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.
|
Mike Oxsaw
11:01 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Hammer and Pickle 11:56 Fri Oct 21
What sunshine can we lie about then?
|
Infidel
10:57 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
So a quick summary of this thread for anyone just arriving.
The following myths of the alarmists have been exposed and put to the sword:
- there are only 100 months left to save the Earth! [apparently this was to get attention and not meant to be taken literally]
- the planet is getting hotter! [no it isn't. there was a period of warming between 1975 and 2000 but then it stopped]
- the Arctic sea ice will be completely gone by 2016! [it's still there]
- the glaciers in the Himalayas will be completely gone in a few years! [the IPCC now says they got this wrong. Actually they lifted it from a poxy student thesis and put it in their annual report as fact]
- 97% of scientists support the theory that human carbon emissions are making the planet hotter! [no they don't - it was based on a tiny handful of scientists who responded to a survey many years ago]
- the scientists investigating climate change are honest and pure [no they're not. The leaked CRU emails show they are fabricating the evidence]
- 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]
What we have here is a case of a few religiously devoted nutters like AfM, gph and Pickle who won;t accept any evidence, ever, that contradicts alarmist theory.
On the other side of the fence we have the vast majority of sensible people who think that the IPCC has been exaggerating the effects of man made climate change and it probably isn't as catastrophic as they say.
Think that about sums it up.
|
cholo
7:20 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
I'm starting to think the only trace of mankind after we are all dust is going to be voyager 1 and 2 and this thread.
|
stomper
5:43 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Spoilsport
|
AfM
2:06 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
This just popped up on my timeline.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/10/18/debunking-25-arguments-against-climate-change-in-5-sentences-or-less-each/
If rios, surface and infidel could educate themselves there, we could all stop laughing at them.
|
gph
1:32 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
"Do water and or soil nutrients have any limiting factors on C4 plants?" Yes.
"Do you also have a list of 6 similar non C4 plant where water and soil nutrients do not have any limiting factors?"
Not sure if I understand the question - it's fairly obvious that no plant can survive without water, C4 or not.
If you mean "do these limiting factors come into play before the current level of CO2 does", the answer must be that it depends on the plant species AND its location.
"Can we survive on a diet of non C4 plants?" Yes.
|
gph
1:07 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
"And by the way gph you didn't write that paragraph so don't try to pass off a c&p as your own work."
Who did write it then?
If you don't know, how can you conclude that I didn't?
Your inner voices, perhaps?
By the way, a Google search won't help you here:
No results found for "It is also believed that temperature increases beyond 3 degrees in the temperate regions and only 1 degree in the tropics will offset increased productivity due to increased CO2 in any cases".
If you meant I was summarising something, well, no shit Sherlock. That's why I provided a link to it.
|
AfM
12:29 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Excellent input, finnish.
Really fascinating stuff.
|
AfM
12:28 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Sorry, that was a response to mike's question
|
Finnish Ironing
12:28 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
And you are an exceptionally boring, obsessive fucker, AFM.
|
AfM
12:27 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Yes, I was, temporarily, humouring rios and his intense stupidity.
It was futile.
Nice to see infidel just plain denying still.
What a moron.
|
AfM
12:25 Sat Oct 22
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
You are an exceptionally skilled liar, surface.
|
Hammer and Pickle
11:56 Fri Oct 21
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Of course they are not lying about what we are doing to the planet.
You can't lie about that sunshine.
|
Infidel
11:55 Fri Oct 21
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Pickle
"Because it is a vital political issue and they were trying to get the point across."
In other words, they lied.
No wonder you don't think the CRU did anything wrong.
Making shit up is fine as long as it supports the alarmist case.
|
Mike Oxsaw
11:51 Fri Oct 21
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Do water and or soil nutrients have any limiting factors on C4 plants?
Do you also have a list of 6 similar non C4 plant where water and soil nutrients do not have any limiting factors?
Can we survive on a diet of non C4 plants?
|
Hammer and Pickle
11:40 Fri Oct 21
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Because it is a vital political issue and they were trying to get the point across.
Now how about addressing the rest of the question, which is why you clearly take us for fools?
|
Mike Oxsaw
11:38 Fri Oct 21
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
AfM 9:26 Fri Oct 21
Did you actually start that post with "If"?
IF so, was there any particular reason for doing so?
|
Infidel
11:37 Fri Oct 21
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Certainly.
The basic question of this thread is that which is in the OP, namely: you alarmist nutters told us 8 years ago there were only 100 months left to save the Earth.
The 100 months is now up, so by your own logic any further action to combat climate change is futile.
So why are you still banging on about it?
|
Hammer and Pickle
11:19 Fri Oct 21
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
Want to address yourself to the basic question, Infidel?
|
Infidel
11:14 Fri Oct 21
Re: The '100 months to save the planet' are up
|
The mumbo jumbo you alarmists come out with beggars belief.
What in the name of Jesus does this mean :
"It is also believed that temperature increases beyond 3 degrees in the temperate regions and only 1 degree in the tropics will offset increased productivity due to increased CO2 in any cases where this actually occurs."
Utter, utter nonsense.
And by the way gph you didn't write that paragraph so don't try to pass off a c&p as your own work.
|
| 
