More Good News!

[James.uk]

I have never taken the trouble to work out most of the info ref these topics.

But... I do know that we can't go on dumping stuff in the sea, removing all the forests, and polluting the atmosphere forever with no detrimental effects..

Cleaning up our act has to be a good idea.. So it gets my vote...
...

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by James.uk

I have never taken the trouble to work out most of the info ref these topics.

But... I do know that we can't go on dumping stuff in the sea, removing all the forests, and polluting the atmosphere forever with no detrimental effects..

Cleaning up our act has to be a good idea.. So it gets my vote...
...

Agreed on all counts - we should not use the ocean as a rubbish bin - and burning Rain Forests in equatorial areas so Palm Oil can be produced so we in the west can have "bio-diesel" because it is "greener" than traditional oil reserves is probably one of the biggest own goals the Alarmists can have scored

And polluting our atmosphere by way of selective tax breaks on diesels is another classic own goal!! - And all done in the name of reducing CO2 because the idiotic muppets somehow got the notion that CO2 is a poison harmful to life - when the reality is CO2 is a vital trace gas without which plants cannot photosynthesise.

The percentage of CO2 in the air is just 0.039% or 390 parts per million.

And yet the levels for optimum plant growth are closer to 1000 parts per million. Market gardeners regularly up the CO2 levels in greenhouses to achieve this.

What gets me is the arrogant stupidity of the Alarmist thinking centred on the belief that todays CO2 level is somehow the optimum and that it has never changed in the past and we somehow have the power to alter it in the future.

And the deepest irony of all is the fact that CO2 levels have gone up a smidgin and this is part due to man and part due to natural causes. But despite this the world temperature - apart from the occasional El Nino spike - stubbornly refuses to follow the Alarmist predictions.

[andymc]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

Agreed on all counts - we should not use the ocean as a rubbish bin - and burning Rain Forests in equatorial areas so Palm Oil can be produced so we in the west can have "bio-diesel" because it is "greener" than traditional oil reserves is probably one of the biggest own goals the Alarmists can have scored

And polluting our atmosphere by way of selective tax breaks on diesels is another classic own goal!! - And all done in the name of reducing CO2 because the idiotic muppets somehow got the notion that CO2 is a poison harmful to life - when the reality is CO2 is a vital trace gas without which plants cannot photosynthesise.

The percentage of CO2 in the air is just 0.039% or 390 parts per million.

And yet the levels for optimum plant growth are closer to 1000 parts per million. Market gardeners regularly up the CO2 levels in greenhouses to achieve this.

What gets me is the arrogant stupidity of the Alarmist thinking centred on the belief that todays CO2 level is somehow the optimum and that it has never changed in the past and we somehow have the power to alter it in the future.

And the deepest irony of all is the fact that CO2 levels have gone up a smidgin and this is part due to man and part due to natural causes. But despite this the world temperature - apart from the occasional El Nino spike - stubbornly refuses to follow the Alarmist predictions.

You say this a lot, but that's not what is claimed. Increasing levels of CO2 are not considered to be toxic to life, but are considered to contribute towards raising average temperatures at a global level, over a shorter period of time than historic norms.

The case you are arguing is not the one that "green muppets" are making.

[Mr Bone]

Originally Posted by hamster19

We did not land on the moon !
Don't make me laugh.

Utter woo woo.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by andymc

You say this a lot, but that's not what is claimed. Increasing levels of CO2 are not considered to be toxic to life, but are considered to contribute towards raising average temperatures at a global level, over a shorter period of time than historic norms.

The case you are arguing is not the one that "green muppets" are making.

The fact is that the American EPA has classified CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant". Thankfully we here in the UK seem to be backtracking on the silliness that was about on this subject a decade or so ago.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

If that were true then why when CO2 levels have been increasing have we not seen temperatures increase?

If the computer models that many Alarmists deliberately confuse as real data were accurate then the rising CO2 levels we ARE seeing should have by now have increased global temperatures.

But since the El Nino in 1998 the temp has been on "Pause"

With any hypothesis - if the facts do not fit the prediction then questions have to be asked about the validity of the predictions

What the Climate Change Alarmists have done is to demonise CO2. This is total nonsense. And it is costly nonsense as it takes the focus off some of the REAL environmental issues such as deforestation and pollution.

The debacle of diesel cars in our urban areas because of CO2 based tax system is a classic example of just how wrong we are to focus on just CO2.

CO2 is in our every breath, in the fizzy drinks and waters that we drink and in the dry ice that helps us keep our food cold and safe. We breathe in 400 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects.

We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die!

The monitoring systems in our submarines do not provide an alert until CO2 levels reach 8,000 ppm which is higher that natural CO2 levels have been on Earth in the last 540 million years.

CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of over 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees.

There is not a single instance of CO2 being a pollutant. Ask any chemistry professor. The only thing being polluted is Science with Junk "science"

[wraymond]

Whilst all of the contributing posts have been informative and well presented (if I may say), my intention was not quite the well rehe***** argument about the principle at the root of the subject.

Rather the blatantly obvious lack of suitable uproar at the apparently censored, if not ignored, latest information from an indisputably authoritative source.

The fact that this controversial information has been so deliberately consigned to oblivion surely highlights the power of the hugely damaging new industries that have been built up under a web of deceit and jingoistic science.

The trillions of £/$/haven't-got-a-euro-sign-thank-heavens spent on this snake-oil theory might have been better spent on countless other real problems besetting mankind. Priorities/schmorities.

Reason for edit: I am truly amazed (and no less disgusted) at the 'swear filter' transforming a standard English word that has never been in doubt about its meaning or misused in any way into a starlit night of twinkling asterisks. I refer to my first sentence/24th word meaning.. 'to practice before using in order to give an accurate depiction of the intent...' And that is a perfect example of my first post and its intentions being deliberately mangled so as to obscure its unarguable veracity. I am offended. Will a MOD please close this thread.

[WillyHeckaslike]

For the sake of any misunderstanding I think that Wraymond was just being facetious with his comment about the Moon landings and that he was not expressing his personal view. But re the Van Allen belts, they were taken very seriously by NASA and dosimeters were carried in the spacecraft. The inner of the two belts is the most dangerous and as with the outer belt some parts are more dangerous than others. The radiation problem diminishes towards the Earth's magnetic poles where it is almost absent and NASA was simply very careful in choosing a relatively safe trajectory through the belts to avoid the worst parts.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by WillyHeckaslike

For the sake of any misunderstanding I think that Wraymond was just being facetious with his comment about the Moon landings and that he was not expressing his personal view. But re the Van Allen belts, they were taken very seriously by NASA and dosimeters were carried in the spacecraft. The inner of the two belts is the most dangerous and as with the outer belt some parts are more dangerous than others. The radiation problem diminishes towards the Earth's magnetic poles where it is almost absent and NASA was simply very careful in choosing a relatively safe trajectory through the belts to avoid the worst parts.

Thanks for that. To further dispel any misunderstanding my last sentence above was referring to the Green establishment doing the mangling - definitely not on here.