Temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030-2052 without rapid steps - U.N. report

[canuckamuck]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

"The world will continue to run on fossil fuels for several decades to come." Actually no. 

This is from an article about how renewable energy's costs are dropping far more rapidly than expected and with it, the future of natural gas as a fuel is increasingly threatened:

" First, wind and solar costs fell so far, so fast that they are now undercutting the cost of new gas in a growing number of regions. And then batteries — which can “firm up” variable renewables, diminishing the need for natural gas’s flexibility — also started getting cheap faster than anyone expected. It happened so fast that, in certain limited circumstances, solar+storage or wind+storage is already cheaper than new natural gas plants and able to play all the same roles (and more)."

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/13/17551878/natural-gas-markets-renewable-energy

And this article was written before the announcement that durable rechargeable zinc air batteries that cost less to manufacture than $100 per kilowatt of capacity. That has long been considered the holy grail of viability to make solar and wind power cheaper than natural gas.

"On Wednesday, an energy company headed by the California billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong announced that it had developed a rechargeable battery operating on zinc and air that can store power at far less than the cost of lithium-ion batteries.

Tests of the zinc energy-storage systems have helped power villages in Africa and Asia as well as cellphone towers in the United States for the last six years, without any backup from utilities or the electric grid, Dr. Soon-Shiong said."

Read it and weep

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/business/energy-environment/zinc-battery-solar-power.html

 

I know we are not on the same page. There will be no warming related apocalypse but there certainly will be an ice age upcoming. However, I really am excited about alternative energy's and the new tech. So I appreciate some of the articles you have cited.

[Chomper Higgot]

34 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I know we are not on the same page. There will be no warming related apocalypse but there certainly will be an ice age upcoming. However, I really am excited about alternative energy's and the new tech. So I appreciate some of the articles you have cited.

Well you’re certainly on a different page.

 

It seems you’re reading the ‘lost and found’.

[RPCVguy]

Sorry Bristolboy, no news to cheer about. Meanwhile Catoni shows by multiple exaggerations and hyperbole that he doesn't write with precision. Nor has he any idea of my background from which I post. I'll supply the latter quick background - grew up during the space race of the 60's as a math wiz picked by the NSF for advanced math courses while in HS. I took their options, but majored in science. The former did take me for a decade to a Fortune 20 corporation where I did the computer modeling that served the early wave of MBAs and moves to international operations that corporations kicked into gear during the 70s. Those same skills serve me as a retiree now with formal training in climate and energy issues, plus practical (developing) skills in permaculture.

I am far too aware of the inadequacies of education for large swaths of human population, especially in the USA... it translates to little chance in undoing the divide being used by the wealthy of both major parties to maintain control over one half or other of the majority. Not news. Divide and conquer is a strategy for gaining and keeping societal power. Elites have done this repeatedly though the rise and fall of past civilizations. Dampening inequality is a necessary but insufficient condition for avoiding collapse. The consequences are coming home at an accelerated rate - despite the prescient warnings of "Population Bomb" "Limits to Growth", and the reluctant warnings of the IPCC.

Though you wanted to tag me with socialist / communist (others point to my time as a capitalist) - I don't adhere to such definitions. I see myself as a pragmatist facing a set of conditions beyond my control except to mitigate against. My experience and skill is in data analysis and systems modeling. When I track the numbers, what the data shows me is that climate and greenhouse gases function globally in a dynamic balance. For the last million years the planet has cycled through Ice Ages mostly at the lead of orbital variations, but with global temperature effects amplified by the changes to the greenhouse gases those changes triggered. While there are many graphs of correlation, I agree that alone is NOT evidence of causation. For backing the linkage between climate and CO2 I recommend Hill’s Criterion "What climate skeptics taught me about global warming" What my science background affirms is that the laws of physics are not negotiable so as to appease human political, social, or economic desires. The atmospheric insulation we have added and continue to add are guaranteeing energy absorption causing a net warming. Most of the energy is stored in the oceans, evidenced primarily during El Nino events. BTW, regional/ continental Europe effects may differ if/ when we cause a shift in the global currents that currently bring warm Gulf Stream waters into the North Atlantic.  
Back to the global temperature/ CO2 concentration dynamic balance, our combustion of long buried carbon deposits is now upsetting the balances at a rate of change 5x faster than the peak rates during the PETM extinction event...(excellent video) It is tough to imagine how fast that is, but maybe this will help. Trying to sequester that carbon again can be started via soil and reforestation, but the totals will require engineering beyond what is known - let alone that can be ramped up to the scales needed in the window of time before the Earth system amplifying effects overwhelm the situation that I posted of earlier.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 9:13 PM, RPCVguy said:

