Global warming. Thread started by Joanro. - Page 4

I can't turn either of your links active at the moment cos the editor here is on another go-slow, so I have not read either of those articles, I'll get back to them later if I can get them up.

Meanwhile, just let me say this : I admit that I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO which side has the winning dog in this fight. Is global warming important ? Does it come from natural selection / cycling, or is it either caused or exascerbated by 'Man', by human action ? If the former rather than the latter, does that actually MATTER if we are all experiencing effects we could: A do better without, B do something about ? TBH I don't think I CARE which is right, only about what we all NEED to do !

What I do find reprehensible is that the UN & IPCC's efforts to enlist member countries' efforts in doing whatever little we can to extend the useful & livable life of our planet, for ourselves, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren to come, (and the flora & fauna) is being derided as no more than some sort of (ill explained, unless either article is 'dumbed down' really clear about just who benefits, than anybody has so far) tax dodge.

Would have thought that since GB, Australia etc are proving so reluctant to act already (not to mention Trump taking America 'out' and tearing up existing Agreements), these countries would be pulling out all the stops to muster the 'evidence' from Deniers, and the data that Easterbrook presents, so they can argue that global warning isn't happening; or about what actually causes any changes in climate or CO2 levels if they DO exist. But I don't hear that. They are not, are they ? Not at any consistent country-wide level, trying to argue for a change of UN policy. Only dragging their feet a bit, on agreements they signed up for. [The usual individual conspiracy theorists, worldwide, may comment, but they never come up with anything practical, anyway.] Wasn't even made clear WHY the Donald was taking his ball away from the game. Is everyone at the UN table so incapable of thought ?, or clear expression of those thoughts ? or is this something else entirely ?

Dunno about the US taxation 'pot', but global fossil fuel and agribusiness seem to be supporting politicians everywhere who are apathetic, or even hostile, to actually taking any action on the climate and related issues. Even if they are displaying this mysterious inability to cite the evidence data of the "Global Warming is a Myth" camp.

The IPCC are insisting we do something on reforestation, the protection of corals, etc. What's the down side ?
What are those who agree with Easterbrook proposing as an alternative ? If it isn't 'man made' we don't need to do a thing ??? Just seems to me there may be some gaslighting going on ...



 

The only way to find what is going on is to present hard scietific data. Not politically motivated computer modeling and fale readings lie IPCC have done. I do not listen to Exxon nor to Gore so to speak. What bothers me is that when I hear data from man-made climate change proponents I know that their data are not scientifically provable. I am a geologist by education and I can argue for man-made climate change proponents better then they do yet I am basically on the other side of man-made climate change proponents. I know one thing for sure proposing that carbon is a danger to our population is a Hoax to raise money for con artists dressed like politicians via taxing carbon footprint.

We could go on for weeks about man-made/not-man-made, bottom line is climate change is happening at an alarming and unprecedented rate.  Having been lucky to be missed by Hurricane Michael and having lived through Hurricane Irma, I for one would like to see climate change addressed because I am concerned about the next hurricane springing up almost overnight like Hurricane Michael did.  We in Florida are experiencing an unusually long summer with temps still in the upper 90's with high humidity.  We had an unseasonably hot summer and are heading to another record breaking long hot humid year.  We are breaking all our old records.  Our summers are getting longer, hotter, and more humid each year, our winters are almost non-existent now with temps rarely getting below 70 degrees (used to get down to the upper 30's complete with frost and I remember snow more than once).  I don't remember the last time we had a good frost and we used to all the time.  I remember scraping frost off my windshield which I haven't done for years.  Our cool season is getting shorter and warmer.  Consequently our fleas and other pests are more numerous because there is not killing frost.  Our storms are getting stronger, rains more, and our oceans (Gulf where I live) is getting warmer.  Hurricanes and Cyclones overall are getting stronger, larger, and more destructive.  We are seeing flooding in areas that rarely flood, drought in areas that rarely had drought, entire villages are now under water and the people are being displaced.  We need to do whatever we can to stop climate change before it is too late.  Again, I don't care which camp you belong to, one thing I think we can all agree on is climate change is happening and the effects are NOT GOOD.  If reducing carbon emissions and pollution will help, why not do it?  I don't get the resistance other than big corporations are not making all the profits they can by polluting......

Even if everywhere on earth and everyone on the earth was experiencing exactly the same effects (which is actually not happening), and those effects were conclusively proved (through physics or any other way) to just be a normal cyclical environment for the earth, so the Climate Change Deniers could be indisputibly right ... still its a fact that a lot of people are, as Mindhunt argues, experiencing some unusual weather conditions that they are not used to, and find hard to cope with. In that state of affairs it really does not matter whether those climate effects are not caused by CO2 changes, or whether they are; they still have to be coped with. If anything that is being done, or has been agreed should be done, is making a difference to those excesses of weather, then it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater not to go on and DO it. And if we don't try those things, how can we be sure they won't work ?

It does not even matter so much if someone is profiting unduly from it, that can be sorted later. What matters is restoring the planet to being a less stressful and dangerous place to be, surely ?

And it is also true that things are happening to our planet, whether directly due to global warming, climate change or other human interference or not, that if we do not do our utmost to change, stop, repair (like the death of so much coral, for instance, that no one seems to be trying to disprove), we and the earth and future generations will be much worse off for as long as we still have a planet. Why would anyone want that ?

The United Nations and nearly 100 climate scientists from across the globe have issued their latest environmental primal scream. Thanks to climate change, the planet is evidently on a path of “unprecedented environmental destruction” that will destroy life on earth as we know it.
Within a generation we’ll be overwhelmed by catastrophic wildfires, rising sea levels, floods, hurricanes, disease, food shortages and a mass die-off of coral reefs.”

There hasn’t been this much doom and gloom packed in a government report since Jimmy Carter was in the White House and issued the “Global 2000 Report” which predicted a coming Malthusian scarcity.
People can make up their own minds about the veracity of these latest predictions. But we already know that one conclusion of the UN report is dead wrong. This is the script that the United States, and particularly President Trump, is the environmental Darth Vader here.

The Los Angeles Times put it this way: “The report serves as a stark reminder of President Trump’s status as a global outlier in terms of climate change . . . Trump has rejected the 2015 Paris agreement signed by 195 nations to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, expressed skepticism about human-caused climate change and vowed to increase coal-burning.”

Wait a minute. In 2017, the country that reduced its greenhouse-gas emissions the most wasn’t Canada or Britain or Germany or Australia or France. It was the United States. That’s right — the one country that pulled out of the phony Paris Climate Accord reduced its carbon emissions by 0.5 percent, the most of all major countries.

That’s especially impressive given that our economy grew by nearly 3 percent. In other words, we had more growth and less pollution — the best of all worlds. The major reason for the reduced pollution levels is the shale oil and gas revolution that is transitioning the world to cheap and clean natural gas for electric power.
The world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, by far, is China. The Institute for Energy Research found that China produced almost one-third of the world’s total carbon emissions last year. India was No. 2 on this list, with 93 million metric tons of increased pollution. So how is America the villain here?

The latest data also prove that Trump has been vindicated in his decision to pull out of the Paris Accord. Trump predicted that other nations would cheat and all the costs would fall on the United States. He was right. According to a 2018 report from Climate Action Network Europe, “All EU counties are failing to increase their climate action in line with the Paris Agreement goal.”

Only five of the 25 major nations have even managed to reach 50 percent of their pollution-reduction promise.

One country far below its target is France. Yet French President Emmanuel Macron, a major champion of the Paris accord, tweeted that the UN report proved that since “we have everything we need to combat climate change,” all nations must “act now!” Perhaps what he means is everyone has to act except for France — which isn’t taking action. The world is filled with climate-change hypocrites who want America to pay all the costs and make all the sacrifices.

The complete collapse of the Paris Climate Accord points to the impotence and incompetence of global organizations like the United Nations. Does anyone honestly believe that international bureaucrats and self-righteous politicians are going to somehow change the temperature of the planet, stop the rise of the oceans and prevent hurricanes?

The best way to combat climate change, as with all environmental challenges, is through more technological advancements that will find ways to stabilize the earth’s temperature. If we have to depend on the United Nations and global politicians, the planet really is doomed.
Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with Freedom¬Works. His latest book is “Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy.”
https://nypost.com/2018/10/10/dont-buy-the-uns-bull-the-us-isnt-killing-planet-earth/

No illusions, ML; but the UN and IPCC at least have some money & some clout that seems sadly missing elsewhere, so it just seems to me that to be fighting against the good that might come of actions recommended by it, just because we don't have a lot of faith in the UN, is to join the apathy that leads to complete INaction.

@mindhunt. BEWARE OF CONS AND HOAXES.  Hurricane frequency and strength is actually in decline.  To say otherwise is another con and hoax inflicted on the gullible ( or lazy to find the truth) public to promulgate their scam. I would add that if one would consider that hurricanes would be sensitive to global warming then since there is no increase in frequency not strenght of hurricanes we have no global warming or the global warming is insignificant in these perouiods of tiems .  Here is statistics on hutticane recently 

And here it clearly shows that in long-term the hurricanes are in linear  slightly declining long-term pattern.  

 Here on this chart you can see that hurricanes are in decline in frequency and also the major category hurricanes are in decline. So where is the proof of global warming?

 

If hurricane frequency is effected by so called global warming, then the fact that the amount of hurricanes is diminishing ( thanks Prager LOL) then we must be entering a period of global cooling.

Welcome to ML junk science course. See anyone can make outrageous statements.

Bottom line is global warming is a total HOAX, they have been constantly caught altering the average temperature statistics (always toward the planet warming). Most of the people pushing global warming (other than the sheep who are following) are being paid by Government grants. If they say there is no global warming, then they killed their "cash cow".

Time will tell and I think we should take it seriously until proven otherwise. I don't think we ought to be caught with our pants down picking up the soap. Why take the chance when there are things we can try and do. Things that cost little compared to doing nothing. Wind over coal. We have polluted earth like no others before us and I for one think we need to take care of mother earth, after all it is the only one we have. BTW, both poles have melted more than normal. When seas rise, as they are now to affect more of the east coast, things will change as far as people jumping on board. Climate is changing slowly but surely. According to Prager we should be in a cooling period as far as sun activity is concerned but we aren't and we won't, to believe otherwise is naive and short sighted to say the least.

You switch and start talking about pollution. Nobody sane is for pollution. I am talking about global warming. I would like you to show me scientific data showing that "both poles are" in long-term "melting more than normal". Also, you say that climate is changing slowly but surely. Again nobody sane is arguing that. We are talking about man-made global warming. By the way, so-called climate change used to be man-made global cooling then man-made global warming and since none can be scientifically proven the nomenclature was conveniently changed to climate change.  

 Also, you are talking about wind energy. The problem with wind energy is that same as the solar energy it cannot be stored on a large scale for it to be practical. Also to build wind towers is economically inefficient and it cannot compete against conventional power. That is why it needs to be subsidized by the government and since the government does not make any money they have to steal the money in form of a tax from you and me and give it to "Al Gores" type con-artists. On top of it windmils are killing millions of birds.  Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually. This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago. In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.
Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

Same thing solar heating powerplants a  and insects.  Here on this vimeo you can see scores of birds being incinerated in mid-air.

https://vimeo.com/105448156