NWO climate scam origination.

[AMart]

The Club of Rome had their pow wow back in 91', then released

THE FIRST GLOBAL REVOLUTION: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome​

Amazon product

So after the fall of the Soviet Union they can up with this " "In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill."

Useful idiots are so easy to fall. Slaves of the bankers.

 

[ReinyDays]

The Club of Rome had their pow wow back in 91', then released

THE FIRST GLOBAL REVOLUTION: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome​

Amazon product

So after the fall of the Soviet Union they can up with this " "In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill."

Useful idiots are so easy to fall. Slaves of the bankers.

You prefer Islamophobia? ... The Illini said the same thing ... are you afraid of Italians or are you afraid of the FIGHTING ILLINI ... boy, talk about useful idiots ...

 

[AMart]

You prefer Islamophobia? ... The Illini said the same thing ... are you afraid of Italians or are you afraid of the FIGHTING ILLINI ... boy, talk about useful idiots ...

Follow orders from your climate master useful idiot.

 

[ReinyDays]

Follow orders from your climate master useful idiot.

Actually ... I'm doing the opposite of OPEC's orders from the 1970's ... I don't wait three hours in line to buy 5 gallons of gasoline anymore ... I conserve ... I'm just pointing out the Illini have more world-wide political influence than your lil' rinky dink "Club of Rome" ... what's the point of being a terrorist organization if no one's heard of you? ...

My claim is climate isn't changing ... CCC is a hoax, or New Speak for global warming ... and in the Orwellian tradition, New Speak is specifically used to make the population afraid and dependent on their government, when in fact there's nothing to be afraid of and we should continue scrutinizing of government's behaviors ... especially her spending behaviors ... We the People need to cut up the bitch's credit cards ...

 

[Crick]

Actually ... I'm doing the opposite of OPEC's orders from the 1970's ... I don't wait three hours in line to buy 5 gallons of gasoline anymore ... I conserve ... I'm just pointing out the Illini have more world-wide political influence than your lil' rinky dink "Club of Rome" ... what's the point of being a terrorist organization if no one's heard of you? ...

My claim is climate isn't changing ... CCC is a hoax, or New Speak for global warming ... and in the Orwellian tradition, New Speak is specifically used to make the population afraid and dependent on their government, when in fact there's nothing to be afraid of and we should continue scrutinizing of government's behaviors ... especially her spending behaviors ... We the People need to cut up the bitch's credit cards ...

What difference do you hold between CCC and global warming?

 

[Robert W]

What difference do you hold between CCC and global warming?

Why don't you check all of the evidence? We are not in a global warming stage.

Frankly it would be better if we were.
Why? CO2 feeds plants. Plants emit oxygen. Oxygen produces heat. The planet will be far better off producing O2 than that which cools earth.

 

[Crick]

Why don't you check all of the evidence? We are not in a global warming stage.

What do you call this evidence?

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...

climate.nasa.gov

Frankly it would be better if we were.

We are warming and it is not good.

Why? CO2 feeds plants. Plants emit oxygen. Oxygen produces heat. The planet will be far better off producing O2 than that which cools earth.

I'm sorry but you're babbling. Oxygen does not heat the Earth and what we are trying to avoid is the temperature going above anythingever experienced by homo sapiens.

 

[Robert W]

What do you call this evidence?
View attachment 850264

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...

climate.nasa.gov

We are warming and it is not good.

I'm sorry but you're babbling. Oxygen does not heat the Earth and what we are trying to avoid is the temperature going above anythingever experienced by homo sapiens.

You are deluded. Oxygen produces heat.

And your graph provides proof that jerks try to make a small bit a huge bit. It is a graph of almost none at all.

 

[Crick]

You are deluded. Oxygen produces heat.

By oxidation? Have you ever had a class in chemistry? Physics? Thermodynamics?

 

[Robert W]

By oxidation? Have you ever had a class in chemistry? Physics? Thermodynamics?

I have indeed to your question on my study. When you add O2 to Acetylene it produces a very hot fire. Didn't you know about that?

 

[Crick]

I have indeed to your question on my study. When you add O2 to Acetylene it produces a very hot fire. Didn't you know about that?

Let me get this straight. You believe that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, through humans burning fossil fuels, will increase the amount taken up by plants and that will increase the amount of oxygen released by plants and, because oxygen is consumed in combustion, that will warm the planet which will be a good thing. Is that right?

 

[Crick]

Let me get this straight. You believe that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, through humans burning fossil fuels, will increase the amount taken up by plants and that will increase the amount of oxygen released by plants and, because oxygen is consumed in combustion, that will warm the planet which will be a good thing. Is that right?

Robert, burning fossil fuels combines those fuels with... oxygen. The use of fossil fuels has actually reduced the amount of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere.

So, you've got a problem right from the get go.

 

[Crick]

I have indeed to your question on my study. When you add O2 to Acetylene it produces a very hot fire. Didn't you know about that?

Robert? R U still with us?

 

[ReinyDays]

What difference do you hold between CCC and global warming?

Catastrophic Climate Change ... that's almost an oxymoron, certainly paradoxical ... we "average out" extreme events in climatology ...

There's an experiment every college chemistry class does called the "Popcorn Experiment" ... among other things, this teaches how statistics is used in science ... it's obvious you've never done this ...

Global warming is easy ... we agree we're 1ºC warmer than the 20th Century average ... such that every single extreme weather event is counter-balanced by a weather event of the opposite extreme ... it's just the average temperature for the 20th Century, the extremes have been "averaged out" ...

My position is 1ºC does not change weather ... therefore it does not change average weather ... this is too small a temperature difference to make much difference with all the other parameters ... pressure, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, and precipitation ... if these five parameters stay constant, then climate stays constant ...

Do you really expect 100 mph wind AVERAGE over 100 years ??? ... that's stupid ... even for you ...

 

[Crick]

Catastrophic Climate Change ... that's almost an oxymoron, certainly paradoxical ... we "average out" extreme events in climatology ...

There's an experiment every college chemistry class does called the "Popcorn Experiment" ... among other things, this teaches how statistics is used in science ... it's obvious you've never done this ...

Global warming is easy ... we agree we're 1ºC warmer than the 20th Century average ... such that every single extreme weather event is counter-balanced by a weather event of the opposite extreme ... it's just the average temperature for the 20th Century, the extremes have been "averaged out" ...

My position is 1ºC does not change weather ... therefore it does not change average weather ... this is too small a temperature difference to make much difference with all the other parameters ... pressure, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, and precipitation ... if these five parameters stay constant, then climate stays constant ...

Do you really expect 100 mph wind AVERAGE over 100 years ??? ... that's stupid ... even for you ...

Catastrophic Climate Change is a strawman created by the fossil fuel industry. And you are demonstrating the point I just made to fncceo in the thread about the Earth's wobble. Small is not zero. Weather is driven by the thermal energy in the air and sea. Increase that thermal energy and you will increase the energy in our weather, no matter the magnitude of the change.

 

[ReinyDays]

Catastrophic Climate Change is a strawman created by the fossil fuel industry. And you are demonstrating the point I just made to fncceo in the thread about the Earth's wobble. Small is not zero. Weather is driven by the thermal energy in the air and sea. Increase that thermal energy and you will increase the energy in our weather, no matter the magnitude of the change.

Physics 101 ... power creates powerful events ... not energy ... you're correct, we have more energy at the equator, but we also have even more energy at the poles ... Arctic Amplification ... therefore the force is less, and thus power is less ... teenage children are expected to know this ...

Small is negligible ... and safely ignored ... water wars are coming right after this new oil war ... climate change is nothing but pricks thinking they're smart ... you really don't know how work is calculated, do you? ...

 

[Robert W]

Robert? R U still with us?

I got here late.

 

[Crick]

Physics 101 ... power creates powerful events ... not energy ... you're correct, we have more energy at the equator, but we also have even more energy at the poles ... Arctic Amplification ... therefore the force is less, and thus power is less ... teenage children are expected to know this ...

What the fuck are you babbling about? You believe there is more thermal energy at the poles than the equator? And that this reduces some force? What force?

Small is negligible ... and safely ignored ... water wars are coming right after this new oil war ... climate change is nothing but pricks thinking they're smart ... you really don't know how work is calculated, do you? ...

It looks to me like you're attempting to baffle with bullshit. Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans will increase the amount of kinetic energy in our weather. If you disagree, show us some actual physics that supports you.

