Youtube comments of Marc Jones (@QT5656).
-
4000
-
2700
-
2300
-
1600
-
1600
-
1100
-
1000
-
851
-
596
-
529
-
495
-
481
-
279
-
275
-
235
-
235
-
215
-
186
-
168
-
166
-
164
-
146
-
123
-
115
-
106
-
92
-
87
-
76
-
72
-
63
-
63
-
59
-
59
-
53
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
48
-
Quint's speech from JAWS (1975)
from IMDB:
"Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. We was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte, just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in twelve minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. Thirteen-footer. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by lookin' from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn't know... was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. Heh.
[he pauses and takes a drink]
They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin'. So we formed ourselves into tight groups. Y'know, it's... kinda like ol' squares in a battle like, uh, you see in a calendar, like the Battle of Waterloo, and the idea was, shark comes to the nearest man and that man, he'd start poundin' and hollerin' and screamin', and sometimes the shark'd go away... sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. Y'know the thing about a shark, he's got... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'... until he bites ya. And those black eyes roll over white, and then... oh, then you hear that terrible high-pitch screamin', the ocean turns red, and spite of all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they... rip you to pieces.
[he pauses]
Y'know, by the end of that first dawn... lost a hundred men. I dunno how many sharks. Maybe a thousand. I dunno how many men, they averaged six an hour. On Thursday mornin', Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland- baseball player, boatswain's mate. I thought he was asleep, reached over to wake him up... bobbed up and down in the water just like a kinda top. Upended. Well... he'd been bitten in half below the waist. Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us, he swung in low and he saw us. Young pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper. Anyway, he saw us and come in low and three hours later, a big fat PBY comes down and start to pick us up. Y'know, that was the time I was most frightened, waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a life jacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water, three hundred sixteen men come out, and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945.
[he pauses, smiles, and raises his glass]
Anyway... we delivered the bomb."
48
-
47
-
45
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
For 800,000 years, the glacial interglacial cycles were driven by orbital cycles combined with a natural oscillation of CO2 between 170 and 300 ppm. Currently the Earth's orbital eccentricity is at a near million year low, that prohibits either glaciation or deglaciation. We should be in very slow and steady cooling phase. The next ice age was due ton 50,000 years. However, burning hydrocarbons and changes in land use has increased atmospheric CO2 to over 420 ppm and it's still rising. That increase in CO2 has led to:
- a significant increase in global temperature,
- the increasing temperatures at urban and rural stations,
- increasing sea surface temperatures (as measured by both ship sensors and buoys),
- increasing ocean heat content,
- troposphere warming (as measured by satellites and weather balloons),
- reduction in sea ice extent,
- worldwide glacial retreat,
- permafrost thaw,
- widespread changes in plant and animal phenology
We know CO2 is the problem because the physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. troposphere warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days) made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Svante Arrhenius, Bolin and Eriksson, Syukuro Manabe, Jim Hansen). If the science journals are difficult for you to access try watching all the videos by Simon Clark and Potholer54.
.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Bryan-Hensley The physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Fourier, Foote, Tyndall, Arrhenius). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and observations (e.g. an increase in global average temperatures, trophospheric warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days, winter warming faster than summers, permafrost thaw, glacial retreat, a decrease in ocean pH, an increase in ocean heat content, reduction in sea ice, an increase in the emission height where CO2 is known to emit infrared radiation) that match predictions made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Arrhenius, Guy Stewart Callendar, Gilbert Plass, George Benton, Syukuro Manabe, Richard Wetherald, Wallace Broecker, Jim Hansen). None of this information is a secret but you do have to read scientific literature and books rather than blogs written by talk circuit hacks, liars for hire, and loons.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I generally agree although worm-shaped might be a better example (Annelida, Nematoda, Holothuroidea, eels, aistopods, caecilians, snakes and multiple lizard lineages including Pygopodiae, Amphisbaenia, Anguidae, Lerista, Bachia, Chamaesaura). Complex organisms evolving into long tube shapes are almost inevitable. Nevertheless, the detailed structure of these animals, their environment, and how they interact with their environments varies significantly. Obviously what counts as convergent evolution depends on your criteria of similarity.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@gregb6469 The nazis sat on the right of the house and more importantly look at their actions. They did not support trade unions or workers rights or served to increase the workers share in profits. The Nazi's murdered many socialists, broke up unions, and made deals with big business - there was unprecedented privatisation when they were in power. Their government spending was mainly related to the war effort. Moreover, in contrast to "the left", they were white supremacists, hypernationalists, pro-military, pro-police brutality, and called elections and democratic institutions corrupt. They also promoted hate speech and persecuted and murdered millions of Jews, immigrants, gypsies, disabled people, homosexuals and transpeople. The Nazis were also anti-abortion and believed that women should stay at home and make babies. Marx was a Jew. The Nazis hated Marx and referred to progressive viewpoints as cultural Marxism and claimed that they were parts of a conspiracy to undermine "Western society".
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
How do we know climate change is caused by humans?
1. Basic physics: CO2 absorbs infrared,
2. Atmospheric CO2 content has increased,
3. Ocean acidificatiton: disolved CO2 is decreasing PH,
4. Carbon isotope ratios rich in C12: fossil fuels not volcanos, and
5. Stratospheric cooling: Manabe & Wetheral 1967.
Further evidence not mentioned:
- the increase in CO2 content matches estimates of CO2 released by fossil fuels,
- Satellites can measure where the new CO2 is coming from and it's urban areas not volcanos,
- Solar irradiance is currently decreasing,
- Previous shift in climate are associated with bolide impacts, major volcanism, or changes in ocean ciculation which are not currently happening, and
- Increases in atmospheric water vapour are possible due to a warmer atmosphere because of CO2 (burning fossil fuels also releases water).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MuscarV2 If you read my comment again you'll notice that my first sentence is followed by a full stop not a colon. I do not claim that the point of the video is "People are often critical of how stupid people act in horror and disaster movies but in reality people sometimes do even more bizarre nonsensical things". Similarly I make no claim that people only act dumb in movies because of stress or that there are no horror movies that include stupid behaviour to move the plot along. The point of the video is that "Under immense stress humans acts irrationally and strangely" (8:58). It is so obvious that I didn't feel the need to repeat it. My second sentence does make the claim that "People are often critical of how stupid people act in horror and disaster movies but in reality people sometimes do even more bizarre nonsensical things". Obviously in the context of the video I am referring to scenes that involve people not reacting to immediate danger, freezing, running the wrong way, watching without reacting, picking up the wrong item, forgetting that they are holding something, not noticing something right next to them, not reading signs, laughing manically. Examples of such scenes can be found in many horror (e.g. Dawn of the Dead, the Host, the Thing, Day of the Triffids, Invasion of the Body Snatchers [not necessarily even the best examples]) and disaster movies (e.g. Earthquake, Towering Inferno, Titanic). These scenes of people responding badly to stress range in quality but they often include people behaving in ways that get called stupid by some viewers even though (as I wrote in the original comment) they sometimes include depictions of human behaviour that is more sensible and less bizarre than how people respond in reality.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@seangallagher8233 Which experts and climatologists exactly? Because your views conflict with the actual evidence and the studies published by Richard Alley, Christopher Scotese, Richard Muller, Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Stefan Ramsdorf, Benjamin Santer, Syukuro Manabe, Raymond Pierrehumbert, Rolf Philipona, Mark Maslin, Mathew Osman, Zeke Hausfather, Gavin Schmidt, Robin Wordsworth, Paulo Ceppi, Benjamin Mills, James Rae, Emily Judd, Andrew Lacis. You can search for these names and see for yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For 800,000 years, the glacial interglacial cycles were driven by orbital cycles combined with a natural oscillation of CO2 between 170 and 300 ppm. Currently the Earth's orbital eccentricity is at a near million year low, that prohibits either glaciation or deglaciation. We should be in very slow and steady cooling phase. The next ice age was due ton 50,000 years. However, burning hydrocarbons and changes in land use has increased atmospheric CO2 to over 420 ppm and it's still rising. That increase in CO2 has led to:
- a significant increase in global temperature,
- the increasing temperatures at urban and rural stations,
- increasing sea surface temperatures (as measured by both ship sensors and buoys),
- increasing ocean heat content,
- troposphere warming (as measured by satellites and weather balloons),
- reduction in sea ice extent,
- worldwide glacial retreat,
- permafrost thaw,
- widespread changes in plant and animal phenology
We know CO2 is the problem because the physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. troposphere warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days) made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Svante Arrhenius, Bolin and Eriksson, Syukuro Manabe, Jim Hansen). The scientific evidence is not on your side. If the science journals are too difficult for you try watching all the videos by Simon Clark and Potholer54.
.
2
-
For 800,000 years, the glacial interglacial cycles were driven by orbital cycles combined with a natural oscillation of CO2 between 170 and 300 ppm. Currently the Earth's orbital eccentricity is at a near million year low, that prohibits either glaciation or deglaciation. We should be in very slow and steady cooling phase. The next ice age was due ton 50,000 years. However, burning hydrocarbons and changes in land use has increased atmospheric CO2 to over 420 ppm and it's still rising. That increase in CO2 has led to:
- a significant increase in global temperature,
- the increasing temperatures at urban and rural stations,
- increasing sea surface temperatures (as measured by both ship sensors and buoys),
- increasing ocean heat content,
- troposphere warming (as measured by satellites and weather balloons),
- reduction in sea ice extent,
- worldwide glacial retreat,
- permafrost thaw,
- widespread changes in plant and animal phenology
We know CO2 is the problem because the physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. troposphere warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days) made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Svante Arrhenius, Bolin and Eriksson, Syukuro Manabe, Jim Hansen). If the science journals are difficult for you to access try watching all the videos by Simon Clark and Potholer54.
2
-
For 800,000 years, the glacial interglacial cycles were driven by orbital cycles combined with a natural oscillation of CO2 between 170 and 300 ppm. Currently the Earth's orbital eccentricity is at a near million year low, that prohibits either glaciation or deglaciation. We should be in very slow and steady cooling phase. The next ice age was due ton 50,000 years. However, burning hydrocarbons and changes in land use has increased atmospheric CO2 to over 420 ppm and it's still rising. That increase in CO2 has led to:
- a significant increase in global temperature,
- the increasing temperatures at urban and rural stations,
- increasing sea surface temperatures (as measured by both ship sensors and buoys),
- increasing ocean heat content,
- troposphere warming (as measured by satellites and weather balloons),
- reduction in sea ice extent,
- worldwide glacial retreat,
- permafrost thaw,
- widespread changes in plant and animal phenology
We know CO2 is the problem because the physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. troposphere warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days) made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Svante Arrhenius, Bolin and Eriksson, Syukuro Manabe, Jim Hansen). If the science journals are difficult for you to access try watching all the videos by Simon Clark and Potholer54.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Smurfs Rule Jeez for someone so convinced as you I was hoping you might have a little more justification for it.
1. Neil Orr's study (published way back in 1981!) is not really relevant is it? First of all it's a very limited study based on just one theatre. Secondly, it focuses on wound infection (e.g. by streptococci) not transmission of respiratory viruses. Thirdly, it relates to a relatively sterile environment populated by a small number of people. It's hardly comparable to shops or public transport. More recent and extensive studies show that masks do make some difference and are worthwhile (e.g. Chu et al. 2020, Lancet: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429). As you will know, no one has ever said that masks are 100% effective (see also seat belts, life jackets, helmets, and parachutes).
2. No, 125,000 is a pretty reliable number for the number of people that have died from COVID 19 in the UK (so far) and listing this figure does not undermine my argument at all. Doctors do not complete death certificates willy-nilly. COVID has specific symptoms that can be identified with reasonable accuracy. The numbers of COVID deaths have been collated reasonably carefully (certainly more carefully than flu figures for previous years and other figure which conspiracy theorists are happy to believe). Excess deaths also corroborate this figure:
https://j-idea.github.io/ONSdeaths/
Importantly these deaths generally follow cases with a 2-3 week lag - as would be expected if they were due to COVID. Their geographic distributed also matches cases - as would be expected if they were due to COVID. The deaths are greater in older people and in people vulnerable - as would be expected if they were due to COVID. The same pattern is visible in other countries. Your alternative explanations of "suicide" or "the vaccine" or "some other reason" cannot explain these patterns. Doctors are pretty good at telling the difference between a death from COVID and suicide. There have been suicides and deaths due to domestic abuse during lock down, sure - perhaps a several hundred last April - but not 125,000 and not concentrated in older people or places were cases are high. I also have close friends who treat mental health. The conservative government has cut their resources again and again over the past decade. It's funny how right wing journalists have only started to care about suicide and domestic abuse now that they can use it to undermine temporary restrictions and lockdowns. Moreover, 125000 deaths are the numbers of deaths WITH restrictions - they would be even higher without out them. Do you know any medical staff living in Brazil? Perhaps you should talk to them and see what they think.
3. That deaths as a percentage of the population are below all the years from 1990 to 2000 is not surprising at all and does not prove that COVID is a hoax. For a start life expectancy was lower in 1990 to 2000. Secondly, because people are staying indoors they are less at risk from other dangers such as traffic accidents. The mistake you are making here (either accidentally or deliberately in bad faith) is to think that the number of deaths from COVID would remain the same if there were no restrictions. Make your comparisons again across just the months when COVID was not under control and see what happens. Make your comparisons across just looking at London or the North West and see what happens. Again read this article:
https://j-idea.github.io/ONSdeaths/
4. Many research groups are analysing the Sarscov2 genome and have published on it. You are free to ignore that research if you don't understand it but it does exist.
5. Conveniently but not surprisingly you've ignored the very real problems of long COVID. Presumably you think it's just all lies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@martinhollandfilms4935 The nazis were not socialists. They sat on the right of the house and more importantly look at their actions. They did not support trade unions or workers rights. The Nazi's murdered many socialists, broke up unions, and made deals with big business - there was unprecedented privatisation when they were in power. Their government spending was mainly related to the war effort. Moreover, in contrast to "the left", they were white supremacists, hypernationalists, pro-military, pro-police brutality, and called elections and democratic institutions corrupt. They also promoted hate speech and persecuted and murdered millions of Jews, immigrants, non-whites, gypsies, disabled people, homosexuals and transpeople. The Nazis were also anti-abortion and believed that women should stay at home and make babies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nope. Whether you like it or not there is extensive empirical evidence. The physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Fourier, Foote, Arrhenius, Tyndall, Plass). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. tropospheric warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days). Global temperatures are increasing due to CO2 as climate scientists, in the 1970s and earlier, predicted it would do (e.g. Callendar, Broecker, Manabe). The empirical observations comes from a variety of independent datasets including rural + urban stations, sea surface temperatures, glacial volume, permafrost thaw, ocean pH, flora+fauna phenology, isotopes from long lived sponges, coral cores, lake cores, emission height spectra. You have nothing except wishful thinking and lies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The greenhouse effect is well understood and observable. The physical properties of CO2 & other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Fourier, Foote, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Hulbert). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) & empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. lower atmosphere warming, upper atmosphere cooling, nights warming faster than days). Global temperatures are increasing due to CO2 as climate scientists, in the 1970s and earlier, predicted it would do (e.g. Callendar, Plass, Broecker, Manabe, Wetherald). The emission height where CO2 is known to emit infrared radiation to space has increased as predicted. The greenhouse effect is directly observable and it is not saturated. And the greening which the hacks love to point to is already turning to browning. How many more years of warming do you need? 7? 14? 21?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ToddKiehne-lp9vd To disprove the greenhouse effect you need to provide alternative explanations for:
- the directly observable changes to the Earth's emissions spectrum where CO2 is known to emit infrared radiation,
- established physics of CO2 (Tyndall, Fourier, Callendar etc.).
- why winters are warming faster than summers,
- why nights are warming faster than days,
- why high latitudes are warming faster than low latitudes,
- why the upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming,
- how heat seeking missiles work successfully,
- why the Moon and Earth are different surface temperatures,
- how Snowball Earth thawed,
- why the Permian was so hot,
- how glacial-interglacial cycles cycles operated without feedback from CO2,
- how global temperatures have risen by over 1 C since the 1900s,
- how climate model have been able to accurately predict the increase in global temperatures.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TylireousGaming It's funny how people who try to claim that the Nazis were left wing tend to be hypernationalist (like the Nazis), pro-hierarchy (like the Nazis), pro-privitisation (like the Nazis), pro-military spending (like the Nazis), pro-police brutality (like the Nazis), anti-socialism (like the Nazis), anti-union (like the Nazis), white supremacists (like the Nazis), anti-immigrant (like the Nazis), anti-feminist (like the Nazis), anti-protest rights (like the Nazis), anti-academia (like the Nazis), want women to stay at home and make babies (like the Nazis), anti-abortion (like the Nazis), anti-gay rights (like the Nazis), anti-trans rights (like the Nazis), and today vote Republican (like the Nazis would do as well).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Robert-dx7rj Earlier y0u question whether we can predict the future with accuracy. Well, scientists already have successfully predicted the future. Scientists have understood the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures for over 100 years. Scientists have been warning of us about global warming (and the associated climate change and sea level rise) since long before the 1960s. Projections made by multiple independent models from the 1970s (including those made by Exxon) and more recent models by former skeptic Richard Muller at Berkeley match current observations. The projections that have been off are generally those that underestimated how much CO2 emissions might be cut not the impact of CO2. To disprove the hypothesis that the extra anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity is causing the the recent warming you'll need to come up with an alternative hypothesis that explains e.g. why:
- warming is happening faster at high latitudes,
- nights are warming faster than days,
- winters are warming faster than summers,
- ocean pH is decreasing,
- the ratio of atmospheric 13C/12C has changed the way it has,
- why the physics of the greenhouse effect is in error.
Potholer54 and Simon Clark has provided many videos on this topic. Moreover, this information is available in the scientific literature, e.g.
- Hausfather Z, Drake HF, Abbott T, Schmidt GA. 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378.
- Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D. and Ruedy, R.A., 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), pp.356-359.
- Osman MB, Tierney JE, Zhu J, Tardif R, Hakim GJ, King J, and Poulsen CJ. 2021. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature, 599(7884), pp.239-244.
- Rae, J.W., Zhang, Y.G., Liu, X., Foster, G.L., Stoll, H.M. and Whiteford, R.D., 2021. Atmospheric CO2 over the past 66 million years from marine archives. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 49, pp.609-641.
- Sawyer, J. S. 1972. Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse” effect. Nature, 239(5366), 23– 26.
- Supran G, Rahmstorf S. and Oreskes N. 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For 800,000 years, the glacial interglacial cycles were driven by orbital cycles combined with a natural oscillation of CO2 between 170 and 300 ppm. Currently the Earth's orbital eccentricity is at a near million year low, that prohibits either glaciation or deglaciation. We should be in very slow and steady cooling phase. The next ice age was due ton 50,000 years. However, burning hydrocarbons and changes in land use has increased atmospheric CO2 to over 420 ppm and it's still rising. That increase in CO2 has led to:
- a significant increase in global temperature,
- the increasing temperatures at urban and rural stations,
- increasing sea surface temperatures (as measured by both ship sensors and buoys),
- increasing ocean heat content,
- troposphere warming (as measured by satellites and weather balloons),
- reduction in sea ice extent,
- worldwide glacial retreat,
- permafrost thaw,
- widespread changes in plant and animal phenology
We know CO2 is the problem because the physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. troposphere warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days) made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Svante Arrhenius, Bolin and Eriksson, Syukuro Manabe, Jim Hansen). If the science journals are difficult for you to access try watching all the videos by Simon Clark and Potholer54.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For 800,000 years, the glacial interglacial cycles were driven by orbital cycles combined with a natural oscillation of CO2 between 170 and 300 ppm. Currently the Earth's orbital eccentricity is at a near million year low, that prohibits either glaciation or deglaciation. We should be in very slow and steady cooling phase. The next ice age was due ton 50,000 years. However, burning hydrocarbons and changes in land use has increased atmospheric CO2 to over 420 ppm and it's still rising. That increase in CO2 has led to:
- a significant increase in global temperature,
- the increasing temperatures at urban and rural stations,
- increasing sea surface temperatures (as measured by both ship sensors and buoys),
- increasing ocean heat content,
- troposphere warming (as measured by satellites and weather balloons),
- reduction in sea ice extent,
- worldwide glacial retreat,
- permafrost thaw,
- widespread changes in plant and animal phenology
We know CO2 is the problem because the physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. troposphere warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days) made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Svante Arrhenius, Bolin and Eriksson, Syukuro Manabe, Jim Hansen). If the science journals are difficult for you to access try watching all the videos by Simon Clark and Potholer54.
1
-
For 800,000 years, the glacial interglacial cycles were driven by orbital cycles combined with a natural oscillation of CO2 between 170 and 300 ppm. Currently the Earth's orbital eccentricity is at a near million year low, that prohibits either glaciation or deglaciation. We should be in very slow and steady cooling phase. The next ice age was due ton 50,000 years. However, burning hydrocarbons and changes in land use has increased atmospheric CO2 to over 420 ppm and it's still rising. That increase in CO2 has led to:
- a significant increase in global temperature,
- the increasing temperatures at urban and rural stations,
- increasing sea surface temperatures (as measured by both ship sensors and buoys),
- increasing ocean heat content,
- troposphere warming (as measured by satellites and weather balloons),
- reduction in sea ice extent,
- worldwide glacial retreat,
- permafrost thaw,
- widespread changes in plant and animal phenology
We know CO2 is the problem because the physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. troposphere warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days) made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Svante Arrhenius, Bolin and Eriksson, Syukuro Manabe, Jim Hansen). If the science journals are difficult for you to access try watching all the videos by Simon Clark and Potholer54.
1
-
1
-
For 800,000 years, the glacial interglacial cycles were driven by orbital cycles combined with a natural oscillation of CO2 between 170 and 300 ppm. Currently the Earth's orbital eccentricity is at a near million year low, that prohibits either glaciation or deglaciation. We should be in very slow and steady cooling phase. The next ice age was due ton 50,000 years. However, burning hydrocarbons and changes in land use has increased atmospheric CO2 to over 420 ppm and it's still rising. That increase in CO2 has led to:
- a significant increase in global temperature,
- the increasing temperatures at urban and rural stations,
- increasing sea surface temperatures (as measured by both ship sensors and buoys),
- increasing ocean heat content,
- troposphere warming (as measured by satellites and weather balloons),
- reduction in sea ice extent,
- worldwide glacial retreat,
- permafrost thaw,
- widespread changes in plant and animal phenology
We know CO2 is the problem because the physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. troposphere warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days) made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Svante Arrhenius, Bolin and Eriksson, Syukuro Manabe, Jim Hansen). If the science journals are difficult for you to access try watching all the videos by Simon Clark and Potholer54.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For 800,000 years, the glacial interglacial cycles were driven by orbital cycles combined with a natural oscillation of CO2 between 170 and 300 ppm. Currently the Earth's orbital eccentricity is at a near million year low, that prohibits either glaciation or deglaciation. We should be in very slow and steady cooling phase. The next ice age was due ton 50,000 years. However, burning hydrocarbons and changes in land use has increased atmospheric CO2 to over 420 ppm and it's still rising. That increase in CO2 has led to:
- a significant increase in global temperature,
- the increasing temperatures at urban and rural stations,
- increasing sea surface temperatures (as measured by both ship sensors and buoys),
- increasing ocean heat content,
- troposphere warming (as measured by satellites and weather balloons),
- reduction in sea ice extent,
- worldwide glacial retreat,
- permafrost thaw,
- widespread changes in plant and animal phenology
We know CO2 is the problem because the physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Eunice Foote, John Tyndall). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. troposphere warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days) made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Svante Arrhenius, Bolin and Eriksson, Syukuro Manabe, Jim Hansen). If the science journals are difficult for you to access try watching all the videos by Simon Clark and Potholer54.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The nazis were not socialists or "the left" or "woke". They sat on the right of the house and more importantly look at their actions. They did not support trade unions or workers rights. The Nazi's murdered many socialists, broke up unions, and made deals with big business - there was unprecedented privatisation when they were in power. Their government spending was mainly related to the war effort. Moreover, in contrast to "the left", they were white supremacists, hypernationalists, pro-military, pro-police brutality, and called elections and democratic institutions corrupt. They also promoted hate speech and persecuted and murdered millions of Jews, immigrants, gypsies, disabled people, homosexuals and transpeople. The Nazis were also anti-abortion and believed that women should stay at home and make babies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@karlnadin1554 Firstly, wages certainly can and have increased more than inflation in some instances, e.g. pay for MPs. Moreover, my reference to inflation was part of a list which was making the overall point that wage increases are relative which is objectively true. Someone, e.g. @BeBe-vh4ry, writing "my wages have increased" is irrelevant unless they also qualify it by how much it has increased relative to their spending on rent, food, etc. Secondly, the cost of living crisis obviously has multiple causes. However, Brexit certainly has contributed to the cost of living crisis as many people have argued (e.g. Mark Carney, Sir Charlie Bean, the Resolution Foundation thinktank). Some studies have calculated that Brexit is responsible for a third of UK food price inflation since 2019. In several sectors Brexit has reduced trade and economic growth and in turn that has impacted on prices and wages. I personally know of several people that are in dire straits largely because of opportunities that once existed in science and art that are no longer available. Now some may argue that they don't care about science and art but those same people will no doubt benefit from technology and healthcare and will be entertained by media produced by artists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lunapokema I wasn't referring to people choosing to mess around with ouija boards, playing with cursed dolls, or exploring haunted houses. I was referring to how people act under immense stress (as stated in the video), e.g. people not reacting to immediate danger, freezing, running the wrong way, watching without reacting, picking up the wrong item, forgetting that they are holding something, not noticing something right next to them, not reading signs. There are examples of people responding badly to immense stress in many horror (e.g. Dawn of the Dead, the Host, the Thing, Day of the Triffids, Invasion of the Body Snatchers [not necessarily even the best examples]) and disaster movies (e.g. Earthquake, Towering Inferno). Also as you wrote there are also examples in many war films too. The examples rarely have anything to do with moving the plot along other than maybe a character dying or something escaping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SkunkApe407 One, the employees in the suits are frequently paid more exactly because they are expected to supervise what's going on in the workplace. I have managed multiple people myself and been paid more for it.
Two, the "just find another job" is utterly naive given that many workers (without assets, inheritance, savings, wealthy parents and/or emerald mines) have to choose between (1) a badly paid job where they are exploited (and sometimes burned alive, see the video above) or (2) no job, no food, and no housing.
Three, I am not disputing that there have been some associations between unions and organised crime. As I stated above, "the association between the unions and the mob is far less common than the the association between companies and the exploitation and poor treatment of workers (see example in video)". Your anti-unions stance because of a small risk from organised crime is clearly prejudiced because you just don't like unions. You're happier with workers being exploited otherwise you would take an anti-organised crime stance.
Ha! "contribute or starve" - there we go, honesty. Presumably you think the exploitation of poor people who don't have the privilege of wealthy parents and assets to be able to move around is fair game to be exploited by private companies. Presumably you don't care that many of them were born without the head start many others had. Presumably you don't want the playing field to be slightly flatter because perhaps you like the view from up on your hill; you feel the short journey you took to get up there shows that anyone can do it... LOL.
Thankfully, workers still have the right to form unions so they have more collective bargaining power to gain fairer pay and safer working conditions (just as workers have done for centuries despite frequent resistance by asset owners intent on exploitation). So tell me which side you would've been on during the Ludlow massacre?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. We was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte, just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in twelve minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. Thirteen-footer. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by lookin' from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn't know... was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. Heh.
[he pauses and takes a drink]
They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin'. So we formed ourselves into tight groups. Y'know, it's... kinda like ol' squares in a battle like, uh, you see in a calendar, like the Battle of Waterloo, and the idea was, shark comes to the nearest man and that man, he'd start poundin' and hollerin' and screamin', and sometimes the shark'd go away... sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. Y'know the thing about a shark, he's got... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'... until he bites ya. And those black eyes roll over white, and then... oh, then you hear that terrible high-pitch screamin', the ocean turns red, and spite of all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they... rip you to pieces.
[he pauses]
Y'know, by the end of that first dawn... lost a hundred men. I dunno how many sharks. Maybe a thousand. I dunno how many men, they averaged six an hour. On Thursday mornin', Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland- baseball player, boatswain's mate. I thought he was asleep, reached over to wake him up... bobbed up and down in the water just like a kinda top. Upended. Well... he'd been bitten in half below the waist. Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us, he swung in low and he saw us. Young pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper. Anyway, he saw us and come in low and three hours later, a big fat PBY comes down and start to pick us up. Y'know, that was the time I was most frightened, waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a life jacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water, three hundred sixteen men come out, and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My Dad used to build and renovate hospitals so I was educated about asbestos from an early age. A key point is that there was a deliberate misinformation campaign by people making large profits from the asbestos industry (cf. tobacco, opioids, PFAS, atrazine, lead, CO2, sugar). See Roselli, M., 2014. The asbestos lie. The past and present of an industrial catastrophe. 1-180.
As early as 1918 the American life insurance companies refused to insure asbestos workers. It was banned in Sweden in the mid 1970s, while projects in the UK rushed to complete buildings using it before regulations came in. This led to many costly removals less than 30 years later (e.g. the NHM in London).
In the UK the industry delibrately spread the rumour that white asbestos was fine and that it's only brown and blue asbestor that you need to worry about. Guess which of the three types was more available to mine and use... white.
The Chrysotile Association in Washington, D.C. is still funding "research" to muddy the water today, e.g. Bernstein, D., Dunnigan, J., Hesterberg, T., Brown, R., Velasco, J.A.L., Barrera, R., Hoskins, J. and Gibbs, A., 2013. Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Critical reviews in toxicology, 43(2), pp.154-183.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicomeier8098 Nope, that's a myth. Scientists at NASA have certainly studied and discussed cooling due to Milankovitch cycles have such cooling is not due to take place for 1000s of years and NASA have never said otherwise. The majority of scientific literature of the 1970s predicted global warming over the coming decades due to burning fossil fuels (as is currently observed). For example read:
- Peterson, T.C., Connolley, W.M. and Fleck, J., 2008. The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), pp.1325-1338.
That also includes work by scientists working at Exxon:
- Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
There are even studies from the 1960s that predicted anthropogenic warming due to CO2, e.g.
- Revelle, R., W. Broecker, H. Craig, C. D. Kneeling, and J. Smagorinsky, 1965: Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel. President's Science Advisory Committee, The White House, 317 pp
Even some of the the articles that did discuss the possibility of future cooling (e.g. Douglas 1975 SciNews) acknowledge the "increasingly important" effect of anthropogenic global warming due to CO2.
It is true that there were a few TV shows that sensationalised the idea of global cooling. These include a TV Show called "In Search of..." The same show also had episodes on ESP, bigfoot, Voodoo, and the Loch Ness Monster. 🙃
Please ignore blogs, headlines, and sound bytes - read the scientific literature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The majority of scientific literature of the 1970s predicted anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 over the coming decades (as is currently evident). For example read:
- Peterson, T.C., Connolley, W.M. and Fleck, J., 2008. The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), pp.1325-1338.
And yes that included scientists working at Exxon:
- Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
There are even studies from the 1960s that predicted anthropogenic warming due to CO2, e.g.
- Revelle, R., W. Broecker, H. Craig, C. D. Kneeling, and J. Smagorinsky, 1965: Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel. President's Science Advisory Committee, The White House, 317 pp
Most of the articles in the 1970s that that did discuss cooling were referring to Milankovitch cycles and cooling that would take place in 1000s of years. Moreover, several of these (e.g. Douglas 1975 SciNews) acknowledge the "increasingly important" effect of anthropogenic global warming due to CO2.
It is true that there were a few TV shows that sensationalised the idea of global cooling. These include a TV Show called "In Search of..." The same show also had episodes on ESP, bigfoot, Voodoo, and the Loch Ness Monster. 🙃
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AapVanDieKaap No, the climate models, even those from the 1970s (including that made by Exxon) predict relatively rapid warming consistent with what is shown by recent observations. It's highly likely you've read some bad-faith blog that presents one of the predictions made by James Hansen (scenario A) without admitting that the differences are due to a high end estimate of future CO2 emissions. The relationship between CO2 and temperature was accurate: the warming per unit change in forcing predicted by Hansen et al. 1988 is very close to what we’ve actually experienced. It’s also noteworthy that Hansen’s 1988 study accurately predicted the geographic pattern of global warming: the Arctic region warming fastest plus more warming over land masses than the oceans.
e.g.
- Hausfather, Z., Drake, H.F., Abbott, T. and Schmidt, G.A., 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378.
- Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AapVanDieKaap No, the models have been accurate including those made by Exxon in the 1970s. It's likely that you've seen Jim Hansen's predictions misrepresented on climate blogs linked to fossil fuel employee Patrick Michaels. They only show scenario A in bad-faith without acknowledging the reason it is off is because it under estimated how much carbon emissions would be cut. The relationship between global warming and temperature was correct as shown by the most up to date measurements from a range of sources.
- Hausfather et al 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378.
- Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sure-t9o No, you are misinformed. Climate scientists understand the climate very well. The scientists that study past climate change are the same scientist that have discovered that the current climate change it due to anthropogenic CO2.
1. Burning fossil fuel releases CO2. We can estimate how much extra CO2 burning fossil fuel is putting in the atmosphere. Several different people have done this independently. We can also now actually measure where the extra CO2 is coming from using satellites. It's coming from where humans live: cities and industrial areas. See e.g. Crisp, D., 2015, September. Measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide from space with the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2). In Earth observing systems xx (Vol. 9607, p. 960702). SPIE.
2. The proportion of carbon 12 vs carbon 13 in the atmosphere is increasing. That shows that the extra CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels not volcanoes. h
3. Other factors such as variation in solar luminosity, the orbit and rotation of the Earth, and even clouds have all been studied and cannot account for the current warming. The way the Earth has warmed is also consistent with CO2. See e.g. Henry, M. and Vallis, G.K., 2021. Reduced high-latitude land seasonality in climates with very high carbon dioxide. Journal of Climate, 34(17), pp.7325-7336.
4. Several climate models from th e1970s (including those made by Exxon) have predicted the relationship of CO2 and global warming very well. e.g. Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
6. Big oil pay scientist far better than government grants do and have far more impact on what happens to the results discovered.
If you can't read the scientific literature, Potholer54 and Simon Clark have very good undergraduate level videos of these topics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Exactly, scientists have studied this question and we're 1000s of years away from warming due to orbital forcing. The current warming is due to the extra CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
- Hausfather, Z., Drake, H.F., Abbott, T. and Schmidt, G.A., 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378.
- Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D. and Ruedy, R.A., 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), pp.356-359.
- Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, not true at all. CO2 is hugely important to global climate e.g.
- Hausfather, Z., Drake, H.F., Abbott, T. and Schmidt, G.A., 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378.
- Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D. and Ruedy, R.A., 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), pp.356-359.
- Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., He, F., Marcott, S.A., Mix, A.C., Liu, Z., Otto-Bliesner, B., Schmittner, A. and Bard, E., 2012. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), pp.49-54.
1
-
1
-
You might be interested in this paper:
Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., He, F., Marcott, S.A., Mix, A.C., Liu, Z., Otto-Bliesner, B., Schmittner, A. and Bard, E., 2012. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), pp.49-54.
1
-
1
-
@nogreatreset8506 Feel free to look up actual science:
- Hausfather, Z., Drake, H.F., Abbott, T. and Schmidt, G.A., 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378.
- Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D. and Ruedy, R.A., 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), pp.356-359.
- Mills, B.J., Krause, A.J., Scotese, C.R., Hill, D.J., Shields, G.A. and Lenton, T.M., 2019. Modelling the long-term carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2, and Earth surface temperature from late Neoproterozoic to present day. Gondwana Research, 67, pp.172-186.
- Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., He, F., Marcott, S.A., Mix, A.C., Liu, Z., Otto-Bliesner, B., Schmittner, A. and Bard, E., 2012. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), pp.49-54.
- Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
-
It sounds like you need to read up on the scientific literature because there are big gaps in your knowledge regarding the role of CO2 and climate. Also although solar output is relatively stable over the course of centuries it was much lower millions of years ago when there was much more atmospheric CO2. Without CO2, the 'greenhouse' effect would collapse, water vapor would condense and the earth would end up being a frozen snowball:
- Hausfather, Z., Drake, H.F., Abbott, T. and Schmidt, G.A., 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378.
- Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D. and Ruedy, R.A., 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), pp.356-359.
- Mills, B.J., Krause, A.J., Scotese, C.R., Hill, D.J., Shields, G.A. and Lenton, T.M., 2019. Modelling the long-term carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2, and Earth surface temperature from late Neoproterozoic to present day. Gondwana Research, 67, pp.172-186.
- Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., He, F., Marcott, S.A., Mix, A.C., Liu, Z., Otto-Bliesner, B., Schmittner, A. and Bard, E., 2012. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), pp.49-54.
- Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
-
1
-
The scientific evidence that CO2 is a significant driver of climate change is extensive. The mechanism has been established by physicists for well over 100 years, projections made by climate models in the 1970s (including those made by Exxon) match current observations. Anthropogenic CO2 also explains the shift towards a lighter mix of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, why the warming is most obvious at at high latitudes, why nights are warming faster than days, why winters and warming faster than summers, why ocean pH is decreasing, and why the stratosphere is cooling.
e.g.
- Hausfather, Z., Drake, H.F., Abbott, T. and Schmidt, G.A., 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378.
- Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D. and Ruedy, R.A., 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), pp.356-359.
- Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., He, F., Marcott, S.A., Mix, A.C., Liu, Z., Otto-Bliesner, B., Schmittner, A. and Bard, E., 2012. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), pp.49-54.
- Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
With respect to water vapor, yes water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas however water vapor is not a driver of climate change, it is an amplifier. The amount of water in the atmosphere varies over a matter of days and by region according to air temperature and the availability of water for evaporation. By contrast CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere. Water has a residence time of only a few days unlike CO2. If it was water vapor that was driving the recent warming then the greatest warming would be seen in summer and at low latitudes - the opposite of what is actually observed. Interestingly the amount of moisture in the atmosphere has recently been increasing and scientists agree that's because anthropogenic CO2 has warmed the troposphere. Moreover, burning hydrocarbons from fossil fuels is a net addition of water vapor to the system.
e.g.
- Bengtsson, L., 2010. The global atmospheric water cycle. Environmental Research Letters, 5(2), p.025202.
- Al‐Ghussain, L., 2019. Global warming: review on driving forces and mitigation. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 38(1), pp.13-21.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrman1536 Nope. Whether you like it or not there is extensive empirical evidence. The physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Fourier, Foote, Arrhenius, Tyndall, Plass). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. tropospheric warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days). Global temperatures are increasing due to CO2 as climate scientists, in the 1970s and earlier, predicted it would do (e.g. Callendar, Broecker, Manabe). The empirical observations comes from a variety of independent datasets including rural + urban stations, sea surface temperatures, glacial volume, permafrost thaw, ocean pH, flora+fauna phenology, isotopes from long lived sponges, coral cores, lake cores, emission height spectra.
1
-
@mrman1536 Nope. Whether you like it or not there is extensive empirical evidence. The physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Fourier, Foote, Arrhenius, Tyndall, Plass). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. tropospheric warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days). Global temperatures are increasing due to CO2 as climate scientists, in the 1970s and earlier, predicted it would do (e.g. Callendar, Broecker, Manabe). The empirical observations comes from a variety of independent datasets including rural + urban stations, sea surface temperatures, glacial volume, permafrost thaw, ocean pH, flora+fauna phenology, isotopes from long lived sponges, coral cores, lake cores, emission height spectra. You have nothing except wishful thinking and lies.
1
-
The physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Fourier, Foote, Tyndall, Arrhenius). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and observations (e.g. an increase in global average temperatures, trophospheric warming, stratospheric cooling, nights warming faster than days, winter warming faster than summers, permafrost thaw, glacial retreat, a decrease in ocean pH, an increase in ocean heat content, reduction in sea ice, an increase in the emission height where CO2 is known to emit infrared radiation) that match predictions made by scientists in the 1980s and earlier (e.g. Arrhenius, Guy Stewart Callendar, Gilbert Plass, George Benton, Syukuro Manabe, Richard Wetherald, Wallace Broecker, Jim Hansen).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toddperry8668 In the 1960s and 1970s most scientific studies were concerned with warming due to CO2 (e.g. Revelle, Manabe and Wetherald, Sellers, Benton, Mitchell, Sawyer, Machta, Broecker). There were a few studies concerned with cooling due to particulate pollution (e.g. McCormick) however that was fixed, e.g. by using scrubbers. There was a TV show called "In Search of..." which sensationalised the cooling concern. However, the same show also had episodes on ESP, bigfoot, and Voodoo. That's why it's best to get your information from scientific literature not TV or tabloids.
1
-
@toddperry8668 In the 1960s and 1970s most scientific publications were concerned with warming due to CO2 (e.g. Revelle, Manabe and Wetherald, Sellers, Benton, Mitchell, Sawyer, Machta, Broecker). There were a few studies concerned with cooling due to particulate pollution (e.g. McCormick) however that was fixed, e.g. by using scrubbers. There was a TV show called "In Search of..." which sensationalised the cooling concern. However, the same show also had episodes on ESP, bigfoot, and Voodoo. That's why it's best to get your information from scientific literature not TV or tabloids.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reson8 For 800,000 years the CO2 levels naturally oscillated between 170 and 300 ppm helping to amplify glacial and interglacial cycles triggered by orbital cycles. In a few hundred years emissions have increased CO2 levels to 420 ppm and it's still rising. Global average temperatures have already increased by over a degree. There are many publications on this topic by authors such as Alley, Hansen, Mann, Lacis, Scotese, Shakun, Santer, Muller, Maslin. The relationship between CO2 and global temperature suggests a 1 C warming for every 100 ppm of CO2 but that's without triggering positive feedbacks (e.g. loss of sea ice albedo, methane release from permafrost thaw). Continuing business as usual until we reach 550 ppm would be very stupid.
1
-
@miked5106 Not true. The greenhouse effect is well understood and observable. The physical properties of CO2 & other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Arrhenius, Fourier, Foote, Tyndall, Plass). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) & empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. lower atmosphere warming, upper atmosphere cooling, nights warming faster than days). Global temperatures are increasing due to CO2 as climate scientists, in the 1970s and earlier, predicted it would do (e.g. Calendar, Broecker, Manabe). How many more years of warming do you need? 7? 14? 21?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The greenhouse effect is well understood and observable. The physical properties of CO2 & other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Fourier, Foote, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Hulbert). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) & empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. lower atmosphere warming, upper atmosphere cooling, nights warming faster than days). Global temperatures are increasing due to CO2 as climate scientists, in the 1970s and earlier, predicted it would do (e.g. Callendar, Plass, Broecker, Manabe, Wetherald). The emission height where CO2 is known to emit infrared radiation to space has increased as predicted. The greenhouse effect is directly observable and it is not saturated. How many more years of warming do you need? 7? 14? 21?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnSmith-mk4nf Your alternative hypothesis to anthropogenic CO2 will need to explain why:
- warming is happening faster at high latitudes,
- nights are warming faster than days,
- winters are warming faster than summers,
- ocean pH is decreasing,
- why the stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere is warming.
Good luck.
Here is some further reading to go with your "decades" of research:
- Al‐Ghussain 2019. Global warming: review on driving forces and mitigation. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 38(1), pp.13-21.
- Hausfather et al. 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378.
- Lacis et al. 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), 356-359.
- Osman et al. 2021. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature, 599(7884), 239-244.
- Santer, B.D., Po-Chedley, S., Zhao, L., Zou, C.Z., Fu, Q., Solomon, S., Thompson, D.W., Mears, C. and Taylor, K.E., 2023. Exceptional stratospheric contribution to human fingerprints on atmospheric temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(20), p.e2300758120.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulfella1 I'm not saying that you have don't have any points worth listening too but you still frame everything as right vs left which I personally don't find helpful. Particularly given that Blair wasn't exactly right or left and in many ways was right.
You write in a tone that implies as if the Conservatives didn't allow any immigration and then Labour allowed all of it. That's not really true is it?
Sounds like you're actually unhappy about the inevitability of globalisation and policies which have facilitated it. Given that most of the wealth of the UK is due to the British Empire and British actions abroad it would be rather churlish to then complain that all related immigration is a major problem. Moreover, immigration is generally good for the economy.
Corbyn might not have been on point with his student fees promises but ultimately we will never know. By contrast the Conservatives have wasted real money, e.g. 500 million wasted on trying to privatise the probation services, 2,000 million Virgin Trains east, 37 million spent on plans for a garden bridge that was never built, 60 milion on PAC, 15 million on Carillion, 100 of thousands given to awful ineffective (and now bust still owing services) Seqol, etc. etc. etc. It's amazing that you are willing to defend the current government (populated by smug millionaires from Eton).
If you want to be angry about something read this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/how-britain-can-help-you-get-away-with-stealing-millions-a-five-step-guide?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2WXBMLg2o49_mXsS3o--saxF36BD-ATJ1hKYvMX4k76HPAruR25sSyMaU#Echobox=1562324068
"That is not to say that the government has taken no action. It is illegal to deliberately file false information in registering a company, and punishable by up to two years in prison. In late 2017, Companies House at last alerted prosecutors to the activities of one persistent offender. The target of the prosecution was Kevin Brewer, for the crime of trying to inform politicians about how easy it is to create fake companies.
He was summonsed to appear at Redditch magistrates’ court and, on legal advice, pleaded guilty in March 2018. After adding together his fine, and the government’s costs, he is £23,324 the poorer – quite a high price to pay for blowing the whistle. He is paying it off at £1,000 a month, and remains the only person ever convicted of spoofing the UK’s corporate registry, which is quite a remarkable demonstration of Companies House’s failure to do its job."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soulfella1 LOL, pretty rich of you to say that I am unable to answer your question after an hour of you posting your comment when it took you 24 hours to reply to mine.
Moreover, you didn't even ask a clear, specific, and direct question to me. Stating "THE BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT," is like a toddler screaming "toy". It's not clear what you mean and with the double exclamation marks you give the impression that you are hysterical. Perhaps your reluctance to state any specifics is to delibrately make it harder for other people to pick holes in your position. This act was proposed by Labour but approved after some modification by the Tories under Thatcher. So what?
I didn't refer to Corbyn as a thief. Perhapas you should read more carefully. I stated that "May stole three of Corbyn's policies". She actually stole four: scrapping student debt, pledging to build affordable homes, cap on energy prices, review mental health.
I'm not actually a Corbyn supporter but I would vote for him in front of the current Tory sh*t show particular after their recent record on foodbanks, cuts to the NHS, cuts to police, not closing tax dodgers, increased homelessness, and the UK national debt as a % of GDP.
Reading your previous comments directed at someone else the British Nationality Act was approved by the Thatcher government.
Pretending that the will of the people meant a no deal no detail no idea chaos Brexit is laughable.
Referring to Corbyn and Venezula in the same sentence reveals how shallow and one eyed your understanding of world politics is. Next you'll be saying that the Contra scandal was fake news, that USA don't interfere in foreign government, and the 2008 crash wasn't at least partly due to a lack of banking regulations.
So as an apparent socialism hater do you propose getting rid of the NHS, getting rid of publically funded science, selling all public lands, getting rid of workers rights, and getting rid of regulation that protects people against lead and mercury poisoning?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jayonbrown8770 the money spent on benefits includes money paid to war veterans and older people with disabilities. That money they do get is often spent very quickly keeping the economy going and giving other people jobs. Regardless, you should look how much money that actually costs the government versus the money paid out to bail out banks, subsidise industries, useless PPE equipment, bribe the DUP, plan unbuilt garden bridges, and MP expenses. See also tax evasion and fraud. Moreover, as many predicted, Brexit has damaged the UK economy due to the realities of international trade. The only people benefitting are a small number of builders, tax avoiders, companies selling pesticides, and people who want to get rid of worker rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1