Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Good2Golf]

;D

 

[Journeyman]

.... 'eight gigatons ...' Now I'm sitting here wondering what that would look like.

In my younger days, there was a girl at a place called Sassy's.... 

/inappropriate  :bowdown:

 

[GAP]

In my younger days, there was a girl at a place called Sassy's.... 

/inappropriate  :bowdown:

hmmmm.......that's a big memory......



;D

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And to this day he can't believe he let her slip away.......

 

[Journeyman]

How did I know that the 'older guys'.... probably with their own memories of Sassy's.... would likely 'weigh' in.  ;D

 

[GAP]

How did I know that the 'older guys'.... probably with their own memories of Sassy's.... would likely 'weigh' in.  ;D

Contrary to the self image......you are one too.....

 

[Journeyman]

Contrary to the self image......you are one too.....

:tempertantrum:    :tantrum:    anic:

Au contraire; I used emojis in lieu of a rational response.  :nod:

 

[Kirkhill]

Christopher Booker does it again.

In the interests of progress London Smog is back and the gentry's forests are being felled at a rate not seen since before the Bishop of Durham created his coal cartel.  With American forests being thrown in for good measure.....

This collective act of make-believe is devastating our environment and our budgets

Christopher Booker 28 JANUARY 2017 • 3:44PM

The oddest thing about the political crisis gripping Northern Ireland was what triggered it. In 2012, under an EU ruling that burning wood was “carbon neutral”, the Northern Irish government, led by Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness, adopted a “green” scheme introduced by the UK the previous year, the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), offering lavish subsidies to businesses to use wood chips to heat their premises.

RHI was launched in Belfast without any control over how the money was spent. When businesses discovered that they could be paid £160 for every £100 they spent on wood, so many signed up, even using it to heat empty buildings, that, by 2020, it was estimated, the bill to UK taxpayers could have risen to £1 billion.

But this is only one of the countless unforeseen consequences of that obsession which has long held our politicians in its grip: the belief that, to “save the planet”, we must replace the fossil fuels on which our entire way of life rests with new sources of supposedly “carbon-free” renewable energy.

We are committed to spending almost unlimited sums on subsidising ways we can tap into “clean, green” energy. Yet scarcely a week goes by without one of these schemes being revealed to be making a mockery of the purpose for which they were set up.

Each new example is shocking enough. But when we put them all together we see just how far this relentless drive to “decarbonise” is based on a colossal act of collective make-believe. Here are some examples.

1. The “Renewable Heat” Fiasco

Northern Ireland is only the most publicised instance of the absurdities created by the Renewable Heat Incentive. When in 2014 the Government extended this scheme to domestic premises, many owners of large houses across Britain realised that the more they kept their boilers running, even in summer, the more profit from the taxpayer-funded subsidy they could make. Since 2013 our bill for all this has been soaring so fast that, within four years, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it will have totalled nearly £5 billion.

One consequence is that Britain is now burning more wood than at any time since the industrial revolution (hence inter alia last week’s first-ever ”Very High Pollution Alert” in London). Just as disturbing have been revelations of where much of the fuel to feed this subsidy bonanza comes from. Alarming pictures have shown the appalling damage being done to some of our most treasured ancient woodlands, even including a Cheshire estate owned by the National Trust.

2. The “Biomass” Farce

On a much grander scale is the sad story of Drax in Yorkshire: until recently the largest, cleanest and most modern coal-fired power station in Europe, supplying 8 per cent of Britain’s electricity. When in 2010 fossil-fuel power stations began to be squeezed by George Osborne’s “carbon tax”, intended to make them increasingly uneconomical, Drax decided to spend £700 million on converting its giant boilers to “biomass”, burning wood. For the three already converted, instead of being “carbon-taxed”, Drax now receives a whopping subsidy under the “renewable obligation” worth nearly £500 million a year.

But what has made this really shocking is that most of the 7.5 million tons of wood Drax uses each year is being shipped from the south-eastern states of America, where 4,600 square miles of forest are annually being felled, to be turned into wood pellets for burning 4,000 miles away in Yorkshire. Scientific studies have shown not just that much of this is virgin forest, uniquely rich in wildlife, but that, far from saving CO2, the whole process, including production and transporting of the pellets, has been estimated to result in emissions actually much higher than if Drax was still only burning coal.

