Remember me
▼ Content

EU Parliament Climate Emergency vote


EU Parliament Climate Emergency vote28-11-2019 16:24
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
In a significant moment in the history of the European Parliament, a third of MEPs today voted against attempts to exaggerate the impact of global warming.

The votes of 225 MEPs rejected the motion by green parties to declare a climate emergency, a motion that was, nevertheless, passed in the European Parliament by 429 MEPs.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
28-11-2019 21:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
The first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it. I wonder what the results would have been if you took out the British MEPs?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-11-2019 21:57
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
spot wrote:
The first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it. I wonder what the results would have been if you took out the British MEPs?



And what is the problem? We need CO2 to save the ozone layer according to the IPCC. Do you agree with that scientific group of individuals?
28-11-2019 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
The first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it. I wonder what the results would have been if you took out the British MEPs?


What problem? Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2019 23:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
The first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it. I wonder what the results would have been if you took out the British MEPs?



And what is the problem? We need CO2 to save the ozone layer according to the IPCC. Do you agree with that scientific group of individuals?


CO2 has no relation to ozone. Science isn't a group. It isn't the IPCC. It isn't even people at all.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-11-2019 23:11
29-11-2019 00:34
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
The first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it. I wonder what the results would have been if you took out the British MEPs?



And what is the problem? We need CO2 to save the ozone layer according to the IPCC. Do you agree with that scientific group of individuals?


I don't think you have got that right.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-11-2019 00:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
The first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it. I wonder what the results would have been if you took out the British MEPs?


What problem? Define 'climate change'.


Adults are talking go away.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-11-2019 00:42
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
The first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it. I wonder what the results would have been if you took out the British MEPs?



And what is the problem? We need CO2 to save the ozone layer according to the IPCC. Do you agree with that scientific group of individuals?


I don't think you have got that right.



It's in the IPCC's 2013 report. The EPA supports their conclusion.
29-11-2019 01:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
This is what they said.
In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Do you accept what the IPCC states in its report?

There is also this,
For example, the CH4 increase during the twentieth century reduced the ozone losses owing to halocarbon increases, and the N2O chemical destruction of O3 is buffered by CO2 thermal effects in the middle stratosphere (by approx. 20% for the IPCC A1B/WMO A1 scenario over the time period 1900–2100).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306630/

2 separate reports. And where CH4 is found, so is CO2. The IPCC links CH4 and CO2 while the other report states that they are beneficial in different ways.
29-11-2019 06:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote: The first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it.

The first step in dealing with the delusional is to get them to realize that the "problem" they are imagining is not real, that it's all just fabrication of their own minds ... often started because someone they trusted took advantage of their intense gullibility and is manipulating them by it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-11-2019 18:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
The first step in dealing with a problem is acknowledging it. I wonder what the results would have been if you took out the British MEPs?


What problem? Define 'climate change'.


Adults are talking go away.


Evasion. Answer the question. What problem? Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2019 19:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
James___ wrote:
This is what they said.
In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Do you accept what the IPCC states in its report?

There is also this,
For example, the CH4 increase during the twentieth century reduced the ozone losses owing to halocarbon increases, and the N2O chemical destruction of O3 is buffered by CO2 thermal effects in the middle stratosphere (by approx. 20% for the IPCC A1B/WMO A1 scenario over the time period 1900–2100).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306630/

2 separate reports. And where CH4 is found, so is CO2. The IPCC links CH4 and CO2 while the other report states that they are beneficial in different ways.


Ozone at ground level bad ozone in ozone layer good.

They teach kids this.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 29-11-2019 19:14
29-11-2019 19:40
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is what they said.
In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Do you accept what the IPCC states in its report?

There is also this,
For example, the CH4 increase during the twentieth century reduced the ozone losses owing to halocarbon increases, and the N2O chemical destruction of O3 is buffered by CO2 thermal effects in the middle stratosphere (by approx. 20% for the IPCC A1B/WMO A1 scenario over the time period 1900–2100).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306630/

2 separate reports. And where CH4 is found, so is CO2. The IPCC links CH4 and CO2 while the other report states that they are beneficial in different ways.


Ozone at ground level bad ozone in ozone layer good.

They teach kids this.


That's just not true. Ozone on the ground is good, just not in high concentrations, like most anything else. Ozone helps to clean and sanitize. Remember there was another use or two, but can't think of it at the moment.
30-11-2019 00:23
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is what they said.
In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Do you accept what the IPCC states in its report?

There is also this,
For example, the CH4 increase during the twentieth century reduced the ozone losses owing to halocarbon increases, and the N2O chemical destruction of O3 is buffered by CO2 thermal effects in the middle stratosphere (by approx. 20% for the IPCC A1B/WMO A1 scenario over the time period 1900–2100).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306630/

2 separate reports. And where CH4 is found, so is CO2. The IPCC links CH4 and CO2 while the other report states that they are beneficial in different ways.


Ozone at ground level bad ozone in ozone layer good.

They teach kids this.


And next you'll probably say I am an aMErican
30-11-2019 12:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
You are free to believe what ever you want.

I believe this website is credible.
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/OzoneGroundLevel.htm



In the earth's lower atmosphere, ground-level ozone is considered "bad." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of "bad" ozone, but even rural areas are also subject to increased ozone levels because wind carries ozone and pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original sources.

If you think kids are benefiting from breathing this shit I don't know what to say.
30-11-2019 17:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote: You are free to believe what ever you want.

Just because your CAN throw yourself off a cliff doesn't mean you should.

I see that you are believing whatever you want just because you can.

spot wrote: If you think kids are benefiting from breathing this shit I don't know what to say.

You are conflating two different things. O3 is O3 and is naturally ocurring. You are somehow confusing that with pollution. The site you find "credible" can't seem to make that simple distinction.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2019 22:19
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
spot wrote:
You are free to believe what ever you want.

I believe this website is credible.
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/OzoneGroundLevel.htm



In the earth's lower atmosphere, ground-level ozone is considered "bad." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of "bad" ozone, but even rural areas are also subject to increased ozone levels because wind carries ozone and pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original sources.

If you think kids are benefiting from breathing this shit I don't know what to say.


I wasn't allowed to have kids because I served America. Americans tell me kids don't matter. Merry Christmas.

btw, I am pursuing somethng to clean up emissions/air but instead you chose to attack me over something very basic. It requires work. People who are allowed to have kids demand from those who aren't good enough. American capitalism.
Edited on 30-11-2019 23:04
30-11-2019 23:38
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
spot, if we observed Christmas the way Christians like, it's about Jesus. Let's remember him instead. If no toys were given to children, the air they breathe would be cleaner. Christmas is responsible for about 1/2 of all toy and jewelry sales. That creates a massive carbon footprint.
If women did without jewelry and kids did without toys, we'd have a cleaner environment.
My father lived under the 3rd Reich because he was from Norway. Not much of a carbon footprint but children were allowed to receive 1 present. Food if it was available.
Might be why many European countries aren't like the US. It is funny though, both you and ibdm have a problem with me because I think we can reduce air pollution while restoring the ozone layer. And I will say that's something that an American couldn't hope to do. It's difficult work.
Edited on 30-11-2019 23:44
01-12-2019 01:26
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
Just think about it spot, no kids, no overpopulation, no CO2 worries.
As you said, children are why we have problems. The easiest way to
decrease CO2 levels is to decrease the human population which creates it.
And this begins with kids.
And to think the Devil gets credit for this.
01-12-2019 01:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
There is a simple solution. On Christmas day and Easter, kids could plant trees. No presents and no rabbit. They could be promoting why kids are good.
Yep, nothing I bet a kid would love hearing more than "I love you now plant a tree".

And spot, HarveyH55 has posted that I have no right to a life in the US if it doesn't profit him. That's typical of Americans.
When I am able, I'll be more than glad to leave.
Edited on 01-12-2019 02:08
02-12-2019 18:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is what they said.
In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Do you accept what the IPCC states in its report?

There is also this,
For example, the CH4 increase during the twentieth century reduced the ozone losses owing to halocarbon increases, and the N2O chemical destruction of O3 is buffered by CO2 thermal effects in the middle stratosphere (by approx. 20% for the IPCC A1B/WMO A1 scenario over the time period 1900–2100).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306630/

2 separate reports. And where CH4 is found, so is CO2. The IPCC links CH4 and CO2 while the other report states that they are beneficial in different ways.


Ozone at ground level bad ozone in ozone layer good.

They teach kids this.

That they do. It's also ridiculous.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 18:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
HarveyH55 wrote:
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is what they said.
In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Do you accept what the IPCC states in its report?

There is also this,
For example, the CH4 increase during the twentieth century reduced the ozone losses owing to halocarbon increases, and the N2O chemical destruction of O3 is buffered by CO2 thermal effects in the middle stratosphere (by approx. 20% for the IPCC A1B/WMO A1 scenario over the time period 1900–2100).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306630/

2 separate reports. And where CH4 is found, so is CO2. The IPCC links CH4 and CO2 while the other report states that they are beneficial in different ways.


Ozone at ground level bad ozone in ozone layer good.

They teach kids this.


That's just not true. Ozone on the ground is good, just not in high concentrations, like most anything else. Ozone helps to clean and sanitize. Remember there was another use or two, but can't think of it at the moment.


Smoke eaters in bars and casinos, room fresheners, sanitizers, antibacterial treatment for water. the 'fresh rain' smell from thunderstorms, etc.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 18:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
You are free to believe what ever you want.

I believe this website is credible.
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/OzoneGroundLevel.htm



In the earth's lower atmosphere, ground-level ozone is considered "bad." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of "bad" ozone, but even rural areas are also subject to increased ozone levels because wind carries ozone and pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original sources.

If you think kids are benefiting from breathing this shit I don't know what to say.


Ozone is not smog. It is only one contributing factor to smog. Sunlight and hot weather does NOT cause ozone to form in harmful concentrations.

Redefinition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 18:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is what they said.
In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Do you accept what the IPCC states in its report?

There is also this,
For example, the CH4 increase during the twentieth century reduced the ozone losses owing to halocarbon increases, and the N2O chemical destruction of O3 is buffered by CO2 thermal effects in the middle stratosphere (by approx. 20% for the IPCC A1B/WMO A1 scenario over the time period 1900–2100).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306630/

2 separate reports. And where CH4 is found, so is CO2. The IPCC links CH4 and CO2 while the other report states that they are beneficial in different ways.


Ozone at ground level bad ozone in ozone layer good.

They teach kids this.


That's just not true. Ozone on the ground is good, just not in high concentrations, like most anything else. Ozone helps to clean and sanitize. Remember there was another use or two, but can't think of it at the moment.


Smoke eaters in bars and casinos, room fresheners, sanitizers, antibacterial treatment for water. the 'fresh rain' smell from thunderstorms, etc.


You are free to believe that.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-12-2019 18:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
You are free to believe what ever you want.

I believe this website is credible.
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/OzoneGroundLevel.htm



In the earth's lower atmosphere, ground-level ozone is considered "bad." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of "bad" ozone, but even rural areas are also subject to increased ozone levels because wind carries ozone and pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original sources.

If you think kids are benefiting from breathing this shit I don't know what to say.


I wasn't allowed to have kids because I served America. Americans tell me kids don't matter. Merry Christmas.

btw, I am pursuing somethng to clean up emissions/air but instead you chose to attack me over something very basic. It requires work. People who are allowed to have kids demand from those who aren't good enough. American capitalism.


Back to your hypochondria, eh? Like usual, I don't believe you.

He didn't 'attack' you. He simply pointed out that you conflate ozone with 'pollution'. Ozone is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. It is not 'pollution'.

Define 'pollution'.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 18:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
spot, if we observed Christmas the way Christians like, it's about Jesus. Let's remember him instead. If no toys were given to children, the air they breathe would be cleaner.

Toys are not air or air 'pollution'.
James___ wrote:
Christmas is responsible for about 1/2 of all toy and jewelry sales. That creates a massive carbon footprint.
Carbon is not 'pollution'.
James___ wrote:
If women did without jewelry and kids did without toys, we'd have a cleaner environment.

Why?
James___ wrote:
My father lived under the 3rd Reich because he was from Norway.

Irrelevant sob story again.
James___ wrote:
Might be why many European countries aren't like the US.

They are not like the U.S. because they don't have a constitution, and even if one does, it is not the U.S. Constitution.
James___ wrote:
It is funny though, both you and ibdm have a problem with me because I think we can reduce air pollution while restoring the ozone layer.

The ozone layer doesn't need to be restored. It was never depleted.
James___ wrote:
And I will say that's something that an American couldn't hope to do. It's difficult work.

It's not work at all. It's a nonsense statement.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 18:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
Just think about it spot, no kids, no overpopulation, no CO2 worries.
As you said, children are why we have problems. The easiest way to
decrease CO2 levels is to decrease the human population which creates it.
And this begins with kids.
And to think the Devil gets credit for this.


There is no overpopulation, and neither CO2 nor O3 is a pollutant.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 18:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
There is a simple solution. On Christmas day and Easter, kids could plant trees.

Why?
James___ wrote:
No presents and no rabbit.

What have you got against presents or rabbits?
James___ wrote:
They could be promoting why kids are good.

They generally are, so long as the parents don't teach them fundamentalist religions or criminal behavior.
James___ wrote:
Yep, nothing I bet a kid would love hearing more than "I love you now plant a tree".

You obviously hate children.
James___ wrote:
And spot, HarveyH55 has posted that I have no right to a life in the US if it doesn't profit him.

You don't. You yourself have admitted you are a foreign national.
James___ wrote:
That's typical of Americans.

No, that's because you are a foreign national.
James___ wrote:
When I am able, I'll be more than glad to leave.

You are. If you don't like the U.S., leave. No one is keeping you here.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
You are free to believe what ever you want.

I believe this website is credible.
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/OzoneGroundLevel.htm



In the earth's lower atmosphere, ground-level ozone is considered "bad." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of "bad" ozone, but even rural areas are also subject to increased ozone levels because wind carries ozone and pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original sources.

If you think kids are benefiting from breathing this shit I don't know what to say.


Ozone is not smog. It is only one contributing factor to smog. Sunlight and hot weather does NOT cause ozone to form in harmful concentrations.

Redefinition fallacy.


Said the guy that thinks Denver is hotter then Venus.

I don't think I will be taking chemistry lessons off of you.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.




Join the debate EU Parliament Climate Emergency vote:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
health emergency625-06-2019 21:36
Old Crow to declare climate change state of emergency029-04-2019 03:03
Nicola Sturgeon declares 'climate emergency' at SNP conference028-04-2019 22:50
Corbyn launches bid to declare a national climate emergency028-04-2019 15:40
Hamilton sounds climate change alarm by declaring a climate emergency119-03-2019 01:40
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact