It is currently December 15th, 2019, 8:43 pm

All times are UTC-08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: December 18th, 2018, 3:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 25th, 2013, 4:29 pm
Posts: 11289
Fashionista wrote:
Odinson wrote:
I think eating beef is an environmental act..


Cows dont need their fodder to be as processed as humans do..


I´m thinking, to feed us humans, we are gonna need a lot more field space than we have now..


A lot more rainforests cut down for more fertile soil to be used as crop fields.

Which absorb C02, which leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere instead of being plant food..

I'm not opposed to the science of GMO crops if it means more food being produced on shrinking amounts of land..

That could be the biggest challenge the world faces.


A study has been made in a swedish university.

The organic vegan crops cause more pollution than the regular crops.


We can only eat small parts of the plant... But cattle can process it all.


With organic crops, we are gonna see severely diminished output.. And that will cause countries like Brazil to be converted into farmland completely.

I'm not even exaggerating about Brazil.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 18th, 2018, 3:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 25th, 2013, 4:29 pm
Posts: 11289
And lets assume people still wanna steady flow of organic veggie food to be available in the stores..

That leads to massive food loss/deficit.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 18th, 2018, 5:43 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41385
Organic is just a feel good gimmick, it is not sustainable.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 18th, 2018, 11:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 25th, 2013, 4:29 pm
Posts: 11289
Fashionista wrote:
Organic is just a feel good gimmick, it is not sustainable.


A lot of these anti-climate change things are..


People pay more money... And they feel good about it.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 18th, 2018, 11:54 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41385
Odinson wrote:
Fashionista wrote:
Organic is just a feel good gimmick, it is not sustainable.


A lot of these anti-climate change things are..


People pay more money... And they feel good about it.

I wouldn't mind paying a little more if it meant it was making a difference..

All of these expensive alternative energy schemes and carbon taxes are not coming close to making any real difference.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: December 18th, 2018, 2:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Posts: 24637
Small nations cannot change the atmosphere.

Only large nations, such as America, China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Germany, France and the UK working in UNISON can make any difference to the amount of CO2...and none to the climate. Everything that alarmists claim is rejected by other scientists.

_________________
Just because I don't agree with you, it does not mean I hate you


Top
   
Unread postPosted: August 29th, 2019, 10:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12755
Bjorn Lomborg and John Christy shred Bernie Sanders' expensive climate "solutions".

As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put it, “You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake, OK?”

Abysmal Benefit-Cost Ratio

That is sham wisdom even if climate change were the terror Sen. Sanders imagines it to be. The resources available to public and private decision makers are finite. Resources allocated to “climate action” are no longer available to make mortgage payments, pay college tuitions, grow food, fund medical innovation, or build battleships. Prudent policymakers therefore not only consider the costs of policy proposals but also compare the different benefit-cost ratios of competing expenditures. As it happens, the benefit-cost ratios of carbon suppression policies are abysmal.

For example, just the direct expenditures for the electric sector portion of the Green New Deal would, conservatively estimated, cost $490.5 billion per year, or $3,845 per year per household, according to American Enterprise Institute economist Benjamin Zycher. Yet even complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C of global warming 70 years from now—a policy impact too small to discernibly affect weather patterns, crop yields, polar bear populations, or any other environmental condition people care about.

The climate “benefit” over the next 10 years would be even more miniscule. Yet during that period, Zycher estimates, the annual economic cost of the GND electric sector program would be about $9 trillion. It is unwise to spend so much to achieve so little.
https://cei.org/blog/bjorn-lomborg-and- ... e-alarmism

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: August 29th, 2019, 11:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 14th, 2012, 8:21 pm
Posts: 13301
Quote:
Last year, two-thirds of the global increase came from Asia. In China, the world’s largest emitter, they jumped 1.7%.

Ironically, emissions in the U.S., where President Donald Trump announced he was pulling out of the Paris accord last year, were down 2.7%

And that's just increase (can be misleading) - The total relative quantities is what matters

_________________
Tolerance of Intolerance is Cowardice


Top
   
Unread postPosted: August 29th, 2019, 3:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16375
seoulbro wrote:
Bjorn Lomborg and John Christy shred Bernie Sanders' expensive climate "solutions".

As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put it, “You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake, OK?”

Abysmal Benefit-Cost Ratio

That is sham wisdom even if climate change were the terror Sen. Sanders imagines it to be. The resources available to public and private decision makers are finite. Resources allocated to “climate action” are no longer available to make mortgage payments, pay college tuitions, grow food, fund medical innovation, or build battleships. Prudent policymakers therefore not only consider the costs of policy proposals but also compare the different benefit-cost ratios of competing expenditures. As it happens, the benefit-cost ratios of carbon suppression policies are abysmal.

For example, just the direct expenditures for the electric sector portion of the Green New Deal would, conservatively estimated, cost $490.5 billion per year, or $3,845 per year per household, according to American Enterprise Institute economist Benjamin Zycher. Yet even complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C of global warming 70 years from now—a policy impact too small to discernibly affect weather patterns, crop yields, polar bear populations, or any other environmental condition people care about.

The climate “benefit” over the next 10 years would be even more miniscule. Yet during that period, Zycher estimates, the annual economic cost of the GND electric sector program would be about $9 trillion. It is unwise to spend so much to achieve so little.
https://cei.org/blog/bjorn-lomborg-and- ... e-alarmism

The West has already transferred over a trillion dollars from working families to prog billionaires and their corporations underthe guise of fighting climate change. Dickheads like Sanders want to double down on failure.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: August 30th, 2019, 3:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 15th, 2018, 11:04 am
Posts: 2129
cc wrote:
Quote:
Last year, two-thirds of the global increase came from Asia. In China, the world’s largest emitter, they jumped 1.7%.

Ironically, emissions in the U.S., where President Donald Trump announced he was pulling out of the Paris accord last year, were down 2.7%

And that's just increase (can be misleading) - The total relative quantities is what matters

Was this from seoulbro's link?

_________________
The Russian Rock It


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 8th, 2019, 1:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 6th, 2012, 1:53 pm
Posts: 6891
Gaon wrote:
cc wrote:
Quote:
Last year, two-thirds of the global increase came from Asia. In China, the world’s largest emitter, they jumped 1.7%.

Ironically, emissions in the U.S., where President Donald Trump announced he was pulling out of the Paris accord last year, were down 2.7%

And that's just increase (can be misleading) - The total relative quantities is what matters

Was this from seoulbro's link?


Yes, Gaon. It is from the link that seoulbro posted on page 1 of this thread.

_________________
@realAzhyaAryola

Sometimes, my comments have a touch of humor, often tongue-in-cheek, so don't take it so seriously.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 8th, 2019, 9:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16375
cc wrote:
Quote:
Last year, two-thirds of the global increase came from Asia. In China, the world’s largest emitter, they jumped 1.7%.

Ironically, emissions in the U.S., where President Donald Trump announced he was pulling out of the Paris accord last year, were down 2.7%

And that's just increase (can be misleading) - The total relative quantities is what matters

Trump pulls the US out of the Paris Accord and US emissions drop. Most of the signatory countries saw their emissions rise. How is that for irony.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 9th, 2019, 5:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12755
Herman wrote:
cc wrote:
Quote:
Last year, two-thirds of the global increase came from Asia. In China, the world’s largest emitter, they jumped 1.7%.

Ironically, emissions in the U.S., where President Donald Trump announced he was pulling out of the Paris accord last year, were down 2.7%

And that's just increase (can be misleading) - The total relative quantities is what matters

Trump pulls the US out of the Paris Accord and US emissions drop. Most of the signatory countries saw their emissions rise. How is that for irony.

Technological advances in natural gas and oil extraction have reduced C02 levels in the US. Countries that have legally blocked hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have not.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 21st, 2019, 5:13 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41385
I saw kids saying we only have until 2030 to completely change everything..

Where did they get that date from?


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 24th, 2019, 2:28 pm 

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Posts: 949
A group of 500 esteemed scientists and professionals in climate science have officially notified the United Nations that there is no climate crisis and that spending trillions on a non-problem is ‘cruel and imprudent’. This letter will not make it into national or global media, nor will it cause the UN to change its ways. If these same scientists understood Technocracy, they would change their battle strategy.


From: Professor Guus Berkhout
guus.berkhout@clintel.org.
23 September 2019
Sr. António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations,
United Nations Headquarters,
New York, NY 10017, United States of America.
Ms. Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, Executive Secretary,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Campus, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1,
53113 Bonn, Germany
Your Excellencies,

There is no climate emergency
A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in
climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European
Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.
The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are
unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of
trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies
pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied
access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.
We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine
concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.
We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.
We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class
scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. Such a meeting would be consistent
with the historically proven principles of sound science and natural justice that both sides should be
fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!
Please let us know your thoughts how we bring about such a momentous joint meeting.
Yours sincerely,

Professor Guus Berkhout The Netherlands Professor Richard Lindzen USA
Professor Reynald du Berger French Canada Professor Ingemar Nordin Sweden
Terry Dunleavy New Zealand Jim O’Brien Irish Republic
Viv Forbes Australia Professor Alberto Prestininzi Italy
Professor Jeffrey Foss English Canada Professor Benoît Rittaud France
Morten Jødal Norway Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Germany
Rob Lemeire Belgium Monckton of Brenchley UK
Ambassadors of the European Climate Declaration

There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate
science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should
openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while
politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation
to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with
natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no
surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to
be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are
far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover,
they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the
fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is
beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global
plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and
suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as
damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations
destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly
oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches
emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to
provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -to-un.pdf

_________________
gay, conservative and proud


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 26th, 2019, 6:22 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41385
My husband and I are among the 46% of Canadians that won't pay a nickle more unless it's confiscated by government.

Canadians want to stop climate change — but half don’t want to pay an extra cent: Ipsos poll

The latest Ipsos poll, conducted exclusively for Global News between Sept. 20 and 23, shows Canadians have vastly different views on what should be done to try to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and 46 per cent do not want to spend any additional money in the form of taxes or higher costs of goods.

Just 22 per cent say they would be willing to pay up to $100 extra per year.

That drops to eight per cent who say they would be willing to pay between $101 and $200.

Image
https://globalnews.ca/news/5948758/cana ... psos-poll/


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 4th, 2019, 6:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16375

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 4th, 2019, 6:47 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41385
Herman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HULW-ODeqLg&t=30s

She has to be trolling AOC.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 8th, 2019, 9:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12755
False catastrophic environmental predictions are nothing new. But, during this election cycle, alarmism is the tail that wags the dog.

By Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University.

Decades of idiotic environmental predictions

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a new paper, “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.” Keep in mind that many of the grossly wrong environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. My question for you is: If you were around at the time, how many government restrictions and taxes would you have urged to avoid the predicted calamity?

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford University biologist Dr. Paul Erhlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

In 2000, Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.

In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness: “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions ... By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Mark J. Perry, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus, cites 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970. This time it’s not about weather. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver would be gone before 1990. Kenneth Watt said, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate ... that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

There were grossly wild predictions well before the first Earth Day, too. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior predicted that American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous energy claims, in 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that as of Jan. 1, 2017, there were about 2,459 trillion cubic feet of dry natural gas in the United States. That’s enough to last us for nearly a century. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas worldwide.

Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 27th, 2019, 3:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16375

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 Next

All times are UTC-08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], sasquatch and 66 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On ]