The IPPC climate report and what I personally think of it!

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The IPPC climate report and what I personally think of it!

Page 1 of 3

The IPPC climate report and what I personally think of it!06-11-2018 16:46
YoucefZX☆☆☆☆☆ (14)	I've written an article about the IPPC climate report and their final call to "save" the world from a climate catastrophe! This article is in my opinion very interesting because in it I show that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Thus solar activity rather than the CO2 myth. You can also read what my opninion is about the reports of the sun being whiter and more intense. Full article at: https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html Hope you enjoy it!
06-11-2018 17:07
noutopia ☆☆☆☆☆ (17)	Sun in a quiet period, solar minimum = climate getting colder? climate change, Earth getting warmer = more CO2.
06-11-2018 17:38
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article.... In that article you include: "The above is only my opinion and I have no scientific data to back this claim" and similar disclaimers more than once. You did not convince me. The organization called the Heartland Institute has funded an effort to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, an actual effort by actual qualified scientists that in the end didn't cast doubt. Show them your notion, maybe get funded to collect data to suppoer your position. Then there are statements in your linked article like : "Free energy exists but free energy inventors are either silenced or killed until the last drop of oil is extracted out of the ground so this is not an option." Tinfoil hat stuff.
06-11-2018 22:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	still learning wrote: The organization called the Heartland Institute has funded an effort to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, There is no such thing as 'mainstream' science. There is no such thing as 'climate science'. The Heartland Institute happens to be right about casting such doubts. still learning wrote: an actual effort by actual qualified scientists that in the end didn't cast doubt. A climate scientist does not use or create any theory of science. They deny science and mathematics. Science isn't credentials. It isn't a 'qualification'. There is no license or certificate required. Science isn't even people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Your 'greenhouse gas' model denies several theories of science. I have already described them and why. still learning wrote: Show them your notion, maybe get funded to collect data to suppoer your position. Science isn't 'funding'. It isn't data. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not possible to support either of your positions. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Science also does not use supporting evidence. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 06-11-2018 22:30
07-11-2018 17:34
YoucefZX☆☆☆☆☆ (14)	still learning wrote: YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article.... In that article you include: "The above is only my opinion and I have no scientific data to back this claim" and similar disclaimers more than once. You did not convince me. The organization called the Heartland Institute has funded an effort to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, an actual effort by actual qualified scientists that in the end didn't cast doubt. Show them your notion, maybe get funded to collect data to suppoer your position. Then there are statements in your linked article like : "Free energy exists but free energy inventors are either silenced or killed until the last drop of oil is extracted out of the ground so this is not an option." Tinfoil hat stuff. Feel free to disagree with my opninion, I have to right to think and thus make assumptions based on what I believe is right. I will only say that I'm not the only one out there believing that C02 is not the cause for global warming. There is a saying that says when all possibilities have been exhausted the most simpel answer is the right one. To me it is more than obvious that our sun determines our climate... But like I said everyone is free to believe what he or she wants to believe.

09-11-2018 19:39
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	YoucefZX wrote: still learning wrote: YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article.... In that article you include: "The above is only my opinion and I have no scientific data to back this claim" and similar disclaimers more than once. You did not convince me. The organization called the Heartland Institute has funded an effort to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, an actual effort by actual qualified scientists that in the end didn't cast doubt. Show them your notion, maybe get funded to collect data to suppoer your position. Then there are statements in your linked article like : "Free energy exists but free energy inventors are either silenced or killed until the last drop of oil is extracted out of the ground so this is not an option." Tinfoil hat stuff. Feel free to disagree with my opninion, I have to right to think and thus make assumptions based on what I believe is right. I will only say that I'm not the only one out there believing that C02 is not the cause for global warming. There is a saying that says when all possibilities have been exhausted the most simpel answer is the right one. To me it is more than obvious that our sun determines our climate... But like I said everyone is free to believe what he or she wants to believe. Let me repeat what I have said elsewhere - the IPCC is NOT a scientific body since that science was proven false long ago. The IPCC is a political body trying to gain political power through false threats that most uneducated people are willing to believe for God only knows what reasons. You yourself think that although you have no real training in science and hence cannot make any educated opinions you are willing to believe those who argue the best in your viewpoint and not those who are right.
09-11-2018 20:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: YoucefZX wrote: still learning wrote: YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article.... In that article you include: "The above is only my opinion and I have no scientific data to back this claim" and similar disclaimers more than once. You did not convince me. The organization called the Heartland Institute has funded an effort to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, an actual effort by actual qualified scientists that in the end didn't cast doubt. Show them your notion, maybe get funded to collect data to suppoer your position. Then there are statements in your linked article like : "Free energy exists but free energy inventors are either silenced or killed until the last drop of oil is extracted out of the ground so this is not an option." Tinfoil hat stuff. Feel free to disagree with my opninion, I have to right to think and thus make assumptions based on what I believe is right. I will only say that I'm not the only one out there believing that C02 is not the cause for global warming. There is a saying that says when all possibilities have been exhausted the most simpel answer is the right one. To me it is more than obvious that our sun determines our climate... But like I said everyone is free to believe what he or she wants to believe. Let me repeat what I have said elsewhere - the IPCC is NOT a scientific body since that science was proven false long ago. The IPCC is a political body trying to gain political power through false threats that most uneducated people are willing to believe for God only knows what reasons. You yourself think that although you have no real training in science and hence cannot make any educated opinions you are willing to believe those who argue the best in your viewpoint and not those who are right. What are you responding to, Wake? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-11-2018 17:44
YoucefZX☆☆☆☆☆ (14)	Wake wrote: YoucefZX wrote: still learning wrote: YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article.... In that article you include: "The above is only my opinion and I have no scientific data to back this claim" and similar disclaimers more than once. You did not convince me. The organization called the Heartland Institute has funded an effort to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, an actual effort by actual qualified scientists that in the end didn't cast doubt. Show them your notion, maybe get funded to collect data to suppoer your position. Then there are statements in your linked article like : "Free energy exists but free energy inventors are either silenced or killed until the last drop of oil is extracted out of the ground so this is not an option." Tinfoil hat stuff. Feel free to disagree with my opninion, I have to right to think and thus make assumptions based on what I believe is right. I will only say that I'm not the only one out there believing that C02 is not the cause for global warming. There is a saying that says when all possibilities have been exhausted the most simpel answer is the right one. To me it is more than obvious that our sun determines our climate... But like I said everyone is free to believe what he or she wants to believe. Let me repeat what I have said elsewhere - the IPCC is NOT a scientific body since that science was proven false long ago. The IPCC is a political body trying to gain political power through false threats that most uneducated people are willing to believe for God only knows what reasons. You yourself think that although you have no real training in science and hence cannot make any educated opinions you are willing to believe those who argue the best in your viewpoint and not those who are right. Have you even read my article? I do not endorse the viewpoint of the IPCC. Infact I thought I made it clear enough by saying clearly that the sun is responsible for climate change. As for being uneducated that's correct but that doesn't imply that I'm stupid does it... You need to respect other poeple's point of view regardless whether they have phd's or not.
