Printable View
I have an idea. Instead of us westerners cutting our pollution levels why dont we just destroy all of the countries that want what we have stopping them from further polluting the planet? After all the developing world is now responsible for the majority of pollution. We could even get bush to invent reasons to do it!
Latter picture looks like Chiang Mai.
It's not damaging the planet you wally - it will wipe out the human race which is not such a bad thing. The planet will be ok.
However, Climate change fascists are only interested in the last picture. In reality, it is the middle one which poses the most danger. Just have to wait for someone like Dick Cheney to decide the science is settled on all water poisoning right after he has bought up the world wide rights to all fresh drinking water in the world.
Typical response from our resident moron who photo shops tediously predictable pics to prove a a point as if the world was as superficial as his impoverished intellect.
Bizarre though it may seem, two thirds of the world is water and a large chunk is uninhabitable or uninhabited because it is either too hot, too cold, too remote or otherwise too inhospitable. Thus the world's population is concentrated in about 3% of the total land mass, if that. So, all being equal, really only 1 % of the entire world's surface actually is inhabited.
Just to put things in perspective.
But by all means photoshop as much as you like. I expect it appeals to the adolescent of the forum.
Actually, that is quite a stunning fact, n'est-ce pas?
You are the moron. You are likely to suffer from allergies or cancers all that pollution is causing as well, and it's so deserved. Maybe the big cities account for 1% of the area only, but 83% of all land is influenced by humans, and 22% is occupied by agriculture. 100% of the oceans are overfished, and overpolluted too.
Human "Footprint" Seen on 83 Percent of Earth's Land
whilst the first part of your judgement may be correct, the second is just a giant leap of conjectureQuote:
Originally Posted by Hypatia
not true, as pictured above, we have managed to pollute our environment to a significant extent, as well as destroying habitats of thousands of our fellow creaturesQuote:
Originally Posted by chitown
however, on a grand scale, yes, the earth is resilient and will manage to continue without our destructive species well enough
The geologic record has shown time and again that dominant species destroy their own environment and that other species develop to take their place
The evidence of man’s activities on climate is strong. CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has increased from 250 parts per million at the beginning of the industrial age to 391 parts per million now. Many believe we are approaching a tipping point with respect to temperature that will unleash a whole range of undesirable consequences on the world’s weather system. This idea gets a lot of criticism from skeptics who offer a host of explanations ranging from increased animal flatulence to increased volcanic activity. Is there a proven link between CO2 in the atmosphere and the warming of the planet? Skeptics say no, the planet is warming due to other unknown reasons – the path of the earth’ orbit, the natural warming that would have occurred anyway as the ice age ended etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegent
Are greenhouse gases, as a result of the activities of man, contributing to the increased levels of CO2 and does an increase in CO2 contribute to making the planet warmer? That is the fundamental point of disagreement. There is a tremendous amount of science in support of this belief. No, it is not empirical as in mathematics. It is based upon a vast amount of collected data and research. Many argue that the people behind the research have a hidden agenda to promote fear and thereby reap some kind of financial benefit as a result. They claim a vast conspiracy that is duping the ignorant. They love to use Al Gore as a symbolic whipping boy for this idea. But the science behind those who argue that climate change is real has nothing to do with Al Gore or Bono or any other personality. The argument behind climate change science is based upon a consensus of qualified and respected researchers from most of the world’s most prestigious universities. To impugn their motives is a huge fallacy of reasoning. Arguments made that belittle, ridicule and personally attack the people that have come to a differing conclusion represent the lowest form of anti-intellectualism. It is one thing to disagree but it is crossing a line when it abandons logic solely in favor of insult. I think we can disagree without this kind of discourse.
Why is it that my post has been deleted but this sort of thing:... is allowed to stand?Quote:
Originally Posted by thegent
I don't know anyone who has an allergy to Co2Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainfall
lets not forget this thread is about climate scam, not pollution.
There is no debate on pollution, it is a bad thing. There is no debate that the earth is in a warming cycle, warming up following the last mini ice age.
What there is debate about is the Gore Fan club and those banging on about it all the time is that they claim the 7% of Co2 in the air that comes from man is more potent Co2 or something like than the other 93% natural Co2 in the air and there fore they think it is justified to tax the shit out of everyone and allow the bankers to make more and more money from this.
Blind fools.
Because it's a well argued personal view leading to a pertinent fact debunking sensationalist rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Nevertheless, being called a moron by someone who actually thinks that 1% of the world's surface is taken up with ' big cities ' is somewhat laughable but I should imagine it stands because the poster went on posit his own silliness albeit sourced from a populist rag of no consequence.
Crying wolf, eh?
The Hockey Stick Done Got Broken Again:
Steve McIntyre, who was principally responsible for showing that Michael Mann’s original hockey stick was a fraud, has gone over climate alarmist Shaun Marcott’s data on the key proxies he uses for 20th century temperatures, ocean cores. McIntyre found that Marcott and his colleagues used previously published ocean core data, but have altered the dates represented by the cores, in some cases by as much as 1,000 years. Anthony Watts sums up:It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
McIntyre explains why Marcott’s date-changing was so critical:The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10). Only three cores contributed to the final value of the reconstruction with published dates (“pubend” less than 10): the MD01-2421 splice, OCE326-GGC30 and M35004-4. Two of these cores have very negative values. Marcott et al re-dated both of these cores so that neither contributed to the closing period: the MD01-2421 splice to a fraction of a year prior to 1940, barely missing eligibility; OCE326-GGC30 is re-dated 191 years earlier – into the 18th century.
Re-populating the closing date are 5 cores with published coretops earlier than AD10, in some cases much earlier. The coretop of MD95-2043, for example, was published as 10th century, but was re-dated by Marcott over 1000 years later to “0 BP”. MD95-2011 and MD-2015 were redated by 510 and 690 years respectively. All five re-dated cores contributing to the AD1940 reconstruction had positive values."
Flat-out fraud–which, sadly, has come to typify the climate alarmism movement." As stated, it's a vast conspiracy out to dupe the ignorant. How many carbon credits are in your wallet?
In short, the global warming movement is corrupt to the core.
... What on earth are you babbling about?? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by thegent
There's nothing well argued about silly name-calling, and nor does calling non-photoshopped pics 'photoshopped' debunk anything. In fact both are simply the resort of someone with a singular inability to debate, much less debunk, anything. What next genticles, more family-references/attacks to 'prove' there's no adverse effects on the environment from mankind? Dismissing the science by calling everyone "poo-poo heads"?
You missed out a key part Booners dear chapQuote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Quote:
In short, the global warming movement is corrupt to the core. Billions of dollars in government funding–I am too polite to say “bribes”–have bought not just the acquiescence but the eager collaboration of many scientists in a massive fraud.
And all the scam believers still like to believe there is no financial spur behind this new generation of fake scientists. :chitown:
Humbert, with all due respect, the interpretation of what purports to be data is founded upon conjecture. That may well be a suitable stance to take in an exercise in logical discourse or sophistry but it is not good science.
And that is the nub of the entire changer debacle. It has demeaned science, subverted it to nothing more than lobby fodder for fellow travelling opportunists and cynical politicians exploiting human frailty. It' s practitioners are no more than whores prostituting themselves for a lifetime career in a publicly funded confidence trick.
When in 20 years they finally exhaust the gullible public's patience and have mined as much as they can from their pockets I'm fairly certain those shameful scientists will still say, as they do now, we don't know why the temperature is not rising more etc etc but their snouts will still be in the trough. The thing is, by then even the most gullible of changers will have realised their folly.
^^
Thing is you hurt their little feelers when you don't simply agree with their lunacy re MMGW.
You are a heretic or worse! Read recently that some global warming alarmists want to put the skeptics in prison/re-education camps!:rofl:
btw, didn't 'miss' the point you posted.
The overwhelming facts surrounding this fraud are sometimes too much for our gullible friends to absorb in one go.
IF you really believe this then you are a complete ignoramus :(Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown
pseudolus, boonmee perhaps you would like to explain what this momentus discovery means, why and what its impact is going to be on the models that all show that human produced CO2 is whats driving global warming, you know including that model who's results Antony watts said he would stand by.... thats until they gave results he didn't like.
Or is it a matter of you don't really understand whats being said, but you liked the sound of what it said... which is all thats important to you
Almost 40% of the CO2 in the air comes from human activity. The pre-industrial level was 280ppm, now approaching 400ppm, higher than at any point for one million years. It's simple experiments to determine how much infrared radiation is trapped by varying CO2 levels in the air, at 300ppm, 400ppm, 500ppm etc, or in other words, how much stronger the greenhouse effect becomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolusI don't know anyone who has an allergy to Co2Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainfall
lets not forget this thread is about climate scam, not pollution.
There is no debate on pollution, it is a bad thing. There is no debate that the earth is in a warming cycle, warming up following the last mini ice age.
What there is debate about is the Gore Fan club and those banging on about it all the time is that they claim the 7% of Co2 in the air that comes from man is more potent Co2 or something like than the other 93% natural Co2 in the air and there fore they think it is justified to tax the shit out of everyone and allow the bankers to make more and more money from this.
Blind fools.
Got your facts wrong there Rainfall - the 40% nymber you have taken from the New Scientist article is actually saying that 40% of the increased co2 from humans is naturally absorbed by the oceans. If you try to not manipulate what it says, you will see that the article clearly saysSOURCEQuote:
It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources
40% is not small. 7%, which is the figure I say, is small.
What you are forgetting of course is that the raise in co2 is a lag effect; as the ice is naturally melting due to the continued warming of the earth as it is coming out of the mini ice age, ice is melting and releasing co2 into the atmosphere.
Any other manipulations and fallacies you would like to put up?
He made a mistake but the only important metric is the increase in CO2 parts per million increasing from 280ppm to almost 400ppm since the start of the industrial age. The differential is certainly a result of man made activities and is the primary cause of the surface warming that is taking place.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
He didn't make a mistake at all. He put up the 40% because that looked right to him. With all the crap being spoken about it, most people would think that that figure is correct. It is wrong though, and far more Co2 is released from the naturally melting ice caps each year than we produce. Or are we to believe that there is no Co2 trapped in ice after all?
Oh,.. and on these new findings, some interesting quotes coming out.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/03/2280.jpg
I really do relish the conviction exhibited by the fanatic. Either they are driven by the immaturity of youth or just simply stupid. Most of the worlds's unhappiness can be attributed to this phenomena at one stage or other but the one, ever present constant is that every generation throws up more meat for the grinder that produces most of mankind's contribution which is really very little.Quote:
Originally Posted by RainfallAlmost 40% of the CO2 in the air comes from human activity. The pre-industrial level was 280ppm, now approaching 400ppm, higher than at any point for one million years. It's simple experiments to determine how much infrared radiation is trapped by varying CO2 levels in the air, at 300ppm, 400ppm, 500ppm etc, or in other words, how much stronger the greenhouse effect becomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolusI don't know anyone who has an allergy to Co2Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainfall
lets not forget this thread is about climate scam, not pollution.
There is no debate on pollution, it is a bad thing. There is no debate that the earth is in a warming cycle, warming up following the last mini ice age.
What there is debate about is the Gore Fan club and those banging on about it all the time is that they claim the 7% of Co2 in the air that comes from man is more potent Co2 or something like than the other 93% natural Co2 in the air and there fore they think it is justified to tax the shit out of everyone and allow the bankers to make more and more money from this.
Blind fools.
The glibness with which they spray their regurgitated beliefs is really quite astonishing given the absurdity of the entire premise.
Take the way the way he bandies what purports to be an accepted fact, almost as zealously as a hottentot might do when he configures the movement of the planets with his third wife's menstrual cycle. The pre - Industrial Age was 280 ppppppm per whotsit and now it is nearly 400.
By whose measurement? When was it taken? At what times of the day, at what temperature, at what elevation, in what season, by which instrument under what calibration, during what barometric pressured cycle of fronts, in which continent, by which team, under what parameters, during what range of humidity, during which cycle of precipitation, during what lunar cycle, adjacent to what geographical influence of perturbation, in between which measurable fluctuation of the magnetic field, during what aftermath of which ever cycle of the solar influence that may have prevailed?
Nevertheless we have come up with the figure of 400. Not 389, 422, 364, or indeed any other figure within reasonable proximity. And was there any rounding down or up in the parameter sets fixing the mean? What was the sample set? Did they repeat selection at the same point, in the precisely same set of circumstances in 10 locations, 50, 1000, 100,000 or 1 million?
Gosh, it's a big job. But what the heck, get the figure out there anyway and keep repeating it, eh?
And what is the comparison making that figure significant. Well, pre- Industrial Age of course, silly. Umm....so, essentially that earlier measurement of 200 odd wot sits is applicable to the entire past 60 million years? Look shaddup, won't you, we're talking about lots of experts here and you know nothing.
Of course.
^entertaining but unconvincing because its just rhetoric.