Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

I already explained that to you: CO2 has both a fertilization effect and a drought-resistance effect, which is why deserts are shrinking globally. Antarctica has the lowest precipitation of any continent because it is so cold.

 

Yes. Global warming and increased atmospheric CO2 is beneficial. Always has been and always will be.

 

In non spontaneous fission the neutron typically comes from a device humans created to bombard the fission material.

In spontaneous fission the energy was absorbed at creation of the unstable atoms.

Atoms found in nature are either stable or unstable. An atom is stable if the forces among the particles that makeup the nucleus are balanced. An atom is unstable (radioactive) if these forces are unbalanced; if the nucleus has an excess of internal energy. Instability of an atom's nucleus may result from an excess of either neutrons or protons. A radioactive atom will attempt to reach stability by ejecting nucleons (protons or neutrons), as well as other particles, or by releasing energy in other forms.

Decay (spontaneous fission being one type) is simply excess energy in atoms that was a vestige of whatever energy source was involved in “creating” the matter. The Big Bang theory etc. is the end of the trail of what we can know/theorize. But it’s still input energy that drives spontaneous fission. You just weren’t there when the energy was added.

 

That is false. Nearly all the money is on the alarmist side. For example:
The monolith of climate smear-mongering - by Ben Pile

Substack · Climate Resistance

Claims that oil interests fund climate scepticism and impede climate policy-making have long been at the centre of green mythology.

 

I think it was Dr. Judith Curry who wondered when all this “bribe” money would begin flowing in?

Yes, all the governmental spending on climate science goes to alarmists. Eisenhower warned about the government take over of science. His warning was not heeded.

 

I have added a new (better) link to #729.

 

The $200M claim like the 97% claim melts away after a bit of scrutiny.

 

So your claim is that there has never been any source of energy, only absorption of energy?

What a ridiculous load of nonscience.

You mean by absorbing energy? That's your claim, right? No energy is ever created, only absorbed?

No, your claim is that there was never any energy source, only absorption of energy.

Well, at least I was there when the scientific rationality was added...

 

No I’ve never claimed no source of energy.

If you could create energy from “nothing” you would be the most wealthy person alive and the most famous.

Of course there was an energy source that left excess energy in radioactive matter. We just don’t understand what it was.

Go work on your perpetual motion machines in the basement. LOL. Leave serious science to others.

 

None of this is “my claim”. It’s just accepted physics. Look it up. Start with entropy. That’s a good starting point.

 

I'll take that as you could not find a reputable link for your nonsense. If I have misinterpreted your rant, here was my original comment.

Please present your creditable link that won't have a Media Bias Fact Check rating of QUACKERY or CONSPIRACTY THEORY.

 

And what evidence do you have that nitrates are a major cause of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef?
Do you have any recent and historical data of nitrate concentrations there to support your claims?

And with the soaring costs of nitrogen fertilizer I'm sure the farmers and the Queensland Agricultural Department and the EPA etc are ensuring that fertilizer leaching has been minimized, and that the recent coral bleaching events are caused by increasing sea temperatures from global warming, and not from increasing nitrate levels as you claim.

 

So what is your evidence to support your claim that the Antarctic Peninsula isn't warming as measured, or is that just wishful thinking?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-023-00529-6

 

A monthly data point is meaningless.

 

Is that because global warming is melting the permafrost?

 

So what is your evidence to support your claim that the Antarctic Peninsular isn't warming?

 

Posted upthread. The last 200 years of data with no change in temperature.

 

What's the scientific reference to your claim, and how did they measure the temperature there 200 years ago?

And what is causing the reduction in Antarctic sea ice if it's not from global warming caused by increases in atmospheric CO2? https://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2024/the-lows-and-lows-of-antarctic-sea-ice/

 

Read the post.

 

No. The return to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years -- which has mainly been caused by the reversal from the lowest to the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years -- is doing that.

 

Show us the temperature data for the Antarctic Peninsula to support your claim that the Antarctic Peninsula is not warming

 

No, that's incorrect. There are lots of reputable links. What you requested was a link that agreed with Media Bias Fact Check's position that the scientifically dubious CO2 climate narrative is indisputably established fact.

It wasn't a rant and you know it. It was a simple statement of fact.

Like I said. You have merely decided that any CO2 climate narrative site that calls itself a fact checking site is the ultimate authority on reputable climate science.

 

I don't recall him making that claim.

Are you just makin' $#!+ up again, as usual?

 

I didn’t make that claim.

 

So what is your evidence that agricultural production is increasing and deserts are shrinking because of increased atmospheric CO2?