hot blob kills millions of sea birds

Jan 18, 2020
1
0
10
Those birds are eating radioactive fish! The oceans are radioactive from 9 years of Fukushima dumping tons & tons of radioactive cooling water into the Ocean. The diatoms at the top of the food chain are radioactive. The phytoplankton population is down by 19% on average & the food chain collapse is well on the way. Seabirds eat tiny fish that are just a couple of small steps into that chain. It is good to know that LIVESCIENCE has bought into the global FAKE NEWS network! This comes to you from a top research Scientist at the AAAS Washington DC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jan 17, 2020
3
0
10
You should publish. I take it that you have data to back up your claim. Which isotopes were found in the dead seabirds? I can't imagine a "Top Research Scientist" making such a claim with no data. "Radioactive fish" would be dead.
 
Feb 21, 2020
1
0
10
Where is 'The Data' supporting' the claim of radiation poisoning? It most likely does not exist- similar to the paucity of 'data' supporting anthropogenic climate warming.

This earth is covered in innumerable 'micro-climates.' To verify this claim of 'micro-climates', visit and study the many micro-climates of the San Francisco Bay area, especially the region north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Then once you have seen how widely 'local' climatic conditions vary and how small those areas can be, look closely at WHERE the 'climate warming data' have been taken.
An immediate FACT is just how FEW locations have been used to 'support' the claims of incipient catastrophe. Then observe how there is alarmingly little serious questioning by real scientists of the alarmist claims.

As our observational tools grow more powerful and able to peer back in finer and finer detail at climates of the past, we observe many (really many) times of very rapid and dramatic climate shifts 'at very localized sites.' We accept hypotheses of continental drift causation for vast regional shifts in long term climates. The finer we 'cut' the time periods of the past, the more variation in climatic conditions are observed. This reinforces the theory that the recent few hundred years have been very beneficent toward MAN and development of civilization and our explosion of technology. We can 'see' many instances of much colder, and much warmer climates in the past, long before MAN emerged. What hubris inspires some to postulate MAN has pertebated the global energy balance enough to shift global climate?
Our irresponsible destruction of vast eco-systems will surely bring about our ultimate decline as those 'favorable' circumstances are forever changed.

The consumption of carbonaceous fuels is wanton use of millennia of stored solar energy . Fortunately today we are rapidly approaching a complete transition to direct utilization of CURRENT solar energy. The necessary technology is now at hand. Politics (personal economic interests of 'ruling class' peoples) will constrain the pace of this evolution to sustainability. Within a single generation the 'power' of the present 'ruling classes' will be forever diminished when 'energy' becomes universally low cost.
 

Ken

Jan 30, 2020
1
1
10
Where is 'The Data' supporting' the claim of radiation poisoning? It most likely does not exist- similar to the paucity of 'data' supporting anthropogenic climate warming.

This earth is covered in innumerable 'micro-climates.' To verify this claim of 'micro-climates', visit and study the many micro-climates of the San Francisco Bay area, especially the region north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Then once you have seen how widely 'local' climatic conditions vary and how small those areas can be, look closely at WHERE the 'climate warming data' have been taken.
An immediate FACT is just how FEW locations have been used to 'support' the claims of incipient catastrophe. Then observe how there is alarmingly little serious questioning by real scientists of the alarmist claims.

As our observational tools grow more powerful and able to peer back in finer and finer detail at climates of the past, we observe many (really many) times of very rapid and dramatic climate shifts 'at very localized sites.' We accept hypotheses of continental drift causation for vast regional shifts in long term climates. The finer we 'cut' the time periods of the past, the more variation in climatic conditions are observed. This reinforces the theory that the recent few hundred years have been very beneficent toward MAN and development of civilization and our explosion of technology. We can 'see' many instances of much colder, and much warmer climates in the past, long before MAN emerged. What hubris inspires some to postulate MAN has pertebated the global energy balance enough to shift global climate?
Our irresponsible destruction of vast eco-systems will surely bring about our ultimate decline as those 'favorable' circumstances are forever changed.

The consumption of carbonaceous fuels is wanton use of millennia of stored solar energy . Fortunately today we are rapidly approaching a complete transition to direct utilization of CURRENT solar energy. The necessary technology is now at hand. Politics (personal economic interests of 'ruling class' peoples) will constrain the pace of this evolution to sustainability. Within a single generation the 'power' of the present 'ruling classes' will be forever diminished when 'energy' becomes universally low cost.
Climate has been changing since the earth was formed, it's in a state of continual change. Everyone jumps on a bandwagon that is forged by the likes of Al Gore and his pseudo science paid and articulated by half way scientist who make false claims and cause alarm. making make believe computer programs to simulate something they have no real idea about. Computer programmed events are only as good as the data feed into the various equations used. The idea that a gas, CO2 is wholly responsible for the changing climate is irresponsible at best and idiotic to boot. All one has to do is to look where the money goes. The idea that we have a climate emergency is ridiculous. If we were in such a position companies would not be able to just pay for rediculous carbon credits in order to spew more CO2 into the environment. It would be outlawed altogether. People are poised to make Billions of dollars from the sale of such credits by the newly formed con artists that invented the ICCP. The major contributor in gaseous form seems to be water vapour not CO2 , next to that clouds of various types. Other things such as sun spots and ejections are not considered in the CO2 scenario. Besides that there are the astro physical causes such as precession and movement of the poles because of shift. As well and often left out altogether by almost all is the actual orbit of the planet, which is ever changing due to wobble and eccentric path that changes from roughly oval to somewhat elliptical. Other things that can cause some changes are magnetic and gravitational of everything from passing meteors and comets to our distances from our solar planets etc. Without a very comprehensive study of every facet of conditions and and effects one would have no real idea what causes the actual changes in our climate which has stayed relatively constant for the past 100,000 years or so and is likely to stay the same with only very minor changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ront5353
Feb 10, 2020
74
10
555
Climate has been changing since the earth was formed, it's in a state of continual change. Everyone jumps on a bandwagon that is forged by the likes of Al Gore and his pseudo science paid and articulated by half way scientist who make false claims and cause alarm. making make believe computer programs to simulate something they have no real idea about. Computer programmed events are only as good as the data feed into the various equations used. The idea that a gas, CO2 is wholly responsible for the changing climate is irresponsible at best and idiotic to boot. All one has to do is to look where the money goes. The idea that we have a climate emergency is ridiculous. If we were in such a position companies would not be able to just pay for rediculous carbon credits in order to spew more CO2 into the environment. It would be outlawed altogether. People are poised to make Billions of dollars from the sale of such credits by the newly formed con artists that invented the ICCP. The major contributor in gaseous form seems to be water vapour not CO2 , next to that clouds of various types. Other things such as sun spots and ejections are not considered in the CO2 scenario. Besides that there are the astro physical causes such as precession and movement of the poles because of shift. As well and often left out altogether by almost all is the actual orbit of the planet, which is ever changing due to wobble and eccentric path that changes from roughly oval to somewhat elliptical. Other things that can cause some changes are magnetic and gravitational of everything from passing meteors and comets to our distances from our solar planets etc. Without a very comprehensive study of every facet of conditions and and effects one would have no real idea what causes the actual changes in our climate which has stayed relatively constant for the past 100,000 years or so and is likely to stay the same with only very minor changes.
It is true, the day I saw a young kid driving a lambo and found out he was a carbon credit dealer..
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts