Discussion:
What if...
Add Reply
Tony
2021-04-21 02:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
James Christophers
2021-04-21 03:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
All of which is as may be.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history

My only comment here is that, as any asthma victim would aver, any reduction in **total** atmospheric pollution has to be a good thing. If this reduction includes any implied excess of C02, then surely there's no harm done? In any case, the implications given in the above article cannot be good news for man or his environment.

The other point so often made is that CO2 today represents only 0.04% of the atmosphere's total makeup. But there is one question I've yet to see addressed, even though it almost certainly has been somewhere or other, so:

How critical to man and his environment is the unvarying stability of this (putatively) insignificant level of 0.04%, and what would happen if it were to vary by even the tiniest fraction of its already small fraction of a percentage point? Even if no one really knows, not knowing is not sufficient reason simply to dismiss it.
Tony
2021-04-21 04:29:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
All of which is as may be.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history
My only comment here is that, as any asthma victim would aver, any reduction
in **total** atmospheric pollution has to be a good thing. If this reduction
includes any implied excess of C02, then surely there's no harm done? In any
case, the implications given in the above article cannot be good news for man
or his environment.
Any reduction in damage to our enviuronment is welcome to me provided the
amount of damage that does is reasonable and in balance. Until we have a
concensus on the effects of man made climate change that balance is at serious
risk. Until we stop the "industry" that is based on man made climate change we
cannot have balance. As long as politicians see this as a source of votes we
cannot have balance. And please don't say that I cannot change any of that, I
am permitted to try. If I see what I believe to be reasoned departure from the
current hyperbole i will tell people about it. Be assured that this tiny
newsgroup is an insignificant part of the audience that I and others address.
There is a serious risk of going too far. None of the dire predictions of the
past 30 years have eventuated, none.
Post by James Christophers
The other point so often made is that CO2 today represents only 0.04% of the
atmosphere's total makeup. But there is one question I've yet to see
How critical to man and his environment is the unvarying stability of this
(putatively) insignificant level of 0.04%, and what would happen if it were to
vary by even the tiniest fraction of its already small fraction of a percentage
point? Even if no one really knows, not knowing is not sufficient reason
simply to dismiss it.
Not knowing is also no reason to simply believe it. All I ask is for a balanced
scientific debate without the paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense and the "Let's make
a buck out of this" industry.
Rich80105
2021-04-21 05:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 23:29:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
All of which is as may be.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history
My only comment here is that, as any asthma victim would aver, any reduction
in **total** atmospheric pollution has to be a good thing. If this reduction
includes any implied excess of C02, then surely there's no harm done? In any
case, the implications given in the above article cannot be good news for man
or his environment.
Any reduction in damage to our enviuronment is welcome to me provided the
amount of damage that does is reasonable and in balance. Until we have a
concensus on the effects of man made climate change that balance is at serious
risk. Until we stop the "industry" that is based on man made climate change we
cannot have balance. As long as politicians see this as a source of votes we
cannot have balance. And please don't say that I cannot change any of that, I
am permitted to try. If I see what I believe to be reasoned departure from the
current hyperbole i will tell people about it. Be assured that this tiny
newsgroup is an insignificant part of the audience that I and others address.
There is a serious risk of going too far. None of the dire predictions of the
past 30 years have eventuated, none.
Post by James Christophers
The other point so often made is that CO2 today represents only 0.04% of the
atmosphere's total makeup. But there is one question I've yet to see
How critical to man and his environment is the unvarying stability of this
(putatively) insignificant level of 0.04%, and what would happen if it were to
vary by even the tiniest fraction of its already small fraction of a percentage
point? Even if no one really knows, not knowing is not sufficient reason
simply to dismiss it.
Not knowing is also no reason to simply believe it. All I ask is for a balanced
scientific debate without the paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense and the "Let's make
a buck out of this" industry.
The Waikanaewatch articles are hardly scientific debate, but they are
reasonably polite; to call them "paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense" is
going a bit far Tony - do try to be nice.
John Bowes
2021-04-21 05:55:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 23:29:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
All of which is as may be.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history
My only comment here is that, as any asthma victim would aver, any reduction
in **total** atmospheric pollution has to be a good thing. If this reduction
includes any implied excess of C02, then surely there's no harm done? In any
case, the implications given in the above article cannot be good news for man
or his environment.
