Toronto Escorts

Gerald Butts wants Facebook to censor your climate change opinions

jerimander

Well-known member
Feb 16, 2014
2,974
646
113
Butts was never elected so he doesn't have the right to impose anything on Canadians.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,158
2,151
113
Check this out:

Facebook has censored Michael Shellenberger -- who was once named a "hero of the environment" by Time magazine -- for challenging the fairy-tale claims about mankind causing a mass extinction.


Unreal.
unreal and very dangerous

And speaking of the whole "extinction" business, the "climate porn" crowd might remember Zion Lights, the former spokeswoman for Extinction Rebellion.

Guess what? She now says she understands the "facts" about green energy -- and has become a lobbyist for nuclear power. (y)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ts-green-movement-lobbyist-nuclear-power.html

She has a point.

As much as the censorship crowd doesn't want to hear it, the reality is this: if you're serious about wanting to reduce man-made emissions, the only way to do it is through a massive expansion of nuclear power.

The Green New Deal silliness about replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar power is just more fairy-tale nonsense.
it is nonsense and wind and solar power are actually detrimental to the environment
in addition, massive investments in wind and solar divert funds away from real emission reducing options such as nuclear or clean burning coal plants
covid-19 has lumbered the world with massive debt, there wont be money for foolish plans
the 3rd world is being denied financing to provide their people with affordable energy, ensuring continued poverty and death
finally the real evil is the attempt to install socialism through the back door under the lie of a solution to climate change
unable to sell the merits of the disaster called socialism, they somehow think they can fool the world into accepting their nightmare system
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Shellenger's article was deleted for pushing lies, as should all articles pushing lies.
What a load of B.S.

Actually, given his posting history, it's rather entertaining to see Frankfooter pretend to be concerned about people "pushing lies."

That would be like Donald Trump getting upset with people who spend time on Twitter. ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dickydoem

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
What a load of B.S.

Actually, given his posting history, it's rather entertaining to see Frankfooter pretend to be concerned about people "pushing lies."

That would be like Donald Trump getting upset with people who spend time on Twitter. ?
Prove I lied, moviefan.
Its just more of your nonsense.

Here's Shellenberger's letter, annotated by scientists who point out his errors.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,906
1,172
113
Prove I lied, moviefan.
Its just more of your nonsense.

Here's Shellenberger's letter, annotated by scientists who point out his errors.
Frank, you are the worst kind of a political participant. You're a doctrinaire. Whether you understand it or not, doctrinaires (or ideologues) have to peddle some nonsense. It's part of the job.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
Frank, you are the worst kind of a political participant. You're a doctrinaire. Whether you understand it or not, doctrinaires (or ideologues) have to peddle some nonsense. It's part of the job.
That's an opinion.
If you think I lied show where I lied and what I lied about.
I stand by my posts.

The WMO just said they think there is a 20% chance that the world will hit 1.5ºC global temperature in the next 5 years.
Moviefan bet that global temps wouldn't even hit 0.83ºC, how does that look in retrospect?

The doctrinaires on this board are the ones who think the WMO, NASA, AAAS and IPCC are in some kind of conspiracy together and only some plucky band of misfit non-scientists are capable of seeing the truth.
Posting about the science and backing it up is the opposite of a doctrinaire.
How are you different from anti-vaxxers, people who thought tobacco smoke is healthy and believers in Qnon?

Global temperatures likely to hit at least 1C warming for next five years
Experts say new climate data shows how close world already is to breaching 1.5C Paris agreement pledge
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,158
2,151
113
Frank, you are the worst kind of a political participant. You're a doctrinaire. Whether you understand it or not, doctrinaires (or ideologues) have to peddle some nonsense. It's part of the job.
there is no point in engaging with someone who is unwilling to be truthful
you just get frustrated realizing that there are truly despicable people with an agenda in the world and that logic / reason / morality / honesty are not traits which they value or apply


On Ignore: FrankFooter
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
there is no point in engaging with someone who is unwilling to be truthful
I've asked you numerous times to prove I've not been truthful and you haven't found one example.
Ever.

This is just more of your nonsense.
You couldn't defend your claims so now pretend to have me on ignore.
(yes, typing 'on ignore' isn't how its done).

johnlarue is a peddler of propaganda and unable to understand the most basic elements of the science.
How can anyone who is unable to tell the difference between a forcing and feedback effect think they are an expert?
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Prove I lied, moviefan.
Its just more of your nonsense.
Once again, I don't think you actually read the link you posted.

Regardless, I'll prove you're a compulsive liar.

Here's what you posted on Monday:

You still claiming the planet would never hit 0.83ºC?
You've got 24 hours. Produce by 7:30 p.m. (ET) on Friday a quote by me that said the temperature anomaly would "never" hit 0.83ºC.

You've posted that phony allegation more than once. I'm calling bullshit and saying you can't produce a quote that ever had me saying any such thing.
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
I've asked you numerous times to prove I've not been truthful and you haven't found one example.
Ever.

This is just more of your nonsense.
You couldn't defend your claims so now pretend to have me on ignore.
(yes, typing 'on ignore' isn't how its done).

johnlarue is a peddler of propaganda and unable to understand the most basic elements of the science.
How can anyone who is unable to tell the difference between a forcing and feedback effect think they are an expert?

My, my...interesting to observe you ask for proof, when you never provide it when called out on your bs. Kinda sucks eh? Too bad, so sad.
You reap what you sow Comrade.
 

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,691
1,600
113
Facebook is not the internet, Facebook is not a public square. CO2 is an insulating gas, more CO2 means higher temperatures. Clean coal does not exist.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
Once again, I don't think you actually read the link you posted.

Regardless, I'll prove you're a compulsive liar.

Here's what you posted on Monday:



You've got 24 hours. Produce by 7:30 p.m. (ET) on Friday a quote by me that said the temperature anomaly would "never" hit 0.83ºC.

You've posted that phony allegation more than once. I'm calling bullshit and saying you can't produce a quote that ever had me saying any such thing.
Here you are saying the planet is not warming
The most recent warming period occurred during the latter part of the 20th century -- roughly from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. That is the only period where there appears to be a correlation between the burning of fossil fuels and the Earth's temperature.

However, since that time, there has been a "flattening" of the Earth's temperature, as NASA says. NASA and the IPCC say the flattening has occurred for about 15 years. The satellite data used by the Met Office in the U.K. and others show it has been for a period of more than 18 years.

Since the peak period in about the late 1990s, there has been a plateau and the Earth's temperature has remained at about the same record height (from when reporting began) from the late 1990s. Not surprisingly, then, most of the years where that same plateau level has been recorded have been post-2000.

But here's the point: Those 10 years cited in the NASA release aren't citing increasing temperatures. It's pretty much the same temperature being measured again and again in different years. As the NASA release says, the long-range trend has actually been "flattening" over the past 15 years.

That's despite the fact there have been huge increases in man-made CO2 emissions, which the computer models predicted would send the Earth's temperature skyrocketing upwards.

The skyrocketing temperatures never materialized. The computer-model predictions have been spectacularly wrong (the University of Hamburg said more than 98 per cent of the models failed to predict the current trends in temperatures).

There is no evidence that man-made CO2 emissions play a significant role in affecting the climate. Certainly, the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are a primary driver of warming.

Moviefan-2;5252378 said:
Yes or no: Do you agree with NASA that the Earth's temperature has been "flattening" over the past 15 years?

Moviefan-2;5253342 said:
It would take evidence for me to believe the hypothesis of man-made global warming is valid.
Based on your belief that there was climate change was a 'hoax' and the temperature not increasing but 'flattening' we bet 2015 would never hit 0.83ºC.

Moviefan-2;5446529 said:
We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC
Feel free to find any quote in last year that runs contrary to that where you say the planet is warming and the IPCC is right.

Now you should apologize for accusing me of lying.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,158
2,151
113
Facebook is not the internet, Facebook is not a public square. CO2 is an insulating gas, more CO2 means higher temperatures. Clean coal does not exist.
Oh Boy
That is a very simplistic analysis of likely the most complex dynamic system man has ever tried to study, other than the human Brain

A few questions for you
1. What is the dominate Greenhouse gas by far in terms of concentration and absorption of infrared radiation?
2. What are the wavelengths for CO2 IR absorption?
3. What % of the wavelengths of Infrared spectrum does the answer to #2 represent ?
4. What are the implication of the logarithmic nature of infrared absorption by CO2?
5. What are the impacts of convention, jet streams , turbulence and cloud formation on radiative heat transfer?
5 a) How do climate models account for these dynamic and interdependent inputs?
6. What is the white gas you see coming out of smoke stacks of coal plants?
7. What is lowest level of CO2 possible before all plants die?
8. How does that compare to current levels and long term historical levels ?
9. Which occurs first according to historical ice core data, temperature increase or increases in CO2?
10. Why is the heavily promoted (to children) IPCC RCP8.5 scare scenario an impossible scenario?
11. Why are some climate activists apologizing for the climate scare?
12. What is the escape window?
13. Has the greenhouse gas theory ever been experimentally proven or disproved ?
13 a) Name the scientist and date?
14. If the science is settled, why the desperate and despicable attempt to silence opposing views? If Butts is right, he should be confident his position would stand up to any and all challenges and scientific debate

Do you not want be well informed before forming an opinion?
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
Oh Boy
That is a very simplistic analysis of likely the most complex dynamic system man has ever tried to study, other than the human Brain

A few questions for you
1. What is the dominate Greenhouse gas by far in terms of concentration and absorption of infrared radiation?
2. What are the wavelengths for CO2 IR absorption?
3. What % of the wavelengths of Infrared spectrum does the answer to #2 represent ?
4. What are the implication of the logarithmic nature of infrared absorption by CO2?
5. What are the impacts of convention, jet streams , turbulence and cloud formation on radiative heat transfer?
5 a) How do climate models account for these dynamic and interdependent inputs?
6. What is the white gas you see coming out of smoke stacks of coal plants?
7. What is lowest level of CO2 possible before all plants die?
8. How does that compare to current levels and long term historical levels ?
9. Which occurs first according to historical ice core data, temperature increase or increases in CO2?
10. Why is the heavily promoted (to children) IPCC RCP8.5 scare scenario an impossible scenario?
11. Why are some climate activists apologizing for the climate scare?
12. What is the escape window?
13. Has the greenhouse gas theory ever been experimentally proven or disproved ?
13 a) Name the scientist and date?
14. If the science is settled, why the desperate and despicable attempt to silence opposing views? If Butts is right, he should be confident his position would stand up to any and all challenges and scientific debate

Do you not want be well informed before forming an opinion?
larue, you can't even get to your first question without pointing you that your fixation on water vapour is based on your lack of understanding between the difference for a feedback and forcing effect on the climate.
Its very basic, but you seem unable to understand.

Just like you are still unable to come up with a theory to explain the planet's warming and the rising CO2 levels.

 

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,691
1,600
113
Oh Boy
That is a very simplistic analysis of likely the most complex dynamic system man has ever tried to study, other than the human Brain

A few questions for you
1. What is the dominate Greenhouse gas by far in terms of concentration and absorption of infrared radiation?
2. What are the wavelengths for CO2 IR absorption?
3. What % of the wavelengths of Infrared spectrum does the answer to #2 represent ?
4. What are the implication of the logarithmic nature of infrared absorption by CO2?
5. What are the impacts of convention, jet streams , turbulence and cloud formation on radiative heat transfer?
5 a) How do climate models account for these dynamic and interdependent inputs?
6. What is the white gas you see coming out of smoke stacks of coal plants?
7. What is lowest level of CO2 possible before all plants die?
8. How does that compare to current levels and long term historical levels ?
9. Which occurs first according to historical ice core data, temperature increase or increases in CO2?
10. Why is the heavily promoted (to children) IPCC RCP8.5 scare scenario an impossible scenario?
11. Why are some climate activists apologizing for the climate scare?
12. What is the escape window?
13. Has the greenhouse gas theory ever been experimentally proven or disproved ?
13 a) Name the scientist and date?
14. If the science is settled, why the desperate and despicable attempt to silence opposing views? If Butts is right, he should be confident his position would stand up to any and all challenges and scientific debate

Do you not want be well informed before forming an opinion?
I do not want to be sucked into your vortex of rabid insanity by answering questions that you get off some batshit website. I can only defend what I posted.

Edit: I will answer question 13 though because I feel it is the most important question. Given that the atmosphere is so large, it would take a herculean effort to run an experiment on it and we would have no controls to even do statistical analysis. If you take a sphere and heat it, and surround it with a gas mixture that representative of our atmosphere, if you were to increase the amount of CO2 the sphere would take longer to lose it's heat energy. There are odd events like volcano eruptions that change the atmosphere for a period of time, climate models have been used to make successful predictions of the climate change due to such events.
 
Last edited:

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,158
2,151
113
I do not want to be sucked into your vortex of rabid insanity by answering questions that you get off some batshit website.
Translation: You do not want to expose how very little you actually understand about about the extremely complex science of AGW , despite claiming a definitive and grossly simplest conclusion
BTW: I dare you to find a single website which contains the answers to all of those questions.

I can only defend what I posted.
Well since you made such a definitive statement, you need to answer those questions in order to defend what you posted

Edit: I will answer question 13 though because I feel it is the most important question. Given that the atmosphere is so large, it would take a herculean effort to run an experiment on it and we would have no controls to even do statistical analysis.
So you agree the THEORY has never been experimentally proven.
The scientific method is based upon testing a theory vs experimental observations, not a poll of opinions

If you take a sphere and heat it,
According to AGW theory, there is no incremental heat being added by increasing CO2 from 298 to 400 ppm (parts per million !)
The same amount of heat is being added by the sun independent of C02 concentration


and surround it with a gas mixture that representative of our atmosphere, if you were to increase the amount of CO2 the sphere would take longer to lose it's heat energy.
Yet there is still massive temperature swings from day time to night time, well in excess of any theoretical average temp change.
The real important question is what is the theoretical quantitative sensitivity of adding incremental CO2?
How much, will temperature increase ?
the models say a lot, observations say not very much

There are odd events like volcano eruptions that change the atmosphere for a period of time,
Non explosive volcanic events are ongoing
And changes to deep ocean currents (el ninos, ) also play a significant role and are ongoing.
These are used as an excuse for poor model predictions, rather than being properly incorporated into the models.


climate models have been used to make successful predictions of the climate change due to such events.
The climate models have been shown to grossly over estimate the observed warming. Simply because it is far too complex a system to model. Had you answered question # 5 you would understand this

despite knowing this and knowing their RCP8.5 scenario was impossible to achieve, the IPCC still allowed it to be used to scare the living shit out of children, traumatizing some of them for life.
This is despicable

The amount we truly understand about this subject is far less than what we do not understand.
Yet a non scientist Gerald Butts wants to censor real scientists
That is detrimental to science and society
 

jerimander

Well-known member
Feb 16, 2014
2,974
646
113
Butts wants to ensure that the Libs can continue collecting the carbon tax without too much opposition from an informed public who sees through their scam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dickydoem
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts