GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

On 12/18/2022 at 5:27 AM, Ecocharger said:

Here is exhibit A for Climate Change....the new Global Warming problem, aquariums bursting and spilling contents...

Hey, wait just one minute, this is not Global Warming causing this, but Global Freezing!

What happened to the old CO2 climate models? I guess they goofed big time on this result!

Reach for your mittens and scarves, folks. It's gonna get cold.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/huge-aquarium-bursts-berlin-housed-1500-tropical-fish-rcna62053

 

So far, 2022 has been the 3rd warmest year on record.

[nathan001 0]

I'm Nathani Abhishek direct mandate to a reputable oil refinery, we currently have the following products: Aviation Kerosene, Jet fuel (JP 54-JET, A1.5), Diesel (Gas Oil) and Fuel Oil D2, D6, spot for FOB Houston and Rotterdam available for urgent lift up @ a very cheap price kindly direct all enquiries to: instrumentsmandate01@gmail.com, Skype: nathani.abhishek1 serious enquiries only

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Basic science, from the famous footeab@yahoo.com. "trust me, bro". 

You clearly haven't looked at the science, otherwise you would not have posted a graph that supports the conclusion of the paper.

Show us some recent science, not stuff from a decade ago.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

So far, 2022 has been the 3rd warmest year on record.

December is a record breaking cold snap world wide.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Oil demand is increasing +  oil production stagnant = oil price strength.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Era-Of-Cheap-Oil-Has-Come-To-An-End.html

"The International Energy Agency, one of the most active members of the energy transition movement, in its latest Oil Market Report revised upwards its forecast for global oil demand next year because of an unexpected increase in consumption this year."

Edited December 19, 2022 by Ecocharger

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

3 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Basic science, from the famous footeab@yahoo.com. "trust me, bro". 

You clearly haven't looked at the science, otherwise you would not have posted a graph that supports the conclusion of the paper.

Poor baby, I did post a graph that any 14 year old kid can read showing Temperature LEADS CO2. 

I am sorry your intelligence is lower than a 14 year old kid. 

[Polyphia + 83]

39 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Poor baby, I did post a graph that any 14 year old kid can read showing Temperature LEADS CO2. 

I am sorry your intelligence is lower than a 14 year old kid. 

People who devolve into name calling so quickly typically do so because they don't have much in the way to support their argument. Use YOUR intellect to present a better argument (with evidence).

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

3 hours ago, Polyphia said:

People who devolve into name calling so quickly typically do so because they don't have much in the way to support their argument. Use YOUR intellect to present a better argument (with evidence).

Speaking of intellect..it's time for a bit of history on The Blizzard Of Lies..

NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming."

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

Edited December 19, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

5 hours ago, Polyphia said:

People who devolve into name calling so quickly typically do so because they don't have much in the way to support their argument. Use YOUR intellect to present a better argument (with evidence).

Amazing how only the internet trolls have a problem with the ice cores and no one in academia...

[Polyphia + 83]

17 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Amazing how only the internet trolls have a problem with the ice cores and no one in academia...

Post the evidence--it isn't that difficult.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

44 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

Post the evidence--it isn't that difficult.

You must have been asleep...that evidence was posted here in abundance a while ago, where were you? Snoozing again?

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

The ESG movement has now run aground and is sinking into the mud. Yesterday's worthless fad.

The ESG movement has been challenged for breaking anti-trust laws and ignoring the actual science.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-ESG-Hype-Is-Showing-Signs-Of-Fatigue.html

"In October, banks including JP Morgan, Morgan, Stanley, and Bank of America, threatened to leave the UN-backed group of ESG-conscious financial institutions.

Texas has also threatened to pull out its investments from large asset managers if they continued to be antagonistic to the oil and gas industry."

Edited December 20, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 83]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You must have been asleep...that evidence was posted here in abundance a while ago, where were you? Snoozing again?

Post it again--you don't seem to have any problem (once you no longer have anything useful to contribute, which is most of the time) repeating yourself over and over. If I had a nickel for every time you posted that Jay is still driving his FF vehicle.....

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

3 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Post the evidence--it isn't that difficult.

 Not my problem you are too damned lazy to click the link and literally no one academia disputes said data from said ice cores.  They will quibble about the timeframe age, but no one argues that temperatures leads CO2 rise. 

[Polyphia + 83]

46 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 Not my problem you are too damned lazy to click the link and literally no one academia disputes said data from said ice cores.  They will quibble about the timeframe age, but no one argues that temperatures leads CO2 rise. 

My apologies, I did miss the link that you included in one of your posts. Thanks for being an asshat about it, though.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Poor baby, I did post a graph that any 14 year old kid can read showing Temperature LEADS CO2. 

 

That doesn't necessarily mean CO2 doesn't increase temperatures.

It can be a positive feedback loop where increased temperature increases CO2, and then the CO2 further increases temperature; or visa versa.

If we get hot enough to release methane from gas hydrates we are done for.  Methane is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas and it doesn't have the ameliorating effect of increasing plant growth.  The methane release will just feedback in a vicious cycle.

More methane, more heat, more heat, more methane, and repeat...

Edited December 20, 2022 by TailingsPond

[Polyphia + 83]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 Not my problem you are too damned lazy to click the link and literally no one academia disputes said data from said ice cores.  They will quibble about the timeframe age, but no one argues that temperatures leads CO2 rise. 

And posting a graph out of context without any interpretation really doesn't help much.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

14 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Post the evidence--it isn't that difficult.

This is an extract from a post from @Tom Nolan regarding Co2, published by the founder of greanpeace!

The graph at the bottom highlights the point he makes quite well I think.

The Demonization of Carbon Dioxide

“Very few people believe the world is not warming. The record is clear that the world has been warming since about the year 1700, 150 years before we were using fossil fuels. 1700 was the peak of the Little Ice Age, which was very cold and caused crop failures and starvation. Before that, around 1000 A.D. was the Medieval Warm period when Vikings farmed Greenland. [And] before that, around 500 A.D. were the Dark Ages, and before that, the Roman Warm Period when it was warmer than today, and the sea level was 1–2 meters higher than today,” Moore said.

 Representatives of car companies arrive at the Vienna Autoshow as Greenpeace activists protest against carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from sports utility vehicle cars (SUV) on Jan. 16, 2008. (Dieter Nagl/AFP via Getty Images)

“Even until about 1950, the amount of fossil fuel used and CO2 emitted were very small compared to today. We do not know the cause of these periodic fluctuations in temperature, but it was certainly not CO2.”

Moore clarified that the “minority opinion” is not about the history of the Earth’s temperature, but it is the relationship between the temperature and CO2 that is at the center of the dispute.

“In this regard, I agree that many believe CO2 is the main cause of warming. CO2 is invisible, so no one can actually see what it is doing. And this ‘majority’ are mainly scientists paid by politicians and bureaucrats, media making headlines, or activists making money. [The rest are] the public who believe this story even though they can’t actually see what CO2 is doing,” Moore said.

Moore provided a graph of temperature continuously measured over 350 years (from 1659 to 2009) in central England. “If carbon dioxide was the main cause of warming, then there should be a rise in temperature along the carbon dioxide curve, but it doesn’t,” he explained.

1659–2009 Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Central England. (Courtesy of Patrick Moore)

Moore described the demonization of CO2 as “completely ridiculous.” He added that CO2 is the basis of all life on Earth and its concentration in the atmosphere today, even with the increase, is lower than it has been for a large majority of life’s existence.

Co2 is NOT a pollutant!!!

Edited December 20, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Polyphia + 83]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

This is an extract from a post from @Tom Nolan regarding Co2, published by the founder of greanpeace!

The graph at the bottom highlights the point he makes quite well I think.

The Demonization of Carbon Dioxide

“Very few people believe the world is not warming. The record is clear that the world has been warming since about the year 1700, 150 years before we were using fossil fuels. 1700 was the peak of the Little Ice Age, which was very cold and caused crop failures and starvation. Before that, around 1000 A.D. was the Medieval Warm period when Vikings farmed Greenland. [And] before that, around 500 A.D. were the Dark Ages, and before that, the Roman Warm Period when it was warmer than today, and the sea level was 1–2 meters higher than today,” Moore said.

 Representatives of car companies arrive at the Vienna Autoshow as Greenpeace activists protest against carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from sports utility vehicle cars (SUV) on Jan. 16, 2008. (Dieter Nagl/AFP via Getty Images)

“Even until about 1950, the amount of fossil fuel used and CO2 emitted were very small compared to today. We do not know the cause of these periodic fluctuations in temperature, but it was certainly not CO2.”

Moore clarified that the “minority opinion” is not about the history of the Earth’s temperature, but it is the relationship between the temperature and CO2 that is at the center of the dispute.

“In this regard, I agree that many believe CO2 is the main cause of warming. CO2 is invisible, so no one can actually see what it is doing. And this ‘majority’ are mainly scientists paid by politicians and bureaucrats, media making headlines, or activists making money. [The rest are] the public who believe this story even though they can’t actually see what CO2 is doing,” Moore said.

Moore provided a graph of temperature continuously measured over 350 years (from 1659 to 2009) in central England. “If carbon dioxide was the main cause of warming, then there should be a rise in temperature along the carbon dioxide curve, but it doesn’t,” he explained.

1659–2009 Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Central England. (Courtesy of Patrick Moore)

Moore described the demonization of CO2 as “completely ridiculous.” He added that CO2 is the basis of all life on Earth and its concentration in the atmosphere today, even with the increase, is lower than it has been for a large majority of life’s existence.

Co2 is NOT a pollutant!!!

Thomas Moore was not the founder of Greenpeace, although he was the president of Greenpeace Canada for 9 years and director of Greenpeace International for 6 years. According to many sources, currently he is an enemy of environmentalists (some referring to him as "Judas") and is a lobbyist and/or speaks on behalf of organizations such as the Nuclear Energy Institute and Asian Pulp and Paper (APP). The latter group has been accused by environmentalists as an organization that engages in illegal rainforest clearing activities. He is also a policy advisor on climate and energy for the Heartland Institute, a conservative thinktank. The article below documents some of this. If you look at his evolution, I think it is safe to say that he and Greenpeace have pretty divergent views at this point.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47543905

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 minute ago, Polyphia said:

Thomas Moore was not the founder of Greenpeace, although he was the president of Greenpeace Canada for 9 years and director of Greenpeace International for 6 years. According to many sources, currently he is an enemy of environmentalists (some referring to him as "Judas") and is a lobbyist and/or speaks on behalf of organizations such as the Nuclear Energy Institute and Asian Pulp and Paper (APP). The latter group has been accused by environmentalists as an organization that engages in illegal rainforest clearing activities. He is also a policy advisor on climate and energy for the Heartland Institute, a conservative thinktank. The article below documents some of this. If you look at his evolution, I think it is safe to say that he and Greenpeace have pretty divergent views at this point.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47543905

So do you disagree with his viewpoint and the data he provides?

Also do you still think Co2 is a pollutant?

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

16 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Post it again--you don't seem to have any problem (once you no longer have anything useful to contribute, which is most of the time) repeating yourself over and over. If I had a nickel for every time you posted that Jay is still driving his FF vehicle.....

I posted it already in abundance, and you were here reading, snoozing at the switch. Scroll back and read it.

Why should I spend time reposting my valuable discoveries if you just sleep through it? I have better things to do.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, Polyphia said:

Thomas Moore was not the founder of Greenpeace, although he was the president of Greenpeace Canada for 9 years and director of Greenpeace International for 6 years. According to many sources, currently he is an enemy of environmentalists (some referring to him as "Judas") and is a lobbyist and/or speaks on behalf of organizations such as the Nuclear Energy Institute and Asian Pulp and Paper (APP). The latter group has been accused by environmentalists as an organization that engages in illegal rainforest clearing activities. He is also a policy advisor on climate and energy for the Heartland Institute, a conservative thinktank. The article below documents some of this. If you look at his evolution, I think it is safe to say that he and Greenpeace have pretty divergent views at this point.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47543905

You mean, he woke up and started reading the science? Okay, that sounds about right.

[Polyphia + 83]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I have better things to do.

Doubtful

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

13 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

That doesn't necessarily mean CO2 doesn't increase temperatures.

It can be a positive feedback loop where increased temperature increases CO2, and then the CO2 further increases temperature; or visa versa.

If we get hot enough to release methane from gas hydrates we are done for.  Methane is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas and it doesn't have the ameliorating effect of increasing plant growth.  The methane release will just feedback in a vicious cycle.

More methane, more heat, more heat, more methane, and repeat...

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, thousands of times more potent per volume. 

But historically, temperature fluctuates without any relationship to CO2, earth temperature curves change direction downward when CO2 levels are extremely high, and earth temperature starts trending upward when CO2 concentrations are extremely low.  In other words, there are obviously other major factors which are moving the temperature curves. CO2 appears to be a dependent variable in these models, not an independent variable.