Quite improbable argumentation Alain b!
We can clearly see the logic behind these attempts to manipulate public opinion.
Warming: the offensive against skeptics
- Misterloxo
- Éconologue good!
- posts: 480
- Registration: 10/02/03, 15:28
- x 1
GREENHOUSE GAS
The Supreme Court disavows the Bush administration.
The US Supreme Court said Monday that the National Environmental Protection Agency, and behind it the administration of George W. Bush, are wrong to refuse to consider greenhouse gases as pollutants.
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualit ... _bush.html
The Supreme Court disavows the Bush administration.
The US Supreme Court said Monday that the National Environmental Protection Agency, and behind it the administration of George W. Bush, are wrong to refuse to consider greenhouse gases as pollutants.
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualit ... _bush.html
0 x
Alain b,
What a waste of time to expose the benefits of Channel 4 to broadcast the report!
What is in question is whether or not the warming is due to man or not.
And it seems that no. If you're not convinced, I suggest you visit this site:
www.pensee-unique.fr
which was done by a former director of research at the CNRS.
Obviously, to read the content of this site quietly, it is necessary to know to ignore the criticism of the author to the environmentalists, who I would say, do not advance the schmilblic!
This site will explain how the curves used by the IPCC are false, and many other reasons that complete the film.
What must be said is that to assert that the warming is not due to the man does not put into question the ecological logic which has been long to put in place in the brains. Obviously we must continue our momentum! Obviously we must fight against polluting emissions!
But we must change the discourse. Step by step. Make people understand that the warming is not due to humans, but that the emissions of gaseous pollutants create a lot of new diseases and mishaps in humans! It is against this that we must fight.
For information, I am student-engineer and I wish to work in renewable energies to fight POLLUTION OF THE PLANET ...
What a waste of time to expose the benefits of Channel 4 to broadcast the report!
What is in question is whether or not the warming is due to man or not.
And it seems that no. If you're not convinced, I suggest you visit this site:
www.pensee-unique.fr
which was done by a former director of research at the CNRS.
Obviously, to read the content of this site quietly, it is necessary to know to ignore the criticism of the author to the environmentalists, who I would say, do not advance the schmilblic!
This site will explain how the curves used by the IPCC are false, and many other reasons that complete the film.
What must be said is that to assert that the warming is not due to the man does not put into question the ecological logic which has been long to put in place in the brains. Obviously we must continue our momentum! Obviously we must fight against polluting emissions!
But we must change the discourse. Step by step. Make people understand that the warming is not due to humans, but that the emissions of gaseous pollutants create a lot of new diseases and mishaps in humans! It is against this that we must fight.
For information, I am student-engineer and I wish to work in renewable energies to fight POLLUTION OF THE PLANET ...
0 x
Mathieu THIBAULT
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79118
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
If CO2 is not a "pollutant" for our planet (it is not for humans ... at least at "low" concentrations), can you explain to us how renewable energies make it possible to fight against the POLLUTION OF THE PLANET?
I can not follow you there ...
I can not follow you there ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Christophe wrote:If CO2 is not a "pollutant" for our planet (it is not for humans ... at least at "low" concentrations), can you explain to us how renewable energies make it possible to fight against the POLLUTION OF THE PLANET?
I can not follow you there ...
And the renewable energies fight against POLLUTION simply because the thermal power plants do not reject THAT of CO2, far from it!
Flame-fired power plants also produce carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants (dust, heavy metals, including mercury, sulfur dioxide ...) contributing to photochemical smog, ozone production. tropospheric, and rain, mists and acid mists. (See Wikipedia about this).
If we want to limit the emission of polluting gases and the production of nuclear waste and therefore the production of electricity through "nuclear power plants", we must find other modes of clean energy production!
0 x
Mathieu THIBAULT
I saw yesterday (on Planet) the report that quotes the facts explained on the site thought-unique. There are several things that surprise me:
- The IPCC has censored some scientists, but partially by keeping ONLY the most alarmist, thus transforming their remarks. It's very average when we want to make a synthesis objective of the state of the climate or even of anything else.
- I have the impression that nobody has seen this report, it's not the first one I see on the climate, it is not complete certe, but does not everyone know it or all the world saw it? Nobody talks about it ...
- The facts they cite, in particular the temperature that precedes CO2's place and solar activity ARE NOT NEGLIGIBLEand what they are for or against the original hypothesis.
- The decision-makers / founders of the IPCC are not really clear either, but I did not push the research further on that.
In short, the link of cause and effect between CO2 and warming does not seem to me so clear that we hear it fluently, even if two things remain safe (and here everyone agrees):
- The climate is warming, whatever the reason,
- Continue to emit GHGs and spread deforestation in such a situation, it would be a bit like a crocodile who would show up in leather goods ...
On the other hand, the report in question also reported on the temperature of the oceans. From the memories I have of geology courses at the FAC, the oceans are the largest reservoir in CO2 on the planet. So when we see that the temperature of the globe (so oceans) precedes 800 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is still something to ask questions. On the IPCC at least ...
On the climate, anyway it heats up, unanimously ...
- The IPCC has censored some scientists, but partially by keeping ONLY the most alarmist, thus transforming their remarks. It's very average when we want to make a synthesis objective of the state of the climate or even of anything else.
- I have the impression that nobody has seen this report, it's not the first one I see on the climate, it is not complete certe, but does not everyone know it or all the world saw it? Nobody talks about it ...
- The facts they cite, in particular the temperature that precedes CO2's place and solar activity ARE NOT NEGLIGIBLEand what they are for or against the original hypothesis.
- The decision-makers / founders of the IPCC are not really clear either, but I did not push the research further on that.
In short, the link of cause and effect between CO2 and warming does not seem to me so clear that we hear it fluently, even if two things remain safe (and here everyone agrees):
- The climate is warming, whatever the reason,
- Continue to emit GHGs and spread deforestation in such a situation, it would be a bit like a crocodile who would show up in leather goods ...
On the other hand, the report in question also reported on the temperature of the oceans. From the memories I have of geology courses at the FAC, the oceans are the largest reservoir in CO2 on the planet. So when we see that the temperature of the globe (so oceans) precedes 800 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is still something to ask questions. On the IPCC at least ...
On the climate, anyway it heats up, unanimously ...
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79118
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
Yes abysssin, we had already briefly mentioned the subject: on the coring curves the "graph" of CO2 very similar to that of T ° would be posterior to that of T ° and not earlier (the posteriority is easily explained by the increased biological activity).
So the IPCC would piper its graphics to shift the CO2 a few hundred years before?
Well, let's admit that this is the case: but in what interest? When the US lied to the world about Iraq they clearly had an interest in doing so ... What is the interest of the IPCC?
Most lying "entities" usually have only one deep purpose: the power or the cash
For the dough which? That of the inactive lobby of the wind turbine manufacturers? At the worst may be the nuclear ... but frankly ... it's big ...
For power ... I have no argument ...
Anyway, if they excuse themselves on the first cause of the warming ... SO WHAT (AND THEN? CHANGE WHAT? In French?)?
They are not mistaken about the consequences, on the fact that CO2 amplifies the phenomenon and incidentally on the fact that fossil fuels are exhaustible ... and after all in IPCC there is CLIMATE and there is no "CO2" ...
So the IPCC would piper its graphics to shift the CO2 a few hundred years before?
Well, let's admit that this is the case: but in what interest? When the US lied to the world about Iraq they clearly had an interest in doing so ... What is the interest of the IPCC?
Most lying "entities" usually have only one deep purpose: the power or the cash
For the dough which? That of the inactive lobby of the wind turbine manufacturers? At the worst may be the nuclear ... but frankly ... it's big ...
For power ... I have no argument ...
Anyway, if they excuse themselves on the first cause of the warming ... SO WHAT (AND THEN? CHANGE WHAT? In French?)?
They are not mistaken about the consequences, on the fact that CO2 amplifies the phenomenon and incidentally on the fact that fossil fuels are exhaustible ... and after all in IPCC there is CLIMATE and there is no "CO2" ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
For the consequences, I agree, it would not change much, nor on the measures to take.
On the other hand, he seemed to say that Mr.Thatcher was more or less at the origin of the IPCC, or at least that it had used its influence to make it stand up.
Simple question of energy: oil, she had no confidence for the future, and coal either. All that remained was the nuclear power she wanted to devellop. And since the nuclear power does not reject CO2, the IPCC fell right to put water in its mill by revealing in the form of an urban legend with false scientific paces that it was precisely the CO2 that was Oenology warming. And so its nuclear power plants were THE solution to stem this warming.
Remember Renaud's song: if I were a dog, as a street lamp, I would choose Mrs. ...
What is the interest of the IPCC?
On the other hand, he seemed to say that Mr.Thatcher was more or less at the origin of the IPCC, or at least that it had used its influence to make it stand up.
Simple question of energy: oil, she had no confidence for the future, and coal either. All that remained was the nuclear power she wanted to devellop. And since the nuclear power does not reject CO2, the IPCC fell right to put water in its mill by revealing in the form of an urban legend with false scientific paces that it was precisely the CO2 that was Oenology warming. And so its nuclear power plants were THE solution to stem this warming.
Remember Renaud's song: if I were a dog, as a street lamp, I would choose Mrs. ...
0 x
And I forgot: for the interest of the IPCC today, it's not entirely clear, but 3 things are safe:
- It's alarmist so it's freaking out, that's what the news was missing because Al-quaeda is becoming "Has Been", there is no longer any antrax, wars are also becoming commonplace. And if we don't freak people out, it's less easy to lead them by the nose. So we have to maintain a climate of pressure social.
- This is a new economic pole, which starts from almost zero, so $$$$$$$ benefit to do, there is a certain economic potential on the ecology.
- Environmental measures limit developing countries (we are already selling solar panels). And expensive electricity = devellopement difficult = misery = potentially exploitable (at the human level) ... So many develloped countries will do everything to avoid the possibility of using their coal or oil, or anything that raises their standard of living .
- It's alarmist so it's freaking out, that's what the news was missing because Al-quaeda is becoming "Has Been", there is no longer any antrax, wars are also becoming commonplace. And if we don't freak people out, it's less easy to lead them by the nose. So we have to maintain a climate of pressure social.
- This is a new economic pole, which starts from almost zero, so $$$$$$$ benefit to do, there is a certain economic potential on the ecology.
- Environmental measures limit developing countries (we are already selling solar panels). And expensive electricity = devellopement difficult = misery = potentially exploitable (at the human level) ... So many develloped countries will do everything to avoid the possibility of using their coal or oil, or anything that raises their standard of living .
0 x
abyssin3 wrote:For the consequences, I agree, it would not change much, nor on the measures to take.What is the interest of the IPCC?
On the other hand, he seemed to say that Mr.Thatcher was more or less at the origin of the IPCC, or at least that it had used its influence to make it stand up.
Simple question of energy: oil, she had no confidence for the future, and coal either. All that remained was the nuclear power she wanted to devellop. And since the nuclear power does not reject CO2, the IPCC fell right to put water in its mill by revealing in the form of an urban legend with false scientific paces that it was precisely the CO2 that was Oenology warming. And so its nuclear power plants were THE solution to stem this warming.
Remember Renaud's song: if I were a dog, as a street lamp, I would choose Mrs. ...
There I would be limited in agreement with you because since we put forward only the problem of CO2 which causes the warming, one accepts much more easily the nuclear energy (it is only to see how Sarko sells AREVA plants everywhere, including Gaddafi).
No one can know; indeed, there is a "shift" in time in terms of CO2 according to the site www.pensee-unique.fr but everyone can interpret the news in his own way and say that he is right.
What is certain is that Al Gore, who also received the Nobel Prize, does not hesitate to send CO2 and consume energy in very large quantities.
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 44 Replies
- 25168 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
08/06/21, 22:21A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 0 Replies
- 4144 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
10/08/16, 15:22A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 23 Replies
- 21672 views
-
Last message by phil53
View the latest post
07/01/12, 10:13A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 73 Replies
- 39579 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
28/04/11, 13:58A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 7 Replies
- 4789 views
-
Last message by Gregconstruct
View the latest post
10/12/07, 21:10A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 130 guests