Climate change is God's way.  Don't thwart the will of God. The Paris Accord, it was only the USA that was paying money; all the rest of the world was getting a free ride.

So Obama is the new Gore, how lovely! Climate change is real, and in January, Canada's Dictator Trudeau will force the cash cow Carbon tax on the Canadian population, we are

not amused.

Geezer

11 hours ago, Tug said:

Change is real I’ve witnessed it in my owne lifetime to deny is ignorance at best to deny willfully is sinful we must evolve responsibly towards renewables it won’t happen overnight but happen it must

There is no fixed state for the planet. Sea levels have been higher before etc. CO2 levels which plants love have also been higher. That humans think they have any effect is in part arrogance and in part Y2K like greed.

 

Pollution in large conurbations is an entirely different and actual problem caused by humans and can and should be addressed. I.e. London smog in the '50's. City dwellers should have electric cars but we don't all need or have to have one. 

 

Deforestation is bad locally but the oceans can absorb and do absorb more carbon than forests. Lack of forests is a problem for forests is a problem for forest dwellers, so we have have a responsibility there, but not for the planet. 

 

Taxing carbon is simply a money grab. 

 

Maybe worshipping Gaia as an entity could be the new call and be the new religion if it isn't already and have all inhabitants on the same page and not bickering over resources.

Edited December 14, 20196 yr by VocalNeal

5 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

There is no fixed state for the planet. Sea levels have been higher before etc. CO2 levels which plants love have also been higher. That humans think they have any effect is in part arrogance and in part Y2K like greed.

Only a fool believes our activities and numbers have no effect.

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Only a fool believes our activities and numbers have no effect.

...and I could say that only a fool believes that humans will make any long lasting effects either way. 

Pollution? Yes. Effect the planet? No.

Was it bad for the planet when the climate was a lot warmer, breadfruit in Canada, or when CO2 levels were higher, plants love it. How could all those huge plant eating dinosaurs have survived for millions of years if plants could not outgrow the demand by taking advantage of the higher CO2 levels.

 

Edited December 14, 20196 yr by VocalNeal

Obama just bought a $12M mansion on Martha's Vineyard just inches from the rising ocean he claims to be so worried about:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/12/09/photos-barack-and-michelle-obama-snag-marthas-vineyard-mansion-for-11-75m/

If the oceans rise places like the Maldives and Bangladesh might be flooded

Morals ? never heard of that currency.

Obama? Who is the guy and what does he know?

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

With the denialist brigade, everything is a hoax. 

There is no such thing as a "denialist brigade".

 

At most, there may be a "denialist platoon", but the vast majority of those who criticize the mandated climate narrative have a much broader and more nuanced view of the situation.

 

Some are concerned about dubious data recording practices; some are appalled by the shoddy statistics employed in some major scientific papers; some point out the anti-scientific nature of claims of absolute certainty, and others broadly accept the science but dispute the policy recommendations.

 

It is, though, a standard SJW tactic to try to lock all opponents into a single cage (and a false one at that). One of the worst pieces of "science" in the whole debate was an attempt to prove that climate skepticism was causally linked to a belief that the moon landings were faked. 

 

The author, one Stefan Lewandowsky, thought he was shoring up his social justice credentials with this attempt, but only succeeded in making a global fool of himself.

 

It's also notable that the climate zealots are always trying to portray climate skeptics as irrational lunatics, when their own side encourages and enables people like Greta Thunberg to travel the planet saying that we are most likely heading to the "end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

That really is a bit rich.

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

There is no such thing as a "denialist brigade".

 

At most, there may be a "denialist platoon", but the vast majority of those who criticize the mandated climate narrative have a much broader and more nuanced view of the situation.

 

Some are concerned about dubious data recording practices; some are appalled by the shoddy statistics employed in some major scientific papers; some point out the anti-scientific nature of claims of absolute certainty, and others broadly accept the science but dispute the policy recommendations.

 

It is, though, a standard SJW tactic to try to lock all opponents into a single cage (and a false one at that). One of the worst pieces of "science" in the whole debate was an attempt to prove that climate skepticism was causally linked to a belief that the moon landings were faked. 

 

The author, one Stefan Lewandowsky, thought he was shoring up his social justice credentials with this attempt, but only succeeded in making a global fool of himself.

 

It's also notable that the climate zealots are always trying to portray climate skeptics as irrational lunatics, when their own side encourages and enables people like Greta Thunberg to travel the planet saying that we are most likely heading to the "end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

That really is a bit rich.

You're funny. There is no denialist brigade you say. Then you accuse anyone that isn't to be a SJW. Talk about rich!

 

Just now, Jingthing said:

Then you accuse anyone that isn't to be a SJW.

I didn't say that, or anything close to it. Stop making stuff up.

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I didn't say that, or anything close to it. Stop making stuff up.

Denialism runs deep. 

 

The trouble with these conflicts is that especially in the USA the issue has become extremely politicized. It shouldn't be. It should be facts based.

 

So if you're not an actual scientist in the field, the most rational thing is to pay attention to the VAST MAJORIY of global scientists that are. The denialists can always find a few outliers but it's much more prudent for the future of the planet to listen to the VAST MAJORITY. Sure there is a small chance they are wrong, but the price to pay for ignoring them is just too high. 

Edited December 14, 20196 yr by Jingthing

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I didn't say that, or anything close to it. Stop making stuff up.

Jingthing's response was another of the SJW's tactics.  Put words into posters' mouths.

5 hours ago, Number 6 said:

Get on a plane, fly half way around the world to deliver a speech. Imagine there was all sorts of security and he needed additional space. So, let's say the entire first class cabin? How does that help this cause? Malaysia capital of oil palm plantations and deforestation.

 

The message emplores what's left of the middle class and the working poor to do their bit. Obama will just have another piece of cake.

 

How does eight years of useless wars he is responsible for in central Asia help warming?

 

Obama has taken up the gauntlet now Gore has been outed as a fraud.

 

In the end who cares? China will do nothing. Because China will do nothing, US will do nothing. Corporations will do nothing. 3 billion poor will do nothing. 3 billion middle and up really don't care. Let's all stop the noise and pretending and accept our fate.

 

Hypocrite much?

 

 

Straight talk....the only people benefiting from this are the retailers who are now charging money

for a bag.

 

Plus the big O....who probably charges 400K a pop for lending his august presence and baritone voice

to a hall full of the virtuous.

Edited December 14, 20196 yr by JHolmesJr

13 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It is, though, a standard SJW tactic to try to lock all opponents into a single cage (and a false one at that). One of the worst pieces of "science" in the whole debate was an attempt to prove that climate skepticism was causally linked to a belief that the moon landings were faked. 

 

To be honest, i am very skeptical on the theory of man-made global warming, and i happen to be slightly skeptical on the moon landings too.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Denialism runs deep. 

 

The trouble with these conflicts is that especially in the USA the issue has become extremely politicized. It shouldn't be. It should be facts based.

 

So if you're not an actual scientist in the field, the most rational thing is to pay attention to the VAST MAJORIY of global scientists that are. The denialists can always find a few outliers but it's much more prudent for the future of the planet to listen to the VAST MAJORITY. Sure there is a small chance they are wrong, but the price to pay for ignoring them is just too high. 

In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of
10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded.
That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article,
all but 79 of the respondents were excluded. They wrote:

“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as
their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change
(79 individuals in total).
Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen”
to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

The basis for the “97% consensus” claim is this excerpt:

[of] “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change)… 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

 

 Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   
76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

 Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
in changing mean global temperatures?”   75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that
mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
 
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in
changing mean global temperatures?  
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
 
Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer
(or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)?
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think
human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
 
Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in
the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
 
Q6. Age
 
Q7. Gender
 
Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
 
Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?

 

ps, the way to conduct statistic is to divide total 'yes' answers with total responses, 75/3146

the consensus is 2%.

this brat instead decided to cherry pick among answers

and only used 79, so not only is it uber biased, but also too low participants

to build statistic on.

pseudo science just like all the rest in this farce,

and just the way alarmists like it,

the only thing this statistic show is the bias of the author.

 

 

Edited December 14, 20196 yr by brokenbone

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's a she. It's a very small plane. But I take it you're not really interested in what she observed and what it means to the future of our planet, right? 

not in the slightest

19 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Ah, the humour of deniers...just like their grasp of the dangers we face-it just isn’t funny. 

ah  but it is, its absolutely hilarious.

6 hours ago, brokenbone said:

In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of
10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded.
That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article,
all but 79 of the respondents were excluded. They wrote:

“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as
their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change
(79 individuals in total).
Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen”
to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

The basis for the “97% consensus” claim is this excerpt:

[of] “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change)… 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

 

 Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   
76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

 Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
in changing mean global temperatures?”   75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that
mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
 
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in
changing mean global temperatures?  
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
 
Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer
(or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)?
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think
human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
 
Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in
the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
 
Q6. Age
 
Q7. Gender
 
Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
 
Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?

 

ps, the way to conduct statistic is to divide total 'yes' answers with total responses, 75/3146

the consensus is 2%.

this brat instead decided to cherry pick among answers

and only used 79, so not only is it uber biased, but also too low participants

to build statistic on.

pseudo science just like all the rest in this farce,

and just the way alarmists like it,

the only thing this statistic show is the bias of the author.

 

 

So is all of that your original writing? 

2 minutes ago, Chazar said:

ah  but it is, its absolutely hilarious.

Can we call that vice signalling?

4 minutes ago, Chazar said:

ah  but it is, its absolutely hilarious.

Another panto season victim. 

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Denialism runs deep. 

 

The trouble with these conflicts is that especially in the USA the issue has become extremely politicized. It shouldn't be. It should be facts based.

 

So if you're not an actual scientist in the field, the most rational thing is to pay attention to the VAST MAJORIY of global scientists that are. The denialists can always find a few outliers but it's much more prudent for the future of the planet to listen to the VAST MAJORITY. Sure there is a small chance they are wrong, but the price to pay for ignoring them is just too high. 

Im not listening to majoriy shes a  fool

3 minutes ago, Chazar said:

Im not listening to majoriy shes a  fool

So when you need to see a doctor do you go to a bakery?

 

Here's my theory. The denialist brigade would be enthusiastic about the overwhelming consensus of actual experts IF their conclusions pleased them. 

Edited December 14, 20196 yr by Jingthing

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So when you need to see a doctor do you go to a bakery?

 

Here's my theory. The denialist brigade would be enthusiastic about the overwhelming consensus of actual experts IF their conclusions pleased them. 

The vast majority of consensus told me about the luminiferous  aether 150 odd  years  ago 

https://www.sify.com/news/top-10-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong-imagegallery-science-kdrusqeghcisi.html

Edited December 14, 20196 yr by Chazar

On 12/13/2019 at 4:54 PM, snoop1130 said:

the top historic greenhouse gas emitter

I suppose that a more precient statement would be to consider the current day emission percentages of the United States along with the current percentages of everyone else. For intelligent conversation on climate issues see:

 

Judithcurry.com

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

So is all of that your original writing? 

you can google it and find this is exactly, by her own words,

how she conducted this 97% agree statistics

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

you can google it and find this is exactly, by her own words,

how she conducted this 97% agree statistics

No need to google. It seems you're very good at copying and pasting large chunks of text of writing that isn't your own. Heard of a thing called a LINK?

A very rich man who flies around the world by private jet and owns large houses, is telling me a fairy tale about the weather.

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No need to google. It seems you're very good at copying and pasting large chunks of text of writing that isn't your own. Heard of a thing called a LINK?

ok, for the man who gave me the straight clipper

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2009EO030002

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009eo030002