Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[phrodeau]

There is no global warming. Trysail proved it.

 

[toubab]

The conservation of energy is settled science. If you have any data showing that energy can be created or destroyed I'd be very interested in reading about it.

Where does the energy go?

Watch the videos if you're seriously concerned about that.

 

[trysail]

...Where does the energy go?

Gee, did somebody tell you that this was "settled science?"




​

 

[toubab]

There is no global warming. Trysail proved it.

I'm sure he didn't prove there was no global warming. Was, mind you.

 

[islandman]

I'm sure he didn't prove there was no global warming. Was, mind you.

Just watch the videos to find out more.

 

[phrodeau]

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (1 of 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (2 of 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSNW0LC32wU&hd=1


Both videos well worth the time it takes to view them.

It's your loss if you don't allow the little time it takes to watch these two videos with an open mind. They are very impressive presentations of factual information on climate change. Dr. Evans is a former proponent of AGW who is now a skeptic, and quite understandably so, as is clearly explained in the videos.

I would advise you to watch the two videos with an open mind. If you do, I think you will understand why they have a separate thread of their own from the other thread.

Watch the videos if you're seriously concerned about that.

There's a word for this. It's called "spam".

 

[toubab]

There's a word for this. It's called "spam".

I'm betting you haven't watched the videos.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Gee, did somebody tell you that this was "settled science?"




​

It appears you either don't know where the energy goes or know where the energy is going and don't like the answer.

Again, conservation of energy is settled science.

 

[islandman]

There's a word for this. It's called "spam".

I took it more as a "I can't synthesize its content without putting my foot in my mouth, so I'll just point everyone to the videos."

Of course, I can't synthesize their content either, but I'm also not the one claiming an understanding of the "facts".

 

[toubab]

I took it more as a "I can't synthesize its content without putting my foot in my mouth, so I'll just point everyone to the videos."

Of course, I can't synthesize their content either, but I'm also not the one claiming an understanding of the "facts".

I'm sure you would accept my version of the content of the two videos if I synthesized them for you. Right?

 

[trysail]

It appears you either don't know where the energy goes or know where the energy is going and don't like the answer.

The problem is simple; you don't know the answer and neither does climatology— which, of course, is what makes it an open question (one of many).




​

 

[toubab]

The problem is simple; you don't know the answer and neither does climatology— which, of course, is what makes it an open question (one of many).




​

This insistence by so many that the book is closed and no further questions are allowed is some kind of insanity, don't you think?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The problem is simple; you don't know the answer and neither does climatology— which, of course, is what makes it an open question (one of many).




​

We both know the answer. It isn't something that's open. Energy has to go somewhere. Again, conservation of energy is settled science.

If you don't know where the energy is going, and it appears that you don't, I'd suggest you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[trysail]

If you don't know where the energy is going, and it appears that you don't, I'd suggest you don't know what you're talking about.

Because you won't acknowledge that neither you nor climatology knows.


​

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Because you won't acknowledge that neither you nor climatology knows.


​

The energy is going into heating the water and the atmosphere. Now that I've acknowledged where the energy is going you can admit you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[toubab]

The energy is going into heating the water and the atmosphere. Now that I've acknowledged where the energy is going you can admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Wrong. Watch the videos for scientific evidence against what you just said.

 

[islandman]

I'm sure you would accept my version of the content of the two videos if I synthesized them for you. Right?

At the very least it would demonstrate an understanding of the topic and especially to those of us - like me - not SMEs on the topic.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Wrong. Watch the videos for scientific evidence against what you just said.

I'm not in a position to watch the videos at the moment. Where does the videos say the energy is going?

 

[toubab]

At the very least it would demonstrate an understanding of the topic and especially to those of us - like me - not SMEs on the matter.

Dr. Evans shows, in the videos, scientific evidence that all previous models have been wrong, and not just by a little, but by a lot. If that doesn't get your interest, nothing will. I've long been told you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[trysail]

The energy is going into heating the water and the atmosphere. Now that I've acknowledged where the energy is going you can admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Prove it. That's science. Poor Kevin Trenberth is pulling his hair out trying to find the missing heat/energy. Nobody can find it. Climatology has gone on to "spaghetti" behavior. They're throwing everything at the wall to see if something sticks. "It's buried somewhere in the deep ocean..." "Tropical winds have blown..." "It's the sun..." "Aerosols are to blame..." "Volcanoes..."


Nature "The Missing Heat" and "The Pause"
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525




Seventeen plus (17+) years of no significant warming.
Zero. Nil. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.




_______________

“...it should be recognized that the basis for a climate that is highly sensitive to added greenhouse gasses is solely the computer models. The relation of this sensitivity to catastrophe, moreover, does not even emerge from the models, but rather from the fervid imagination of climate activists.”
–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences





​

 

[phrodeau]

I'm not in a position to watch the videos at the moment. Where does the videos say the energy is going?

He says the sun's energy is bouncing off all the new fluffy white clouds from the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.

He chooses not to mention the dark gray clouds from industrial pollution that tend to absorb heat.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Wrong. Watch the videos for scientific evidence against what you just said.

Good lord..

This is the same David Evans who tried to claim that the "banksters" were behind Global warming and were trying to institute a world government. Claimed that the "paper aristocracy" had two Presidents killed (Lincoln and Garfield).

His "work" echoes that of the John Birch Society that posited the existence of a shadowy cabal of “international bankers” working for centuries to take over the globe.

“Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!” Video here

Evans writes extensively on the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the history of “bankers” which are all hall marks of this strain of conspiracy thinking.

In short, he and his wife Joanne "Nova" Codling (B.Sc. Molecular Biology) are tinfoil hat wearing fucking nutcases.

You're welcome.

 

[islandman]

Dr. Evans shows, in the videos, scientific evidence that all previous models have been wrong, and not just by a little, but by a lot. If that doesn't get your interest, nothing will. I've long been told you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

That's not a synthesis, but a summary. Can you synthesize why previous models were wrong and what new data lead to this new understanding?

 

[toubab]

I'm not in a position to watch the videos at the moment. Where does the videos say the energy is going?

I think it's fair to say it's more a case of saying where the energy is not going, such as in the oceans of the world, which are not heating up much at all, and not rising much at all. But Dr. Evans does show evidence of where it's known to be going, more than previously thought, such as back out into space. Just find the time later to watch the videos. It will be worth it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I think it's fair to say it's more a case of saying where the energy is not going, such as in the oceans of the world, which are not heating up much at all, and not rising much at all. But Dr. Evans does show evidence of where it's known to be going, more than previously thought, such as back out into space. Just find the time later to watch the videos. It will be worth it.

It's somehow escaping into space even though the carbon dioxide is preventing it from doing so?