If you still believe in deadly climate change, this will help you sleep.

[daveman]

As a beginner, why do you think Man controls climate?

Two points:

1. Mammy doesn't think. Mammy emotes.
2. Mammy believes Man controls the climate because that's what he was told to believe.

 

[mamooth]

As a beginner, why do you think Man controls climate?

I don't.

The fact that you asked such a stupid question shows you don't understand the basics, and you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Man influences climate. That's not the same as controlling things. Words mean things, and the way you use those words is totally wrong.

 

[mamooth]

He does that in the three forums

Really? I've made you cry in three forums?

I honestly don't remember. You're not that important, and all the snowflakes start blending together after a while.

 

[Robert W]

That's nice, but your physics grade has nothing to do with climate science. That's why I don't bring up my education. I just talke about the science.


And since that weather is changing to being more warm, what's your point?




Nah, they're both really bad.

Do you think that they've overturned the last century of physics because they parroted something on a conspiracy blog? They mouth some convincing BS, but any time you dig deeper into it, it's always BS. You never dig deeper into it. You always blindly accept it at face value, because it's convenient to your politics.

When I read their posts, unless they have to deal with dumbness top notch, they only talk about climate facts. And facts are not personal at all. They simply are truth.
I knew Chem Engineer for well over 15 years I believe. I own a book he is the author of. It is a fantastic book to read. Sunset Tommy and I ran into each other on a different forum and drifted here. I find his knowledge to be very great.

Why are we having this kind of discussion? Because in your comments you toss in a blizzard of insults. Look at the trash talking you do to me? I tried to be patient to figure out your motive. I see politics and not science at all.

 

[daveman]

When I read their posts, unless they have to deal with dumbness top notch, they only talk about climate facts. And facts are not personal at all. They simply are truth.
I knew Chem Engineer for well over 15 years I believe. I own a book he is the author of. It is a fantastic book to read. Sunset Tommy and I ran into each other on a different forum and drifted here. I find his knowledge to be very great.

Why are we having this kind of discussion? Because in your comments you toss in a blizzard of insults. Look at the trash talking you do to me? I tried to be patient to figure out your motive. I see politics and not science at all.

And that's the root of it all. "Climate change" is purely political. Saving the planet is not the end goal. Worldwide control over individual lives is.

That's all it's EVER been about.

 

[mamooth]

When I read their posts,

Again, your argument-from-authority fallacy that fails in multiple ways.

You can't just say someone is great. You have to show it.

And you can't. You never even try. All you do is cry about how mean people are when they demonstrate your arguments are bad.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That's nice, but your physics grade has nothing to do with climate science. That's why I don't bring up my education. I just talke about the science.


And since that weather is changing to being more warm, what's your point?




Nah, they're both really bad.

Do you think that they've overturned the last century of physics because they parroted something on a conspiracy blog? They mouth some convincing BS, but any time you dig deeper into it, it's always BS. You never dig deeper into it. You always blindly accept it at face value, because it's convenient to your politics.

I don't do physics because I use simple math which is enough to show that CO2 is irrelevant at the 430 ppm level while there is ample evidence of the small changes in the Sun/Ocean relationship along with changes in the solar bandwidth easily swamps the negligible warm forcing changes from 280 ppm (1880) to 560 pm (around 2090) of around 2.8 W m/2 change...... against around 510 W m2 of downwelling radiation of the atmosphere.

CO2 is a trace gas with a trace warm forcing a reality you continually ignore.

 

[mamooth]

And that's the root of it all. "Climate change" is purely political. Saving the planet is not the end goal. Worldwide control over individual lives is.

That's all it's EVER been about.

If you look at the discussions here, it's always those on the right who go off on weird political rants.

Those on the left just talk about the science. Because we can.

Only one side makes it entirely about politics, and it's dave's side.

 

[Robert W]

I don't.

The fact that you asked such a stupid question shows you don't understand the basics, and you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Man influences climate. That's not the same as controlling things. Words mean things, and the way you use those words is totally wrong.

It is not stupid. It was to see what you believe you know. And you gave a great answer. That man can't control climate anywhere on Earth. I knew that as you know it. And if man could control Climate, our top scientists would already control it. They would know how to change climate. But they don't know how. I love the Democrats word influence. That is the step they take when they first deny man changes climate and then they want to lie and say he can change climate. And if man changes climate, he controls it. Same as you in a car. Your passengers are not controlling the car, you drive it and control it. So how can you deny that?

 

[daveman]

Top Princeton Professor: ‘Climate Crisis’ Is a ‘Crazy’ Hoax​

One of America’s most eminent academics has warned the public that the “climate crisis” narrative is a hoax, asserting that globalist claims of stopping “global warming” are “just crazy.”

