November 28, 2020

Global Warming: Having it Both Ways

Here we go again. Another “report” that places value (perceived) on “nature” and wants the world to set aside a minimum of 30% of its lands and waters for “conservation” to protect nature…because it is economically profitable. Really? Oh, I see. Let’s try that con job for awhile.

Oddly, and to anyone with half a brain, the idiotic double standards and hypocrisy take front and center. These mental midgets, heavily deceived, want to cut carbon dioxide because they believe it causes global warming. If these morons had their way, they would rid the world of carbon dioxide.

History and actual science proves that in times of increased carbon dioxide (a guess) that caused global warming, everything grew very well creating massive agricultural benefits, forest growth (habitat), food growth, for both man and animal, and poverty eased a bit. This was and is the best “protection” of nature.

Morons, claiming that protecting land and waters will accomplish more than global warming, are seeking to reduce global warming, thus removing the carbon dioxide levels necessary to actually protect and prosper our forests and fields. This is akin to urinating into a stiff breeze, I’d say.

The end result might just be the protection of more areas of wasteland incapable of growing even weeds.

What’s this locking up the land really all about? It that where they grow coronaviruses?

Share

Plio-Pleistocene decline of African megaherbivores: No evidence for ancient hominin impacts

WHAT? We can’t have this kind of stuff contaminating the convenient narrative that man is a piece of crap who only kills everything in sight!!!

If you are of the educational capacity of this editor, what that headline means is that a new study suggests that man wasn’t the cause of mass extinctions of now nonexistent big animals that once roamed Africa.

Science Magazine has access to information about the study (subscription required).

New Center Maine shares more information.

For example: “The animal decline might have instead been because of environmental factors such as declining atmospheric carbon dioxide and expansion of grasslands, researchers write.”

OH MY! GASP! SPUTTER! CRY, fall on the floor and bang your head. Is this “suggestion” suggesting that global cooling (decreased carbon dioxide) was the cause of mass animal extinction in Africa? If so, nothing makes any sense. If according to the Algorites, increased levels of carbon dioxide warm the planet and will eventually kill us all, then millions of years ago, according to the research being examined, a lack of carbon dioxide caused extinctions, then wouldn’t increased carbon dioxide, i.e. Global Warming, a.k.a. Climate Change be good for some animals and bad for others? Haven’t sensible scientists and observers been suggesting this since like forever?

And all of this without internal combustion engines and billions of people farting.

Isn’t carbon dioxide mostly a good thing?

According to the brilliance of man, no matter what happens to carbon dioxide surrounding this existence…wait for it… We’re All Gonna Die! – after some have made their millions/billions/trillions.

Then we become useless eaters and need exterminating.

 

 

Share

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

“Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1?C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2?C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300?C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Benefiting From Increased CO2

“But the global effect of CO2 levels on the quantity of vegetation had not, as far as I could tell, been measured — until now. When I wrote about this, it was among the very first non-scientific articles on the satellite evidence for global greening. But, as I found out, there is not much market for this good news. I was subjected online to withering scorn by the usual climate spin doctors, but even they had to admit I was ‘factually accurate’.”<<<Read More>>>
Share

Growing Ethanol Maybe Be Hazardous to Your Health

*Editor’s Note* – Below is a snippet and link to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, senior editor of National Review. Goldberg does a great job of exposing the realities of producing bio-fuels, from food sources, and its net negative effect on creating, not reducing, carbon emissions. This is all great, if you buy into the concept that man-caused carbon emissions are causing the planet to warm up.

What’s not mentioned in this piece, which I think is the bottom line, is what has been the result in the cost of gasoline at the pump through all of this? As a whole, I don’t believe people give a rat’s petootie about which is better for the planet. Yes, they may voice opinions about carbon dioxide and saving the planet, and all that, but the bottom line is how much that gasoline costs. After all, gas prices are directly proportional to the cost of all goods.

We are experiencing relatively low gasoline prices. Why? Is it because of shale production, of which Goldberg says has put the U.S. in a position of having greater oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, or is the price lower because of the admixture of ethanol? Or maybe something else? Maybe none of this matters. Maybe the Government intends to continue to use food to produce ethanol in order to reduce the food supply to better control the masses, including death by starvation.

A new study from the University of Michigan confirms what pretty much everyone knew all along. Researchers found that biofuels actually create more greenhouse gases than simply using petroleum, because plants only absorb a fraction of the carbon dioxide released by burning the fuels in the first place. Moreover, ethanol production and distribution is energyintensive,throwing off evenmore greenhouse gases.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

CO2 and Temperature Correlation

TEmpsCarbon
Share

Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering 

How much carbon dioxide actually comes from volcanoes?

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, releasedthis February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.
Source: Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering | Volcano Climate

Share

CO2 Theory is Collapsing

Quick! Get the hot dogs and marshmallows!

Share

The Insane Fantasies Of The Marxist EPA Laid Low By One Simple Chart

But if the EPA can stop just one extra molecule of the deadly toxin known as carbon dioxide from escaping into the atmosphere, the destruction of the American economy will be worth it!

Please note, of course, that the EPA won’t dare to speak out against the Earth’s most egregious polluter, China.<<<Read More>>>

Share

History Falsifies Climate Alarmist Sea Level Claims

By Robert W. Endlich

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Sea levels are rising rapidly! Coastal communities are becoming more vulnerable to storms and storm surges! Small island nations are going to disappear beneath the waves!

Climate alarmists have been making these claims for years, trying to tie them to events like “Superstorm” Sandy, which was below Category 1 hurricane strength when it struck New York City in October 2012, and Typhoon Haiyan, which plowed into the low-lying central Philippines in November 2013.

For alarmists, it does not seem to matter that the strength and frequency of tropical storms have been decreasing in recent years, while the rate of sea level rise has fallen to about seven inches per century. Nor does it seem to matter that the lost lives and property have little to do with the storms’ sheer power. Their destructive impact was caused by their hitting heavily populated areas, where governments had not adequately informed citizens of the size and ferocity of imminent storm surges, too few people had evacuated – and people, buildings and emergency equipment were insufficiently prepared to withstand the furious storm onslaughts.

The alarmist cries are not meant to be honest or factual. They are intended to generate hysterical headlines, public anxiety about climate change, and demands for changes in energy policies and use.<<<Read More>>>

Share