Climate change humbug?
82,000,000 barrels of oil consumed every day, 50,000 plant animal and insect species wiped out every year, 80,000 acres of rainforest leveled per DAY, 90,000,000 tons of fish being extracted from our oceans per year.
How can this possibly have any long term effect.
Its a bit of a gamble without another planet to go to.

Are you Retarded?

You've posted links to two reputable, credible documents, neither of which supports ANY of the points you have made on this forum.

Not only that, your massively distorting(surprise surprise) the actual findings of the paper your referencing.
The paper finds that some locations(dense biospheres like the Amazon) can have a significant impact on climate when cleared. It also finds that only about 1.5 % of the planet would actually respond this way. The other 98.5%(inc 70% water) would only be slightly affected. And this is all based on model with forcings which in your own words


lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:


Just in case you missed the second classic Lee moment, its the little part after the bit he likes that kind of supports his position. Somehow even though the document clearly states that GHG have 4 times the effect as land clearing, somehow its land clearing which is the bigger factor 

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:56pm:


Since were talking about climate change why don't you gimme some credible data that doesn't say that 80% of the worlds forcing is created by C02.
And that global warming isn't anthropogenic.

And stop misrepresenting research that disagrees with your fundamental premise as somehow supporting your case.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 10:16pm:




Ill try this again Lee. If you post a scientific paper which you state supports your view, you cannot just pretend parts of it don't exist when they disagree with you opinion.

The "material" you posted ascribed a ratio of carbons power as a heating agent in relationship to land clearing.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:56pm:


Because YOU posted this extract, i'm allowed to hold you to it. If you dont like it dont post it in support of you opinions.


I note that you didn't mention GHG's emissions as a possible cause of climate change when I asked, even though everything credible you have linked to concludes that they are primary driver. 

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 10:31am:


Its like your.........just trying to make everyone stupider. And that upsets my sense of balance.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 10:16pm:

lee knows nothing but pretend rich guy doodle called daddykins 

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 1:54am:


I can't help what it makes YOU appear. But did everyone give you permission to talk on their behalf?

You have a sense of balance?

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 10:43am:




I didn't come up with those figure, You did old boy!

lee wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 5:21pm:
You may want to cut down the trees.  Plants respire too.

'They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming.
Every little bit helps.


lee wrote Yesterday at 1:56pm:
“Land-use changes (e.g. cutting down forests to create farmland) have led to changes in the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground back into space (the surface albedo). The scale of these changes is estimated to be about one-fifth of the forcing on the global climate due to changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.'

If you posted documents that SUPPORTED you assertions you would make a much better fist of debating.

The problem with being a contortionist is sometimes you bite yourself on the ass!

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 3:09pm:


I know. I quoted their findings that 80-85% of global warming is caused by GHG's.


It went straight over you head though, I was actually arguing against you with your own references.