Comments by "Quentin Newark" (@quentinnewark2745) on "Brutal Boris u0026 Extinction Rebellion mayhem - The Week in 60 Minutes | SpectatorTV" video.

  1. All weather, warming, cooling, rain, fire, balmy warmth, storms are terrible signs of impending death. Greta says we have ten years before the world ends, Roger Hallam says thirty years, Al Gore said in 2004 that in ten years New York would be underwater. Its modern millenarianism, the End is Nigh.
    2
  2.  @borderlands6606  Yes, absolute intolerance. If only we had a new world to set sail to.
    2
  3.  @blahdelablah  https://youtu.be/E5K5i5Wv7jQ
    2
  4. CO2 wasn’t scary enough, we breathe it out in every breath, plants flourish, greenery has pretty much doubled in the last twenty years — so they switched and dropped the O2 bit and now just call it carbon, that horrible black stuff, “pollution”. Its all about optics. Making a perfectly natural component of the atmosphere into something bad.
    2
  5.  @blahdelablah  yes.
    1
  6.  @shaunh5316  we differ. You can find a few charts with temperatures estimated back as far as 500 million years, based on mixture of rock/ice/fossil tree data. It shows three things: 1. temperature is never a flat line, 2. There is absolutely no correlation between CO2 and temperature, 3. Natural processes are obviously responsible for all the changes. Quite why some scientists think the two are wedded, why 0.03% of gases in the atmosphere are so significant, why going from 0.03 to 0.04 will be Armageddon… and why humans are responsible, I am unconvinced.
    1
  7.  @blahdelablah  yes to “climate scientists” (which description many like Brian Cox who know nothing about climate [lots about quantum physics]) pursuing a religion — with a religious apocalypse, and adherence to ideas about inherent sin, evils of luxury, faith in incomprehensible babel, etc.
    1
  8.  @blahdelablah  How to compress the answer. If you google a bit, you can find the ‘average global temperature’ (which is itself a construction, temperature is only ever localised) going back 500m years. Back to the Cambrian and the advent of multicellular life. You’ll see it rising and falling dramatically, varying by 40°c and more, partial glaciation, all brought about by natural processes. There are three significant things about this chart. 1. There is no flat line for any extended period, 2. Natural processes are responsible for every rise/fall, since we evil humans were worms or mice or apes for almost all of it, 3. There is absolutely no correlation between CO2, one of the most minor atmospheric gases, and temperature… its 3,000 parts per million during an ice age (it is currently 350 parts per million, the climate “crisis” is it may rise to 400 parts per million). Scientists are humans, and subject to human frailties. Arrogance, prejudice, sunk-cost-stick-in-the-mudism. There is no “The Science”, just data, which is either solid or modelled/estimated. And then various ways of interpreting that data. Some scientists have convinced themselves CO2 is the single most significant gas on earth, and its tiny rise is calamitous. Other like Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace), Michael Shellenberger, Bjorn Lomborg, are either sceptical of that, sceptical of the “zero CO2” thing, or see it as simple misprision.
    1
  9.  @blahdelablah  To respond to your points. How is the "human activity" quantified as opposed to natural processes? "Beyond that expected" doesn't make any sense. Was the much-talked-about medieval warm period expected? Was the last glaciation? The climate for 500m years has had NO flat/consistent periods for any great length of time. CO2 is called a 'greenhouse gas', yes. Heat on the surface usually creates more cloud cover, water vapour/clouds is more significant than CO2 in affecting temperature on the surface. Does 0.03% of the atmosphere control the temperature as you suggest in a linear fashion. No. The charts I mentioned of historic temperature do not show a causal link of that kind. I mentioned three sceptics, I could list far more. (Bjorn Lomborg does not agree with Patrick Moore by the way.) Your idea that entangled
    1
  10.  @blahdelablah  “Therefore, if the main source of heat is not increasing, and even if you take into account the time lag between changes in the world's ecosystems and the global temperature, it stands to reason that something has resulted in increased heat insulation.” I don’t agree. You set up the sun as the sole cause of temperature rise. The same sun was shining when the glaciations occurred, or in the early Cenozoic when the temperature were 15ºc higher than today. Sun plus magma plus sea currents (most of world’s CO2 is in the oceans) plus volcanic activity plus arrangement of land mass (we have been through several arrangements of continents and supercontinents plus magnetic effects of the sun, moon (the tides all dependent on the moon). I can tell you haven’t bothered to look at temperature variation over 500m years, because all the points you raise are focused on now. The climate has been relatively stable for at least 10,000 years, and all of a sudden starts ramping up at the same time the world's economies became industrialised and increasingly dependent on fossil fuels. Are you suggesting that this correlation is just a coincidence? Coincidence or association? Explain then: Roman warm period and Minoan warm periods both about 1ºc warmer (average) than today. And huge mountain-range-looking rises 7,000, 8,000, 9,000 years ago. Obviously before your supposed flat-line (nowhere to be seen), the (average) global temperature was below freezing, and that massive change was by natural means… only the sun using your simple model to explain a hugely complex fluid phenomenon. “Regarding water vapour being the dominant greenhouse gas... “ Its not usually considered a “greenhouse gas”, nor did I call it such, but as I referred to it, an atmospheric gas. The majority compared to what is almost a trace gas 0.03% CO2. Then you just cut-and-paste some doctrinal US website data. Maybe a “easy ways to refute a skeptic” help site? “Aside from this, if you think CO2 is just "called" a greenhouse gas, do you also think methane is just "called" a greenhouse gas, or do you think it actually is a greenhouse gas?” I clearly don’t swallow the CO2 hypothesis. Or the attached anthropogenic hypothesis. The temperature of the planet clearly does what it will, it varied massively when we were worms, it may well, probably is, varying now, why would it suddenly stop? For the 500m years we have some kind of estimates of temperature and CO2, there is zero correlation. I never saw a chart showing methane. But as it is 0.00017% of atmospheric gases, are you asking me is it a big part of the atmosphere, is it a key player? No. Its way more insignificant than the 0.03% of CO2. You have been conned by the now discredited ‘hockey-stick’, all the manipulated data that made such an alarming looking uptick. When you look from further away, half a billion years, CO2 is at a half-billion year low, temperatures historically pretty low, and all the natural processes that caused rises and drops to date still active…
    1
  11. Adonis was suggesting we should have had hundreds of thousands of eastern Europeans AND higher wages. He is always entertaining. Like a flat-earther or Mormon, he twists everything to match his deranged views.
    1