04-12-2018 17:45
YoucefZX☆☆☆☆☆ (14)	The French protest about the rise in fuel taxes reflects perfectly what I said in my article. This is what the global warming madness has in store globally for humanity and it's nothing else than sheer madness! [url] https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html[/url]
04-12-2018 19:35
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	YoucefZX wrote: The French protest about the rise in fuel taxes reflects perfectly what I said in my article. This is what the global warming madness has in store globally for humanity and it's nothing else than sheer madness! [url] https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html[/url] Anymore most people know definitions but have trouble understanding simple statements that others make. An example of this is when the IPCC released it's 2013 climate report which stated that global warming had slowed or paused for the previous 15 years is to be ignored. This is because the IPCC stated that it was working on a new report making dire predictions. No one understands how that makes no sense. If things are going to get worse why put out a report saying things were improving? Not even the media can question the absurdity of showing one thing while saying something else that's just the opposite.
04-12-2018 22:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	YoucefZX wrote: The French protest about the rise in fuel taxes reflects perfectly what I said in my article. This is what the global warming madness has in store globally for humanity and it's nothing else than sheer madness! [url] https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html[/url] The French government decide to rescind these taxes temporarily due to the protests. They are going to wait until summer to impose them. Bad idea. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2018 23:02
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	YoucefZX wrote: Wake wrote: YoucefZX wrote: still learning wrote: YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article.... In that article you include: "The above is only my opinion and I have no scientific data to back this claim" and similar disclaimers more than once. You did not convince me. The organization called the Heartland Institute has funded an effort to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, an actual effort by actual qualified scientists that in the end didn't cast doubt. Show them your notion, maybe get funded to collect data to suppoer your position. Then there are statements in your linked article like : "Free energy exists but free energy inventors are either silenced or killed until the last drop of oil is extracted out of the ground so this is not an option." Tinfoil hat stuff. Feel free to disagree with my opninion, I have to right to think and thus make assumptions based on what I believe is right. I will only say that I'm not the only one out there believing that C02 is not the cause for global warming. There is a saying that says when all possibilities have been exhausted the most simpel answer is the right one. To me it is more than obvious that our sun determines our climate... But like I said everyone is free to believe what he or she wants to believe. Let me repeat what I have said elsewhere - the IPCC is NOT a scientific body since that science was proven false long ago. The IPCC is a political body trying to gain political power through false threats that most uneducated people are willing to believe for God only knows what reasons. You yourself think that although you have no real training in science and hence cannot make any educated opinions you are willing to believe those who argue the best in your viewpoint and not those who are right. Have you even read my article? I do not endorse the viewpoint of the IPCC. Infact I thought I made it clear enough by saying clearly that the sun is responsible for climate change. As for being uneducated that's correct but that doesn't imply that I'm stupid does it... You need to respect other poeple's point of view regardless whether they have phd's or not. I think you misunderstand me. I do not think you stupid. But being untrained you are stuck with taking the most convincing argument for what is happening. This is nothing peculiar with you. Most untrained people are that way. I just suggest that you remain skeptical and keep an open mind because I can be wrong as much as anyone else. Except Nightmare - he is always wrong. Imagine someone believing that sunlight being absorbed by a body doesn't cause heating?
05-12-2018 00:58
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article about the IPPC climate report and their final call to "save" the world from a climate catastrophe! This article is in my opinion very interesting because in it I show that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Thus solar activity rather than the CO2 myth. You can also read what my opninion is about the reports of the sun being whiter and more intense. Full article at: https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html Hope you enjoy it! I'll give you something specific to consider. The IPCC changed the way it collected data because their report in 2013 stated that there was little warming between 1998 - 2013. They didn't change any data before 1998. They should've amended all previous data. They didn't because then they'd be back to little change between 1998 - 2013. The only way temperatures can suddenly change is a geological event. What did coincide with warming having paused was the other 2013 report the IPCC put out. They said that stratospheric ozone depletion had almost stopped between once again 1998 - 2013. That could be a coincidence or ozone depletion was actually causing global warming. If so then melting glaciers might've created a feedback mechanism which the IPCC would claim as both AGW and greenhouse gases. Warming caused by ozone depletion is AGW and they'd say "see, we told you it was caused by man" even though they're actually talking about other causes. If I accepted both IPCC reports from 2013 then I'd say that ozone depletion is what's responsible for global warming/climate change. But the scientists with the IPCC need to protect their credibility. When it was realized that CFC's were depleting the ozone layer, scientists became Rock Stars in a way. Global warming helps some to maintain that status. Just look at who's in the news. It's a drug that's addictive.
20-12-2018 20:44
YoucefZX☆☆☆☆☆ (14)	James___ wrote: YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article about the IPPC climate report and their final call to "save" the world from a climate catastrophe! This article is in my opinion very interesting because in it I show that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Thus solar activity rather than the CO2 myth. You can also read what my opninion is about the reports of the sun being whiter and more intense. Full article at: https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html Hope you enjoy it! I'll give you something specific to consider. The IPCC changed the way it collected data because their report in 2013 stated that there was little warming between 1998 - 2013. They didn't change any data before 1998. They should've amended all previous data. They didn't because then they'd be back to little change between 1998 - 2013. The only way temperatures can suddenly change is a geological event. What did coincide with warming having paused was the other 2013 report the IPCC put out. They said that stratospheric ozone depletion had almost stopped between once again 1998 - 2013. That could be a coincidence or ozone depletion was actually causing global warming. If so then melting glaciers might've created a feedback mechanism which the IPCC would claim as both AGW and greenhouse gases. Warming caused by ozone depletion is AGW and they'd say "see, we told you it was caused by man" even though they're actually talking about other causes. If I accepted both IPCC reports from 2013 then I'd say that ozone depletion is what's responsible for global warming/climate change. But the scientists with the IPCC need to protect their credibility. When it was realized that CFC's were depleting the ozone layer, scientists became Rock Stars in a way. Global warming helps some to maintain that status. Just look at who's in the news. It's a drug that's addictive. Stratospheric ozone depletion I read a few articles about it, it all sounds very convincing but when I look at the recurring ozone hole in Antarctica I can't help but think ozone has nothing to do with climate change. The depletion in Antarctica is extreme yet it is the Arctic which is full of zone that is melting away... Can't be that simple, I truly believe either the sun or earth's weakening magnetic shield is at the core of climate change. All the other factors can not have a significant impact, except for volcanoes which can have an immediate cooling effect but even so the effects fade within a few years. What is happening to our planet is happening globbaly and it's a continious trend. For me the culprit is the sun, keep in mind that our planet is also connected magneticaly to the sun! Any change on the sun has an immediate impact on our planet. Stratospheric ozone depletion is caused by sudden stratospehric warmings and stratospheric break ups so in essence it is an effect not a cause.
20-12-2018 21:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	YoucefZX wrote: James___ wrote: YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article about the IPPC climate report and their final call to "save" the world from a climate catastrophe! This article is in my opinion very interesting because in it I show that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Thus solar activity rather than the CO2 myth. You can also read what my opninion is about the reports of the sun being whiter and more intense. Full article at: https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html Hope you enjoy it! I'll give you something specific to consider. The IPCC changed the way it collected data because their report in 2013 stated that there was little warming between 1998 - 2013. They didn't change any data before 1998. They should've amended all previous data. They didn't because then they'd be back to little change between 1998 - 2013. The only way temperatures can suddenly change is a geological event. What did coincide with warming having paused was the other 2013 report the IPCC put out. They said that stratospheric ozone depletion had almost stopped between once again 1998 - 2013. That could be a coincidence or ozone depletion was actually causing global warming. If so then melting glaciers might've created a feedback mechanism which the IPCC would claim as both AGW and greenhouse gases. Warming caused by ozone depletion is AGW and they'd say "see, we told you it was caused by man" even though they're actually talking about other causes. If I accepted both IPCC reports from 2013 then I'd say that ozone depletion is what's responsible for global warming/climate change. But the scientists with the IPCC need to protect their credibility. When it was realized that CFC's were depleting the ozone layer, scientists became Rock Stars in a way. Global warming helps some to maintain that status. Just look at who's in the news. It's a drug that's addictive. Stratospheric ozone depletion I read a few articles about it, it all sounds very convincing but when I look at the recurring ozone hole in Antarctica I can't help but think ozone has nothing to do with climate change. You are correct here. Ozone has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth (this is what I assume you mean by 'climate change'). YoucefZX wrote: The depletion in Antarctica is extreme yet it is the Arctic which is full of ozone that is melting away. Both poles have holes during the winter of that pole. The ozone layer is not being depleted. YoucefZX wrote: .. Can't be that simple, I truly believe either the sun or earth's weakening magnetic shield is at the core of climate change. [/quote] The Sun's magnetic field is not significantly changing. The Earth's magnetic field is slowly weakening, but not significantly. Magnetic fields do not affect the temperature of Earth or the Sun. YoucefZX wrote: All the other factors can not have a significant impact, except for volcanoes which can have an immediate cooling effect but even so the effects fade within a few years. Correct. YoucefZX wrote: What is happening to our planet is happening globbaly By definition. YoucefZX wrote: and it's a continious trend. Oh? What is happening to our planet that you are concerned about? YoucefZX wrote: For me the culprit is the sun, keep in mind that our planet is also connected magneticaly to the sun! No, we are not 'connected' magnetically to any other body in space, including the Sun. YoucefZX wrote: Any change on the sun has an immediate impact on our planet. Stratospheric ozone depletion is caused by sudden stratospehric warmings and stratospheric break ups so in essence it is an effect not a cause. The stratosphere is not warming. It is cold at the tropopause because of the formation of ozone. It is warmer at the stratopause because of the breakdown of ozone (caused by UV light, not chemicals). See the Chapman cycle. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

22-12-2018 01:00
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	YoucefZX wrote: James___ wrote: YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article about the IPPC climate report and their final call to "save" the world from a climate catastrophe! This article is in my opinion very interesting because in it I show that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Thus solar activity rather than the CO2 myth. You can also read what my opninion is about the reports of the sun being whiter and more intense. Full article at: https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html Hope you enjoy it! I'll give you something specific to consider. The IPCC changed the way it collected data because their report in 2013 stated that there was little warming between 1998 - 2013. They didn't change any data before 1998. They should've amended all previous data. They didn't because then they'd be back to little change between 1998 - 2013. The only way temperatures can suddenly change is a geological event. What did coincide with warming having paused was the other 2013 report the IPCC put out. They said that stratospheric ozone depletion had almost stopped between once again 1998 - 2013. That could be a coincidence or ozone depletion was actually causing global warming. If so then melting glaciers might've created a feedback mechanism which the IPCC would claim as both AGW and greenhouse gases. Warming caused by ozone depletion is AGW and they'd say "see, we told you it was caused by man" even though they're actually talking about other causes. If I accepted both IPCC reports from 2013 then I'd say that ozone depletion is what's responsible for global warming/climate change. But the scientists with the IPCC need to protect their credibility. When it was realized that CFC's were depleting the ozone layer, scientists became Rock Stars in a way. Global warming helps some to maintain that status. Just look at who's in the news. It's a drug that's addictive. Stratospheric ozone depletion I read a few articles about it, it all sounds very convincing but when I look at the recurring ozone hole in Antarctica I can't help but think ozone has nothing to do with climate change. The depletion in Antarctica is extreme yet it is the Arctic which is full of zone that is melting away... Can't be that simple, I truly believe either the sun or earth's weakening magnetic shield is at the core of climate change. All the other factors can not have a significant impact, except for volcanoes which can have an immediate cooling effect but even so the effects fade within a few years. What is happening to our planet is happening globbaly and it's a continious trend. For me the culprit is the sun, keep in mind that our planet is also connected magneticaly to the sun! Any change on the sun has an immediate impact on our planet. Stratospheric ozone depletion is caused by sudden stratospehric warmings and stratospheric break ups so in essence it is an effect not a cause. Arguments are easy to create. Between 1943 and 1978 global temperatures held steady. Atmospheric nuclear testing happened during those years. In 1978 the Greenland Sea abyss started warming in a way that matches global warming. Many scientists are starting to consider hydrothermal vents and deep faults as sources of heat. itn is also a source of hot air. With air, it's density is 1/1000th that of water. If the air temperature is 45 degrees F. and there's a 10 mph wind, it feels like 39.8 degrees F. If water follows the same rule as air does, then if water moves at 0.01 mph faster it's chill effect would be the same as air moving at 10 mph. Ice core researchers have backed away from saying that CO2 caused the end of the last Ice Age. That had been the argument for CO2 based global warming. And if you look from France up into the Arctic above Scandinavia and Russia, you'll find it's warming and the Gulf Stream is slowing. It's possible that the entire thermohaline circulation is slowing. If so, then Tectonic Plate rebound and heat from within the Earth itself might be upsetting the Thermohaline Circulation on a global scale. And if it's slowing then it could be dumping heat into the atmosphere. If this is the case then we need to understand how glaciers play a role in this and if anything we are doing is influencing their melting. It's just that if we don't understand natural climate change then we can't know if we are influencing it. edited to add; They say that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. If so then what's causing climate change should be most obvious there. And with the Greenland Sea abyss, it's warming is 10 times that of any other body of water. I'm not sure why but scientists have wanted to follow heat to it's source. I can only think that's frowned upon because it might not give them the answer that they want. Their graph matches global warming while CO2 doesn't. This is where you could consider if heat being released from the Earth's core can slow the Gulf Stream/thermohaline circulation. I don't think they've thought of that yet. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm Edited on 22-12-2018 01:12
22-12-2018 02:00
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I think they demonstrated pretty well, that they can fit any historic data that can be dug up, to fit the warming/CO2 curve. An accurate measurement of global temperature, and CO2, was never possible, still isn't, just an approximation, based on how you manipulate the numbers. CO2 is being used as a money/power grab, political. There is no actual connection, no man-made warming, just nature doing it's thing. They wouldn't have needed such a long, confusing, circumstantial case, to illustrate something presented as simple. I've been a skeptic of it for most of it, just had a wrong feeling, didn't add up. They are too dismissive of alternative observation, use old research, but only parts that suit, and only tell the parts they can use, omitting any parts that don't fit the storyline. Half the truth, is still a lie, and if they are a little deceptive, the who concept is a fraud. They've been caught using false data, leaked E-mails, detail how numbers can be fixed, to fit the graph, when they don't curve the right direction. A lot of questionable practices, that you can argue endlessly, or just give in and agree on faith. The glaciers have been melting for a long time, many are already gone. Relics from much colder times. There were many glaciers disappearing, before we started burning coal and oil, in large quantities. Not sure why it's surprising, that they still melt. I'm more surprised, that some still remain. We really don't know what is normal, it's our first warming from a major ice age. We have nothing to compare with, it's a big unknow. We do know that people can be made afraid of things they don't understand, and a few use this mechanism to rob, cheat, steal, and take control. Just no possible way, for 0.04% of the gasses and vapors that make up the atmosphere, can have such a huge effect. And what fills the space between all those molecules anyway, nothing, just emptiness? Or is there something more? Just because we can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We know the molecules aren't tightly packed, and move around freely quite a bit. There are fewer molecules at higher altitudes to measure, must be suspended by something.
