Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

rSin · Post by **rSin** » Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:24 am

I dont think 'man made' climate change
Need be the battle cry
Albiet presented that way

Even if it wernt
The solution to the deliema
Would be nearly the same

I think we give the evil bitch
Room to opperate that
They dont deserve this way

Prawn Connery · Post by **Prawn Connery** » Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:16 am

Roots wrote:>>>so what makes you think that small scale use of the bacteria won't make it into the big picture?

Arn’t we talking about bacteria that are already abundant and thrive in nature..?

Yes, we are. Which is why I still don't know what the fuck Bob is trying to prove - or "disprove" as he claims.

So what if the bacteria end up back in nature? Without a massive food source (dying algal blooms cause by rising temperatures and nutrient run-off), they're not going to release CO2 on a massive scale.

See? There's that word again: "scale"

Prawn Connery · Post by **Prawn Connery** » Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:22 am

Butcher Bob wrote:But here is an instance where scientists are using a bacteria you claim causes massive CO2 release. And it's not a small scale plan...they are saying it will REVOLUTIONIZE how the WORLD treats it's waste water. So, who's wrong?...you, or those scientists?

Now I'm not making a judgement as to the answer, but I am saying it should be looked into further, because something is fuk'd up with the logic. If you are wrong, then it is group think spouting off bullshit...or if the scientists are wrong, then they are saying one thing, but doing another.

If you do not see the conundrum, then you are not being objective.

The only conundrum appears to be how you could possibly link isolated water treatment in a controlled environment to massive ecosystems that span the globe and make up 70% of its surface area.

When human beings can drink the world's oceans dry, then we'll talk about "conundrums" m'kay?

Butcher Bob · Post by **Butcher Bob** » Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:01 am

Intrinsic wrote:I am simply parroting what global warming activists say,
No, yer parroting the denyest.

Riiight....I'm pretty certain the denialists don't claim the 97%.

Every time I have seen the media, activists, or supporters talk aboot global warming, they use the phrases "of scientists", "of all scientists", or "of the scientific community". What I have never seen until now is the reference to "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW". So, as I suggested, perhaps you should educate the media, activists, and supporters to qualify their statements to be accurate.

Intrinsic wrote:Specifically Yer using it wrong when you say most of those 97% published papers the authors of them promote nuclear energy as a solution to GW. Where does that come from?

First off, that is not what I'm saying...I never referenced any authors of published papers.
What I am referring to is the assertion by global warming folks that nuclear power is a better, safer alternative to burning coal, oil, etc. Which I contend is false, until they have come up with a safe way to dispose of spent material...which in the 60+ years of use, they have not.
The problem I see is not looking before we leap...jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Butcher Bob · Post by **Butcher Bob** » Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:17 am

Roots wrote:Arn’t we talking about bacteria that are already abundant and thrive in nature..?

Post some links to the harm of bacteria treated waste water and I’ll read them....but for now I’ll just claim ignorance....If your claim is just bacteria from treated water will increase Co2 I’ll do the research myself.

Yes, we are.

I'm not making that claim...I am pointing to the fact that scientists do not see a CO2 problem with the bacteria. So, I guess we should ask Prawn to substantiate his claim...

"...the anaerobic bacteria that break algae down when they die, releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the water."
"...going to release CO2 on a massive scale."

...because the scientists don't see a problem with feeding the bacteria massive amounts of food (sewage). It can't be both...it is either a problem, or it isn't.

rSin · Post by **rSin** » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:49 am

Most proponts dont contend tgat about nukes
Since they never set the venue
Where what they say gets heard
They are forced to sit next to
Whatever fucks the oik and gas industry
Bastards invite

Make prn nuke fucks seem likd what they arent
That is, well supported

To you guys
Watching with mly
One eye open
And both ears shut

Prawn Connery · Post by **Prawn Connery** » Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:24 pm

Butcher Bob wrote: I'm not making that claim...I am pointing to the fact that scientists do not see a CO2 problem with the bacteria. So, I guess we should ask Prawn to substantiate his claim...

"...the anaerobic bacteria that break algae down when they die, releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the water."
"...going to release CO2 on a massive scale."

...because the scientists don't see a problem with feeding the bacteria massive amounts of food (sewage). It can't be both...it is either a problem, or it isn't.

Do you know what Botulinum toxin is? It is one of the most lethal biological substances known to man. Its LD50 is 1.3 nanograms per kilogram of body weight.

That is 1.3 thousanths of a millionth of a gram - or 0.00000000013 grams - per kilogram of body weight can kill you.

Did you know that millions of people around the world inject Botulinum toxin into their collective faces on a daily basis without ill-effect?

True. It's call "botox".

So you tell me: is Botulinum toxin a problem, or is it not? And if it is a problem, how much of it is a problem?

Please feel free to use the same logic as you have used throughout this debate.

Intrinsic · Post by **Intrinsic** » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:55 pm

Butcher Bob wrote:
Intrinsic wrote:I am simply parroting what global warming activists say,
No, yer parroting the denyest.
Riiight....I'm pretty certain the denialists don't claim the 97%.

Then yer pruty wrong.
Our Dick Fein brought up the 97% consensus number first to support his anti-AGW stance. Where I quickly corrected this common denyest rhetoric by posting the contents of original and often quoted, peer reviewed paper. The Arithmetic is indisputable. The one you said you never saw before ya started using that 97% number.
You are bullshitting or stupid. Since I know you know what a % means and are good with numbers… bullshitting it is.

First off, that is not what I'm saying...I never referenced any authors of published papers.
What I am referring to is the assertion by global warming folks that nuclear power is a better, safer alternative to burning coal, oil, etc. Which I contend is false, until they have come up with a safe way to dispose of spent material...which in the 60+ years of use, they have not.

ummm .. I'm informing you that is what you are really saying when using it, whether intentional or not, m'kay. Showing the absurdity of yer quotes when using a false premise.

Intrinsic · Post by **Intrinsic** » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:57 pm

Let's recap so far.
Global Warming is a hoax/scam for:

Eugenics
Taxes
Nuclear energy.
Stealing our precious bodily fluids.

Intrinsic · Post by **Intrinsic** » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:12 pm

To the meat of yer concern.
For the record the Majority of published scientist or just rational people, have NOT endorse Fission (dirty) Nuclear energy as a solution to excess co2 or GW. No sir, saying otherwise is a lie. Prove me wrong, I can't read everything.

Yes, I have read articles in Scientific American supporting fission energy as a solution , but not in the last decade, And SA sorta is peer reviewed in the letter section by the those who read SA anyway. And pro-nukers arguments are often critiqued showing the data (not their opinions) does not show it's a long term viable solution given current tech.

fwiw, same goes for wind and solar solution, Critiqued (using math) cause the numbers don't add up for current world use of electrical energy.

I'm with you bob, fission reactors are intrinsically unsafe simply from the waste. Tho there have been great steps making reactors literally impossible to have a runaway reaction, meltdown. And many other amazing improvements. But still the waste.
(not to mention uranium is a finite natural resource same as oil is)

And .... The ones who mention breeder reactors can go to hell in MY book. Argggg plutonium! I'll take excessive fossil fuel burning over that any day. Give me rising oceans, extreme weather, but please no plutonium. Remember Fukushima!