North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 2015

[Lloyd YWG FIC]

. Plant billions of trees now and continue to do so into the future. Plant 10 trees in your backyard and another 10 in your front yard.

Can't go wrong planting trees. That number in a yard might not be realistic but even one is good.

“Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

― Anonymous Greek Proverb

As I am now "old", I can do this.

[Rockie]

I don't give a shit if climate change is happening or isn't, is man-made or isn't. Really, I don't.

We've always been stupid as a species, anyway. Simple Darwinism. If we deserve to survive, we will. When I consider most people I meet, I have my doubts.

You don't see the irony between these two statements?

[HiLo]

I don't give a shit if climate change is happening or isn't, is man-made or isn't. Really, I don't. Who knows, maybe this is the Big Correction that restores humanity to a sustainable level. If that level happens to be zero, so be it. We've always been stupid as a species, anyway. Simple Darwinism. If we deserve to survive, we will. When I consider most people I meet, I have my doubts. ("Um, what's that? Was just taking a selfie.")

I have to laugh when I see "save the planet" stickers. Save the planet? The planet will be fine. It'll still be around in 1,000 years. Humans? Perhaps not. *shrug* Any one of us is but a blink of an eye, time-wise.

All I know is I'm not paying some bullshit carbon tax to the Gerald Butts, excuse me JT2, communist gubmint.

If y'all care to, fill yer boots. But as long as places like China are building a coal-fired generator every week, the Liberals can kiss my sweet white expat ass. Ideological nonsense.

So what you're saying is that you are totally fine with causing extreme suffering mainly to citizens of underdeveloped nations?

http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... tries-ipcc

[NunavutPA-12]

I don't give a shit if climate change is happening or isn't, is man-made or isn't. Really, I don't. Who knows, maybe this is the Big Correction that restores humanity to a sustainable level. If that level happens to be zero, so be it. We've always been stupid as a species, anyway. Simple Darwinism. If we deserve to survive, we will. When I consider most people I meet, I have my doubts. ("Um, what's that? Was just taking a selfie.")

I have to laugh when I see "save the planet" stickers. Save the planet? The planet will be fine. It'll still be around in 1,000 years. Humans? Perhaps not. *shrug* Any one of us is but a blink of an eye, time-wise.

All I know is I'm not paying some bullshit carbon tax to the Gerald Butts, excuse me JT2, communist gubmint.

If y'all care to, fill yer boots. But as long as places like China are building a coal-fired generator every week, the Liberals can kiss my sweet white expat ass. Ideological nonsense.

+1

I think a lot of us feel that way. We're tired of politicians making grand commitments that they won't keep, setting targets that they will never reach and throwing away money that would be better spent elsewhere.

[Rockie]

But as long as places like China are building a coal-fired generator every week, the Liberals can kiss my sweet white expat ass.

China has a long way to go, but they made the Harper government look like the chumps they were.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b1f3ec6c-65cd ... z3w8ctg5X1

Ideological nonsense.

You're confused. This is science, and it's ideology that is denying it.

[B208]

China has a long way to go, but they made the Harper government look like the chumps they were.

That horse died months ago, for everyone's sake stop beating it.

I think a lot of us feel that way. We're tired of politicians making grand commitments that they won't keep, setting targets that they will never reach and throwing away money that would be better spent elsewhere.

Yep, but alas the Church of climantology has strong hold on its members. This is no surprise given that they are a splinter faction of the cult of Marx.

[HiLo]

I think a lot of us feel that way. We're tired of politicians making grand commitments that they won't keep, setting targets that they will never reach and throwing away money that would be better spent elsewhere.

Yep, but alas the Church of climantology has strong hold on its members. This is no surprise given that they are a splinter faction of the cult of Marx.

Really? Science is now a religion based on a leap of faith?

I hope you know the irony of comparing Marx and the Church

[rxl]

I don't give a shit if climate change is happening or isn't, is man-made or isn't. Really, I don't. Who knows, maybe this is the Big Correction that restores humanity to a sustainable level. If that level happens to be zero, so be it. We've always been stupid as a species, anyway. Simple Darwinism. If we deserve to survive, we will. When I consider most people I meet, I have my doubts. ("Um, what's that? Was just taking a selfie.")

I have to laugh when I see "save the planet" stickers. Save the planet? The planet will be fine. It'll still be around in 1,000 years. Humans? Perhaps not. *shrug* Any one of us is but a blink of an eye, time-wise.

All I know is I'm not paying some bullshit carbon tax to the Gerald Butts, excuse me JT2, communist gubmint.

If y'all care to, fill yer boots. But as long as places like China are building a coal-fired generator every week, the Liberals can kiss my sweet white expat ass. Ideological nonsense.

Tell me that this is "Ideological nonsense" - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a ... -in-donora
It's a damn good thing that someone "gave a shit".
("Um, what's that? Oh yea - was just Ideological nonsense.")

[PropToFeather]

Whenever this subject comes up, it always reminds me of the guy that decided to disprove the global warming theory by doing actual science, got a pretty large grant from the Koch foundation (one of the biggest funding sources for climate change denial), went and did his work... only to find out that, yeah, maybe those other scientists has a point.

Edit: It also amuses me when people make it a left-vs-right issue. Good policy-making is actually not at all related to whether you are on the left or right of the political spectrum, so long as you use facts to guide your decisions. Which is why the US has had a right-wing president (Nixon) care for the environment (by founding the EPA). Because it was good policy, and not because Nixon was a secret hippy.

[Rockie]

This is science. It never fails to confound me that the people most vocal about refuting science use computers and the internet to do it. It's like driving your car to a rally claiming internal combustion engines will never work.

Science....

[photofly]

You're confused about the differences between science, technology and engineering.

[Shady McSly]

(and I bet probably 97% of scientists agreed the earth was flat at one time - based on observable evidence of course)

All the 97% are coming up with is that the climate is changing. Are we all speeding that up? They think probably-maybe-sort of-not sure?

[PropToFeather]

All the 97% are coming up with is that the climate is changing. Are we all speeding that up? They think probably-maybe-sort of-not sure?

From IPCC Climate Change 2014, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

It's literally on the first page of the actual text part.

[Shady McSly]

(medium confidence)

Yeah that about sums up their 'conclusions'...not enough for me

Besides, I thought pollution in the atmosphere actually can create a COOLING effect by reflecting sunlight back into space? Or did the scientists back-pedal from that assertion? Maybe we need to spew more particulate into the air to help reverse this "alarming" warming trend...

And I assume all the alarmists on this thread drive hybrids or electric cars?



Oh yeah, and I found this (in like 1 second)...http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-crisis/

[Boreas]

I find it incredible that in the year 2016, some of you here actually dispute the effect humans have on climate change.

For those of you that disagree with Rockie et al., please ask yourselves the following Y/N questions:

1) Does Earth's atmosphere contain CO2?
2) Does atmospheric CO2 raise the average global temperature?
3) Will this relationship be enhanced by the addition of more CO2?
4) Have human activities led to a net increase in atmospheric CO2?

If you were able to justifiably answer No to any of the above, then congratulations! You have revolutionized science

[Rookie50]

(medium confidence)

Yeah that about sums up their 'conclusions'...not enough for me

Besides, I thought pollution in the atmosphere actually can create a COOLING effect by reflecting sunlight back into space? Or did the scientists back-pedal from that assertion? Maybe we need to spew more particulate into the air to help reverse this "alarming" warming trend...

And I assume all the alarmists on this thread drive hybrids or electric cars?

The loudest alarmists --- Only if they get $20,000 tax credits for their $100,000 Tesla they drive to chic environmental parties, all while protesting any money giving a single extra dime to the homeless, crumbling schools, food stamps in the US.

Funny how that works.

THAT -- is the way it is, folks.

[complexintentions]

The ideological nonsense I was referring to, is the economic ideology of carbon tax credits. Which Canadians are going to get shoved up their backsides soon enough by Liberal governments both federal and provincial. It will remove billions of dollars from Canadians and be transferred straight into the pockets of the most corrupt elsewhere. Right at a time when Canada is sliding backwards into recession and is massively indebted, both personally and at every government level. Great plan. Lots of promises, no way to pay for them. Should work.

The argument over whether climate change is natural or man-induced, I don't give a shit about. Like most complex issues the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Both sides make me sick, smugly proclaiming the unassailability of their positions. Science? More like theatre.

As far as references to "extreme suffering to citizens of underdeveloped nations", give us all a break. Every single person ever born acts in their own self-interest, including those "citizens of underdeveloped nations". It would seem Canada is keen to join the ranks of those nations by squandering its own natural wealth.

[Whiskey25]

https://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

A little oversimplified, but having some control input is certainly better than leaving it up to fate

[HiLo]

(medium confidence)

Yeah that about sums up their 'conclusions'...not enough for me

Besides, I thought pollution in the atmosphere actually can create a COOLING effect by reflecting sunlight back into space? Or did the scientists back-pedal from that assertion? Maybe we need to spew more particulate into the air to help reverse this "alarming" warming trend...

And I assume all the alarmists on this thread drive hybrids or electric cars?



Oh yeah, and I found this (in like 1 second)...http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-crisis/

1. The study you found is actually a poll of engineers, chemists and the like (who, while being scientists, aren't experts in the area of climate science) who have jobs in the oil and gas sector. Climate scientists are not in the "environmentalist sector" of the economy. In fact, many of these scientists work as researchers at universities which get money from the Koch Brothers, such as MIT, and still conclude that climate change is a man-made catastrophe-waiting-to-happen.

2. CO2 does not reflect anything anywhere: it absorbs. Take five minutes, it's pretty easy to understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJOO3xAjTk

[HiLo]

(medium confidence)

Yeah that about sums up their 'conclusions'...not enough for me

Besides, I thought pollution in the atmosphere actually can create a COOLING effect by reflecting sunlight back into space? Or did the scientists back-pedal from that assertion? Maybe we need to spew more particulate into the air to help reverse this "alarming" warming trend...

And I assume all the alarmists on this thread drive hybrids or electric cars?

The loudest alarmists --- Only if they get $20,000 tax credits for their $100,000 Tesla they drive to chic environmental parties, all while protesting any money giving a single extra dime to the homeless, crumbling schools, food stamps in the US.

Funny how that works.

THAT -- is the way it is, folks.

I hope you realize that the same tax credits available for a Tesla are available for a Nissan Leaf or any other electric car. It's not like there's some sort of Tesla-exclusive tax credit.

[B208]

I think a lot of us feel that way. We're tired of politicians making grand commitments that they won't keep, setting targets that they will never reach and throwing away money that would be better spent elsewhere.

Yep, but alas the Church of climantology has strong hold on its members. This is no surprise given that they are a splinter faction of the cult of Marx.

Really? Science is now a religion based on a leap of faith?

Nope, science is Socratic thought applied to understanding the physical universe. Climate change activism, (The Church of Climantology), is Aristotelian thought, (which is to say dogma), applied to political ends. I'm not disputing the basic science; I'm taking issue with the proposed solutions.

If someone had a plan that was going to reduce global GHG emissions and be binding on all nations I would support it; alas they don't have such a plan. What we are being presented with is a massive tax grab and a diversion of wealth into corrupt third world governments.

I hope you know the irony of comparing Marx and the Church

Irony does not preclude accuracy. Both Marxism and Religion are dogmatic philosophies that exhort their adherents to spread their ideology. Neither has a internal reality checking mechanism and both have been used by the unscrupulous to exploit the unthinking. They are the same crap just in different buckets.

[hoptwoit]

Where did the 97% number come from?

The 97% number is a myth. Of the 11,944 abstracts since of them 7930 held no opinion at all he excluded them from the study. The fact is that the excluded papers made up 66% of the information they were looking at. To use the 97% number ALLLLL the time is just nauseating. The fact that people still throw this number around is amazing oh and its a lie!!!!




Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.'s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

* All the other "97% consensus" studies: Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.
It is nothing more than cleaver math.

[HiLo]

Where did the 97% number come from?

The 97% number is a myth. Of the 11,944 abstracts since of them 7930 held no opinion at all he excluded them from the study. The fact is that the excluded papers made up 66% of the information they were looking at. To use the 97% number ALLLLL the time is just nauseating. The fact that people still throw this number around is amazing oh and its a lie!!!!




Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.'s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

* All the other "97% consensus" studies: Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.
It is nothing more than cleaver math.

Show me a credible, scientific study that shows otherwise.

[pelmet]

Unfortunately, Rockie believes everything that is put in front of him in an official manner with no questions asked. This happened in an earlier discussion where a detail of an accident investigation report had to be correct because well...the investigators said so and therefore, no challenge even of the obvious was acceptable.

Now we see it here. Scientists say humans are warming the planet a significant amount. In fact he says 97% of scientists say so. Therefore it must be true so you better believe.

I think you will find that Rockie like so many others are just lying and misleading you with false facts. Easy to show here if I really wanted to.

Do you actually believe what the UN is saying as well Rockie?

[HiLo]

Unfortunately, Rockie believes everything that is put in front of him in an official manner with no questions asked. This happened in an earlier discussion where a detail of an accident investigation report had to be correct because well...the investigators said so and therefore, no challenge even of the obvious was acceptable.

Now we see it here. Scientists say humans are warming the planet a significant amount. In fact he says 97% of scientists say so. Therefore it must be true so you better believe.

I think you will find that Rockie like so many others are just lying and misleading you with false facts. Easy to show here if I really wanted to.

Do you actually believe what the UN is saying as well Rockie?

Then why don't you show us this scientific research you have? Or is it too complicated for our mortal minds?