Climate Change's Silver Bullet

Yeah, I read that one. This is what I think will happen. IMO. They will have success initially (or the illusion of success) which will drive investment. Then the enormous cost will shut it down abrubtly, and we will experience a cliff-fall climate change.

Better get those shade nitrogen fixing trees and your water harvesting systems in and growing asap. My choices are locusts for shade.

 

Trees, trees, glorious tree, nothing quite like it for absorbing the.......hmmm damn it!! it doesnt rhyme.

 

Makes one wonder are some people trying to hoodwink us?
https://news.sky.com/story/1144134/climate-change-scientists-told-to-fudge-report

 

Typical Murdoch trash talk. Why label the story so provocatively?

 

I don't think reporting that people have lied to us is trash.

 

I can't call Murdoch trash. Trash has value in compost terms. Compost is valuable and sequesters carbon & locks up heavy metals. Murdoch is more like... ..the current NASA Deep Impact probe.

 

This is the ABC:
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/warming-lull-haunts-authors-key-climate-report-20304096

 

Yeah, the American Broadcasting Company, owned by none other than the Walt Disney Company. Perfect for fairy tales, but hardly the place for the dissemination of valid information re: human-induced climate change. But, as they say in Disneyland, dream on...

 

Here is another one:
https://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-09-19/warming-lull-haunts-authors-of-key-climate-report

 

Lied about what? The IPCC report, by all accounts, has presented data that indicates a reduction in the rate of warming for the last 15 years and puts forward their considered thoughts on why this has occurred. Now others with vested interests and little understanding or wilful ignorance want to posture about all sorts of nonsense. How these scientists (one of whom I have been privileged to be taught by) who author the report don't jump off the nearest cliff has got me stonkered. Because the exasperation at the level of stupidity in discussion of the issue, the mission of deliberate misinformation put about and the inaction on global warming I would find overwhelming. Imagine trying to present to humanity the data and findings of an eminent group of scientists from all over the world to inform wise and visionary policy decisions which will shape the human experience on earth in the future.......and look what they get..........F**K ALL! Just a load of crap from all the movers and shakers and most of the media. And a populace who largely shrug and reach for the remote...

 

with you mischief,

trees and even more trees, not high low benefit windmills or solar farms.

what is needed is for the science to look in the mirror and supply cold oops sorry hot hard facts, that trees are the missing equation, and removing CO2 will kill more vegetation and do little else of benefit.

anyhow our new label is astro turfer's we have to be mindless zombies.

len

 

Do you have any peer reviewed science to back up your Zero harm from excess CO2 or are you just mindlessly stating rubbish from an astro turfing source ?

 

We need a range of options appropriate to each region/area/home. It's never wise to really on one strategy or a silver bullet.

We need to stop cutting down trees and digging up the Earth. We need to replant trees and work on new and sustainable energy sources, we need to reduce pollution and clean up our agricultural practices.

We need a government that supports a good healthy environment and strong healthy people. We don't have that right now so it is up to us as The People to do what we can, to make some noise and not accept sloppy, economy-centric, pro-mining governance.

 

Lets not go down this track again. Please.

Len has repeatedly given us his firmly held views and has proven very staunch in holding onto them. When evidence is supplied and acts only to encourage the troops to dig in deeper, getting personal will do nothing. Whilst Len seems to hold no truck with Science, I agree it is more than worthwhile providing any scientific information we have in order to counter his views, so that other readers will get a balanced verifiable view rather than just firm opinion. I know its just the internet, but I think it would be really nice if we could set an example in here.

It would also be nice Len (I know your not the only one) if you could refrain from posting wild and unsubstantiated claims, it can be very frustrating for people and disruptive to a thread/discussion.

I understand that these are very passionate and emotive things we are discussing, so people can get worked up. There is a lot at stake here! Perhaps we could all keep our answers considered, calm and courteous, by thinking 'will this unnecessarily ignite the situation' before hitting the post button. Check if there is any real benefit to responding the way you do. By all means debunk someones 'theory' but try to keep the anger and frustration out of it.

I'll try to do better myself.

Grasshopper, A final word of wisdom from Vizzini "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"

 

grahame,

i answer a post and you target me might be time you got it right hey? mischief said we need more trees and i agreed, so my answer was not a claim.

len

 

...

 

The truth will set you free my friend, but first it will piss you off.

 

oh well for what it is worth, and be viewed worthless driven by the lust of fact-less theory, trees need carbon to live that has been the case always. the silver bullet is monogrammed with factlessness and fabrication supporting a baseless theory. how they get rid of the worthless tax i don't know it is there and driven by world powers, but anyway getting rid of a pipe dream maybe is a pipe dream.

len

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm