Speaking of drunk, we all know that temperature data has been collected for a while. What you are incapable of getting is that the past 20 years have been significantly warmer than the previous century. That is a noticeable climactic trend.
The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control U.N. scientists say
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
And you will continue to ignore that evidence.
p.s. It's not fossil fuels in themselves, it is the increasing amount that is the issue.
Fine. The opinions of a scientist with conclusions well outside of the statistical norm.
Either way his comments were intentionally alarmist and not indicative of the conclusions of the vast majority of those in the field.
But sure, keep on pretending there is some kind of conspiracy. I doubt you've met any but scientists (like many academics) are often arrogant as fuck and being told something makes them just dig in their heels further.
I love it when the master of unsubstantiated opinion claims to know about science.
???
Yes, 16 years of data was taken over 16 years (actually 18 years for both). They then compared it to 100 years of data from previous years. Why do you find it so hard to understand?
Idiot.
It was taken using the global temp data since 1880, not the last 20 years.
16 of the 17 warmest years, since humans started recording the global temp around 1880, happened since the year 2000.
You still aren't even bright enough to understand this point yet, are you?
According to Frankfooter, the Industrial Revolution took place some 4.5 billion years ago. Too funny.
To continue with the point about the ever-shifting "point of no return," here are the key quotes from the New York Times' coverage of the IPCC's fourth report in 2007:
Both 2012 and 2015 have passed and the world has not reversed the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, if the IPCC was right, it's "too late" and it's pointless to do anything now.
The only way that anyone can accept the 12-year timeline in the IPCC's latest report is if you acknowledge that the IPCC's previous predictions were completely wrong.
As Rex Murphy wrote, you can't set multiple deadlines for Doomsday. If you don't think it's "too late" to do anything, then you're conceding that the IPCC's past predictions were wrong.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/...19084-Jdx9pxVCIloHheE9QTud/A&pagewanted=print
Both 2012 and 2015 have passed and the world has not reversed the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, if the IPCC was right, it's "too late" and it's pointless to do anything now.
The only way that anyone can accept the 12-year timeline in the IPCC's latest report is if you acknowledge that the IPCC's previous predictions were completely wrong.
As Rex Murphy wrote, you can't set multiple deadlines for Doomsday. If you don't think it's "too late" to do anything, then you're conceding that the IPCC's past predictions were wrong.
There's a leap in 'logic' that's quite massive.
Of course, according to moviefan every single climatologist on the planet is either totally inept or in some massive conspiracy.
So his 'theories' are about as solid as sleazy or CM.
Wrong.
Since then there have been quite a few changes and policies that have started to do something about the problem.
For instance policies in California, Ontario, solar investments globally, investments in technology, lawsuits against the 100 main corporate culprits for climate change, the Paris agreement.....
Has it been enough?
That's a good question, but to claim nothing has been done takes an ignorance of zailbetter levels or conspiracy theories that make bigsleazy look sane.
We'll ignore the fact that most of Frankfooter's examples -- eg., lawsuits, Paris agreement -- came after or at the end of 2015.
Regardless, the IPCC said in 2007 that it would be "too late" by 2015 unless the world managed to "reverse" the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. That hasn't happened, as Frankfooter knows all too well.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/pre...raged-co2-levels-reach-400-parts-million-2015
Let's review:
- The IPCC's 2007 report says it is "too late" to do anything.
- The IPCC's 2018 report says there is still time to take action.
They can't both be true. If you believe one of those predictions to be accurate, you must believe the other one is/was wrong.
So which is it? Are the IPCC supporters saying the 2007 report was wrong, or are they saying the 2018 report is wrong.
Please confirm.
This is an important with regards to the article that you posted that pertains to Climate Change:
In that context this author is convinced that Climate Change is due to Fossil Fuels but has to be replaced by Green Energy with everyone on board with it, and not a forced taxation. All he wants is a new approach, that he has not fully elaborated. How else can you move to Green Energy without investing in it? The Federal Government should also invest in this Technology and provide the Provinces with incentives to do so.
Ontario is fortunate that it has gone down that road and now has an excess of this energy. There are other bigger costs that the Ontario taxpayers are on the hook for. One is the 407 where $102 billion was invested in it. Our generation will never get the full benefits of it as it is an elitist highway.
Actually, what he wants is investments in research that will lead to new technology.
Let's be very clear -- he's not calling for investments in wind and solar power, which are inefficient and drive up energy costs without any meaningful impact on carbon emissions.
When you look at it from an Ontario perspective, it appears his approach is closer to what is being advocated by Doug Ford rather than the approach taken by Kathleen Wynne and Justin Trudeau (recognizing that Ford's official policy still has to be announced).
Solar Power is actually very beneficial investment if you live in the Southern States of the USA. I personally know friends living in California that virtually are credited for what they upload on the grids. Scandinavian Nations invest big time in that technology, and again it is a very efficient form of investment. Wind Power has it's pros and conns.
Doug Ford is clueless. He is very good at beer pricing that will "save us" 20 or 30 or whatever cents on some random brand of beer that he is fixated on. Why is he not announcing exactly how he wants to address that so called policy of his? You just do not cancel something as crucial as an energy policy without having something in place, especially when you have not disclosed what it is. If the USA took the same stand as Ontario, then there would have been been an initiative globally to reduce the costs of renewable energy and not go in an opposite direction that is contradictory to the notion that Climate Change is Real.
So stupid.We'll ignore the fact that most of Frankfooter's examples -- eg., lawsuits, Paris agreement -- came after or at the end of 2015.
Regardless, the IPCC said in 2007 that it would be "too late" by 2015 unless the world managed to "reverse" the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. That hasn't happened, as Frankfooter knows all too well.
Please confirm.
Here you go, from your NYT article:
In 2016 the world, except for that fuckwad to the south of us, signed this.
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
Biggest world agreement since the UN was created.
We still need to more but most definitely the world did something.
Its quite amazing the world started doing something, but of course we need to do much, much more.
Lets be clear, your ideas about renewable energy are wrong on all counts.
Those are idiotically wrong claims.
Four years of university study says you are wrong
I know a lot more about science than the average person, especially the moron Frankfooter
Your ideas about climate change, carbon dating and climatology are idiotic.
Would you like to refresh your memory?
I did show the problems with your statements previously, but if you prefer I'll repeat how idiotic your claims are.
1) Establishing that you accept that risks posited by climatologists are serious.
Refusing to accept that you do not know as much about climatology as thousands of scientists who have studied it their lives.
Egotistical, bordering on Dunning Kruger effect.
Ignorant claim based on total lack of understanding of the science used.
Ignorant claim based on the total lack of understanding of the science used.
Note that no mention is made of carbon dating as it is not used, despite your ignorant claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructing_ancient_climates
In one sentence you admit that radioactive decay is a great tool with rates that are 'essentially constant' yet in the next sentence you claim using these same techniques wouldn't be 'credible'.
Ignorant claim based on your very stupid focus on a technique not used in paleoclimatology.
And the capper, where you note that you refuse to admit you ever make a mistake.
This post will be copy and pasted every time you make a claim about my ignorance of science.
Fair?
Explain to us, oh self declared wise one, why humanity shouldn't worry about temperatures and CO2 levels that are rising way, way faster then the planet did during the PETM?
