Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[Catoni]

17 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

Take a read of this Larry Bell article, when he refers to his friend as an "expert reviewer" and states that he has reviewed all of the IPCC reports, he neglects to mention that anyone can review anything and his particular reviews being "expert" are just his personal opinion, but more strikingly he neglects to tell us is that his friend Vincent Gray is actually Chief Chemist of the Coal Research Industry and so has a clear bias, your beloved Larry Bell being has no credentials in climate study, however he does have links to the fossil fuel industry, hmmmm.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/13/ipcc-in-a-stew-how-they-cooked-their-latest-climate-books/#321412a12edd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

 

Wow....they might be making a pay check. Horrors !

    And any Warming Alarmist “scientist” doesn’t get paid? You expect us to believe that. 

      James “Fudgin’ the Numbers” Hansen took government money, plus took leftist Theresa Heinz money. 

     Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann has taken government money and gets lot of cash “on the side under the table”.

     Throngs of Warming Alarmist ant-pipeline leftist organizations get paid off with socialist Tides Fooundation and George Soros money. 

    Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house. 

  Hmmmmm.  55555 ????

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You got that Koolaid in your blood dude.

So half the arctic was unseasonably hot for a couple of centuries while the other half got colder to balance things out? The willingness of the weather to conform to the alarmist agenda is truly staggering.

 

The world got hotter during the Little Ice Age, the sea got hotter, and sea ice did not reach levels it had been 100 years before the Little Ice Age.  It was a big thing for Europe and North America, its an important part of our history, but it was not significant worldwide, what is taking you so long to understand?  The willingness of the man made climate change deniers to ignore science and instead base their hypothesis on their skepticism and imagination is astounding.

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, Catoni said:

Wow....they might be making a pay check. Horrors !

    And any Warming Alarmist “scientist” doesn’t get paid? You expect us to believe that. 

      James “Fudgin’ the Numbers” Hansen took government money, plus took leftist Theresa Heinz money. 

     Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann has taken government money and gets lot of cash “on the side under the table”.

     Throngs of Warming Alarmist ant-pipeline leftist organizations get paid off with socialist Tides Fooundation and George Soros money. 

    Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house. 

  Hmmmmm.  55555 ????

 

We have exposed your corporate shrill of the coal industry, specifically that man, we know who he is and what he wants, whereas you have made baseless accusations against anyone and everyone who does not support your agenda, no evidence once again, just blind guesses, can you see the difference?  

 

And if you recall it was actually you who brought up the subject of people being paid to present false information, and you whose quote was exposed as a corporate shrill, glass houses you said?  Are you going for the ironic poster of the year award?

[Catoni]

27 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Wan't it you who was posting the "objective" stance of proven corporate shrills of the fossil fuel industry?  Me thinks its time you got a grip on that irony!

Uhmmm.   No....I don’t think so. But if you think I did, you’re welcome to copy and paste your claim right here.

[Catoni]

32 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We have exposed your corporate shrill of the coal industry, specifically that man, we know who he is and what he wants, whereas you have made baseless accusations against anyone and everyone who does not support your agenda, no evidence once again, just blind guesses, can you see the difference?  

 

And if you recall it was actually you who brought up the subject of people being paid to present false information, and you whose quote was exposed as a corporate shrill, glass houses you said?  Are you going for the ironic poster of the year award?

Here is the fact. Not just some leftist smear job attempt. Remember, you have to keep your Climate Alarm level high, there MUST be a big global warming/Climate Change problem. Because if there isn’t... a hell of a lot of people will be out of work, labs closed down, university departments shut, activists having to look for another “cause”,  a great excuse for raising taxes will be lost, some foundations and special interests losing funds, and even some businesses out of work. 

The squeaky wheel gets the grease....(cash, tearing down capitalism while building socialism,  and more regulations) so keep that alarm level high.

       Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, the Tides Foundation, Socialist billionaire George Soros, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda.

You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.

And then you also have every major and minor university — with contributions from every department, from Critical Literature Theory to Women’s Studies — all with their hands out and eager to provide the support Greenpeace, the government and others desire. Add to that another two or three dozen think tanks which are also sniffing for grants or which support government intervention to do the impossible and stop the earth’s climate from changing.

Every scientific organization which is dependent on grant money has released a statement saying “something must be done” about global warming. They’re supported, fawned over and feted by just about every news and media agency. And don’t forget the leadership of most major organized religions have their own statements — and their hands out.

We’re not done: we still have to add the dozens of Solyndra-type companies eager to sell the government products, to get “green” subsidies or to support its global-warming agenda. Included in that list are oil companies. Oil companies?

Yes. Oil giants aren’t foolish. They want to benefit — and also don’t want to suffer from — the mania that surrounds all things climate change. Their activities are often mercenary: Oil companies will and do fund research that casts a bad light on coal, its main competitor, in hopes of lessening competition but also in expectation of securing peace with activist groups.

For instance, ExxonMobil recently pledged to give Stanford University “up to $100 million in grant money over 10 years to support climate and energy research.” As reported by the website No Tricks Zone:

Four big international companies, including the oil giant ExxonMobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming … In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program …

Shell Oil since 1999 handed out $8.5 million in environmental grants. Like ExxonMobil, many grants flowed to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, but $1.2 million went to the Nature Conservancy; the remainder was spread to several different environmentally-minded groups.

According to  The Washington Times British Petroleum regularly gave to several environmental groups, such as “Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, various branches of the Audubon Society, the Wildlife Habitat Council.” It’s important to understand that these groups accepted the money BP gave them. The Washington Post confirms the Nature Conservancy pocketed over “$10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations.”

Joanne Nova has documented the massive amount of money pouring from government into the pockets of individuals and groups associated with the environment. “The U.S. government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” $79 billion.

And Farrell, our stalwart sociologist, nabbed $126,000 from the EPA between 2012 and 2014, and another $18,500 from the National Science Foundation to study the environment and society. Doubtless he will be similarly rewarded in the future. Funny he never mentioned his funding, nor the funding of all those pushing scenarios of the world’s end.

All that is on one side. And on the other? Well, there’s a handful of privately funded think tanks, a smattering of generous individuals and businesses, a journalist here and there, and (ahem) a few skeptical scientists scratching what living they can, all trying vainly to tell the world that the sky isn’t falling and that government intervention isn’t needed.

https://stream.org/joys-of-divesting-from-reality/

[canuckamuck]

38 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The world got hotter during the Little Ice Age, the sea got hotter, and sea ice did not reach levels it had been 100 years before the Little Ice Age.  It was a big thing for Europe and North America, its an important part of our history, but it was not significant worldwide, what is taking you so long to understand?  The willingness of the man made climate change deniers to ignore science and instead base their hypothesis on their skepticism and imagination is astounding.

So the world got hotter, the sea got hotter, but the ice levels went down to more than 100 year record lows? First, that is the kind of statement that someone would really have to want to believe, for it not to sound like Alice in Wonderland stuff. Secondly, how do they know the ice extent was low, if the areas around the Arctic, Europe and North America, were having this private little Ice age. wouldn't the temperature record predict more ice?

Was Russia having a 2 century extended summer holiday to balance it all out?

Don't tell me it was hotter that year in Rome and Timbuktu so it all balances out. 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

Here is the fact. Not just some leftist smear job attempt. Remember, you have to keep your Climate Alarm level high, there MUST be a big global warming/Climate Change problem. Because if there isn’t... a hell of a lot of people will be out of work, labs closed down, university departments shut, activists having to look for another “cause”,  a great excuse for raising taxes will be lost, some foundations and special interests losing funds, and even some businesses out of work. 

The squeaky wheel gets the grease....(cash, tearing down capitalism while building socialism,  and more regulations) so keep that alarm level high.

       Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, the Tides Foundation, Socialist billionaire George Soros, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda.

You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.

And then you also have every major and minor university — with contributions from every department, from Critical Literature Theory to Women’s Studies — all with their hands out and eager to provide the support Greenpeace, the government and others desire. Add to that another two or three dozen think tanks which are also sniffing for grants or which support government intervention to do the impossible and stop the earth’s climate from changing.

Every scientific organization which is dependent on grant money has released a statement saying “something must be done” about global warming. They’re supported, fawned over and feted by just about every news and media agency. And don’t forget the leadership of most major organized religions have their own statements — and their hands out.

We’re not done: we still have to add the dozens of Solyndra-type companies eager to sell the government products, to get “green” subsidies or to support its global-warming agenda. Included in that list are oil companies. Oil companies?

Yes. Oil giants aren’t foolish. They want to benefit — and also don’t want to suffer from — the mania that surrounds all things climate change. Their activities are often mercenary: Oil companies will and do fund research that casts a bad light on coal, its main competitor, in hopes of lessening competition but also in expectation of securing peace with activist groups.

For instance, ExxonMobil recently pledged to give Stanford University “up to $100 million in grant money over 10 years to support climate and energy research.” As reported by the website No Tricks Zone:

Four big international companies, including the oil giant ExxonMobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming … In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program …

Shell Oil since 1999 handed out $8.5 million in environmental grants. Like ExxonMobil, many grants flowed to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, but $1.2 million went to the Nature Conservancy; the remainder was spread to several different environmentally-minded groups.

According to  The Washington Times British Petroleum regularly gave to several environmental groups, such as “Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, various branches of the Audubon Society, the Wildlife Habitat Council.” It’s important to understand that these groups accepted the money BP gave them. The Washington Post confirms the Nature Conservancy pocketed over “$10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations.”

Joanne Nova has documented the massive amount of money pouring from government into the pockets of individuals and groups associated with the environment. “The U.S. government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” $79 billion.

And Farrell, our stalwart sociologist, nabbed $126,000 from the EPA between 2012 and 2014, and another $18,500 from the National Science Foundation to study the environment and society. Doubtless he will be similarly rewarded in the future. Funny he never mentioned his funding, nor the funding of all those pushing scenarios of the world’s end.

All that is on one side. And on the other? Well, there’s a handful of privately funded think tanks, a smattering of generous individuals and businesses, a journalist here and there, and (ahem) a few skeptical scientists scratching what living they can, all trying vainly to tell the world that the sky isn’t falling and that government intervention isn’t needed.

https://stream.org/joys-of-divesting-from-reality/

Quote

All that is on one side. And on the other? Well, there’s a handful of privately funded think tanks, a smattering of generous individuals and businesses, a journalist here and there, and (ahem) a few skeptical scientists scratching what living they can, all trying vainly to tell the world that the sky isn’t falling and that government intervention isn’t needed.

Ummm, no, on the other side you have the fossil fuel industries and their 4.65 trillion dollar industry to protect, all that money and only a few scientists who can be bought, does that not tell you something about the integrity of scientists, the very same people you seem to think can be bought and all you can come up with is the Chairman of the Coal Board pretending to be a climate scientist.

[HAKAPALITA]

I love Global Warming.It draws every Salad Chomping anti Capitalist lefty out to play .Not a constructive solution posted.Just reams of Cannabis like waffle.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

So the world got hotter, the sea got hotter, but the ice levels went down to more than 100 year record lows? First, that is the kind of statement that someone would really have to want to believe, for it not to sound like Alice in Wonderland stuff. Secondly, how do they know the ice extent was low, if the areas around the Arctic, Europe and North America, were having this private little Ice age. wouldn't the temperature record predict more ice?

Was Russia having a 2 century extended summer holiday to balance it all out?

Don't tell me it was hotter that year in Rome and Timbuktu so it all balances out. 

 

Yes, normally as the air and sea get hotter we see less ice, what made you think it would be otherwise?  You think it unbelievable?  It would be unbelievable the other way around, ice freezing more the hotter it got, do try to engage the brain.

I suggest you read the article I posted earlier, the cooling periods that are collectively referred to as the Little Ice Age were very localized, in the US neighboring states were having starkly contrasting weather.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

Here is the fact. Not just some leftist smear job attempt. Remember, you have to keep your Climate Alarm level high, there MUST be a big global warming/Climate Change problem. Because if there isn’t... a hell of a lot of people will be out of work, labs closed down, university departments shut, activists having to look for another “cause”,  a great excuse for raising taxes will be lost, some foundations and special interests losing funds, and even some businesses out of work. 

The squeaky wheel gets the grease....(cash, tearing down capitalism while building socialism,  and more regulations) so keep that alarm level high.

       Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, the Tides Foundation, Socialist billionaire George Soros, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda.

You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.

And then you also have every major and minor university — with contributions from every department, from Critical Literature Theory to Women’s Studies — all with their hands out and eager to provide the support Greenpeace, the government and others desire. Add to that another two or three dozen think tanks which are also sniffing for grants or which support government intervention to do the impossible and stop the earth’s climate from changing.

Every scientific organization which is dependent on grant money has released a statement saying “something must be done” about global warming. They’re supported, fawned over and feted by just about every news and media agency. And don’t forget the leadership of most major organized religions have their own statements — and their hands out.

We’re not done: we still have to add the dozens of Solyndra-type companies eager to sell the government products, to get “green” subsidies or to support its global-warming agenda. Included in that list are oil companies. Oil companies?

Yes. Oil giants aren’t foolish. They want to benefit — and also don’t want to suffer from — the mania that surrounds all things climate change. Their activities are often mercenary: Oil companies will and do fund research that casts a bad light on coal, its main competitor, in hopes of lessening competition but also in expectation of securing peace with activist groups.

For instance, ExxonMobil recently pledged to give Stanford University “up to $100 million in grant money over 10 years to support climate and energy research.” As reported by the website No Tricks Zone:

Four big international companies, including the oil giant ExxonMobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming … In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program …

Shell Oil since 1999 handed out $8.5 million in environmental grants. Like ExxonMobil, many grants flowed to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, but $1.2 million went to the Nature Conservancy; the remainder was spread to several different environmentally-minded groups.

According to  The Washington Times British Petroleum regularly gave to several environmental groups, such as “Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, various branches of the Audubon Society, the Wildlife Habitat Council.” It’s important to understand that these groups accepted the money BP gave them. The Washington Post confirms the Nature Conservancy pocketed over “$10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations.”

Joanne Nova has documented the massive amount of money pouring from government into the pockets of individuals and groups associated with the environment. “The U.S. government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” $79 billion.

And Farrell, our stalwart sociologist, nabbed $126,000 from the EPA between 2012 and 2014, and another $18,500 from the National Science Foundation to study the environment and society. Doubtless he will be similarly rewarded in the future. Funny he never mentioned his funding, nor the funding of all those pushing scenarios of the world’s end.

All that is on one side. And on the other? Well, there’s a handful of privately funded think tanks, a smattering of generous individuals and businesses, a journalist here and there, and (ahem) a few skeptical scientists scratching what living they can, all trying vainly to tell the world that the sky isn’t falling and that government intervention isn’t needed.

https://stream.org/joys-of-divesting-from-reality/

 

I found this little bit of retardation within your link.

Quote

Some sophisticated environmentalists don’t argue for stopping global warming, but for limiting warming to less than 2oC. This number is, of course, entirely ad hoc. Is it 2oC everywhere? Or in specific locales? Only summer? Or in the other seasons? Only for daytime temperatures? Or what? It is true 2oC sounds good: it’s a number, and numbers are what make science, and so 2oC sounds sciency. It isn’t: it’s purely political.

They of course refer to the global average, but everyone knows that, everyone that is apart from the only person you can find who supports your agenda, a person who sounds so "sciency", don't you think?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yes, normally as the air and sea get hotter we see less ice, what made you think it would be otherwise?  You think it unbelievable?  It would be unbelievable the other way around, ice freezing more the hotter it got, do try to engage the brain.

I suggest you read the article I posted earlier, the cooling periods that are collectively referred to as the Little Ice Age were very localized, in the US neighboring states were having starkly contrasting weather.

 

 

That was my point few posts above, and the point of many others.

The weather and the ice sea levels patterns influence each other, only until a certain point, and there are many other factors of influence which we cannot control.

Can you predict a volcano eruption ?

Sorry to say, but we know a little more than nothing.

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That was my point few posts above, and the point of many others.

The weather and the ice sea levels patterns influence each other, only until a certain point, and there are many other factors of influence which we cannot control.

Can you predict a volcano eruption ?

Sorry to say, but we know a little more than nothing.

 

We have nothing to suggest that anything other than the meteorite hit 65 million years ago, has made any lasting change to the correlation between co2, temps and sea ice levels.  Do you have any evidence to suggest that there are things influencing this correlation or just speculation?

[mogandave]

Assuming the climate is changing, and assuming the changes will be mostly negative, and assuming man is primarily responsible for climate change, what if anything, are any of us willing to give up?

Air conditioning in the summer?
Heat in the winter?
Personal vehicles?
Air transportation?
Eating meat?

Generally, no one wants to give up anything. They want to blame oil companies and raise other people’s taxes.

There is no magic energy source.

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

Ummm, no, on the other side you have the fossil fuel industries and their 4.65 trillion dollar industry to protect, all that money and only a few scientists who can be bought, does that not tell you something about the integrity of scientists, the very same people you seem to think can be bought and all you can come up with is the Chairman of the Coal Board pretending to be a climate scientist.

We’ll let everyone else read what you and I posted and let them make their own minds up, shall we?  If they are objective and not driven by a politico-economic agenda and/or not already brainwashed, I would know how they would decide on our posts. 

[Catoni]

37 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We have nothing to suggest that anything other than the meteorite hit 65 million years ago, has made any lasting change to the correlation between co2, temps and sea ice levels.  Do you have any evidence to suggest that there are things influencing this correlation or just speculation?

You have to look at various data sets, over varying time periods. 

    If you look at temperature and CO2 graphs beginning in 1880, you will see something quite different than if you look at a graph beginning 400,000 years ago, and even more different again if you look at a graph beginning 600,000,000 years ago. 

Here’s one looking at Temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels beginning 600,000,000 years ago, how much correlation do you see between temperature and CO2 over that time scale ?  :

[Kieran00001]

9 minutes ago, Catoni said:

We’ll let everyone else read what you and I posted and let them make their own minds up, shall we?  If they are objective and not driven by a politico-economic agenda and/or not already brainwashed, I would know how they would decide on our posts. 

 

OK, let them make up their mind between what you have presented, which is a coal miner, some woman who doesn't understand averages and a lot of name calling of those who don't agree with you, and what I presented, which is a scientific  consensus based on data from independent climate research agencies around the world.

[mauGR1]

28 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We have nothing to suggest that anything other than the meteorite hit 65 million years ago, has made any lasting change to the correlation between co2, temps and sea ice levels.  Do you have any evidence to suggest that there are things influencing this correlation or just speculation?

Excuse me, but what do you mean for "lasting change" ?

Nothing is lasting, everything change in the physical realm.

And your data is barely 100 years old compared to millions of years of history of the planet.

My evidence is telling me that around 10000 or 12000 years ago there were big cataclisms, without the need of several billions of people polluting the planet. It just happened. It will happen again.

 

 

 

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

what I presented, which is a scientific  consensus based on data from independent climate research agencies around the world.

I prefer to view what you presented as a Globalist conspiracy to force all the sheeple to submit and obey.

[Stargeezr]

I am always confused when the Green people talk that we will not need oil in only a few

years, and yet the countless things that are made from oil ensures that we will need to

get oil from the ground for things like plastic, and I am not talking bags, but the instrument

panels in cars, trucks, lorries, etc. Fabrics that are not leather or cloth like threads that are

not cloth, shoes like those sports runners, and many that are not leather. Hand bags, purses,

suitcases, and electrical wire coatings for cars, motorcycles, houses, shops, buildings, oh and

look around your house like kitchen, see those handles on your pots and pans, kitchen knives,

spoons, spatulas, how about your fans, airconditioners, and for cold climates, heaters, and air

conditioners in your autos. Oil will be needed for many things for the rest of our lifetimes. Solar

panels, need the wires as well as them built of plastics and nylons, and other materials, lychra

spandex, need I go on. Oh your eyeglasses, the frames are not all metal. your watches, your

phones, tablets, computors, your PVRs and televisions. So yes we may have climate change

and we need to try do better not to pollute, but we do not need carbon taxes in addition to all the

rest of the taxes we pay. We do not need politicians to try tell us that we need penalized for

buying cars, or to buy houses, or to enjoy life by travelling around. The world has to get prepared

for stronger storms, and natures disasters from Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tornadoes, Blizzards,

so I hope the countries can quit wasting so much money on their military might, , huge

projects that they do not need.    Why do we need to waste money every 4 years for Summer

or Winter Olympics, when the places that host those events lose more money than they make.

Brazil, for instance. and quite a few others. Time to change the way on how so many government

drive their country into bankruptcy. India, it is time that you quit building so many coal

fired power plants and start trying to stop your polluting, same with other countries that are

 not really making an effort to be less polluting.

Geezer

[HAKAPALITA]

Ive done my bit. Gave up my Cigars 20 years ago. Now Cuban Lady has lost her Shack.????️

[mauGR1]

28 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Assuming the climate is changing, and assuming the changes will be mostly negative, and assuming man is primarily responsible for climate change, what if anything, are any of us willing to give up?

Air conditioning in the summer?
Heat in the winter?
Personal vehicles?
Air transportation?
Eating meat?

Generally, no one wants to give up anything. They want to blame oil companies and raise other people’s taxes.

There is no magic energy source.

Very true, and try to imagine if the poorest of the planet could have a house couple of cars, motorbikes , maybe a boat, internet computer, central heating and A/C while flying twice a year for holidays around the world.....etc..

It would be unsustainable.

And it will be, despite all the efforts to study alternate sources of energy.

It will end badly one way or another, enjoy life.

[Kieran00001]

 

19 minutes ago, Catoni said:

You have to look at various data sets, over varying time periods. 

    If you look at temperature and CO2 graphs beginning in 1880, you will see something quite different than if you look at a graph beginning 400,000 years ago, and even more different again if you look at a graph beginning 600,000,000 years ago. 

Here’s one looking at Temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels beginning 600,000,000 years ago:

Quote

Scotese is an expert in reconstructions of continental positions through time and in creating his ‘temperature reconstruction’ he is basically following an old-fashioned idea (best exemplified by Frakes et al’s 1992 textbook) that the planet has two long-term stable equilibria (‘warm’ or ‘cool’) which it has oscillated between over geologic history. This kind of heuristic reconstruction comes from the qualitative geological record which gives indications of glaciations and hothouses, but is not really adequate for quantitative reconstructions of global mean temperatures. Over the last few decades, much better geochemical proxy compilations with better dating have appeared (for instance, Royer et al (2004)) and the idea that there are only two long-term climate states has long fallen by the wayside.

 

It was the Royer et al one that I posted earlier, most people accept that Scotese's was rubbish, the only place you still see it are on conspiracy sites.

[Kieran00001]

9 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

I am always confused when the Green people talk that we will not need oil in only a few

years, and yet the countless things that are made from oil ensures that we will need to

get oil from the ground for things like plastic, and I am not talking bags, but the instrument

panels in cars, trucks, lorries, etc. Fabrics that are not leather or cloth like threads that are

not cloth, shoes like those sports runners, and many that are not leather. Hand bags, purses,

suitcases, and electrical wire coatings for cars, motorcycles, houses, shops, buildings, oh and

look around your house like kitchen, see those handles on your pots and pans, kitchen knives,

spoons, spatulas, how about your fans, airconditioners, and for cold climates, heaters, and air

conditioners in your autos. Oil will be needed for many things for the rest of our lifetimes. Solar

panels, need the wires as well as them built of plastics and nylons, and other materials, lychra

spandex, need I go on. Oh your eyeglasses, the frames are not all metal. your watches, your

phones, tablets, computors, your PVRs and televisions. So yes we may have climate change

and we need to try do better not to pollute, but we do not need carbon taxes in addition to all the

rest of the taxes we pay. We do not need politicians to try tell us that we need penalized for

buying cars, or to buy houses, or to enjoy life by travelling around. The world has to get prepared

for stronger storms, and natures disasters from Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tornadoes, Blizzards,

so I hope the countries can quit wasting so much money on their military might, , huge

projects that they do not need.    Why do we need to waste money every 4 years for Summer

or Winter Olympics, when the places that host those events lose more money than they make.

Brazil, for instance. and quite a few others. Time to change the way on how so many government

drive their country into bankruptcy. India, it is time that you quit building so many coal

fired power plants and start trying to stop your polluting, same with other countries that are

 not really making an effort to be less polluting.

Geezer

 

Wow, talk about behind the times, did you just crawl out of your cold war bunker or something?

[Kieran00001]

14 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I prefer to view what you presented as a Globalist conspiracy to force all the sheeple to submit and obey.

 

It up to you if you want to be the fossil fuel industries helpful idiot.

[Kieran00001]

15 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Excuse me, but what do you mean for "lasting change" ?

Nothing is lasting, everything change in the physical realm.

And your data is barely 100 years old compared to millions of years of history of the planet.

My evidence is telling me that around 10000 or 12000 years ago there were big cataclisms, without the need of several billions of people polluting the planet. It just happened. It will happen again.

 

 

 

 

We were talking about the possibility that todays sea ice melt is the result of ice that froze during the Little Ice Age, I mean "lasting" within this time frame.  

 

As for the age of the data, you really would have to read through what we were talking about, it started off with proxy data stretching back 65 million years, the modern data was presented as evidence that the proxy measures are accurate, but didn't we already have this conversation?  I am sure I already explained all this to you.

 

Yes, the world has natural hot and cold cycles, nothing we can do about that, however the data for the past 70 years is off the scale, it is nothing like the numbers from 12000 years ago, it is like the numbers from 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct, that is the concern, not a little ice age, a mass extinction.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

 

As for the age of the data, you really would have to read through what we were talking about, it started off with proxy data stretching back 65 million years, the modern data was presented as evidence that the proxy measures are accurate, but didn't we already have this conversation?  I am sure I already explained all this to you.

 

 

Thanks, but i read enough books and data in general to be almost 100% sure that those data are not reliable.

"proxy data stretching 65 million year, you're having a laugh..

[Kieran00001]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Thanks, but i read enough books and data in general to be almost 100% sure that those data are not reliable.

"proxy data stretching 65 million year, you're having a laugh..

 

Ok, then present something that demonstrates that their accuracy rates are not accurate, claiming you have read it is hardly going to cut it, you will have to evidence that or have it disregarded as nonsense.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Ok, then present something that demonstrates that their accuracy rates are not accurate, claiming you have read it is hardly going to cut it, you will have to evidence that or have it disregarded as nonsense.

I thought it was clear that science and knowledge, despite being the highest goals of the humankind, have been manipulated and used by the powerful to fool the rest of the people since the beginning of organized society.

That's not to take away anything from a serious and rigorous study of the nature.

If you present a theory, you have to prove it with real facts.

As far as i know, carbon dating is grossly inaccurate, but some 30 years ago they were telling us that it was perfect.

So should i have blind faith in your graphics ?

[Andrew108]

4 hours ago, Catoni said:

When I was a child....scientific consensus was about 99% that the continents were fixed in place and did not move. 

   They laughed professor Wegener out of the lecture halls and put roadblocks so he had a damn hard time getting published. No “respectable” science journal wanted anything to do with him. 

      Long after he died, he was proven right. 

       What do you think happened to the first scientist that claimed the Earth was not the center of the universe or Solar System ? 

   So much for “scientific consensus”. 

     “Deniers” funded by big oil?

So it’s a conspiracy of big oil? How much you want to bet the warming alarmists are funded by big government, Heinz money, and the Tides Foundation, Soros money and other leftist foundation, leftist rich, and/or big government money?

    I’m willing to bet that the money the “deniers” side gets is a drop in the Ocean compared to the money the Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmist researchers and activists get. 

Well where to start? First, the Guardian reported on the research rather than conduct the research itself. Second, scientific theories change all the time, but evidence is a different thing. There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is being driven by human activity. 

Anyway, it really doesn’t matter. I don’t think you are in a position to change your mind and even if you did change your mind it wouldn’t make much difference.

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I thought it was clear that science and knowledge, despite being the highest goals of the humankind, have been manipulated and used by the powerful to fool the rest of the people since the beginning of organized society.

That's not to take away anything from a serious and rigorous study of the nature.

If you present a theory, you have to prove it with real facts.

As far as i know, carbon dating is grossly inaccurate, but some 30 years ago they were telling us that it was perfect.

So should i have blind faith in your graphics ?

 

The graphics have a level of inaccuracy displayed on them, if you have some evidence to dispute this level of inaccuracy then lets here it, so far all you have offered is supposition, so take a leaf out of your own book and give us some real facts.