McKibben’s Brain On Lead Paint

ScreenHunter_353 Dec. 17 06.53

Twitter / billmckibben: Oyster larvae in acidic water …

The ocean is not acidic, and atmospheric CO2 was much higher during the vast majority of time when Oysters existed on Earth. McKibben is completely out of control.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to McKibben’s Brain On Lead Paint

  1. leftinbrooklyn says:

    I bet this guy still wets his bed.

  2. Glacierman says:

    Drawing equivelance between oyster larvae and children. How very progressive.

    And typical. This tool is nothing more than a propagandist.

  3. Go easy on him. He’s a sick man… nerrr. Hit him HARD and OFTEN!

  4. gator69 says:

    An oyster on a lead paint diet still has a higher IQ than McKibbles.

  5. Andy DC says:

    They must stay awake all night thinking up new horror stories related to non-acidic oceans and non-existent global warming.

  6. Ilma630 says:

    He need exposing as a charlatan. He is dangerous, he peddles lies and untruths, and he’s trying to lead the world into a calamitous pit of disaster by not using the one thing that has brought prosperity to mankind, eradicating whole countries from poverty and misery, fossil fuels.

    He’s basically an arch-enemy of mankind.

    His ‘fossil fuel divestment’ campaign for universities is leading large swathes of students into radical environmentalism, students who should be learning facts and how to think through issues to get at the truth, but are being blinded by rhetoric and fooled with quasi-political guff! I would urge readers to themselves write to the Chancellors and Principals of Universities and colleges to ask them to look at the issue dispassionately, pointing the errors of McKibben’s environmentalism and the massive and overwhelming benefits of fossil fuel use. I am writing to as many as I can.

    Like all warmists, he has a mistaken belief in the greenhouse gas hypothesis (i.e. back-radiation by CO2 further increases surface or near surface temperatures), from which all his dangerous rhetoric flows. This hypothesis is so obviously false that not even 100 times as much CO2 could have any affect on surface temperatures. The mistake he and the believers make (we should call them “deniers” as they deny the truth) is they the forget to account for the temperature drop when energy is lost from the surface. Simply, if 1 unit of energy is lost from the surface, its temperature drops by 1 unit (to use round numbers and an arbitrary scale for illustration). Back radiation (if it exists) can only ‘put back’ 0.5 maximum (as re-emitted energy is in all directions, so a max of half downwards, likely a lot less) – let’s call it 0.x. The believers say that 1 + 0.x = 1.x, i.e. an increase in temperature, but in fact the calculation is -1 (minus 1) + 0.x, which is negative, i.e. cooling. The hypothesis debunks itself! Note this is irrespective of the composition of the atmosphere, so even 100% CO2 cannot warm the surface by back-radiation.

  7. Streetcred says:

    “The ocean is not acidic, and atmospheric CO2 was much higher during the vast majority of time when Oysters existed on Earth.”

    I know what you mean, but oysters are still available despite the claimed minuscule drop of ocean pH towards neutral. :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s