You know the story at this point: anything and everything will be brought under the banner of the climate cult
Brazil is on fire, and both crime and climate change are to blame
As Cristiane Mazzetti flew over the Brazilian Amazon this month surveying wildfire damage, she couldn’t help but feel frustrated.
Mazzetti is a forest campaigner for Greenpeace in Brazil. For years, the environmental group has been trying to curb the deforestation and climate change that makes the country so susceptible to wildfires.
Yes, deforestation is bad, I 100% agree. But, that is not ‘climate change’.
Brazilian Environment Minister Marina Silva says the country is “at war” with fire.
Fire alerts so far this month total almost 3,500 in southeastern São Paulo state, the most registered in any month since data collection began in 1998. Hot spots recorded in the Amazon this summer are up 98 per cent over last year, according to Greenpeace.
The government says these fires are far from natural.
“No fires caused by lightning were detected. This means that people are setting fires in the Amazon, the Pantanal, and especially in the state of São Paulo,” President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Sunday.
The day after the president made those comments, São Paulo’s governor announced four men had been arrested on suspicion of setting fires that destroyed thousands of hectares of sugarcane plantations in the north.
State Agriculture Secretary Guilherme Piai said Tuesday that some of the arrested men told police they are linked to one of the country’s largest criminal gangs, the Primeiro Comando da Capital.
It’s still your fault for living a modern life, in case you didn’t know.
Greenpeace and other environmental experts say the key driver behind Brazil’s wildfires is deforestation — specifically, people and companies who deliberately, and often illegally, set fires in order to clear the land of vegetation so it can be repurposed for other uses, like agriculture.
Yeah, that would be crime, as well. How about that?
flew over the rainforest? i do hope her broomstick was comfortable.
Mr Teach typed: It’s still your fault for living a modern life
It’s no one’s “fault”, but it is the responsibility of us all.
The 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, expressed as the average surface temperature. The increase comes from our collective burning of coal, oil and gas over the past century and a half.
Now that we know better, perhaps we can do better. We need to transition from fossil fuels (we’re looking at you China!).
The so-called “skeptics” (deniers) have never liked the recommended solutions so they deny the premise.
It’s still an un-verified hypothesis that man’s emissions are causing the warming.
We need to transition from ff.” Why? No reason to transition from fossil fuels. Of course if the alarmists were really serious they’d support nuclear.
“The most registered in any month since data collection in 1998…” Wow-all the way back 26 years ago. Definitely signs of a looming crisis…
What is your hypothesis for warming?
I’ve asked YOU multiple times: What evidence would you find persuasive that human generated CO2 is causing warming?
Most do support nuclear. Don’t you?
Fact: The Earth’s surface and trophosphere are warming.
Fact: The stratosphere is cooling. If a change in insolation was the cause, why is the stratosphere cooling?
Fact: Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm to over 420ppm.
Fact: The increased CO2 has been shown from isotope studies to originate from fossil fuels.
Fact: Atmospheric CO2 absorbs infrared radiation wavelength.
Fact: The amount of infrared radiation in the stratosphere is decreased.
Fact: Nights are warming faster than days.
Fact: The increased CO2 DOES come from humans burning fossil fuels.
Man, that quite a series of lies and half truth. The fact that C14 is part of C02 means that it was burned in the atmosphere, that is where you find C14. You have been repeating that trash for sometime, meaning you don’t understand the science.
CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere and man contributes a very small percent.
What happens after the molecule absorbs radiation.
There is no association between climate and carbon. And we don’t need to explain the warming as it is not harmful. But you are harmful.
And that, my friends, is science denial.
He typed: The fact that C14 is part of C02 means that it was burned in the atmosphere, that is where you find C14.
That is stupid even by his low standards…
Jeff,
You are a clown. You have no idea as to how C14 is incorporated into a substance.
Rimjob’s a drunk just like Kumala.
porter, you’re a ridiculous clown! WTF are you going about carbon-14 for?
david good,
Do you mean C13/C12 ratio? The shifting C13/C12 ratio is evidence that the added CO2 comes from fossil fuels.
david porter,
Please pick one fact and give it your best cogent refutation. Thanks.
Fact: The Earth’s surface and trophosphere are warming.
Fact: The stratosphere is cooling. If a change in insolation was the cause, why is the stratosphere cooling?
Fact: Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm to over 420ppm.
Fact: The increased CO2 has been shown from isotope studies to originate from fossil fuels.
Fact: Atmospheric CO2 absorbs infrared radiation wavelength.
Fact: The amount of infrared radiation in the stratosphere is decreased.
Fact: Nights are warming faster than days.
“What’s my hypothesis…?” First of all, one isn’t needed, because until shown otherwise, the null hypothesis ( natural changes) hasn’t been falsified, meaning no cause- effect verification of the agw theory. As also said here many times, it’s like a criminal trial, where the alarmists are the prosecution (those asserting this extra CO2 has a warming effect bear the burden of proof)and the skeptics the defense. The defense never has to prove who the real guilty party is, just that it’s not their client. That being said, multiple alternate theories have been put forth, as in increased SW radiation and or reduced cloud cover to name just a few. The only thing missing from your “facts” is verifiable cause-effect evidence that man’s emissions are warming the planet. Or, a simple experiment where by adding more CO2 an object can get warmer from its own emissions
“Most support nuclear”. I do, but really? Those wanting more windmills and solar panels and forever preaching doom is just around the corner support nuclear? Could have fooled me.
Over 90% of climate scientists think the evidence is sufficient.
We know, we know, the so-called skeptics prefer the “expertise” of those who support their belief that doing anything to curtail global warming is just too darn hard.
If you notice a testicular lump and 94 doctors recommend biopsy and 6 say fuhgetaboutit, who you gonna belive?
Chicken Little Karen Man
This explains things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-OX-ZNAN-I
Anyone can post a youtube. Could you guide us to an actual journal article, or even a news article?
Karen,
The link has point.
I guess you are too dumb to understand.
And you aint worth the salt to try and educate you.
Shithead,
Konstantin Kisin is a comedian.