seven stats on climate change

[Silver Cat]

The most important thing to do about mitigating global warming doesn't apply to folks connected to the internet, so moving on:
2] Ditch the passenger vehicles, remove 90% of them off the streets ...

No civilian cars, means no tanks. No tanks - no military victories.

3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...

No civilian planes - no military jets. No military jets - no military victories.

4] And for God's sake, stop eating so much meat ...

Less meat in the diet - less strong soldiers. Less strong soldiers - less military victories.

Right answer is much more simple - Lets strike "global warming" with "nuclear winter" (the same kind of pseudoscientific charlatanism).
More clean energy means more nukes. More nukes - less competitors. Less competitors means more resourses.

 

[ReinyDays]

2] Ditch the passenger vehicles, remove 90% of them off the streets ...

No civilian cars, means no tanks. No tanks - no military victories.

"Passenger vehicles" means vehicles designed to carry passengers ... like a Ford Focus or Ferrari 350GT ... not semi-trucks or buses ... the emissions from military vehicles is insignificant, there's not 100's of millions of tanks running back and forth from the grocery store every day ... sheesh ...

3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...

No civilian planes - no military jets. No militaru jets - no military victories.

Same logic as above ... here's a map of all the current commercial jets in the air right now ... FlightAware ... jet engines emit soot as well ...

4] And for God's sake, stop eating so much meat ...

Less meat in the diet - less strong soldiers. Less strong soldiers - less military victories.

Do you think eating meat every other meal has that profound of an effect? ... just cutting meat in half opens up an enormous number of acres for growing human food ... drive around Indiana, all those corn fields are for beef and pork production ... what a waste ...

Right answer is much more simple - Lets strike "global warming" with "nuclear winter" (same kind of pseudoscientific charlatanism).
More clean energy means more nukes. More nukes - less competitors. Less competitors means more resourses.

Very strange ... both "global warming" and "nuclear winter" are falsifiable ... these issues can be properly addressed with scientific methods ... you should learn what "pseudo-science" means before you use that term again ... parts of AGW theory have been falsified, thus it's honest to God science ...

The battle fought on United States soil was in 1865 ... just saying ...

 

[SSDD]

Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl

Greenplate Effect – It Does Not Happen Proof No 2 | PSI Intl

Principia Scientific is a Christian Science organization ... yeah, fucking creationists ... no, there's no back radiation is a vacuum ... how can you be so stupid? ...

No back radiation in a vacuum. I have had some off the wall things said to me on this board, but that makes the top 10. Do tell...why is back radiation possible in the presence of air, but not in a vacuum.

Didn't you once claim that radiation from the earth reaches, and is absorbed by the sun. Is there a route for the radiation from the earth to reach the sun without traveling across a vacuum?

Go ahead...lets hear it...why is back radiation not possible in a vacuum?

 

[ReinyDays]

Go ahead...lets hear it...why is back radiation not possible in a vacuum?

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Lord have mercy ...

 

[georgephillip]

Still waiting for Georgie or one of the other members of the AGW religion to answer this simple question. Lets hear from you, OR, you can admit that your religion of man made climate change is a fraud

The first thing you could do to slow global climate change is to stop voting for gold plated pathological liars:

Did Trump say climate change was a Chinese hoax?

Ok but what specifically do you want us to do in order to "slow global climate change"?

should we all buy 20,000 sq ft mansions like Al Gore? fly on private planes like the hollyloonies as they travel to climate summits? send money to Gore to buy carbon credits?

its a scam dude, and you have been scammed.

Ok but what specifically do you want us to do in order to "slow global climate change"?

Decide on a common starting point:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Go ahead...lets hear it...why is back radiation not possible in a vacuum?

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Lord have mercy ...

Earth photons can't hit the Sun. Get it?

I've never heard anything so stupid, but that's SSDD's thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still waiting for Georgie or one of the other members of the AGW religion to answer this simple question. Lets hear from you, OR, you can admit that your religion of man made climate change is a fraud

The first thing you could do to slow global climate change is to stop voting for gold plated pathological liars:

Did Trump say climate change was a Chinese hoax?

Ok but what specifically do you want us to do in order to "slow global climate change"?

should we all buy 20,000 sq ft mansions like Al Gore? fly on private planes like the hollyloonies as they travel to climate summits? send money to Gore to buy carbon credits?

its a scam dude, and you have been scammed.

Ok but what specifically do you want us to do in order to "slow global climate change"?

Decide on a common starting point:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

75/77 is very impressive!!

Let's spend $70 trillion based on that.

 

[georgephillip]

Not enough economic growth. Idiot

Insufficient speculation, Sap?

Nintil - The Soviet Union: GDP growth

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not enough economic growth. Idiot

Insufficient speculation, Sap?

Nintil - The Soviet Union: GDP growth

I guess if commies speculated more, they wouldn't be such poor, alcoholic twats, eh loser?
Thanks for the chart. It's always nice to see the data showing the failure of Communism.

 

[georgephillip]

Technically, modern USA are more socialistic than modern Russia or China.

State capitalism also drives the political economies of those countries:

State capitalism - Wikipedia

"State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses.

"Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to economies such as that of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed 'too big to fail' receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[13][14][15]

"This practice is in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism."

 

[georgephillip]

Sorry. Wrong. You're talking about "homogenized" data, which means fake data.

Agree or not?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry. Wrong. You're talking about "homogenized" data, which means fake data.

Agree or not?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Consensus isn't science. It's politics.

 

[ReinyDays]

Not enough economic growth. Idiot

Insufficient speculation, Sap?

Nintil - The Soviet Union: GDP growth

Wow ... Soviet GDP grew that much after is dissolved? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Agree or not?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...

Place a sheet of 15µm IR photographic paper face up on the ground some moonless night ... process the paper and you see it is fogged ... only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause the paper to fog like that ... nothing else ...

Empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ...

OOPs..

Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band.... Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...

O2 and N2 radiate in the 15µm range? Link?

I assumed the atmospheric window as no photographic paper is capable of such a narrow limitation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

YOUR opinion pieces are bullshit. You & your band of deniers are all wrong & if you assfucks get your way, future generations will suffer.

And your ignorant of basic physics... You would have us all suffer for no fucking reason other than you and your ilk want control over the populace.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Technically, modern USA are more socialistic than modern Russia or China.

State capitalism also drives the political economies of those countries:

State capitalism - Wikipedia

"State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses.

"Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to economies such as that of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed 'too big to fail' receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[13][14][15]

"This practice is in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism."

large enterprises that are deemed 'too big to fail' receive publicly funded government bailouts

Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.

that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws

Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.

where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.

Banks were fined tens of billions. Private owners lost trillions.

Good old Noam, always good for a laugh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...

Place a sheet of 15µm IR photographic paper face up on the ground some moonless night ... process the paper and you see it is fogged ... only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause the paper to fog like that ... nothing else ...

Empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ...

OOPs..

Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band.... Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...

O2 and N2 radiate in the 15µm range? Link?

View attachment 301157

I assumed the atmospheric window as no photographic paper is capable of such a narrow limitation.

So you lied? Or you don't know what 15µm range means?

 

[Billy_Bob]

So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...

Place a sheet of 15µm IR photographic paper face up on the ground some moonless night ... process the paper and you see it is fogged ... only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause the paper to fog like that ... nothing else ...

Empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ...

OOPs..

Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band.... Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...

O2 and N2 radiate in the 15µm range? Link?

View attachment 301157

I assumed the atmospheric window as no photographic paper is capable of such a narrow limitation.

So you lied? Or you don't know what 15µm range means?

Right to being a hack....
Good ol Toad going right to stupid.... 15µm is not a range it is a narrowly defined frequency. Its your assumption of a range that is dead wrong. I am well versed in spectral analysis of energy. It helps to know the subject matter before you embarrass yourself as being ignorant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Place a sheet of 15µm IR photographic paper face up on the ground some moonless night ... process the paper and you see it is fogged ... only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause the paper to fog like that ... nothing else ...

Empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ...

OOPs..

Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band.... Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...

O2 and N2 radiate in the 15µm range? Link?

View attachment 301157

I assumed the atmospheric window as no photographic paper is capable of such a narrow limitation.

So you lied? Or you don't know what 15µm range means?

Right to being a hack....
Good ol Toad going right to stupid.... 15µm is not a range it is a narrowly defined frequency. Its your assumption of a range that is dead wrong. I am well versed in spectral analysis of energy. It helps to know the subject matter before you embarrass yourself as being ignorant.

I am well versed in spectral analysis of energy

So you were lying when you said,

"Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band...."

Good to know.