Professor William Happer is one of the world’s most distinguished physicists.

Happer is a professor emeritus at the world-renowned Princeton University and a former science advisor to the White House.

During a new interview, Happer dismantles the dominant “climate change” narrative.

Happer explains that the so-called “climate crisis” is not science – it’s politics.

He notes that it is manufactured fearmongering fueled by ideology, money, and power grabs.

“Saving the planet from one and a half degrees of warming is just crazy,” Happer says.

He explains that populations around the world are being pressured to sacrifice truth, prosperity, and freedom in the process of facilitating the hoax.

Happer pulls back the curtain on the chilling reality within academia.

Young researchers are faced with a troubling ultimatum: Conform to climate alarmism or lose your funding and future.

He points out that it’s tough to remain honest due to the weight of influence from globalist interests.

Happer explains that grant money only flows for researchers who support the green agenda narrative.

Climate research has become an industry of obedience.

Honest science is punished, critical thinking is sidelined, and groupthink is the new standard.

This isn’t how truth is discovered, however – It’s how it’s silenced.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is essential for life.

However, globalist groups such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) have sought to demonize CO₂ in pursuit of their big government collectivism agenda.

Plants breathe CO₂, and humans depend on it.

Historically, the Earth has thrived with levels far higher than today.

So what happens if we double CO₂ levels?

According to Prof. Happer, virtually nothing.

As Slay News has previously reported, the effect is saturated — more CO₂ doesn’t mean runaway warming.

100% more CO₂ changes Earth’s radiative balance by just 1%.

In addition, the temperature impact is almost negligible.

Yet we’re demonizing a molecule that sustains life, imposing policies that devastate economies and food production.

This is not science – It’s superstition backed by propaganda.

The WEF’s so-called “Net Zero” agenda, Happer warns, is nothing short of a civilization-scale suicide pact.

As such, pursuing “Net Zero” goals will only bring devastation.

In order to meet “Net Zero,” prices will skyrocket, and people will starve.

Sri Lanka banned chemical fertilizers to comply with the WEF/UN green agenda, and it caused crops to fail.

Prices skyrocketed. People starved.

If all nations follow “Net Zero,” the same thing will happen but globally.

Millions depend on fossil fuels for food, heat, transport, and survival.

Ending their use isn’t just misguided — it’s catastrophic.

Behind the green agenda slogans lie trillions of dollars in profit and a new ideology of control.

This isn’t about saving the planet – It’s about owning it.

Happer makes a chilling comparison by warning that the current climate dogma mirrors the ideological pseudoscience of the Soviet Union under Lysenko.

In Stalin’s era, biologists who spoke the truth about genetics were silenced, fired, and even executed.

Today’s heretics face career destruction, censorship, and reputational ruin.

According to Happer, science has nothing to do with consensus.

It’s about testing ideas against reality.

However, climate “science” has become a political movement, and dissent is treated as a threat.

When ideology replaces inquiry, freedom dies.

Prof. Happer leaves us with a sobering reflection.

He warns that perhaps the greatest challenge the human race faces isn’t environmental but existential.

In a world saturated with fear-driven narratives, many — especially the young — are losing their sense of purpose.

Science has become politicized, open inquiry discouraged, and expressions of independent thought are often met with resistance.

Yet what people need most is not more fear but a sense that their lives matter — that they can contribute meaningfully, think freely, and live with dignity.

Whether you agree with every point or not, the deeper message remains: a healthy society needs truth, reason, and freedom to thrive.

 

[mamooth]

I don't do physics because I use simple math which is enough to show that CO2 is irrelevant at the 430 ppm

Your "because I say so!" arguments are not as convincing as you think they are.

level while there is ample evidence of the small changes in the Sun/Ocean relationship

The sun has been cooling. The oceans have been warming. That conclusively debunks both the "It's the sun!" and the "Heat hiding in the oceans is coming out" bad arguments.

along with changes in the solar bandwidth

Ah, the "bandwidth" pseudoscience. Deniers don't know how "bandwidth" affects climate, but they're sure it does, somehow. They're basically invoking fairy magic.

easily swamps the negligible warm forcing changes from 280 ppm (1880) to 560 pm (around 2090) of around 2.8 W m/2 change...... against around 510 W m2 of downwelling radiation of the atmosphere.

Check it out. This one actually doesn't understand the concept of "cumulative."

CO2 is a trace gas with a trace warm forcing a reality you continually ignore.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO! BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

 

[Robert W]

And that's the root of it all. "Climate change" is purely political. Saving the planet is not the end goal. Worldwide control over individual lives is.

That's all it's EVER been about.

I have said many times that the Democrats definitely are not liberal at all. They are really card carrying Authoritarians. They make Hitler look pale compared to them. He was a socialist and watch democrats lie about that. They love socialism and will defend it to the death. I want to finish saying I totally agree with your statements.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Really? I've made you cry in three forums?

I honestly don't remember. You're not that important, and all the snowflakes start blending together after a while.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yet you reply to me over and over and over and over and over and over while you show your inability to back up your claim to my simple question.

Your claim you never back up from post 351,

The opposite of reality, of course. Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money flows to the deniers.

Any ethical scientist could triple their salary by choosing to lie for the deniers. They don't. They effectively take a pay cut by refusing denier bribes, which gives them even more credibility.

You demonstrate that YOU have no credibility as you continually duck my request for evidence.

You are one big nothing.

You are scared in getting exposed apparently which is why the continual smokescreen to cover your inability to answer it.

 

[Robert W]

Your "because I say so!" arguments are not as convincing as you think they are.

You offered Sunset Tommy no alternatives? Rather you wasted time attacking him.

 

[mamooth]

Professor William Happer

""demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler"
-- William Happer.

That is, the guy is a fruit loop, and he's a dope on the topic of climate science.

He also got the science on ozone laughably wrong. That was in the 1990s. He just got worse after that. Old scientists who can't think any more should stay out of science.

So, another appeal-to-authority failure.

Needless to say, he was paid well for his denialism. Almost all denier scientists profit greatly from their position.

 

[mamooth]

You demonstrate that YOU have no credibility as you continually duck my request for evidence.

I've given it before. Why do it again? You'd just cry, lie and run again.

I grow weary of that cycle. I educate those willing to learn for free. You're a cult clown, so you get treated like one. The fact that it triggers you is a bonus.

Who do you think you're impressing now with the hysterics? Don't delude yourself into thinking you've got an audience. It's just these few people here, my pout-stalker clique crying their little cult eyes out at me.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your "because I say so!" arguments are not as convincing as you think they are.


The sun has been cooling. The oceans have been warming. That conclusively debunks both the "It's the sun!" and the "Heat hiding in the oceans is coming out" bad arguments.


Ah, the "bandwidth" pseudoscience. Deniers don't know how "bandwidth" affects climate, but they're sure it does, somehow. They're basically invoking fairy magic.


Check it out. This one actually doesn't understand the concept of "cumulative."


"BECAUSE I SAY SO! BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

Another science free reply just dismissive angry insults, which means you once against are covering your ignorance since you didn't say anything scientific against what I posted which was very simple that even cavemen would understand what I am saying, you couldn't even do that.

I was talking about the doubling factor CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm that is postulated to generate an addition 2.8 W m/2 warm forcing which went right over your small head despite that this is a standard discussion point for many years and with a few published papers covering these grounds.

You have NOTHING but wind and piss to offer here.

 

[mamooth]

You offered Sunset Tommy no alternatives? Rather you wasted time attacking him.

I pointed out where he was wrong in several spots.

That is, you're just lying about my posts now. I've taken your measure, and found you to be craven and dishonest.

If it makes you feel better, feel free to cry about how meeeeeeaaaaaaaan I was for highlighting your cowardly sleaze. It's not like you've ever been capable of any other tactic.

 

[Sunsettommy]

""demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler"
-- William Happer.

That is, the guy is a fruit loop, and he's a dope on the topic of climate science.

He also got the science on ozone laughably wrong. That was in the 1990s. He just got worse after that. Old scientists who can't think any more should stay out of science.

So, another appeal-to-authority failure.

Needless to say, he was paid well for his denialism. Almost all denier scientists profit greatly from their position.

So no science argument to offer then what a shame you are so bad at this, just a another smoke screen crap to hide your inability to discuss the science.

 

[mamooth]

Another science free reply just dismissive angry insults,

Let me highlight what made you soil yourself and run there.

You claimed that solar effects and ocean effects explained the warming.

I pointed out that TSI has gone down, and oceans have warmed strongly, which debunks your crazy claim.

So you ran, like you do every time.

I was talking about the doubling factor CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm that is postulated to generate an addition 2.8 W m/2 warm forcing which went right over your small head despite that this is a standard discussion point for many years and with a few published papers covering these grounds.

And I accepted that. Sweet Jeebus, even for a denier, you're stupid and dishonest.

I pointed out that your claim, that 2.8 W/m^2 couldn't cause warming, that claim was stupid. Because it was. If that much extra energy is being absorbed, the earth has to warm. Energy just doesn't vanish.

How are you going to run this time? That's really the only interesting thing about talking to you, guessing what tactic you'll use to run this time.