This would be a greater con job than if man didn't actually walk on the moon or the whole jet fuel can't melt steel beams conspiracy. There is no way they have been able to manipulate multiple agencies around the world and peer reviewed papers into some climate change hoax.
But hypothetically if they're wrong a world with low emissions is still a much better world to live in than one that continues to pollute the air we breathe.
View attachment 69867
It is not a hoax but a con job.
I have said over and over again on this Forum that it is to do with the axis of Earth tilting towards the Sun at different angles.
The link below confirms what I have been saying.
http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/
Again lets say you are correct and man isn't causing climate change we still know that the ocean absorbs CO2 which creates carbonic acid. We know that since the industrial revolution the ocean is 30% more acidic than prior. So climate change aside our release of CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing levels isn't a great thing for the environment. No one can deny that to currently continue burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere is unsustainable, we're just delaying the inevitable by a few generations when they will have no choice but to act.
Where is your link to support your statement?
In the past 200 years alone, ocean water has become 30 percent more acidic—faster than any known change in ocean chemistry in the last 50 million years.
Hey mate, that info is from NOAA...They are the ones proven to fiddle with the information to please the UN.
Take it with a grain of salt.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...a/news-story/5081f9858ca53e43b9431fca453b4d54
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-06/uhlmann-on-power-blackout-in-south-australia/7906844
And the lights went out across the state.
It should be noted here that the report says that 14 of the 22 transmission towers that went down did so, "following the SA black system".
Hey mate, that info is from NOAA...They are the ones proven to fiddle with the information to please the UN.
Take it with a grain of salt.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...a/news-story/5081f9858ca53e43b9431fca453b4d54
The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.
I already addressed that in an earlier reply but since you can't remember.
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1
Who knows what John Bates agenda is but he certainly has mislead about some if not all of his accusations
So on one hand you completely refuse to accept NOAAs findings but then are happy to sprout an online survey of 600 people with very questionable methodology and funded by a known anti-Muslim organisation to push your agenda further. If you're going to be a skeptic can you at least be consistent.
Hey it was not me completely refusing to accept NOAA's findings.....I was only the messenger but it is not only John Bates blowing the whistle....If you go back through various post you will see how NOAA has been exposed with deceptive with their data......I know you don't like being told but it is a fact
Leaded fuel and asbestos to add others. Actually I guarantee there's still probably idiots out there arguing that both of these are safe.Not just NOAA's findings, it's NASA's findings, CSIRO and every other reputable science authority around the world you refuse to accept. We've seen this all before with the tobacco industry that in the face of irrefutable data showing the link between smoking and lung cancer, they still paid physicians to deny the health risks posed by smoking.
Leaded fuel and asbestos to add others. Actually I guarantee there's still probably idiots out there arguing that both of these are safe.
You never see sick dead people, so therefore the myths of lead poisoning, asbestosis, etc are not proved as unhealthy
As a plumber back in the 40's, I had a good dose of asbestos and did lots of lead burning (welding)...The old plumbers would lean over my shoulder and whisper in my ear..."SUNNY, MAKE SURE YOU DRINK PLENTY OF MILK TONIGHT"...I still have plural plaques around my lungs from asbestos but I am still alive,
Yes I remember wearing pearly white knitted asbestos gloves while welding. I remember the lead brazing too, thank goodness for eutectic filler rod.
Not just NOAA's findings, it's NASA's findings, CSIRO and every other reputable science authority around the world you refuse to accept. We've seen this all before with the tobacco industry that in the face of irrefutable data showing the link between smoking and lung cancer, they still paid physicians to deny the health risks posed by smoking.
Lead brazing????...What is that?.....never heard of lead brazing.....What sort of flux and brazing rod did you use?
OK you can't help yourself can you ..., the difference is merely the temperature of filler rod melting point or didn't they teach you that at plumbing school, they obviously did me; 450degC being the threshold temp for soldering?
We used lead/silver and lead/copper filler alloys that fall into the brazing class. You of course would have used soft solder no doubt. It's hardly leading edge technology to be behaving like a pedant is it.
Excuse me, we were talking about lead brazing but you have wondered off onto soldering.
Silver soldering is something different again...We originally use Tobin bronze for brazing copper tube long before silver solder came into play which had a much lower melting point...Silver solder was great on copper capillary fitting where it could penetrate the whole joint...In my day we did not have capillary fittings and had to make our own tees and bends....Did you ever do any copper tube bending?
Now back to lead brazing what sort of flux and rod did you use on a lead joint?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?