Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Earl is trying too hard to avoid the real topic, and change the discussion to his favoured hippy 'paradigm'.
Next up for Earl, the value of CND membership, or the health benefits of eating your own ejaculate?

All the 97% scientific consensus and libtard blowing hot air has done precious little in addressing the ongoing global environmental catastrophy.

The planet is truly in a state of emergency, yet our dear precious corporate owned leaders say nothing about declaring an emergency.

Truly, people are getting more and more sick and tired of the lying sacks of shit who pass for world leaders.

Time to put these two faced cnuts out to pasture.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

So please tell me how observing that the planet is under severe environment duress, is somehow stupid.

That's not stupid, the stupid comes when you invariably then veer off onto your hobby-horse tangents and irrelevancies and wind-up conflating issues.

Please tell me why consuming less will not help in limiting global warming.

Originally Posted by Switch

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Yeah, that makes absolutely no sense. You've just thrown together a bunch of self-contradictory and conflicting comments.

Spoken like a true consumer-bot who takes his marching orders from corporate media.

People like you simply aren't willing or able to address this very serious global emergency without quibbling over minutia and their own myopic self serving semantics.

This is why virtually nothing being done on a larger scale, largely thanks to gulible muppets like you PeeWee...

See. You are, as predicted, light years behind contemporary knowledge, understanding and science.
Adding your own irrelevant thoughts on non connected issues, makes your case as cloudy as infected piss.

In short, you are nowhere near as smart as you seem to think you are. You are an embittered old relic.
Cue another storm of irrelevant 70's hippy hogwash.

Why don't you stop with the insults and share something intelligent on the issue.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Latindancer

he has a lot more wisdom that you and a couple of others give him credit for, Ant.

He does? About what??

All I've ever seen him do is whinge, whine, and bleat on like a navel-gazing pretentious emo teen. Nothing he posts makes any sense.

Not so much different than yourself,throw out insults without offering anything with even a semblance of intelligence.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

So please tell me how observing that the planet is under severe environment duress, is somehow stupid.

That's not stupid, the stupid comes when you invariably then veer off onto your hobby-horse tangents and irrelevancies and wind-up conflating issues.

Please tell me why consuming less will not help in limiting global warming.

He said "that's not stupid".

He's point out that when Earl states the obvious it's usually an attempt to divert the conversation.

Only an idiot would think we aren't over-consuming at an alarming rate, but unfortunately even global bans on things like logging aren't working, because politicians in Asia and South America are more concerned about trousering the proceeds of graft and buying a new Mercedes than they are about the future.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

So please tell me how observing that the planet is under severe environment duress, is somehow stupid.

That's not stupid, the stupid comes when you invariably then veer off onto your hobby-horse tangents and irrelevancies and wind-up conflating issues.

Please tell me why consuming less will not help in limiting global warming.

Please tell me how your question is in any way relevant to the content and context of what you quoted.

I know you're in the habit of just throwing out random non sequiturs but that doesn't obligate me to follow you down your little rabbit holes of irrelevancy.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Please tell me how your question is in any way relevant to the content and context of what you quoted.

Always quibbling over minutia, ignoring the big picture. Truly sad...
The pink bunny award of the day goes to PeeWee

Congratulations,

You own seven vehicles and support a guy who thinks climate change is a hoax by the Chinese.

The only big picture you're seeing is in a coloring-in book.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

politicians in Asia and South America

And every other man down the chain.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

politicians in Asia and South America

And every other man down the chain.

Yes, it's called "leading by example".

Finally, the climate change tide turns for the Republicans.


More GOP lawmakers bucking their party on climate change

LOS ANGELES — While President Donald Trump continues to dismantle Obama-era climate policies, an unlikely surge of Republican lawmakers has begun taking steps to distance themselves from the GOP’s hard line on climate change.

The House Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan backwater when it formed early last year, has more than tripled in size since January, driven in part by Trump’s decision in June to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.

And last month, 46 Republicans joined Democrats to defeat an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill that would have deleted a requirement that the Defense Department prepare for the effects of climate change.

The willingness of some Republicans to buck their party on climate change could help burnish their moderate credentials ahead of the 2018 elections. Of the 26 Republican caucus members, all but five represent districts targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee next year.

more More GOP lawmakers bucking their party on climate change - POLITICO

Looks like the whole global warming/'climate change' malarky was just another example of libtard hysterics and dishonesty, just like everything else they have a fervent belief in; no wonder they hate free speech so much.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08...o-denial-here/

You have to create an account to read.

Don't tell me. the lady who did this research is one of those 'nazis' that have started appearing whenever something a libtard doesn't like is discussed.

So, our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.

Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)

Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?

In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.

In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’.

Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodelling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period.

In our new paper in GeoResJ, we make the assumption that an artificial neural network – remember our big data/machine learning technique – trained on proxy temperatures up until 1830, would be able to forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century.

Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000.

Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused).

What a nazi!

^

and originates from here

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/georesj

So a Trumptard and a climate change/science denialist. Quelle surprise...

The two aren't exactly mutually exclusive I suppose. You need to be able to deny objective facts and reality and have a great capacity for self-delusion in either instance.

What EXXON didn't tell us: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/o...ht-region&_r=0

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Or everyone can read it where you found it…….Breibart - Global Warming Is Almost Entirely Natural, Study Confirms

Originally Posted by longway

^

and originates from here

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/georesj

Yeah but that's not where you 'read' it though is it.

So it originates from a self-publishing, open-source, online journal (that incidentally "will be discontinued from January 2018 and is closed to new submissions") and was 'reported' by Brietbart and then dutifully regurgitated by you, on here.

You really are rather dim.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by longway

^

and originates from here

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/georesj

Yeah but that's not where you 'read' it though is it.

So it originates from a self-publishing, open-source, online journal (that incidentally "will be discontinued from January 2018 and is closed to new submissions") and was 'reported' by Brietbart and then dutifully regurgitated by you, on here.

You really are rather dim.

You fool, you've triggered my understatement detector.

First tanker crosses northern sea route without ice breaker



A commercial LNG tanker has sailed across the colder, northern route from Europe to Asia without the protection of an ice-breaker for the first time.

The specially-built ship completed the crossing in just six-and-a-half days setting a new record, according to tanker's Russian owners.

The 300-metre-long Sovcomflot ship, the Christophe de Margerie, was carrying gas from Norway to South Korea.

Rising Arctic temperatures are boosting commercial shipping across this route.
The Christophe de Margerie is the world's first and, at present, only ice-breaking LNG carrier.

The ship, which features a lightweight steel reinforced hull, is the largest commercial ship to receive Arc7 certification, which means it is capable of travelling through ice up to 2.1m thick.

On this trip it was able to keep up an average speed of 14 knots despite sailing through ice that was over one-metre-thick in places.

On its maiden voyage earlier this year, the Christophe de Margerie docked in the Russian port of Sabetta. Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated the crew and energy company officials gathered on the ship's bridge, saying: "This is a big event in the opening up of the Arctic."

The Russian owners, Sovcomflot, will use this ice-breaking tanker to export gas from the Yamal peninsula to Asian markets later this year.

It will be the first of a planned fleet of 15 that will transport gas from these ice bound fields all year round.

"Previously there was only a window of navigation from our summer to autumn, but this ship will be able to sail westwards from Sabetta which is the Yamal energy port, all year round and eastwards from July to December," said Sovcomflot spokesman Bill Spears.

"Before the northern sea route was only open for four months and you had to have ice-breakers - so it's a significant development."

In 2016, the northern sea route saw 19 full transits from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
High insurance and large fees for Russian ice-breakers are still discouraging some ship owners from the riskier northern route. But the economic benefits are attractive - the Christophe de Margerie took just 19 days for the entire voyage, around 30% faster than going by Suez.

There has been an overall decline in Arctic sea ice over the past 30 years, linked by scientists to rising global temperatures. This year, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), the annual maximum extent of Arctic sea ice hit a record low for the third year in a row.

This diminution of northern ice is something that the Russian ship owners believe will continue well into the future.

"If there was a material change in the ice thickness it would change the period of the year that the ship could move through the Northern Sea Route," said Bill Spears from Sovcomflot.

"There is an assumption that the ice is not going to thicken dramatically for the economic life of these vessels, which could be over 30 years."

Environmental campaigners, though, are worried that increased traffic in this inhospitable region could have potentially significant effects.

"We're concerned that this is a commercial opportunity that has only opened up because of global warming, and we're especially concerned that having taken advantage of the thinning of the ice, shipping operations are now expanding in that part of the world," said John Maggs from Seas at Risk.

"It is not like sailing in open water, even if you have an ice classed ship, the risks are dramatically increased."

As well as the risk of accident or spillage, there are worries that some of the ships that will sail along this route will be powering their engines with heavier, dirtier marine fuels. The black carbon that they produce could be very damaging to snow and ice in the region, increasing the melting.

"The environmental risks are enormous," said John Maggs.

"You are taking industrial-sized installations and moving them through a pristine Arctic environment, so it's going to have an impact - and what are we getting in return, slightly shorter journey times? A 30% gain is not much of gain to me."

First tanker crosses northern sea route without ice breaker - BBC News

Quite a hysterical reaction from the libtards on here. I didn't mention breitbart because, as everyone can see, it creates hysteria among the libtards.

the study is not connected with breitbart in any way, and has been reported by a number of media outlets, it originates in a science journal that has a good reputation, whether or not it is being closed.

As far as the article is concerned i looked into it further here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...ne-unlearning/

and it turns turns out the methodology used by the researchers is poor. as far as i can see for once, as as climate change is concerned, that there might be something beyond the veil of libtard hysterics, other than more hysteria.

Originally Posted by longway

Quite a hysterical reaction from the libtards on here. I didn't mention breitbart because, as everyone can see, it creates hysteria among the libtards.

the study is not connected with breitbart in any way, and has been reported by a number of media outlets, it originates in a science journal that has a good reputation, whether or not it is being closed.

As far as the article is concerned i looked into it further here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...ne-unlearning/

and it turns turns out the methodology used by the researchers is poor. as far as i can see for once, as as climate change is concerned, that there might be something beyond the veil of libtard hysterics, other than more hysteria.

Longway you're too stupid to tell the difference between science and the sort of pseudobabble that climate change deniers come up with to fool imbeciles like you.

A simple search shows that these two loons are funded by a foundation that promotes the sort of bollocks that you keep posting.

You're a fucking moron.

There is no hysteria involved in stating that.

It's based on empirical evidence and peer review.

Originally Posted by longway

As far as the article is concerned i looked into it further here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...ne-unlearning/

and it turns turns out the methodology used by the researchers is poor.

Ya think?

By the way on my bookmark bar There's Physics‏ (I was waiting for someone like you/longway to post the study )

Little more about the authors of the flawed study longway posted,……

Neither author is a climate modeler. Abbot took his PhD " in association with the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada." and has engaged in basic research associated with the refining of crude oil, working at the Caltex oil refinery in Brisbane" while full time publicist and part time water chemist Maharosy has worked at the Institute of Public Affairs since 2003. If you can't quite swallow the IPA's climate science ideas, they offer a second line of informative books on cat palmistry

^ Yeah, their Little Ice Age bottomed out 1650 and coincided with the plaque of 1666.
So cold temperatures and poor crops (they imply) gave rise to a flea and rat epidemic?
.