Climate Change (Patrick Moore ... Greenpeace Co-founder)

[Ricter]

Remedial science for fools:
A scientific theory must:

• Explain previous results and make future predictions
• Be falsifyable

If you cannot state a specific set of circumstances under which you theory is proven wrong, then it's not science.

Science creates certainty all the time in the form of disproven theories. Sure you may have desparate bitter clingers hanging onto nonsense theories for political reasons, but that's not science.

If you predict that unless X happens Y is going to happen in Z years, and after Z years neither X nor Y have happened you were wrong.
The current MO these days seem to be acting like an abusive jerk and stooping to ad hominems rather than actually showing anything even vaguely resembling integrity.

Disproven theories (hypotheses, actually) do not prove other hypotheses are right or wrong.

 

[BKR88]

 

[poopy]

https://www.unicef.org/rosa/blog/were-being-swallowed-ocean-and-running-out-freshwater

 

[ph1l]

The Maldives growth happened because sand was pumped from the seafloor to a lagoon for creation of an artificial island.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148158/preparing-for-rising-seas-in-the-maldives

Construction of the island, designed to relieve crowding in Malé, began in 1997 in a lagoon near the airport. Since then, the island has grown to cover 4 square kilometers, making it the fourth largest island in the Maldives.
....
The new island, built by pumping sand from the seafloor onto a submerged coral platform, rises about 2 meters above sea level, about twice as high as Malé.

They did that to prepare as sea levels have been rising.
http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/maldives/

The trend is not their friend.

 

[BKR88]

Worth reposting.

 

[BKR88]

 

[Ricter]

Worth reposting.

Ozone is 0.00006% of the atmosphere, but without it Life dies.

 

[BKR88]

Ozone is 0.00006% of the atmosphere, but without it Life dies.

More ozone is OK. Life on earth depends upon it to protect from the sun.
Less ozone is not good.

More CO2 is OK. Plant life depends upon it. Humans depend upon plant life.
Not enough CO2 is not good.

LACK of these is the problem.
More CO2=more plant life. One video I posted talks about how plant life has INCREASED.
One of the videos I posted shows the minimum level of CO2 needed.
The important part of the video you quoted is that humans are responsible for only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. We almost don't matter.

 

[Ricter]

More ozone is OK. Life on earth depends upon it to protect from the sun.
Less ozone is not good.

More CO2 is OK. Plant life depends upon it. Humans depend upon plant life.
Not enough CO2 is not good.

LACK of these is the problem.
More CO2=more plant life. One video I posted talks about how plant life has INCREASED.
One of the videos I posted shows the minimum level of CO2 needed.
The important part of the video you quoted is that humans are responsible for only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. We almost don't matter.

NASA's observations of Earth's greening have been confirmed, but parsed, and it's clear most of the greening is the result of humans cultivating increasingly marginal land, and the planting of tree plantations. The rest is ice and snow retreating earlier in the high latitudes. There is some significant but smaller share that can be attributed to more leaves. However...

We're not talking about larger harvests of cereal grains, upon which civilization depends. And because we're overcropping we're also not talking about larger harvests with growing or even stable nutrient density. No, we're growing more of lower quality (by throwing more fossil fuels at the process, ironically).

Finally, I'll just point out that while greenhouse operators do inject CO2 into their facilities (which by the way are not in drought or flood conditions) to boost growth, they also vent their greenhouses of excess heat.

 

[BKR88]