World Climate Declaration: There is no climate emergency

[poker]

This debate was over a long time ago. The only thing the deniers can point to is that notwithstanding all of the dire predictions the catastrophe has not struck YET. That train is coming down the tracks. The fact that it is not here yet and may be late does not change the fact that it is coming.

The well orchestrated energy shortages… the ever increasing pricing (I think O&G posted about that too)…. Is creating the crisis. It will hit fast and hard.

 

[poker]

you supply regurgitated false alarmist propaganda

I supplied a referenced chart from a geologist, (an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), as evidence showing your regurgitated alarmist propaganda is clearly wrong

your response; you reference a couple of clowns from a TV sitcom and somehow think mentioning Exxon-Mobil fixes your gullibility

it is you who needs to learn how to walk in those oversized clown shoes

please do not lose sight of the fact that restricting energy supply will drive billions into abject poverty and millions will needlessly die

Are you so sure of the science (you don't understand) that cost in human life is acceptable so long as you get to virtue signal your love for the planet ?
perhaps some objective homework might be helpful for you

I supplied the coverage of the Court Case where BiG OiL openly admitted they agreed with UN’s climate science. Even that could not Penetrate the cognitive bias you surround yourself with.

The only argument they have left is who is to blame. Them or society. Considering the lying they did before that, suggest they bare some responsibility. You still peddle those lies.

 

[oil&gas]

I probably would openly admit I agree with UN's climate science like Exxon.
But I am a nobody so UN will never summon me to any inquiry. Were I a
reputable university professor I would be careful with saying anything
contradictory to UN's version of climate science.

Exxon pledges net-zero carbon emissions from operations by 2050
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/exxon-pledges-net-zero-carbon-emissions-from-operations-by-2050.html

 

[JohnLarue]

I supplied the coverage of the Court Case where BiG OiL openly admitted they agreed with UN’s climate science. Even that could not Penetrate the cognitive bias you surround yourself with.

court testimony is not scientific evidence
this is self evident to anyone with a high school level of science understanding & this has been explained to you multiple times
Sadly the truth does not penetrate the cognitive bias you surround yourself with.

The only argument they have left is who is to blame.

you most certainly can blame yourself for somehow thinking a court testimony decides a scientific hypothesis

Them or society. Considering the lying they did before that, suggest they bare some responsibility. You still peddle those lies.

do you mean lies like this?

The burning away of the rainforests has accelerated, we are crossing into the point of no return. Wildfires are ravaging everywhere, BC is turning barren. With the rainforests gone, mass extinction accelerates with vital plants needed for mew medicines gone forever. Disease and plague will become normal with no vaccines in sight. As if said before, if we don't control our population, Mother Nature will do it for us. Let the Grim Reaper sing.

when the reality is

 

[poker]

court testimony is not scientific evidence
this is self evident to anyone with a high school level of science understanding & this has been explained to you multiple times
Sadly the truth does not penetrate the cognitive bias you surround yourself with.


you most certainly can blame yourself for somehow thinking a court testimony decides a scientific hypothesis





do you mean lies like this?


when the reality is

View attachment 165920

I love the forest fire graph…. You accused others of constantly reposting things, and here you go… reposting!

Just for shits and giggles, can you draw me a quick sketch of a 1915 water bomber? How was California’s water infrastructure during the 1930’s?

I guess if we were the rubes you pretended us to be, this shit would be clever. Took me 10 seconds to undue this argument the last time you posted it.

 

[JohnLarue]

I probably would openly admit I agree with UN's climate science like Exxon.
But I am a nobody so UN will never summon me to any inquiry. Were I a
reputable university professor I would be careful with saying anything
contradictory to UN's version of climate science.

doing so would put your tenue & career at risk
That in of itself should tell you there is something terrible wrong in climate science

Ask Peter Ridd, Judith Curry, Murray Salby or Richard Lindzen what speaking out cost them

Exxon pledges net-zero carbon emissions from operations by 2050

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/exxon-pledges-net-zero-carbon-emissions-from-operations-by-2050.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/exxon-pledges-net-zero-carbon-emissions-from-operations-by-2050.html

The path of least resistant & likely expedient public relations given the insanity surrounding AGW
the execs who make this statement will be long gone by 2050

Any petroleum engineer will tell you privately net zero emissions from operations is physically impossible

 

[poker]

court testimony is not scientific evidence
this is self evident to anyone with a high school level of science understanding & this has been explained to you multiple times
Sadly the truth does not penetrate the cognitive bias you surround yourself with.


you most certainly can blame yourself for somehow thinking a court testimony decides a scientific hypothesis





do you mean lies like this?


when the reality is

View attachment 165920

And Nothing has proven to me more, that you have no idea what you’re talking about, then this post.

The judge specifically asked for both sides to present very detailed scientific evidence and explanations to the climate models before the case even took place. This way, he was educated about what he was supposed to rule on. (Smart man). In that briefing, very detailed scientific information was given. The models were explained.

The oil companies openly agreed with the prosecution that the science was correct. The judge confirmed that from all 5 oil companies in court.

It really does not get more high school level scientific basic than that.

“Big Oil knew, what you still deny.”

Listen, I am busy right now, but maybe later tonight we can discuss if cigarettes really cause cancer… and you can tell me about your uncle who lived to be 98 and smoked 10 cigars every day.

 

[JohnLarue]

I love the forest fire graph…. You accused others of constantly reposting things, and here you go… reposting!

Just for shits and giggles, can you draw me a quick sketch of a 1915 water bomber? How was California’s water infrastructure during the 1930’s?

I guess if we were the rubes you pretended us to be, this shit would be clever. Took me 10 seconds to undue this argument the last time you posted it.

you did not undue anything
what is wrong with you ?
The fact of the matter is world acreage destroyed by fire is clearly down & decreasing
which is directly opposite from the alarmist claims

The burning away of the rainforests has accelerated, we are crossing into the point of no return. Wildfires are ravaging everywhere, BC is turning barren. With the rainforests gone, mass extinction accelerates with vital plants needed for mew medicines gone forever. Disease and plague will become normal with no vaccines in sight. As if said before, if we don't control our population, Mother Nature will do it for us. Let the Grim Reaper sing.

technology rubs both ways as satellites are able to detect all fires,
the periods prior to the 1980s are likely understated wrt acres burnt
the chart is world based while you assumed US fire fight technology is universally available. it is not

in addition population growth means more encroachment into forested areas, more mining, road building , construction, powerlines & sadly activists arson
all of which can lead to fires completely independent of CO2

in addition 3rd world countries have purposely and intentionally burnt away a lot of forests to create arable land in the 20th century
Whether this is good or bad is debatable
what is not debatable is this was not caused by C02

your overly simplistic analysis just shows you have not thought this through

how sad that you need other people to do your thinking for you
A sheepole

 

[poker]

John… I asked for a 1920’s water bomber…. Where is it?

We’re better a fighting Forrest fires. What part about confuses you.

And I did not post that 2nd blurb. Please stop making it look like did. That’s beyond straw man.

 

[oil&gas]

Listen, I am busy right now, but maybe later tonight we can discuss if cigarettes really cause cancer… and you can tell me about your uncle who lived to be 98 and smoked 10 cigars every day.

If Big Oil is culpable in causing climate change like the cigarette
industry was in causing cancer they would have already been sued their
pants off by climate litigators to bankruptcy. So far the biggest win over
Big Oil is the case of Royal Dutch Shell ruled in the Hague Court in the
Netherlands. The verdict ordered them to cut emission quicker than they
had planned. Shell wasn't accused of climate denial. Seeing that no big
bucks can be extorted out of Big Oil climate lunatics have changed their
tactic to one of turning to courts to charge them of not working hard
enough to fight climate change.

You won't likely see Big Oil ever losing big money like Phillip Morris to
litigation. However you may expect them to be careful with taking on
risky investment from now on. Shell has been planning to sell its renewable
energy business as well as to move away from the Netherlands. Suncor I
suspect may also end up selling their wind power farms. It is the right thing
to do for Big Oil to jettison less profitable 'climate-friendly' assets in the
midst of the climate movement lest they will be brought to the court again.

 

[JohnLarue]

And Nothing has proven to me more, that you have no idea what you’re talking about, then this post.

The judge specifically asked for both sides to present very detailed scientific evidence and explanations to the climate models before the case even took place. This way, he was educated about what he was supposed to rule on. (Smart man). In that briefing, very detailed scientific information was given. The models were explained.

The oil companies openly agreed with the prosecution that the science was correct. The judge confirmed that from all 5 oil companies in court.

It really does not get more high school level scientific basic than that.

“Big Oil knew, what you still deny.”

Listen, I am busy right now, but maybe later tonight we can discuss if cigarettes really cause cancer… and you can tell me about your uncle who lived to be 98 and smoked 10 cigars every day.

A court does not determine a scientific hypothesis
take a grade 10 science course
a scientific hypothesis is determined/ reject by comparison of hypothetical expected results vs, actual measurements

50 years of failed catastrophic climate predictions dictates the hypothesis needs to be rejected

The models were explained.

the climate models are not actual measurements
the climate models have been running way too hot since word go
the climate models are junk

It really does not get more high school level scientific basic than that.

absolutely not
if you learn nothing else about science learn this
a court does not decide a scientific hypothesis

Listen, I am busy right now, but maybe later tonight we can discuss if cigarettes really cause cancer… and you can tell me about your uncle who lived to be 98 and smoked 10 cigars every day.

Are you sure a court never ruled cigarettes do not really cause cancer?

too funny;
Are you going to argue those court findings were wrong ?

I will toy with you later

 

[JohnLarue]

John… I asked for a 1920’s water bomber…. Where is it?

I really do not care what you asked for
I gave you evidence

We’re better a fighting Forrest fires. What part about confuses you.

And acreage burnt has decreased over time , despite far more human caused (ex CO2) potential

this is a direct contradiction to the alarmist propaganda & rising CO2 levels

What part about that confuses you?

if nothing else you have made a good case for mans ability to adapt
Which is good since we know for a fact that climate has change and will continue to change independent of mans actions

And I did not post that 2nd blurb. Please stop making it look like did. That’s beyond straw man.

I never claimed you posted it

Insidious Von did
post # 37

The burning away of the rainforests has accelerated, we are crossing into the point of no return. Wildfires are ravaging everywhere, BC is turning barren. With the rainforests gone, mass extinction accelerates with vital plants needed for mew medicines gone forever. Disease and plague will become normal with no vaccines in sight. As if said before, if we don't control our population, Mother Nature will do it for us. Let the Grim Reaper sing.

"Wildfires are ravaging everywhere"

Apparently not

"Disease and plague will become normal"

He left out the locusts in his biblical apoplectic prediction, oh yeah , that's suppose to be our food in the future- no thanks

'mass extinction accelerates'

bovine scatology

"crossing into the point of no return'

pure propaganda..... & you swallowed it hook line & sinker

here is a funny one

"we don't control our population, Mother Nature will do it for us."

Mother nature is so powerful she will wipe out 7 to 10 billion people - because they are evil
yet she is hypersensitive to a 0.01% change to an inert trace gas measured in parts per million

There is no rule stating I am forbidden from using one mans foolishness to highlight another mans foolishness

Neither of you have spent any time objectively looking at the science of AGW , that is clear enough
I have & it is pseudo science

again learn some science

 

[poker]

I really do not care what you asked for
I gave you evidence


And acreage burnt has decreased , despite far more human caused (ex CO2) potential

this is a direct contradiction to the alarmist propaganda & rising CO2 levels

What part about that confuses you.


I never claimed you posted it

Insidious Von did
post # 37


There is no rule stating I am forbidden from using one mans foolishness to highlight another mans foolishness

Neither of you have spent any time objectively looking at the science of AGW , that is clear enough
I have & it is pseudo science

Classic straw man…. I tell you the science is settled, even big oil admits the science is correct… and you to Forrest fire acreage… and include something I never said. That is foolish.

You keep lying about the science in courts though. Why? A lot science was presented in that case. Yet you deny it? Did you not review the material presented? Are you a science denier? Are you so foolish to keep arguing a point that was sold to you by people who already conceded it?

Climate change is real. Burning fossil fuels contribute to it.

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

Key Takeaway:
Earth’s global average surface temperature in 2020 tied with 2016 as the hottest year on record, continuing a long-term warming trend due to human activities.

 

[poker]

Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site. Source: National Interagency Coordination Center
Year	Fires	Acres
2021	58,985	7,125,643
2020	58,950	10,122,336
2019	50,477	4,664,364
2018	58,083	8,767,492
2017	71,499	10,026,086
2016	67,743	5,509,995
2015	68,151	10,125,149
2014	63,312	3,595,613
2013	47,579	4,319,546
2012	67,774	9,326,238
2011	74,126	8,711,367
2010	71,971	3,422,724
2009	78,792	5,921,786
2008	78,979	5,292,468
2007	85,705	9,328,045
2006	96,385	9,873,745
2005	66,753	8,689,389
2004	65,461	*8,097,880
2003	63,629	3,960,842
2002	73,457	7,184,712
2001	84,079	3,570,911
2000	92,250	7,393,493
1999	92,487	5,626,093
1998	81,043	1,329,704
1997	66,196	2,856,959
1996	96,363	6,065,998
1995	82,234	1,840,546
1994	79,107	4,073,579
1993	58,810	1,797,574
1992	87,394	2,069,929
1991	75,754	2,953,578
1990	66,481	4,621,621
1989	48,949	1,827,310
1988	72,750	5,009,290
1987	71,300	2,447,296
1986	85,907	2,719,162
1985	82,591	2,896,147
1984	20,493	1,148,409
1983	18,229	1,323,666
* 2004 fires and acres do not include state lands for North Carolina

 

[poker]

Sweet Creek Milepost 2 Fire in 2020, Oregon Department of Forestry photo by Marcus Kauffman

 

[JohnLarue]

Classic straw man…. I tell you the science is settled, even big oil admits the science is correct… and you to Forrest fire acreage… and include something I never said. That is foolish.

blindly following propaganda & believing a court decides scientific hypothesis is foolish

You keep lying about the science in courts though.

I am not lying
science is not determined by a court

A lot science was presented in that case.

computer models are not scientific evidence

Yet you deny it? Did you not review the material presented? Are you a science denier? Are you so foolish to keep arguing a point that was sold to you by people who already conceded it?

science is not determined by a court
get that clear

Climate change is real.

climate has always changed & I fully expect climate to continue to change

Burning fossil fuels contribute to it.

A 0.01% change in atmospheric composition has next to no impact on our non-linear , dynamic chaotic climate system
absorption is a physical process not a chemical process
proof: the climate models all run too hot

Key Takeaway:

Earth’s global average surface temperature in 2020 tied with 2016 as the hottest year on record, continuing a long-term warming trend due to human activities.

#1 If the theory were correct 2020 should have been hotter than 2016 as Co2 increased
#2 The surface temperature record is incomplete, filled with errors biased by the urban island heat effect & has been fiddled with
#3 'the hottest year on record,' is a joke considering the time scale
#4 we are still emerging from an ice age. The two big ice cubes at the top & bottom of the planet should tell you this

All climate changes which has occurred in the past 300 years can be explained by natural climate variability which we know happens

 

[JohnLarue]

Sweet Creek Milepost 2 Fire in 2020, Oregon Department of Forestry photo by Marcus Kauffman

there will be a fire burning somewhere on the planet, always has, always will (ex a couple of the of the ice ages)

just like there a nice beautiful spring day somewhere on the planet

 

[poker]

blindly following propaganda & believing a court decides scientific hypothesis is foolish


I am not lying
science is not determined by a court


computer models are not scientific evidence


science is not determined by a court
get that clear


climate has always changed & I fully expect climate to continue to change


A 0.01% change in atmospheric composition has next to no impact on our non-linear , dynamic chaotic climate system
absorption is a physical process not a chemical process
proof: the climate models all run too hot





#1 If the theory were correct 2020 should have been hotter than 2016 as Co2 increased
#2 The surface temperature record is incomplete, filled with errors biased by the urban island heat effect & has been fiddled with
#3 'the hottest year on record,' is a joke considering the time scale
#4 we are still emerging from an ice age. The two big ice cubes at the top & bottom of the planet should tell you this

All climate changes which has occurred in the past 300 years can be explained by natural climate variability which we know happens

Again with the lying. The court did not decide anything. Scientists presented data. The Oil companies agreed the data was correct. Hence…. The oil companies (not the courts) conceded they understood climate change is man made.

Guess lies are all you have on this one. I’ll move on.

 

[JohnLarue]

Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site.

Source: National Interagency Coordination Center

I see, some US bureaucrat changes methodology 40 years ago & somehow you think that invalidates this WORLD wide trend as per a published paper?

I bet you are swearing as once again you get shown how foolish you have been

it does not matter how much you beat that dead horse burn acreage is down
The truth of the matter is in directed conflict with the climate propaganda
Just like the polar bears
Just like the coral reefs
Just like ocean acidification
Just like Antarctic sea ice loss
Just like predictions of crop failure

Why do you deny you have been hood-winked by propaganda

 

[poker]

I see, some US bureaucrat changes methodology 40 years ago & somehow you think that invalidates this WORLD wide trend as per a published paper?

I bet you are swearing as once again you get shown how foolish you have been

it does not matter how much you beat that dead horse burn acreage is down
The truth of the matter is in directed conflict with the climate propaganda
Just like the polar bears
Just like the coral reefs
Just like ocean acidification
Just like Antarctic sea ice loss
Just like predictions of crop failure

Why do you deny you have been hood-winked by propaganda


View attachment 165934

John… Your graph is from a guy named Gregory Whitestone…. Very official. Well done. Guess all those guys at NASA are lining up to work for him.

Of coarse, you did notice that my official info from the States said they didn’t collect data from before 1983… and your graph sources site “reconstructing global fire history”, meaning, it’s a model. Finally a model you trust.