Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

[flyingcrocodile46]

Is it? That is new. I haven't read any papers that suggest penguins and/or Eskimo activity is causing polar ice to melt. Do you have a reference for that? In fact do you have a reference that shows that Antarctic ice is even decreasing at all? Do you have a reference that shows that Arctic ice volume has NOT been increasing over the past 4 years?


But as we don't have 100 million people then are you saying we have no local impact? If that is the case then why is there such a push for NZ to cut emissions?


I fully agree with you. In fact there is a paper being published in this months Journal of Hydrology NZ that makes just that point. (Jantar & Bardsley, 2015: Journal of Hydrology (NZ) 54 (2): 115-124 2015)

So nice to see someone who actually understands the science enough to see the woods through the trees. Particularly the ones who are prepared to speak out publicly. Thank you for doing so.

For the record, I am as concerned as anyone about the effects we have on our planet and am happy enough to do what needs to be done in order to address those issues (The most serious of which appear to have been sidelined by the climate change sham). But I refuse to be one of the (seemingly) 90% of gullible twats that blindly accept everything the UN (and many others) say without any attempt to fact check the views of those (that the UN & others) labelled as 'Climate change deniers'.


FFS the label 'Climate change deniers' itself should be enough to clue up anyone with any semblance of sense. What is there to deny when the climate changes daily? Nothing obviously. Therefore the assigned label is propagated only to serve as a way of discrediting those who disagree. It's a self serving name that categorises anyone who argues against even the most basic and irrelevant distorted fact, as a liar or a fool (because everyone knows that the climate changes). This is just one of the thousands of ways that these dishonest cunts stack the deck to make lazy non-thinking sheep carry on believing the twaddle they spout instead of being alarmed enough to actually start thinking and questioning that twaddle.

It's a similar but more grammatically correct ruse than the original FBI decision (during the Warren report on the Kennedy assassination) to propagate the label 'Conspiracy theorist' to discredit anyone who suggests that a conspiracy is at hand. However, in that instance it was not the words themselves that automatically condemn the wearer, but rather it was the FBI (and MSM) distortion of the meaning through abuse of use and reliance on the poor education of the sheeple that did the damage in that case. FFS do people not understand that over 90% of our history occurred directly as a result of conspiracies. People need to properly understand the meaning of the words and then look at history (and current activities) in a new light to understand what complete idiots they are when they interpret the words as an indication of absurdity (when it is the use of the words and denial of the prevalence of conspiracies that is absurd).

The media is the most guilty in this respect. Over the last 10+ years they have increasingly assigned labels to groups as soon as they appear. Labels that themselves literally condemn the wearer to guilt before anyone even starts to analyze any of the facts. Fucking presstitutes.

[Woodman]

So nice to see someone who actually understands the science enough to see the woods through the trees. Particularly the ones who are prepared to speak out publicly. Thank you for doing so.

For the record, I am as concerned as anyone about the effects we have on our planet and am happy enough to do what needs to be done in order to address those issues (The most serious of which appear to have been sidelined by the climate change sham). But I refuse to be one of the (seemingly) 90% of gullible twats that blindly accept everything the UN (and many others) say without any attempt to fact check the views of those (that the UN & others) labelled as 'Climate change deniers'.


FFS the label 'Climate change deniers' itself should be enough to clue up anyone with any semblance of sense. What is there to deny when the climate changes daily? Nothing obviously. Therefore the assigned label is propagated only to serve as a way of discrediting those who disagree. It's a self serving name that categorises anyone who argues against even the most basic and irrelevant distorted fact, as a liar or a fool (because everyone knows that the climate changes). This is just one of the thousands of ways that these dishonest cunts stack the deck to make lazy non-thinking sheep carry on believing the twaddle they spout instead of being alarmed enough to actually start thinking and questioning that twaddle.

It's a similar but more grammatically correct ruse than the original FBI decision (during the Warren report on the Kennedy assassination) to propagate the label 'Conspiracy theorist' to discredit anyone who suggests that a conspiracy is at hand. However, in that instance it was not the words themselves that automatically condemn the wearer, but rather it was the FBI (and MSM) distortion of the meaning through abuse of use and reliance on the poor education of the sheeple that did the damage in that case. FFS do people not understand that over 90% of our history occurred directly as a result of conspiracies. People need to properly understand the meaning of the words and then look at history (and current activities) in a new light to understand what complete idiots they are when they interpret the words as an indication of absurdity (when it is the use of the words and denial of the prevalence of conspiracies that is absurd).

The media is the most guilty in this respect. Over the last 10+ years they have increasingly assigned labels to groups as soon as they appear. Labels that themselves literally condemn the wearer to guilt before anyone even starts to analyze any of the facts. Fucking presstitutes.

Fair enough.

[husaberg]

I fully agree with you. In fact there is a paper being published in this months Journal of Hydrology NZ that makes just that point. (Taylor & Bardsley, 2015: Journal of Hydrology (NZ) 54 (2): 115-124 2015)

That company you work for Jantar, they still use all that SF6?
That said pretty sure cooling and heating of the environment has been going on for years before humans existed.
The major drivers are mostly natural environmental factors.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Here are a few questions for the warmists:

1. If NZ was to immediately stop ALL CO2 emissions, by how much would that change NZ's projected temperature rise?

2. How much would we have to reduce NZ's CO2 emissions by to see any measurable change in NZ's temperature?

3. Which climate database shows the change in temperatures that most closely reflects the measured changes in rainfall and streamflows world wide?

As none of them are rising to the challenge (viagra shortage?) I figured I'd give it an honest 'guess'

1. 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% or thereabouts

2. 1000,000% or thereabouts Before meaningful measuring should even start. We would have to consume co2 at rates in the order of 1000,000% of our output in order to have any hope of making any difference (primarily because of our geographical location I suspect)

3. I honestly don't know and could never hope to achieve the same degree of reliable accuracy as in the above two answers through any amount of guesswork because I don't save links and have been reliably informed that I have a memory like a sieve (assuming that it is indeed one of those that has held data, some of which I may have observed).

[Jantar]

That company you work for Jantar, they still use all that SF6?....

Most certainly.

[husaberg]

Most certainly.

Its pretty pricey stuff these days like $20,000 a gas cylinder here isn't it.
Yet cheap as chips in the US
http://www.concordegas.com/concorde-gas.aspx
Seems odd to me.

Yet maybe its because its According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas that it has evaluated, with a global warming potential of 23,900 times that of CO2
In Europe, SF6 falls under the F-Gas directive which ban or control its use for several applications. Since 1 January 2006, SF
SF6 is banned as a tracer gas and in all applications except high-voltage switchgear.
It was reported in 2013 that a three-year effort by the United States Department of Energy to identify and fix leaks at its laboratories in the United States such as the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, where the gas is used as a high voltage insulator, had been productive, cutting annual leaks by 35,000 pounds. This was done by comparing purchases with inventory, assuming the difference was leaked, then locating and fixing the leaks.
Sulfur hexafluoride is also extremely long-lived, is inert in the troposphere and stratosphere and has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 800–3200 years.[22] SF
6 is very stable (for countries reporting their emissions to the UNFCCC, a GWP of 23,900 for SF
6 was suggested at the third Conference of the Parties: GWP used in Kyoto protocol). Average global SF6 concentrations increased by about seven percent per year during the 1980s and 1990s, mostly as the result of its use in the magnesium production industry, and by electrical utilities and electronics manufacturers.
Given the low amounts of SF6 released compared to carbon dioxide, its overall contribution to global warming is estimated to be less than 0.2 percent.
wiki

Maybe that that hydro power isn't as green as its made out to be, especially when you add up the areas that used to be carbon sequestering prior to flooding with water then add in the methane produced as the flooded areas decompose.
Maybe we should tax you dirty polluting buggars some more

[Voltaire]

I'm sure it would a lot easier to sort out if US companies could make lots of money out of it, ya know like wars.
An aside, one of these missile's the RAF are using costs 100 000 quid each. Main feature is it can hit a moving vehicle...

[husaberg]

I'm sure it would a lot easier to sort out if US companies could make lots of money out of it, ya know like wars.
An aside, one of these missile's the RAF are using costs 100 000 quid each. Main feature is it can hit a moving vehicle...

Funny enough the inert SF6 powers the US and likely the rest of the worlds submarine torpedo's.............

[flyingcrocodile46]

Its pretty pricey stuff these days like $20,000 a gas cylinder here isn't it.
Yet cheap as chips in the US
http://www.concordegas.com/concorde-gas.aspx
Seems odd to me.

Maybe that that hydro power isn't as green as its made out to be, especially when you add up the areas that used to be carbon sequestering prior to flooding with water then add in the methane produced as the flooded areas decompose.
Maybe we should tax you dirty polluting buggars some more

Is it used for spark suppression?

[husaberg]

Is it used for spark suppression?

Arc yes...................
I'm just teasing Jantar.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Arc yes...................
I'm just teasing Jantar.

I figured. But there is likely as much (or more) evidence to support that theory than the cLIEmate change conspiracy (to control and milk the herd)

[Jantar]

Arc yes...................
I'm just teasing Jantar.

[Voltaire]

I figured. But there is likely as much (or more) evidence to support that theory than the cLIEmate change conspiracy (to control and milk the herd)

Can you define " The Herd" ?

Are they the majority of population who just go about daily life?

Does posting links on the net make for non sheep well informed status?

[flyingcrocodile46]

Can you define " The Herd" ?

Are they the majority of population who just go about daily life?

Does posting links on the net make for non sheep well informed status?

99+% of the human population (incl me and others you may or may not think similar)

Yes - see above

No. Reading them may do, but is no certainty, and certainly not absolute.

Are you happy now I have answered your questions?

How is your combi and did you get the hub cap links I sent you?

[mashman]

Out of curiosity. Has anyone ever performed any research on areas (temperature, soil erosion etc...) pre and post tree cover over a large area?