Way to go Greta
- Thread starter ff1d1l
- Start date
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
joe.
is that the new libertarian fascist people's party? one of my neighbours has their sign on his lawn.
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Vuk,
Yup, the People's Farty of Canada. Sorry, I meant to write Party.
Here's their manifesto on climate change —
Thankfully, the local PPC candidate is polling between 1.5% and 2%.
By the way, what is it with the denialists that they keep trotting out this sentence: Despite what global warming propaganda claims, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth.
Find me a climate scientist who says otherwise. The issue is what all that additional CO2 is doing thermally in the atmosphere and what the dissolved CO2 is doing to ocean pH.
Joe
Yup, the People's Farty of Canada. Sorry, I meant to write Party.
Here's their manifesto on climate change —
Issue
The Liberal government is spending billions of dollars at home and abroad to fight global warming—or “climate change” as it is now called to account for every natural weather event and its opposite.
In order to lower greenhouse gas emissions, it has imposed taxes and countless regulations, it subsidizes inefficient and costly “green technology,” and it is blocking the development of oil resources crucial to our prosperity.
It is an undisputed fact that the world’s climate has always changed and will continue to change. Until twelve thousand years ago, much of Canada was under ice, and it is thanks to natural climate change that we can live here today.
There is however no scientific consensus on the theory that CO2 produced by human activity is causing dangerous global warming today or will in the future, and that the world is facing environmental catastrophes unless these emissions are drastically reduced. Many renowned scientists continue to challenge this theory.
The policy debate about global warming is not grounded on science anymore. It has been hijacked by proponents of big government who are using crude propaganda techniques to impose their views. They publicly ridicule and harass anyone who expresses doubt. They make exaggerated claims to scare people. They even manipulate school children, getting them to pressure their parents and to demonstrate in the streets.
Facts
Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future. None of the cataclysmic predictions that have been made about the climate since the 1970s have come true. No new ice age. No steady warming in direct relation with increases in CO2 levels. No disappearance of polar ice caps. No exceptional rise in ocean levels. No abnormal increase in catastrophic weather events. No widespread crop failure and famine.
In fact, CO2 is beneficial for agriculture and there has recently been a measurable “greening” of the world in part thanks to higher levels. Despite what global warming propaganda claims, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth.
Our Plan
Given the uncertainties over the scientific basis of global warming, and the certainties about the huge costs of measures designed to fight it, there is no compelling reason to jeopardize our prosperity with more government interventions.
The Liberal government is spending billions of dollars at home and abroad to fight global warming—or “climate change” as it is now called to account for every natural weather event and its opposite.
In order to lower greenhouse gas emissions, it has imposed taxes and countless regulations, it subsidizes inefficient and costly “green technology,” and it is blocking the development of oil resources crucial to our prosperity.
It is an undisputed fact that the world’s climate has always changed and will continue to change. Until twelve thousand years ago, much of Canada was under ice, and it is thanks to natural climate change that we can live here today.
There is however no scientific consensus on the theory that CO2 produced by human activity is causing dangerous global warming today or will in the future, and that the world is facing environmental catastrophes unless these emissions are drastically reduced. Many renowned scientists continue to challenge this theory.
The policy debate about global warming is not grounded on science anymore. It has been hijacked by proponents of big government who are using crude propaganda techniques to impose their views. They publicly ridicule and harass anyone who expresses doubt. They make exaggerated claims to scare people. They even manipulate school children, getting them to pressure their parents and to demonstrate in the streets.
Facts
Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future. None of the cataclysmic predictions that have been made about the climate since the 1970s have come true. No new ice age. No steady warming in direct relation with increases in CO2 levels. No disappearance of polar ice caps. No exceptional rise in ocean levels. No abnormal increase in catastrophic weather events. No widespread crop failure and famine.
In fact, CO2 is beneficial for agriculture and there has recently been a measurable “greening” of the world in part thanks to higher levels. Despite what global warming propaganda claims, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth.
Our Plan
Given the uncertainties over the scientific basis of global warming, and the certainties about the huge costs of measures designed to fight it, there is no compelling reason to jeopardize our prosperity with more government interventions.
Thankfully, the local PPC candidate is polling between 1.5% and 2%.
By the way, what is it with the denialists that they keep trotting out this sentence: Despite what global warming propaganda claims, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth.
Find me a climate scientist who says otherwise. The issue is what all that additional CO2 is doing thermally in the atmosphere and what the dissolved CO2 is doing to ocean pH.
Joe
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
it's the same process i described a few days ago when right-wing people get all excited about mastering a very simple scientific/historical fact or logical connection and then imagine what follows is authority to freewheel any *remotely-connected* opinion under that blanket of initial justification or validation.
"we know that communism didn't work, so why would we believe socialized health care would?"
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Vuk,
That's essentially it. The People's Farty of Canada claims that scientists say CO2 is a pollutant, which they don't, then they state an undisputed fact — CO2 is essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth.
Logicians have a term for this kind of fallacious reasoning: reductio ad OMGthesepeopleareasthickaspigshit
Joe
That's essentially it. The People's Farty of Canada claims that scientists say CO2 is a pollutant, which they don't, then they state an undisputed fact — CO2 is essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth.
Logicians have a term for this kind of fallacious reasoning: reductio ad OMGthesepeopleareasthickaspigshit
Joe
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Here's something for Maxime "I'm too bonkers for the Tories so I started my own party" Bernier: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Joe
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Does finding a suitable display case present a problem?
3
35451
Guest
guest,
This is the graph I was looking for a while ago but was unsuccessful until today.
Methane is a greenhouse gas, and a potent one at that, but its half life is much shorter than CO2's. The graph also explains why we need to curb CO2 emissions. Its effects linger for decades, centuries really.
Joe
Thanks That is an interesting graphic, particularly the tail offs methane compared to CO2.
My understanding is that back in our history, there was more methane in the atmosphere, since as an organic hydrocarbon, it's also in the building blocks of development on life's earth. I presume also that the sub terrainian methane layer still forms and has been there since dawn of planet.
What the graph suggests is the critical balance of atmospheric gase required for sustained life ( as we know it) an Doherty dynamic relationship between those in the air and those in the ground.
Plant more trees, cut less down, extract and burn less hydrocarbons.
Sounds like an easy strategy and plan to implement.....hmmmm
That's probably a reasonable one-line summary of a very complex situation, yes. Chemists talk about a "dynamic equilibrium". In fact every chemical reaction, ever, is theoretically at least a dynamic equilibrium, it's just that in some cases the reaction equilibrium is 99.999xxx% to completion so the stuff remaining on one side can safely be disregarded.
In this case of course what you have are millions of different reactions, all of which have their own equilibrium, and all of which contribute to the equilibrium of the whole. As an example, you and I both consume atmospheric oxygen to live, and so does a piece of rusting iron. Those reactions are of course totally different and have no bearing on one another, but both will contribute to oxygen consumption in a closed environment.
I think I'm correct in my understanding that methane is "fixed" by organisms in the soil and the oceans, they are able to use it as a carbon source and a fuel. Methane plus oxygen goes to CO2 plus water. Maybe some of them are able to use the carbon in the methane to build more complex compounds that potentially then enter the wider food chain in the way that plants can, I don't know.
As you probably know, biologists and chemists talk about the nitrogen cycle, the carbon cycle, etc. The equilibria of which you speak are all part of this complex web of chemical reactions.
Yes, there's the rub.
Marky-Mark
pfm Member
@Joe P
here is the P.P. leader showing off his libertarian intellect with a classic, never before expressed, quæ ventura argument (so brilliant there is no defense against it):
Can someone convince the big content providers to hold off on another cop show or Holocaust movie and instead do a pay per view so we can watch these people "fight" the climate?
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
guest,
The point simply is that emissions of one greenhouse gas — CO2 — is warming the Earth, which is causing a second greenhouse gas — methane — to be released. It’s a positive feedback cycle and a worrying one, unless you’ve always wanted to go to Venus but couldn’t scrape together the fare.
Yeah, I know the Earth won’t become a Venus, but several degrees of warming would be catastrophic.
Joe
The point simply is that emissions of one greenhouse gas — CO2 — is warming the Earth, which is causing a second greenhouse gas — methane — to be released. It’s a positive feedback cycle and a worrying one, unless you’ve always wanted to go to Venus but couldn’t scrape together the fare.
Yeah, I know the Earth won’t become a Venus, but several degrees of warming would be catastrophic.
Joe
Rank stupidity by ER, evident by the comments made by their own spokesman questioning whether the approach was justified. I'd get it if DLR trains were diesel chugging monstrosities, but some chump glued themselves to an electric train (relatively environmentally friendly).
Marky-Mark
pfm Member
Seeker,
Not really. I've decided to display them outside.
Joe
Wonder if Coco and Lulu would make room for this somewhat lost Hairdo ape
Marky-Mark
pfm Member
Meanwhile, in more stomach friendly climate news. Depending ....
https://news.sky.com/story/furious-...rebellion-protester-from-top-of-tube-11837385
-
https://news.sky.com/story/furious-...rebellion-protester-from-top-of-tube-11837385
-
farfromthesun
pfm Member
Yeah, let's just give everyone who slows our journey down a good hiding.
Standing on the wrong side of the escalator? Give them a slap.
Don't move down the carriage? Nice left hook will sort that.
Get on the train when the doors are closing and make them open again? Knock their block off.
More seriously, if the Police hadn't restricted their ability to protest peacefully, perhaps this wouldn't have happened at all. I do think that there are better targets than public transport, but that crowd mauling he got was obscene and unjustifiable.
Marky-Mark
pfm Member
Greta's going to need a bigger boat to fight the tide of SUV vs. Electric
"A preference for SUV's over other cars has increased oil demand by 3.3 million barrels per day between 2010 and 2018. In the same period, electric vehicles reduced demand by just 100,000 barrels"
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...issions-reductions-in-passenger-car-mark.html
"A preference for SUV's over other cars has increased oil demand by 3.3 million barrels per day between 2010 and 2018. In the same period, electric vehicles reduced demand by just 100,000 barrels"
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...issions-reductions-in-passenger-car-mark.html
Where did I justify anyone getting a kicking?