Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What he posted was false.  He pulled the 4% out of the air.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.04% of all gases.  Google it.  You support trash.

I'll bet if he turns out to be wrong, though, he will accept the correction.  

[PIK]

66 m yrs ago water levels were 200 ft higher that today. The planet changes constantly.

[blackbird]

Came across a rather odd article that admits science makes mistakes.

quote

Oh, science, how low hast thou fallen! Not really. Actually, we’re living in a golden age of science that hopefully will only keep progressing indefinitely into the future. But that doesn’t mean that, in order to get to such heights, science hasn’t made plenty mistakes of mistakes in the past—or in the present. In fact, the self-correcting, self-regulating scientific method relies on making mistakes, not because it is fundamentally a bad method, but because we, as humans, are fundamentally flawed beings. We learn by trial and error, and the truth always hides deep beneath a host of naive assumptions and biased opinions which always threaten to corrupt facts and evidence.    unquote

10 Times When Science Got It All Horribly Wrong - Cultura Colectiva

Then the article goes on to make this absurd statement:

It claims evolution and climate-change (I assume they mean man-made) are proven facts, when anyone with half a brain knows these things are completely unproven.

"That’s because those are well-proven facts that present the best possible explanations for all the variables at hand, as no alternative theory can reliably explain the phenomena in question. If science doesn’t have the answer, you can bet religion or alternative medicine doesn’t either.

So the first part of the article is correct in saying science makes lots of mistakes, but then shows there ignorance by claiming certain things (that they agree with like the theory of evolution and climate change by man)  are "proven" facts.  Sad really.

There are atheists or secular humanists who have no understanding of how the universe required an intelligent designer and no understanding that there is a reason why God created mankind.  It was not all just a cosmic accident and we are not just accidents of the chemicals.  The article gives a little bit of truth but destroys its credibility with all the false claims.

 

Edited March 25 by blackbird

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, PIK said:

66 m yrs ago water levels were 200 ft higher that today. The planet changes constantly.

Have you submitted your conclusions and why they matter to the IPCC?

I mean it's entirely possible this forum really does have the brightest critically thinking people on the planet but how would anyone know if you keep it all to yourselves?

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

11.  Are you trying to say that Canada will become poor from adopting these initiatives ?  I don't see how.

Yes... the cost of reducing from 1.8% to 0.9% within 6 years would be ruinous. What would you cut back on?

I think there are two underlaying questions in all of this, can/will the world unite in a combined and concerted effort soon enough to matter, and what is it you are willing to give up. I think the answer is no and nothing. I don't see it happening.

Shutting down our entire transportation industry (all of it) isn't enough, people need to start thinking big and in the absence of some new technology, they need to start thinking pain. 

Since I don't have time to address the other points I though I might find a video that served to addresses my skepticism with all this:

Here's one of the first that popped up on YOUTUBE, I find myself with little to add:

 

Edited March 25 by Venandi

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Have you submitted your conclusions and why they matter to the IPCC?

I mean it's entirely possible this forum really does have the brightest critically thinking people on the planet but how would anyone know if you keep it all to yourselves?

One has to be certified with certain qualification and credentials that few people probably have and hold a certain position to submit anything to the IPCC.  Also, since the IPCC is a body of the U.N., a submission would probably have to go through certain channels to be approved and by the Canadians ambassador to the U.N.  Thought you would know that.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

One has to be certified with certain qualification and credentials that few people probably have and hold a certain position to submit anything to the IPCC.  Also, since the IPCC is a body of the U.N., a submission would probably have to go through certain channels to be approved and by the Canadians ambassador to the U.N.  Thought you would know that.

I also said you should present your argument to national science academies and other serious scientific institutions.

They'll certainly know what to do with it if it can be validated.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Venandi said:

1. Yes... the cost of reducing from 1.8% to 0.9% within 6 years would be ruinous. What would you cut back on?

2. I think the answer is no and nothing. 

3. Shutting down our entire transportation industry (all of it) isn't enough, people need to start thinking big and in the absence of some new technology, they need to start thinking pain. 

4. Since I don't have time to address the other points I though I might find a video that served to addresses my skepticism with all this:

Here's one of the first that popped up on YOUTUBE, I find myself with little to add:

 

1. I was just looking at the Carbon Tax, which I think is the tool they're using to fund these changes.  What are the costs ?  I haven't looked at that specifically to the current plan.
2. Well there are frameworks in place, and things are happening.  Certainly there has been some impact from the changes so far from what I have read.
3. Shutting down... transportation ?  What ?
4. "Climate Change projections are quite unreliable" based on what ?  
    "Switch to wind and solar ?  Well good luck with that"

     Peterson gets a fawning laugh to start out his response to the question, then proceeds to do what he does - which is give opinion that he smoke screens as being substantiated.  You need to quote climate change experts if talking about climate change, which he is not.  You need to quote economic experts if you're talking about the economics of it, which he is not.  I'm not the kind of person who accepts expertise lightly.

