cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
r3020
Senior Advisor

For you science denying climate changers

You think you can add $2.00/day to a woman's energy bill then pacify her with 35 cents/day free birth control. You must think women are stupid.

 

snip-

DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.

Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.

Yes, the “executive summary” of reports from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change continues to sound the alarm — but the summary is written by the politicians. The scientific bulk of the report, while still tinged with improper advocacy, has all but thrown in the towel.

And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed “consensus” model.

Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

Consider:

  •  According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
  • Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
  •  Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
  •  A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.

The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right — and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.

 

snip-

Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries.

 

http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

3 Replies
JacobMcCandless
Senior Contributor

Re: For you science denying climate changers

I was watching some keynote speakers at the IPCC9 on youtube.  This was Heartland Foundation IPCC anyways.

 

I read about the Heartland Foundation out of wiki and the way it was described was horendous -- social justice of institutionalize anarchy while meek contentfully watch.  I cannot discount this discription, but, I did not get this impression from the video.  I feel these were educated thoughtful speakers.

 

The keynote speakers were factual.  I did some calculations myself, and only half of the carbon dioxide increase can be attributed to fossil fuels or combustion generally.  And that is without accounting for the CO2 uptake of plants or anything else.

 

It's just kind of hard to put a finger on what who it is IPCC is contending.  We could say it does not matter.  The theory/hypothesis is debunked, it is not a premise upon which politics can lean.

 

The "who" of it is important because these things are not without real machinery.

 

 

But the concept of atmospheric CO2 increases contributing to increased variablity is not unfounded.  Not natural variablity.  Real variablity that would be entirely forecastable.

 

but maybe not so good

 

 

CO2 increases would increase the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere.  CO2 absorbs energy on a specific wavelength.  

 

Most solar radiation is absorbed by water.  Atmospheric water.  With an "atmosphere" the radiation which is visable and the radiation which is useable by plants is all recieved.  The rest of the energy is blocked, both from entry and from exit.

 

CO2 in the atmosphere could react with water or say alter the molecular conformation of H2O.  Altering that conformation alters the wavelengths of energy which are blocked or not.

 

So where does it all come from?  This CO2.

 

Enviromental deficit.  Eco-poverty.  When the forests are poor they particpate less in the enviroment.  Algae in the oceans no longer proliferates.

 

And this is because mankind is a dirty animal who has some diseased micro-organizms.  When it comes down to it "beer" is like higher education, and, well there you go.

JacobMcCandless
Senior Contributor

Re: For you science denying climate changers

 

The new number of the beast is 222.  Thats because the devil is three times as **bleep**ed up as you thought he was.

 

 

 

It's not really a curve.  It's more linear.  Somewhere around 1850 there is a new linear trend.  This coresponds with the Flieschmanns in America.

 

800,000 years to present:

 

 

I don't know where the data is derived from.  It does however restrict the degree to which CO2 can increase before we would be in a, um, secondary growth primal state of unique spherical mass which orbits the sun.

JacobMcCandless
Senior Contributor

Re: For you science denying climate changers

Now when we look at past publications google-book for "1960's yeast" we find 

 

Use of Yeast Biomass in Food Production - Anna Halasz, Radomir Lasztity - ‎1990

 

Brewing Yeast Fermentation Performance edited by Katherine Smart 2008

 

They talk about Kluyveromyces fragilis and Kluyveromyces lactis and lactose utilization, then they talk about Sacchramyces fragilis and lactose utilization...

 

you are to be "astounded" by the advantages.