The article that follows below is from the UK online Independent here.
Regrettably the editors screwed up and inserted the wrong English text in the video and misidentified the participants as well. The discussion is in fact about CO2 being the sole real driver of global climate. Moreover, the talk round took place in London, and not Egypt.
This is not fake news, but merely a case of human error on the part of the Independent. It happens. 🙂
As a public service, we at NTZ have corrected the article by the Independent (below). Again, pay no attention to the erroneous English text in the video, which is really about a climate skeptic, James Delingpole, at a Talkshow presenting an alternative theory on why the globe is warming a bit.
================================
Corrected version of the Independent article:
Climate denialist kicked off live Climate TV show for ‘inappropriate’ ideas: ‘Go straight to a psychiatric hospital’
‘We cannot promote such destructive ideas…you set a very bad example for the World’s youth’
A climate skeptic has been kicked off a live TV show taped in London after the host accused him of being ‘confused and unreliable’ and being in need of psychiatric treatment.
James Delingpole was presenting his reasons for being climate science skeptic on Current TV (co-founded by Al Gore) when host George Abd Al-Halim Monbiot told him he was being ‘inappropriate’.
Sheikh of Al Mahmoud Gore, who was also on the programme, agreed, telling him: ‘Look dear James, you need psychiatric treatment. Many young people today suffer from mental illnesses due to material or mental circumstances.’
When Delingpole suggested ‘the sun‘ as an explanation for climate change, George Abd Al-Halim Monbiot exploded and demanded that he ‘stop using difficult words’ and reminded him that he was ‘addressing simple people and to not use big words for no reason’.
George Abd Al-Halim Monbiot then accused James: ‘You deny the existence of CO2 as the climate driver and reject our religion and science.’
Next Mr. Al-Halim Monbiot demanded Mr. Delingpole to leave, saying: ‘We cannot promote such destructive ideas…you set a very bad example for the world’s youth.’
He added: ‘I advise you to leave the studio and go straight to a psychiatric hospital.’
Blasphemy and denialism are illegal in climate science, and prosecution is routinely recommended by NASA GISS, PIK and NOAA if people should insult or defame Climatism and CO2 under proposed climate science RICO laws.
======================================
We at NoTricksZone are glad to have been able to get this cleared up. As you can see, the video now makes perfect sense.
Perhaps global warming alarmists will now see how scientifically ridiculous they really look. What do you think, Seb?
If you say so, Pierre. You guys really think you are all Galileo and all the other scientists are wrong. Correct?
Reading the article makes it perfectly clear who is looking ridiculous here …
You have yet to provide ONE SINGLE BIT OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF that enhanced atmospheric CO2 warms any thing.
What has Galileo got to do with anything?
These “claimate” pseudo-scientists are the complete opposite of Galileo. They are proven wrong time after time after time by REAL science.
And yes seb, you ALWAYS look RIDICULOUS with your brain-hosed anti-science AGW mantra.
I suggest you read up on who Galileo was then … do you think you are like Galileo? Going against the consensus because you think you know the truth? Do you believe you “are on to something” because others want to suppress what you claim to be true?
I suggest you read up on SCIENCE and PHYSICS.
You obviously know precious little about either if you think the current crop of anti-science AGW FARCE is IN ANY WAY related in intellect or science to Galileo’s work.
I suggest you read up on SCIENCE and PHYSICS.
You obviously have NO IDEA about either if you think any of the AGW FARCE is in any way close in intellect or substance to the work of Galileo.
It is just another of your imaginary FALSE comparisons in a VAIN attempt to somehow justify the scientific incompetence of the AGW priesthood .
The UTTER contempt for science by pretending the work of Galileo is in the same basket as the FARCE of AGW is really stooping to a NEW LOW, even for you, seb.
Seb, you are more than a bit like the announcer.
Ranting his political beliefs with zero substance except brain-numbed “belief”.
Repeat the mantra, seb .. Its all you have.
Seeing the video the first time, it immediately struck me how the sheik and TV moderator used the very same tactics we see in climate science. It really is sad when science devolves to this extreme level of dogmatism.
[…] Climate Skeptic Kicked Off TV Show For Proposing Alternative Theory…”Go Straight To A Psychiatri… […]
Yes you are quite correct Pierre, the names can be changed but the tactics remain identical!
It’s not theclimate sceptics who need to be sent to the loony-bin….
Did Delingpole speak with Monbiot (&/or Gore) recently?
Just names I pulled from the top of my head…could be many others.
Oh, how true!
Hilarious stuff.
It never ceases to amaze me how people fail to grasp satire.
If they are talking about CO2, why does he mention “Big bang theory”, as you can hear him saying “big bang” in the clip?
You didn’t really ask that question, did you?
Detailed instructions on how to proceed:
1) find and enter a quiet, dark room.
2) very carefully, using one hand, lift the fingers of the other hand from the digit-like impressions on your forehead.
3) when all appears well and fine, remove the palm.
4) straighten your nose.
5) use a handkerchief
6) pour yourself a wee dram and resolve to ponder a tad longer prior to commenting next time around.
Nice answer, so well formed that i just dont know what to replay… You argue like a feminist.
You know, my question…. a what the hell, you dont know the answer, otherwise you would have replied with something constructive, not some stupid bullshit.
The author of this post made up the conversation. He thought that would be funny.
Seb, it is funny. This is precisely how activist climate scientists act when their CO2-science gets challenged. This is truly how foolish and narrow-minded they, which includes you, appear.
Seb just doesn’t get the joke.
Brain is stuck in green mantra sludge.
Poor EMPTY seb.
DC,
You’re embarrassed.
I understand.
Now own up to it like a man.
Why would i be embarrassed, like all others who cant put forward truth, all that has been presented here is religion like “you must believe it and dont ask questions”!
Why cant you simply answer my question? Critical thinking is allways good, and the minute a group of people try to diminish people who ask “the wrong question” you should all keep your ears open, because there is problably alot of bullshit to be found there! This goes for both sides of the CO2 debate!
So no, im not embarrassed other than that this site seems to consist of the same type of illinformed religious like people as many on the climate alarmist side. If anyone should be embarrassed its all of you commenting my post without giving an answer.
Bizarre !!
Satire did not register with you, did it DC. ! 🙂
Hint: the argument in the video was not about CO2,
… but the ANOTHER religion.
No it didnt, as when I first saw this post, I read in the blogger text that one should not follow the subtitle as it was incorrect subtitle, but now that part i removed.
So looking at the post now, you are right, but earlier it said that the subtitle was for another tv show and that the subtitle should have been about an argument about CO2 and the climate change debate
“Regrettably the editors screwed up and inserted the wrong English text in the video and misidentified the participants as well”
Also “Again, pay no attention to the erroneous English text in the video, which is really about a climate skeptic”
How would you interpret those texts? They are cited from the content text to this blog post.
Did you alert James to this?
He might spit his Cutty Sark on his monitor if now warned.
Oh dear what a calamity that we skeptics face with behaviour from people like Monbiot on public TV.
It is a very apt analogy.
Climate change alarmism has all the hallmarks of an intolerant religious cult.
We have a regular example of this on this blog.
The replies of religios skeptic fanatics on this blog?
It’s kind of funny to see you guys calling your opponents a religious cult. How would you classify yourselves? I wonder if you are able to recognize what the most fitting group identifier for you guys is.
John thinks Galileo is good description. You see?
“your opponents a religious cult. “
You are the basing EVERYTHING on an UNPROVEN MYTH, little trollette.
AGW is a RELIGION, nothing more, and yet, very much less.
It is perfect for someone like seb, who’s grasp of most basic science and physics is rudimentary at best.
JUST BELIEVE, seb.
Just repeat the unthinking MANTRA seb.
Its all you can do.
How would you classify the group you are part of? Do you really believe what you are claiming is based on proven facts? Do you really believe you are not falling for junk science papers?
Seb, no skeptic is claiming to know the truth. We are only 99.9999% certain that CO2 is not the only climate driving factor out there. We have proposed a lot of other theories. But every time the reaction from the climate clerics is exactly like what you see in the video. We are very much like Galileo in the sense that we do challenge Church-sanctioned flat earth theories. You should feel very embarrassed about behaving so narrow-mindedly. I’d be very ashamed to see myself behave like that cleric and TV host in the video above. This is what you call the obstruction of knowledge.
“Do you really believe what you are claiming is based on proven facts”
Its a PROVEN FACT that you are totally unable to produce any empirical proof for even the very basis of the AGW Religion
And your constant ducking and weaving is really quite a JOKE to everyone.
Even you must see how PATHETIC it is, seb.
Preach the AGW MANTRA.
Its all you have.
And no, seb.. we do NOT fall for the junk papers you post. !!
This would appear to be a contradictory statement. How can we be the pessimistic ones if we are the ones pointing out that climate doom pronouncements lack perspective, CO2 greens the planet rather than browns it, warmth is good, more CO2 would be better, not worse, no, 30,000 species are not going extinct per year, glacier and ice sheet melt is within normal ranges…?
The existing one is merely the political one. The null hypothesis — that the climate changes and ocean heat content rises and falls naturally — has never been ruled out. People have just asserted a position that humans control the weather and climate…and then agreed with each other that they’re right.
How ironic that this statement is coming from you.
Every statement you make is pessimistic about the future (e.g. it’s bad if we continue to try to reduce our emissions), you don’t even realize that?
Nope.
I don’t distract when talking about a topic … it’s always you who does that.
P.S.: How did you manage to reply to a comment that didn’t appear yet? Still using that WordPress interface to comment without seeing the complete threads you are replying to?
Really? So when we write about polar bear populations growing, penguin populations growing, the oceans not acidifying, less than one species per decade going extinct since 2000 (versus 16 per decade during 1500-2000 AD), crop yields growing, hurricanes not intensifying and occurring less frequently, droughts not intensifying and occurring less frequently, extreme weather becoming less extreme, nothing unusual about today’s glacier and ice sheet melt/expansion, more land being above sea level today than during the 1980s, sea level rise decelerating since the 1920-1950 period, the Earth’s temperatures not leading us down the road to the Apocalypse, lifting 800 million people out of poverty in China with fossil fuels since the 1980s, more fossil fuel use on the horizon to lift more people out of poverty in India, African countries, and developing countries in general…that’s pessimistic?
People have just asserted a position that humans control the weather and climate…and then agreed with each other that they’re right.
That’s what “consensus” science is, SebastianH.
You claimed we skeptics are here to “disturb and distract”. And then you said you don’t do that…but proceeded to criticize me for using WordPress to reply to “in moderation” comments in the very next sentence. And you can’t even see the irony here.
Yes, really. Everything we do to reduce CO2 emissions is a bad thing in your eyes. We will all be doomed if we continue on that path, etc … the latest blog post here is one example of that mind set: https://notrickszone.com/2018/03/13/winds-false-promise-of-environmental-purity-everywhere-everything-is-rotating-and-blinking-high-price-to-pay/
You are imaging that they “just asserted xyz” … it’s based on overwhelming evidence and the laws of physics. One person disproving the “consensus” would be enough, yet you guys fail to provide anything that disproves our understanding of the climate. But still you feel your opinion must be the correct one, for whatever weird reason …
Noticed the “P.S.”? Or did that get lost in the selective perception of yours too?
I don’t necessarily say it’s bad to reduce CO2 emission, but I don’t see the point of it if the costs are so great. What good it is to, say, switch to biofuels when doing so leads to more CO2 emissions, not less…even though the purpose of switching to biofuels is precisely to do what it’s not doing (lowering emissions)? Why switch to more wind power when doing so destroys pristine landscapes with concrete and steel…and they kill millions of bats, including endangered ones, a year? Because they’re intermittent and unreliable, wind and solar raise the costs of energy…as evidenced by the energy prices in places like California and Germany. Why am I not allowed to point out that raising the costs of energy is not good, but bad…especially for poor people?
So why aren’t there any physical measurements from a real-world experiment that show how much warming or cooling is induced by a + or – 10 ppm change in CO2 concentration above a body of water? Your belief that humans control the temperature of the oceans is not rooted in observational evidence. You believe anyway…and call your belief “the laws of physics”.
So at what point was the “consensus” position that humans control the oceans’ temperatures proved? How does one “disprove” something that has never been proven in the first place?
Poor seb, your CO2-HATRED gets in the way of any possibility of rational thought for you doesn’t it.
There is no proven down side to enhanced atmospheric CO2, and MANY proven benefits.
Efforts to reduce CO2 emission are always a MASSIVE burden on society, needing to be forced through at large WASTES of funds that could be used for the betterment of society.
Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are also a massive burden of avian life, and in the case of sea based wind, almost certainly a burden on sea life.
The only pessimism I have is that the AGW anti-CO2, anti-life Agenda will not be broken until it is too late, and human society is back living in caves and dark basement.. .
“it’s based on overwhelming evidence and the laws of physics.”
ROFLMAO
You haven’t produced ONE SINGLE PIECE of the so-called evidence
And you have proven that your grasp of physics is extremely poor, to the stage of FANTASY FIZZICS.
Just repeat the brain-numbed AGW MANTRA , seb.
repeat, repeat , repeat. !!
That will solve you EMPTYMESS
It is and is it not MY believe.
It has not been “proved” nothing in physics is “proved”. Proofs are a math thing.
It’s one huge belief-system and anyone who wants to show conclusively that the currently thought of mechanism are wrong, only needs one example where the current “belief” doesn’t explain the outcome. Voila, disproved.
So don’t act like you can’t disprove a belief. Galileo did. Einstein did. Hawking did. Be like them, don’t be a lame skeptic blogger with the gut feeling that CO2 causing anything is a lie.
“It is and is it not MY believe.”
NO EVIDENCE.
Any if its not something you believe, why the continued mantra chanting ?
“CO2 causing anything is a lie.”
There is NO EVIDENCE.
It is a FANTASY and a scientific non-possibility.!
There is NO proven rational mechanism for warming by atmospheric CO2.
Maybe the congregation of cAGW should watch more Willie Soon videos. They may understand that their ridiculous attempts at censorship is exactly what religion cAGW belief relies on.
And here’s another one for Seb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAy4sOcS5M
Pierre,
That certainly fits the bill 🙂
Well, witches weren’t executed for bad weather … it was mostly a money grab thing. Property of the deceased could be sold to other families and a bit later, they could be executed.
Anyway, do you guys really think climate science is all hocus-pocus? Do you really feel that you are the victims and not the accusers? That you are being hunted and censored?
It’s more like people are making fun of you and your weird opinions, wouldn’t you agree? Calling the others religious believers must be some sort of last straw thing because you aren’t able to reason properly …
* Says the person who writes this about more than 30,000 species going extinct every year:
SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”
* Or says the person who claims that the 0.08 pH unit change over the course of 200 years (0.0004 per year) is “too fast” for marine life to adapt to, even though pH levels naturally rise and fall at rates 100 times faster than that.
SebastianH: “They [marine species] might be able to adapt, but not at the speed acidification is happening.”
* Or says the person who claims that CO2 rise has caused browning (desertification) rather than greening.
SebastianH: “[C]an you please point to the satellite data that shows what you claim [the Earth is greening] is true? I can only find data for increasing desertification.”
* Or says the person who claims that ppm (0.000001) changes in CO2 concentrations have such a powerful effect on the Earth’s climate that CO2 molecules can be directly compared to small quantities of poison (arsenic, cyanide) and their effects on the human body.
* Or says the person who believes humans can control how warm or how cold the ocean waters get by emitting more or less CO2…even though there are no physical measurements from real-world experiments that show how much change, if any, CO2 concentration changes cause to water bodies. He just believes anyway.
* Or says the person who claims that Antarctic Peninsula is warming “10 times faster” than the rest of the globe…even though scientists have found that the AP has been rapidly cooling (-0.45 C per decade) since 1999.
Us? Weird opinions?
https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge2.html
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/
The 30000 species per year loss is a high estimate by Wilson, but well in the range estimated by current science (current extinction rate is 100-1000 times higher than the background rate of 0.1-1 extinctions per a million species per year.
The pH of seawater at Hawaii dropped by 0.05 units just since the late 80s: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/OA+Observations+and+Data
We don’t have reliable data from before: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2837 (Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change)
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9326.short (Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates)
Haha, how funny. No, I didn’t compare CO2 to poison. You could equally use food coloring in water or lego pieces on a floor to visualize how stupid it is to use “oh a 1 ppm change is so small, how could it possibly cause anything” as an argument.
Let’s visualize it with Lego, shall we? A 1×1 piece is 8×8 mm in size. So for a 8×8 m area this mean a 1 ppm change equals 1 more lego piece. Do you think it makes a difference if there are 400 pieces in that area vs. 280 pieces? Or is the amount of neglible and you will never scream because you walked onto a piece? 😉
It is a physical fact that CO2 absorbs and emits IR. We have measured (on the surface looking up) the difference in the relevant bands over time so we know that the amount emitted increased. We know that heat content of anything increases if outgoing heat transfer is offset by increasing incoming radiation. And you think just because an experiment to show how a CO2 concentration change causes warming in the oceans is beyond difficult to execute, the endresult – increased heat content because of the increased GHE – is something that people can only believe in. Yeah right, we also believe gravity works everywhere the same, we also believe black holes exist. We also believe there was a singularity at the beginning of time and space. We also believe our laws of physics that we came up with … since they can never be proven, we have to … satisfied?
So? Didn’t it warm before? Isn’t the ice mass of Antartica decreasing? Want to post another paper where your quote shows the opposite, but the text of the paper actually confirms that the ice mass is decreasing? 😉
Yep. For whatever reason you absolutely love CO2 and just can’t understand how our emissions are and will change the climate for a long time to come. It’s weird.
An alarmist “estimate” that you obviously believe in, as you’ve claimed we “are already at or over that rate”.
According to actual observational data, there have been 801 species lost since 1500 AD, with almost all of those confirmed* extinctions (*there are 100s of “Lazarus” species declared extinct that have reappeared) occurring before the early 20th century (i.e., during the Little Ice Age, when CO2 levels were in the 280s ppm), and many of these extinctions were related to human activity (over-hunting, habitat destruction, species introductions onto islands, etc.). Just 1 confirmed species extinction has occurred since 2000, and none of the more recent ones were related to the Earth’s tenths-of-a-degree temperature changes since 1950. But since you’re an alarmist and a believer in 30,000+ species extinctions per year, please identify the list of 100,000 species that have gone extinct since 2015. Surely you have the hard data to back up your beliefs, right? Show us the list.
To educate you, SebastianH, all your citations are rooted in computer model-derived extrapolations, not real-world observational evidence (i.e., Science). These activist-based “models” go like this:
WWF: “If there are: – 100,000,000 different species on Earth – and the Extinction rate just is 0.01% / year – then 10,000 species go extinct ever year”
See how they did that? No real-world data to speak of. Just extrapolations based on computer-modeled if-then estimations. It’s the same computer-model driven WWF alarmism that got published in the 4th IPCC report about the Himalayan glaciers all melting by the year 2035. Of course, the Himalayan temperatures aren’t rising and the glaciers are about 88% stable or advancing there, but the entirety of the Earth’s largest mountain glaciers disappearing in 17 years is what got published by the UN anyway. And people like you – alarmists – fall for this junk science every time.
Unbelievable! SebastianH, seawater pH dropped by 0.5 units (10 times more) from 1920 to 1930 (8.2 to 7.7), and then it rose from 7.7 to 8.3 (+0.6 units) in a span of about 5 years…
“The average calculated seawater pH over the past 159 years was 8.04 [with a] a seawater pH variation range of 7.66–8.40.” (Wei et al., 2015)
Explain how marine species cannot adjust to a -0.08 unit change over the course of hundreds of years (too fast!), but a -0.5-per-decade natural variability change is not harmful at all (not too fast). Do you continue to fail to see the flaw in your logic…and the logic that underlies ocean “acidification” science? Of course you do. You’re an alarmist and a non-skeptic.
“The observational data used here [https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2837] are from the Climate Prediction Center (CPC; refs 12,13). The simulation data are from 20 global climate models of CMIP5 (ref. 11; Methods).”
In other words, satellite data are not used to identify browning vs. greening trends. Models and predictions based upon CO2 emissions estimates for the coming decades are used.
In contrast, real-world satellite observations tell a different story:
—
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67b5/meta
“The sustained increasing vegetation activity trend (greening) in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) has been a prominent feature in satellite observations since the 1980s…greening trends are further attributed to land use change, land management, CO2 fertilization, and nitrogen deposition”
—
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0081
“Here we used a passive microwave Earth observation data set to document two different trends in land area with woody cover for 1992–2011: 36% of the land area (6,870,000 km2) had an increase in woody cover largely in drylands, and 11% had a decrease (2,150,000 km2), mostly in humid zones. Increases in woody cover were associated with low population growth, and were driven by increases in CO2 in the humid zones and by increases in precipitation in drylands, whereas decreases in woody cover were associated with high population growth.”
—
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html
“Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend”
—
It is not a physical fact that we know how much heating or cooling CO2 concentration changes cause in water bodies. We have no physical measurements. Who needs real-world physical measurements, anyway?
Who’s we? On Earth, we have accurate real-world measurements for the force/distance for specified heights above the planet. These measurements are from observations. Empirical evidence. Other planets, other galaxies? We have no measurements there. So no, we don’t “believe” gravity works the same “everywhere”.
Or says the person who claims that Antarctic Peninsula is warming “10 times faster” than the rest of the globe…even though scientists have found that the AP has been rapidly cooling (-0.45 C per decade) since 1999.
Yes. It warms as CO2 increases. It cools as CO2 increases. Therefore, CO2 caused the warming.
Similarly, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been growing since 1979 as the CO2 concentration rose from 340 ppm to 408 ppm. The Southern Ocean has also been cooling since 1979. Therefore, the CO2 rise caused the…never mind. Or something.
I suppose you’ll next accuse me of loving oxygen.
“and just can’t understand how our emissions are and will change the climate for a long time to come.”
seb remain firmly planted in his ANTI-SCIENCE FANTASY la-la land.
There is ZERO scientific evidence that our CO2 emissions are changing the climate in any way.
Lets look at that TINY period of Aloha pH data yet again, shall we seb
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/pHandCO22.png
OOPS, its part of a natural cycle. !!
Name some species that have gone extinct in the last 10 years seb… more modelled garbage, just like the “dryland” paper you link.. modelled garbage.. !
Temperature decreases crop yields?? Bad luck with your pseudo-science yet again, as world crop yields increase year by year.. obviously it is not warming.
——
Just keep on REGURGITATING your mind-numbed, unsupportable, AGW MANTRA as always, seb
… its hilarious, and proves that you are NOTHING except a religious nutter.
And a dumb and dumber Lego analogy, used because you are TOTALLY EMPTY of any rational proof.,
really seb ????
The village of idiots is missing their standard bearer… !!
Analysis of all ocean surface pH data gives the following trend
https://i1.wp.com/oi60.tinypic.com/9s7xvo.jpg
“For whatever reason you absolutely love CO2 “
One of the two main building blocks of ALL LIFE ON EARTH.
What’s not to love !!!
EVERY LIVING CREATURE depends on atmospheric CO2 for its very existence.
And that level have been dangerously low, hovering around plant-life extinction level, for a LONG time.
The BENEFITS of our current slightly raised atmospheric CO2 levels, from whatever cause, are just PLUS, PLUS, PLUS !!
There is ZERO provable negative.
Why do people like seb HATE CO2 SO MUCH?
