Climate Change

Ivor Cummins explaining the facts with his usual clear and calm delivery.
The website he refers to is this one: Co2 Coalition Enjoy . . .

 
3% of 0.04% doesn't sound like much but when a system is delicately balanced, a seemingly minuscule addition can still have a very significant and cumulative effect, especially if it occurs quickly.

The 0.04% total includes a 40-50% rise (from pre-industrial levels) caused entirely by us.

I'm aware that CO2 levels have fluctuated (and been much higher) over the centuries, but this recent rise seems to be happening a lot more quickly than happens naturally. I think, in terms of upsetting the scales, the concentration may be less significant than the rate of change of concentration. Only time will tell, I guess.

The grain of sand / bridge analogy is amusing but it's a bit like denying antibiotics to someone infected by a nasty strain of bacteria because they're so tiny.

I'm open to arguments from both sides by people with relevant qualifications, research and experience, but still think caution in the use of fossil fuels is wise and very possibly necessary.

Meanwhile Alan Jones should stick to vocations at which he excels such as racism, misogyny and taking cash for comment. Meow!
 
Last edited:
frugi said:
3% of 0.04% doesn't sound like much but when a system is delicately balanced, a seemingly minuscule addition can still have a very significant and cumulative effect, especially if it occurs quickly.

The 0.04% total includes a 40-50% rise (from pre-industrial levels) caused entirely by us.

I'm aware that CO2 levels have fluctuated (and been much higher) over the centuries, but this recent rise seems to be happening a lot more quickly than happens naturally. I think, in terms of upsetting the scales, the concentration may be less significant than the rate of change of concentration. Only time will tell, I guess.

The grain of sand / bridge analogy is amusing but it's a bit like denying antibiotics to someone infected by a nasty strain of bacteria because they're so tiny.

I'm open to arguments from both sides by people with relevant qualifications, research and experience, but still think caution in the use of fossil fuels is wise and very possibly necessary.

Meanwhile Alan Jones should stick to vocations at which he excels such as racism, misogyny and taking cash for comment. Meow!
Click to expand...

There's no balance or debate allowed in any topic these days. People seem to accept whatever they are fed, without even bothering to do their own research.

Which is quite bizarre given that we are supposed to live in the "information age". More like the disinformation age !
 
Yes it is impressive that so many people deny climate change just because they don't like it.
Often the consipiracy theory is more interesting than the mainstream one.
Mybe being a contrarian youtuber is more rewarding than being "mainstream"
en.wikipedia.org

Climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Last sunday I made a trip to Stelvio pass, the glacier that used to be there 10 years ago is completely gone :(
Maybe is just natural fuctuations, maybe our lifespan is too short...
 
CavaliereVerde said:
Yes it is impressive that so many people deny climate change just because they don't like it.
Often the consipiracy theory is more interesting than the mainstream one.
Mybe being a contrarian youtuber is more rewarding than being "mainstream"
en.wikipedia.org

Climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Last sunday I made a trip to Stelvio pass, the glacier that used to be there 10 years ago is completely gone :(
Maybe is just natural fuctuations, maybe our lifespan is too short...
Click to expand...

It's not a question of denying something because they don't like it.

Climate scientists are not altruistic, nor do they work for free. So as always, follow the money, see who is funding their work and you might well find that the climate change agenda is anything but a balanced look at whatever is going on. It is almost certainly the case that unless you are on board with the agenda, that you will not get funding. In other words..... it's all biased.

This point has been put to you many times. We are still waiting for an answer.
 
counter_violent said:
We are still waiting for an answer.
Click to expand...
What is the question?
Is everything a conspiracy? I think no.
Is the majority of scientits being corrupted? I think no.

Of course scientists are paid to do research, with your logic every scientific theory is fake.
I am graduated in chemistry so I consider myself a scientist, I am not paid neither to believe neither to deny climate change.
According to my education and my observations it makes perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
frugi said:
3% of 0.04% doesn't sound like much but when a system is delicately balanced, a seemingly minuscule addition can still have a very significant and cumulative effect, especially if it occurs quickly.
Click to expand...
Hi frugi,
I wonder how many climate scientists would turn their noses up at homeopathy on the grounds that such insignificant quantities of 'medicine' can't possibly have any effect on the human body. These same people seem quite happy to apply the same homeopathic principle to the climate and then, on the strength of it, make unfounded allegations that it causes wild fires, floods, hurricanes and glacier melts etc.

To support your claim that the quantities are not important and that it's rate of change of CO2 concentration that's causing climate change - you'll need to provide some evidence. There's none that I've seen that's based on the scientific method*. That got thrown out of the window when it comes to climate change and, needless to say, Covid. In its place, we're given GIGO computer models of the sort that Prof. Neil Ferguson gave us at the start of the pandemic. They are all less than useless. To impose poverty and misery upon millions of people on the strength of such models from scientists who, often as not, are funded by those who stand to benefit from climate change - is as insane as it is corrupt.

Man made climate change IS the conspiracy!
Tim.
* Hypothesis > method > experiment > results > conclusion > peer review / debate / reproduction of results etc.
The Cruelty of the Scientific Method
 
Last edited:
timsk said:
Hi frugi,
I wonder how many climate scientists would turn their noses up at homeopathy on the grounds that such insignificant quantities of 'medicine' can't possibly have any effect on the human body. These same people seem quite happy to apply the same homeopathic principle to the climate and then, on the strength of it, make unfounded allegations that it causes wild fires, floods, hurricanes and glacier melts etc.

To support your claim that the quantities are not important and that it's rate of change of CO2 concentration that's causing climate change - you'll need to provide some evidence. There's none that I've seen that's based on the scientist method*. That got thrown out of the window when it comes to climate change and, needless to say, Covid. In its place, we're given GIGO computer models of the sort that Prof. Neil Ferguson gave us at the start of the pandemic. They are all less than useless. To impose poverty and misery upon millions of people on the strength of such models from scientists who, often as not, are funded by those who stand to benefit from climate change - is as insane as it is corrupt.

Man made climate change IS the conspiracy!
Tim.
* Hypothesis > method > experiment > results > conclusion > peer review / debate / reproduction of results etc.
The Cruelty of the Scientific Method
Click to expand...

Great link.(y)
 
CavaliereVerde said:
What is the question?
Is everything a conspiracy? I think no.
Is the majority of scientits being corrupted? I think no.

Of course scientists are paid to do research, with your logic every scientific theory is fake.
I am graduated in chemistry so I consider myself a scientist, I am not paid neither to believe neither to deny climate change.
According to my education and my observations it makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

So the point is. Who is funding all this, "so called", research?

I'm minded of the famous quote. Build it and they will come.

Now lets change just one word. Fund it and they will come.

You can get whatever results you like if you are the one paying the bill.

Forget global warming, climate change for a second. We all know that pollution is a massive issue, so instead of arguing among ourselves , why are we not sticking it to China and India where pollution is orders of magnitude higher than in the West?
 
counter_violent said:
Forget global warming, climate change for a second. We all know that pollution is a massive issue, so instead of arguing among ourselves , why are we not sticking it to China and India where pollution is orders of magnitude higher than in the West?
Click to expand...
100% agree on this point.
www.worldometers.info

CO2 Emissions by Country - Worldometer

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions by Country in the world with Global share of CO2 greenhouse emissions by country
www.worldometers.info www.worldometers.info
1% of UK or Italy is nothing but US+EU+Japan is a significant part and we can work on that.
I think India should be exempted, like african countries.
China is the elephant in the room but thy can't be trusted and neither influenced.
 
Last edited:

Watch the Game-Changing New Film That Explodes Climate Change and Net Zero Lies​

"A potentially game-changing film on the fraudulent climate change narrative and the collectivist Net Zero project hits global social media screens today. “Climate change is an invented scare of self-interest and snobbery, cynically promoted by a parasitic, publicly-funded establishment hungry for power and money,” says writer Martin Durkin.

As 'Stewart' wryly comments btl: "'Science' is used primarily to launder ideology." How true that is!
 
Last edited:
MattK said:
Filmmaker Davis Guggenheim follows Al Gore on the lecture circuit, as the former presidential candidate campaigns to raise public awareness of the dangers of global warming and calls for immediate action to curb its destructive effects on the environment.
Click to expand...
Matt,
Please watch the film I posted. Once you've done that, please explain why you still believe the lies being told by the grifters who profit from this scam rather than proper scientists using real world empirical data that proves without a doubt that man made climate change is a myth. There's literally no evidence for it at all. Zilch, none, nada.
Tim.
 
MattK said:
. . . It explores various aspects of the issue, including melting ice caps, depletion of natural resources, and other environmental problems, and calls for coordinated efforts to combat climate change
Click to expand...
Matt,
I have news for you: the ice caps aren't melting. If you want to know the inconvenient truth that blasts these lies out of the freezing water, I recommend you read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the facts presented in this series of articles by Chris Morrison. Enjoy . . .

The Real Inconvenient Truth: Arctic Sea Ice Has Grown Since 2012
Dramatic Recovery in Global Sea Ice Confounds the Net Zero Catastrophists
Melting Ice Caps and World on Fire vs The Reality

So, the ice caps aren't melting after all, the polar bears aren't on the verge of extinction - they're flourishing - along with the penguins. It's all nonsense designed to instill fear and sow compliance so that we spend thousands on heat pumps that don't work and eat bugs instead of steak and stay in our cold homes rather than swanning around the world like Leonardo DiCaprio having an absolute blast.
Tim.
 
MattK said:
Tim,
I've just finished reading a couple of articles, but neither provided any concrete research links to back the author's perspective or counter the prevailing climate change dialogue.
Click to expand...
Matt,
Unusually, instead of the research links appearing in the normal blue colour (as in your post) - they're in red in the articles - apologies for not pointing that out in my last post. There's any number of them, sprinkled like confetti all over the place!

So, Chris Morrison's articles are meticulously researched and evidenced based. Indeed, that's the whole point of them, i.e. it's not his personal opinion at all, he's presenting empirical scientific data (i.e. not GIGO computer models which most 'world is on fire' data is based on), that shows quite clearly that the ice caps are no longer melting. If you have evidence that what he says is wrong or misleading in some way, by all means post it, but please be specific. Quote the passage/statistics in Morrison's article(s) that you disagree with, clearly state why you think he's wrong or misleading and support this by quoting the passage/statistics from the IPCC (or whoever) as evidence to support your counter narrative. I'm afraid that simply posting a link to an entire report without being specific isn't helpful and doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Sorry! ;-)
Tim.

PS. Thanks LM for posting a link to the documentary - yes it's the right one! (y)
 
Last edited:
Interesting . . .
Post some inconvenient truths that go against the mainstream narrative that they have no argument against - and this is what happens. And some folks still think we live in an open society where free speech is cherished and protected. Well, all I can say is: think again. :mad: . . .

Matt,
I hope you managed to view the film before it got taken down. Either way, if you're still of the same view that climate change is wo/man made, and if the case in favour of this argument is so strong and the case that I and those in the film put forward is so weak - why take the film down? Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but, for me, this is proof positive that the criminal elite behind the climate change grift know the game's up, they've been rumbled, the ship's taking on water and it's only a matter of time before it goes down.
Tim.

Cancelled.png
 
Last edited:
www.bitchute.com

Climate the Movie

“Compared to the last 500 million years the Earth is exceptionally cold,” explains Durkin. The reason there is ice at the poles is that we are in an ice age, observes Moore. “We are at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling period, and they say i…
www.bitchute.com www.bitchute.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Westward Group Alternative Energy Tokyo: No excuse for inaction on emissions
Replies
1
Views
1K
ABTrading
ABTrading
Stewenson133
12 Economic Bubbles That May Burst
Replies
18
Views
7K
SAINT
S
P
Providio's Futures Market Comentary for March 14, 2012
Replies
0
Views
2K
providiotrading
P
NVP
Property - the pitfalls and problems
Replies
1
Views
2K
Aforce1
A
Top