10:10 has a new ad campaign fantasizing about violence against schoolchildren who disagree with their point of view.
Let’s look at the numbers to see what a 10% global reduction in man made CO2 would do. Man is responsible for 3% of annual atmospheric CO2 emissions.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
If we reduced man’s 3% contribution by one tenth, that would reduce the total annual global emissions of CO2 by only 0.3%. The effect on the Earth’s radiative balance would be much less than that, less than 0.01%.
In other words, a 10% reduction in human emissions would have essentially zero impact on the climate. Is that worth inciting hatred and violence against children over?
Inciting hatred is not good for the planet.
We are causing warming. Get a brain. http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/liberals_smarte.html
Very persuasive argument.
Well somebody finally put Robert Kennedy Jr.’s call for executions of deniers on video. I’m sure this version of the red (hmmm red) “easy button” would be a dream come true for many from the NRDC and other eco groups. With all the money and effort being spent by psychologists to build a case for climate skepticism to be categorized as a mental illness, it appears they have completely missed the group that really needs psychiatric help. The video is a definite cry for help and I hope that the psychiatric community reallocates its resources to address those with real need.
As for the 10/10 movement I see this as an event where many who have yet to find purpose and meaning in their lives (in essence children regardless of age) can feel connected and needed. I find that the older such people get without finding purpose and meaning in their lives the more fatalistic they become. These are the gullible that fall prey to such meaningless causes. That said, I’m still all for 10/10 as I see it as therapy and a coping mechanism for these children of all ages to deal with their uncertain future and fatalistic nature.
The offensive and grotesque nature of the film notwithstanding, the “mankind is responsible for 3% of CO2 emissions and therefore reducing them by 10% will only have a 0.3% contribution” is a meaningless calculation. It would be like saying that there’s a teeter totter with a 75 pound child equidistant from the fulcrum with a 74.9 pound child on the opposite end. The 75 pound child will be on the ground, the 74.9 pound child in the air. If I claim that adding 10% of 3% of the lighter child’s weight is meaningless, running the experiment will show that I’m wrong. Adding .003*74.9 (10% of 3%) or 0.2247 pounds will make the formerly lighter child weigh 75.12 pounds and tip the balance. Though this is a very imperfect analogy, the implication in the post is equally flawed.
Calculate the effect on the radiative balance of the Earth’s atmosphere. The article includes a link to the information you need.
The effect is actually smaller than the 0.01% number I provided. This article is conservative.
to see the futility of Man-made Climate Control by reduction of CO2 emissions please watch
JUST RUNNING THE NUMBERS
Pingback: REAL SCIENCE – 10% Of Nothing = Nothing! | Sovereign Independent
Pingback: WARMISTS IN DESPERATION…..CHECK OUT THE LATEST AT CLIMATE DEPOT | RUTHFULLY YOURS