Oooo, now I've been banned by Mike Yeadon, 2nd smartest guy as well as the Baileys.
They don't like it when you point out massive holes in their reasoning.
I hope it’s just embarrassment and not something more sinister.
In the comments on Mike’s latest substack he claims that the greenhouse effect of the Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t exist at all. He says the greenhouse effect only occurs in ‘closed’ systems, like greenhouses, not in ‘open’ ones. If this were true the sun’s heat would just radiate back to space and it would be a freezing -18 degrees C on Earth, as it is on the moon. The greenhouse concept is as established as the Earth being a globe.
Some commentators also claimed that data on global warming was compounded by urbanisation around stations. There are thousands of stations in many different places and countries and some have had to be moved because of city encroachment. This got some people’s knickers in twist. I pointed out that in any case the oceans account for 90% of global warming; and they’re showing significant warming. The oceans do not suffer from urbanisation.
The tired old trope of co2 following warming came up as well. When the orbit of the Earth caused big changes in temperature between ice ages and interglacial periods, co2 was released from the ocean into the atmosphere were it caused yet more warming. Co2 sometimes following warming in the ice core record doesn’t change the fact that co2 itself causes warming which has been directly measured.
Mike also claimed that there was no climate change, or at at least not an emergency. I think that people in Pakistan and Asia may disagree. In 2022 flooding in Pakistan displaced 33 million people and 1300 died after a heatwave reaching 51 degrees (123 degrees Fahrenheit). The most prolonged heatwave in human history occurred in China in 2023 seriously affecting 950 million people and drying up the Yangtze River, important for the economy of the whole world.
Why would oil barons, such as Rockefeller, go to the trouble of faking climate change which would mean people avoided their products? Aren't they more likely to make us think that real climate change is faked so that we continue to buy their products?
For a little recap; the Kiwi Drs Bailey banned me for saying that their comments on animal agriculture were disingenuous. (They’ve fallen for the ruse that the elites are forcing us to eat bugs and to take away our chickens; thus increasing demand.)
Firstly that suitable land to feed 8 billion people with as much meat and dairy as they want via the bodies of free range animals was available without the need for deforestation. This is not true, the Amazon is being actively deforested for cattle ranching as we speak. Though it may appear that there’s plenty of land if you steal enough of it from First Nation people.
Secondly that it doesn’t matter that producing calories from animals requires more energy input than producing calories direct from the soil because ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed’. Even if one doesn’t accept climate change; energy is extracted at considerable cost to communities and to the environment. It would be like saying the burning oil fields of Kuwait are not a problem as energy can’t be created nor destroyed.
Is the conversation on how health freedom may have been systematically fed information directly from industry via groups who say that ‘doubt is our product’ now over? Will the proponents of fossil fuel and animal ag (the biggest user of agrochemicals and pharma products) return to their echo chambers and clap like seals over absurd or disingenuous statements that they want to hear?
I’ve just been blocked by 2SG for pointing out his illiteracy over climate ‘alarmism’ being debunked.
Do we say farewell to scientific debate; mainstream and alternative?
🐒
hola, jw.
interesting arguments. and while animal farming as practices is not sustainable, it seems to me that nor are current agri-business farming practices. and frankenmeats, in whatever form, via bugs or gmoed 'crap', aren't going to do much beyond the active 'health' practices of making people unwell.
and i'm curious how you factor in what seems to be the warming of the earth itself from within. i've done just a bit of reading on that, so not enough to aver anything with surety - although the measurements of the ice melting in the antarctic with below zero surface temperatures is interesting, as well as all the recent hot spots opening on the oceans floors. and what about the giant underground volcanic event of 2023 that no one is talking about? to what extent is the earth itself heating up, for whatever reason? is it?
You are ridiculous, Jo. The idea that a trace gas like CO2 can work like a greenhouse is absurd. The Earth spins and is heated in daytime. Much of this heat is left during night and dissipates slowly. The atmosphere, independent of "trace gases" insulates to a degree. You are falling for Club of Rome propaganda.