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.
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzThe 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.
says...
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions >>thathttps://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
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.
In article <part1of1.1.z4rd32eWoWM2xQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzANd you can prove that how?
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzThe 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
says...
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions >> >>thathttps://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
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.
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.
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side toan
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is >simply wrong.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.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.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.z4rd32eWoWM2xQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzThe 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
says...
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissionshttps://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
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.
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.
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side toan
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?
enough ofTo suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
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 <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >says...
According to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of emissions >>thathttps://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
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 aThe 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.
different climate.
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side toan
argument. You appear to be such.
To suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence enough of that.
In article <part1of1.1.gCUP73f5DipGZQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzNo, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has disproven what he said.
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.z4rd32eWoWM2xQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzANd you can prove that how?
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is andAccording to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% ofhttps://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
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.
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.
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side toan
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is
simply wrong.
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
enough ofTo suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.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.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.gCUP73f5DipGZQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.z4rd32eWoWM2xQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzANd you can prove that how?
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >> >> >says...
The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and >> >>hasAccording to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% ofhttps://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
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.
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.
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side toan
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side is >> >simply wrong.
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."
enough ofTo suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open minded.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.
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
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.
In article <part1of1.1.xhX2FUHd#iw0iw@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzorg%2F
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.gCUP73f5DipGZQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.z4rd32eWoWM2xQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >> >> >> >says...
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.
Are you a Rich80105 alter ego?No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else hasANd you can prove that how?The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is and >> >> >>hasAccording 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.
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.
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.
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
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?
enough ofTo suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am openthat.
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.
minded.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
In article <part1of1.1.xhX2FUHd#iw0iw@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.gCUP73f5DipGZQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.z4rd32eWoWM2xQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>> >> >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%
In dispute with what you may have said I can believe, but entirelyAre you a Rich80105 alter ego?No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has >>> disproven what he said.ANd you can prove that how?The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is andAccording 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.
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.
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.
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
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?
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.
enough ofTo suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open >>> >>minded.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.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.xhX2FUHd#iw0iw@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.gCUP73f5DipGZQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>> >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.z4rd32eWoWM2xQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>> >> >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>,
lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%
Can you please get somebody to translate that into intelligible English.In dispute with what you may have said I can believe, but entirelyAre you a Rich80105 alter ego?No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has >>>> disproven what he said.ANd you can prove that how?This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not >>>> >> >David.The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is >>>> >> >>andAccording 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.
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. >>>> >> >
Listen to what he said.
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.
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
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?
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.
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.
enough ofTo suggest that he intentionally left something out is evidence
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open >>>> >>minded.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.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.xhX2FUHd#iw0iw@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.gCUP73f5DipGZQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>> >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.z4rd32eWoWM2xQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>> >> >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>,
lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%
Can you please get somebody to translate that into intelligible English. English your second language - get help!In dispute with what you may have said I can believe, but entirely >>consistent with the statement by Professor Plimer - although I haveAre you a Rich80105 alter ego?No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has >>>>> disproven what he said.ANd you can prove that how?This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not >>>>> >> >David.The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is >>>>> >> >>andAccording 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.
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. >>>>> >> >
Listen to what he said.
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side toan
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side >>>>> >> >is
simply wrong.
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
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?
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.
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.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open >>>>> >>minded.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.
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:22:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony5Eb556ed5ea8a8e36914944b6df97dd7f327acf619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwaikanaewatch.org%2F
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:30:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.xhX2FUHd#iw0iw@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.gCUP73f5DipGZQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>> >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.z4rd32eWoWM2xQ@ue.ph>,
lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.fcbpkI9zc3ye#g@ue.ph>,
lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1804846523131265370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1804846523131265370%7Ctwgr%
What you wrote is unintelligible except to a sociopathic, undereducated hack like you.Can you please get somebody to translate that into intelligible English. >English your second language - get help!In dispute with what you may have said I can believe, but entirely >>>consistent with the statement by Professor Plimer - although I haveAre you a Rich80105 alter ego?No, you expressed an opinion. You, and according to him, nobody else has >>>>>> disproven what he said.ANd you can prove that how?This guy is claiming we are not affecting the climate.No he is not >>>>>> >> >David.The argument is not that we are not affecting the climate, that is >>>>>> >> >>andAccording to professor Plimer nobody has shown that the 97% of >>>>>> >> >> >>emissionsYes, natural emissions affect the climate - it would be absurd to >>>>>> >> >> >claim
that
are natural do not affect climate change.
There is a challenge for the climate emergency believers. >>>>>> >> >> >
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.
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. >>>>>> >> >
Listen to what he said.
There are none so foolish as those who can never see another side >>>>>> >> >>toan
argument. You appear to be such.
I see the other side, and in this particular instance the other side >>>>>> >> >is
simply wrong.
I described how he was wrong in my initial reply.
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?
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.
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.
There is no "we" in this, you should perhaps be charitable, I am open >>>>>> >>minded.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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:03:25 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,603 |