From: Tom <tom@vondein.org> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:34:58PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate Physics 1973, speaks for about half an hr on "global warming" and various aspects of the ongoing controversy, along with his unique viewpoints: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0 Of course an 88 years old physicist specialised in electricity is *the* authority when it comes to climate science. Now all other 97% of climate scientists have to abandon everything they know about the issue. Related (since off topic as well): Lern something useful instead of wasting other peoples time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOjSp5_YiF0. And in this case the host is someone with proven competence in the field :) good luck, Tom This article    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-glob...    describes how the injection of perhaps a 250,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) each year, high into the atmosphere (say, 50,000 feet) will result in a cooling effect that will neutralize the greenhouse heating caused by increased CO2.This won't last forever, which is why this process will have to operate continually.  But any given dump will last a few years, so the process will be doable and efficient.  It would also be readily reversible:  Simply stop doing the injections if there is some unanticipated problem. Note:  SO2 is, of course, classified as a "pollutant". Much larger quantities are already being released into the atmosphere by burning coal and oil, as well as volcanos.  The difference is that such existing releases are done in the lower 10,000 feet (except for some occasional very energetic volcanic eruptions), and that SO2 is quickly washed out of the atmosphere by clouds and rain.  SO2 released high in the atmosphere does not have a ready removal mechanism, except for very gradual mixing with lower atmosphere, a process which is well-known to scientists. Please note:  I am not a "man-caused climate change believer". Nor do I believe that there is definitely not a problem.   I am aware that climate models run on very powerful computers, using extremely sophisticated mathematical models that are being continually improved.  I am open to the possibility that there may one day be an apparent problem, qualitatively.  But science doesn't know, quantitatively, what the size of the problem is. One beauty of the solution presented above is that it could be started quickly, would be relatively cheap, with minimal risk.  The rate of injections could, and would, be modulated as new global temperature data become available.  This solution will, however, piss off the AGW (anthropogenic Global Warming) fanatics, if for no other reason that it will seem to them to be too easy.         Jim Bell

From: Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> On 10/24/2016 12:54 PM, jim bell wrote:

I am aware that climate models run on very powerful computers, using extremely sophisticated mathematical models that are being continually improved.

Glittering Generalities much lately?

I am open to the possibility that there may one day be an apparent problem, qualitatively.  But science doesn't know, quantitatively, what the size of the problem is.

So calculation of CO2 discharges based on fuel consumption statistics, which correlate with contemporary and historical atmospheric CO2 measurements, which correlate with historical and contemporary measurements of ocean surface pH, which correlate with measurements of atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, etc. are not quantitative?   There is a lack, even today, of accurate predictive computer models of global climate.  Merely taking data is not sufficient.  It can be known, rather precisely, what the CO2 level is in the atmosphere.  This can be predicted for the future, also rather accurately, given known use of carbon fuels.  But the effect of that well-known CO2 level on temperature and temperature rises ISN'T known accurately.            Jim Bell

On Oct 24, 2016, at 7:34 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

Another to add to the viewing list:

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate Physics 1973, speaks for about half an hr on "global warming" and various aspects of the ongoing controversy,

What controversy? A few badly confused outliers is not a controversy.

along with his unique viewpoints: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

~130MiB

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:41:55 -0400 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 10/24/2016 10:03 AM, John Newman wrote:

...

...

On Oct 24, 2016, at 7:34 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

Another to add to the viewing list:

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate Physics 1973, speaks for about half an hr on "global warming" and various aspects of the ongoing controversy,

What controversy? A few badly confused outliers is not a controversy.

Attributing the widely promoted views of these individuals to confusion is a very charitable assessment. Anyone with a Ph.D. in any of the sciences who speaks against the overwhelming consensus model

As if truth was a matter of mob agreement.

in climatology and misrepresents the data supporting it obtains patronage from two of the most powerful industries in the world: Petrochemicals and Public Relations.

Go ahead, ignore the fact that your consensus of academic parasites is exactly that. Your climate 'scientists' are highly paid university parasites, pandering to 'progressive' eco fascists. If you are going to look at incentives do it in a consistent manner. And let me see. Is ther e 'progressive' 'eco friendly' highly subsidized 'industry' out there? Why, yes, there is. Maybe the 'green' industries' have some sort of incentives for spewing 'global-warming-climate-change' propaganda?

Patronage is also available to anyone who is paid to stand in front of a blue screen and talk about the weather: A strong consensus among meteorologists (and other entertainers) supports Barnum's Law, which states "There is no such thing as bad publicity."

The same propaganda techniques used in the long war against medical science conducted by tobacco companies

Actually, weren't your beloved 'medical' 'scientists' in bed with the tobacco companies? Et cetera.

have been recycled by today's campaigns against climatology, because they work. Opposing physical reality by lying about it may appear to be a losing battle but look again: A delaying action that only costs a few million dollars, while enabling its sponsoring industries to harvest tens of billions of dollars while a fabricated "debate" drags on, is a net winning strategy.

...

...

along with his unique viewpoints: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

"Unique viewpoints" in the physical sciences /rarely/ turn out to be useful. When they are not products of simple error or crackpot beliefs, "unique viewpoints" don't stay unique for more than a few months and get incorporated into consensus models within a few years.

So many videos, so little time. Promoters of the "chemtrails" delusion also publish lots of videos on YouTube: First, because their target demographic will not read anything longer than a typical Facebook post; second, because A/V presentations are inherently more persuasive than print; third, because dissecting bullshit and lies presented in video format requires one to first type a transcript of that bullshit in order to quote and comment on it. And why bother? True Believers are emotionally invested in "being right" and mere facts will not persuade them, especially when they are presented with a continuing stream of professionally crafted rationalizations supporting their belief.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYDjnTAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqTJgH/04Jw1RQjTx9KpSmxHvMoQ0M jkBXssGVm4OWMqwKlYLDaEr2xTig6yZQybcRUHHTxWyH975+omNoFj2CIczy5iVX rCAdqLCf2qB+1Oc58c3FN2dkJTF7JwGVwlUw1KbdKZhO5IfrrpNqf6zcpFaJHtfm RG91Q89HjUPS8MF2kJc2jyXaNDaE7FrIFVb0RSNBgzqx6Qv3MM+7Cc2m0+RrECwD 95AhKrBglbsIie7D2Apra5PFWE/Ube+aCps/prBJofb/7y6B2xF285xRZf3MOltO CC0pt3avCCTgJcgp7u2UbLmbDKyh/BKIvIVY7e4vjzFqV5L3sX9eJPvANfMRACQ= =NLTL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Global warming continues apace: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2017/jan/23/snow-sahara-desert-in-... Impressive stuff. -- * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a... * How Liberal Lefties view the world: http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/042cb95724339d5...

Jim said:

Ah, yes! But that snow was colder yesterday than it is today. Thus, further evidence of "global warming". Jim Bell

Laff riot ;) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-ye... http://www.alternet.org/environment/2016-about-become-hottest-year-record https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-r... But a picture of a fucking snow flake means it's a all a big chinese hoax!! Thank god people know how to take snapshots of snow, otherwise those pesky chinese tricksters may have gotten away with something ....