Historic pact to slow global warming is celebrated in Paris

[sirineou]

There is no conspiracy in ClimateChangism; it is self evidently a veneer for tried and failed ideologies. For one (up2you) who is so irritated by my posts you respond enough. Better to stick to the talking points; this will not betray frustration.

We appreciate your opinion, We all have one and it is possible though not probable that yours is right.

No one here believes that we will actually resolve this issue,

What we want to do is try to defend our position, in doing so learn something new, and in the process have some fun . Ohh yes and make fun of KanuckaMuck's hut

So you have taken the first step by so eloquently stating your opinion. Unless you take the second step and defended with what you believe to be supporting facts , the conversation ends,, not because we don't want to talk , but because there little more to say

Unless of course you want to talk about KanuckaMucks hat in which case I am all ears

Ohh, and happy holidays to all

Edited December 24, 2015 by sirineou

[up2u2]

I love canuckamuck's hat. Made me laugh when I noticed it. Very funny. He has obviously been swept up in the Yuletide fever. A bit of good fun.

[arjunadawn]

There is no conspiracy in ClimateChangism; it is self evidently a veneer for tried and failed ideologies. For one (up2you) who is so irritated by my posts you respond enough. Better to stick to the talking points; this will not betray frustration.

Not frustrated in the slightest. When all you have is GW / CC is all a big socialist ideological conspiracy you don't really have much to add to the debate. The science is unequivocal, the scientific consensus is overwhelming, Global Warming requires a Global response and a scientific and economic response to manage a positive well thought out plan of action.

If you are just going to sit on the sidelines shouting it's all a big leftist conspiracy to take over the world you really are not part of the solution. COP21 showed the world has actually passed you by.

Again, there is no conspiracy. This is more innuendo. I've never suggested conspiracy because there is none. There is collusion by multiple interested parties. I've absolutely no intention of being part "of the solution" because the problem is totally fabricated. Therefore, my posts do not reflect an effort to debate data. Why bother? Assemble whatever model you want. There all predicated upon a co2 presumption and co2 does not cause temp increases. there's zero objective facts supporting co2 causes temperature increases, now or ever. There is overwhelming data showing temperature causes co2 increases however, such as released from oceans, but the Climate Change ideologues never address this. They intentionally leave causation out- the sun- but whereas co2 changes follow temperature they offer it as an overlay, leaving out that temp causes the co2.

The response of the scientific community is hardly a jury out; it's quite hung. It's widely asserted that all the scientists support this theory. Utter nonsense. Climate Change is an amalgam of opportunistic scientists, compromised peer review, political ideology, anti capitalism, an umbrella for disparate anti (name your issue) movements, media hunger for sensationalism, and oppression- using money as a lever to stifle development in developing nations. Something so patently obvious, documented, and self evident is hardly conspiratorial.

Of all the maladies affecting the world today- economics, jihad, war, poverty, disparity, etc., Climate Change ideology poses the single greatest threat. When a population can believe the air they exhale should be regulated there's little hope left that Mankind's rational faculties will endure.

[simple1]

A quote from a NASA research publication.

Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

[canuckamuck]

There is no conspiracy in ClimateChangism; it is self evidently a veneer for tried and failed ideologies. For one (up2you) who is so irritated by my posts you respond enough. Better to stick to the talking points; this will not betray frustration.

We appreciate your opinion, We all have one and it is possible though not probable that yours is right.

No one here believes that we will actually resolve this issue,

What we want to do is try to defend our position, in doing so learn something new, and in the process have some fun . Ohh yes and make fun of KanuckaMuck's hut

So you have taken the first step by so eloquently stating your opinion. Unless you take the second step and defended with what you believe to be supporting facts , the conversation ends,, not because we don't want to talk , but because there little more to say

Unless of course you want to talk about KanuckaMucks hat in which case I am all ears

Ohh, and happy holidays to all

Just so you know, I made it myself out of red tinfoil, some feathers from California Condors, and my Fox News membership card.

[sirineou]

There is no conspiracy in ClimateChangism; it is self evidently a veneer for tried and failed ideologies. For one (up2you) who is so irritated by my posts you respond enough. Better to stick to the talking points; this will not betray frustration.

Not frustrated in the slightest. When all you have is GW / CC is all a big socialist ideological conspiracy you don't really have much to add to the debate. The science is unequivocal, the scientific consensus is overwhelming, Global Warming requires a Global response and a scientific and economic response to manage a positive well thought out plan of action.

If you are just going to sit on the sidelines shouting it's all a big leftist conspiracy to take over the world you really are not part of the solution. COP21 showed the world has actually passed you by.

Again, there is no conspiracy. This is more innuendo. I've never suggested conspiracy because there is none. There is collusion by multiple interested parties. I've absolutely no intention of being part "of the solution" because the problem is totally fabricated. Therefore, my posts do not reflect an effort to debate data. Why bother? Assemble whatever model you want. There all predicated upon a co2 presumption and co2 does not cause temp increases. there's zero objective facts supporting co2 causes temperature increases, now or ever. There is overwhelming data showing temperature causes co2 increases however, such as released from oceans, but the Climate Change ideologues never address this. They intentionally leave causation out- the sun- but whereas co2 changes follow temperature they offer it as an overlay, leaving out that temp causes the co2.

The response of the scientific community is hardly a jury out; it's quite hung. It's widely asserted that all the scientists support this theory. Utter nonsense. Climate Change is an amalgam of opportunistic scientists, compromised peer review, political ideology, anti capitalism, an umbrella for disparate anti (name your issue) movements, media hunger for sensationalism, and oppression- using money as a lever to stifle development in developing nations. Something so patently obvious, documented, and self evident is hardly conspiratorial.

Of all the maladies affecting the world today- economics, jihad, war, poverty, disparity, etc., Climate Change ideology poses the single greatest threat. When a population can believe the air they exhale should be regulated there's little hope left that Mankind's rational faculties will endure.

ok first let's demolish the construction of the strawman argument where you state

"It's widely asserted that all the scientists support this theory."

No one claims that all scientists support this theory, what is claimed is the most serious scientist specializing in the subject support the theory, I am sure one can find some scientists with an agenda, or not proficient in the subject and, of course scientist like any other group have their percentage of crockpots.

So I see your opinion and raise you 12 respected scientific organisations. Are you in or out?

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[up2u2]

There is no conspiracy in ClimateChangism; it is self evidently a veneer for tried and failed ideologies. For one (up2you) who is so irritated by my posts you respond enough. Better to stick to the talking points; this will not betray frustration.

Not frustrated in the slightest. When all you have is GW / CC is all a big socialist ideological conspiracy you don't really have much to add to the debate. The science is unequivocal, the scientific consensus is overwhelming, Global Warming requires a Global response and a scientific and economic response to manage a positive well thought out plan of action.

If you are just going to sit on the sidelines shouting it's all a big leftist conspiracy to take over the world you really are not part of the solution. COP21 showed the world has actually passed you by.

Again, there is no conspiracy. This is more innuendo. I've never suggested conspiracy because there is none. There is collusion by multiple interested parties. I've absolutely no intention of being part "of the solution" because the problem is totally fabricated. Therefore, my posts do not reflect an effort to debate data. Why bother? Assemble whatever model you want. There all predicated upon a co2 presumption and co2 does not cause temp increases. there's zero objective facts supporting co2 causes temperature increases, now or ever. There is overwhelming data showing temperature causes co2 increases however, such as released from oceans, but the Climate Change ideologues never address this. They intentionally leave causation out- the sun- but whereas co2 changes follow temperature they offer it as an overlay, leaving out that temp causes the co2.

The response of the scientific community is hardly a jury out; it's quite hung. It's widely asserted that all the scientists support this theory. Utter nonsense. Climate Change is an amalgam of opportunistic scientists, compromised peer review, political ideology, anti capitalism, an umbrella for disparate anti (name your issue) movements, media hunger for sensationalism, and oppression- using money as a lever to stifle development in developing nations. Something so patently obvious, documented, and self evident is hardly conspiratorial.

Of all the maladies affecting the world today- economics, jihad, war, poverty, disparity, etc., Climate Change ideology poses the single greatest threat. When a population can believe the air they exhale should be regulated there's little hope left that Mankind's rational faculties will endure.

jihad, leftist agenda, collusion, falsely fabricated, theology, socialist economic order, being bought off, a stalking horse, leftists and bankers, insurgent ideologies, opportunistic scientists and fantasy is all just Climate Denier gibber jabber absolutely vacuous and meaningless.

There is no peer reviewed scientific research that supports your view on the comments you have made on the science of GW / CC,. In fact some of your statements above indicate you do not have even a High School understanding of the science of Greenhouse Gasses and the impact they have on Earth's environment.

Although I have not advanced your knowledge on the science of GW / CC I seem to have inspired you to drop the façade of literary gymnastics and using twenty words instead of one to tease out a coherent position on the issue of GW / CC. Unfortunately it reveals there is no evidence to support ANY of your views either political or scientific. On the science of GW / CC you have a huge knowledge gap. So I do understand why you avoid it.

[thaibeachlovers]

Replying to #216 ( too big to quote ) all the commonalities with the groups that you quote are that GW is caused by humanity ergo too many people, but nowhere do they suggest population control as a solution. Therefore, I suspect it is indeed a big con with a hidden agenda.

If the world's population is over 7 billion, at least 5 billion want to live the fossil fuelled lifestyle- try and deny them that and GW will be the least of the pollies problems.

[sirineou]

Replying to #216 ( too big to quote ) all the commonalities with the groups that you quote are that GW is caused by humanity ergo too many people, but nowhere do they suggest population control as a solution. Therefore, I suspect it is indeed a big con with a hidden agenda.

If the world's population is over 7 billion, at least 5 billion want to live the fossil fuelled lifestyle- try and deny them that and GW will be the least of the pollies problems.

No one said such a thing, too many people causing GW ? are you referring to the hot air emanating from the opposition?

Nooo , too many people burning fossil fuels, reduce their carbon footprint and we would be fine.

Of course we will still have the hot air emanating from the opposition, so perhaps an opposition reduction program might be in order.

[sirineou]

There is no conspiracy in ClimateChangism; it is self evidently a veneer for tried and failed ideologies. For one (up2you) who is so irritated by my posts you respond enough. Better to stick to the talking points; this will not betray frustration.

We appreciate your opinion, We all have one and it is possible though not probable that yours is right.

No one here believes that we will actually resolve this issue,

What we want to do is try to defend our position, in doing so learn something new, and in the process have some fun . Ohh yes and make fun of KanuckaMuck's hut

So you have taken the first step by so eloquently stating your opinion. Unless you take the second step and defended with what you believe to be supporting facts , the conversation ends,, not because we don't want to talk , but because there little more to say

Unless of course you want to talk about KanuckaMucks hat in which case I am all ears

Ohh, and happy holidays to all

Just so you know, I made it myself out of red tinfoil, some feathers from California Condors, and my Fox News membership card.

Sorry Canuckamuck missed your reply

got one of those tinfoil hats also very useful for blocking these pesky illegal alien communications

and they reflect sunlight back in space , mitigating GW

The heck with cup and trade, make everyone wear tinfoil huts . much less expensive , infinitely more effective and stylish too.

Edited December 25, 2015 by sirineou

[RickBradford]

So I see your opinion and raise you 12 respected scientific organisations. Are you in or out?

Are you suggesting that all of these "12 respected scientific organisations" have conducted independent climate research and all come to similar conclusions?

Of course they haven't. Indeed, many of them admit that they are simply following the lead of the IPCC, whose money quote is "“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Let's assume that to be true, for argument's sake.

That would mean that the entire industrial explosion of the last 60 years, the fastest-growing period of human history, the near-trebling of the world's population, a 10-fold increase in the number of cars on the road, the creation from nothing of massive new industrial nations such as China, Japan, India, South Korea and the rest has caused a rise in global temperatures of ... 0.5C.

And an unspecified "Most" of that 0.5C is attributed to CO2 emissions by the IPCC.

The only people who will be scared by that are the same people who are also scared by worms and colored balloons, and it underlines the fact that the political discourse around global warming has nothing to do with science -- even the IPCC science -- and certainly nothing to do with "saving the planet." It doesn't need saving.

[up2u2]

Just so you know, I made it myself out of red tinfoil, some feathers from California Condors, and my Fox News membership card.

and a fine christmas hat it is canuckamuck.

[Scott]

A post which violates Fair Use has been removed along with a reply.

[thaibeachlovers]

Replying to #216 ( too big to quote ) all the commonalities with the groups that you quote are that GW is caused by humanity ergo too many people, but nowhere do they suggest population control as a solution. Therefore, I suspect it is indeed a big con with a hidden agenda.

If the world's population is over 7 billion, at least 5 billion want to live the fossil fuelled lifestyle- try and deny them that and GW will be the least of the pollies problems.

No one said such a thing, too many people causing GW ? are you referring to the hot air emanating from the opposition?

Nooo , too many people burning fossil fuels, reduce their carbon footprint and we would be fine.

Of course we will still have the hot air emanating from the opposition, so perhaps an opposition reduction program might be in order.

Of course the increase in population has increased the use of fossil fuels. All 7 billion of us want to drive a car and have lots of shiny toys powered by electricity ( generated by -------------- yes, fossil fuels ).

[arjunadawn]

A quote from a NASA research publication.

Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

The is chuck full of little factoids, but still not entirely correct. NASA lost all credibility in climatology when the NASA administrator previously stated what is number one job duties were when appointed by Obama. Look closer. NASA has a number of scientists and former in open rebellion. No, Poppycock!

[sirineou]

Replying to #216 ( too big to quote ) all the commonalities with the groups that you quote are that GW is caused by humanity ergo too many people, but nowhere do they suggest population control as a solution. Therefore, I suspect it is indeed a big con with a hidden agenda.

If the world's population is over 7 billion, at least 5 billion want to live the fossil fuelled lifestyle- try and deny them that and GW will be the least of the pollies problems.

No one said such a thing, too many people causing GW ? are you referring to the hot air emanating from the opposition?

Nooo , too many people burning fossil fuels, reduce their carbon footprint and we would be fine.

Of course we will still have the hot air emanating from the opposition, so perhaps an opposition reduction program might be in order.

Of course the increase in population has increased the use of fossil fuels. All 7 billion of us want to drive a car and have lots of shiny toys powered by electricity ( generated by -------------- yes, fossil fuels ).

Sure no argument there, the argument is, do we lower the number of people that use foccil fuels or do we change the fuels they use? One must remember that this planet is awash in energy , so much energy that it threatens our existence.If it was not for the magnetosphere we would be extinct. winds threaten to blow our homes down, in Hawaii and other places lava will burn your house, etc etc Yet we are trapped with using Fossil fuels . WHY? very simple Fossil fuels were discovered at an age when there were not so many of as, and we did not have the technology to use anything else, they were necessary, plentiful, and easy, now there are much more of as, and fossil fuels are not plentiful, easy or necessary. But there are those who have invested a lot in fossil fuels, are making an incredible amount of money, and as a consequence have a lot of power, and are not about to give up the money or the power. It really as simple as that.

[arjunadawn]

There is no conspiracy in ClimateChangism; it is self evidently a veneer for tried and failed ideologies. For one (up2you) who is so irritated by my posts you respond enough. Better to stick to the talking points; this will not betray frustration.

Not frustrated in the slightest. When all you have is GW / CC is all a big socialist ideological conspiracy you don't really have much to add to the debate. The science is unequivocal, the scientific consensus is overwhelming, Global Warming requires a Global response and a scientific and economic response to manage a positive well thought out plan of action.

If you are just going to sit on the sidelines shouting it's all a big leftist conspiracy to take over the world you really are not part of the solution. COP21 showed the world has actually passed you by.

Again, there is no conspiracy. This is more innuendo. I've never suggested conspiracy because there is none. There is collusion by multiple interested parties. I've absolutely no intention of being part "of the solution" because the problem is totally fabricated. Therefore, my posts do not reflect an effort to debate data. Why bother? Assemble whatever model you want. There all predicated upon a co2 presumption and co2 does not cause temp increases. there's zero objective facts supporting co2 causes temperature increases, now or ever. There is overwhelming data showing temperature causes co2 increases however, such as released from oceans, but the Climate Change ideologues never address this. They intentionally leave causation out- the sun- but whereas co2 changes follow temperature they offer it as an overlay, leaving out that temp causes the co2.

The response of the scientific community is hardly a jury out; it's quite hung. It's widely asserted that all the scientists support this theory. Utter nonsense. Climate Change is an amalgam of opportunistic scientists, compromised peer review, political ideology, anti capitalism, an umbrella for disparate anti (name your issue) movements, media hunger for sensationalism, and oppression- using money as a lever to stifle development in developing nations. Something so patently obvious, documented, and self evident is hardly conspiratorial.

Of all the maladies affecting the world today- economics, jihad, war, poverty, disparity, etc., Climate Change ideology poses the single greatest threat. When a population can believe the air they exhale should be regulated there's little hope left that Mankind's rational faculties will endure.

jihad, leftist agenda, collusion, falsely fabricated, theology, socialist economic order, being bought off, a stalking horse, leftists and bankers, insurgent ideologies, opportunistic scientists and fantasy is all just Climate Denier gibber jabber absolutely vacuous and meaningless.

There is no peer reviewed scientific research that supports your view on the comments you have made on the science of GW / CC,. In fact some of your statements above indicate you do not have even a High School understanding of the science of Greenhouse Gasses and the impact they have on Earth's environment.

Although I have not advanced your knowledge on the science of GW / CC I seem to have inspired you to drop the façade of literary gymnastics and using twenty words instead of one to tease out a coherent position on the issue of GW / CC. Unfortunately it reveals there is no evidence to support ANY of your views either political or scientific. On the science of GW / CC you have a huge knowledge gap. So I do understand why you avoid it.

One can always tease depth and truth from a narration by its race to rage. In nearly all cases when one so frequently sees a race to rage upon others, pejorative and outright attacks- like evidenced here- you can bet your arse that is because the same political ideology is being protected. It is this same aspect of Climate Changeism that reveals the puppets behind the curtain. Always filled with rage, pejorative, labeling, isolation, ridicule, it can best be exemplified by "climate denier." Similar to "racist" "extremist" or "______phobe," the entire effort is to stifle any point of view. The hate... the contemptible drivel that's couched as moral superiority, gives away the farm every time.

"I seem to have inspired you to drop the façade of literary gymnastics and using twenty words instead of one to tease out a coherent position on the issue of GW / CC" Its quite likely you do not see the irony here. Its also no surprise you would see yourself at the center of another's choices in life. This is evident from your personal attacks throughout this forum. In this regard, you are successful. You do define yourself at the center of things.

[thaibeachlovers]

Replying to #216 ( too big to quote ) all the commonalities with the groups that you quote are that GW is caused by humanity ergo too many people, but nowhere do they suggest population control as a solution. Therefore, I suspect it is indeed a big con with a hidden agenda.

If the world's population is over 7 billion, at least 5 billion want to live the fossil fuelled lifestyle- try and deny them that and GW will be the least of the pollies problems.

No one said such a thing, too many people causing GW ? are you referring to the hot air emanating from the opposition?

Nooo , too many people burning fossil fuels, reduce their carbon footprint and we would be fine.

Of course we will still have the hot air emanating from the opposition, so perhaps an opposition reduction program might be in order.

Of course the increase in population has increased the use of fossil fuels. All 7 billion of us want to drive a car and have lots of shiny toys powered by electricity ( generated by -------------- yes, fossil fuels ).

Sure no argument there, the argument is, do we lower the number of people that use foccil fuels or do we change the fuels they use?

One must remember that this planet is awash in energy , so much energy that it threatens our existence.If it was not for the magnetosphere we would be extinct. winds threaten to blow our homes down, in Hawaii and other places lava will burn your house, etc etc

Yet we are trapped with using Fossil fuels . WHY

very simple

Fossil fuels were discovered at an age when there were not so many of as, and we did not have the technology to use anything else, they were necessary, plentiful, and easy,

now there are much more of as, and fossil fuels are not plentiful, easy or necessary.

But there are those who have invested a lot in fossil fuels, are making an incredible amount of money, and as a consequence have a lot of power, and are not about to give up the money or the power.

It really as simple as that.

Even if they sterilised every human alive today, there are already 3 billion too many. So it has to be different fuel. The technology exists, so now it's up to governments to bite the bullet and subsidise alternative powered public transport to the extent people no longer need to use private cars. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Andreas2]

I think it is quite safe to say that meanwhile most people are aware that climate changes didn't just start to happen about 100 years ago.

The first question is: Is climate change man-induced or would the changes continue anyway because they are consequences, still and again, of "natural", continuous phenomenons like wildfires, earth quakes, volcanoes, especially the sun - which is a thermo dynamic system in itself - , etc.

Did the researchers already find out and show, that the actual climate would look different without us being here? What are the differences in the changes between us being here and without us? Or would the climate have stopped changing about 100 years ago without us being here? All I can see is that the climate continued to change for the past 100 years, but that's nothing new... Otherwise read my first sentence again.

Do the scientists already know and understand all the important factors involved which keep the climate changing? Global climate change is a very young field/subject. And we are not talking about pollution (I'm all in for it to eradicate that) but global climate change!

Second question: Why do people think, that politicians are somehow special? All the money will be spent on huge, political pet projects. Or is the task to change the (global) climate easier to solve than local pollution?

Yes, people want to believe. But do so many still believe in benevolent, altruistic, all-knowing governments and their suddenly honest and competent politicians? It seems so.

These politicians in Paris had all the trillion reasons to congratulate themselves and to celebrate extensively for this "historic pact" - Especially as they even managed so many tax payers to applaud them for this "achievement", a huge tax increase. Impressive, indeed.

[up2u2]

jihad, leftist agenda, collusion, falsely fabricated, theology, socialist economic order, being bought off, a stalking horse, leftists and bankers, insurgent ideologies, opportunistic scientists and fantasy is all just Climate Denier gibber jabber absolutely vacuous and meaningless.

There is no peer reviewed scientific research that supports your view on the comments you have made on the science of GW / CC,. In fact some of your statements above indicate you do not have even a High School understanding of the science of Greenhouse Gasses and the impact they have on Earth's environment.

Although I have not advanced your knowledge on the science of GW / CC I seem to have inspired you to drop the façade of literary gymnastics and using twenty words instead of one to tease out a coherent position on the issue of GW / CC. Unfortunately it reveals there is no evidence to support ANY of your views either political or scientific. On the science of GW / CC you have a huge knowledge gap. So I do understand why you avoid it.

One can always tease depth and truth from a narration by its race to rage. In nearly all cases when one so frequently sees a race to rage upon others, pejorative and outright attacks- like evidenced here- you can bet your arse that is because the same political ideology is being protected. It is this same aspect of Climate Changeism that reveals the puppets behind the curtain. Always filled with rage, pejorative, labeling, isolation, ridicule, it can best be exemplified by "climate denier." Similar to "racist" "extremist" or "______phobe," the entire effort is to stifle any point of view. The hate... the contemptible drivel that's couched as moral superiority, gives away the farm every time.

"I seem to have inspired you to drop the façade of literary gymnastics and using twenty words instead of one to tease out a coherent position on the issue of GW / CC" Its quite likely you do not see the irony here. Its also no surprise you would see yourself at the center of another's choices in life. This is evident from your personal attacks throughout this forum. In this regard, you are successful. You do define yourself at the center of things.

Back to the literary gymnastics nonsense. Probably a good idea because when you attempted a coherent, straight forward approach it became obvious you didn't have much knowledge on the science of GW / CC or even basic environmental physics. The Greenhouse Gas Effect has been in existence since 1824 nearly two centuries ago.

" there's zero objective facts supporting co2 causes temperature increases, now or ever."

You may want to study Joseph Fourier 1824, Claude Pouillet 1827, John Tyndall in 1859 and Svante Arrhenius 1896.

After I read that statement I developed a slight facial tick.

[up2u2]

I think it is quite safe to say that meanwhile most people are aware that climate changes didn't just start to happen about 100 years ago.

The first question is: Is climate change man-induced or would the changes continue anyway because they are consequences, still and again, of "natural", continuous phenomenons like wildfires, earth quakes, volcanoes, especially the sun - which is a thermo dynamic system in itself - , etc.

Did the researchers already find out and show, that the actual climate would look different without us being here? What are the differences in the changes between us being here and without us? Or would the climate have stopped changing about 100 years ago without us being here? All I can see is that the climate continued to change for the past 100 years, but that's nothing new... Otherwise read my first sentence again.

Do the scientists already know and understand all the important factors involved which keep the climate changing? Global climate change is a very young field/subject. And we are not talking about pollution (I'm all in for it to eradicate that) but global climate change!

Second question: Why do people think, that politicians are somehow special? All the money will be spent on huge, political pet projects. Or is the task to change the (global) climate easier to solve than local pollution?

Yes, people want to believe. But do so many still believe in benevolent, altruistic, all-knowing governments and their suddenly honest and competent politicians? It seems so.

These politicians in Paris had all the trillion reasons to congratulate themselves and to celebrate extensively for this "historic pact" - Especially as they even managed so many tax payers to applaud them for this "achievement", a huge tax increase. Impressive, indeed.

First Question. Answer: Yes

Second Question. Answer: Emission reduction schemes are revenue neutral

[Andreas2]

First Question. Answer: Yes

Second Question. Answer: Emission reduction schemes are revenue neutral

Ha ha, you are really quick-witted.

Thank you.

+1

PS: Seriously, I'm not disappointed but really enjoyed your answers.

[sirineou]

No one said such a thing, too many people causing GW ? are you referring to the hot air emanating from the opposition?

Nooo , too many people burning fossil fuels, reduce their carbon footprint and we would be fine.

Of course we will still have the hot air emanating from the opposition, so perhaps an opposition reduction program might be in order.

Of course the increase in population has increased the use of fossil fuels. All 7 billion of us want to drive a car and have lots of shiny toys powered by electricity ( generated by -------------- yes, fossil fuels ).

Sure no argument there, the argument is, do we lower the number of people that use foccil fuels or do we change the fuels they use?

One must remember that this planet is awash in energy , so much energy that it threatens our existence.If it was not for the magnetosphere we would be extinct. winds threaten to blow our homes down, in Hawaii and other places lava will burn your house, etc etc

Yet we are trapped with using Fossil fuels . WHY

very simple

Fossil fuels were discovered at an age when there were not so many of as, and we did not have the technology to use anything else, they were necessary, plentiful, and easy,

now there are much more of as, and fossil fuels are not plentiful, easy or necessary.

But there are those who have invested a lot in fossil fuels, are making an incredible amount of money, and as a consequence have a lot of power, and are not about to give up the money or the power.

It really as simple as that.

Even if they sterilised every human alive today, there are already 3 billion too many. So it has to be different fuel. The technology exists, so now it's up to governments to bite the bullet and subsidise alternative powered public transport to the extent people no longer need to use private cars. I'm not holding my breath though.

some of the solutions are simple but the politics complicate them

Take electric cars, the solution for an unlimited range electric car is here , but the politics will not allow it, dont have a link it is my own idea , I am sure others had it, also sure politics will not allow it.

No no , it's not a very long electric cord

Standardize the battery compartment and make it detachable, develop an automated system for exchanging battery pods.

So you drive into a battery exchange station, stop over the exchange machine, press the exchange button that releases the battery pod, a robotic system lowers the pod into a place where it will be recharged, a new fully charged battery pod is raised into your car, the whole process takes less time that it now takes to fuel your car ,re engage your new battery pod and you are on your way

all the engineering, materials and technology necessary to do this is available right now

what's missing is the political will.

Edited December 25, 2015 by sirineou

[Si Thea01]

Sirineou

The electric car. Look up Tesla, an all electric American car developed by the two guys who used to own Pay Pal. Has a range of 480 kilometres and goes like hell. 0-60 mph, .5.8 seconds, faster than the Porsche. Total luxury for under US$50,000. 10,000 pre-ordered already, can put out 20,000 PA now, with big plans to expand. A real glamour and fantastic technology. If this is the future, then yes, go for it, just leave allthe other balderdash out of it.

[RickBradford]

some of the solutions are simple but the politics complicate them.

And the number one simple solution is nuclear power, which is fought against tooth-and-nail by all the major Green/Left groups and NGOs like Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

You might think this is about the "safety" of nuclear power, but of course it isn't, given that France, the world's 5th biggest economy, has been getting 75% of its energy from nuclear power for 30-odd years in almost complete safety. Almost 450 nuclear plants run happily in places from Pakistan to Bulgaria to Mexico.

No, the opposition to nuclear comes from the fact that the moronic Green/Left would rather gargle battery acid than allow cheap reliable energy to be made available to the world's masses. They love humanity, but hate people.

[sirineou]

some of the solutions are simple but the politics complicate them.

And the number one simple solution is nuclear power, which is fought against tooth-and-nail by all the major Green/Left groups and NGOs like Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

You might think this is about the "safety" of nuclear power, but of course it isn't, given that France, the world's 5th biggest economy, has been getting 75% of its energy from nuclear power for 30-odd years in almost complete safety. Almost 450 nuclear plants run happily in places from Pakistan to Bulgaria to Mexico.

No, the opposition to nuclear comes from the fact that the moronic Green/Left would rather gargle battery acid than allow cheap reliable energy to be made available to the world's masses. They love humanity, but hate people.

I like one of the argument against the Nuclear energy industry

but the wasted fuel rods will remain radioactive for thousands of years, where will you safely store them for thousands of years"

like nuclear technology will remain static and not improve in thousands of years

right now only a small percentage of the energy in fuel rod is extracted , I think something like 5% (dont quote me on that number) with current technology, as technology improves, why not go back and reuse them to extract the remaining 95%? render them inactive?

[thaibeachlovers]

I think it is quite safe to say that meanwhile most people are aware that climate changes didn't just start to happen about 100 years ago.

The first question is: Is climate change man-induced or would the changes continue anyway because they are consequences, still and again, of "natural", continuous phenomenons like wildfires, earth quakes, volcanoes, especially the sun - which is a thermo dynamic system in itself - , etc.

Did the researchers already find out and show, that the actual climate would look different without us being here? What are the differences in the changes between us being here and without us? Or would the climate have stopped changing about 100 years ago without us being here? All I can see is that the climate continued to change for the past 100 years, but that's nothing new... Otherwise read my first sentence again.

Do the scientists already know and understand all the important factors involved which keep the climate changing? Global climate change is a very young field/subject. And we are not talking about pollution (I'm all in for it to eradicate that) but global climate change!

Second question: Why do people think, that politicians are somehow special? All the money will be spent on huge, political pet projects. Or is the task to change the (global) climate easier to solve than local pollution?

Yes, people want to believe. But do so many still believe in benevolent, altruistic, all-knowing governments and their suddenly honest and competent politicians? It seems so.

These politicians in Paris had all the trillion reasons to congratulate themselves and to celebrate extensively for this "historic pact" - Especially as they even managed so many tax payers to applaud them for this "achievement", a huge tax increase. Impressive, indeed.

First Question. Answer: Yes

Second Question. Answer: Emission reduction schemes are revenue neutral

Emission reduction schemes are revenue neutral

I think you must have missed the Carbon TAX scheme.

Nov 2, 2008 - Obama said that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket”- that doesn't sound very revenue neutral.

[thaibeachlovers]

some of the solutions are simple but the politics complicate them.

And the number one simple solution is nuclear power, which is fought against tooth-and-nail by all the major Green/Left groups and NGOs like Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

You might think this is about the "safety" of nuclear power, but of course it isn't, given that France, the world's 5th biggest economy, has been getting 75% of its energy from nuclear power for 30-odd years in almost complete safety. Almost 450 nuclear plants run happily in places from Pakistan to Bulgaria to Mexico.

No, the opposition to nuclear comes from the fact that the moronic Green/Left would rather gargle battery acid than allow cheap reliable energy to be made available to the world's masses. They love humanity, but hate people.

I like one of the argument against the Nuclear energy industry

but the wasted fuel rods will remain radioactive for thousands of years, where will you safely store them for thousands of years"

like nuclear technology will remain static and not improve in thousands of years

right now only a small percentage of the energy in fuel rod is extracted , I think something like 5% (dont quote me on that number) with current technology, as technology improves, why not go back and reuse them to extract the remaining 95%? render them inactive?

I believe the latest reactors use the rods more efficiently, and they already reprocess the rods to provide more fuel.

Storage is easy peasy- deep tunnel in a geologically stable area- I guess they just don't want to pay for it.

[thaibeachlovers]

Of course the increase in population has increased the use of fossil fuels. All 7 billion of us want to drive a car and have lots of shiny toys powered by electricity ( generated by -------------- yes, fossil fuels ).

Sure no argument there, the argument is, do we lower the number of people that use foccil fuels or do we change the fuels they use?

One must remember that this planet is awash in energy , so much energy that it threatens our existence.If it was not for the magnetosphere we would be extinct. winds threaten to blow our homes down, in Hawaii and other places lava will burn your house, etc etc

Yet we are trapped with using Fossil fuels . WHY

very simple

Fossil fuels were discovered at an age when there were not so many of as, and we did not have the technology to use anything else, they were necessary, plentiful, and easy,

now there are much more of as, and fossil fuels are not plentiful, easy or necessary.

But there are those who have invested a lot in fossil fuels, are making an incredible amount of money, and as a consequence have a lot of power, and are not about to give up the money or the power.

It really as simple as that.

Even if they sterilised every human alive today, there are already 3 billion too many. So it has to be different fuel. The technology exists, so now it's up to governments to bite the bullet and subsidise alternative powered public transport to the extent people no longer need to use private cars. I'm not holding my breath though.

some of the solutions are simple but the politics complicate them

Take electric cars, the solution for an unlimited range electric car is here , but the politics will not allow it, dont have a link it is my own idea , I am sure others had it, also sure politics will not allow it.

No no , it's not a very long electric cord

Standardize the battery compartment and make it detachable, develop an automated system for exchanging battery pods.

So you drive into a battery exchange station, stop over the exchange machine, press the exchange button that releases the battery pod, a robotic system lowers the pod into a place where it will be recharged, a new fully charged battery pod is raised into your car, the whole process takes less time that it now takes to fuel your car ,re engage your new battery pod and you are on your way

all the engineering, materials and technology necessary to do this is available right now

what's missing is the political will.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I thought of the exchangeable battery system years ago, and if I and you thought of it you can be sure the manufacturers have thought of it. As to why they won't do it, I have my suspicions but no proof.

[up2u2]

First Question. Answer: Yes

Second Question. Answer: Emission reduction schemes are revenue neutral

Emission reduction schemes are revenue neutral

I think you must have missed the Carbon TAX scheme.

Nov 2, 2008 - Obama said that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket”- that doesn't sound very revenue neutral.

Emission reduction schemes are revenue neutral to governments. A Tax as a 'price point' is placed on emissions and a reduction in Taxpayer subsidies to Fossil Fuel industries. The money is then directed to subsidising Clean Energy and compensation for a slight increase in power cost for the poor and disadvantaged and maybe a very few industry sectors. Overall revenue neutral.

Carbon reduction schemes favoured by conservative governments. Pay BIG polluting Corporations to reduce emissions funded by the Taxpayers money. Billions paid to Corporations from general taxation. Corporations just find a way to pocket the money. Overall taxpayers money transferred to Corporations with no reduction in Carbon pollution.