Total Pageviews

Monday, September 14, 2020

How to challenge climate alartmists with simple questions they can't answer !

Let's say the climate alarmists claim we must stabilize greenhouse gas levels in the earth’s atmosphere.  Because, otherwise, we have no chance of limiting the global average temperature rise to +1.5 degrees C., which has to be done to prevent a climate catastrophe.

You can just ask them;

"Who said that?"

It's seems like an easy question, but will fluster most climate alarmists, because they are not very smart. You'll get meaningless answers, such as "Scientists say ... " ... or fake survey answers, such as "97 percent of scientists agree ...".  Sometimes you get what seems like the right answer: "That's what the UN's IIPCC says." (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

WRONG !


The IPCC does not even suggest that more than +1.5 C. degrees of warming, with one degree already history, on their books, will cause a climate crisis. The Paris Accord target is still +2.0 C. degrees, a completely arbitrary target based on no science at all, that has probably been reached if you start the count in the cold, late 1600s ... roughly +2 degrees of warming since then with no harm to anyone!


Other questions,
where the correct
answer would refute
the irrational fear
of carbon dioxide,
or CO2:



— How much
global warming
do humans cause,
and how can that
be measured?


    Answer:
No one knows!
People will assert
many fake answers,
with high confidence,
and no scientific proof.



-- What are the plant
fertilization benefits of
more CO2 in the air?


    Answer:
 Thousands of studies, and
experiences of greenhouse
owners all over the world,
almost universally say
higher CO2 levels increase
plant growth, while
reducing their water
requirements too



— Why does
the predicted
climate model
global warming
exceed actual
global warming
by 200 percent,
on average?


    Answer:
Because climate
predictions are
mainly intended to
scare people, and
it's obvious that
being correct
is not important.



— Should one billion
people without
any electricity,
who can't afford
the expensive
“renewables”,
be denied access
to cheap coal?​


    Answer:
Only if you hate
people living
in poverty,
and want them
to continue burning
highly polluting,
(especially indoors)
wood and animal dung !