PDA

View Full Version : The Fallacy of global warming debunked



DodgyAgent
19th June 2015, 09:08
The English makes it a bit tricky to follow but for those of you who want a precis of what it says - basically it says man made global warming is b*llocks" :happy

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140905221915-43352572-the-fallacy-of-global-warming-debunked?trk=pulse-det-nav_art

darmstadt
19th June 2015, 09:22
I have no idea, but this bloke :p - 'Senior Software Developer, Unconventional Thinker, Innovator and Entrepreneur.' Typical weirdo:



While looking for full time job, I am re-examining the things that I do best: researching and coming up with creative and innovative ideas that are extremely valuable that can change the world. Unconventional thinking leads to unconventional discovery. That is me.
...
I am also working on a big idea which will make the world a better place to live in. It is a huge idea on the sustainability. If my idea can be turned into a reality, it can significantly improve the life quality of billions of people in this world.

DodgyAgent
19th June 2015, 09:23
I have no idea, but this bloke :p - 'Senior Software Developer, Unconventional Thinker, Innovator and Entrepreneur.' Typical weirdo:

He invites anyone to argue the logic - go for it

DodgyAgent
19th June 2015, 09:24
I have no idea, but this bloke :p - 'Senior Software Developer, Unconventional Thinker, Innovator and Entrepreneur.' Typical weirdo:

In other words he is a contractor :laugh

TheFaQQer
19th June 2015, 09:25
If a fallacy has been debunked, that makes it true.

I never thought DA would convert, but well done :)

DodgyAgent
19th June 2015, 09:47
If a fallacy has been debunked, that makes it true.

I never thought DA would convert, but well done :) :o

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 09:59
Nobody here is going to wade through all that guff, its a collection of long worn out denier talking points and lies. For example


'So water vapor absolutely dominate greenhouse effect contribution. But yet climatologists*deliberately ignored*water vapor altogether when they calculate the greenhouse effect.'

Oh, what's this in Chapter eight of the most recent IPCC report. Its an FAQ. Chapter 8, FAQ number 8.1 How Important is Water Vapour to Climate Change? which starts:


'As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate. However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions. For that reason, scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change. Anthropogenic emissions of water vapour through irrigation or power plant cooling have a negligible impact on the global climate.'

Gosh, a 'Senior Software Developer, Unconventional Thinker, Innovator and Entrepreneur' is posting lies on LinkedIn. Alert the media!

And no, the measurements of global CO2 are not wrong because they are only taken on the side of one volcano :facepalm:

Please try harder. :spank:

BlasterBates
19th June 2015, 10:04
Lots of scientists becoming sceptical so the Pope is now taking over the debate.

DodgyAgent
19th June 2015, 10:11
Nobody here is going to wade through all that guff, its a collection of long worn out denier talking points and lies. For example



Oh, what's this in Chapter eight of the most recent IPCC report. Its an FAQ. Chapter 8, FAQ number 8.1 How Important is Water Vapour to Climate Change? which starts:



Gosh, a 'Senior Software Developer, Unconventional Thinker, Innovator and Entrepreneur' is posting lies on LinkedIn. Alert the media!

And no, the measurements of global CO2 are not wrong because they are only taken on the side of one volcano :facepalm:

Please try harder. :spank:

Some points here:

Trashing the person who makes the argument in order to avoid confronting the argument itself:

According to your logic contractors are not entitled to an opinion on climate change.

So you manage to find one tiny bit of contradictory evidence on one point and you think that you can contradict the entire. This tactic has a "word" to describe it Jonathan Portes, master of the political correction » The Spectator (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9555142/jonathan-portes-master-of-correct-politicalness/)

The essence of correct politicalness is to seek to undermine an irrefutable argument by claiming loudly and repetitively to have found an error in it. As with political correctness, which seeks to undermine arguments by declaring the person making them a bigot, correct politicalness originated in the US

Thirdly:

Since when have climate change zealots ever worried about overlong and highly detailed reports and analyses. In fact by themselves precising scientific gobbledeygook they have sought to twist and select these to their own advantage.

