Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 701 to 739 of 739

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #701
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Apparently Albertans don't want to hear the TRUTH.

    Thanks everyone who takes the time to correct or dispute the crap that he posts.
    Sorry but........ making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy isn't a refutation.

    There's a real world the advocates don't know about where real people are harmed by nonsensical political policies.

    In Ontario where they shut the coal plants down 60,000 people were disconnected from the grid because they can't afford electricity.

    300,000 Germans too. The "leaders" in solar power.

    Grownups in the real world need to educate themselves and make tough decisions. Decisions based on the reality that there's a cost to everything. There's a cost to shutting down coal plants, and that cost is also in human lives. Not everybody will die of global warming 100 years from now. Many will die of pneumonia, shivering in thier unheated condos........ in Alberta.
    emphasis added.

    no making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy in that conclusion eh?

    oh, wait... i see what you're doing there.

    you're actually providing us real world examples of making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy so we'll recognize it when we see it in our search for the TRUTH and be able to discount it!

    that makes much more sense of most of your posts than trying to take them at face value.
    In your fairy tale world, what is happening to the 60,000 Ontarians, and 300,000 Germans who have been disconnected from the grid?

    This is exactly the problem with climate change advocates. They just wish away bad thoughts. And when 60,000 tons of aged broken solar panels are brought to the dump a magical company will step in and make a profit separating the heavy metals from the broken glass.
    so what is happening to those 360,000 people???

    i don't know what's happening to them either but i'm pretty sure it's probably not pneumonia:

    [http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20171110-1?inheritRedirect=true]

    "From the 4.9 million deaths reported in the European Union (EU) in 2014, 118 300 were due to pneumonia. Women (59 900 deaths) and men (58 400 deaths) were almost equally affected. 90% of these deaths concerned people aged over 65.In absolute terms, the United Kingdom (28 200 deaths, or 24% of the EU total) was the Member State that recorded the most deaths from pneumonia in 2014, followed by Germany (16 700, 14%), Poland (12 300, 10%), France (11 100, 9%), Italy (9 100, 8%) and Spain (8 400, 7%).However, for a relevant country comparison, these absolute numbers need to be adjusted to the size and structure of the population.

    Death rate from pneumonia highest in Portugal and the United Kingdom, lowest in Finland

    With nearly 55 deaths from pneumonia per 100 000 inhabitants, Portugal registered the highest rate among the EU Member States. It was followed by the United Kingdom (49), Slovakia (45) and Poland (43). At the opposite of the scale, the lowest rate of deaths due to pneumonia was recorded in Finland (with 4 deaths per 100 000 inhabitants), ahead of Greece and Austria (both 9), Hungary (10) and Croatia (11). At EU level, the rate stood on average at 25 deaths from pneumonia per 100 000 inhabitants in 2014."

    i can't find similar numbers for canada as influenza and pneumonia are treated and counted the same way by statscan as a potential cause of death. what i can determine is that approximately 265,000 people died in canada in 2015 and approximately 7,600 of them died of influenza or pneumonia (or about 21 deaths from influenza and pneumonia combined per 100,000 inhabitants)

    by the way, you do know that germs (e.g., bacteria, viruses, fungi) are the main causes of pneumonia - along with workplace contaminants - not exposure to the elements?

    Last edited by kcantor; 05-06-2018 at 02:04 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  2. #702

    Default

    "by the way, you do know that germs (e.g., bacteria, viruses, fungi) are the main causes of pneumonia - along with workplace contaminants - not exposure to the elements?"

    Moreover, the best place to contract these diseases is in a hospital.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  3. #703
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,259
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  4. #704
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,422

    Default

    Good for him. Thankfully there isn't a lot of that going on in Canada or Alberta, although Kenney certainly likes to play footsie with the deniers. The problem though, is what's going on in the US, and the policy it's resulting in.

  5. #705

    Default The TRUTH.

    Fellow Edmontonians and Albertans.......... Learn about climate change. Be aware that the CBC is lying to you, and threatening you about climate change, almost on a daily basis..........
    Why not send some e-mails? Why not send some letters? Why not ask them why they're lying?T

    The CBC doesn't dare have a climate skeptic on, but they'll report every climate kook theory any dingbat says. Climates change is always all about threatening people. Now a degree of warming is going to wake up dormant volcanoes.........."•

    Canada has dormant volcanoes. Climate change could wake them up."

    But guess what? It's because of volcanic activity there's life on earth.

    Could somebody send a 10 year old over to the CBC and tell them how the universe works?

    The CBC goes on to report more nonsense from the CEO of Suncor.......

    "•Canada, provinces lack clear plan to adapt to climate change, auditors say"A

    Guess what? Alberta has a plan to adapt to climate change...........
    We'll take off a layer and enjoy the warmer weather.
    Farmers will grow crops over a longer season.
    Maybe we won't have to plug in our cars at night.
    Could somebody send a 5 year old over to the CBC and have him explain what we'd do if Alberta was warmer?

    "Climate change is science. Hardcore science."

    A software simulation is hardcore science?????

    "Climate sensitivity" is an unknown variable. Pretending to know the value of an unknown variable isn't "hardcore science", it's astrology.

    Could somebody send a 12 year old, who is familiar with basic programming, to the CBC so he can explain to the them that a programmer can give you any value you want from a software simulation?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-06-2018 at 09:33 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  6. #706
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,422

    Default

    Are you claiming that CBC made up statements by the CEO of Suncor, an oil company, out of whole cloth? If yes, then you're totally disconnected from objective reality. If no, then what does the CBC have to do with his comments? They're simply relaying them, and the article had basically no editorializing. Criticize Williams, then. I'd like to hear how an energy company CEO is part of a vast conspiracy to undermine... energy companies.

  7. #707

    Default The TRUTH. Do you like it when the CBC and David Suzuki lie to you?

    "Forest fires are heating up

    A spark can light a raging inferno, says University of Alberta wildfire expert Mike Flannigan. Fire has always been an essential part our ecosystem, but now they are becoming more dangerous. 2017 was devastating in western Canada; British Columbia experienced its worst fire on record, almost 900,000 hectares went up in smoke. In 2016, one of the most destructive fires in the country swept through Fort McMurray, destroying nearly 2,500 buildings forcing the evacuating of 90,000 citizens. It was the costliest disaster in Canadian history."
    http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/blo...fecting-canada

    1825 Miramachi fire, 1.5 million hectares, 300 dead.
    1950 Chinchaga fire, 1.5 million hectares.
    1916 Matheson fire, 223 dead
    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-06-2018 at 03:22 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  8. #708

  9. #709
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,422

    Default

    What is the point he's even trying to make there?

    Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.

  10. #710

    Default

    This is the first and last time I'll post in this thread.

    Science has nothing to do with it.

    Climate denial is all politics. Rhino party politics.

    Only utter creeps do it. Utter creeps who always vote the same, rhino party vote, now euphemistically called Conservative, Republican, or whatever else.

    But the problem is not the creeps.

    The problem is the supposedly decent people who vote the same way with the creeps.

    Because by doing so they descend not to the level of the creeps, but below them.

    To engage in debate with creeps is meaningless.

    To insult the self-made sub-creeps out of their sub-creepiness is about the only thing you can do.

    Because otherwise the path to rhino party rule is guaranteed.

    And we have all seen what that is like.

    Steve Williams in his own polite way has just said the same thing, in the context of climate change and its denial.

    But the total context is, unfortunately, considerably wider.

    And that is the real context in which the rhino party creeps exist, and drag us down -- below them.

  11. #711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    This is the first and last time I'll post in this thread.Science has nothing to do with it.Climate denial is all politics. Rhino party politics.Only utter creeps do it. Utter creeps who always vote the same, rhino party vote, now euphemistically called Conservative, Republican, or whatever else.But the problem is not the creeps.The problem is the supposedly decent people who vote the same way with the creeps.Because by doing so they descend not to the level of the creeps, but below them.To engage in debate with creeps is meaningless.To insult the self-made sub-creeps out of their sub-creepiness is about the only thing you can do.Because otherwise the path to rhino party rule is guaranteed.And we have all seen what that is like.Steve Williams in his own polite way has just said the same thing, in the context of climate change and its denial.But the total context is, unfortunately, considerably wider.And that is the real context in which the rhino party creeps exist, and drag us down -- below them.
    NASA says sea level rise is at 3.2mm per year and accelerating, but their most advanced satellite has an accuracy of 33mm.You're damn right it's politics, cuz it sure ain't science.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  12. #712

    Default The TRUTH. Liberals lose in a landslide and lose party status

    Well, so much for the 97% consensus. Liberals shut down the coal plants in Ontario, invested heavily in solar, doubled the price of electricity, and introduced a carbon tax. Now they've lost party status. This isn't a new phenomenon. As predicted in one of my earlier posts, the public does not like a carbon tax. Liberals are committing suicide on the fake science climate change sword.Look for a similar loss in Alberta, and Federally after that.Climate denial is the majority now. And yes, the hoax of climate change is over. (Somebody tell the CBC)
    Last edited by MrCombust; 08-06-2018 at 08:41 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #713

    Default

    The coal plants were planned to be decommissioned long before the liberals took power.

