Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is even a chart that shows how death from malaria ramped up during that ban, then ramped back down after the ban was lifted.
Is reading really that complicated?
im familiar with the argument that some of these green measures actually kill people in the third world that go unmentioned in OUR media...and i am not convinced climate change is entirely man made..
i think that the extreme left belong in the same boat as the extreme right with both side exhibiting moral superiority and religious fervor..lol
there seems to be some very complicated repeatable patterns involving the earths wobbly rotational orbits that were not fully modeled
i stumbled upon a newer nuclear technology involving smaller safer thorium reactors and breathed a sigh of relief a few years back...there is a future for mankind after all...we need the oil for medicine and agriculture...unless oil is renewable as some Russian science says
Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age
A very interesting article written on the Watts Up With That (WUWT) web site. Please read the entire thing. I realize it's pretty long but I believe it makes a compelling argument for the opinions expressed.
Also, please do not attack the source, make character assassinations against the author or attack in general. If you disagree with all of it, or even any of it, put down what you disagree with and why. Challenge yourself to present a logical argument (debate) of presenting what you disagree with and why you disagree. Anything less simply shows you don't deserve to have your opinions taken seriously.
The author was a whistleblower on the sour gas plant, even though the energy regulator already had it on their radar screen. He makes himself out to be a hero of incredible proportions. Exaggerating his part, you know, almost like a Trump. He was responsible for the creation of half a million jobs and caused $250 Billion in investments? Really?
Notice he gives no details of either, just pats himself on the back. You know, like a Trump would. In cowboy country we call that all hat and no cattle.
Regardless, he dismisses that CO2 is a driver for climate change, even though it is known to be for well over 100 years now.
He neglects to say the primary cause for the decrease from 1945-1977 was aerosols in the atmosphere. This was a well known fact, and if has all these degrees that claim to have studied this, he should have been aware of it.
He avoids the fact that there is now so much CO2 in the atmosphere, that plants no longer can help us.
He disregards that we know humans are the cause of the CO2 due to the C13/C12 isotope ratio. If he is so knowledgeable, he should know what that is.
Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
Why does he not talk about that? Note: I have NEVER seen a climate change denier ever talk about the CO2 isotopes. Ever. I wonder why? Irrefutable evidence perhaps?
I could go on. But this will do for a start. Address the issues, just like we were asked to. I threw in the braggadio part of Macrae for context of credibility.
All this talk about CO2 reminded me of this link I shared just the other day. In it Dr. Berry does talk about differing CO2, and uses those differences to demonstrate how CO2 isn't the bogeyman it's being portrayed to be. Read the whole thing. https://edberry.com/blog/climate-phy...change-theory/
All this talk about CO2 reminded me of this link I shared just the other day. In it Dr. Berry does talk about differing CO2, and uses those differences to demonstrate how CO2 isn't the bogeyman it's being portrayed to be. Read the whole thing. https://edberry.com/blog/climate-phy...change-theory/
And he blows all credibility with this statement:
"That assumption is both unphysical and impossible because CO2 molecules from human and natural sources are identical. All valid models must treat human and natural CO2 the same."
He is ABSOLUTELY wrong stating this. No wonder his paper got rejected.
All this talk about CO2 reminded me of this link I shared just the other day. In it Dr. Berry does talk about differing CO2, and uses those differences to demonstrate how CO2 isn't the bogeyman it's being portrayed to be. Read the whole thing. https://edberry.com/blog/climate-phy...change-theory/
Aww... you used THAT temperature graph? The Michael Mann hockey stick graph, where they hid the warming of the 1930's by cooling those measured temperatures, then warmed the drastic cold of the 1970's in their graph? Are you really trying to trick someone in here with that hockey stick graph?
"That assumption is both unphysical and impossible because CO2 molecules from human and natural sources are identical. All valid models must treat human and natural CO2 the same."
He is ABSOLUTELY wrong stating this. No wonder his paper got rejected.
I'm pretty certain his paper will be published. It was merely rejected where it was submitted, just like this one was, but was later published elsewhere. BTW, this page discusses the process of the rejection. The actual paper is linked in the article. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/...iewed-journal/
BTW, I can tell from your quick dismissal that you didn't actually read the paper. Thanks for playing though... silly wabbit!
From the comical side comes this equation for solving the CO2 problem :
Harry: " Hey Kathy, wanna do lunch ? "
Kathy: " Let's save the world. We can eat each other ! "
The crowd applauses and chants : " Soylent Green, Soylent Green ,Soylent Green"
Dear me....................I need coffee...........to early in the morning....
That was actually pretty funny. Thank you for that!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
