|
Post by tommy on Mar 7, 2014 0:48:33 GMT -5
From Huff Post, Is climate change real? Gosh, I don't know. "If you ever wonder why people who deny climate change often have right wing views, here's an explanation. "Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned. The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives." I'd say they've been successful at convincing that segment of the American population that celebrates ignorance. www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network"
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 7, 2014 5:39:57 GMT -5
People don't "deny" climate change. That's like saying people "deny" the flat earth theory. People reject or refute "climate change" because it is an absurd theory with no scientific basis. It is the ignorant masses who accept the "consensus" on this claimed by a political (not scientific) organization (the IPCC).
The Guardian is constantly "learning" things like this. That's because it is a leftist, liberal newspaper with a long history of association with environmental groups, and it has been at the forefront of the campaign to promote acceptance of "global warming" (now called "climate change" because the predicted warming failed to materialize).
$120m is chicken feed compared to the TRILLIONS of dollars that governments and individuals (like Al Gore) have made from "climate change" legislation (ie, taxes) and "green" investments (ie, carbon stocks).
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Mar 7, 2014 19:22:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 7, 2014 20:21:26 GMT -5
The BBC is the mouthpiece of the British government. The British government promotes "climate change". So this article is baloney. This is the Guardian's environmentalists bemoaning the fact that more and more people are rejecting the MMGW "concensus". And the claim that 97% of climate scientists accept the theory is also baloney. This figure is based on the percentage of the 2,000 or so researchers who submit reports to the IPCC. ALL these researchers are in receipt of generous government funding. Their livelihoods depend on their finding evidence of "climate change". Most have no qualifications in climate science at all (including the committee's chairperson, Rajendra Pachauri, whose only qualifications are in railway engineering). The figure also includes the membership of organizations that submit research to the IPCC. Many individual members of these groups do not accept the theory. Their names are included anyway, and if they object, they risk lose their job.
And look at this deliberately misleading piece of "climate change" propaganda:
There was a spike in global temperature in the mid 1990s (which coincided with a period of unusually intense solar activity). This was the so-called hockey-stick spike that warmists presented as proof of MMGW. They predicted that the global temperature would continue to rise. Montford and Lawson were saying - correctly - that there had been no rise in temperature since that spike was recorded. But when the Guardian refutes this by saying: "In fact, over the past two decades, we've seen over 0.3°C average global surface warming" they are including the period in which the spike occurred. This is deliberate deception on their part.
The claim that the additional heat is being absorbed by the oceans is, as Lord Lawson said, pure speculation. This theory was only recently presented in an effort to explain the absence of warming. "The heat is being stored in the oceans." Sir Brian Hoskins says: "No, it's a measurement." But they've been measuring the temperature of the oceans for decades. When they predicted year-on-year warming, they said nothing about the heat being absorbed by the oceans. They only came out with this theory when their original predictions turned out to be wrong. Basically they're making it us as they go along.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 21:21:24 GMT -5
The Guardian is constantly "learning" things like this. That's because it is a leftist, liberal newspaper with a long history of association with environmental groups, and it has been at the forefront of the campaign to promote acceptance of "global warming" (now called "climate change" because the predicted warming failed to materialize). Unlike, say, FreeRepublic, which is totally independent and neutral in its outlook. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 7, 2014 22:11:19 GMT -5
FreeRepublic is a self-proclaimed conservative website, so it is hardly neutral. What's your point? That because I posted a link to an article on FreeRepublic I regard it as an infallible source? Hardly. I also posted a link to the same report on a more liberal website. And the information contained in the report was easy to verify.
As a matter of fact I doubt if there is such a thing as a completely non-biased news/media agency. Can you name one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2014 1:48:39 GMT -5
FreeRepublic is a self-proclaimed conservative website, so it is hardly neutral. What's your point? That because I posted a link to an article on FreeRepublic I regard it as an infallible source? Hardly. I also posted a link to the same report on a more liberal website. And the information contained in the report was easy to verify. As a matter of fact I doubt if there is such a thing as a completely non-biased news/media agency. Can you name one? If you doubt it, then why are you insisting that certain news/media agencies are unreliable because of their bias? If it doesn't matter to you what source is presenting the facts, then why are you so hung up on the supposed reliability of the source?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 8, 2014 13:56:25 GMT -5
Because I don't ever rely on any single source.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Mar 8, 2014 14:45:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2014 22:08:18 GMT -5
How does one explain an increasingly acidic oceain?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 8, 2014 23:07:06 GMT -5
Maybe the millions of tons of toxic crap we pour into the sea every day? Including nuclear waste. Or how about the hundreds of underwater nuclear tests that have been carried out?
One thing's for certain, CO2 - which is NOT toxic and NOT a pollutant (as I keep having to tell you) - isn't to blame.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2014 23:21:37 GMT -5
Maybe the millions of tons of toxic crap we pour into the sea every day? Including nuclear waste. Or how about the hundreds of underwater nuclear tests that have been carried out? One thing's for certain, CO2 - which is NOT toxic and NOT a pollutant (as I keep having to tell you) - isn't to blame. Yes, CO2 is not toxic and not a pollutant. However, is does dissolve in water and the result is carbonic acid. Soda water has CO2 and soda water is slightly acidic. Radioactivity has no effect on pH. Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 9, 2014 0:13:26 GMT -5
Yes, but Lily said the "increasingly acidic oceain". The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - and the oceans - has been much higher at various times in the past than it is now. I'll take your word for it that radioactivity has no effect on pH, but surely the particles that are dispersed into the atmosphere in nuclear explosions - plutonium, strontium, uranium, cesium, benzene, mercury, cyanide etc - would alter the pH?
In any event would you not agree - and my chemistry is a bit rusty, so correct me if I am wrong - that the most likely cause of the increasing acidity of the oceans is the pollutants we discharge into it, and particularly fertilizer ingredients like ammonium sulfate, monoammonium phosphate, ammonium nitrate etc?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 9, 2014 0:41:57 GMT -5
Yes, but Lily said the "increasingly acidic oceain". The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - and the oceans - has been much higher at various times in the past than it is now. I'll take your word for it that radioactivity has no effect on pH, but surely the particles that are dispersed into the atmosphere in nuclear explosions - plutonium, strontium, uranium, cesium, benzene, mercury, cyanide etc - would alter the pH? The amount of material in a nuclear bomb is at the most a few kilos. While that is certainly enough for deadly radioactivity, it is way too small to influence the pH of an ocean. Yes, those chemicals you mention here are definitely acidic. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 0:54:19 GMT -5
Yes, but Lily said the "increasingly acidic oceain". The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - and the oceans - has been much higher at various times in the past than it is now. I'll take your word for it that radioactivity has no effect on pH, but surely the particles that are dispersed into the atmosphere in nuclear explosions - plutonium, strontium, uranium, cesium, benzene, mercury, cyanide etc - would alter the pH? In any event would you not agree - and my chemistry is a bit rusty, so correct me if I am wrong - that the most likely cause of the increasing acidity of the oceans is the pollutants we discharge into it, and particularly fertilizer ingredients like ammonium sulfate, monoammonium phosphate, ammonium nitrate etc? And that's okay with you?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 9, 2014 1:58:24 GMT -5
With me? Are you kidding? I'm fanatically opposed to pollution. I get into fights with people who leave bottles and plastic bags at the beach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 6:28:49 GMT -5
Because I don't ever rely on any single source. And yet, you usually happen to link to the single least credible source among your allegedly vast arsenal of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 9, 2014 8:27:51 GMT -5
Eh, no, I don't. I posted the link to infowars (I presume that's what you're talking about) without checking which site it was. I agree infowars is not a reliable source. I was tired and in pain when I posted it. I selected it at random from dozens of sites carrying the same article - including CNN, Al Jazeera, The Guardian etc. - that I found by searching the text on Google. I did scan the article to make sure the information it contained was consistent with the information given on various other sites. It was easily verifiable information anyway, and the crucial information was in the YouTube video - the same video that was linked from all the other sites. So the information was accurate, even if the website it was on isn't one I would normally trust.
But if you were interested in discussing the subject you would deal with the facts, and dispute them if you thought they were wrong. Instead, you seem to be only interested in being offensive and making personal attacks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 20:11:50 GMT -5
With me? Are you kidding? I'm fanatically opposed to pollution. I get into fights with people who leave bottles and plastic bags at the beach. You misunderstood my question. What I was really asking was in spite of the fact that C02 is not a pollutant (which you are against pollution) is it okay with you that it is causing the oceans to becoming more acidic?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 9, 2014 20:35:10 GMT -5
The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and for most of that time CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Humans are only responsible for 3% of the total amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. The effect on the oceans would be negligible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 20:51:20 GMT -5
Okay, so you're willing to chance it. Anyway, you did read my article, right? And the ocean's ph has been tested. And the coral is dying. For sure, there will be the survival of the fittest, so to speak. Let's hope those survivors are the good kind that we can use and/or eat. For the world's population anyway, that will require more more food as it keeps growing. People who are worried about this aren't just out to make money. There are real everyday people that are worried about the future. You and I won't be here, so maybe we can just risk it. But our descendents will, but who cares, right? Honestly, I'm just saying people do care. And it's not just for argument's sake or to make a buck.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 9, 2014 20:56:22 GMT -5
It isn't a matter of "chancing" anything. CO2 isn't causing the oceans to become more acidic. Chemical pollution is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 21:20:22 GMT -5
Well, I don't know enough to dispute that, but maybe someone more knowledgeable than me, can.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 9, 2014 21:48:29 GMT -5
You mean more knowledgeable than me : )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 21:52:48 GMT -5
You mean more knowledgeable than me : ) Heh, heh, heh. At first I thought you were referencing grammar, because I debated that with myself. But both ways in general usage is correct. So, should that be "are correct"? Is the subject singular or plural?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 9, 2014 22:02:58 GMT -5
That would be "are". But of course I wasn't correcting your grammar.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Mar 10, 2014 13:08:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 10, 2014 13:18:27 GMT -5
His comments are nonsensical.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Mar 10, 2014 13:38:42 GMT -5
I agree with Neil, & I think he is one of humanity's most fabulous people.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 10, 2014 13:44:11 GMT -5
Good for you. His comments are still nonsensical. And erroneous.
|
|