Gerald Butts wants Facebook to censor your climate change opinions

[JohnLarue]

Exactly, the answer is 0 because the law is an equivalence law and not a causation law, it is invariant to time.

So that means the answer to my previous 2 questions is instantaneously.

NO IT does not!!!!

what is wrong with you?

The derivative of a time independent equation wrt to time is physical nonsense
The ideal gas equation is not time dependent
The experiment runs until the parameters stop changing. ie equilibrium, which will be different for each system

 

[JohnLarue]

I got banned most likely for being an asshole, which I am being now.
I am going to stop posting in this thread.

Good, you wasted enough of my time with your nonsense
Get some help!

 

[Frankfooter]

Good, you wasted enough of my time with your nonsense
Get some help!

Did you convince NASA they are wrong about Venus's atmosphere yet?
Looks like they've still got their post up.

From NASA.
Second planet from the Sun and our closest planetary neighbor, Venus is similar in structure and size to Earth, but it is now a very different world. Venus spins slowly in the opposite direction most planets do. Its thick atmosphere traps heat in a runaway greenhouse effect, making it the hottest planet in our solar system—with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. Glimpses below the clouds reveal volcanoes and deformed mountains.

Nobody's going to believe you when they that's still up on NASA.
You better write them that angry letter very soon.

 

[JohnLarue]

I got banned most likely for being an asshole, which I am being now.
I am going to stop posting in this thread.

Lets see
Banned for being an asshole
Smart enough to try and fake his way through physics
But not smart enough to get it right

Is that You FUJI?

best to put you on ignore

 

[HungSowel]

I know I said i will not post in the thread, but I can not help it, but I will not be insulting.

Velocity= time x acceleration for constant acceleration. That is a causation law, if you take a derivative of that WRT to time you get acceleration which is a non 0 value because it has a time component in it because it is a causation law. Acceleration over time causes velocity.

The ideal gas law is an equivalence law, it says nothing about causation. To get causation you have to look outside the ideal gas law and see where the change comes from.

T=(PV)/(nR), you say the temperature is caused by pressure, you can also say that temperature is caused by volume based on your line of reasoning. If there was an external process directly dumping atmosphere into venus, then you can say pressure is causing temperature. If there was an external process that changed the volume of the venus atmosphere then you can say the temperature is caused by the volume. If there is an external process that adds heat energy to Venus then you can say temperature causes pressure.

Again, the ideal gas law is an equivalence law it is not a causation law, for causation you have to look outside the ideal gas law.

 

[JohnLarue]

So that appears to be settled
Pressure not CO2 is the primary reason Venus is blistering Hot

It is amazing what these climate change alarmists will dream up to avoid even looking at basic physics which does not support their lie

On ignore: Frankfooter, HungSowel (Fuji ?)

 

[basketcase]

Hey your back !
Tired of watching the news ?
...

Sorry. Next summer I will continue to call out your conspiracy theory views on science instead of going on vacation.

You do have the exact same style of arguments as flat earthers. You refuse to propose an better theory that explains global warming, keep throwing in random and irrelevant scientific facts, pretending you are the only one who understands science and then when challenged claim that there is a scientific conspiracy to keep people from knowing the truth.

Thousands upon thousands of people who have a solid background in science study this stuff and investigate pretty much every aspect you could imagine. Almost all of them see human produced CO2 as a major driver of our current climactic change. The very few who disagree are led by Willie Soon who not only had his predictions fail but has admitted that he was writing and presenting directly on the payroll of the oil lobby.

 

[basketcase]

...

On ignore: Frankfooter, HungSowel (Fuji ?)

Just like a flat earther to ignore people you can't shout down.

 

[JohnLarue]

Just like a flat earther to ignore people you can't shout down.

you cant be serious

your loonie left solution would be to dig up dirt on them & call out the cancel brigade

you worry about who you choose to deal with, i will ignore who i choose

 

[HungSowel]

If you say pressure causes temperature using the ideal gas law, that is equivalent to saying nRT/V causes T, does that make any sense? Of course it does not because the ideal gas law is an equivalence law and not a causation law.

 

[basketcase]

you cant be serious

your loonie left solution would be to dig up dirt on them & call out the cancel brigade

you worry about who you choose to deal with, i will ignore who i choose

As usual you resort to stupid conspiracy theories.

Scientists like Soon made themselves irrelevant because their theories simply don't work, not because the science conspiracy you like to believe in.

 

[JohnLarue]

As usual you resort to stupid conspiracy theories.

Scientists like Soon made themselves irrelevant because their theories simply don't work, not because the science conspiracy you like to believe in.

I have not mentioned Willie Soon for Months
How odd that you bring him up?
Run out of Climate Change propaganda have you ?
Need to fill in for obnoxious ignored members and keep attacking me do you?

You would not have the first clue what Willie Soon speaks about, partly because he is not a great communicator, but primarily because you are closed minded.
In general and specifically on this subject

The exposure of the RCP8.5 as a massively promoted scare scenario and a leading environmentalist exposing the exaggeration of climate science, should make you question what you have been told.
Any rational intelligent person capable of objectivity would at the very least, wonder why that happened.
But not a good loyal sheepeople like yourself. You signed on to the bitter end

You continue to blindly blurt out nonsense about conspiracy theories and hurl insults (I told you this was being exaggerated and guess what ? It has been exaggerated)
You do realize you are supporting lying to and traumatizing children, dont you?
Have you no shame?
do you have any idea what happens to kids who are traumatized ?

Go try to trigger someone else.
I am sure Frankfooter is currently annoying someone. Go do what you do best, pile on with nothing of substance to add. Nice company you keep
I am sure there is someone you think could use a good solid cancelling right about now

 

[JohnLarue]

Sorry. Next summer I will continue to call out your conspiracy theory views on science instead of going on vacation.

Next Summer?
I thought we were in a climate emergency?

You do have the exact same style of arguments as flat earthers.

What is your style of argument again
Our corrupt and stupid PM disseminates unachievable catastrophe stories through the media as per Gerry Butts instructions and you parrot these catastrophe stories .
You parrot them without question
And then if someone does question them, you kick in the cancel culture

Question for you
do you still think anyone who questions the heavily promote, but impossible to achieve RCP8.5 scenario should be jailed as a denier?

You refuse to propose an better theory that explains global warming,

answered many times, natural variability, ozone depletion and or non explosive volcanic activity, that and really messed up surface temperature data

keep throwing in random and irrelevant scientific facts,

RCP8.5 proven impossible to achieve is very relevant
Planet of the humans is very relevant.... despite attempts to cancel it
environmentalists apologizing for the cliamte scare is very relevant

pretending you are the only one who understands science

You are more than welcome to challenge the scientific facts I present....instead you attack my character

and then when challenged claim that there is a scientific conspiracy to keep people from knowing the truth.

You keep on saying there is a conspiracy, well explain it away by explaining why an unachievable RCP8.5 was extensivly promoted to the world as business as usual
Explain why opposing scientist careers are intentionally and systematically ruined

Thousands upon thousands of people who have a solid background in science study this stuff and investigate pretty much every aspect you could imagine. Almost all of them see human produced CO2 as a major driver of our current climactic change.

A show of hands is not how a scientific theory is validated. How many times do you need to be told this?

The very few who disagree are led by Willie Soon who not only had his predictions fail

If failure of predictions is your criteria for cancelling someone, you will have to x out the IPCC , Al Gore and the rest of your argument

Willie Soon does not lead anyone, REAL scientist arrive at independent conclusions, based upon their observation.
Vs, truckloads of grants if you follow the herd mentality and say "we have a climate emergency"

but has admitted that he was writing and presenting directly on the payroll of the oil lobby.

He got $10K to help pay for a summer student
Compare that to the billions of dollars of govt money flowing to the alarmist. Oddly enough that money flow stops without a crisis

 

[basketcase]

I have not mentioned Willie Soon for Months
How odd that you bring him up?
...

He's pretty much the only scientist that still claims that human CO2 is not a major driver of current climactic changes. The rest of the scientific community is pretty consistent but your only response, just like your flat-Earther kin is claiming some conspiracy to hide the truth.


And sorry but I thought Soon's premise had some promise back in the mid-2000's but his predictions failed miserably and he has been fully exposed in communications with the oil lobby describing his papers and talks to government as "deliverables".

 

[JohnLarue]

He's pretty much the only scientist that still claims that human CO2 is not a major driver of current climactic changes.

"The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change - Electroverse

"The List" -- Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change: Our climate is cyclic, never linear.

electroverse.net

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
• Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
• David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]
• Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
• Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
• Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]

 

[JohnLarue]

"The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change - Electroverse

"The List" -- Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change: Our climate is cyclic, never linear.

electroverse.net

SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS

• Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]
• David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
• Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]
• Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]
• Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]
• Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]
• Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]
• Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]
• Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.

 

[JohnLarue]

"The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change - Electroverse

"The List" -- Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change: Our climate is cyclic, never linear.

electroverse.net

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]
• Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[150][151][152]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]
• Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]
• Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

• Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]
• Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]

 

[JohnLarue]

He's pretty much the only scientist that still claims that human CO2 is not a major driver of current climactic changes. The rest of the scientific community is pretty consistent but your only response, just like your flat-Earther kin is claiming some conspiracy to hide the truth.

Care to retract you inaccurate propaganda?

 

[basketcase]

Care to retract you inaccurate propaganda?

Care to actually link their papers and point out where they disagree about the role of CO2 or are you just wanting to blindly parrot some claims from a denier blog?

I'm still waiting for you to pretend some science and put forward a model that better describes observations. Of course you won't because that's not how you flat-earthers work.



And yes, 50 or so people (even if they do say what your blogger claims) makes up a fraction of a percent of scientists studying the topic (and the fact that Soon and Spencer are on that list makes me laugh).

 

[JohnLarue]

Care to actually link their papers and point out where they disagree about the role of CO2 or are you just wanting to blindly parrot some claims from a denier blog?

Link their papers ? - No I do not care to do that
Do your own god damn homework

There are headings for each group clearly explaining how they disagree about the alarmist catastrophic propaganda

1. SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES
2. SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS
3. SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN
4. SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

I'm still waiting for you to pretend some science and put forward a model that better describes observations.

1. I have explained to you many times that climate is a non linear, chaotic and dynamic system, which can not be modeled with any degree of certainty/ reliability . The failure of existing models shows this to be true.
So why would I put forward a model?
2. I have also explained to you many times that there is no law / commandment which requires submission of an alternative in order to disprove an incorrect hypothesis. A lawyer does not need to prove someone else is guilty, he only needs to show that evidence does not prove his client is guilty. Thankfully in a court of law propaganda is not considered evidence and is not permitted to be presented as evidence.
3. I have also provided many times, alternative theories natural variability, Ozone depletion and / or nonexplosive volcanic activity may be root cause and/ or contribute to observed satellite temp chnages
The surface temperature data set is a mess, incomplete and not suitable for this important experiment

Of course you won't

I just did and have many times responded to your stupid question

because that's not how you flat-earthers work.

You have switch from insulting me with the despicable term DENIER to flat-earther. Well I happen to believe the earth is not flat, so you are wrong once again
do you not grow tired of being wrong so often

And yes, 50 or so people (even if they do say what your blogger claims) makes up a fraction of a percent of scientists studying the topic

1. Oh there as many more scientists who do not believe the the alarmist catastrophic propaganda, however they have seen the intimidation and career destroying examples and prefer to keep quite on the issue.
I can not really blame them

2. How about you list 50 scientists who completely, explicitly and publicly support the falsified RCP8.5 scenario as the business as usual prediction as it has been heavily promoted to the world?

You might start with the disgraced Michael Mann and some of the Greenpeace activists masquerading as scientists
After that reprehensible lot you will be hard press to find true scientists who support terrifying children with impossible to achieve scenarios

I think you will be very hard pressed to find 10 true scientists who completely, explicitly and publicly support the falsified RCP8.5 scenario as it has been promoted

Again do you have any idea what happens to traumatized children?
This lie is going to really screw up a whole generation

(and the fact that Soon and Spencer are on that list makes me laugh).

Willie Soon and Roy Spencer has forgotten more about climate science than you will ever know.
They have maintained scientific integrity (unlike Michael Mann) despite being vilified by scientific know nothing ignorant activists
You make them laugh