21 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Ask The Experts!”

  2. The ignorance is just straight up astonishing. I’d be embarrassed to be that spectacularly wrong and yes, someone was reading my mind because “The Price is Right” is exactly what I was thinking.
    Oh God, please deliver us from these morons.

  3. As Cybil Fawlty once said: “I’ve seen more intelligent creatures than you, laying on their backs, in the bottom of ponds!”

    1. … and as Zed once said, “You’re everything we’ve come to expect from years of government training.”

    1. Prior to the election in 2019, after a year of trying (a story in itself) I was “granted” a 30 minute phone call to my MLA. Also on the line was one of her assistants. The entire Conservative platform was, “Vote for us, we’re only half as shitty as the Libs”. One of the planks was on Globull Warming & how they were going to implement a carbon tax less than the Libs (I don’t recall the precise number).

      One of my first questions was, “What’s the current atmospheric CO2 concentration?” She paused, then asked me to repeat the question. I did, verbatim. She paused yet again, then once more asked me to repeat the question. At that point I knew she didn’t have the answer & her assistant was scrambling to find an answer.

      I then noted that it wasn’t a difficult question and surely it was a number that should be well known to her, especially seeing as the Conservative party’s lower carbon tax was one of the main platform planks. If, of course, CO2 was the problem they all claimed it was. I repeated the question & she finally gave up & admitted she didn’t know. Politicians hate to admit they don’t know something.

      I gave her a quick 2 minute geology lesson on the history of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and asked her the same questions I always ask Gang Green: How is it possible that we’re here after prior concentrations of 7000ppm? If CO2 is such a key “warmer” how is it possible that we had a planet-wide ice age in the middle of that 7000ppm? Let’s just say that the conversation went downhill from there.

      Now, last time I asked the question Unthing made some noise about the “unprecedented rate” at which CO2 was rising. I’ve heard that argument before, too. Years ago I read a paper that debunked that claim. The research was based on a time period at the beginning of an interglacial & atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose at an even faster rate than today. Unfortunately, I cannot find the link to that paper. I had it bookmarked but have since changed browsers & the files were deleted.

      In addition, that still doesn’t address the planet-wide ice age in the presence of 7000PPM CO2.

      1. And the concentration of CO2 varies depending on the time of day and location. So before the trees wake up in the morning (yes, that language may be incorrect, my apology), the concentration of CO2 is almost 3 to 4 times higher locally, and then it dips down as the day progresses (as trees and greenery process CO2), and then it rises again overnight. So you are talking about a running average, not a local value. I am not disputing your information, but it, like temperature, is a localized phenomenon.

        1. Yes, I’m talking running average. Sure, concentrations may vary a few ppm either way throughout the course of a day, but it doesn’t change by a factor of 3 or 4 or by an order of magnitude or more. If it was actually a problem, and it was that easy, we’d just plant more trees.

          Remember, 410 parts per million is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Visualize a box with 10,000 balls in it, with 4 of them painted red.

          1. Agreed. It’s trivial. Is it reasonable to blame the education system? Basic science has not been a mandatory part of any high school’s curriculum for all students since the 1960s. So whole generations have grown up with no science or mathematics education beyond public school. Hence the relative significance of large and small numbers is lost on most people.

    2. According to the Climate Scoldilocks, she can see the CO2 in the air, so every time she breathes out, she must go blind

  5. Franz Kafka “it’s only because of their stupidity that they’re able to be so sure of themselves.

  6. (added to any of the fine comments above) and they’re the ones that insist, in their ignorance, that science is on their side.

  9. The other notable factor is that humans contribute only 3.9% to the 0.04%. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops as it makes it obvious that the idea that humans are the primary cause of global warming is absurd.

    1. Agreed. Emissions from volcanoes exceed human emissions by several orders of magnitude. And all of this is swamped by the annual emissions and reabsorption of CO2 by the seasonal chemical exchange between ocean and atmosphere.

    2. Yes. Years ago I came across some interesting numbers that ran something like this: The world’s total CO2 output, from both natural and anthropogenic sources, is about 750 gigatonnes. Of that, 3% is anothropogenic. Canada contributes 1.6% of that 3%, or .048% of anthropogenic CO2, or (if my numbers are right) .00019% of the globe’s total CO2 output. May I remind us that .00019% is 19/1,000,000. 19 millionths.

      And, to reduce that tiny number further, we are in the process of destroying our economy, which means destroying people.

  10. At 400PPM the greenhouse effect from C02 is almost completely saturated. You can add as much C02 as you want after that and it will have no additional effect.

    The big lie is that there is a linear relationship between C02 concentration on the horizontal axis and the global warming effect on the vertical axis. In reality it curves off to the right and becomes flat – hence why the planet never burned up when we were at 7000 PPM.

    1. Exactly. The relationship is logarithmic. Pointing this out repeatedly (well, also being rude to the outstandingly stupid) is what got me banned from LinkedIn.

      1. Some people simply cannot ken that adding more jet black to jet black doesn’t make it blacker.

  11. Some years ago borrowed a book by Bjorn Lomborg, can’t remember the title if you kill me.
    Anyway, this is exactly that he was writing about among all the other things.
    He agreed that there is a warming going on, though it was not, nowhere near catastrophic. Just a phase of time.
    The sun decides.
    Lomborg as he advocated then and today, the money scam that is the AGW or as they call it today climate change*, is a scam.
    The money and effort should be invested in adaptation to the conditions not shifting money and making the scammers rich.

    *Climate change is all encompassing definition of a scam that includes rain and drought, hot weather and cold, why baseball is different today than yesterday, why the Chinese flu got the world in a stranglehold and other variety and sundry of Fantazia constructed by those that get rich by it.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation