On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:36:10 +1000
Ördög <ordog@your.service.biz> wrote:

> * Natural gas extraction is an destructive process that more often
> then not also releases plenty pollutants into the environment.
>
> * Burning natural gas is anything but "clean".

BULLSHIT LIAR!

https://bluedotliving.com/dear-dot-is-there-such-a-thing-as-clean-burning-natural-gas/

natural gas does, in fact, emit fewer greenhouse gasses when burned
than other fossil fuels — about 50 percent less CO2 than coal.

And CO2, as we all know, correlates 100$% with INCREASED flora and
fauna.

if you like tree canopy and green things then you must LOVE CO2 -
period!

https://www.cleanwisconsin.org/under-the-lens-the-truth-about-natural-gas/

The fossil fuel known as “natural” gas is a mixture of hydrocarbon molecules, mostly methane, that is used to power about 30% of energy demand in the United States. There are two, chemically identical, types of this gas: conventional natural gas and renewable natural gas. Conventional natural gas, which accounts for the vast majority of natural gas use, is a fossil fuel just like oil and coal that needs to be extracted from deposits in the earth. Renewable natural gas is formed through the anaerobic digestion of landfill waste and livestock manure, meaning there can be a continual (renewable) supply of it.

Natural gas is much cleaner-burning that other fossil fuels. Compared to coal, it emits about half as much carbon dioxide (CO2) to produce the same amount of energy. Burning natural gas also produces very little sulfur, mercury or particulate matter. These reduced levels of pollution have led natural gas to be touted as an environmentally-friendly “bridge” fuel to a cleaner energy system.

https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/clean-energy-101/is-natural-gas-clean-energy

while natural gas is a fossil fuel, it’s the cleanest fossil fuel. That means that while it still produces harmful gases, it creates less than oil or coal.

Is natural gas considered sustainable energy?
Natural gases that can be used for fuel can be found in other places
than deep underground, such as under bodies of water and landfill
sites, and even collected from livestock. This type of natural gas is
called biomethane and can be relatively readily collected.

Does natural gas burn completely?
If there is enough oxygen, natural gas can burn completely, though that
doesn’t mean there aren’t any byproducts. When natural gas burns
completely, it produces carbon dioxide.

*The same carbon dioxide that plants CONSUME to live!*

You filthy Luddite piece of shite!

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 00:17:39 -0000 (UTC)
R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:

> The GHG in the atm reflect heat back down to the ground.

Creating a warmer more nurturing environment for both plant and animal
life as proved by EVERY PAST GEOLOGIC/CLIMATIC EPOCH where CO2
concentrations were much higher than now!

That, you scumbag urlogist POS, THAT!

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:11:09 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
> > Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
> > of it is factual.
> >
>
> **What is a "climatist"?
>
>

Sounds to me like a CO2 hating fascist using the junk science stalking
horse of "global warming" as some kind of scare tactic to institute top
down global controls by the Godless UN and reduce the earth's population
to 500,000 their stated goal.

Hopefully you'll be one of the first they take out, so mote it be!

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:07:41 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> If you can
> locate a dictionary definition, present it.

Fuck off and die, you semantic noodling climate change whore.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:14:43 -0000 (UTC)
R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!

Some dumb fucks think we'll believe that .04% of atmospheric gasses
constitute any kind of threat at all - especially when we find out that
the Jurassic was rich in flora and fauna unheard of since - because
global CO2 levels were over 3,000ppm, not our present 300ppm.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:29:46 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 10/04/2024 6:14 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> > In alt.global-warming Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
> >>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
> >>> None of it is factual.
> >>>
> >>
> >> **What is a "climatist"?
> >
> > Ifn yo ast Mr Googil she says:
> >
> > To be a climatologist, you need a strong background in math and
> > physics . Courses in meteorology and climatology, as well as
> > courses in agricultural,.
> > -- www.dnr.sc.gov
> >
> > Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!
> >
> >
>
> Searching for the term: 'climatist' elicits only this:
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/climatist
>
>
>
One who believes that certain diseases, especially yellow fever, are
mainly caused by local atmospheric conditions.

Sort of like dumb fuck leftards who believe that 300ppm CO2 means jack
shit in this climate system!

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:39:05 +1000
Ördög <ordog@your.service.biz> wrote:

> Crossposting to aus.pol terminated
>
>
> ***************REPLONK**************

YA FUCK YOU TOO RESTORED!

CO2: Thankfully creating a warmer more nurturing environment for both
plant and animal life as proved by EVERY PAST GEOLOGIC/CLIMATIC EPOCH
where CO2 concentrations were much higher(3000ppm) than now(300ppm)!

You Jurassic fucking dipshit!

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:41:25 +1000
Ördög <ordog@your.service.biz> wrote:

> Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
>
>
> > Nuff said.
>
> FUCK OFF from aus.pol
>
> ***** PLONK *****
>

NO, FUCK YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL!

CO2: Thankfully creating a warmer more nurturing environment for both
plant and animal life as proved by EVERY PAST GEOLOGIC/CLIMATIC EPOCH
where CO2 concentrations were much higher(3000ppm) than now(300ppm)!

You Jurassic fucking dipshit!

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> warren wrote

>>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.None of
>>>> it is factual.

>>> What is a "climatist"?

>> You know what it means

> Nope.

Even you can't actually be that stupid.

> No such term exists in any dictionary I can locate.

Its obvious to anyone with even half a clue what it means.

> If you can locate a dictionary definition, present it.

Go and fuck yourself.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/climatist

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:29:46 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 10/04/2024 6:14 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> In alt.global-warming Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
>>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
>>>> of it
>>>> is factual.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **What is a "climatist"?
>> Ifn yo ast Mr Googil she says:
>> To be a climatologist, you need a strong background in math and physics
>> . Courses in meteorology and climatology, as well as courses in
>> agricultural,.
>> -- www.dnr.sc.gov
>> Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!
>>
>
> Searching for the term: 'climatist' elicits only this:
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/climatist

Which spells out what it means, fuckwit.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 04:22:30 +1000
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:29:46 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On 10/04/2024 6:14 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> >> In alt.global-warming Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
> >>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
> >>>> None of it
> >>>> is factual.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> **What is a "climatist"?
> >> Ifn yo ast Mr Googil she says:
> >> To be a climatologist, you need a strong background in math and
> >> physics . Courses in meteorology and climatology, as well as
> >> courses in agricultural,.
> >> -- www.dnr.sc.gov
> >> Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!
> >>
> >
> > Searching for the term: 'climatist' elicits only this:
> >
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/climatist
>
> Which spells out what it means, fuckwit.

I'll say:

"One who believes that certain diseases, especially yellow fever, are
mainly caused by local atmospheric conditions."

Just like "local CO2" production allegedly causes the fiction known as
"climate change".

Yeah right...the .04% atmospheric ignoble gas is wagging the dog, it is
to LAUGH!

Our 300ppm CO2 level is nowhere near the 3,000ppm of the Jurassic
period when the planet was a densely vegetated and richly populate
paradise!

what kills?

Ice ages kill - up to 94% of all species btw!

Helluva number, innit man?

:-)))))

On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
> is factual.
>

**Here's the thing:

Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was an
atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided it was
in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his hypothesis to
include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the planet to warm
excessively:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never been
successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate. Until
a better theory to explain the present warming trend has been presented,
then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.

During the 1980s, more predictions were made, which have been shown to
be quite accurate:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html

So, the proof is in. Read it.

If you dispute the facts, then publish your own hypothesis and submit it
for peer-review.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> warren wrote

>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of
>> it is factual.

> Here's the thing:

We'll see,,,

> Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
> mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was an
> atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided it was
> in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his hypothesis to
> include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the planet to warm
> excessively:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

> Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
> Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
> data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never been
> successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.

But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
CO2 levels have actually doubled.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

> Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.

Bullshit they have

> Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
> presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.

But his FORMULA isnt.

> During the 1980s, more predictions were made,which have been shown to
> be quite accurate:

More lies with the time when global temperatures barely moved for a while.

And STILL can't explain the medieval warm period.

> https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840

> https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html

> So, the proof is in.

Bullshit it is.

> Read it.

Shove your lies.

> If you dispute the facts,

Your lies above are nothing even remotely like the facts.

> then publish your own hypothesis and submit it for peer-review.

Don't need to.

Arrhenius made the claim with his formula which turned
out to not be able to explain the minimal change in global
temperatures we have actually seen over the time that
measured atmosopheric CO2 levels have doubled is his
claim. He gets to do the proving. That's how it works.

On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> warren wrote
>
>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
>>> of  it  is factual.
>
>> Here's the thing:
>
> We'll see,,,
>
>> Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
>> mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
>> an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
>> it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
>> hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
>> planet to warm excessively:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
>
>> Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
>> Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
>> data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
>> been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
>
> But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
> to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
> of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
> CO2 levels have actually doubled.

**Points:
* CO2 levels have NOT doubled.
* There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.
* Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are very
impressive.

>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>
>> Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
>
> Bullshit they have
>
>> Until  a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
>> presented,  then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
>
> But his FORMULA isnt.

**Let's discuss in 100 years. So far, his data points to pretty decent
accuracy.

>
>> During the 1980s, more predictions were made,which have been shown to
>> be quite accurate:
>
> More lies with the time when global temperatures barely moved for a while.

**Examine the cites.

>
> And STILL can't explain the medieval warm period.

**There are several possibilities:

https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm

https://news.utexas.edu/2010/11/11/medieval-warm-period-not-so-random/

>
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
>
>> https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
>
>> So, the proof is in.
>
> Bullshit it is.

**OK. Then YOU present your hypothesis to explain the present warming trend.

>
>> Read it.
>
> Shove your lies.

**Peer-reviewed data. As opposed to your mindless bullshit.

>
>> If you dispute the facts,
>
> Your lies above are nothing even remotely like the facts.

***I cite facts and data. If you dispute those facts and data, then
present your alternate hypothesis to explain the present warming trend.

>
>> then publish your own hypothesis and submit it  for peer-review.
>
> Don't need to.

**Yeah, you actually do.

>
> Arrhenius made the claim with his formula which turned
> out to not be able to explain the minimal change in global
> temperatures we have actually seen over the time that
> measured atmosopheric CO2 levels have doubled is his
> claim. He gets to do the proving. That's how it works.

**CO2 levels have NOT doubled you fucking moron. Arithmetic is not your
strongest ability, is it?

CO2 levels were approximately 285ppm prior to the present warming trend.
CO2 levels are sitting at around 420ppm right now.

Tell me how that is double?

Take your time explaining. Go find a 7 year old to explain basic
arithmetic to you.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
> Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
>
>> Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
>>>
>>> At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
>>>
>>> Nuff said.
>>>
>>
>> The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global warming
>> effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon dioxide punches
>> above its weight.
>
> Utter horseshit!
>
> Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,

**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

far below the
> several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna epochs
> of the past like the Jurassic.

**Sure. And considerably hotter too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

>
> CO2 is what plants breathe!

**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.

>
> The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and soon
> will.

**Really? Prove it.

In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING temperatures
(like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial period.

>
> You are completely deceitful.

**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Trevor Wilson
> Phil Hendry's Chop shop
>> Ozix
>>> Phil Hendry's Chop Shop
>>>> At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
>>>> Nuff said.
>>>
>>> The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global warming
>>> effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon dioxide punches
>>> above its weight.
>>
>> Utter horseshit!
>> Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
>
> **Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
> https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
>
>  far below the
>> several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna epochs
>> of the past like the Jurassic.
>
> **Sure. And considerably hotter too:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>
>>
>> CO2 is what plants breathe!
>
> **Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
>>
>> The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and soon
>> will.
>
> **Really? Prove it.
>
> In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING temperatures
> (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial period.
>
>>
>> You are completely deceitful.
>
> **Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.

Give it up Trevor!
You will never be able to convince these pro fossil fuel propaganda
brain-fucked retards by arguing the the facts of proper climate science.
These freaks are either learn resistant idiots or alt-right nutjobs or
paid propagandists or all of the above.
:-(

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

On 4/7/2024 5:13 PM, warren wrote:
> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
> is factual.
>

Judge for yourself:

https://nsidc.org/home

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Dawn

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
> > Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
> > of it is factual.
> >
>
> **Here's the thing:
>
> Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
> mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
> an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
> it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
> hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
> planet to warm excessively:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
"excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
self-regulating systems are all about.
> Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
> Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
> data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
> been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Bullshit lie!
> Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
> Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend has been
> presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
>
> During the 1980s, more predictions were made, which have been shown
> to be quite accurate:
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840

And in the 1970s our trustrthy scientific comunity were all up in a
lather over the looming Ice age...

Which somehow never came...

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn...

> https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
>
> So, the proof is in. Read it.

That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.
> If you dispute the facts, then publish your own hypothesis and submit
> it for peer-review.

Jurassic period - the greatest proliferration of flora and fauna known
to earth.

CO2 evel today - 300 ppm

CO2 levek ten - 3,000 ppm.

Case CLOSED!

Oh, want more?

https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers

enjoy, dickhole.

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> warren wrote

>>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
>>>> of it is factual.

>>> Here's the thing:

>> We'll see,,,

>>> Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
>>> mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
>>> an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
>>> it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
>>> hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
>>> planet to warm excessively:

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

>>> Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
>>> Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
>>> data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
>>> been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.

>> But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
>> to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
>> of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
>> CO2 levels have actually doubled.

> Points:
> * CO2 levels have NOT doubled.

The exact percentage is irrelevant.

The Arrhenius formula doesnt come even close to predicting
the change in global temperatures we have actually seen.

> * There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.

Pity that the increase in atmospheric CO2
levels has been going on for centurys now.

> * Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
> calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are very
> impressive.

Only for fools who can't manage to grasp that the FORMULA
he produced doesnt get within a bulls roar of the change in
global temperatures we have actually seen.

You don't need anything more than a calculator to see that.

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

>>> Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.

>> Bullshit they have

>>> Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
>>> presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.

>> But his FORMULA isnt.

> Let's discuss in 100 years.

No thanks. There has been a lot more than that since see
have seen a dramatic increase in the atmospheric CO2 level.

> So far, his data points to pretty decent accuracy.

BULLSHIT.

>>> During the 1980s, more predictions were made,which have been shown to
>>> be quite accurate:

>> More lies with the time when global temperatures barely moved for a
>> while.

> Examine the cites.

Which show nothing like what his formula predicts.

>> And STILL can't explain the medieval warm period.

> There are several possibilities:

None of which are anything like the Arrhenius formula
which you stupidly claim is very accurate.

> https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm

> https://news.utexas.edu/2010/11/11/medieval-warm-period-not-so-random/

>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840

>>> https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html

>>> So, the proof is in.

>> Bullshit it is.

> OK. Then YOU present your hypothesisto explain the present warming
> trend.

Don't need to when rubbing your nose in
the fact that the Arrhenius formula doesnt
get within a bulls roar of predicting the
small change in global temperatures that
we might have seen.

>>> Read it.

>> Shove your lies.

> Peer-reviewed data.

Which shows that the Arrhenius formula
doesnt get within a bulls roar of predicting
the small change in global temperatures
that we might have seen.

>>> If you dispute the facts,

>> Your lies above are nothing even remotely like the facts.

> I cite facts and data.

You actually lied when you claimed that the
Arrhenius formula accurately predicts the
change in global temps we might have seen.

> If you dispute those facts and data,

I don't, I dispute your lie that the Arrhenius
formula accurately predicts the change in
global temps we might have seen.

>>> then publish your own hypothesis and submit it for peer-review.

>> Don't need to.

> Yeah, you actually do.

Nope, ALL I need to do is dispute your lie that
the Arrhenius formula accurately predicts the
change in global temps we might have seen.

>> Arrhenius made the claim with his formula which turned
>> out to not be able to explain the minimal change in global
>> temperatures we have actually seen over the time that
>> measured atmosopheric CO2 levels have doubled is his
>> claim. He gets to do the proving. That's how it works.

> CO2 levels were approximately 285ppm prior to the present warming trend.

The Arrhenius formula has to explain the change in global
temperatures over the entire range of atmospheric CO2 levels
that have been observed, not just the present warming trend.

And it doesnt even come close to getting it right
even with this range you are cherry picking.

> CO2 levels are sitting at around 420ppm right now.

<reams of your shit flushed where it belongs>

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:38:17 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> CO2 levels were approximately 285ppm prior to the present warming
> trend. CO2 levels are sitting at around 420ppm right now.

Which is so far removed from the 3,000+ppm of the Jurassic that it is to
LAUGH!

Most any sentient being would take that lush and benevolent climate
regime over our coming ice age.

Learn up:

https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:57:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
> > Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
> >
> >> Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
> >>>
> >>> At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
> >>>
> >>> Nuff said.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
> >> warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
> >> dioxide punches above its weight.
> >
> > Utter horseshit!
> >
> > Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
>
> **Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
>
> https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

Fair enough, still way lower than the Jurassic's 3-4,000 ppm.

> far below the
> > several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
> > epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
>
> **Sure. And considerably hotter too:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Which was spectacular for plant and animal life!

> >
> > CO2 is what plants breathe!
>
> **Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.

Sure does NOT!
> >
> > The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
> > soon will.
>
> **Really? Prove it.

Read the charts.

https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers

> In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING temperatures
> (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial period.

The 3/6/12,000 year solar cycle - learn:

https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers

> >
> > You are completely deceitful.
>
> **Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw

12,000 Year Cycle
Suspicious0bservers

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:26:16 +1000
Ördög <ordog@your.service.biz> wrote:

> Trevor Wilson
> > Phil Hendry's Chop shop
> >> Ozix
> >>> Phil Hendry's Chop Shop
> >>>> At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric
> >>>> gasses. Nuff said.
> >>>
> >>> The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
> >>> warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
> >>> dioxide punches above its weight.
> >>
> >> Utter horseshit!
> >> Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
> >
> > **Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
> > https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
> >
> >  far below the
> >> several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
> >> epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
> >
> > **Sure. And considerably hotter too:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
> >
> >>
> >> CO2 is what plants breathe!
> >
> > **Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
> >>
> >> The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
> >> soon will.
> >
> > **Really? Prove it.
> >
> > In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING
> > temperatures (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial
> > period.
> >>
> >> You are completely deceitful.
> >
> > **Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
>
> Give it up Trevor!
> You will never be able to convince these pro fossil fuel propaganda
> brain-fucked retards by arguing the the facts of proper climate
> science. These freaks are either learn resistant idiots or alt-right
> nutjobs or paid propagandists or all of the above.
> :-(

"Pro fossil fuel"?

Try pro-mixed fuel for a realistic read.

On 11/04/2024 10:05 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:57:50 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
>>> Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nuff said.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
>>>> warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
>>>> dioxide punches above its weight.
>>>
>>> Utter horseshit!
>>>
>>> Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
>>
>> **Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
>>
>> https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
>
> Fair enough, still way lower than the Jurassic's 3-4,000 ppm.

**And, once more: It was WAY, WAY hotter back then too. It's what CO2 in
the atmosphere does. It causes warming. 4,000ppm of CO2 will not only
cause an average of around 10 degrees C more temperature rise (along
with consequent sea level rise, etc), but will lead to health effects in
humans. We are not evolved to cope with that much CO2. We have evolved
to cope with around 300ppm of CO2.

>
>
>> far below the
>>> several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
>>> epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
>>
>> **Sure. And considerably hotter too:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>
> Which was spectacular for plant and animal life!

**Not HUMAN animals. And not any of the crops and animals we eat either.

>
>>>
>>> CO2 is what plants breathe!
>>
>> **Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
>
> Sure does NOT!

**Sure it does you moron. CO2 is a known asphyxiant:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1

https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/co2.html

>
>>>
>>> The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
>>> soon will.
>>
>> **Really? Prove it.
>
> Read the charts.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers

**Cite a proper scientific document. I don't watch Youtube for my
scientific information.

>
>
>> In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING temperatures
>> (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial period.
>
> The 3/6/12,000 year solar cycle - learn:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers

**As above.

Also, you need to explain how a glacial period can occur, when
temperatures are rising. A glacial period can only occur when
temperatures fall. Pretty simple stuff.

>
>>>
>>> You are completely deceitful.
>>
>> **Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw
>
> 12,000 Year Cycle
> Suspicious0bservers

**As above. Cite peer-reviewed scientific documents.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/04/2024 10:01 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:38:17 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> CO2 levels were approximately 285ppm prior to the present warming
>> trend. CO2 levels are sitting at around 420ppm right now.
>
> Which is so far removed from the 3,000+ppm of the Jurassic that it is to
> LAUGH!

**And, when such high levels of CO2 were present, temperatures were MUCH
higher than they are today.

>
> Most any sentient being would take that lush and benevolent climate
> regime over our coming ice age.

**What "coming ice age"?

Just a reminder:

Temperatures are RISING.
For an ice age to occur, temperatures must FALL.

Pretty basic science.

>
> Learn up:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
>

**Not interested in Youtube bullshit. Cite peer-reviewed science.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/04/2024 9:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
>>> of it is factual.
>>>
>>
>> **Here's the thing:
>>
>> Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
>> mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
>> an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
>> it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
>> hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
>> planet to warm excessively:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
>
> Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
> "excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
> self-regulating systems are all about.

**You have ZERO idea about such things.

The planet has warmed excessively in the past, when CO2 levels were
higher than they are today. As much as 10 degrees C higher, in fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Coincidentally (or not) CO2 levels were also very high.

>
>> Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
>> Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
>> data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
>> been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>
> Bullshit lie!

**Is that so? Present your alternate hypothesis to explain the present
warming trend.

>
>> Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
>> Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend has been
>> presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
>>
>> During the 1980s, more predictions were made, which have been shown
>> to be quite accurate:
>>
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
>
> And in the 1970s our trustrthy scientific comunity were all up in a
> lather over the looming Ice age...

**Bullshit. NONE of the planet's climate scientists were saying such
twaddle. It was a Newsweek story. Newsweek is not a scientific
publication of note.

>
> Which somehow never came...
>
> Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn...

**Of course. It was bullshit when it was published by Newsweek and
condemned by climate scientists at the time.

>
>> https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
>>
>> So, the proof is in. Read it.
>
> That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.

**Nope. It's proof you moron.

>
>> If you dispute the facts, then publish your own hypothesis and submit
>> it for peer-review.
>
> Jurassic period - the greatest proliferration of flora and fauna known
> to earth >
> CO2 evel today - 300 ppm
>
> CO2 levek ten - 3,000 ppm.
>
> Case CLOSED!

**Just a reminder: CO2 levels were MUCH higher than they are today.
Humans were not around. The plants and animals we eat were not around.

>
> Oh, want more?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
>
> enjoy, dickhole.

**Try citing some science you fucking moron, rather than some dodgy
Youtube bullshit.

I bet you can't.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com