All of the 'greenhouse gasses'are heavier than air and do not make it into the upper atmosphere to act as a blanket. Only high flying jets like the ones our leaders take everywhere contribute to that effect. As well, stratospheric spraying has been officially admitted as a way to affect the weather.
Climate change math
A teen, not mine, presented this question to me regarding a project that he is doing on Climate Change.
Give it a read and let your fingers do the googling to verify the numbers.
I also have screenshots of his sources as well, though for privacy reasons, I refrained from posting them.
Very interested to hear your feedback.
Note: The 542.6 million tonnes is from all fossil fuels combustion and industrial processes.
Figured I would clarify, as I would not want to misquote this young fella.
![Font Screenshot Number Rectangle Circle]()
Give it a read and let your fingers do the googling to verify the numbers.
I also have screenshots of his sources as well, though for privacy reasons, I refrained from posting them.
Very interested to hear your feedback.
Note: The 542.6 million tonnes is from all fossil fuels combustion and industrial processes.
Figured I would clarify, as I would not want to misquote this young fella.
1 - 9 of 121 Posts
A carbon tax does not reduce pollution by spending the money on pollution reduction technology. A carbon tax is a penalty on fuel and other carbon rich things so that people reduce his much they use it. A carbon tax on fuel is supposed to make people drive less because they can't afford it.
This might work in places where people have other options but Nova Scotia does not have the low carbon infrastructure to support other transportation options, nor does it have the residential infrastructure to move everyone into a 15 minute city. So, Trudeau gets his higher income and the rest of us try to figure out how to get to work tomorrow while keeping food in the cupboard.
This might work in places where people have other options but Nova Scotia does not have the low carbon infrastructure to support other transportation options, nor does it have the residential infrastructure to move everyone into a 15 minute city. So, Trudeau gets his higher income and the rest of us try to figure out how to get to work tomorrow while keeping food in the cupboard.
What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?
If you "follow the science" and actually look at the raw data, you will find that there has not been any anthropogenic global warming. The small rise in temperature since the 1800s isn't as large as part warming trends and the warning trends appear to be cyclical and solar driven.
Show me the science and raw data please to support your comments
Since this makes that BS
From the early 1970s until recently, the Solar radiation reaching the top of Earth's atmosphere has in fact shown a very slight overall decline as the Sun’s 11-year activity cycle decreased in amplitude. Through that same multi-decadal period, however, global temperatures continued to increase. The two datasets, incoming Solar energy and global temperature, have diverged – they have gone in opposite directions. That incoming Solar energy has decreased while the Earth continues to warm up shows that the Sun cannot possibly be the control-knob of that warming.
Conversely, attempts to blame the sun for the rise in global temperatures have had to involve the dubious practice of taking the data and selecting only the time periods that support such an argument. The remaining parts of the information – showing that divergence – have had to be ditched. Proper science study requires that all the available data be considered. This particular fact-twisting sin is known as “cherry-picking”.
View attachment 100794
You know what Charles Darwin's training was in? Theology.No background or education in this is enough for me on this guy Man I hope they win tonight
Many famous scientists were not trained in their area of repute. People can learn things outside of 'official' channels.
Also, quoting someone else's speech without giving credit to them is plagiarism.
If you actually took the time to watch his material, instead of vomiting up someone else's opinion, you would see the number of published scientific reports that his 'pseudo science' is based on. If you took the time to watch his material, you would see the amount of successful prediction he is doing, above 95% accuracy. Dismissing someone because they don't follow the mainstream, labeling them as pseudo science, is how you miss new things. Copernicus would have been labeled pseudo science in his day for pushing the heliocentric model.Keep grasping Charles was one in many million and the old bill you referenced is NOT in that group and engineers at least the 100's I worked with and some still friends with strive to only present crediable accurate proven data it is a requirement in their code of ethics so what gives with you and this cult leader's BS and presenting such crap
Sorry I was in a rush and didnot say my USUAL not my words
and could not careless it is out there on the world wide web
I watch all sides AND I read the published literature. I form my own opinion by observation of the universe and I compare the information published by all sides. I didn't discount flat earth when it first came out but I read and watched both sides and compared it to my own observations. Flat earth is one of the most devious ones because it uses real facts but it's just off in the slightest (fact wise). If it wasn't for my own personal experience on the ocean with the Navy, I could have gone flat earth back then. I've since seen more refined research that has better demonstrated the earth's curve (actually done by flat earthers trying to prove their side.)
Anyone considering the 'information' presented by Ben Davidson - Suspicious Observers might want to watch this youtube post to gain a little more insight into who and what you are hearing. Here's the other side of the coin...
What's the point of this response? Don't believe anything you read/hear/see no matter which side it comes from. As soon as you believe 'the science' you aren't following science any more. Science is a process, not a destination. Look into why you can't prove anything with science. The best you can do is fail to falsify. As soon as you think 'the science is settled' you aren't doing science. You are following propaganda.
Wanna actually talk science, I'm all in. Half of the responses here are just willfully ignorant blow hards.
Here are a couple of the scientific articles mentioned by Ben last week. This is his pattern: share actual peer reviewed, published, articles. Let me know when you actual read these articles or I'll assume you're the one relying on Wikipedia.
1 - 9 of 121 Posts
Nova Scotia Hunting Forum
forum community dedicated to Nova Scotia hunters and hunting enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, tips, tricks, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, reviews, reports, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