22-12-2018 03:01
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: I think they demonstrated pretty well, that they can fit any historic data that can be dug up, to fit the warming/CO2 curve. An accurate measurement of global temperature, and CO2, was never possible, still isn't, just an approximation, based on how you manipulate the numbers. CO2 is being used as a money/power grab, political. There is no actual connection, no man-made warming, just nature doing it's thing. They wouldn't have needed such a long, confusing, circumstantial case, to illustrate something presented as simple. I've been a skeptic of it for most of it, just had a wrong feeling, didn't add up. They are too dismissive of alternative observation, use old research, but only parts that suit, and only tell the parts they can use, omitting any parts that don't fit the storyline. Half the truth, is still a lie, and if they are a little deceptive, the who concept is a fraud. They've been caught using false data, leaked E-mails, detail how numbers can be fixed, to fit the graph, when they don't curve the right direction. A lot of questionable practices, that you can argue endlessly, or just give in and agree on faith. The glaciers have been melting for a long time, many are already gone. Relics from much colder times. There were many glaciers disappearing, before we started burning coal and oil, in large quantities. Not sure why it's surprising, that they still melt. I'm more surprised, that some still remain. We really don't know what is normal, it's our first warming from a major ice age. We have nothing to compare with, it's a big unknow. We do know that people can be made afraid of things they don't understand, and a few use this mechanism to rob, cheat, steal, and take control. Just no possible way, for 0.04% of the gasses and vapors that make up the atmosphere, can have such a huge effect. And what fills the space between all those molecules anyway, nothing, just emptiness? Or is there something more? Just because we can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We know the molecules aren't tightly packed, and move around freely quite a bit. There are fewer molecules at higher altitudes to measure, must be suspended by something. Care to explain how a man and a woman having sex produced you? Can't happen. Maybe you can explain it to me? It's a simple explanation Harvey. Explain what allowed you to exist. If you can't then all you are is an idiot. After all, you do know that one lone cell can't produce a man, right? Right! I hope you realize that when I read your post I thought about the one where you said that you dropped out of high school and made it through life without opening a book. Nobody owes you an explanation. You have said that you are not capable of considering conservation of momentum and how that relates to heat content. You said yourself that you have no understanding of science. People only learn when they accept the simple, basic fact that there is something to be learned. I knew this as a teenager. I read Einstein's autobiography when I was 12 or 13. I've learned about science ever since then. If I have an opinion about something it's because it's based on years of learning. And even today I will say we don't know enough to be sure about climate change and what's causing it. Could CO2 be playing a role in it? It's possible that it is but I don't think that's what's causing it. Just not enough information to be sure at the moment. This is where research is supposed to fill in the blanks and I don't think that's happening. That's my beef with climate change, just not enough information to be sure about what's happening. Edited on 22-12-2018 03:40
22-12-2018 04:24
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Harvey, I am sorry but I have spent years learning. And when you continually say you don't understand, it's based on your not reading a book. @All, this is a medical problem that some people in this forum ridiculed me for. If it's not resolved soon then in the future I might not be able to eat food. This is something that has motivated me besides knowing a beautiful woman. She is and can be a distraction at times. That's in a good way. I've been posting this link on yahoo dot com asking people to contact this TV station. A doctor made a mistake and I am suffering because of it. The mistake could've been fixed without any doctor saying that a mistake had been made. That wasn't good enough for them. And maybe people who read my post might email news36@wtvq.com or give them a call to help me? Sometimes all that matters is getting things right. And if anyone is wondering,the imaging doesn't show how bad things are, they only show that there is a problem. https://photos.app.goo.gl/AqLMhBDi3Q3CrXEX8 Edited on 22-12-2018 04:26
22-12-2018 06:02
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	If anyone is wondering, if my colon ruptures it can be fatal because of the infection it would allow for.
22-12-2018 06:10
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Care to explain how a man and a woman having sex produced you? Can't happen. Maybe you can explain it to me? It's a simple explanation Harvey. Explain what allowed you to exist. If you can't then all you are is an idiot. After all, you do know that one lone cell can't produce a man, right? Right! I hope you realize that when I read your post I thought about the one where you said that you dropped out of high school and made it through life without opening a book. Nobody owes you an explanation. You have said that you are not capable of considering conservation of momentum and how that relates to heat content. You said yourself that you have no understanding of science. People only learn when they accept the simple, basic fact that there is something to be learned. Don't know what to do with this... Medication related? Harvey, I am sorry but I have spent years learning. And when you continually say you don't understand, it's based on your not reading a book. @All, this is a medical problem that some people in this forum ridiculed me for. If it's not resolved soon then in the future I might not be able to eat food. This is something that has motivated me besides knowing a beautiful woman. She is and can be a distraction at times. That's in a good way. I've been posting this link on yahoo dot com asking people to contact this TV station. A doctor made a mistake and I am suffering because of it. The mistake could've been fixed without any doctor saying that a mistake had been made. That wasn't good enough for them. And maybe people who read my post might email news36@wtvq.com or give them a call to help me? Sometimes all that matters is getting things right. And if anyone is wondering,the imaging doesn't show how bad things are, they only show that there is a problem. https://photos.app.goo.gl/AqLMhBDi3Q3CrXEX8 I don't know what condition you have, must be a bummer. At 55 years old, I had my first ever surgery, actually first major medical experience as well. My appendix ruptured, had to be removed, spent 7 days in the hospital, 6 weeks off work. No expert here, but got the impression that modern medicine, is still highly experimental, no guarantee that the treatment and medications will work exactly as expected, on every patient. Doctors are people too, a degree doesn't make them perfect, most work on more than one patient at a time, they aren't just focused on you, until you are 100% healed. They also have family, their own personal problems. They make surprisingly few mistakes, considering all they have to deal with. There are bad doctors, who should know they aren't helping, and doing more harm than good. Anyway, I'm no doctor, and very limited experience, but have done well enough taking care of my own medical needs without them. My test came back good for my age, over all, and no issue needing further attention, or medications. Many of my questions, aren't because I don't know the answer, they are intended to provoke thoughts. Usually, there is no real answer, just something to consider, an alternate path. Sometimes it's sarcastic, maybe a little too subtle at times. I do read, but have a lot of different interests and hobbies, maybe a short attention span, get side-tracked easy. Climatology isn't a high priority interest for me. CO2 warming just seemed weak, doesn't add up to a crisis to me. The more I read, the more it seems like they are working too hard, to make it more, than it really is, rather than finding something real to work with. Been going at it too long, to not have anything solid, just a lot of talk and computer models to stand on, which just leaves belief, and maybe.
22-12-2018 16:01
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: Many of my questions, aren't because I don't know the answer, they are intended to provoke thoughts. Usually, there is no real answer, just something to consider, an alternate path. Harvey, You come off as an idiot. You should go to your library and check out a book and read it. Your quote is sheer ignorance. There's no nice way to put it. If you read a book, who knows, maybe you might read another. There's David Baldacci, Dean Koontz, Marcia Muller. You might find it interesting following a train of thought. It could be a new experience for you. With my medical situation it's called malpractice. Most doctors know where internal organs go. I had one who didn't. DaVinci was a painter and knew where they went hundreds of years ago. And today you have no clue. As you said, knowing where internal organs go is highly experimental. Try reading a book. With you, I'd have to wonder if you think you could breath out in space. Do you think you can? We really don't need oxygen do we? How can we be sure? That's where you take things Harvey. There is no real answer.
22-12-2018 17:34
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Why aren't you getting it fix? And I'm the idiot... There a lot of doctors, if you have something wrong, that will kill you, get it done. All that other crap isn't going to matter much, if you're dead. I didn't worry about the bills for my surgery, because living is more important. Oh, not everybody's organs are in the right places, though they should have done imaging, before cutting. I had x-rays, ultrasound, and MRI... Stop pointing fingers, and being a victim, nobody cares about your life, except you.
22-12-2018 22:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: YoucefZX wrote: James___ wrote: YoucefZX wrote: I've written an article about the IPPC climate report and their final call to "save" the world from a climate catastrophe! This article is in my opinion very interesting because in it I show that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Thus solar activity rather than the CO2 myth. You can also read what my opninion is about the reports of the sun being whiter and more intense. Full article at: https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html Hope you enjoy it! I'll give you something specific to consider. The IPCC changed the way it collected data because their report in 2013 stated that there was little warming between 1998 - 2013. They didn't change any data before 1998. They should've amended all previous data. They didn't because then they'd be back to little change between 1998 - 2013. The only way temperatures can suddenly change is a geological event. What did coincide with warming having paused was the other 2013 report the IPCC put out. They said that stratospheric ozone depletion had almost stopped between once again 1998 - 2013. That could be a coincidence or ozone depletion was actually causing global warming. If so then melting glaciers might've created a feedback mechanism which the IPCC would claim as both AGW and greenhouse gases. Warming caused by ozone depletion is AGW and they'd say "see, we told you it was caused by man" even though they're actually talking about other causes. If I accepted both IPCC reports from 2013 then I'd say that ozone depletion is what's responsible for global warming/climate change. But the scientists with the IPCC need to protect their credibility. When it was realized that CFC's were depleting the ozone layer, scientists became Rock Stars in a way. Global warming helps some to maintain that status. Just look at who's in the news. It's a drug that's addictive. Stratospheric ozone depletion I read a few articles about it, it all sounds very convincing but when I look at the recurring ozone hole in Antarctica I can't help but think ozone has nothing to do with climate change. The depletion in Antarctica is extreme yet it is the Arctic which is full of zone that is melting away... Can't be that simple, I truly believe either the sun or earth's weakening magnetic shield is at the core of climate change. All the other factors can not have a significant impact, except for volcanoes which can have an immediate cooling effect but even so the effects fade within a few years. What is happening to our planet is happening globbaly and it's a continious trend. For me the culprit is the sun, keep in mind that our planet is also connected magneticaly to the sun! Any change on the sun has an immediate impact on our planet. Stratospheric ozone depletion is caused by sudden stratospehric warmings and stratospheric break ups so in essence it is an effect not a cause. Arguments are easy to create. Between 1943 and 1978 global temperatures held steady. Atmospheric nuclear testing happened during those years. In 1978 the Greenland Sea abyss started warming in a way that matches global warming. Many scientists are starting to consider hydrothermal vents and deep faults as sources of heat. itn is also a source of hot air. With air, it's density is 1/1000th that of water. If the air temperature is 45 degrees F. and there's a 10 mph wind, it feels like 39.8 degrees F. If water follows the same rule as air does, then if water moves at 0.01 mph faster it's chill effect would be the same as air moving at 10 mph. Ice core researchers have backed away from saying that CO2 caused the end of the last Ice Age. That had been the argument for CO2 based global warming. And if you look from France up into the Arctic above Scandinavia and Russia, you'll find it's warming and the Gulf Stream is slowing. It's possible that the entire thermohaline circulation is slowing. If so, then Tectonic Plate rebound and heat from within the Earth itself might be upsetting the Thermohaline Circulation on a global scale. And if it's slowing then it could be dumping heat into the atmosphere. If this is the case then we need to understand how glaciers play a role in this and if anything we are doing is influencing their melting. It's just that if we don't understand natural climate change then we can't know if we are influencing it. edited to add; They say that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. If so then what's causing climate change should be most obvious there. And with the Greenland Sea abyss, it's warming is 10 times that of any other body of water. I'm not sure why but scientists have wanted to follow heat to it's source. I can only think that's frowned upon because it might not give them the answer that they want. Their graph matches global warming while CO2 doesn't. This is where you could consider if heat being released from the Earth's core can slow the Gulf Stream/thermohaline circulation. I don't think they've thought of that yet. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm Nope. That current is driven by temperature differences in the ocean water and the wind, James. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-12-2018 22:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: I think they demonstrated pretty well, that they can fit any historic data that can be dug up, to fit the warming/CO2 curve. An accurate measurement of global temperature, and CO2, was never possible, still isn't, just an approximation, based on how you manipulate the numbers. CO2 is being used as a money/power grab, political. There is no actual connection, no man-made warming, just nature doing it's thing. They wouldn't have needed such a long, confusing, circumstantial case, to illustrate something presented as simple. I've been a skeptic of it for most of it, just had a wrong feeling, didn't add up. They are too dismissive of alternative observation, use old research, but only parts that suit, and only tell the parts they can use, omitting any parts that don't fit the storyline. Half the truth, is still a lie, and if they are a little deceptive, the who concept is a fraud. They've been caught using false data, leaked E-mails, detail how numbers can be fixed, to fit the graph, when they don't curve the right direction. A lot of questionable practices, that you can argue endlessly, or just give in and agree on faith. The glaciers have been melting for a long time, many are already gone. Relics from much colder times. There were many glaciers disappearing, before we started burning coal and oil, in large quantities. Not sure why it's surprising, that they still melt. I'm more surprised, that some still remain. We really don't know what is normal, it's our first warming from a major ice age. We have nothing to compare with, it's a big unknow. We do know that people can be made afraid of things they don't understand, and a few use this mechanism to rob, cheat, steal, and take control. Just no possible way, for 0.04% of the gasses and vapors that make up the atmosphere, can have such a huge effect. And what fills the space between all those molecules anyway, nothing, just emptiness? Or is there something more? Just because we can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We know the molecules aren't tightly packed, and move around freely quite a bit. There are fewer molecules at higher altitudes to measure, must be suspended by something. Matter is mostly empty space anyway, even in a solid steel anvil. What makes it impossible to pass your hand (which is mostly empty space) and the anvil (which is mostly empty space) is the electrostatic charges in both your hand and the anvil. For air, there are even fewer molecules per cubic foot. Yes...it is mostly empty space. There is nothing between the molecules. This was shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment. There used to be a theory of the so-called aether, a mystery substance that allowed light to create waves in, like water waves or sound waves. This experiment falsified that theory. There is nothing there. Nothing at all. Just empty space. Turns out light doesn't need anything to 'wave' in. It creates it's own wave out of it's own electrical and magnetic fields interacting with each other. That's why light is called 'electromagnetic' energy. Thus, light can travel through space and even between the space between any occasional molecule you find. Even the atom is mostly empty space between the particles that make them up. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-12-2018 22:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: Care to explain how a man and a woman having sex produced you? Can't happen. Maybe you can explain it to me? It's a simple explanation Harvey. Explain what allowed you to exist. If you can't then all you are is an idiot. After all, you do know that one lone cell can't produce a man, right? Right! An out to lunch response. He is not talking about his own existence at all, James. Try to stay on topic. James___ wrote: I knew this as a teenager. I read Einstein's autobiography when I was 12 or 13. I've learned about science ever since then. If I have an opinion about something it's because it's based on years of learning. And even today I will say we don't know enough to be sure about climate change and what's causing it. You never learned science. You deny it. You deny mathematics too. Define 'climate change'. Nothing causes meaningless buzzwords except religions like yours. James___ wrote: Could CO2 be playing a role in it? It's possible that it is but I don't think that's what's causing it. No. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has that capability. James___ wrote: Just not enough information to be sure at the moment. There is enough information. They are called the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. James___ wrote: This is where research is supposed to fill in the blanks and I don't think that's happening. The research has been done, James. James___ wrote: That's my beef with climate change, just not enough information to be sure about what's happening. There is plenty of information about CO2 and other so-called 'greenhouse' gases. You can't even DEFINE 'climate change'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-12-2018 22:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: Harvey, I am sorry but I have spent years learning. And when you continually say you don't understand, it's based on your not reading a book. He understands quite a bit more than you do, James, when it concerns the Church of Global Warming. James___ wrote: @All, this is a medical problem that some people in this forum ridiculed me for. If it's not resolved soon then in the future I might not be able to eat food. This is something that has motivated me besides knowing a beautiful woman. She is and can be a distraction at times. That's in a good way. No one is making fun of you for your medical problems (well, maybe Wake would). James___ wrote: I've been posting this link on yahoo dot com asking people to contact this TV station. A doctor made a mistake and I am suffering because of it. The mistake could've been fixed without any doctor saying that a mistake had been made. That wasn't good enough for them. And maybe people who read my post might email news36@wtvq.com or give them a call to help me? Sometimes all that matters is getting things right. And if anyone is wondering,the imaging doesn't show how bad things are, they only show that there is a problem. https://photos.app.goo.gl/AqLMhBDi3Q3CrXEX8 No, they show how bad things are, assuming these are reasonably current. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-12-2018 22:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Why aren't you getting it fix? And I'm the idiot... There a lot of doctors, if you have something wrong, that will kill you, get it done. All that other crap isn't going to matter much, if you're dead. I didn't worry about the bills for my surgery, because living is more important. Oh, not everybody's organs are in the right places, though they should have done imaging, before cutting. I had x-rays, ultrasound, and MRI... Stop pointing fingers, and being a victim, nobody cares about your life, except you. Exactly right. James needs surgery to fix this. The surgery that caused it is malpractice. That doctor can be sued to pay for the surgery to fix it plus any other damages caused by it. Without that surgery, he will die, probably within a few years at most. Yet he would rather be a victim, living in paranoia and with his bowel problems. I too have no understanding why he won't bother to go save his own life. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-12-2018 02:15
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Why aren't you getting it fix? And I'm the idiot... There a lot of doctors, if you have something wrong, that will kill you, get it done. All that other crap isn't going to matter much, if you're dead. I didn't worry about the bills for my surgery, because living is more important. Oh, not everybody's organs are in the right places, though they should have done imaging, before cutting. I had x-rays, ultrasound, and MRI... Stop pointing fingers, and being a victim, nobody cares about your life, except you. Exactly right. James needs surgery to fix this. The surgery that caused it is malpractice. That doctor can be sued to pay for the surgery to fix it plus any other damages caused by it. Without that surgery, he will die, probably within a few years at most. Yet he would rather be a victim, living in paranoia and with his bowel problems. I too have no understanding why he won't bother to go save his own life. He's waiting for a malpractice suit? They can take years, and even longer to get a check, lawyer gets a piece of the action as well. The question would be, whether the award or settlement, will be enough to cover the cost, after wait so long, assuming it's not late. Longer you wait, the more costly to correct, if even possible. I'd think getting it corrected now, would help in the malpractice claim, since he'd have complete documentation, expert witness, and the total cost. Might even get some additional, if it leaves him needing further care, or medications for life. My out of pocket was a little over $3,600. Not entirely sure, they split the bills up, but think the total was $78,000 the insurance picked up. If he knew right after his botch surgery, should have gotten corrected, same year, since he would have met his deductible for that year, pretty much all of it would have been covered. Can't take money with you, when you die, and you can always earn more. Life is a one time deal, it's not a video game. Me, I'm not worried about leaving much behind, people the inherit, usually just have fun with the money, then it's gone. Figured I worked for it, should be the one having fun with it.
23-12-2018 06:49
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: Why aren't you getting it fix? And I'm the idiot... There a lot of doctors, if you have something wrong, that will kill you, get it done. All that other crap isn't going to matter much, if you're dead. I didn't worry about the bills for my surgery, because living is more important. Oh, not everybody's organs are in the right places, though they should have done imaging, before cutting. I had x-rays, ultrasound, and MRI... Stop pointing fingers, and being a victim, nobody cares about your life, except you. Yep, you are the idiot. Why don't you ask the last surgeon who operated on me why he didn't fix it? I am doing what I can. What you don't understand is that doctors can choose to ignore this which they do. And what no attorney will do is ask a judge to find that doctors refuse to acknowledge my problem. I think it's obvious but in the US there's absolutely no oversight of the medical community. Even insurance companies and Medicaid just write blank checks. I had one person tell me that if the original surgeon wrote a letter saying it would be okay for their surgeon to fix it then he might. Doctors prefer to avoid malpractice suits. I post on Yahoo every day just about and post the link to the images and ask people to contact my local TV station. The mistake was made when I had surgery for cancer in 2009. My original surgeon refused to see me once he realized I had problems. If my situation ever sees the light of day he'll deserve jail time but since he's a doctor I doubt anything will happen to him. And with climate change, if deep ocean currents slow very little that could release heat content in the water. I don't think scientists have considered that. This is for the northern hemisphere. https://goo.gl/images/BLtbq6 edited to add: years ago scientists said that deep ocean currents warmed 10 years before the atmosphere would. I've tried finding those stories online but search engines give more common results. Attached image: Edited on 23-12-2018 07:21

23-12-2018 07:43
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	An ice core researcher said there were about 30 climate ripples during the last ice age. The link is to how the Gulf Stream might influence the weather. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/01/the-great-climate-flip-flop/308313/ A major university says that the water warmed before CO2 levels rose leading to the end of the last ice age. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927154905.htm Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun. There is however another, more dramatic climate variation: The abrupt climate shifts in the ice age. The climate, especially in the high northern latitudes has, so to say, gone into overdrive. We have counted up to 30 such sudden shifts in Greenland. These shifts cannot be explained by solar radiation. The shifts are much stronger in the north with a temperature change of 10-18 degrees; but in the south they are between 3-5 degrees. The changes are not simultaneous either: When it is cold in the north it is warmer in the south and when it is warmer in the north is colder in the south. Right now we believe that these "climate ripples", the bipolar swings, can be explained through an interaction between the atmosphere and ocean currents. More we do not know just now. The last cold ripple ended 11.711 years ago and as this ripple lies so close to the ice age's general end, the ice age never returned and there have not been any ripples since. Fortunately. Because it takes circa 10.000 years for an ice age to gradually come to an end; but for a climate ripple (for example, the end of the Younger Dryas) the change in weather took, 25 years later, just one year, temperature wise. We work in part with deciphering these climate ripples and especially with whether they could occur in our age, or if we can cause them with CO2 emissions. That would not be good. One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct. Finally a little philosophical question: If we could control the climate, how should it then be? As during the ice age, the Stone Age, the 1600s, the 1800s? wave Jørgen Peder Steffensen, PhD. Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/ Attached image: Edited on 23-12-2018 08:04
23-12-2018 17:04
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	@All, I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the links about 10 times. It is a lot of information to take in and consider. With Dr. Steffensen, when he mentions that "nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.", he might be referring to needing to mention CO2 to be politically correct. The end of the last ice age was supposed to be proof that CO2 causes global warming. Today scientists say a favourable position to the Sun. Isn't it interesting that about 2,500 B.C.E. it was warmer than it is now and that about 500 B.C.E. it was colder than during the Little Ice Age?
23-12-2018 17:05
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I don't believe we can influence the climate, or the weather, we don't have the might, magic, or control enough energy to take on such a huge challenge. Also think it a bad idea to mess around with stuff, we don't fully understand, that could really mess up our one and only planet. Past events are a guess, it's what scientist agree, probably happened. There were no witnesses to those past events, and we have nothing to compare with. All makes good sense, well thought out, but still just guessing. The climate changes all the time, doubt there has been one day the same, as was the year before, a decade before, or hundreds of years in the past. The forces driving the climate/weather is bigger than a planet. We've been through periods of hot and cold, planet survived just fine. Sure lot of deaths during the extremes, but that's just part of life, it ends eventually. It's normal to want to put that off as long as possible, some are more obsessed with it than others. Seems like doctors take and oath to heal those in need. Denial of treatment, would violate that oath, not to mention the Obamacare law. Maybe you are going to the wrong kind of doctor... Should be plenty of lawyers to take on your claim, malpractice, and denial of service, seems like some pretty ugly stuff to file in court, specially if the media catches a sniff. Even if your case has little merit, lawyers should be interested, since out of court settlements on such ugly business is pretty quick and easy (they don't care whether you live or die, they still get paid). Cancer treatment is still pretty experimental, they don't actually know yet what causes cancer. They have a huge list of things that could lead to developing cancer, but it's not the same for everyone. There somethings that put you at a higher risk, but still no guarantee it will happen. The exact trigger is still unknown, so there is no perfect treatment. Even the best, go-to treatments don't work the same for every patient, some don't respond at all, and have to go through several types of treatment, only to have the cancer come back. Sometimes the cure, is worse than the disease. Chemo is literally poison, cancer cells are slightly weaker than healthy cell, they try to give you as much as your health cells can tolerate, and hope to kill the abnormal. Lot of healthy cells die in the treatment, sometimes the patient. Surgery, they can cut out the infected areas, hope they don't leave a few abnormal cells behind. But since they really don't know the cause, there is no guarantee it won't start up again. They really have no way to examine every cell in your body, and remove or destroy the bad ones. Basically, you can go through all the treatments, if you survive, it might buy you a few more years, might get lucky, and never have to deal with it again, and live a normal, long life. The truth is that most don't, might get more time, but the treatment does a lot of damage, more treatment, more medication, and not so normal life. Sort of doubtful there are no doctors willing to help you, you may not like the type of help they offer, but it's probably all they have to give.
23-12-2018 19:23
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Harvey, please take the time to read some books. All you're saying is that because you haven't taken the time to consider something shows it doesn't really matter. I could ask you about the Catholic clergy who are going to jail for molesting children. They took an oath. Should they be exonerated of any wrong doing because Jesus is their saviour? They did take an oath, right? I think you should defend them. As you say, when people take an oath then everyone else needs to accept that they never violate that oath. Going by what you said, the church should protect them. Not sure on this Harvey but you keep saying how we can't know something. That seems to be more about you talking about yourself. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-illinois-attorney-general-catholic-priest-abuse-20181219-story.html And Harvey, this person became a judge AFTER she was given an ileostomy that her doctors didn't want her to have. I've talked with her secretary and she told me what she went through. Her doctors made her suffer for 18 months before they gave her one. This put them outside the statute of limitations so she couldn't sue them for failure to diagnose. I had an ileostomy for 6 months after surgery and had a life. You shouldn't assume people are ignorant because that's more of a reflection of you. You don't seem to know anything. Hopefully itn will like posting with you https://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Fayette-Judge-Jazzercize-instructor-uses-tragedy-to-triumph-354044281.html You know Harvey I knew one guy who always wanted me to use only one name when I'm online. This is so he could follow me from forum to forum. He was like you. He didn't see the need to learn. You keep saying you don't know how someone could learn something when you could say we can't know that. What's funny about this other guy was that he'd post things like if I made coffee the way he liked it then he'd consider me to know something. I had to point out to people in the forum that I would need to be in his home to make coffee for him the way he likes it. They missed that. You remind me of him. Edited on 23-12-2018 19:56
23-12-2018 22:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Why aren't you getting it fix? And I'm the idiot... There a lot of doctors, if you have something wrong, that will kill you, get it done. All that other crap isn't going to matter much, if you're dead. I didn't worry about the bills for my surgery, because living is more important. Oh, not everybody's organs are in the right places, though they should have done imaging, before cutting. I had x-rays, ultrasound, and MRI... Stop pointing fingers, and being a victim, nobody cares about your life, except you. Exactly right. James needs surgery to fix this. The surgery that caused it is malpractice. That doctor can be sued to pay for the surgery to fix it plus any other damages caused by it. Without that surgery, he will die, probably within a few years at most. Yet he would rather be a victim, living in paranoia and with his bowel problems. I too have no understanding why he won't bother to go save his own life. He's waiting for a malpractice suit? I don't know what he's waiting for. HarveyH55 wrote: They can take years, and even longer to get a check, lawyer gets a piece of the action as well. Cases are resolved within one year in most States, some allow two. It depends on the local court rules. This is a superior case involving criminal charges. There is one appeal available, which are allowed take 1 to 2 years in most States. If you have medical insurance involved in the costs of the initial surgery, their lawyers will help you. HarveyH55 wrote: The question would be, whether the award or settlement, will be enough to cover the cost, after wait so long, assuming it's not late. Rather depends on what you ask for in damages. A good lawyer will counsel you on this. HarveyH55 wrote: Longer you wait, the more costly to correct, if even possible. Corrective surgery can happen now. This is to stabilize a life. Much of that's already covered by the government. HarveyH55 wrote: I'd think getting it corrected now, would help in the malpractice claim, since he'd have complete documentation, expert witness, and the total cost. This is usually how it's done. HarveyH55 wrote: Might even get some additional, if it leaves him needing further care, or medications for life. Quite true. HarveyH55 wrote: My out of pocket was a little over $3,600. Not entirely sure, they split the bills up, but think the total was $78,000 the insurance picked up. I'm not sure he has insurance. HarveyH55 wrote: If he knew right after his botch surgery, should have gotten corrected, same year, since he would have met his deductible for that year, pretty much all of it would have been covered. True, assuming the initial surgery was covered to begin with. HarveyH55 wrote: Can't take money with you, when you die, and you can always earn more. Life is a one time deal, it's not a video game. Heh. Sure it is! You get one game life. Yours! HarveyH55 wrote: Me, I'm not worried about leaving much behind, people the inherit, usually just have fun with the money, then it's gone. Figured I worked for it, should be the one having fun with it. Certainly one attitude. Trouble is, you generally don't plan for the moment of your own death. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-12-2018 22:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Why aren't you getting it fix? And I'm the idiot... There a lot of doctors, if you have something wrong, that will kill you, get it done. All that other crap isn't going to matter much, if you're dead. I didn't worry about the bills for my surgery, because living is more important. Oh, not everybody's organs are in the right places, though they should have done imaging, before cutting. I had x-rays, ultrasound, and MRI... Stop pointing fingers, and being a victim, nobody cares about your life, except you. Exactly right. James needs surgery to fix this. The surgery that caused it is malpractice. That doctor can be sued to pay for the surgery to fix it plus any other damages caused by it. Without that surgery, he will die, probably within a few years at most. Yet he would rather be a victim, living in paranoia and with his bowel problems. I too have no understanding why he won't bother to go save his own life. He's waiting for a malpractice suit? I don't know what he's waiting for. HarveyH55 wrote: They can take years, and even longer to get a check, lawyer gets a piece of the action as well. Cases are resolved within one year in most States, some allow two. It depends on the local court rules. This is a superior case involving criminal charges. There is one appeal available, which are allowed take 1 to 2 years in most States. If you have medical insurance involved in the costs of the initial surgery, their lawyers will help you. HarveyH55 wrote: The question would be, whether the award or settlement, will be enough to cover the cost, after wait so long, assuming it's not late. Rather depends on what you ask for in damages. A good lawyer will counsel you on this. HarveyH55 wrote: Longer you wait, the more costly to correct, if even possible. Corrective surgery can happen now. This is to stabilize a life. Much of that's already covered by the government. HarveyH55 wrote: I'd think getting it corrected now, would help in the malpractice claim, since he'd have complete documentation, expert witness, and the total cost. This is usually how it's done. HarveyH55 wrote: Might even get some additional, if it leaves him needing further care, or medications for life. Quite true. HarveyH55 wrote: My out of pocket was a little over $3,600. Not entirely sure, they split the bills up, but think the total was $78,000 the insurance picked up. I'm not sure he has insurance. HarveyH55 wrote: If he knew right after his botch surgery, should have gotten corrected, same year, since he would have met his deductible for that year, pretty much all of it would have been covered. True, assuming the initial surgery was covered to begin with. HarveyH55 wrote: Can't take money with you, when you die, and you can always earn more. Life is a one time deal, it's not a video game. Heh. Sure it is! You get one game life. Yours! HarveyH55 wrote: Me, I'm not worried about leaving much behind, people the inherit, usually just have fun with the money, then it's gone. Figured I worked for it, should be the one having fun with it. Certainly one attitude. Trouble is, you generally don't plan for the moment of your own death. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-12-2018 23:44
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	itn, I think that all you and Harvey are showing that you're both a couple of losers. Neither one of you can grasp science and openly reject it while you're both always getting online. Isn't that a paradox? Saying you don't think science can explain anything while using it as a platform to promote your ignorance and failed lives?
24-12-2018 04:38
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Science does explain all kinds of things, but only as far as we can observe, and based on past experience. The explanations evolve, change, sometimes even dismissed. Yep, science gets it wrong occasionally, oops... I just don't believe we know all there is to know about anything. I don't pretend to be an authority or expert on any subject. I know more than many people, about a few dozen topics, but there are people who know a lot more. Some 'science', like Climatology, I don't believe, because it isn't straight forward. It's shady, tricky, secretive, deceptive, which is generally the signs of fraud. I live by the saying, 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'. If the IPCC is so positive that their calculations are 100%, why aren't the 100% transparent, share everything. They are funded by many different governments, and asking to make a huge impact on all of our lives, starting with a carbon-credit economy. I really don't see why they would hide anything, you'd think they would encourage anyone and everyone to check their work. The study was completed years ago, or so the announced to the world. Supposedly, they proved that man-made CO2 is the only possible cause for the dangerous, rapid warming we have been experiencing. Was Al Gore's flick, about a decade ago, where he sort of walked us through the evidence, in a propagande laden way? The inconvenient truth, is they had nothing to work with, except an idea, and a goal, their research was mainly computer based, and patchwork, shoddy work at that. Weather models have taken decades to evolve an mature, still only 80%, at best, at 5 day in the future. Those models are shared, and worked on, by thousands of meteorologists around the world. Climatologists haven't been at it half as long, and only a couple hundred have potential access. It would take a decade of waiting, to see if a 10 year prediction is close. They haven't had time to test the models. It's one thing to write them, use old data laying around, and get the results that match what actually happened, within an acceptable rate of error, because you already know the outcome. It's different to use fresh data, and not know, until it happens (or not). Models can predict weather accurately. Models can't predict lottery numbers either. But mostly, I don't see the big crisis a few degrees increase in temperature. Hasn't been a big deal in the past, when we had hot years. I'd get concerned, is it was 10-20 degrees, in a decade, and no chance of cooling, just keep climbing. That ain't happening, it gets warmer, gets cooler, just like always. It's a few degrees warmer, over a century's time span, not scary at all. I don't blindly believe everything I read, nor mindlessly regurgitate what I've read. I really can quote much of anything, word-for-word, I tend to just remember the functional parts, usually can't recall the source. Less clutter to work through, in my sub-average brain...
24-12-2018 17:13
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	It's funny Harvey. I had one teacher in school that explained to me that D students don't understand why they're D students. I was trying to help a D student and he thought I should change my answers to agree with his. He didn't care that I had taken the time to learn math. And he didn't want me to help him improve his grade, he just didn't want to see someone get a better grade than him. It's like you said, Americans only care about themselves. You have shown that to be true. Ever wonder what Trump meant when he said Make America Great Again. I don't think he's ever married an American woman. But he is all about Making America Great Again. Is he suggesting that American men would be better off with a foreign national for a wife? He does know what it takes to be successful starting with marrying a foreign national. Who knows, I might do the same. After all, my American mother had a good life because she too married a foreign national. That's looking at what can be shown to work. As you said, it's functional. So if I were to agree with you Harvey I would have to believe that a foreign national for a spouse is better than having another American for a spouse. Our President has shown that to be true. You wouldn't dare disagree with your President would you? If you did then someone might call you un-American or say you're not being Patriotic. And you are Patriotic, right? I hope you are because we do need to support our President, right? I'm sure you understand the need to support him when he has shown us what works. Edited on 24-12-2018 18:00
24-12-2018 21:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: itn, I think that all you and Harvey are showing that you're both a couple of losers. Neither one of you can grasp science and openly reject it while you're both always getting online. Isn't that a paradox? Saying you don't think science can explain anything while using it as a platform to promote your ignorance and failed lives? Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Done. That's it. That's all. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 1 of 3

Join the debate The IPPC climate report and what I personally think of it!:

Threads	Replies	Last post
COVID origins 'may have been tied' to China's bioweapons program: GOP report	43	28-12-2022 20:17
UN weather report: Climate woes bad and getting worse faster	1	08-11-2022 18:24
Congressional UFO Report	72	04-07-2021 21:42
Trump disbanded it, but climate change panel regroups to release its report	9	09-04-2019 00:01
New Climate Change Report Should Be a Wakeup Call	3	06-04-2019 00:07