Before the Flood

[9th]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M

[Marblehead]

I intentionally didn't watch that last night.

[Nungali]

and I intentional will  not  watch it now

[9th]

I intentionally dont give a shit

[9th]

souls are not sold on the black market

it happens on every street corner

and its not rare - its the most common thing there is

 

 

and why not?

after all... its the almighty dollar

the precioussssss....

 

[Andrei]

OK, so this whole issue is made up so that they can justify the carbon tax right?

How about water tax? Since water in the atmosphere has way more green house effect than carbon dioxide.

How about sun tax? Since the sun is heating the atmosphere and the reason why all planets are heating up, they don't show this fact in those documentaries.

In the conclusion of the movie a brilliant scientist says there is a solution to the problem and he hopes the humanity sees it as soon as possible.

I am hoping he is seeing the stupidity of the proposed solution, like this carbon tax may change the planet orbit or planet tilting axis.

The dry band that you see over Middle Orient and north Africa, Tibet and is on all continents where are deserts, like Colorado desert in North America, Australian desert, Kalahari desert, Atacama desert,  is there because of the earth rotation, not because the humans intervention. In fact all planets have that band in their atmosphere and you can see it even on Jupiter.

http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/21838/what-would-the-climate-be-like-on-an-earth-like-planet-with-only-one-convection

 

This is caused by Coriolis effect which is caused by the planet rotation itself, and this effect is there on every planet in the universe with an atmosphere that rotates around its own axis:

Because the Sun is heating up, the atmosphere on Earth is heating up but that happens in all planets in our system, and because of that the dry band increases and the poles are melting but this is not because we are burning fossils fuels.

 

What is really bad for the Planet and our atmosphere is that the big corporations are cutting the trees, all virgin forests are destroyed but nobody say anything about that. So this is the real problem on our planet. But they don't want to tax cutting the trees, do they?

[ralis]

OK, so this whole issue is made up so that they can justify the carbon tax right?

How about water tax? Since water in the atmosphere has way more green house effect than carbon dioxide.

How about sun tax? Since the sun is heating the atmosphere and the reason why all planets are heating up, they don't show this fact in those documentaries.

In the conclusion of the movie a brilliant scientist says there is a solution to the problem and he hopes the humanity sees it as soon as possible.

I am hoping he is seeing the stupidity of the proposed solution, like this carbon tax may change the planet orbit or planet tilting axis.

The dry band that you see over Middle Orient and north Africa, Tibet and is on all continents where are deserts, like Colorado desert in North America, Australian desert, Kalahari desert, Atacama desert,  is there because of the earth rotation, not because the humans intervention. In fact all planets have that band in their atmosphere and you can see it even on Jupiter.

http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/21838/what-would-the-climate-be-like-on-an-earth-like-planet-with-only-one-convection

 

This is caused by Coriolis effect which is caused by the planet rotation itself, and this effect is there on every planet in the universe with an atmosphere that rotates around its own axis:

Because the Sun is heating up, the atmosphere on Earth is heating up but that happens in all planets in our system, and because of that the dry band increases and the poles are melting but this is not because we are burning fossils fuels.

 

What is really bad for the Planet and our atmosphere is that the big corporations are cutting the trees, all virgin forests are destroyed but nobody say anything about that. So this is the real problem on our planet. But they don't want to tax cutting the trees, do they?

 

The so called solar temp increase is not happening whatsoever. CO2 is the main driver of the greenhouse effect which traps heat.

[Brian]

OK, so this whole issue is made up so that they can justify the carbon tax right?

How about water tax? Since water in the atmosphere has way more green house effect than carbon dioxide.

How about sun tax? Since the sun is heating the atmosphere and the reason why all planets are heating up, they don't show this fact in those documentaries.

In the conclusion of the movie a brilliant scientist says there is a solution to the problem and he hopes the humanity sees it as soon as possible.

I am hoping he is seeing the stupidity of the proposed solution, like this carbon tax may change the planet orbit or planet tilting axis.

The dry band that you see over Middle Orient and north Africa, Tibet and is on all continents where are deserts, like Colorado desert in North America, Australian desert, Kalahari desert, Atacama desert,  is there because of the earth rotation, not because the humans intervention. In fact all planets have that band in their atmosphere and you can see it even on Jupiter.

http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/21838/what-would-the-climate-be-like-on-an-earth-like-planet-with-only-one-convection

 

This is caused by Coriolis effect which is caused by the planet rotation itself, and this effect is there on every planet in the universe with an atmosphere that rotates around its own axis:

Because the Sun is heating up, the atmosphere on Earth is heating up but that happens in all planets in our system, and because of that the dry band increases and the poles are melting but this is not because we are burning fossils fuels.

 

What is really bad for the Planet and our atmosphere is that the big corporations are cutting the trees, all virgin forests are destroyed but nobody say anything about that. So this is the real problem on our planet. But they don't want to tax cutting the trees, do they?

No, not so they can justify the carbon tax (although many of the players have made fortunes already) but so they can forge a new global governance model (the phrase "new world order" was a good one but it has been plastered with tin-foil-hat connotations).

 

We used to be able to access the draft of the original IPCC paper on which this current initiative was predicated and you could see the back and forth as scientists submitted their commentaries chapter by chapter on how the data didn't match the conclusions and the science was sloppy at best, and the authors replying that it was intended as a policy-shaping document rather than a scientific treatise. After a few chapters, the feedback from scientists dwindled to nothing. In the late 90s, I had a saved copy of that draft because the scientists I worked with then and I realized the document was very revealing and would disappear as soon as its significance was recognized. Alas, that was nearly twenty years ago and I wouldn't even be able to read the floppy disk if I happened to stumble upon it -- unlikely since that was five moves and three jobs ago. (Queue someone who will discount my statement as hearsay as if I were in a court of law...)

[ralis]

No, not so they can justify the carbon tax (although many of the players have made fortunes already) but so they can forge a new global governance model (the phrase "new world order" was a good one but it has been plastered with tin-foil-hat connotations).

 

We used to be able to access the draft of the original IPCC paper on which this current initiative was predicated and you could see the back and forth as scientists submitted their commentaries chapter by chapter on how the data didn't match the conclusions and the science was sloppy at best, and the authors replying that it was intended as a policy-shaping document rather than a scientific treatise. After a few chapters, the feedback from scientists dwindled to nothing. In the late 90s, I had a saved copy of that draft because the scientists I worked with then and I realized the document was very revealing and would disappear as soon as its significance was recognized. Alas, that was nearly twenty years ago and I wouldn't even be able to read the floppy disk if I happened to stumble upon it -- unlikely since that was five moves and three jobs ago. (Queue someone who will discount my statement as hearsay as if I were in a court of law...)

 

The scientists you worked with? Who are they?

[Andrei]

The so called solar temp increase is not happening whatsoever. CO2 is the main driver of the greenhouse effect which traps heat.

 

The plants need CO2 , it's their food. The trees grow with CO2, but if you cut the trees then yes, you have more CO2 than O2 because growing rate of the trees is slower than cutting rate.

 

But burning fossils has nothing to do with that. 

[ralis]

The plants need CO2 , it's their food. The trees grow with CO2, but if you cut the trees then yes, you have more CO2 than O2 because growing rate of the trees is slower than cutting rate.

 

But burning fossils has nothing to do with that. 

 

Of course plants need CO2, but their uptake is limited and not infinite like some believe. I agree that forests are being devastated which is a major problem. Fossil fuels are carbon based and when burned release CO2.

[Brian]

The scientists you worked with? Who are they?

Chemists, biologists, physicists, metrologists, biostatisticians, crystallographers, etc. The sort of people you find around the water cooler at a typical multinational pharmaceutical research organization.

[Brian]

Chemists, biologists, physicists, metrologists, biostatisticians, crystallographers, etc. The sort of people you find around the water cooler at a typical multinational pharmaceutical research organization.

We actually talked at length about how clever it was to use carbon dioxide as the culprit molecule because of the extreme difficulty in pinning this down. The entire planet (with very few exceptions)is a giant O₂<->CO₂ reprocessing engine with multiple cycles of varying periods superimposed upon each other and the signal which would need to be detected would be orders of magnitude below background effects. The result would be that the models would largely be both unverifiable and irrefutable, and the advocates of political solutions could claim victory regardless of outcome. Quite brilliant in a Bond-villain sort of way.

[ralis]

Chemists, biologists, physicists, metrologists, biostatisticians, crystallographers, etc. The sort of people you find around the water cooler at a typical multinational pharmaceutical research organization.

 

That is just water cooler talk and it is climatologists that are conducting the research. Are any of the above mentioned involved in the research and have submitted papers?

 

I happen to know several world class physicists at Los Alamos National labs in which I have discussed this problem, but they are not conducting research in this area.

[Karl]

It's only necessary to understand how this was cooked up by Rothchild and Maurice Strong.

 

Worth a read:

 

 

http://ielts-yasi.englishlab.net/political_agenda.htm

 

 

there are plenty of links to the video footage of the wilderness conference. I watched all this stuff years ago, but find it a bore these days. Like everything - follow the money.

[Brian]

That is just water cooler talk and it is climatologists that are conducting the research. Are any of the above mentioned involved in the research and have submitted papers?

 

I happen to know several world class physicists at Los Alamos National labs in which I have discussed this problem, but they are not conducting research in this area.

You can always be counted upon, ralis! <grin> You consistently maintain that opponents of your ideology are disqualified for not being members of "the club" while those who appear to support your ideology have opinions worth their weight in gold regardless of the foundation or rationale of their positions.

 

Are you aware that the father of climatology actually dismissed man-made global warning? True, and in a peer-reviewed paper, no less!

 

[ralis]

You can always be counted upon, ralis! <grin> You consistently maintain that opponents of your ideology are disqualified for not being members of "the club" while those who appear to support your ideology have opinions worth their weight in gold regardless of the foundation or rationale of their positions.

 

Are you aware that the father of climatology actually dismissed man-made global warning? True, and in a peer-reviewed paper, no less!

 

 

Doesn't matter if he did or not. The science is well researched and emotional opinions matter not.

[Brian]

Doesn't matter if he did or not. The science is well researched and emotional opinions matter not.

LOL

 

Funny how things which conflict with your ideology never seem to matter, ralis.

[ralis]

LOL

 

Funny how things which conflict with your ideology never seem to matter, ralis.

 

Has nothing to do with my own personal ideology, whatsoever. Yours was formed around a water cooler with scientists who have no skin in the game.

[Brian]

Has nothing to do with my own personal ideology, whatsoever. Yours was formed around a water cooler with scientists who have no skin in the game.

You are certainly free to imagine it any way you wish, ralis.

[joeblast]

As opposed to folks that have grant money on the table, and the pecking order its doled out in having been also perverted by politicians...

NAHHHHHHHHH r

[Brian]

<snip>

...(Queue someone who will discount my statement as hearsay as if I were in a court of law...)

[ralis]

You are certainly free to imagine it any way you wish, ralis.

 

Actually, it is boring discussing anything with you and Joeblast. You both are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong in both of your minds. It is sad and unfortunate that the division is so vast.

[joeblast]

Yeah, you keep asserting carbon dioxide is a pollutant and wont give up on it no matter how many ways we show you the hockey stick was scientific and statistical malfeasance, so it is getting boring when one gets discredited and like the black knight just keeps pressing on even after clear defeat.

 

 

same with hillary, cmon, what's it going to be after she's indicted?  woh, she's not actually in prison yet!!!

Edited November 1, 2016 by joeblast

[ralis]

Yeah, you keep asserting carbon dioxide is a pollutant and wont give up on it no matter how many ways we show you the hockey stick was scientific and statistical malfeasance, so it is getting boring when one gets discredited and like the black knight just keeps pressing on even after clear defeat.

 

 

same with hillary, cmon, what's it going to be after she's indicted?  woh, she's not actually in prison yet!!!

 

What you are engaging is internet bullying in every thread I post in. I am asking you to stop it.