US President Donald Trump announces America’s withdraw from Paris Climate Deal at The White House yesterday
Now Donald has boldly said he’ll
Pull out of the big Paris deal
He thinks the solution
Is much more pollution
As climate change cannot be real.
John Moynes
Pic: Getty
Sponsored Link
Is Donald a climate change denier?
…no…or else Moynes can’t anything to rhyme with denier…
I think ‘ignorer’ might better describe it.
a) it’s a Chinese hoax
b) it’s a threat to certain of his developments that will require major engineering works
depending on who he’s pandering to, his base or himself.
And this, as news of the Larsen C ice shelf is on the brink of splitting.
Much like the US has split from the Paris Agreement HEY-YO!
A victory for rational scientific thought over alarmist dogma.
#winning.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
So you think burning a bunch of carbon that was captured over millions or billions of years in a short space of time has no effect?
Pull the other one
Look at cities with poor air even due to factories/cars/homes/powerplants
They are non renewable resources anyway, switching to something renewable makes sense even if there’s no warming. So there’s no argument for continuing to poison ourselves.
CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is not a pollutant. Increasing CO2 is good for the planet: More plant life = more food.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/africa-has-become-greener-in-the-last-20-years/
Where is this increased growth happening?
On the magic land we are not currently turning into farms and cities?
Not to mention plants or food as you seem only to be concerned with requires 10%+ more fresh water when getting enhanced CO2 levels. An already stressed resource in many places. Not to mention increasing ocean acidity…
We literally can’t plant enough forests to offset our carbon use without cutting into food production or wild habitats.
Ye can’t seriously have your head that far up your hoop?
You'[re the one spouting fear=based dogma and deliberating spreading anti-science (FYI increasing CO2 means a plant uses water more efficiently)
There is no need to offset Carbon because CO2 is good for the planet and essential to plant life.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346
And I thought you were a one trick pony Zuppy! Often interesting to see if people have read the links they post, this one says you’re wrong. From the article:
“Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.” Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.
Air and water are good for you and essential to life so stop spreading fear-based anti-science dogma about how hurricanes are dangerous.
Meanwhile, RIP the Geat Barrier Reef.
Yes LV, it just shows how loopy and all-pervasive these science denying climate alarmists really are: even good news is sold as a catastrophe
Nothing wrong with the Corals Nigel. Except they refuse to confirm your pessimism by dying off.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/02/18/coral-reefs-expand-as-the-oceans-warm/
Yeah, nothing wrong, according to a 2011 entry in a ACC denial blog. Good one.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/12/loss-of-coral-reefs-caused-by-rising-sea-temperatures-could-cost-1tn-globally
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v546/n7656/full/nature22901.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/coral-reef-can-survive-say-scientists-fast-action-needed/
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737.full
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-90-percent-coral-reefs-die-2050-climate-change-bleaching-pollution-a7626911.html
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=coral+reefs+under+threat&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWg8P6mqTUAhWIB8AKHY2NBBgQgQMIIzAA
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/coasts/coral_reefs/coral_threats/
http://www.defenders.org/coral-reef/threats
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-34472026/world-s-coral-reefs-under-threat-from-bleaching
http://www.icriforum.org/about-coral-reefs/status-and-threat-coral-reefs
They’re lying Nigel, all of them. Climate Change//Global Warming is scam. Nothing is wrong with the climate. CO2 is essential to life. Everything else is fake news to scare idiots and keep them volunteering to pay taxes.
Are you one of those idiots Nigel?
Lying, eh. There goes my faith in human nature.
“A victory for rational scientific thought over alarmist dogma.”
That’s some top trolling. Are you just having the craic or are you one of those ‘nothing matters but making libtards angry’ guys?
Science wins, every time. Show me proof that CO2 is a pollutant,
Try breathing from a tank of pure CO2 for a while. Tell us how it goes. For science.
Glib logical fallacies get you no where. The problem in your non-sense scenario would be a lack of oxygen, not an excess of CO2.
So you’re saying an imbalance in atmospheric gases could cause severe problems? That sounds logical and scientific.
Another logical fallacy Nigel. A tank of pure CO2 is not equivalent to atmospheric gases.
It doesn’t have to be. You’ve conceded the principle that too much of a beneficial gas can be harmful.
Now you’re lying about me Nigel. Anything to blindly defend your false dogma.
Trump has spent too much time watching Danny Healy Rae’s speech on climate change, in the Dail, (on youtube). Real rib-tickler, it has to be said, well worth a view to start the Bank Holiday wind-down.