fundamental flaws in their arguments or are apparently simply lobbyists for the coal and oil industries.

 

But keep on plugging friend, I’m sure the guys ‘down the boteco’ will eat it up.

 

NOTE: Just for future reference George - though I'm sure you're aware of it - people can't use the forum quote feature properly, if you simply paste your responses as done above. :)

 

Edit: Nice save George, you amended your spelling..but after I took the screen shot.

 

Cheers


Edited by Allegra, Dec 11 2018 - 07:25.


Klaatu_Nicto #1057 Posted Dec 11 2018 - 06:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Climate Alarmism - Question and answer with Richard Lindzen.




Allegra #1058 Posted Dec 11 2018 - 11:58

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8142 battles
  • 628
  • [W-S] W-S
  • Member since:
    12-17-2010

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on Dec 10 2018 - 16:19, said:

In the last decade or two an agency of the U.S. government issued a report on second hand smoke. In that report is was stated, and the headlines read, 19% increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to second hand smoke. Here is how they came up with that number.

 

They wanted to release a report showing exposure to second hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer. What they did is called a meta-analysis which entailed gathering from around the world thirty-six studies and research done on exposure to second hand smoke. After they compiled all the numbers from the thirty-six studies they found no increase in risk so they threw out a some of the studies and tried again and again they found no increase in risk. By they time they got the numbers they wanted they were using only nine studies and had increased the error factor to 50% which gave them a range of numbers of -.83 to +.19.

 

<Snip - ya kinda get the gist of the conversation>

 

OK friend – I’ll play, at least for a little longer, though I’m not entirely sure why.

 

Re: Issues from Second Hand Smoke

From the WHO:

World stats:

http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/shs_mbd/GHO_phe_shs_mbd.html

 

Breakdown by regions:

https://www.who.int/gho/phe/secondhand_smoke/burden/en/    

 

From the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

 

UK Stats:

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/tobacco#heading-Seven

 

Australian Stats:

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-4-secondhand/4-7-estimates-of-morbidity-and-mortality

 

TBH – it's not even worth doing anymore – they all say the same thing.

 

Re: Lindzen, Mullis, Coleman, Lawson, Corbyn and the other 2 or 3 people you continually tout and the graphs you show

I think we’ve been through this at least a couple of times.

 

I don’t mind having a debate, but come on friend, you’ve used this video:

 

twice on this page alone.

 

You’ve used this video:

three times in the last three pages.

 

You’ve used this video:

twice in three pages.

 

And so it goes on.

 

Conclusion

Do you have any other notable scientists you can put forward to discuss – perhaps ones that don’t believe that they were talked to by glowing raccoons who subsequently kidnapped them; ones that don't indicate that HIV is not associated with AIDS; ones that don’t believe that second hand smoke is only weakly linked to health issues; ones that actually have qualifications in climate and/or environmental sciences; and even perhaps… ones that don’t receive funding from oil and coal companies… though this one may be a bit of a stretch, I know; etc?

 

Do you have any other videos that you are able show?

 

Do you have any ground breaking news in the world of climate change deniers that you would be willing to share with us?

 

If not, I’ll gracefully bow out of your debate until you do, ‘cause friend, it’s getting kinda' repetitious.

 

Cheers

 

Edit: Seems I can't actually edit properly...

 


Edited by Allegra, Dec 11 2018 - 12:01.


Klaatu_Nicto #1059 Posted Dec 11 2018 - 19:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

If the use of fossil fuels was completely eliminated the amount of C02 entering earth's atmosphere would drop my 0.2%.

 

Using NOAA's data Tony Heller shows the fraud committed in the 2018 National Climate Assessment. Even when the report speaks the truth such as "Over time scales shorter than a decade the 1930s Dust Bowl remains the peak period for extreme heat in the United States" it's still misleading.

 

 

 

 

Piers Corbyn - "IF another famous naturalist - David Bellamy - had not been sacked by the BBC and removed from all other posts of import when he pointed out the Man-Made climate Change story is a hoax; THEN SIR David Attenborough would not be now spouting lies from the UN in the interests of WallStreet super corporations and BigOil who have doubled profits and received Mega handouts through Climate-Change policy energy price hikes and absurd mega 'Climate' projects. FOLLOW THE MONEY."
http://weatheraction.com/

 

 

 

 

Josh Sigurdson talks with Dr. Tim Ball, PhD about the vast propaganda forced on the public via the media and the government regarding climate change

 



Klaatu_Nicto #1060 Posted Dec 11 2018 - 20:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,599
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.


Professor Ivar Giaever at the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates.

 

Dr. Roy Spencer interviewed by Chris Smith of radio station 2GB Sydney on Friday 29 , 2017.

 

Climate Scientist Dr Roy Spencer tells us why our CO2 emissions are not a big problem, and why there is a bias among the legions of self-styled "Climate Scientists" most of whom are in fact computer modelers, most of whom do not have training in any science subject.

 

 

 

Don't be worried about C02. Instead be worried about this:

 

The Air War On The Earth’s Climate

Since the 1990s, the spraying of chemicals into the Earth’s atmosphere has been shrouded in suspicion....Some of these streaks in the sky are solar radiation management (SRM) chemicals released by government warplanes. According to the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) these chemicals are necessary to mitigate global warming because they reflect solar radiation back into space. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report “warns” governments not to stop spraying these chemicals.
http://www.nationmul...on/aec/30276627

 

There are major problems with most geo-engineering proposals. Any aluminum spray will poison crops and cause brain damage. All stratospheric blocking measures will affect crop photosynthesis

 

 

uS444sG.jpg

 

 

31nhPOK.png

 

 

XSZzECG.gif

 







Also tagged with And Other Stuff

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users