Best Places to Live During Climate Change

[VaughnB]

http://bestplacestobeforclimate.blogspot.com/2009/04/best-places-to-survive-climate-change.html

BASICS - Food, Water and Economic Stability
1st world nations that have wealth - Europe, U.S.A. You'll have some semblance of security during chaotic economic shifts and social order breakdowns.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - Health-care, employment, personal safety.In the event dramatic shifts in the climate causing extreme poverty and chaos among the third world; terrorism and violence among city states and even our own communities will become prevalent.

RELOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS


Avoid shorelines, arid climates, seek either tropical or marine temperate climates.
Avoid large and medium population centers.
Consider rural environments and even prepare as in a survivalist mentality with a protective perimeter around your home, a safe house, a 6 month supply of dry goods and access to potable water.
Maintain basic supplies, medicines, tools and become self-sufficient as is possible in energy, water, and food.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9wM-p8wTq4

[eric charles]

Well this is just my opinion , I live in what we call the most solid land mass in the world called the Canadian Sheild http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield

we have what we seem pretty consistent weather , and no earthquakes or very minimal . a very very rare Tornado once in a while very minor wich cause very minimal damages . But winters are harsh as always been here , 2ft of snow fall overnight isnt very uncommon hahahahahaa , last year we got i think was a 6ft drop over a storm period of 2 days , man that was wicked fun

This is just my opinion though

[RMorgan]

Well this is just my opinion , I live in what we call the most solid land mass in the world called the Canadian Sheild http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield

we have what we seem pretty consistent weather , and no earthquakes or very minimal . a very very rare Tornado once in a while very minor wich cause very minimal damages . But winters are harsh as always been here , 2ft of snow fall overnight isnt very uncommon hahahahahaa , last year we got i think was a 6ft drop over a storm period of 2 days , man that was wicked fun

This is just my opinion though

Well Eric, who knows...In case of a drastic climate change, the Canadian Shield might become hot as hell! :)

I live in Minas Gerais state, in Brazil. My city is 700m above see level, but we have much higher places in the state. We´re about 500km from the closest beach. The climate here is nice, a little bit hot in summer, about 32°C maximum and a little bit colder on winters, about 5°C minimum.

Cheers,

Raf.

[eric charles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drummondville

we get -40deg in winter , summer avg 25-28deg C ,elevation is 1200ft

[RMorgan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drummondville

we get -40deg in winter , summer avg 25-28deg C ,elevation is 1200ft

Man, I can´t even imagine how cold -40°C might be!! The colder I got in my whole life was about -5°C, and it was damn cold for my standards! :)

[jackovesk]

http://bestplacestobeforclimate.blogspot.com/2009/04/best-places-to-survive-climate-change.html

BASICS - Food, Water and Economic Stability
1st world nations that have wealth - Europe, U.S.A. You'll have some semblance of security during chaotic economic shifts and social order breakdowns.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - Health-care, employment, personal safety.In the event dramatic shifts in the climate causing extreme poverty and chaos among the third world; terrorism and violence among city states and even our own communities will become prevalent.

RELOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS


Avoid shorelines, arid climates, seek either tropical or marine temperate climates.
Avoid large and medium population centers.
Consider rural environments and even prepare as in a survivalist mentality with a protective perimeter around your home, a safe house, a 6 month supply of dry goods and access to potable water.
Maintain basic supplies, medicines, tools and become self-sufficient as is possible in energy, water, and food.



Define: Climate Change..?

I just read this article...

http://bestplacestobeforclimate.blogspot.com/2009/04/best-places-to-survive-climate-change.html


(The UN council on Climate Change keeps changing it's predictions.) They escalate by magnitudes, as when it was predicated about the onset of level 5 hurricanes in the Gulf would start occurring in the next century. Well after Katrina, Hugo etc. we know how wrong they were. No one on the Gulf Coast can get insurance, everyone's TV in hurricane season is tuned to the weather channel wondering, "Are we next?".


The UN council on Climate Change - Say NO more..!


We've hit peak oil at $147/barrel in 2008 which sent the markets reeling. When are we going to wake up? We are really in a big crisis on so many fronts. There is a way out getting beyond elite energy to distributed energy.

Peak Oil - Are you serious..?

This is just 'Fearmongering' NWO Globalist (UN) BS..!

Time to get you hands dirty and do some proper research..!

How do you think the NWO Globalist (UN) are going to fund their One World Govt. & Currency..?

Instead of listening to NWO Globalist (UN) 'Fairy Tales'..!

Wake Up..!

PS - Nothing personal, but this Climate Change (SCAM) really pisses me off.

PSS - Feel Free to (Challenge Me) on anything I have said 'above', I would only be too happy to oblige...


Here's some Real TRUTH for starters...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15884-FINALLY-an-MSM-Journalist-Tells-the-Truth--Carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-CO2--

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16144-Physics-Professor-EXPOSES-Scientist-Created-Global-Warming-Fraud..-

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?14206-This-GLOBAL-WARMING-doesn--t-seem-to-be-doing-its-job-

http://www.sl-webs.com/custimages/dd395-Church%20(S).jpg

[Oriondas]

I don't believe in global warming, I think it is a very clever con job that has been done on every one, like nearly all the other one's.People have forgotten about the Sun, that is where the heat is coming from. The Sun has been acting up big time has anyone noticed?,and why take the earth for granted? what makes people think the earth might stay the way it is, it can become a star any time it feels like. People forget the earth is a living being with feelings just like us, we are like fleas on the dog,what do dogs do when they get an itch.Speak to Mother Earth ask her what she is doing.

[VaughnB]

I'm not here to promote anxiety or fear.

