New photos vs old: comparisons show dramatic Swiss glacier retreat

[canuckamuck]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

Just because something happened naturally in the past does not mean that it is happening naturally now.

All the evidence seems to indicate that it is not happening naturally. and that humans are contributed. 

I am not going to play the .link, graph, and chatt game, if all the evidence have not convince your side by now, IMO nothing will . We just will have to do the best we can   without yous.

Even if we are wrong all we will MAYBE lose is some money, but will end up with a cleaner environment. If you guys are wrong................ 

The thing is, we can not observe what is going on and call it unnatural, because there is nothing happening now with temperatures that has happened before.

And no sane person is against a cleaner environment. I do my part against waste, and plastics. I find alternative energy very interesting, not because of CO2 but because it has the potential to use less resources. I try to reduce pollution in my small ways. But CO2 is not pollution. It is the opposite and a very fortunate side effect of industry.

Go after plastics and toxic waste, I am all for it. 

All the evidence I ever see that claims to show man made warming is always an emotional angle, with cherry picked and manipulated statistics and scenarios, and hyperbolic language which is very removed from sober scientific skepticism.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

All the evidence I ever see that claims to show man made warming is always an emotional angle, with cherry picked and manipulated statistics and scenarios, and hyperbolic language which is very removed from sober scientific skepticism.

A further thing to remember is that, even after 30 years of climate activism, it has become clear that posturing aside, the world is not going to do anything.

 

And if nothing dire happens in a few years, the only outcome of this whole shemozzle is that the climate movement in general (and not a few scientists) will be exposed as a fraud. Plus trillions of dollars wasted.

 

The activists, of course, will just move on to some other sphere of activity to peddle their agenda.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The thing is, we can not observe what is going on and call it unnatural, because there is nothing happening now with temperatures that has happened before.

And no sane person is against a cleaner environment. I do my part against waste, and plastics. I find alternative energy very interesting, not because of CO2 but because it has the potential to use less resources. I try to reduce pollution in my small ways. But CO2 is not pollution. It is the opposite and a very fortunate side effect of industry.

Go after plastics and toxic waste, I am all for it. 

All the evidence I ever see that claims to show man made warming is always an emotional angle, with cherry picked and manipulated statistics and scenarios, and hyperbolic language which is very removed from sober scientific skepticism.

The evidence is overwhelming , well documented and often provided here and elsewhere.  

Read what NASA has to say on the subject.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, webfact said:

More than 500 Swiss glaciers have already vanished, and the government says 90% of the remaining 1,500 will go by the end of the century if nothing is done to cut emissions.

That's the propaganda that bothers me. Given that humans contribute such a small % of the total atmospheric CO2, who can prove that cutting our emissions will change anything?

 

Of course it'd be a good thing to stop destroying our environment and polluting the air and oceans, but let's be honest that it isn't going to happen as long as people want stuff, and there is money to be made.

At least the foremost climate alarmists should stop having children, flying, using cars and mobile phones, and set an example- not just "do as I say, not as I do."

If Prince Charles is an advocate for reducing atmospheric CO2, perhaps he should have come to NZ on a sailing boat, rather than flying on his visit.

[stevenl]

41 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I remember Sydney harbor pics were shown. I don.t remember them being debunked. Can you elaborate?

The poster made the same point earlier, debunked already. Apparently he doesn't care about that and keeps on posting the same debunked information. If the OP were interested he would correct. But apparently he doesn't care. Height variations due to tidal differences are 2 meters at the photo location, so meaningless photo unless tides are indicated as well.

 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/photo-meme-of-sydney-harbour-incorrectly-claims-no-sea-level-rise-has-occurred/

 

From the link 'In fact, two independent tide gauge records show that sea level in Sydney has risen by about 12 cm since the end of the 19th century. '.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

From the link 'In fact, two independent tide gauge records show that sea level in Sydney has risen by about 12 cm since the end of the 19th century. '.

At that rate of rise, we have plenty of time left to do something to mitigate the effects of rising seas. I doubt that we can stop the tide rising- remember Canute?

[canuckamuck]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The poster made the same point earlier, debunked already. Apparently he doesn't care about that and keeps on posting the same debunked information. If the OP were interested he would correct. But apparently he doesn't care. Height variations due to tidal differences are 2 meters at the photo location, so meaningless photo unless tides are indicated as well.

 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/photo-meme-of-sydney-harbour-incorrectly-claims-no-sea-level-rise-has-occurred/

 

From the link 'In fact, two independent tide gauge records show that sea level in Sydney has risen by about 12 cm since the end of the 19th century. '.

 Do you think that 5 inches of change in a 120 years would change the appearance of the high tide mark in the harbor.

And that is what the poster was claiming. By the photos the change is impossible to detect. So much for the impending doom.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

The poster made the same point earlier, debunked already. Apparently he doesn't care about that and keeps on posting the same debunked information. If the OP were interested he would correct. But apparently he doesn't care. Height variations due to tidal differences are 2 meters at the photo location, so meaningless photo unless tides are indicated as well.

 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/photo-meme-of-sydney-harbour-incorrectly-claims-no-sea-level-rise-has-occurred/

 

From the link 'In fact, two independent tide gauge records show that sea level in Sydney has risen by about 12 cm since the end of the 19th century. '.

You are wasting your breath. How long have we had this conversation for? Same nonsense and when debunked, move to different nonsense. 

  Big oil knows what they are doing, they have experts in propaganda. They don't need to win, even when  they lose  It will not really affect them.Do you really think global warming will seriously affect trump's children? 

They know the fossil fuel game is over, all they need to do is extended as much as possible. So if they extend it another 8 years, in a person's 80 year lifespan that represents 10% more profits. 

So they have their experts and provide misinformation that sounds right except for the part  they don't tell you and muddy the waters enough  to confuse those easily confused.

I got to tell you, so far they have being  pretty successful.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You are wasting your breath. How long have we had this conversation for? Same nonsense and when debunked, move to different nonsense. 

  Big oil knows what they are doing, they have experts in propaganda. They don't need to win, even when  they lose  It will not really affect them.Do you really think global warming will seriously affect trump's children? 

They know the fossil fuel game is over, all they need to do is extended as much as possible. So if they extend it another 8 years, in a person's 80 year lifespan that represents 10% more profits. 

So they have their experts and provide misinformation that sounds right except for the part  they don't tell you and muddy the waters enough  to confuse those easily confused.

I got to tell you, so far they have being  pretty successful.

The only meaningful action to change human influence on the atmosphere is to have less humans. So far not much being done on that front. Affluent westerners driving electric cars ( still polluting to make and dispose of ) and building lots of bird killing windmills isn't going to make any difference as long as lots of people being born in poor countries that all want to live like rich westerners.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The only meaningful action to change human influence on the atmosphere is to have less humans.

I couldn't agree more. we can start with the republicans. 

[sirineou]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

If Prince Charles is an advocate for reducing atmospheric CO2, perhaps he should have come to NZ on a sailing boat, rather than flying on his visit.

what a ridiculous thing to say

Using that logic, he would do even more to reduce atmospheric CO2 if he did nothing.

[zaZa9]

18 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I'm not making that argument. That's just something you made up.

 

I'm saying that activists get hysterical about any phenomenon which appears to point to global warming, and ignore any events which either do not support that narrative, or raise uncertainty as to its magnitude and trajectory.

 

Nothing, to the activists, must be allowed to mar the perfect narrative of climate catastrophe, as laid out by Greta Thunberg and other climate experts like Leonardo di Caprio, Prince Charles and Bob Geldof.

Yes , RickBradford is  a far better educated 'know-it-all'  , who asserts that while warming is occurring , its natural , and man has zero to do with it ...its happened before.

No matter ... now there is 7 billion people ( who have no affect on the world ) are  about  to be increasingly affected  by The World.

 

So whats the 'know-it-all's ' solution to that problem?

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, zaZa9 said:

Yes , RickBradford is  a far better educated 'know-it-all'  , who asserts that while warming is occurring , its natural , and man has zero to do with it ...its happened before.

I have never said that. In fact, I have repeatedly said that I believe human activities affect the climate.

 

Stop making things up.

[Krataiboy]

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

The evidence is overwhelming , well documented and often provided here and elsewhere.  

Read what NASA has to say on the subject.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Your faith in NASA may be misplaced. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Odysseus123]

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

Your faith in NASA may be misplaced. 

 

 

 

 

 

Pshaw....as I have absolutely no faith in you whatsover..

 

Can you post any qualifications that you may possess on this matter that would help me change my mind?

 

Please note-any qualifications that YOU possess-comprende pas?

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

what a ridiculous thing to say

Using that logic, he would do even more to reduce atmospheric CO2 if he did nothing.

Good point so let's all of us do nothing. Don't breed, don't drive cars, don't go on international holidays, only eat vegetarian.

While we are doing that, all of Asia will be carrying on polluting and having a good time ( compared to us ).

[Odysseus123]

6 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Your faith in NASA may be misplaced. 

 

 

 

 

 

Pshaw....as I have absolutely no faith in you whatsover..

 

Can you post any qualifications that you may possess on this matter that would help me change my mind?

 

Please note-any qualifications that YOU possess-comprende pas?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Pshaw....as I have absolutely no faith in you whatsover..

 

Can you post any qualifications that you may possess on this matter that would help me change my mind?

 

Please note-any qualifications that YOU possess-comprende pas?

NB he can post that he has a bucket full of qualifications and so long as he remains anonymous you would doubt them.

My qualifications is that I've been alive a long time and nothing much has changed in that time except summer keeps getting later in the year. Sea level hasn't risen appreciably, Snow line has gone up in summer, but winter still remains bitterly cold. Actually, it used to be hotter in winter 50 years ago than now. Days would start with a frost and by 10 am I'd have my shirt off. Didn't get warm enough to do that last winter, and the cold weather lasted longer too.

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, Odysseus123 said:

Pshaw....as I have absolutely no faith in you whatsover..

 

Can you post any qualifications that you may possess on this matter that would help me change my mind?

 

Please note-any qualifications that YOU possess-comprende pas?

Stop deflecting. Either refute the facts in the video - or accept what for you will obviously be an inconvenient truth.

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Krataiboy

[seajae]

17 hours ago, stevenl said:

You made the same point in an earlier thread, debunked already.

no its not, the pics are still showing the same high tide marks, it was not debunked at all they gave no proof the high tide marks have changed, just more BS from those that refuse the truth and are climate change groupies. I can see the weather/season  changes but not the ocean changes, more definitive proof is needed than just what some climate change person that is making money out of it is claiming,

Sea levels in and around Sydney Harbour 1886 to 2018 - The ...

 

https://saltbushclub.com › wp-content › uploads › 2019/02 › sea-levels-sy...

1.  

7: CONCLUSIONS regarding Sea Levels Long term tide gauge records in Sydney Harbour show that there has been NO significant sea level rise in the harbour for the past 120 years, and what little there has been is about 0.65mm pa, or about the height of a matchbox over a century.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by seajae

[sirineou]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Good point so let's all of us do nothing. Don't breed, don't drive cars, don't go on international holidays, only eat vegetarian.

While we are doing that, all of Asia will be carrying on polluting and having a good time ( compared to us ).

 No. not do nothing, do something different.

[sirineou]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While we are doing that, all of Asia will be carrying on polluting and having a good time ( compared to us ).

Two points about that statement 

First: Do you realise how childish it is?? "But mom they are doing it too" .

Second :  using the above logic no one will do nothing about the problem, because Asia would also say the same. "why should we do anything while the US will be carrying on polluting and having a good time" 

Someone has to take the lead and when the rest see how well it is working out for them the rest will join" 

and even if they did not join, will you rather "cut your nose off to spite your face"

 

[Odysseus123]

4 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Stop deflecting. Either refute the facts in the video - or accept what for you will obviously be an inconvenient truth.

 

Stop yer ticklin..Jock!

 

What no quallifications whatsoever?

 

Trump supporter?Brexit supporter?

Climate change denier?

Mysoginist?

Anti immigration?

 

[sirineou]

5 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Your faith in NASA may be misplaced. 

 I'd rather trust the agency that got as to the moon, staffed with educated scientist, than trust Exxon/Mobil and it's greedy plutocrats. 

Exxon/ Mobil profits: 76 billion,  CEO salary 17,5 million 

Nasa Profits: only scientific knowledge,  Executive's compensation is $232,188 

I wonder which of the two would be more inclined to lie.

[RickBradford]

8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Two points about that statement 

First: Do you realise how childish it is?? "But mom they are doing it too" .

Second :  using the above logic no one will do nothing about the problem, because Asia would also say the same. "why should we do anything while the US will be carrying on polluting and having a good time" 

Someone has to take the lead and when the rest see how well it is working out for them the rest will join" 

and even if they did not join, will you rather "cut your nose off to spite your face"

 

If you knew anything about climate policy, you would not have written a single word of the above.

 

The US is the only major economy in the world which has cut CO2 emissions in the past decade; the EU has just about stabilized its emissions.

 

Those "gains", if such they be, are easily outweighed by China, which increased CO2 emissions by 4% in 2018. Then you can add in India (4.8%), Pakistan and Indonesia.

 

The West is reducing its CO2 emissions; Asian countries are increasing theirs at a rapid rate, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. China is easily the biggest global emitter of CO2, pumping out more than twice the US.

 

Now, if you were a climate alarmist who believed fervently in reducing global CO2 emissions, where do you think you should be concentrating your efforts?

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The US is the only major economy in the world which has cut CO2 emissions in the past decade; the EU has just about stabilized its emissions.

Again a misleading propaganda device fed to you by the petrochemical side.

You must remember that in order that propagando to be effective there must be truth in what they  are saying, The propaganda exists in what they are not saying .

It is like saying that the Mafia cut their killings by 50%  (there were 1,000 killings by 20 people and now there are 500) where the rest of the population actually increased their killings by 100% ( there were 20 killings by 1 million people  and now there are 40) .

 

 

[RickBradford]

Right. Any fact you don't like must be propaganda from the oil industry. *Sigh*.

 

The facts I laid out are widely available, from organisations such as the International Energy Agency, and even from an independent activist group called Climate Action Tracker. https://climateactiontracker.org

 

Your reply was about the silliest one you could have made under the circumstances.

[BritManToo]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

NB he can post that he has a bucket full of qualifications and so long as he remains anonymous you would doubt them.

My qualifications is that I've been alive a long time and nothing much has changed in that time except summer keeps getting later in the year. Sea level hasn't risen appreciably, Snow line has gone up in summer, but winter still remains bitterly cold. Actually, it used to be hotter in winter 50 years ago than now. Days would start with a frost and by 10 am I'd have my shirt off. Didn't get warm enough to do that last winter, and the cold weather lasted longer too.

Me too!

In the UK summer seemed warmer, dryer and longer 50 years back, sea level was in the same place it is now.

Edited November 27, 2019 by BritManToo

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

 I'd rather trust the agency that got as to the moon, staffed with educated scientist, than trust Exxon/Mobil and it's greedy plutocrats. 

Exxon/ Mobil profits: 76 billion,  CEO salary 17,5 million 

Nasa Profits: only scientific knowledge,  Executive's compensation is $232,188 

I wonder which of the two would be more inclined to lie.

If you watch the video link, you will discover it contains criticism of NASA by some of the "educated scientists" from the space programme.

 

I assume from your remark regarding Exxon Mobil and the other "greedy plutocrats" that you are unaware of this company's support for a carbon tax.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Krataiboy

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

Stop yer ticklin..Jock!

 

What no quallifications whatsoever?

 

Trump supporter?Brexit supporter?

Climate change denier?

Mysoginist?

Anti immigration?

 

A pathetic ad hominem attack is no substitute for refutational facts. Put up or shut up.