 

[Robert W]

Catastrophic Climate Change is a strawman created by the fossil fuel industry. And you are demonstrating the point I just made to fncceo in the thread about the Earth's wobble. Small is not zero. Weather is driven by the thermal energy in the air and sea. Increase that thermal energy and you will increase the energy in our weather, no matter the magnitude of the change.

I have questioned it being from Fossils since I studied this around 1966. I purchased for the company I worked for a wonderful text book on this subject, eg. oil production.
I kept wondering how fossils could get at depths of 30,000 feet in Earth and in significant numbers. It bothered me the story of calling this from fossils.
An Author maintains that oil is being produced in Earth today. He asserts the process of creating petroleum is not over. You might want to read his book.

"
Twenty-five years ago this month, Thomas Gold published a seminal manuscript suggesting the presence of a “deep, hot biosphere” in the Earth’s crust. Since this publication, a considerable amount of attention has been given to the study of deep biospheres, their role in geochemical cycles, and their potential to inform on the origin of life and its potential outside of Earth. Overwhelming evidence now supports the presence of a deep biosphere ubiquitously distributed on Earth in both terrestrial and marine settings. Furthermore, it has become apparent that much of this life is dependent on lithogenically sourced high-energy compounds to sustain productivity. A vast diversity of uncultivated microorganisms has been detected in subsurface environments, and we show that H2, CH4, and CO feature prominently in many of their predicted metabolisms. Despite 25 years of intense study, key questions remain on life in the deep subsurface, including whether it is endemic and the extent of its involvement in the anaerobic formation and degradation of hydrocarbons. Emergent data from cultivation and next-generation sequencing approaches continue to provide promising new hints to answer these questions. As Gold suggested, and as has become increasingly evident, to better understand the subsurface is critical to further understanding the Earth, life, the evolution of life, and the potential for life elsewhere. To this end, we suggest the need to develop a robust network of interdisciplinary scientists and accessible field sites for long-term monitoring of the Earth’s subsurface in the form of a deep subsurface microbiome initiative.
A quarter-century ago this month, Thomas Gold, an Austrian-born astrophysicist from Cornell University, published a paper in these pages entitled simply, “The deep, hot biosphere” (1). In this paper, followed by a book of the same title (2), Gold suggested that microbial life is likely widespread throughout Earth’s subsurface, residing in the pore spaces between grains in rocks. Furthermore, he speculated that this life likely exists to a depth of multiple kilometers, until elevated temperature becomes the constraining factor. Gold hypothesized that life in subsurface locales is supported by chemical sources of energy, rather than photosynthetic sources, upon which surface life ultimately depends (1). The nutrients that support this subsurface life are provided by both the migration of fluids from the depths of the Earth’s crust and the host rock itself, which contains both oxidized and reduced minerals. Although it is likely to be all microbial, Gold posited that the mass of subsurface life in this little-known biosphere was comparable to that present in surface environments. Gold thought that if there is life at depth, the rocks that have (or could produce) “hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), and other fluids… would seem to be the most favorable locations for the first generation of self-replicating systems,” keenly aware that “such life may be widely disseminated in the universe” (1). Moreover, Gold hypothesized that hydrocarbons and their derived products fuel chemosynthetic subsurface life and that these hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by geology, but, rather, geology reworked by biology (2).
Although he did not have a doctorate, Gold (1920–2004) was highly recognized as a scientist, as evidenced by receiving a Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1985) and a Humboldt Prize (1979); membership in the National Academy of Sciences (1974); and induction into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1974), the Royal Society (1964), the American Geophysical Union (1962), and the Royal Astronomical Society (1948), among others. As an author of ∼300 scholarly papers, Gold had a penchant for contributing his thoughts to fields well beyond his own of astrophysics. In the foreword to Gold's book The Deep Hot Biosphere, the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson wrote, “Gold’s theories are always original, always important, usually controversial—and usually right” (2). Stephen Jay Gould considered Gold as “one of America’s most iconoclastic scientists”

 

[Robert W]

What the fuck are you babbling about? You believe there is more thermal energy at the poles than the equator? And that this reduces some force? What force?

It looks to me like you're attempting to baffle with bullshit. Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans will increase the amount of kinetic energy in our weather. If you disagree, show us some actual physics that supports you.

Who should I believe on this topic? You a party who is unknown, has the handle Crick, or the Scientists who are world class experts on Global Climate? Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry to name only 2 of many such scientists?