1. Home
  2. UK Do-It-Yourself Forum
  3. [OT] Pointless bus/cycle lanes
  4. Page 3

[OT] Pointless bus/cycle lanes

The timeline debunks your suggestion, I'm afraid.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom
Loading thread data ...

Once again I'll post this:

I've not seen any reference to "Electron warming" associated with climate. I have seen "electron warming models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.

It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.

By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, I would happily eat humble pie but I know I won't have to.

Reply to
Fredxx

If all your research is up to the standard of your research on electron warming the rest of your quality, in depth research can only be bunk.

Of course, you're too lazy to post any information of "electron warming" in respect of it's effect on climate.

Reply to
Fredxx

The only thing I've researched in depth is the level of CO2 vs. time over a hundred+ year period: that's all. I've not looked into any other aspect of this business in any depth at all so have no concrete view on what other phenomenon could be responsible for the claimed warming (if such exists at all and is attributable to human activity). I only mentioned the paper concerning electron warming in passing as it has a more credible basis at first sight than the official line blaming CO2. It's just an alternative theory I haven't looked into at all and no more. --

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

I have no figures for the last 12 years. My last authoratative source is the 2009 edition of the Britannica. --

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

The candidate the Tories put up against Khan at the last election was extremely poor.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News

Doom's idea of research is to look for anything that agrees with his views. All too common these days.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News

I'll say this once more: just do what you did last time and pretend you've seen the evidence, it's rubbish and save me the bother. --

"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."

- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

The CO2 levels in 1960 were just under 320ppm, whereas in the interglacial of 300,000 years ago it was 300ppm [data from NOAA]. This is interesting, as that interglacial was 3degC warmer than this one [data from Vostok ice-cores], despite the lack of human activity.

No-one in 'climate science' seems to be looking at this, probably because the funding for grants and travel lies elsewhere.

Reply to
Spike

What it boils down to is that 'Climate Change' is a most convenient lie. It justifies narrow elites getting support for huge transfers of wealth from consumers to energy companies and the excuse for greater and greater government control of everything.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

That graph is a complete travesty. It's only a few steps less ridiculous than Al Gore's hocky stick job. You believe it if you want, though; it's not my problem what other people think so long as they're given a factual counter argument (something that's totally absent in the mainstream media). --

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

The truth hurts when it doesn't fit your beliefs. Do you believe in some mythical deity too?

Reply to
Fredxx

No, that graph is about right. It is confirmed by many other readings worldwide, and by the increase in foliage recorded by satellites. As well as the changes in C14/C12 ratios indicative of 'recent organic' carbon or 'recent fossil' carbon: It is also unlikely that the rate of coal burning would not result in some atmospheric uplift, and it is trivial to assume that that will affect climate at some level.

That has never ever been the issue. The issues has always been whether or not the reliable and easily verifiable changes in CO2 and the reliable and easily verified back, and if so, how much?

You don't commit a fraud by claiming something any laboratory in the world can verify.

You commit it by adjusting something very obscure, whose value can only be checked over a very long period of time .

In this case its the value and sign of the feedback associated with various drivers of climate.

To get alarming warming it needs to be positive and crazily unstable - so unstable that juts about any event that affects climate - a volcano, for example, would have pushed the earth into either a tropical desert or total glaciation.

The likes of Judith Curry place the value at around zero, and get about a degree °C for every doubling of CO2.

Long term analysis of the paleo climate suggests the feedback is reasonably large but negative, so that the effect of CO2 change will be almost undetectable.

What counts is stuff like cloudiness, the sun's actual output and the quasi-periodic chaotic oscillations of ocean currents and wind patterns year on year.

Climate is simply beyond prediction and no amount of CO2 knob twiddling will make a blind bit of difference. That's the real science. We don't know, we can't know, and we are wasting out time trying to find out the future climate.

But no one makes money or gains power by supporting that position, so no one does.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Well, one has to wonder.

The Vostock ice-cores show that over the last 400,000 years the CO2 levels have varied between 190 and 295 ppm, rising from the minima only some thousands of years after inter-glacial warming has taken place.

By a strange coincidence, we are now some thousands of years after the end of the last glaciation, and CO2 levels are rising...

But business and governments can't let a good natural phenomenon go to waste by not exploiting it to the fullest.

Reply to
Spike

Nope. All you've done is prove my point: online sources are compromised and of next to no value. Clearly since the Britannica's line has changed so abrupted to conform to the 'climate science' narrative, it's publishers have caved in to Globalist pressure (which seems inexorable, sadly). You have to do the leg-work or you'll get nowhere. Get down to the library and consult the historical sources - THE *HARD COPY* HISTORICAL SOURCES! --

"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."

- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Well the last thing we need is an internecine argument, so let's just agree to disagree on that particular point. The important thing is we are both agreed that the measures being brought in will have *zero* effect on climate and will cost everyone a *fortune* to comply with.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Well, yes, that is the intention. Ruling elites want to enslave the useless plebs.

Useless plebs delighted to be enslaved.

It will not end well.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Worse than that. It's about greater *Global* control over everything. Look at the organizations which set these so-called 'targets' for countries to meet. They're all Globalist in nature. And the thing is, no one questions their authority to impose these targets on the RotW (IOW the West in practice). National governments just slavishly follow in lock step to carry out the directives of these unaccountable entities. Same with the WHO saying yesterday that London failed to meet its targets for particulate and NO2 pollution. Plus of course, this disturbing pronouncement from the WEF in my sig appended herewith. Who the hell are these people? --

"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."

- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

The historical sources don't exist, or you would have posted your evidence on your own website. It is also well known that measurements at ground level are variable and at best misleading.

Scanning hard copies is an easy process. But we know you won't because you can't.

Reply to
Fredxx

I'll say this once more, I've not seen any reference to "Electron warming" associated with climate. I have seen "electron warming models" but they've been in respect of MOSFETs and silicon oxide.

It sounds you're getting confused with terms you don't understand.

By all means provide details of this academic paper to enlighten me, once more I would happily eat humble pie but I know I won't have to.

Reply to
Fredxx

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.