Donald Trump and US politics

"

finisterre wrote:

Desertification and damaged ecosystem is not a cycle for example. To stop those while utilizing resources on the earth, we are making decisions to take actions. We better not freeze this process at least.

Wish I had saved the link, where they looked at historical desertification and the reversal of it and found that increased CO2 helped turn some deserts back into green areas. It was in the last month or so.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

finisterre wrote:

Desertification and damaged ecosystem is not a cycle for example. To stop those while utilizing resources on the earth, we are making decisions to take actions. We better not freeze this process at least.

Wish I had saved the link, where they looked at historical desertification and the reversal of it and found that increased CO2 helped turn some deserts back into green areas. It was in the last month or so.

well currently the CO2 is at 380 unity per m3, last century it was around 150-180 for the same volume, and in the prehistoric era with dinosaurs it was hestimated to be around 7000 for the same volume and the entire planet was a huge jungle with a supra high density of oceanic vegetation. A higher density of CO2 actually help the vegetation to grow faster as it is one of their main componant for photosyntesis.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

finisterre wrote:

Desertification and damaged ecosystem is not a cycle for example. To stop those while utilizing resources on the earth, we are making decisions to take actions. We better not freeze this process at least.

Wish I had saved the link, where they looked at historical desertification and the reversal of it and found that increased CO2 helped turn some deserts back into green areas. It was in the last month or so.

desertification isn't what you think it is. It's the erosion of the ground, that is most notably due to over use of farming but can also be attributed to the ground not getting enough water and thus, eliminating plant growth.

The place does not need to become a desert for desertification to be in the work.

You guys know why no ones been arrested for leaks? Cant be arrested for what aint true. ;)

Its like perfect crime. Leak bullshit as long as press plays along does the DPS to Trump with no risk. In fact it's not a crime.

The true face of democrats in the USA.


https://www.yahoo.com/tv/democratic-official-fired-saying-glad-scalise-shot-video-162711882.html

Democrat Phil Montag when talking about the shooting of Republican Steve Scalise said, "I wish he was f—–g dead.”

It's funny how you ONLY hear about Democrats saying nasty shit like this on a regular basis.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

"

diablofdb wrote:

Second things, Volcano and other natural disasters produce way more CO2 and the human race, we are so little and what we produce is of no value there.

source: epa.gov

The EPA is supposed to be protecting the environment, and they are a US governmental agency, so we should be able to trust them. In reality, we find that they are not only overpaid (at $110,000+ avg salaries), but are proliferate wasters. They have almost 200 employees devoted to PR work, and have spent $160 million dollars on their PR. That figure doesn't include the $92 million dollars they spent on office furniture in a single year. The EPA has a vested financial interest in ensuring climate change remains a big thing.

Aside from being a dubious agency, let's look at what they are presenting:

Here's the EPA page for that graph: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data That page that graph came from cites 3 references. 2 references are the IPCC (one of the most pro-climate change biased organization in the world, who has been caught fudging data, deleting information, and pressuring scientists before) The third source is the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN.

When you look through the FAO PDF cited http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf it seems well put together, with a good explanation of their methodology. When you look at the details of their methodology is where it all falls apart. Everything (*see below) is either calculated or estimated. Search for "measured" to see what data was measured - zero hits. Search for estimate - 62 results come up. If you include all variants of measure, measurement etc, you get 4 references. Two that talk about problems with measurement and two mentioning "tier 2" results, which state that they are directly from regional or country data. The problem is that searching through the rest of the report reveals zero tier 2 data. It might be in there, but they aren't showing it.

They break human caused GHG thusly:

Human burning of fossil fuels is 60% of the total (with a 10-15% margin of error)
Deforestation is 15-17%
Agriculture related is 10-12%
These last two have a margin of error from 10-150%

So where is the FAO getting their fossil fuel data? Supposedly from the IPCC and the IEA - As far as I can tell it's a combination of data from nations, estimates and calculations.

Here's what the IEA states: "Emissions were calculated using IEA energy databases and the default methods and emission factors from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories."

The IEA energy databases appear to be calculations and estimates based off of IPCC data and the World Energy Model which is "large-scale simulation tool" If anyone wants to pay $150, they can check the report here http://www.iea.org/bookshop/729-CO2_Emissions_from_Fuel_Combustion

So, now that we know where the data for the graph came from (Nothing measured) let's look into the data itself. The report states that of the 50GT of Human caused CO2, 31.6GT were from fossil fuel use in 2012.

"Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuels grew 1.4% in 2011, reaching a record
31.6 GtCO 2eq yr-1 in 2012, the highest level in history "


Now, let's map the 2011 and 2012 data points from the report (2012 with 31.6 and 2011 with 30.385) onto the graph that the EPA helpfully compiled from the data and see what that looks like:



Note the original graph title says "Global Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels, 1900-2014" yet they cut the graph off at 2010. Now we know why they cut the graph.

In my recent post on this thread I explained how the Copypasta Parrot Media was grossly exaggerating the climate change situation in Tangier, VA. Dalai just covered how the EPA spins a narrative, presumably to continue to justify both it's existence and further expansions of its power. And as I explained to ChanBalam earlier, the Deep State is clearly existent, and they form alliances with media outlets to leverage pressure against the elected officials who threaten them. I've also detailed how institutionalized racism like Affirmative Action isn't used blindly in hatred of white males, but is part of a deliberate strategy five decades old to make public universities and government bureaucracies — like the EPA and the climate change scientists — lean more to the Left.

Do you see it all coming together yet?

Q. Why does the mainstream media have a leftist bias?
A. Lyndon Johnson.

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

I am willing to talk about a lot of things, but talking about climate change denialism is less fun than other topics :-)

So you doubt that climate change happens? Do you doubt that it is man-made? Dou you doubt at is a bad thing?

The Earth has been and continues to warm. A degree of it is man made. The amount of it due to CO2 changes, and how much of that is man made is what is in question. There are some, but not enough hard data point. Those data points are extrapolated to fit predictions and models are reverse engineered to fit the data. The models have not been accurate in predictive power. No one model has shown to be more accurate than others - hence the lack of a specific name - like Big Bang theory, or Inflationary Theory, or theory of Evolution.

Many in what should be a very trustworthy community (scientists) have been shown to have lied, hidden, altered, misconstrued or otherwise represent the facts in a manner to suit their opinion first and the science second. THIS is 98% of the "denial" community's issue. Claiming consensus from a group of liars (it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel) only makes denial seem more reasonable.

There is too much money involved and too many with vested interests. The proposed solutions always involved fleecing the public of tax dollars, or doing dangerous large scale experiments on the Earth.

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

So what you try to cloud as science not knowing climate change is, in fact, science knowing climate change and always learning more about factors of it.

When the "consensus" is questioned on how much humans contribute vs volcanoes - there's a staunch response that they know with certainty volcanoes contribute relatively little, yet in recent years the amounts of CO2 from volcanoes went from a few million tons, to a couple dozen million tons, to a hundred million tons, to 242 million tons, to 600 million tons - and that is with about 30 of 150 known active volcanoes being monitored and the others completely unmeasured. The confidence to data ratio is poor.

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

And the current models explain the measured warming almost completely with effects caused by humans.

Of course they do. They were written after the fact. You and I, with some mathematical and programming help, could write a model that would accurately account for climate change based off of Path of Exile forum posting data. It might be really convoluted, but it would work. Predictive power is the measure of a hypothesis and of models. When you look at 10, 20 and 30 year results compared to the predictions, the models and theories have failed.

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

Apart from the fact that among the most likely hundreds of thousands people connected to climate change research there are most likely a some that are less honest than the others, You are insinuating that this money leads to ALL those guys becoming corrupt and following one very sinister scheme, because, if there were some white sheep among those many thousand crooks, one would hear through leaks and such....

There have been plenty of white sheep.

"We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate
change is grossly overstated." "characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and
the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect."

Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist
Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
....

There are over 1,000 names of scientists who have signed on the this list (it was originally 700) that dispute the overarching claims the climate change panick community is generating
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

So no, I don't buy into conspiracy theories that large.

These 30,000 scientists would like to have a word with you..
http://www.petitionproject.org/

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

Edit: Bad example. lets assume that an earthquake shakes up the ocean floor. devastating amounts of methane get set free. this causes climate change. if mandkind cuts back on grfeenhouse gas emissions, it can lighten it's fate and slow down the otherwise predominately not manmade global warming. would you act?

I've a better example - look at the recent efforts (Japan and a few other nations) to explore extracting the methane ice from the ocean and using it as fuel. Even if the amount burned was not an additional ecological danger, the mishaps - OOPS - could turn disastrous.

Aside from environmental dangers, Carnot's theorem when applied to internal combustion engines yields a maximum efficiency of about 25% iirc, which means we are throwing away 75% of the energy, and getting far more pollution per energy than we might.

We can devise all sorts of alternative energy sources, and eventually will be able to collect solar power in space and beam it to Earth - so energy input isn't our long term problem. Energy storage is.

Batteries suck, capacitors get dangerous, compressed air has limited utility. Aside from CO2's known effects, by burning fuel, we are slowly but surely consuming the oxygen that Earth's plants took hundreds of millions of years to produce.

For large scale storage, we can do reverse dams in some areas (Use solar power to pump the water back up during the day, and drain it down for power at night). Compressed gas storage has limited large scale storage, as most of the caverns that would work well to hold the gas are already used for natural gas storage (which has a better profit ratio).

We could utilize what nature has already worked out - convert the collected energy into sugar and extract with the Krebs cycle, but the power to volume ratio would severely limit our technology....

The solution is to find a better, cheaper way to create/collect/store/use energy. If we put half of those hundreds of thousands of scientists on this program, we would have what we need in 25 years or less. It would be something we could take to Mars, or utilize in a remote village in the rainforest. If our elected leaders said - we are going to push for this, but we need funds, I would vote for it.

There is an energy problem on Earth. You only need to look at the disparity on this image to see we have a problem. You only have to imagine how much energy we would need if the whole globe was lit up to see we have an impending problem. The problem I have with the Climate Change Cult is that they aren't part of any solution. We need a long term cure for our energy problem, not a new patient doctor agreement or an amputation.

Does that map include ppl in Senegal burning trash and tires? I been there would trip you out how much they pollute compared to us OFC they are "off the grid" so not registered. I think we generate least pollution