NASA: Carbon dioxide fertilization greening Earth, study finds

Rana said:
Tom's standard answer for those who disagree with him on climate change, and he calls others arrogant, how ironic, everyone is stupid because Tom has a chemistry degree.
Click to expand...

A chemistry set, maybe. His climate denial pronouncements drip with deception.
 
Rana said:
Neither moon or myself deserve to be called stupid. You just don't like that the majority of people who actually have degrees in climate related fields don't agree with you.
Click to expand...

See again that's just crap, how can you say that when I've told you about my friend? I will discuss the subject till the cows come home with people that are clued up but if you just spout stupid slogans then I will treat you accordingly. You could make a start by not using emotive words like denier implying that being sceptical is on a par with holocaust denial. Anybody with a scientific background knows that scepticism is the default setting for any good scientist, to be otherwise marks you out as more akin to a Scientologist than a scientist. You talk about Alaska, well let me point out that when I was in S E Asia it snowed for the first time ever in Central Vietnam and we have had one of the coldest Aprils on record in the UK.
 
Last edited:
There you go again- highlighting anomalies as indicators of a stability which no longer exists.
 
moon2012 said:
There you go again- highlighting anomalies as indicators of a stability which no longer exists.
Click to expand...
Yes it's funny how they are just anomalies when they run counter to global warming hysteria but droughts in California are incontrovertible evidence that the world is going to fry. Why can't you just be honest and admit that the whole CAGW schtick is just a way to achieve socialism by other means.

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
 
moon2012 said:
A chemistry set, maybe. His climate denial pronouncements drip with deception.
Click to expand...
So what are your credentials sonny? Apart from lifelong membership to Greenpiss and a degree in advanced treehugging? I have never disputed or denied that there has been warming in the past, or indeed that CO2 has a climate forcing role to play. However absolutely no one has ever demonstrated that it is anything other than a minor player, indeed the consensus is that ECS, look it up, is around 1.2K. To achieve all the other scary predictions requires a host of positive feedbacks that are not observable in nature but come exclusively from computer models. Now call me old-fashioned but I believe in empirical evidence and reproducible results, not speculation and hysteria.

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
 
moon2012 said:
A chemistry set, maybe. His climate denial pronouncements drip with deception.
Click to expand...
Care to tell me how Gibbs free energy, enthalpy and entropy are related? How are they important in determining whether a chemical reaction will occur?

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
 
Milagro said:
Yes it's funny how they are just anomalies when they run counter to global warming hysteria but droughts in California are incontrovertible evidence that the world is going to fry. Why can't you just be honest and admit that the whole CAGW schtick is just a way to achieve socialism by other means.

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of that- but it's certainly an appealing idea.
 
moon2012 said:
I hadn't thought of that- but it's certainly an appealing idea.
Click to expand...

Ex-Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore knows all about it which is why he left and now lectures on the harm being caused by environmentalists.

I went along to hear ex-Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore last night and a very rewarding evening it was. A fellow Canadian and from our west coast so I may even have travelled in the same circles during the dropout stage of my life in the early 70s. I certainly knew whereof he spoke. I encourage you to go along, and also catch up with him on Andrew Bolt tomorrow. He has a roadshow presentation which you can hear for yourself, so I will stick to the Q&A which was as interesting as the rest. And if you are of the opinion you have heard it all before, you may have but I hadn’t so it may be worth your while. He has also not yet been scheduled for an interview by the Trotskyists at the ABC.

First my own question, which is something that worries me a very great deal. Moore presented a long line of statistics and other evidence, some I was familiar with and some I wasn’t, in large part pointing to the fraudulence of the global warming scam but also dealing with other areas of the environmental movement and the massive damage it is causing. So my question was to point out that anyone who has the inclination to follow the evidence and look at the data has already caught on and understands there is nothing to concern us. What, therefore, do you think, I asked, about green policies really being a form of religious observance, not science based, and therefore unreachable by the use of rational argument. To which he replied:
.
“I have no answer.”
.
​
I think that is the same answer I have and it is the essence of the problem. There is always some stray fact or random event that will keep people who desperately want to believe the worst about our way of life from straying from the fold. There are no crucial tests they set themselves. There is no actual standard, such as actually seeing whether or not temperatures have actually risen, which you would think ought to be fundamental. To a true fundamentalist there is no evidence actually required. The old cartoonist standard of the old man with the “we are doomed” sign is the mainstream. We live in an age of faith and nothing is allowed to disturb that faith.

The other answer to a question I found interesting was about why the environmental movement has been able to maintain such a strong position in spite of the massive harm it does and the absence of any serious factual basis for their claims. This was his answer:

.
There is a great convergence of our elites, each of which sees advantage to themselves in promoting and going along with the environmentalists:
.
1) the greens
2) politicians
3) the media
4) the grant-seeking academic community
5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity
6) most religions
.
​
That is a formidable combination that, quite frankly, I don’t see any prospect of defeating. In more authoritarian regimes green politics is a nullity but here in the West, I can see it is one more reason to believe we are at the end of time. It is only the fantastic cost to individuals that may eventually slow but never stop the damage being done. When your electricity bill is $1000 a quarter, there may be some reconsideration. In the meantime, I might go and get myself one of those “we are doomed” signs for myself.
Click to expand...

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/25/its-not-easy-being-non-green/
 
Imagine the world without environmentalists. Now tell Patrick Moore to go boil his head.
 
moon2012 said:
Imagine the world without environmentalists. Now tell Patrick Moore to go boil his head.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with environmentalists per se, it's the Marxists masquerading as such in Greenpeace that I can't abide. There are so many worthwhile causes that they could be concentrating on but don't. How about the use of explosives to catch fish in the Philippines destroying coral reefs in the process or the emptying of polluted water from shrimp farms into the sea. Oh and how about the destruction of so many birds from wind turbines and solar power stations?


Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
 
Tossing ' Marxist ', ' antisemite '; ' socialist ' et al into the mix just confirms your Tory neZionist industrialist credentials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top