Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Astrum"
channel.
-
10
-
Because you're pushing false political agenda that claims to be "science". We expect better.
Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie.
Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie.
Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm.
Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods.
Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise.
Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear.
Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus.
Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court.
In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
2
-
2
-
Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie.
Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie.
Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm.
Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods.
Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise.
Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear.
Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus.
Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court.
In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
2
-
1
-
Correct. They buy mansions on the coast, fly private jets, live lavish and energy intensive lives, while telling the poor they aren't poor enough.
Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie.
Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie.
Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm.
Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods.
Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise.
Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear.
Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus.
Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court.
In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
1
-
1
-
Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie.
Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie.
Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm.
Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods.
Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise.
Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear.
Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus.
Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court.
In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
1
-
Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie.
Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie.
Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm.
Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods.
Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise.
Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear.
Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus.
Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court.
In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie.
Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie.
Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm.
Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods.
Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise.
Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear.
Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus.
Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court.
In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie.
Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie.
Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm.
Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods.
Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise.
Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear.
Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus.
Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court.
In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
1