What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How unscientific are the Biden's administration "green energy" policies!

BlindBoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
41,345
Reaction score
8,367
Points
2,030
OH... so in 1900 when over 6,000 people died in a Hurricane (again remember this was before Global warming folks)
there were few hurricanes evidently. Wow... what a correlation Mr. Sun Worshipper!
Galveston was a flat island just a few feet above sea level in 1900. After that storm they not only built the Sea Wall but they also raise the entire livable portion of the island several feet.


However to the point, there is no study that can prove the small amount of warming attributed to mans burning of fuel has increase the strength or frequency of Atlantic or Gulf based storms. That's not to say it hasn't, just that no one has been able to measure it.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,510
Points
280
Galveston was a flat island just a few feet above sea level in 1900. After that storm they not only built the Sea Wall but they also raise the entire livable portion of the island several feet.


However to the point, there is no study that can prove the small amount of warming attributed to mans burning of fuel has increase the strength or frequency of Atlantic or Gulf based storms. That's not to say it hasn't, just that no one has been able to measure it.
No question. Having lived in the Rio Grande valley I visited there and understand your points. But that doesn't alter the data that I provided that hurricane history hasn't been recently increasing as we don't know what hurricane strengths before the table I attached, i.e. 1851! It is just the simple fact there is MORE coverage today.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
42,884
Reaction score
6,755
Points
1,830
BUT NO LINKS! NO Proof! Really if you are a lot smarter why do you depend on your own biased, ignorant and obviously UNINFORMED subjective opinion! Give me someone with expertise as I have. Where is yours? Really! Readers can make the decisions which of us is supported by the facts....!
You have given no "expert" who said trees remove 40% more carbon than the world produces each year, because there is no such "expert" that STUPID.
Everyone but YOU knows that trees store in their leaves carbon in the form of SUGAR through photosynthesis combining H2O and CO2, and when the leaves fall to the ground bacteria in the soil break the energy bonds built by photosynthesis, and the sugars are converted back to simple carbon dioxide and water, making a mature forest carbon neutral.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
42,884
Reaction score
6,755
Points
1,830
For example... Keystone. Why would any person want 34 oil tankers a month each carrying 1 million barrels of oil on the open ocean when a dry land pipe carrying 700 barrels per mile would cause less environmental damage?
That STUPIDITY was debunked when you first posted it years ago, so you already know you are LYING. The Keystone oil was for EXPORT on oil tankers which was the whole point of refining it on the Gulf Coast. There is NO oceanic pipeline, you IDIOT!
 

BlindBoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
41,345
Reaction score
8,367
Points
2,030
No question. Having lived in the Rio Grande valley I visited there and understand your points. But that doesn't alter the data that I provided that hurricane history hasn't been recently increasing as we don't know what hurricane strengths before the table I attached, i.e. 1851! It is just the simple fact there is MORE coverage today.

I know it seem a bit un
natural but I'm agreeing with you.


  • Very Likely: > 90%,
  • Likely: > 66%
  • More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

Remember these odds when reading.


Therefore, we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, there is increasing evidence that the increase in tropical storm frequency in the Atlantic basin since the 1970s has been at least partly driven by decreases in aerosols from human activity and volcanic forcing. However, this does not imply that the increase will continue into the future, as a number of models project that greenhouse gas warming will lead to future decreases in Atlantic tropical storm frequency. Anthropogenic forcing may have already caused other changes in Atlantic hurricane activity that are not yet confidently detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or due to limitations in modeling and physical understanding (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate, uncertainties in simulation of Atlantic multidecadal variability).
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
71,503
Reaction score
17,228
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
I agree about flip flopping. But ignorance and hatred shouldn't be the rational for changing a policy.
The attached document shows the policies/statements made by Obama and re-supported by Biden that were "flipped" by Trump. Which ones were based on irrational, unscientific and most importantly had the greatest economic impact on Americans?
For example... Keystone. Why would any person want 34 oil tankers a month each carrying 1 million barrels of oil on the open ocean when a dry land pipe carrying 700 barrels per mile would cause less environmental damage?
Or why would anyone want to see 1,400 businesses employing 500,000 people that pay $100 BILLION a year in Federal/state and local property taxes go out of business? Or why would anyone want "skyrocketing" utilities or gas prices equal to Europe gas prices or the USA become Brazil's best oil customer? Do any of these attached sound like flip-flopping for the betterment of America?
View attachment 523464

1628526243795.png


Can't you use a source without this bad math?
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,510
Points
280
You dishonestly provided links to only half the story, just like a professional LIAR, tell just enough truth to deliberately mislead, and then shut up.

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog

A half-truth is a whole lie.
- Yiddish Proverb
So you are calling the Federal Government Depart of Ag.. liars?
"in one year a mature tree will absorb more than 48 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen in exchange."
They are liars?
And therefore these people are liars?
Globally, there are estimated to be 3.04 trillion trees. This is according to a study published in the journal Nature. This means that there are roughly 422 trees for every person on earth.
So does that mean this arithmetic is wrong?
3,040,000,000,000 trees each absorbing 48 lbs of C02 is hmmm... 72,960,000,000 tons of CO2.
Now...hmmm how much CO2 in the world...let's see what experts say: 26,030,591,200 tons.
So let's see when you subtract 45.2 billion tons from say half of 72.96 billion tons absorbed... wow that
leaves ok 72.9 billion tons minus 45 billion hmmm leaves 27.7 billion tons to be replaced by decaying leaves as you pointed out!
 
Last edited:

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
42,884
Reaction score
6,755
Points
1,830
So you are calling the Federal Government Depart of Ag.. liars?
"in one year a mature tree will absorb more than 48 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen in exchange."
They are liars?
And therefore these people are liars?
Globally, there are estimated to be 3.04 trillion trees. This is according to a study published in the journal Nature. This means that there are roughly 422 trees for every person on earth.
So does that mean this arithmetic is wrong?
3,040,000,000,000 trees each absorbing 48 lbs of C02 is hmmm... 72,960,000,000 tons of CO2.
Now...hmmm how much CO2 in the world...let's see what experts say: 26,030,591,200 tons.
So let's see when you subtract 26.03 billion tons from say half of 72.96 billion tons absorbed... wow that
leaves ok 36 billion tons minus 26 billion hmmm leaves 10 billion... hmm and that's after subtracting 24 lbs due
to decaying leaves, etc.... or as you said half!!!
No matter how many times you repeat that BULLSHIT it will always be BULLSHIT.
 

edthecynic

Censored for Cynicism
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
42,884
Reaction score
6,755
Points
1,830
So you are calling the Federal Government Depart of Ag.. liars?
"in one year a mature tree will absorb more than 48 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen in exchange."
They are liars?
And therefore these people are liars?
Globally, there are estimated to be 3.04 trillion trees. This is according to a study published in the journal Nature. This means that there are roughly 422 trees for every person on earth.
So does that mean this arithmetic is wrong?
3,040,000,000,000 trees each absorbing 48 lbs of C02 is hmmm... 72,960,000,000 tons of CO2.
Now...hmmm how much CO2 in the world...let's see what experts say: 26,030,591,200 tons.
So let's see when you subtract 45.2 billion tons from say half of 72.96 billion tons absorbed... wow that
leaves ok 72.9 billion tons minus 45 billion hmmm leaves 27.7 billion tons to be replaced by decaying leaves as you pointed out!
This is part of one of the fundamental cycles in nature called the carbon cycle.

Carbon is being rolled through the environment -- first as a gas free in the atmosphere, then captured by plants and used to build sugars and other materials. Plant leaves fall to the ground. There the leaves are broken down by bacteria and put back into the atmosphere.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top