One thing is certain, April first the price/inflation elevator is going up in Canada, again. That means higher interest rates are sure to follow and Jagmeet, in a black turban, grilling oil execs on energy prices....while no impact on weather, climate, meteors, stampeding unicorns or whatever else the carbon taxes are suppose to fix.
Global warming hits Los Angeles
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
I wonder what California and the UK have in common when discussing factors impacting local climate.And the UK is currently having a very cold Spring right now. Its highly unusual for the month of March to be this cold
UK weather: Warnings of heavy snow, strong winds and blizzards as cold snap grips country
Under an amber weather warning which comes into force at 3pm on Thursday, there is likely to be "significant disruption" to transport, power lines and mobile phone network coverage. There are also yellow alerts in place for large parts of the UK.news.sky.com
Too invested in conspiracy theories to understand that yes, the average global temperature is increasing and yes, local climates are being disrupted in less predictable ways.That's climate change, obviously. We, old people, used to call it the late spring or unusually cold March.
This approval by Biden has a very significant political cost for him
he is flip flopping on a primary policy position
There is likely very few reasons why he would sacrifice political capital like that
The obvious reason is that it has finally dawned on his advisors that the energy crisis they help to create is going to get worse
And / or it has finally dawned on his advisors that wind and solar are not to get the job done
Climate change has to be stretched farther into the future for Greta's
well-being. Her foundation is bringing in easy money from selling a book
mostly written by a bunch of contributors who didn't demand payment or share
of profits. She will continue living a fulfilled life as long as climate is changing.
well-being. Her foundation is bringing in easy money from selling a book
mostly written by a bunch of contributors who didn't demand payment or share
of profits. She will continue living a fulfilled life as long as climate is changing.
You didn't notice that the quote and the tweet are saying two different things, did you?
Instead you think deleting a tweet she put out at age 15 somehow means something?
Do you still think cigarettes are good for your health too?
Is Greta a climate scientist now? You're going to use stupid shit teenagers say as a counter to scientific data? Is that what stands as proof in your warped mind?
you do not have a clue how ironic & comical your statement is
it was the alarmist who built Greta Thurmberg up as the climate messiah
so she was good enough to be used as an emotional triggering tool on the masses and the UN , but she is a "stupid shit teenager" liability when someone quotes the blithering nonsense she spews?
too funny
Greta's message is listen to the scientists.
No wonder that triggers you so much.
actually Greta's message in the now deleted 2018 tweet was 'the world will end in 2023'
I wonder which scientist she was ' listening to " when she made that 'scientific' prediction ?
the failings / idiocy of the climate catastrophe propaganda machine on full display
too funny
I wonder which scientist she was ' listening to " when she made that 'scientific' prediction ?
the failings / idiocy of the climate catastrophe propaganda machine on full display
too funny
I think her message from 2018 deleted was if we don't stop burning fossil fuel
in 5 years the world will end. By now that implies even if we stop burning oil, gas,
coal and woods altogether after the deadline we would still be doomed. She did
not say how long it is going to take before we go extinct. I presume Greta
has to delete the message so her sheeple won't use her warning as the excuse
to continue burning fossil fuel. If the world is not going to meet the deadline
anyway why not just carry on fueling the joy ride to global collapse with
fossil fuel.
in 5 years the world will end. By now that implies even if we stop burning oil, gas,
coal and woods altogether after the deadline we would still be doomed. She did
not say how long it is going to take before we go extinct. I presume Greta
has to delete the message so her sheeple won't use her warning as the excuse
to continue burning fossil fuel. If the world is not going to meet the deadline
anyway why not just carry on fueling the joy ride to global collapse with
fossil fuel.
No, you are lying about the tweet she made when she was 15.
Sounds like my good ole boy buddy who thought he was so healthy so "never needed to go to the Doctor". After all, "checkups are just a way 'they' make too much money".So your example of catastrophic global warming is a bunch of seaweed that washed ashore in the Carribean??!!
He thought his cola coloured piss was "no big deal". Not blood.
Kidney cancer is an agonizing death. Too bad he ignored the early signs.
They're gonna turn it onto fertilizer: https://theconversation.com/stinky-...urn-it-into-green-power-and-fertiliser-183807
Problem solved
FYI I googled sargassum seaweeds and they've been around the Carribean and Florida for centuries:
Sargassum - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Well there ya go!
"googled" it and instant sargassum seaweed, agriculture and tourism expert!
No wonder you know everything about why climate change isn't a thing.
Seaweed and other plants are indeed a "seasonal thing". Leaves fall off trees seasonally. And trees grow faster and produce more leaves when there is more CO2. Ask any marijuana grower!
Same thing with sargassum seaweed. And overproduction of sargassum is a visible early indicator of increased levels of CO2 and increased ocean temps because it grows on the surface of the ocean. Algae consumes way more CO2 than trees as do other marine plants, like kelp. In fact, there is a lot of research going on around carbon sequestration through ocean biomass. Ironically, all that sargassum is doing a job of capturing all the CO2. Sucks for humans living near those beaches though. Maybe even a good thing if you think about it because it means less airliners flying to those beaches.
But it is a good CO2 'canary in the coal mine'.
Oh, and C02's role in climate change has nothing to do with being "inert". It has to do with the CO2 molecules size interfering with infrared wavelength energy's radiation back into space. This is why they call it a "greenhouse gas".
Think of it as a gaseous glass bubble around the earth. And think of the glass in an actual greenhouse. It looks "invisible". But glass is clearly
not invisible to the "invisible" ultraviolet and infrared spectrums of solar energy we refer to as light.
Last edited:
Oh, so this autistic girl Swedish commie set out to be the crafty villian at 15 years old. And now what is this shady character and gang of "contributors" profiteers up to? Selling BOOKS! For money, no less!
Whaddabout Big 'oil&gas' innocently making a few bucks here and there?
Whaddabout their authours (Scientists) writing papers on climate change?
Why did they forego making huge profits from publishing ? Even Harvard scientists found Exxon's scientists to be "excellent scientists" and their climate projections "remarkably reliable and accurate"
Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say
In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.
news.harvard.edu
The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.
“This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”