There must be some brain-numbed, wacky, bizarre anti-science, reason somewhere. !!
” also believe gravity works everywhere the same”
Pretty close to the same everywhere on Earth.
On some other way-out fantasy world…
…or the EMPTYMESS of seb’s mind… who knows.
” our laws of physics”
which seb seems destined to never comprehend.
Just keep making up your own anti-science interpretation of FIZZICS to fit your mind-numbed mantra, seb.
That’ll fix your fantasies.
Why do I have the feeling you think of species extinctions as something like “elephants going extinct”. How many species do you think this planet is home of?
What is wrong with using models? You seem to be loathing models, yet you have no problem with them when they seem to confirm your gut feeling. Why?
Indeed unbelievable. We don’t have reliable data of that time and a drop by 0.5 pH units is not “10 times more” as 0.05 … the scale is logarithmic.
Explain how you can not adjust to extended swimming in 15 degrees cold water, yet will be perfectly fine to do it for a few minutes/hours.
The flaw of your logic is pretty clear.
Don’t tell me you are a skeptic. You are convinced about humans having nothing to do with the changing cliamte and blindly believe anything (yes, anything!) that supports this gut feeling. Not the least bit skeptic … you are just “anti-AGW”.
Why not first link to the original paper (it’s the last one in your list) and instead use a cherry picked quote from a paper investigating the abnormaly large greening in 2015 that is “unlikely to be explained” by nitrogen deposition, CO2 fertilization and land-use change? I know why, you read the sentence and it sounded good enough for your quote collection to include it. Right or wrong? 😉
Anyway, do you think CO2 fertilization causes plants to grow where none were growing before? Or do you realize that it’s just enhancing existing growth? Or asked differently, do you think desertification is non existent in modern times?
It is to be expected from what else we know. There is a tiny chance that some unknown effect causes water bodies not to be influences by incoming radiation of this special wavelength, but I really doubt this will turn physics as we know it on its head.
Who needs measurements? I dare you to take measurements of the gravitational field of a black hole. Have we ever even observed one of those? Or even better, I dare you to not ever cite data from times where no accurate measurements were possible. Because we need measurements otherwise it’s not happening or hasn’t happend, right?
This believe of yours in some magical effect that somehow causes water bodies to behave completely different from what the laws of physics tell us … that is weird!
You really don’t get it, do you? Of course we (humanity, at least the part who has read a physics book in their life) believe in gravity working the same everywhere. It’s called universal laws of physics for a reason. Nothing is proven … it’s all just belief.
Someday even you will realize that.
Not understanding the mechanisms would lead to such conclusions. I guess you loath models so much, that you can’t even bring yourself to reading anything about those mechanisms as we currently understand them …
Whatever.
@AndyG55: thanks for the good laugh. You never disappoint.
What a mindless EMPTY rant you just presented.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrWoG8IckyE
ZERO science just mantra based suppository.
And yet you STILL managed to show just how little comprehension you have of anything.
Models are NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF of anything, especially when they are based on erroneous assumptions like atmospheric CO2 warming.
When asked for proof of your base-level religious fallacy……
YOU ALWAYS DISAPPOINT.
“it was mostly a money grab thing.”
The parallel with climate science is uncanny !!
“Anyway, do you guys really think climate science is all hocus-pocus?”
You have yet to present ONE IOTA of proof for the very basis of climate so-called science.
But you STILL just preach the EMPTY, BASELESS MANTRA.
“Calling the others religious believers must be some sort of last straw thing because you aren’t able to reason properly “
ROFLMAO,
Coming from you seb, that is the height of ridiculous. Were you preening yourself in the mirror when you typed that ??
You are EMPTY of anything remotely resembling rational thought.
All you have is your BRAIN-NUMBED AGW regurgitation of IRRATIONAL, UNSUPPORTABLE, ANTI-SCIENCE BELIEF.
ZERO empirical science to back up even your base-level FALLACY that atmospheric CO2 causes any warming of ANYTHING !!
It really is pathetic to see someone so absolutely mindless in their cult-like rantings.