fisheries set to plunge

Post by M***@kymhorsell.com
Fisheries output to plunge unless global warming reeled in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing

Bret Cahill

2018-03-09 16:26:18 UTC

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by M***@kymhorsell.com
Fisheries output to plunge unless global warming reeled in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing

Another outbreak of libertaria!

R Kym Horsell

2018-03-09 17:07:01 UTC

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by M***@kymhorsell.com
Fisheries output to plunge unless global warming reeled in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing

Another outbreak of libertaria!

Hillbillies can only have 1 idea at a time. The thought that
fish are influences by seasons and therefore water temperatures
is not possible if they're worried about hunting quotas.
--
[Hillbilly invention!]

Here's the invention: It's unbreakable computer security.
It's the oldest cypher in the book: A one-time pad. [...]
So just how can a true random sequence of numbers (say 8 bit bytes) be
generated with proper random characteristics? The usual thing of
radioactive sources or white noise do not seem fast enough. Microwave
noise perhaps? since the key is as big as the message you don't want to
use a lot of time filling the key memory.
-- ***@teranews.com <***@iwaynet.net>, 02 Mar 2012 18:45

Byker

2018-03-09 17:11:35 UTC

Post by Paul Aubrin

Post by M***@kymhorsell.com
Fisheries output to plunge unless global warming reeled in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing

The fish will simply migrate to where it's not so warm...

Blue

2018-03-09 18:31:47 UTC

Post by M***@kymhorsell.com
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-fisheries/fisheries-output-to-plunge-unless-global-warming-reeled-in-idUSKCN1GK2QI>
Fisheries output to plunge unless global warming reeled in
Oslo. Global fisheries output will slump by 20% by 2300 and by
60% in the worst-hit North Atlantic region if govts fail
to slow long-term global warming, a US team of scientists said on Thu.
Most studies of climate risks extend to 2100 and overlook extra
"catastrophic effects" such as the projected slump in ocean life that
would only emerge in coming centuries, they said.

Conflates 2300 with the nearer 2100.

1960........3 Billion.

1915........7.4 Billion.

2100........11.2 Billion

Loading Image...

Kym Horsell

2018-03-09 19:11:47 UTC

Post by Blue

Post by M***@kymhorsell.com
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-fisheries/fisheries-output-to-plunge-unless-global-warming-reeled-in-idUSKCN1GK2QI>
Fisheries output to plunge unless global warming reeled in
Oslo. Global fisheries output will slump by 20% by 2300 and by
60% in the worst-hit North Atlantic region if govts fail
to slow long-term global warming, a US team of scientists said on Thu.
Most studies of climate risks extend to 2100 and overlook extra
"catastrophic effects" such as the projected slump in ocean life that
would only emerge in coming centuries, they said.

Conflates 2300 with the nearer 2100.

Just "learned" a new word but can't use it properly in a sentence yet?

The paragraph goes to some length to distinguish between 2100 ("most studies") and 2300 (this other study) not mix them up together.

Sorry. I have to mark this as an "F-". Not up to your usual "F".

Post by Blue
1960........3 Billion.
1915........7.4 Billion.
2100........11.2 Billion
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/updated-World-Population-Growth-1750-2100.png

Paul Aubrin

2018-03-10 17:50:56 UTC

Post by Kym Horsell

Post by Blue
Conflates 2300 with the nearer 2100.

Just "learned" a new word but can't use it properly in a sentence yet?
The paragraph goes to some length to distinguish between 2100 ("most
studies") and 2300 (this other study) not mix them up together.
Sorry. I have to mark this as an "F-". Not up to your usual "F".

Indeed, his numbers lack decimal places. With 5 decimal places you get a
B, with 13 an A. If it is a spurious correlation with 13 decimal places,
you get A+.

Catoni

2018-03-11 05:41:52 UTC

"fisheries set to plunge"

Oh.. here we go.... yet another prediction..... .

Sort of like the Actic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the summer by now..

We all know what happened to that prediction...

Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

george152

2018-03-11 19:38:57 UTC

"fisheries set to plunge"

Oh.. here we go.... yet another prediction..... .
Sort of like the Actic Ocean was supposed to be ice free during the summer by now..
We all know what happened to that prediction...
Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Reposted.
Good reading

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-12 04:17:34 UTC

Post by Catoni
Here are some more failed environmental activist predictions... these ones from around 1970 about the time of the first "Earth Day".

Your mistake here is in confusing errors and out
of date assessments with the fake "Science" of
global warming propaganda.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR8

This was a high-yield rice grain that only started
to make it into circulation in 1966. Nearly all
the "Experts" in 1970 would have completed their
schooling some decades earlier, and most would have
completed whatever research they did in the same
time frame. But the world changed rapidly...

Famines were larger and more common. Only four
years prior to IR8 the Chinese population sunk,
largely due to the estimated 35 million famine
deaths...

The point is that many of these population-bomb
predictions were based on old, outdated "Facts"
that could not foresee let alone account for
future breakthroughs.

..."Peak Oil" was supposed to have hit the
planet by now, but nobody foresaw the new
technologies that allow us to exploit new
sources as well as extract more from the old
ones.

Post by Catoni
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

This is unspecific. Nuclear war? Certainly it was a
very real and absolutely world-ending possibility at
that time.

Post by Catoni
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

Probably right on the button with that one. It
was Nixon -- not some liberal Democrat -- who
created the EPA, and despite large increases in
population & car traffic, the iconic LA smog is
all but completely gone.

Come on! LA was was a smog-choked mess 50 years
ago! Imagine what it would be like after added
millions of more cars & people if we hadn't
enacted pollution controls? We actually REVERSED
pollution trends!

So the fatal flaw with these people was not in
caring, was not in worrying it was in not foreseeing
changes -- like the new rice strain or the EPA and
pollution controls.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171783303333

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-11 06:51:12 UTC

Post by M***@kymhorsell.com
Fisheries output to plunge unless global warming reeled in

It has nothing what so ever to do with the climate.

It's over fishing. Simple as that.

"Over fishing."

I actually was in attendance at the Roger Tory Peterson
award presentation/talk, over at Harvard, when the
marine biologist being honored spoke about his extensive
work on over fishing. He predicted back then, and this
was more than 10 years ago, that the fishing industry
had maybe 50 years remaining, and then it's gone. And,
he told us, humans would have to go from fishing in the
sea to FARMING the sea.

But, see, this is another example of the fake science,
the propaganda being spewed out, where you evil douche
attribute everything to "Global Warming."

Why is this evil?

Because the solution is genocide.

No. That is not an exaggeration. "Over fishing" is
a product of growing populations, so the only real
solution is to kill people.

Same with CO2 output.

Same with deforestation.

Same with methane release.

Same with pretty much anything & everything
you dickwads want to call "Global Warming."

It's population. So the only real solution is
killing people.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171652278992

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-11 07:01:52 UTC

Post by M***@kymhorsell.com
Fisheries output to plunge unless global warming reeled in

It has nothing what so ever to do with the climate.
It's over fishing. Simple as that.
"Over fishing."
I actually was in attendance at the Roger Tory Peterson
award presentation/talk, over at Harvard, when the
marine biologist being honored spoke about his extensive
work on over fishing. He predicted back then, and this
was more than 10 years ago, that the fishing industry
had maybe 50 years remaining, and then it's gone. And,
he told us, humans would have to go from fishing in the
sea to FARMING the sea.
But, see, this is another example of the fake science,
the propaganda being spewed out, where you evil douche
attribute everything to "Global Warming."
Why is this evil?
Because the solution is genocide.
No. That is not an exaggeration. "Over fishing" is
a product of growing populations, so the only real
solution is to kill people.
Same with CO2 output.
Same with deforestation.
Same with methane release.
Same with pretty much anything & everything
you dickwads want to call "Global Warming."
It's population. So the only real solution is
killing people.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171652278992

Solutions include better stewardship of the land air and waters so as to not negatively damage the ecosystems for our food chains or even the stuff that scrubs our shit.

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-11 07:19:39 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Solutions include

There is only one "Solution": Genocide.

of course, once you STOP pissing your pants
over the thought of it getting slightly
warmer during an ice age, suddenly you don't
need a "Solution."

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171654744104

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-11 17:29:22 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Solutions include

"Solution"

Natures solution to changes takes long time spans, take for instance creatures that carry their young for long periods of time. The time for adaptation is much longer than that of bacteria.

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-12 04:02:45 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Natures solution

Your "Problem" doesn't exist. And, the "Problem"
which actually does map to your symptoms -- over
population -- has but one solution, and that's
genocide.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-12 04:11:26 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Natures solution

Your "Problem" doesn't exist.

Changing temps are the response to an impulse of co2, the increase temps and increased co2 atmospheric concentrations impact the ocean, which impact the life in the ocean. Natures solution in adaptation takes time, and in some cases, long times, longer than needed for survival.

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-12 04:30:51 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Changing temps

There is no global warming, and if there was that
would be a very good thing, considering this is
an ice age and the glaciers are overdue to return.

So, no, your problem doesn't exist.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171754954078

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-12 04:52:18 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Changing temps

The warming has been observed, your denials as to how increasing concentrations of co2 effects how energy is exchanged in the atmosphere wont be aided by you hiding behind extremely long term changes in planetary tilt thats just silly

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-12 04:57:11 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The warming has been observed

People "See" Bigfoot all the time. And UFOs. In
China, not too long ago, there were wide scale
sightings of a floating city.

Witches -- on broomsticks, no less -- are common
sightings in Mexico, or at least they used to
be.

Angels are routinely spotted around the globe.

I knew a women who swore she saw a small demon
in NYC.

So, not very bright one, the fact that you "See"
global warming is hardly unusual, not compared
to all the other things people like you keep
"Seeing."

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171754954078

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-12 05:02:38 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The warming has been observed

People "See"

So even though co2 is know to absorb infrared, and the earth emits infrared you not only incorrectly think that because co2 is not visible you can deny it exists.

Co2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, its our choice to move to renewables

george152

2018-03-12 18:58:59 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Changing temps

There is no global warming, and if there was that
would be a very good thing, considering this is
an ice age and the glaciers are overdue to return.
So, no, your problem doesn't exist.

WE have some pillock who was on fake news bemoaning the fact that
glaciers were melting.
Where was he when the great Ice Sheets over North America and Northern
Europe were melting ?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-12 20:10:25 UTC

Post by george152

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Changing temps

There is no global warming, and if there was that
would be a very good thing, considering this is
an ice age and the glaciers are overdue to return.
So, no, your problem doesn't exist.

WE have some pillock who was on fake news bemoaning the fact that
glaciers were melting.
Where was he when the great Ice Sheets over North America and Northern
Europe were melting ?

Some idiots keep incorrectly thinking that be stating that ice ages happen, it becomes a valid argument against co2 reductions and ultimately a move to renewables.

Post by george152
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-13 05:39:22 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Some idiots keep incorrectly thinking that be stating that ice ages happen

It's not that ice ages happen, we are inside of
an ice age.

THIS, right now, is an ice age.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171652278992

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-13 12:30:44 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Some idiots keep incorrectly thinking that be stating that ice ages happen

It's

That co2 warms and our choice for fossil fuel increases atmospheric co2 concentrations because co2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion.

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-13 19:16:51 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
That co2 warms

CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

Our fossil fuels are going to run out anyway.
If it's a problem, it's a problem that will
solve itself.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/19793046973

Catoni

2018-03-13 21:01:17 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Some idiots keep incorrectly thinking that be stating that ice ages happen

It's not that ice ages happen, we are inside of
an ice age.
THIS, right now, is an ice age.

You have to forgive our good friend, comrade "columbiaaccidentinvestigation"... he's not all that bright.... bit of a dim bulb actually.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-15 00:10:01 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Some idiots keep incorrectly thinking that be stating that ice ages happen

It's not that ice ages happen, we are inside of
an ice age.
THIS, right now, is an ice age.

You have to forgive our good friend, comrade "columbiaaccidentinvestigation"... he's not all that bright.... bit of a dim bulb actually.

Atmospheric physics is not dependent upon your logical fallacies, the notion that we should not reduce co2 because the earth tilts is just lame.

Acting as if mentioning an ice age refutes the need to reduce co2 emissions is the logical fallacy for which your stupid argument rests, its a joke built on a house of cards.

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-15 05:51:02 UTC

Post by Catoni
You have to forgive our good friend, comrade "columbiaaccidentinvestigation"... he's not all that bright.... bit of a dim bulb actually.

"...like a Zippo lighter without any flint."
--MST3K

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171870954953

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-15 12:33:31 UTC

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 10:51:04 PM UTC-7, The brilliant JTEM wrote:
Catoni wrote:

The two of you barely can deal with the facts, lets try again.

Your reply that we "are in an ice age" is not a logical rebuttal against the need to reduce our co2 emissions.

After you realized that shit aint working, your loser buddy catoni tried to help which is like throwing a drowning man a lead weighted life saver.

Now if you think you have point try again, if not type it out then hit delete.

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-16 04:55:58 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The two of you

I am flabbergasted, utterly flabbergasted! I
had no idea you could count that high!

Is someone helping you?

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171919760658

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-16 05:10:34 UTC

On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 9:55:59 PM UTC-7, The brilliant JTEM wrote: I

Post by The brilliant JTEM
had no

You had no chance of advancing your point using your stupid logic, increased water temps and changes in ocean ph are most certainly connected to human actions of burning fossil fuels, and both are connected to the climate

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-17 05:47:51 UTC

Post by Catoni
You ha

It's really all about growth.

Demand for energy keeps growing. Demand for
fossil fuels keeps growing. And, "Alternatives"
can't produce enough energy to meet the growth
in demand. We still need more & more fossil
fuels.

According to myth, we have to reduce fossil
fuel use to something BELOW that seen in the
late 19th century -- when "Global Warming"
supposedly started. Instead, we only ever
increase our use of fossil fuels.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171919760658

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-17 05:55:04 UTC

Post by Catoni
You ha

It's really all about growth.
Demand for energy keeps growing.

Sun shines in locations fossil fuels are not located, wind blows in locations where fossil fuels are not located. The myth fossil fuels dont pollute is what blackened the skies, eventually triggering the recognition that regulations were required. Moving to renewables is a logical and prudent solution.

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-18 06:01:05 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Sun shines in locations fossil fuels are

Again, fossil fuel use keeps growing.

If your narrative is true, we have to reduce
fossil fuel use to something BELOW what was
seen in the late 19th century.

(Hint: Your myth has your AGW starting in the
19th century, so to stop it we'd need to cut
back fossil fuel use to BELOW 19th century
levels. Instead, we keep using more)

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171919760658

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-18 13:13:56 UTC

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 11:01:07 PM UTC-7, The brilliant JTEM wrote: Your myth

the physics of how co2 interacts with infrared is a bit too much for you to understand, thus your failure and frustration here.

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-19 17:19:18 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
the physics

Your "Global Warming" myth says that the
earth already crossed the threshold back
in the 19th century. That, humans were
already warming the planet back in the 19th
century. So, that would have to mean that
we have to reduce fossil fuel use to a level
BELOW what the planet was using in the 19th
century. Instead, we are using orders of
magnitude more... and climbing.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/172023429643

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-19 17:21:48 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
the physics

"Global Warming"

co2 warms the surface, and changes the ph of the oceans

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-19 17:34:12 UTC

co2

According to your own "Argument," we have
to reduce CO2 levels to BELOW what was
seen in the 19th century, or we're doomed.

Well, we are doomed. So if you believe your
own story then STOP worrying about "Alternatives"
and start investing all your efforts into
preparing for your warmer globe.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/172023429643

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-19 17:41:55 UTC

On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 10:34:13 AM UTC-7, The brilliant JTEM wrote:"to your own "Argument,""

According to your own argument, since changes in earths tilt occur driving the ice ages on very long time scales, all actions on the shorter time scales serve no purpose, which is idiot thinking.

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-22 04:37:33 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
According to your own argument, since changes in earths tilt occur driving the ice ages on very long time scales, all actions on the shorter time scales serve no purpose, which is idiot thinking.

I've never argued that. But, you idiots really
do claim that your "Global Warming" started in
the 19th century. So you really do believe that
we either lower CO2 emissions to BELOW 19th
century levels, or we're doomed.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/172058597763

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-22 05:18:31 UTC

I've never argued that.

you fail to be honest about your own actions in "polluting" this environment with your contrarian stank, surely your argument boiled down to an overly simplistic illogical reason to stick with fossil fuel

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-22 05:33:52 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
you fail to be honest about your own actions in

You completely misrepresented me. You made up
something and then pretended that it was my
position. On the other hand, you really do claim
that your "Global Warming" began in the 19th
century. And this really does mean that you have
to believe we need to lower emissions to a point
BELOW that seen in the 19th century, or we are
doomed.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/172044097773

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-22 05:40:25 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
you fail to be honest about your own actions in

You completely misrepresented me.

If you could properly articulate your argument without the intentional use of logical fallacies, you might get past the logic filter.

Catoni

2018-03-19 20:43:55 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
the physics

"Global Warming"

co2 warms the surface, and changes the ph of the oceans

And Nestlé water enhancer flavors my water.

george152

2018-03-19 21:52:33 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
the physics

"Global Warming"

co2 warms the surface, and changes the ph of the oceans

And Nestlé water enhancer flavors my water.

The 'surface' water is only a thin layer.
Below the thermocline the sea is pretty much the same temperature worldwide

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-20 04:59:54 UTC

Post by george152

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
the physics

"Global Warming"

co2 warms the surface, and changes the ph of the oceans

And Nestlé water enhancer flavors my water.

The 'surface' water is only a thin layer.
Below the thermocline the sea is pretty much the same temperature worldwide
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The research stated the following

"The shifts would cut the productivity of fisheries in 2300 by an average 20 percent and by 60 percent in the North Atlantic, where a normal upwelling of nutrients from deeper waters would be most reduced, according to computer simulations."

The brilliant JTEM

2018-03-22 04:38:54 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
"The shifts would cut the productivity of fisheries in 2300 by an average 20 percent and by 60 percent in the North Atlantic

over fishing wish extinguish fisheries long before
that.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/172058597763

columbiaaccidentinvestigation

2018-03-22 05:37:22 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
"The shifts would cut the productivity of fisheries in 2300 by an average 20 percent and by 60 percent in the North Atlantic

over fishing wish extinguish fisheries long before
that.

Poor logic again on your part wont validate your arguments against co2 reductions.

george152

2018-03-22 19:14:33 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
"The shifts would cut the productivity of fisheries in 2300 by an average 20 percent and by 60 percent in the North Atlantic

over fishing wish extinguish fisheries long before
that.

There are fishing grounds that were claimed to have been over fished and
have been shown that that claim was wrong.
Stop the EU overfishing in the British waters if they're so keen on
actually doing something

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Catoni

2018-03-13 21:10:54 UTC

"Some idiots keep incorrectly thinking that be stating that ice ages happen,...."

Huh ? ?

Catoni

2018-03-12 21:12:52 UTC

Post by george152
WE have some pillock who was on fake news bemoaning the fact that
glaciers were melting.
Where was he when the great Ice Sheets over North America and Northern
Europe were melting ?

Our cavemen hunter/gatherer ancestors were burning way too many fires to try to keep warm and cook their food .

They were the first ones guilty of causing Global Warming/Climate Change. ....causing the great ice sheets to melt back....

It's ALWAYS the fault of mankin......oops... I mean... personkind. LOL ;)

Bret Cahill

2018-03-12 04:19:33 UTC

Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Solutions include

There is only one "Solution": Genocide.

Nope. The NRA's solution is just as effectual.

Require all looniers to mount 50 cal machine guns on the roofs of their SUVs.

DESMODUS

2018-03-22 14:29:53 UTC