ADVERTISEMENT

Earth is on its way to the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, scientists warn

I'm working right along side Trad's rikshaw plant. Just down the street from Trump's Coal and Steam Conglomerate. Billionaire Row baby!!

NEW DELHI: Japanese electric vehicle maker Terra Motors Corporation plans to sell 30,000 e-rickshaws in the Indian market by year-end on the back of enhanced sales network and new product launches.

The company today expanded its electric-rickshaw range in the country by launching 'Y4Alfa' priced at Rs 1.2 lakh (ex-showroom Delhi) and plans to invest around $5 million to expand its production capacity and hiring more employees.

"India is the second largest producer of three-wheelers in the world. Hence, India is an important market for us. We plan to sell 30,000 units of e-rickshaws and 20,000 sets of Terra batteries by the end of this year," Terra Motors Country Director Teppei Seki told reporters here.


The company aims to enhance its dealers network from 13 to around 100 outlets during the year, he added.

Terra Motors has a manufacturing facility for e-rickshaws in Gurgaon with an installed capacity of 2,000 units per month. It sells one e-rickshaw model in the country.

"We are now looking to expand the production capacity of this plant. We plan to take it to 3,000 units a month by end of September. We are also looking for another plant," Seki said.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...in-india-by-year-end/articleshow/51040132.cms
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ScoutRefugee
“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened.”

That's kind of...dumb. There's absolutely NO reason to think that would be the case. It would depend entirely on the factors that were being corrected for and how those factors affected the record. I'm not even sure why they would think this assuming they're being forthright.
 
I've spent tens of thousands of dollars to mitigate my footprint. I've bought cars that - at a minimum - get 30+mpg. I've replaced the windows in my home as well as putting in a new 20 SEER HVAC system. I eat far less meat than previously and red meat rarely. Now...all of those have benefits for me in the long run as well as reducing my carbon footprint but they'll have absolutely NO impact on the global issue. See...that's ANOTHER denier talking point that has no meaning at all.

Congrats

Here's another - we'll find some unknown technological fix for the problem so why do anything now. If you're in a burning house are you going to attempt everything currently feasible to extinguish the fire or are you going to wait for some undiscovered tech to do it instantly?

I leave the house when my fire protection sprinklers come on. Fires used to be a much bigger problem before updated technology like fire extinguishers.

Here's another - "why don't you quit breathing if you think it's such a problem?" The carbon that we breathe out came from plants that only recently took it in from the air...it's a cycle....a carbon cycle. It's science. See - we're returning TO the air the carbon that was only very recently removed FROM the air.

If I am not mistaken; clear cutting the rain forest is having a significant impact on plants ability to remove carbon from the air.

You might not be a denier - I have no idea - but you've internalized their talking points magnificently. Try reading some real science on the issue.

Why do I need to do that when you will tell me everything I need to know from an unbiased perspective.
 
Why do I need to do that when you will tell me everything I need to know from an unbiased perspective.

*sigh* I think you're cementing your status as a denier. You spout immaterial or false denier talking points glibly then get your panties in a knot when your errors are pointed out.

Here's another error:

If I am not mistaken; clear cutting the rain forest is having a significant impact on plants ability to remove carbon from the air.


So what.That doesn't in any way change the fact that the CO2 we breathe out was only recently removed from the air by plants. In other words, it's carbon neutral. Our CO2 does nothing to raise global CO2 levels.

Refusing to look at the research yourself pretty much seals it. You protest too much. Prove me wrong.
 
This is why no one wants to listen to an alarmist...

Im confused. There's a group that has "proof" that the Earth is flat. They have YouTube videos! Why are you denying them a platform to present it? That's a serious question...I'd like to see your reasoning.
 
So it's fake thinking to think that these people could possibly be skewing these studies in order to perpetuate the lie that allows them to steal from the taxpayers? That's a little too naive for me.
LOL, you think movie stars control scientific studies. You are good for the ego.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScoutRefugee
If you insult the people who aren't convinced, you're not likely to convince them.
Not so, insults are the best way to convince them. They have heard all the reasonable points for years and they discount them. So hold them down and piss in their ear. They will hear that. Insults are effective and necessary.
 
The analogy would be YOU believing them,.....

Not You,...NOT believing them,...

LOL...whut? This has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe. This is an issue of scientific dispute...spheroidal Earth versus flat Earth. Would you support a red team/blue team govt sponsored debate to address the controversy? Why or why not? Try to respond to the question if you don't mind.
 
LOL...whut? This has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe. This is an issue of scientific dispute...spheroidal Earth versus flat Earth. Would you support a red team/blue team govt sponsored debate to address the controversy? Why or why not? Try to respond to the question if you don't mind.


Show me how believing the Earth is Flat, is a form of wealth redistribution,... then you might have a point....
 
