Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[GAP]

Boy....you 've really bought into the all is green and democrat stuff, eh....wow

 

[Haletown]

Leave it to you to completely, utterly fail to debunk it. Thanks for playing.

What colour is the sky in the world you live in? You realize that none of that is actually true, right?

LOL Do you actually believe that?! Man, I want whatever it is you're on. It sounds fantastic.

You are so welcome.  Just trying to help with your recovery.

 

[a_majoor]

It was -13 as we deployed to the field this morning. This was one day I would actually want Redeye to be right. 

Sadly, Haletown called it again  :rage:

 

[Jungle]

It was -13 as we deployed to the field this morning. This was one day I would actually want Redeye to be right. 

Tell me about it... it was -25 here this morning. I can't wait for this global warming thing to kick in !!!

 

[Furniture]

I love the infographic here. The fact that people still spout the drivel that is 90% of this thread is pretty simply taken down by good old fashioned common sense here:

http://grist.org/list/infographic-the-idea-of-a-climate-change-hoax-makes-no-sense/

I have a few questions about the infographic....

In what way does Greenpeace qualify as a small regional organization or community activist? In what particular way is their budget small? Is it being compared to the budgets or G8 nations, or to actual small community activist groups like Siloam Mission in Winnipeg?

What study is used to support the claim of 90% of the worlds scientists support "Climate Change"?  What objective measure is being used to ensure that the opinion of a vocal minority of scientists that enjoy hearing their voice on TV isn't being used to misrepresent the views of the majority of scientists? 

What real evidence is there of a massive conspiracy to bribe scientists to make false statements about "Climate Change"?

What qualifies as an obscene profit? Is it any amount of money more than the average believer makes?

Posting a link to a simple minded propaganda page does nothing to prove anything about "Climate Change" other than that it has moved away from the realm of science and into the realm of religion. Anytime people who disagree are labled as heretics or deniers it indicates that the discussion is not about science but about belief, or emotion.

Come back with some solid climate records from WMO approved sites that show a distinct increase in temperature or solid evidence of another variety, otherwise this is no more about truth and science than a Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew debating which version of God is more valid.

Before people get all crazy about the latest theory of "Climate Change" just remember that as of WW2 we didn't even know about jet streams, and the concepts of warm and cold fronts were new things.

Edited for spelling

 

[vonGarvin]

Come back with some solid climate records from WMO approved sites that show a distinct increase in temperature or solid evidence of another variety, otherwise this is no more about truth and science than a Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew debating which version of God is more valid.

Tangent, but perhaps applicable, because Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same deity: the God of Abraham.  So, where some will point to this or some will point to that specific difference about each method of worship, the fact remains that they all believe in the same thing.  So, with weather, some may point to hockeystick graphs, others will spout propaganda, but the fact remains that the experts can only guess what is happening tomorrow in terms of the weather.  So, that being said, how can we know for certain of anything?  As a kid, it was an impending ice age.  10 years from now: who knows?

 

[GAP]

I see they are edging back to the ice age scenario again......

 

[Edward Campbell]

I see they are edging back to the ice age scenario again......

Yes, and it can only be prevented by closing the Alberta oil patch, preventing China and India from enjoying lifestyles we take for granted and, generally, beating up on private property ...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I watched a horticulture program the other day that showed a banana tree that can sustain temps like I get here.

I'm buying one for my backyard  ;D

When I can grow the less hardy varieties though, I'll be truly happy.

Leave it to you to completely, utterly fail to debunk it. Thanks for playing.

What colour is the sky in the world you live in? You realize that none of that is actually true, right?

LOL Do you actually believe that?! Man, I want whatever it is you're on. It sounds fantastic.

How's that mirror you're looking at?

 

[GAP]

Yes, and it can only be prevented by closing the Alberta oil patch, preventing China and India from enjoying lifestyles we take for granted and, generally, beating up on private property ...

But on the bright side, an ice age will stop the pine beetle infestation.....who knew!!

 

[Haletown]

Real environmentalists start to wake up to the catastrophe of the global warming hysteria campaign  . . .  this is coming from a grass roots enviro bunch.

Environmental funders spent a whopping $10 billion between 2000 and 2009 but achieved relatively little

"A searing new report says the environmental movement is not winning and lays the blame squarely on the failed policies of environmental funders. The movement hasn't won any "significant policy changes at the federal level in the United States since the 1980s" because funders have favored top-down elite strategies and have neglected to support a robust grassroots infrastructure. Environmental funders spent a whopping $10 billion between 2000 and 2009 but achieved relatively little because they failed to underwrite grassroots groups that are essential for any large-scale change, the report says. Released in late February by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Cultivating the Grassroots was written by Sarah Hansen, who served as executive director of the Environmental Grantmakers Association from 1998 to 2005.

Environmental funders mainly support large, professionalized environmental organizations"

A $Billion + a year and all they get is more photoshopped polar bear pictures that are great for fund raising but not for being truthful or supporting organizational integrity.

The real environmental movement has been punted in favor of the Global Big Enviro Industry.

Sad really, but once they committed themselves to global warming, once they assumed they had the "killer app", that their theory couldn't be wrong, that they were really saving the world, they couldn't turn back.  The media jumped on board - they love a "sky is falling" story and Al Gore's mockumentary struck the perfect chord by sensationalizing the Hockey Stick.  The scientists became famous, got tons of sympathetic media coverage and $Big $Bucks of research funding fell on their heads.  The Fame & Gravy Train was such a temptation for professors from ignored Departments in unheralded universities, too much temptation it seems. 

When Mother Nature refused to make the global atmosphere respond the way the AGW computer models predicted, it just meant the data needed  "adjusting" - but do not ask how the adjustments were made because  we are scientists and you can trust us.  When global warming didn't happen the meme was morphed to climate change and now it is climate catastrophes - just yesterday it was seriously reported the climate change will trigger earthquakes, volcanic activity and tsunamis.

Really, seriously reported in the MSM and some people took it on faith it was true.

That's why it is over.

The computer models say it is getting warmer.
The data says it is not.
Gradually,  models yield to the dictates of data.

Reality sucks for the warmistas and their credibility is rather low. Seriously low.



http://www.alternet.org/environment/154290/why_the_environmental_movement_is_not_winning

 

[RangerRay]

Sounds about right.

While all the attention and money flows to the "global warming problem", other real environmental issues get swept under the carpet.  No one cares anymore about the destruction of wildlife habitat, ecological integrity, or the damage to fisheries caused by some resource extraction activities.  But tell people that if we do not reduce our 2% of carbon emissions or we will experience hell on earth, watch the TV cameras come running and the emptying of wallets.

The only place where these two are meshing is the Northern Gateway Pipeline, for different reasons.  Otherwise, Big Environment does not care about local conservation issues.

 

[Haletown]

The only place where these two are meshing is the Northern Gateway Pipeline, for different reasons.  Otherwise, Big Environment does not care about local conservation issues.

The XL & Keystone pipeline opposition is part of a well designed and concerted "ring" strategy that Big Green has put in place to stop the Oil Sands being developed.  They have determined the best way to kill off Oil Sands development is to stop the movement of product to market.  Because the Oil Sands are truly, 100% evil to the eco's.

Good strategy actually.  Doomed to failure but it will slow down the eventual export to market of oil sands products.  Lots of sturm & drang coming . . .  don't forget to make a donation to save the planet

Ironically the greatest threat to Oil Sands development is the massive tight oil deposits in the lower 48 states . . .  as soon as the Americans wake up and develop their own stuff they won't need much from us.

Big Green will fight on. 

They started with Silent Spring . . .  the DDT ban resulted in millions dead
They went to The Population Bomb . . .  that worked for a bit but flubbed out
They went to the Club of Rome . . . fizzled badly
The had Global Cooling for awhile
They went all in for Global Warming, until nature refused to cooperate
So they morphed to Climate Change, but that is waning rapidly

I think they will use fresh water issues as their next "we are all gonna die or else, so please donate" meme.

When they change from Climate Change to Water Wet being the issue you'll know they have moved on to ever greater fear mongering in pursuit of the eco religous beliefs and fund raising schemes.

 

[Redeye]

Sounds about right.

While all the attention and money flows to the "global warming problem", other real environmental issues get swept under the carpet.  No one cares anymore about the destruction of wildlife habitat, ecological integrity, or the damage to fisheries caused by some resource extraction activities.  But tell people that if we do not reduce our 2% of carbon emissions or we will experience hell on earth, watch the TV cameras come running and the emptying of wallets.

Actually, that sounds pretty ridiculous to me. I don't know what organizations you're looking at or which people you're talking to, but most "Greenies" care about all of those things. The same folks worried about carbon emissions are generally the ones who'd like to see mining operations face better regulation, better enforcement of the various acts, etc. Part of the reason they'd like to see alternative energy sources developed is to deal with those problems you've discussed. If we need less oil and gas, we don't have to destroy habitats to get more. We don't have to drill deeper offshore with disastrous potential consequences if we don't need the oil. Of course, it's not that simple, we'll always need fuel but curbing demand deals with that. All those other issues get attention whenever you draw people into any sort of environmental issue since they're all related.

The only place where these two are meshing is the Northern Gateway Pipeline, for different reasons.  Otherwise, Big Environment does not care about local conservation issues.

"Big Environment"? What "Big Environment"? That sounds as mythical as the "liberal media".

 

[vonGarvin]

"Big Environment"? What "Big Environment"? That sounds as mythical as the "liberal media".

:goodpost:


Oh....wait a minute....you were serious.  (I thought you were being sarcastic...)


But truth be told, unless "it" (no matter what "it" is) somehow adversely spews the Evil Carbon into our poor atmosphere, "they" (the public at large) morph into a batch of honey badgers.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The same "Big Enviroment" that had the cash to challenge a billion dollar professional wrestling company and pretty much outspend them to get them to change thier name.......[sorry, not even that, it was just to change thier initials,..yea that "big enviroment"]

 

[Redeye]

The same "Big Enviroment" that had the cash to challenge a billion dollar professional wrestling company and pretty much outspend them to get them to change thier name.......[sorry, not even that, it was just to change thier initials,..yea that "big enviroment"]

You mean the World Wildlife Foundation, which asserted their intellectual property rights?

Since climate underpins everything on Earth, yes, all organizations have some interest in it, but it's a pretty small mention on WWF's website and materials, because their conservation efforts are much broader than that.

Again, the kind of resources they have to work with pale in comparison to the industries funding the fringe nonsense some people seem to be desperate to believe for reasons I simply can't comprehend.

 

[muskrat89]

desperate to believe for reasons I simply can't comprehend

I think your frustration levels will go down significantly once you get that the vast majority of the population simply isn't as enlightened and/or intelligent as you are.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think your frustration levels will go down significantly once you get that the vast majority of the population simply isn't as enlightened and/or intelligent as you are.

Muskrat,

Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?

 

[Redeye]

I think your frustration levels will go down significantly once you get that the vast majority of the population simply isn't as enlightened and/or intelligent as you are.

For the most part, yes.

No, that's not sarcastic.