I believe we can survive this, we certainly survived the last ice age. It was just a heads up.
Even if you just go to Walmart and buy a REAL emergency kit, not those auto/camping ones, stock some canned goods, get a water purifier for $35. Maybe even buy some seeds, non GMO/hybrids.

Most people won't be able to uproot and move, it's just very difficult, which I understand. Unfortunately, when humans get hungry after 3 weeks, are out of water for 72 hours things can get pretty desperate especially if the people are armed.

You saw what happened on the E. Coast of the U.S. when just a single capacitor blew out, that's how fragile our grid is. Our society is so dependent upon electrical energy for everything. Unlike the last CME [coronal mass ejection] in the late 1800s when we just had telegraph wires melting.

We've a 14 hour window from our solar satellite early warning system for CMEs, in which they could shutdown the entire grid, but I feel that's unlikely with the bureaucracy we have in place, example Katrina.

Undoubtedly with our global population reaching near 8 billion, and resources reaching their limits, climatic, solar and geologic events will take their toll in catastrophic proportions [millions of deaths, more from famine, diseases after societal breakdown]

That's why I emphasized VERY RURAL, low populated areas:
Stage 1: Become Self-Sustaining
Stage 2: Make Your Neighbors Sustainable [this forms a cushion surrounding your vicinity]
Stage 3: Expand to your community

Attributes: Fertile soil, temperate climate, running water [hydro] crops, etc., trees, min. of 8 hrs solar radiance in winter

[eric charles]

I don't believe in global warming, I think it is a very clever con job that has been done on every one, like nearly all the other one's.People have forgotten about the Sun, that is where the heat is coming from. The Sun has been acting up big time has anyone noticed?,and why take the earth for granted? what makes people think the earth might stay the way it is, it can become a star any time it feels like. People forget the earth is a living being with feelings just like us, we are like fleas on the dog,what do dogs do when they get an itch.Speak to Mother Earth ask her what she is doing.

Very true , Also , all the other planets in our solar system have showed numerous climate changesalso over the past decade

[mosquito]

Economic stability.

The USA ?????

[ViralSpiral]

Economic stability.

The USA ?????



Lol!!!
Yes, lets follow the money!

Did you see that Obama (or his puppet-masters) wanted to tax freshly cut Christmas trees by 15cents?

" The U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to delay implementation and revisit a proposed new 15 cent fee on fresh-cut Christmas trees, sources tell ABC News. The fee, requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009, was first announced in the Federal Registry yesterday and has generated criticism of President Obama from conservative media outlets.

The well-trafficked Drudge Report is leading with the story, linking to a blog by David Addington, a former top aide to then-Vice President Dick Cheney, at the conservative Heritage Foundation assailing the president thus: “The economy is barely growing and nine percent of the American people have no jobs. Is a new tax on Christmas trees the best President Obama can do? And, by the way, the American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn’t need any help from the government.”

The National Christmas Tree Association says the fee would fund a program “designed to benefit the industry and will be funded by the growers” and is “not expected to have any impact on the final price consumers pay for their Christmas tree.” According to the Federal Registry, the proposed Christmas Tree Promotion Board, which would be funded by the new fee, would launch a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” and to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States.”

[Simonm]

Check out a video, found on youtube called "Global warming - Doomsday called off". Climate descibed by real scientists, not IPCC money making scams and doomsayers. The planet is warming, but watch the reasons why.

[music]

http://bestplacestobeforclimate.blogspot.com/2009/04/best-places-to-survive-climate-change.html

BASICS - Food, Water and Economic Stability
1st world nations that have wealth - Europe, U.S.A. You'll have some semblance of security during chaotic economic shifts and social order breakdowns.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - Health-care, employment, personal safety.In the event dramatic shifts in the climate causing extreme poverty and chaos among the third world; terrorism and violence among city states and even our own communities will become prevalent.

RELOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS


Avoid shorelines, arid climates, seek either tropical or marine temperate climates.
Avoid large and medium population centers.
Consider rural environments and even prepare as in a survivalist mentality with a protective perimeter around your home, a safe house, a 6 month supply of dry goods and access to potable water.
Maintain basic supplies, medicines, tools and become self-sufficient as is possible in energy, water, and food.



Define: Climate Change..?

I just read this article...

http://bestplacestobeforclimate.blogspot.com/2009/04/best-places-to-survive-climate-change.html


(The UN council on Climate Change keeps changing it's predictions.) They escalate by magnitudes, as when it was predicated about the onset of level 5 hurricanes in the Gulf would start occurring in the next century. Well after Katrina, Hugo etc. we know how wrong they were. No one on the Gulf Coast can get insurance, everyone's TV in hurricane season is tuned to the weather channel wondering, "Are we next?".


The UN council on Climate Change - Say NO more..!


We've hit peak oil at $147/barrel in 2008 which sent the markets reeling. When are we going to wake up? We are really in a big crisis on so many fronts. There is a way out getting beyond elite energy to distributed energy.

Peak Oil - Are you serious..?

This is just 'Fearmongering' NWO Globalist (UN) BS..!

Time to get you hands dirty and do some proper research..!

How do you think the NWO Globalist (UN) are going to fund their One World Govt. & Currency..?

Instead of listening to NWO Globalist (UN) 'Fairy Tales'..!

Wake Up..!

PS - Nothing personal, but this Climate Change (SCAM) really pisses me off.

PSS - Feel Free to (Challenge Me) on anything I have said 'above', I would only be too happy to oblige...


Here's some Real TRUTH for starters...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15884-FINALLY-an-MSM-Journalist-Tells-the-Truth--Carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-CO2--

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16144-Physics-Professor-EXPOSES-Scientist-Created-Global-Warming-Fraud..-

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?14206-This-GLOBAL-WARMING-doesn--t-seem-to-be-doing-its-job-

http://www.sl-webs.com/custimages/dd395-Church%20(S).jpg

I will get back to this if you don't mind, my partner and I are having some together time tonight. I am going to be a little harsh here, but that is your general tone, and I feel strongly that your view on this is erroneous and dangerous. I may be wrong, but I assume you have no more than a fundamental understanding of the basics of organic chemistry, and the complex interplay between all of the earth's cycles, including thermohyaline circulation, so my reply will take a while to frame. I don't expect to change your view, but I may prevent others from buying your unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are certain physical properties of our world that the NWO can not alter at will. In fact, I'll just provide my case in a post come to think of it, and by all means feel free to join in on a perusal of facts pertaining to the physical properties of our universe.

But I will say, if people are convinced by things like this http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15884-FINALLY-an-MSM-Journalist-Tells-the-Truth--Carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-CO2-- then God help us. That, my friend, is what is known as yellow journalism.

[parcival]

Come to Florida.

The weather's a delight (80 degrees today); the casinos are full of people with lots of money; the beaches are pristine; most inhabitants are obese, so obviously food is plentiful; you'll live to a ripe old age; tons of doctors and hospitals for when you get a little ill.

I cannot fathom why people live in cold climates when you have a tropical state in the USA. It's like being in St. Martin 365 days/year.

[Jonathon]

I moved my family and myself, in an act of full faith and trust, to the sunny southern California coast - right in the heart of major earthquake and tsunami zones. As for the possible storms etc - I am looking forward to better surf =)

[GlassSteagallfan]

Hmmm...
I thought that we were in global cooling since the '70's and the global warming fear mongering would provide Carbon Taxes to fund the NWO.

[christian]

Peak Oil - Are you serious..?

This is just 'Fearmongering' NWO Globalist (UN) BS..!

Time to get you hands dirty and do some proper research..!

How do you think the NWO Globalist (UN) are going to fund their One World Govt. & Currency..?

Instead of listening to NWO Globalist (UN) 'Fairy Tales'..!

Wake Up..!

PS - Nothing personal, but this Climate Change (SCAM) really pisses me off.

PSS - Feel Free to (Challenge Me) on anything I have said 'above', I would only be too happy to oblige...


Here's some Real TRUTH for starters...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15884-FINALLY-an-MSM-Journalist-Tells-the-Truth--Carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-CO2--

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16144-Physics-Professor-EXPOSES-Scientist-Created-Global-Warming-Fraud..-

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?14206-This-GLOBAL-WARMING-doesn--t-seem-to-be-doing-its-job-

I will get back to this if you don't mind, my partner and I are having some together time tonight. I am going to be a little harsh here, but that is your general tone, and I feel strongly that your view on this is erroneous and dangerous. I may be wrong, but I assume you have no more than a fundamental understanding of the basics of organic chemistry, and the complex interplay between all of the earth's cycles, including thermohyaline circulation, so my reply will take a while to frame. I don't expect to change your view, but I may prevent others from buying your unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are certain physical properties of our world that the NWO can not alter at will. In fact, I'll just provide my case in a post come to think of it, and by all means feel free to join in on a perusal of facts pertaining to the physical properties of our universe.

But I will say, if people are convinced by things like this http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15884-FINALLY-an-MSM-Journalist-Tells-the-Truth--Carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-CO2-- then God help us. That, my friend, is what is known as yellow journalism.

Music, a couple of points: No need to be harsh, and don't make excuses for being so. Secondly, I'd appreciate you challenging the facts instead of attacking someone ad hominem. You just dropped some scientific terms there.

-----

This is from a 2009 article (http://www.infowars.com/the-road-to-copenhagen-part-i-the-club-of-rome/) from infowars.com:



In the 1991 publication “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome” (http://books.google.nl/books?id=8RNKHGbzUuAC&dq=The+First+Global+Revolution:+A+Report+to+the+Club+of+Rome&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=FNssPXH43F&sig=Mb8zEquO9_hLyT3_30P0YBYv2qY&hl=nl&ei=3Jj-SpzoBorJ-Qai7ZzwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false) by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

[music]

Peak Oil - Are you serious..?

This is just 'Fearmongering' NWO Globalist (UN) BS..!

Time to get you hands dirty and do some proper research..!

How do you think the NWO Globalist (UN) are going to fund their One World Govt. & Currency..?

Instead of listening to NWO Globalist (UN) 'Fairy Tales'..!

Wake Up..!

PS - Nothing personal, but this Climate Change (SCAM) really pisses me off.

PSS - Feel Free to (Challenge Me) on anything I have said 'above', I would only be too happy to oblige...


Here's some Real TRUTH for starters...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15884-FINALLY-an-MSM-Journalist-Tells-the-Truth--Carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-CO2--

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?16144-Physics-Professor-EXPOSES-Scientist-Created-Global-Warming-Fraud..-

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?14206-This-GLOBAL-WARMING-doesn--t-seem-to-be-doing-its-job-

I will get back to this if you don't mind, my partner and I are having some together time tonight. I am going to be a little harsh here, but that is your general tone, and I feel strongly that your view on this is erroneous and dangerous. I may be wrong, but I assume you have no more than a fundamental understanding of the basics of organic chemistry, and the complex interplay between all of the earth's cycles, including thermohyaline circulation, so my reply will take a while to frame. I don't expect to change your view, but I may prevent others from buying your unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are certain physical properties of our world that the NWO can not alter at will. In fact, I'll just provide my case in a post come to think of it, and by all means feel free to join in on a perusal of facts pertaining to the physical properties of our universe.

