Oh dear, that silly old chap Fourier, nearly two hundred years ago, and that ridiculous old duffer Tyndall, 160 years ago, plus all the silly, silly scientists and experimenters AND all the previously mentioned meteorologists, climatologists, geologists etc. must be completely wrong
*again*, then! Tut tut! Thanks for that further reasssurance.
^^^^^^ rubbish
The fact that you're clearly ignorant of Lavoisier's *outstanding* work of 230 years ago flags up one incontrovertible truth: YOU are a MORON. --
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property."
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
Oh, I'm so glad what that presumably also silly, if indeed not moronic, as you say, scientist is helpful! Excellent! More, please! This is fun!
Oh, no, please don't. Th OP above is clearly a person with a mighty good edjumacation, probably good enough to nearly become a scientist!!!! Well, to talk about them, anyway. I can't wait forthe next thrilling installment, can you? He (or she) is a great turn! Fantastic!
You simply wouldn't believe the nonsense round here.
High Steet. Standard Victorian about 4 vehicles wide. Now has fenced off cycle lanes in both directions reducing the road to one vehicle width in each direction. Buses now stop in that one lane - and passengers have to cross that cycle lane to get on or off. Gawd knows how deliveries are made to the shops all along it.
The largest South London hospital is just off this street. Meaning lots of ambulances use it. And nowhere for traffic to pull in to let them past.
London, innit?
I'm afraid it's only too believable.
You need to vote for someone else next time.
Wandsworth council were one of the first to introduce LTNs. Been blue for longer than most remember.
BoJo, the previous mayor, is all in favour of even more cycle lanes.
Every group has their village idiot, Chris. This one perhaps more than most.
Both of them need to have the difficulties brought to their attention.
Excuse me? I believe I'm better informed on this particular subject than anyone else on this group, Dave. A couple of years ago, as you may remember, I spotted a figure in a 120 year old book for the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, which turned out to be virtually the same as the currently accepted figure today. I mentioned this in passing as casting doubt on the figures we are being given. Someone pointed out - perfectly correctly - that citing a reference from one old book on general chemistry was wholly insufficient. I decided to look further into it when time permitted. Anyway, to cut a long story short, since then I have acquired a vast amount of physical hard copy, plus some 200+ digitized reference books on DVDs going back over 200 years. Authoritative text books on physical chemistry plus complete sets of respected encyclopedias from 1911 onwards: the Britannica, (1911, 1985, 2009) the Americana (1960), Everyman's (1905), the British (1935), Chambers (1959) and Odhams (1961). I sat down and studied these for MONTHs solidly. When I get my teeth into something I'm like a Rotweiler and don't leave off until I'm satisfied. These many and varied disparate sources all concur on the figure within a dozen parts per million: ~385. That equates to less than 0.04% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So over the course of the entire
20th century - the most polluting (by humans) in world history - the level of CO2 has not increased by one iota. Everything we've spewed out has been absorbed by plants and trees and a perfect balance has been maintained. It's a miracle of nature. We don't have to spend a single penny piece on all these insane 'climate emergency' measures. All we have to do is stop deforestation and perhaps plant a few trees. That's all.
I'll bid you for equal first.
We don't have to spend a
Not even that.
Haha! People like you are why we're in the situation we are in today. You are too lazy to do any *proper* research. You think you can learn all you need to know on any given subject just by looking it up on Wikipedia! On a subject like this, that is a *hopeless* approach. It is often said that there's no such thing as a free service and if a service appears to be free, then YOU are the product. With Wikipedia, it's much the same. You get easy and free access to a shit ton of information. The catch, however, is that you go away believing what you have read. The 'product' in this case is not YOU, but your world-view. Your world-view gets influenced in a way Wikipedia's backers' want and you go away doing exactly what you're doing above: spreading their memes. That, my friend, is you YOU have been sold!
I know you're extremely knowledgeable about this subject, NP, but I can't have you sharing my pedestal because you did previously state here on some other thread a while back that you believed there had been *some* small increase in CO2. The documentary evidence (which anyone can check for themselves if they have a decent library within reach) clearly states there has been ZERO increase in well over 120 years. So I'm going to have to put you down as a worthy runner-up. ;-)
But still, you're putting a lot of effort nto this, and you say you can read! Whee! Great start, I await further announcements with kindly interest! Excellent! You go, girl! Well done.
Yuri, use your spoon bending power, to make the spike on the right hand end of the graph go away.
Here is the mean global temperature graph. Mean means the numbers from the entire globe are used to compute the different in global temperature from one year to the next. They don't concentrate their Yuri spoon bending mental powers on just the Antarctica numbers, they take the multiple 50C temperature trends all over the Earth and include those in the arithmetic too.
I'm afraid you're falling into the exact same trap as our infamous Australian troll, Rod Speed. NASA stats belong in the same trash can as Wikipedia. Same goes for MOST online sources. You won't turn up any really useful info by taking the lazy approach and clcking on some websites. Same goes for the telly and all those wonderful documentaries and news reports on climate. All that stuff that's freely available and so convenient for busy people to consume has to be avoided. If you're not prepared to take a serious and studious approach to uncovering the facts about ANY contentious subject, you will get nowhere. No one has to go to the lengths (and expense!) I went to. If you're within reach of a decent library, take the trouble to go there and fish out some authoritative reference books on the subject. You only need to find sources for the years 1900 and 2000 - that's enough. Just those two levels. That's all anyone really needs to know.
I see Greta Thunberg has singled Britain out as having a 'climate debt' as she puts it. She claims that Britain owes the 3rd world a much greater share of compensation than the RotW does because Britain had a head-start with the Industrial Revolution. I no longer live in the UK, so couldn't give a shit. I'll have a good laugh when you get saddled with extra taxes to pay for all this bollocks because of your laziness, ignorance and complacency. I'm trying to give you a heads-up so you don't get suckered into this scam, but if you're happy to go along with it and get fleeced, well, that's your financial funeral and happily not my problem! --
"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."
- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.
Yeah, ?Electron warming?.
Nothing like inventing a new phenomenon to fabricate a new ?theory?.
Tim
Not for anything that actually matters, no! Wikipedia is fine if you only want to know something banal like how many times ZaZa Gabor was married or what daft names Beyonce and JayZee came up with for their 'orrible kids, but beyond that? No! Anyone can write for Wikipedia. ANYONE. --
"By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy about it."
- Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum CEO.
Incidentally, would you be, by any remote chance, the same Rod Speed described in this magazine article?
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion,and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all historical experience."
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.