Ahh! Beautiful windmills. We may still need a wee bit of oil for their lubrication. Insulating roofs and walls of buildings is a great idea, too, as long as green materials are used.
Some people say that they cure cancer. But maybe it’s just the decrease in air pollution from decreased use of coal.
Indiana, Your less civilized neighbors in Scotland (I love Scotland) are already producing enough wind power for 2 Scotlands. And that’s JUST the renewable of wind power. Maybe they can power England too.
Do you hate the Great Barrier Reef, Indiana? I don’t know about your fancy think tank gobbledygook jargon about sea water being naturally buffered for acidity or alkalinity. But just the heating of the sea (from AGW) has been enough to cause major mass bleaching of the coral, which, if it keeps happening, will probably kill it off altogether.
3point said “…if the confusion meant I was mistaken for you or one of the other people on here who are much smarter than I am. But I wasn’t going to stand idly by while being mistaken for that cumberworld.”
TimB replies: “You are plenty smart, 3point. I had to look up the word ‘cumberworld’. I guess it’s used by Canadians as it doesn’t sound offensive. (The stereotype being how polite Canadians tend to be, to a fault.) I found other words you could have used that I am also not familiar with, such as blighter, cockloche, dandiprat, dogbolt, shagrag, stinkard. I am familiar with the term dirtbag, however. And I guess stinkard is fairly obvious. And shagrag sounds sort of nasty.”
The point was to call CO2 pollution is absurd.Why is it absurd, because it's also plant food? Can you explain your rational?
Manure is plant food too, but too much of it is a pain in the … never mind. That’s rightfully considered pollution, isn’t it?
CO2 is adversely effecting our atmospheric insulation layer, and as such possess a long term existential risk to life as we know it here on Earth. Not to mention how it’s radically altering our oceans pH balance. Very bad news, though it’ll be a little while before those consequences are driven home to a society doing its best not to notice.
That’s because this biosphere that supplies all we need, evolved within this overall climate regime, even with its fluctuations. But what’s happening now is way the hell out of the ball park and definitely qualifies CO2 (especially Anthropogenically produced CO2) for the term “pollution”.
Here’s a fascinating learned article about pollution, problem is way more than you’d ever want to know. I’m just hoping you look at it and recognize that it’s a bit more complex than glib dismissals can do justice to.
https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/43/1/articles/43-1_Nagle.pdf
Usually, put R.40 insulation (12 ins of fibreglass) in attics. It saves 98% of the heat. Idiot Greenies would argue to put R.80 at double the cost. However, the latter R.40 saving only 98% of 2%. Thus saving 1.something more at double the cost. Worthwhile?
20ppm CO2 retains 60% of IR radiation. The next 20ppm, 60% of 40, ie 24, so now 84% absorbed. Next 20ppm 60% of 16 thats left, 9.6, so now absorbing 93.6. next 20ppm, 60% of balance 6.4, ie 3.84. Now absorbing 97.6 odd. So with JUST 80ppm absorbing 97.6…Getit?
Your mediocre/very poor justification of not addressing the issues I have raised is pathetic. Not one of you has EVER mentioned a SINGLE fact. A form of DISHONESTY used often by alarmists as they attempt to bully people smarter than them. You are INCAPABLE of any useful information. Read the following and enjoy!
Mann, the bogus hockey stick man; SLAPP suing dynamo; lying poltroon.
In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann — a tenured professor at one of the country’s top public universities — opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag.
It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully. Good old reversal - Tony Robbins
It was quite a spectacle. Mann was joined on the panel (Senate hearings) by Judith Curry, John Christy, and Roger Pielke, Jr. — three scientists who have actually endured the kind of political witch-hunts Mann referred to.
Rather than present data or debate the science, Mann mostly engaged in the sophistry that has gradually undermined the credibility of climate science. He repeatedly referred to a bogus “97 percent consensus” about man-made climate change, and accused the Heartland Institute of being a “climate-change denying, Koch brothers–funded outlet.” .
He engaged in one ad hominem attack after another against his fellow panelists and the committee’s chairman, Representative Lamar Smith. He questioned whether Smith really understood the scientific method and read a nasty quote about Smith from a smear piece in Science magazine. (How to win friends and influence people!)
Mann’s rhetoric became so inflamed that he was finally upbraided by Representative Dana Rohrabacher. “From the get go, we have heard personal attack after personal attack coming from those claiming to represent the mainstream of science,” Rohrabacher said to Mann. “Call people ‘deniers’ all you want, use any kind of name you want .
. . when we talk about Mr. Lysenko, that’s the kind of thing they did to the scientists in Russia. Try to call people names and beat them into submission, that’s a Stalinist tactic.”
LaHood called Mann on his hypocrisy: “You mention in your opening statement about staying away from that and yet we have a suit that’s been filed based on those exact same things. There’s a real disconnect between a defamation suit that does the exact same thing you’re engaged in that in this public forum.”
Turns out Mann appears to be a bit of a denier himself. Under questioning, Mann denied being involved with the Climate Accountability Institute even though he is featured on its website as a board member. CAI is one of the groups pushing a scorched-earth approach to climate deniers, urging lawmakers to employ the RICO statute against fossil-fuel corporations. When asked directly if he was either affiliated or associated with CAI, Mann answered “no.”
……….The problem was that the same tree ring data that the alarmists needed to smooth out past ups and downs in the Earth’s climate (getting rid of the MWP) showed cooling, not warming, after 1960!!! Is why he (Mann) used thermometer readings after 1960 to hide this. Classy chap!
Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar.
Mann used often to claim that he was a Nobel Prizewinner – till someone unhelpfully pointed out that he was but one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to Assessment Reports by the IPCC (which did win the Nobel Prize in 2007)
This week the bald-pated shyster was up to his old tricks again, telling a string of porkie pies at a climate science hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Given how litigious the mendacious, bloviating poltroon can be – he’s currently engaged in at least two defamation suits: one against Tim Ball, the other against Mark Steyn – I obviously have to tread very carefully here.
So I’d just like to say, as delicately and politely as I can to the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University:“Liar, liar. Your pants on fire!”
But it was Carlson’s takedown of Bill Nye the Science Guy, a television personality and celebrity climate promoter, that exposes the intellectual chicanery behind this crusade.
During an interview on Carlson’s show on February 27, Nye goofily claimed that people who question claims about global warming suffer from cognitive dissonance: “We in the science community are looking for information why climate change deniers, or extreme skeptics, do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.”
Nye went on to say that denial is denial, the evidence is overwhelming, and the question of whether humans are causing climate change is “not an open question, it’s a settled question.”
The turd is a mediocre Mechanical Engineer. What does he know about anything relevant?
Now usually when these charges are made by someone who purports to possess expertise in climate science, the interviewer acquiesces, immediately surrendering the debate to the climate activist.
But Carlson wouldn’t back down: “To what degree is climate change caused by human activity? . . . Is it 100 percent, is it 74.3 percent? If it’s settled science, please tell us to what degree human activity is responsible.”
Nye started to get uncomfortable, well aware he had no certain answer to this so-called settled question, since climate scientists cannot agree how much human activity contributes to climate change.
This is when Nye went off the rails, refusing to specify the degree to which people cause climate change and instead blaming us for the speed that climate change is happening:
This spun him into a really weird (and unscientific) spot where he started lamenting the fact that global warming has caused us to avoid another Ice Age — perhaps unaware that most people would consider freezing to death a horrible fate — and told Carlson another Ice Age “ain’t gonna happen because of you and me.” Yay CO2!
While it’s easy to dismiss Nye’s interview as a kooky one-off appearance from an unprepared celebrity scientist, he sadly represents the lack of integrity by most climate-change pushers. They move goalposts, manufacture facts, resist honest debate, and resort to smear tactics when confronted with specific questions they cannot answer.
As Carlson said to Nye, “You really don’t know, and you bully people who ask questions.”
Randy Pauchori of the IPCC
Priapic former chair of the IPCC, railway engineer Pauchori, has come further off the rails after being accused by 2 MORE women of sexual misconduct. He is the bovine oaf who predicted all glaciers gone from the Himalayas by 2030. Including Everest!
“He sauntered around the office sporting a big bulge in his trousers.” One anonymous complainant said, ”He would press it against you, while his greasy face smirked. He had bad breath as well. Smelled like he had been eating dogshit.”
This pontifying, free spending, jet setter, now confined awaiting trial, is known in India, as Dr.Lecherous. Every young woman who came within a mile of him, was bombarded with fervent sexual requests and groping. “His hands were everywhere!” another woman complained.”
The IPCC
The IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No 5 in 2013. For this No 5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus – that global warming is both occurring and man-made – exists, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or nominal natural, warming.
Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41 of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that’s an alarming or 0.3 of 1%).
Those that disproved global warming were dismissed. Lord Christopher Monckton (2013) of the UK’s Science and Public Policy Institute has released an exhaustive statistical research paper that concludes that scientific consensus affirming man-made global warming is just 0.3%, not the 97% claimed by the global warming whiners.
This must be the ultimate in “Reversal”, the technique of obdurately, arrogantly, reversing reality. Surprisingly, it does work on some people.
The IPCC is a conflicted institution pushing a mandate that lacks true scientific rigour.
Moore (2013) says; “by its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.
…………….There are countless examples of data manipulation The levels of deception stretch across all the data involved. In any developed country, to seek public funding by tampering with data would see the culprits jailed.
As a comparison, consider an IPO prospectus seeking billions of dollars from the public without verifiable scientific information in it – let alone manipulated data.
As just one example, suspicious data records from Paraguay were found to have been changed from a downward temperature trend to an upward one (from a decline of 1 deg C to an increase of 1.5 deg C).
Not only for three initial weather stations investigated but subsequently for a number of other weather stations in the area. Worse still they then used these upward temperature records to apply to tracts of the globe where no records have been kept.
In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.”
“When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India earlier this month, tells the story of Sanjay Nath, an academic in his 60s reminiscing on his “spiritual journey” through India, Peru and the US.
On the way he encounters, among others, Shirley MacLaine, the actress, who appears as a character in the book. While relations between Sanjay and MacLaine remain platonic, he enjoys sex – a lot of sex – with a lot of women.
In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.
The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert (!) with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has “endangered the fragile ecosystem”.
But talk of “denuding” is a clue of what is to come.
By page 16, Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital. “She then led him into the bedroom,” writes Dr Pachauri.
“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.
“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.
“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’.”
More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: “Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”
Take a cold shower, and read the rest of the steamy (possibly a water vapor feedback loop) novel at the Telegraph here
Note to the U.N. – Time to kick Pachy to the curb, he’s not just toast now, he’scarbonized.In other news, The Love Guru has this relevant quote from a hockey team member:“there’s no connection between hockey and my love life”He is a graduate of the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. He’s not a climatologist but a railroad engineer.
So, if he ever avails himself of a free half-hour with a Copenhagen hooker, I’m sure, like the Bombay to Cochin express, he’ll pull out on time. Ha, ha!!!
But it’s hard to see why he should be presiding over a multi-trillion-dollar shakedown of the global economy. For one thing, Dr. Pachauri has one of the largest carbon footprints on the planet.
He’s in favour of “hefty aviation taxes” to “deter people from flying,” but fortunately once you’re part of the transnational jet set nothing can deter you.
He flew 443,243 miles on “IPCC business” in the year-and-a-half run-up to Copenhagen. I’m not sure whether that includes his two weekend round trips from New York to Delhi, once for a cricket practice, once for a match.
Oh yay. Another wall of text which says, “I’m not going to listen to anybody who doesn’t agree with me no matter how wrong they’ve shown me to be!”
At this point it’s getting a little pathetic. Learn something real or just stop.
Calling CO2 pollution is absurd because IT IS VITAL for life, vital for the breathing reflex. Check out the definition of pollution, OK? pol·lu·tion
/pəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects. Is CO2 poisonous? NO!
And, by the way, the poster who repeated Google’s “CO2 in blood…”(after quickly reading it on Google!) is missing the point - the best way to commit suicide is to breathe in N2. It will flush the CO2 from your blood, and you will just pass out, NOT struggling to breathe.
One would expect CO2 levels to be highest where naughty man is - America, Europe, China. But it is not! Is highest at the equator, and LOWEST at the poles, which would seem to suggest that it is the ability of the sea to absorb CO2 is FAR more important than any trifling amounts made by man. 0C water can hold 4 times the CO2 of 27C water. Fact.
What is disturbing and a constant of alarmist argument, is that they NEVER use numbers/facts. Wriggle, wriggle, “I won’t respond because it is all settled…” Wishy washy…“The 500 roof insulation vs a windmill taken from a British countryside group…” WELL, Sunshine. Should it be 300 roofs or 800? “Well its from people I dislike so it is invalid…” Go back to school and get an education. Read.
The poison worm that will destroy us.
Today, in agriculture, we produce with one person what in 1945 needed 60. Farmed areas have not risen much, but yield since 1960 has gone thru the roof – a combination of better seeds, better fertilizer, better knowledge disseminated rapidly, more CO2. World grain production up from 600m tons in 1950 to 2400 today.
Similarly, energy has made even GREATER advances.
Instead of a small Welshman with his little pick chipping away deep underground, we clear off the overburden, scoop up 50+tons at a time, and load it on a train, 22,000 tons – 2 crew! Equivalent to 440 trucks each with a driver.
Our ships are massive, carrying 100,000 tons or more – with such small crews that tankers have glass toilets on the bridge so the helmsman can poop and look after things at the same time.
Instead of eating the same boring contaminated food ad nauseam, all can eat oranges, avocadoes, lobster, steak, at will.
We can jet all the way to Tasmania (while exclaiming about CO2 and resources running out, eh? Approx 2,000lbs of Jet A per person, return.
Go on skiing holidays one week and off to the beach the next.
Our evenings have changed from looking at the fire, to watching TV shows or using computers to expand our knowledge and interests. (Night skiing in Vancouver, tambien!)
We swan around in warm fast cars, visiting friends and beautiful places.
Most have never laboured manually for hours every day; filthy, buggy, dangerous, like I have. (There are 2 types of people who use chainsaws – those who HAVE been cut by them, and those who are GOING to be cut by them! They will cleave your head in two. Fun.)
Many are disturbed by all this success. Good old guilt, so important to most religions, worming its poison into our heads. Fuck guilt! A useless, negative impulse.
Unable to appreciate that after centuries of invention, we are finally reaping the fruits of our ancestor’s hard labour; their suffering and deaths.
They want us to turn our backs and go to some mythological paradise that never existed……………tripping thru meadows of wild flowers, singing all day in our agrarian marvel.
Their narrative is that of Man the Destroyer; his mad rush to extinguish the tiny resources that are left. Everything he does is bad; wrong; polluting everything; soon nothing of value left.
They ignore the clean air (no more pea-soup fogs); the clean water (salmon in the Thames); the blossoming of deer/moose numbers where man has cleared forest (forest is shit for most animals – nothing to eat.)
They argue Polar bears dying out, though in most areas their number has swelled to 35,000 up from 7,000 in 1950).
Forest cover in USA up a whopping 100% from 100 years ago. (Small Eastern farms abandoned, going back to forest.)
When we plant mono culture trees (instead of conifers being naturally mixed with alder and poplar which resist fire), that burn down, we blame Climate Change.
When we build houses in the forest and then they burn, again we blame CC.
When Florida sucks ground water out at a huge rate, we are surprised that it makes the land SINK – blaming rising seas caused by CC.
Yes, man has fucked up in the past – can you imagine allowing steam trains in the Tube today?
When you build in the UK, in most places, you have to make at least a token concession to keeping things in character. (But windmills OK – put the sods anywhere you like.)
Many seem to feel guilt, rather than thanks.
What alarmists have to overcome.
-
The Medieval Warm Period warmer than today and a time of great prosperity. Why should a bit of warming today be ANY different?
-
The Greenhouse Effect is LOGARITHMIC – ie CO2 conc. has to increase by 10 to double present effect. By 100 to increase by 2 times.
-
What PRESENT BAD effects are there? None. NO increased storms; no significant sea level rise; malaria NOT a tropical disease – was in E.Anglia till 1960; no drought inc. In fact the Sahel GREENING; 5 times MORE Polar bears than in 1950.
-
But several GOOD things – bigger crops; wider range of crops; less heating needed; less deaths – cold kills FAR more than heat. All free!
-
World grain yield 600m tons 1950; today 2200+m tons. About 600m tons from extra CO2.
Quod erat demonstrandum! I have an '‘O’ level in Latin and Latin VERSE. Do you? What is iambic pentameter, eh?
Oh yay. Another wall of text which says, “I’m not going to listen to anybody who doesn’t agree with me no matter how wrong they’ve shown me to be!”There is a rule for that, but I don't like using it. You could make the case that a lot of posting is repetitive.
NO. Not ever. Mange ma plotte!
Calling CO2 pollution is absurd because IT IS VITAL for lifeThe fire in my furnace is "vital for life" during the winter months. But it wouldn't be very healthy for me if it got out of the furnace and got a lot bigger while I slept.
Sleep is “vital for life”. But it wouldn’t be very healthy of me to try to sleep all the time.
Salt is “vital for life”. But if you eat a pound of it you’re going to die.
Water is “vital for life”. Try breathing it.
Shelter is “vital for life”. But if you can’t leave it, that’s a prison.
For many older people their medications are “vital for life”. But if they take the whole month’s worth they’re going to die.
Just because something is “vital for life” does not mean unlimited amounts of it are good, and really, that’s the dumbest of your arguments I’ve read so far. If a little is good, a shitload must be better, right? Except it’s common knowledge that’s not right and I really, truly do not believe you to be stupid enough to not know that. You do seem intelligent. You have to be to build this big a case against reality. But your still delusional in your thinking that you know better than every trained expert everywhere.
NO. Not ever. Mange ma plotte!Hey, I just googled that, and my work tracks what I google!
And by the way, CO2 IS toxic. It’s known as an “asphyxiant”. At concentrations of 7% to 10% it will cause a person to suffocate, even if there is sufficient oxygen in the air. Too much oxygen will also kill you. It’s known as “oxygen toxicity” and is the reason air must be mixed with helium for deep diving submarines.
Is CO2 poisonous? NO!YES!
Everything is bad in the wrong amount.
"The dose makes the poison" is an adage intended to indicate a basic principle of toxicology. It is credited to Paracelsus who expressed the classic toxicology maxim "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison." This is often condensed to: "The dose makes the poison". It means that a substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within the body in a high enough concentration (i.e., dose).
The concept is easily proven using the reduction ad absurdum method of identifying a false statement. Look at the following list and imagine taking in both none and then tons of each item, and you’ll see that amounts at both extremes of the spectrum have a different affect than an everyday amount:
- Salt
- Water
- Vitamin A
- CO2
- O2 (Hint - you'll die in an pure 02 atmosphere.)
- Chocolate cake (This is a rare instance of something being good at all quantities.)
@kilo54 OK so you don’t think weather events such as what Democracy Now is reporting on is cause for alarm? Fires like this put more CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing Climate Change, which in turn makes the flooding in areas like Missouri worse and also makes hurricanes in hurricane prone areas worse, but you don’t think it’s cause for alarm. Sorry, but ignorance is not bliss and such ignorance could drive the human species into extinction, just as it is many other species on the planet earth.
@Lausten Yeah, I Googled it too. So glad I’m not at work today. There’s a rule against such language too.
At this point I think the conversation is essentially pointless. He doesn’t care that literally every single “fact” he has is wrong. As long as it supports his belief system it’s good enough for him. We’ve all pointed out so many “facts” he got wrong and he still keeps posting ridiculous things. I mean, I would imagine there are a lot of geeks and nerds here, based on the heady topics. And who among us hasn’t heard of a CO2 scrubber or know the absolutely vital role it plays in space exploration? If the CO2 scrubber fails, everybody dies. And common sense tells you that if your body flourished on CO2 we wouldn’t be exhaling it. It’s a waste product to our bodies.
But that doesn’t matter. He doesn’t even bother to apply common sense before making his arguments and he absolutely ignores every fact we’ve shown to be wrong and just goes right on posting wall after wall of lies and misinformation. He’s a zealot whose mind will not be influenced by reality. If he bothers to respond again it certainly won’t be, “Okay, I got that one wrong. I see that now.” It will be more like, “There is nothing wrong with dumping oil directly into the oceans by the millions of gallons because it came from the Earth anyway and you’re just putting it back where you got it from” or some other, equally stupid shit. Okay, probably not that, but if he hasn’t already said, “A single volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of human activity throughout history combined”, that one is coming. I heard that one in the late '90s and I still hear it now and then, even though it is categorically false and, even if it were true, is still a stupid argument. It’s like bailing water INTO a sinking ship and saying, “The hole in the hull is letting in more water than I am!”
@Mriana. I’ve been dropping some pretty strong hints, but a pattern has developed, and that warrants official action.
I agree. See my post in Administration.
Love the picture. A true icon in the Star Trek universe from original to TNG. And I absolutely adored her character, Lwaxana Troi. Probably one of the greatest characters, if not the greatest, in the entire series. Q might have been a close second. That is, if that tiny picture is who I think it is.