But I will say, if people are convinced by things like this http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15884-FINALLY-an-MSM-Journalist-Tells-the-Truth--Carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-CO2-- then God help us. That, my friend, is what is known as yellow journalism.

Music, a couple of points: No need to be harsh, and don't make excuses for being so. Secondly, I'd appreciate you challenging the facts instead of attacking someone ad hominem. You just dropped some scientific terms there.

-----

This is from a 2009 article (http://www.infowars.com/the-road-to-copenhagen-part-i-the-club-of-rome/) from infowars.com:



In the 1991 publication “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome” (http://books.google.nl/books?id=8RNKHGbzUuAC&dq=The+First+Global+Revolution:+A+Report+to+the+Club+of+Rome&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=FNssPXH43F&sig=Mb8zEquO9_hLyT3_30P0YBYv2qY&hl=nl&ei=3Jj-SpzoBorJ-Qai7ZzwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false) by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

We need to differentiate here between:

1) what are verifiable scientific facts extrapolated across multiple complex systems of which we are yet to have a complete understanding, resulting in recommendations of best practice to avoid disaster (climate change issue), and;

2) the use of this scenario by the elites to further their own ends (agendas such as the divisive carbon tax debate)

Just because this is being used (and it is being used), it does not change the facts. We have one planet to live on, and the safeguarding of that planet is our number one priority. We are caretakers of not only the planet, but all forms of life that we have made subordinate and dependent upon our whim. We have a moral obligation not just to ourselves and future generations, but to all life on this planet. Are we mature beings, or are we children who will destroy our home while squabbling over the toys?

[christian]

Perfectly fine. I'm all for being a mature stewart of this lovely planet.

Yet I still wonder what about jackovesk's statements you found dangerous and why you do so. The way I see it, he simply puts his finger on the elite's scheme, where they use the disguise of environmentalism to further their agenda. The reasons and solutions the elite presents regarding climate change are made up. - But of course there are real environmental issues and of course these should be dealt with, nobody here says we should not care about the environment, I figure. You were questioning jacko's scientific understanding, what exactly were you referring to or do I have something completly wrong here?

[music]

Perfectly fine. I'm all for being a mature stewart of this lovely planet.

Yet I still wonder what about jackovesk's statements you found dangerous and why you do so. The way I see it, he simply puts his finger on the elite's scheme, where they use the disguise of environmentalism to further their agenda. The reasons and solutions the elite presents regarding climate change are made up. - But of course there are real environmental issues and of course these should be dealt with, nobody here says we should not care about the environment, I figure. You were questioning jacko's scientific understanding, what exactly were you referring to or do I have something completly wrong here?

The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. While most of jackovesk's posts are informative, he has such a bee in his bonnet about the whole climate change issue, that he is a focal point here for people who totally deny the possibility that we are in danger of rendering this planet highly inhospitable to us. I also take issue with his "proof", yellow jounalism that nit-picks things like the term carbon being used instead of CO2. Carbon is a highly common and fairly innocuous element on it's own, but it is not a gas, and to be transported into the environment as a "pollutant", it mostly must be entrained with oxygen or hydrogen. Everybody with any science knows that, but the carbon debate is framed to address the source of CO2 or CH4 or CO, and to ensure as much C remains sequestered within the environment in it's inert state. The issue isn't that we breath out CO2 (which the herioc MSM journalist needlessly points out in the article I refer to above), the issue is the amount of gaseous carbon in the atmosphere. The only thing that has given us a safety net so far is that the sea naturally sequesters excess CO2 at the moment, but we have no idea of the ultimate capacity for it to do so. Excess sequestered C in the seas also has an effect on thermohyaline circulation, another disaster in the making. It is complex, and real, and treating it as a hobby-horse and Gillard bashing exercise detracts from the issue. So, yes, it is dangerous.

[christian]

The issue isn't that we breath out CO2 (which the herioc MSM journalist needlessly points out in the article I refer to above), the issue is the amount of gaseous carbon in the atmosphere. The only thing that has given us a safety net so far is that the sea naturally sequesters excess CO2 at the moment, but we have no idea of the ultimate capacity for it to do so. Excess sequestered C in the seas also has an effect on thermohyaline circulation, another disaster in the making. It is complex, and real, and treating it as a hobby-horse and Gillard bashing exercise detracts from the issue. So, yes, it is dangerous.

So the oceans will not be able to contain any more CO2? Why, and if it happens, what then?
Now how exactly do you consider CO2 to be a danger to the planet, what are the mechanisms and how do you think this should be tackled?

Some points I just found on isthereglobalcooling.com (http://isthereglobalcooling.com/)

* atmospheric CO2 levels are today among the lowest in the last 545 million years link (http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.jpg)

* The increase in CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere since 1750 is only 1/10,000th, or (100ppm). link (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor141728)

* CO2 is a trace gas. It is less than 4/100ths of one percent of gases in the atmosphere. link (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor141728)

* of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enters into the atmosphere yearly only 3.2% is from human activity, the rest is from the oceans, volcanoes, and decaying plant matter. link (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor141728)

* CO2 levels closely follow temperature link (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/) [and temperature follows sunspot activity, I figure]

--- and many many more, you find it on the site.

To me the CO2 issue looks like a red herring.

4SN1d3BE3GI

[music]

This is context base, and largely supports my case, which I will demonstrate in my post later. Right now, the sun is shining, and I am going to the markets with my family. Enjoy the rest of your day.

[music]

The issue isn't that we breath out CO2 (which the herioc MSM journalist needlessly points out in the article I refer to above), the issue is the amount of gaseous carbon in the atmosphere. The only thing that has given us a safety net so far is that the sea naturally sequesters excess CO2 at the moment, but we have no idea of the ultimate capacity for it to do so. Excess sequestered C in the seas also has an effect on thermohyaline circulation, another disaster in the making. It is complex, and real, and treating it as a hobby-horse and Gillard bashing exercise detracts from the issue. So, yes, it is dangerous.

So the oceans will not be able to contain any more CO2? Why, and if it happens, what then?
Now how exactly do you consider CO2 to be a danger to the planet, what are the mechanisms and how do you think this should be tackled?

Some points I just found on isthereglobalcooling.com (http://isthereglobalcooling.com/)

* atmospheric CO2 levels are today among the lowest in the last 545 million years link (http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.jpg)

* The increase in CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere since 1750 is only 1/10,000th, or (100ppm). link (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor141728)

* CO2 is a trace gas. It is less than 4/100ths of one percent of gases in the atmosphere. link (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor141728)

* of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enters into the atmosphere yearly only 3.2% is from human activity, the rest is from the oceans, volcanoes, and decaying plant matter. link (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor141728)

* CO2 levels closely follow temperature link (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/) [and temperature follows sunspot activity, I figure]

--- and many many more, you find it on the site.

To me the CO2 issue looks like a red herring.



CO2 concentration lags temps from WUWT is seemingly OK. BUT, I would say this is explainable by Henry's Law, which deals with the absorption of gases by liquid. Cold water absorbs up to 30% more CO2 from memory. There are also potential issues with differences in metabolic rates (plant and chemical) at different temperatures, and the liberation of deep sea methane ice, and it's oxidation to CO2 upon exposure. The methane issue is complex, and not strictly my field, but I would suggest methane never be overlooked.

The website the majority of the links are from is about as scientific as the last thing I laid in my toilet. While it is true that the Holocene Maximum was the hottest time during human history (a 1 degree blip), this occurred at a time when our climate was approaching equilibrium. So it is an ocilation. It is not, however, the hottest time ever "recorded" on the earth. That honour is reserved for those times when you so rightly point out, we had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.


http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k543/music432/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.jpg

Here we have the graph you linked to showing CO2 concentrations

http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k543/music432/800px-All_palaeotemps.png

And this shows global temperature averages for the same time period. If you line up the time periods, it's a pretty good match.

Not a perfect match, however, because it isn't as straightforward as all that. I will hit all the complexities when I have time to post in full on this subject.

[christian]

Now what's your point, I thought you'd make a case for CO2 being a danger after all?

Not only I am curious, but those folks eager to implement carbon taxes whose agents read here cannot wait for a story that actually makes sense :biggrin1:

[jackovesk]

Perfectly fine. I'm all for being a mature stewart of this lovely planet.

Yet I still wonder what about jackovesk's statements you found dangerous and why you do so. The way I see it, he simply puts his finger on the elite's scheme, where they use the disguise of environmentalism to further their agenda. The reasons and solutions the elite presents regarding climate change are made up. - But of course there are real environmental issues and of course these should be dealt with, nobody here says we should not care about the environment, I figure. You were questioning jacko's scientific understanding, what exactly were you referring to or do I have something completly wrong here?

The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. While most of jackovesk's posts are informative, he has such a bee in his bonnet about the whole climate change issue, that he is a focal point here for people who totally deny the possibility that we are in danger of rendering this planet highly inhospitable to us. I also take issue with his "proof", yellow jounalism that nit-picks things like the term carbon being used instead of CO2. Carbon is a highly common and fairly innocuous element on it's own, but it is not a gas, and to be transported into the environment as a "pollutant", it mostly must be entrained with oxygen or hydrogen. Everybody with any science knows that, but the carbon debate is framed to address the source of CO2 or CH4 or CO, and to ensure as much C remains sequestered within the environment in it's inert state. The issue isn't that we breath out CO2 (which the herioc MSM journalist needlessly points out in the article I refer to above), the issue is the amount of gaseous carbon in the atmosphere. The only thing that has given us a safety net so far is that the sea naturally sequesters excess CO2 at the moment, but we have no idea of the ultimate capacity for it to do so. Excess sequestered C in the seas also has an effect on thermohyaline circulation, another disaster in the making. It is complex, and real, and treating it as a hobby-horse and Gillard bashing exercise detracts from the issue. So, yes, it is dangerous.

Unlike You Music, I am not an 'Ecologist' and nor are You a 'Climate Scientist'..!


Ecologists study the relationships between plants, animals, and their environments.

Getting back to your 'Ecologist Opinion' of 'Climate Science', I take the advice from 'REAL EXPERTS' in their field..!

Let me introduce you to one the world's leading Climate Scientists Professor Richard Lindzen...

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/richard-lindzen.jpg

Background


Richard S. Lindzen holds a Ph.D. in applied mathematics from Harvard University. Currently, Dr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorolgy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Professor Lindzen's academic interests lie within the topics of "Climate, Planetary Waves, Monsoon Meteorology, Planetary Atmospheres, and Hydrodynamic Instability." According to his curriculum vitae and Google Scholar, Dr. Lindzen has published over 200 peer-reviewed articles in the field of Climatology.

His overall Message on 'Climate Change' is this...

Why you 'SHOULD NOT WORRY'..!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1CR0v7dwXU&feature=related

In closing Professor Linden Quote: "To add Insult to Injury, to propose Policies i.e. Carbon Tax that would have nothing to do with (Climate Change/Global Warming) that would involve $Trillions of dollars and Harm to many People is I think, Crossing The Line!"

PS - We all know there has been a spate of Natural Disasters around the world of late (Which tends to Spark Fear/Uncertainty into the Uneducated). Which I believe has nothing to do with the so called 'Global Warming' and more to do with Earth's proximaty to the Sun, I won't even get into the possibility of HAARP being used a weapon etc...

All in All there is no need for a Carbon Tax, especially based upon Govt. Lies and Fear of the Unknown. When you really look into all sides of the debate there is no other rational conclusion one can come to...

..and This...

Prof. Richard Lindzen reveals the 'REAL REASON' for the 'Carbon Tax'..!


Professor Richard Lindzen exposes the Brown/Gillard governments iniquitous Carbon Dioxide Tax for what it is, simply a means of raising government revenue. He considers those Australians who have swallowed the governments sales pitch to be gullible for accepting a tax that will do absolutely nothing to affect climate change.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATqQ0F6wRjY

As for your Comments on 'Yellow Journalism'..?



But I will say, if people are convinced by things like this http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?15884-FINALLY-an-MSM-Journalist-Tells-the-Truth--Carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-CO2-- then God help us. That, my friend, is what is known as yellow journalism.

Your 'Opinion' is not only 'False', it is a Sad Endictment on your overall 'Researching Skills'..!

Regards,

Jack

[music]

Hello Jack, I'll try to not escalate the aggressive tone here any further, but I will state my case firmly. Too many intelligent people are having the wool pulled over their eyes by stooges of the very system they purport to despise and oppose. Lindzen, the darling of the Wall St Journal - I'll not take my climate science from THIS man, as opposed to countless other scientists of purer professional reputation. Much of his work is now called into question, and from my reading, it appears that he has committed one of the cardinal sins of science - massaging and omitting data to obtain the answer he wants. He writes an article for the Wall St Journal “There is no consensus on climate change.” Well, no, not if you take consensus to mean 100% agreement, but that fact remains that 97% of climate scientists are in disagreement with him.

Who stands to gain if CO2 is discredited as a driver of climate change? The oil industry, the power industry (and by the way, clean coal is also a con and an oxymoron), the big polluters. For sure the debate is being used, but we have one planet only, so we can’t really afford to make blunders. Believing in Lindzen is a blunder, and many people have been led by the nose to it, as planned.

I will provide you links to read, and I hope you will read them. Fearing you (and others) won’t, I will provide some germane snapshot quotes:

“But still his shoddy work manages to make it through the peer review process of a few journals, and the antiscience crowd eat it up and regurgitates it over the blogosphere like a toddler with H1N1. His latest nonsense is about to be thoroughly eviscerated in the literature and RealClimate has multiple posts on how flawed Lindzen’s analysis was and how the peer review process failed.”

Joe Romm (thinkprogress.org)

The flaws in the Lindzen-Choi paper “have all the appearance of the authors having contrived to get the answer they got.”

K. E. Trenberth (climate scientist)

An article at the beginning of last year very politely drove the last nail into the coffin of Lindzen’s credibility. Find it here (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml)

And this is the citation

Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong (2010), Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.

Here are some links. Start with these, unless you enjoy being duped.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/03/09/203788/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/11/205326/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/is_richard_s_lindzen_deliberately_lying_or_just_deluded

In closing, it was a nice touch how you managed to sneer the word “ecologist” over the difficult medium of an internet posting. Nice work. But at least you should realise that the position requires a science degree, so it’s a fair bet that at least I can understand the science involved, and can come to my own conclusion, not one I am fed that happens to gel with my worldview.

Regards,

Tom

[Fred Steeves]

If the "cooling", then "warming", and then "changing" climate subject didn't completely revolve around money and control, I could ALMOST take one more look at the so called evidence without a stifled snicker. Bring on the green police though, I may have a light bulb in my house that doesn't contain mercury.

NxTNZUhesZk

[christian]

Hi Tom!


“There is no consensus on climate change.” Well, no, not if you take consensus to mean 100% agreement, but that fact remains that 97% of climate scientists are in disagreement with him.

This hardly looks like 3% to me.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm
I've seen footage from the Copenhagen summit, sceptical scientists weren't even invited and when a guy in the audience asked about the 'Climategate' incident, the guy on the podium started to mumble and a security guy escorted the guy, who brought up the question, out of the room - just for asking this question.



Who stands to gain if CO2 is discredited as a driver of climate change? The oil industry, the power industry (and by the way, clean coal is also a con and an oxymoron), the big polluters.

Why not clean coal? I'm all for free energy, but with the newest filters all that comes out of a coal plant is water vapor and CO2. Now you say that's dangerous...

Ever heard of Al Gore's connection to the oil industry? Do you know how big Al Gore's carbon footprint is by the way? It's ridiculous.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/08/07/al-gore-oilman-who-hates-oil

Big Oil is actually pushing the carbon tax agenda, because they would directly profit from such a tax, they own both boxers, if you will.
http://www.infowars.com/climate-gate-is-big-oil-really-behind-the-global-warming-deniers/

Lord Christopher Monckton's site Science and Public Policy (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/) is among the most prominent sites in question of the manmade global warming theory. I don't agree with Monckton on some other issues, but his climate research seems very cohesive to me.

Cheers
Chris

[music]

Hi Chris, good energy behind your post.

I will tell you how I sit re green politics. Quite simply - I don't. I care neither way for Al gore, have never seen his movie, don't care to. I don't care who pushes this, or that, who benefits, who doesn't. I am sure climate change will not wipe out humanity. We are resilient and smart. We will be OK. I am more concerned for those life forms that have no voice. Every day, in my work, I endeavour to safeguard threatened species. It's all I do. The pay is crap, I can't even afford to get my teeth fixed properly, but I love it. Today I carried heavy traps along treacherous creek lines to survey for threatened microbat species. The other night, I located and protected several members of a threatened frog species and their habitat. I spend much time alone, in the middle of nowhere, away from my family. One night last week it took me 5 hours to winch my 4WD out of a location when the rain came in heavy unexpectedly. Every day I do something positive for the environment. I say this, so you know I practice what I preach.

We will never be able to fully determine whether or not CO2 is the major driver of climate change, because the systems involved are complex in the extreme, and we do not fully understand them. I doubt we ever will, but you wouldn’t get that idea listening to scientists on either side of the divide. The other problem is that the things that influence climate change are so numerous, and so varied, that any analysis that included them all would be too unwieldy to deliver sensible outputs. Again, you will hear this from no scientist. You will never get that analysis attempted anyway, because science today is about specialization, and compartmentalization. Few see the whole picture, fewer still attempt to see the whole picture with not only the head, but also with the heart. I try to do this, and in doing so, and with no vested interest but wanting to be a voice for the plants and animals who have none, I have concluded that CO2 is the one and only area over which we can safely exercise control to mitigate climate change. I would most likely know considerably more about this issue than anyone on this forum, more about the interconnectedness of all the relevant systems than many who publish in areas of climatic specialty, but if you ask me “can you provide me with proof one way or the other about CO2 and climate change?”, I must honestly answer you “no”.

Nobody can.

I can, and will, point out pseudoscience though, and as a favour to you, I will keep my eyes open for pseudoscience that is used to support my view :)

Try to divorce your thinking about climate change from politics. Vested interests are there on all sides, and few people actually consider the earth when arguing climate change. The first victims of climate change will be threatened species, there is my vested interest, declared for all to see.

[eric charles]

Come to Florida.

The weather's a delight (80 degrees today); the casinos are full of people with lots of money; the beaches are pristine; most inhabitants are obese, so obviously food is plentiful; you'll live to a ripe old age; tons of doctors and hospitals for when you get a little ill.

I cannot fathom why people live in cold climates when you have a tropical state in the USA. It's like being in St. Martin 365 days/year.

Warm weather like that year round makes women out of men hihihihhi , Come to Canada during winter and ill guarantee it will put some hair on that tanned bald chest of yours LOL

[jackovesk]

Hello Jack, I'll try to not escalate the aggressive tone here any further, but I will state my case firmly. Too many intelligent people are having the wool pulled over their eyes by stooges of the very system they purport to despise and oppose. Lindzen, the darling of the Wall St Journal - I'll not take my climate science from THIS man, as opposed to countless other scientists of purer professional reputation. Much of his work is now called into question, and from my reading, it appears that he has committed one of the cardinal sins of science - massaging and omitting data to obtain the answer he wants. He writes an article for the Wall St Journal “There is no consensus on climate change.” Well, no, not if you take consensus to mean 100% agreement, but that fact remains that 97% of climate scientists are in disagreement with him.

Who stands to gain if CO2 is discredited as a driver of climate change? The oil industry, the power industry (and by the way, clean coal is also a con and an oxymoron), the big polluters. For sure the debate is being used, but we have one planet only, so we can’t really afford to make blunders. Believing in Lindzen is a blunder, and many people have been led by the nose to it, as planned.

I will provide you links to read, and I hope you will read them. Fearing you (and others) won’t, I will provide some germane snapshot quotes:

“But still his shoddy work manages to make it through the peer review process of a few journals, and the antiscience crowd eat it up and regurgitates it over the blogosphere like a toddler with H1N1. His latest nonsense is about to be thoroughly eviscerated in the literature and RealClimate has multiple posts on how flawed Lindzen’s analysis was and how the peer review process failed.”

Joe Romm (thinkprogress.org)

The flaws in the Lindzen-Choi paper “have all the appearance of the authors having contrived to get the answer they got.”

K. E. Trenberth (climate scientist)

An article at the beginning of last year very politely drove the last nail into the coffin of Lindzen’s credibility. Find it here (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml)

And this is the citation

Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong (2010), Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.

Here are some links. Start with these, unless you enjoy being duped.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/03/09/203788/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/11/205326/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/is_richard_s_lindzen_deliberately_lying_or_just_deluded

In closing, it was a nice touch how you managed to sneer the word “ecologist” over the difficult medium of an internet posting. Nice work. But at least you should realise that the position requires a science degree, so it’s a fair bet that at least I can understand the science involved, and can come to my own conclusion, not one I am fed that happens to gel with my worldview.

Regards,

Tom

Nice Try Tom,

Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.


Funding The Center for American Progress is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The institute receives approximately $25 million per year in funding from a variety of sources, including individuals, foundations, and corporations, but it declines to release any information on the sources of its funding. No funders are listed on its website or in its Annual Report. From 2003 to 2007, the center received about $15 million in grants from 58 foundations. Major individual donors include George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and Herb and Marion Sandler. The Center receives undisclosed sums from corporate donors.[27]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

Joseph J. Romm (born June 27, 1960)


Is an American author, blogger, physicist[1] and climate expert[2] who concentrates on methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming and increasing energy security through energy efficiency, green energy technologies and green transportation technologies.

Biography - Early life and career

In 1987, Romm was awarded an American Physical Society Congressional Science Fellowship for the U.S. House of Representatives, where he provided science and security policy advice on the staff of Representative Charles E. Bennett.[15]

From 1988 to 1990, Romm worked as Special Assistant for International Security at the Rockefeller Foundation.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm

Without delving any further as to Who Ultimately Funds your so called experts (Cash for Comment), no wonder you found some (Bought & Paid For) critiques of Prof. Richard Lindzen..!

Tip: Want the 'Real Truth' Tom? My advice is to (Follow The $Money) on Who actually Funds your 'Talking Heads', works every time..!

