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.
-
A climate change thread and Woody hasn’t jumped in yet?
Must still be recovering from the wounds he got from Cal’s last beat down.
-
You morons seem content arguing with an AI
I've already mentioned that "Robert" was possibly using AI....
-
Boy you're dumb
Sorry Woody, but the world is round.
-
You morons seem content arguing with an AI
At least its more of a challenge than arguing with you and your artificial intelligence.
-
You morons seem content arguing with an AI
At least its more of a challenge than arguing with you and your artificial intelligence.
-
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.)
oh, boy.
more baloney.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/single-graph-demonstrates-man-made-co2.html
If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
Plot for yourself here a single graph that simultaneously demonstrates the clear observational evidence that- temperature drives CO2
- CO2 does not drive temperature
- man is not the cause of the rise in CO2 levels
Global temperature anomaly shown in green, CO2 levels in red oh, boy.
more baloney.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/single-graph-demonstrates-man-made-co2.html
If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...
Thursday, January 31, 2013Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
Plot for yourself here a single graph that simultaneously demonstrates the clear observational evidence that- temperature drives CO2
- CO2 does not drive temperature
- man is not the cause of the rise in CO2 levels
Global temperature anomaly shown in green, CO2 levels in red
"Calfoxwc" provides a link to "The Hockey Schtick", which states:
'An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2"':I found that Paper here:
"The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature", "Global and Planetary Change", Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51-69:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818112001658?via%3Dihub
That Paper's scientific method is criticized here:
"Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim", "Global and Planetary Change", Volume 107, August 2013, Pages 226-228:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000908
- - - - Start of extract from the latter: - - - -
'Highlights
• Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
• Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
• This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
• Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
• The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.'Extract source:
See previous link.
- - - - End of extract - - - -
-
You morons seem content arguing with an AI
I've already mentioned that "Robert" was possibly using AI....
I've already mentioned that "Robert" was possibly using AI....
Just for the record: I'm not using any kind of "AI".
People just need to stay calm and chill out, so they don't come to such strange conclusions !
I respectfully suggest they do that here: -
You morons seem content arguing with an AI
At least its more of a challenge than arguing with you and your artificial intelligence.
At least its more of a challenge than arguing with you and your artificial intelligence.
Woody has natural stupidity working for him.
-
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).
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.Contributor Robert333 wrote;
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.
Currently there is no solution because there is no solution that would have any impact on generations upon generations upon generations.
As explained in the video below, if all emission on the planed would cease tomorrow, nothing would change.
The planet would continue to warm for 2000 years, and it would take 100,000 years for the planets CO2 level to return to its pre- industrial revolution level.
I do believe that since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution that man has contribute to rising levels of CO2, hence climate change.
However, I also believe that progressives and globalists exploit climate change by using it to advance their idea of a one world governance by the redistribution of wealth.
-
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.Contributor Robert333 wrote;
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.
Currently there is no solution because there is no solution that would have any impact on generations upon generations upon generations.
As explained in the video below, if all emission on the planed would cease tomorrow, nothing would change.
The planet would continue to warm for 2000 years, and it would take 100,000 years for the planets CO2 level to return to its pre- industrial revolution level.
I do believe that since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution that man has contribute to rising levels of CO2, hence climate change.
However, I also believe that progressives and globalists exploit climate change by using it to advance their idea of a one world governance by the redistribution of wealth.
Contributor Robert333 wrote;
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.
Currently there is no solution because there is no solution that would have any impact on generations upon generations upon generations.
As explained in the video below, if all emission on the planed would cease tomorrow, nothing would change.
The planet would continue to warm for 2000 years, and it would take 100,000 years for the planets CO2 level to return to its pre- industrial revolution level.
I do believe that since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution that man has contribute to rising levels of CO2, hence climate change.
However, I also believe that progressives and globalists exploit climate change by using it to advance their idea of a one world governance by the redistribution of wealth.
[Three Links, the third a video "What if we Stopped" by Joe Hanson.]
The first two links provided by contributor "FY56" are quotes from individuals which the contributor links in support of a conspiracy theory. However, if one considers the mainstream-science it can be seen there is no evidence of any such conspiracy theory.
Yes, of the Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions, carbon-dioxide remains persistent in the atmosphere, yet currently it is still not too late the "put the brake on" to obtain beneficial effects of taking action (even without being able to go back to a pre-industrial position); we cannot continue "business as usual".Contributor "FY56" linked a video "What if we Stopped" which at the end-credits, says it is by Joe Hanson.
Well, here's another video by Joe Hanson in which he investigates "Why People Don't Believe in Climate Science": -
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).
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.)
"Robert333" wrote:
Some people remain in psychological denial...
What can the individual do?
For most people who drive an internal combustion vehicle....
People would need to install large batteries...
I believe the majority of people would respond positively
Leaders need to agree to inform their public...
Tell me what you think about leaders informing the public and how this class of people would respond positively.
-
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.)
"Robert333" wrote:
Some people remain in psychological denial...
What can the individual do?
For most people who drive an internal combustion vehicle....
People would need to install large batteries...
I believe the majority of people would respond positively
Leaders need to agree to inform their public...
Tell me what you think about leaders informing the public and how this class of people would respond positively.
"Robert333" wrote:
Some people remain in psychological denial...
What can the individual do?
For most people who drive an internal combustion vehicle....
People would need to install large batteries...
I believe the majority of people would respond positively
Leaders need to agree to inform their public...
Tell me what you think about leaders informing the public and how this class of people would respond positively.
[Link to video.]
Contributor "FY56" wrote:
" what you think about leaders informing the public and how this class of people would respond positively":
My post to which the contributor refers, in my view, adequately deals with this.
"WOKE" in my personal opinion has little or even nothing to do with the import of the mainsteam-science on Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions (that are intentionally made Opaque by the Media, by describing extreme weather events as being instead due to "Climate Change". -
(I don't know why, but the "Reply to this topic" button no longer works for this thread.)
There are two further things that ought to be mentioned, which is that:
President Trump's policy does not favor action on the Climate Emergency, that is on Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions, likely because he considers that taking action on it would prevent economic revival policies, which are fossil fuel based.
It is worth observing that China's policy is that it has expanded its Green Energy sources while carrying on "business as usual" on fossil fuel energy.
There would be zero impact on President Trump's economic policies, were he to follow the same expansion of green energy sources (as China appears to be doing) at the same time as his current economic policies!
While the delay in taking action on HGGE only hastens our fate, nevertheless once the situation becomes unfortunately only too clear, even to skeptics, having pushed ahead with a significant expansion of green energy, this would make it far easier at some point, to take the necessary action on HGGE. Whereas for example oil wells which require constant investment, remain economic only so long as less energy is put down the well than comes up, by comparison with Solar, once the capital has been put into Solar the resulting energy is entirely free of charge.
This means that investing in green energy can only result in boosting the economy!The other thing that ought to be mentioned is that currently electric vehicles (which can only be classed as green if the power they use sources from green energy) require recharging infrastructure particularly for long-distance driving. Its no good telling people not to use internal combustion power if the electric alternative does not make the distance! A hybrid design then, needs to be used for long-distance driving where there is no electric charging infrastructure. These vehicles could further reduce their use of fossil fuel though, by making at least some use of daytime power through having solar cells on the top of them.
-
(I don't know why, but the "Reply to this topic" button no longer works for this thread.)
There are two further things that ought to be mentioned, which is that:
President Trump's policy does not favor action on the Climate Emergency, that is on Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions, likely because he considers that taking action on it would prevent economic revival policies, which are fossil fuel based.
It is worth observing that China's policy is that it has expanded its Green Energy sources while carrying on "business as usual" on fossil fuel energy.
There would be zero impact on President Trump's economic policies, were he to follow the same expansion of green energy sources (as China appears to be doing) at the same time as his current economic policies!
While the delay in taking action on HGGE only hastens our fate, nevertheless once the situation becomes unfortunately only too clear, even to skeptics, having pushed ahead with a significant expansion of green energy, this would make it far easier at some point, to take the necessary action on HGGE. Whereas for example oil wells which require constant investment, remain economic only so long as less energy is put down the well than comes up, by comparison with Solar, once the capital has been put into Solar the resulting energy is entirely free of charge.
This means that investing in green energy can only result in boosting the economy!The other thing that ought to be mentioned is that currently electric vehicles (which can only be classed as green if the power they use sources from green energy) require recharging infrastructure particularly for long-distance driving. Its no good telling people not to use internal combustion power if the electric alternative does not make the distance! A hybrid design then, needs to be used for long-distance driving where there is no electric charging infrastructure. These vehicles could further reduce their use of fossil fuel though, by making at least some use of daytime power through having solar cells on the top of them.
(I don't know why, but the "Reply to this topic" button no longer works for this thread.)
There are two further things that ought to be mentioned, which is that:
President Trump's policy does not favor action on the Climate Emergency, that is on Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions, likely because he considers that taking action on it would prevent economic revival policies, which are fossil fuel based.
It is worth observing that China's policy is that it has expanded its Green Energy sources while carrying on "business as usual" on fossil fuel energy.
There would be zero impact on President Trump's economic policies, were he to follow the same expansion of green energy sources (as China appears to be doing) at the same time!
While the delay in taking action on HGGE only hastens our fate, nevertheless once the situation becomes unfortunately only too clear, even to skeptics, having pushed ahead with a significant expansion of green energy, this would make it far easier at some point, to take the necessary action on HGGE.The other thing that ought to be mentioned is that currently electric vehicles (which can only be classed as green if the power they use sources from green energy) require recharging infrastructure particularly for long-distance driving. Its no good telling people not to use internal combustion power if the electric alternative does not make the distance! A hybrid design then, needs to be used for long-distance driving where there is no electric charging infrastructure. These vehicles could further reduce their use of fossil fuel though, by making at least some use of daytime power through having solar cells on the top of them.
Are you sure about that? I thought the goal was net zero? How do you know that hybrids are enough to stop the destruction of Earth?
I checked your sources, they all link back to a solar panel company that's partnered with an electric company.
I also checked on all your expert scientists, it appears they are all either related or have a friend working in the clean energy sector.
All of your info may be tainted by this or it's another scheme by 'big oil'. This is all scary, the world hangs in the balance! ?
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