Are we really in a period of record heat? Or is that claim a load of dino dung?
Dr Willie Soon travels back to the time of the dinosaurs to debunk this global warming whopper.
Check out our WEBSITE: https://watchgorillascience.com/
SUBSCRIBE to our YOUTUBE: / @watchgorillascience
FOLLOW us on X: https://x.com/WatchGorillaSci
And LIKE us on Facebook: / 61569065699397
GORILLA SCIENCE has been set up by rebels from the world of mainstream media. Our aim? To challenge the flagrant lies and double-speak of governments, the media, the educational establishment and others.
We are lovers of the scientific method, and a thorn in the side of our corrupt publicly-funded scientific establishment. We desperately need your financial help. GORILLA SCIENCE is unique. We are not funded by Big Oil or Big Coal. The cheque hasn’t arrived. So please help.
Dr. Willie hit Number 2 and number 5 on the list.
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
Repeat as necessary….
Dr. Willie Soon looks like he is having fun with this video. As usual, he is right on. As a geologist that has worked extensively in the Mesozoic Neuquen Basin, Argentina, walking many miles past both terrestrial records including petrified wood and dinosaur fossils (the most dinosaur fossil bones I saw in one day was about 2,000), and in the marine environment patch reefs were common and loaded with fossils, like Trigonia Sp. (an ornamented “clam”) and ammonites (up to a meter across, and always decorated with barnacles), the paleo-climate indicators were always on the warm to hot side. If the higher CO2 and warmer environment worked for dinosaurs, it shirley is a good environment for us humans. Bring it.
Have you visited the Tanis site in Hell Creek, North Dakota? The only site where fossils have been found right on the KT boundary.
There is controversy about the interpretation of those findings.
Yes, because a non academic found them. No a member of the club you finds don’t count.
I would argue that our political elite(s) fit the description of dinosaurs very comfortably. Yesterday, Rachel from accounts was bigging up her growth idea at the expense of the green agenda. Her saviour, apparently, is the sudden gushing of ‘sustainable aviation fuels’:
“She was asked on BBC Breakfast why she previously opposed the expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport in 2020. She said at the time that expansion would: “significantly increase air and noise pollution in the area around the airport and undermine vital efforts to ensure that Leeds upholds its commitment to become a carbon neutral city by 2030. There is also the risk that a potential increase in passengers…would exacerbate existing issues with traffic congestion and vehicle emissions. With the ongoing climate emergency, we need to invest in alternative carbon-friendly modes of transport which cause less damage to our environment.”
https://order-order.com/#_@/wJLubnJnb8s3yA
What do they mean by sustainable?
“is very similar in its chemistry to traditional fossil jet fuel.”
Of course it is.
“SAF results in a reduction in carbon emissions compared to the traditional jet fuel it replaces over the lifecycle of the fuel. “
https://www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/news-and-views/views/what-is-sustainable-aviation-fuel-saf-and-why-is-it-important.html
It’s another Drax delusion. From a bunch of alarmist dinosaurs.
Good comments, Strativarius. “With the ongoing climate emergency”? Could someone ask Rachel what the ratio of heaters versus air conditioners is in England? Oh, never mind.
I would counsel that one asks somebody else, Ron… Someone with a brain.
“Despite boasting of her background in financial services, asked very clearly what the current national debt was, newly elected Rachel Reeves replied: “£156 billion” – the size of the UK budget deficit when the Tories came to power in 2010. […] For the record the UK’s debt at the time was around £0.76 trillion”
https://order-order.com/2015/04/01/on-camera-rachel-reeves-confuses-debt-and-deficit/
Not even close… As for that “background in financial services”….
Rachel Reeves’ “Bank Economist” Myth Busted
https://order-order.com/2024/10/24/rachel-reeves-bank-economist-myth-busted/
.
Hence Rachel from Accounts (Customer Complaints Dept)
For many it’s a delusion, for some it’s illusion. Accountants are imaginative enough to carry out this fraud.
I know a bit about the chemistry of SAF and traditional fossil jet. Fundamentally, each is combusted to carbon dioxide and water.
There is a piece missing here.
Some time ago the late Dr Kirk Smith, he of an ivory tower called Berkeley, pronounced that kerosene is a “dirty fuel” along with wood and coal. How well they were burned (even perfectly with FLOX – see Japan) is irrelevant, of course – it is a fact-free assertion. All evidence is superfluous. This was turned into a WHO declaration that there were “clean fuels” and “dirty fuels”. LPG is clean, of course because that’s what the WLPGA said.
Jet fuel (e.g. JET-A) is kerosene with a little antifreeze in it. So bio-jet fuel is really biokerosene with a little antifreeze in it. The reason they use it in aircraft is for safety and power. Pour a little in a jar lid and try to ignite it with a lighter.
The energy content is the same as diesel. Kerosene is approximately C9H20 to C20H42. Diesel is C16H34 to C22H46. They are both “paraffins”. Huge overlap in chemistry. BTW diesel is also “dirty” but biodiesel is “clean”.
So how can bio-jet fuel be “clean” while biokerosene is inherently “dirty”? That seems to be an awfully convenient rule if you sell propane. Well, one reason is that kerosene is the main competitor of LPG. It is safer, easier to transport, costs less per MJ and can be safely traded by the public back and forth in small quantities. Japan uses huge quantities to generate electricity, without a flame: see FLOX. Perfect combustion.
If you sell gases, it is best to classify it is “dirty” if you can get control of the levers at the WHO. Obviously, someone did. Not mentioning any names…
According to the WHO (and indeed many others) biokerosene is inherently “dirty” because English people would call it paraffin which is on the “dirty list”. Bio-Jet-A on the other hand, is both sustainable and “clean” for political reasons, mainly because aircraft don’t fly on propane, butane or natural gas.
“We are not funded by Big Oil or Big Coal.”
Maybe they should help fund you- and if they do, nothing to be ashamed of- it’s all in the quest to advance the truth.
Story tip
The proposed Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea have been ruled unlawful by the Court of Session in Edinburgh. The Conservative government granted permission for drilling in untapped fields off Shetland and Aberdeen, despite the objections of environmental groups.
However, a challenge was brought by Uplift and Greenpeace based on the failure to consider the impact of burning the oil and gas generated by the new developments in the Environmental Impact Assessment. The UK government announced in August last year that it would not seek to challenge the judicial review, which was heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
Shell, which owns the Jackdaw gas field, and Equinor and Ithica Energy which own Rosebank, will have to submit new environmental assessments to the UK government for consideration.”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24894985.rosebank-jackdaw-oil-gas-fields-ruled-unlawful/
We’re on the road to nowhere.
Just wondering if Uplift and Greenpeace cared to bring an EIS challenge for the site and operation of the massive, 2.6 GW nameplate capacity, Drax biomass (read that as tree burning) power plant located in North Yorkshire, England.
Perhaps they, or even the high court justices themselves, were otherwise preoccupied at the time with the golf courses in and around Edinburgh?
/sarc
Strativarius,
It seems obvious to me, not versed in the law, that Uplift and Greenpeace should demonstrate and specify what the environmental impact would,be, i.e. quantify it. I don’t believe they can so the case would be weak?
It seems that what the claim is must be bad is assumed but with no supporting evidence.
Are the defendants and their legal section accepting what is assumed?
Wallace Manheimer provided a graph that supports what Soon is saying:
Source: Davis, W. J. (2017). The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years. Climate, 5(4), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli5040076
I approve this message and I shared it.
Absolutely marvelous!