It is literally too late. Unlike dinosaurs, we humans are the species that will not go extinct from asteroids or massive lava flows. Humans will have done it to ourselves, and we'll take most of the biosphere to extinction with us. Anyone arguing that humans have not caused this is part of the societal inertia that prevents what might yet be done... Though I hold no hope on the subject, a slower collapse keeps open the possibility of a solution being found. Continuing the marketed binge party of consumption assures a steeper collapse sooner.

I just quoted a short part of your post, though I agree with most of it.

Indeed, humans will have exterminated themselves, if it all does go horribly wrong, and despite all the warnings and propaganda, humans continue to pollute the planet into disaster. The local supermarkets have banned disposable plastic bags, but the amount of plastic used in wrapping the items that went into the bags has not diminished in the slightest. It is pretty clear that the bag ban is a marketing exercise, and not a serious attempt to limit pollution.

I wonder how many of those that continue to claim that humans are to blame and must "do something" have given up using motor cars and flying, along with all electricity generated by fossil fuel? I would venture to suggest almost none have.

Seems that governments and their bureaucrats want other people to suffer in a noble cause, while doing no suffering themselves.

 

However, I disagree that the biosphere will become extinct. Life will continue, though perhaps in a different form than we know now.

People are fond of equating the end of humans with the end of the planet, yet that is just wrong. Humanity may end, but the planet will continue on without a thought for the species that cared so little for the environment that enabled it to survive. It is billions of years before the sun will expand and consume the planet, and I have no doubt that there will be several, if not many, subsequent dominant species to replace each other over that time span.

Edited November 7, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

despite the prescient warnings of "Population Bomb"

I always find it enlightening that the most obvious cause of the problems we face is completely ignored by the governments that rule us. It is pretty obvious that more people= more pollution and environmental destruction, yet ZERO is being done to limit population growth, and it is even encouraged. If there is anything about the left wing agenda I support, it is abortion. IMO it should be free and on demand, along with the morning after pill. Secondly, education should be encouraged in poor countries, as educated people have less children. IMO, aid should be mainly for educational purposes, and tied to government policies to restrict population growth.

As for western countries, it is long past time to stop paying women to have children. If people can't afford to have children, excellent result.

 

Before anyone asks the obvious question, I do not have any children of my own.

[RPCVguy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just quoted a short part of your post, though I agree with most of it.

However, I disagree that the biosphere will become extinct. Life will continue, though perhaps in a different form than we know now. People are fond of equating the end of humans with the end of the planet, yet that is just wrong. Humanity may end, but the planet will continue on without a thought for the species that cared so little for the environment that enabled it to survive. It is billions of years before the sun will expand and consume the planet, and I have no doubt that there will be several, if not many, subsequent dominant species to replace each other over that time span.

We don't disagree. I was not implying that all life would vanish, but that the rate of environmental changes would outpace the ability of much of the current mix of plants and animals to continue. There have been 5 prior mass extinctions, the 6th is already underway. How drastic it becomes will depend upon how hot and quickly the planet responds to what we've started.
Mammals that were small, living in underground burrows during the day - those might allow mammals to continue, to evolve from there. That's how mammals started some 64 million years ago while reptiles were the dominant land animals.

Life has thrived in higher concentrations of CO2 and warmer temperature as can be seen in the image below. The problem is speed of change, which you and others have already pointed out. Evolution and migration options are being outpaced by the rate of changes to temperature, droughts, etc. This applies more severely to the larger species. Note that humans have existed for only a quarter of a million years... just the tiny dot at the bottom right of the image. Our society is based upon the ability to grow and store grains, but of the plant varieties, grains are ill suited to the temperatures already happening over the land areas and seasons with even the 1ºC increase so far. [see Temperature increase reduces global yields and this video by Prof David Battisti ]

Warming temperatures and human deforestation are already generating droughts in the Amazon which then lead to fires, releasing more CO2. Similarly the warming of the Western US has allowed beetle infestation to spread, killing trees there - just one of the reasons for longer and more intense fire seasons.  Where we are forcing the planet in response to human societal behavior is an inhospitable environment for large regions. Meanwhile our food supplies require sunlight and soils not readily available in the northern latitudes.

Yes, a global average of 10ºC is the range life on our planet has thrived within. The extinction events have occurred when the rate of change was too rapid. We are already losing species daily, in one habitat or another. How steep a change is ahead is what will determine the severity of this, the 6th mass extinction event. So far, we've wasted nearly half a century since the first Earth Day in 1970 - doubling population since then and many times higher rates of greenhouse gas release. We've still got financial interests and cultural habits of "progress" keeping us from changing course. I don't see people changing course... certainly not in time.
At its worst extremes, dead zones in the seas (anoxic zones) allowed H2S producing bacteria to thrive, which in turn poisoned the air over neighboring land masses [see Canfield Ocean] killing many of the smaller plants and animals as well. The Permian Extinction event is depicted in the graphic as the spike at the end of the Paleozoic Era, and probably had Canfield oceans. 95% of all species ceased during that event. I'd hope that most of the loss can be avoided - but it does depend upon what Homo Sapiens does as a global society. So far it does not seem very Sapient.

[727Sky]

Major Math Error Puts Widely-Cited Global Warming Study On Ice

Quote

Unfortunately for the Princeton-Scripps team, it appears that their report has been proven inaccurate. 

Independent scientist Nic Lewis found the study had “apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.” Lewis’ findings were quickly corroborated by another researcher. -Daily Caller

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-07/major-math-error-puts-widely-cited-global-warming-study-ice

[727Sky]

The more digging done by independent researchers the more errors are found ? The more years that pass us by and the climate model predictions are viewed in hindsight the more they are shown to not reflect reality. Just another case of when the alarmist are double checked, their findings/theories are based on bad math..

[RPCVguy]

1 hour ago, 727Sky said:

Major Math Error Puts Widely-Cited Global Warming Study On Ice

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-07/major-math-error-puts-widely-cited-global-warming-study-ice

The headline would more accurately have said: "New study that said the oceans were warming more than any previous estimates - has a math error."
New headline should read: "Go back to the previous gloomy projections - Urgent changes still needed."

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

The headline would more accurately have said: "New study that said the oceans were warming more than any previous estimates - has a math error."
New headline should read: "Go back to the previous gloomy projections - Urgent changes still needed."

It may be true. But a more accurate headline would read"New study that said the oceans were warming more than any previous estimates - ALLEGEDLY has a math error."

Nic Lewis, the person who has alleged this is a good mathematician with an inclination to find climate change is far less than most climatologists believe. His study hasn't been peer reviewed by an independent researcher but has been reviewed by Roger Pielke, another scientist who is something of an outlier. His contention was posted to the blog of Judith Curry, another global warming minimalist. So it's a bit premature to say definitively that Nic Lewis has proved that there is an error, and, if there is, how much it alters the results of the research. 

 

[RPCVguy]

Bristolboy, I was happy you responded as you did to my last post about the headlines. I'm cautious when a study provides an answer I suspect - in this case that Climate Sensitivity is higher than the IPCC has yet admitted. Changing how rapidly heat goes into the ocean doesn't change the total warming we face, but it does change how rapidly we get there.
I'll share here a few links collected over several years. My touchstone as to where the system equilibrium point will settle to for any level of CO2 is Prof. David Wasdell's "Earth System Sensitivity" that uses the physical properties of CO2 absorption to suggest and indeed seems evident to be a straight line when plotted on semi-log paper.

Systems that are out of balance do not approach equilibrium linearly. They shift the fastest while they are the most out of balance, then they curve asymptotically towards the final values. It will take a thousand years or more to restore equilibrium, but most of this will occur sooner than later. The above chart is based NOT on models, but on empirical information from geological history.
DETAILS of the paper in this PDF  Earth System Sensitivity - ESS
As my professor (a participant in the IPCC 2007 Report) answered in 2014 to one of my queries on the value: "when the IPCC was finalizing their writing this time, the literature was suggesting the chance of a lower sensitivity, which caused them to bump the lower end to 1.5 although keeping the most-likely near 3; since then, I believe the literature has pushed back, and if anything a value above 3, with little chance below 2, is more consistent. (As a paleoclimatologist, I have difficulty seeing how the paleoclimatic record can be explained with a sensitivity below 2, but again, the difference between Charney and Earth-System Sensitivity is significant."
The political and corporate influence on IPCC reports enforces a general reticence to affirm what the data is suggesting, it fits why their estimates as to consequences keep getting surpassed. The variance between the IPCC and Dr Wasdell (or Dr James Hansen) is a matter of time. The IPCC gave a conservative, highly assured 21st Century consequence of various actions - but Dr Hansen and many are sure that the sensitivity to CO2 is higher than being cited.  
Since the IPCC report,

• ""We found that the climate sensitivity increased from 4 degrees C in the default model to 5-5.3ºC in versions that were modified to bring liquid and ice amounts into closer agreement with observations," said Yale researcher Ivy Tan, lead author of the paper. Climate sensitivity refers to the change in global mean surface temperature due to a doubling of carbon dioxide." ... "These results add to a growing body of evidence that the stabilizing cloud feedback at mid- to high latitudes in climate models is overstated. Moreover, several recent studies have concluded that other important cloud feedbacks also are likely to exacerbate warming rather than dampen it."
  Climate models underestimate global warming by exaggerating cloud brightening
• This article provides links to 2 additional studies (in Nature and in PNAS) that each report higher values for Climate Sensitivity. What else indicates the estimates are too low and that the new report last month might be right? I'll quote  Phil Duffy, the Director of the Woods Hole Institute, from the 2017 article: "The best example of [IPCC] reticence is permafrost… It’s absolutely essential that this feedback loop not get going seriously, if it does there is simply no way to control it… The scientific failure comes in because none of this is in climate models and none of this is considered in the climate policy discussion… climate models simply omit emissions from the warming permafrost, but we know that is the wrong answer because that tacitly assumes that these emissions are zero and we know that’s not right…"
  What we Learned of the Climate System in 2017
   
• So the newest report - the one now being evaluated for accuracy - has 60% more heat being absorbed into the oceans than previously estimated. Such an outlier result is being examined and will be tested many times and ways. The premise for how the measurement could work seems plausible, and from one quote I had already liked and shared elsewhere - by Mitch Lyle, Professor, Sr. Research, Oregon State University:
  "The authors use a novel ocean heat content estimate that depends on gas exchange and atmospheric oxygen content. The conclusion are interesting, that climate sensitivity may be underestimated, but their “thermometer” needs to be confirmed."
  He was one of several scientists who reviewed whether the Washington Post article at least faithfully represented the paper it was citing:
  Washington Post accurately describes ocean warming study with potential implications for future carbon budget

[Catoni]

On 11/7/2018 at 12:51 AM, canuckamuck said:

I know we are not on the same page. There will be no warming related apocalypse but there certainly will be an ice age upcoming. However, I really am excited about alternative energy's and the new tech. So I appreciate some of the articles you have cited.

 

I think you meant to say another Glacial Period is coming.  Cities like Berlin, Moscow, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Montreal, Toronto.... buried under a vast sheet of heavy ice a mile or two thick covering much of the continents........  like we we just came out of 20,00 - 12,000 years ago.....and had lasted 100,000 years...  We get them on a fairly regular schedule... and due for another one relatively soon..... It will change the world.. and not for the good.

 

  We should be very thankful for a bit of warming.  Life does better in the warmth... not the cold.   It's just a simple fact. 

 

Because guess what...... we're already in an Ice Age right now, and have been for the past 2.6 million years. 

     We happen to be in an Interglacial Period.... between Glacial Periods... during the current Ice Age.  The Pleistocene/Quaternary Glaciation...  

 

   People are always confusing Ice Ages and Glacial Periods..

  

  As long as we have ice-caps, ice fields, frozen over polar regions and glaciers... we are in an Ice Age. 

                       Lots of people fail to realize that.... and stupidly get in a panic and alarmist mode over climate change... which always happens... sometimes fast... sometimes slow.. sometimes a little... sometimes a lot. 

 

        But I think they actually use climate change alarm for their scientific job security, income for their labs... university tenure... political influence and power...  book sales...and leftist/socialist/communist politico-economic agenda. 

 

  I would highly suggest an basic study of Paleoclimatology for people interested in "Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change.  It's really a very very interesting subject.  

b      And unless you have a leftist/socialist politico-economic agenda.... you will quickly lose your fear of our tiny bit of warming following the unpleasant colder time of the L.I.A.   As a matter of fact... you will welcome it.  ???? 

 

   As for the "deniers".... here's an interesting little video....  

 

   

 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Catoni
addition

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, Catoni said:

  I think you mean a Glacial Period is coming.  Because we're in an Ice Age right now. '

 

   As for the "deniers".... here's an interesting little video....  

 

   

 

I actually waster a few minutes of my time watching this. The loon narrating this video doesn't seem to notice that these are temperatures for Greenland Dome Temperatures. You could actually do a search and find out what this means and whether it's generalizable to the entire planet. In fact, all this stuff you cite is refuted by real scientists. But since you apparnetly have interest in actually looking up the wealth of contradictory information, there will never be any convincing you. But that you think that this bizarre video actually supports a serious case against ACC, is a bit sad.

[canuckamuck]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I actually waster a few minutes of my time watching this. The loon narrating this video doesn't seem to notice that these are temperatures for Greenland Dome Temperatures. You could actually do a search and find out what this means and whether it's generalizable to the entire planet. In fact, all this stuff you cite is refuted by real scientists. But since you apparnetly have interest in actually looking up the wealth of contradictory information, there will never be any convincing you. But that you think that this bizarre video actually supports a serious case against ACC, is a bit sad.

Ah yes the old don't look at Greenland ploy. Greenland warming is an anomoly, you can only look at Greenland warming when we are talking about modern warming LOL.

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Ah yes the old don't look at Greenland ploy. Greenland warming is an anomoly, you can only look at Greenland warming when we are talking about modern warming LOL.

Clearly for some people, Greenland is the world.

[Catoni]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I actually waster a few minutes of my time watching this. The loon narrating this video doesn't seem to notice that these are temperatures for Greenland Dome Temperatures. You could actually do a search and find out what this means and whether it's generalizable to the entire planet. In fact, all this stuff you cite is refuted by real scientists. But since you apparnetly have interest in actually looking up the wealth of contradictory information, there will never be any convincing you. But that you think that this bizarre video actually supports a serious case against ACC, is a bit sad.

You actually think Greenland had a wall around it for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years? Isolating it from the rest of the world?

     Just to let you know.... the leftist Gore Bull Warming Alarmists just love using data from certain areas of the planet (Greenland, Antarctica, some isolated lake sediment in northern Canada etc.) when it suits THEIR purpose.   LOL.  55555 ????

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Clearly for some people, Greenland is the world.

Clearly for some other people, Greenland is totally isolated from the rest of the world. A wall around it about 60 miles high, or even perhaps on another planet. 

[losworld]

People need to wake up.  It's really all about the billions or trillions Wall Street can make on carbon credit trading... that is what is pushing this pseudo science...

[727Sky]

A little history of the junk science of global warming.. Climate change is the real deal for that is what it does in documented cycles..

 

[Thechook]

Great news, it's been so cold the last decade.  Miss those long summers

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, 727Sky said:

A little history of the junk science of global warming.. Climate change is the real deal for that is what it does in documented cycles..

 

Bet you're a Brexiteer too.

[zzaa09]

The end is near........for some.

[bristolboy]

To each according to his understanding...

 South Park’ apologizes to Al Gore for not taking climate change seriously

In a rare move, a recent episode of “South Park” apologized to former Vice President Al Gore for a 2006 episode that poked fun at the politician and his stance on climate change.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/south-park-apologizes-to-al-gore-for-not-taking-climate-change-seriously

 

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed.  

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 4:21 PM, RPCVguy said:

We are already losing species daily,

The question I have to ask, seeing daily the insanity of mankind as it pollutes itself and many other species into extinction, is, does a species that has been so very, very bad in it's occupation of the planet even deserve to survive?

Something everyone needs to ask themselves as they start the car to go to the mini mart a 5 minute walk away, or fly to some beach that was destroyed by overdevelopment for a holiday that they could easily have taken at home, or buy a completely unnecessary appliance that uses loads of electricity or fossil fuel ( eg patio warmers ), or even buy something wrapped in large amounts of non biodegradable plastic.

The answer to pollution lies in our own hands.

 

Oh, and think of the consequences of having more than 2 children before doing the deed.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Catoni said:

It will change the world.. and not for the good.

You should have added " for humans". Anyone that thinks the planet exists for our benefit needs to think again. We just evolved a few seconds ago ( in historical terms ) when the environment allowed our form of life to exist, and if the conditions that support our lifeform change, so be it. The planet continues regardless of whatever beings happen to crawl, walk, fly or swim on the surface for however long they may do so.

People keep thinking that they are the most important thing that ever happened on planet earth- not so in the larger picture. If we don't look after our environment, our time may end sooner than expected, but end it will, eventually.

Unfortunately, the people that can make a difference ( governments and bureaucrats ) don't seem very concerned, judging by their half hearted attempts to do anything at all. Most are more concerned about making money than doing anything to combat pollution.

[RickBradford]

16 hours ago, losworld said:

People need to wake up.  It's really all about the billions or trillions Wall Street can make on carbon credit trading... that is what is pushing this pseudo science...

Well, it's partly about that.

 

It's also about the Green/Left's insatiable urge for power, which is the only thing they care about. Forget "saving the planet". 

They want a mandate for regulating other people's behavior, redistributing wealth, imposing taxes, and overturning the capitalist model. They resent success and competence, and as the saying goes, if you can't join them, beat them.

 

It's ironic; there's the Green/Left, which loves to portray itself as the noble little hero standing up to the big corporate greedheads, and yet here they are, marching in lockstep with the big banks, insurance companies, lawyers and innumerable non-productive make-work bureaucracies.

 

Hypocrisy always was their strong point.

[JimmyJ]

21 hours ago, Catoni said:

 

I think you meant to say another Glacial Period is coming.  Cities like Berlin, Moscow, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Montreal, Toronto.... buried under a vast sheet of heavy ice a mile or two thick covering much of the continents........  like we we just came out of 20,00 - 12,000 years ago.....and had lasted 100,000 years...  We get them on a fairly regular schedule... and due for another one relatively soon..... It will change the world.. and not for the good.

 

  We should be very thankful for a bit of warming.  Life does better in the warmth... not the cold.   It's just a simple fact. 

 

Because guess what...... we're already in an Ice Age right now, and have been for the past 2.6 million years. 

     We happen to be in an Interglacial Period.... between Glacial Periods... during the current Ice Age.  The Pleistocene/Quaternary Glaciation...  

 

   People are always confusing Ice Ages and Glacial Periods..

  

  As long as we have ice-caps, ice fields, frozen over polar regions and glaciers... we are in an Ice Age. 

                       Lots of people fail to realize that.... and stupidly get in a panic and alarmist mode over climate change... which always happens... sometimes fast... sometimes slow.. sometimes a little... sometimes a lot. 

 

        But I think they actually use climate change alarm for their scientific job security, income for their labs... university tenure... political influence and power...  book sales...and leftist/socialist/communist politico-economic agenda. 

 

  I would highly suggest an basic study of Paleoclimatology for people interested in "Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change.  It's really a very very interesting subject.  

b      And unless you have a leftist/socialist politico-economic agenda.... you will quickly lose your fear of our tiny bit of warming following the unpleasant colder time of the L.I.A.   As a matter of fact... you will welcome it.  ???? 

 

   As for the "deniers".... here's an interesting little video....  

 

   

 

 

Re: the above post:

 

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
(Stephen Hawking)

 

 

Edited November 10, 2018 by JimmyJ

[727Sky]

10 hours ago, kwilco said:

Bet you're a Brexiteer too.

Not really I just try to find facts and present them to the IPCC/NWO/Socialist brain dead.. If the latest facts go against preconceived notions then maybe the notions should be looked at with a more critical eye, No ?

 

This is not a fruitful endeavor for me but if I can save one person from the hysteria and sleepless nights then maybe my effort was not totally vain.

[Jim1000]

We are doomed !