|
|
Post by franko on Sept 11, 2014 8:59:55 GMT -5
fwiw, I'm not a denier . . . though I am not a true believer either. but I do wish that some balance might be found! (or is it even worth talking about any more?)
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 11, 2014 9:01:26 GMT -5
more of the "OH NO!" GENEVA — Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reached a record high in 2013 as increasing levels of man-made pollution transform the planet, the U.N. weather agency said Tuesday.
In an annual report, the World Meteorological Organization said that carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed for the largest share of global warming, rose to global concentrations of 396 parts per million last year, the biggest year-to-year change in three decades.
That’s an increase of 2.9 ppm from the previous year — and is 42% higher than before the Industrial Age, when levels were about 280 parts per million. The 2012 level was itself up 2.2 ppm from a year earlier.
“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Time is not on our side, for sure.”
The report also said the rate of ocean acidification, which comes from added carbon absorbed by oceans, “appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years.”
Between 1990 and 2013, carbon dioxide and other gas emissions caused a 34% increase in the warming effect on the climate, the report said.linkHumans risk causing irreversible and widespread damage to the planet unless there’s faster action to limit the fossil fuel emissions that cause climate change, according to a leaked draft United Nations report.
Global warming already is impacting “all continents and across the oceans,” and further pollution from heat-trapping gases will raise the likelihood of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems,” according to the document obtained by Bloomberg.
“Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally,” the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the draft.link |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 11, 2014 9:02:43 GMT -5
more of the "YA, RIGHT!" On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?
In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).
Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.
First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.
Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.
When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”
We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”
Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statisticalcalculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.
It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.
This has taken me by surprise. I was among those who thought the pause was a blip. As a “lukewarmer,” I’ve long thought that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions will raise global temperatures, but that this effect will not be amplified much by feedbacks from extra water vapor and clouds, so the world will probably be only a bit more than one degree Celsius warmer in 2100 than today. By contrast, the assumption built into the average climate model is that water-vapor feedback will treble the effect of carbon dioxide.
But now I worry that I am exaggerating, rather than underplaying, the likely warming.link; to more |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 11, 2014 13:31:46 GMT -5
I am not denying that global warming is happening.
Some of it may be man made and some may come from sun spots, increased energy output from the sun, increased volcanic output, natural cyclical changes we don't fully understand.
This planet went through Ice Ages, periods where Antartica was warm and had forests and dinosaurs. Dinosaurs grew when there was a much higher level of oxygen in the atmosphere and much higher temperatures.
Recently Vikings sailed to Greenland and it was warmer and green.
Climate will change whether we change or not.
If we reduce carbon release in Canada and China and India (and Africa) continue to pollute we accomplish nothing.
Climate change creates problems but the world has many problems and climate change is NOT a priority over Isis, Ebola, cancer, education, fisheries, crime, drugs.......
Global warming is bad for the US but good for Canada, bad for polar bears and good for elephants.
Governments must allocate their resources to their initiatives and Global Warming is NOT a Canadian priority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 11, 2014 14:13:18 GMT -5
I was watching Senior Climatologist, David Phillips, a while back and he suggested that Canada, in general, might want to start preparing for this climate change ... we're experiencing it here in K-town ... never seen so many torrential downpours than I have in recent years ... also, last year's winter reminded me of some of the winters we experienced in '70's, '71 being the worst, by far ... he also mentioned that the city of Calgary might want to prepare for another flood similar to the one that drowned them last year ... they're going to probably be hit again with this ... I don't know what it means for my end of the country, but I'm already looking at approaching the city to see what they can do about the ancient and minimum-code storm sewer on our end of the street ... once it gets overwhelmed the excess water encroaches on personal properties but the city washes it's hands of any accountability, so to speak ... as for the winter, Dis Jr is already tuning up the snowblower ... we'll be using it frequently, me thinks ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 12, 2014 3:02:26 GMT -5
Thursday in Los Angeles, high of 84, Monday high of 96.
2014 to 2099 a rise of one degree.
Hmmmmmm, are we making a mountain out of a molehill.
Weather changes and we are not in control of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Sept 12, 2014 10:17:39 GMT -5
I was watching Senior Climatologist, David Phillips, a while back and he suggested that Canada, in general, might want to start preparing for this climate change ... we're experiencing it here in K-town ... never seen so many torrential downpours than I have in recent years ... also, last year's winter reminded me of some of the winters we experienced in '70's, '71 being the worst, by far ... he also mentioned that the city of Calgary might want to prepare for another flood similar to the one that drowned them last year ... they're going to probably be hit again with this ... I don't know what it means for my end of the country, but I'm already looking at approaching the city to see what they can do about the ancient and minimum-code storm sewer on our end of the street ... once it gets overwhelmed the excess water encroaches on personal properties but the city washes it's hands of any accountability, so to speak ... as for the winter, Dis Jr is already tuning up the snowblower ... we'll be using it frequently, me thinks ... Cheers. And Calgary gets a foot of snow in the first week of September.....the day before it was 26 degrees. The climate is changing, from what I don't know, whether it's from us or just a planetary cycle. It don't really matter either way, we have to prepare for more unpredictable weather. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 12, 2014 10:46:49 GMT -5
And Calgary gets a foot of snow in the first week of September.....the day before it was 26 degrees. The climate is changing, from what I don't know, whether it's from us or just a planetary cycle. It don't really matter either way, we have to prepare for more unpredictable weather. yep, the weather is indeed unpredictable. as to Calgary . . . it happens. they've had snow in July. now that's an ouch! |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 12, 2014 11:57:02 GMT -5
May not mean anything but I find I can reasonably gauge our winters by the level of the creek out back of the house ... If the creek is low for most of the summer it's usually an indicator that we're going to have heavy rains in the fall or a lot of snow in the winter ... It's been pretty consistent over the past few years, anyway ... A small validation that the earth is a self-correcting system, I guess ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 12, 2014 15:27:46 GMT -5
Weather hypochondria...it's a new term and I'm trademarking it.
It use to a time when rain, snow, heat, cold, dust bowls and floods.......was just the weather doing whatever the hell it wanted too. It did that for billions of years before man and it will do that when there are only roaches evolving and creating civilizations.....
But now, to the weather hypochondriacs, apocalyptics and gio worshippers........it's man made climate change.
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 12, 2014 15:52:52 GMT -5
And Calgary gets a foot of snow in the first week of September.....the day before it was 26 degrees. The climate is changing, from what I don't know, whether it's from us or just a planetary cycle. It don't really matter either way, we have to prepare for more unpredictable weather. Last week, because I had nothing better to do, I went to look at NOAA statistic page (NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is where they have the US weather data). What I found there on their 114 years of stats was..... *Annual temperatures have varied as mush as 3.5 degrees year to year over three year periods (one of the period was 1921). This "unprecedented change" is actually historically NORMAL course of climate. It's right there in their own stats. So yes, we can have huge swings in annual temperatures over a few years. Always had always will have those swings. *This years current weather is at the coldest quadrant in their list of 114 years. In other words, the coldest Jan/June has been in the last 114. Reality is that it's probably even colder then their stats show because they deliberately skewered the temperatures of the early part of last century to the "colder side" to sell the current "warming". (They revised historical data upwards TWICE because the first set of derived numbers were laughable) Anyone can read those stats and report on them.....but did you hear about that in the media? Just for the record, when you hear claims of "recorded history", depending on who is claiming it, it means about a hundred years. We actually have records going back 200 plus years but they are useless now a lot of those old weather stations have been overrun by cities/towns. Most of the real and widespread records came with satellite measurements in the last 30 years. ALL the old data is subject to interpretation and depending on what you want to show, they can easily be skewered. Unfortunately...and this is what pisses me off, historical stats have been derived with a politicized slant.......which is a plague and nightmare of real science. So yes, we have temperature swing and reality is we ALWAYS had temperature swings. Except all those historic temperature swings did not have the media and agenda 24/7 weather hypochondria about "climate change". |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Sept 12, 2014 16:06:25 GMT -5
Yep...that's why I think it's more to do with our planet's natural cycle rather than Global warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 12, 2014 16:12:21 GMT -5
Yep...that's why I think it's more to do with our planet's natural cycle rather than Global warming. But there is no money to be made, taxes to be extracted or political power in natural cycles...... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 12, 2014 16:23:13 GMT -5
I was watching Senior Climatologist, David Phillips, a while back and he suggested that Canada, in general, might want to start preparing for this climate change ... we're experiencing it here in K-town ... never seen so many torrential downpours than I have in recent years ... also, last year's winter reminded me of some of the winters we experienced in '70's, '71 being the worst, by far ... he also mentioned that the city of Calgary might want to prepare for another flood similar to the one that drowned them last year ... they're going to probably be hit again with this ... I don't know what it means for my end of the country, but I'm already looking at approaching the city to see what they can do about the ancient and minimum-code storm sewer on our end of the street ... once it gets overwhelmed the excess water encroaches on personal properties but the city washes it's hands of any accountability, so to speak ... as for the winter, Dis Jr is already tuning up the snowblower ... we'll be using it frequently, me thinks ... Cheers. Calgary is in a flood zone and has a history of flooding. It can only get worse as it expands. As I wrote in a post above. We are having some of the coldest temperature in the last 114 years. Last but not least....I find "climatologist" are experts in predicting the future and being apocalyptic drama queens........but forget the past. We had droughts out west 80 years ago that are no longer there? Is that man made climate change? We had huge annual temperature swing in the past, but now it's "unprecedented"? We build right to the edge of rivers and lakes and given the rising costs of building now it's "record damages of climate change"? If I had a dollar for every gloom and doom prediction.....I'd be richer then CO.... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 12, 2014 19:38:27 GMT -5
I was watching Senior Climatologist, David Phillips, a while back and he suggested that Canada, in general, might want to start preparing for this climate change ... we're experiencing it here in K-town ... never seen so many torrential downpours than I have in recent years ... also, last year's winter reminded me of some of the winters we experienced in '70's, '71 being the worst, by far ... he also mentioned that the city of Calgary might want to prepare for another flood similar to the one that drowned them last year ... they're going to probably be hit again with this ... I don't know what it means for my end of the country, but I'm already looking at approaching the city to see what they can do about the ancient and minimum-code storm sewer on our end of the street ... once it gets overwhelmed the excess water encroaches on personal properties but the city washes it's hands of any accountability, so to speak ... as for the winter, Dis Jr is already tuning up the snowblower ... we'll be using it frequently, me thinks ... Cheers. Calgary is in a flood zone and has a history of flooding. It can only get worse as it expands. As I wrote in a post above. We are having some of the coldest temperature in the last 114 years. Last but not least....I find "climatologist" are experts in predicting the future and being apocalyptic drama queens........but forget the past. We had droughts out west 80 years ago that are no longer there? Is that man made climate change? We had huge annual temperature swing in the past, but now it's "unprecedented"? We build right to the edge of rivers and lakes and given the rising costs of building now it's "record damages of climate change"? If I had a dollar for every gloom and doom prediction.....I'd be richer then CO.... I'm not so sure they're all the same, HA ... David Philips is far from a fear monger ... I've watched him a few times recently and I found he's more about the history and patterns of the weather ... Calgary may be in a flood zone, but the flooding they experienced last summer is not normal for that area ... Phillips suggests that this kind of flooding will hit Calgary again, because of the climate change that is occurring for that region ... Calgary knows they have to build flood ditches similar to the system in Winnipeg, but the price tag is supposedly $1 billion ... here in K-town we've seen a large increase in the volume of rain for a number of years now ... we used to get the odd torrential downpour every few years, or so, but two/three a year is commonplace now ... one such storm dumped 72mm in about four hours on the city ... this never happened before in the region and, as such, is an indication of climate change ... it's this data I intend to use when approaching the city about the inadequate drainage system on our street ... as for Phillips, I like his commentary because he explains what's going on very well and as a historian he feels fortunate to be experiencing this climate change in Canada ... that's the business he's in ... he's not Al Gore, not even remotely ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 12, 2014 23:12:22 GMT -5
I'm not so sure they're all the same, HA ... David Philips is far from a fear monger ... I've watched him a few times recently and I found he's more about the history and patterns of the weather ... Calgary may be in a flood zone, but the flooding they experienced last summer is not normal for that area ... Phillips suggests that this kind of flooding will hit Calgary again, because of the climate change that is occurring for that region ... Calgary knows they have to build flood ditches similar to the system in Winnipeg, but the price tag is supposedly $1 billion ... here in K-town we've seen a large increase in the volume of rain for a number of years now ... we used to get the odd torrential downpour every few years, or so, but two/three a year is commonplace now ... one such storm dumped 72mm in about four hours on the city ... this never happened before in the region and, as such, is an indication of climate change ... it's this data I intend to use when approaching the city about the inadequate drainage system on our street ... as for Phillips, I like his commentary because he explains what's going on very well and as a historian he feels fortunate to be experiencing this climate change in Canada ... that's the business he's in ... he's not Al Gore, not even remotely ... Cheers. I'm not sure that a couple of "more then usual" rain means anything. I own my production plants since '95. I had a service cleaning up the snow about 10-12 times a season until 2003 or so. Then as the business started to slow down, I cut the service to a on call basis. Then I bought a garden tractor with a 52" blower on it. Five years ago, I build a 20 foot pile of snow, for four years running, I never bothered putting on the blower and just used a small snow blower to clean up the front a couple times a season. Last year I was sorry I didn't mount the big blower. Is there a change in "climate" or just local weather changes? If it changes in Calgary and Kngston for a few years but not in Montreal, does that mean we have "climate change" or simply changes in local patterns? To prove the point I went to Environment Canada but much to my annoyance, it wasn't as simple as looking up local weather stations to make my point. As you will see in the link below, the information coming from weather stations are all over the map. Some are only running for a few years, some are incomplete and to compile them all, it would take some time and I would have to make "assumptions" and "subjective interpretations". Much like Phillips, the more of those I make, the further it pulls away from science and into the realm of "interpretation". Here is the link.....find the closest weather station to you area and you may (or may not) have data. climate.weather.gc.ca/advanceSearch/searchHistoricDataStations_e.html?searchType=stnProv&timeframe=1&lstProvince=ON&optLimit=yearRange&StartYear=1840&EndYear=2014&Year=2014&Month=9&Day=13&selRowPerPage=100&cmdProvSubmit=Search&startRow=601I didn't go through all of your local data but I found one that has a long enough history to compare year to year data...I found one this one...KINGSTON ONT HYDRO. Looking through it's historical data, there is as much as a 50% difference in the amount of snow/rainfall. For example....1951---924mm of rain and 203mm of snow......1964---557mm rain and 133mm of snow...sometimes the higher or lower range lasted a few years, sometimes it varied from year to year. That's almost twice as much rain or snow from one year to another. Weather changes, all the time. Go through any reliable weather stations data and you will see and probably surprised how much it changes from year to year. Anywho....find your local station and I can analyze your local weather station and show you graphically how much it compares to it's historical data. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 12, 2014 23:45:28 GMT -5
Is there a change in "climate" or just local weather changes? If it changes in Calgary and Kngston for a few years but not in Montreal, does that mean we have "climate change" or simply changes in local patterns? To prove the point I went to Environment Canada but much to my annoyance, it wasn't as simple as looking up local weather stations to make my point. As you will see in the link below, the information coming from weather stations are all over the map. Some are only running for a few years, some are incomplete and to compile them all, it would take some time and I would have to make "assumptions" and "subjective interpretations". Much like Phillips, the more of those I make, the further it pulls away from science and into the realm of "interpretation". Here is the link.....find the closest weather station to you area and you may (or may not) have data. climate.weather.gc.ca/advanceSearch/searchHistoricDataStations_e.html?searchType=stnProv&timeframe=1&lstProvince=ON&optLimit=yearRange&StartYear=1840&EndYear=2014&Year=2014&Month=9&Day=13&selRowPerPage=100&cmdProvSubmit=Search&startRow=601I didn't go through all of your local data but I found one that has a long enough history to compare year to year data...I found one this one...KINGSTON ONT HYDRO. Looking through it's historical data, there is as much as a 50% difference in the amount of snow/rainfall. For example....1951---924mm of rain and 203mm of snow......1964---557mm rain and 133mm of snow...sometimes the higher or lower range lasted a few years, sometimes it varied from year to year. That's almost twice as much rain or snow from one year to another. Weather changes, all the time. Go through any reliable weather stations data and you will see and probably surprised how much it changes from year to year. Anywho....find your local station and I can analyze your local weather station and show you graphically how much it compares to it's historical data. That's a pretty useful website so I bookmarked it ... right on ... I'll do the research later, but I'd add Kingston as part of southeastern Ontario where things have picked up over recent years ... Toronto had a vicious flood, was that last year or the year before, and the three floods I've had in the house since 2008 never happened before ... I'll be going through the annual rainfalls, etc but I think Mr Phillips' interpretations come from monitoring a historical trends ... it's entirely possible Mother Nature feels our end of the world needs mending and, as such, we see the changes in climate ... I'll try to find the data later (I'm getting bagged right now) but Phillips mentioned that we are getting warmer over most of the country ... we're no longer the coldest country on earth, we're now no.2 and climate change is responsible for that, or so Phillips attests to, anyway ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 15, 2014 11:40:42 GMT -5
Time for the snowbirds in Fort Lauderdale to rent condos in Kingston for the winter months? Good for the economy but property values will climb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 18, 2014 16:47:59 GMT -5
Well, he's right again ...
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 24, 2014 13:16:13 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing that Murphy vid, Rick. Too often, the causes for one's beliefs aren't thoroughly examined before one believes in "causes". Not much examination going on HERE, either. People's Climate March Leaves Trail Of Trash
Around 400,000 people marched through Manhattan yesterday to send a message to world leaders regarding the dire consequences of climate change, and the urgent, desperate necessity of enacting sweeping reforms to stop it. It appears at least 150,000 of those people tossed away their paper Starbucks cups.
From the looks of it, much of what was heaved onto the ground by activists caught up in the fervor wasn't trash at all—a healthy amount of the detritus piled in the gutters was recyclable, indicating that attendees couldn't even be bothered to stuff their spent Gatorade bottles into their bags until they located the appropriate receptacle. (Which, to be clear, is a recycling bin.) Also, the coffee cups!
And the signs!
Of course, the only real way to stop climate change is by overturning existing paradigms—agreements by governments to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions, regulatory changes to factory farms and the cessation of cutting down virgin forests. [Editor's note: We don't have data to compare the amount of climate march trash to trash generated by other large gatherings, so an alternative headline here could also be "Massive Crowd Leaves Some Litter."] There is also the possibility that the trash wasn't left by the activists but other passersby not involved in the march, most of whom are probably agents provocateurs employed by the New York Post.
Still, it's a grim day when some of the city's most dedicated activists are blind to the impact of their own habits. Coffee cups are generally coated with plastic, which makes them neither recyclable nor compostable. Plastic cups and cans are recyclable, and letting them simply fall from your hand when you're done with them is not an acceptable means of disposal. Paper and cardboard make up over 40 percent of the solid waste sent to die in North American landfills. The square-footage of natural habitat lost making a 16-ounce paper cup with a sleeve is estimated to be .93 square-feet. In 2006, more than 6.5 million trees were cut down to make 16 billion coffee-specific paper cups for U.S. consumers, resulting in 253 million pounds of waste.
Reusable coffee cups are cheap—Starbucks sells their version for $1. Stuffing it into your backpack, purse or murse can be a pain, but any additional back problems wrought from carrying an empty mug or bottle will be nothing compared to the back pain you'll feel when you're forced to spend the rest of your life treading water.
A Department of Sanitation spokesperson said that information on the amount of trash hauled from the march route will be available in the coming days, but that crews were "assigned to clean up after the march as with any event in the City." All of the trash was removed by Monday morning.
We've inquired as to whether additional trash cans and recycling bins were made available for the march, and whether the department's clean-up efforts entailed separating recyclables. We'll update this story when we hear back. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Sept 24, 2014 13:42:36 GMT -5
Nothing like Rex Murphy to cut through the rhetoric.
Meanwhile. Leo Dicaprio was in front of the UN doing his utmost to be an 'alarmist'.
Like franko, I'm not fully in either camp. Global Warming was a term coined in the 90s(?), if not earlier. It's a complete misnomer imo. Climate Change is a better term. We are seeing changes. Places that are dry, are getting drier. Places that see precipitation are seeing more. We're not far from a period where the polar caps could be completely ice free in the Summer.
Have we, as a species, had a detrimental affect on the climate? Yes. But, I take HUGE issue with the alarmists that proclaim we're killing the planet. That's nothing but utter BS. Unless you're a creationist and believe the planet is only a few thousand years old, this planet we call home has been through far worse than we. We will be long gone before this planet is 'dead'. This rock would survive a nuclear war. We, and most living things would die off, but the planet would still be here. It would bide it's time, and eventually new life would emerge. Ice ages, meteor hits, etc. This planet has been through far more than we can throw at it, and it spins on. It will continue to spin on. Like revolutions around the sun, everything on this rock happens in cycles. Are we accelerating the current cycle? Perhaps.
Climate change isn't, and shouldn't be, about 'saving the planet'. It should be about saving us (from ourselves perhaps).
These green alarmists doddle on about the automobile and how it's scourge. They do it, because it's the easy bandwagon to jump on. It makes sense politically. However, where's a DiCaprio to wage the same sort of war with corporate farming. I'm not just talking about GMOs. I'm talking pollution. Big business farming pumps an alarming amount of crap into the atmosphere. It's unchecked and virtually unregulated. Big business farming cuts a lot of corners to feed the masses. The methane these farms spew is vast, toxic, and imo worse than fossil fuel production. All of this, but there's no one championing the cause to fix/regulate it in front of the UN.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 24, 2014 14:09:21 GMT -5
dig deep . . . really deep . . . it isn't about the change in climate, it's about colonial guilt. the big bad westerners have abused the earth's resources; worse, they have taken advantage of the second and third worlds, leaving them with little. it's more about wealth redistribution through carbon taxes and fees, with climate change as the impetus. and, of course, making "green" money for corporations in on it (like Exxon!).
the first world feels the guilt . . . China and India, the greatest polluters, get a pass. good ol' Canada is supposed to lead the charge.
oh Mr. DiCaprio . . . how did you get to New York? How do you travel the world?
oh Mr. Suzuki . . . live a winter in Edmonton or Winnipeg without fossil fuels. then I might listen to you.
sorry, I've got no time for social re-engineering from the religion of mother earth. you've gone beyond merely making people aware.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 24, 2014 14:24:58 GMT -5
But...but....butt what about Mommy Gaia? How dare we tear holes in her and spoil her beautiful face!! How is she going to protect us?
*sigh*
OBVIOUSLY there are no 14 year Laff fans in here......
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 24, 2014 14:40:33 GMT -5
BTW...anybody want the facts about how they utterly re-invent the term "lies, damn lies and global warming statistics"......
"We have the third warmest June on record"....translation...."we need constant attention and cherry picked a time period that we could use from the data we derived to scream our agenda".....
FACT....there is no absolute time period or universal record or single source of data. There are several sources and those sources have changed their method of data manipulation methodology several times. Pick the one you like them most to suit your narrative and you're always right.
FACT....what we do not know about cloud and water vapor forcing (between 60% and 85%) far exceeds the theoretical forcing of CO2. BUT then again, there is no money or power in clouds and vapor......
FACT...there are no climate models that predict the future climate. They are ALL based on whatever factors the programmers feed into to them which are ALL based on guesses and suppositions.
FACT...the UN single most important agenda is to establish "climate change" as causing world wide harm and creating a wealth redistribution methodology. it's now losing the wealth redistribution angle as China and India are on of the top four emitters.
FACT...the THEORY of CO2 forcing on climate has not resulted in higher global temperatures over the last 17 years. In any "science" not named eugenics, this would cause a re-think of the theory. In "climate science", it's simply re-branded as an omnipresent and unprovable "climate change", where any activity by man can be abused as the "culprit" of "climate change". How convenient.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Sept 24, 2014 15:05:46 GMT -5
dig deep . . . really deep . . . it isn't about the change in climate, it's about colonial guilt. the big bad westerners have abused the earth's resources; worse, they have taken advantage of the second and third worlds, leaving them with little. it's more about wealth redistribution through carbon taxes and fees, with climate change as the impetus. and, of course, making "green" money for corporations in on it (like Exxon!). the first world feels the guilt . . . China and India, the greatest polluters, get a pass. good ol' Canada is supposed to lead the charge. oh Mr. DiCaprio . . . how did you get to New York? How do you travel the world? oh Mr. Suzuki . . . live a winter in Edmonton or Winnipeg without fossil fuels. then I might listen to you. sorry, I've got no time for social re-engineering from the religion of mother earth. you've gone beyond merely making people aware. All good points. I will say that I saw Leo's address to the UN, and he at least implied that the "west" wasn't the sole responsibly party. China and India are definitely cutting corners - and to the benefit of a very few ultra rich billionaires that reside there. That is an area where the UN can step in. However, the west relies so much on cheap products from over there - manufactured on the cheap by cutting those environmental corners. Maybe sanctioning, pollution taxing, etc. raises prices on far east goods to the point where jobs that were lost to those parts of the world come back. Would be interesting to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 24, 2014 15:20:19 GMT -5
China and India are definitely cutting corners - and to the benefit of a very few ultra rich billionaires that reside there. That is an area where the UN can step in. However, the west relies so much on cheap products from over there - manufactured on the cheap by cutting those environmental corners. Maybe sanctioning, pollution taxing, etc. raises prices on far east goods to the point where jobs that were lost to those parts of the world come back. Would be interesting to see. Never going to happen. When ultra orthodox global warming believers suggested that there should be a charge on all goods shipped through containers, the first maulings came from third world countries. The first and foremost method on the agenda of wealth redistribution is a "carbon tax tax" on all first world activities. Which will then be "guided" by UN as they see fit. Want some UN fun and games? The "carbon tax" will be used to fund and support "forest growth". Which would mean that Canada will be on top of that list because by definition, as the planet warms, our forest will explode in size. BUT....according to the UN, Canada (as well as Russia) are "climate criminals" and can not be a recipient of these funds. Only "poor countries" with no "climate criminality" be eligible. Sounds like wealth redistribution by guilt and force to me.... The UN and it's parasites need some DDT spraying..... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 24, 2014 16:01:57 GMT -5
BTW...anybody want the facts about how they utterly re-invent the term "lies, damn lies and global warming statistics"...... "We have the third warmest June on record"....translation...."we need constant attention and cherry picked a time period that we could use from the data we derived to scream our agenda"..... FACT....there is no absolute time period or universal record or single source of data. There are several sources and those sources have changed their method of data manipulation methodology several times. Pick the one you like them most to suit your narrative and you're always right. FACT....what we do not know about cloud and water vapor forcing (between 60% and 85%) far exceeds the theoretical forcing of CO2. BUT then again, there is no money or power in clouds and vapor...... FACT...there are no climate models that predict the future climate. They are ALL based on whatever factors the programmers feed into to them which are ALL based on guesses and suppositions. FACT...the UN single most important agenda is to establish "climate change" as causing world wide harm and creating a wealth redistribution methodology. it's now losing the wealth redistribution angle as China and India are on of the top four emitters. FACT...the THEORY of CO2 forcing on climate has not resulted in higher global temperatures over the last 17 years. In any "science" not named eugenics, this would cause a re-think of the theory. In "climate science", it's simply re-branded as an omnipresent and unprovable "climate change", where any activity by man can be abused as the "culprit" of "climate change". How convenient. You want facts? ... I'll give you facts ... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 24, 2014 17:06:01 GMT -5
 Bush is the new go'to for Goodwin's Law. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Sept 24, 2014 17:30:27 GMT -5
fwiw, I'm not a denier . . . though I am not a true believer either. but I do wish that some balance might be found! (or is it even worth talking about any more?) This is where I stand. When I watched the CBC panel talk about this several nights ago I felt like I was being lectured to - that I was an idiot for not buying into it completely. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 24, 2014 18:07:10 GMT -5
I honestly don't know if mankind is responsible for climate change ... we already talked about it earlier in the thread but the earth is a self-correcting system and it will do what it has to for it to keep going on ... if, by chance, the planet deems us a threat, I dare say she'll rid herself of that threat ... as George Carlin once said, "... the planet is fine, the planet isn't going anywhere ... WE ARE!! ..." just watched the Dicaprio clip and he strikes me as just another celebrity in front of a microphone ... he may, very well, give a hoot, I really don't know ... but there have been too many celebrities in the past who promoted different causes only to bring attention to themselves in the end ...
Cheers.
|
|
