Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Unmoderated except for TOU and security breaches.
User avatar
Intrinsic
Advanced Grower
Karma Hippie
Karma Hippie
Has bestowed Karma : 1780 times
Received Karma : 1558 times
Posts: 7687
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by Intrinsic »

Butcher Bob wrote:
Prawn Connery wrote:
Butcher Bob wrote:And where exactly do you think that treated waste water goes?
Probably in your drinking water.
Maybe on the space station, but here on planet earth, rural areas use septic fields to return untreated wastewater right back into the aquifer, and in urban areas the wastewater is treated and dumped back into rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. :wink:
Ummm it's called tertiary wastewater treatment. look it up. when i was studying ecology (for NRM) in the 70's the nearby town had a tertiary treatment plant that our class was able to spend weeks studying on site. some of the water eventually made back into the public drinking water. Even a drinking fountain in the lobby from the treated water.

Back in the 1975 !! nutin' new, more so as natural aquifers are being depleted i'm sure.

Roots

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by Roots »

>>>>And it's not a small scale plan.

Scale would be relative.

You are taking all fresh water and saltwater with algae and comparing it to treated drinking water.....Extremely small scale in the grand scheme of things.

User avatar
Butcher Bob
Karma God
Karma God
Has bestowed Karma : 1329 times
Received Karma : 927 times
Posts: 3922
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by Butcher Bob »

Intrinsic wrote:You keep using the 97% number wrong...
I am simply parroting what global warming activists say, so if someone is using it wrong, start by enlightening the sheep making the claim.
Roots wrote:You are taking all fresh water and saltwater with algae and comparing it to treated drinking water....
Not drinking water...waste water. Which is dumped back into the world's water sources. We already have raw sewage discharges during heavy rains, so what makes you think that small scale use of the bacteria won't make it into the big picture?

User avatar
Intrinsic
Advanced Grower
Karma Hippie
Karma Hippie
Has bestowed Karma : 1780 times
Received Karma : 1558 times
Posts: 7687
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by Intrinsic »

I am simply parroting what global warming activists say,
No, yer parroting the denyest.
so if someone is using it wrong,
yer using it wrong.
start by enlightening the sheep making the claim.
Ok bob,here is the reprint from earlier
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 8/2/024024
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

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?

Roots

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by Roots »

>>>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..?

This whole I’m just playing devils advocate, I’m a bigger environmentalist than you thing is confusing....from where I’m sitting it looks more like a right wing nut trying to either troll or remove himself from the right but has to much pride to agree with the left.

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.

User avatar
rSin
Karma Hippie
Karma Hippie
Custom Title: world where everone gets
Location: neck deep
Has bestowed Karma : 1668 times
Received Karma : 1063 times
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:12 pm

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by rSin »

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
the intolerance of the old order is emerging from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured.

User avatar
Prawn Connery
MPG Founder
Karma Bhudda
Karma Bhudda
Has bestowed Karma : 418 times
Received Karma : 513 times
Posts: 2534
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 9:10 pm

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by Prawn Connery »

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"
Licensed to Krill

User avatar
Prawn Connery
MPG Founder
Karma Bhudda
Karma Bhudda
Has bestowed Karma : 418 times
Received Karma : 513 times
Posts: 2534
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 9:10 pm

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by Prawn Connery »

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?
Licensed to Krill

User avatar
Butcher Bob
Karma God
Karma God
Has bestowed Karma : 1329 times
Received Karma : 927 times
Posts: 3922
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by Butcher Bob »

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.

User avatar
Butcher Bob
Karma God
Karma God
Has bestowed Karma : 1329 times
Received Karma : 927 times
Posts: 3922
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am

Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

Post by Butcher Bob »

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.

Post Reply