This may become a regular feature:
And the response:
There’s an old saying which goes something like “Never start an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel”.
How much more appropriate a warning against starting an argument with a man who controls the largest electronic media outlet in the world.
Over at American Thinker, Guy Mitchell concludes that the whole CO2 scare is a load of old bollocks. Details here, but a succinct summary says, starting with the premise:
The basic premise in the man-made global warming hypothesis is that CO2 molecules in the lower troposphere, emitted by the burning of fossil fuels on Earth, absorb the LWIR photons emitted as the Earth cools. The CO2 molecules “trap” the heat energy in the photon, which causes the troposphere to warm. Then the CO2 molecule reradiates an LWIR photon of the same wavelength it absorbed back to the Earth’s surface, which warms the Earth’s surface. The more CO2 molecules that are emitted into the troposphere by burning fossil fuels, the more heat is trapped and reradiated back to the Earth’s surface, increasing atmospheric and surface warming in a never-ending cycle.
Conclusion (after a whole bunch of actual, you know, data and science and stuff, emphasis added):
Scientific analysis using publicly available data demonstrates that an LWIR photon emitted by a CO2 molecule in the Earth’s lower troposphere does not penetrate the oceans’ surface to a depth greater than 100 μm, thereby having no effect on the ocean’s temperature. The ARGO Float Program temperature measurements of the world’s oceans confirm those scientific analyses.
And:
Therefore, if the first principles of science and observational data on the ocean’s temperature indicates that CO2 emissions cannot heat the world’s oceans, why does the U.N. IPCC continue to promote the global warming hypothesis? The legal definition of fraud is intent to deceive.
Yeah, we all knew that.
Sometimes, I just wanna shoot people. Here’s one reason:
The world’s wealthiest 1% account for more than twice the carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, a new UN report has found.
And what, exactly, are we supposed to do with that information?
FFS: The world’s wealthiest 1% also account for about 75% of new job creation, about 99% of the world’s yachtbuilding industry, all the top end car / watch / jewelry / etc. business. They drive cars, fly around the world (on business, mainly — business which helps sustain the poor and gives them jobs), and as a result of their industry, the world is a far better place than it was in the Middle Ages, for instance.
I know: the hidden meaning behind this “study” is that we should take away their wealth so they can’t emit carbon or whatever.
I would also like to point out that the poorest 50% of the world’s population account for about 90% of all terrestrial and maritime pollution (i.e. garbage) and if you don’t believe me, take a trip anywhere in the Third World: look at the garbage carried out to sea at the river mouths of the Ganges, Congo, Yangtze and Amazon — to name but some — and drive for any distance outside the major cities to see how the Pore & Starvin just fucking trash the place.
The sooner we defund or otherwise destroy the United Nations, the better off we’ll all be. Ask me which is my preference.
