Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Lasse on Arctic Winter Temperatures Down Several Degrees Since 2016
- Bob Hoye on Arctic Winter Temperatures Down Several Degrees Since 2016
- Gator on Bernie Admits To Being A Communist Revolutionary
- MrGrimNasty on Arctic Winter Temperatures Down Several Degrees Since 2016
- Henning Nielsen on More Flagrant Sea Level Fraud
Archives
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Excellent presentation as usual….
Another relevant fact is we humans are essentially internal combustion engines, burning hydrocarbons for our energy to exist. You mentioned that in the video – but doing some more simple math one finds an adult burning 2000 Calories a day, is equivalent to running a car for 3000 to 5000 miles a year! Those (food) Calories are in fact kilocalories. I won’t bore you with the maths…
So even if we stopped all fossil fuel use, the 7+ billion humans could/would still produce a so called runaway greenhouse effect if that exists… just by breathing/burning hydrocarbons.
So the only logical end to the climate cultist narrative, is to get rid of a large proportion of humans!
It’s all hogwash (the climate crisis schist) – but the agenda is real. (humans are to be culled or made extinct)(which is what eliminating fossil fuels would do)
Here is another important fact:
http://temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR1mhZfsFG7WnZYOjTznx_Yvy-_MguXETmvV-cioDlJGGsEqNoWppwAMrUo
Using all raw data globally, we are slowly declining in mean global temps!
Keep in mind the difference between carbon used that is in the current growth cycle versus “fossilized” carbon from fossil fuels. Depending on how we grow our food, we can still be carbon neutral. I burn firewood and some environmentalist once congratulated me for being carbon neutral with my heating. I had no idea I was being so environmentally correct! LOL
Some places want to ban stoves and firewood.
They banned them in the town next to me around the time I moved to the area in 1989. It cleaned up the air but may have reduced the snowfall for the local ski area. Lack of particulates for the snowflakes to form around is the theory. Coal fired stoves were how this area used to be heated. With coal mines surrounding the town, it made sense.
Brookline, MA bans oil and gas in new buildings.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/25/massachusetts-town-votes-for-freezing-in-the-dark/
I used to live in MA, and we heated our home with oil. The first really cold day, my dad would go to the basement to light the furnace. His eyebrows would usually grow back in a couple of months.
With their headlong rush to socialist stupidity I am SO glad I don’t live their anymore.
How is wearing a cloth over your face protecting you from CO2? Even an N95 medical mask blocks only down to 0.3 micrometers, or about particles 1000x the size of CO2.
And , of course if it could block CO2 you would rapidly become hypercarbic because you could not exhale the CO2 you produced.
Thanks Tony for your work!
It looks like your message is getting out, Tony. Here is an article by Walter Williams in Frontpage Mag citing you and your research. And he get’s it right! Keep it up! https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/scientists-dishonest-or-afraid-walter-williams
Great citation from Walter Williams, a widely published common-sense economist.
Congratulations Tony for your persistence. You are making a difference indeed
Tony,
How about referencing Ernst Beck’s study of 80,000+ chemical bottle CO2 data and pointing out that CO2 has been much nigher than now during three periods of the last 210 years, most recently in the 1940’s. This study is very good and well built, so why pander to Calendar’s bogus graph that claims that CO2 was low for over a thousand years until it started rising in 1950; merging ice core data with Mauna Loa data patently dishonest?
Why is this study not used more in real science discussions?
Hard to know where to start, but a few comments for consideration. Sloppy reporting in the media on climate (and most other topics) is a problem and it’s useful to point out these shortcomings. I’m all for that. But posts like this one do little or nothing to usefully educate and seem instead intended deliberately to mislead -which seems to be the very beef you have with a lot of mainstream climate reporting, Tony. So you yourself are doing exactly the thing that you accuse the scientific mainstream of doing. This is not helpful.
You imply that as 400- odd ppm is a relatively small concentration, that this value is somehow irrelevant or nothing to worry about. This is nonsensical. As I am sure you know full well.
You mention higher concentrations of CO2 in buildings. Of course. So what? The behaviour of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has nothing whatever to do with its concentrations in trains, buildings or its direct effects on organisms. As I am sure you are well aware.
CO2 good for plants? It’s not so simple (as I am sure, again, that you know). You need adequate water to take advantage of higher CO2. And if you are a plant but get eaten by a pest or burned up in a fire, any CO2 advantage won’t help.
You note the high CO2 540 million years ago and suggest that life was fine back then. Aside from all the uncertainties involved in reconstructing conditions that long ago, how did life then compare with now? How many mammals were about? Birds? Trees? In fact any life forms like those common today? Pretty much none, I believe. So I don’t think this example helps us very much.
And taking shots at Greta Thunberg? Surely this is ungenerous. You may not agree with what she is saying and/or doing, but her courage is beyond doubt. For this she deserves respect.
Real World vs Fantasy
The movie, Sound of Music, while being entertaining, wasn’t entirely based on reality. Years ago I was watching a morning talk show, and the guest was the original Maria. Remember the scene in the movie where the eldest daughter’s boyfriend (Ralph?) refused to allow them to escape, and ran off to sound the alarm? The talk show host asked if that’s what happened. Maria said “No. We shot him.” (The “we” being the father, Georg, of course.)
Reality is messy. It may be OK to “sanitize” it to make a movie palatable, but when it comes to science, that is a recipe for disaster. The fact that activist warmist “scientists” do that all the time is more than good reason not to trust anything the tell us.
is the 1 human being to an automobile as stated by D Boss, right?
And, if so, is that in a normal life span? Or, what time period?
I ask for sake of discussion with alarmists.