Comments by "" (@1965ace) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

  1. garouHH Nothing biased about thermometers except their locations. http://amlibpub.blogspot.com/2009/08/thermometers-create-global-warming.html http://www.bobbyshred.com/fools/falsetemps.html http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/04/looking-at-thermometer-placement-and-heat-in-the-infrared/ When the inmates are running the asylum you can't trust anything to be objective. 
    1
  2. garouHH Here is an example of outright fraud. http://blog.heartland.org/2013/07/exposing-the-global-warming-fraud/
    1
  3. IronicKismet I think the IPCC takes the cake for paid liars .  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
    1
  4. IronicKismet I just sent you proof the IPCC is committing fraud, the "science " is full of fraud. I really don't care about one website, i don't have time to defend them but this is where your "facts" come from, liars. 
    1
  5. garouHH lol, you cheerleaders buy anything. 
    1
  6. IronicKismet Terms like "corporate shills " comes from a belief system and bias. Obviously all corporations (groups of business people) can't be corrupt AND all government can't be corrupt (jury is still out on this lol). You are an extremist saying my life is a fraud and "everything I say is a fraud". Since your little mind can't sort out the details you decide to dispatch an option of extreme prejudice, discounting "everything " I say. The only people I know for sure who have a great stake  financially in Warming propaganda are the IPCC and every government organization PAID to study the theory. Between that and incredible peer pressure by fellows and politics there is almost no benefit to objectively reject the Warmers religion. Read "Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin to get an insiders view of peer review by a well known Theoretical Physicist. 
    1
  7. IronicKismet Good sheep don't question your masters. Billions of years of data and you think the earth began 150 years ago. LOL
    1
  8. garouHH No your the one doing that I maintain the vast majority of change is due to these other factors and that CO2 is magnitudinally incidental. You have made my point once again. 
    1
  9. garouHH  My point is wether its warming or not CO2 has a very small role if any as it always has. Temperature caused CO2 not visa versa.  http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/548516/North-South-poles-not-melting-Dr-Benny-Peiser
    1
  10. garouHH "Milankovitch cycle triggered CO2 release" AND that "trigger" was HEAT. Heat liberates CO2, that is the horse in from of the cart as it should be. And again you focus on only one cycle, exaggerate the data and ignore billions of years of history. If you make one false assumption the rest of your theory is drastically off track.  There is nothing remarkable about the global temperatures, CO2 levels, or transitions in this current time period (150 years out of billions). Now if you depend on false data and exaggerations you go off a cliff rapidly. 
    1
  11. garouHH Your theory would have had the temperature out of bounds very quickly and the earth would have boiled the oceans and been a desert planet billions of years ago.  You have to believe every-time in the past temp and CO2 was peaking along comes a cycle to save the planet, instead of understanding balance includes negative reinforcement of much greater significance than the narrow band absorption of infrared by CO2.  A balance can't depend on a cycle saving it from tipping out of control and the historic data suggests a very strong balance. 
    1
  12. garouHH Surely there has been in the past 2000 + ppm in the atmosphere and much more that could be liberated from the oceans and ground. On the one hand you are afraid of an increase of 1/41,666th in the atmosphere and on the other you are confident there isn't an infinite supply .....????   Also I don't see any warmers blaming the 20th century rise on  a heat maximum, such hypocrites . 
    1
  13. garouHH You speak of a heat maximum and a cooling period at the same time. It's warming it's cooling it's melting it's freezing anything to convince the faithful.
    1
  14. garouHH I thought CO2 was to blame for all the heating in the 20th century ??? Your logic is flawed because if we're at a heat maximum the temperature should be maintaining (it is for 15 years) not cooling . 
    1
  15. garouHH It's all so convoluted are you sure the earth began 150 years ago, .....or are you cherry picking your data again ? 
    1
  16. garouHH I would say the same to you sir. 
    1
  17. garouHH No I call the warming movement a pseudo science and reject it . Just like I defend capitalism and reject crony capitalism. 
    1
  18. garouHH The destruction of the American economy is born out of the same ignorance and irresponsibility as the warming religion. Personally I'd like you to get what you want and live in a 3rd world country as your advocating. 
    1
  19. garouHH It's sad that you're so afraid of a lie. 
    1
  20. Dennis Mallon More than 75% of past consensus has been wrong, the flat earth, the universe revolving around the earth, throwing virgins into volcanos etc etc. Every generation thinks it knows. MMGW is just the flat earth consensus of this time. BTW it's not even a consensus  http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/06/flashback-1998-scientists-said-sun-caused-global-warming-bbc-climate-changes-such-as-global-warming-may-be-due-to-changes-in-the-sun-rather-than-to-the-release-of-greenhouse-gases-on-earth/ http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
    1
  21. Dennis Mallon Another sycophantic groupie of something he obviously knows nothing about. 
    1
  22. Dennis Mallon And still ...nothing ?
    1
  23. Dennis Mallon Give up your wasting your time and I'm not even reading the first paragraph to know there is nothing worth responding to. :) CO2 is a product of heat not the determining factor of temperature, yes there is a tiny reinforcing feedback but also negative feedback. Billions of years shows us that. Come back when you have something "sciency" to say. 
    1
  24. Dennis Mallon WOT
    1
  25. garouHH If the theory was fact it wouldn't continue to be questioned and dismissed. 
    1
  26. garouHH "climate change is real and man-made" , that is the statement that will fall into the the flat earth category. Send more virgins the volcano god is angry LOL.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2891432/Carbon-dioxide-emissions-help-tropical-rainforests-grow-faster-Study-shows-trees-absorb-greenhouse-gas-expected.html
    1
  27. garouHH Another scientific truth you reject to embrace warming ? CO2 and plant life ?? http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html
    1
  28. garouHH You only pay attention to paid hacks that are making a fortune on the warming myth. I am going to going to do some more experiments with CO2 gas cylinders to see how much energy they can hold and then correlate that from 900psi of almost pure gas to 1/ 41,666th of the atmosphere. Preliminarily it's like heating a football stadium with a couple of candles. Do you have any suggestions for this experiment? 
    1
  29. garouHH Good ideas, I have heated a bottle   with a volume of 1 cubic foot at 900 psi (cold) with sunlight for several hours. This should represent CO2 in 160,714 ft^3 at sea level and man released CO2 in 2,678,528 ft^3 at sea level. For comparison my 3,000 ft^2 house has about 24,000ft ^3 space and is represented to have about 10ft^3 of CO2 and .6ft^3 of man released CO2. The bottle only reached 120 degrees. What is the infrared transfer effect through 16 gauge stainless steel ? 
    1
  30. garouHH I understand the difference but I struggle to relate such a small volume making any notable difference. One bottle of CO2 (one cubic foot) influencing the direction of temperature in 2.7 million cubic feet of atmosphere and untold dimensions in the upper atmosphere. 
    1
  31. garouHH Ill explain the math it's rounded in your favor 400ppm 6% is man released (not really but in your favor again) 1 / 2500th and 1/ 41,666th. The one cubic foot of gas is at 900psi (cold again in your favor) . Pressure at sea level is about 14 psi so 900 psi would expand to 64.29 ft^3 pure CO2 at 400ppm it would occupy 160,725 ft^3 (at 14psi) and if it was just representative of man released CO2 then 1 part in 41,666 would occupy 2,678,707 cubic feet. So in a sense my little bottle of CO2 is supposed to direct enough heat to raise the temperature of 2,678,707 cubic feet of air (267 mid sized houses) about 2 degrees F. I just can't believe this. 
    1
  32. garouHH As I told you my figures were at sea level and of course the higher you go the more expansion there is of course. Do you really want me to draw a picture people will see representing ppb ??? I think ppm illustrates my point exactly. What nerve it takes to blame all the increase on man, after all historically temperature went up and CO2 followed, look at all the data.  Let's talk about the oceans, they give up their CO2 when the planet warms (outgassing), what your claiming. SO doesn't that factor into the calculations of increased atmospheric CO2 ??? You also claimed we were in a warming cycle and your also claiming a cooling Milankovich cycle (I think it was you anyway).  It seems to me even 1 part in 2500 parts (all atmospheric CO2) would have to be 2500 degrees (by volume I know it's not exact) in order to raise the collective 1 degree by itself. This all seems preposterous if not just grossly exaggerated. 
    1
  33. garouHH Where is the balance in your models? The way you describe the earth is a precarious balance that should have drifted to an extreme billions of years ago. If one factor is off by a few degrees of change the whole thing is doomed, but that is not what we have seen historically. There has always been counterbalance keeping things in check. Look at clouds , the tops reflect incoming energy and the bottoms reflect outgoing energy. Clear days and cloudy nights are much warmer than cloudy days and clear nights. Those effects are magnitudes greater than 1 degree in a century, and yet the earth remains abundant with life.  1/41,666th of the atmosphere and even 1/2500th of the atmosphere is only a part of the warmers fantasy for controlling global warming. The audacity to believe that none of the other factors will compensate in a billions of years old system is insanity. 
    1
  34. TheRealArchAngel And that amounts to a very tiny part of the atmosphere although it sounds big. Also all that carbon has been in the carbon cycle before. There is nothing new under the sun. 
    1
  35. TheRealArchAngel That amounts to 1 / 41,666th of the atmosphere is man released CO2. Not very much at all. 
    1
  36. TheRealArchAngel Have you ever looked at at a thermal scan ? infrared is the energy that moves molecules aka heat . All matter that is above absolute zero gives off electromagnetic radiation. Thermal conductivity is what makes the stainless steel hot on the non heated side, but it is convection and IR on the inside of the bottle that heats the gas.   You don't know what your talking about if you think the inside of that bottle is not giving off IR and the CO2 is not absorbing that infrared is specific frequencies. 
    1
  37. ***** I just can't stand the sheep who worship and idolize smart and popular people. Don't question and don't challenge them is the moniker of the sheep. Those people must be right because they are on TV and they have been recognized to be smart.  Imagine if Einstein never challenged the status quo . 
    1
  38. TheRealArchAngel "there is no debate in Science"  That is so ignorant, every major discovery and evolution in science was surrounded in debate and politics.  What we have now is a minuscule change in temperature blown out of proportion and 100% blamed on man released CO2 1/41,666th of the atmosphere. First you claim there is no politics in science and then you site government agencies, LOLOLOLOLOL. The same un-objective research that claims the warmers religion is 100% dependent on it being true !!!!!  
    1
  39. vanhouten64 Let's all believe the paid propagandists who claim to be smarter than anyone else. The tools of government and frauds like al gore. 
    1
  40. ***** That's what I'm waiting for is for them to accept this is wrong. Why are you so emotional ? 
    1
  41. ***** First of all coal and oil are nothing but  stored SOLAR Energy . You  are perfectly illustraiting the same error over and over , you don't understand scale.  I'll prove it. 2.5 people per home , 128,000,000 homes in the US, avg 903 KW per month, avg 10,836KW per year = 1,387,008,000,000 KWH per year for just homes . At 12W not KW per square foot (solar panel output) we need 473 square miles or 13,186,483,200 ft^2 of solar panels for just homes every 17 years (lifespan of solar panels). Go ahead and estimate the cost of these solar panels LOLOLOLOL. Green energy means flushing green money down the toilet. 
    1
  42. TheRealArchAngel You obviously know solar panels can't replace coal and oil then.   I think you missed the point on the coal, oil and solar I was trying to make.  " Most scientists agree that hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are of organic origin. A few, however, maintain that some natural gas could have formed deep within the earth, where heat melting the rocks may have generated it inorganically.1 Nevertheless, the weight of evidence favors an organic origin, most petroleum coming from plants and perhaps also animals, which were buried and fossilized in sedimentary source rocks.2 The petroleum was then chemically altered into crude oil and gas." https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/
    1
  43. TheRealArchAngel Billions of years in the making can produce huge reservoirs. The answer is not wind and solar it's Thorium. 
    1
  44. Rik Speek You are a psychophant for something you know nothing about. 
    1
  45. Rik Speek I'm in good company.  http://iceagenow.com/Top_Scientists_say_global_warming_is_a_lie.htm
    1
  46. TheRealArchAngel As Mark Levin says the new green is the old red. 
    1
  47. Frank Spellman That's what the lie is. CO2 absorbs a narrow band of IR. Water vapor which far surpasses CO2 as a greenhouse gas absorbs the same bands and a lot more. Negative feedback is completely ignored and positive feedback is grossly exaggerated. It's just a shame that the science has been corrupted to benefit a few greedy politicians scientists and special interest groups. 
    1
  48. TheRealArchAngel " IR or infrared radiation detected by infrared spectrometers in identifying gases in air  by its adsorb/reflect/refract rate of IR  that makes air glow red with co2 has nothing to do with the maximum heat adsorption capacity of air, water vapor or co2 which is 32f for air, 1/10th of a hundredth of  a degree for 400ppm of co2, and 900f at 60% humidity (noting that while co2 is heavier then air it rides the humidity in air along with the other trace gases mostly off the world oceans)"   Where do you find this information ? I'm trying to follow along but I want verification. 
    1
  49. garouHH It only works if the earth was created 150 years ago ....LOL http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg
    1
  50. phwoarprozak In order to believe the current MMGW theory it is assumed the earth is only 150 years old, the natural carbon concentration never changes, natural carbon sinks never change, and every year is hotter than the last (ignoring the last 15+ years).  Billions of years of history ignored. 
    1