Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
saganshus
Nu skriver du åter igen en massa irrelevant nonsens. Den samlade vetenskapen visar hur övertydligt som helt att vi lever i en akut klimatkris.
Lika säkert visar vetenskapen att vi lever i en period av massutdöende av både djur och växter. Vi riskerar vår egen överlevnad på detta sätt. Vandringsduvan är bara ett konkret exempel på hur oerhört destruktiv människan är, tror du på fullt allvar att det bara gäller vandringsduvan? Sluta skriva så oerhört korkade inlägg.
Vi har tämjt vildmarken? Nej, det har vi inte alls. Vi har förstört vildmarken och naturen, den natur som vi är helt beroende av. Det är inte så jävla mycket kvar att förstöra, men du vill förstöra även de sista djuren och växterna.
Här kommer lite fakta om Greta Thunbergs famösa påstående:
Citat:
Furthermore does hardly anyone speak about the fact that we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, with up to 200 species going extinct every single day, that the extinction rate today is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than what is seen as normal.
Hur kan man räkna ut en sådan siffra, undrar ju lite mer balanserade personer, när ingen ens vet hur många arter det finns på jorden, än mindre hur många det har funnits förr ("One rough estimate holds that we’ve only ever found a tantalizing 0.01 percent of all the species that have ever existed") säger paleontologen Doug Erwin och fortsätter:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends-of-the-world/529545/
Citat:
“People who claim we’re in the sixth mass extinction don’t understand enough about mass extinctions to understand the logical flaw in their argument,” he said. “To a certain extent they’re claiming it as a way of frightening people into action, when in fact, if it’s actually true we’re in a sixth mass extinction, then there’s no point in conservation biology.”
This is because by the time a mass extinction starts, the world would already be over.
“So if we really are in the middle of a mass extinction,” I started, “it wouldn’t be a matter of saving tigers and elephants—”
“Right, you probably have to worry about saving coyotes and rats.
För att återgå till Greta så är det - som vanligt när man granskar henne - inget smickrande som kommer fram. Det tycks som om hon hänvisar till en bok från 1995 utan källhänvisningar som skrevs av en FN-medarbetare som antagligen hoppades göra en rejäl hacka. Det är ju lönsamt med klimatalarmism:
https://principia-scientific.com/the-origin-of-greta-thunbergs-200-species-extinctions-per-day/
Citat:
Reverse chronological order
2021 IUCN reports only 18 actual extinctions during all of 2020.
2021 Over 130,000 web pages parrot Greta’s false claim of 200 extinct per day supposedly from climate.
2009, IUCN, WILDLIFE IN A CHANGING WORLD, An analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (PDF)
… “869 recorded extinctions” … “since the year 1500”
… That’s 1.7 extinct species per YEAR. < < < < < < < < < < < < < <
… IUCN is the International Union for Conservation of Nature assessing species
Namnet på boken:
Citat:
1995, Adam Rogers of United Nations, Taking action: An environmental guide for you and your community (Book)
… “every 24 hours, an estimated 150 to 200 species of life become extinct” (in the preface)
… No citation or reference to any scientific paper nor formula used nor data inputs used, all missing, kept in the dark surely because they know it is B.S.
They know it's bullshit ...
Men ingen hindrade stackars Greta från att gå fram till diverse talarstolar och sprida dynga. Eller ännu värre - det fanns vuxna som lurade henne att framföra denna ovetenskapliga skrämselpropaganda. Och än i dag finns det uppenbarligen folk som tror på vad som helst - så länge det är tillräckligt alarmistiskt.
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
Dghfr
Men lugna ner dig lite. Ingenting av detta svammel gör att klimatet blir annorlunda. Riktningen är redan bestämd, och det kommer fortsätta så vare sig du vill eller inte.
Vi får helt enkelt anpassa oss till det nya normala, annars så är vi en utdöende art. Men inte heller det är ett dugg märkvärdigt, eftersom arter kommer och går beroende på dess anpassningsförmåga.
Så att sitta här på FB och uppträda spydigt kommer inte att förändra saken ett dugg.
Bara ett tips.
Trevligt att läsa en balanserad person! Det finns några kvinnor (tror jag) i tråden som uppenbarligen inte mår bra. Av någon för mig ofattbar anledning söker de sig till texter som bara ger näring åt deras labila psyken. De tycks tro att förbränningen av fossila bränslen kommer att upphöra om de ägnar sin vakna tid åt att skriva aggressiva inlägg på Flashback.
Om jag inte såg fel kom Svante Arrhenius upp som "bevis". Mina understrykningar och fetstil:
https://www.thepostil.com/greta-thunberg-and-eco-eugenics/
Citat:
Arrhenius took this early work and imagined that the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), or “carbonic acid,” as he called it, in the atmosphere was directly responsible for warming the planet. He went on to suppose that if the amount of CO2 kept rising, then likewise the planet would keep getting hotter and hotter. This notion would become known as the “greenhouse effect.” And where would all this excess CO2 come from? Fossil fuels, of course.
He laid out this idea in a paper that was published in 1896 and entitled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.”
This paper would become the bedrock of the contemporary climate-change industry, even though it was much criticized at the time of its publications (and later also) for its faulty science, such as that the effects of water vapor are mistaken for the effects of CO2.
Citat:
Many of his contemporary scientists pointed out (as many scientists still do today) that CO2 cannot have any warming effect (or climate sensitivity) – which thus means that CO2 is not a “greenhouse gas.” Also, Arrhenius’s math was severely criticized by many, such as the physicist, Anders Ångström.
Citat:
(...) Thus, he linked his dubious science to modern human life – the ideal formula for alarmism.
(...)
Citat:
But how did his ideas become foundational to environmentalism today? Arrhenius was largely ignored until 1979, when the Charney Report, entitled, “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” was published. It relied heavily on Arrhenius and thus gave him instant legitimacy.
Then, in 1990, the IPCC used the Charney Report as the basis for its own report, which turned Arrhenius’s hypotheses of man-made climate change and global warming into “settled science.” Henceforth, climate could only and “correctly” be viewed through the lens of Arrhenius. Those who refused or objected would be labeled as “deniers” – i.e., heretics.
Och där är vi tyvärr i dag.
Så här säger Tim Ball, fd. professor i klimatologi:
https://www.technocracy.news/tim-ball-the-evidence-proves-that-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/
The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas
Citat:
The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory. It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.
(...)
Citat:
The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?
The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda. They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is he didn’t say what they claim. Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,
(...)
The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Tänk att det finns människor som inte fattar att det handlar om politik.
