Is global climate policy actually about global income redistribution ?
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
- Status
Ever wounder why all we hear about from the UNEMPLOYABLE is, we have to cut down on burning fossil fuel in our cars, truck, trains, airplanes, boats, etc.
But NEVER about having 3rd world countries stop deforestation, which adds more CO2 to the atmosphere than ALL of the above combined, for the WHOLE world.
FAST
But NEVER about having 3rd world countries stop deforestation, which adds more CO2 to the atmosphere than ALL of the above combined, for the WHOLE world.
FAST
Worth investigating the early stages of the movement - connections to the recently deceased Maurice Strong, intended transfer of wealth from the west (particularly the US) to the Chinese government, attempts at a broader transfer of wealth from western governments to less-developed nations (including getting Germans to pay for light bulbs in the caribbean), and attempts to reduce the standard of living in the west to the benefit of the leaders of less-developed nations.
Sigh.
One more time for you notsofast.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Click on the link, scroll down and you will note that the highly employed and much smarter scientists have clearly quantified deforestation and noted its effect on the climate.
Its even there in nice pictures and graphics so someone of your intellect has a chance of understanding it.
And once more,...you post a link that you have not read,...and if you did,...you obviously don't understand..
Even if you did,....Bloomberg is you source,...wow,...now that's a well known association of scientists.
You just keep on digging your hole deeper, and deeper.
FAST
Didn't get to the bottom of the page, eh?
Typical, you didn't read the whole thing then accused me of not reading it.
Loser.
From the bloomberg page:
https://twitter.com/climateofgavin/status/613669513415032832
You still,... either haven't even looked at the graph,...or you can't read it,...one or the other.
FAST
Its your graph,...weasel,... you tell us what you think it says,...assuming you can actually read it,...AND you have the guts to.
FAST
Last edited:
I forgot, even pictures are hard for you.
My bad.
Here, let me explain how this internet thing works for you.
Here's the link to the chart.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Note that it starts with a chart of global temperature.
Now, scroll down, note that it next gives you a chart for the effect of the globe's orbit around the sun (yes, the earth orbits around the sun, I know, more 'science' for you to undertand)
Scroll down again and it shows the influence of solar output on the globes temperature.
Next is volcanoes, then the first three combined.
Got it so far?
Scroll down again and it shows the influence of deforestation, the issue you claim that scientists don't count, don't know about or just forgot.
Its right there and you can see its influence.
Keep scrolling and you can see all the possible 'forcings' that can change our climate.
And if you were smart you'd understand which one is changing the climate of our planet the most right now.
Good luck.
Once again, we have someone trying to defend computer model projections with more computer model projections. To paraphrase something the late author Michael Crichton once said, as if the models themselves are reality.
Three questions:
1) Why does the line plotting the predicted temperature increases created by man-made emissions stop at 2004?
2) Why is there no acknowledgement that the "simulations" have a terrible track record? (The model runs were 97% wrong, according to the IPCC's most recent report.)
3) Why didn't Bloomberg/NASA make more of an effort to explain to readers that "simulations" can be entirely different from reality?
Three questions:
1) Why does the line plotting the predicted temperature increases created by man-made emissions stop at 2004?
2) Why is there no acknowledgement that the "simulations" have a terrible track record? (The model runs were 97% wrong, according to the IPCC's most recent report.)
3) Why didn't Bloomberg/NASA make more of an effort to explain to readers that "simulations" can be entirely different from reality?
Still waiting,...but not holding my breath,...
I'm going with the latter.
FAST
So after all that weaseling,...just what does the deforestation graph tell you,...assuming you can actually read the graph,...which has been quite evident from your posts,...you can't,...or you'r just not man enough to state what the "influence" is.
I'm going with the latter.
FAST
The earth has experienced large changes in temperature in the past for various reasons. The CURRENT large temperature change is the result of human activity. Namely greenhouse gases.
I'm not sure what your point is. At some times in the past the planet had hot and cold temperatures that would completely wipe out our civilization.
Whether the current change we are causing is going to have that sort of civilization destroying power, or be a smaller and more moderate change we can cope with, is an excellent question.
Just having proved that we have caused global warming isn't the same as proving that the sky is falling. Just that the sky is getting warmer, and that we caused that.
current temperature changes is natural and is a result of the end of the mimi ice age "global warming " stopped in 1998
temperature records started in the late 1800s
my point is the earth climate is not static i always changes
40 years ago the climate alarmists where whining about global cooling and a future ice age.
1st,...I did NOT ask you,...2nd,...that is also a weasel response,...you taking lessons from frankie,...???
FAST
- Status