Not so, insults are the best way to convince them. They have heard all the reasonable points for years and they discount them. So hold them down and piss in their ear. They will hear that. Insults are effective and necessary.
And, look at how many you've converted that way... 0!
 
I understand that it is not a planned or specific event...may comment was saying that there is a likely hood that a 6th mass extinction event would happen regardless of CO2 levels or any human involvement at all....reduced the world population to 2.5-3 billion would be a great start to reverse the trend but a mega volcano eruption tomorrow could also cause the 6th mass extinction....

Nope.

Only in Hollywood
 
I am sure someone will respond by trying to kill the messenger...

Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data




Cartoon by Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com

Guest essay by Michael Bastasch

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”

The new study will be included in petitions by conservative groups to the EPA to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which gave the agency its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Sam Kazman, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said the study added an “important new piece of evidence to this debate” over whether to reopen the endangerment finding. CEI petitioned EPA to reopen the endangerment finding in February.

“I think this adds a very strong new element to it,” Kazman told TheDCNF. “It’s enough reason to open things formally and open public comment on the charges we make.”

Since President Donald Trump ordered EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan, there’s been speculation the administration would reopen the endangerment finding to new scrutiny.

The Obama-era document used three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

D’Aleo and Wallace filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC). They relied on past their past research, which found one of EPA’s lines of evidence “simply does not exist in the real world.”

Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”

“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered”.

Pruitt’s largely been silent on whether or not he would reopen the endangerment finding, but the administrator did say he was spearheading a red team exercise to tackle climate science.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry also came out in favor of red-blue team exercises, which are used by the military and intelligence agencies to expose any vulnerabilities to systems or strategies.

Environmental activists and climate scientists largely panned the idea, with some even arguing it would be “dangerous” to elevate minority scientific opinions.

“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.

“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

“Frankly, I think you could do a red-blue team exercise as part of reviewing the endangerment finding,” Kazman said.

Though Kazman did warn a red team exercise could be a double-edged sword if not done correctly. He worries some scientists not supportive of the idea could undermine the process from the inside and use it to grandstand.

Full Story
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07...ll-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/

We already debunked this one. Like a week ago.
 
Man is part of nature - knowing the reasons for the previous mass extinction events would be pretty difficult don't you think considering they range from 66 million years ago to 443 million years ago. Once again my point stays the same, if someone wrote a paper telling me that because I drive a car that I am going to die one day, I would probably state that it is enviable - I am pretty confident there will be a 6th mass extinction which was my comment. Once again the world is overpopulated which is a major driver of the earth warming; man has also found ways in the past to overcome many problems, foolish to think that this can not be overcome either in a way that no scientist knows about now. I would like to know what you have done to mitigate the problem instead of calling deniers idiots. We are releasing too much CO2 into the air and would like you to stop breathing in order to help reduce that.
And there we have it. I was cutting you some slack, since you acknowledged that you didn't express yourself well. But now you have (presumably) said what you intended to say. So now it's clear you are an idiot.
 
The thing about the next great extinction is that for the first time in the history of the planet, its inhabitants might have a slim chance to stop it.



"My name is Ozymandias! King of kings. Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!"
 
I don't believe tornado sirens most of the time but I still go inside because the science is pretty clear it is a real possibility. Why would you completely disregard the science on this just because it's not 100% accurate 100% of the time?
Not merely disregard but aggressively publish bullshit.

I feel sorry for those who disregard. But those who aggressively lie and distort and deflect are dangerous. Their actions are harmful.
 
ROFL,.... Show me something, not paid for by any government,... then I'll have more of an incline to believe you....
Implicit in this stupid comment is the popular conservative notion that the government can't do anything good.

The evidence to the contrary - especially notable in the scientific, technical and educational arenas - is overwhelming.
 
Show me how believing the Earth is Flat, is a form of wealth redistribution,... then you might have a point....

The only point here is on your head. Nobody is proposing a debate on "wealth redistribution" - which btw, can go either way...a fact you guys never seem to acknowledge. They ARE proposing a debate on the scientific basis for AGW and climate change. Whether you think that will lead to "wealth redistribution" is immaterial to the debate. So...again...do you or do you not support a scientific debate on the shape of the Earth. Explain your reasoning. Quit dodging.
 
LOL, you think movie stars control scientific studies. You are good for the ego.

lolwutih6.jpg
 

Got some bad news, Gucky.


“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

No reason that it would have to be so depending on what they were adjusting for but...

DEKKbNFW0AAPXLP.jpg:small


...that's a histogram showing the distributions above and below zero. Notice that they are almost evenly divided. Your boys...well...they lied.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

Oops. Another misdirection. Let's say they're right and we should just toss the adjustments (which, oddly, they claim in their "paper" are actually warranted). The adjustments go further back than the 1940's - which makes it strange that they would cut off their "analysis" at that point. Not really.

F2.large.jpg



Take a look at that lower figure. Note that prior to the 1940's the corrections resulted in the temp being increased significantly. So...if we toss the corrections it makes the 20th century temperature anomaly...well...even WORSE.

So Gucky...do we go with the corrections or don't we?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
*sigh* I think you're cementing your status as a denier. You spout immaterial or false denier talking points glibly then get your panties in a knot when your errors are pointed out.

Here's another error:

If I am not mistaken; clear cutting the rain forest is having a significant impact on plants ability to remove carbon from the air.


So what.That doesn't in any way change the fact that the CO2 we breathe out was only recently removed from the air by plants. In other words, it's carbon neutral. Our CO2 does nothing to raise global CO2 levels.

Refusing to look at the research yourself pretty much seals it. You protest too much. Prove me wrong.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rney-pleads-guilty-to-11-counts-of-mail-fraud

Actually I was just being a dick .... I honestly don't care either way - i choose to not live a life of worry - it would kill me faster than anything else
 
Nobody is going to change their minds on here. Even those who did privately would never likely admit it. Trad will be standing knee deep in water still posting that "the beach is the same place it was last year".
A friend of mine sent me a link to a gigantic chunk of ice, the size of Lake Erie, that broke off in Antarctica. Of course, he's preaching to the choir with me.

In my view, let's say the consequences are vastly exaggerated... big deal. It just makes practical sense to me to be proactive about cleaning up the messes we make and having a cleaner environment, in general. Recycle, push for renewable energy, innovate in that direction, do whatever you can to cause less of a disruption.

My biggest gripe with people who resist this is that they're 1) lazy and 2) only resisting and ridiculing it for completely political partisan reasons. I understand skeptics who are suspicious of government using the threat of the outcomes to scare people into paying them money to "protect us." I understand it to a point. I've always been disappointed in how the whole thing has become so politicized that it will always be a political chip and will never get the favor it needs because of the way these two parties took sides on it.

But, I'm personally very active in-person, locally, to contribute to alleviating the harmful effects of what I know we create. I don't need a forecast of what might happen to know I want to lessen the waste we create and lower the usage of fossil fuels.
 
Got some bad news, Gucky.


“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

No reason that it would have to be so depending on what they were adjusting for but...

DEKKbNFW0AAPXLP.jpg:small


...that's a histogram showing the distributions above and below zero. Notice that they are almost evenly divided. Your boys...well...they lied.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

Oops. Another misdirection. Let's say they're right and we should just toss the adjustments (which, oddly, they claim in their "paper" are actually warranted). The adjustments go further back than the 1940's - which makes it strange that they would cut off their "analysis" at that point. Not really.

F2.large.jpg



Take a look at that lower figure. Note that prior to the 1940's the corrections resulted in the temp being increased significantly. So...if we toss the corrections it makes the 20th century temperature anomaly...well...even WORSE.

So Gucky...do we go with the corrections or don't we?


Just wait, Guck has a Breitbart article or something for you. Perhaps even something from Anthony Watts.
 
So, did these researchers account for the expanding habitats of invasive species thanks to man? Fire ants were imported from South America. The bug that causes citrus greening was imported from Asia. The Lion Fish is an Asian fish that is now thriving in Florida waters because they have no natural predators here. I could go on and on....

That's migration, not origination of species.

Here's hoping Malthus was correct in regards to humanity. The rest of the animals have their fingers, paws and claws crossed too.
 
lol if you came here because you were tired of getting your ass handed to you on a regular basis I have bad news - this place is the thunder dome and you have arrive unarmed.
Your Opinion is just as worthless as it was before,....I see nothing has changed,.... You must get yours handed to you on a daily basis then....

You know when you get attacked, and you have not even spoken to the person, (who's attacking) ...Yet,.... You have already gotten the best of that one,.... Posters who are no challenge, do not get addressed like that....only ones who have OWNED you in the past, ...do.....so thanks.... I'll admit, you were no challenge before....and I doubt you have gotten any smarter.....so.... I do not see a problem,... but you can keep trying if you like and I'll keep knocking them out of the park,.....
 
Last edited:
The only point here is on your head. Nobody is proposing a debate on "wealth redistribution" - which btw, can go either way...a fact you guys never seem to acknowledge. They ARE proposing a debate on the scientific basis for AGW and climate change. Whether you think that will lead to "wealth redistribution" is immaterial to the debate. So...again...do you or do you not support a scientific debate on the shape of the Earth. Explain your reasoning. Quit dodging.


When you decide to compare apples to apples.....instead of apples to toilet plungers.....let me know.... till then I'll assume you have a learning disorder...
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT