Carbon Dioxide.

[local]

The media with regard to Global Freeing may have begun in the 1960's but it was still being published in the 1980's. I think some people have got this Climate Change thing a bit twisted - correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it in the 1950's/60's when most people had coal fires? When Steam engines were still being run? When the iron industry had coal burning furnaces? When power stations were all using fossil fuels? Etc., Was there not far more CO2 around then? So what is it to be - more CO2 leads to Global Freezing, or more CO2 leads to global warming?

An ice age in fifty years?? I don't think so! An Ice age doesn't just pop up now and then and disappear, it takes around a 100,000 years to form. Just as the hot summer we had with around 35/40 degrees heat, you will not see that again for around fifty years or so.

Unless you mix within the circles of scientific personnel - you are highly unlikely to know just what their real views are for these will never be allowed to be published. Yahoo and Facebook would remove any opposing views and ban the author from the sites.

Prof, just one word,

cumalative.


Its on the internet and as yet hasn't been banned by shadowy government fixers.

[Toodles McGinty]

An ice age in fifty years?? I don't think so! An Ice age doesn't just pop up now and then and disappear, it takes around a 100,000 years to form. Just as the hot summer we had with around 35/40 degrees heat, you will not see that again for around fifty years or so.

Nobody suggested there would be an ice age in 50 years.

Unless you mix within the circles of scientific personnel - you are highly unlikely to know just what their real views are for these will never be allowed to be published. Yahoo and Facebook would remove any opposing views and ban the author from the sites.

There are thousands, if not millions of sites with scientific data, papers, theories, conclusions. A tiny minority suggest climate change isn't anthropogenic. The most vocal climate change deniers aren't even scientists, they are politicians, mainly American libertarian types. The few scientists that buck the trend are usually in the pocket of big oil, through organisations such as the Heartland Institute.

Yahoo and Facebook, one search engine and one website, don't have a dog in the fight. Even if Yahoo was the most used search engine, which it isn't, there are dozens and dozens more. They can take a site out of their listings, but they can't close a site. Only hosts can do that, and there are thousands to publish opinions should anyone wish to.

Facebook is only interested in data mining. Political data mining, as the current antitrust action against them concerning Cambridge Analytica illustrates. There are hundreds of climate change denier groups on Facebook. Even Piers Corbyn - crank extraordinaire - is on there with his climate change denial / antivax conspiracy theory crossover. So the bizarre theory that climate change deniers are shut down doesn't hold water.

It's one thing for governments to throw dead cats onto the table. It's quite another to suggest shadowy powers are shutting down conspiracy theory peddlers to stop 'the truth'. Personally I think the more such bull is published, the easier it is to mock the cranks in their tin foil hats. Whether it is climate change, antivaxxers, 'actors' faking school shootings, whatever.

[local]

But Said says he mixes with "Scientific Personnel" where he has the inside track.
The obvious flaw with that is, why do we get so many cut and pasted from the very internet he condemns?

Let's have more from the inside track.

[Toodles McGinty]

But Said says he mixes with "Scientific Personnel" where he has the inside track.
The obvious flaw with that is, why do we get so many cut and pasted from the very internet he condemns?

Let's have more from the inside track.

Ah, but he'll be shut down by the shadowy government if he does.

They'll remove his theory and ban him from the site.

Publish and be damned, I say.

[carliol]

To return to the original. The atmospheric CO2 is about 1% and impossible to separate economically.
The present crisis is about manufactured CO2 as a by-product of fertiliser factories which are affected by rising gas prices.

[local]

Ah, but he'll be shut down by the shadowy government if he does.

They'll remove his theory and ban him from the site.

Publish and be damned, I say.

Boris the Shadow master

[said]

To return to the original. The atmospheric CO2 is about 1% and impossible to separate economically.
The present crisis is about manufactured CO2 as a by-product of fertiliser factories which are affected by rising gas prices.

Atmospheric CO2 is around 0.04% in the atmosphere. Tell you what - get some limestone or calcium carbonate pour some acid onto it, e.g. vinegar = CO2, and you won't need to worry about gas prices.

[said]

But Said says he mixes with "Scientific Personnel" where he has the inside track.
The obvious flaw with that is, why do we get so many cut and pasted from the very internet he condemns?

Let's have more from the inside track.

Because my friend, I can tell you straight off, but you all keep screaming 'link, link' So I look for the first link I can find knowing that none of you will be any the wiser by its content.

Rather like you hopefully, knowing what two and two adds up to. You give your answer on this site and someone wants 'a link' to show how you arrived at the answer. Got it?

[The PNP]

Atmospheric CO2 is around 0.04% in the atmosphere. Tell you what - get some limestone or calcium carbonate pour some acid onto it, e.g. vinegar = CO2, and you won't need to worry about gas prices.

The last time CO2 attained that figure, the icecaps were largely melted and as a result, sealevels were around 100ft higher!

[silver fox]

Because my friend, I can tell you straight off, but you all keep screaming 'link, link' So I look for the first link I can find knowing that none of you will be any the wiser by its content.

Rather like you hopefully, knowing what two and two adds up to. You give your answer on this site and someone wants 'a link' to show how you arrived at the answer. Got it?

Possibly because many of YOUR answers vary from the implausible to impossible, then of course you respond that is only because us lesser mortals don't understand the "facts" which you post.

Your problem is that most understand only to well when we see your particular aim dressed up as scientific fact, in any event seeing that you have contact with eminent scientists and privy to their private beliefs, then you simply shouldn't need the internet nor anything else, because you would know the facts, having said that you appear to believe that hold the facts which most don't have access to

[said]

Nobody suggested there would be an ice age in 50 years.




There are thousands, if not millions of sites with scientific data, papers, theories, conclusions. A tiny minority suggest climate change isn't anthropogenic. The most vocal climate change deniers aren't even scientists, they are politicians, mainly American libertarian types. The few scientists that buck the trend are usually in the pocket of big oil, through organisations such as the Heartland Institute.

Yahoo and Facebook, one search engine and one website, don't have a dog in the fight. Even if Yahoo was the most used search engine, which it isn't, there are dozens and dozens more. They can take a site out of their listings, but they can't close a site. Only hosts can do that, and there are thousands to publish opinions should anyone wish to.

Facebook is only interested in data mining. Political data mining, as the current antitrust action against them concerning Cambridge Analytica illustrates. There are hundreds of climate change denier groups on Facebook. Even Piers Corbyn - crank extraordinaire - is on there with his climate change denial / antivax conspiracy theory crossover. So the bizarre theory that climate change deniers are shut down doesn't hold water.

It's one thing for governments to throw dead cats onto the table. It's quite another to suggest shadowy powers are shutting down conspiracy theory peddlers to stop 'the truth'. Personally I think the more such bull is published, the easier it is to mock the cranks in their tin foil hats. Whether it is climate change, antivaxxers, 'actors' faking school shootings, whatever.

PnP made a reference to media claims in the 1950's that stated wwe were heading for another Ice Age. Fifty years later we are heading into Global warming. Which is it to be? An Ice age does not occur within fifty years and suddenly change into a warming event.

You are claiming that the media 'experts' are far more knowledgeable than most scientists? How would you be able to tell what is the truth and what is not? Almost every scientist will disagree on various things, so they all argue with one another - that is how the truth is discovered. But you do not have the opportunity to listen to debates on the media because you are only given one point of view and expected to accept that as gospel truth, fully and without question. So, unless you have an understanding of science, you will never know what is true and what is not. Many of those on the social media sites do actually have professional degrees, it is easy to discern who they are because those who are not, clearly show they do not have any understanding of what they have just read up on google, or whatever.

Climate change and the Pandemic have both been simulated electronically. Even the World's foremost experts will tell you that they do not understand the climate, nor do they know fully about viruses. This is because each of those topics involves a large number of disciplines in which no-one knows everything because it has not been discovered yet - climate and human biology are very complicated. So just for arguments sake, say I wanted to use 'C' to program into a computer, SUM of numbers 1 - 100. But I had no knowledge of the complete formula. The results would be wrong. But because there is a formula, there is a pattern to this program. For Climate and human biology there is no pattern,therefore, no formula. You know this because of the large number of corrections that they keep applying to each, or because they keep on changing the variables. How often have the Weather forecasts been exactly correct? Hardly ever. They spent £billions on apparatus with the intention of forecasting weather correctly, and they still have not managed it.

So where is the Conspiracy theory? The above facts are completely accurate and can be found in any encyclopedia/journals etc., In fact where is the 'theory'? It is all facts.

[Desert Region]

So where is the Conspiracy theory? The above facts are completely accurate and can be found in any encyclopedia/journals etc., In fact where is the 'theory'? It is all facts.

But what does Denzel Washington have to do with it?

[said]

The last time CO2 attained that figure, the icecaps were largely melted and as a result, sealevels were around 100ft higher!

Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent. National Geographic.

[said]

But what does Denzel Washington have to do with it?

I don't know - is that a lemon?

[The PNP]

Re: 'said's' post #43:
It's within that 0.1% of trace gasses that the 0.04% of CO2 is to be found.....A figure approx double the pre-industrial level for that particular greenhouse gas. And a figure that last time around, equated to sealevels being much higher than present day levels. Seems to me that we either find a way of removing half the CO2 pronto, or future inhabitants will have to relocate Southport to somewhere about 100ft up Parbold Hill!