You've made your Argument & I have made Mine...

I won't be (Wasting) any further time on this..!

Let's just say (We) Agree to Disagree..!

Cheers,

Jack

PS - Maybe you too could earn some (Extra $Bucks) if you worked for the same Foundations your so called Experts do..! (Beware of the 'Dark Side') though, they pay well, but if you don't 'Toe the Line' your Career is finished..!

[music]

Hi Jack, please see my reply to Chris above as to why your reply, well thought out as it is, means little to me. All sides in this debate have vested interest. When we mess with our science, we are pulling the rug out from under ourselves, and removing our ability to make informed decisions. A scientist has one credibility cherry, and once it's gone, it's gone. Lindzen has lost his.

The thing is, it all boils down to money, on both sides, and money just does not cut it with me I'm afraid. Most people's political activism regarding the carbon tax stems from how it effcts them financially, whether through taxation, or through reductions in dividends from the shares they hold in companies who have been so far left to ravage the earth unhindered. Some things are just plain destructive to the environment, and can not be cleaned. What we do, is we put a process in place that just removes the environmental fallout to another place, for another generation to clean up.

I guess it's best to agree to disagree. I respect many things you post Jack, and I don't attack you personally, but again, refer to my answer to Chris above - nobody knows for sure. I, for one, believe CO2 monitoring and control is essential, but the issue has been hijacked by vested interest. What began as pure science has been twisted so much, that it beomes difficult to tell who cares for environment, and who cares for money and power. Right, now I must go check the bat traps I set yesterday, but I will leave you with a cartoon i find amusing.

http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k543/music432/Climate-Cartoon.jpg

cheers,

Tom

[music]

I would also add, that I am open to changing my view on the science of the matter. If anyone can post a link to real science, that will pass scrutiny, that indicates carbon plays a minor role in climate change only, I will look into it, and ammend my view as appropriate.

[christian]

Thanks for not taking all this personal music, I have to admit though, I still don't quite understand you. At one point you say "I have concluded that CO2 is the one and only area over which we can safely exercise control to mitigate climate change" but then you say you cannot provide any proof whatsoever, that CO2 drives our climate. How does that go together?

I find the picture is misleading, it's an oversimplification. Surely there are well-meaning people jumping on the band-waggon promoting carbon taxes and all the rest of it because they care about the environment, but actually they just repeat unscientific talking points brought up by TPTW. I appreciate people wanting to create a better world, I repeat myself here, doing something about carbon emissions in order to create a better world is pretty Don Quixote like. There are so many other fronts, that are proven and scientific, like pollution, free energy, the bio-fuel scam, supressed natural resources like hemp and so much more, those are areas that we really can exercise control over and see direct results.

[music]

Thanks for not taking all this personal music, I have to admit though, I still don't quite understand you. At one point you say "I have concluded that CO2 is the one and only area over which we can safely exercise control to mitigate climate change" but then you say you cannot provide any proof whatsoever, that CO2 drives our climate. How does that go together?

I find the picture is misleading, it's an oversimplification. Surely there are well-meaning people jumping on the band-waggon promoting carbon taxes and all the rest of it because they care about the environment, but actually they just repeat unscientific talking points brought up by TPTW. I appreciate people wanting to create a better world, I repeat myself here, doing something about carbon emissions in order to create a better world is pretty Don Quixote like. There are so many other fronts, that are proven and scientific, like pollution, free energy, the bio-fuel scam, supressed natural resources like hemp and so much more, those are areas that we really can exercise control over and see direct results.

“I have concluded” means that I am satisfied with the available data, and the connections and extrapolations that I personally make. Others have a different conclusion, and are equally happy with their interpretation of the data and the connections. But I am ALSO honestly saying that I doubt anyone can know for sure because the situation is too complex, but if my life depended on an answer, I would give the answer you have already had from me.

Imagine this scenario. Data becomes available indicating the possibility (even likelihood) of CO2 driven climate change. TPTW see this and go “oh ****, we better get in on this and control where it is going because it could get huge”. Would you expect TPTW to hedge their bets? To play both sides? To sow dissent? Of course you would, so they start to manipulate the other side of the debate as well. The purpose of this is to divert the attention of those who could see how they are being manipulated over climate change to the issue of “does it actually exist at all.” This is the whole point of the spurious research that is conducted in a thoroughly unscientific manner - coming to conclusions you know I find unfounded as far as current data are concerned, but which have become the mantra of the right wing, and people with energy heavy share portfolios.

For the record, I find the carbon tax to be flawed in the extreme. The people at the bottom will end up paying yet again, and as you so rightly point out, there are other environmental ills just as pressing, but many of these in fact overlap with the CO2 issue and climate change. So too, there are solutions we have but are denied that would solve many resource issues – hemp is an excellent example. We need all of those solutions, but we also need to stop and wonder why we allow TPTW to taint our thinking on what still remains a large body of robust science supporting the CO2 hypothesis just because they have chosen to manipulate it. That is what they do with everything, and I’ll admit, I’m a bit surprised to find that no one seems to have considered that are playing both sides of the field.

A little heads up on science, by the way. In true science nothing is “proven”. With pure mathematics it is equally possible to “prove” that 2 + 2 = 4, and that 2 + 2 ≠ 4. There are no scientific proofs or truths, merely hypotheses that remain to be disproved. Obviously, some hypotheses are more robust than others, and CO2 driven climate change is no less robust than those you mention. Everything I have seen so far that purports to dispute that, I can challenge either off the top of my head, or after 5 mins on the internet. Um, and I don’t think there was anything scientific mentioned by you or Jack that I didn’t validly counter :)