    Its becoming more and more clear your agenda. You're all about BigCoalCo. polluting the world, raising temperatures, and sea levels.

  14. #714
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,422

    Default

    Since when does public opinion determine the validity of scientific theories? Public policy needs to take opinion in to account, sure, and no tax is ever going to be popular. But I must have missed Einstein taking public opinion polls on whether he should publish special and general relativity.

    Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.

  15. #715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Since when does public opinion determine the validity of scientific theories? Public policy needs to take opinion in to account, sure, and no tax is ever going to be popular. But I must have missed Einstein taking public opinion polls on whether he should publish special and general relativity.Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.
    You invoke the consensus when it suits you, and deny its validity when it doesn't. "Thread: The TRUTH about climate changeby Marcel Petrin Replies:713Views:26,643 Ah yes, Roy Spencer. One of the few denialists... "
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  16. #716
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Since when does public opinion determine the validity of scientific theories? Public policy needs to take opinion in to account, sure, and no tax is ever going to be popular. But I must have missed Einstein taking public opinion polls on whether he should publish special and general relativity.Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.
    You invoke the consensus when it suits you, and deny its validity when it doesn't. "Thread: The TRUTH about climate changeby Marcel Petrin Replies:713Views:26,643 Ah yes, Roy Spencer. One of the few denialists... "
    for someone expressing a desire to teach and not preach you’re a lot better at avoiding and ignoring simple questions than you are at answering them.

    if you expect your students to learn anything you’ll have to overcome that... unless of course you really do have nothing to teach or offer and simply and simplistically expect others to convert based solely on the strength of your own faith and belief in the one and only true TRUTH.
    Last edited by kcantor; 08-06-2018 at 10:45 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #717
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Since when does public opinion determine the validity of scientific theories? Public policy needs to take opinion in to account, sure, and no tax is ever going to be popular. But I must have missed Einstein taking public opinion polls on whether he should publish special and general relativity.Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.
    You invoke the consensus when it suits you, and deny its validity when it doesn't. "Thread: The TRUTH about climate changeby Marcel Petrin Replies:713Views:26,643 Ah yes, Roy Spencer. One of the few denialists... "
    Consensus of knowledgeable experts and active researchers in the field, yes. Consensus of joe six pack who couldn't pass Math/Chem/Physics 30? Not so much.

    Also still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.

  18. #718

    Default

    "consensus of joe six pack who couldn't pass Math/Chem/Physics 30?" ?? That's a broad assumption that they could actually pass the level 20 courses...

  19. #719
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,422

    Default

    To be fair to the critics though, one of my friends who is the most vociferously against climate change and attendant policies has a masters in mechanical engineering. He's a very, very smart guy. Unfortunately, beliefs often override rationality, and none of us is immune to it. But I wish he'd "smarten" up.

  20. #720

    Default The TRUTH. The advocates on this form setting an example

    See how the advocates of climate change insult and mock millions of Ontarians. They call the consensus "invalid" while pretending they have a consensus. Anybody who doesn't agree with them is "joe six pack". Then they beg me to answer their inane posts. They set an example of exactly what climate change is made of. Then they arrogantly tell you it's "science".
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  21. #721
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,422

    Default

    Still waiting to hear how Steve Williams is part of a massive climate change conspiracy.

  22. #722

    Default The TRUTH. Looks like the CBC lied to us again

    In this issue of Quirks and Quarks Bob McDonald interviews a scientist that tells us rice will be less nutritious when CO2 rises............

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1251434051781

    By now you should all know elevated CO2 is causing crops to grow faster around the world. Of course the scientists in this research don't measure that. They just tell you some of the B vitamins will be reduced as a percentage.

    So rather than tell you the massive benefits of a significantly increased overall yield, they cherry pick some of the vitamins that may not increase as much as the overall yield, and tell you the rice is "less nutritious". In fact, due to the increased overall yield there may be as much of the vitamins in question, just not as much of the vitamin as a percentage. This is what they seem to deem as "less nutritious".

