• We are implementing a new rule regarding the posting of social media links and Youtube videos, the rule is simple if you are posting these links please say something about it rather than just dropping what we call a "drive by Link", a comment on your thoughts about the content must be included. Thank you

Politics Climate Hysteria Debunked Yet Again ....

Al Gore commemorates Earth Day by skywriting Save the Planet with his private jet..

 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Crikey.

NZ is often the test tube country for various schools of thought. Govt has banned oil exploration, plans for car taxes eu style, plant a billion trees on food producing land so its happening. At the same time of world record low interest rates. Insanity.
 
Seriously, something like $600k/year just in property taxes, 29 acres of prime beachfront property-if you really think it will be underwater in 10 years.


 
Climate Alarmists Foiled: No U.S. Warming Since 2005


When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.
Click to expand...

https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...s_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html
 
Lest we forget the great cataclysm of 2000.

www.apnews.com

AP News

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2
www.apnews.com www.apnews.com
 

Fires in Brazil

Satellites begin to detect heightened fire activity in July and August in the Amazon.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov earthobservatory.nasa.gov

As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) Though activity appears to be above average in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, it has so far appeared below average in Mato Grosso and Pará, according to estimates from the Global Fire Emissions Database, a research project that compiles and analyzes NASA data. (Note that while the chart label says 2016, the 2019 data is listed on all of the plots as a green line. Roll your cursor over the green 2019 block below the plot to isolate the 2019 numbers.)
Click to expand...
 
Most of these fires are to be grass fires and scrub burn offs on purpose by the farmers. Controlled burns and the bush on the edges unscorched.
BBC flew over an area of only grass fire.
 
primer said:
Most of these fires are to be grass fires and scrub burn offs on purpose by the farmers. Controlled burns and the bush on the edges unscorched.
BBC flew over an area of only grass fire.
Click to expand...
Most but
..... Not all. New fields of tropical primal rainforest are burned
Things are also grim from that pov in Africa and Asia
And to be honest, i don't care if Amazon provides 20%, 10% or 5% of the Earth O2. The issue is not that (despite, yes the oversimplified way presented by the media)
The issue is that logging, burning, mining this area is killing biodiversity which may have been useful for us, humans (like new drugs -90% of our durgs are plant issued before chemical synthesis- for example) and exposing us to pathogens we shouldn't be in contact with (see Ebola, Marburg and a bunch of Haemorraghic fevers)
The issue is also that we are destroying, because why not, Humanity F*** Yeah, species selected through millions of years of evolution.
I mean a 10km long rock falling on the heads of the dinosaurs has no sapience so cannot be faulted
We on the other hands are killing species at a rate never seen before and we are called Sapiens sapiens (or the wise with knowledge)
Wise my ass.
I don't really want to have plants and animals left only in zoo. I like my jungle treks. But maybe it is just me ....
 
A last thing that it is to be considered
Burning Tropical rainforest emits CO2, OK
Burning Tropical rainforest deprives us from a O2 produced, OK
Burning rainforest emits small particles that are high irritant or toxic (as Malaysia and Singapore about that) OK
Those are direct effects. People are forgetting the major effect which is indirect though.

Burning rainforests leaves savannah or laterite soil. Thus it changes air moisture, air streams, cloud streams, rain streams. As such it has an impact beyond a purely local or regional effect. Tropical rainforest is not so much important for the O2, it is important for the humidification of the atmosphere, the gathering of sea humidity and the rain cycles.
And those cycles have a tendency to become domino effects very quickly in the way : less rain = drought = less rain = drought = less rain = desertification.
Sometimes with a side effect thousands of km away .....
 
I am more worried about pollution, deforestation and extinction of insects through overuse of chemical products than global warming to be honest. That is why I cannot stand the Greta Thunberg philosophy: let´s not go to school, let´s not be engineers, let´s not have the knowledge to find technological solutions to preserve the environment while we are almost three times as more people on the Earth than when we landed on the moon....let´s just protest and demand that companies be taxed and ban people from taking planes or their cars...And let´s complain about the world that we inherit: a world with amazing health care in the developed world, a world without war in Europe (a few exceptions though...), and a life of comfort where we can tweet and whatsapp to friends.

As much as it inevitable that some restrictions must apply (and they should be few so that are fully enforced), I think we should scratch our heads and improve nuclear energy, batteries manufacturing, building material, agricultural seeds for more resistance to bugs and output so you can leave some soil unworked and open for the bugs...Not to mention better recycle and use much less packaging material.

And of course better use of water.
 
Telmar said:
I am more worried about pollution, deforestation and extinction of insects through overuse of chemical products than global warming to be honest. That is why I cannot stand the Greta Thunberg philosophy: let´s not go to school, let´s not be engineers, let´s not have the knowledge to find technological solutions to preserve the environment while we are almost three times as more people on the Earth than when we landed on the moon....let´s just protest and demand that companies be taxed and ban people from taking planes or their cars...And let´s complain about the world that we inherit: a world with amazing health care in the developed world, a world without war in Europe (a few exceptions though...), and a life of comfort where we can tweet and whatsapp to friends.

As much as it inevitable that some restrictions must apply (and they should be few so that are fully enforced), I think we should scratch our heads and improve nuclear energy, batteries manufacturing, building material, agricultural seeds for more resistance to bugs and output so you can leave some soil unworked and open for the bugs...Not to mention better recycle and use much less packaging material.

And of course better use of water.
Click to expand...
While i would overally agree with your post, i think that technological solution is a lure. We are destroying our home at such a high pace that i don't believe that technological improvments will save us. For 2 reasons
Techs are more and more ressource consuming while our ressources are finite. Well yes, recent car engines are less fuel hungry that 30 years ago. On the other hand, cars are more plastic, electronical components, alloys hungry than our old sapoon boxes. What we improve on one side is an ogre on other(s) side(s).
Techs are often as (if not more) toxic for the environment (or/and us) than their previous versions. Bisphenol A is bad? Have a look at Bisphenol B in a few years.
Last point is more psychological : the most adamant proponents of tech evolutions are using it as an excuse to F*** the things up because well, yes (in their opinion) technologies will save them and clean their mess. Not gonna work buddy. We are trying for years to recycle plastic and are successful on only 10-20% of them. While new kinds of plastics appear every year. Same with chemicals (3000 new molecules every years)
Plus all those new techs are again ressources consuming; It will be very fun to have a super dupper not polluting fertilizer but not enough oil (because fertilizers are often oil industry by products) to process it ....

To have a deep impact of technologies on our civilization, there is only one way : not polluting, cheap, largely available energy source
Or in other words, we have to leave the oil civilization for something else (hydrogen, deuterium, i dunno)
 
Mordoror said:
While i would overally agree with your post, i think that technological solution is a lure. ....
Click to expand...

It´s a challenge. But I don´t see any other way...I do not believe in "degrowth" and that people will give up on energy needs. Electrical batteries are much more efficient than they were only five years ago, we use less cobalt than we used to to manufacture them for example. I also think it´s insane to shut down nuclear power...reardless of the challenges, this is an energy that can provide transition to something groundbreaking in the future...Genetically modified crop can help us use less water and fertilizer.

Of course have to use more recyclabe materials such as glass, such as paper, and be charged for it unless we bring it back to the store. We have to use much less PET bottles and not think only of recycling them.

I think we agree that the one of the biggest challenges is pollution...and I think it surpasses the issues with CO2. man does not produce that much CO2 and what we need to think about is reforestation so the 2-3% we account for does´nt accumulate. Of course I am for burning less fossil fuel, but humanity is much more threatened by trashing our environment.
 
Telmar said:
It´s a challenge. But I don´t see any other way...I do not believe in "degrowth" and that people will give up on energy needs. Electrical batteries are much more efficient than they were only five years ago, we use less cobalt than we used to to manufacture them for example. I also think it´s insane to shut down nuclear power...reardless of the challenges, this is an energy that can provide transition to something groundbreaking in the future...Genetically modified crop can help us use less water and fertilizer.

Of course have to use more recyclabe materials such as glass, such as paper, and be charged for it unless we bring it back to the store. We have to use much less PET bottles and not think only of recycling them.

I think we agree that the one of the biggest challenges is pollution...and I think it surpasses the issues with CO2. man does not produce that much CO2 and what we need to think about is reforestation so the 2-3% we account for does´nt accumulate. Of course I am for burning less fossil fuel, but humanity is much more threatened by trashing our environment.
Click to expand...
Just a correction. We are not producing 2 or 3% of CO2
Our industrial society emits 35 billions of t each years.
Volcanoes, major natural emiters, priduce 150 to 300 millions of tons. 100x less.
That's not for notjing that CO2 ppm is increasing greatly in the planet atmosphere. Id agree with you that it is one of the many pollutants we are trashing our planet with though.
 
Mordoror said:
Just a correction. We are not producing 2 or 3% of CO2
Our industrial society emits 35 billions of t each years.
Volcanoes, major natural emiters, priduce 150 to 300 millions of tons. 100x less.
That's not for notjing that CO2 ppm is increasing greatly in the planet atmosphere. Id agree with you that it is one of the many pollutants we are trashing our planet with though.
Click to expand...

I was at 440 gigatons of natural emissions for 26 of humqan origin..Granted it´s a little more than 3%..

www.newscientist.com

Climate myths: Human CO<SUB>2</SUB> emissions are too tiny to matter

Carbon dioxide sources and sinks Carbon dioxide levels as measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii Past and future carbon dioxide concentrations See all climate myths in our special feature. Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million...
www.newscientist.com www.newscientist.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top