The Climate Change scam

[clarke-connolly]

There was a warm period about the time of Christ which is why he could sit out in the desert for 40 days. The Romans grew grapes in England about that time and St Patrick sat out on Crogh Patrick for 40 day too.

I grew colder until 536 AD when a volcano darkened the skys and led to famine. There appears to have been a cooling from then to about 750 AD when the Vikings set out to plunder. What is for sure is that it got warmer
from 850 AD until 1,250 when the monks occupied Skellig Michael. In 1250 it got cold again until people were
skating on the ice in London in the 1500s. There was a famine in Ireland in 1741 due to cold and wet.

From the early 1800s it got warmed as we exit the little ice age and we are still warming now.

So ~ St Patrick was just Sun-Bathing !

 

[Kangal]

Tank, do yourself a favour and watch about the first 20 minutes or so of this documentary and stop all this childish worrying about mild weather

What a pile of shit. Of course Ivor promotes it!

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

The Desmog Climate Disinformation Database documents, 'individuals and organisations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight global warming.' It's a who's who of the organised climate change...

skepticalscience.com

Does it really say "CO2 is plant food"? So more is better! This is classic Dunning Kruger.

In order to grow, plants need light, heat, air, water and nutrients which are called growth factors. Plant growth is limited by the factor in the least supply; growth cannot be greater than that allowed by the most limiting factor. So there's a bit more to it than just CO2.

This is Inter Cert level stuff so far.

Obviously, heat and water can severely limit plant growth no matter how much CO2 you have. Soil conditions can worsen too, so that Liebig’s law of the minimum comes into play. All these factors must be considered together.

Moving on to CO2, the idea that increased CO2 is good for plants or crops sounds like "common sense". Like most instances of "common sense" it falls down when actually tested for crops. Increased CO2 is shown to decrease the nutritional value of rice, for instance.

How elevated CO2 affects our nutrition in rice, and how we can deal with it

Increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are predicted to reduce the content of essential elements such as protein, zinc, and iron in C3 grains and legumes, threatening the nutrition of billions of people in the next 50 years. However, this prediction has mostly been limited to grain crops...

journals.plos.org

There's been lots of work done by agricultural researchers on this particular topic, and CO2 increases are going to be problematic.

When you add in climate impacts on the other growth factors, you can imagine what the forecasted impacts on crop yields and nutritional value are. I can list many examples of such research.

But don't worry about that. Just watch that video that has no verified claims whatsoever. Ivor has never been wrong.

 

[Tiger]

What a pile of shit. Of course Ivor promotes it!

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

The Desmog Climate Disinformation Database documents, 'individuals and organisations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight global warming.' It's a who's who of the organised climate change...

skepticalscience.com

Does it really say "CO2 is plant food"? This is classic Dunning Kruger.

In order to grow, plants need light, heat, air, water and nutrients which called growth factors. Plant growth is limited by the factor in the least supply; growth cannot be greater than that allowed by the most limiting factor. Heat and water can severely limit plant growth no matter how much CO2 you have. Soil conditions can worsen too, so that Liebig’s law of the minimum comes into play.

While the idea that CO2 is good for plants or crops sounds like "common sense like most common sense it falls down when tested. Increased CO2 is shown to decrease the nutritional value of crops, like rice.

You’re a gullible eejit Tank.

That’s not a neutral review, ya dishonest git.


That ‘skepticalscience’ website is run by a devoted climate activist - John Cook. A chap who literally makes a living from the scam.

.

 

[Hermit]

Copernicus: February 2024 was globally the warmest on record – Global Sea Surface Temperatures at record high | Copernicus

climate.copernicus.eu

What should the average temperature be now, if there was no man-made climate change? Would the average temperature remain constant forever, or would it still change anyway as it always has, regardless of human activity?

Does it really say "CO2 is plant food"? This is classic Dunning Kruger.

So you didn't watch the documentary but you googled "Climate The Movie debunked" and posted the first link you found.

Moving on to CO2, the idea that CO2 is good for plants or crops sounds like "common sense".

"The idea"...plants need CO2, without it they cannot live.

Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is the process by which plants use sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to create oxygen and energy in the form of sugar.

education.nationalgeographic.org

 

[Wolf]

You’re a gullible eejit Tank.

That’s not a neutral review, ya dishonest git.


That ‘skepticalscience’ website is run by a devoted climate activist - John Cook. A chap who literally makes a living from the scam.

.

The Uki's must be getting the shit knocked out of them so it's onto the next subject it's been told to push by its owners.

 

[Tiger]

So you didn't watch the documentary but you googled "Climate The Movie debunked" and posted the first link you found.

Exactly. His response was lazy in the extreme.

He clearly didn’t watch it.

Maybe we should ask Al Gore what he thinks about the documentary. Another neutral observer.

 

[Kangal]

What should the average temperature be now, if there was no man-made climate change? Would the average temperature remain constant forever, or would it still change anyway as it always has, regardless of human activity?

It should be 1.5C lower on average, based on all the other inputs with no changes. And they haven't changed significantly over the last 150 years. See the video I posted for Myles where these are all discussed.

Can it change in the future due to, say, a dramatic increase in volcanic activity? Yes. But so what? What's happening now is something we are influencing and at least we can do something about.

So you didn't watch the documentary but you googled "Climate The Movie debunked" and posted the first link you found.

I watched the first 15 mins. Its just the same shite regurgitated yet again. In a movie!

"The idea"...plants need CO2, without it they cannot live.

Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is the process by which plants use sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to create oxygen and energy in the form of sugar.

education.nationalgeographic.org

Missed the word "increased". I've added that in to be absolutely clear, though I thought it would be obvious from the context.

 

[Hermit]

Its should be 1.5C lower, based on all the other inputs with no changes.

What does that mean exactly? That claim cannot be verified or falsified in reality. Sounds like pseudoscience again. Climate models are not proof of anything in reality.

 

[Kangal]

What does that mean exactly? That claim cannot be verified or falsified in reality. Sounds like pseudoscience again. Climate models are not proof of anything in reality.

This is an excellent rundown of the factors involved.


View: https://youtu.be/e-183_0Sr1c?si=YRT8LAueG8s1C9Ad

 

[Wolf]

LOL, the spooks must think we're all as braindead and gullible as them.......

AP News

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2

apnews.com

 

[Wolf]

WOLF! WOLF! WOLF! they cried........

Flashback to 1989: UN Predicted 'Disaster' If Global Warming Not Checked by 2000

The article gives the world a 10-year window. Beyond that, the fate of the Earth is sealed.

www.westernjournal.com

 

[Kangal]

LOL, the spooks must think we're all as brainwashed as them.......

View attachment 4826

AP News

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2

apnews.com

"He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."

I think he was right. It all got baked in after 2000.

Around 2015 I realised myself it's just a done deal. A lot of the ISPCC stuff is theatrics. Yes it can't hurt to cut emissions - but there's so much CO2 emitted already that the cumulative effects can't be stopped.

 

[Wolf]

ROTFL, and just like that 'Global Warming' gets replaced with 'Climate Change'.....

As I said, the spooks haven't gone away you know!

Follow the money.....again.

Poor Charlottesweb though, the greatest establishment bootlicker the world has ever produced.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

This is not true.

So you drop an hour and a half video on me???

But let's say we can't change the climate in any way. What do we do about the problems?

Such as?

 

[Kangal]

So you drop an hour and a half video on me???

You can't find the time? Yet you'll find the time to read climate change denial shite.

Such as?

You really don't know?

Or you don't care?

Watch that video and then I'll engage with you again.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://twitter.com/Spiro_Ghost/status/1672330662622400513

 

[Professor]

I noted the Roman warm period on another thread, all done without burning a drop of oil, clever buggers those Romans y’know.

Yes they were, and today we have real really clever buggers who actually make both warm & cold periods at will.
Creating Climate Change ^ ^ See above ^ ^
It's possible the Romans have something to do with it . . .

 

[Mad as Fish]

Copernicus: February 2024 was globally the warmest on record – Global Sea Surface Temperatures at record high | Copernicus

climate.copernicus.eu

Sigh....


And how long do these records extend in any form that can be trusted?

 

[Wolf]

Sigh....


And how long do these records extend in any form that can be trusted?

Does it matter?
The bootlickers easily change from the 'global warming' dogma to the 'climate change' dogma.
Whatever their establishment betters tell them is what they'll push.
These online idiots are incapable of and have not been given permission to have individual thoughts.

It's the same bootlicking we seen with the ConVid scam and the Uki war scam. Only one side of the story is allowed.
Nothing they claim can be given any credibility.

 

[Professor]

The climate's gone to s**t for a while now, consequently the birds and bees are suffering and half wiped out if not totally in some extra dimmed cold soaked areas.

I myself remember actually taking out the sunbed in shorts and getting plenty of warm sunshine and red colour around the last week of March in years gone by.

It's only 7C today - Winter rolls on