Thread: Climate

Originally Posted by Bush Basher

Not all scientists

Proof by exception??

Originally Posted by Tahr

Proof by exception??

Have a listen to Leighton Smith sometime if you want another view.

Originally Posted by Bush Basher

Have a listen to Leighton Smith sometime if you want another view.

The Australian-born former talkback radio host?? Really?

Im very happy to explore other perspectives but they need to be from credible sources.

The only thing that hasn't been quoted here thus far from the old covid conspiracy threads is "follow the money". Spare me.

Originally Posted by Tahr

The Australian-born former talkback radio host?? Really?

Im very happy to explore other perspectives but they need to be from credible sources.

The only thing that hasn't been quoted here thus far from the old covid conspiracy threads is "follow the money". Spare me.

Its not so much about Leighton Smith, even though he is a very intelligent individual, it’s the people he interviews. Professional folk from all over the world. Good to see you googled him, have a listen to a few of his podcasts. Even you might be pleasantly surprised.

They are free on the iheart radio app.

Originally Posted by Bush Basher

Have a listen to Leighton Smith sometime if you want another view.

BB you will find a common denominator with the global warming disciples is: they refuse to read or listen to any theory which dispels man made global warming, or explains current weather patterns. They prefer to rely on climate “models” ignore the science which shows the earths been much hotter, and had a lot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It’s all dismissed, doesn’t matter how credible, or what the professional background may be.

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

BB you will find a common denominator with the global warming disciples is: they refuse to read or listen to any theory which dispels man made global warming, or explains current weather patterns. They prefer to rely on climate “models” ignore the science which shows the earths been much hotter, and had a lot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It’s all dismissed, doesn’t matter how credible, or what the professional background may be.

That was due to massive volcanism with islands being formed all over the shop around 50million years ago though.

Regardless of the cause(s) it looks as though our major climate changers of ocean currents and atmospheric jet streams are changing. Possibly long term.

Oh dear,nasa?(not a space agency) really?
The agency that tells us they landed on the moon with a buggy,golf clubs and 3 people in a contraption made of celophane,sticks and selotape? and all the rest of the story
You do know nasa has the biggest "film" studio in the world?
You do know nasa has never released an actual "photograph" only artists impressions or enhanced images?
The agency responsible for one of the biggest frauds perpetrated against humanity.
Same again,just a little critical thought blows nasa into sci fi land.
the longer this crap is swallowed the longer it will continue.
Here's another "coincidence"
the antarctic treaty was signed the year after the creation of nasa.
you know,the international treaty that ALL nations signed to stop civilians exploring antarctica?

I am loath to touch on anthropogenic climate change as it is one of those topics that people cannot debate without deriding and mocking of any view not considered 'mainstream' We see it here in this thread.
But anyway, I know that some members consider me a 'conspiracy theorist' for views that I have proposed. Bearing this in mind I 'set up' some of the members who rather than asking for science jump straight into mocking. So the subject of geo engineering was raised by me followed by the usual derided mocking..... until I copied a presentation to the UN calling for restrictions on the current geoengineering programs because they were causing an increase in Aluminium and Barium in vegetable crops.
What really rankles me regarding all the climate change 'Science' are the continuous attacks on agriculture. I have been writing to Greenpeace regarding their stance and they have finally admitted that they are using 'Gross Emission' figures from models not 'Nett Emissions' This paints the incorrect / false picture of agriculture being our largest GHG emitter and takes pressure off fossil carbon release.
I fully agree that Nitrogen contamination of waterways and groundwater from agriculture must be reduced but using gross emission figures does nothing to encourage farmers to move to more sustainable practice.
Our forests likely release more CH4 into the atmosphere than our livestock. When I suggested to Greenpeace that following their rational of reducing methane from livestock to save the planet greater gains were to be made from draining all the wetlands and felling the Amazon basin forest which by itself emits 50 - 60 million tonnes of methane into the atmosphere annually they threw their toys.
The point being that all of the science needs to be considered and not just what the media provides.
In the Netherlands the farmers protests go on. These protests are not because of reductions in nitrogen fertiliser caps / limits but because 3000 farms have been forcibly confiscated by the govt under the guise of meeting EU Nitrogen caps. This is not a conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by Bush Basher

Have a listen to Leighton Smith sometime if you want another view.

His Podcast is worth a listen. He has some good interviews with a wide range of people covering a variety topics. Many very well qualified.