Global Warming

One of the problems I find with the green lobby who cause themselves huge problems with their misquoting and they're maneuvering of statistics were very often if they stuck to the absolute truth it would be quite understandable so here is a fact from as meat eating nasty people

An adult male in the United Kingdom uses approximately 2200 calories a day to maintain himself if you took that global warming from growing an eight ounce steak and then applied the same statistics to the same amount of calories which is about 1000 2 lettuce the carbon footprint of growing the lettuce is higher than that of growing the steak this only works when you apply it to the calorie output

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robpage

One of the problems I find with the green lobby who cause themselves huge problems with their misquoting and they're maneuvering of statistics were very often if they stuck to the absolute truth it would be quite understandable so here is a fact from as meat eating nasty people

An adult male in the United Kingdom uses approximately 2200 calories a day to maintain himself if you took that global warming from growing an eight ounce steak and then applied the same statistics to the same amount of calories which is about 1000 2 lettuce the carbon footprint of growing the lettuce is higher than that of growing the steak this only works when you apply it to the calorie output

---

##and not a lot of people no that.....

A couple of weeks ago the SUN ;[ not the paper]. was shooting out massive solar flares and the Scientists said it is going to affect our weather systems.
So what do we do ?? put a hose pipe on the sun to cool it down??

Another one. .................
All the Nuclear bomb tests also tilt the earth slightly. this increases the exposure of the ice to the sun when it should be in the winter darkness. so what do we do now ??? batter the politicians who sanction Nuclear bomb tests ??

Taxing my little car £250 road tax or Green Tax, what do they do with the money??? throw it at the Sun??

Vic Re #9.

Vic,

Just to show you I paid due diligence to your post following are the steps I took:

I clicked on your link and got "This page does not exist."

I typed in gaw.kishou.gojpwdc83htm and was connected to a site that listed chemicals analyzed (but no results, not that it would do me any good because chemistry and physics is not my strong suit).

I scrolled down and it listed 7 regional centers: Canada, USA, 2 in Norway, Russia, and German. No locations, just country names
What am I missing no data, no facts, nowt.

I next typed-up google and typed in exactly what you told me to do "List of scientists and metallologists that challenge global warming."

I don't think you read the preamble. It agrees with my position and further states the follow listed disagreeing scentists only account for 2-3%, The 97%-98% remaining do agree that global warming is real.

The list of dissenting scientists are:

20 that disagree with the accuracy of the IPCC climate position.
14 disagree that climate warming causes global warming.
5 believe global warming will have few negative consequences.

The remaining 97% do believe there is global warming and it is caused by the actions of man and that steps should be taken emmidiately to hold todays position and reverse it back.


I don't understand why you agree with the opinions of 2-3% to bolster your argument. Surely if the opinions of scientists are the criteria correctness shouldn't the opinions of the majority count for something?


Cheers, no harm meant, Rodney:cool:



List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) are convinced by the evidence that humans are significantly contributing to global warming.[1][2]
This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. A minority are climatologists. Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[3][4] hence this list represents a minority viewpoint.
The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Scientific opinion on climate change was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming at that time were as follows:
The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the years 1971–2001.[5]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[6]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[7] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[8]
These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations;[9] the consensus has strengthened over time[10] and is now virtually unanimous.[11] The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science....[12] ."

At the conclusion of this statement it lists the 39-40 scientists who disagree (2-3%).

Cheers again, Rodney

Thanks Rodney.

Your posts are valued.

Keith.

Hi Rodney, sorry about the links, try these links, which challenge and show climate change.

http://kishou.go.jp/wdcgg.html
https://skepticalscience.net/pdf/reb...l-evidence-for

In the second link David Evans shows the cooling and warming periods from the beginning of last century.
Vic

No matter what any one says, things are wrong.

Plastic in the sea and food chain - the list goes on.

Surely, some thought on correcting our own bit, may
make things a little better for our children ?

K.

I am not a greenie in the literal sense, neither do I think you flat-earthers believe the world is flat. I use those terms, tongue in cheek, just to interject a little humor so we don't take ourselves too seriously over a serious subject.

Obviously I think global warming is real: We recycle paper, cardboard, bottles, plastics; switch off unnecessary lights; Drive a Toyota Corolla stick-shift and can get 40 mpg to a US gallon on the highway, 34mpg in town. A stick/manual transmission is almost unheard of in the States.

My wife buys organic poultry and what little red-meat we eat because of the hormones and crap they feed it because she is allergic to all cyclinE drugs which only leaves penicillin for her medical needs and eating meats full of it would compromise her ability to take antibiotics.

I do not agree with the raiding of whaler's ships, but I do support banning whaling, legally. I do not agree with nutcases that pound iron spikes into trees to injure loggers. I do want to save our magnificent US National Park System. I am against selling off parts. Condos on the lip of the Grand Canyon, logging our last few stands of magnificent red-wood trees, the rest were used for furniture back in the late 1800s until a "greenie", actually a naturalist stepped in and saved them.

There are parts of National Parks in Alaska that are literally in the middle of nowhere. The oil companies want to go in and drill, the argument is nobody goes there and drilling today is clean.

My answer, back when such scenic wonders as the Grand Canyon; the Tetons, the Sequoia redwoods, were farsightedly protected; very few could get to them. Today with cars, planes, and tour buses, these sites are open and enjoyed by millions of tourists and residents.

As for a clean, low impact drilling site. The tundra is extremely fragile. Unless there's a blow out it isn't the drilling its the road system, landing strip, etc. for bringing in equipment, service and crew change. Who can tell what mode of transportation will be available for tourists to safely visit and enjoy in a hundred years.

I am for sensible protection, done legally, for the preservation of the environment and the food I ingest.

These "Green" terrorists do not reflect my views, any more than the Nazis reflect the view of the right-wing of your respective Conservative parties.

I would hate to hear of condos in Wilpena Pound, Flinders Range, SA. or an end to the Green-Belt around London, I hiked in the Pound and played on the Common at Chingford Hatch, Essex, as a kid and would love to think of them there for tourist and young boys and girls in the future. But I have no say, these are not my country, but the USA is and I will do anything legally to keep my country beautiful for those coming after me to enjoy.


Cheers, Rodney:cool:

Vic,
Clicked on first one, that's the same address as before, just a list of gasses with no ratios or anything and still comes up as "no page". The second one comes up "this page not found". Thanks for trying though. I think I've exhausted this subject and feel like I'm flogging a dead horse, so out of this thread.....until the next time I feel masochistic.

Cheers, Rodney:cool:

sorry, Rodney, copied links as shown.
Vic