Discussion:
97% doesn't cause climate change? Or does it?
(too old to reply)
Tony
2024-06-23 21:17:24 UTC
Permalink
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
David Goodwin
2024-06-24 02:29:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#***@ue.ph>, ***@orcon.net.nz
says...
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.

The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.

Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.

If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
Tony
2024-06-24 02:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to an
argument. You appear to be such.
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence enough of that.
David Goodwin
2024-06-24 03:23:37 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@ue.ph>, ***@orcon.net.nz
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to an
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence enough of that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
Tony
2024-06-24 03:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not David.
Listen to what he said.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to
an
Post by Tony
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
ANd you can prove that how?
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence enough of that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.
David Goodwin
2024-06-24 04:13:20 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@ue.ph>, ***@orcon.net.nz
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not David.
Listen to what he said.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to
an
Post by Tony
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
ANd you can prove that how?
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
enough of
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.
Tony
2024-06-24 06:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of
emissions
that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not David.
Listen to what he said.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to
an
Post by Tony
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
ANd you can prove that how?
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has
disproven what he said.
That is the real issue with this problem - people are so convinced that they
are correct that they overlook the need for evidence. And some others (not you)
become abusive at the same time). And some simply make money out of scaring the
world without any proven scientific evidence.
Provide evidence that he is wrong or you have nothing to add to the debate.
I stand by my challenge, "According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that
the 97% of emissions that are natural do not affect climate change. There is a
challenge for the climate emergency believers."
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
enough of
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.
David Goodwin
2024-06-24 10:47:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <part1of1.1.xhX2FUHd#***@ue.ph>, ***@orcon.net.nz
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of
emissions
that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not David.
Listen to what he said.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to
an
Post by Tony
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
ANd you can prove that how?
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has
disproven what he said.
That is the real issue with this problem - people are so convinced that they
are correct that they overlook the need for evidence. And some others (not you)
become abusive at the same time). And some simply make money out of scaring the
world without any proven scientific evidence.
Provide evidence that he is wrong or you have nothing to add to the debate.
I stand by my challenge, "According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that
the 97% of emissions that are natural do not affect climate change. There is a
challenge for the climate emergency believers."
I didn't provide any references because I wasn't aware anything I wrote
was in dispute. Was there something in particular you thought was in
some way unproven?
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
enough of
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.
Tony
2024-06-24 20:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of
emissions
that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not David.
Listen to what he said.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to
an
Post by Tony
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
ANd you can prove that how?
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has
disproven what he said.
That is the real issue with this problem - people are so convinced that they
are correct that they overlook the need for evidence. And some others (not you)
become abusive at the same time). And some simply make money out of scaring the
world without any proven scientific evidence.
Provide evidence that he is wrong or you have nothing to add to the debate.
I stand by my challenge, "According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that
the 97% of emissions that are natural do not affect climate change. There is a
challenge for the climate emergency believers."
was in dispute. Was there something in particular you thought was in
some way unproven?
Are you a Rich80105 alter ego?
I suggest you read more carefully.
What you wrote is in dispute by almost every word I wrote in this thread and
absolutely by the professor of geology.
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
enough of
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.
Rich80105
2024-06-24 23:03:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of
emissions
that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate
emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not David.
Listen to what he said.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to
an
Post by Tony
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
ANd you can prove that how?
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has
disproven what he said.
That is the real issue with this problem - people are so convinced that they
are correct that they overlook the need for evidence. And some others (not you)
become abusive at the same time). And some simply make money out of scaring the
world without any proven scientific evidence.
Provide evidence that he is wrong or you have nothing to add to the debate.
I stand by my challenge, "According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that
the 97% of emissions that are natural do not affect climate change. There is a
challenge for the climate emergency believers."
was in dispute. Was there something in particular you thought was in
some way unproven?
Are you a Rich80105 alter ego?
I suggest you read more carefully.
What you wrote is in dispute by almost every word I wrote in this thread and
absolutely by the professor of geology.
In dispute with what you may have said I can believe, but entirely
consistent with the statement by Professor Plimer - although I have
not checked that statement; it does seem self-evidently true, as of
course it is evident that natural emissions have clearly affected
climate change - that is why nobody can prove that they do not.
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
enough of
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.
Tony
2024-06-25 00:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of
emissions
that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes
do
add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain
buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is
and
has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate
emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not David.
Listen to what he said.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to
an
Post by Tony
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
ANd you can prove that how?
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has
disproven what he said.
That is the real issue with this problem - people are so convinced that they
are correct that they overlook the need for evidence. And some others (not you)
become abusive at the same time). And some simply make money out of
scaring
the
world without any proven scientific evidence.
Provide evidence that he is wrong or you have nothing to add to the debate.
I stand by my challenge, "According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that
the 97% of emissions that are natural do not affect climate change. There
is
a
challenge for the climate emergency believers."
was in dispute. Was there something in particular you thought was in
some way unproven?
Are you a Rich80105 alter ego?
I suggest you read more carefully.
What you wrote is in dispute by almost every word I wrote in this thread and
absolutely by the professor of geology.
In dispute with what you may have said I can believe, but entirely
consistent with the statement by Professor Plimer - although I have
not checked that statement; it does seem self-evidently true, as of
course it is evident that natural emissions have clearly affected
climate change - that is why nobody can prove that they do not.
Can you please get somebody to translate that into intelligible English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
enough of
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.
Rich80105
2024-06-25 01:59:19 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:22:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of
emissions
that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to
claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural
emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon
in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or
animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes
do
add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of
the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain
buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is
and
has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate
emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not David.
Listen to what he said.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to
an
Post by Tony
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
ANd you can prove that how?
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has
disproven what he said.
That is the real issue with this problem - people are so convinced that they
are correct that they overlook the need for evidence. And some others (not you)
become abusive at the same time). And some simply make money out of
scaring
the
world without any proven scientific evidence.
Provide evidence that he is wrong or you have nothing to add to the debate.
I stand by my challenge, "According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that
the 97% of emissions that are natural do not affect climate change. There
is
a
challenge for the climate emergency believers."
was in dispute. Was there something in particular you thought was in
some way unproven?
Are you a Rich80105 alter ego?
I suggest you read more carefully.
What you wrote is in dispute by almost every word I wrote in this thread and
absolutely by the professor of geology.
In dispute with what you may have said I can believe, but entirely
consistent with the statement by Professor Plimer - although I have
not checked that statement; it does seem self-evidently true, as of
course it is evident that natural emissions have clearly affected
climate change - that is why nobody can prove that they do not.
Can you please get somebody to translate that into intelligible English.
English your second language - get help!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
enough of
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.
Tony
2024-06-25 02:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:22:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of
emissions
that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to
claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has
been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of
these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is
why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural
emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon
in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or
animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes
do
add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and
the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of
the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain
buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it
all
up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is
now
a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise
naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural
carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is
and
has
never been the argument, but those who are committed to the climate
emergency
myth continue to address that as a corner stone of their beliefs.
This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not David.
Listen to what he said.
Post by Tony
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side to
an
Post by Tony
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
ANd you can prove that how?
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has
disproven what he said.
That is the real issue with this problem - people are so convinced that they
are correct that they overlook the need for evidence. And some others
(not
you)
become abusive at the same time). And some simply make money out of
scaring
the
world without any proven scientific evidence.
Provide evidence that he is wrong or you have nothing to add to the debate.
I stand by my challenge, "According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that
the 97% of emissions that are natural do not affect climate change. There
is
a
challenge for the climate emergency believers."
was in dispute. Was there something in particular you thought was in
some way unproven?
Are you a Rich80105 alter ego?
I suggest you read more carefully.
What you wrote is in dispute by almost every word I wrote in this thread and
absolutely by the professor of geology.
In dispute with what you may have said I can believe, but entirely
consistent with the statement by Professor Plimer - although I have
not checked that statement; it does seem self-evidently true, as of
course it is evident that natural emissions have clearly affected
climate change - that is why nobody can prove that they do not.
Can you please get somebody to translate that into intelligible English.
English your second language - get help!
What you wrote is unintelligible except to a sociopathic, undereducated hack
like you.
My English is immeasurably superior to yours. Try again but this time using
English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
enough of
Post by Tony
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Tony
that.
I guess we can be charitable and just assume he isn't qualified to talk
about this subject and as a result doesn't realise what he is saying is
incorrect. Apparently he has a mining geologist so I guess this is quite
possibly the correct explanation.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open
minded.
BR
2024-06-24 16:59:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:29:22 +1200, David Goodwin
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Tony
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers.
Yes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to claim
otherwise. CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation - this has been
known for well over a century and is easily proven. The more of these
gasses in the air, the less heat is radiated into space. This is why
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
The thing he either doesn't know or more likely given his
qualifications, is intentionally leaving out is that natural emissions
aren't *adding* new carbon to the environment. The amount of carbon in
the carbon cycle is largely constant. The carbon in any plant or animal
around us was previously in some other plant or animal. Volcanoes do add
a bit of "new" carbon to the environment, but oceans, swamps, and the
weathering of rock also take a similar amount of carbon back out of the
environment.
Now we've gone and dug up a vast quantity of carbon that has lain buried
for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and we've thrown it all up
into the atmosphere all at once. This will of course have an effect
because as we know CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and there is now a
whole lot more of it in the atmosphere than there otherwise naturally
would have been.
If natural carbon emissions give us one climate, then natural carbon
emissions plus all the ancient carbon we've added will give us a
different climate.
The whole man made climate change sensation is bullshit.

Nobody would notice anything different about the climate if it wasn't
for the duplicitous, lying, bloviating media.

There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a problem, and every
climate disaster prediction published in more than 50 years has
failed.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Loading...