That's odd. The military uses 100% metric yet you don't know any? Sounds like somebody is full of sh-t.
No it doesn't 19cm in a century then gained at higher rates as listed in mm.
A Few Honest Questions for the Climate Hoaxers?
- Thread starter grainfedpraiboy
- Start date
No it doesn't 19cm in a century then gained at higher rates as listed in mm.
They click? **** these new fangled computers can do anything.
I looked at the coloured arrows and the corresponding chart.
'alternate statement of fact' in this case represents the perspective that does not support AGW/CC
In this case, the taxes we are expected to pay are levied by an outside body (read: the IPCC or UN I guess) and those funds having absolutely no direct benefit to the local population that remitted them.
.... And no, I don't buy into the 'we saved the planet, therefore, we did benefit'.... This would require that I buy into the AGW/CC premise.
... Only if you believe that climate change is materially and substantially impacted by humanity
Using the food production example, one could also pin a direct cause/effect relationship with the advancement of farm equipment as the direct culprit... Why not set a global tax on combines and swathers and make those the villains?
Regardless, it does not change the fact that the current AGW/CC ideology would generate a solution via controlling the population.
The commentary relative to petro-calories is nothing more than an engineered deviation from what is essentially the only solution to the position that you support
Interestingly, when the various analyses are done, the pro CC groups villify Canada based on energy consumption on a per capita basis, in effect, disregarding the vast distances in this nation as well as the extreme weather that must be dealt with.
With the above in mind, have you ever wondered which nations would be at the top (and bottom) of the energy consumption standards if these metrics were measured on a per square foot basis?.. Would be a very different story
... Because the topic of discussion here is AGW/CC and not cancer in China
It's up to you to look in the mirror and make that assesment
The short answer is that there is no formal, discipline offered through accredited universities that is universally recognized.
That said, anyone that is claiming expertise in this area is bullsh*tting you
Sounds more like somebody doesn't know sh-t about the army. But enlighten me to which military trade's members use metric in day to day conversation beyond klicks and Celsius? Are you referring to things like 7.62 mm ammo instead of 30 cal? I can assure you the average bloggins uses it only as a descriptive.
I'll get back to you.
Ok. So there is green and apparently there is another colour green with a different shade that I didn't pick up on and read the charts wrong. (I only know about 1/2 dz colours back to that whole heterosexual male problem).
I'm on my game tonight that's for sure.
Okay, but you looked at the wrong corresponding colour. You mixed up dark green and light green.
To be fair, on my very old lap top they really don't look any different to me. Maybe my testosterone is spiking?
I do not drink.
Could be. Always cognizant of that possibility or perhaps inevitability.
Okay, so we have all concluded that #2 is wrong, let's address the others.
1. The ocean pH has always been changing. Ocean Acidification is a pHraud. Let's put it this way, pH has gone up by an average of 0.15 on the pH scale, while on a daily level it fluctuates several times that amount, and somehow this is going to negatively effect plants and animals? Even within BC we have lakes with a pH of 4.5 and others with a pH of close to 10 that have the same fish. The Ocean is over 8, and will be for a long time. This is not even acidic. Instead of calling it acidification, you should use the less alarmist term "ocean neutralization." There is no evidence that OA has been bad, nor that it will reach lethal levels. PLOS ONE: High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison
We do know from the literature that the "effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is quasi-predictable at best." in other words, we don't know what the effects of "acidification" are. NOAAgate: how 'ocean acidification' could turn out to be the biggest con since Michael Mann's Hockey Stick - Breitbart
3. This has absolutely nothing to do with climate change/global warming. Nothing. Extinctions are caused by overfishing, deforestation, etc. AGW is the doomsayer's wet dream because they can blame everything on it no matter how ridiculous and unrelated they are, and people believe it.
4. Pollution is a problem, but CO2 is not pollution. That's an entirely different issue from AGW. Cancer is caused by pollution, but still the latest science says that most of it is caused by old age (people are dying of cancer today because small pox, infections, etc. don't get them first).
5. This is also wrong because the same people saying this were also saying the world could not sustain 5 billion people and that we'd run out of oil by 1990, and yet here we are with 7 billion. The world will not exceed 10 billion given the lowering birth rates, so we don't need to worry. As we consume more resources we are forced to become more efficient, so chances are that the world could support 10 billion to Canadian standards given how quickly technology and scientific advancements change.
So there you have it, most if not all of your points are totally wrong. You wonder why we remain skeptical of some of the apocalyptic claims when time and time again, we point out how ludicrous these claims are. Stop blinding believing things are true just because someone in a lab coat somewhere said they are, especially when the actual science doesn't agree.
Again I acknowledge the error in the ocean rise however to be fair, the oceans are rising at a rate faster in the last 20 or so years than in the previous century and are accelerating. The other points have nothing to do with CO2 aside from acidification of the oceans. I'll address these in detail later as I am just working in the office and heading out for the day.