For the Climate Change Nazis
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Why are you so childish?
Why are you so childish? :laugh: But seriously, you're telling me that you can say with 100% accuracy what will happen in 5 or 10 years time? The only fact on the table is that our population is approximately 8 times more now than it was 100 years ago and it's still increasing. Other than that, you're in the realm of guesswork.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
But no, Brent has his own beliefs and will ignore all facts and logic, to defend them, including snide patronism. You really are a child you know. Grow up.
For facts, get outside and take a look yourself at what's going on. The real world is very different to what's on the internet.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
Why do you constantly ignore the fact the global birth rate has come down to 2.4, which is maintenance levels?
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Just what the hell is a 2C rise going to cause us to do, put on a bit more sun cream? Wake up and smell reality for gods sake. We are the MOST adaptable animal because of our technology.
Heat has no effect on the levels of UV radiation getting through the atmosphere, so sun cream won't make a difference. Your "adaptable" arguments is fine for humans, but what about the rest of the natural food chain? You don't consider things in much depth, do you? :doh:
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
You really can't recognise a facetious comment?
Brent Jenkins wrote:
what about the rest of the natural food chain
You mean the most productive and fertile parts of the world, like the UK, Holland, Germany etc will have to stop using greenhouses? Oh no! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Why do you constantly ignore the fact the global birth rate has come down to 2.4, which is maintenance levels?
The same reason you ignore the fact that the global population is still rising fast.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
-
You really can't recognise a facetious comment?
Brent Jenkins wrote:
what about the rest of the natural food chain
You mean the most productive and fertile parts of the world, like the UK, Holland, Germany etc will have to stop using greenhouses? Oh no! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Are you for real, or are you really this daft? The natural food chain isn't just what we grow or farm! :doh:
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
-
Are you for real, or are you really this daft? The natural food chain isn't just what we grow or farm! :doh:
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
Oh, so you have moved the argument from what people eat to all animals? The earth is 25% greener since 1980 due to CO2. That is what the animals will eat.
-
The same reason you ignore the fact that the global population is still rising fast.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
How old are you?
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Some of us managed to get away with it. ;)
And you think you got the win? Dirty, dingy blighty or Oz, the smart ones got caught.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
Has Anyone Seen Mike Hunt wrote:
Dirty, dingy blighty or Oz
One non-agressive venomous critter[^], or everything on the continent trying to kill you[^]? Seems like an obvious choice to me. :-D
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Some of us managed to get away with it. ;)
And you think you got the win? Dirty, dingy blighty or Oz, the smart ones got caught.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
It is enough to push people over the edge. Green taxes are killing people, right now, in the UK.
How many die just because of that tax? And pollution kills more people.
-
You can argue about the interpretation, but not about the facts the paper presents. GCMs run way too hot. CO2 is not causing any where near as much warming. Period.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You can argue about the interpretation
I doubt any interpretation is needed. The authors themselves, provided an excerpt which indicates that the authors, expect a severe impact. If you have a different interpretation of exactly what I quoted then please provide it.
-
Poor people find the £10 a month hard to find, so they turn the heating down, move into one room in their flats. The incidence of respiratory diseases is increasing and is costing our NHS a lot of money. Green policies are killing people. Right now. In europe. All to save some other people who *might* be affected in 50 years. Its a disgrace. A foul and nasty disgrace.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Green policies are killing people. Right now. In europe.
According to the following taxes on the fuel bill are 15%. All taxes. Five reasons why energy bills are so high – and still rising | The big energy debate | The Guardian[^] Even presuming that that 15% could be entirely eliminated as per your contention it would still leave a heating bill (where 15% is 110) of 623 and, based on history, that would continue to go up. So one can certainly presume that if that extra 110 now, then in a couple of years 50 would still be a problem. Following is more recent and suggests that the total cost is only about 30 more than in 2009. Infographic: Bills, prices and profits | Ofgem[^] Additionally it seems unlikely, per one google link that that extra 110 would be the difference between heating one room in a house and the entire house. Cold homes caused 9,000 deaths last winter, study suggests - BBC News[^] Also the above does not fit the following Fuel poverty: An anatomy of a cold home - BBC News[^] Per the above "Hayley estimates they spend £15 to £20 on electricity and £15 on gas per week....They can't afford to keep the heating on during the night" So at 15 per week even it went to 100 per week, to warm it at night, most of that would still not be taxes. And if 15 is a problem then a percentage of that is unlikely to be a differentiater. If anything it seems likely that if people are dying from the cold it is due to the total energy costs and not the taxes on those.
-
Global birth rate is down to 2.4 kids per family. That is maintenance levels. In 20 years the worlds population will decline. By the way, there is 5 times the mass of termites on earth than people. People are really no more over populated than many other species.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Global birth rate is down to 2.4 kids per family. That is maintenance levels.