BrilloPad
19th June 2015, 10:12
Lots of scientists becoming sceptical so the Pope is now taking over the debate.

They have aklot in common. Both spout narrow minded, mythical theories that cannot be proved. And rely on faith.

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 10:21
So you manage to find one tiny bit of contradictory evidence on one point and you think that you can contradict the entire.[/url]

A single lie is sufficient to establish that he has no credibility. Also he describes as 'The Strongest Support of GWT Debunked' the idea that CO2 is only measured at one location,


But what troubles me most, is the fact that the Mauna Loa observatory was deliberately set up at midway to the summit of a recent active volcano! Why put it on a volcano? We know volcanoes emit a lot of CO2 from their vents, even those inactive ones.

This and all his other myths are, as I said, long debunked: https://www.skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements.htm

If you did just a bit of basic research before posting, you'd look less of a zealot. Did you really believe a software engineer's technical 'debunking' of >30 years of research, thousands of peer-reviewed papers, the opinion of all the world's scientific bodies, would sit on LinkedIn for 9 months garnering just 5 comments if it had any merit?

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 10:25
Water vapour is by far the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas.
But its important to remember that the IPCC was directed only to examine human causes of climate change.
Not only are the limitations of IPCC studies primarily created by the definition of climate change they were given but they result in a very restricted set of conclusions.

And then all IPCC predictions are wrong, therefore the science is wrong

BlasterBates
19th June 2015, 10:30
Nobody here is going to wade through all that guff, its a collection of long worn out denier talking points and lies. For example



Oh, what's this in Chapter eight of the most recent IPCC report. Its an FAQ. Chapter 8, FAQ number 8.1 How Important is Water Vapour to Climate Change? which starts:



Gosh, a 'Senior Software Developer, Unconventional Thinker, Innovator and Entrepreneur' is posting lies on LinkedIn. Alert the media!

And no, the measurements of global CO2 are not wrong because they are only taken on the side of one volcano :facepalm:

Please try harder. :spank:

This is the result of "environmentalism"


Deforestation in the UK | Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/18/deforestation-in-the-uk/#more-19087)

Global warmists are doing serious harm to the environment, with their misguided beliefs.

Tragic when you think about it.

Just threw away yet another energy saving lamp yesterday. I wonder how much good these do for the environment.

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 10:31
Water vapour is by far the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas.

True, the difference between adding more H20 compared to CO2 is that excess water vapour precipitates out in a matter of days or weeks, while a pulse of CO2 increases airborne concentrations for decades and longer, boosting the greenhouse effect.


But its important to remember that the IPCC was directed only to examine human causes of climate change.

Maybe in the days of the precursor to the IPCC, nowadays they consider all influences on climate.


Not only are the limitations of IPCC studies primarily created by the definition of climate change they were given but they result in a very restricted set of conclusions.

Not the case.


And then all IPCC predictions are wrong, therefore the science is wrong

Sophistry. All models are 'wrong by definition. Some are useful. The IPCC models are 'right' at the 95% level.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/model14.jpg

darmstadt
19th June 2015, 10:33
Oh, what's this in Chapter eight of the most recent IPCC report. Its an FAQ. Chapter 8, FAQ number 8.1 How Important is Water Vapour to Climate Change? which starts:


Mind you he does have a vested interest:



In addition, I have filed for a number of non-job-related provisional and non-provisional patents in the area of multimedia contents, audio/video watermark embedding, detection and erasure:
• US Pat. App. 14258014: Energy Efficient Water Extraction from Air

Although I personally like this one:


An inventor of multiple US patents, listed below:
• US20080098448: Controller to track a user’s anxiety and other mental and physical attributes

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 10:34
meanwhile arctic ice is up
Antarctic ice is up
Polar bear numbers are up


and Greenland has just had it's first green shoots of the year....on the last day of spring

DodgyAgent
19th June 2015, 10:35
Mind you he does have a vested interest:



Although I personally like this one:

So his arguments shouldn't be too hard for you to contradict then ?

xoggoth
19th June 2015, 10:38
I lean to believe that H2O may account for 90% greenhouse effect, leaving 8% for CO2, 1% for methane and 1% for everything else

Faulty logic. Assuming those percentages are correct, they will have been largely similar for a few million years before man came along. If we add just a few percent to the effects from CO2 it is not necessarily trivial. A small man-made rise in temperature, added to those from natural causes like increased solar activity, could still have a major effect because some things, such as the release of methane from soil and ocean and the major effect that will have, are not linear in proportion to temperature.

PS Can't be *rsed to check that figure but I have seen the effects of H2O greatly overstated before because people have based it on the concentration in the lower atmosphere. Concentration in the upper atmosphere is much less.

BlasterBates
19th June 2015, 10:40
Isn't it ironic I remember in the 1990's being shown frightening images of how global warming would affect the forests, and they looked like this.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01568/palm_1568384c.jpg

Now I thought this meant the forests would die because of climate change, but actually the deforestation in the photo above is caused by environmentalists chopping them down in the name of Global Warming for biofuel.

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 10:45
Faulty logic. Assuming those percentages are correct, they will have been largely similar for a few million years before man came along. If we add just a few percent to the effects from CO2 the effect is not necessarily trivial. A small man-made rise in temperature, added to those from natural causes like increased solar activity, could still have a major effect because some things, such as the release of methane from soil and ocean and the major effect that will have, are not linear in proportion to temperature.

The theory is that water vapour , as the major greenhouse gas is mostly stable. An increase in one of the other gasses will cause an increase in temperature and this will lead to other gasses being released, notably methane from the permafrost.
This will bootstrap and eventually lead to an increase in water vapour which will then lead to a tipping point.

DodgyAgent
19th June 2015, 10:50
Faulty logic. Assuming those percentages are correct, they will have been largely similar for a few million years before man came along. If we add just a few percent to the effects from CO2 it is not necessarily trivial. A small man-made rise in temperature, added to those from natural causes like increased solar activity, could still have a major effect because some things, such as the release of methane from soil and ocean and the major effect that will have, are not linear in proportion to temperature.

PS Can't be *rsed to check that figure but I have seen the effects of H2O greatly overstated before because people have based it on the concentration in the lower atmosphere. Concentration in the upper atmosphere is much less.

Whether it is in the lower or higher parts of the atmosphere does it matter?

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 10:52
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWgYEe6U1YQvNsVGDItd3NEA_ncGJKY UyXldB3V_BtFWCzzAog5Q


1968
we had to destroy the village, in order to save it


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01568/palm_1568384c.jpg


2015
we had to destroy the forests, in order to save them

xoggoth
19th June 2015, 11:05
Forget H2O and CO2, more scary stuff here:

The Top Ten Greenhouse Gases | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases?image=2)

PS Most global warming is due to Suity's farting.

FatLazyContractor
19th June 2015, 11:36
I was going to start a thread with the title "Phallusy of Glowball Wanking Despunked" but I thought better of it.:smokin:eyes

FTFY

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 12:10
Isn't it ironic I remember in the 1990's being shown frightening images of how global warming would affect the forests, and they looked like this.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01568/palm_1568384c.jpg

Now I thought this meant the forests would die because of climate change, but actually the deforestation in the photo above is caused by environmentalists chopping them down in the name of Global Warming for biofuel.

Actually that's an image of a forest in Borneo (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009green/2009-06/09/content_8264049.htm) being felled to make way for a palm oil plantation. Most environmental groups oppose this practice.

Palm oil | Greenpeace UK (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/palm-oil)

The wood chips burnt in power stations actually come from timber industry byproducts: thinnings or crooked or diseased trees that were previously burnt in situ, or waste from sawmils.


PS Palm oil usage ...

