Another UN lie about a house in Samoa being deserted because....
-
Yes because it's mainstream it must mean it's fact, not biased info at all.
Back in the day, there was a mainstream belief that the world was flat.
Not that long ago, there was a mainstream belief the world was going to be in an ice age by now.
Yes because it's mainstream it must mean it's fact, not biased info at all.
Back in the day, there was a mainstream belief that the world was flat.
Not that long ago, there was a mainstream belief the world was going to be in an ice age by now.
Contributor "Jax" wrote:
'Yes because it's mainstream it must mean it's fact, not biased info at all.':
He as quoted me selectively. I did not refer to "mainstream-belief", but to "mainstream-science". Scientific study is designed to seek always to exclude bias from the study in question.He also wrote:
' there was a mainstream belief that the world was flat':
That was indeed "mainstream-belief', but not modern "mainstream-science".He wrote:
'there was a mainstream belief the world was going to be in an ice age by now.':
He has not produced evidence for his "by now".
This refers to a natural periodic phenomenon, whereas the climate emergency is a non-natural human-caused phenomenon.
Ice Ages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
Next Ice Age:
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/next-ice-age-would-hit-earth-in-11-000-years-if-it-werent-for-climate-change-scientists-say
Disruption by human greenhouse gas emissions, to the natural ice age cycle:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470262-we-now-know-how-much-emissions-have-delayed-the-next-glacial-period/ -
oh, baloney, Robert.
Oct 20, 2023The awkward part isn't trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it's also available in English. It's that the Abstract bluntly declares that "standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures" while the conclusions state "the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 -
Baloney, Robert, Part II
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2025/03/12/dont-panic-antarctica-isnt-melting-n2186589
Don't Panic—Antarctica Isn't Melting
-
So who’s taking credit for Robby the robot?
-
So who’s taking credit for Robby the robot?
So who’s taking credit for Robby the robot?
My bet?.. Lumbergh or Ccunt
-
Yes because it's mainstream it must mean it's fact, not biased info at all.
Back in the day, there was a mainstream belief that the world was flat.
Not that long ago, there was a mainstream belief the world was going to be in an ice age by now.
Contributor "Jax" wrote:
'Yes because it's mainstream it must mean it's fact, not biased info at all.':
He as quoted me selectively. I did not refer to "mainstream-belief", but to "mainstream-science". Scientific study is designed to seek always to exclude bias from the study in question.He also wrote:
' there was a mainstream belief that the world was flat':
That was indeed "mainstream-belief', but not modern "mainstream-science".He wrote:
'there was a mainstream belief the world was going to be in an ice age by now.':
He has not produced evidence for his "by now".
This refers to a natural periodic phenomenon, whereas the climate emergency is a non-natural human-caused phenomenon.
Ice Ages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
Next Ice Age:
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/next-ice-age-would-hit-earth-in-11-000-years-if-it-werent-for-climate-change-scientists-say
Disruption by human greenhouse gas emissions, to the natural ice age cycle:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470262-we-now-know-how-much-emissions-have-delayed-the-next-glacial-period/Contributor "Jax" wrote:
'Yes because it's mainstream it must mean it's fact, not biased info at all.':
He as quoted me selectively. I did not refer to "mainstream-belief", but to "mainstream-science". Scientific study is designed to seek always to exclude bias from the study in question.He also wrote:
' there was a mainstream belief that the world was flat':
That was indeed "mainstream-belief', but not modern "mainstream-science".He wrote:
'there was a mainstream belief the world was going to be in an ice age by now.':
He has not produced evidence for his "by now".
This refers to a natural periodic phenomenon, whereas the climate emergency is a non-natural human-caused phenomenon.
Ice Ages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
Next Ice Age:
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/next-ice-age-would-hit-earth-in-11-000-years-if-it-werent-for-climate-change-scientists-say
Disruption by human greenhouse gas emissions, to the natural ice age cycle:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470262-we-now-know-how-much-emissions-have-delayed-the-next-glacial-period/Belief, science based on bias reviews, all the same. Get it? Does it compute or do I need to come unplug you from the wall?
I give it no respect, doesn't mean I even deny anything happening, just waiting for some some real studies.
-
oh, baloney, Robert.
Oct 20, 2023The awkward part isn't trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it's also available in English. It's that the Abstract bluntly declares that "standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures" while the conclusions state "the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2oh, baloney, Robert.
Oct 20, 2023The awkward part isn't trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it's also available in English. It's that the Abstract bluntly declares that "standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures" while the conclusions state "the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2What a surprise that the Norwegian state-owned agency "Statistics Norway" has produced a report seeking to delegitimize the mainstream science on human greenhouse gas emissions causing a climate emergency!:
- - - - Start of extract: - - - -
'In 2011, Norway was the eighth largest crude oil exporter in the world (at 78 Mt), and the 9th largest exporter of refined oil (at 86 Mt). It was also the world's third largest natural gas exporter (at 99 bcm), having significant gas reserves in the North Sea.[3][4] Norway also possesses some of the world's largest potentially exploitable coal reserves (located under the Norwegian continental shelf) on earth.[5] More recently (2017), the Norwegian government has ranked 3rd worldwide as the largest exporter of natural gas, just behind Russia and Qatar. '(See webpage for citations.)
Webpage heading: "Energy in Norway":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway
- - - - End of extract - - - -
Can anyone see any possible State bias here ...! ?
A scientific response to the "Statistics Norway" report (which was linked by contributor "calfoxwc"), can be seen here:
"A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics":
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/a-distraction-due-to-errors-misunderstanding-and-misguided-norwegian-statistics/
-
oh, baloney, Robert.
Oct 20, 2023The awkward part isn't trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it's also available in English. It's that the Abstract bluntly declares that "standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures" while the conclusions state "the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2What a surprise that the Norwegian state-owned agency "Statistics Norway" has produced a report seeking to delegitimize the mainstream science on human greenhouse gas emissions causing a climate emergency!:
- - - - Start of extract: - - - -
'In 2011, Norway was the eighth largest crude oil exporter in the world (at 78 Mt), and the 9th largest exporter of refined oil (at 86 Mt). It was also the world's third largest natural gas exporter (at 99 bcm), having significant gas reserves in the North Sea.[3][4] Norway also possesses some of the world's largest potentially exploitable coal reserves (located under the Norwegian continental shelf) on earth.[5] More recently (2017), the Norwegian government has ranked 3rd worldwide as the largest exporter of natural gas, just behind Russia and Qatar. '(See webpage for citations.)
Webpage heading: "Energy in Norway":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway
- - - - End of extract - - - -
Can anyone see any possible State bias here ...! ?
A scientific response to the "Statistics Norway" report (which was linked by contributor "calfoxwc"), can be seen here:
"A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics":
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/a-distraction-due-to-errors-misunderstanding-and-misguided-norwegian-statistics/
What a surprise that the Norwegian state-owned agency "Statistics Norway" has produced a report seeking to delegitimize the mainstream science on human greenhouse gas emissions causing a climate emergency!:
- - - - Start of extract: - - - -
'In 2011, Norway was the eighth largest crude oil exporter in the world (at 78 Mt), and the 9th largest exporter of refined oil (at 86 Mt). It was also the world's third largest natural gas exporter (at 99 bcm), having significant gas reserves in the North Sea.[3][4] Norway also possesses some of the world's largest potentially exploitable coal reserves (located under the Norwegian continental shelf) on earth.[5] More recently (2017), the Norwegian government has ranked 3rd worldwide as the largest exporter of natural gas, just behind Russia and Qatar. '(See webpage for citations.)
Webpage heading: "Energy in Norway":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway
- - - - End of extract - - - -
Can anyone see any possible State bias here ...! ?
A scientific response to the "Statistics Norway" report linked by contributor "calfoxwc" can be seen here:
"A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics":
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/a-distraction-due-to-errors-misunderstanding-and-misguided-norwegian-statistics/
That does not compute.
-
Robert? has the idea that bashing a source for "possible" bias is right out of woodpecker's playbook.
I don't think he? is legit.
-
Robert? has the idea that bashing a source for "possible" bias is right out of woodpecker's playbook.
I don't think he? is legit.
Robert? has the idea that bashing a source for "possible" bias is right out of woodpecker's playbook.
I don't think he? is legit.
What I was seeking to point out it that Norway has a "vested interest" in fossil fuels as shown in the Wikipedia information, and in my personal view very likely commissioned the report to support its own financial interests. -
Robert? has the idea that bashing a source for "possible" bias is right out of woodpecker's playbook.
I don't think he? is legit.
What I was seeking to point out it that Norway has a "vested interest" in fossil fuels as shown in the Wikipedia information, and in my personal view very likely commissioned the report to support its own financial interests.
What I was seeking to point out it that Norway has a "vested interest" in fossil fuels as shown in the Wikipedia information, and in my personal view very likely commissioned the report to support its own financial interests.likely? as in, the UN passing wind constantly about man made global warming? Like the UN funding terrorist groups in the Mideast? "Likely" like all the scientists who warped their mmgw findings because they didn't want to lose their huge grants from the UN etc?
"Likely" like al gore who had a huge giant home and flew around on private jets and who became a very, very rich slug?
In one month last year, the report found, Gore's home consumed more electricity than the average family uses in 34 months. The electricity used just to heat Gore's swimming pool would power six ...*********************************this is a great read:**********************************so, Robert, I think you are a grad student in college doing a paper on argumentation or something.I'm giving you far more credit than the woodpecker. -
What I was seeking to point out it that Norway has a "vested interest" in fossil fuels as shown in the Wikipedia information, and in my personal view very likely commissioned the report to support its own financial interests.likely? as in, the UN passing wind constantly about man made global warming? Like the UN funding terrorist groups in the Mideast? "Likely" like all the scientists who warped their mmgw findings because they didn't want to lose their huge grants from the UN etc?
"Likely" like al gore who had a huge giant home and flew around on private jets and who became a very, very rich slug?
In one month last year, the report found, Gore's home consumed more electricity than the average family uses in 34 months. The electricity used just to heat Gore's swimming pool would power six ...*********************************this is a great read:**********************************so, Robert, I think you are a grad student in college doing a paper on argumentation or something.I'm giving you far more credit than the woodpecker.likely? as in, the UN passing wind constantly about man made global warming? Like the UN funding terrorist groups in the Mideast? "Likely" like all the scientists who warped their mmgw findings because they didn't want to lose their huge grants from the UN etc?
"Likely" like al gore who had a huge giant home and flew around on private jets and who became a very, very rich slug?
In one month last year, the report found, Gore's home consumed more electricity than the average family uses in 34 months. The electricity used just to heat Gore's swimming pool would power six ...*********************************this is a great read:**********************************so, Robert, I think you are a grad student in college doing a paper on argumentation or something.I'm giving you far more credit than the woodpecker.
It would seem that Ms Joanne Nova is not a climate scientist, and has connections to the oil industry:- - - - Start of extract: - - - -
'For four years, [Joanne] Nova jointly co-ordinated[7] the Shell Questacon Science Circus, a partnership between Questacon, the Shell Oil Company Australia and the Australian National University
She self-published[8] the book The Skeptics Handbook, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and promotes various falsehoods about climate change.[11] The book argues that temperatures have not increased, and that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.[11][5] [...]
She has falsely claimed that fewer than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusion that CO2 is the dominant contributor to climate change.[4] PolitiFact described that as a "flat-out wrong" interpretation of data from a survey, and the lead author of the survey in question said that the survey showed "a strong majority of scientists agree that greenhouse gases originating from human activity are the dominant cause of recent warming."[4] Nova has argued that climate science is distorted by money, saying "thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite."[15] [...]
Citation 4:
"Santorum cites flawed climate change figure, and misquotes it". @politifact. Retrieved 3 December 2019.(See webpage for the other citations.)
Extract source:
"Joanne Nova":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
- - - - End of extract - - - -
So far as Mr. Al Gore is concerned, while he is sincerely concerned about the environment, I do not debate individuals because I am concerned only with the mainstream science.
You asked about my education. I have answer that here (but you would need to scroll down to my relevant post):
https://www.thebrownsboard.com/topic/68684-the-support-israel-palestinians-could-have-had-their-own-state-when-israel-was-created-thread/#comment-1152667
-
It's not a stretch to say mainstream can and has been biased, just as you refute resources only because they come from the oil industry but without actual evidence based material to back that up. It's false merely because you connect a dot to the oil industry, accurate or not.
If we only listened to the mainstream media, for example, this country would be screwed.
Mainstream science is not much different. For example, to challenge anything that is accepted by mainstream science, would be to sign a death sentence to your career because you don't step in line. Yet isn't science about exploring and questioning the world around you? How can you have science if you don't question everything around you?
People who have no evidence or can't think for themselves hide behind the 'science'. Fauci was supposed to be an expert and in charge of all the big scientists behind disease control, and this country, especially the politicians got behind him blindly to follow the 'science', look where that got people. Mask up, 6 ft apart, all of that was bullshit that did more harm than good.
When people reference Al Gore, it's because he used all the data from 'scientist', and with just a little bit of time anyone who isn't brain washed could see the fear mongering to exploit people's stupidity was garbage because his predictions based off 'science' came and went. It was so bad mainstream science had to relabel man made global warming to climate change.
As we've said before, we don't doubt that man 'can' mess up the climate, big maybe on the global scale, but the evidence put out hasn't proven much and beyond that, not a single soul has or can come up with a solution. Most of all, you cannot rely on gov't or it's bureaucratic agencies to have the answer, solutions or even a hint of what to do.
In this case, it's not up to anyone to prove that climate change isn't happening or real, it's up to people to prove that man is in direct control of global climate change(man made global warming) and then to offer solutions with direct effects not generalities about a wind farm here and there, or banning oil and coal.
Right now all that's happening is gov't is using climate change to gain power, control and cash.
-
-
It's not a stretch to say mainstream can and has been biased, just as you refute resources only because they come from the oil industry but without actual evidence based material to back that up. It's false merely because you connect a dot to the oil industry, accurate or not.
If we only listened to the mainstream media, for example, this country would be screwed.
Mainstream science is not much different. For example, to challenge anything that is accepted by mainstream science, would be to sign a death sentence to your career because you don't step in line. Yet isn't science about exploring and questioning the world around you? How can you have science if you don't question everything around you?
People who have no evidence or can't think for themselves hide behind the 'science'. Fauci was supposed to be an expert and in charge of all the big scientists behind disease control, and this country, especially the politicians got behind him blindly to follow the 'science', look where that got people. Mask up, 6 ft apart, all of that was bullshit that did more harm than good.
When people reference Al Gore, it's because he used all the data from 'scientist', and with just a little bit of time anyone who isn't brain washed could see the fear mongering to exploit people's stupidity was garbage because his predictions based off 'science' came and went. It was so bad mainstream science had to relabel man made global warming to climate change.
As we've said before, we don't doubt that man 'can' mess up the climate, big maybe on the global scale, but the evidence put out hasn't proven much and beyond that, not a single soul has or can come up with a solution. Most of all, you cannot rely on gov't or it's bureaucratic agencies to have the answer, solutions or even a hint of what to do.
In this case, it's not up to anyone to prove that climate change isn't happening or real, it's up to people to prove that man is in direct control of global climate change(man made global warming) and then to offer solutions with direct effects not generalities about a wind farm here and there, or banning oil and coal.
Right now all that's happening is gov't is using climate change to gain power, control and cash.
It's not a stretch to say mainstream can and has been biased, just as you refute resources only because they come from the oil industry but without actual evidence based material to back that up. It's false merely because you connect a dot to the oil industry, accurate or not.
If we only listened to the mainstream media, for example, this country would be screwed.
Mainstream science is not much different. For example, to challenge anything that is accepted by mainstream science, would be to sign a death sentence to your career because you don't step in line. Yet isn't science about exploring and questioning the world around you? How can you have science if you don't question everything around you?
People who have no evidence or can't think for themselves hide behind the 'science'. Fauci was supposed to be an expert and in charge of all the big scientists behind disease control, and this country, especially the politicians got behind him blindly to follow the 'science', look where that got people. Mask up, 6 ft apart, all of that was bullshit that did more harm than good.
When people reference Al Gore, it's because he used all the data from 'scientist', and with just a little bit of time anyone who isn't brain washed could see the fear mongering to exploit people's stupidity was garbage because his predictions based off 'science' came and went. It was so bad mainstream science had to relabel man made global warming to climate change.
As we've said before, we don't doubt that man 'can' mess up the climate, big maybe on the global scale, but the evidence put out hasn't proven much and beyond that, not a single soul has or can come up with a solution. Most of all, you cannot rely on gov't or it's bureaucratic agencies to have the answer, solutions or even a hint of what to do.
In this case, it's not up to anyone to prove that climate change isn't happening or real, it's up to people to prove that man is in direct control of global climate change(man made global warming) and then to offer solutions with direct effects not generalities about a wind farm here and there, or banning oil and coal.
Right now all that's happening is gov't is using climate change to gain power, control and cash.
How can one seek to avoid biased-Studies by which I mean paid by vested interest? How do you tell it is not "brain washing"?
By taking account of the research carried out by the majority of scientists. This is generally referred to as "mainstream science".
I'm not saying Science can never be biased. There does appear to be bias when it comes to what is referred to as "evidence based medicine". There's less money to be made in the alternative medicines, so the pharmaceutical industry which tends to pay for the research, does not fund the research necessary to show alternative medicine works (and also often the testing methods used are suitable only for pharmaceutical drugs, not alternative medicine). As a consequence of the lack of research, the alternative medicine is then referred to (by doctors) in the following derogatory manner: "There's no evidence it works." This being a dishonest way of saying that: No money has yet been put into research, so there is a lack of research; in other words it doesn't mean the alternative medicine does not work! -
again, about al gore:
The article refers to an ABC report.
The article contains no link to any such ABC report.
I can find no such ABC (there are two ABCs) report about any such alleged fake ice shelf break-off in question in Al Gore's documentary.
While Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was made in 2006, the reader can look at this image from 2023, of a massive ice shelf break-off in Antarctica; and no, its not from any movie!:
-
By thinking for yourself.
Look around at all the clues and add common sense.
Ask yourself, what would it really take to curb temps rising because of co2 emissions? Do you see any of that being talked about let alone done(and I don't mean as a grade school science experiment)?
I posted about rain forest being bulldozed over to make a road to host a climate summit. Is that something people who are interested in saving the climate would do? There's probably a million examples of such.
Isn't rising ocean levels a part of man made global warming? How have the coastlines changed from 60+ years ago? You have Obama, who should be privy to all the information there is, build a mansion on the coast. I think you have erosion of the shorelines, but rising sea levels due to temps rising?
It all boils down to, what can we do if something needs to change? The gov't just wants to add regulations and increase taxes and will throw in new taxes. How does that help? You may say something in 'theory', but those dollars and changes aren't helping any warming trends there might be. You don't see any real proof of our gov't or the scientists making any relevant changes and they've been crying about climate scares for how long now? 50+ years?
The most obvious change that would impact mans impact on Earth would be less population. We are too far from a unified, civilized world to globally come together and make any of the easy changes, such as protecting our wildlife and land resources, to begin to make any real changes necessary to have any effect on our global climate.
Look at the waste we produce and the methods we ship it all by. Trust me, no one is seriously worried about the climate. There is so much low hanging fruit that isn't a whisper of a thought.
That doesn't mean I think society should say forget it. We need to start taking care of our planet of course, but let's start with some easy things before it's too late, like saving the whales and the fishing industry as a whole. Why do we allow needless slaughter of animals in a fragile ecosystem? Also, let's start by coming together to identify real issues and ways to solve them without strictly doing it for profit. How can any of this even begin in an uncivilized world?
So what's on the other side of climate scam? Oil is bad...but it is responsible for so many good things. Anytime you try to debate climate crap, it's instantly incorrect because oil. If it's so bad, what's being done to replace it?
-
again, about al gore:
The article refers to an ABC report.
The article contains no link to any such ABC report.
I can find no such ABC (there are two ABCs) report about any such alleged fake ice shelf break-off in question in Al Gore's documentary.
While Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was made in 2006, the reader can look at this image from 2023, of a massive ice shelf break-off in Antarctica; and no, its not from any movie!:
The article refers to an ABC report.
The article contains no link to any such ABC report.
I can find no such ABC report about any such alleged fake ice shelf break-off in question in Al Gore's documentary.
While Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was made in 2006, the reader can look at this image from 2023, of a massive ice shelf break-off in Antarctica; and no, its not from any movie!:
Ice chunks have been breaking off since the start of time, one sunk the Titanic.
People get mad when you mention how cold it is yet an ice chunk is supposed to be proof of climate change?
Prove it's not natural.
-
By thinking for yourself.
Look around at all the clues and add common sense.
Ask yourself, what would it really take to curb temps rising because of co2 emissions? Do you see any of that being talked about let alone done(and I don't mean as a grade school science experiment)?
I posted about rain forest being bulldozed over to make a road to host a climate summit. Is that something people who are interested in saving the climate would do? There's probably a million examples of such.
Isn't rising ocean levels a part of man made global warming? How have the coastlines changed from 60+ years ago? You have Obama, who should be privy to all the information there is, build a mansion on the coast. I think you have erosion of the shorelines, but rising sea levels due to temps rising?
It all boils down to, what can we do if something needs to change? The gov't just wants to add regulations and increase taxes and will throw in new taxes. How does that help? You may say something in 'theory', but those dollars and changes aren't helping any warming trends there might be. You don't see any real proof of our gov't or the scientists making any relevant changes and they've been crying about climate scares for how long now? 50+ years?
The most obvious change that would impact mans impact on Earth would be less population. We are too far from a unified, civilized world to globally come together and make any of the easy changes, such as protecting our wildlife and land resources, to begin to make any real changes necessary to have any effect on our global climate.
Look at the waste we produce and the methods we ship it all by. Trust me, no one is seriously worried about the climate. There is so much low hanging fruit that isn't a whisper of a thought.
That doesn't mean I think society should say forget it. We need to start taking care of our planet of course, but let's start with some easy things before it's too late, like saving the whales and the fishing industry as a whole. Why do we allow needless slaughter of animals in a fragile ecosystem? Also, let's start by coming together to identify real issues and ways to solve them without strictly doing it for profit. How can any of this even begin in an uncivilized world?
So what's on the other side of climate scam? Oil is bad...but it is responsible for so many good things. Anytime you try to debate climate crap, it's instantly incorrect because oil. If it's so bad, what's being done to replace it?
Ask yourself, what would it really take to curb temps rising because of co2 emissions? Do you see any of that being talked about let alone done(and I don't mean as a grade school science experiment)? [...]
It all boils down to, what can we do if something needs to change? [...]
The method of global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions has been explained. The main human greenhouse gas emissions that have the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. These are emitted mostly from vehicles, power stations, and industry. When they hit the atmosphere they have the effect of trapping heat, that would otherwise have escaped to space. Carbon dioxide is the most persistent. The other two are much less persistent but while there, are far worse at trapping heat.- - - - Start of extract: - - - -
'Greenhouse gas, any gas that has the property of absorbing infrared radiation (net heat energy) emitted from Earth’s surface and reradiating it back to Earth’s surface, thus contributing to the greenhouse effect.Carbon dioxide,
methane,
and water vapour are the most important greenhouse gases.
(To a lesser extent,
surface-level ozone,
nitrous oxides,
and fluorinated gases
also trap infrared radiation.) [...]'Source:
https://www.britannica.com/science/greenhouse-gas[Notes:
I have added carrier-returns.
See webpage for detail on each of the gases.]- - - - End of extract - - - -
You quite rightly asked about what could be done about this and I have not seen much in the way of solutions either. The following is based on a post I put on another website:Firstly, let's get the scam of "net zero" out of the way:
When governments and companies refer to meeting targets for “net zero” this term appears to refer to the bogus concept of “off-setting” comparable to the middle-ages practice of purchasing a “Dispensation” or “Indulgence” for your sins from the Church, and is thus greenwashing! Put quite simply, there is not enough “off-set” in the entire world to “off-set” the human greenhouse gas emissions (“HGGE”).
Currently, there is no solution for "Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions" ("HGGE") because politicians are scared they will lose power if they impose the more obvious required solution of imposing power cuts until green energy can catch up. However, imposition without explanation, does not have to be the only method adopted.Leaders need to agree to inform their public in a widespread communication (could be as simple as an old-fashioned government pamphlet) that our current consumption of energy in both industrial and energy production (both petro and electrical) is unsustainable within the context of reducing HGGE. That therefore because of the urgency we need to cut those emissions immediately, so that we would experience higher cost for industrial products and that we cannot have power from fossil fuels 24/7.
The highest emissions of HGGE are in the energy (petro / electrical) production, and in the industrial fields, which need to be cut back immediately. This cut back needs to be in proportion to the reduction in Emissions such as to have a positive effect on the climate emergency. If we delay taking this action for much longer, mere cut-backs may not be enough to have an appropriate effect on global warming "in time".
More than 11,000 scientists declare a Global Climate Emergency November 5, 2019:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-monumental-alliance-of-world-scientists-declare-a-climate-emergencyIt is a climate emergency, based in mainstream science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_changeClimate emergency:
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/i-would-people-panic-top-scientist-unveils-equation-showing-world-climate-emergency.htmlSome people remain in psychological denial that HGGE are the cause of global warming, despite the mainstream science.
The Media referring to "Climate Change" instead of to HGGE may tend to hide the issue psychologically, yet does not make the HGGE issue go away!
I believe the majority of people would respond positively if the reasons and necessary actions were first explained to them rather than it simply being imposed without first explaining the reasoning to the public. It would also be better than as we currently are, doing nothing (in practical effect) and suffering the increasing consequences.People would need to install large batteries capable of powering essential things in the home or business while main power is cut. These batteries could be charged during power-on, or preferably charged from solar banks (on roof or side of building). Both items to be free of any sales type taxes, and the money invested in them to be free of tax (same as charitable donations are free from tax).
Emergency increase of the use of green energy, such as solar power.
Solar power collecting cells to be applied to the side of tall buildings and on sloping roofs, to contribute to the national grid.Transitional-use of nuclear power.
Emergency reforestation through targets set (to be implemented immediately) for reforestation, to applied to every country in the world where trees are capable of growing.
Those working in the energy (petro / electrical) industries need to be given priority for re-training and getting jobs in the green energy market.
Hydrogen energy technology needs to be developed urgently and made affordable.
Electric vehicles can only be green if their power is from green sources.What can the individual do?:
I’m not sure because the primary HGGE (see above) are under the control of politicians; who are afraid of public reaction. The public need to show such a level of support for the necessary sacrifices to the politicians, such that the politicians will feel able to act.For most people who drive an internal combustion vehicle, there are no alternatives for their circumstances, and if there were, they could not afford them. Certainly this type of vehicle technology needs to be replaced with green technology such as electric vehicles powered from green sources, and hydrogen technology and these new technologies need to be made affordable for the individual.
A word about Recycling:
I doubt recycling has more than a minimal effect on HGGE, yet it is clear it should be done; it is logical and also likely has at least a minimal effect on HGGE.
We need to replace plastic with glass as soon as possible.
We need to replace single use plastic with preferably glass or if not, then by hard plastic washable returnable containers.There is already a system in countries where drinking water has to be obtained from companies who wash out the old bottles and return them to the customer refilled with drinking water. Likewise single use plastic needs to be replaced by washable and returnable containers, preferably made of glass, or if not, made of hard plastic.
(I do not have environmental qualifications.)
-
Ask yourself, what would it really take to curb temps rising because of co2 emissions? Do you see any of that being talked about let alone done(and I don't mean as a grade school science experiment)? [...]
It all boils down to, what can we do if something needs to change? [...]
The method of global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions has been explained. The main human greenhouse gas emissions that have the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. These are emitted mostly from vehicles, power stations, and industry. When they hit the atmosphere they have the effect of trapping heat, that would otherwise have escaped to space. Carbon dioxide is the most persistent. The other two are much less persistent but while there, are far worse at trapping heat.- - - - Start of extract: - - - -
'Greenhouse gas, any gas that has the property of absorbing infrared radiation (net heat energy) emitted from Earth’s surface and reradiating it back to Earth’s surface, thus contributing to the greenhouse effect.Carbon dioxide,
methane,
and water vapour are the most important greenhouse gases.
(To a lesser extent,
surface-level ozone,
nitrous oxides,
and fluorinated gases
also trap infrared radiation.) [...]'Source:
https://www.britannica.com/science/greenhouse-gas[Notes:
I have added carrier-returns.
See webpage for detail on each of the gases.]- - - - End of extract - - - -
You quite rightly asked about what could be done about this and I have not seen much in the way of solutions either. The following is based on a post I put on another website:Firstly, let's get the scam of "net zero" out of the way:
When governments and companies refer to meeting targets for “net zero” this term appears to refer to the bogus concept of “off-setting” comparable to the middle-ages practice of purchasing a “Dispensation” or “Indulgence” for your sins from the Church, and is thus greenwashing! Put quite simply, there is not enough “off-set” in the entire world to “off-set” the human greenhouse gas emissions (“HGGE”).
Currently, there is no solution for "Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions" ("HGGE") because politicians are scared they will lose power if they impose the more obvious required solution of imposing power cuts until green energy can catch up. However, imposition without explanation, does not have to be the only method adopted.Leaders need to agree to inform their public in a widespread communication (could be as simple as an old-fashioned government pamphlet) that our current consumption of energy in both industrial and energy production (both petro and electrical) is unsustainable within the context of reducing HGGE. That therefore because of the urgency we need to cut those emissions immediately, so that we would experience higher cost for industrial products and that we cannot have power from fossil fuels 24/7.
The highest emissions of HGGE are in the energy (petro / electrical) production, and in the industrial fields, which need to be cut back immediately. This cut back needs to be in proportion to the reduction in Emissions such as to have a positive effect on the climate emergency. If we delay taking this action for much longer, mere cut-backs may not be enough to have an appropriate effect on global warming "in time".
More than 11,000 scientists declare a Global Climate Emergency November 5, 2019:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-monumental-alliance-of-world-scientists-declare-a-climate-emergencyIt is a climate emergency, based in mainstream science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_changeClimate emergency:
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/i-would-people-panic-top-scientist-unveils-equation-showing-world-climate-emergency.htmlSome people remain in psychological denial that HGGE are the cause of global warming, despite the mainstream science.
The Media referring to "Climate Change" instead of to HGGE may tend to hide the issue psychologically, yet does not make the HGGE issue go away!
I believe the majority of people would respond positively if the reasons and necessary actions were first explained to them rather than it simply being imposed without first explaining the reasoning to the public. It would also be better than as we currently are, doing nothing (in practical effect) and suffering the increasing consequences.People would need to install large batteries capable of powering essential things in the home or business while main power is cut. These batteries could be charged during power-on, or preferably charged from solar banks (on roof or side of building). Both items to be free of any sales type taxes, and the money invested in them to be free of tax (same as charitable donations are free from tax).
Emergency increase of the use of green energy, such as solar power.
Solar power collecting cells to be applied to the side of tall buildings and on sloping roofs, to contribute to the national grid.Transitional-use of nuclear power.
Emergency reforestation through targets set (to be implemented immediately) for reforestation, to applied to every country in the world where trees are capable of growing.
Those working in the energy (petro / electrical) industries need to be given priority for re-training and getting jobs in the green energy market.
Hydrogen energy technology needs to be developed urgently and made affordable.
Electric vehicles can only be green if their power is from green sources.What can the individual do?:
I’m not sure because the primary HGGE (see above) are under the control of politicians; who are afraid of public reaction. The public need to show such a level of support for the necessary sacrifices to the politicians, such that the politicians will feel able to act.For most people who drive an internal combustion vehicle, there are no alternatives for their circumstances, and if there were, they could not afford them. Certainly this type of vehicle technology needs to be replaced with green technology such as electric vehicles powered from green sources, and hydrogen technology and these new technologies need to be made affordable for the individual.
A word about Recycling:
I doubt recycling has more than a minimal effect on HGGE, yet it is clear it should be done; it is logical and also likely has at least a minimal effect on HGGE.
We need to replace plastic with glass as soon as possible.
We need to replace single use plastic with preferably glass or if not, then by hard plastic washable returnable containers.There is already a system in countries where drinking water has to be obtained from companies who wash out the old bottles and return them to the customer refilled with drinking water. Likewise single use plastic needs to be replaced by washable and returnable containers, preferably made of glass, or if not, made of hard plastic.
(I do not have environmental qualifications.)
The method of global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions has been explained. The main human greenhouse gas emissions that have the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. These are emitted mostly from vehicles, power stations, and industry. When they hit the atmosphere they have the effect of trapping heat, that would otherwise have escaped to space. Carbon dioxide is the most persistent. The other two are much less persistent but while there, are far worse at trapping heat.- - - - Start of extract: - - - -
'Greenhouse gas, any gas that has the property of absorbing infrared radiation (net heat energy) emitted from Earth’s surface and reradiating it back to Earth’s surface, thus contributing to the greenhouse effect.Carbon dioxide,
methane,
and water vapour are the most important greenhouse gases.
(To a lesser extent,
surface-level ozone,
nitrous oxides,
and fluorinated gases
also trap infrared radiation.) 'Source:
https://www.britannica.com/science/greenhouse-gas[Notes:
I have added carrier-returns.
See webpage for detail on each of the gases.]- - - - End of extract - - - -
You quite rightly asked about what could be done about this and I have not seen much in the way of solutions either. The following is based on a post I put on another website:Firstly, let's get the scam of "net zero" out of the way:
When governments and companies refer to meeting targets for “net zero” this term appears to refer to the bogus concept of “off-setting” comparable to the middle-ages practice of purchasing a “Dispensation” or “Indulgence” for your sins from the Church, and is thus greenwashing! Put quite simply, there is not enough “off-set” in the entire world to “off-set” the human greenhouse gas emissions (“HGGE”).Currently, there is no solution for "Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions" ("HGGE") because politicians are scared they will lose power if they impose the more obvious required solution of imposing power cuts until green energy can catch up. However, imposition without explanation, does not have to be the only method adopted.
Leaders need to agree to inform their public in a widespread communication (could be as simple as an old-fashioned government pamphlet) that our current consumption of energy in both industrial and energy production (both petro and electrical) is unsustainable within the context of reducing HGGE. That therefore because of the urgency we need to cut those emissions immediately, so that we would experience higher cost for industrial products and that we cannot have power from fossil fuels 24/7.
The highest emissions of HGGE are in the energy (petro / electrical) production, and in the industrial fields, which need to be cut back immediately. This cut back needs to be in proportion to the reduction in Emissions such as to have a positive effect on the climate emergency. If we delay taking this action for much longer, mere cut-backs may not be enough to have an appropriate effect on global warming "in time".
More than 11,000 scientists declare a Global Climate Emergency November 5, 2019:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-monumental-alliance-of-world-scientists-declare-a-climate-emergencyIt is a climate emergency, based in mainstream science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_changeClimate emergency:
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/i-would-people-panic-top-scientist-unveils-equation-showing-world-climate-emergency.htmlSome people remain in psychological denial that HGGE are the cause of global warming, despite the mainstream science.
The Media referring to "Climate Change" instead of to HGGE may tend to hide the issue psychologically, yet does not make the HGGE issue go away!
I believe the majority of people would respond positively if the reasons and necessary actions were first explained to them rather than it simply being imposed without first explaining the reasoning to the public. It would also be better than as we currently are, doing nothing (in practical effect) and suffering the increasing consequences.People would need to install large batteries capable of powering essential things in the home or business while main power is cut. These batteries could be charged during power-on, or preferably charged from solar banks (on roof or side of building). Both items to be free of any sales type taxes, and the money invested in them to be free of tax (same as charitable donations are free from tax).
Those working in the energy (petro / electrical) industries need to be given priority for re-training and getting jobs in the green energy market.
Hydrogen energy technology needs to be developed urgently and made affordable.
Electric vehicles can only be green if their power is from green sources.What can the individual do?:
I’m not sure because the primary HGGE (see above) are under the control of politicians; who are afraid of public reaction. The public need to show such a level of support for the necessary sacrifices to the politicians, such that the politicians will feel able to act.For most people who drive an internal combustion vehicle, there are no alternatives for their circumstances, and if there were, they could not afford them. Certainly this type of vehicle technology needs to be replaced with green technology such as electric vehicles powered from green sources, and hydrogen technology and these new technologies need to be made affordable for the individual.
A word about Recycling:
I doubt recycling has more than a minimal effect on HGGE, yet it is clear it should be done; it is logical and also likely has at least a minimal effect on HGGE.
We need to replace plastic with glass as soon as possible.
We need to replace single use plastic with preferably glass or if not, then by hard plastic washable returnable containers.There is already a system in countries where drinking water has to be obtained from companies who wash out the old bottles and return them to the customer refilled with drinking water. Likewise single use plastic needs to be replaced by washable and returnable containers, preferably made of glass, or if not, made of hard plastic.
(I do not have environmental qualifications.)
Fug you.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login