3. The “waste into gas” threat

More controversy has lately been spiralling around another subsidy bonanza, again under the RHI and costing taxpayers £216 million a year. Developers have rushed to build nearly 100 giant “anaerobic digesters”: massive industrial plants in the countryside, designed to supply methane to the national gas grid made from food waste and crops such as maize, now specially grown on hundreds of thousands of acres formerly producing food to eat.

A particular concern for those living near these unsightly operations is not just their smell and the thousands of vehicle movements needed to bring in their fuel, but the growing list of pollution incidents from leaks of toxic ammonia, killing farm animals and wildlife. Investigations are currently underway into whether a spillage which killed more than 1,000 fish in one of Britain’s best-loved salmon and trout rivers, the Teifi, came from one such site.....

And much more on this link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/28/collective-act-make-believe-devastating-environment-budgets/

The "waste into gas" is a particular obsession of mine.  I have been peripherally involved in a couple of these plants. 

Suffice it to say that, beyond the notion of creating an incentive to create waste to keep the plants operating profitably, something I have experienced in food processing plants where we created "rework" from virgin raw materials because our product formulations required it but our efficiencies had increased to the point we weren't generating enough "scrap" to "rework", beyond that notion, I still find that the most effective method of converting waste into heat is to simply burn it.

The Swedes have been making much out the fact that they are so effective at managing waste with their waste management plants that they are having to bring in waste to keep the plants operational.
This has been lauded by the environmental movement.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/sweden-s-recycling-is-so-revolutionary-the-country-has-run-out-of-rubbish-a7462976.html

But the key to the system is a combination of utilizing all the heat generated by the plants by using it to supply hot water for heating homes, which requires the plant be located in the neighbourhood it serves, and burning the waste.

In short the environmentally friendly Swedish solution is an incinerator in every subdivision.  A very clean incinerator with odour and heavy metals management, but still an incinerator.  And as district heating systems have been around in Sweden since at least the 1930s to my knowledge these incinerators probably started life as coal furnaces that were converted.

Way back in the 1970s (probably 1978) I read a book by a very smart man called Jerry Pournelle, "A Step Farther Out".  In it he examined the economics of generating energy from waste.  He said that there wasn't enough energy there to meet the demands and that what energy there was would be consumed in boiling off the water in the damp waste and sorting out the chunks of metal and scrubbing the exhaust.  In the last 40 years have seen multiple attempts, involving billions, if not trillions of dollars, to prove him wrong.

Sweden's call for more garbage suggests that Jerry is still not wrong.

 

[George Wallace]

Climate Change HOAX exposed by Geologist straight to the UK Govt and the reason Australia did away with their Carbon Tax.

 

[Loachman]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449026/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy?utm_source=jolt

Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret

by Julie Kelly June 28, 2017 4:00 AM

Discarded solar panels are piling up all over the world, and they represent a major threat to the environment.

Clean energy may not be so clean after all. A new study by Environmental Progress (EP) warns that toxic waste from used solar panels now poses a global environmental threat. The Berkeley-based group found that solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear-power plants. Discarded solar panels, which contain dangerous elements such as lead, chromium, and cadmium, are piling up around the world, and there’s been little done to mitigate their potential danger to the environment.

“We talk a lot about the dangers of nuclear waste, but that waste is carefully monitored, regulated, and disposed of,” says Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, a non-profit that advocates for the use of nuclear energy. “But we had no idea there would be so many panels - an enormous amount - that could cause this much ecological damage.”

Solar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste,” and according to EP researchers Jemin Desai and Mark Nelson, scavengers in developing countries like India and China often “burn the e-waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.”

This is one of the dirty little secrets behind the push for renewable energy. While consumers might view solar panels as harmless little windows made from glass and plastic, the reality is that they are intricately constructed from a variety of materials, making it difficult to disassemble and recycle them. Japan is already scrambling for ways to reuse its mounting inventory of solar-panel waste, which is expected to exceed 10,000 tons by 2020 and grow by 700,000 to 800,000 tons per year by 2040. Solutions are hard to find, due both to the labor-intensive process of breaking down the panels and to the low price of scrap. (Dan Whitten, a spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, disputes EP’s study. In an e-mail to me, he claims that solar panels are “mainly made up of easy-to-recyle materials that can be successfully recovered and reused at the end of their useful life.”)

This will also be a problem here in the U.S., which has more than 1.4 million solar-energy installations now in use, including many already near the end of their 25-year lifespan. Federal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea. Meanwhile, at precisely the moment when, because of the rise of smartphones, Americans are generating less waste from consumer electronics, discarded solar panels are stacking up. EP estimates that Americans with solar roofs produce 30 to 60 percent more electronic waste than non-solar households.

Thankfully, renewable-energy sources are at last facing some much-needed scrutiny, even within the ranks of green activists. “At a time when iPhones have reduced our need for digital cameras, alarm clocks, GPS systems, and other electronics, solar panels risk increasing overall e-waste production,” Shellenberger says. “The people who could pay the price for this hazard are some of the poorest people in the world.”

This is not to even mention the environmental damage done by making solar panels in the first place. A 2013 investigation by the Associated Press found that from 2007 to 2011, the manufacture of solar panels in California “produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water. Roughly 97 percent of it was taken to hazardous waste facilities throughout the state, but more than 1.4 million pounds were transported to nine other states.” That’s no way for a state to keep its carbon footprint small; one renewable-energy analyst quoted by the AP estimated it would take “one to three months of generating electricity [from the solar panels] to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state.” Six years later, it’s safe to assume the amount of toxic waste is even higher as solar-panel production continues to ramp up.

Thankfully, renewable-energy sources are at last facing some much-needed scrutiny, even within the ranks of green activists. A group of prominent scientists recently rebuked a study by Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor and leading clean-energy (and anti-nuclear) activist, who had claimed that the U.S. could generate energy exclusively from wind, water, and solar energy by the year 2050. The scientists said Jacobson’s study “used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” The group admonished policymakers to “treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.”

As the Trump administration considers reforming federal energy subsidies, officials should look at how renewable technologies such as solar panels impact the environment once they’ve outlived their usefulness. There is nothing environmentally friendly about creating mountains of hazardous waste in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions

Julie Kelly is writer from Orland Park, Ill.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just like wind towers. Do people not realize the amount of petroleum required to build and install a single unit? Or how much pollution is created when one lights itself on fire? I've been through the manufacturing plants and the electricity used to create the towers alone is humongously outrageous. Never mind the hundreds of people required to manufacture them. Wind power is a catch 22 and when ALL manufacturing and installation costs are rolled in, is a money pit that we can't escape from. As well, there has been no real solution to storing that wind power either.

 

[Loachman]

Yup. And masses of concrete to hold them up.

I also read somewhere, a few years ago (and have not tried to find the/a source) that hybrid cars such as Prius were extremely dirty once the materials in the batteries and pollution from shipping components all over the planet were factored in.

Edited to add:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits.htm

http://www.thetorquereport.com/news/toyotas-prius-is-less-efficient-and-environmentally-friendly-than-a-hummer/

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/ "But if your local grid incorporates a fair amount of renewable solar and wind energy, like California, your electric vehicle is pretty clean." Maybe not so much...

https://axleaddict.com/cars/Prius

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1052110_five-reasons-buying-a-hybrid-prius-wont-save-the-planet

Just a handful of links with no clear result...

 

[Loachman]

Lots of links in the original.

http://canadafreepress.com/print_friendly/energy-secretary-right-on-climate-change

More politicians need Perry's courage

Energy Secretary Right on Climate Change

By Tom Harris June 29, 2017

Energy Secretary Rick Perry did a remarkable thing last week: he expressed skepticism about the causes of climate change in a TV interview and, even after widespread condemnation from environmentalists and the press, he did it again a few days later before a major Senate committee.

After telling a CNBC host on June 19 that he did not believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary “control knob” for climate, Perry said:

“this idea that science [of climate change] is just absolutely settled and if you don’t believe it’s settled then you’re somehow another Neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective. I think if you’re going to be a wise, intellectually-engaged person, being a skeptic about some of these issues is quite alright.”

