|
Infidel 11:10 Sun Oct 9
The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
|
8 years ago the Climate Change alarmists announced that we had 'only 100 months left to save the planet'.
If decisive action were not taken, they told us, the Earth would become irreversibly hotter, crops would fail on a massive scale, sea levels would rise unstoppably flooding all coastal areas, the polar sea ice would disappear and violent storms would become commonplace.
Prince Charles, the buffoon who wants to be our next king, even made the '100 months' campaign the centrepiece of his speech to the Rio summit in 2009.
Well here we are 100 months later.
Global temperatures haven't risen at all, not even on the rigged measurements of the IPCC. Neither have sea levels. Tropical storms are no more frequent or intense than they have been for centuries. Polar sea ice is actually expanding (especially when one includes Antarctica) and the whole planet is becoming greener as CO2 is, of course, plant food.
But let's ignore that for the moment. The fact is the alarmists told us we had only 100 months left to take decisive action - which we didn't - after which time it would be pointless even to try.
So do the alarmists now believe that it's too late, we're stuffed, we missed our chance to act and that anything we do now is pointless? Logically they must.
And the rest of us think it's all a giant hoax cooked up to line the pockets of venal scientists and bureaucrats.
Thus we finally have a consensus: everyone agrees that we can stop trying to 'combat climate change' now.
Finally.
PS Gank: I know, I know but it's a slow news day on the West Ham front.
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Mike Oxsaw
1:03 Sun Oct 23
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Stick it in a composter then, or use it as fuel in one of those waste recycling power stations - either way it's not adding to greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere in the same way that extracting long-buried gas, oil & coal.
|
riosleftsock
12:53 Sun Oct 23
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
MO
Tut tut.
Rotting organic matter produces methane which drowns puppies in boiling vats of their own entrails.
|
Mike Oxsaw
12:44 Sun Oct 23
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero 2:10 Sat Oct 22
You'd actually think that, if two such staples actually benefit from extra CO2 in the atmosphere (suggesting they may be better at naturally extracting it and repackaging it as extra food to feed a growing population), there would be a massive drive to plant these two crops in any spare piece of land available - including and especially all those fields government pay farmers to leave fallow.
The crops don't even have to enter the food chain if politicians are so concerned it will distort the economy (more than their interfering already does), they can simply be ploughed back into the ground each harvest time or simply be left to rot..
|
ManorParkHammer
2:08 Sun Oct 23
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Surface I get the feeling you are ignoring me?
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
2:10 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
gph 12:44 Sat Oct 22
'a) not all plants are capable of benefitting from extra atmospheric CO2 - I listed all the prominent food crops for which this is the case. Fairly obvious that very prominent food crops, like rice* and wheat, that aren't on the list, can benefit.
Or are you from another planet, and need telling about rice and wheat?'
Yeah, because anyone who doesn't know wheat and rice would benefit from extra atmospheric CO2 is from another planet.
Pretentious? Moi?
|
Mike Oxsaw
1:20 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Hammer and Pickle 12:33 Sat Oct 22
I'd take care if I were you - Poland's going (or about to go through) a significant, and no doubt EU funded, telecom upgrade.
I might wander over to make sure the locals do it properly, even if doing so ruffles a lot of feathers by highlighting the obvious shortfalls in other sectors of the Polish economy.
|
gph
1:19 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
gph 1:07
|
Infidel
1:17 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Oh that changes everything, he only called for one of them to be sacked, not both.
Jesus wept.
|
gph
1:12 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
And he doesn't even mention Mann in the article you put up.
Where did he call for Mann to be sacked or to resign?
|
gph
1:07 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
My point is you've been told the facts, and you persist in posting something else.
No more, and no less.
|
Infidel
12:59 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
gph
So your point is that when Monbiot called for Mann and Jones to be sacked he was a nutjob conspiracy theorist like me, but when he later retracted his comments he was forgiven by the alarmist movement and is now considered sane again?
You do talk some rubbish.
|
gph
12:51 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
" only a nutjob conspiracy theorist thinks the CRU scientists are corrupt [the list of people calling for them to be sacked includes prominent alarmists like George Monbiot, The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph]"
Ironic that, when you're talking about honesty, you use the present tense about George Monbiot calling for Jones to be sacked. He withdrew his call for Jones' resignation, as I told you below.
Or do you think if you say it often enough it becomes true (again)?
That seems to be your default trick.
|
gph
12:44 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
That's a very contrived point, Mike.
a) not all plants are capable of benefitting from extra atmospheric CO2 - I listed all the prominent food crops for which this is the case. Fairly obvious that very prominent food crops, like rice* and wheat, that aren't on the list, can benefit.
Or are you from another planet, and need telling about rice and wheat?
b) it's only where yields are actually constrained by the current level of CO2 that an increase in yield is likely to occur. Where other constraints are in play, there won't be an increase;
c) the possible direct positive effect of extra CO2 will be outweighed by its indirect negative effect through temperature rises, should these exceed very narrow limits.
As pointed out, this** is a lot less firm than AGW itself, and it would foolish to rely on increased short-term yields of non-C4 foods in areas where appears to be no other limiting factors apart from availability of CO2.
*Ironically, there is a fairly intense research effort into converting rice from C3 to C4 metabolism, as the optimists think this would increase rice yield by 30%, in the absence of augmented CO2 levels
**Note for pedants - apart from the bit about AGW that it contains
|
Hammer and Pickle
12:33 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Well then the less you get around the better for all of us.
|
Mike Oxsaw
12:25 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Apart from beer & shouty, gobby, lazy fuckers I've yet to see anything Polish in my travels, both in business and for pleasure, that I consider "world class".
It will be almost nailed on that someone like Siemens (NOT Polish) will be behind any wind farm. Maybe Hitachi (not remotely Polish) or a Chinese (I'll leave it up to you to work out the nationality here) company.
Poles may get to dig a few holes, but even then I suspect the companies will import and use cheap labour from Asia, Africa and the Far East.
You could, of course, set yourself up as a wind farm, but the temperature of the air you generate would most likely exceed the impact on the climate any equivalent fossil-fuelled power station would have.
|
Hammer and Pickle
12:11 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/02/17/the-baltic-a-sea-of-opportunities-for-poland/
|
Hammer and Pickle
12:09 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
It's not exactly thanks to you that there are any Polish companies at all, Eeyore. And there are hundreds of thousands, some of them very good indeed. Watch out for the Baltic Sea windfarm boom, I'll give you that one for free.
|
Mike Oxsaw
11:59 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Hammer and Pickle 11:27 Sat Oct 22
It's hardly likely to be rammed to the gills with Polish companies now, is it? Especially with all the able-bodied Poles over here loitering in the streets, spitting on the pavements and quaffing can after can of cheap imported (probably EU subsidised) Polish lager.
|
Infidel
11:34 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
"his petro-based equity fund"
And they accuse us of being conspiracy theorists...
|
Hammer and Pickle
11:27 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
So a quick summary of the thread for anyone just arriving; Infidel gets torn a new one yet again as he pathetically tries to rationalise the mess that is his petro-based equity fund.
|
Mike Oxsaw
11:09 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
gph 1:32 Sat Oct 22
So someone could, say, pick a handful of species/location combinations that support their argument, give them prominence in any debate and ignore the millions or even billions of other combinations that inconveniently don't support their agenda?
Bit like the religious fanatics do when quoting from their documented "evidence", then.
If somebody were to appear to be doing as I suggested in my first paragraph, I'm sure even you can see how easy it would be to link the topic in question to that of the second.
|
|
|
|
