The British Institute of Actuaries warns that without mitigation countries risk losing 50% of their economies.
Alarmists!
Alarmists!
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
So we have another winter coming in Toronto, lets see if the Lefties are finally right and we have a nice balmy winter
Nobody even noticed a tropical storm going to category 5 in only 24 hours and hitting Acapulco, destroying a good chunk.
We are at the point where these storms are now commonplace and don't make the headlines.
We are at the point where these storms are now commonplace and don't make the headlines.
What if the winter coming in turns out to be the warmest on
record and the lefties are finally right? My answer is that traffic
jam would remain as horribly bad even if everyone believes in
climate change.
My residence is one block away from a major intersection on
a quiet street with no traffic light. Crossing the street is a headache
to me at peak hours thanks to all the detouring cars. We are
living in an insane society. It is time for Canada to ban imports of
crude oil from the Middle East to Ontario to ease traffic congestion
as well as to save the climate.
lol, yep.
Me I harvested the last of my Brussels sprouts today, finished up some yard work, and started thinking about $700/month heating bills.bring on those mild winters, and maybe hopefully more rate hikes for Nat gas, and someday some reality to climate champions.
in one month, we will have about 6, maybe 8 years to get 80% of commuters into EVs, and then can start massive amounts of hydro infrastructure upgrades that are mysteriously not being done.
EV revolution is a scam. No more than 10--15% of ICE car drivers
today will end up driving EVs. It won't be long before prices of copper,
nickel, cobalt and other base metals shoot through the roof. Majority
of drivers today will have to switch to street cars and buses after ICE
car ban is in place.
An El Nino year combined with higher global land and see temps are going to make this fire season in Australia incredibly bad.
Its only Nov and already its crazy.
Its only Nov and already its crazy.
the direct cause and effect relationship between emissions and co2 concentration is just not following the alarmist narrative/ propaganda.
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
in 2008-2009 and then again with the lockdowns / pandemic
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
simple dy/dx
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
in 2008-2009 and then again with the lockdowns / pandemic
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
simple dy/dx
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
What an idiotic post.
Those were not serious CO2 emission declines, just slight drops due to recession or pandemic.
sad how some can call 'idiotic " what they do not understand
learn some calculus
just how much more emission reduction in excess of a full global lock down or a full global recession do you expect to drive with your foolish and idiotic propaganda ?
again
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
learn some calculus
just how much more emission reduction in excess of a full global lock down or a full global recession do you expect to drive with your foolish and idiotic propaganda ?
again
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
Last edited:
Idiotic post #2.
The damage from climate change to economies will be much more massive than the tiny change necessary to go renewable.
The risks if we do nothing are massive.
again
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
No, calling a recession an attempt to reduce emissions is idiotic.
Idiotic.
Emissions continue to rise and temps rise as well.
Ocean temps are at a record.
graph reading was taught to you in grade school.... you know......before you dropped / failed out of school,
so why are you so confused ?
annual co2 emissions decreased in 2008 / 2009 & then again during the pandemic
so the experiment was conducted and conducted twice, whether you like it or not
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical / intelligent explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
so why are you so confused ?
annual co2 emissions decreased in 2008 / 2009 & then again during the pandemic
so the experiment was conducted and conducted twice, whether you like it or not
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical / intelligent explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
Read your chart.
Was the world still emitting 30+ tonnes of CO2 into the air?
Why would you expect the temperature to go down while we are still adding CO2?
Are you really that daft that you think a slight decline doesn't mean there is still a shit ton of CO2 going into the atmosphere?
Do you not understand what net zero means?
you confuse yourself so quickly
temperature is not referenced in either chart
this theoretical relationship of human emissions driving increasing co2 levels must be valid before attributing any perceived temperature change to human emissions
the latter relationship is invalid and falls apart if the former relationship is invalid
a decrease in the independent variable will produce a change in slope the of dependent variable
a decrease in emissions will produce a change in slope of the co2 concentration
a change in the slope of the co2 concentration is not observed
hypothesis >>> failed
btw the natural exchanges of co2 volumes between land/ atmosphere/ oceans is massive relative to human emissions
this is why there is no change in the slope
i will type slowly so you can keep up
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical / intelligent explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
temperature is not referenced in either chart
this theoretical relationship of human emissions driving increasing co2 levels must be valid before attributing any perceived temperature change to human emissions
the latter relationship is invalid and falls apart if the former relationship is invalid
a decrease in the independent variable will produce a change in slope the of dependent variable
a decrease in emissions will produce a change in slope of the co2 concentration
a change in the slope of the co2 concentration is not observed
hypothesis >>> failed
btw the natural exchanges of co2 volumes between land/ atmosphere/ oceans is massive relative to human emissions
this is why there is no change in the slope
i will type slowly so you can keep up
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical / intelligent explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
There is about 3 Trillion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, a change of 5 billion tonnes is about a change of 0.6 parts per million of CO2 concentration.
Your claim is idiotic.
If you turn on a faucet to fill a sink with water will the water levels go down if you decrease the amount of water going into the sink by 5%?
Or will it just keep filling up?
The fact that someone still thinks climate change isn't happening in the face of overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus is shocking.
You once said something along the lines of if climate change is true then deniers are actively participating in the greatest crime against humanity.
Personally I think anyone who understood that and then didn't do the due diligence on the research becomes morally culpable.
too bad for you the natural exchanges of co2 volumes between land/ atmosphere/ oceans is massive relative to human emissions
this has been pointed out to you more than once
you just ignore what is inconvenient or more often, what you do not not understand
your so called overwhelming evidence is primarily propaganda based on faulty computer models
your so called consensus is irrelevant , as scientific hypothesis validation is based on observable experimental data, not manipulated opinion polls
however its moot as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not true
get that through your head
you do not think, you parrot propaganda like an obedient little ideologue
you would say anything to support the loonie left agenda
you have zero credibility to make moral judgements on others
what you claim you think is worthless
At best you are comic relief
sadly for you science is based on what you term ' fuzzy math'
explain how a high school drop out can take an absolute position on a controversial scientific hypophysis based on 'fuzzy math'
-log (I/Io)= EBC
The truth of the matter is your position is politically / ideologically driven
what you claim you think is worthless
this has been pointed out to you more than once
you just ignore what is inconvenient or more often, what you do not not understand
your so called overwhelming evidence is primarily propaganda based on faulty computer models
your so called consensus is irrelevant , as scientific hypothesis validation is based on observable experimental data, not manipulated opinion polls
you misquote me ... again
however its moot as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not true
get that through your head
you have a long and continuous history of intentionally misleading others
you do not think, you parrot propaganda like an obedient little ideologue
you would say anything to support the loonie left agenda
you have zero credibility to make moral judgements on others
what you claim you think is worthless
At best you are comic relief
sadly for you science is based on what you term ' fuzzy math'
explain how a high school drop out can take an absolute position on a controversial scientific hypophysis based on 'fuzzy math'
-log (I/Io)= EBC
The truth of the matter is your position is politically / ideologically driven
what you claim you think is worthless
Last edited:
