Counterproductive environmental measures

[Exnihiloest]

Australia

Last September, environmental protesters from Nowa Nowa paraded with their placards: stop burning the nesting birds, the spring burns burn the little living birds…

The firefighters had to reduce the preventive burns to 9 ha, instead of the 370 planned. Two months later, giant fires in Nowa Nowa destroyed 340 houses, killed 4 people and burned 1 million hectares, including small birds.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... hfire.html

Nowa Nowa is just one example among many of the idiotic pressure of uneducated environmentalists on the authorities. It is not because situations are or seem anti-ecological that they should be prohibited. Environmentalists must understand that not all others are unconscious and unscrupulous rots and that many actions have legitimate technical or scientific reasons, which they must seek to understand before foolishly condemned by street activism and lobbying .

I do not put all environmentalists in the same bag, far from it. But as with Muslims with their Islamists, there is an environmental extremism that moderates should fight on their own side. Unless of course if their real fight is not ecology. This one is mine and when you have such "friends" on your side, you don't need enemies anymore.

[GuyGadebois]

I do not put all environmentalists in the same bag, far from it. But as with Muslims with their Islamists, there is an environmental extremism that moderates should fight on their own side. Unless of course if their real fight is not ecology. This one is mine and when you have such "friends" on your side, you don't need enemies anymore.

Among greeners there are as many idiots as elsewhere.

[Exnihiloest]

...
Among greeners there are as many idiots as elsewhere.

Yes. I therefore kindly invite non-cons ecologists to abandon all indulgence towards cons ecologists on the pretext that they are on their side.

[GuyGadebois]

...
Among greeners there are as many idiots as elsewhere.

Yes. I therefore kindly invite non-cons ecologists to abandon all indulgence towards cons ecologists on the pretext that they are on their side.

I am not at all "corporatist".

[Forhorse]

How much, and by whom, were you paid to relay so many anti-ecological messages?

[Exnihiloest]

How much, and by whom, were you paid to relay so many anti-ecological messages?

Zero for me. Environmentalism is cluttered with a number of counterproductive fools and tartuffes, I reveal the ones I can. We cannot move forward as long as we have these cannonballs, but regress, or worse, die, as the poultry fauna paid the price, we see it above, and not that since, much more serious, some people lost their lives.

Regardless, better hint at imaginary dangers for 5G, than count the actual death toll linked to stupid environmental measures, huh?

Because what would we not do to spare his boyfriends who by demonstrating like idiots and by putting pressure on politicians, were the cause? For example by insinuating without any proof of course, that whoever denounces them would be paid for that! This kind of calmonia is part of the propaganda techniques described by Göbble, and you are not the first to use them, environmentalism in general also uses it, and Al Gore admitted by saying that it was necessary to do scared no matter the truth.

That said, we are happy that you are interested in funding, and you should start by asking this kind of question to those who shot this ecological herbicide that is glyphosate. A brown lawyer in the pay of unscrupulous environmental activists should arouse your indignation, you may have missed that. But maybe not. Clan spirit when you hold us ...

[Exnihiloest]

The increase in CO2 is a benefit for the planet. It has indeed been confirmed by an Australian team, which has been known for a few years already: CO2 makes the planet green again and naturally absorbs far more CO2 than the IPCC models predict, which are wrong by a factor of almost 3!

"There are several indications that the activity of the terrestrial biosphere has increased over the past decades, which has an impact on the global net terrestrial carbon sink (NLS) and its control over the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide (i.e._a). It is estimated that global gross primary production (PPB) - the rate of carbon fixation by photosynthesis - has increased by (31 ± 5)% since 1900, but the relative contributions of the various factors assumed to this increase are not well known.
Here we identify the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration as the dominant factor. We reconcile atmospheric constraints at the leaf level and globally on the trends of modeled biospheric activity to reveal a overall effect of CO2 fertilization on photosynthesis by 30% since 1900, or 47% for a doubling of the c_a compared to the pre-industrial level. Our historical value is almost twice as high as current estimates (17 ± 4)% which do not use the full range of available constraints.
Therefore, in a future low emission scenario, we project a terrestrial carbon sink (174 PgC, 2006-2099) which is 57 PgC larger than if we assume a lower CO2 fertilization effect comparable to estimates current. These results suggest a more important beneficial role for the terrestrial carbon sink in the modulation of future anthropogenic CO2 excess, in accordance with the objective of the Paris agreement to stay below 2 ° C warming., and emphasize the importance of preserving terrestrial carbon sinks. "
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /gcb.14950

Taking up the theme of this study, the American climatologist Patrick J.Michaels used a second method and came up with the same result:
“I calculated the effect of 17 years of zero-emission emissions dispersed over this century, and it reduces warming - using the UN's own superheated models - to 1.9˚C. In other words , our current emissions trajectory will meet the Paris Climate Treaty objective of limiting the increase in global average temperature to 2˚C. "

In other words, the limitation of the temperature increase provided for in the Paris agreements will take place naturally.
The fight against global warming is therefore one of the counterproductive ecological measures: almost no predicted impact on the climate, but a definite impact of the collapse of the economy, while doing nothing allows to reach the set goal. There is no climate emergency.

[GuyGadebois]

Taking up the theme of this study, the American climatologist Patrick J.Michaels used a second method and came up with the same result:
“I calculated the effect of 17 years of zero-emission emissions dispersed over this century, and it reduces warming - using the UN's own superheated models - to 1.9˚C. In other words , our current emissions trajectory will meet the Paris Climate Treaty objective of limiting the increase in global average temperature to 2˚C. "

Patrick Michaels: a corrupt and obsolete old rotten ... We definitely don't change a losing team, Tryphon.

Financing by energy sector lobbies

On July 26, 2006, ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, deposited an amount of $ 100,000 into Patrick Michaels' account5. The Associated Press specifies that the payment was made after Patrick Michaels "told businessmen in the West ... that he had no more money to conduct his analyzes of the work of other scientists researching the global warming ", and notes that the cooperative has a clear economic interest in opposing restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, which represents a clear situation of conflicts of interest.

Patrick Michaels claimed on CNN that 40% of its funding came from the petroleum industry7. According to Fred Pearce's investigation, the fossil fuel lobbies financed the work of Patrick Michaels, notably the World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, as well as his militant scientific consulting company, named New Hope Environmental Services.

Another article published in 2005 in the Seattle Times reports a new payment in the amount of $ 165,000 received by Patrick Michaels from companies in the energy sector, this money coming in particular from the coal industry, for allow the publication of its own climate journal.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

[Exnihiloest]

No problem with Patrick Michaels.
If you want to tell us that an atheist does not have to give his opinion on god because he would be the religious specialist, well it is done. But this is of course irrelevant.

[GuyGadebois]

No problem with Patrick Michaels

With rotten people like that, you never have a problem. It is true. Citing a guy as an example when he is corrupt to the bone by the oil lobbies, in fact, poses NO credibility problem.