The new official climate change thread

[fuji]

Would you be surprised to know that almost 2/3 of the scientific community that studies climate factors has no opinion on what is the main driver of climate change? Therefore that 9% (which I believe is understated) seems relevant.

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it - there is a relatively small cadre of "scientists" that are driving the alarmism. They refuse to debate, instead they obfuscate. Chicken shits like Gavin Schmidt actually run away from debates https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw

This is the side you choose to support BC. These aren't true scientists. They are political hacks in it for the money and power.

Your post is entirely false . That's some misinformation you got from some dishonest climate denier website, not reality. Reality is that there is an overwhelming consensus that burning fossil fuels drives global warming.

Moreover, that overwhelming consensus is based on hard empirical evidence, such as the study in Nature which directly measured the heat from human produced atmospheric CO2.

Climate deniers, Obama birthers, 9/11 truthers are all just kooky conspiracy theorists, the modern day version of the flat earthers.

 

[Frankfooter]

The IPCC,NASA,NOAA are more political than scientific based.

No, you just can't tell the difference between legit research and bullshit.
All the work published by the IPCC and supported by NASA and NOAA are all fully documented, with the source data available and their work all peer reviewed.
You can't fake results that wouldn't be easy to catch.
(for instance, it was incredibly easy to spot the shoddy work larue supplied, the chart that switched between surface temps into stratosphere temps when the real data didn't agree with the claim)

If you're going to make these kinds of attacks, and claim you support science, you'll need to provide fully documented evidence to support this claim.
Can you?

 

[JohnLarue]

Can you?

Can You?
Can you explain how you expect to replace a growing 100 MM bbl/day of crude oil consumption?

 

[fuji]

Can You?
Can you explain how you expect to replace a growing 100 MM bbl/day of crude oil consumption?

Wrong question. The impact on the climate of burning 100 MM bbl/day remains the same regardless of what we would like.

Here are our choices: We find a way to cut emissions and avoid the outcome, we accept that the outcome will happen and start planning how we will deal with it, or we are surprised by the outcome and caught off guard.

You're like a guy deep in debt complaining that he can't afford to cut his credit card spending because it would impact his lifestyle. Reality's gonna catch up, whether or not you like it.

 

[Frankfooter]

Can You?
Can you explain how you expect to replace a growing 100 MM bbl/day of crude oil consumption?

Never said it was going to be easy.
But it still has to be done.

You still haven't responded to being caught using a source that fooled you, switching between surface temperature and stratosphere temps in the same chart to downplay climate change.

 

[JohnLarue]

Never said it was going to be easy.
But it still has to be done.

I am telling you, that is an economically unachievable goal and a technologically unachievable goal
Since your demands are unrealistic, you have no credibility and therefore your views, obsessions and opinions on this matter are moot.

Had you responded with a ambitious , however realistic objective, your views might carry some weight with those who are undecided on this issue
An initial, vary ambitious and remotely possibly achievable objective might be to grow renewables to a point where they cover the projected growth from 100 MM bbls / day

Just assuming we can completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels because you say it must be so, shows you really do not understand what you speak of and you are incapable of compromise (ie a Zealot)

You still haven't responded to being caught using a source that fooled you, switching between surface temperature and stratosphere temps in the same chart to downplay climate change.

Sure I did
you did not understand what Dr. Carter's message from that slide was
It is not a make or break issue, so you can investigate further if you want , however it is not a major issue relative to the bigger question

Just to be clear Dr. Carter may or may not be correct
However he has raised some doubts and despite being dead he is still far more credible than the preaching of a Zealot

 

[Frankfooter]

I am telling you, that is an economically unachievable goal and a technologically unachievable goal
Since your demands are unrealistic, you have no credibility and therefore your views, obsessions and opinions on this matter are moot.

Lame response, larue.
As a right winger, pro-business type you are supposed to know the arguments of cost/benefits.
Doing nothing and continuing as we are will be incredibly expensive, changing our ways and slowing the growth of climate change will be way cheaper in the long run.
http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2014/06/26/acting-combat-climate-change-cost-benefit-analysis/

Your arguments are those of a zealot, who refuses to even weigh the real costs.

Just to be clear Dr. Carter may or may not be correct
However he has raised some doubts and despite being dead he is still far more credible than the preaching of a Zealot

Do you own a mirror?

You picked a source that used trickery to try to make a point, yet you are still defending his work.
Even now as you admit he may be wrong (it appears you are totally unable to judge whether his work is total bullshit or not), you still act as if he is correct.
That's the actions of a zealot, sir.

 

[JohnLarue]

Lame response, larue.

Lame??
I tell you your demands are physically impossible to accomplish and you call that lame?
That is not a subjective statement
It is a fact.
How can a factual statement be lame?

As a right winger, pro-business type you are supposed to know the arguments of cost/benefits.

believe me I know them., however they are based upon realistic achievable goals, not the unrealistic expectations of an uncomprimising zealot

Doing nothing and continuing as we are will be incredibly expensive, changing our ways and slowing the growth of climate change will be way cheaper in the long run.
http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2014/06/26/acting-combat-climate-change-cost-benefit-analysis/

That arguement is self serving as it assumes from the get go that your premise is correct, and that is exactly the point of contention

Your arguments are those of a zealot, who refuses to even weigh the real costs.

As I have said before all economic value goes to zero if we cook the planet, so you are dead wrong in your grade three level retort.
It is getting tiresome having to repeat things to you !! (Pay attention !!!)
Zealots also tend to have difficulty paying attention or attempting to even consider how someone else views an issue

Do you own a mirror?
You picked a source that used trickery to try to make a point, yet you are still defending his work.

that is your opinion & we all know what that is worth

Besides if everything you do not understand is defined as trickery, then we will have one hell of a magic show

Even now as you admit he may be wrong (it appears you are totally unable to judge whether his work is total bullshit or not), you still act as if he is correct.
That's the actions of a zealot, sir.

I indicated he may be wrong or he may be correct, the jury is still out on this one
I do know he made some very logical points about the time references used and they are just to short to be provide a lot of confidence in some of these predictions.


I am keeping an open mind about this as I am not totally convinced one -way or another
So how can I be a Zealot?

What is very clear , however is that you will never ever even consider an alternative point of view
That is the action of a POS zealot
Zelots do not convince anyone, rather they often do more damage than good to their cause as they get recognised for what they are. Extremely untrustworthy

you are so closed minded you did not even notice it was your character on debate here

 

[K Douglas]

Your post is entirely false . That's some misinformation you got from some dishonest climate denier website, not reality. Reality is that there is an overwhelming consensus that burning fossil fuels drives global warming.

Moreover, that overwhelming consensus is based on hard empirical evidence, such as the study in Nature which directly measured the heat from human produced atmospheric CO2.

Climate deniers, Obama birthers, 9/11 truthers are all just kooky conspiracy theorists, the modern day version of the flat earthers.

I stand by my post and history will prove me right. That I am sure of.

Nobody is denying that man made CO2 is contributing to the greenhouse effect which keeps us alive. I'm not sure of the study you are referencing but there is a study that has quantified the 11 year solar cycle having a global warming effect of about 0.2C for period 1959-2004 (see Camp/Tung 2007, Geophysical Research Letters). There are other studies that have disputed the IPCC findings that solar irradiation is having no effect on warming. (See Tobias/Weiss 2000, Journal of the American Meteorological Society - Resonant Interactions Between Solar Activity & Climate). Their conclusion is it's too chaotic and non linear to quantify the warming effect of solar activity but that a weak but resonant solar input could have a profound effect on the climate. And let us not forget that the super El Nino of 1998 added about 0.12C to long term warming trend.

Stop already with the baloney consensus, it's been disproved. Even if there was a consensus it's irrelevant. Science doesn't operate via consensus. Never has. Never should. That is why I have such disdain for the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Jones and Mann. They have made an absolute mockery of science by putting politics (and their pocketbooks) ahead of scientific advancement.

 

[FAST]

Its conspiracy theory talk when you claim that all scientists hired by government agencies would change their findings to fit what you claim is some hidden agenda by these agencies:

That's kooky conspiracy talk.

Once again with your dumb conspiracy theories.

I have NEVER stated there is a hidden agenda,...that's your theory, although it does look like the ass wipes at the UN may have.

My post that you attempted to reply to,...stated that the % of scientists on each side of the climate debate is totally meaningless,...at least to some one with an IQ above 75.

Just because the big 3 tax leaches,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA have a large numbers of unemployable "scientists", does NOT give those THREE organizations, that exist solely for their benefit,...any more weight than the 9% of independent scientists in the debate.

In fact,...the opposite is true.

If you can't understand that,...you should NOT be debating here.

If you want my help explaining % and logic to you,...please let me know.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Lame??
I tell you your demands are physically impossible to accomplish and you call that lame?
That is not a subjective statement
It is a fact.
How can a factual statement be lame?

Its not a fact. It will be hard, but it can be done.
The facts are we know that doing nothing about climate change will be more costly then doing nothing, as you propose.
Check the insurance industry as a start, they are already paying out billions in damages from extreme climate events caused by climate change.

I indicated he may be wrong or he may be correct, the jury is still out on this one

I indicated that he pulled a fast one on you, and you weren't smart enough to pick up on it.
And here you are still defending his work.
Switching from surface temp to satellite temps in the same chart fools only idiots like you.

The fact that you still defend claims built on cheap trickery just show that you are entirely unable to judge the science.
You should leave it to people smarter then you.


edited to add this report:

Canada's status as an "energy superpower" is under threat because the global dominance of fossil fuels could wane faster than previously believed, according to a draft report from a federal government think-tank obtained by CBC News.

"It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status," reads the conclusion of the 32-page document, produced by Policy Horizons Canada.

The document was obtained by CBC News under an access to information request and shared with two experts — one in Alberta, one in British Columbia — who study the energy industry.

Both experts described its forecasts for global energy markets as more or less in line with what a growing number of analysts believe.

"It's absolutely not pie in the sky," said Michal Moore from the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy. "These folks are being realistic — they may not be popular, but they're being realistic."

Marty Reed, CEO of Evok Innovations — a Vancouver-based cleantech fund created through a $100-million partnership with Cenovus and Suncor — had a similar take after reading the draft report.

"You could nit-pick a couple of items," he said. "But at a high level, I would say the vast, vast majority of what they wrote is not even controversial, it's very well accepted."

....
"We just saw Saudi Arabia award a major solar contract at three cents a kilowatt hour. We just saw Mexico do the same thing … at five cents a kilowatt hour," he said.

"You can't bring on a new coal plant or natural gas plant at that price. You sure can't build a new Site C hydro dam at that price."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-decline-renewables-policy-horizons-1.3601400

 

[Frankfooter]

I have NEVER stated there is a hidden agenda,...that's your theory, although it does look like the ass wipes at the UN may have.

I rest my case.
Idiot.

 

[Frankfooter]

Stop already with the baloney consensus, it's been disproved. Even if there was a consensus it's irrelevant. Science doesn't operate via consensus. Never has. Never should. That is why I have such disdain for the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Jones and Mann. They have made an absolute mockery of science by putting politics (and their pocketbooks) ahead of scientific advancement.

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

If anything its getting stronger.

For instance, there was an attempt by the denier camp to put together a letter, think it was with the APS, but should check it.
The sent letters around trying to get scientists to sign a letter doubting climate change but could only find less then 0.5% or so that would sign it.
Which means the findings by the denier camp on the consensus only backs up the legit findings on the consensus.

 

[FAST]

I rest my case.
Idiot.

WOW footer,...that's your reply,...1st,...you do NOT have a case.

And by me mentioning,..."although it does look like the ass wipes at the UN may have",...some how proves you are correct about there being a conspiracy among the unemployable at IPCC, NOAA and NASA,...too fricken funny footer.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

WOW footer,...that's your reply,...1st,...you do NOT have a case.

And by me mentioning,..."although it does look like the ass wipes at the UN may have",...some how proves you are correct about there being a conspiracy among the unemployable at IPCC, NOAA and NASA,...too fricken funny footer.

FAST

Of course it doesn't prove there is a conspiracy, what it proves is that you think there is a conspiracy.
That just puts you firmly in wacko right winger, conspiracy theory camp of the climate deniers.

 

[FAST]

Of course it doesn't prove there is a conspiracy, what it proves is that you think there is a conspiracy.
That just puts you firmly in wacko right winger, conspiracy theory camp of the climate deniers.

Another lie,...loser, I have NEVER stated there is not climate change either, nobody does.

And you STILL don't understand percentages and logic do you,...but my offer to help you out again,...still stands,...please let me know.

FAST

 

[fuji]

I stand by my post and history will prove me right. That I am sure of.

Nobody is denying that man made CO2 is contributing to the greenhouse effect which keeps us alive. I'm not sure of the study you are referencing but there is a study that has quantified the 11 year solar cycle having a global warming effect of about 0.2C for period 1959-2004 (see Camp/Tung 2007, Geophysical Research Letters). There are other studies that have disputed the IPCC findings that solar irradiation is having no effect on warming. (See Tobias/Weiss 2000, Journal of the American Meteorological Society - Resonant Interactions Between Solar Activity & Climate). Their conclusion is it's too chaotic and non linear to quantify the warming effect of solar activity but that a weak but resonant solar input could have a profound effect on the climate. And let us not forget that the super El Nino of 1998 added about 0.12C to long term warming trend.

Stop already with the baloney consensus, it's been disproved. Even if there was a consensus it's irrelevant. Science doesn't operate via consensus. Never has. Never should. That is why I have such disdain for the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Jones and Mann. They have made an absolute mockery of science by putting politics (and their pocketbooks) ahead of scientific advancement.

There is a consensus because of the proof, such as the study published in Nature which confirmed human caused global warming through direct observation.

Meanwhile your guy Conway made a prediction that has turned out false.

 

[Frankfooter]

Another lie,...loser, I have NEVER stated there is not climate change either, nobody does.

And you STILL don't understand percentages and logic do you,...but my offer to help you out again,...still stands,...please let me know.

FAST

You said:

Just because the big 3 tax leaches,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA have a large numbers of unemployable "scientists", does NOT give those THREE organizations, that exist solely for their benefit,...any more weight than the 9% of independent scientists in the debate.

That's inferring a conspiracy to force all scientists hired by all governments over the last 30 years to pressure scientists to produce fraudulent work, though when challenged tried to claim that it was the UN that was pressuring government hired scientists in over 100 countries over the last 3 decades to produce these fraudulent work.

And if you're looking for science from privately funded research as a comparison, you could use Exxon's research:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Government funded or privately funded, the science comes out the same.

 

[FAST]

You said:

"Just because the big 3 tax leaches,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA have a large numbers of unemployable "scientists", does NOT give those THREE organizations, that exist solely for their benefit,...any more weight than the 9% of independent scientists in the debate".

That's inferring a conspiracy to force all scientists hired by all governments over the last 30 years to pressure scientists to produce fraudulent work, though when challenged tried to claim that it was the UN that was pressuring government hired scientists in over 100 countries over the last 3 decades to produce these fraudulent work.

Just how the hell did you get your conspiracy theory from my post that you quoted,...???

That has NOTHING to do with your conspiracy theory,...it is about your false claim of a consensus of man being solely the cause of the so called global warming,... based on your complete lack of understanding of percentages and logic.

And yet another lie,...I have never stated what you posted.

Once again footer, three organizations with a large number of redundant, unemployable "scientists",...does NOT out weigh the 9% INDEPENDENT scientists of the total.

Are you actually dumb enough to think that ANY ONE of the "scientists" in any one of those umbrella organizations would vote differently,...they vote as a block.

FAST

 

[JohnLarue]

Its not a fact. It will be hard, but it can be done.

No it can not be done
100 MM bbls / day & growing???

prove that can be replaced with renewables or admit your demands are non-achievable
You will be very fortunate to replace 10-15% of that amount with renewables and by the time you accomplish that 100 MM bbls will have grown to 115 MM bbl.

The facts are we know that doing nothing about climate change will be more costly then doing nothing, as you propose.

There are few facts actually
You have a number of theories which may or may not be true.

The planet may well be warming simply because the sun is getting warmer. (apparently mars is thawing out of a really long cold spell).
How long do you expect a flaming ball of gas to remain stable????

The planets climate may be changing due it its orbit. After all we have only really known the earth was spinning around the sun for maybe 700 years.
The variations in climate may just be the normal cycle of the planet & Man's impact may be irrelevant.

Check the insurance industry as a start, they are already paying out billions in damages from extreme climate events caused by climate change.

And Insurance has a history of maybe 500 years relative to the changes on the planet which occur on a frequency closer to 400,000 years
Again it may be the nature cycle of a planet 5 B years old

Leeson for you, do not get your scientific conclusions from an Insurance salesman

I indicated that he pulled a fast one on you, and you weren't smart enough to pick up on it.

No you did not understand Dr Carters message.

And here you are still defending his work.

A grade 5 answer
I said he may be correct or may not be, either way he raise some very serious issues which really question you absolute position.

Switching from surface temp to satellite temps in the same chart fools only idiots like you.

Where as your Zealot act is expected to fool all of the people all of the time? ??

The fact that you still defend claims built on cheap trickery just show that you are entirely unable to judge the science.
You should leave it to people smarter then you.

Let me know when you find someone who is smarter than me , because you certainly are not

As said earlier I am undecided on this issue, yet you are absolute in your position, how can you possibly be able to objectively judge anything??

Again it is time for you to wake up and understand a Zealot convinces no one, as you just come across as very untrustworthy Groggy/ Frankfooter.
How is one expected to trust the word of a person who masquerades as new person when it is convenient?