Any reduction in damage to our enviuronment is welcome to me provided the
amount of damage that does is reasonable and in balance. Until we have a
concensus on the effects of man made climate change that balance is at serious
risk. Until we stop the "industry" that is based on man made climate change we
cannot have balance. As long as politicians see this as a source of votes we
cannot have balance. And please don't say that I cannot change any of that, I
am permitted to try. If I see what I believe to be reasoned departure from the
current hyperbole i will tell people about it. Be assured that this tiny
newsgroup is an insignificant part of the audience that I and others address.
There is a serious risk of going too far. None of the dire predictions of the
past 30 years have eventuated, none.
Post by James Christophers
The other point so often made is that CO2 today represents only 0.04% of the
atmosphere's total makeup. But there is one question I've yet to see
How critical to man and his environment is the unvarying stability of this
(putatively) insignificant level of 0.04%, and what would happen if it were to
vary by even the tiniest fraction of its already small fraction of a percentage
point? Even if no one really knows, not knowing is not sufficient reason
simply to dismiss it.
Not knowing is also no reason to simply believe it. All I ask is for a balanced
scientific debate without the paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense and the "Let's make
a buck out of this" industry.
The Waikanaewatch articles are hardly scientific debate, but they are
reasonably polite; to call them "paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense" is
going a bit far Tony - do try to be nice.
Tony was referring to YOU with that comment Rich. Or are you in the "Let's make a buck out of this"industry. You certainly don't fit in the "reasonable debate"bucket like so many flat earthers....
Tony
2021-04-21 06:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 23:29:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
All of which is as may be.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history
My only comment here is that, as any asthma victim would aver, any reduction
in **total** atmospheric pollution has to be a good thing. If this reduction
includes any implied excess of C02, then surely there's no harm done? In any
case, the implications given in the above article cannot be good news for man
or his environment.
Any reduction in damage to our enviuronment is welcome to me provided the
amount of damage that does is reasonable and in balance. Until we have a
concensus on the effects of man made climate change that balance is at serious
risk. Until we stop the "industry" that is based on man made climate change we
cannot have balance. As long as politicians see this as a source of votes we
cannot have balance. And please don't say that I cannot change any of that, I
am permitted to try. If I see what I believe to be reasoned departure from the
current hyperbole i will tell people about it. Be assured that this tiny
newsgroup is an insignificant part of the audience that I and others address.
There is a serious risk of going too far. None of the dire predictions of the
past 30 years have eventuated, none.
Post by James Christophers
The other point so often made is that CO2 today represents only 0.04% of the
atmosphere's total makeup. But there is one question I've yet to see
How critical to man and his environment is the unvarying stability of this
(putatively) insignificant level of 0.04%, and what would happen if it were to
vary by even the tiniest fraction of its already small fraction of a percentage
point? Even if no one really knows, not knowing is not sufficient reason
simply to dismiss it.
Not knowing is also no reason to simply believe it. All I ask is for a balanced
scientific debate without the paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense and the "Let's make
a buck out of this" industry.
The Waikanaewatch articles are hardly scientific debate, but they are
reasonably polite; to call them "paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense" is
going a bit far Tony - do try to be nice.
You know that I was not referring to them, you know that you have not
acknowledged the lies that you told about me in another thread. And you never
will, coward and liar that you are.
You and everybody else knows that you are a poseur and in love with a
political wet dream.
Rich80105
2021-04-21 08:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:47:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 23:29:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
All of which is as may be.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history
My only comment here is that, as any asthma victim would aver, any reduction
in **total** atmospheric pollution has to be a good thing. If this reduction
includes any implied excess of C02, then surely there's no harm done? In any
case, the implications given in the above article cannot be good news for man
or his environment.
Any reduction in damage to our enviuronment is welcome to me provided the
amount of damage that does is reasonable and in balance. Until we have a
concensus on the effects of man made climate change that balance is at serious
risk. Until we stop the "industry" that is based on man made climate change we
cannot have balance. As long as politicians see this as a source of votes we
cannot have balance. And please don't say that I cannot change any of that, I
am permitted to try. If I see what I believe to be reasoned departure from the
current hyperbole i will tell people about it. Be assured that this tiny
newsgroup is an insignificant part of the audience that I and others address.
There is a serious risk of going too far. None of the dire predictions of the
past 30 years have eventuated, none.
Post by James Christophers
The other point so often made is that CO2 today represents only 0.04% of the
atmosphere's total makeup. But there is one question I've yet to see
How critical to man and his environment is the unvarying stability of this
(putatively) insignificant level of 0.04%, and what would happen if it were to
vary by even the tiniest fraction of its already small fraction of a percentage
point? Even if no one really knows, not knowing is not sufficient reason
simply to dismiss it.
Not knowing is also no reason to simply believe it. All I ask is for a balanced
scientific debate without the paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense and the "Let's make
a buck out of this" industry.
The Waikanaewatch articles are hardly scientific debate, but they are
reasonably polite; to call them "paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense" is
going a bit far Tony - do try to be nice.
You know that I was not referring to them, you know that you have not
acknowledged the lies that you told about me in another thread. And you never
will, coward and liar that you are.
Now you are changing your story - before it was a recent post, which I
naturally assumed was in this thread - and I was of course not
surprised when you could not identify any lie. Now you are claiming
it was in another thread! If you still cannot identify the post that
concerns you I am certainly not going to waste time trawling through
my revious posts. Besides, you will just say it is only your opinion
when you are proved wrong . . .
Post by Tony
You and everybody else knows that you are a poseur and in love with a
political wet dream.
You are not being very persuasive that you are at all capable of
reasoned discourse, Tony.
Tony
2021-04-22 03:41:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:47:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 23:29:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
All of which is as may be.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history
My only comment here is that, as any asthma victim would aver, any reduction
in **total** atmospheric pollution has to be a good thing. If this reduction
includes any implied excess of C02, then surely there's no harm done? In any
case, the implications given in the above article cannot be good news for man
or his environment.
Any reduction in damage to our enviuronment is welcome to me provided the
amount of damage that does is reasonable and in balance. Until we have a
concensus on the effects of man made climate change that balance is at serious
risk. Until we stop the "industry" that is based on man made climate change we
cannot have balance. As long as politicians see this as a source of votes we
cannot have balance. And please don't say that I cannot change any of
that,
I
am permitted to try. If I see what I believe to be reasoned departure from the
current hyperbole i will tell people about it. Be assured that this tiny
newsgroup is an insignificant part of the audience that I and others address.
There is a serious risk of going too far. None of the dire predictions of the
past 30 years have eventuated, none.
Post by James Christophers
The other point so often made is that CO2 today represents only 0.04% of the
atmosphere's total makeup. But there is one question I've yet to see
How critical to man and his environment is the unvarying stability of this
(putatively) insignificant level of 0.04%, and what would happen if it
were
to
vary by even the tiniest fraction of its already small fraction of a percentage
point? Even if no one really knows, not knowing is not sufficient reason
simply to dismiss it.
Not knowing is also no reason to simply believe it. All I ask is for a balanced
scientific debate without the paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense and the "Let's make
a buck out of this" industry.
The Waikanaewatch articles are hardly scientific debate, but they are
reasonably polite; to call them "paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense" is
going a bit far Tony - do try to be nice.
You know that I was not referring to them, you know that you have not
acknowledged the lies that you told about me in another thread. And you never
will, coward and liar that you are.
Now you are changing your story - before it was a recent post, which I
naturally assumed was in this thread
What a stupid thing to think. Receb=net means not very long ago, it does not
mean in this post.
Post by Rich80105
- and I was of course not
surprised when you could not identify any lie. Now you are claiming
it was in another thread!
Only because it was
Post by Rich80105
If you still cannot identify the post that
concerns you I am certainly not going to waste time trawling through
my revious posts.
Trawling is correct. especially when you do not answer a post which has
correctly identified you as a repeat liar.
Post by Rich80105
Besides, you will just say it is only your opinion
when you are proved wrong . . .
So you are happy to never post an opinion here again right? After all you
attempt to deny me that right (not a privilege).
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
You and everybody else knows that you are a poseur and in love with a
political wet dream.
You are not being very persuasive that you are at all capable of
reasoned discourse, Tony.
Here is the post where I poiunted out your lies. A post that you did not answer
- of course!
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 22:12:37 -0500
Message-ID: <***@ue.ph>
References: <***@ue.ph>
<***@4ax.com> <***@ue.ph>
<***@4ax.com>
Read and slither for cover as usual.

Tony
2021-04-21 20:16:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 23:29:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
All of which is as may be.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history
My only comment here is that, as any asthma victim would aver, any reduction
in **total** atmospheric pollution has to be a good thing. If this reduction
includes any implied excess of C02, then surely there's no harm done? In any
case, the implications given in the above article cannot be good news for man
or his environment.
Any reduction in damage to our enviuronment is welcome to me provided the
amount of damage that does is reasonable and in balance. Until we have a
concensus on the effects of man made climate change that balance is at serious
risk. Until we stop the "industry" that is based on man made climate change we
cannot have balance. As long as politicians see this as a source of votes we
cannot have balance. And please don't say that I cannot change any of that, I
am permitted to try. If I see what I believe to be reasoned departure from the
current hyperbole i will tell people about it. Be assured that this tiny
newsgroup is an insignificant part of the audience that I and others address.
There is a serious risk of going too far. None of the dire predictions of the
past 30 years have eventuated, none.
Post by James Christophers
The other point so often made is that CO2 today represents only 0.04% of the
atmosphere's total makeup. But there is one question I've yet to see
How critical to man and his environment is the unvarying stability of this
(putatively) insignificant level of 0.04%, and what would happen if it were to
vary by even the tiniest fraction of its already small fraction of a percentage
point? Even if no one really knows, not knowing is not sufficient reason
simply to dismiss it.
Not knowing is also no reason to simply believe it. All I ask is for a balanced
scientific debate without the paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense and the "Let's make
a buck out of this" industry.
The Waikanaewatch articles are hardly scientific debate, but they are
reasonably polite; to call them "paranoid Henny-Penny nonsense" is
going a bit far Tony - do try to be nice.
You are lying again. You know that I was referring to you and your ilk.
John Bowes
2021-04-21 03:54:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
It's an interesting series and imo shows honesty about climate change having been around since the planet developed an atmosphere.
Had an interesting thought this morning (no need to laugh Keith :) ) about the creation of hydrogen as a fuel. My bet is water will be what they start with and how long before the current climate brigade start worrying about the increase in oxygen in the atmosphere. People may need oxygen as they need CO2 (it triggers the breathing reflex) but if we raise oxygen levels to much the fires they've been blaming on climate change could be like comparing a single match flame to bonfire at Guy Fawkes.......
Gordon
2021-04-21 07:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
It's an interesting series and imo shows honesty about climate change having been around since the planet developed an atmosphere.
Had an interesting thought this morning (no need to laugh Keith :) ) about the creation of hydrogen as a fuel.
My bet is water will be what they start with and how long before the current climate brigade start worrying about the increase in
oxygen in the atmosphere. People may need oxygen as they need CO2 (it triggers the breathing reflex) but if we raise oxygen levels
to much the fires they've been blaming on climate change could be like comparing a single match flame to bonfire at Guy Fawkes.......
H2O to H2 and O2 -ve heat. Then H2 plus O2 to H2O + heat All balanced.
Works with C and O2 as well.
George Black
2021-04-21 19:51:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
It's an interesting series and imo shows honesty about climate change having been around since the planet developed an atmosphere.
Had an interesting thought this morning (no need to laugh Keith :) ) about the creation of hydrogen as a fuel. My bet is water will be what they start with and how long before the current climate brigade start worrying about the increase in oxygen in the atmosphere. People may need oxygen as they need CO2 (it triggers the breathing reflex) but if we raise oxygen levels to much the fires they've been blaming on climate change could be like comparing a single match flame to bonfire at Guy Fawkes.......
:)
Long before that happens we'll be back to coal mining and coal gas
production
John Bowes
2021-04-21 20:10:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/04/21/common-sense-about-climate-change/
A little gem of a blog, glad I found it. They publish stuff the MSM are too
afraid to publish, in this country at least.
It's an interesting series and imo shows honesty about climate change having been around since the planet developed an atmosphere.
Had an interesting thought this morning (no need to laugh Keith :) ) about the creation of hydrogen as a fuel. My bet is water will be what they start with and how long before the current climate brigade start worrying about the increase in oxygen in the atmosphere. People may need oxygen as they need CO2 (it triggers the breathing reflex) but if we raise oxygen levels to much the fires they've been blaming on climate change could be like comparing a single match flame to bonfire at Guy Fawkes.......
:)
Long before that happens we'll be back to coal mining and coal gas
production
Or even better NUCLEAR! That'll make Richie's widdle Green toes curl :)
Loading...