NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

Oops? F**king OOPS? Billions if not trillions of government spending, malinvestment built upon F**KING OOPS??

The balls on these motherfuckers...
 
https://www.reuters.com/world/un-climate-chief-says-two-years-save-planet-2024-04-10/
iF2ZH98.jpeg

5QjWCwW.png
 
Quick question...

If climate change is really creating unpredictable weather, why would anyone want to create an energy system that is wholly dependent on the weather?
 
Quick question...

If climate change is really creating unpredictable weather, why would anyone want to create an energy system that is wholly dependent on the weather?

Perfect business model. Sell us on something totally busted so we have to pay even more to get it barely working. Then it becomes a chain. A chain we are taught to revere.

Abundant energy frees us all. Transportation of goods needs energy. The real intent as always is to make us dependent on them. Remember the Declaration of Independence? Independence from what exactly? One of those things is energy. By making us dependent on their systems and preventing any competition, they enslave us. If you want power / money / food, you will obey and vote the way youre told.

Just like our money system, failure is built into the system, and intentional.
 
Water vapor is 84x better at absorbing radiation than CO2.

Yes it is; it accounts for more than 90% of the atmosphere's ability to intercept heat. But that isn't the entire story on the comparison between the two. In his book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters (pages 50-53), Steve Koonin debunks the notion that a few ppm of CO2 can be ignored because the influence of water vapor is so great.

Paraphrasing him, the absorption spectra for H2O and CO2 are different. H2O is really efficient in absorbing the parts of the EM spectrum it absorbs; so much so that these portions of the spectrum are almost fully absorbed at low concentrations of H2O; and doubling the amount of H2O has a negligible effect on additional absorption. The metaphor he uses is that painting a window pane with black paint stops nearly all the light from passing through, but doubling the amount of black paint on the glass by adding a second coat of paint really doesn't stop any more light from passing through (because it was effectively all stopped by the first coat of paint). CO2 is equally effective at absorbing the portions of the spectrum which it absorbs; but because it's at such a low concentration in the atmosphere it's nowhere near the concentration at which it can absorb all the radiation from those portions of the spectrum. Metaphorically, it's like drawing a very sparse crosshatch on the window, which absorbs very little light and allows much more light to pass through. But if you make the crosshatch denser, by adding more lines to it, the result is an outsized impact on the amount of light absorbed.

Basically, adding fewer than three molecules of CO2 to 10,000 atmospheric particles (a mere 0.03 percent change), can increase the atmosphere’s heat intercepting ability by about thirty times that amount (1 percent).

--- Edited (05-07-2024) to add
Forgot that I had already posted the extract from Koonin's book. Find it here.

For more on Koonin and his book, see jmdrake's post
The shameless attack on a climate change denier (actually, he's a skeptic) from the OBAMA administration

--- Edited (05-21-2024) to add
The key absorption bands for water vapor are centered around 0.72 μm and 0.81 μm.
The key absorption bands for CO2 are centered around 15 μm and 4.3 μm
 
Last edited:
Guess NBC won't be giving air time to the National Park Service...

IMG_0449.jpeg

//

[... https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html ...]

FTA (bold emphasis added):

The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed.

The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN.

In 2017, the park was told by the agency that the complete melting off of the glaciers was no longer expected to take place so quickly due to changes in the forecast model, Kurzmen said.

[...]​

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).
 
If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

Muh Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1971:

 
“Neutral Science is Undesirable” Climate Scientists Argue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqIqGVmtOQ8
{Sabine Hossenfelder | 26 October 2024}

Climate scientists on social media are constantly pushing the idea that their research demands action. On one hand, climate change is a very real and pressing issue. On the other hand, scientists should remain neutral. So is it ever okay to mix research with activism?

The two comments are here:
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00126-0
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00171-9



//
 
Back
Top