Climate activists and many media were outraged. The Houston Chronicle reported, “Perry’s comments drew attacks from environmental groups, which called the former Texas governor a ‚Äòclimate denier.’” The Chronicle’s energy correspondent, James Osborne, condemned Perry for questioning “one of the fundamental tenets of climate change.”

“Rick Perry’s outrageous comments are the latest indication that this administration will do everything in its power to put polluter profits ahead of science and public health,” said Sierra Club Climate Policy Director Liz Perera.

Labeling Perry’s comments “anti-science,” Mashable, a prominent on line media company, headlined their coverage, “Rick Perry just said CO2 isn’t the leading driver of climate change, even though it is.”

On and on went the attacks from Associated Press, Salon magazine, Toronto Star, Market Watch, etc. Media outlets that reported uncritically on Perry’s comments were few and far between.

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) even sent an open letter to the Secretary, warning him, “it is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause [of recent global warming]... Skepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.”

Most politicians would have responded to the onslaught by quickly issuing a mea culpa press release, pledging allegiance to political correctness. But not Perry. Only three days later, in response to intense questioning by Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) at the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee hearing about President Trump’s 2018 energy department budget request, Perry asked, “Don’t you think it’s OK to have this conversation about the science of climate change…What’s wrong with being a skeptic about something that we’re talking about that’s going to have a massive impact on the American economy?”

Perry’s points about climate change, in both the TV interview and his Senate testimony, are justified. Being a skeptic about such a complex and uncertain field, especially one with expensive policy ramifications, is indeed “quite alright.” Besides being necessary for science to advance, skepticism is the duty of our elected officials when activists demand the allocation of vast sums of public money to contentious causes.

In fact, dozens of open letters and other public lists show that many experts do not support the hypothesis that we face a man-made climate crisis. The Climate Scientists’ Register assembled by the International Climate Science Coalition is perhaps the simplest document of its kind. In only a few days in 2010, over 100 experts from 22 countries agreed to the following statement:

“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.”

And referring to the hypothesis that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are accelerating global warming as “one of the fundamental tenets of climate change,” makes no sense. The U.N.‘s point of view on climate change is not an irrefutable truth, like the tenets of a religion, or at least it shouldn’t be. Scientific hypotheses, even scientific theories, are merely the educated opinions of experts based on their interpretations of observations and so can be, and often are, wrong. Philosophers since ancient times have understood that observations cannot prove truth. This is especially the case in climate science, a field that University of Western Ontario applied mathematician Dr. Chris Essex calls “one of the most challenging open problems in modern science.”

When it comes to climate change, tolerance of alternative perspectives, a much-vaunted hallmark of liberalism, vanishes. They should welcome, not condemn, questioning the status quo. Effective science and public policy-making needs skeptical enquiry, not mere acquiescence to fashionable thinking. Perry’s approach is a breath of fresh air. Bravo, Mr. Secretary!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The tenet that climate change is a fact, indisputable and inculcate has only gained ground because successive liebral governments have pushed the idea and used Joseph Goebbels' PR tactics. It has always been about money. Anyone in disagreement was ridiculed, fired and embarrassed into silence. Jobs were lost by those that persisted in pushing the truth. Finally, someone is pulling the curtain back and the lefty liars are tying themselves in knots, trying to keep their narrative front and centre. Drill down to the bottom, what has been accomplished by the left? The sale of billions of dollars worth of carbon credits (a non existent commodity) to other countries, with no tracking or oversight. They stifle domestic oil production and use it to prop up their friends in the Middle East. Solar and wind power products are produced by global firms.

If you and I tried it, we'd be indicted for money laundering, because that's all it is, plain and simple. The globalists are moving and stockpiling billions of taxpayer dollars and have to produce absolutely nothing too keep it. The lie that the globalists are in it for the middle class is the biggest affront to honesty out there. Their intent is to destroy the middle class because they are free thinkers, with disposable income and freedom to do as they wish. The push for the 'living wage' for those that do nothing is the harbinger of what the rest of us will be living on. Everyone will be working for global industries and everyone will be paid enough to live on, but not enough to get ahead or own anything.

