World Climate Declaration: There is no climate emergency

[Insidious Von]

poker don't be so hard on Johnny LaRue, he's upset that Matt Gaetz is holding an All Night Pajama Party of his own. He thought he could sway me with a graph from Exxon Mobil.

What's happening daily tells a different story than the bar chart. Maybe he should dress up as Pipi Longsocks?

 

[JohnLarue]

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.

No
you have been brutally clear oil exec testimony in court was the undeniable confirmation you wanted

Besides

very detailed scientific evidence and explanations to the climate models before the case even took place.

1, There is no verifiable repeatable scientific evidence irrefutably linking climate change to man made co2 emissions. it is a theory and only a theory
2. Climate models are not scientific evidence

FYI the GHG effect is a theory which has never been experimental proven

Unfortunately for you mother nature has done the experiment
Mars has more Co2 than earth, yet it is frigidly cold
Venus has more Co2 that earth, yet it is extremely hot due to the enormous pressure
Venus also has a temperature gradient with altitude , which is aligned with the temperature gradient despite a constant 96% CO2 atmosphere

Sorry but CO2 is not the control knob for climate
I do not give a rates ass who said what in a court room, that is irrelevant

 

[JohnLarue]

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.

no it is historical data. a reconstruction is often an extension of a previous study
Models predict future events , which requires assumptions & estimates as inputs . specifically the climate sensitivity of CO2
Are you now trying to claim burn acreage has not decreased with time over the 20th century , despite ever increasing CO2?

Greg Whitestone is a geologist & served as a reviewer for the IPCC
So if you cancel him, you cancel the IPCC & low and behold he CO2 problem goes away..

Too funny

my official info from the States said they didn’t collect data from before 1983

you are beyond hope if you believe the US did not track burn acreage prior to 1983

 

[poker]

N

no it is historical data. a reconstruction is often an extension of a previous study
Models predict future events , which requires assumptions & estimates as inputs . specifically the climate sensitivity of CO2
Are you now trying to claim burn acreage has not decreased with time over the 20th century , despite ever increasing CO2?

Greg Whitestone is a geologist & served as a reviewer for the IPCC
So if you cancel him, you cancel the IPCC & low and behold he CO2 problem goes away..

Too funny

you are beyond hope if you believe the US did not track burn acreage prior to 1983

View attachment 165963

Again…. With “cancel”. Such clever tactics.

Again… The Oil companies agree. Climate change is is being sped up by the burning of fossil fuels.

NASA showed the the climate trend.

It’s funny the agencies and data you “cancel” when it does not fit your biased narrow narrative. Mind you, you have never had to argue it before a judge.

I’ll just stick with the facts though.

 

[poker]

Are you working for Saudi royals?

 

[oil&gas]

I believe Saudi royalties are no longer climate deniers. Certainly
Saudi Aramco is not as they have pledged zero-emission by 2050.

 

[JohnLarue]

Again…. With “cancel”. Such clever tactics.

clever enough to see your intention wrt Greg Whitestone

Again… The Oil companies agree. Climate change is is being sped up by the burning of fossil fuels.

That is not scientific evidence.
This has been explained to you far too many times
Court testimony is completely irrelevant to determining the validity of a scientific hypothesis

The physical laws of nature have ben working long before courts appeared

NASA showed the the climate trend.

surface data
which is incomplete, filled with errors, biased by the urban island heat effect & has been fiddle with

It’s funny the agencies and data you “cancel” when it does not fit your biased narrow narrative

its not so funny how you appeal to authority instead of thinking
if the data is flawed it does not matter who's logo is attached to it

RE NASA
Lets just say Gavin Schmidt's refusal to publicly debate the issue & then his admission the models were running too hot do not inspire confidence in his or your absolute position.
NASA has done some amazing things in the 1960s & 1970s. Gavin Schmidt was not in charge in the 1960s & 1970s

Mind you, you have never had to argue it before a judge.

A judges responsibility is to adjudicate the law, not adjudicate scientific hypothesis
any objective judge would tell you the exact same thing

I’ll just stick with the facts though.

a 5 second search tells you the US National Forest Service was founded in 1901.
However according to you they were not at all bothered about FOREST FIRES for the next 80 years
your thinking/ believing the US did not track burn acreage prior to 1983 tells me you are incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction

if you are going claim that you stick to fact's
then explain these undeniable facts



Were these facts presented in your little court case?

 

[JohnLarue]

I believe Saudi royalties are no longer climate deniers. Certainly
Saudi Aramco is not as they have pledged zero-emission by 2050.

The path of least resistance

 

[JohnLarue]

Are you working for Saudi royals?

How old are you?

 

[bver_hunter]

Climate emergency declarations in 2,268 jurisdictions and local governments cover 1 billion citizens

2,268 jurisdictions in 39 countries have declared a climate emergency. Populations covered by jurisdictions that have declared a climate emergency amount to over 1 billion citizens.

Over 61 million of these live in the United Kingdom. In Britain around 95 per cent of the population lives in areas where the local authorities – over 570 councils all together – have declared a climate emergency. It has been estimated that by 2050, the result of these declarations and consequencial response plans in the UK alone will have spared the planet’s atmosphere for approximately 2,5 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents.

In January 2021, a United Nations survey with 1.2 million respondents in 50 countries, the largest survey of public opinion on climate change ever conducted, found that 64 per cent of people said that climate change was an emergency.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COUNTING
On the list below are only included jurisdictions that have passed a binding motion declaring a climate emergency. As such, the non-binding motion instigated by UK Labour, for example, is not included in this data. Typical resolutions include setting up a process to develop an action plan and report back to council within three to six months.

NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS
18 national governments and the EU have declared a climate emergency. The EU is counted as one jurisdiction in the ‘jurisdictions total’, but has not been included in the country count.

These are the overall figures, based on population statistics available via the Internet:

Climate emergency declarations in 2,364 jurisdictions and local governments cover 1 billion citizens - Climate Emergency Declaration

2,364 jurisdictions in 40 countries have declared a climate emergency. Populations covered by jurisdictions that have declared a climate emergency amount to over 1 billion citizens. Over 61 million of these live in the United Kingdom. In Britain around 96 per cent of the population lives in...

climateemergencydeclaration.org

 

[oil&gas]

What this means is majority of the 1 billion citizens in 2,268 jurisdictions
are not likely to be climate deniers. Nothing exciting.

Climate emergency declarations in 2,268 jurisdictions and local governments cover 1 billion citizens

2,268 jurisdictions in 39 countries have declared a climate emergency. Populations covered by jurisdictions that have declared a climate emergency amount to over 1 billion citizens.

 

[bver_hunter]

What this means is majority of the 1 billion citizens in 2,268 jurisdictions
are not likely to be climate deniers. Nothing exciting.

In other words Climate Emergency is real!!

 

[oil&gas]

In other words Climate Emergency is real!!

I can declare myself to be a Christian. That doesn't
mean I am a follower of Christ.

I think Jacinda Ardern and Nicola Sturgeon already declared
climate emergency in their countries last year. Life just went
on as usual.

 

[bver_hunter]

I can declare myself to be a Christian. That doesn't
mean I am a follower of Christ.

I think Jacinda Ardern and Nicola Sturgeon already declared
climate emergency in their countries last year. Life just went
on as usual.

Guess this is a daily occurrence in New Zealand as life is just "usual" and nothing to worry about:

New Zealand authorities warn more heavy rain to hit flooded South Island

State of emergency retained as officials face ‘big task’ assessing damage
New Zealand has maintained a state of emergency in parts of its flood-battered South Island on Sunday as authorities weighed damage in the region hardest hit by four days of torrential rain.

Last week’s rains in northern and central areas forced more than 500 people from their homes, making some uninhabitable.


The South Island city of Nelson has been worst affected, but towns in the North Island have also been cut off by floods that swamped roads and homes.


New Zealand floods: hundreds evacuate as ‘atmospheric river’ brings deluge
Read more
Authorities in the region around Nelson said there had been no serious weather incidents or evacuations overnight, however.

“We are working as quickly as we can to get people home safely,” emergency management officials said, adding that while they had looked at about half the affected properties, detailed inspections could need days, depending on the weather.

“We have a big task, and inspecting for land instability is more complex than for flooding.”

While the extreme weather has eased, warnings against heavy rain stay in western Tasman and Fiordland on the South Island, forecaster Metservice said on its website.

A state of emergency continues in the regions of Marlborough, West Coast and Nelson-Tasman, national emergency officials have said.

“Listen to local authorities and follow any instructions to evacuate,” the agency said on its website. “If you feel unsafe, you should self-evacuate.”

On Saturday, Kieran McAnulty, the emergency management minister, thanked rescuers but added that recovery would be a “long and difficult” process.

Dr Daniel Kingston, a senior geography lecturer at the University of Otago, said climate change is likely playing a role, with warming air and sea surface temperatures, he said.

“As the atmosphere warms it can hold more moisture, increasing the likelihood for extreme heavy rainfall events such as this.”

New Zealand authorities warn more heavy rain to hit flooded South Island

State of emergency retained as officials face ‘big task’ assessing damage

www.theguardian.com

Guess that Jacinda Ardern should just go about chucking paper towels to those affected by the floods as Oil and Gas states that it is nothing to worry about!!

 

[poker]

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


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




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

You are still clinging to the notion that the courts are deciding the Science. Again, you are the only one who has ever said that. Classic straw man argument. I am not repeating the obvious.

Again, nobody but you is talking about models. More straw man from you.

What about the 50 years of correct predictions? Cause there have been plenty. The world getting hotter? Yup. Droughts? Yup.

Also, you are looking at past predictions entirely wrong. It’s like saying they were wrong about the ozone layer depletion because we’re not all burnt to a crisp. We a saw a problem In the 80’s… we changed some behaviours, and corrected coarse.

Past predictions are based on information at that time. There are always going to variables…. In this case, more or less carbon added. The poles are clearly melting. That was predicted.

 

[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

Can you back up your baseless claim of Bureaucrats changing g methodology?

bottom line, California is having Repeated droughts, and the fires in the USA have been eating up more acreage since the 80’s. The actual numbers are exact opposite of what you posted, and were predicted.

Actual Numbers. Remember that.

 

[JohnLarue]

Can you back up your baseless claim of Bureaucrats changing g methodology?

in your post

Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes.

ie prior to 1983 we used a reporting process which differs from the current process

Again are you claiming the absurd theory the US did not track wildfire data until after satellites were in orbit?

are you that slow you can not distinguish the difference between "we are not posting the data" & 'there is no data"

bottom line, California is having Repeated droughts

,
California was a desert before the diversion of water systems for irrigation in the early 1900s

In 1900, California was home to fewer than 2 million people; by 1950 the population had reached 10 million. California’s population more than tripled in the last half of the 20th century (reaching 37 million by 2000), and its growth rate was much higher than that of the rest of the United States.

similar story in much of the south west

It should be clear over utilization is the problem

No direct link to CO2

and the fires in the USA have been eating up more acreage since the 80’s. The actual numbers are exact opposite of what you posted, and were predicted.

nope , i provided no prediction
and I showed you several charts showing burn acreage is decreasing
it is crystal clear

Actual Numbers. Remember that.

yes they are, now explain these numbers using AGW

 

[poker]

John…. Stay focused.

The Oil Companies came clean. Why are you not accepting this?

And again…. Yes, we all agree wildfires were much worse before modern fire fighting equipment was implemented… and fire fighting infrastructure was created.

Curious though…. Why did you post the last graph. What is your explanation of the sudden downward slope…. Then the gradual ascent?

 

[JohnLarue]

You are still clinging to the notion that the courts are deciding the Science. Again, you are the only one who has ever said that. Classic straw man argument. I am not repeating the obvious.

What is wrong with you ?
you have repeated at least 20 to 30 times
Exxon admitted it in court, clearly implying this was the smoking gun evidence that AGW is real

Well it is not.
science is not settled by testimony in a court

Again, nobody but you is talking about models. More straw man from you.

What is wrong with you ?
you repeatedly stated the models wee explained in court
and if you had a clue you would know the entire AGW narrative is based on propaganda derived from unplausible catastrophic scenarios generated by computer climate models

read some the propaganda. it is all predicated of prediction into the future
maybe one day, could, possibly, at some point, those are forward predictions usually based on RCP 8.5 which predict explosive economic growth for the 3rd world while simultaneously predicting the same 3rd becomes an uninhabitable wasteland
explosive economic growth in an uninhabitable wasteland
The models are junk and so are their scary propaganda scenarios

None of which are verifiable scientific evidence

What about the 50 years of correct predictions? Cause there have been plenty. The world getting hotter? Yup. Droughts? Yup.

Hotter? we are still emerging from an ice age
droughts>>> utilization
Neither are scientific evidence for AGW

Also, you are looking at past predictions entirely wrong. It’s like saying they were wrong about the ozone layer depletion because we’re not all burnt to a crisp. We a saw a problem In the 80’s… we changed some behaviours, and corrected coarse.

What makes you think switching out refrigerator coolant is the same thing as turn off fossil fuels?
You would not last 2 months if FF wer turned off tomorrow, 2 weeks if that happened in January

Past predictions are based on information at that time. There are always going to variables…. In this case, more or less carbon added.

and that is why they are junk, they have CO2 as the control knob for climate and it is not the control knob

The poles are clearly melting. That was predicted.

[/QUOTE]

you are so naïve
The south pole has 90% of the world ice, 70% of the fresh water , it is covered in ice miles thick , its sea ice is slowly increasing and it is frozen 99% of the time
nothing melts if it frozen 99% of the time

learn to investigate

 

[poker]

What is wrong with you ?
you have repeated at least 20 to 30 times
Exxon admitted it in court, clearly implying this was the smoking gun evidence that AGW is real

Well it is not.
science is not settled by testimony in a court




What is wrong with you ?
you repeatedly stated the models wee explained in court
and if you had a clue you would know the entire AGW narrative is based on propaganda derived from unplausible catastrophic scenarios generated by computer climate models

read some the propaganda. it is all predicated of prediction into the future
maybe one day, could, possibly, at some point, those are forward predictions usually based on RCP 8.5 which predict explosive economic growth for the 3rd world while simultaneously predicting the same 3rd becomes an uninhabitable wasteland
explosive economic growth in an uninhabitable wasteland
The models are junk and so are their scary propaganda scenarios

None of which are verifiable scientific evidence




Hotter? we are still emerging from an ice age
droughts>>> utilization
Neither are scientific evidence for AGW




What makes you think switching out refrigerator coolant is the same thing as turn off fossil fuels?
You would not last 2 months if FF wer turned off tomorrow, 2 weeks if that happened in January



and that is why they are junk, they have CO2 as the control knob for climate and it is not the control knob

you are so naïve
The south pole has 90% of the world ice, 70% of the fresh water , it is covered in ice miles thick , its sea ice is slowly increasing and it is frozen 99% of the time
nothing melts if it frozen 99% of the time

learn to investigate
[/QUOTE]

Co2 is a control knob…. Not even going to let that one slide a little. That is Troll of epic proportion… and outright lie.