Now what he IS an expert in is sociology and culture and I do accept his observations on that to a degree.  I gave this video a few minutes.

----

I do want to say that I don't actually post much on the economics of Climate Response, so I'm mostly learning but as I said I need good sources.  Peterson is so unreliable as to be called out as a charlatan by some.

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well there are frameworks in place, and things are happening.  Certainly there has been some impact from the changes so far from what I have read.

Thanks for the response, I’m out of time and have to run so I’ll offer a final thought on the matter.

I look at it this way, JT ratified the accord in 2016, the idea being to reduce Canada’s emissions to 30% below what they were in 2005 and to do it by 2030 (in under 6 years now).

A pretty tall order I think.

Then later, he upped that reduction to 40 to 45% below 2005 levels. Cool, I say best of luck with that but please tell me how it's going to be achieved and at what cost to Canadians.

I’ll mull the answer over and vote accordingly. Isn't that how it's done?

But year over year our emissions have risen at a level that exceeds most other G7 countries. In 2016 we were at 707 Mts. By 2019 we were at 730. Follow on levels were impacted by covid but they certainly provide a glimpse into the level of pain needed for further reductions to happen, especially since we’re increasing our population in an unhinged manner.

Liberals will claim that they’re on track but that can only be true if we assume that the reductions planned are nonlinear in nature. For safety sake please stand clear of the windows because the coming blast is likely to leave all of us (except JT) without socks.

So while I’m rooting for ya, the absence of meaningful progress leaves me with little confidence that “frameworks are in place and things are happening.” When I look at things that I actually do know something about, say military recruiting, all I see is a total disconnect with reality in the form of a Bud Lite moment, no sense of proportion, cost, cause and effect... nothing that fits in any way with anything in my experience.

So before supporting all this I’m wondering what framework and what things?  How are we to define “some impact” now and project “some impact” into the future globally? And how are we to fuse “some impact” on our part with the impact required elsewhere in the world whilst acknowledging that our impact is so small as to be no impact at all.

This topic is always debated in a fruitless, politically charged, narrative driven manner with no real discussion of how we are to do it and with no idea of the associated costs.

As I see it, the shutdowns attendant with covid were but a fraction of what’s actually required to meet our targets. Unless people are yearning for a return to those days, I don't think they really want what they say they think they do. 

Edited March 25 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, Venandi said:

1. JT ratified the accord in 2016, the idea being to reduce Canada’s emissions to 30% below what they were in 2005 and to do it by 2030 (in under 6 years now). A pretty tall order I think. Then later, he upped that reduction to 40 to 45% below 2005 levels. Cool, I say best of luck with that but please tell me how it's going to be achieved and at what cost to Canadians.

2. I’ll mull the answer over and vote accordingly. Isn't that how it's done?

3. But year over year our emissions have risen at a level that exceeds most other G7 countries. In 2016 we were at 707 Mts. By 2019 we were at 730. Follow on levels were impacted by covid but they certainly provide a glimpse into the level of pain needed for further reductions to happen, especially since we’re increasing our population in an unhinged manner.

4. Liberals will claim that they’re on track but that can only be true if we assume that the reductions planned are nonlinear in nature. For safety sake please stand clear of the windows because the coming blast is likely to leave all of us (except JT) without socks.

5. So while I’m rooting for ya, the absence of meaningful progress leaves me with little confidence that “frameworks are in place and things are happening.” When I look at things that I actually do know something about, say military recruiting, all I see is a total disconnect with reality in the form of a Bud Lite moment, no sense of proportion, cost, cause and effect... nothing that fits in any way with anything in my experience.

6. So before supporting all this I’m wondering what framework and what things?  How are we to define “some impact” now and project “some impact” into the future globally? And how are we to fuse “some impact” on our part with the impact required elsewhere in the world whilst acknowledging that our impact is so small as to be no impact at all.

7. This topic is always debated in a fruitless, politically charged, narrative driven manner with no real discussion of how we are to do it and with no idea of the associated costs.

8. As I see it, the shutdowns attendant with covid were but a fraction of what’s actually required to meet our targets. Unless people are yearning for a return to those days, I don't think they really want what they say they think they do. 

1. Ok.
2. Yes.
3. There's ... a possible solution - reduce immigration.
4. 5. Ok.
6. Seems pretty bleak.
7. I did see the costs listed as $10-$15 B per year. US is spending $45 B ?
8. I think it was acknowledged that the Paris plan was both unrealistic and not enough.  My understanding is that they want a framework in place to use new technologies that will have to be deployed.  I suppose that makes sense, but the open question is if the politics will support that.  If not, then individual countries will have to pay to adapt until the power-broker countries get on the same page again.

[Black Dog]

On 3/22/2024 at 8:25 PM, blackbird said:

CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere but the amount is miniscule.  The atmosphere is 0.04% carbon dioxide.  Nobody is saying CO2 is a threat to health from breathing it.  That is not what the debate is all about.  The claim is that man-made CO2 causes global warming.  Believe me, nobody will become unconscious or die from breathing 0.04% carbon dioxide.  Man has been breathing that small amount since God created mankind.  God made the atmosphere with CO2.  It is natural.

You are someone who believes man evolved from apes.  Possibly you did.  I can see you have some traits.

 

You are an astonishingly stupid person who believes in fairy tales and Facebook memes.

[taxme]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, it's caused by man.  Don't post things until you learn how to learn things.

Bibles and anonymous Facebook posts and videos aren't sources for thinking people, they are sources for people who want to double down on their ignorance.

Where is your proof that climate change is due to man? I guess that i can expect a reply from you sometime in 2030? 🤣

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, taxme said:

Where is your proof that climate change is due to man? I guess that i can expect a reply from you sometime in 2030? 🤣

It's been in my signature for years now. You could read it I guess... Maybe...

Edited... Not a proof but a rationale

Edited March 25 by Michael Hardner

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

What he posted was false.  He pulled the 4% out of the air.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.04% of all gases.  Google it.  You support trash.

Grasping straws now. No rebuttal to any of the links I posted.

[taxme]

22 hours ago, Aristides said:

I told you, they will last as long as it takes for upper level winds to disperse them, the less wind, the longer it takes. What is it about your mythical trails that would prevent them from being dispersed in the same way, are they solid? Are they reeled out of the aircraft like a coil of rope?
 

You are a living example of the term, garbage in, garbage out.

Winds, my arse. Nice try though. Again? So why does the vapor from an ordinary passenger plane pretty much disperse in a very short while? I have never seen the vapor from a passenger plane stick around for hours. But yet the chem trail vapors will always stick around for hours? They do not disappear in minutes. 

So, just what kinds of chemicals are in those chem trails anyway? You must know because you said that you were apart of the spraying? I personally do think that your replies nothing more than garbage in and garbage out. Anyway, i await your reply.  😁

[Black Dog]

7 minutes ago, taxme said:

Winds, my arse. Nice try though. Again? So why does the vapor from an ordinary passenger plane pretty much disperse in a very short while? I have never seen the vapor from a passenger plane stick around for hours. But yet the chem trail vapors will always stick around for hours? They do not disappear in minutes. 

Describe the scientific process that enables "chemtrails" to stay suspended in the atmosphere for hours and then "fall to earth".

[taxme]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's been in my signature for years now. You could read it I guess... Maybe...

Edited... Not a proof but a rationale

Rationale will not work for me. I require real proof, and not guess work. 😇

[taxme]

35 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Describe the scientific process that enables "chemtrails" to stay suspended in the atmosphere for hours and then "fall to earth".

 I do not really know as to why the chem trails stay suspended in the atmosphere for hours. Do you know? Maybe you can tell me as to why chem trails stay suspended in the atmosphere for hours and then start to float down to earth? 

Do you believe that when those chem Trails finally float down to earth, full of chemicals, will be good for us all to be breathing in? And do you actually know as to what are the chemicals that are being sprayed in the atmosphere?

Now, don't rush with a reply right away. I know that there is lots of things for you to think about and reply too, if you are able to reply to any of them at all? 😇

[Aristides]

10 minutes ago, taxme said:

 I do not really know as to why the chem trails stay suspended in the atmosphere for hours. Do you know? Maybe you can tell me as to why chem trails stay suspended in the atmosphere for hours and then start to float down to earth? 

Do you believe that when those chem Trails finally float down to earth, full of chemicals, will be good for us all to be breathing in? And do you actually know as to what are the chemicals that are being sprayed in the atmosphere?

Now, don't rush with a reply right away. I know that there is lots of things for you to think about and reply too, if you are able to reply to any of them at all? 😇

They don't because they don't exist. You consume garbage so you expel garbage. You can't explain something therefore it must be true. Typical conspiracy nonsense.

Literally millions of airline crew and technicians in the world and not one of them has spilled the beans on your mythical chem trails. That's even more far fetched than the thousands it would have taken to cover up some kind of 9/11 conspiracy that truthers love.

Edited March 25 by Aristides

[blackbird]

I have a fair plan for carbon taxation.  Government should ask everyone if they support carbon taxes.  Those that want carbon taxes should pay double and those who are opposed pay no carbon taxes.  That would be the fair way to do it.  Freedom for everyone.

[Aristides]

Just now, blackbird said:

I have a fair plan for carbon taxation.  Government should ask everyone if they support carbon taxes.  Those that want carbon taxes should pay double and those who are opposed pay no carbon taxes.  That would be the fair way to do it.  Freedom for everyone.

That's not how taxes work and you know it.

[taxme]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

They don't because they don't exist. You consume garbage so you expel garbage. You can't explain something therefore it must be true. Typical conspiracy nonsense.

Literally millions of airline crew and technicians in the world and not one of them has spilled the beans on your mythical chem trails. That's even more far fetched than the thousands it would have taken to cover up some kind of 9/11 conspiracy that truthers love.

Are you trying to say here that there is nothing in those vapor sprays for us to worry about? Then why or what are they spraying up there? Water to spray everyone's garden? How nice of them to do so! So, you told us that you were part of the spraying, but yet you do not even know as to what is in the spray? I can go on the internet and i can find out right away as to what is in those chem trail sprays. Are you really trying to become stupid or are you already stupid? Which is it, stupid? 

I think that you are the one here that is trying to spread your non-conspiracy garbage. There is no good reason as to why the military would be doing what they are doing? 

Talk about a 9/11 conspiracy? I was reading some information sent to me about a Rabbi that wanted to stop in front of the Twin Towers and exit his vehicle and say a prayer. He was heard saying that the Twin Tower buildings will soon be gone. By gesus boy, that Rabbi was right, but how did he know that? The Zionists ones knows all. Just saying. If one were to try and spill the beans, they would be in big time trouble, and you and they know it. Conspiracies do really exist, big time. Oh no? Shocking indeed. 😒

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

That's not how taxes work and you know it.

Oh, so how do taxes work then? Pray tell! 😇

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, taxme said:

Are you trying to say here that there is nothing in those vapor sprays for us to worry about? Then why or what are they spraying up there? Water to spray everyone's garden? How nice of them to do so! So, you told us that you were part of the spraying, but yet you do not even know as to what is in the spray? I can go on the internet and i can find out right away as to what is in those chem trail sprays. Are you really trying to become stupid or are you already stupid? Which is it, stupid? 

I think that you are the one here that is trying to spread your non-conspiracy garbage. There is no good reason as to why the military would be doing what they are doing? 

Talk about a 9/11 conspiracy? I was reading some information sent to me about a Rabbi that wanted to stop in front of the Twin Towers and exit his vehicle and say a prayer. He was heard saying that the Twin Tower buildings will soon be gone. By gesus boy, that Rabbi was right, but how did he know that? The Zionists ones knows all. Just saying. If one were to try and spill the beans, they would be in big time trouble, and you and they know it. Conspiracies do really exist, big time. Oh no? Shocking indeed. 😒

They are frozen water with some of the other byproducts of burning kerosene, period.

You really need to get a life. 

[taxme]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

They are frozen water with some of the other byproducts of burning kerosene, period.

You really need to get a life. 

But you still keep avoiding the question that i keep asking you to reply too? Why are they spraying water in the first place into the atmosphere with other byproducts in it? And what are those other byproducts that are in the sprays? Why do you keep coming back with more ridiculous replies? We the people want to know. 

Are you sure that i need to get a life and not you? Although being a conservative, I am having a good life. And of course, you being a part of the problem, you cannot be having much of a life, eh lefty? 😁

[Aristides]

5 minutes ago, taxme said:

But you still keep avoiding the question that i keep asking you to reply too? Why are they spraying water in the first place into the atmosphere with other byproducts in it? And what are those other byproducts that are in the sprays? Why do you keep coming back with more ridiculous replies? We the people want to know. 

Are you sure that i need to get a life and not you? Although being a conservative, I am having a good life. And of course, you being a part of the problem, you cannot be having much of a life, eh lefty? 😁

i've replied several times but you don't listen. I don't have to justify something doesn't exist you have to prove it does.'

Don't you find it odd that no one has ever found one of these phantom chemical tanks on an aircraft, not even the heavy maintenance crews who literally gut these machines during major checks or the line crews who have never seen anyone filling them during ramp turnarounds? Let alone the flight crews who would have to operate them.

People like you are fertile ground for every nut bar conspiracy that comes along. You eat them up and I can't help but wonder why.