CDZ Climate Change effects already here, yet denial persists

[flacaltenn]

Americans are not smart.

No argument there, but I'm not buying into the climate cult propaganda.

It's not a cult. Cults involve blind, irrational devotion. It's layers of scientific findings pointing primarily to one undeniable conclusion: We're rapidly making our planet less habitable for ourselves thanks to fossil fuels, methane, etc.

THere is a LOT blind irrational devotion in the Warmer Camp. They want to go off on what we should eat and what we should drive and what kind of light bulbs we use BEFORE the science actually MAKES successful predictions. So far -- even the IPCC has BACK OFF from it's initial predictions made 30 years ago that started this carnival of speculation. AND MOST of the early predictions have already failed. THAT is the course of "settled science". And WHY the issue is NOT getting any public traction.

There's a a LOT of MISinterpreted science. You do not get accurate GLOBAL averages from the past from ice cores and tree rings, and mudbug shells. These things cannot RECORD a 100 year event like we are now measuring with modern day methods. All they provide as a GLOBAL average is a general "long term mean value". NOT the variance that occurred on TOP of those means 1000 or 400,000 years ago. However -- if you look at some of those paleo-proxy studies INDIVIDUALLY -- the resolution and variance improves and get better "snapshots" of certain portions of planet for CO2 concentration and temperature swings.

So before you launch on cheeseburgers and SUVs and power plants --- just what is the LATEST estimate of the termperature anomaly predicted for 2050? Or 2100? The GW science ain't NEARLY settled.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can someone translate this mouth-breather?

I knew this thread is going away soon.


Its time to set you up.

I'm beginning to see that this is the deal here. If someone represents something other than an arch-conservative, moronic point of view, get them banned, or dinged so many times that they are effectively silenced.

Meanwhile, in this very thread, someone calls me a fucking moron without provocation and is untouched.

Who called you a moron? You play in the CDZ..

And not out in the open debates, why is that?

Not important...

So you are against meat now..just like I suspected

The AGW cult next target : Outlaw meat



So they are saying the earth can only hold 3 billion more people? Another retarded prediction...

How many people can the Earth actually hold?



Live Science notes:


One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life", "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

That was a lot of babbling nonsense predicated on strawman arguments. I'm not against hamburgers, I'm not even a vegetarian. I'm merely making a point.

I post all over the forum. I'm seeing a pattern where, no matter how correct/informed/smart the "debate" opponent is, you flail away with emotion and rote assertion. You're just not very eloquent.

Your point.is nonsense and you ignore or don't even know about NASA new C02 sattalite ..

All the C02 is coming from the southern hemisphere..

Land clearing.

Man do I really have to educate you again like our argument on Militia?






Online
bear513Gold Member
I just stumbled on this (don't know if this topic was covered before)

What the hell? By looking at the map the C02 hotspots are in the damn southern hemisphere..... I thought according to the man made climate change cult it had to do with us burning fossil fuels?


NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed

This map, pieced together with data from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, shows global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11.
CREDIT: NASA/JPL-Caltech
This past summer, NASA launched its first satellite devoted to measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas that is driving global warming.

Today (Dec. 18 2), scientists with the space agency unveiled the first carbon maps obtained by the spacecraft, named the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2

°Snip°


A news conference at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, Eldering and her colleagues showed a map of the globe that uses about 600,000 data points taken by OCO-2 from Oct. 1 through Nov. 17. It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil

Actually -- it MOVES with the seasons. And the IMPORTANT fact is -- that's LARGELY due to NATURE -- not man. Since NATURE puts 20 TIMES the CO2 into the atmos every year that man does. Of course the land and sea SINKS most all of that -- including 1/2 of what man generates. So the human contribution to the atmos is BURIED in about 2.5% of yearly carbon cycling going on.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

Lack of information. Misinformation. Both are travesties, but the means and modes by which folks allow themselves to take comfort in the denial of the occurrence and impacts of climate change discomfit me most.

The climate has always changed in the last 4.5 billion years, mother earth went though asteroids, flipping of poles , ice ages, super volcanos and all the rest..

What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this little hundered year time period..is the one that ends it..

This is the one to bring out the signs the end is near..as Naomi Klien an advisor to the pope puts it we need social economic change.

Another Alarmist admits real motive behind scare

This reminds me of the Y2k. Scare when we were putting stickers at work on toilets saying they were in spec to suffer the fear mongering of entering into the year 2000.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe

How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

climate change happens. If you deny that, you deny history and reality. To think taxing people and shit will change it, is also ridiculous.
Its another way for the globalists to take control.. that's it

Well at least you recognize reality here.

What to do about it? Hey, reasonable people can disagree. What do you propose?

If you're worried about CO2, and don't want to wreak the economy, we should build 100 new nuclear reactors.

Why do the warmers fear nuclear power more than they fear CO2?

Uh, maybe for reasons such as this?

Nuclear power is one option, but it carries a host of issues. There is no magic pill. But ignorance and denial is the only truly unacceptable option.

Should matter to you.. That's NOT the reactor complex at Fukushima Nuclear. That's a petroleum storage facility somewhere on the same coast. But ---- Hey --- what's the diff? If warmer folks ARE more scared of nuclear than Global Warming -- it does put things in perspective.

I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

Compared to global warming making the entire planet uninhabitable, forever, don't you think it's time for nuclear?

 

[flacaltenn]

Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe

How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.

But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

Lack of information. Misinformation. Both are travesties, but the means and modes by which folks allow themselves to take comfort in the denial of the occurrence and impacts of climate change discomfit me most.

The climate has always changed in the last 4.5 billion years, mother earth went though asteroids, flipping of poles , ice ages, super volcanos and all the rest..

What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this is the time to break out the signs the end is near, for not climate change but social economic justice

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're worried about CO2, and don't want to wreak the economy, we should build 100 new nuclear reactors.

Why do the warmers fear nuclear power more than they fear CO2?

Uh, maybe for reasons such as this?

Nuclear power is one option, but it carries a host of issues. There is no magic pill. But ignorance and denial is the only truly unacceptable option.

Should matter to you.. That's NOT the reactor complex at Fukushima Nuclear. That's a petroleum storage facility somewhere on the same coast. But ---- Hey --- what's the diff? If warmer folks ARE more scared of nuclear than Global Warming -- it does put things in perspective.

I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

There's folks back living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Birds are singing. Hiroshima is a BIG ass city today.

What is the "half-life" toxicity of the massive battery stream from electric cars? THAT stuff is toxic forever.

50 Nuclear plants and the US would be all GW crazy certified. Done..

The radiation emitted from a modern plant meltdown is a helluva lot more than that sticking around from a 1945 atomic blast. Those in the exclusion zone are taking a risk, and maybe not a properly calculated risk. Jeremy Wade from Rivermonsters was in the exclusion zone a few years ago doing an episode and he had to get out within a certain timeline to prevent unacceptable risks.

I'm not bashing nuclear power per se. But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint...particularly with the zero day computer virus that is now loose in the world (and could sabotage a nuclear plant if in the wrong hands).

Ultimately, fusion would be the long-game. Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year. It's a matter of political will, and not forsaking a livable planet for oil profits.

But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint

Based on what?
A crappy, even for the Commies, I mean unbelievably crappy, Soviet design?
Or a massive tidal wave?
And even then, if the backup generators had been what, 10 or 15 feet higher, would have been a minor event.

Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year.

Do you want cheaper, reliable power?
Or more expensive, unreliable solar and wind?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well at least you recognize reality here.

What to do about it? Hey, reasonable people can disagree. What do you propose?

If you're worried about CO2, and don't want to wreak the economy, we should build 100 new nuclear reactors.

Why do the warmers fear nuclear power more than they fear CO2?

Uh, maybe for reasons such as this?

Nuclear power is one option, but it carries a host of issues. There is no magic pill. But ignorance and denial is the only truly unacceptable option.

Should matter to you.. That's NOT the reactor complex at Fukushima Nuclear. That's a petroleum storage facility somewhere on the same coast. But ---- Hey --- what's the diff? If warmer folks ARE more scared of nuclear than Global Warming -- it does put things in perspective.

I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

Compared to global warming making the entire planet uninhabitable, forever, don't you think it's time for nuclear?

What?

Lets do a scientific experiment...

I will pay...

You spend a year at the north pole

I will spend a year at Tahiti..

After a year we will compare notes. A deal?

 

[flacaltenn]

So Marcott goes and does a paleo-proxy temperature study for the past 10 or 20,000 years. He flippantly makes a statement that his work shows --- ''... it is LIKELY that the current rate of observed warming exceeds any previously observed period". Except that he admits in the paper and subsequent interviews --- that his data cannot fully resolve events shorter than 500 or 600 years. So there IS no "rate measurement" in his actual work. And that original statement about "comparing rates" gets MISinterpreted to be PROOF that our 100 year experience is unique in time. And the media and politicians and dishonest activists hiding in labcoats -- run with the propaganda campaign..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe

How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.

But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.

Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're worried about CO2, and don't want to wreak the economy, we should build 100 new nuclear reactors.

Why do the warmers fear nuclear power more than they fear CO2?

Uh, maybe for reasons such as this?

Nuclear power is one option, but it carries a host of issues. There is no magic pill. But ignorance and denial is the only truly unacceptable option.

Should matter to you.. That's NOT the reactor complex at Fukushima Nuclear. That's a petroleum storage facility somewhere on the same coast. But ---- Hey --- what's the diff? If warmer folks ARE more scared of nuclear than Global Warming -- it does put things in perspective.

I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

Compared to global warming making the entire planet uninhabitable, forever, don't you think it's time for nuclear?

What?

Lets do a scientific experiment...

I will pay...

You spend a year at the north pole

I will spend a year at Tahiti..

After a year we will compare notes. A deal?

Sounds good.....but you misspelled Hawaii, it's not spelled with a n-o-r-t-h p-o-l-e.

 

[westwall]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

No global warming for over 18 years now. The Arctic ice levels are within the 20 year norms so yeah, there IS nothing to see here. Just more globalist propaganda designed to make the middle class poor, and enrich the wealthiest of the one percenters.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Uh, maybe for reasons such as this?

Nuclear power is one option, but it carries a host of issues. There is no magic pill. But ignorance and denial is the only truly unacceptable option.

Should matter to you.. That's NOT the reactor complex at Fukushima Nuclear. That's a petroleum storage facility somewhere on the same coast. But ---- Hey --- what's the diff? If warmer folks ARE more scared of nuclear than Global Warming -- it does put things in perspective.

I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

Compared to global warming making the entire planet uninhabitable, forever, don't you think it's time for nuclear?

What?

Lets do a scientific experiment...

I will pay...

You spend a year at the north pole

I will spend a year at Tahiti..

After a year we will compare notes. A deal?

Sounds good.....but you misspelled Hawaii, it's not spelled with a n-o-r-t-h p-o-l-e.

That's what confuses them ...


If you believe the AGW cult crowd .08 degree is a disaster..and man won't have heaters, the Sun or a/c...

If we go a lousy. Plus or minus 5 degrees..in a thousand years..

 

[flacaltenn]

Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe

How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.

But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.

Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................

Don't know how to break it to ya man. But SOME of them, even your hero Bill Nye the Science guy does seriously mangle the actual science behind GW. HE BTW -- doesn't want to discuss cheeseburgers -- his target is the human scourge itself and it's numbers upon the earth.

Truthfully, there are about 12 activist scientists in GW that have damaged the cred of the community. The rest just keep their heads down and hope the free ride lasts.

Which reminds me. I got an alert for a brand new Poll of Climate Scientists from the best pollster of scientists -- Bray and von Storch. Gotta go see what the NEW ACTUAL numbers are lately. I'll put it up in Enviro..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.

Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe

How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.

But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.

Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................

Don't know how to break it to ya man. But SOME of them, even your hero Bill Nye the Science guy does seriously mangle the actual science behind GW. HE BTW -- doesn't want to discuss cheeseburgers -- his target is the human scourge itself and it's numbers upon the earth.

Truthfully, there are about 12 activist scientists in GW that have damaged the cred of the community. The rest just keep their heads down and hope the free ride lasts.

Which reminds me. I got an alert for a brand new Poll of Climate Scientists from the best pollster of scientists -- Bray and von Storch. Gotta go see what the NEW ACTUAL numbers are lately. I'll put it up in Enviro..

But SOME of them, even your hero Bill Nye the Science guy

He is the worst! Can't stand Bill the Engineer guy.

 

[Holos]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

The reason for which no one is telling about the climate crisis is probably because the way individuals primarily communicate with the environment is through their sensory perception and not through complex social behavior.

Sensory perception may be indeed complex, and social behavior may indeed assist in comprehending the best way to deal with such a climatic crisis as dehydration, mal-nourishment, or intoxication, but only if simple and direct in its sharing of knowledge.

Water, plants and rest will provide adequately for any environmental crisis, but since we are on land of sparse water sources and incredibly diverse vegetation, the safest way to supervene the climatic crisis is to listen to your own words, to your own pulse, to your own skin and therein recognize what systems of your body require further attention to motor your cognition into the provision already abundant by the local and regional ecological and economical systems.

 

[320 Years of History]

What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this is the time to break out the signs the end is near, for not climate change but social economic justice

The matter isn't that "the end" is nigh; it's that it will be nigh in the foreseeable future for Miami, New York, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other places that are essential to the U.S.' economy, thus to expecting to obtain any form of socioeconomic justice. Quite simply there is no economic justice of any sort - social, mental, personal, political, etc. -- when the economies of one's major port cities goes literally underwater. Billings, MT, for example and on the other hand, will be just fine in and of itself; however, to the extent it depends indirectly on any of those port cities, it too won't be just fine.

 

[flacaltenn]

What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this is the time to break out the signs the end is near, for not climate change but social economic justice

The matter isn't that "the end" is nigh; it's that it will be nigh in the foreseeable future for Miami, New York, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other places that are essential to the U.S.' economy, thus to expecting to obtain any form of socioeconomic justice. Quite simply there is no economic justice of any sort - social, mental, personal, political, etc. -- when the economies of one's major port cities goes literally underwater. Billings, MT, for example and on the other hand, will be just fine in and of itself; however, to the extent it depends indirectly on any of those port cities, it too won't be just fine.

Given that the recent climate history of the Earth for past mill yrs has been a cyclical series of Ice Ages and very brief thaws -- Montana is not immune. Because if you look at the charts -- like the one Gary Dog posted, our brief thaw could be ending soon. And the minor warming contribution from Anthro CO2 emissions just might prolong that period of livable climate by a few thousand years. A couple of those "climatic optimums" have been SHORTER than our current one.

Also -- I'll owe NOTHING to the jerks in the San Fran Bay region that have expanded by filling the Bay with low grade silt and crappy ground in order to build. And they CONTINUE to do so. Also goes for some of those Pac Island nations that are getting "GW guilt money" to build new international airports at 10 ft above sea level..

 

[2aguy]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

Yeah...keep believing the lie.......when they are putting the slave collar on because doing so will hold off climate change..will you question what they say then?