NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (2 Viewers)

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Yesterday, 23:01
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
3,755
It turns out "webcams" are harmful to the planet. :D

Just one hour of videoconferencing or streaming, for example, emits 150-1,000 grams of carbon dioxide (a gallon of gasoline burned from a car emits about 8,887 grams), requires 2-12 liters of water and demands a land area adding up to about the size of an iPad Mini.

 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 23:01
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,127
I like writing, conference calls and in-person. The camera feels very weird and annoying to me, like I'm posing for a film. Unnatural.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 07:01
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
13,034
I don't have much faith in these little anecdotes about what's right and wrong.

At best I reckon there is a grain of truth, distorted out of all recognition, and at worst outright lies.

I'm from an era when they told me not to eat butter because it's bad for you, eat margarine. They said, fat on meat is bad for you, it will give you heart disease.

The butter one was turned around with in 10-years I reckon, there was hardly any truth in it, and margarine is a lot worse for you than butter!

I recently read that the fat from meats is much more natural and better for you then many of these so called healthy fats.

About the only vegetable oil that is reasonably good for you is olive oil and I think I knew that anyway!

I am the Mrs Spratt, as in the rhyme Jack Spratt could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean.. I love a nice chewy bit of fat! And that makes me jack's wife!
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 02:01
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
31,957
I'm Jack, my husband was Mrs. Spratt. I take all my conference calls on my desktop which has no camera and I'm not buying one:)
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 07:01
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
13,034
Exactly!


I think I might have mentioned this before, there are in the region of 200 countries in the world generating CO2 in amounts from practically nothing up to nearly, I believe 20% for some countries.

To get a significant reduction in CO2 produced you are going to need most countries to get their CO2 production to 0.

The small producers and there are lots of them, have little incentive to make any inroads in their minuscule CO2 production but because there are so many of them, it's a significant amount of CO2. I don't see any way forward with solving this problem.

Then there are the big producers like China who indeed produce a lot of CO2 but the goods that they manufacture with the CO2 go to other countries that profess to reducing their CO2 production, whilst they are actually increasing CO2 production in another country.

Again another insurmountable problem!
 
Last edited:

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 02:01
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
31,957
Plants need CO2 to live. Has anyone asked what they think:) Maybe they would be very unhappy if we reduced the CO2 too much. This is typical leftist thinking. Zero in on a problem with such miopia you can't see any way out except one. Dam the unintended consequences. We never needed to shut down the world for COVID. But that was the solution the mob came up with and since it wasn't going to impact them in their ivory towers with their children in private schools, They went for it guns a blazing. Our grandchildren will still be paying off the bills.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 01:01
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
19,988
I don't mind video calls. I will take any video call that won't break the camera when my face shows up.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 16:01
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,309
Plants need CO2 to live. Has anyone asked what they think:)
There are three distinct types of photosynthesis known as C3, C4, and CAM. Most plants, including all trees are C3 while C4 and CAM are adaptations to hot dry climates. Corn and sugar cane are important C4 plants. CAM are cactus and similar plants.

An increase in carbon dioxide can increase the productivity of C3 plants but at the cost of increased water loss. C4 has a mechanism that concentrates carbon dioxide in the chloroplasts so increased atmospheric CO2 doesn't make any difference. C4 is much more efficient with water.

Increased droughts due to climate change will adversely affect the C3 plants. Bad for wheat (a C3 photosynthesiser) which is one of the most important food crops in the world.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 07:01
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
4,943
The problem as I see it, is that the description of what happens with photosynthesis is reliant on explanations from "members of a club", where their echo-chamber of beliefs and incentives all point in one direction. When climate change has become political, when you are incentivised to suggest climate change is man-made, when leading figures suggest you should be criminalised and thrown in jail for disputing the narritive, this will undoubtably tilt the science. This tilt can happen through deliberate misleading, but also through a placebo effect, where an unconcious bias makes you lean your inferences from the data towards a predetermined conclusion. The continual use of the "97% of scientists agree" phrase, strongly quoted by the climatologists, just feeds into the deception. If institutions like NASA quote it, it just shows you can trust no-one on the topic. You can discount this explanation, but then you are discounting human nature. "It doesn't count here." Oh really? Do you think scientists are impartial robots without bias? If so, why do scientists do double-blind studies to discount the placebo effect? Explain that one. Drug studies that do not have a double-blind protocol will get thrown out since you cannot rely on the scientist adding bias to the data.

I think to have confidence in the C02 argument above, you need to understand the topic. But how can you? You are relying on the pro-climate change alarmists perspective and just repeating what they say. You can believe their argument uncritically, but do you know the counter-arguments? Do you even want to know? Knowing that these predictions are based on models where tweaking coefficients and variables can have a profound impact on the future predictions, how do you know that the scientist is not basing their predictions on an overly negative interpretation of the data, fueled by the need to show that man-made climate change is real? You can never know. What you can do is refer to earlier predictions and see how completely out of whack they have been, all in the direction of global warming happening faster than actually happened. Feel free to also discount that fact, because inconvenient truths can be jarring to ones beliefs. It is so much easier to just go along with the status quo and not question the 97% fib.

This comment from an article in The Guardian sums up the 97% deception nicely:

Worthwhile? It is a totally worthless piece of dishonest propaganda.

The paper deserves to be thoroughly condemned by people on all sides of this argument. Dishonest research sets back finding a solution to the problem presented by climate change. It just confirms the view of many sceptics and the uncommitted that advocates are dishonest and misrepresenting the science.

This 'study' uses a technique much loved of advocacy researchers: ask a question of respondents and then report them as answering a different question. Thus some researchers have asked women if they ever had sex they regretted and then report that the women who said yes claimed to have been raped.

Likewise in this 'study', papers that acknowledge that human emissions of greenhouse gasses have had some impact on climate are classified as giving explicit endorsement of the "consensus". I would suggest that the majority of so called climate sceptics would endorse this statement.

If you define “endorsing the consensus” so broadly that even sceptics are included then quite frankly the much touted 97% number is meaningless.

It is noteworthy that nowhere in their paper do the authors define what the “consensus” is. That is deliberate and part of the trick.

We all know what the people at Skeptical Science mean by ‘consensus’. They mean that climate change is happening and it is going to be real bad and humans are to blame for the vast bulk of it and that only immediate and drastic action will solve the problem. That’s the meaning they and others who use this 97% number will imply when they tout the results even though the research shows no such thing. It is a complete crock.

There are many other problems with the research and the paper as well. The classification of papers giving implicit endorsement to the consensus is even looser than that for explicit (but still included in the 97%), classification requires subjective judgement and yet was carried out by the true believers at Skeptical Science and much more.

 
Last edited:

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 23:01
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,127
There's something that hasn't been mentioned yet too. Liberals are already known for seeking out issues that may become their next platform to deliver transformational change and increase to their big government dreams. John Kerry (and later Trudeau parroting him) openly referred to this as the Great Reset, which they also openly referred to using COVID to bring. Climate change hasn't worked as well for them as COVID has, though. Yet.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Yesterday, 23:01
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
3,755
Increased droughts due to climate change will adversely affect the C3 plants. Bad for wheat (a C3 photosynthesiser) which is one of the most important food crops in the world.
Except if we experience wetter than a normal year(s) "it's climate change" so you have all the bases covered.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 02:01
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,020
There's something that hasn't been mentioned yet too. Liberals are already known for seeking out issues that may become their next platform to deliver transformational change and increase to their big government dreams. John Kerry (and later Trudeau parroting him) openly referred to this as the Great Reset, which they also openly referred to using COVID to bring. Climate change hasn't worked as well for them as COVID has, though. Yet. (emphasis added)
The Tucker Carlson video clip below, may also be a follow-up to another post you made. The clip covers the "Great Reset" at the eight (8) minute mark. I believe that the "Great Reset" is much more expansive than simply applying to Covid-19. That it is actually a continuation of the left's long term strategy, promulgated by Obama, of "Transforming America".

The video ends before Mark Steyn's appearance on this edition of Tucker Carlson. Mark Steyn had some insightful comments, unfortunately it seems that Steyn's comments are not available as a video clip.
 
Last edited:

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 07:01
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
4,943
Mark Steyn is a great speaker, funny and very entertaining to watch,
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 07:01
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
13,034


Extract:-
Swedish environmental organizations and the Indigenous Saami Council sent a letter demanding the project be canceled.

So let's get this straight, the environmentalist are worried about global warming, but they're stopping scientific experiments to test the various options there are to counter the global warming?

It reeks of cancel culture, and it it reeks of the environmentalists finding it prudent to prolong global warming because it's giving them some sense of power and justification.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 02:01
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,020
So let's get this straight, the environmentalist are worried about global warming, but they're stopping scientific experiments to test the various options there are to counter the global warming?

It reeks of cancel culture, and it it reeks of the environmentalists finding it prudent to prolong global warming because it's giving them some sense of power and justification.
Yes, it reeks. The so-called environmentalists don't care about protecting the environment, but "saving" the planet solely for the benefit of mankind.

Considering just plants/animals, who is to say that global warming is "bad". We do not have a definition of what the earths optimal temperature would be.

Seems that those attempting to use "engineering", neglect the possibility of unintended consequences.

If the environmental community wants to propose a realpolitik solution, they should be proposing population control. Unfortunately, that option seems to be dismissed as madness.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom
日韩精品亚洲专区在线影院