Failing, Ducking and Covering (you know what)


Wake
#1
The media has tried to do anything to hide their failing man-made Climate Change hypothesis that somehow without a shred of evidence became "fact". This is important to realize - in the normal scheme of things a hypothesis is forwarded, becomes a theory through some sort of general proof that can be actually proven and proceeds to fact ONLY when the load of support become overwhelming. OPINION is NOT FACT. Einstein was considered a crank for a very long time after he forwarded his Special Theory of Relativity with all of the math to back it up.

The idea of climate change due to CO2 growth was forwarded back in the 19th century. This was such a distant idea that it hardly deserved space in the 1896 thesis of Svante Arrhenius. He knew that the major contributor was H2O and really made no bones about it.

In the 1940's with the advent of infra-red spectroscopy they discovered that CO2 could absorb some lines in that spectrum. Uh, big deal. MOST atmospheric gases absorb energy in some areas of the total energy spectrum. And in the case of CO2 these lines of absorption are VERY narrow and situated in an area of the Sun's emission bell curve and the Earth's reflection of the small about of energy in those areas that have VERY little energy. So little that at 100 ppm or so the CO2 absorbs that entire energy. Additional CO2, through heat transfer, CAN absorb other energy but no more so than O2 or N2.

The fact that we are in a warm period is most certainly true. So what, again. Every millennium or so we have these warm periods. The Roman warm period circa 100 BC and the Medieval warm period around 1000 AD are examples. This shows that the warming is completely normal climate variation and should not be used to give government power to order you not to take a commercial jet flight to Hollywood to see the stars. Or Utah to see National Parks. You should not allow a government gone power mad to limit your use of gasoline. Or electricity or water or gas.

And the True Believers who have almost no scientific knowledge certainly aren't willing to give up their own lifestyle. Do you see any of them riding bicycles to work or driving their brand new multi-thousands of dollars cars? Do you seem them in a Prius or an F-250 truck? Do you see THEM not flying off to Europe for a vacation in Venice? No, they are crying that YOU or I should be limiting our lifestyles so that they could carry on.

You know there is NO real method of knowing CO2 levels in the past atmosphere. The several ways they are trying i.e. the Finish Tree Ring research. This is limited to guesswork since wider tree rings can be attributed to many things as can narrower rings. This is great research but is limited in the exact knowledge it can impart.

The Vostok Ice Core research is good for many things but judging CO2 is not among them. Antarctica is the driest desert in the world. Snow doesn't fall there. The glaciers and ice sheets build up through the growth of frost from atmospheric humidity freezing. And since this is so little it can take more than a century for these to collapse into a hard sheet. So in the best of times all you could expect is a good average atmospheric content of gases.

We are getting such frantic wild-eyed screaming from the True Believers that we now hear statements on the media about how California has record rains as it hasn't seen in 500 years. There is absolutely NO WAY of knowing this since geological signs of such wouldn't stay and this sort of rain isn't all that unusual. Why would this be "unusual" when it is normal Seattle weather? It doesn't take much of a nudge to move these patterns south.

And weather patterns are so poorly understood that they cannot explain why El Nino only "most" of the time causes increased rains in California and la Nina usually causes more rain north. This occurred exactly opposite the last couple of years. So why do we have a media that is telling us about all these "climate experts" that can tell us what it is going to be like in 100 years *"if things continue the way they are".

I don't know about you but I have been spending more and more time with the TV off. I don't buy products on the media that have offensive commercials. And since that appears to be the object of the media in general I'll just stick to peer reviewed journals where I can laugh at papers that have the "perfect explanation" for things with dozens of equally possible explanations that weren't bothered to look into because it would be politically incorrect.
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
You're swimming upstream with this thread. Half of this forum (or more) live on the banks of DeNile.
 
Angstrom
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

You're swimming upstream with this thread. Half of this forum (or more) live on the banks of DeNile.

And the other half lives on the other side
 
Mowich
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

I don't know about you but I have been spending more and more time with the TV off.

Good for you, the majority of it is crap anyway full of shows about idiots running around naked in the woods, or having problems with their 600lb lives, of mother's putting their wee kids into competitions that force them to dress like adults and act like *****s, or hoarding like squirrels preparing for a long cold winter while letting their cats piss anywhere they like. You aren't missing a damn thing by turning it off.


Quote:

I don't buy products on the media that have offensive commercials. And since that appears to be the object of the media in general I'll just stick to peer reviewed journals where I can laugh at papers that have the "perfect explanation" for things with dozens of equally possible explanations that weren't bothered to look into because it would be politically incorrect.

I'd be interested in knowing what you consider 'peer reviewed journals' because it appears to me that what you are reading has little in common with what you profess to read.
 
Wake
#5
If you don't know what a peer reviewed journal is then why discuss it at all? There are literally dozens of them but I have yet to see one published in Canada. The papers that are printed are very often on-line. Though you don't seem to have the patience to read them all the way through or to coordinate the findings of one paper with another. Even of the referenced papers these papers often give.

Are you dreaming back to a great time when you couldn't leave your home for fear of frost-bite?
 
eh1eh
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

If you don't know what a peer reviewed journal is then why discuss it at all? There are literally dozens of them but I have yet to see one published in Canada. The papers that are printed are very often on-line. Though you don't seem to have the patience to read them all the way through or to coordinate the findings of one paper with another. Even of the referenced papers these papers often give.

Are you dreaming back to a great time when you couldn't leave your home for fear of frost-bite?

Are you getting your peer review from Brietbart?
Ok.

Quote:

The media has tried to do anything to hide their failing man-made Climate Change hypothesis ...

So you are saying that this is a hypothesis of the media?
Could it be the media is reporting on actual scientific findings?
Ya, I think that is actually what is happening Mr. Trum... I mean Mr. Wake.

Quote:

The fact that we are in a warm period is most certainly true. So what, again. Every millennium or so we have these warm periods. The Roman warm period circa 100 BC and the Medieval warm period around 1000 AD are examples. This shows that the warming is completely normal climate variation...

Well this is the warmest 'warm period' we've ever had, by quite a bit.

Quote:

I don't know about you but I have been spending more and more time with the TV off. I don't buy products on the media that have offensive commercials. And since that appears to be the object of the media in general I'll just stick to peer reviewed journals where I can laugh at papers that have the "perfect explanation" for things with dozens of equally possible explanations that weren't bothered to look into because it would be politically incorrect.

Looks like you don't believe 'the media' or actual science. Sad. Really sad.

 
Cannuck
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

somehow without a shred of evidence became "fact".

Um....do you know what the word evidence mean?
 
eh1eh
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Um....do you know what the word evidence mean?


Mr. Wake is a fountain of alt-facts so I would guess not.
 

Similar Threads

22
no new posts