Climate Change Mega Thread

[JLives]

And you'll ignore everyone else because it's not about the credentials.

Telling us what rustled will do, again? Doesn't seem to me to be on topic!

It's about having a biased opinion supported by someone with a degree.

Projection, perhaps? Those of us who take the findings of an American climatologist who spent a decade as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has been a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, who has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works, over ANYone, including scientists, who claims that science is "consensus-driven", are not relying on anyone's opinion whether that person has a degree or not.

If it wasn't that you would concur with the IPCC and NASA findings.

Making it personal, again.

There is only ONE reason not to and I just outlined it. If there's another I'm unaware of please outline that for me. Do you have an understanding of how the IPCC and NASA operates?

This isn't about your understanding, or mine. It's not about how the IPCC and NASA operates, and who understands how they operate and who doesn't. It's about climate change. Insisting I must talk about what you want to talk about is pointless hubris - I reject your demands as arbitrary and biased.


Climate change alarmism has done more harm than good.

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack. Please explain to me why I'm incorrect.

Do you know what the consensus means? It means when all of the papers regarding climate change were categorized it was found that 99% of them had findings that supported that human activities were influencing climate change. These papers came from thousands of climate scientists all over the world, from the majority of different countries and from public and privately funded backgrounds. Some of them were funded by oil companies who were trying to refute climate change but were unable to when looking at the evidence. I am not the person showing bias on this topic. I listen to the experts, I don't choose experts who agree with me. That's the difference.

[The Green Barbarian]

It means when all of the papers regarding climate change were categorized it was found that 99% of them had findings that supported that human activities were influencing climate change.

This literally never happened. What you are parroting is a lie. You are being played for the fool.

[rustled]

Making it personal, again.

This isn't about your understanding, or mine. It's not about how the IPCC and NASA operates, and who understands how they operate and who doesn't. It's about climate change. Insisting I must talk about what you want to talk about is pointless hubris - I reject your demands as arbitrary and biased.


Climate change alarmism has done more harm than good.

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack. Please explain to me why I'm incorrect.

It's incorrect and inappropriate to assert "you'll ignore everyone else because it's not about the credentials. It's about having a biased opinion supported by someone with a degree. If it wasn't that you would concur with the IPCC and NASA findings."

Do you know what the consensus means?

It's not up to you to suggest I don't know what "the consensus" means.

It means when all of the papers regarding climate change were categorized it was found that 99% of them had findings that supported that human activities were influencing climate change.

And when we look deeper - if we care to - we find this particular "consensus" was presented to promote the "scary scenarios" and "dramatic statements" narrative.

"The consensus" is NOT what scientists have said ABOUT that consensus. And it is NOT what scientists have actually said ABOUT climate change. It's simply current scientific opinion - and we've often benefited when scientists with doubts kept doing their research and didn't just say "well, that's settled".

These papers came from thousands of climate scientists all over the world, from the majority of different countries and from public and privately funded backgrounds. Some of them were funded by oil companies who were trying to refute climate change but were unable to when looking at the evidence. I am not the person showing bias on this topic. I listen to the experts, I don't choose experts who agree with me. That's the difference.

Accusing me of bias is both personal and pointless. While you've taken a settled stance, mine is still wide open. I'm entirely open to the possibility that the models will suddenly stop failing and we will see the alarmist predictions start coming about.

Are you open to the opposite? Are you open to the possibility that sometime in the not-to-distant future, the scientists you trust most will tell also us climate change is only minimally affected by human activity?

History shows it's often the dissenters who make the most important discoveries. Scientific opinion/consensus has been wrong before, and it will be again. To insist otherwise is pointless pretense.

[hozzle]

That's not a very smart idea

Why not?

did you click the link? (its not a trap)

[Jlabute]

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack. Please explain to me why I'm incorrect.

Do you know what the consensus means? It means when all of the papers regarding climate change were categorized it was found that 99% of them had findings that supported that human activities were influencing climate change. These papers came from thousands of climate scientists all over the world, from the majority of different countries and from public and privately funded backgrounds. Some of them were funded by oil companies who were trying to refute climate change but were unable to when looking at the evidence. I am not the person showing bias on this topic. I listen to the experts, I don't choose experts who agree with me. That's the difference.

Science is not about consensus. Having to rely on a consensus is indicative of how feeble an understanding is. Consensus does not give a better understanding of a physical principle. The 97% or 99% consensus "studies", are thoroughly refuted in peer-reviewed journals and have gained notoriety as one of the most dodgy papers. The shoddy computer consensus lie was developed by Cook et al (an individual whose doctorate is in psychology) and latched on to as truth without skepticism or accountability. Cook began with 12000 papers, but rejected 8000 papers which didn't take a position in order to fortify the results he wanted.

Actual surveys have been done which debunk the 97%+ myth.

Cook's 97.2% of papers assumed humans played a role in global warming. That statement was boiled down by media to read 97% of scientists believe we cause climate change. A "role" in global warming could mean 1% for all we know. In reality, Cook et al study means nothing since the data means nothing.

This is similar to how 99% of ALL climate models agree, but, they are all wrong by being too warm, and do not reflect observations. A recent science article I posted proves this.

One should learn to be skeptical when large sums of money and extreme complexities are involved.

[captkirkcanada]

I don't think he's dumb or anything like that and I'm sure he knows his way around charts and graphs. He's also not a climate scientist and is unqualified in making scientific determinations. That's why he doesn't link climate science research papers, he links blogs. Playing an expert on the internet does not make it so.

IMO, one of the most impressive accomplishments of climate change alarmism has been to convince millions of people they shouldn't believe what they can easily see with their own eyes unless they are told by a person with a particular designation what to believe about what they see with their own eyes.

The consequence is millions of people who believe ordinary people are not qualified to understand when profiteers are quite clearly manipulating us - and prefer instead to allow the manipulation to continue regardless of the negative consequences for us and the environment.

Who are these profiteers ? What is one name that is controling this big wealth transfer by tricking me into believing kids and dogs dont really die in hot cars with windows closed because the greenhouse effect doesnt exist . Where is this money going to ? How fid they manage to convince billions to go along with this supposed hoax ? Enquiring minds wanna know

[captkirkcanada]

One the hosts from this old house does a segment called future house which covers exisiting and upcoming tech related to new and remodeled housing .
https://youtu.be/1FD4GSrZPU8

This one is one how solar cells are getting lighter and thinner plus a working window that acts as a solar cell

[Jlabute]

It means when all of the papers regarding climate change were categorized it was found that 99% of them had findings that supported that human activities were influencing climate change.

This literally never happened. What you are parroting is a lie. You are being played for the fool.

Those pushing the "CON-sensus", wittingly or not, are pushing a statistical and methodological lie. Obama popularized this manufactured lie.

The consensus says 97% of scientists "agree", but they agree with the statement that humans might have some contribution (as small as it may be), not that they are THE cause. Even "denier" papers are included in the 97%. Someone like Spencer who believes the majority of climate change is natural and man MIGHT contribute a percent or two. A lot of the papers also critique the IPCC's position on AGW. If one was to look at the papers that claim man is the main cause of climate change, then that'd be around 1% or 2%. Climate science is so extremely complex, expecting unanimous agreement is silly.

Similarly, contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer claimed in Congressional testimony last year that he's included in the 97 percent.

"There's a recent paper by John Cook and co-authors who looked at thousands of research papers which have been published in the scientific literature to see what fraction support the scientific consensus on global warming. Well, it turns out that the 97% consensus that they found, I am indeed part of and Senator Sessions mentioned he would agree with it too. And my associate John Christy, he agrees with it. In fact, all skeptics that I know of that work in that business. All are part of that 97% because that 97% includes those who think humans have some influence on climate. Well, that's a fairly innocuous statement."

Unbelievable facts that enquiring minds are incapable of knowing, is thinking CO2 behaves like a metal car with no convective cooling is a bad analogy, or how people believe there is no money to be made in the manufactured Global Warming lie... as though they never paid a carbon tax, experienced inflation, paid for gas, had their tax money spent on ridiculous social engineering, or had their farm land confiscated, etc.

[captkirkcanada]

We can measure how much ghg is going into our air . This isnt some big mystery . We also know from past instances of ghg increases and what happened . It wasnt the garden of eden . It was a kill off of life .

[The Green Barbarian]

We can measure how much ghg is going into our air . This isnt some big mystery . We also know from past instances of ghg increases and what happened . It wasnt the garden of eden . It was a kill off of life .

What are you talking about?

Also - can someone answer my question about why elitist NGO's want Africans kept permanently in poverty? Why they can't even solve the water issues these countries face every day? And yet they want to block those who do want to bring water wells to their villages - all in the name of the stupid Apocalyptic Fairy Tale. It's ridiculous. So much suffering, all in the name of something that doesn't even exist.

[Jlabute]

We can measure how much ghg is going into our air.

So? Are you making a point?

This isn't some big mystery.

What isn't a mystery? The amount of CO2 in the air?

We also know from past instances of ghg increases and what happened.

What past instance? What happened! You're scaring me!

It wasnt the garden of eden.

It wasn't a massage parlour?

It was a kill off of life.

You're just making up junk science now.

Thankfully we have lots of CO2. The building block of all life!

Praise be to CO2. Hopefully we never run out of ways to make CO2 as the amount has been decreasing for billions of years. If it goes too low, we all die.

[The Green Barbarian]

Matthew Lau: Accountants, cool your climate ardour!

The climate change activism that is today extraordinarily fashionable in the business community will soon be compulsory. In the United States, the Biden administration’s campaign to push businesses in this direction is being led by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which in March proposed 506 pages of rules that would require public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions — including in some cases those of their suppliers and customers — and make disclosures about climate-change risks. But the SEC already mandates disclosures of financially material information, so the requirement for additional climate disclosures is clearly climate activism and not real financial regulation.

In Canada, too, with a meddlesome Liberal government committed to enforcing fashionable progressive views and impervious to economic reality, the climate reporting diktats are on their way. “Regulation is definitely coming. What’s now voluntary will become mandatory,” comments a vice-president with the Chartered Professional Accounts (CPA) of Canada in a recent article on the organization’s website. The economic harm of such regulation will likely be severe. There will be significant compliance costs for companies targeted by the regulations, while the mandatory disclosures and reporting will beget yet more regulation as governments attempt to use this information to reallocate capital and reorganize economies towards net-zero emissions targets.

On compliance costs, nobody can look to the goings-on in the United States with equanimity. The SEC’s proposal, Hoover Institution scholar Richard Epstein writes , “will expose every major corporation in the United States to unending administrative meddling,” and the mandatory disclosures, rather than helping investors, simply “invites senseless duplication of worthless information.” To the credit of American businesses, there has been widespread pushback to the SEC’s regulatory overkill, including from Nasdaq, and even from the asset management firm BlackRock, a company generally supportive of climate disclosures whose CEO, Larry Fink, is a poster child for stakeholder capitalism and ESG.

In Canada, unfortunately, there is no such pushback against the political enthusiasm for climate reporting and disclosure. In some quarters, there is outright cheerleading for it, as in CPA Canada. To take a cynical view, regulatory reporting and compliance costs represent revenue for accountants and auditors; more charitably, they may really believe climate reporting rules are required to save the world from global warming. The cover of last year’s final issue of CPA Canada’s Pivot Magazine featured Mark Carney and his call to “move fast to save the planet.” How fast? “We will exhaust our carbon budget within a decade,” said Carney. “CPAs know how to calculate budgets; you can do these numbers. So, we need to bend the curves quite substantially.”

Writing in the same issue of Pivot, CPA Canada’s then-president and CEO agreed that accountants have an essential role in global salvation by subjecting businesses to reporting requirements and moral exhortations. “In our advisory role,” he wrote, “we have the power and responsibility to guide businesses to go beyond the bottom line and to create social benefit and sustainable growth. We can have the most distinguished designation in the world but it won’t matter if the powers we serve or lead — world governments, good business, economic engines and society itself — collapse.” Meanwhile in the latest issue of Pivot, the organization’s new president and CEO writes enthusiastically about the development of international environmental and climate disclosure standards.

But while Carney insists that “we cannot get to net-zero without proper climate reporting,” financial analyses do not show that either getting to net-zero emissions or all this climate reporting is beneficial on net. CPA Canada cites estimates that the global cost of transitioning to net-zero will range from just under US$2 trillion to over US$9 trillion annually over the next decade. The US$9-trillion figure is consistent with a McKinsey estimate of US$275 trillion in capital spending from 2021 to 2050, or about US$9.2 trillion annually. Much of this cost likely will result from the central planning that mandatory climate reporting would spawn as governments attempt to re-allocate capital into low-carbon industries and companies.

The problem is that for the many trillions of dollars spent on the net-zero emissions goal, which is based on a target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, even an optimistic estimate is that the environmental benefits would amount at best to only about half the costs incurred, and probably far less. Just as accountants must balance debits and credits, the job of the economist is to balance marginal costs with marginal benefits. Already the climate project has expanded far beyond this point of balance, and so should be everywhere scaled back, including in government spending, reporting requirements, other regulations and business enthusiasm.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... 4d936b0050

[Jlabute]

A good heads up. Progressives are leading our countries towards destruction. After all is said and done, we still won't know if we have affected the climate at all or by how much (1%??). This is all on the believe CO2 is the most important control knob which is a lie. The west is trying to dominate the world economic order and will fail under onerous control.

Is a warmer climate better? No one asks about the benefits of warmer because this is all driven by a fake progressive emergency. The world has always thrived in warmer conditions.

China, India, and soon Africa, will be the big polluters while Canada and the USA commit suicide by stupidity. After all is said and done, CO2 won't be any lower.

[The Green Barbarian]

Oh what a heavy price mankind has paid fighting the Apocalyptic Fairy Tale. Just so disgusting.

Gwyn Morgan: The disastrous consequences of the green movement

People are beginning to catch on that “the road to hell is paved with green intentions.” The green movement’s crusade to replace the 84 per cent of energy currently supplied by fossil fuels with windmills, solar panels and biofuels has led to much talk about energy supply and prices. But there’s also a profound human impact. Here is my actions and consequences list.

Action: Germany decides to replace nuclear power plants with wind and solar, which prove to be both unaffordable and unreliable, leaving no choice but to import Russian natural gas. Russia invades Ukraine. Germany tries to replace Russian gas with other sources.

Consequences: Gas prices increase by 700 per cent, forcing several European countries to restart shuttered coal plants. EU economies go into freefall while emissions rise faster than ever.

Action: Seventeen Canadian Liquified Natural Gas projects that would have eliminated the need for Germany to import Russian gas were stymied by impossible-to-meet government rules that required emissions resulting from their construction and operation be “net zero.” The Canadian government’s delusionary “net zero” target also drives policies that stymie exports from this country’s oil reserves, the third largest in the world.

Consequences: Germany faces the Hobson’s choice of continuing to fund Russia’s brutal invasion or face disastrous natural gas shortages. Russia becomes the world oil market’s “swing producer.” Oil prices skyrocket, raising the cost of transportation for both industry and individuals. Inflation wreaks havoc across the globe.

Action: China pretends to reduce emissions while increasing cheap coal-fired power generation. Meanwhile, greens within government implement policies mandating costly and unreliable wind and solar power generation, combined with continually rising carbon taxes.

Consequences: Western manufacturers cannot compete, leaving no choice but to import Chinese goods. China uses the West’s money to produce the weapons needed for global military dominance.

And on global grain supplies:

Action: Policies are implemented mandating the blending of corn ethanol into gasoline.

Consequences: A huge reduction in global grain supply.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... 665fd095a3

[captkirkcanada]

Oh what a heavy price mankind has paid fighting the Apocalyptic Fairy Tale. Just so disgusting.

Gwyn Morgan: The disastrous consequences of the green movement

People are beginning to catch on that “the road to hell is paved with green intentions.” The green movement’s crusade to replace the 84 per cent of energy currently supplied by fossil fuels with windmills, solar panels and biofuels has led to much talk about energy supply and prices. But there’s also a profound human impact. Here is my actions and consequences list.

Action: Germany decides to replace nuclear power plants with wind and solar, which prove to be both unaffordable and unreliable, leaving no choice but to import Russian natural gas. Russia invades Ukraine. Germany tries to replace Russian gas with other sources.

Consequences: Gas prices increase by 700 per cent, forcing several European countries to restart shuttered coal plants. EU economies go into freefall while emissions rise faster than ever.

Action: Seventeen Canadian Liquified Natural Gas projects that would have eliminated the need for Germany to import Russian gas were stymied by impossible-to-meet government rules that required emissions resulting from their construction and operation be “net zero.” The Canadian government’s delusionary “net zero” target also drives policies that stymie exports from this country’s oil reserves, the third largest in the world.

Consequences: Germany faces the Hobson’s choice of continuing to fund Russia’s brutal invasion or face disastrous natural gas shortages. Russia becomes the world oil market’s “swing producer.” Oil prices skyrocket, raising the cost of transportation for both industry and individuals. Inflation wreaks havoc across the globe.

Action: China pretends to reduce emissions while increasing cheap coal-fired power generation. Meanwhile, greens within government implement policies mandating costly and unreliable wind and solar power generation, combined with continually rising carbon taxes.

Consequences: Western manufacturers cannot compete, leaving no choice but to import Chinese goods. China uses the West’s money to produce the weapons needed for global military dominance.

And on global grain supplies:

Action: Policies are implemented mandating the blending of corn ethanol into gasoline.

Consequences: A huge reduction in global grain supply.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... 665fd095a3

what that lil story leaves out is gas is worse than coal when it comes to ghg . not to mention the answer to climate change isnt to accelerate it . . russia alone is to blame with what happens to global prices as russia had a choice not to commit war crimes in ukraine.