Don't forget, Al Gore invented the internet and is a world expert(?) on climate change. Even though he doesn't really understand or submit to it, nor has any training in it, or has a scientific background. At least Suzuki has a doctorate. It's for the life and sex cycle of fruit flies, but what the hey, he gets to call himself Dr. and became an instant CBC expert on climate change. You don't need to be a scientist, you just have to be capable of parroting the climate change mantra and be high profile.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

It's really funny reading through this giant loop of people caught in a false consensus effect.

16 of the hottest 17 years on record have occurred since 2001, average ocean temps are rising (0.17C since 1969 on average), arctic ice is declining (and I know people will be quick to cherry pick a recent stat showing an up tick in arctic ice in certain, however the trend analysis needs to be looked at, and it's been an average of 2.5% decline per decade for sea ice area. And news stats show the decline is picking up again, with 287 gigaton loss per year in GL, and a 125 gigaton loss in Antarctica ) and CO2 levels are nearly 40% higher than they were in 1950, and nearly 33% higher than the highest historical prior to the industrial revolution).

But, fine, you guys have created here a self licking ice cream cone where you can all reassure and cross support a opinion you feel more comfortable with and keep searching for cherry picked data points taken out of context to confirm the opinion you've already established.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's really funny reading through this giant loop of people caught in a false consensus effect.

16 of the hottest 17 years on record have occurred since 2001, average ocean temps are rising (0.17C since 1969 on average), arctic ice is declining (and I know people will be quick to cherry pick a recent stat showing an up tick in arctic ice in certain, however the trend analysis needs to be looked at, and it's been an average of 2.5% decline per decade for sea ice area. And news stats show the decline is picking up again, with 287 gigaton loss per year in GL, and a 125 gigaton loss in Antarctica ) and CO2 levels are nearly 40% higher than they were in 1950, and nearly 33% higher than the highest historical prior to the industrial revolution).

But, fine, you guys have created here a self licking ice cream cone where you can all reassure and cross support a opinion you feel more comfortable with and keep searching for cherry picked data points taken out of context to confirm the opinion you've already established.

:rofl: That's priceless!!! Milpoints inbound, but only a few because you forgot the sarcasm smilie. (  :sarcasm: )

 

[Loachman]

It's really funny reading through this giant loop of people caught in a false consensus effect.

Like the warmistas?

16 of the hottest 17 years on record have occurred since 2001

Define "hottest".

One never sees that defined. Wonder why?

A slight increase within the statistical margin of error does not equate to a lot of additional hotness.

There are many ways to measure and analyze temperature changes as well, depending on the desired outcome of the report.

More surface temperature sensors are in urban areas - with large expanses of paved surfaces and industrial activity to skew the numbers - than rural ones.

The facts are that there has been no appreciable warming for almost two decades, andnone of the dire predictions of the warmistas have come to pass, and are not likely to.

Low-lying coastal areas are not under a metre or several of arctic meltwater, and major tropical storms are neither more serious nor more numerous (in fact, they've declined of late).

I know people will be quick to cherry pick

As warmistas are prone to do.

a recent stat showing an up tick in arctic ice in certain, however the trend analysis needs to be looked at, and it's been an average of 2.5% decline per decade for sea ice area. And news stats show the decline is picking up again, with 287 gigaton loss per year in GL, and a 125 gigaton loss in Antarctica )

Danish Meteorological Institute Data Show GREENLAND ICE MASS BALANCE HAS GROWN IMPRESSIVELY Since 2014
http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/31/danish-meteorological-institute-data-show-greenland-ice-mass-balance-has-grown-impressively-since-2014/#sthash.aPKlXY9I.dpbs

And one of the comments:

"JaFree 3. September 2015 at 5:15 PM | Permalink The trends in the artic and antartic are cyclical, and they are approximately 180 degrees out of phase. Scientist have pretty much came to this conclusion, even the Warmists. Currently the Artic is due for a rebound and is showing signs and the anartic is due for a reduction after reaching record extents aand is showing signs. Please spare me the arguements that something strange is happening, most of us will be dead by the time future scientists are laughing at our current Warming Conclusions built on samples less than fly dung in the Pacific ocean relative the larger trends. NOBODY knows which way we are going other than 30 yr oscillations that are occasionally affected by Sun Min/Max and Stochastic events like Volcanos. If you want to find out who wins on this subject, you better find a way to extend your life. One bet I would make, is that our scientist have ZERO clues on this subject."

The climate is a complex thing.

Why the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are Not Collapsing
http://principia-scientific.org/why-the-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-are-not-collapsing/

"The actual break is inevitably a sudden event which can be built into a typical Greenhouse-Horror scenario. Early in 2007, when a piece of the Greenland ice shelf broke away, the scientists interviewed all said they were surprised at how suddenly it happened. How else but suddenly would a piece of ice shelf break off? And this was an area that was ice- free before the Little Ice Age. Arctic explorers used to get their ships a lot closer to northern Greenland than you can now."

And, speaking of the Little Ice Age, the man-made warming theory ignores history. The Norse farmed in Greenland beginning just over a thousand years ago, during the Mediaeval Warm Period, and before the planet cooled again. Who generated all of the carbon dioxide necessary to cause that "abnormal" heating trend, and how many people panicked? Global temperatures have just been returning to normal once more, yet a cooling period is about to start. Carbon dioxide fluctuations (especially, historically, man-made carbon dioxide fluctuations), do not influence temperatures as much as solar activity does - and past solar cycles can be directly correlated with periods of warming and cooling.

Mediaeval Warm Period
http://notrickszone.com/category/medieval-warm-period/#sthash.Djg8ox2w.dpbs

and CO2 levels are nearly 40% higher than they were in 1950, and nearly 33% higher than the highest historical prior to the industrial revolution).

So? Which came first? Increased carbon dioxide, or a pleasant rise in temperature to global norms? "Norm", of course, depends upon the time in which a person lived/lives - those who had to eke out an existence during the middle of a cool period and those who enjoyed the benefits of a much warmer one would have differing points of view regarding "normal" temperatures, but which would have been the happier?

Plants certainly love it.

Does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide cause warming, or does warming cause increased atmospheric carbon dioxide?

There is still argument about the former. As for the latter, take two two-litre bottles of pop. Put one in the fridge for several hours, and leave the other out in the pleasant warmth of a sunny day. Open both. Which gives up its dissolved carbon dioxide more readily?

An ocean nicely warmed during a natural solar warming cycle will, similarly, release more carbon dioxide than a nasty cold one during the trough of a horrible Little Ice Age.

But, fine, you guys have created here a self licking ice cream cone where you can all reassure and cross support a opinion you feel more comfortable with and keep searching for cherry picked data points taken out of context to confirm the opinion you've already established.

Try and tell us that in twenty to thirty years.

In the meantime, I'll ignore the alarmists' self-licking iced cream cones, cross-supported opinions, cherry-picked, made-up, and falsified data, and false claims of consensus and settled science, and hypocrisy (Al Gore, David Suzuki, and Leonardo di Caprio etcetera, who each have the "carbon footprint" of a modest town), and enjoy the benefits of this magnificent Post-Mediaeval Warm Period for as long as I can, thank-you-very-much.

Food supply, heating bills, and a whole bunch of other things will suck a lot when the temperatures start dropping again.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We have palm trees on the southern most beaches of Ontario. I love it. ;D

 

[QV]

There is irrefutable proof of climate change.  But you have to examine the geological history of planet earth to have a better understanding.  Over the course of earth's history there have been many catastrophic events, extinction events, that have altered the climate one way or the other, essentially wiping the slate clean.  Humans have an impact but it is nothing compared to nature's impact.  There is a cycle of catastrophe that has been going on for a millennia.  Whether you drive a Prius or a Raptor, it ain't going to matter.  The catastrophic volcanic eruption (Yellow Stone?) or meteor strike (the Chelyabinsk meteor was only 20m imagine one 500m across) is what we need to worry about and plan for.  No carbon tax on earth is going to help with those.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:goodpost: