Austria sues European Union, claiming natural gas and nuclear energy are not 'green'

[3WA]

Are you prepared to discuss/debate "the science"?
I am.
Are you?

Are you only gonna post peer-reviewed YouTube videos from now on?

You're the only guy I know who developed PhD level understanding of a topic using nothing but YouTube.

 

[Paulsie]

I'm attacking the journal in which is was published, which is not respected and does not do proper peer review.

It is in fact the opposite of respected. It is on Cabell's list of predatory journals.

And just BTW, you should take a look at that article again. It doesn't say what you think it does.
It says CO2 levels alone do not account for the daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations and that water vapour plays a more important part in regional temperature fluctuations. It does not refute the fact that increased CO2 levels increase the greenhouse effect and result in global warming. On the contrary.

Looks like your "proof" that climate change is fake actually shows the opposite.



Don't need to discredit them.

Of the 12 citations listed there are only 3 proper peer reviewed papers (the rest are conference notes, books, datasets etc.).

Those are from respected journals.

Lets have a look at those papers and the citations to Paulo Cesar Soares' paper.

Citation in paper 1 (A laboratory study of supercritical CO2 adsorption on cap rocks in the geological storage conditions) published in Applied Physics:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-017-0862-0





Citation in paper 2 (Quantitatively evaluating the effects of CO2 emission on temperature rise) published in Quaternary International:

And the abstract for that same paper:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.11.031






Citation in paper 3 (Metrological challenges for measurements of key climatological observables. Part 4: Atmospheric relative humidity) published in Metrologia:

https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/53/1/R40

Let me remind you of one of my previous posts. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas (so is water vapour, which is more prevalent in the atmosphere). I also never said CO2 was not partially responsible for the warming. What I said was that CO2 generated by human activity pales in comparison to that which is released naturally.
Warming comes first, which releases CO2 from oceans, soil and rock. This in turn further enhances warming in a self-generating loop.

Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere

Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of...

www.scirp.org

The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.

 

[Ponderer]

Are you only gonna post peer-reviewed YouTube videos from now on?

You're the only guy I know who developed PhD level understanding of a topic using nothing but YouTube.

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and discuss/debate this with me.
You afraid you will be exposed as a soft-in-the-head climate cultist?
Clinging to and defending the faith?

 

[3WA]

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and discuss/debate this with me.
You afraid you will be exposed as a soft-in-the-head climate cultist?
Clinging to and defending the faith?

Okay, here's my challenge to you.

If you can post a peer-reviewed source from an ISI-rated scientific journal that shows that global temperature is unrelated to atmospheric carbon dioxide through geological time, then you will earn a serious response from me.

As it stands, I do not have enough respect for your intelligence to make a serious attempt to debate you. This is because you make absurd claims and don't provide any sources for them. Two examples of these claims are that nitrogen and oxygen absorb heat and that the sun is the major control of global temperatures without carbon dioxide being involved in the mechanism of temperature change.

 

[Spizz]

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and discuss/debate this with me.
You afraid you will be exposed as a soft-in-the-head climate cultist?
Clinging to and defending the faith?

You said this at the beginning of the thread and produced nothing. It's the same every time, you are asked repeatedly to produce something, you don't, then you are pushed into a corner and you respond with it's 'logic' and 'common sense'. Why would it be any different now?

 

[Ponderer]

Okay, here's my challenge to you.

If you can post a peer-reviewed source from an ISI-rated scientific journal that shows that global temperature is unrelated to atmospheric carbon dioxide through geological time, then you will earn a serious response from me.

As it stands, I do not have enough respect for your intelligence to make a serious attempt to debate you. This is because you make absurd claims and don't provide any sources for them. Two examples of these claims are that nitrogen and oxygen absorb heat and that the sun is the major control of global temperatures without carbon dioxide being involved in the mechanism of temperature change.

 

[Ponderer]

You said this at the beginning of the thread and produced nothing. It's the same every time, you are asked repeatedly to produce something, you don't, then you are pushed into a corner and you respond with it's 'logic' and 'common sense'. Why would it be any different now?

Then let's discuss it - one on one - directly - not via refenced documentation and/or links.
Surely you aren't afraid to do so?
Unless of course you are afraid to do so.

Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Spizz]

Then let's discuss it - one on one - directly - not via refenced documentation and/or links.
Surely you aren't afraid to do so?
Unless of course you are afraid to do so.

As I said before, I have no idea about global warming and it's causes or otherwise. I asked you to educate me and explain your position, you refused.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Indeed. Explain away.

 

[Ponderer]

As I said before, I have no idea about global warming and it's causes or otherwise.

This much is clear.
I'm merely confirming what you yourself said about yourself.

I asked you to educate me and explain your position, you refused.

No.
I clearly explained it.
Multiple times.
Over and over.

Indeed. Explain away.

Again.
I explained it - multiple times - over and over.

 

[Spizz]

This much is clear.
I'm merely confirming what you yourself said about yourself.

No.
I clearly explained it.
Multiple times.
Over and over.

Again.
I explained it - multiple times - over and over.

No, you never. You thumb sucked some nonsense about the sun and carbon dioxide and when questioned you deflected or stuck your fingers in your ears and went nah nah nah.

Saying "because I say" so is not an argument.

 

[Paulsie]

Okay, here's my challenge to you.

If you can post a peer-reviewed source from an ISI-rated scientific journal that shows that global temperature is unrelated to atmospheric carbon dioxide through geological time, then you will earn a serious response from me.

As it stands, I do not have enough respect for your intelligence to make a serious attempt to debate you. This is because you make absurd claims and don't provide any sources for them. Two examples of these claims are that nitrogen and oxygen absorb heat and that the sun is the major control of global temperatures without carbon dioxide being involved in the mechanism of temperature change.

Here is my challenge to you in return.

Instead of the very popular temperature graph of between 1850-2020, let's look at historical global temperatures for some perspective. They seem very regular to my untrained eye. Can you explain them to me?

Three Million Years of Climate Change

Using reconstructions of global temperature based on oxygen isotope ratio analyses of ocean sediment cores and polar glacial ice cores we can look back at the Earth’s climate for about 800,00…

oz4caster.wordpress.com

 

[3WA]

Here is my challenge to you in return.

Why are you challenging me? I’m not asking you to debate with me.

I’m here for entertainment.

 

[Paulsie]

Why are you challenging me? I’m not asking you to debate with me.

I’m here for entertainment.

So a troll then

 

[3WA]

So a troll then

It’s not worth attempting to be serious in this discussion. I subscribe to the rules of traditional reasoning (i.e. arguments must be valid and sound), and if I’m trying to debate with someone who doesn’t subscribe to those rules, I don’t even know where to start.

 

[Ponderer]

No, you never. You thumb sucked some nonsense about the sun and carbon dioxide and when questioned you deflected or stuck your fingers in your ears and went nah nah nah.

Saying "because I say" so is not an argument.

/* sigh */

Let's start from the beginning.

Do you believe there is a "climate crises", that Carbon Emissions are the cause of "global warming" and/or "climate change", and that it (Carbon Emissions) is an imminent existential threat?

 

[Temujin]

Here is my challenge to you in return.

Instead of the very popular temperature graph of between 1850-2020, let's look at historical global temperatures for some perspective. They seem very regular to my untrained eye. Can you explain them to me?

Three Million Years of Climate Change

Using reconstructions of global temperature based on oxygen isotope ratio analyses of ocean sediment cores and polar glacial ice cores we can look back at the Earth’s climate for about 800,00…

oz4caster.wordpress.com

 

[ToxicBunny]

/* sigh */

Let's start from the beginning.

Do you believe there is a "climate crises", that Carbon Emissions are the cause of "global warming" and/or "climate change", and that it (Carbon Emissions) is an imminent existential threat?

No, let's start from the real beginning. Provide some decent research that backs up your stance.

 

[Ponderer]

No, let's start from the real beginning. Provide some decent research that backs up your stance.

No, my little cupcake.
That's not the real beginning - the real beginning is to answer the question/s I asked.
Your belief/faith being shaken?
Is the penny starting to drop?

 

[ToxicBunny]

No, my little cupcake.
That's not the real beginning - the real beginning is to answer the question/s I asked.
Your belief/faith being shaken?
Is the penny starting to drop?

Actually it is. You have formulated a stance, back it up.

 

[Ponderer]

Actually it is. You have formulated a stance, back it up.

You're really struggling, my little cupcake.