Again - that is not the same as maintenance. The global population is going up and it will continue to go up for some time. It is possible that at some point it will actually reach the level that you are claiming it is already at but that has not happened yet.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Why are you so childish?
Why are you so childish? :laugh: But seriously, you're telling me that you can say with 100% accuracy what will happen in 5 or 10 years time? The only fact on the table is that our population is approximately 8 times more now than it was 100 years ago and it's still increasing. Other than that, you're in the realm of guesswork.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
But no, Brent has his own beliefs and will ignore all facts and logic, to defend them, including snide patronism. You really are a child you know. Grow up.
For facts, get outside and take a look yourself at what's going on. The real world is very different to what's on the internet.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
But seriously, you're telling me that you can say with 100% accuracy what will happen in 5 or 10 years time? The only fact on the table is that our population is approximately 8 times more now than it was 100 years ago and it's still increasing. Other than that, you're in the realm of guesswork.
Based on that one would not discuss anything because nothing is known. But the trend line that his statistics actually represent suggest that that population of the world will reach a plateau sometime in the future. But his claim that it has reached it already is incorrect.
-
The same reason you ignore the fact that the global population is still rising fast.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
The same reason you ignore the fact that the global population is still rising fast.
Not sure what that means. The rate is rather low and it has been decreasing for a very long time (it is not zero as he claimed.) But I would certainly not claim that it is "fast". Scroll down to the "Growth rate" graph. World Population Clock: 7.6 Billion People (2017) - Worldometers[^]
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You can argue about the interpretation
I doubt any interpretation is needed. The authors themselves, provided an excerpt which indicates that the authors, expect a severe impact. If you have a different interpretation of exactly what I quoted then please provide it.
Who cares how you interpret the effect of 4C of warming, the take home message from this paper is that models run way too hot.
-
Humanity has proven time and again that they don't want to be saved. If/when they have REAL science to support their panic, I'll listen. But the current climate fraud is being propped up by sh|t they simply made up.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013You're such an asshole
-
How many die just because of that tax? And pollution kills more people.
Yes, there are lots of causes of death. The green energy levies are just one of them.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Global birth rate is down to 2.4 kids per family. That is maintenance levels.
Again - that is not the same as maintenance. The global population is going up and it will continue to go up for some time. It is possible that at some point it will actually reach the level that you are claiming it is already at but that has not happened yet.
Maintenance isnt the same as maintenance? WTF? Are you mad?
jschell wrote:
you are claiming it is already at but that has not happened yet
Are you stupid? I stated that todays low birth rate will cause the population to level of in 20 or 30 years, ie, when THSOE kids become parents.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Green policies are killing people. Right now. In europe.
According to the following taxes on the fuel bill are 15%. All taxes. Five reasons why energy bills are so high – and still rising | The big energy debate | The Guardian[^] Even presuming that that 15% could be entirely eliminated as per your contention it would still leave a heating bill (where 15% is 110) of 623 and, based on history, that would continue to go up. So one can certainly presume that if that extra 110 now, then in a couple of years 50 would still be a problem. Following is more recent and suggests that the total cost is only about 30 more than in 2009. Infographic: Bills, prices and profits | Ofgem[^] Additionally it seems unlikely, per one google link that that extra 110 would be the difference between heating one room in a house and the entire house. Cold homes caused 9,000 deaths last winter, study suggests - BBC News[^] Also the above does not fit the following Fuel poverty: An anatomy of a cold home - BBC News[^] Per the above "Hayley estimates they spend £15 to £20 on electricity and £15 on gas per week....They can't afford to keep the heating on during the night" So at 15 per week even it went to 100 per week, to warm it at night, most of that would still not be taxes. And if 15 is a problem then a percentage of that is unlikely to be a differentiater. If anything it seems likely that if people are dying from the cold it is due to the total energy costs and not the taxes on those.
the extra cost pushes people over the edge. Dont you understand that? That some people have very little income, and are on a fine edge, and can just afford to live?
-
Brent Jenkins wrote:
But seriously, you're telling me that you can say with 100% accuracy what will happen in 5 or 10 years time? The only fact on the table is that our population is approximately 8 times more now than it was 100 years ago and it's still increasing. Other than that, you're in the realm of guesswork.
Based on that one would not discuss anything because nothing is known. But the trend line that his statistics actually represent suggest that that population of the world will reach a plateau sometime in the future. But his claim that it has reached it already is incorrect.
jschell wrote:
But the trend line that his statistics actually represent suggest that that population of the world will reach a plateau sometime in the future. But his claim that it has reached it already is incorrect.
Ah, you see the point then. I'll guarantee you two things: 1. The world population will decline at some point. 2. Nobody has any idea when that will happen or what the total population will reach before that point. "Suggests" is the keyword. It's a guess, doesn't mean it'll be any more accurate than my or your guesses. Take it with a pinch of salt.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