    The article itself discussed the millions, or even billions, of people that may be affected. In evaluating the effect of CO2 it is crucial to consider the affect on the yield. But this aspect is not evaluated. Considering the gravity of how this will affect billions of people this kind of "science" is outrageous.

    Even if the CBC isn't the researcher they are complicit. It is well known in the scientific community CO2 will positively affect plant growth. It is time to address the fraud rather than parade this nonsense on the radio, and award research grants.

    Here's a video of how CO2 affects plant growth..................

    Last edited by MrCombust; 11-06-2018 at 12:56 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  23. #723
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    In this issue of Quirks and Quarks Bob McDonald interviews a scientist that tells us rice will be less nutritious when CO2 rises............

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1251434051781

    By now you should all know elevated CO2 is causing crops to grow faster around the world. Of course the scientists in this research don't measure that. They just tell you some of the B vitamins will be reduced as a percentage.

    So rather than tell you the massive benefits of a significantly increased overall yield, they cherry pick some of the vitamins that may not increase as much as the overall yield, and tell you the rice is "less nutritious". In fact, due to the increased overall yield there may be as much of the vitamins in question, just not as much of the vitamin as a percentage. This is what they seem to deem as "less nutritious".

    The article itself discussed the millions, or even billions, of people that may be affected. In evaluating the effect of CO2 it is crucial to consider the affect on the yield. But this aspect is not evaluated. Considering the gravity of how this will affect billions of people this kind of "science" is outrageous.

    Even if the CBC isn't the researcher they are complicit. It is well known in the scientific community CO2 will positively affect plant growth. It is time to address the fraud rather than parade this nonsense on the radio, and award research grants.

    Here's a video of how CO2 affects plant growth..................

    don't you think that's a bit of disingenuous argument?

    increased levels of co2 are potentially advantageous for plant growth even if it might negatively effect their nutrient value)? so what.

    if that same level of increased co2 is bad for human health, does it really matter that it might be good for plant growth?

    https://www.netl.doe.gov/publication...on-seq/169.pdf

    http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications...213_part_4.pdf

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  24. #724

    Default

    For decades its been openly stated that the cost/benefit effects would be uneven. Canadian prairies might even benefit.

    However, established settlements and coastal regions might go under water displacing tens or hundreds of millions of people. Moreover, the possibility of vast areas of cropland potentially turning into deserts doesnt mean matching areas of desert could become cropland - at least not for thousands of years. As with many things in life, destruction can occur far far faster than creation.

  25. #725

    Default

    With few pockets remaining of any particular living thing, changes may wipe out all of a particular type, whereas in the past numerous other populations might have survived.


    Scientists shocked by mysterious deaths of ancient trees - BBC News

    Excerpt:

    “Unexpectedly, they found that eight of the 13 oldest and five of the six largest baobabs had either completely died or had their oldest parts collapse.

    Baobab trees have many stems and trunks, often of different ages. In some cases all the stems died suddenly.

    "We suspect this is associated with increased temperature and drought," Dr Patrut told BBC News. "It's shocking and very sad to see them dying."

    The trees that have died or are dying are found in Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa, Botswana and Zambia. They are all between 1,000 and more than 2,500 years old.”
    ...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44418849
    Last edited by KC; 11-06-2018 at 07:07 PM.

  26. #726

    Default The TRUTH. Fake science sometimes reports CO2 as harmful

    But kcantor's documentation clearly shows that, like most substances important to life, CO2 is well tolerated in low quantities..............

    Thanks for the data.........................

    "Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat to human health"
    "SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION RICE - 4
    Table 4: Effects of Continuous or Repeated CO2
    Exposure Population Effects

    0.5 - 1.5% Repeated daily Healthy individuals Well tolerated"

    1.5% is more than 40 times current levels.


    Last edited by MrCombust; 12-06-2018 at 01:40 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  27. #727
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    But kcantor's documentation clearly shows that, like most substances important to life, CO2 is well tolerated in low quantities..............

    Thanks for the data.........................

    "Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat to human health"
    "SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION RICE - 4
    Table 4: Effects of Continuous or Repeated CO2
    Exposure Population Effects

    0.5 - 1.5% Repeated daily Healthy individuals Well tolerated"

    1.5% is more than 40 times current levels.


    and 0.5% only 13 times more...

    the problem with your trying to cherry-pick and down play is two fold.

    firstly, the problem for people is that carbon dioxide is heavier than air so whatever the increase is will likely be concentrated in the lower portion of the atmosphere we live in.

    secondly, in those portions of the lower atmosphere we live in we tend to live in clusters - we call them cities. and those portions of that portion of our lower atmosphere are already disproportionally affected by higher levels of pollution and carbon dioxide.

    it’s not only a question of “how much”, it’s a question of “where” and while the plants might be okay my guess is humans will start to experience issues long before we get to even 13 times.

    if you want to test this for yourself, you can probably buy carbon dioxide from praxair...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  28. #728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    But kcantor's documentation clearly shows that, like most substances important to life, CO2 is well tolerated in low quantities..............

    Thanks for the data.........................

    "Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat to human health"
    "SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION RICE - 4
    Table 4: Effects of Continuous or Repeated CO2
    Exposure Population Effects

    0.5 - 1.5% Repeated daily Healthy individuals Well tolerated"

    1.5% is more than 40 times current levels.


    and 0.5% only 13 times more...

    the problem with your trying to cherry-pick and down play is two fold.

    firstly, the problem for people is that carbon dioxide is heavier than air so whatever the increase is will likely be concentrated in the lower portion of the atmosphere we live in.

    secondly, in those portions of the lower atmosphere we live in we tend to live in clusters - we call them cities. and those portions of that portion of our lower atmosphere are already disproportionally affected by higher levels of pollution and carbon dioxide.

    it’s not only a question of “how much”, it’s a question of “where” and while the plants might be okay my guess is humans will start to experience issues long before we get to even 13 times.

    if you want to test this for yourself, you can probably buy carbon dioxide from praxair...
    No, I won't be testing your made up, folksy, theories.

    I do find it odd you make claims about the effects of elevated CO2 and then provide three links that prove you're wrong. And even when I point out what YOUR own links say, you still pretend CO2 is bad and then tell me how wrong I am. This is why I don't care much for discussing with advocates.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 13-06-2018 at 09:00 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  29. #729

    Default

    Man... this thread... MrCombust.... lolllllll....

  30. #730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Man... this thread... MrCombust.... lolllllll....
    Crops are growing faster, benefitting billions of starving people all over the world. Scientists come on the radio and lie. They tell us that more nutritious crops are less nutritious.

    Nothing funny about that.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 13-06-2018 at 09:30 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  31. #731

    Default

    no, I was laughing at all the misinformation, and misrepresentation of data that you keep reposting, reposting, reposting, in hopes that it will finally be true....

  32. #732
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,579

    Default

    I listened last Saturday to the Quirks & Quarks segment Mr. Combust cited above. Couldn't help thinking at the time, the deniers are going to have a field day with this one.

    I believe the women being interviewed was identified as a grad student after the segment.

    Bob McDonald did his best to sound incredulous during the interview, and images of malnourished women, children and babies in rice dependent countries were left floating in the air.

    All because some experiment showed that certain strains of rice absorb certain nutrients from the soil at a lower rate (folic acid and some Vitamin B compounds were mentioned) due to rice absorbing more carbon (i.e. growing faster) at elevated CO2 levels (I recall 580 ppm being mentioned).

    Nowhere in the segment was it mentioned that these lower nutrient levels in rice could be addressed through plant breeding and/or genetic modification, or in a worst case scenario by taking vitamin supplements. Taking additional folic acid in supplement form is already recommended during pregnancy.

    People like Bob McDonald who sincerely think global warming is a threat need to stop airing interviews that don't even convince listeners like me, let alone people who doubt or deny that warming is happening.

  33. #733

    Default The TRUTH. Who are the real "deniers"?

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    I listened last Saturday to the Quirks & Quarks segment Mr. Combust cited above. Couldn't help thinking at the time, the deniers are going to have a field day with this one.

    I believe the women being interviewed was identified as a grad student after the segment.

    Bob McDonald did his best to sound incredulous during the interview, and images of malnourished women, children and babies in rice dependent countries were left floating in the air.

    All because some experiment showed that certain strains of rice absorb certain nutrients from the soil at a lower rate (folic acid and some Vitamin B compounds were mentioned) due to rice absorbing more carbon (i.e. growing faster) at elevated CO2 levels (I recall 580 ppm being mentioned).

    Nowhere in the segment was it mentioned that these lower nutrient levels in rice could be addressed through plant breeding and/or genetic modification, or in a worst case scenario by taking vitamin supplements. Taking additional folic acid in supplement form is already recommended during pregnancy.

    People like Bob McDonald who sincerely think global warming is a threat need to stop airing interviews that don't even convince listeners like me, let alone people who doubt or deny that warming is happening.
    The scientist on the show lied. It wouldn't take much for Bob Mcdonald to know that. In fact, he probably does.

    You shouldn't call me a "denier". The people lying are the deniers. Deniers of the truth. The scientist in the interview, Bob McDonald, and the CBC, they are the "deniers", if you feel the need to call names. Aside from that, nice to see someone weigh in without the usual playbook.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  34. #734

    Default

    He’s not a scientist, but he understands capitalism:

    GMO's Grantham: capitalists need to wake up to climate change reality

    “ Grantham cited a slew of data showing how climate change is impacting soil, grains, temperature as well as general human health. Those numbers, coupled with Grantham's speech delivery, scared a lot of people in attendance at the conference.

    Grantham also pointed out that many of the problems with how capitalists deal with climate change stem from the very nature of corporations. "A corporation's responsibility is to maximize profit, not to spend money and figure out how to save the planet," he said. “

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/13/gmos...e-reality.html



  35. #735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    I listened last Saturday to the Quirks & Quarks segment Mr. Combust cited above. Couldn't help thinking at the time, the deniers are going to have a field day with this one.

    I believe the women being interviewed was identified as a grad student after the segment.

    Bob McDonald did his best to sound incredulous during the interview, and images of malnourished women, children and babies in rice dependent countries were left floating in the air.

    All because some experiment showed that certain strains of rice absorb certain nutrients from the soil at a lower rate (folic acid and some Vitamin B compounds were mentioned) due to rice absorbing more carbon (i.e. growing faster) at elevated CO2 levels (I recall 580 ppm being mentioned).

    Nowhere in the segment was it mentioned that these lower nutrient levels in rice could be addressed through plant breeding and/or genetic modification, or in a worst case scenario by taking vitamin supplements. Taking additional folic acid in supplement form is already recommended during pregnancy.

    People like Bob McDonald who sincerely think global warming is a threat need to stop airing interviews that don't even convince listeners like me, let alone people who doubt or deny that warming is happening.
    The scientist on the show lied. It wouldn't take much for Bob Mcdonald to know that. In fact, he probably does.

    You shouldn't call me a "denier". The people lying are the deniers. Deniers of the truth. The scientist in the interview, Bob McDonald, and the CBC, they are the "deniers", if you feel the need to call names. Aside from that, nice to see someone weigh in without the usual playbook.
    but you are the one thats denying the TRUTH. In fact, you've gone on quite a long thread about denying the TRUTH.

  36. #736
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,259

    Default

    ^

    youre confusing truth with the TRUTH... although youre not the only one - it started 735 posts ago.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  37. #737

    Default

    is TRUTH an acronym for something?

  38. #738
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    is TRUTH an acronym for something?
    Teach Really Upholding Total Heresy?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  39. #739

    Default The TRUTH. UAH satellite data update.

    This is the latest temperature graph from UAH. If you've been reading my posts you should know that satellite RSS data, and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show a similar trend.

    NASA's GISS, which is based on land weather stations, shows much more warming. You should also know that land based stations are corrupted by the growing heat island effect as cities grow around land based stations. GISS is also corrupted by NASA's constant fudging of the data. You can argue about the validity of the fudging, but you can't say it's not happening. Earlier versions of GISS are available on the internet and NASA's website. Liar blogs and advocates use GISS exclusively to demonstrate "global warming" as it validates their claims. But some of the most ardent climate advocate scientists no longer use GISS as a reference and have admitted to the now 20 year "pause".

    Climate advocates look at the statistical warming trend and tell you CO2 is the cause. Skeptics look at the large natural variability and aren't convinced a marginal amount of warming is evidence of a CO2 footprint.

    If you look at the year 2000 most of the graph to the left is below zero, and most to the right is above. The large 1990's spike of "global warming" is being spread over a growing time period. The "Climate change" literature is being rewritten as the advocates cling to an ever decreasing, and unconvincing trend. Naturally, the liar blogs, and sadly the CBC, will never show you this.

    In this graph the present temperature anomaly of .2 degrees is .1 degrees above the 1981 anomaly of .1 degrees with the 2016 El Nino (a warming oscillation) continuing to fade.......

    www.drroyspencer.com

    Last edited by MrCombust; Yesterday at 10:52 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •