Post by Ninja on Dec 30, 2014 22:45:03 GMT
I know many of you will not watch a 3 hour podcast so I'll try to summarize here. it's an amazing video. I hope a lot of people take the time to watch it and get more informed so they can stand up to the libtards who want to tax us for what the sun does.
asteroid impacts happen more often than we thought and chances are we wont see it coming.
Atlantis being a continent in the middle of the Atlantic is scientifically plausible because during the last ice age when sea levels were 400ft lower and a 2 mile ice sheet sat on North America, it caused the middle of the atlantic to be 1000 feet higher up, think of the continental plate as a teeter-totter on a playground, the weight of all that ice kept Atlantis high up, but as it melted, the continent sank.
Climate change is real but humans contribute an insignificant amount. In fact burning fossil fuels may actually have greatly benefited plant growth. The IPCC only tracks carbon when in fact, temperatures on earth are a very complex blend of variables including our magnetosphere, the sun, the amount of cloud cover and many more.
So he goes on to talk about a woolly mammoth found in some permafrost, It was flash frozen in 10 hours or less, it still had flowering plants in it's stomach, it had an erection meaning it died by suffocation, and it was sitting on its ass with broken hips meaning whatever killed it knocked it on it's ass, sucked all the oxygen away and flash froze him whole, on the spot.
2 theories
a volcano erupted and the gasses went up close to space and then dropped to -150 degrees and then crashed back to earth.
or, a comet core entered our atmosphere and turned into this super cold gas and came crashing to earth.
Joe actually says next to nothing this whole 3 hours. He knows he is a dummy, so when a scientist comes in to drop some knowledge bombs, Joe simply sit's back and shuts his mouth, maybe asking a question here and there.
Randal Carlson talks about how pollution from coal plants is a legitimate concern, but points out that the IPCC is only concerned with carbon, ignoring every other factor, and carbon by itself is not a bad thing since the planet has a natural carbon cycle which the plants rely on to photosynthesize and the amount of carbon humans add to the environment is rather puny.
the whole concept of global warming has to go in the garbage, that's why nobody says it anymore, now they say climate change. We are seeing strong polarity, in the summer it's very hot, in the winter it's very cold, and all year long the storms are worse. (probably from extensive geo-engineering)
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/category/analysis/
I did some research and found this link...
Arctic sea ice extent for April 2014 averaged 14.14 million square kilometers (5.46 million square miles). This is 610,000 square kilometers (236,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) above the record April monthly low, which occurred in 2007. While the rate of ice loss was rapid through the first half of April, it subsequently slowed down. The rate of ice loss averaged for the month was 30,300 square kilometers per day (11,700 square miles per day), which is slower than the average rate of 38,400 square kilometers per day (14,800 square miles per day) over the period 1981 to 2010. As of May 4, 2014, extent was below average in the Barents Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and the Bering Sea, and slightly above average in Baffin Bay.
Ice loss was slower than it had been over the 20 previous years.
Another site attributed the early ice break up, to storms and said that was normal for storms to contribute to ice break up.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
take a look at this chart, we are at the far left where it's relatively low compared to further to the right on the chart which is hundreds of millions of years ago. The earth had a lot more CO2 before humans existed and it did just fine. Oh and all that methane from our cattle industry, how does that stack up against the hundreds of millions of much larger wooly mammoths from 10,000 years ago? All this climate hysteria is a political game aimed at squeezing more taxes out of the people. The climate has always changed dramatically long before humans existed and will continue to change dramatically long after we are extinct.
A couple volcanoes blowing there tops will have them wishing for global warming. They will be freezing and they can blame the earth and see how far that will get them.They will just start saying "It's global cooling! we have to subsidize the fossil fuel industry with more of our tax monies because humans caused global cooling by not burning enough fossil fuels, they hate the planet and they are racist!"
There are a lot of physicists that say the same thing, but for the majority of them I think the most important issue is that they are able to easily prove that the science behind the theory of global warming is flawed.
Dr. Gerhard Gerlich & Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner are another set of physicists who confirm the thesis of Dr. Pierre R Latour, and they have stated very plainly:
1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.
2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Any mechanism which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine”– the realm of pure sci-fi.
They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.
The paper’s introduction states it neatly:
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory
"As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space. Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED."
-Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner
This was one of the charts in regard to the Prof. Don J. Easterbrook article I mentioned.
When I think about the debate it seems as though logic and real science is losing. It is more of a political debate, and in the U.S. it's Liberal extremists vs. Republican extremists. Those people don't take into account that both sides are currently gaining monetarily from the issue, and they will both continue to do so in the future
Climates have stabilized over these last centuries, but they won't remain stable.. The charade can only continue for so long. So, science only has the appearance of failure for the time being.
I will say that not even scientists fully understand the complexity of our Earth, the climate, and atmosphere.. let alone the extent of the human impact. Climatology is one of the newest areas of atmospheric science, so new that there isn't a single climatologist today that has obtained a masters and very few who have obtained a PhD in this field. But there are certain laws and constants that cannot be ignored, and they form the basis of our understanding.