View Poll Results: What is your opinion on global warming?

Voters
168. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's happening and we're to blame

    85 50.60%
  • It's happening but it's not man made

    20 11.90%
  • It's not even happening, except according to the cycles of nature

    46 27.38%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    17 10.12%
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617
Results 1,601 to 1,670 of 1670

Thread: Still Believe in Global Warming?

  1. #1601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    And climate change agenda scraped by Trump
    4 years of his hot air will get it going again...
    Or not. Poor Canada will carry the load, for show.(sigh..)
    So, should we assume that both of you (build and hello) believe that Trump will make absolutely zero concessions toward the possibility that climate change (global warming) is possible and some sort of action is needed?

    We could possibly add moa and oil to the confirmed sceptics I'd like to see if they believe that Trump will absolutely deny any and all of the global warming science throughout his term.

    Me? I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if he did a flip.
    Last edited by KC; 20-01-2017 at 07:38 PM.

  2. #1602
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    And climate change agenda scraped by Trump
    4 years of his hot air will get it going again...
    Or not. Poor Canada will carry the load, for show.(sigh..)
    So, should we assume that both of you (build and hello) believe that Trump will make absolutely zero concessions toward the possibility that climate change (global warming) is possible and some sort of action is needed?

    We could possibly add moa and oil to the confirmed sceptics I'd like to see if they believe that Trump will absolutely deny any and all of the global warming science throughout his term.

    Me? I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if he did a flip.
    He's taken everything down from the whitehouse website to do with CC.The 45th president that is.

  3. #1603
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,458

    Default

    Unfortunately no one, not even Trump, can wish climate change away. It will continue and when all the coastal cities are underwater how foolish Trump and others will look. A climecaust.

  4. #1604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Unfortunately no one, not even Trump, can wish climate change away. It will continue and when all the coastal cities are underwater how foolish Trump and others will look. A climecaust.
    He (and we) will be loong dead before that matters. Plus he'll blame someone else anyway.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  5. #1605
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Like Trudeau does?. Hells bells, he still blames Harper for pretty much everything that goes wrong in his myopic world.. So Trump is not unlike our snowflake

  6. #1606
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    And climate change agenda scraped by Trump
    4 years of his hot air will get it going again...
    Or not. Poor Canada will carry the load, for show.(sigh..)
    So, should we assume that both of you (build and hello) believe that Trump will make absolutely zero concessions toward the possibility that climate change (global warming) is possible and some sort of action is needed?

    We could possibly add moa and oil to the confirmed sceptics I'd like to see if they believe that Trump will absolutely deny any and all of the global warming science throughout his term.

    Me? I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if he did a flip.
    He's taken everything down from the whitehouse website to do with CC.The 45th president that is.
    As would any incoming President. Obama's White House site has been archived to ObamaWhiteHouse.gov and the main site has been cleared so the new administration can put their own material in. Not sure why this is something worth mentioning as it will be the same for every new administration.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  7. #1607
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Not sure why you had to mention what I posted, we can all see it.

  8. #1608
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post

    ^Someone was showing off their mad photoshop skills:


    http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/s...oming-ice-age/

  9. #1609
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/...r-charges.html

    Keep getting sucked in people . With mythical science and outright lies
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  10. #1610
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post

    ^Someone was showing off their mad photoshop skills:


    http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/s...oming-ice-age/
    That maybe photoshoped but Time magazine was pushing the iceage crap in the 70's http://time.com/vault/year/1977/ and dec issue 1979 http://time.com/vault/year/1979/
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  11. #1611
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    The 1977 Time story is solely about that winter, it's a weather story not climate story. The 1979 Time story is also not about climate but about the energy crisis.

    That facts are in 70's the data was still coming in and while most scientists studying the issue were leaning towards warming some thought there would be cooling. The media was reporting both. Given a few pretty cold winters a few cooling scare stories were published. As more and more data came in it became clear the earth was not cooling and the story was left to die in the 70s with disco.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  12. #1612

    Default

    A group of Republican elder statesmen is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change.
    The group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, with former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former secretary of the Treasury, says that taxing carbon pollution produced by burning fossil fuels is “a conservative climate solution” based on free-market principles.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/s...-tax.html?_r=0
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  13. #1613
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    The 1977 Time story is solely about that winter, it's a weather story not climate story. The 1979 Time story is also not about climate but about the energy crisis.

    That facts are in 70's the data was still coming in and while most scientists studying the issue were leaning towards warming some thought there would be cooling. The media was reporting both. Given a few pretty cold winters a few cooling scare stories were published. As more and more data came in it became clear the earth was not cooling and the story was left to die in the 70s with disco.
    Listen I am not even going to argue with you I remember the ice age scare quite well in the 70's from science teachers news and elsewhere so keep your cult belief going because MSM tells you . You will be hearing a lot more about the fraud in months ahead. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ice-age-scare/ spare me the BS please free mind here. Climate experts were lying then and now. Amazing how temperatures were dropping for 20 straight years from the 50 70's during the baby boomer years coal burning and industrial era now their charts say we were heating up during then .
    Last edited by buildthemhigh; 08-02-2017 at 10:56 AM.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  14. #1614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post


    B.S.-High DID YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS WAS A REAL TIME MAGAZINE COVER???

    You fell for an obvious hoax, the cover is fake and you fell for it!

    "Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age"
    A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age.
    http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/s...oming-ice-age/


    "From the 1977 cover we can see that apparently a new ice age was supposed to arrive. Only 30 years later, according to the 2006 cover, global warming is supposed to be the problem. But the cover on the left isn’t from 1977. It actually is this Time cover from April 9, 2007:"
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...david-kirtley/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  15. #1615
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  16. #1616
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    1973 the big freeze ht tp://time.com/vault/year/1973/ and once again for the blind to see https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ice-age-scare/ http://time.com/vault/year/1973/
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  17. #1617
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,854

    Default

    I do know one thing. The Pacific Ocean is not rising....yet. My inlaws front step is one meter above sea level and has been for 40 years and is still the same. When they get a heavy rainfall fish are flopping around in the puddles in front of the house. lol. They live on the bank of the Mekong River 28 km downstream of Can Tho (pop 1.3 m.) close to the South China Sea which is the Pacific. There is talk and fear of their village and the delta being flooded by the rising ocean but I havn't seen it come up yet. If you check Can Tho on Wikipedia it lists the elevation at 0 m. and 0 ft. above sea level. My sonny boy was born there. I'll keep an eye out tho and let you guys know if it comes up. When the fish are swimming into the living room we will be selling commercially. lol
    Last edited by Drumbones; 08-02-2017 at 11:32 AM.

  18. #1618
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Listen I am not even going to argue with you I remember the ice age scare quite well in the 70's from science teachers news and elsewhere so keep your cult belief going because MSM tells you .
    You've got a terrible memory. There was no widespread scientific consensus that a new Ice Age was coming. If that's your honest recollection of what was going on, it's completely faulty. Or you think that a small handful of magazine articles about one or two studies somehow trump the work of thousands of scientists.

    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

    However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
    Climate science was very much in it's infancy, in the 70's, given the relatively small number of studies mentioned above. But even then, global warming was the consensus.

    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.

  19. #1619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I do know one thing. The Pacific Ocean is not rising....yet. My inlaws front step is one meter above sea level and has been for 40 years and is still the same. When they get a heavy rainfall fish are flopping around in the puddles in front of the house. lol. They live on the bank of the Mekong River 28 km downstream of Can Tho (pop 1.3 m.) close to the South China Sea which is the Pacific. There is talk and fear of their village and the delta being flooded by the rising ocean but I havn't seen it come up yet. If you check Can Tho on Wikipedia it lists the elevation at 0 m. and 0 ft. above sea level. My sonny boy was born there. I'll keep an eye out tho and let you guys know if it comes up. When the fish are swimming into the living room we will be selling commercially. lol
    Hurricanes have been decreasing as well, the exact opposite of what the brilliant "climate" scientists predicted would happen. The climate is getting more stable in terms of storms, not less. Seems if there is warming, its a good thing.

  20. #1620
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones
    I do know one thing. The Pacific Ocean is not rising....yet. My inlaws front step is one meter above sea level and has been for 40 years and is still the same. When they get a heavy rainfall fish are flopping around in the puddles in front of the house. lol. They live on the bank of the Mekong River 28 km downstream of Can Tho (pop 1.3 m.) close to the South China Sea which is the Pacific. There is talk and fear of their village and the delta being flooded by the rising ocean but I havn't seen it come up yet. If you check Can Tho on Wikipedia it lists the elevation at 0 m. and 0 ft. above sea level. My sonny boy was born there. I'll keep an eye out tho and let you guys know if it comes up. When the fish are swimming into the living room we will be selling commercially. lol


    Sea levels do not rise at the same rate in different locations. It's actually incredibly complex, because it's dependent on everything from local tides and currents, to the rotation of the Earth, to variations in the Earth's density and gravity field, and so on. As far as that specific location is concerned, from what I see in a quick search problems are already developing with salt water intrusion on agricultural land, brackish water existing far further up the Mekong river than in the past, etc. Although a lot of that is hard to tease apart from the impacts of damming the Mekong, as well. But the effects are starting now. Even if the rise is only one or two millimeters a year, that's a foot or two in a century. There's huge inertia to sea levels, as well. Once they start rising quickly, they'll keep doing so for decades and centuries.

  21. #1621
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,854

    Default

    Last year at this time there was evidence of some brack as we noticed slight saltiness when drinking the tap water which is drawn from the river. This year it seems ok. It comes and goes depending on the amount of outflow, rains and snowmelt in the mountains, and other factors.

  22. #1622

    Default

    Lawrence Solomon: Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

    http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...e-to-speak-out

  23. #1623
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Listen I am not even going to argue with you I remember the ice age scare quite well in the 70's from science teachers news and elsewhere so keep your cult belief going because MSM tells you .
    You've got a terrible memory. There was no widespread scientific consensus that a new Ice Age was coming. If that's your honest recollection of what was going on, it's completely faulty. Or you think that a small handful of magazine articles about one or two studies somehow trump the work of thousands of scientists.

    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

    However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
    Climate science was very much in it's infancy, in the 70's, given the relatively small number of studies mentioned above. But even then, global warming was the consensus.

    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  24. #1624
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones
    I do know one thing. The Pacific Ocean is not rising....yet. My inlaws front step is one meter above sea level and has been for 40 years and is still the same. When they get a heavy rainfall fish are flopping around in the puddles in front of the house. lol. They live on the bank of the Mekong River 28 km downstream of Can Tho (pop 1.3 m.) close to the South China Sea which is the Pacific. There is talk and fear of their village and the delta being flooded by the rising ocean but I havn't seen it come up yet. If you check Can Tho on Wikipedia it lists the elevation at 0 m. and 0 ft. above sea level. My sonny boy was born there. I'll keep an eye out tho and let you guys know if it comes up. When the fish are swimming into the living room we will be selling commercially. lol


    Sea levels do not rise at the same rate in different locations. It's actually incredibly complex, because it's dependent on everything from local tides and currents, to the rotation of the Earth, to variations in the Earth's density and gravity field, and so on. As far as that specific location is concerned, from what I see in a quick search problems are already developing with salt water intrusion on agricultural land, brackish water existing far further up the Mekong river than in the past, etc. Although a lot of that is hard to tease apart from the impacts of damming the Mekong, as well. But the effects are starting now. Even if the rise is only one or two millimeters a year, that's a foot or two in a century. There's huge inertia to sea levels, as well. Once they start rising quickly, they'll keep doing so for decades and centuries.
    No matter how much bs you try and peddle as reality does not change it from bs , no matter how complex you try and say the bs is.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  25. #1625
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.
    This statement gets my vote for Connect2Edmonton's best case of psychological projection in 2017.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  26. #1626
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.
    This statement gets my vote for Connect2Edmonton's best case of psychological projection in 2017.
    [IMG][/IMG]
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  27. #1627
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.


    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    No matter how much bs you try and peddle as reality does not change it from bs , no matter how complex you try and say the bs is.
    The irony of your posts is so thick, it's impressive! As I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin
    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.


    Keep on keepin' on, buildthemhigh.

  28. #1628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Listen I am not even going to argue with you I remember the ice age scare quite well in the 70's from science teachers news and elsewhere so keep your cult belief going because MSM tells you .
    You've got a terrible memory. There was no widespread scientific consensus that a new Ice Age was coming. If that's your honest recollection of what was going on, it's completely faulty. Or you think that a small handful of magazine articles about one or two studies somehow trump the work of thousands of scientists.

    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

    However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
    Climate science was very much in it's infancy, in the 70's, given the relatively small number of studies mentioned above. But even then, global warming was the consensus.

    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.
    Why stop there? Why didn't you list political parties and traditional religions with followers like Christians, etc?

  29. #1629
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Lawrence Solomon: Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

    http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...e-to-speak-out
    That article is full of an astonishing amount of BS. This whole NOAA "controversy" was over and done with the day it came out, which was weeks ago. Yet Solomon continues to prattle on about it, like it actually means something. Heck, even Bates himself who is the supposed "whistleblower" said “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”. (source: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-...ation-at-noaa/)

    Another link that discusses the "controversy" here: http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...limate-records

    Again, this all happened two weeks before Solomon's article above. I can't say I'm surprised he ignored the true facts of the matter. After all, he also spends some time ranting on about "Climategate", which was another tempest in a tea pot that resulted in zero findings of any misconduct or manipulation by numerous independent inquiries. It just goes on and on in that article. He's actually quite shameless in ignoring the true facts of just about everything he mentions in that article. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, the guy wrote an entire book about how climate change is a fraud, based it on quotes and discussions with climatologists who profoundly disagree with him, and misrepresented their actual views: https://www.desmogblog.com/the-denie...global-warming
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 21-02-2017 at 11:17 AM.

  30. #1630
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.


    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    No matter how much bs you try and peddle as reality does not change it from bs , no matter how complex you try and say the bs is.
    The irony of your posts is so thick, it's impressive! As I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin
    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.


    Keep on keepin' on, buildthemhigh.
    When I read your posts this is the image I get . Someone who is told anything from the government or science believes it came from god.[IMG]v[/IMG]
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  31. #1631
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    The wind blows omg it's climate change it rains omg it's climate change . It snows omg it's climate change . You fart omg you're destroying the oz layer. Scientists can't get funding now if they ? climate change. Then you have these climate change defenders going to war on phony charts out right lies . Like I keep repeating the most gullible generation to date. And in 80 years when they are long dead from their stupidity the ocean levels will be the same there will still be winter and summer and this generation will be laughed at as the biggest suckers ever.
    Last edited by buildthemhigh; 21-02-2017 at 03:11 PM.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  32. #1632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.
    You're getting responses by someone who speaks almost exclusively in image macros yet doesn't possess the ability to actually correctly link an image on the forums without needless, duplicated tags showing up.

    Don't sweat it.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  33. #1633

  34. #1634
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.
    You're getting responses by someone who speaks almost exclusively in image macros yet doesn't possess the ability to actually correctly link an image on the forums without needless, duplicated tags showing up.

    Don't sweat it.
    Well at least I think thru critical thinking unlike you who needs someone to think for you , and self admit you're an imbecile and has to take the words of others who have a agenda for truth. Maybe if I made up phony graphs with lines you would be more convinced , because someone shows you one of those you're convinced god himself etched it in stone . Bravo Your intelligence is amazing I bet you have a graph for that two lol. Also It's a good thing you were not around in the 40's when they were giving people lobotomies because you do know the science world was convincing families it was a good thing. A practice used until the 1980's
    Last edited by buildthemhigh; 21-02-2017 at 03:25 PM.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  35. #1635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Well at least I think thru critical thinking unlike you who needs someone to think for you , and self admit you're an imbecile and has to take the words of others who have a agenda for truth. Maybe if I made up phony graphs with lines you would be more convinced , because someone shows you one of those you're convinced god himself etched it in stone . Bravo Your intelligence is amazing I bet you have a graph for that two lol.
    You seem incapable of any sort of critical thinking & at no point have you ever managed to actually form a cogent & coherent rebuttal to anything anyone has said that's disagreed with you, instead choosing to respond in image memes & macros that you can't even manage to post correctly. You're an illiberal, regressive, mindless drone & the fact that you firmly believe that you're the intelligent & well-rounded individual in these discussions is the height of hilarity.

    Since you're so fond of memes, I'll sum up in one for you.

    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  36. #1636

  37. #1637
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Lol fool on people I know more about the workings of government and deceit then you will ever know. So stay ignorant stop using your eyes ears and senses and listen to your overlords. Fait accompli !
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  38. #1638

    Default

    Just because you say you do, doesn't mean you do.

  39. #1639
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Just because you say you do, doesn't mean you do.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  40. #1640

    Default

    That goes well to show your credibility around here...

  41. #1641
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    That goes well to show your credibility around here...
    I know my credibility , just read Stantec thread and who 1st said it would be 200 + meters and who 1st hinted it would be tallest in western Canada. Now let's see yours ? Lol and as far as government goes you will figure it out eventually .
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  42. #1642
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    That goes well to show your credibility around here...
    I know my credibility , just read Stantec thread and who 1st said it would be 200 + meters and who 1st hinted it would be tallest in western Canada. Now let's see yours ? Lol and as far as government goes you will figure it out eventually .
    Wow! You are like The Amazing Kreskin and Nostradamus rolled into one.





    Now if you could just master the proper use of punctuation...
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  43. #1643
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    That goes well to show your credibility around here...
    I know my credibility , just read Stantec thread and who 1st said it would be 200 + meters and who 1st hinted it would be tallest in western Canada. Now let's see yours ? Lol and as far as government goes you will figure it out eventually .
    Wow! You are like The Amazing Kreskin and Nostradamus rolled into one.





    Now if you could just master the proper use of punctuation...
    Attacks Grammar !






    Then proceeds to space sentences incorrectly .


    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  44. #1644

    Default

    Most wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change - BBC News
    Excerpt:
    "This report confirms once again that cutting down trees and burning them as wood pellets in power plants is a disaster for climate policy, not a solution," said David Carr, General Counsel of the Southern Environmental Law Centre in the US.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39053678
    Last edited by KC; 24-02-2017 at 02:07 AM.

  45. #1645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Not frightened? OK, Boyle-street-boy, you're not a coward. But you're no thinker, either.

    Fertility rate by itself means nothing.

    Are you going to complain that Mr. and Mrs. Smith have only two children while Mr. and Mrs. Jones have three, if Jane Jones married John Smith and Jenny Smith married Gord Jones?

    As I said before, if the only difference between "us" and "them" is that they breed more, there's no real difference, since their many children and our few are pretty well the same and will without a doubt interbreed.

    Come up with a difference that means something.
    Fertility rate means nothing? That's what this part of the thread is about isn't it? Higher populations either through higher immigration or higher fertility rates will increase the production of global warming gases unless that higher population manages to somehow produce lower levels of such gases. That's not so easy. Moreover, some immigration, given their heritage, religion, wealth, whatever, will include people with a desire to produce more children than the 'average' person here does. If that is offset by immigrants desiring few or no children then it's a wash, but their own presence still counts as a consumer and so, an emitter of global warming gases. Now if the indigenous population isn't at replacement levels, then the immigrant may be maintaining the population, but anything more seems to necessarily create more emissions.

    If we could take in immigration that would create lower levels of greenhouse gasses than where they came from, that would be a good thing in terms of global warming (but not in terms of our other environmental issues impacted here, such as water consumption, urban sprawl, local resource consumption, etc.) Then consider our northern climate and the need for heating, lighting etc. Residing here may use up more resources than immigrants would have used had they stayed wherever they came from. Say a Londoner (England) comes here. Similar latitude but milder climate so the person likely used less natural gas for heating than they will here.

    I think this makes sense doesn't it?

    Then my position (until shown otherwise) is that immigrants want a life here much like everyone else here has and sees, say Alberta, as resource rich and primed for further resource development, ever larger cities and whatever justification is required so that they can build a good life here. Coming from larger cities, like Toronto, New York or wherever, immigrants see, say Edmonton, as a small city that could easily grow much larger, due to them having a much larger city as a point of reference.

    A long article but interesting. Not unbiased but instead arguing a point of view:


    The Critique – Why Progressives Should Support Reducing Immigration Into The United States


    ...
    Environmental Impacts: More Pollution and Less Open Space
    ...
    The bottom line is that if we want to stop sprawl, we must change the population policies that cause it, in addition to reforming misguided transportation, tax, and zoning policies. We will not stop sprawl if we simply accept population increase as inevitable, when the best research shows that it accounts for much of the problem. Nor are we likely to solve our other important environmental problems without stabilizing or reducing our population. The impacts of population growth are just too powerful.

    ...
    Efficiency Isn’t Enough

    In the early days of the environmental movement, back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, there was a popular slogan that went: “Any cause is a lost cause, without population control.” Subsequent events have borne out its truth. For a variety of reasons, in recent decades environmentalists in the U.S. have grown afraid to discuss population matters (discomfort with talking about immigration has certainly played a role).[xxiii] Instead, we have focused almost exclusively on efficiency improvements: in land use, water use, energy use, and other areas. The upshot of this narrowing has been that the efficiency improvements we have achieved have mostly been plowed back into supporting increased growth, with little real environmental improvement. If environmentalists are ever going to win our important battles, rather than just find ways to lose them more slowly, we need to recognize the way efficiency improvements tend to be swallowed up by growth, leaving environmentalists empty-handed and other species simply out of luck.

    http://www.thecritique.com/articles/...-united-state/
    Last edited by KC; 24-02-2017 at 02:50 AM.

  46. #1646

    Default

    Great to see that climate hero, Obama, who turned down Keystone XL, now living a responsible, non carbon intensive life... typical Liberal elite - do as I say, not as I do.



    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7687986.html

    Last edited by moahunter; 25-04-2017 at 01:27 PM.

  47. #1647
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  48. #1648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Its only a logical fallacy if referring to the past actions. So for to apply, you are basically saying, "Obama is not a hypocrite, because he once believed climate change matters, but he doesn't now". The sad reality is that ***** like him preach about the environment, but end up consuming more carbon just on his vacations, than any of us on C2E will in our entire lifetimes.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-04-2017 at 01:34 PM.

  49. #1649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Its only a logical fallacy if referring to the past actions. So for to apply, you are basically saying, "Obama is not a hypocrite, because he once believed climate change matters, but he doesn't now".
    No, I'm saying whether or not he acts in accordance with his beliefs is irrelevant when discussing the logic of said beliefs.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  50. #1650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Its only a logical fallacy if referring to the past actions. So for to apply, you are basically saying, "Obama is not a hypocrite, because he once believed climate change matters, but he doesn't now".
    No, I'm saying whether or not he acts in accordance with his beliefs is irrelevant when discussing the logic of said beliefs.
    I didn't say this made his beliefs invalid (that's a claim you are making). I just pointed out the truth that he is a typical liberal hypocrite who preaches about the importance of climate change and carbon consumption, but lives a lifestyle totally in opposition to that. He is every bit as morally corrupt as a church pastor who preaches celibacy, while banging half the congregation. Its easy to preach something totally unrealistic, when you think it doesn't apply to you anyway.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-04-2017 at 01:40 PM.

  51. #1651
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,618

    Default

    After Mr Obama left the Oval Office, he tweeted: “Michelle and I are off on a quick vacation, then we’ll get back to work.”
    Ms Obama wrote: “After an extraordinary 8 years, I'll be taking a little break. Will be back before you know it to work with you on the issues we care about.”




    Yes.

    Top_Dawg imagines they will be rushing right back to do some community organizing.

  52. #1652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Top_Dawg imagines they will be rushing right back to do some community organizing.

    Welllllll......

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/u...cago.html?_r=0

    Mr. Obama spoke with the young people onstage here about civic engagement, community organizing and the importance of not withdrawing from the challenges facing society. For more than an hour, he served as talk show host, asking the questions.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #1653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    After Mr Obama left the Oval Office, he tweeted: “Michelle and I are off on a quick vacation, then we’ll get back to work.”
    Ms Obama wrote: “After an extraordinary 8 years, I'll be taking a little break. Will be back before you know it to work with you on the issues we care about.”




    Yes.

    Top_Dawg imagines they will be rushing right back to do some community organizing.
    I'm sure the plight of poor Washington (where they will stay living) suburbs was first and foremost on their minds while taking that photo on the deck of that yacht. Give it ten years, they will have 100m plus from speech's, will have set up a charitable foundation that their daughters earn seven figure dollars earning from. Trudeau has his up and running and raking in the money, the Clintons set the liberal path on this. Talk the "good" environmental talk (while you personally disregard any thought of living environmentally responsibly), screw the economy by imposing this crap while in power, and set up a "charitable" enrichment fund / job for life for your family members.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-04-2017 at 03:00 PM.

  54. #1654

    Default

    The fact that politicans become multimillioniares from their job should have everyone concerned.

    After all, what are they selling that's worth that much?

  55. #1655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    After Mr Obama left the Oval Office, he tweeted: “Michelle and I are off on a quick vacation, then we’ll get back to work.”
    Ms Obama wrote: “After an extraordinary 8 years, I'll be taking a little break. Will be back before you know it to work with you on the issues we care about.”




    Yes.

    Top_Dawg imagines they will be rushing right back to do some community organizing.
    I'm sure the plight of poor Washington (where they will stay living) suburbs was first and foremost on their minds while taking that photo on the deck of that yacht. Give it ten years, they will have 100m plus from speech's, will have set up a charitable foundation that their daughters earn seven figure dollars earning from. Trudeau has his up and running and raking in the money, the Clintons set the liberal path on this. Talk the "good" environmental talk (while you personally disregard any thought of living environmentally responsibly), screw the economy by imposing this crap while in power, and set up a "charitable" enrichment fund / job for life for your family members.
    And now another Trump fund. Ivanka gets her name slapped on the latest World Bank fund. Great boost to her image and brand using other people's money.

    Canada gas already apparently committed money to it!!! Now $100 million from Saudi Arabia and UAE very coincidentally during Donald Trump's trip.
    Last edited by KC; 22-05-2017 at 06:58 AM.

  56. #1656

    Default

    The risk of a megadrought is nothing new, just rarely ever discussed.

    Study Shows Carbon Emissions Could Increase Risk of Megadroughts
    Excerpt:
    “Natural droughts like the 1930s Dust Bowl and the current drought in the Southwest have historically lasted maybe a decade or a little less,” said Ben Cook, climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York City, and lead author of the study. “What these results are saying is we’re going to get a drought similar to those events, but it is probably going to last at least 30 to 35 years.”

    https://scitechdaily.com/study-shows...-megadroughts/

  57. #1657
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,205

    Default

    In related news the City of Edmonton, has just completed its EV strategy survey. Our office worked on this survey. I'm not sure if there is any transparency here. I'm hoping the coe will share the results of this survey.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  58. #1658

    Default

    Serious about stopping climate change? Have one less child, UBC study says | National Post

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...6-cd261abea049

    Excerpt:

    "For one person to have any real impact on climate change, it would take some major sacrifices: give up the car, stop eating meat, avoid transatlantic flights and, most importantly, have one fewer child than you had planned, according to a new study by a researcher at the University of British Columbia.

    So why then, the study asks, do Canadian high school textbooks still tell students to do their part by merely hanging their laundry and recycling? Especially since recycling, upgrading light bulbs and hanging laundry doesn’t cut greenhouse gas half as much as skipping out on a single transatlantic flight."

  59. #1659
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    883

    Default

    Because those things are easy to do and make you feel good. The other things are hard to do and negitively effect your quality of life.

  60. #1660
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    It really is pretty funny to see the lock on people's faces when they're lecturing you about the horrible climate impact of some minor personal choice you made, you point out that they have two kids while you have none, and you explain how that decision swamps basically everything else an individual can do to reduce their impact on the planet. Same goes with having a dog. I'm not saying I'm against either having kids or dogs, but at least have some self awareness of the impact your choices will have on the planet.

    Population control is HUGE, not just for climate change, but for basically everything as it relates to the environment. This plastic production/consumption article is absolutely mind blowing, for example: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hu...stic-1.4210279

    "Of the 8.3 billion metric tonnes of virgin plastics ever made, half was made just in the last 13 years," Geyer said. "Between 2004 and 2015 we made as much plastic as we made between 1950 and 2004."

  61. #1661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    It really is pretty funny to see the lock on people's faces when they're lecturing you about the horrible climate impact of some minor personal choice you made, you point out that they have two kids while you have none, and you explain how that decision swamps basically everything else an individual can do to reduce their impact on the planet. Same goes with having a dog. I'm not saying I'm against either having kids or dogs, but at least have some self awareness of the impact your choices will have on the planet.

    Population control is HUGE, not just for climate change, but for basically everything as it relates to the environment. This plastic production/consumption article is absolutely mind blowing, for example: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hu...stic-1.4210279

    "Of the 8.3 billion metric tonnes of virgin plastics ever made, half was made just in the last 13 years," Geyer said. "Between 2004 and 2015 we made as much plastic as we made between 1950 and 2004."
    Note the view in this article:

    New Study: Most Effective Way to Fight Global Warming? Don’t Have Kids - Jerry Newcombe

    https://m.townhall.com/columnists/je...itled-n2357195

  62. #1662
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Lawrence Solomon: Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

    http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...e-to-speak-out
    That article is full of an astonishing amount of BS. This whole NOAA "controversy" was over and done with the day it came out, which was weeks ago. Yet Solomon continues to prattle on about it, like it actually means something. Heck, even Bates himself who is the supposed "whistleblower" said “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”. (source: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-...ation-at-noaa/)

    Another link that discusses the "controversy" here: http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...limate-records

    Again, this all happened two weeks before Solomon's article above. I can't say I'm surprised he ignored the true facts of the matter. After all, he also spends some time ranting on about "Climategate", which was another tempest in a tea pot that resulted in zero findings of any misconduct or manipulation by numerous independent inquiries. It just goes on and on in that article. He's actually quite shameless in ignoring the true facts of just about everything he mentions in that article. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, the guy wrote an entire book about how climate change is a fraud, based it on quotes and discussions with climatologists who profoundly disagree with him, and misrepresented their actual views: https://www.desmogblog.com/the-denie...global-warming
    The Daily Mail has been forced to apologize by a press standards organization for how misleading their article on this was: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/c...te-change.html

  63. #1663

    Default Rex Murphy: All global warming predictions are infallible... until they're not

    One global warming scientist made a point everybody should pay attention to:

    “Did the IPCC get it wrong? Just let me leave that question hanging for a while… While you ponder that question, it is worth noting that the authors of this paper developed the idea of carbon budgets, are the world leading experts on carbon budgets, and derived the carbon budgets in the IPCC process…” (my emphasis).

    Can these things be? Could even a smidgen of the skepticism some have been urging, some of the warnings that science and politics are a terrible blend, be justified? If those who design the models find the models have “overstated” matters, that the models “were too hot,” could we not find room to pause awhile before we redesign industrial civilization according to the imperatives of Al “The science is settled” Gore?

    It isn’t settled. The science is emergent. The conclusions are at best tentative. I leave you with this consolation: All global warming predictions are infallible, but some global warming predictions are less infallible than others.”
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-...til-theyre-not

  64. #1664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Lawrence Solomon: Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

    http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...e-to-speak-out
    That article is full of an astonishing amount of BS. This whole NOAA "controversy" was over and done with the day it came out, which was weeks ago. Yet Solomon continues to prattle on about it, like it actually means something. Heck, even Bates himself who is the supposed "whistleblower" said “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”. (source: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-...ation-at-noaa/)

    Another link that discusses the "controversy" here: http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...limate-records

    Again, this all happened two weeks before Solomon's article above. I can't say I'm surprised he ignored the true facts of the matter. After all, he also spends some time ranting on about "Climategate", which was another tempest in a tea pot that resulted in zero findings of any misconduct or manipulation by numerous independent inquiries. It just goes on and on in that article. He's actually quite shameless in ignoring the true facts of just about everything he mentions in that article. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, the guy wrote an entire book about how climate change is a fraud, based it on quotes and discussions with climatologists who profoundly disagree with him, and misrepresented their actual views: https://www.desmogblog.com/the-denie...global-warming
    The Daily Mail has been forced to apologize by a press standards organization for how misleading their article on this was: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/c...te-change.html
    Good follow up. Thanks.


    Still, I don’t put it past anyone including scientists to having either deliberate or unconscious bias in their findings and promotion thereof. Plus hostility towards science and studies that challenge their own beliefs and vested interests.


    A lesson here that’s broadly applicable:


    Chairman's Letter - 1989 - Berkshire Hathaway- Warren Buffett

    http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1989.html

    “My most surprising discovery: the overwhelming importance in business of an unseen force that we might call "the institutional imperative." In business school, I was given no hint of the imperative's existence and I did not intuitively understand it when I entered the business world. I thought then that decent, intelligent, and experienced managers would automatically make rational business decisions. But I learned over time that isn't so. Instead, rationality frequently wilts when the institutional imperative comes into play. For example: (1) As if governed by Newton's First Law of Motion, an institution will resist any change in its current direction; (2) Just as work expands to fill available time, corporate projects or acquisitions will materialize to soak up available funds; (3) Any business craving of the leader, however foolish, will be quickly supported by detailed rate-of-return and strategic studies prepared by his troops; and (4) The behavior of peer companies, whether they are expanding, acquiring, setting executive compensation or whatever, will be mindlessly imitated. Institutional dynamics, not venality or stupidity, set businesses on these courses, which are too often misguided. After making some expensive mistakes because I ignored the power of the imperative, I have tried to organize and manage Berkshire in ways that minimize its influence. Furthermore, Charlie and I have attempted to concentrate our investments in companies that appear alert to the problem.”
    Last edited by KC; 22-09-2017 at 11:15 AM.

  65. #1665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    One global warming scientist made a point everybody should pay attention to:

    “Did the IPCC get it wrong? Just let me leave that question hanging for a while… While you ponder that question, it is worth noting that the authors of this paper developed the idea of carbon budgets, are the world leading experts on carbon budgets, and derived the carbon budgets in the IPCC process…” (my emphasis).

    Can these things be? Could even a smidgen of the skepticism some have been urging, some of the warnings that science and politics are a terrible blend, be justified? If those who design the models find the models have “overstated” matters, that the models “were too hot,” could we not find room to pause awhile before we redesign industrial civilization according to the imperatives of Al “The science is settled” Gore?

    It isn’t settled. The science is emergent. The conclusions are at best tentative. I leave you with this consolation: All global warming predictions are infallible, but some global warming predictions are less infallible than others.”
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-...til-theyre-not

    I’ve always been curious why people can’t seem to see global warming risks like they see military risks. Often the same people who are in favour of massive tax and spend to support a strong military can’t support tax and spend to prevent, delay or mitigate against global warming risks or ameliorate the effects should they come to pass.

    What are the models saying about the probability that Canada, the US, etc are going to be attacked and so billions must be spent on defence? Where’s the debating on those models? We have a very low hurdle when it comes to justifying some expenditures while others with some actual statistical and scientific support get ignored and the issue is seen as black or white rather than a risk warranting some degree of expenditure just in case.

    Long ago, when the science was far from its current more advanced state, people should willingly have supported considerable anti-warming expenditures, research and regulation for simple common sense risk reduction.

    In their own personal lives does not near everyone buy some kind of insurance for some kind of poorly quantifiable risk?


    Oh, more from Warren Buffett:

    “Predicting rain doesn’t count. Building arks does.”
    Last edited by KC; 22-09-2017 at 11:35 AM.

  66. #1666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    That's a pretty selective portion of the entire chart - it doesn't look quite so convincing if you take a longer time period:


  67. #1667
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    ^So compress the scale so it becomes difficult to see how much larger the rate of modern warming is compared to the rate of past climate changes? The fact that past interglacials may have been 2-3°C warmer than it is now doesn't mean that 2°C of warming in a century isn't a problem.

  68. #1668
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    Would someone please take Murphy's thesaurus away? His prattle (that's one of his favorites!) is pretty much unreadable, as he's too busy linguistically pleasuring himself. In any case, one study does not suddenly upend all of the rest of climate science. It will be picked apart and pored over, and likely be corrected or revised itself. Even if it's 100% accurate, it doesn't really change much: it just means that keeping warming to 1.5C went from totally impossible to damn near impossible. That's the honest truth. Ask the study authors themselves. And no one ever said that climate science was "infallible", as Murphy did. All of the predictions in the IPCC come with incredibly carefully calibrated probabilities and error bars. Science is never definitive, no matter the area of study, outside of pure mathematics.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 22-09-2017 at 02:17 PM.

  69. #1669
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    Heh, it's actually kind of funny, he even says "None of this, however, has cooled the troposphere". Thanks for showing us your ignorance Rex! The troposphere is indeed cooling, and that's a simple prediction of the greenhouse effect. The stronger the "insulation", the cooler the troposphere gets. Think of it this way: if you have two houses side by side and are looking at them with an IR camera, which house will appear warmer from the outside? The one with worse insulation. It's the opposite of what you'd expect if you only think about it briefly. But it's right in line with scientific prediction.

    edit: whoops, the above is incorrect on my part. It is the stratosphere that is cooling, not the troposphere. My bad!

    Here's the study's author himself: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41319885

    Myles Allen added: "For a two in three chance of keeping temperatures within 1.5C, we'd have to reduce emissions in a straight line to zero from where we are now over the next 40 years.

    "It's possible, but extremely challenging. So if people are saying: can we now relax? That's not the right message to take at all."
    Strange the Murphy didn't provide that quote, isn't it? What say you, moahunter?
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 22-09-2017 at 02:29 PM.

  70. #1670
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    I’ve always been curious why people can’t seem to see global warming risks like they see military risks. Often the same people who are in favour of massive tax and spend to support a strong military can’t support tax and spend to prevent, delay or mitigate against global warming risks or ameliorate the effects should they come to pass.


    Funny you should mention the military. Guess who's preparing for climate change as much as anybody? The Pentagon. They don't care about politics and BS. And they know that if predictions hold true and significant action is not taken, things are going to get ugly in the second half of this century.

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •