It's disinformation.
Sea level has changed by about 8 inches over the last century and is presently accelerating.
Would you see a 4 inch difference zoomed out that far above?
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
Sea level has changed by about 8 inches over the last century and is presently accelerating.
Would you see a 4 inch difference zoomed out that far above?
Why climate change ISN'T going to end the world
Professor Mike Hulme argues that 'climatism' is an ideology that places too much importance on stopping climate change, when there are other more pressing issues that face humanity.
Developing Nations Reject Western Carbon Colonialism - CO2 Coalition
By Vijay Jayaraj Guyana President Irfaan Ali is the latest leader of a developing nation to publicly note the hypocrisy of those pressuring countries like his to forego wealth in pursuit of a “green” agenda. In a fiery response to a BBC interviewer’s questioning of Guyana’s “right” to emit...
co2coalition.org
Developing Nations Reject Western Carbon Colonialism
By Vijay Jayaraj
Guyana President Irfaan Ali is the latest leader of a developing nation to publicly note the hypocrisy of those pressuring countries like his to forego wealth in pursuit of a “green” agenda.
In a fiery response to a BBC interviewer’s questioning of Guyana’s “right” to emit carbon dioxide in developing $150 billion of oil and gas reserves, President Ali questioned the reporter’s “right to lecture us on climate change. I will lecture you on climate change.”
It is not new, but still dismaying, that many leaders of developed nations assume a posture of moral superiority in leveling criticisms at countries with expanding economies and increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. Ensconced in seats of power from Brussels to Washington, D.C., they point accusing fingers while overlooking centuries of using coal, oil and natural gas to enrich their own countries.
The double standard fails to acknowledge the urgent needs of less advanced countries endeavouring to improve the lot of an impoverished citizenry. Such a nation is Guyana, the third smallest South American country in area.
The Guyanese president told the British journalist that it was hypocritical for rich countries to ask poor ones to reduce emissions. President Ali questioned the moral authority of those that benefited from the hydrocarbon-driven Industrial Revolution, whose most notable technological impetus was the coal-fired steam engine.
“The world, in the last 50 years, has lost 65% of all its biodiversity,” said the president whose country is home to a large rainforest. “We have kept our biodiversity. Are you valuing it. Are you ready to pay for it? When is the developed world going to pay for it, or are you in their pockets?”
President Ali’s comments echo those of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others who have rejected the climate alarmists’ hostility to fossil fuels in favor of exploiting hydrocarbons to support economic growth.
From the perspective of a developing country, the climate crusaders are particularly annoying when they travel in fuel-guzzling private jets to exclusive locations for United Nations’ climate conferences. The amount of CO2 such a flights release surpasses the yearly emissions of an ordinary individual in a developing country.
Per Capita Emissions and Energy Poverty
Except for nuclear power, fossil fuels are the densest form of energy and so are the most efficient in powering economic growth. Their use — and their CO2 emissions — have a direct relationship with a society’s wealth. Economies with low poverty rates either have high per capita emissions, or have been through a phase when emissions were elevated, because of the central role that fossil fuels played in their development.
Thus, barring a few countries that are blessed with abundant water resources for hydroelectric generation or with nuclear power plants, low per capita emissions equate to poverty. While large developing countries like India produce a significant amount of CO2 emissions in total, the per capita emissions of individual citizens are dwarfed by the carbon footprints of people in the developed West.
For example, global per capita CO2 emissions in 2022 were just over 4 tons while India’s were less than 2 tons. In the U.K. — the BBC’s home — per capita emissions were almost 5 tons.
The African continent has per capita emissions of less than 1 ton; the Central African Republic, 0.05 tons, with 70 percent of its citizens in extreme poverty, making it the fifth poorest country in the world. Another African country among the five poorest is the Democratic Republic of Congo with just 0.04 tons per capita. According to the World Bank, 4.6% of the Congolese people live on less than $2.15 per day.
Doomsday-promoting politicians cling to their luxuries while millions have no access to clean water, modern appliances and automobiles. The Guyanese president and others are quite right to call out the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy.
This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy on April 24, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
A reminder of the basics.
The planet is warming as much as projected by the IPCC as we put more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nobody is denying this is happening.
The planet is warming as much as projected by the IPCC as we put more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nobody is denying this is happening.
The planet has warmed well over 1.5°C in a century in the past. We can speculate what caused it but we don't know for sure because we weren't there to experience it.
I would say that population explosion in the 20th century and building up cities that radiate and trap heat have a lot to do with it. Would make sense no? I'd say that's a far more plausible explanation than putting an extra 140 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.
Well cancel the IPCC, kirk has a theory!
Google IPCC and heat island and see if the IPCC has considered your idea already.
Then report.
The only time the planet has warmed faster was either by super volcano or asteroid.
building up cities that radiate heat around the thermometers used to track temperatures have a lot to do with it
Milton, Vaughan, Mississauga , Markham, Whitby , Oakville , Pickering would all have been in the green in the 1960s
urban expansion is not determined by atmospheric plant food concentration
Last edited:
Included in a report 17 years ago.
Did you check?
No.
Why?
Because you can't do basic research, don't understand the science and can't read and understand the IPCC reports.
This will likely hit wet bulb temperature in a few areas.
the IPCC models can not replicate the past, a bare minimum for any predictive model
here are the models vs. satellite data and weather balloon data
look at the errors of the models vs historical actuals
there is not even agreement amongst the models
go figure: they all are driven by co2 concentration
there is defiantly something wrong with the physics fundamentals being coded into the models
that happens when you try to model a pre-determined conclusion rather than trying to gain a deeper understanding how our decoupled non-linear chaotic climate system functions
hint: cloud cover varies and varies a lot
Bait and switch, larue.
What is wrong with you?
The IPCC measurements and projections are for surface temps you dishonestly, or ignorantly, tried to sneak in a chart of temps in the troposphere.
Do you even understand why that is stupid?
the performance of the models vs. verified satellite And weather balloon data is not a bait and switch
it is experimental data vs. flawed models
you climate alarmists always blow a fuse when confronted with reality
too funny
the troposphere is where the AGW theory predicts the warming will occur
you do not understand what you babble about
the surface temp records are a mess and have been diddled with
Michael Mann is not credible
that happens when you commit scientific fraud
there is defiantly something wrong with the physics fundamentals being coded into the models
that happens when you try to model a pre-determined conclusion rather than trying to gain a deeper understanding how our decoupled non-linear chaotic climate system functions
that should have occurred long ago
why refer to a predetermined conclusion , if it is the truth you seek?
wrong, Younger Dryas
it looks like your favourite country Norway is quite skeptical and thus denying your propaganda
a national institution : Statistics Norway
kind of tough for you to perform your go-to character assassination on a national institution
ttps://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
Statistisk sentralbyra
Statistics Norway
No, larue, you are using bait and switch.
You are intentionally using troposphere temperatures instead of surface temperatures.
You're even using only old satellite data and the most recent data.
There is a reason your charts end in 2001, satellite data was corrected to fix orbital issues and agrees much more with surface temps.
Your use of bait and switch and 20 year old charts is a total failure, larue.
Its the cheapest and stupidest fake arguments.
What is wrong with you?
Larue, prove you read and understand that paper by telling us in your own words what 'non-stationary temperature fluctuations' means.
you are just not bright enough to figure out that the two satellite data sets match the 4 independent weather balloon data sets
independent data sets matching is a confirmation of their accuracy
meanwhile 73 computer model projections vary wildly from the actual measured values and vary wildly from each other
despite claims of a 'settled science' understanding
if the modelling bozos really had a 'settled science' understanding then all of the model projections would have fallen unto the same curve with little variance
(like the satellite and weather balloon data did)
that's how science works
there is defiantly something wrong with the physics fundamentals being coded into the models
that happens when you try to model a pre-determined conclusion rather than trying to gain a deeper understanding how our decoupled non-linear chaotic climate system functions
surface temp records are a mess
look at the mess they make when used as data inputs
and they have been diddled with
