Comments by "Juzu Juzu" (@juzujuzu4555) on "13 Misconceptions About Global Warming" video.

The problem however is that Co2 doesn't warm the planet, the warming planet increases Co2, which then causes more heat radiation in the upper atmosphere and that levels out the temperatures in the long run. The benefit from higher Co2 are minimal, but still there. That's why statistics have always higher temps followed by higher Co2 levels. And it's also why in the 80s scientists claimed Ice age is coming, and why in the 90s most signed the document that stated that co2 cannot warm the planet at any reasonable amounts human could cause. 0,05% is so insignificant amount if we look what there has been previously. Massive volcanic activity etc. could raise Co2 high enough that it leads to cycle of increasing Co2, but burning all the fossil fuels humans have any chance of getting their hands on in one year would raise the co2 to 0.06%. You are correct that if Co2 would be a problem, then we are focusing on ALL THE WRONG THINGS, and oceans are the most important thing, followed by rain forests. Perhaps the most important thing would be to cause maximal development of tech, as we need better tech to solve these issues, but instead we are causing economic problems, which only make bankers the owners of this world. We are more in debt to bankers as there's money. Thus if economy slows down, we have to give them our wealth in paying for the debt. And it's exactly the reason why all the lies are pushed in science, as science is owned by the billionaires. There's no actual power in the hands of scientists. Billionaires own universities, corporations, institutions, medias and politicians though lobbying and bribing.
4
@sofakingonmynuts1438 Ocean levels have not risen in 10-15 yrs, which debunks the whole global warming. And even if there were global warming, it certainly wouldn't be caused by Co2. Global warming BS is what makes these politicians and billionaires incredible amounts of money. Over a trillion wasted on this scam per year. "make the lie big, repeat it constantly, and eventually they will believe it" and with global warming there's the added benefit of imperfect memory. You see what you believe. There was 300 year solar maximum in the 90s, so there were slightly warmer period. Then there's the problem that couple billion people have moved to big cities at one point in their lives. And there can be over 5C higher temps in the city and all the concrete and asphalt traps that heat. And as cities become bigger, well the effect got worse and worse.
4
@mariomario-dy1kc It's not hilarious, it's quite sad that this video spreads lies. I would highly encourage instead of believing these propaganda videos to actually study the research and the points of the opposition. As for the main argument, ocean levels not having rising in the last 10-15 yrs, there's lots of us who live in the coast or in my case have own small island, who measure the level of sea. And for many it started not to debunk this Co2 global warming but to actually prove it to those in our circles who didn't believe in it. Don't project your mom to me. I'm pushing close to 50, and probably have studied physics among other things longer than you have lived. If there were any evidence that Co2 was causing global warming, it would be public immediately. But instead we are having closed source simulations which isn't science and the fact that we actually use these results is scary as phuck. And then we have so much direct lies. Why? Why are these institutions suddenly lying, why are climate science done from the preassumptions that Co2 is causing global warming, as that automatically just makes the studies as finding the best statistical method to make it seem as such.
3
@bluesbr0ther588 I didn't get your comment about measuring. First I measured the level of certain moss (don't know the exact term on this on English) on the beach, as we have base rock beach that has shallow slope and there's clear distinction on the color and level of slime on the moss that spends most of it's time under water. Because it's so shallow slope you could see the difference from my childhood (in the early 80s) up to 2000s if you looked closely. Later I fixed tube on the pier that has ball in it that moves a rod that's attached to potentiometer and Arduino. It also measures the temp of the water, temp of the air, humidity, wind speeds, and saves the data on SD card.
3
Ocean level has not risen in 15 yrs. Polar areas, Greenland, other glaciers, mountains, frozen tundras, all would melt to oceans. Then all that water in the oceans, that are 71% of the earth at 2.5km average depth, would expand. BUT ocean levels have not risen, and the value of the coastline real estate have at higher percentage than other areas. There's no global warming. It's fake as phuck. There's no study that shows anything. It's the same statistical jerking that science has mostly become in this century. It's all just closed source simulation, which is as much science as my prediction than tomorrow will start new ice age. Ironically that's what they said in the 80s. Science is dead, long live your own research!
2
You should instead research a little and realize that flat earth is a psyop made so that people would think people talking about things that media portrays as conspiracies are insane. Obviously 0.01% might believe something that stupid, but there was NONE of this debate in the forums, then suddenly in month every forum had just flat earth BS. The fact that this is known by common people just shows how massive project this was. And instead of "trying to convince" people should try to actually research and question their own opinions. The ocean levels have not risen in the last 15 yrs. If there were global warming, the speed of the ocean level rising should just accelerate. Everything the cult of global warming has pushed is BS and anyone with some knowledge on physics and math can find it out by just looking the research papers. Those are not worth the paper they are printed. Look what the opposition is saying, aka those scientists that didn't sell their soul, as in the 90s vast majority was behind the proof that Co2 could never raise temps on earth, infact it causes the atmosphere to cool and that's why higher temps on earth raise Co2 levels on delay, and then atmosphere starts to cool down. Massive Co2 emissions from super volcanoes or event of that caliber are different thing entirely. Everything is really based on the computer simulations that are done on closed source software (why the hell you should ask as this makes it anti-science) so we are basing this purely on the fact that simulation we don't know about is right. Anyone who really understands physics should realize that we can't trust even open source simulations, though at least in that case we could take it more seriously. If Co2 would be the cause, then what would be the solution? Everything we do in that case is wrong. There's nothing we do that has any effect on Co2 levels, but we are causing damage to economy, development of tech etc. but at the same time we are making the bankers gain control of all the wealth. Limit the economic growth through is the same as giving everything to bankers. There's multiple times more debt than there's money, so the only solutions are to get rid of private central banks, or to have economic growth through technical innovations as that increases the amount of money in circulation and thus reduces the relative debt per wealth. But the society has turned into different cliques whose ideology are weaponized towards the whole population. These people think they are fighting for something good, but as almost always is the case, the opposite is the truth. Especially intelligent people, who have not accumulated wisdom, are the usual suspects. I was like that. I was climate activist, then I finally started to think "Why the ocean level on our beach on family house hasn't increased at all" and actually started to look what the opposition has to say.
2
@teddansonLA How come higher Co2 coming after higher temps have already been there can be caused by the Co2? It cannot. There were dozen books written in the 70s and early 80s about the cooling and possibly coming ice age. The fact that this was written already shows how credible quite a large part of these scientists are. In the 90s huge amount of people spoke against this global warming, and especially against Co2 being the cause. But when global agendas are in question, both carrot and stick works, the billionaires and banking trillionaires run the show. And most don't have enough knowledge and intelligence to go through these studies and evidence. I would like to know for example how the Co2 cult explains that the whole solar system warmed in the 90s, earth was one of the least warming planets or moons. And how they explain the fact that ocean levels haven't risen in the last 15 yrs, while they should raise in increasing speed. Obviously Co2 global warming is pure religion at this point so people in the belief most likely believe the priests who spread lies. As they say, it's easier to fool someone than to make him realize he has been fooled. Again, I was part of this cult, so I understand how it feels.
1
@bluesbr0ther588 NASA, the irony or you trusting NASA. And no, I'm not flat earther, I know perfectly well that there are no flat earthers but damn was there a massive psyop. Years, no one talked about flat earth, then in couple of weeks majority of channels got 50% of the posts and comments being flat earth. After the conversation died in 6 months or so, then all of the flat earth people disappeared instantly. The language they use shows they are not different people with different backgrounds. Apollo footage is done with frontscreen projection. There's so much false physics in the footage, moving dust slowing down mid air and forming cloud is the simplest to find. The parallax shows the background doesn't move, it's about 50m behind the camera. And the background is frontscreen projection canvas. You can prove this by increasing gamma and contrast which brings up geometric patterns on the blackness of space. You can see the same patterns in all of the footage, without the dimensions changing. Thus it cannot be the camera (would be impossible even otherwise, but just to be thorough) or the film. It's probabilistic proof, thus the chance of it being there just because of random noise, is in the range of winning lottery every week for a trillion years. In reality it's actually much smaller than that, but the point is clear. Essentially you are just saying "I trust Nasa" and that's your proof. Even if they haven't lied ever, that's still just pure belief, but NASA being one of the least trustworthy organization in the planet, and you'll see the problem. Also I would like you to check out what kind of sea level rising numbers Al Gore and the other alarmist used to push. The whole fear comes from these lunatic alarmist who benefit billions upon billions on this BS. Perhaps other organizations have more reasonable numbers, but if we would have went with those numbers, people would have realized the whole thing is irrelevant. People in fear have the logical skills of a small child in hysteria. And when there's been decades already where those who study anything global warming related get lots of funding and other support from universities, then no wonder there's always those who sell their soul. But there's also lots of people who expose these lies, even though they have been fired (without there being issues with their science), blacklisted, censored and killed by the lunatic activists. I have gone through most of the research there was before 2015 (or close to that) and yet there is nothing that actually even hints that we have Co2 global warming. Though we see incredible amount of absolute trash science where the outcome has been chosen and then the statistical method that comes closest to that conclusion is chosen. There's no example on how much Co2 would warm the planet in simplified long term planet. Aka you have planet that's 100% water over a rock surface. What would the different temps over time become on different Co2 levels. That is something that everyone could calculate on Matlab etc. just publish the exact algorithms. But no, we have to believe in closed source simulations. Surely it must be 100% working physics without any reason to lie.
1
@bluesbr0ther588 The pier is directly over bedrock on the early section where I connected the pipe, and the pipe is connected to pier. You get noise on the data but the moving averages can be seen clearly.
1
@jcskyknight2222 There sure were lots of fake accounts that trashed every forum when it comes to flat earth. In 6 months those got disappeared. Obviously Internet has all the crazies in it, but still I haven't seen more than a couple of flat earthers. I haven't watched any debunks as I researched the flat earth theory to debunk it myself by using only physics that you can derive from your own testing. It was a fun exercise. BTW, Apollo footage is 100% faked. And the footage contains the proof. Obviously there's tons of other evidence too, but understanding that the footage is faked is the key. I highly suggest you to watch "Kubrick's Odyssey one" because it explains the things you can find in the footage. I'm not saying it's the definitive video that has only truths, but it's the best introduction, and it contains enough info to go further. And "American moon 2017" is also massive great documentary. But I would only watch it after the first one. It explains every single question I have ever heard by anyone asking.
1
@anotheruserism Dude, all the fossil fuels ever burned would only be 7% of the total increase in CO2. And that increase is only 0.02% of the air mass. And the most important points here are, no ocean level rising in the last 15yrs or so, when it should be raising in accelerating manner if we were having CO2 based global warming. And no proof whatsoever that there's even a possibility that Co2 could ever cause global warming on the quantities that burning all the fossil fuels could provide. Volcanoes might be a different thing. Ocean levels not rising, essentially there's no rising in the last 300 yrs, except little rising in the 90s and early 2000s when the whole solar system got warmer and most of the solar system got higher increase than earth. It's hard to stop writing as I have spent so much time going through all the "research" papers that most are absolute trash, clearly just produced to push agendas, get funding etc. and still not even one paper tries to explain the physics with mathematical formulas. That leads us to the only "real evidence" that is the closed source simulations, which are not more science than my next code: 10. year=2021 15. temp=17.8 20. print "%year has average temps of %temp Celcius" 30. year = year +1 40. goto 20
1
@anotheruserism Yes, there are lots of scientists who have discredited the whole thing. But do you think they are on the media? Or on the publications funded and controlled by the same people who own most of the colleges in USA? The other thing is that there really isn't anything to really discredit, as there's nothing that even remotely proves Co2 global warming. There are only quite horrible studies with crappy statistical methods. And then there's the infamous simulations done within closed source software. I have followed this from the mid 90s. Then there were thousands of scientists who signed a paper where co2 was debunked. But scientists don't have any real power. Those with the money, and secret societies in general have the power. I can assure you that I would gladly believe in global warming, it would make my life much easier. It would make the problem in the future, instead of knowing the real problem that we are facing now, aka the controllers than their enormous power to phuck the minds of the vast majority.
1
@anotheruserism I'm generally not interested on conspiracies that don't have either mathematical or physics based evidence. For example JFK assassination and 911 are one of the easiest things to prove to be inside jobs based on physics. I don't care about politics as politicians are the actors, when the director, producer, screenwriters etc. are behind the curtains. But to tell you one possible example of what could be the mission of Trump, wasting time. First 4 years people supported him, allowed things to happen in the background without taking actions. Now we wait another 4 years in the hopes of Trump changing things when he finally gets his position back. Then another 4 years will pass and in the meantime the cabal can build their iron grip and AI technocracy. That's one possibility, there are lots of other possibilities too. But hoping for savior is the sure way to never get saved. I didn't assume you haven't read research papers, I just have done so myself, for years. And it's just statistical jerking, it's not science, it's manipulation. I would prefer global warming over cabal controlling the world so tight that they can hijack the whole world based on lies. But as I have been researching conspiracies and secret societies etc. I have made lots of friends and some are from insider families, some ex-freemasons, and some current freemasons. Mostly really intelligent, educated and wise people. The consensus is pretty clear, except with those that still are in the club, they push the global warming like there's no tomorrow, but they cannot provide evidence and they forcefully stop the conversation when evidence on the contrary is provided. And it was climate scientists, physicists etc. who opposed co2 global warming in the 90s. And the evidence is clear. Al Gore's fear mongering was absolute BS. It's so anti-science as anything can be.
1
@notacommie7154 What is that 30% that absorbs UV light? Or that everything absorbs it, at .30 rate vs. Co2?
1
@notacommie7154 But does those gases absorb UV light and change that energy as the motion of those atoms and molecules? Heat absorption means that you put a spoon in hot liquid and that spoon absorbs heat. EM wave absorption is different thing. I know global warming is total BS though.
1
@limbsmith Anyone who base their belief on global warming on one region being warmer (in their opinion) is a special kind of case. How much are the ocean level risen in the last decade? It hasn't risen at all. Thus there's no global warming. You absolutely know nothing about climate, and thus you are easy to manipulate and brainwash. Here in Helsinki we just had the longest winter ever recorded, and massive amounts of snow in 4 years in the last decade. Thus I think it must be ice age coming, like the scientist declared in the 80s, funny how Co2 levels then were causing ice age instead of global warming. On average every year there will be country where they break the record on most warm year ever recorded. That's statistics. Every city is becoming much hotter because the cities are becoming bigger and thus they create much bigger pockets of warm air that doesn't move. Also the use of energy is rising on cities, but this is only tiny factor. Russia especially is heavily dependent on where the airflows come, or if there's any airflow. You absolutely cannot measure anything on just a decade or twos worth of data. I hate warmth, but even more I hate corrupt science and the cult of global warming and activists without understanding anything about how climate on earth works. I was climate activist, so I'm also very understanding. It's so cleverly orchestrated and pushed already so long that people cannot fathom it is BS. But anyone who bothers to research the science behind it, you will find out it's BS.
1
@ScottBFree Only difference between flat earthers and global warming is that there's really mainly people in the psyop division pushing flat earth, while there's massive amount of fools who spread global warming and doesn't even realize the ocean levels aren't rising, let alone rising in accelerated manner as co2 warming theories would dictate.
1