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/uploads/photos/palm-oil-consumption-global.jpg

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 12:30
. If we add just a few percent to the effects from CO2 it is not necessarily trivial. A small man-made rise in temperature, added to those from natural causes like increased solar activity, could still have a major effect because some things, such as the release of methane from soil and ocean and the major effect that will have, are not linear in proportion to temperature.

Climate scientists talk about forcings and feedbacks. A forcing is a primary external influence on temperature such as an increase in the greenhouse effect, or a rise in solar irradiance; a feedback is an influence triggered by the response to a forcing.

The release of methane from undersea clathrates and melting permafrost seems not to be a major risk (or less than was once thought), the biggest single feedback is water vapour. As I said, at constant temperature, relative humidity tends to remain stable: any water added to the atmosphere just rains out, however a warmer atmosphere can hold more water - humidity increases with temperature. As correctly noted above, water vapour is a powerful GHG, so the feedback is positive, amplifying the increase. This is not just a theory, the effect has been observed and found to be in line with model predictions.

Another non-linear progression is ice sheet breakup .....

OwlHoot
19th June 2015, 12:42
The English makes it a bit tricky to follow but for those of you who want a precis of what it says - basically it says man made global warming is b*llocks" :happy

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140905221915-43352572-the-fallacy-of-global-warming-debunked?trk=pulse-det-nav_art

Sounds rather opinionated but, credit where it's due, it looks like he has at least tried to do his homework, even if his conclusions may be bollox

(instead of, like most climate change skeptics, simply mouthing off without making even the least effort to study the question.)

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 12:42
meanwhile arctic ice is up

On planet EO, maybe, but not on earth according to the US National Snow and Ice Data center.

Arctic sea ice maximum reaches lowest extent on record | National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-reaches-lowest-extent-record)


Antarctic ice is up

Sea ice, slightly, land ice, not so much. Minus 100 cubic kilometres a year since 2002.


Polar bear numbers are up

Well, yes, since controls on hunting were introduced....

DodgyAgent
19th June 2015, 12:51
On planet EO, maybe, but not on earth according to the US National Snow and Ice Data center.

Arctic sea ice maximum reaches lowest extent on record | National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-reaches-lowest-extent-record)



Sea ice, slightly, land ice, not so much. Minus 100 cubic kilometres a year since 2002.



Well, yes, since controls on hunting were introduced....

So nothing to do with burning fossil fuels then?

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 12:58
Sounds rather opinionated but, credit where it's due, it looks like he has at least tried to do his homework, even if his conclusions may be bollox

(instead of, like most climate change skeptics, simply mouthing off without making even the least effort to study the question.)

Disagree. The starting point for any 'homework', surely would be the IPCC reports. This guy didn't even bother reading the FAQ (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WG1AR5_FAQbrochure_FINAL.pdf)s, just basically made up some sciencey-sounding words and charts from denier blogs, at least that's how it looks like to me.


Any gas of molecules of more than 2 atoms is a green house gas :facepalm:

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 13:14
Well, yes, since controls on hunting were introduced....

At last, after denying the facts for years, pj finally agrees that polar bear numbers are rising.

It wont be long before he sees that arctic ice is up, Antarctic ice is up, biofuels are a bad idea, wind and solar are not baseload solutions and keeping the third world in energy poverty is a disastrous solution to a non problem

BlasterBates
19th June 2015, 13:24
Palm oil usage ...



Exactly.....and what is Palm Oil ?

...and what about the deforestation in Europe and North America, that's OK is it ?

...and er can you please please explain the logic that deforestation leads to lower CO2 ?

They cut the trees down, burn them, whilst smoking pot and pontificating about global warming, and now missing forest doesn't soak up the CO2.

But then again this isn't about being logical is it? it's more of a religious thing.

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 13:38
At last, after denying the facts for years, pj finally agrees that polar bear numbers are rising.

It wont be long before he sees that arctic ice is up, Antarctic ice is up, biofuels are a bad idea, wind and solar are not baseload solutions and keeping the third world in energy poverty is a disastrous solution to a non problem

Actually, the data on Ursus Maritimus are quite uncertain. They're hard to count. There are 19 distinct populations and the data on 9 of them is too sparse to come to any conclusion, of the rest, 6 are stable, 1 is increasing and 3 are declining.


It wont be long before he sees that arctic ice is up

I think it will .... http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/06/monthly_ice_NH_05-350x270.png

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 13:48
Greenland ice tracking well above (http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/) the 25 year average

http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 13:51
Exactly.....and what is Palm Oil ?

...and what about the deforestation in Europe and North America, that's OK is it ?

...and er can you please please explain the logic that deforestation leads to lower CO2 ?

They cut the trees down, burn them, whilst smoking pot and pontificating about global warming, and now missing forest doesn't soak up the CO2.

But then again this isn't about being logical is it? it's more of a religious thing.

Have a nice lie down and a decaff. I'm quite happy to discuss points I've actually made, points you've made up for me ...... not so much.

Less than 5% of palm oil goes to biodiesel, the vast majority ends up in foodstuffs and cosmetics etc. Always has. That scary 'deforestation' photo dates from 2009, three years earlier those doped up hippies at Friends of the Earth (http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/palm_oil_biofuel_position.pdf) put out this position statement saying that chopping down the trees to make way for this product is a bad idea.

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 13:53
ref my post above. just to reinforce the point
Greenland is gaining trillions of tons of ice, in THE MIDDLE of the melt season

BlasterBates
19th June 2015, 14:11
Have a nice lie down and a decaff. I'm quite happy to discuss points I've actually made, points you've made up for me ...... not so much.

Less than 5% of palm oil goes to biodiesel, the vast majority ends up in foodstuffs and cosmetics etc. Always has. That scary 'deforestation' photo dates from 2009, three years earlier those doped up hippies at Friends of the Earth (http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/palm_oil_biofuel_position.pdf) put out this position statement saying that chopping down the trees to make way for this product is a bad idea.

I didn't say you suggested that deforestation is good.

Just pointing out the consequences of the actions of those you
support

...and as for Palm Oil, of course it's used in a wide variety of products, but where's the growth ? and what's the aim of it's expansion.

BlasterBates
19th June 2015, 14:11
Have a nice lie down and a decaff. I'm quite happy to discuss points I've actually made, points you've made up for me ...... not so much.

Less than 5% of palm oil goes to biodiesel, the vast majority ends up in foodstuffs and cosmetics etc. Always has. That scary 'deforestation' photo dates from 2009, three years earlier those doped up hippies at Friends of the Earth (http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/palm_oil_biofuel_position.pdf) put out this position statement saying that chopping down the trees to make way for this product is a bad idea.

I didn't say you suggested that deforestation is good.

Just pointing out the consequences of the actions of those you support.

..and as for palm oil, sure it's used in a wide variety of products and has for over a hundred years but what is causing the recent expansion ?

Here are the figures, because it's more than palm oil plantations:

http://www.tristatebiodiesel.com/deforestation_report.pdf

Biofuels causing deforestation is a significant problem, and your pot smoking friends are responsible, in spite of their remonstrations they don't want to see deforestation, sure, but they still prefer it to coal. They made a choice, because you have to, and deforestation it will be.

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 14:36
ref my post above. just to reinforce the point
Greenland is gaining trillions of tons of ice, in THE MIDDLE of the melt season

Huh? Its fairly clear from the surface mass balance graph you posted that the SMB accumulates for nine months of the year, offset by melting from mid-June to September.

And you might want to read up on the definition of surface (as opposed to total) mass balance - briefly, it includes changes by accumulation and ablation processes, but excludes dynamic processes, such as glacier calving. As the last para in the linked pages notes ...


If climate changes, the surface mass balance may change such that it no longer matches the calving and the ice sheet can start to gain or lose mass. This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade

BlasterBates
19th June 2015, 14:39
Huh? Its fairly clear from the surface mass balance graph you posted that the SMB accumulates for nine months of the year, offset by melting from mid-June to September.

And you might want to read up on the definition of surface (as opposed to total) mass balance - briefly, it includes loss by accumulation and ablation processes, but excludes dynamic processes, such as glacier calving. As the last para in the linked pages notes ...

....hmmm

But is there more accumulation than normal ?

Hint ...look at the data

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 14:47
....hmmm

But is there more accumulation than normal ?

Hint ...look at the data

The data shows me a fairly 'normal' year to date with a recent uptick. So what? Its called 'weather'. A weather event in July 2012 caused a unprecedented and remarkable few days, with 97% of the sheet in melt.

An intense Greenland melt season: 2012 in review | Greenland Ice Sheet Today (http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/2013/02/greenland-melting-2012-in-review/)

You're not going to tell us the long term (30 year) trend is not consistently negative? :eek

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 15:41
Greenland ice tracking well above (http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/) the 25 year average

Surely if you've learned one thing by now, its that Tony Heller (http://realclimatescience.com/2015/06/southern-greenland-showing-first-spring-green-on-june-19/) has not one truthful bone in his body?

Hmmmm … must remember to check back at that site when we really do reach the MIDDLE of the melt season. See if the current cold snap (https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/21-h-thursday-april-9-arctic-t-anomaly-map.png?w=523&h=544) persists or not.

Meanwhile the Arctic sea ice is 2sd below average ….

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 16:03
Look at the data, arctic ice is up.
less than eight weeks to go till the end of the melt season, and it hasn't started melting properly yet.


wasn't the arctic ice all supposed to be gone in the summer ?


in other news -
polar bears are up
Antarctic ice is up

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 16:11
Look at the data, arctic ice is up.
less than eight weeks to go till the end of the melt season, and it hasn't started melting properly yet.

Huh? Eight weeks from now is mid-August, Arctic ice always reaches a minimum in mid-September, and it most certainly is melting, and fast.

May in decline | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/06/may-be-declining/)


Have a great weekend, and try to stop making stuff up.

Taita
19th June 2015, 16:13
In common with most northern dwelling westerners we spend a fortune to holiday in hot climes. What is the panic about? Tourist prices will drop, the Germans will bask in Switzerland leaving the Med to us Brits. Bring it on!

BlasterBates
19th June 2015, 16:34
The result of green policies in Britain:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/13/17/2997DB1900000578-0-image-a-37_1434213094654.jpg

This is actually worse than the scary pictures they show to warn of affects of global warming.

Courtesy of Greenpeace.

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 16:36
Huh? Eight weeks from now is mid-August, Arctic ice always reaches a minimum in mid-September, and it most certainly is melting, and fast.

May in decline | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/06/may-be-declining/)


Have a great weekend, and try to stop making stuff up.


Ho Ho. pj is talking about .3% of the ice in the arctic
I am talking about 100% of the ice.

EternalOptimist
19th June 2015, 16:38
The result of green policies in Britain:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/13/17/2997DB1900000578-0-image-a-37_1434213094654.jpg

This is actually worse than the scary pictures they show to warn of affects of global warming.

Courtesy of Greenpeace.

shocking.
these people started out with a good idea. That morphed into a set of stronger and stronger beliefs. It is now an intolerant dogma

DimPrawn
19th June 2015, 17:06
Isn't it ironic I remember in the 1990's being shown frightening images of how global warming would affect the forests, and they looked like this.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01568/palm_1568384c.jpg

Now I thought this meant the forests would die because of climate change, but actually the deforestation in the photo above is caused by environmentalists chopping them down in the name of Global Warming for biofuel.

I'm offsetting the effects by wiping my @rse more thoroughly. Toilet roll is made from wood pulp, and for every tree chopped down, they plant three.

:rolleyes:

xoggoth
19th June 2015, 18:25
for every tree chopped down, they plant three

Up your @rse you mean? That sounds like fun.

pjclarke
19th June 2015, 21:30
Ho Ho. pj is talking about .3% of the ice in the arctic
I am talking about 100% of the ice.

The only person who knows what you're on about is you. For those deficient in mind reading .... What the cocking hell are you talking about?