Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 131920212223
Results 2,201 to 2,270 of 2270

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #2201
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^The person who resigned was a woman, not a man.

    Nor is there any evidence of a deviation from protocol that I'm aware of. The U of A truth matters campaign is intended to have any edge and go against conventional wisdom.

    If a university research project concluded that Alberta barley production would increase with global warming, what is wrong with publicizing this?
    It's wrong to publicize because it's misleading. It might not directly say it, but it heavily implies that global warming is good for the province overall, which is not the case.
    You say that, but what if it is?

    Nobody should be censored, suppressed, shot down or forbidden from asking questions that are difficult or uncomfortable.
    Right, you always care so much about free speech when it aligns with your views, and get upset when anyone pushes anything you consider a liberal agenda. I'm sure you would defend it equally if the U of A had billboards stating how many birds die in tailings ponds every year, how much land is dug up in the oil sands, how many people die per year directly from oil and gas pollution. Those would all be things that would also be technically correct, but also ignore the bigger picture.

    But either way, I'm not sure what free speech has to do with this situation.

    I didn't know climate science and decades of research could be so easily dismissed with "what if". Throw that research out the window, after all what if it's wrong!

    Ever stop to consider it was made a big deal because it was an ad for the U of A, a research institution, and all the research that is done there has shown that, although there are small benefits to climate change, the majority of the impacts will be negative. It was made a big deal because it suggests something we know to be terrible (through their own research) may actually be good, and they don't want their name on that.

  2. #2202

    Default

    I don't understand how a staunch free-enterprise loving capitalist conservative can't understand 'no shoes, no shirt, no service , management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone'... Yes, facebook / google/ youtube (private companies) has removed the hate speech/misinformation/fake news you love with good reason, and they are free and able to do so, and that does not violate your free speech, nor is it censorship, or violates your freedom of expression (in canada)

    Censorship on the internet would be preventing you from operating your own domain, and hosting what ever content you want. You and those banned off fb/google/youtube can still do whatever you want on your own domain. You just want a pre-built soapbox with its own audience to spread your hate/misinformation/fake news... Build your own damn soap box, and your own damn audience.
    Last edited by Medwards; 03-10-2019 at 11:05 AM.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  3. #2203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^The person who resigned was a woman, not a man.

    Nor is there any evidence of a deviation from protocol that I'm aware of. The U of A truth matters campaign is intended to have any edge and go against conventional wisdom.

    If a university research project concluded that Alberta barley production would increase with global warming, what is wrong with publicizing this?
    It's wrong to publicize because it's misleading. It might not directly say it, but it heavily implies that global warming is good for the province overall, which is not the case.
    You say that, but what if it is?

    Nobody should be censored, suppressed, shot down or forbidden from asking questions that are difficult or uncomfortable.
    Right, you always care so much about free speech when it aligns with your views, and get upset when anyone pushes anything you consider a liberal agenda. I'm sure you would defend it equally if the U of A had billboards stating how many birds die in tailings ponds every year, how much land is dug up in the oil sands, how many people die per year directly from oil and gas pollution. Those would all be things that would also be technically correct, but also ignore the bigger picture.

    But either way, I'm not sure what free speech has to do with this situation.

    I didn't know climate science and decades of research could be so easily dismissed with "what if". Throw that research out the window, after all what if it's wrong!

    Ever stop to consider it was made a big deal because it was an ad for the U of A, a research institution, and all the research that is done there has shown that, although there are small benefits to climate change, the majority of the impacts will be negative. It was made a big deal because it suggests something we know to be terrible (through their own research) may actually be good, and they don't want their name on that.
    Record high crop yields year after year is a small benefit?

    Our forests growing faster is a small benefit?

    Oil is easier to extract?

    These are REAL benefits that keep you from freezing to death at night, and pay for education, hospitals, and just about everything else.

    Alberta is a frozen province. Why don't you explain how increasing temperatures wouldn't be a massive overall benefit to all life, and our economy.

    Or show us U of A's assesment of that, which you keep saying exists.

    "how many people die per year directly from oil and gas pollution"

    How many Albertans will survive this winter due to oil and gas? You gonna heat your home at night with solar panels?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 03-10-2019 at 12:00 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #2204

    Default

    Good for Alberta crops, bad for other parts to the world, and all the other bad things Climate change is bringing. Yes, small benefit that is easily outweight by all the negative impacts...

    So now your tune is changing. You're saying there is climate change, and its good for the world?

    Your position seems to shift slightly....
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  5. #2205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^The person who resigned was a woman, not a man.

    Nor is there any evidence of a deviation from protocol that I'm aware of. The U of A truth matters campaign is intended to have any edge and go against conventional wisdom.

    If a university research project concluded that Alberta barley production would increase with global warming, what is wrong with publicizing this?
    It's wrong to publicize because it's misleading. It might not directly say it, but it heavily implies that global warming is good for the province overall, which is not the case.
    You say that, but what if it is?

    Nobody should be censored, suppressed, shot down or forbidden from asking questions that are difficult or uncomfortable.
    Right, you always care so much about free speech when it aligns with your views, and get upset when anyone pushes anything you consider a liberal agenda.

    Wrong.

    I will ridicule and argue views that oppose mine, but I never ask for opposing views or hard questions to be censored.

    The only way people can reach agreements on anything or to open minds to new/different ideas is to allow open and free discussion.

    People on this forum have asked to have me banned, but I have never done that to anybody else. I am not afraid of hearing opposing ideas like some others here are.

  6. #2206

    Default

    Asked for you to be banned? Please.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  7. #2207

    Default

    The only time I remember anyone asking for a ban it was for Matt, by IanO, for petty reasons. Think that cost him his moderator status (thank jeebus).
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  8. #2208

    Default

    IanO banned me from this site for a week because I disagreed with him, and put him rightfully in his place. ThomasH tried to permanently ban me. Neither of those guys are mods anymore (thank jeebus)... Though ThomasH still takes his role super seriously over at SSP....

    The only person I banned why I was a mod was Dakine (and the 20 other usernames he has used) and that MagnoBlade guy who has also come back under several user names, and banned by other mods for being an absolute spaz case.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  9. #2209

    Default The TRUTH. 55 papers published in 2019 alone link the sun to climate change

    If the sun has a significant affect on climate change it destroys the ridiculous "CO2 is a control knob" mantra.

    Here are 55 papers that discuss the sun's affect on climate published in 2019...............

    "In the last few years, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published linking changes in solar activity to Earth’s climate (2016, 2017, 2018). The evidence for a robust Sun-Climate connection continues to accumulate in 2019."

    There is no consensus on the amplitude of the historical solar forcing. The estimated magnitude of the total solar irradiance difference between Maunder minimum and present time ranges from 0.1 to 6 W/m2 making uncertain the simulation of the past and future climate.” (Egorova et al., 2018)

    Hundreds more.........

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/10/03/...limate-change/
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  10. #2210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    If the sun has a significant affect on climate change it destroys the ridiculous "CO2 is a control knob" mantra.

    Here are 55 papers that discuss the sun's affect on climate published in 2019...............

    "In the last few years, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published linking changes in solar activity to Earth’s climate (2016, 2017, 2018). The evidence for a robust Sun-Climate connection continues to accumulate in 2019."


    There is no consensus on the amplitude of the historical solar forcing. The estimated magnitude of the total solar irradiance difference between Maunder minimum and present time ranges from 0.1 to 6 W/m2 making uncertain the simulation of the past and future climate.” (Egorova et al., 2018)

    Hundreds more.........

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/10/03/...limate-change/

    Recycling the same stuff again? We've gone over this before, and it's just recycled from 2017, and clearly debunked/fraudalent claims

    On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.
    The basic thesis presented by No Tricks Zone is that these graphs, which are inferred records of things like temperature and precipitation from specific localities through time, show that the climatological changes happening right now are neither dramatic nor man made. The charts highlight times from the somewhat recent pre-industrial past that were either warmer or more dramatically variable then they are now, or show evidence of change attributed to clear natural causes. As Breitbart puts it:
    What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
    This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.






    A representative response came from Paul Mayewski, author of one of the studies included on the No Tricks Zone list and director of the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute:
    They are absolutely incorrect!!!! Quite the opposite, the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused — and describes future scenarios. Yet another example of downright lies.
    Outside of the fact that all of these papers have squiggly lines that represent climatological change through time, they cover a diverse range of highly technical topics and have little in common with each other. In many cases, listed studies are applicable only to a very specific region and were created not to investigate the influence of humans on climate, but to understand how the climate system works in general.
    This was the case for University of Washington PhD candidate Bradley Markle, whose paper (“Global Atmospheric Teleconnections During Dansgaard-Oeschger Events”) was also included in the No Tricks Zone:
    My study, and almost all I saw mentioned on the blog post, are studies of climate change in the past. My study investigates connections between different parts of the climate system during climate events that happened over 10,000 years ago. Studying climate change in the past can provide context for recent climate change. However, my study in no way investigates or tries to attribute the causes of recent climate change. It does not deal with human influences on climate at all.
    This echoes the response of USGS research scientist Julie Richey, whose paper (“Multi-Species Coral Sr/Ca-based Sea-Surface Temperature Reconstruction Using Orbicella Faveolata and Siderastrea Siderea from the Florida Straits”) really resonated with the Breitbart science desk:
    Our paper presents a 280-year sea surface temperature record based on the ratio of strontium to calcium in corals we sampled in the Dry Tortugas National Park. It shows that sea surface temperatures measured over many decades in the Florida Straits are variable, and that variation has been dominated for nearly the past three centuries by a natural oscillation called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. […] Neither of these findings refutes the role of anthropogenic activity in global climate change.
    Many researchers told us that, even by the crude metrics of the No Tricks Zone post, and even without intending to address anthropogenic climate change in their research, their papers’ data actually support anthropogenically driven recent warming. This was the case for Claremont McKenna professor Branwen Williams, whose paper (“North Pacific 20th Century Decadal-Scale Variability Is Unique for the Past 342 Years”) was featured:
    I do not agree with this assessment of my work. The seawater temperature data clearly show a warming.






    In other cases it appears that the analysis provided by the author of the No Tricks Zone post was so superficial that the graphs pulled from some studies were not actually part of any new dataset, but comparison datasets from earlier studies. Geologist Fatima Abrantes’ paper “Historical Climate off the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula” fell victim to this oversight:
    The article on Breitbart.com is so bad that the author did not even realize that the figure extracted from my paper is not my new data record but the record of the northern Spain atmospheric temperature anomaly, produced by [another group in 2011] that I have used for comparison. […] [Our] results agree with both the global and regional projections that indicate this region of Europe with highest potential vulnerability in regard to current global warming.
    These charts, when accurately cited, provide ammunition against two clearly false straw man arguments invented by No Tricks Zone: 1) That climatic change happens in concert and in the same way uniformly around the globe, and that 2) evidence of any natural force influencing climate is — at the same time — also evidence against the notion that humans are playing a role in current climatic change. The fact that the 1257 Samalas eruption altered grape harvests, as one study in the post demonstrated, does not mean humans cannot also alter climate, as the No Trick Zone post implied.
    We rank the claims made by both Breitbart and No Tricks Zone as false, because they dramatically misrepresent the findings of the scientists who conducted the research and utilize poorly-articulated straw man arguments to further misrepresent the significance of the work of those scientists. These studies were local in nature, narrow in scope, meant to address how the climate system functioned in the past, and pose no threat to the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.
    Global warming, as implied by the name, is a global process. That does not, however, mean that every part of the globe reacts to this process in the same way or at the same rate, or even at all. Richey, the author of the USGS Florida sea-surface temperature record, succinctly described this fallacy:
    Anthropogenic climate change is characterized by variable climate responses across the globe. No climate record taken at a single point in space is representative of the global climate.





    Last edited by Medwards; 03-10-2019 at 01:42 PM.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  11. #2211

    Default

    Blogs will misrepresent what scientists say, but I believe what astronomers publish more than scientists in any other field.

  12. #2212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Blogs will misrepresent what scientists say, but I believe what astronomers publish more than scientists in any other field.
    Did you forget to switch accounts when posting this response?

    So you believe one type of scientist but not another because it points out the flaws in your far right-wing ideology?


    An astronomer is a scientist in the field of astronomy who focuses their studies on a specific question or field outside the scope of Earth
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  13. #2213
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    Strange how he trusts a scientists who's expertise lays literally out of this world, on science relating to this world. And trusts their expertise on this world more than those who actually study it. Almost like the science is less important than agreeing with his opinion.

  14. #2214

    Default

    What the hell is wrong with you? Jesus Christ.

    It is a neutral statement.

    The other poster here was posting a blog that cherry-picked some points from what astronomers said about how the sun affects Earth's climate.

    Astronomers are very trustworthy. That's all I meant.

    You must be a hoot at parties.

  15. #2215
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Good for Alberta crops, bad for other parts to the world, and all the other bad things Climate change is bringing. Yes, small benefit that is easily outweight by all the negative impacts...

    So now your tune is changing. You're saying there is climate change, and its good for the world?

    Your position seems to shift slightly....
    He changes his opinion based on which "evidence" he's pushing. If he found an article saying that it's happening but it's not humans, he'll push that, if he finds a cherry picked graph that shows it's not changing at all he'll push that.

  16. #2216

    Default The TRUTH. Liar blogs are better science

    Climate advocates prefer liar blogs over thousands of scientists published in hundreds of papers.

    They tell you to look at "the" science, what they mean is "our" science, and nothing else.

    When they say there's a 97% consensus, what they mean is 97% of scientists that believe in global warming, believe in global warming. Scientists that do not believe are excluded from thier surveys.

    When they say "the science is settled", they mean scientists who believe in global warming agree thier science is settled.

    Take the advice of advocates, and believe in thier liar blogs. Thier liar blogs mean more to them than thousands of scientists in hundreds of published papers.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 03-10-2019 at 03:00 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  17. #2217

    Default

    Still waiting for those peer reviewed studies for the skeptics side.... Still waiting and waiting and waiting.

    Nothing?

    crickets sound


    Are you ever going to give us a peer review study that backs your claims, or are you just going to continue you name calling and put downs and angry posts at scientists that have peer reviewed and accepted studies published in well respected universities?
    Last edited by Medwards; 03-10-2019 at 03:00 PM.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  18. #2218
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,507

    Default

    Still waiting for him to acknowledge he doesn't know the first thing about sea levels, tide gauges and the like as well. Remember, the planet's just like a giant bath tub guys!

  19. #2219

    Default

    It's all fun and games until the facts come out. Then its name calling, and angry posts that call everyone liars because science has proven his bunk-posts as just that.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  20. #2220
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    Well he's pivoted to conspiracy theories about a consensus not actually being a consensus, so I don't think you'll be getting a response.

  21. #2221

    Default The TRUTH. Climate science

    "Scientist Suggests Climate Change Could Pave the Way for Cannibalism"


    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...r-cannibalism/

    Should they really be in charge of your money, and your life?

    Don't misunderstand my fellow Albertans, and Edmontonians, this isn't an act of desperation........., it's a SOLUTION, proposed by a scientist. So it's climate science.

    "“I’d have to say . . . I’d be open to at least tasting it,” Söderlund told Sweden’s TV4, according to an article in the New York Post. The seminar dealt with such topics as whether humans were too selfish to “live sustainably” — and whether cannibalism might be the solution, the Post reports.Söderlund reportedly also suggested eating pets."

    Cannibalism isn't enough though, we need to eat babies.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-10-2019 at 08:48 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  22. #2222

    Default The TRUTH. Friends of Science explains the corruption of the CBC

    The CBC gets over a billion dollars in government funding and they push a political agenda not all Canadians subscribe to. If you are skeptical of climate change your tax dollars are still being funneled to the CBC to lie to you.

    Why didn't the CBC cover the story of 500 scientists questioning climate change?

    This video asks "why not ask them about it". Indeed.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  23. #2223

    Default

    State broadcaster receives state funding & disregards conspiracy theories when determining coverage, outraging conspiracy theorists...

    Not really seeing what's so terrible about any of that.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #2224

    Default

    Eating babies to stop global warming actually makes more sense than Al Gore's carbon credit scheme.

  25. #2225

    Default

    So MrCombust, MrOilers & Postmedia all fell for a "controversy" that was entirely contrived by right-wing supporters just like them.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/pro-...babies-2019-10

    • A protester disrupted a Thursday town hall held by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Queens, New York, yelling that Americans should "eat the babies" to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change.
    • Ocasio-Cortez attempted to calm the woman down, saying that "we all need to understand that there are a lot of solutions that we have" to slow climate change.
    • President Donald Trump retweeted a video of the incident and called Ocasio-Cortez a "Wack Job." The president's eldest son tweeted that the woman "seems like a normal AOC supporter to me."
    • But soon after a video of the incident went viral on Thursday night, a far-right pro-Trump group called the LaRouche movement announced on Twitter that it was behind the protester.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  26. #2226

    Default The TRUTH. Dr. Roy Spencer covers many aspects of climate change

    Dr. Roy Spencer is the keeper of the UAH satellite data. RSS and UAH satellite data measures the whole earth's temperature using orbiting satellites.

    Dr. Spencer explains a number of aspects of climate science from a genuine scientific perspective.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  27. #2227
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    ^^ woops, can't admit mistakes, so better post another conspiracy theory YouTube video so people might miss that post. Here it is again in case you missed it.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/pro-trump-group-behind-aoc-protester-calling-to-eat-babies-2019-10



    • A protester disrupted a Thursday town hall held by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Queens, New York, yelling that Americans should "eat the babies" to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change.
    • Ocasio-Cortez attempted to calm the woman down, saying that "we all need to understand that there are a lot of solutions that we have" to slow climate change.
    • President Donald Trump retweeted a video of the incident and called Ocasio-Cortez a "Wack Job." The president's eldest son tweeted that the woman "seems like a normal AOC supporter to me."
    • But soon after a video of the incident went viral on Thursday night, a far-right pro-Trump group called the LaRouche movement announced on Twitter that it was behind the protester.
    Either way, regardless of the implications of this being an actual false flag, I'm not sure what one clearly insane person has to do with climate change and its validity.

    Edit: note I didn't actually watch MrCombusts video so I don't know if it's actually a conspiracy theory, but going off his post history I think that's a safe assumption.
    Last edited by seamusmcduffs; 04-10-2019 at 02:11 PM.

  28. #2228

    Default The TRUTH. 500,000 views on youtube. Not a word from the CBC

    The CBC will have a scientist on quirks and quarks that questions gravity, but.......

    No, the CBC won't report on anything that questions the climate mantra. Not even a letter from hundreds of scientists.

    Close to 500,000 views in just a few days................

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  29. #2229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post

    Edit: note I didn't actually watch MrCombusts video so I don't know if it's actually a conspiracy theory, but going off his post history I think that's a safe assumption.
    No need to tell us you don't read, or even watch before "refuting" my posts. That's been established a long time now.

    LOL
    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-10-2019 at 02:20 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  30. #2230

    Default

    The CBC doesn't typically trade in illogical conspiracy theories.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/

    REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK

    These comments are the overall assessment of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.
    Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:
    This statement is unscientific. It ignores well-established understanding of climate and of what causes the climate to change. It makes cherry-picked statements, such as noting that some vegetation grows more with increased CO2 while ignoring the risks of serious damage arising from the climate change that is being caused by the same increase in CO2. The authors of the statement appear to be very unfamiliar with climate science: for example, they do not know that the amount of global warming we have observed is very close to the amount predicted by climate models.
    Twila Moon, Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder:
    The letter contains direct lies and cherry picks information about carbon dioxide and climate change impacts that are designed to mislead. I am also concerned that many of those who have signed the letter are well known climate deniers and are not actively involved in direct research on climate change and its impacts.
    Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
    The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed, every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity. Given how old the “arguments” are, the authors are clearly not aiming to convince scientists and thus making science more political, while disingenuously claiming to be against that.
    Amber Kerr, Researcher, Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis:
    Each of the six claims has some element of truth to it (e.g. there is not much evidence that global warming is already making hurricanes more frequent). However, all six claims are presented in a biased and misleading way, giving the incorrect impression that anthropogenic climate change is a benign or beneficial force overall, whereas scientists and economists have repeatedly concluded that climate change is a massive and urgent problem.
    Giorgio Vacchiano, Assistant Professor, Universitŕ di Milano:
    The scientific content is completely inaccurate, undocumented, and fails to bring proof for its claims. The ending of the Little Ice Age in 1850 has no logical link with the fact that the Earth is warming now. Most past climate variations have been slower or less intense as the present one, and if they were as fast or severe they brought about mass extinctions in the biosphere. No explanation or proof is brought on the implausibility or inaccuracy of climate models (whose accuracy or uncertainty is precisely quantified and makes their use better than just random guesses). The last two statements are based on literature and common knowledge, but qualify as cherry-picking because they omit most negative effects of CO2 increase and warming (e.g. other clear trends in extreme events, damage to forests and crops by drought and heat waves).

    While reviewing the claims related to agriculture, I noted that only 26 out of the 506 signatories (5%) were professionals in biology, ecology, or environmental science. I suspect that the vast majority of signatories had little direct knowledge or understanding of this part of the petition that they signed. This made me curious to delve more deeply into the makeup of the signatory list.I usually try to steer clear of any ad hominem tactics, and instead evaluate claims solely on their own merits. However, the fact that this group is vocally promoting themselves as “knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields” made me wonder if that claim is actually supported by the signatories’ credentials. In a word, the answer is no.
    I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one.
    The most prevalent groups of signatories were geologists (19%) and engineers (21%)—many of whom were implicitly or explicitly involved in fossil energy extraction. Most of the rest were physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. A large fraction of the signatories were not scientists, but rather business executives, writers, activists, and lobbyists (totaling 11.3%).
    I also noticed a peculiar omission in the list of signatories: women. Among the 506 names, only 24 were female names (with another 15 that were initials-only or unisex). That means that about 95% of the signers were men. Even for male-heavy fields such as geology and engineering, this is a staggering imbalance. I suspect that the imbalance may have been heightened by the fact that the signers skewed heavily toward the older generation – for example, there were 79 emeritus professors on the list (16% of the total).
    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  31. #2231

    Default The TRUTH. Percentage of scientists who have financially benefited from "climate change" funding

    involved in the "fact check" post below............ 100%

    Let's look at the first guy....... Timothy Osborne.............

    Climategate e-mail sent to Timothy Osborne. Looks like Timothy Osborne was one of the original "hide the decline" guys. Remember the graph Michael Mann wouldn't defend in court and lost to Tim Ball? Timothy Osborne knows all about it.

    LOL

    From: Phil Jones <p.jones…>
    To: ray bradley <rbradley…>,mann… [Michael E. Mann], mhughes… [Malcolm Hughes]
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa… [Keith Briffa],t.osborn… [Timothy J. Osborn]

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil
    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-10-2019 at 02:51 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  32. #2232

    Default

    Research scientists benefiting from research funding? SO CONTROVERSIAL!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  33. #2233

    Default

    Still laughing at the crazy idea of eating babies to fight climate change. Ha ha.

  34. #2234

    Default

    Yeah, Trump supporters sure have some ridiculous ideas.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  35. #2235

    Default

    https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/visio...-and-practices

    We take care to understand properly and reflect the true implications of medical or scientific study results that we obtain, especially those involving statistical data.
    And that explains why the CBC doesn't devote time to science-deniers & conspiracy theorists.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  36. #2236

    Default

    ^ sure...... don't wanna upset anybody and risk losing the $1 Billion subsidy they get.

  37. #2237

    Default

    "It's not journalistic integrity, it's just part of the big climate conspiracy!"
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  38. #2238

    Default

    Yup. There's big money to be made and political power to be gained from spreading environmental alarmism these days.

  39. #2239
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    uh huh. and absolutely no money in oil and gas, or corporations who don't want to pay for the externalities of their pollution.

    Those are nothing compared to BIG CLIMATE

  40. #2240

    Default

    MrCombust and/or MrOilers,

    serious question: Is the earth flat or a globe?
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  41. #2241

    Default The TRUTH. Russians talking about climate change

    Who knew Russians could be so smart?

    "This is some kind of collective insanity"

    They call the abuse of Greta Thunberg "base, and perverse". And everybody using her are criminal, and should be held to account. And they're right. Watching the clip of her speech makes me cringe. Child abuse on the world stage with a standing ovation.

    The Russians seem genuinely confused by the stupidity of it all.

    Meanwhile the Swedes nominate her for a Nobel.

    First Al Gore, then the IPCC, now Greta. Another Nobel Peace Prize for lying.

    If you care about children, parts of this video will make you cry. The Russians in this video see it for what it is.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 05-10-2019 at 11:31 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  42. #2242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    uh huh. and absolutely no money in oil and gas, or corporations who don't want to pay for the externalities of their pollution.

    Those are nothing compared to BIG CLIMATE
    Are you saying that there is no big money in environmental alarmism?

    Because there certainly is.

  43. #2243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    uh huh. and absolutely no money in oil and gas, or corporations who don't want to pay for the externalities of their pollution.

    Those are nothing compared to BIG CLIMATE
    Are you saying that there is no big money in environmental alarmism?

    Because there certainly is.
    Strangely, and ironically, big oil contributes massive funding to climate activism. This is just another pretend talking point by climate activists. That big oil is funding all these "denier" blogs and organisations. These claims can't be backed up. But BIG climate funding from big oil is well documented.

    You'd think people in Alberta would especially know this. Big, international, climate activist funding is why we don't have a pipeline.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 05-10-2019 at 04:47 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  44. #2244

    Default

    Interesting:


    Tropical Forests May Be Absorbing More Carbon Dioxide Than Previously Thought

    “A new NASA-led study shows that tropical forests may be absorbing far more carbon dioxide than many scientists thought, in response to rising atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas. The study estimates that tropical forests absorb 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide out of a total global absorption of 2.5 billion — more than is absorbed by forests in Canada, Siberia and other northern regions, called boreal forests.

    “This is good news, because uptake in boreal forests is already slowing, while tropical forests may continue to take up carbon for many years,” said David Schimel of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. “

    https://scitechdaily.com/tropical-fo...ously-thought/

  45. #2245

    Default The TRUTH. Canada warming twice as fast says environment Canada

    Twice as fast as Norway, Sweden, the Antarctic, the US, and...............

    Seems everywhere in the world it's warming twice as fast

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...g-2xfaster.mp4
    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-10-2019 at 11:07 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  46. #2246

    Default

    nice non-bias site reporting factual information MrCombust....

    /s
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  47. #2247

    Default The TRUTH. Michael Mann, the climate advocate's hero.............

    Who lost his lawsuit against Tim Ball for not defending the famous hockey stick graph.

    Says this about Canadian climate scientist Steve McIntyre.......

    Hey Michael, if you don't like what Steve says about your hockey stick graph, why not sue him?


    Mann lies to Congress science committee........

    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-10-2019 at 03:32 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  48. #2248

    Default

    not sure why you have an obsession with Michael Mann, or why you keep labeling him as a hero, or why you keep attacking his position as if he represents any more than himself, however, his offering of facts in the matter seem troubling to you, when all you offer is insults and unverified claims of fraud, and without any credentials to make those claims.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  49. #2249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    uh huh. and absolutely no money in oil and gas, or corporations who don't want to pay for the externalities of their pollution.

    Those are nothing compared to BIG CLIMATE
    Are you saying that there is no big money in environmental alarmism?

    Because there certainly is.
    Strangely, and ironically, big oil contributes massive funding to climate activism. This is just another pretend talking point by climate activists. That big oil is funding all these "denier" blogs and organisations. These claims can't be backed up. But BIG climate funding from big oil is well documented.

    You'd think people in Alberta would especially know this. Big, international, climate activist funding is why we don't have a pipeline.
    You're correct - organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation get tremendous bang for thier buck, stifling the competition for American oil by donating to Canadian environmental groups to organize protests against the Canadian energy industry.

  50. #2250

    Default

    What a riot. Baby eating prank has gone viral with millions of views.

    Good to see people are beginning to laugh at the climate fools.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  51. #2251

    Default The TRUTH. Climate foolishness has no bounds

    What do you do when all the climate models predict too much warming?

    Upgrade to climate models that predict MORE warming.

    All the CMIP5 climate models predict too much warming as shown by the graph below. The new CMIP6 models predict MORE warming. so they're even further out of range of reality.

    But who cares about reality, they've got frantic, scared, 16 year old girls lecturing the world now.

    Yellow is CMIP5 projections, black line is RSS satellite data.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  52. #2252

    Default The TRUTH. Adele penguins. Another of countless failed predictions........

    "Abstract

    We assess the response of pack ice penguins, Emperor (Aptenodytes forsteri) and Adélie (Pygoscelis adeliae), to habitat variability and, then, by modeling habitat alterations, the qualitative changes to their populations, size and distribution, as Earth's average tropospheric temperature rises........
    "*Colonies north of 70° S are projected to decrease or disappear"

    Notice the word 'modeling' in rhe abstract. That means they used a software simulation. These kook climate scientists tell you what's going to happen in the Antarctic by sitting at a computer. They don't even put a jacket on and go outside, let alone, go to the Antarctic.

    How are the Adele penguins doing? Thier population has doubled.

    "Population trend: Increasing"

    https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22697758/132601165

    Climate science is garbage.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 12-10-2019 at 01:13 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  53. #2253

    Default The TRUTH. Costly climate treaties vs CO2

    Yup, we send billions to the UN and they're bankrupt. Where'd all the money go?

    Didn't all the nations of the world sign the Paris accord?
    Didn't Canada sign the Paris accord?
    Wasn't the Paris agreement going to save the planet?
    They said if we signed the Paris accord the planet would be saved.
    Why are you sending Greta Thunberg to Alberta to berate us?
    Are you lying to us?

    Here's the result of all the climate treaties over the years. Each one executives walk out hand in hand and jump for joy that the planet has been saved.



    Here's a UN executive jumping for joy that the planet was saved.....

    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-10-2019 at 08:42 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  54. #2254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Yup, we send billions to the UN and they're bankrupt. Where'd all the money go?

    Didn't all the nations of the world sign the Paris accord?
    Didn't Canada sign the Paris accord?
    Wasn't the Paris agreement going to save the planet?
    They said if we signed the Paris accord the planet would be saved.
    Why are you sending Greta Thunberg to Alberta to berate us?
    Are you lying to us?

    Here's the result of all the climate treaties over the years. Each one executives walk out hand in hand and jump for joy that the planet has been saved.



    Here's a UN executive jumping for joy that the planet was saved.....

    Seeing as you don't understand that the Montreal Accord had nothing to do with CO2 but instead with ozone, I'm going to say your batting average of being wrong it intact at 100%

  55. #2255
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,934

    Default

    ^ Two different issues but slightly related.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  56. #2256

  57. #2257

    Default The TRUTH. Holland has gone insane

    In order to meet their CO2 reductions the Dutch government has dictated the farmers cull their herds in order to reduce national emissions.

    The farmers aren't happy.


    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  58. #2258
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    Cool. Get back to us when farmers opinions about emissions reductions changes the science behind climate change.

    You can have a million conversations about how/if the government should be assisting them financially/economically, or how they should be addressing climate change, but that's irrelevant to the TRUTH about climate change.

    Or do you always prefer purely making decisions based on emotions?

  59. #2259

    Default The TRUTH. Another fake "debate" on the CBC today

    A host at either end of the pipeline and invitations to "discuss". But the CBC will screen anybody out of the discussion who would dare question climate change. A skeptic of climate change is never allowed on the CBC, so it's always a fake discussion with all pundits accepting the climate emergency as a given. Along with all the usual lies.

    It's like having a discussion on tenant rights and only allowing landlords to weigh in. What a farce the CBC has become.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 20-10-2019 at 02:34 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  60. #2260
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,934

    Default

    For those interested. Fact check about Greta:

    https://principia-scientific.org/the...Uu1S4vgnRn8IZk
    Last edited by envaneo; 20-10-2019 at 02:52 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  61. #2261

    Default

    You should fact check your source envaneo

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/princ...international/

    Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  62. #2262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    For those interested. Fact check about Greta:

    https://principia-scientific.org/the...Uu1S4vgnRn8IZk
    Principia Scientific is a troll farm of epic proportions full of nothing but pseudoscience and conspiracies. Not even big time climate-change deniers such as Anthony Watts subscribe to their wacky beliefs. Here's what he has to say about them:
    Most of what that group does is to spin sciencey sounding theories and pal reviewed papers by a mysterious members-only peer review system, and I have yet to any one of them try to do anything at an experimental/empirical measurement level to back up the sort of claims they make.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...rs-with-watts/

    You know you're in trouble if even Anthony Watts thinks you're crazy.

  63. #2263
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,734

    Default

    So, are you two saying that Greta's parents aren't famous and that the article is not factual?

  64. #2264

    Default

    What does it matter if her parents are famous or rich? Her message is to stop ignoring the scientists...
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  65. #2265

    Default

    ^ it is a form of whataboutism. Use anything to try to assassinate the character of the messenger when the message upsets your lifestyle, personal privilege and vested interests.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #2266
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,934

    Default

    ^ That works both ways
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  67. #2267

    Default The TRUTH. Dutch farmers vs climate insanity

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  68. #2268
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    ^Well I guess I might as well repost this comment from last time you thought this was relevant....

    Cool. Get back to us when farmers opinions about emissions reductions changes the science behind climate change.

    You can have a million conversations about how/if the government should be assisting them financially/economically, or how they should be addressing climate change, but that's irrelevant to the TRUTH about climate change.

    Or do you always prefer purely making decisions based on emotions?

  69. #2269

    Default The TRUTH. Want to learn more truth about climate change?

    Google and youtube are blocking your searches. Not just interfering, but BLOCKING.

    Hundreds of youtube videos by prager U are being blocked by youtube.

    Prager U is suing google and youtube.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  70. #2270

    Default

    Blocking fake news and misinformation is their choice as a private entity.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 131920212223

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
  •