http://dilbert.com/

On Sun, 14 May 2017 08:02:39 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

http://dilbert.com/

Funny conspiracy theory satire.

On 05/14/2017 7:02 AM, Frank wrote:
http://dilbert.com/

There's much in the area to remind one of Mark Twain's observation in
"Life on the Mississippi"

"The Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and
fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago...Its length is
only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present.
Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and
€œlet on€� to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had
occurred in a given time in the recent past...what an opportunity is
here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from!

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi
has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average
of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm
person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic
Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower
Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand
miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.
And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and
forty-two years from now the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and
three-quarters long. There is something fascinating about science. One
gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling
investment of fact."

--

MAN-MADE climate warming/change is junk science used by big-government
tax and spend politicians and special interest groups to justify
massive new taxes and government control (e.g. gas cans, light bulbs
and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data assumptions
used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models are
egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air
interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling,
sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of
methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane
overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of
computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 8:11:02 AM UTC-5, CRNG wrote:
MAN-MADE climate warming/change is junk science used by big-government
tax and spend politicians and special interest groups to justify
massive new taxes and government control (e.g. gas cans, light bulbs
and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data assumptions
used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models are
egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air
interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling,
sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of
methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane
overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of
computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".
--


CO2 is plant food. Like any other living thing in nature, the greater the food supply, the more numerous the living things that feed off a particular food supply. Plants feed off CO2 then release oxygen. It stands to reason that the tree huggers would be happy about industry feeding the trees.snickerヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

CO2 is plant food. Like any other living thing in nature, the greater the food supply, the more numerous the living things that feed off a particular food supply. Plants feed off CO2 then release oxygen. It stands to reason that the tree huggers would be happy about industry feeding the trees.snickerヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

+1

people worried about climate change should be planting more trees instead of starting new taxes

m

On Mon, 15 May 2017 08:10:53 -0500, CRNG
wrote:

MAN-MADE climate warming/change is junk science used by big-government
tax and spend politicians and special interest groups to justify
massive new taxes and government control (e.g. gas cans, light bulbs
and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data assumptions
used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models are
egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air
interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling,
sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of
methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane
overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of
computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".

The above is a plagiarized propaganda talking point, developed by
Exxon / Mobil and published in hundreds if not thousands of web site
comment sections in an attempt discredit the legitimate and well
researched findings of world wide climatologists.

Below are two examples. This piece is found on sites ranging from
comic websites to private blogs to Fox News and Yahoo.

If you are incapable of expressing at least some original thought or
hiding the fact you have plagiarized other people's propaganda, maybe
you should not be playing the game:

Examples:

http://imgur.com/a/C2Efr

On Mon, 15 May 2017 08:10:53 -0500, CRNG
wrote:

MAN-MADE climate warming/change is junk science used by big-government
tax and spend politicians and special interest groups to justify
massive new taxes and government control (e.g. gas cans, light bulbs
and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data assumptions
used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models are
egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air
interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling,
sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of
methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane
overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of
computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".

The above is a plagiarized propaganda talking point, developed by
Exxon / Mobil and published in hundreds if not thousands of web site
comment sections in an attempt discredit the legitimate and well
researched findings of world wide climatologists.

Below are two examples. This piece is found on sites ranging from
comic websites to private blogs to Fox News and Yahoo.

If you are incapable of expressing at least some original thought or
hiding the fact you have plagiarized other people's propaganda, maybe
you should not be playing the game:

Examples:

http://imgur.com/a/C2Efr

On Mon, 15 May 2017 06:50:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:




CO2 is plant food. Like any other living thing in nature, the greater the food supply, the more numerous the living things that feed off a particular food supply. Plants feed off CO2 then release oxygen. It stands to reason that the tree huggers would be happy about industry feeding the trees.snicker?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

+1

people worried about climate change should be planting more trees instead of starting new taxes

m

You might want to read this article from UCSB:

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=826

Conclusion:

"When the tree dies, it rots as decomposers, like bacteria, fungi,and
insects eat away at it. Those decomposers gradually release almost all
of the tree's stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. Only a
very small portion of the carbon in the tree ends up staying in the
soil or washing out to sea without changing back into CO2. "

Trees are great, but they are not going to solve the problem of
artificial CO2 emissions.

On Mon, 15 May 2017 06:50:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:




CO2 is plant food. Like any other living thing in nature, the greater the food supply, the more numerous the living things that feed off a particular food supply. Plants feed off CO2 then release oxygen. It stands to reason that the tree huggers would be happy about industry feeding the trees.snicker?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

+1

people worried about climate change should be planting more trees instead of starting new taxes

m

Turf grasses are far better CO2 sinks than trees. We grow plenty of
grass but we limit it's CO2 sinking potential by mowing it down.
The fact remains that CO2 levels have tracked population growth for
8000 years and is tied to agriculture as much as industrialization.
We removed permanent vegetation (turf land and forest) and replaced
them with crops that do not help much with the CO2 to O2 cycle.
That is because, just about the time a crop has reached it's peak CO2
eating potential, we cut it down, take the parts we want and plow the
rest under or just let it rot in the field, further increasing the CO2
level. (Chemically rotting is similar to burning).
If you really want to return to 19th century CO2 levels, scrub about 5
billion off the world population.

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 06:50:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

CO2 is plant food. Like any other living thing in nature, the greater the food supply, the more numerous the living things that feed off a particular food supply. Plants feed off CO2 then release oxygen. It stands to reason that the tree huggers would be happy about industry feeding the trees.snicker?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

+1

people worried about climate change should be planting more trees instead of starting new taxes

m

Turf grasses are far better CO2 sinks than trees. We grow plenty of
grass but we limit it's CO2 sinking potential by mowing it down.
The fact remains that CO2 levels have tracked population growth for
8000 years and is tied to agriculture as much as industrialization.
We removed permanent vegetation (turf land and forest) and replaced
them with crops that do not help much with the CO2 to O2 cycle.
That is because, just about the time a crop has reached it's peak CO2
eating potential, we cut it down, take the parts we want and plow the
rest under or just let it rot in the field, further increasing the CO2
level. (Chemically rotting is similar to burning).
If you really want to return to 19th century CO2 levels, scrub about 5
billion off the world population.


If you have some time, listen to what a REAL expert has to say about the Climate Change/Global Warming Hoax. Then there is the Climate Depot to bring some sanity to the manufactured Climate Hysteria. ヽ(^o^)ノ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

http://www.climatedepot.com/

[8~{} Uncle Warm Monster

On 05/15/2017 07:50 AM, wrote:
people worried about climate change should be planting more trees instead of starting new taxes

'Plant a tree, bush, or shrub.' LBJ

(That would be Lady Bird Johnson. The only thing Lyndon did with a tree
was to **** on it.)

I wasn't fond of LBJ but the least he could have done was keep Bush and
Shrub in Texas.

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:02:46 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
http://dilbert.com/

Suddenly a cartoonist is a climatologist?

It's like listening to an actor endorse a political candidate.
Garbage in, garbage out.

Cindy Hamilton

On 05/16/2017 6:06 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:02:46 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
http://dilbert.com/

Suddenly a cartoonist is a climatologist?
....

Satire not come to mind???

--

On 5/16/2017 7:06 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:02:46 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
http://dilbert.com/

Suddenly a cartoonist is a climatologist?

It's like listening to an actor endorse a political candidate.
Garbage in, garbage out.

Cindy Hamilton


Al Gore is not a climatologist. Does anyone believe him?

Dilbert satirizes the work-place. I was an industrial scientist and can
tell you that this kind of stuff goes on.

On 05/16/2017 05:06 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:02:46 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
http://dilbert.com/

Suddenly a cartoonist is a climatologist?

It's like listening to an actor endorse a political candidate.
Garbage in, garbage out.

Given a washed up ex-Vice President as the alternative, I'd go with
Scott Adams.

people worried about climate change should be planting more trees instead of starting new taxes

m

You might want to read this article from UCSB:

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=826

Conclusion:

"When the tree dies, it rots as decomposers, like bacteria, fungi,and
insects eat away at it. Those decomposers gradually release almost all
of the tree's stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. Only a
very small portion of the carbon in the tree ends up staying in the
soil or washing out to sea without changing back into CO2. "

Trees are great, but they are not going to solve the problem of
artificial CO2 emissions.

no CO2 sink is permanent

CO2 goes around in a cycle just like the H2O cycle


if you plant more trees, more CO2 will be tied up in the trees while they are growing. you replace the trees as they die or are cut down.
point is we should be increasing the area of foliage rather than reducing it

planting trees is a non controversial step we can all agree on and act on, compared to endless arguing about taxes.