Blizzard Warming

Rana said:
This thread once again indicates that most of you have not one clue about climate change.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of people denying the relationship of smoking and health problems because they found one 90 year old guy who smoked for 70 years and is still alive.
A simple mind can't be bothered with statistics. They, do though, believe in stories.
 
While they have their "thoughts" the rest of us have information, facts, statistics and provable modeling techniques, all of which are anathema to the willfully ignorant.
 
Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century?
Global warming and Climate change alarmists are perpetuating a hoax of epic proportions to line their own pockets and provide them with some greater sense of purpose. The climate has changed for centuries and will continue to do so with or without the help of mankind's miniscule contributions to CO2. Back in the 70's it was panic over the coming Ice Age - then it was Global Warming - now, unable to predict the future of climate at all they simply shout the warning... "climate change" - as if that means anything. Mostly they're after increased taxes and control over the masses who mindlessly gobble up this nonsense. But thankfully there's plenty of rational people trying to combat the climate change alarmists including John Colemen (founder of the Weather Channel), Mark Henderson, a contributing writer for Forbes and Dennis Byrne a Chicago writer (see links below).

http://www.greatglobalwarming.com
 
Rana said:
This thread once again indicates that most of you have not one clue about climate change.
Click to expand...

You have never shown the least understanding of the underlying issues, so why should anybody listen to you? I prefer to believe people like Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson rather than Al Bore who stands to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he is urging Congress to adopt. I always find it truly laughable how warmists bang on about Exxon when Gore was trying to get into bed with Goldman Sachs to make billions from carbon trading, it just goes to show how gullible they are.

http://www.jrdeputyaccountant.com/2009/05/al-gore-carbon-credits-green-scam-and.html
 
Last edited:
The world understands what is happening and why.
It must be very frustrating to be pro-pollution in a world that wishes to change from the old dirty ways.
Poor BORBO
 
Leonthecat said:
The world understands what is happening and why.
It must be very frustrating to be pro-pollution in a world that wishes to change from the old dirty ways.
Poor BORBO
Click to expand...

CO2 is not a pollutant in the quantities present in the atmosphere, without it the life of photosynthetic organisms and animals would be impossible, given that CO2 provides the basis for the synthesis of organic compounds that provide nutrients for plants and animals. In fact a recent peer reviewed paper has highlighted how increased CO2 has been beneficial to the health of US forests

We find that plants can shift their optimum temperature for photosynthesis, especially in the presence of elevated CO[SUB]2[/SUB], which also increases plant productivity. No clear national trend to date has been reported for flood or drought or their effects on forests except for a current drought in the US Southwest. Additionally, elevated CO[SUB]2[/SUB] increases water use efficiency and protects plants from drought. Pollutants can reduce plant growth but concentrations of major pollutants such as ozone have declined modestly. Ozone damage in particular is lessened by rising CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. No clear trend has been reported for pathogen or insect damage but experiments suggest that in many cases rising CO[SUB]2[/SUB] enhances plant resistance to both agents. There is strong evidence from the United States and globally that forest growth has been increasing over recent decades to the past 100+ years. Future prospects for forests are not clear because different models produce divergent forecasts. However, forest growth models that incorporate more realistic physiological responses to rising CO[SUB]2[/SUB] are more likely to show future enhanced growth. Overall, our review suggests that United States forest health has improved over recent decades and is not likely to be impaired in at least the next few decades.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112715007756
 
Last edited:
Borboletta said:
CO2 is not a pollutant, without it the life of photosynthetic organisms and animals would be impossible, given that CO2 provides the basis for the synthesis of organic compounds that provide nutrients for plants and animals. In fact a recent peer reviewed paper has highlighted how increased CO2 has been beneficial to the health of US forests



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112715007756
Click to expand...

Sure, drive a Hummer and feed the plants. Maybe you can persuade little children with that simplistic BS. Maybe.
The atmosphere is a delicate balance of elements and upsetting that balance will effect everything that depends on that balance to remain stable.
Climate being only one of many things changed by the imbalances pollution imposes. Even most children can understand that.
Being pro-pollution must be hard to live with. How do you sleep at night?
Poor BORBO
 
Leonthecat said:
Sure, drive a Hummer and feed the plants. Maybe you can persuade little children with that simplistic BS. Maybe.
The atmosphere is a delicate balance of elements and upsetting that balance will effect everything that depends on that balance to remain stable.
Climate being only one of many things changed by the imbalances pollution imposes. Even most children can understand that.
Being pro-pollution must be hard to live with. How do you sleep at night?
Poor BORBO
Click to expand...

You don't need to have a degree in chemistry, which I have, to know bullshit when it is spouted. For a start, the main pollutants that you allude to (CO2, SO2, NOx, NH4) are chemical compounds not elements, only a scientifically ignorant ignoramus would say crap like that!! I mean for fuck's sake I show you a peer reviewed paper that states that CO2 is beneficial to US forests and you dismiss it because it doesn't chime with your predetermined view of the world.

Confirmation Bias

The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

Availability Cascade

A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true")
 
Last edited:
Borboletta said:
You don't need to have a degree in chemistry, which I have, to know bullshit when it is spouted. For a start, the main pollutants that you allude to (CO2, SO2, NOx are chemical compounds not elements, only a scientifically ignorant ignoramus would say crap like that!! I mean for fuck's sake I show you a peer reviewed paper that states that CO2 is beneficial to US forests and you dismiss it because it doesn't chime with your predetermined view of the world.
Click to expand...

You just called those compounds that you say don't pollute "pollutants".Lol
There is more than one definition to the word "elements".

ˈeləmənt
noun
plural noun: elements
1.
a part or aspect of something abstract, especially one that is essential or characteristic.
"the death had all the elements of a great tabloid story"
synonyms: component, constituent, part, section, portion, piece, segment, bit; More
2.
each of more than one hundred substances that cannot be chemically interconverted or broken down into simpler substances and are primary constituents of matter. Each element is distinguished by its atomic number, i.e., the number of protons in the nuclei of its atoms.

The sense in which I used the word comes before the sense that describes the primary constituents of matter.

CO2 is not an element per se, but it is an "element" of the atmosphere nonetheless.
Poor Borbo
 
Pollutant | Define Pollutant at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollutant
Dictionary.com
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment.
 
Leonthecat said:
You just called those compounds that you say don't pollute "pollutants".Lol
There is more than one definition to the word "elements".

ˈeləmənt
noun
plural noun: elements
1.
a part or aspect of something abstract, especially one that is essential or characteristic.
"the death had all the elements of a great tabloid story"
synonyms: component, constituent, part, section, portion, piece, segment, bit; More
2.
each of more than one hundred substances that cannot be chemically interconverted or broken down into simpler substances and are primary constituents of matter. Each element is distinguished by its atomic number, i.e., the number of protons in the nuclei of its atoms.

The sense in which I used the word comes before the sense that describes the primary constituents of matter.

CO2 is not an element per se, but it is an "element" of the atmosphere.
Poor Borbo
Click to expand...

No sorry son, but element and compound have very precise chemical definitions. Only an ignorant twerp like you would attempt to bullshit their way out of their faux pas. I should go to bed if I were you, you obviously need the sleep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top