CO2 is good: Breaking news from the NIPCC

Jo Nova reports on the latest report of the NIPCC – the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. In brief “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”

From the Executive Summary.

  • The models overestimate the warming, don’t include chemical and biological process that may be as important as the physical ones.
  • Plants like CO2, grow faster and the green biomass of the Earth tends to counteract the warming effects of CO2.
  • New evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was real, global and warmer than the present, while CO2 was 28% lower.
  • The ice is not melting as much as people expected; the seas are not accelerating; there’s no change in rain or river flows that you can blame CO2 on.
  • Life on Earth likes warmth. Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals, and even worms do better with a bit of global warming.
  • Warmth and CO2 increases crops and global food. It’s good for hungry people.
  • The latest research shows corals and marine life can adapt to climate change and flourish.
  • Warming improves human health. It reduces winter deaths more than it increases summer ones.
  • Even in the worst scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today, and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to CO2 is good: Breaking news from the NIPCC

  1. Oh bloody hell!!

    The next “parasite on society” service industry has just been slighted. All those Public Servants and Consultants about to jump on the CO2 Tax gravy train have been found wanting

  2. But but but … the science is settled!! 🙂

  3. big dumb fu

    I thought we were done arguing the science and both sides just accepted that this is simply a socialist wealth redistribution racket? Is there any point putting rational arguments to the looters bent on global enslavement?

  4. MarkL of Canberra

    Wait, I am feeling disturbances in the force…

    They are obviously running dog lickspittle non-goreacle follower imperialist gaia raping earth-mother haters in the pay of big oil.

    Why, they don’t even like tofu!

    Besides, the science is settled and facts don’t mean anything.

    I think the force is being affected by Bob the Bungholer.

    Mk50
    Brisbane

  5. Token

    Quick set up a straw man to link the NIPCC. Even better, let’s use Not a True Scotsman.

    True Climate Science bodies like the CSIRO, Nasa, the IPCC and other reputable scientist talk about Carbon Pollution, not CO2.

  6. Fisky

    That’s nice and reassuring to know. I was nearly convinced by libertarian Jarrah’s call for global wealth redistribution, but now we don’t have to worry anymore.

  7. Jarrah

    I thought you were sceptical, Rafe. Maybe you’re just selectively sceptical? 🙂

    “I was nearly convinced by libertarian Jarrah”

    Moderate libertarian, please. Or liberal democrat.

  8. Rafe

    What is your point Jarrah?

    I have a critical preference for the moderate warming school, rather than the alarming warming scenario. The good thing about this is that we can wait for a decade or three and see how things go instead of stampeding into actions that wil make no detectable difference to the climate but will have many bad results for us.

  9. Jarrah

    “What is your point Jarrah?”

    That I find it amusing/revealing when people who, for whatever reason, insist they are merely being properly, scientifically sceptical when they ignore or minimise or deride the vast majority of scientific opinion on AGW, suddenly appear willing to accept anything someone says when it goes against that majority.

  10. JC

    Jarrah

    What are you sceptical about on the warming side?

  11. Rafe

    How credible is the so-called majority view in the light of the Garth Paltridge revelations (and much more of the same from other sources)?

  12. C.L.

    Excellent. NIPCC and CERT have buried the warmening cult.

    So that’s that.

  13. Fisky

    Here’s Jarrah, calling for global socialism to stop warming.

    The planet can’t cope with every human being living at the level of resource extraction and biosphere pollution that every Westerner engages in. We have gone beyond a sustainable level, but only because it’s about a billion of us doing so. Seven billion (or more!) at that level isn’t possible, without drastic changes.

    The developing world sees our standard of living and wants it for themselves. But it’s an illusion. We are like the party guests who eat all the hor d’oeuvres before the rest of the guests arrive. They want some, as justice demands, but the party’s capacity to provide has been exhausted. All of us are going to have to accept a canapé-free future, although there may be crappy party pies for all if we’re careful.

    We have set a standard that is impossible to reach for the rest. The least we can do, after gorging on artificially cheap energy for a hundred years, is to take the first steps towards a more even, globalised world before asking those who missed the first wave to give up on their reasonable aspirations. We’ve already started to see this process in action with capital and wages, and it’s essentially the same dynamic in action when we talk about CO2 – globalisation means the poor catching up, and the rich taking a cut, and everyone meeting somewhere in the middle before being able to progress.

    The warmists’ vision for the future sounds like East Germany.

  14. Fisky

    Here’s Jarrah, calling for global socialism.

    The developing world sees our standard of living and wants it for themselves. But it’s an illusion. We are like the party guests who eat all the hor d’oeuvres before the rest of the guests arrive. They want some, as justice demands, but the party’s capacity to provide has been exhausted. All of us are going to have to accept a canapé-free future, although there may be crappy party pies for all if we’re careful.

    We have set a standard that is impossible to reach for the rest. The least we can do, after gorging on artificially cheap energy for a hundred years, is to take the first steps towards a more even, globalised world before asking those who missed the first wave to give up on their reasonable aspirations. We’ve already started to see this process in action with capital and wages, and it’s essentially the same dynamic in action when we talk about CO2 – globalisation means the poor catching up, and the rich taking a cut, and everyone meeting somewhere in the middle before being able to progress.

    The warmists’ selling point: East Germany!

  15. But but but … the science is settled!!

    Exactly, so why are you placing so much faith in one analysis?

  16. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Vast majority of scientific opinion Jarrah? Who’s doing the counting and what exactly are they counting? Is every grant receipient usefully beefing up with a climate change logo their study of unusually copulating newts being included? That little cabal of back-scratchers counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, otherwise known as climate science modellers, is diminishing up the orifice of their own deity. So shut up, fool.

  17. Jarrah

    “Jarrah What are you sceptical about on the warming side?”

    Good question. Generally speaking, the more alarmist claims – higher end of temp and sea level increases, predictions of mass starvation and floods of AGW-driven refugees, that sort of thing. I’m mainstream, baby.

    “Here’s Jarrah, calling for global socialism.”

    LOL. Thanks for trying, but I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out plausible ecological futures, and noted the role of market forces. You need to stay off the shrooms, mate.

    “Vast majority of scientific opinion Jarrah?”

    Yes.

    “Who’s doing the counting and what exactly are they counting?”

    A number of different people are doing the counting. Normally, they’re counting people who know what they’re talking about.

    “Is every grant receipient usefully beefing up with a climate change logo their study of unusually copulating newts being included?”

