The last time...

[otto105]

Go on YouTube and type in -

Peter Ridd great barrier reef

Find the video where he covers what the Replication Crisis is.

I just debunked his assertion.

 

[jc456]

So, just boiler plate response to someone who has done more that the average person in America.

for what reason? Why do you think CO2 is harmful?

 

[jc456]

I'm not going to support a product that further harms the environment when better alternatives are available.

Just like transitioning from dirty planet choking oil to clean sources.

so you're walking? cause everything made is made from compounds and materials from the earth. Take your clothes off too, cause those are made from machines that use the same materials.

 

[otto105]

name one that is not funded to say what you think you know?

Funded?


Name one of your sources not funded or employed by petroleum.

for what reason? Why do you think CO2 is harmful?

WTF response is that?

Explain yourself.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I just debunked his assertion.

You believe your sentence there was a -

I'm a top scientist and I debunked Peter Ridd
Where as, we know it just shows what a pretentious little fool you are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure, show your source material for millions and I will show you current alternatives.

Fact sheet about malaria

Malaria is a life-threatening disease caused by parasites that are transmitted to people through the bites of infected female mosquitoes.

www.who.int

https://www.cato.org/commentary/bring-back-ddt#:~:text=The%20indoor%20residual%20spraying%20of,1%2C500%20a%20year%20in%201966.

In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.• In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.• In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320.

Since the mid 1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.

How Rachel Carson Cost Millions of People Their Lives

Rachel Carson is, and should be, a revered environmental icon. But her crusade against one pesticide cost millions of people their lives.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[otto105]

Go on YouTube and type in -

Peter Ridd great barrier reef

Find the video where he covers what the Replication Crisis is.

Try this denial fuckup.

Peter Ridd raises almost all of his research funds from the profits of consultancy work which is usually associated with monitoring of marine dredging operation,” his profile noted. The Marine Geophysics Laboratory at JCU has been involved in consulting for a range of coal terminal projects in 2012, funds which go to PhD scholarship and the staff of the MGL

 

[Captain Caveman]

I'm not going to support a product that further harms the environment when better alternatives are available.

Just like transitioning from dirty planet choking oil to clean sources.

But you use oil in thousands of products? What clean source of plastic made your smartphone/computer/tablet? I'm interested in knowing!!

I get the feeling you don't know how everything works

 

[otto105]

View attachment 778083

Fact sheet about malaria

Malaria is a life-threatening disease caused by parasites that are transmitted to people through the bites of infected female mosquitoes.

www.who.int

View attachment 778084

https://www.cato.org/commentary/bring-back-ddt#:~:text=The%20indoor%20residual%20spraying%20of,1%2C500%20a%20year%20in%201966.

In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.• In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.• In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320.

Since the mid 1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.

How Rachel Carson Cost Millions of People Their Lives

Rachel Carson is, and should be, a revered environmental icon. But her crusade against one pesticide cost millions of people their lives.

www.thedailybeast.com

Boi,

Information from the CATO information fuckup machine from the 1950’s.

Are you fucking serious?




Wiw

 

[Captain Caveman]

Try this denial fuckup.

Peter Ridd raises almost all of his research funds from the profits of consultancy work which is usually associated with monitoring of marine dredging operation,” his profile noted. The Marine Geophysics Laboratory at JCU has been involved in consulting for a range of coal terminal projects in 2012, funds which go to PhD scholarship and the staff of the MGL

Have you been drinking?

 

[otto105]

Have you been drinking?

That is your response?


So a hard pass on the guy then.


Deniers send up the next old energy guy cashing his next check.

 

[Crick]

Wow. And USMB lets you moderate?

All of the stuff, that you and Abu, constantly post, comes out of the IPCC.

I don't keep track of what Abu Afak posts, but I do post a lot of material from the IPCC and from other published studies. You post almost no peer reviewed science.

This is a political body, pushing a global government agenda.

It's "agenda" is clearly stated in the charter with which it was created:

ROLE
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles.pdf

This is funded by NGOs, and billionaire foundations, the same goons that lied to us, primarily about the, "pandemic," which, most of that, is now being seen for what it is, garbage.

The UN and the IPCC are funded by the dues paid by the UN's member nations. They are not funded by NGOs or billionaire foundations and such a claim is complete nonsense.

View attachment 778073

Man-made CO2: 3% Of 3% Of 0.1% | Shift Frequency

According to the IPCC’s own data, man-made CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the total Earth’s atmosphere. That’s 0.000009%! That’s 9 millionths.

shiftfrequency.com

That is not what you asked me. You said "What percent of the CO2 in today's atmosphere is produced the humans' industry, autos, jets, and other activity, and what percent is due to nature. . . ????" "In today's atmosphere", not going into the atmosphere annually. That is why I repeatedly asked you for clarification that you failed to provide. That amount is small, as your source notes. The problem is that the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in centuries. Atmospheric CO2 has been building since we first started putting it there. Almost every bit that was ever emitted by humans is still in our air or in our oceans.

". . . No matter which set of data you use, the IPCC data shows that manmade CO2 output levels are ~3%. How do you figure this out? The 2001 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (119 + 88 + 6.3 = 213.3) and the human portion as 6.3. Divide 6.3 by 213.3 and you get 2.95%.

The 2007 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (29 + 439 + 332 = 800) and the human portion as 29. Divide 29 by 800 and you get 3.63%.

Manmade CO2: 3% of 3% of 0.1%

So here’s the bottom line. According to the IPCC’s own data, manmade CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the total Earth’s atmosphere. That’s 0.000009%! That’s 9 millionths.

CO2 is measured in ppm (parts per million) because it is such a tiny and insignificant gas, yet somehow, the propaganda has been so successful that is has sprouted into what some state is a US$1.5 trillion industry.. . ."

Human CO2 emissions in 2022 were 36.8 billion tons. If, as you claim, that were only 9 milionths of the total, annual, CO2 emissions, the Earth's atmosphere would have had 4.089 quadrillion tons of CO2 added to it last year. The total mass of the Earth's atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons. If we assume a linear trend since 1850, we'd have added 422.89 quadrillion tons of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. The Earth's atmosphere would have increased its mass by 7,600% and would be 98.7% CO2. Your figures are bullshit.

Natural processes releasing and sequestering CO2 have been in an approximate balance for over a million years. Therefore, for the purposes of trends over time, the net CO2 produced by nature is ZERO and human emissions are 100% of the annual increase.

Manmade CO2: A Massive Diversion

". . . The idea that manmade CO2 output levels is a big problem, in the scheme of all of Earth’s eco problems, is a giant hoax.

How about the warming it is causing? Is that a hoax? Is that a trivial problem?

It diverts environmentalists’ attention away from the true issues that need addressing.

Why do you apparently find it so hard to believe that the human species can work on more than one problem at a time?

Does it make any logical sense to spend so much money, energy and attention on 0.000009% of CO2, when there are very palpable, tangible and dangerous threats to our environment?

What about geoengineering, the aerial chemtrail spraying of barium, aluminum and strontium all over us, and the flora and fauna of the Earth? What about the release of synthetic self-aware fibers that cause Morgellons’ Disease, in line with the NWO synthetic agenda? What about unstoppable environmental genetic pollution caused by the release of GMOs?

Chemtrails? Self-aware fibers? These are your palpable, tangible and dangerous threats to our environment? These are the concerns of complete tinfoil whack-jobs.

What about the contamination of waterways with industrial chemicals, pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine, poisons like dioxin and DDT, heavy metals and pharmaceutical residues? Why are people wasting their energy on 3% of 3% of 0.1% when we have real MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL issues facing us as a species?

Because its not 3% of 3% of 0.1%. It is this:

Respected theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson said:

“The possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated … the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

Freeman Dyson was a highly respected theoretical physicist. At one time he was considered perhaps the most intelligent human being on the planet. But no one lives forever. Dyson died 28 February of 2020 at the age of 96. His comment concerning CO2 and global warming began in 2009 when Dyson was 85. Dyson did NOT reject global warming. He simply thought the benefits would outweigh the detriments. Dyson had always been a contrarian, but late in life began to show signs of weakening cognition. In 2012 he declared that ESP was real but that the tools to detect it were too clumsy but, that same year, also published a fundamental new result for the Prisoner's Dilemma, a famous problem in logic. Dyson and James Hansen were friends but did not agree on climate change issues and Hansen stated that Dyson had not studied the topic and was unfamiliar with it. Dyson admitted that Hansen's comments were true.

View attachment 778075Source: Peer-Reviewed research

Despite your comment here at the end, none of the several different versions of Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide have ever been published in a peer reviewed journal. It is an absolute paragon of shoddy disinformation and is absolutely panned by the science community.

 

[jc456]

Funded?


Name one of your sources not funded or employed by petroleum.

WTF response is that?

Explain yourself.

Heartland institute.

33,000 scientists

 

[MisterBeale]

They are not funded by NGOs or billionaire foundations and such a claim is complete nonsense.

What paid for the land that the UN sits on, and the building where they all meet?

 

[Captain Caveman]

That is your response?


So a hard pass on the guy then.


Deniers send up the next old energy guy cashing his next check.

Well yes, because you're bouncing all over the place. You keep whirling off down different avenues, I can only assume that you're rat arsed, unless you've been on the joints. So you want to analyse what a university did up to 2012? Do you want to start a thread on that, so the board can all research with you? Did you know something, you played a Trump tactic their, attack the source!! lol.

How arrogant are you to think that you deserve to go through life with no one saying anything that you don't agree with. You're trying to make the word, "Denier" sound important, it just makes you come across like a bellend.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Boi,

Information from the CATO information fuckup machine from the 1950’s.

Are you fucking serious?




Wiw

You're free to find evidence that DDT didn't save millions of lives.
That the ban didn't lead to a huge increase in malaria deaths and related disability.

Or you could just keep waving your arms and whining.

 

[Crick]

About CAFE mileage standards?

CAFE standards........rules worth dying for.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

VMT is Vehicle Miles Traveled. The CAFE standards began in 1975. Sorry, but I don't see any evidence that it has increased vehicle fatality rates.

Forcing a shift away from ICE vehicles is not a violation of anyone's freedoms.

I've discovered the flaw in your claim.

What flaw is that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

VMT is Vehicle Miles Traveled. The CAFE standards began in 1975. Sorry, but I don't see any evidence that it has increased vehicle fatality rates.

What flaw is that?

Sorry, but I don't see any evidence that it has increased vehicle fatality rates.

Of course not. Lighter, flimsier vehicles are just as safe as heavier, sturdier vehicles.

What flaw is that?

Forcing ain't freedom.

 

[Crick]

What paid for the land that the UN sits on, and the building where they all meet?

John D Rockefeller bought the land for $8.5 million and donated it to the UN for their headquarters. The building was funded by a loan for $65 million from the US government to the UN that was fully repaid. Big whoop.

 

[Crick]

Sorry, but I don't see any evidence that it has increased vehicle fatality rates.

Of course not. Lighter, flimsier vehicles are just as safe as heavier, sturdier vehicles.

With the exception of trucks, all vehicles have become lighter. They have NOT become flimsier. The average weight of vehicles in collisions has gone down and so have the fatality rates.

What flaw is that?

Forcing ain't freedom.

What guaranteed or protected freedom is violated? Are you opposed to the rule of law? It forces behaviors.