Video

Shut up and eat your cockroaches - the -planet- elites feels threatened! Have you any idea what it costs to rev up all the Grumman Gulfstream G700s executive jets to wing off to the next climate conference? (382 gallons of jet fuel per hour). Luckily the saps who pay for all this BS (taxpayers) pick up the tab for you as well as the Lobster Bisque, Caviar and Dom Perignon to wash it all down with - Next climate conference in Monte Carlo - wheee. Dat climate sh!t shore taste gud.

did you find these dataset....if no which ones you used?

you are insane, what are you even talking about

No. In fact, if you’re wanting a high FIT, you’re better off elsewhere. Personally, I love Amber and have saved heaps of 💰 and dirty emissions since changing 8 months ago and have no solar…yet.

@@evdave6693 I still dont understand how Amber works. Every article or CZcams I've watched lays so much emphasis of solar. So I'm not sure about it yet as I don't have solar, unless someone explains to me.

@@somebodymee6535 Without solar, my average cost after 12 months is 20.6c \ kWh. My old company, energy Australia, charged a flat fee of $.33 per kilowatt hour. That’s roughly $1100 cheaper per year.

When it goes for this kind of science you are not even 5, you are a 2 - year old! Humanity has been exaggerating the CO2 effect on the climate and it’s starting to show (the planet is actually steady or cooling since the beginning of the century while CO2 keeps increasing and they don’t even know why it’s increasing because the extra carbon doesn’t have an anthropogenic signal on it).

me too

There is a thermal lag for co2 to affect temperature by about 10-20 years.

So pliocene conditions should be replicated before 2040.

The contribution of CH4 becoming CO2 accounts only for a very small part of CO2: Some or most of the Methane will decompose over time, usually will simply burn in one way or another with oxygen, and turn into CO2 and water. This makes a small contribution to increase CO2. However, it is a much stronger greenhouse gas in the original form of CH4. It's important to consider the units of the concentration of the various green house gases. CO2 concentration is measured in ppm - parts per million, which is now more than 400 ppm. It means that in 1 million molecules of air, 400 or more are CO2 molecules. On the other hand, CH4 is usually measured in parts per billion. So the 800 to 1900 ppb means that among 1 billion (1000 million) air molecules are 0.8 to 1.9 molecules of CH4.

1900 parts per 2000? per 20,000? per 200,000? per 2,000,000? per 20,000,000? per 200,000,0000? (CH4 + 2 O3 -> CO2 + 2 H2O) Hint that 1900 parts per billion for CH4 or 1.9 parts per million (ie nothing,- idiot) Major source of Methane emissions - wetlands, holy crap let's sue the EPA for preserving them

It so happens that such a relation was recently published on Nature’s scientific report by Svensmark et Al. (11th of October 2021). Keep pushing against the anti scientific propaganda that mainly spreads so as to justify taxation and energy deprivation.

@@C_R_O_M________ I am a professionally qualified scientist and was one of the 270000 surveyed about anthropogenic climate change and the results showed that 75 scientists thought that scenario was possible whilst 2 of them had some reservations about that meaning that 73 out of 75 or 97% thought it was true. However 269925 out of 270000 or 99.9% thought that natural processes were the cause of climate change. You will not find these damning surveys results quoted by the mainstream media or politicians for obvious reasons.

@@richardsb61 Thanks! I knew about that myself and have read the Leggates, Soon et al. work on that consensus issue. They found it to be either 0.3% or 0.4%. I know how they formulated that 97% consensus and there should be some formal response (from a scientific body) to that fraud. Why don't you guys create a new survey/study/poll among yourselves and show the world what the actual consensus is on the anthropogenic forcing hypothesis?

@@C_R_O_M________ It is surprising how many people, especially amongst scientifically trained academics, find that the politically inspired version of climate science is a total denial of factual measured scientific data and it is widely agreed that any predictions made by the IPCC will fail because they are based on unsound theories which will not pass any scientific scrutiny or pass anything that Mother Nature can throw at it.

@@richardsb61 I’m glad that’s the case but in everyday life our energy needs are being taxed to death (especially here in Europe) and this fact brings about inflationary forces on goods and services. This energy deprivation state is affecting the poorest of society and the governments are pushing for central solutions that renders them “saviors” to the ignorant. At the same time inflation is destroying sovereign debt which might be the ultimate goal for governments as their overwhelming debt prevents them from continuing their decades long agenda of manipulating the markets with economic “stimuli”, aka QEs and bond issuing. With a debt as high as it is for most governments, new debt issuing mostly pays for interest payments of past debt and doesn’t end to the pockets of their cronies (because these economic stimuli first pass by the hands of government cronies, government employees, etc, and they are the ones that benefit from the initial purchasing power of the newly printed money). I bet the whole climate agenda is closely related to economic incentives and has very little to do with science. The “follow the money” principle still applies.

you argue against yourself as you prove it takes so little to have a dramatic effect ,, so what's your point again ?

@@MyKharli BS! It was never proven that it has a dramatic effect! They THINK it has a dramatic effect because the observed warming can’t be attributed to anything else hence they deduct that it must be CO2. That’s VERY different than proving it HAS a dramatic effect! Thankfully, a very recent study is claiming to have found the missing link (don’t expect that to appear in mainstream media) of the Earth’s energy budget. It was the sun all along and its interaction with cosmic rays. Look for Svensmark et al. (11th of October 2021) in Nature’s scientific report. It IS about taxes and political power!

@@C_R_O_M________ Ah i know where your coming from..you take the heartland institute seriously . So sad .

@@MyKharli I definitely take the Heartland institute and ALL of its INDEPENDENT scientists that want to allow my freedom and have no incentives whatsoever (most scientists are retired and have no other incentive whatsoever) over government-sponsored propaganda that aims to tax everyone to death! If you paid LITTLE attention during your history class you’d knew that governments ALWAYS LIE! Whether it is to send you to war, or to exploit you and steal your resources. The government doesn’t create wealth, it steals it! Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick graph was DEBUNKED big time by McIntyre and McKitrick and was even dropped by the IPCC (that even used it as a logo in the past!) is a tell tell sign of what’s going on in the field but I guess you are politically inclined to be blind to that kind of lies! Aren’t you! BTW, go watch Dr. David Evan’s interview (an Australian climate modeler that has nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation) spilled the beans for any fool to see what’s wrong with the climate “science”, nowadays. The video is titled “50 to 1 project, David Evans interview”. Go ahead watch it and “debunk” that!

@@C_R_O_M________ Mr cherry picker if you are seriously debunking the hockey stick graph..forget michael mann hes a buffoon , there plenty others far more reliable you can go to to show we are exceeding all ipcc worse case scenarios as shown by them in 1980 . Governments have invariably been taken over by big business and media moguls and are only interested in things staying the way they are and you are one of their tools .

Where is the loss of CO2 sinks? That'll cause a huge rapid spike not shown in any models.

@@owlnationlegal4228 Also, where is acceleration from methane releases.

Anyone notice at 9:00 not a single graph shows an exponential upward curve indicating none of the models used actual feedback loops which create a quadratic equation.

I can’t, but I’m listening to these trying to find mention of upper limit taper being discussed. When listening to a series of recent long-format shows there was one detailed narrator with results of new feedbacks that slow and start curving flat : no runaway Venus. Stay tuned.

@@jonathanedwardgibson Its not just feedbacks ramping straight up. Some will; not all, rather trends like falling plankton levels, decreased O2&most especially an abrupt spike in temps as a BOE emerges in the Arctic will trigger massive crop failures, unrest.chaos&parts&labor shortages triggering more infrastructure collapse, toxins and a spiral towards a dead planet. If we hadn't been so good at building a global industrialized village we wouldn't need to worrt about it eroding and killing what little wildlife is left.

@@jonathanedwardgibson There are different uncharted prospects; I worry about UV degradation from ground-based ionizing radiation&oxidizing gas i.e.CH4. Imagine concentrations so high fire lights the sky; what would O2 be in those regions? O3? Uncharted.

Hope, found in simple iron added to seas to promote biosphere by rebalance of CO2… czcams.com/video/nA8iah02Ies/video.html

But if you wanted to save Earth & humanity from extinction wouldn't you find a friend or 5, organize a Zoom call, make a plan that was easy and effective and then execute it? I wish "smashing a bell" was all it took, but there are a couple of steps...not hard...to go.

You might like my channel too.