    No. And do you really want to get into a pissing contest about relative expertise of the majority and the minority?

    “So shut up, fool.”

    Yes ma’am, right away ma’am. Won’t say another word. Unless I feel like it. 😉

  18. Fisky

    LOL. Thanks for trying, but I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out plausible ecological futures, and noted the role of market forces.

    Market forces do not ration “emissions”. This can only come through government intervention.

  19. If I may chime in, I would like to add to what Jarrah said. Taking AGW seriously does not mean you give up all reasonable skepticism to the issue. I decided it was an issue to take seriously in 2006, and wrote this at the time (on my blog) of the things of which I was nonetheless “dismissive or very skeptical”:

    1. the Kyoto Treaty;

    2. wind power;

    3. Carbon offset schemes which involve growing trees, especially if they are in areas where bushfires are a distinct possibility. (It is my suspicion that many companies promoting carbon offset schemes are selling snake oil when it comes to their long term effect.)

    4. Environmentalists and politicians who claim Pacific Islands are already disappearing from increasing sea levels caused by global warming. (In another 30 years or so, maybe. But hey, just how viable is any 2 metre high island nation built in the middle of the ocean anyway.)

    5. Politicians who resist nuclear power on principle.

    6. Dismissal of the sun’s role as being possibly significant for temperatures over the next century.

    7. Believing that the current Australian drought is necessarily related to global warming.

    8. Arguing that current short bouts of surprising cooler weather are a sign that global warming is not true, and that greenhouse gases are not worth worrying about. (Sorry Tim Blair, they are funny, but I think no serious climate scientist is concerned about them disproving the theory.)

    9. “The Day after Tomorrow” scenarios to do with the sudden “switching off” of the Atlantic ocean conveyor current. (Real Climate recently chided The Guardian for getting reporting of recent research on this completely wrong.)

    10. The more excitable predictions about the number of birds, frogs, spiders, polar bears etc likely to be lost as a result of global warming.

    I see little to change my mind about in that list after 5 years. (The sun’s role point is perhaps misleading: I was allowing for the fact that its role seemed not to be perfectly understood. The research about cosmic rays this week is relevant to that, but still, there are excellent reasons for believing their contribution to warming can only be small.)

    You skeptics, on the other hand, you’re as gullible as hell.

  20. Infidel Tiger

    If I may chime in

    No.

  21. Fisky

    Speaking of lavish parties with canapes and martinis, here’s the Cancun summit. No party pies for warmists!

  22. The research about cosmic rays this week is relevant to that, but still, there are excellent reasons for believing their contribution to warming can only be small.)

    It will even be much more useful if someone can point to increased solar radiation during the relevant period. If that can’t be done, any interpretation of the study must be strictly confined. That is what the researchers in the study did.

  23. JC

    Wow, hey were sure practicing rationing at the Cancun fiesta.

    This summits are like the Haj for these people.

  24. Fisky

    The warmists’ world is one of expensive parties, swanky hotels, private jets, waterside mansions, and large flat screen TVs. Since they evidently don’t care about warming, neither should we.

  25. PSC

    How credible is the so-called majority view in the light of the Garth Paltridge revelations (and much more of the same from other sources)?

    First, the ‘”so called” majority view’ is ‘”so called”‘ because it happens to be the majority view. I’m “not sure” what the “arbitrarily placed” quotation marks are “intended to mean”.

    Contrast Paltridge’s revelations with those of Mark Bowen in the US, in his book “Censoring Science”. Bowen give names of the people, and the dates on which the particular events occurred. Paltridge doesn’t.

    For instance, go through chapter 4. Who called Brian Tucker a “usual suspect”? Page 66, second paragraph: “Rumor has it that …” funding recommendation from Garnaut got people on side. Page 67 – the senior scientist of his acquaintance is anonymous. Story 4 is just a story about how a paper got knocked back from a journal, poor darling. Much of what we’ve got is hearsay and innuendo.

    Paltridge’s claims would be much more effective if they were attached to the names of those who apparently made the claims.

  26. Gab

    Speaking of lavish parties with canapes and martinis, here’s the Cancun summit.

    That’s it. I’m converted. I’m a warmerist now – they clearly throw the best parties.

  27. Tillman

    Brutal and pulverising ice age.

  28. JC

    First, the ‘”so called” majority view’ is ‘”so called”‘ because it happens to be the majority view.

    What does that mean though, PSC. What is the majority view intended to convey?
    How much warming and is it manageable or dangerous and what is the cost of mitigation vs non-mitigation.

    The warmies focus on telling us there is a majority view. Well fuck me, but even Richard Lindzen thinks there is AGW. So the majority view is basically bullshit.

  29. PSC

    How much warming and is it manageable or dangerous and what is the cost of mitigation vs non-mitigation.

    I’d point you and Rafe to the comments of Paltridge on page 56 of his book. Rafe in particular, since he seems to be arguing for doing nothing for 30 years.

    Paltridge makes the obvious point that power generation is incredibly capital intensive, mostly construction costs, with low to very low op costs, and very long life of any plant. Which means that the low cost solution to AGW is retiring existing plant at end of life, and replacing it with cleaner plant as part of the natural upgrade cycle.

    But Paltridge (and Rafe) fail to reach the obvious conclusion, which is that not acting for 30 years means that in 20-30 years existing plant needs to be replaced while it still has life left in it. Which might cost a bit.

  30. JC

    PSC

    What are the clean technologies other than nuclear?

    Please don’t even bother if you’re going to say solar and wind.

    The problem could be solvable in 30 years time. In fact it’s eminently solvable through tech innovation over 30 year time frames.

    However that wasn’t my point. The warmies keep saying that the science is settled and there is a majority of opinion in the science community. But was does that mean, keeping in mind that the pace and degree of warming really is in dispute.

    This is where warmines come undone.

    Even freaking monckten believes there is AGW for lord’s sake.

  31. wreckage

    The existence and extent of AGW is irrelevant; at present, there is no hint of serious solutions, beyond “let’s smash our GDP and force ourselves into a half-century long depression”

    The current emphasis on wind and solar as renewable energy sources is idiotic. Nuclear is up to the task, and biomass might do in a pinch (it overcomes the problem of stored energy and bypasses the problem of intermittent supply as well).

  32. PSC

    But was does that mean, keeping in mind that the pace and degree of warming really is in dispute.

    What it means is that if you accept physics that you end up with a central estimate for the temperature response for CO2 doubling by 2100 around 3-3.5 degrees. If you think there’s a lot of uncertainty, you put wide error bands around that – say 1-6 degrees. if you think there’s not much uncertainty, you put narrow bands – say 3-4 degrees.

    If you work for the Australian, you report this as “credible scientists say warming could be as low as 1 degree”. If you work for Greenpeace, you say “as high as 6 degrees”.

    But if you argue: there’s lots of uncertainty, the effect could be as low as 1 degree – implicitly you’re arguing the effect could also be very high.

    Uncertainty (think options over some volatile underlying) generally costs more – lots more – than certainty. Intuitively putting very low discount rates on AGW costs and simultaneously arguing AGW could be as low as 1 degree doesn’t make much sense to me.

  33. wreckage

    Government schemes that cannot, in the most generous and optimistic projections, do 9/10ths of 2/3rds of SFA also don’t make much sense.

  34. JC

    What it means is that if you accept physics that you end up with a central estimate for the temperature response for CO2 doubling by 2100 around 3-3.5 degrees

    That’s the IPCC report, PSC. And that is the median.

    Having said that, there are very few people that don’t think CEO has warmed the earth, which is my point. This majority view is basically horseshit.

  35. Nuclear is up to the task, and biomass might do in a pinch (it overcomes the problem of stored energy and bypasses the problem of intermittent supply as well).

    Recent studies challenge that nuclear is up to the task. No current technology can do it. That’s the real problem. The rest of what you people continually complain about is horseshit.

  36. JC

    Uncertainty (think options over some volatile underlying) generally costs more – lots more – than certainty

    .

    Explain what you mean? There were times in 09 when the VIXX traded implied vol as high as 85%.

    What do you compare “certainty” to in that situation?

    If you were long stocks you could get out. Similarly if you’re short stocks you also exit. That’s the certainty, however I’m not sure how you figure that in your context.

    Intuitively putting very low discount rates on AGW costs and simultaneously arguing AGW could be as low as 1 degree doesn’t make much sense to me.

    I haven’t yet seen that argument although Stern went close. If you reconfigured the discount rate to the cost of capital in his scenario you would do nothing and let it warm.

    This is where I am coming from PSC.

    Global GDP is presently around $65 trillion give or take.

    Stern suggested that his warming scenario would lower GDP by 20% in 2100 if things were left alone.

    Now if the world GDP grows at 4.5% in real terms you will end up with GDP of around 3,267 trillion in raw terms unmolested with mitigation and no warming damage.

    Now lop off 20% off that and you end up world GDP of $2,600 trillion in 2100 if it is damaged.

    Now lets assume mitigation lops 1% of the growth rate (stern suggested 1%). We therefore end up with global GDP of $1,388 trillion by 2100 in raw terms with mitigation molested GDP.

    So where is the case for harsh mitigation? Even if the coolies are wrong and the world does warm their case of doing absolutely nothing holds up in GDP terms stronger than the warmies because at the very least there is no damage to GDP potential through intervention.

    Where is the case for mitigation? Global GDP would have to drop below the projected molested GDP to make the case and stern’s scenario of a 20% drop didn’t make it.

    If one ratchets up the warming case to the higher end of expectations then one is really doing what the sceptics are in terms of avoiding the majority of scientific opinion but with the added problem of greatly reducing long term GDP growth.

  37. Abu Chowdah

    The rest of what you people continually complain about is horseshit.

    That’s why we complain about it.

  38. Rafe

    Given the list of things that Steve is sceptical about I wonder why he is on the other side of this argument.

    I am not suggesting we do nothing for 20 or 30 years, just refraining from things that make no sense. Given the bandwidth of predictions for the next century, from 1 to 6 degrees, in 20 or 30 years we should be able to get a better fix on the real number.

    Who thinks that nuclear technology is not going to advance and become more competitive with coal and gas?

  39. dover_beach

    Who’s doing the counting and what exactly are they counting?

    A number of different people are doing the counting. Normally, they’re counting people who know what they’re talking about.

    Jarrah, is it “mainstream” for me, and other lukewarmers, to judge that CS is somewhere between 1-2C?

    It seems to me, BTW, that there is a concerted effort to refer to those on one side of this spectrum as “deniers” (and you don’t have to venture to far from the centre to attract this censure) while “catastrophists” are nevertheless deemed more or less “mainstream” however far they themselves venture from the “mainstream”.

    And, another BTW, I don’t know why the mean figure of CS, for instance, has any more substance than the individual figures it comprises.

  40. Rafe wrote: Who thinks that nuclear technology is not going to advance and become more competitive with coal and gas?

    It does not seem to advance very quickly, though, does it? And the large scale safety problems it causes in the event of a major accident always means it will need to be tightly regulated and relatively expensive.

    I am happy for nuclear to be part of the solution, but I think it is going to be hard work to get nuclear out there in sufficient numbers, and of safe enough design, to make a difference.

    Given the lead times for replacement of electricity generation, as PSC argues, if you don’t start getting serious straight away, you are adding decades to the getting the solutions in place.

    Lukewarmists like you give no reason for leadership to exist in getting nuclear developed to a level where it may make a difference.

  41. Jarrah

    “Jarrah, is it “mainstream” for me, and other lukewarmers, to judge that CS is somewhere between 1-2C?”

    Between 1.5 and 4.5 gets you into the mainstream. There’s a chance it’s outside this range, of course.

    The NIPCC authors are far outside the mainstream with their 0.4-0.5. In fact, it looks physically impossible for it to be that small.

  42. dover_beach

    That 0.4-0.5C figure does seem a little strange. It seems to me that the typical figure at this end of the spectrum is between 0.7-2C for CS.

  43. Rafe

    Well I am happy to go with one or two degrees over 100 years, with more benefits than disadvantages. I don’t see any urgency about replacing coal and gas. I think it is insane for Germany to turn off nuclear plants in favour of ….what?

  44. Fleeced

    Even in the worst scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today, and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.

    This is one of the biggest ones that people forget. Also, that the lifestyle that “our children and our children’s children” will enjoy is difficult for us to appreciate. Look at people in 1900 – if you asked them to imagine our problems today, they’d say that we’d be knee-deep in horse-shit. Now imagine if we asked people from that era to have a decreased standard of living, so that ours would be even higher… talk about reverse welfare!

  45. HandyMan

    Well I am happy to go with one or two degrees over 100 years, with more benefits than disadvantages.

    Happy with that are you Rafe? Well, goody, goody, Rafe is happy. Do tell us Rafe, where do you get your expertise such that would allow you to conclude that temp rise is likely to be 2 degree max over 100 years? Fact is, you wouldn’t have a clue. And on what basis do you conclude, having no doubt weighed up ALL the scientific literature, that this will bring more ups than downs? To whom Rafe? To which parts of the world? And do tell us, what are these down sides that you so blithely dismiss as being nothing much to worry about? In short Rafe, how can anyone know that you are not full of shit?

    As for your headline: “Breaking news from the NIPCC” … first “news” is something new. What this report, backed by the professional denialist organisation The Heartland Institute (fresh from its smoking is good for you campaign) says should have been headed “More of the same old same old from professional cranks who support Rafe’s fact-free anti-science views”.

  46. Sinclair Davidson

    Welcome back HandyMan – any comment on this?

  47. Stonemason

    “Even in the worst scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today, and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.”

    This is wishful thinking. In any time period we are either are going to live in Thomas Malthuses world or Julian Simons world. Its not cut and dried that we will be in a Julian Simon world, and we can be pretty sure that it will be colder in 2100 than now.

  48. Stonemason

    There is also the implication that CO2 may have a warming effect. No evidence for this exists anywhere, nor would this be what you would expect apriori. On the other hand its very clear that more CO2 is good for the biosphere.

  49. JC

    Bullshit , Bird. You of all people have absolutely no way of knowing it will be colder in 2100. You really say such god awful stupid things.

  50. Stonemason

    Thats what the science suggests JC. Its only evidence but I like it.

  51. JC

    What evidence, Bird, you’re climate model, or the last you tube vid?

  52. Stonemason

    “New evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was real, global and warmer than the present, while CO2 was 28% lower.”

    This is a pretty dubious claim since in all likelihood its based on ice core data. Which is a proxy. One which typically understates CO2 levels. If their claim is based on other data, like leaf stigmata, its got a better chance of being true.

  53. Stonemason

    “What evidence, Bird, you’re climate model, or the last you tube vid?”

    The scientific evidence is absolutely clear. There is almost no chance that 2100 will be as warm as it was in the twentieth century. There is absolutely no doubt that this is where the scientific evidence points. No evidence whatsoever points in the opposite direction. But of course there is the issue of pure chance to contend with.

  54. Stonemason

    Solar activity through much of the twentieth century appears to have been stronger than at any time for 8000 years. And definitely the strongest its been in about 1150 years. So the chances are more than slim that we can have a repeat performance of hyper-strong activity from the sun. Therefore it is of very limited likelihood that the end of the century will be as warm as (lets say) the 90’s.

  55. JC

    The scientific evidence is absolutely clear. There is almost no chance that 2100 will be as warm as it was in the twentieth century. There is absolutely no doubt that this is where the scientific evidence points

    No chance, hey.

    So explain this then. We have the sun turning down over the past decade and global temp shows a warmer period than at any time in the 20th C.

  56. Stonemason

    Thats easy to explain. Its a lie. The warmest decade was the 1930’s. Any graph you have seen that says otherwise is rigged.

  57. Stonemason

    This is the best graph we have available to us at the moment. All the other graphs have to be disregarded. Its not acceptable from a scientific point of view to so much as allow yourself to be swayed by them. The way to treat the other graphs is to pretend you’ve never laid eyes on them.

    This one has to be considered an adequate proxy for world temperatures. And in any case its the only decent plot we have.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hammer-graph-5-us-temps.jpg

  58. Tillman

    Good lord, JC, you dopey mediterranean taxeater, don’t you know we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age?

  59. Stonemason

    Precisely Tillman. The consensus science position is that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age. The only people who would credibly disagree with the brutality of it would be the tiny minority who think there has been a recent shift in the poles. Not a bad case they make with that as well. But supposing that this didn’t happen and the poles have been in the same place for hundreds of thousands of years at least?

    Well the brutality of the glacial periods is then utterly astonishing. Since it brings ice sheets down as far South as Kansas. Now thats pretty damn brutal.

  60. badm0f0

    Now thats pretty damn brutal.

    Yes but it’s an essential brutality, like Keelhaul, if we’re to achieve any durable foundation for a pyramid dwelling scoiety.

  61. Tillman

    Yes, not just brutal but pulverising as well. Any science worker who does not accept that consensus should be sacked and disenfranchised.

  62. Tillman

    badmofo, the pyramids aren’t for living in.

    The pyramids are for producing capital goods and storing liquefied coal.

    The basement underneath the pyramid is where we will live in Birdtopia.

  63. JC

    The pyramids are for producing capital goods and storing liquefied coal.

    Deep in the central continent too. None of this oceanside living as you’d be just asking for trouble.

  64. Stonemason

    Well no you see because the Pole shift people make a pretty good case. So if the North Pole were really just north of Michigan, over the Canadian border, then the ice cap extending as far as Kansas is easier to understand. The ice ages would then have been pretty nasty. But not the astonishingly brutal affair as in the more normal version of events.

    Its very hard to understand how you could ever have things that cold that the Laurentian ice sheet would be in Kansas. So its would be a relief to think that the Laurentian ice sheet was just the North Pole polar cap. But yeah anyone who feels he’s sure of the consensus viewpoint, knows how far and deep the Laurentian ice sheet was, and is unable to compute the utter disaster that this implies, is truly an idiot.

  65. JC

    But yeah anyone who feels he’s sure of the consensus viewpoint, knows how far and deep the Laurentian ice sheet was, and is unable to compute the utter disaster that this implies, is truly an idiot.

    And the ice sheet isn’t in Kansas now because…….

  66. Stonemason

    Because its a great deal warmer during what are held to be very fleeting interglacials within the ice age.

  67. Rafe

    So we have two schools who think the science is settled. One school, represented by the PM and Garnaut (both leading climate scientists?) think we need to act with all possible speed doing many things (which will not make any difference).
    The other school thinks we are entering a mini ice age. Can we have some references to the literature on this school?
    There is a third school which I think is more tentative and alert to the unresolved scientific problems. This school thinks we might get a degree or so of warming.
    At least the second two schools presumably agree that no panic is required to avert catastrophic warming.

  68. Infidel Tiger

    Shouldn’t we be more worried about super volcanoes?

  69. JC

    Because its a great deal warmer during what are held to be very fleeting interglacials within the ice age.

    Bird, those events were triggered by events like a bigger than normal rock hitting the earth and causing it to change the axis. Predict the next big rock hitting us and you’re probably right. Go ahead and tell us when the next one hits.

  70. Stonemason

    “The other school thinks we are entering a mini ice age. Can we have some references to the literature on this school?”

    They are the only school based on science. There isn’t an alternative scientifically-based school of thought.

    If we are relying on the theory that Milankovitch cycles bring on the glacial period, then it is thought that the Milankovitch cycles have been getting more adverse for the last 6000 odd years. But if we are not relying on Milankovitch a mini-ice-age is still expected given that the strength of the solar activity has been outstanding in the last 1000 years, and given that the trend has been downwards in the last 5000 years.

    So a return to normal solar activity ought to see us cool back down near the little ice age conditions. And given the 5000 year trend, with or without Milankovitch factors, we expect that each new little ice age has a greater than 50% chance at being nastier than the one that came before it.

    A good summary of all the solar science can be had from David Archibald:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw&list=PL8B4C185EE5EA4D51&index=1&feature=plpp

    If this diagnosis is wrong it can only be because of something utterly wild out of left field, like the minority story about Pole shifts. Yet even that would not throw the expectation of a new little ice age. Rather it would simply limit the time period of data that we can see as relevant to the problem.

  71. Stonemason

    “Bird, those events were triggered by events like a bigger than normal rock hitting the earth and causing it to change the axis. Predict the next big rock hitting us and you’re probably right. Go ahead and tell us when the next one hits.”

    No you are quite wrong. We have 750’000 years of ice core data. The ice core data is unreliable for CO2 content. But it ought to be pretty good for temperature. Plus it dovetails with what the geologists say. And the pattern is a very clear one. Not reliant on some sort of regular freak accident as you suggest. Because freak accidents are by their nature irregular.

  72. JC

    So bird what causes the pulverizing glacials.

  73. JC

    oops

    sorry… brutal and pulverizing…

  74. Stonemason

    The standard view is that the glacial periods are brought on by the Milankovitch cycles. I don’t have an alternative explanation, though we wouldn’t want to be too arrogant about them and rule them out entirely.

    The best explanation as to why the glacial period gets locked in for a such a long time is ice obstruction of the great ocean conveyor. There is also resistance to circulation that can be enhanced by the fact that cold water is more viscous. To spread the energy out is to retain that thermal energy better, so the resistance to circulation has to be a factor in the average temperature of the planet.

    So while we cannot avoid little ice ages, we may be able to prevent full-blown glacial periods from getting locked in simply by removing the ice obstruction. Currently some people are adding to the resistance to circulation by using the Gulf Stream to generate electricity. This has to be seen as a very dangerous activity for the climate.

  75. GB, I trust you have heard this from James Hansen:

    The size of continental-scale ice sheets is mind-boggling. Although thinner toward the edges, ice over New York towered several times higher than the Empire State building–thick enough to crush everything in today’s New York City to smithereens. But not to worry–even though we sometimes hear geoscientists talk as if ice ages will occur again, it won’t happen–unless humans go extinct. Forces instigating ice ages, as we shall see, are so small and slow that a single chlorofluorocarbon factory would be more than sufficient to overcome any natural tendency toward an ice age. Ice sheets will not descend over North America and Europe as long as we are around to stop them.

  76. Stonemason

    Right. And this just goes to show what a complete nut Hansen is. Because he knows what happened with the ice, and yet he still bangs on about warming. Truly this guy is a dummy. He’s no scientist. Or he’s a whore outright.

  77. Stonemason

    ” Forces instigating ice ages, as we shall see, are so small and slow that a single chlorofluorocarbon factory would be more than sufficient to overcome any natural tendency toward an ice age.”

    It would be merely sad if it weren’t for the fact that people have listened to this nonsense. A chloroflurocarbon factory has no capacity to warm the temperature for us. Nor is there any coherent apriori reasoning that could make that case.

  78. Gab

    And what was achieved by restricting / prohibiting manufacture of CFC’s?

  79. Infidel Tiger

    And what was achieved by restricting / prohibiting manufacture of CFC’s?

    Aerosol deoderant worked better in the 80’s I know that much.

  80. Who are you asking, Gab? Me or Professor B?

  81. Gab

    You can answer, Steve.

    If it was directed at any one specifically, I would have used their name/moniker.

  82. Gab

    Actually, I’d be interested in your response, Steve.

  83. JC

    Aerosol deoderant worked better in the 80?s I know that much.

    yea… it’s freaking sticky now and you have to double or in some cases triple soap to wash out the stickiness.

    bring back CFC’s!

  84. You know: ozone hole depletion. I assume Hansen thinks that it would be worth Melbourians getting more sunburnt in summer to keep an ice sheet off New York.

  85. Ozone depletion – not ozone hole depletion.

  86. JC

    Steve

    There are other theories about ozone depletion rather than a can of deodorant causing everyone skin cancer.

    Somehow I never quite understood a can of deodorant was so dangerous to humanity causing possible extinction. Are you sure it wasn’t a bunch of Nancy pants getting all worked up and frightening themselves to death thereby causing a chain reaction?

  87. JC

    Steve

    Stonecutter does make a valid point in that Hansen is a complete nutball.

  88. JC, you know you it’s time to ring the doctor when start writing sentences that begin “[Bird] does make a valid point…”

  89. Gab: I haven’t read up on Hansen’s CFC idea. To be honest, I’m not sure if you can make some that don’t have the ozone harming effect.

  90. Stonemason

    The Ozone hole just opens and closes like it did before. They saw it for the first time opening up like that, and they had no prior data to tell them what it meant. Holdren at the time said that they would use it as a trial run, and then go after CO2 next. All it did was kill a lot of old French people who didn’t have cheap air conditioning when the heat wave hit.

    UV makes the 02 go to 03. But its night for months in Antarctica so the hole opens up. Maybe there is better ozone layer circulation up in the arctic for some reason because it doesn’t happen there even though the factories were typically in that hemisphere. So nothing changed and there has been no follow up.

  91. JC

    JC, you know you it’s time to ring the doctor when start writing sentences that begin “[Bird] does make a valid point…”

    True enough. However I find it really hard to figure if Hansen or Birdie is the bigger loon.

    Both demand the suspension of democracy and while Birdie wants to execute public sector workers, Hansen wants to kill fossil fuel company executives.

  92. Infidel Tiger

    Both demand the suspension of democracy and while Birdie wants to execute public sector workers, Hansen wants to kill fossil fuel company executives.

    The choice shoud be easy then. Hansen must be executed and Bird promoted.

  93. Stonemason

    They weren’t serious about it except as a trial run. Can you remember them doing CFC tests, in the stratosphere, in the deep south? I don’t believe any such tests were done. Why bother when the trial run is the thing?

    And consider the dire consequences if their guess (because thats all it was) turned out to be right? A little bit more UV in early spring in places like Patagonia, southern Argentina, the South Island of New Zealand. How is that so bad? Maybe someone from Gore or Invercargill get some color for a change. A little bit more photosynthesis in the early spring. The horror. The horror.

  94. Gab

    I’d have to agree with Stonemason, from what I’ve read. Also HFC’s – substitutes for CFC’s in some cases – harm the ‘viroment, just don’t recall that it had anything to do with the ozone layer. I’d lay my hands on the information if I can be bothered, but it is out there in google land.

  95. Infidel Tiger

    Who made money from banning CFCs? Who’s the bastard that ruined deoderant?

  96. Stonemason

    “Both demand the suspension of democracy and while Birdie wants to execute public sector workers, Hansen wants to kill fossil fuel company executives.”

    You are a dirty lying low-down wop. Its too bad it wasn’t four hundred years ago, then we could put a mustache on you, and make you the patsy for a gunpowder plot false flag.

  97. Gab

    The choice shoud be easy then. Hansen must be executed and Bird promoted.

    An instant environmental protection action right there.

  98. Gab

    The EPA did, IT. mind you, HCHC’s are still being manufactured in India and China – they just don’t advertise it. Must be a black market thing. Strange, eh?

  99. JC

    So mass sackings was never meant to be a euphemism for mass executions of public sector employees then?

  100. Stonemason

    Yes and you know that you liar. Goodness me. And you a supporter of carpet-bombing women and children. You sack them now you won’t have a breakdown and civil strife later. They get off with massive tax exemption vouchers.

  101. Infidel Tiger

    You are a dirty lying low-down wop. Its too bad it wasn’t four hundred years ago, then we could put a mustache on you, and make you the patsy for a gunpowder plot false flag.

    I say this in all seriousness. If we published a book of insults by Bird we could clean up. These are the sorts of stocking stuffer books that make millions.

    “101 ways to insult a Wop”.

    The foreword could be by Dale Carnegie.

  102. JC

    Birdie:

    I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned carpet bombing unless of course you’re suggesting that the Allies were evil for bombing Dresden in WW2.

  103. JC

    In any event, you’ve always talked about mass sackings at sporting arenas, which I sounds as though you want to round these innocents up in one area, have a talk to them and then open fire.

  104. Stonemason

    “I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned carpet bombing unless of course you’re suggesting that the Allies were evil for bombing Dresden in WW2.”

    Of course they were. This was loony-toons behavior. Certainly from an ethical perspective but from a military perspective as well. But I have to withdraw the insult. The insult to Guy Fawkes. He had acquired “Guido” as a nickname when fighting for the Spanish. He was and Englishman through and through.

    “the only man ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions”

  105. jumpnmcar

    “the only man ( or woman) ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions”

  106. Stonemason

    Fawkes was the patsy in a Protestant false flag operation to hang it on Catholics. Well so it seems. I shall look into this matter further over time. It looks like he was the victim of entrapment. At least they didn’t deep six his body at sea, like what they did to the latest patsy.

  107. .

    Fawkes was the patsy in a Protestant false flag operation to hang it on Catholics.

    James I was too fucking stupid for that gag. Charles II and Mary II were arguably the only smart Stuarts who ruled England and Scotland.

  108. Infidel Tiger

    Yeah, they’re more brain farts and rages. His calm personal abuse is actual poetry. The c-bomb attacks I don’t care for so much, unless he can make them really sing.

  109. JC

    I too would consider this insulting even though he didn’t insult anyone

    I CONSIDER MYSELF A WORLD AUTHORITY ON THE TWO SUBJECTS I’VE LEFT IN. SERIOUSLY. A WORLD AUTHORITY. AND ON MAKING ECONOMIC TRANSITIONS SMOOTH. AND ON MONETARY POLICY. THESE ARE WHERE MY EXPERTISE LIES.

  110. Stonemason

    The thing about false flags is that no-one ever gets caught. Hundreds of people can be involved and thats okay. Witnesses can be murdered and its nothing to see here. People can confess, and that doesn’t matter either. The false flag never makes it into the official histories. The official story can be ridiculous, and thats no problem. The official story can be impossible and thats actually a good thing.

    Once this is all understood then 9/11 and the dumping of the patsy’s body gets a bit more understandable. But people ought to start at the beginning and find out about false flags generally and then apply it to the one that we don’t yet know everything about.

  111. daddy dave

    The thing about false flags is that there’s no such thing.

  112. I am curious about the secret of the recent Birdian calmness on display here. Aromatherapy? Meditation? Medication?

  113. JC

    The thing about false flags is that there’s no such thing.

    I choose this one as Birdie’s response.

    YOU ARE NOT THINKING YOU BLOCKHEAD.

  114. daddy dave

    9-11 was not an inside job, and anyone who thinks it was an inside job is deluded in the strict sense of the word.

  115. JC

    Don’t be deluded dads. Of course it was an inside Job formulated by the shadow government. You gotta follow Bird’s science method be understand this.

  116. wreckage

    Here’s my question. If I were the Shadow Government and I wanted to stage 9/11…. why stage it? Why not create an Osama Bin Laden (assuming one did not exist) and simply place the necessary pieces of the idea within his reach, and then wait?

    So we’re positing a massive conspiracy of unimaginable subtlety that couldn’t organise for a terrorist to blow something up?

  117. Rafe

    Organizing the global warming panic was a much more impressive achievement than 9/11 (which was far ahead of the assassination of John F Kennedy) because so many more people had to be sucked in. Rather like the moon landing.

  118. Stonemason

    Lets make this very clear. 9/11 was definitely a false flag. It is not possible for a ragtag bunch of Peninsula sand-monkeys to knock down three buildings with two planes, and produce molten metal in all three buildings. This is not only impossible it didn’t happen that way.

    And Daddy Dave. If you just that much of a moron that you think false flags don’t exist, then stop typing. Its a fact that its a false flag. The problem isn’t determining that fact of reality. The problem is finding out how to limit further actions from these lunatics.

  119. Stonemason

    Yeah the global warming hoax is a case in point. Since we know that the Goddard figures are a rigup and the Hadley figures are a rigup, then that implies that the NOAA figures are rigged as well. Its effortless for these fellows to get everyone in line.

    Take a minor detail. The US Geological Survey is currently lying and effectively claiming that undersea volcanic activity is roughly similar to landed volcanic activity. This is beyond stupid. But the British Geological Survey is claiming the same thing.

    So if this sort of co-ordinated hoax is impossible. perhaps the moron Daddy Dave could explain how they get away with it.

  120. Stonemason

    “Here’s my question. If I were the Shadow Government and I wanted to stage 9/11…. why stage it? Why not create an Osama Bin Laden (assuming one did not exist) and simply place the necessary pieces of the idea within his reach, and then wait?”

    They got everyone’s fingerprints on it. Just for one example the amount of evidence they left around connecting Saddam to the event is extensive. And they took their time with it. But Osama cannot dustify three buildings with the seismic equipment barely registering the fall. Get it through your head: Its not possible to knock buildings down the way proposed. So they cannot get Osama to do it because no-one can do it. How is Osama going to smuggle a whole lot of metal-cutting thermate into the building. Or operate weapons that the public don’t yet know about? Or bring hurricane Erin up along the coast on that exact day?

    Since no-one ever gets caught for a false flag, no matter how many people confess, then the fact that something is totally impossible is not a negative factor in false flag design. But to rely on someone that sleeps inside a cave to pull such an impossible operation off is not a winning strategy.

  121. Infidel Tiger

    How is Osama going to smuggle a whole lot of metal-cutting thermate into the building. Or operate weapons that the public don’t yet know about? Or bring hurricane Erin up along the coast on that exact day?

    How is anyone going to do what you say happened? The assumed story is far more plausible.

    You can’t choose between high heels and sliced bread. You’re not qualified to debate this.

  122. JC

    Birdie:

    Can I suggest one thing? You know how you like posting comments here, right?

    You also know that Sinc doesn’t like these troofer stories and if he gets a gut full will ban you again.

    Stay away from the troofer stuff and you may skirt the edge of not being banned… again.

  123. Stonemason

    To do it you have to force-feed the press during the operation and destroy the crime scene after the fact. Osama and Saddam have no such capacity. The President of the United States could never get such a thing done.

  124. Infidel Tiger

    Good advice. Keep the fantasies fo the holisitic prophet think tank.

  125. Stonemason

    Don’t make suggestions JC. You are only going to bring your mindlessness into matters. This is a proven fact of reality. No-one else could do it other than the people whose job is covert ops. No Arab kids can get the airforce to stand down or to pre-prepare dozens of so-called “trial runs” to occur on that one day.

  126. C.L.

    Osama going to smuggle a whole lot of metal-cutting thermate into the building.

    He didn’t have to, Bird. He godfathered several hijackings and the men directly responsible flew a couple of planes into the buildings instead.

    It was on tele.

  127. Stonemason

    No you keep your idiotic fantasies away from it unless you can explain how Arab kids can knock buildings down in a way that barely sets off a geiger counter and that leaves molten metal in all three basements. This irrationality really has to stop.

  128. Gab

    Graeme, behave. There are consequences. Be wise.

  129. Infidel Tiger

    No-one else could do it other than the people whose job is covert ops.

    Government can’t do shit. Even shadow government. Your whole theory assumes that there is a government on earth that is competent. You should be flogged with barbed wire and then dipped in brine for that alone.

  130. daddy dave

    . It is not possible for a ragtag bunch of Peninsula sand-monkeys to knock down three buildings with two planes, and produce molten metal in all three buildings

    .

    Obviously it’s possible, because that’s what happened.
    This is what gets me about you 9-11 conspiracy theorists, is your incredulity in the face of a pretty simple proposition.

    What’s so “impossible” about hijacking a plane and flying it into a building? You don’t believe that planes can be flown? You think buildings dodge out of the way from oncoming planes? Nobody would be that stupid/clever? What? What are you stumbling on in your comprehension?

  131. Stonemason

    “He didn’t have to, Bird. He godfathered several hijackings and the men directly responsible flew a couple of planes into the buildings instead.

    It was on tele.”

    You’ve just got to get past this stupidity man. You cannot dustify three buildings with two planes, and barely registering on the geiger counter. You cannot do this and leave molten metal in all three basements. Just sort yourself out. Goodness me. And so the fact that they murdered the patsy and dumped his body at sea, that didn’t make a difference either right?

  132. Infidel Tiger

    This irrationality really has to stop.

    It sure does. But you are monomaniacal with your conspiracies. You’ve wasted a fine mind on bullshit.

  133. Stonemason

    “Obviously it’s possible, because that’s what happened.”

    NO its didn’t happen. Your lying. You yourself saw molten metal streaming from the South Tower before it fell.

    Its not possible to do this. Stop being an idiot.

  134. daddy dave

    and by the way, Graeme. This is a classic example of why you got banned last time. Note the title of this article. it’s about global warming. And yet, lookie here. What are we discussing?
    Some crazy shit that has nothing to do with the topic!

  135. daddy dave

    Its not possible to do this.

    Not possible to do what? Demolish a building?

  136. daddy dave

    Yeah, you’re right. Buildings are indestructible. I don’t know how I fell for it.

  137. Stonemason

    No infidel. You’ve just got to stop being an idiot. Things that are impossible don’t happen. You cannot knock three buildings down with two planes, and leave molten metal in all three buildings. Thats not what happened.

  138. Infidel Tiger

    A fully loaded passenger jet has flown into two scyscrapers twice in history. Both times they fell down. Both times I saw this happen.

    Prove to me that this is impossible?

  139. JC

    No Arab kids can get the airforce to stand down or to pre-prepare dozens of so-called “trial runs” to occur on that one day.

    Ummm yes they could, because they did.

    Lastly, you’re a fucking idiot.

  140. daddy dave

    You cannot knock three buildings down with two planes

    What do you imagine would have happened if two planes had been flown into the Twin Towers? The pilot would have stepped out and dismantled the building carefully, brick by brick, making sure no debris hit nearby buildings?

  141. Stonemason

    No look you guys just have to stop this fantasy. You cannot knock buildings down with planes. The shear-force would be less than that of a strong wind. The third building came down even though the first two barely showed up on the seismic graphs. There was huge amounts of gassfied iron produced which is beyond the scope of a kerosene fire.

    You can’t go on believing stuff that cannot happen.

  142. JC

    Bird,

    You’re going to get banned again. Stop the lunacy right now.

    Now I want you banned because I know you can’t behave yourself, but show me I’m incorrect.

  143. daddy dave

    The shear-force would be less than that of a strong wind.

    Now come on Graeme, You’re a smart guy. Read that sentence back and I think you’ll see it’s obviously wrong. I think you’ll see the error in your thinking. A passenger airplane at full speed is going to project massive force, much stronger than a ‘strong wind.’

  144. Stonemason

    “What do you imagine would have happened if two planes had been flown into the Twin Towers? The pilot would have stepped out and dismantled the building carefully, brick by brick, making sure no debris hit nearby buildings?”

    No they’d just fix the buildings up you twit. Like they did after they bombed the basement. Nothing would have happened to the Towers if it was just two planes. It is obvious and undeniable that the two buildings would still be standing.

  145. Stonemason

    No the shear-force on the building taken as an whole is less than a strong wind. The planes would have been ripped apart, the kerosene all used up in a very small amount of time. No basis for the building to fall at all. Its just not possible. No-one has an explanation for it and such explanations as exist don’t explain all the bombs going off.

  146. Infidel Tiger

    You’d never want to play Jenga with Bird, he’d refuse to believe the blocks call fall over.

  147. daddy dave

    It is obvious and undeniable that the two buildings would still be standing.

    It is neither. However it’s late and I don’t have time to give you a physics lesson. Essentially the planes had the same effect as two large bombs being detonated in the buildings.

    The force from a passenger plane at full speed is fucking immense. Thousands of times stronger than a strong wind. And a building is a complex structure and the specific way that the damage will manifest is situation dependent and hard to predict in advance.

  148. Gab

    You can’t help yourself, Graeme, can you? You’re like an old drunk staring at a blank wall and yelling “c’mon, I’ll ‘ave ya”.

    Stop it. Or you will be thrown outta this fine establishment.

  149. JC

    You cannot knock buildings down with planes.

    The planes did NOT knock down the buildings you fucking imbecile. The fire and heat caused the buildings to go down as the WTC was built with the outer jacket holding the floors and once one level gave way it basically “conertinered” onto the next floor which could not take the weight and so on.

    STFU bird.

  150. daddy dave

    No the shear-force on the building taken as an whole is less than a strong wind. The planes would have been ripped apart, the kerosene all used up in a very small amount of time.

    Whoever told you that knows less physics than they claim to know.

  151. Stonemason

    There’s no basis for the buildings to dustify and essentially disappear leaving a people looking at blue sky out of the third floor. Buildings don’t just disappear in that way. Such steel girders that managed to survive were diagonally cut. The idea that Arab kids could pull that off is beyond fantasy. Nor could they feed the media the one story first thing in the morning.

  152. JC

    The outer jacket steel structure/Skin literally melted, Bird, you imbecile.

  153. Stonemason

    No thats just the reality. The planes are small. The buildings are large. The building has to stand up to strong winds all the way up.

  154. Stonemason

    “The outer jacket steel structure/Skin literally melted”

    Not from kerosense it didn’t. You are arguing my case.

  155. JC

    The planes would have been ripped apart, the kerosene all used up in a very small amount of time.

    The planes were loaded with jet fuel to make a continental crossings, you appalling moron. The “Arab kiddies” chose well because they chose big planes that were pregnant with fuel on-board and the idea was to cause the building to go down with the sheer heat melting the steel.

    Bird, you deserve a serious smack across the ears,

  156. Stonemason

    Arabs cannot evade security and place bombs all through the buildings. They cannot get one of the Bush brothers to be a director of the security company so as to have more peoples footprints on the whole affair. They cannot arrange for a nine month overhaul of the lifts immediately prior.

  157. Infidel Tiger

    The “Arab kiddies” chose well because they chose big planes that were pregnant with fuel on-board and the idea was to cause the building to go down with the sheer heat melting the steel.

    Actually they never thought the buildings would fall. It was a lovely little bonus for the camel molesting dervishes.

  158. Infidel Tiger

    Arabs cannot evade security and place bombs all through the buildings.

    No one can and no one did.

  159. JC

    Not from kerosense it didn’t. You are arguing my case.

    The outer skin melted at the floor level they hit the buildings and once one floor went the weight could not be held and the structure above fell on top of it and so on.

    You really are a fucking idiot.

    I hope you’re banned again.

    Go away.

  160. Stonemason

    A kerosene fire cannot melt structural steel in the minute or so that it could have burnt for Cambria. You might think it can but it cannot. The temperatures were way too high for such a fire.

  161. JC

    Actually they never thought the buildings would fall. It was a lovely little bonus for the camel molesting dervishes.

    Really? huh.

  162. Stonemason

    Look you’ve just got to stop this idiocy people. The story is a false flag because the government story cannot happen. Its literally physically impossible.

    So just stop the fantasy and get with the reality.

  163. Stonemason

    “The outer skin melted at the floor level they hit the buildings and once one floor went the weight could not be held and the structure above fell on top of it and so on.”

    No two planes with kerosene in them had no capacity to do this.

  164. JC

    A kerosene fire cannot melt structural steel in the minute or so that it could have burnt for Cambria. You might think it can but it cannot. The temperatures were way too high for such a fire.

    Okay bird, here’s a fucking experiment for you. Go buy the equal number of gallons of jet fuel used by a 767, or even kero. Go to a safe place, stick structural steel on top of it of equal grade that was used on the outer skin of the WTC and tell me if the shit doesn’t melt.

    Off you go.

    Fucking moron.

  165. JC

    No two planes with kerosene in them had no capacity to do this.

    You are an impossible idiot.

  166. Stonemason

    “On May 3, 2011, radio host Alex Jones aired an interview in which Dr. Pieczenik claimed that Osama Bin Laden had died of Marfan syndrome back in July 2002, and that the attacks on the United States on 9/11 were part of a false flag operation by the American government.[29]”

    People who have worked near the top come out with this information all the time but it is of no consequence. A court of law found that Martin Luther King Junior had been murdered by the government. But there is no follow-up to this; The press didn’t show up for the trial and there was no subsequent investigation and arrests.

    Who was arrested over the Tonking Gulf incident? No-one. But the government admitted in 2005 that it was a false flag. One CIA bigshot and two of the shooters have confessed to involvement in the Kennedy hit. But thats no problem for the Oswald believers. No-one was arrested over the sinking of the Maine because people are never arrested for false flags. The fellow who broke Pattons neck with a cushion bullet confessed. He told an author about it. In detail. But this will never enter the kids textbooks.

    So the upshot is that the continued fantasizing about Arabs, who can never organize anything at home or abroad, as being able to do the impossible and defy physical reality ……. this is not merely moronic. Its unethical because it puts us at the mercy of criminals and it means that this sort of behavior must continue.

Comments are closed.