Debunked: Lord Christopher Monckton

Oxymoron said:

Yes that is the accepted version. I am merely opining, I think it is likely possible but not public.

When you start looking at string theory and how at the minutest level every last thing in the Universe is made up of the same building blocks or 'strings', where 'simply' how it is vibrating at different frequencies defines it's characteristics, the possibilities become endless.

Click to expand...

But there is ZERO evidence that it's possible, and plenty of evidence it is not.

For a start, if you could use water for fuel by splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen, then you could build a perpetual motion machine, violating the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Yes, of course - that is EXACTLY what is being suppressed....

"These 'forcings' play a far larger role than anything man has done IMO. ... I simply think man has not made any significant difference to 'climate change'."

Yet 97% of the scientists who study this fundamentally disagree with you. And all of the Big Oil companies, along with their excessively wealthy investors and other billionaires with a vested interest, spend fortunes propagating the same bad science that you believe. Probably the exact same people who make up the Bilderberg Group, the CFR, and the guest list of Bohemian Grove's annual boozeathon.

And yet several of the big oil companies accept global climate change and fossil fuels part in it

True, but have a look at where they spend their cash. I'm working at the moment so I can't dig up the relevant article, but a study showed that for every dollar spent in publicizing the real science, there were 15 given to think tanks etc. that promote climate denial. It's called PR, and only a fool would take BP, Shell and the rest at their word when they promote themselves as 'caring for the environment'. A quick look at the Gulf, Nigeria, or the Alaskan coast should be enough to dissuade anyone.

Alhazrad, the Gulf is well on it's way to a full recovery from the blow out. Last year the seafood harvest in the Gulf was the largest in a decade, there were record numbers of sea turtle nests and hatchings. The sport fishermen are not reporting any problems finding fish. There is being record tourism.

After a major storm, there are more tar balls than normal, and some oil marsh land gets uncovered (these were areas where it was determined that cleaning them would do more environmental damage than leaving them.

Nigeria is a huge problem, partially caused by the oil companies, but also by corruption in Nigeria.

Prince William sound is not as bad as some say it is. The big problem there was the crash in the herring stock, several years after the spill. Some blame the spill, but the evidence for that is not solid. There is one theory that a rise in the whale population caused some of it.

A lot of hype and misinformation is out there. It seems to be a small group of 'activists'. Some are scammers, some are attention seekers, some seem to have a personal grudge against BP or even local officials and some are just radicals. Many of them also believe in chem trails and HAARP causing all sorts of havoc.

Some of them are very nasty in their comments and insults, even to the place of death threats and stalking folks.

I don't work for any oil company. I never have. About 20 years ago, my hubby worked for Mobil, as a geophysical engineer and his area was the seismic data in the Gulf. I also have a geology background.

"I don't work for any oil company. I never have. About 20 years ago, my hubby worked for Mobil, as a geophysical engineer and his area was the seismic data in the Gulf. I also have a geology background."

I wasn't accusing you, Caireann. I have found you to be a well-informed and eminently likeable person. I have hit the 'Thanks' button often enough under your posts for that to be fairly evident. I don't doubt that many activists spread dis-info, however I've yet to meet one that mentioned HAARP or Chemtrails - although that might be because they'd prefer not to be slapped upside the head.

That said, I will continue to maintain a very skeptical approach to all green credentials as advertised by oil companies. The first post I made in this thread, on how climate denial is being financed, is why.

I've first hand experience of Nigeria. Corruption is probably the biggest problem the country faces, but much of the money that is spent buying politicians comes directly Shell. The Nigerian police force, and the judiciary, acts on their behalf, as was most brutally demonstrated in the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa. Chevron bears some responsibility also:

http://www.democracynow.org/features/shell_on_trial

Oxymoron said:

Yes that is the accepted version. I am merely opining, I think it is likely possible but not public.

Click to expand...

It hasn't been, isn't, and won't ever be possible. It's one of the basic rules of physics that constants are constant.

When you start looking at string theory and how at the minutest level every last thing in the Universe is made up of the same building blocks or 'strings', where 'simply' how it is vibrating at different frequencies defines it's characteristics, the possibilities become endless.

Click to expand...

No, they don't.

The Big Bang started as a collection of strings, and "settled out" as it cooled through phase changes, while immaterial, from an original near-infinite temperature. Each "settling down" created fixed events and FIXED IMPOSSIBILITIES, each time severely restricting future options. We are quite cold, settled, stable, with all material at its lowest possible energy state.

If you really wish for a world of infinite options, you'll have to wait your turn for quite a while. You could rush things by applying yourself to the event horizon of a black hole, or maybe standing at ground zero for a nuclear weapon, but maybe closer than its casing if you want the full effect...

But I recommend you rethink. Life is short.

[video=youtube_share;DZGINaRUEkU]http://youtu.be/DZGINaRUEkU[/video]

I don't care for Shell and in spite of my hubby working for Mobil, I don't like how Exxon handled the Valdez spill. They are still fighting paying court order payments. In fact, I was surprised by BPs reaction in the Gulf. They acted more responsibly than I expected.

I am sure that some of it is greenwashing, I think the coal companies are also behind the climate change denial and Koch brothers.

Shell and Chevron both have poor environmental and human rights records. British Petroleum did it's share of nasty things in the 50s and before.

Corruption is a major issue with a lot of problems in Africa and the money from oil, gold, diamonds and other minerals just make it better.

Thanks for the compliment. Check out

https://www.facebook.com/RealCoastalWarriors?ref=ts&fref=ts

For the folks I have been dealing with. Of course NO non believers are allowed for very long there. I think I was blocked when I asked for the list of countries were Corexit is banned.

" ... I think the coal companies are also behind the climate change denial and Koch brothers."

All listed among those links I posted earlier in #25 on who funds what. The Kochs have been particularly generous with their money.

I'll check out that facebook page in detail when I'm having my next mug of tea, and see how long it takes me to get blocked!

Alhazred The Sane said:

"These 'forcings' play a far larger role than anything man has done IMO. ... I simply think man has not made any significant difference to 'climate change'."

Yet 97% of the scientists who study this fundamentally disagree with you. And all of the Big Oil companies, along with their excessively wealthy investors and other billionaires with a vested interest, spend fortunes propagating the same bad science that you believe. Probably the exact same people who make up the Bilderberg Group, the CFR, and the guest list of Bohemian Grove's annual boozeathon.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I stated 'I think man has not made any significant difference..' Every single living thing on the planet as well as all natural events affect the climate and the climate has always changed and always will change. Yes man affects it but how much and is it significant is the question.

As for the 'scientific' view...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th​ century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

​

Oxymoron said:

Interesting. I stated 'I think man has not made any significant difference..' Every single living thing on the planet as well as all natural events affect the climate and the climate has always changed and always will change. Yes man affects it but how much and is it significant is the question.

As for the 'scientific' view...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th​ century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

​

Click to expand...

The actual study:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Which column do you think is most likely to be accurate?

Jazzy said:

It hasn't been, isn't, and won't ever be possible. It's one of the basic rules of physics that constants are constant.


No, they don't.

The Big Bang started as a collection of strings, and "settled out" as it cooled through phase changes, while immaterial, from an original near-infinite temperature. Each "settling down" created fixed events and FIXED IMPOSSIBILITIES, each time severely restricting future options. We are quite cold, settled, stable, with all material at its lowest possible energy state.

If you really wish for a world of infinite options, you'll have to wait your turn for quite a while. You could rush things by applying yourself to the event horizon of a black hole, or maybe standing at ground zero for a nuclear weapon, but maybe closer than its casing if you want the full effect...

But I recommend you rethink. Life is short.

Click to expand...

Yes Jazzy, life is short and how we spend it is down to the individual, (subject to external factors beyond our control). I find it fascinating and feel very lucky to be in an age where so much information is available and I regard researching and learning as an incredibly valuable thing despite the fact that when I am gone that knowledge will die with me (as far as I am concerned). I think imagination and understanding is what really separates us from other life on Earth.

Look at people such as Jules Verne, drawing from cutting edge theories and science and producing what was considered fiction at the time but which decades later became fact.

Currently we do not even know that we are not just holograms or if there are other dimensions beyond our perception. Our perception is very limited. How long will it be before consciousness can be transferred to machines. Cyborgs are already a reality.

When you consider that every last thing we experience is simply an electrical impulse in our brains and our brains are actually in total darkness and silence and feels no pain. Amazing.

Mick said:

The actual study:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Which column do you think is most likely to be accurate?

Click to expand...

All those in 'I am not sure'.

But let's be clear about this, I am certainly not advocating pollution and disregard for the planet and I am certain there are those who do not care less about pollution and simply wish to accrue as much power and wealth by whatever means.

But the whole extra layer of Ponzi scheme carbon credits is IMO, just another method of making fortunes from thin air and restricting developing Countries from progressing and competing with us. Polluters should be made to clear up after themselves and it should be factored in the costs of producing as an expense. It could be argued this already happens but to what extent?

Yes, lets move to clean energy by all means but it needs to be economical and sufficient for our needs, (to which we have become accustomed).

Nuclear is too dangerous IMO, especially when it is sited on or near fault lines or when they could be attacked or sabotaged or simply 'go wrong'.

I wasn't referring to the Forbes article, although I'd be loathe to take a blog that regularly has Moncton contribute to it too seriously. I was thinking more of this article

"From the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the preeminent scientific organization in the US. Note that this article is not based on a mere count of articles, but rather looks at statements from various scientific organizations."

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

You could also read the positions taken by a large number of scientific institutions at
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp#positions

NASA have made the positions of 18 major scientific institutions perfectly clear too
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus among which you'll find

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

American Geophysical Union
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."

Perhaps this article in Scientific American might help you understand why you, and many others, still believe what the Koch brothers, Big Oil and the coal industry want you to believe, when the vast majority of the people who know their stuff are crystal clear - we are contributing, and our contribution is not small:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-americans-so-ill

Oxymoron said:

I think imagination and understanding is what really separates us from other life on Earth.

Click to expand...

Both that we have those talents, and generally fail to employ them, makes me wonder if, after all, that distinction is worth a damn.

Look at people such as Jules Verne, drawing from cutting edge theories and science and producing what was considered fiction at the time but which decades later became fact.

Click to expand...

And others. But if you really analyze his writing you'll see that he wasn't that useful.

Currently we do not even know that we are not just holograms or if there are other dimensions beyond our perception.

Click to expand...

Yes we know we aren't photons, and there are other dimensions.

Our perception is very limited. How long will it be before consciousness can be transferred to machines.

Click to expand...

A while, I think. We can't transfer what little we possess to each other.

Cyborgs are already a reality.

Click to expand...

Not according to my definition they aren't. This is a proof of my previous statement.

Yes, lets move to clean energy by all means but it needs to be economical and sufficient for our needs, (to which we have become accustomed).

Click to expand...

How very American of you.

Are your needs something you are accustomed to? Really? Not your desires?

Oxymoron said:

Look at the North Sea oil... Heavily forested only around 80,000 years ago if I'm not mistaken. Continental drift,

Click to expand...

Much longer than 80,000 years ago.

http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/public...gs/A_closer_look_at_some_North_Sea_fields.cfm

Huge volcanic eruptions dwarfing anything we have put out.

Click to expand...

Not during man's tenure on the planet.

That and the Solar activity levels.

Click to expand...

What are the solar cycles as science understands them?
How has irradiance changed during the industrial era?

I simply think man has not made any significant difference to 'climate change'.

Click to expand...

How is changing the composition of the atmosphere not going to affect climate?

What among all the factors you list caused the trend that we've seen in the last 150 years?

They are off on a Fukishima tangent right now, it seems. It is the reason that sea pups are starving along the west coast and why a 2 headed shark was found off the Florida keys --some are holding that out to be from Corexit however

scombrid said:

Much longer than 80,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

Yep sorry, my mistake, it was only 10,000 years ago that the North Sea area and the English Channel etc was covered in forests and had animals and people running around.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12244964

Not during man's tenure on the planet.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought there had been, Krakatoa, Pompei, Etna etc etc...
Oh never mind these will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions
all these were before mankind were they

What are the solar cycles as science understands them?
How has irradiance changed during the industrial era?

Click to expand...

I suggest you look back a bit further in history, climate seems to change well enough on it's own.

How is changing the composition of the atmosphere not going to affect climate?

Click to expand...

No one is saying it won't, it's a question of 'is it significant' in ALL the other factors.
Perhaps we should stop farming cows and sheep because they affect the climate?
Why does climate change seasonally... could it have anything to do with the Sun and how it is angled relative to the Earth? Does the Sun have it's own weather and seasons? How does that affect Earth?

What among all the factors you list caused the trend that we've seen in the last 150 years?

Click to expand...

I blame the horses but I don't mind because it's good for the roses

Jazzy said:

Both that we have those talents, and generally fail to employ them, makes me wonder if, after all, that distinction is worth a damn.


And others. But if you really analyze his writing you'll see that he wasn't that useful.


Yes we know we aren't photons, and there are other dimensions.


A while, I think. We can't transfer what little we possess to each other.


Not according to my definition they aren't. This is a proof of my previous statement.


How very American of you.

Are your needs something you are accustomed to? Really? Not your desires?

Click to expand...

Jazzy... your so funny

There is nothing American about it... no one wants to go back to the middle ages or even the 1800s, except a few extremists.

BTW... less than photons.

What is obvious is that the climate change is happening more quickly now. Nature is not having as much time to adapt to it.

Sort of like some of the early and late cold snaps we get in this area. Most folks have already packed the winter clothes away or haven't unpacked them. the AC in buildings is still on, and opps all of a sudden it's freezing, in mid April, or in late Oct. A change that would not have been a problem in Dec or Jan is now a major problem.

We had one a couple of years ago, that caught a lot of our power plant doing maintenance. We were having brown outs and even some black outs. Texas is an odd duck, since most of our grid is not connected to the primary US grid so no easy way to add power from elsewhere. We were saved because we are tied into the Northern Mexico grid in one or two places, so they sent us more power

Oxymoron said:

Yep sorry, my mistake, it was only 10,000 years ago that the North Sea area and the English Channel etc was covered in forests and had animals and people running around.

Click to expand...

And a two-mile high Ice Age icecap left its terminal moraine in the Thames Valley, now riddled with gravel pits and brick factories.

Not so much running around as plodding around, I think. Where did you think the water came from?

Oxymoron said:

Yep sorry, my mistake, it was only 10,000 years ago that the North Sea area and the English Channel etc was covered in forests and had animals and people running around.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12244964

Click to expand...

The North Sea went first, about 16,000 years ago. And it was not continental drift either, post-glacial sea level rises - climate change.



That's what happens when rising global temperatures melt some ice.

Mick said:

The North Sea went first, about 16,000 years ago. And it was not continental drift either, post-glacial sea level rises - climate change.



That's what happens when rising global temperatures melt some ice.

Click to expand...

That's right, you get the British Isles, warm weather, Turner Landscapes and our very own moat.

Love it.

Mick said:

The North Sea went first, about 16,000 years ago. And it was not continental drift either, post-glacial sea level rises - climate change.



That's what happens when rising global temperatures melt some ice.

Click to expand...

Nice picture . What cause the Global warming then ? Noticed even after sea level rise man thrived and expanded around the globe . So guess we have nothing to worry about Im sure all those Doggers just packed up and moved .

Oxymoron said:

That's right, you get the British Isles, warm weather, Turner Landscapes and our very own moat.

Love it.

Click to expand...

Indeed, now hopefully we can keep it like that.

This is near where I grew up. It was all under ice a while ago, which gives the landscape that smooth undulating look.

Joe said:

Nice picture . What cause the Global warming then ? Noticed even after sea level rise man thrived and expanded around the globe . So guess we have nothing to worry about Im sure all those Doggers just packed up and moved .

Click to expand...

Nobody knows exactly, there are likely multiple factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years[39]​ ); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and oceancurrents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.[citation needed]
​Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2​).

Right, like London will just pack up and move. Or New York will just pack up and move. Or most of Florida. It was a bit easier for small tribes of nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Adaptation is inevitable. But it would be a lot better if we didn't have to, or we could slow down the need for it.

Plus my house is only 22 feet above sea level

Mick said:

Nobody knows exactly, there are likely multiple factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years[39]​ ); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and oceancurrents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.[citation needed]
​Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2​).

Right, like London will just pack up and move. Or New York will just pack up and move. Or most of Florida. It was a bit easier for small tribes of nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Adaptation is inevitable. But it would be a lot better if we didn't have to, or we could slow down the need for it.

Plus my house is only 22 feet above sea level

Click to expand...

Im sure my house is not much higher might even be lower . Thats why I keep the boat close to my house

Joe said:

Im sure my house is not much higher might even be lower . Thats why I keep the boat close to my house

Click to expand...

Your both fine:

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in).[4]​ From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year

Don't worry,be happy

Jazzy said:

And a two-mile high Ice Age icecap left its terminal moraine in the Thames Valley, now riddled with gravel pits and brick factories.

Not so much running around as plodding around, I think. Where did you think the water came from?

Click to expand...

Where do you think the water come from to make the two-mile high Ice Age icecap?

And which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Oxymoron said:

Your both fine:

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in).[4]​ From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year

Don't worry,be happy

Click to expand...

I dont really think in my lifetime Ill have to worry .or my garndchildren ect. Actually since I love the ocean so much where my shop is would actually be oceanfront with a little rise in sea level . Sure would save me some time and gas having to drive to the beach . Give me a smaller carbon footprint too LOL !

Oxymoron said:

Where do you think the water come from to make the two-mile high Ice Age icecap?

Click to expand...

The oceans.

And which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Click to expand...

The oceans.

(Monocellular life IS "an egg").

This is obvious and logical.

Photosynthetic life FIXED atmospheric CO2 as sea-floor carbonate deposits.

The Earth lost its CO2 blanket and froze to the equator, preventing the fixation of further CO2. The earth being coated with a thick skin of ice did NOT prevent vulcanism, however.

The volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere built to an excessive amount, melting Snowball Earth.

Seaborne photosynthetic organisms were once again able to fix carbon as carbonates, and very slowly temperatures lessened and Life migrated inland from the coastal margins and colonized inland, causing more carbon to be fixed, this time as FOSSIL FUEL deposits.

The low end of the Malenkovitch cycle tipped the atmosphere into an ice age when the reducing CO2 fell below a certain margin.

With this second ice age, once again the ability of Life to fix CO2 was diminished, and volcanic CO2 built up in the atmosphere.

This ice age thawed.

This is the general order of events, broken and modified both by the effects of huge vulcanism (Siberian Traps) and continental break-up and drift with the formation of high mountain ranges*.

This is the point.

If we ALL thought like YOU do, Oxy, we're going to experience first the death of our civilization by global warming, then as savages we are going to experience the NEXT ice age.

OTHERWISE.

We will manage and maintain 350 parts per million carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in perpetuity, with neither tragedy ever threatening us again.

I put it to you, that in the first instance we will have proved that we are indeed merely apes.

In the second we will have proved ourselves to be essentially human, and to be properly distinguished from our origins.

It is our test. Will you pass?

* Some things are independent of these events. The continual build-up of unstable methane clathrates in oceans and tundra, for instance.

Jazzy said:

The oceans.


The oceans.

Click to expand...

Yes we see a cycle. And where did the oceans come from? Comets?

(Monocellular life IS "an egg").

Click to expand...

So everything is made up of a collection of 'eggs'?

This is obvious and logical.

Photosynthetic life FIXED atmospheric CO2 as sea-floor carbonate deposits.

The Earth lost its CO2 blanket and froze to the equator, preventing the fixation of further CO2. The earth being coated with a thick skin of ice did NOT prevent vulcanism, however.

Click to expand...

Ah, the power of 'life'... nothing to do with humans then?

The volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere built to an excessive amount, melting Snowball Earth.

Click to expand...

And 'nature', again nothing to do with humans.

Seaborne photosynthetic organisms were once again able to fix carbon as carbonates, and very slowly temperatures lessened and Life migrated inland from the coastal margins and colonized inland, causing more carbon to be fixed, this time as FOSSIL FUEL deposits.

Click to expand...

More life, not humans.

The low end of the Malenkovitch cycle tipped the atmosphere into an ice age when the reducing CO2 fell below a certain margin.

Click to expand...

Solar effects... no human influence.

With this second ice age, once again the ability of Life to fix CO2 was diminished, and volcanic CO2 built up in the atmosphere.

This ice age thawed.

Click to expand...

Cyclical climate change completely nothing to do with humans.

This is the general order of events, broken and modified both by the effects of huge vulcanism (Siberian Traps) and continental break-up and drift with the formation of high mountain ranges*.

Click to expand...

Again, human impact virtually zero.

This is the point.

If we ALL thought like YOU do, Oxy, we're going to experience first the death of our civilization by global warming, then as savages we are going to experience the NEXT ice age.

Click to expand...

No need to get upset with me, it wasn't me... I didn't do it, honest.

OTHERWISE.

We will manage and maintain 350 parts per million carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in perpetuity, with neither tragedy ever threatening us again.

Click to expand...

Ah GeoEngineering to COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, (which would happen anyway as it always has throughout millions of years) so that we do not have to 'move' as we have always had to do before.

Like Vero Man http://www.livescience.com/7042-ancient-people-kelp-highway-america-researcher.html

And Egyptians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi-Ramesses

I put it to you, that in the first instance we will have proved that we are indeed merely apes.

Click to expand...

Simply passengers, unable to manufacture a climate that we want because it suits us.

In the second we will have proved ourselves to be essentially human, and to be properly distinguished from our origins.

Click to expand...

Or 'as gods', having control over Earth. Once we have it right here, we can do it all over the solar system and beyond.

It is our test. Will you pass?

Click to expand...

Definitely. I will rush out and buy carbon credits immediately.

* Some things are independent of these events. The continual build-up of unstable methane clathrates in oceans and tundra, for instance.

Click to expand...

Ah, the caveat.

BTW, what's the weather like for you today in Tenerife... is it nice and warm and sunny... can you budge over a bit... you are blocking it out for me.

Oxymoron said:

Yep sorry, my mistake, it was only 10,000 years ago that the North Sea area and the English Channel etc was covered in forests and had animals and people running around.

Click to expand...

That's not where the oil came from. You said "look at the North Sea oil...". I responded to that.

Scientist are well aware of paleo climate, the same scientists that think that the current trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration is unprecedented and changing the atmosphere in such a way as to trap heat more efficiently than would otherwise occur.

Sorry, I thought there had been, Krakatoa, Pompei, Etna etc etc...
Oh never mind these will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions
all these were before mankind were they

Click to expand...

Their emmissions didn't, as you said, "dwarf anything that we put out".

If I am wrong, feel free to show me the numbers on the output of tonnes of sulfur, CO2, etc... by the volcanic eruptions and by industry over time.

I suggest you look back a bit further in history, climate seems to change well enough on it's own.

Click to expand...

You think I and climate scientists in general are unaware of paleo-climate?

So climate changed in the past. We are all aware of that. Climate is changing now. Climatologist largely attribute the current trend, not to the natural causes that caused previous changes, but to enhanced greenhouse effect. Climatologist say the current rate of change is not similar to previous climate changes. You say the current warming is like those of the past and not possibly attributible to CO2. You say the climatologists are wrong. What is the cause then?

Why does climate change seasonally... could it have anything to do with the Sun and how it is angled relative to the Earth? Does the Sun have it's own weather and seasons? How does that affect Earth?

Click to expand...

Has any of that changed in the last 150 years?

So guess we have nothing to worry about Im sure all those Doggers just packed up and moved .

Click to expand...

Easier to pack up and carry a tent than a sky scraper.

Lot of fighting when the moving happened too.

Mick said:

But there is ZERO evidence that it's possible, and plenty of evidence it is not.

For a start, if you could use water for fuel by splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen, then you could build a perpetual motion machine, violating the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not suggesting it is 'free', merely cleaner technology as it takes less fossil fuel energy to produce gases to run a car than by running a car/lorry/bus on fossil fuel and the emissions are water. Metane costs nothing to produce other than collecting and compressing it.

E.G http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCX_Clarity

There were reports that previous generation fuel-cell cars from Honda cost more than $1 million to build in 2005. Some estimated that Honda had cut its production costs to between $120,000 and $140,000 per vehicle.[3]​

The FCX Clarity is currently available for lease in the U.S., Japan and Europe. In the U.S., it is only available to customers who live in Southern California where "fast-fill" hydrogen stations are available.

I think it is all to do with 'the will of government and the oil industry'.

Is it encouraged... no... they tax it to extinction... the same with bio fuel.

People were running diesel on 'oil purchased from the supermarkets' because it was cheaper.

What did they do... attempted to prosecute and when that failed they put the price of the sunflower/corn oil up to stop people using it.

Same with LPG... taxed to extinction.

Don't blame 'the people'

Oxymoron said:

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not suggesting it is 'free', merely cleaner technology as it takes less fossil fuel energy to produce gases to run a car than by running a car/lorry/bus on fossil fuel and the emissions are water.

E.G http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCX_Clarity

There were reports that previous generation fuel-cell cars from Honda cost more than $1 million to build in 2005. Some estimated that Honda had cut its production costs to between $120,000 and $140,000 per vehicle.[3]​

The FCX Clarity is currently available for lease in the U.S., Japan and Europe. In the U.S., it is only available to customers who live in Southern California where "fast-fill" hydrogen stations are available.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you just mean hydrogen powered vehicles, not "water as a fuel".

That's really just an energy storage method, like batteries or compressed air. Not exactly what your original post suggested.

Oxymoron said:

I think water as a fuel has been suppressed. Hydrogen, Oxygen... I think we have the technology and have had for a long time.

Click to expand...

Mick said:

Ah, so you just mean hydrogen powered vehicles, not "water as a fuel".

That's really just an energy storage method, like batteries or compressed air. Not exactly what your original post suggested.

Click to expand...

Yes it was what I meant... that's why I worded it 'Water, Hydrogen Oxygen.' Water = hydrogen and oxygen both are combustible and the emissions are water.

Oxymoron said:

Yes it was what I meant... that's why I worded it 'Water, Hydrogen Oxygen.' Water = hydrogen and oxygen both are combustible and the emissions are water.

Click to expand...

And why do you think this is being suppressed? It seems to be getting quite a bit of money invested in it, considering there's not a lot of money to be made. There's a few hydrogen fueling stations in California. The problem really is one of the chicken and the egg. Nobody is buying the cars because there's not very many fueling stations. There's not many fueling stations because there are not many cars. It's going to take localized fleet purchases (like with the CNG buses here in LA) to get things moving. Or a hybrid hydrogen/gasoline car.

http://cafcp.org/stationmap
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...en-fuel-cell-cars-hit-the-market-from-hyundai

Oxymoron said:

Yes we see a cycle. And where did the oceans come from? Comets?

Click to expand...

The earth itself came from comets.

So everything is made up of a collection of 'eggs'?

Click to expand...

Yes, which have differentiated and made themselves susceptible to sequencing.

Ah, the power of 'life'... nothing to do with humans then?

Click to expand...

Not so far into this, no.

And 'nature', again nothing to do with humans.

Click to expand...

Not so far into this, no.

More life, not humans. Solar effects... no human influence. Cyclical climate change completely nothing to do with humans. Again, human impact virtually zero.

Click to expand...

No need to get upset with me, it wasn't me... I didn't do it, honest.

Click to expand...

You DID do it, and you are dishonest.

Ah GeoEngineering to COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE

Click to expand...

NO. STOPPING GEOENGINEERING, which unless you have a solar-powered computer, you are doing right now.

(which would happen anyway as it always has throughout millions of years)

Click to expand...

Which is a bare-faced lie.

so that we do not have to 'move' as we have always had to do before.

Click to expand...

Moving, in this case, means LEAVING THE PLANET.

Simply passengers, unable to manufacture a climate that we want because it suits us.

Click to expand...

No, APES, unable to see they are going to kill their descendants.

Or 'as gods', having control over Earth.

Click to expand...

NO.

As human beings, having control over ourselves.

Once we have it right here, we can do it all over the solar system and beyond.

Click to expand...

Here I must differ.

Definitely. I will rush out and buy carbon credits immediately.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read what Hanson has to say about those.

Ah, the caveat.

Click to expand...

It isn't mine. It's the Earth's. Mess with it and it will fuck you.

BTW, what's the weather like for you today in Tenerife... is it nice and warm and sunny... can you budge over a bit... you are blocking it out for me.

Click to expand...

I wish you the best of England's weather. It's a public holiday here and you can't see the beach for people. It's not like this: