Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Climate Change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    As others have mentioned, the 'Climategate Conspiracy' has been soundly debunked:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...ils-hacked.htm

    Even with the variance one expects in global temperature, 2015 is looking like a solid bet to beat 2014 as the hottest year on record:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ear-on-record/

    After 2014 was declared the warmest year on record, a Climate Central analysis showed that 13 of the 15 warmest years in the books have occurred since 2000 and that the odds of that happening randomly without the boost of global warming was 1 in 27 million.
    This guy should probably stick to physics because he sure looks like a crank here.
    Last edited by SkywalkerAC; Thu Oct 8, 2015, 04:00 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel


      THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's best known climate change sceptic has claimed.

      John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

      Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.

      In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly.

      "The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.

      "Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

      "I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

      Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'

      He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.

      "Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

      "There has been no warming over 18 years."

      The IPCC argue their research shows that man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable.

      US News and World Report noted that many of the world’s largest businesses, including Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Nestle, Mars, Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Microsoft, and IBM, "are now engaged and actively responding to climate science and data."

      Mr Coleman's comments come as President Barack Obama came under fire from climatologists as federal data revealed The United State's energy-related carbon pollution rose 2.5 per cent despite the President's pledges to decrease it.

      President Obama told 120 world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month that America had done more under his watch in cutting greenhouse gases than any other country.

      Despite this, the Energy Information Administration's Monthly Energy Review showed an increase in the use of energy from coal.
      World leaders have pledged to keep the global average temperature from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.

      The US, along with the UK and other developed countries, is expected to pledge further actions on climate change early next year.

      Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman's claims.

      He added: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.

      "The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."

      The 2010 InterAcademy Council review was launched after the IPCC's hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

      http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarif...hannel-founder
      The political agenda has to do with link I provided earlier about the trillions of dollars that are going to be traded on an exchange with some sort of cap and trade and then you have the western world on the hunt for taxes making global warming an excuse to raise them.

      I believe it is Oregon who is already looking at registering odometers and taxing per mile driven - all in the name of climate change/global warming. So you are taxed on the purchase of vehicle, registration, license, fuel.....and now miles driven.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: the above and

        'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel

        ...

        Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'
        Here's a quick survey of what you can find written about the NIPCC:

        The NIPCC report exclusively examines the literature published by climate "skeptics," whereas the IPCC report examines the work of both "skeptics" and mainstream climate scientists.
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/deni...c-science.html

        The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

        ...

        However, the Heartland institute is nowhere close to the IPCC in terms of credibility. A few key points show the NIPCC to be a transparent marketing gimmick rather than a legitimate scientific undertaking:

        - The NIPCC does not follow the same rigorous scientific evaluation process as the IPCC.

        - The Heartland Institute has a long history of opposing settled science in the interests of its free-market funders, and has used decidedly un-scientific tactics to do so.

        ...

        The Heartland Institute has a long history of valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts. It has campaigned against the threats posed by second-hand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered Species Act. With its aggressive campaigning using tools such as billboards comparing climate change “believers” to the Unabomber, Heartland makes no pretense at being a scientific organization.

        Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund.

        Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference.
        http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...dibility-test/

        While IPCC's dozens of authors are unpaid, at least three of the NIPCC's four lead authors are paid by the Heartland Institute. One of the authors, Craig Idso, used to work for the coal company Peabody Energy and wrote a contracted study for the industry group The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. The IPCC reviews the current state of scientific knowledge, while the NIPCC's references in its Summary for Policymakers include publications that date back to 1904 and few references from this century other than non-peer-reviewed reports from itself and its authors. As climate scientist Donald Wuebbles noted at the end of the Fox News report, the NIPCC report is "full of misinformation" and "not peer-reviewed."
        http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04...attempt/198805
        "Stop eating your sushi."
        "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
        "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
        - Jack Armstrong

        Comment


        • #34


          https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has...-recovered.htm
          Last edited by SkywalkerAC; Thu Oct 8, 2015, 07:00 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
            The political agenda has to do with link I provided earlier about the trillions of dollars that are going to be traded on an exchange with some sort of cap and trade and then you have the western world on the hunt for taxes making global warming an excuse to raise them.

            I believe it is Oregon who is already looking at registering odometers and taxing per mile driven - all in the name of climate change/global warming. So you are taxed on the purchase of vehicle, registration, license, fuel.....and now miles driven.
            Just because something has Trillions of dollars tied to it, doesn't mean it can't be legitimate. There would be a lot less money at stake now if Big Oil hadn't put so much money into lobbying for soo long against alternatives that could have, and should have, been in place long ago. But at the end of the day, money talks, and if these companies have to pay to continue acting with complete disregard for the environment, I imagine they will eventually change their tune. And on top of that, for the Carbon Taxes proposed here in Canada, all revenues gained from these taxes would go directly back to the Tax Payers through tax reductions.

            And while I agree that Taxing odometers, and things of the like, is beyond over-reaching, they've been talking about that for years and it hasn't gone anywhere once put to real votes.

            Comment


            • #36
              mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
              The sun operates in cycles. We are heading for a freeze.




              Climate models have been wrong for 18 years in large part due to:




              Some of the irregularities......




              Then there was the time that Al Gore predicted ice would be gone in Arctic by 2013......





              Now who else has to gain, besides Al Gore? How about the Goldman Sachs?






              Man has certainly caused pollution to the earth and that needs to continually be addressed.

              However man has not altered climate.
              Pointing our how clever the people who hold infinite power on this planet are by finding a way to profit from the shit they raised while they profited from Oil doesn't make climate change a non-issue. Not even close, and it certainly doesn't show how the human race hasn't played a pretty major role. Funny though, how easy it is to cloud the issue just enough to make a fucking mess so big that nothing gets done.....

              Comment


              • #37
                Recent explanation why the climate models have been dead wrong:

                As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.

                A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

                The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

                In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary.
                And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

                According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:

                Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.

                Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.

                "We were able for the first time to trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources. So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.

                VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds. It has previously been suggested that production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so powerful that it "limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."

                With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.

                The new research is published here courtesy of the learned journal Environmental Science and Technology, and as the Leibniz Institute notes: "Because of the great importance this paper will be open access". ®

                http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09...climate_talks/

                Comment


                • #38
                  I can't dig it. Sorry.

                  Its too easy for them.

                  And too many real, honest and seriously terrified scientists say otherwise.

                  Anyhow..... were too dirty period.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Button up, not top down

                    The sad truth is that more taxes won't solve anything. You'll just end up in a situation where people have even less and the government wastes even more. The way to lower emissions requires a lifestyle change from the ground up which I eluded to earlier.
                    • People need to walk, use bikes or public transportation more. It might also help the obesity epidemic a little.
                    • People need to use energy more wisely around the house. Maybe people become more active in doing so?
                    • People need to utilize some space in the backyard for a garden. This will lead to everyone being more healthy as what you grow yourself will be healthier than the super market and more tasety. You'll also save money.

                    I can go on and on but this stuff needs to happen via a movement. It needs to be supported in schools. You help the environment by figuring out a healthier way of living from the ground up and supporting change. Taxing people doesn't inspire change, it only inspires more unfair wealth redistribution.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Apollo wrote: View Post
                      The sad truth is that more taxes won't solve anything. You'll just end up in a situation where people have even less and the government wastes even more. The way to lower emissions requires a lifestyle change from the ground up which I eluded to earlier.
                      • People need to walk, use bikes or public transportation more. It might also help the obesity epidemic a little.
                      • People need to use energy more wisely around the house. Maybe people become more active in doing so?
                      • People need to utilize some space in the backyard for a garden. This will lead to everyone being more healthy as what you grow yourself will be healthier than the super market and more tasety. You'll also save money.

                      I can go on and on but this stuff needs to happen via a movement. It needs to be supported in schools. You help the environment by figuring out a healthier way of living from the ground up and supporting change. Taxing people doesn't inspire change, it only inspires more unfair wealth redistribution.
                      While I completely agree with the above, and as having worked on several LEED certified construction projects, I can attest to the difference small changes can make, but the individual consumer is really not the major concern here. A single persons/families carbon footprint is completely negligible to that of the Transportation Industry, Oil Industry, Farming/Food Industry, Coal & Energy Sector etc.
                      I'm all for grassroots changes, and starting small in communities and educating the masses, but the governments should be thinking big picture, and we can't allow the industries above to continue acting with complete disregard for the environment. A lot of them talk a nice game of environmental awareness, so make them put their money where their mouth is. Either clean up, or pay up. I'm ok with this, assuming the revenues are directed back to the tax payers, as many Carbon Tax plans have done.
                      Last edited by Joey; Thu Oct 8, 2015, 08:06 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        It's all for naught unless the main offenders sign on. Ideally you also need to sell the third world on accepting they cannot have what we have. Good luck with that one.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Apollo wrote: View Post
                          It's all for naught unless the main offenders sign on. You also need to sell the third world on accepting they cannot have what we have. Good luck with that one.
                          I disagree on both accounts. I think Canada is the PERFECT candidate to lead by example and show the entire world what can be done by taking a proactive approach, and innovate for the future. The amount of jobs created and commercial investment could be unprecedented, but these corporations will NOT take the first step. Why would they when they have investors to please and a bottom line to maintain. Status quo wins the day for them.

                          As for the 3rd World Countries having to "miss out", I think that is bit misleading, as Solar and Wind Technology will help develop these countries more than any "Coal" plant ever could. A great example of 3rd World Counties actually "getting it" is Nigeria just completely banning plastic bags altogether, which they did last year. We need more 3rd World Countries to realize that a lot of the "luxuries" that Industrialized nations have are completely useless and obtained by unnecessarily harmful methods, all of which could easily be improved, and that they aren't "missing out" on anything really, except skipping all the mistakes we had to make the learn lessons we have.
                          Last edited by Joey; Thu Oct 8, 2015, 08:32 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                            The political agenda has to do with link I provided earlier about the trillions of dollars that are going to be traded on an exchange with some sort of cap and trade and then you have the western world on the hunt for taxes making global warming an excuse to raise them.

                            I believe it is Oregon who is already looking at registering odometers and taxing per mile driven - all in the name of climate change/global warming. So you are taxed on the purchase of vehicle, registration, license, fuel.....and now miles driven.
                            The info below is not a very enthusiastic recommendation of Mr. Coleman's bonafides I am afraid. I'll highlight the more damning assertions. This of course by the same Weather Channel he touts as a claim to be taken seriously and which let him go. As for myself I am not even sure I would otherwise quote The Weather Channel as an expert voice on the subject.



                            The Weather Channel has released an official position statement on global warming, just two days after the channel’s co-founder told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that climate change is based on “bad science” and does not exist
                            .
                            In the statement, The Weather Channel said the planet is “indeed warming,” with temperatures increasing 1 to 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. The statement acknowledged that humans are helping make the planet warmer due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. It says the future effects of climate change will be more negative than positive.

                            “The bottom line is that with the rate of greenhouse gas emissions increasing, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue,” the Weather Channel’s statement reads.

                            Though a spokesperson for the Weather Channel did not return ThinkProgress’ request for comment as to why it decided to release a position statement, it is very possible that it had something to do with John Coleman, a Weather Channel co-founder who was reportedly “forced out” after a year on the job. The former television meteorologist has been making news for his views on climate change, which were broadcast on Fox News on Monday night, and in the U.K.’s Daily Express last week.

                            “I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid,” Coleman said. “There has been no warming for 18 years.”

                            Conservative publications ran with the statements, claiming a “top meteorologist” had debunked the science of global warming. Never mind that Coleman doesn’t even have a degree in meteorology, as he himself has admitted.

                            “Many people don’t accept my position that there is no significant man-made global warming because I am simply a Television Meteorologist without a Ph.D.,” he wrote on his blog is July. “I understand that.” But even if he did have a meteorology degree, it wouldn’t really matter. Meteorologists are not climate scientists.

                            As pointed out by Media Matters, climatologists’ models are different than meterologists’, and they ask different questions. Indeed, a handful of weather forecasters have been known to sometimes skew the issue, which then becomes false evidence for conservatives to back-up their climate denial.

                            Coleman is also associated with one of the least credible organizations out there on climate change. On the website of the Heartland Institute — a group that questions the existence of climate change, considers the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be “a joke,” and has equated people that believe in climate change with the Unabomber — Coleman is listed as an “expert,” one who believes climate science represents a “fraudulent activity based on bad science in a continuing quest for funding.”

                            And Coleman has admitted that his views on climate change are based on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a non-peer reviewed document crafted by scientists who are reportedly each paid $300,000 by Heartland to argue against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report.

                            Contrary to Coleman’s statements and in line with the Weather Channel’s, the scientific evidence that human-caused greenhouse gas emission are the primary drivers of global warming is robust. And the planet is warming — NOAA reports that the last 12 months has been the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880, with 2014 probably on track to becoming the hottest year on record. Meanwhile, our oceans are rapidly heating, acidifying, and impacting the weather, and scientists believe global surface temperatures are set to rise rapidly in the face of those increasingly warm and acidic oceans.

                            Re your closing points on taxation: I haven't looked into the tax recommendations you mentioned but take them to be detail accurate. However one cannot use local bad tax policy enactment as an indictment of the larger issue We have a global warming problem and human factors have much to do with it. To be clear there are corrupting/ible interests on the issue. Lets try and out them.

                            Re Obama's promises of pollution decrease: Best laid plans and motivations yada yada...but seriously, we know that it is Congress which enacts laws in the US. And we know who is running the ship in there politically. Not everything Obama wants does Obama get and quite often nothing at all especially when it comes to curbing the use of fossil fuels.



                            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...limate-change/
                            Last edited by Bendit; Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:16 PM. Reason: Added source for content

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/1...logic-history/

                              quick chart mapping the past 1.5 million years

                              also reiterating that although i don't think we have an effect on the climate change that occurs naturally in nature that using green products/recycling and limiting waste is just the smart way to live.

                              i recycle everything i can, reuse shopping bags etc. i also throw everything that is biodegradable into any bush or shrubs i see. i throw meat bones etc. into spaces i know animals might congregate.
                              Last edited by Miekenstien; Thu Oct 8, 2015, 08:51 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Bendit wrote: View Post
                                The info below is not a very enthusiastic recommendation of Mr. Coleman's bonafides I am afraid. I'll highlight the more damning assertions. This of course by the same Weather Channel he touts as a claim to be taken seriously and which let him go. As for myself I am not even sure I would otherwise quote The Weather Channel as an expert voice on the subject.





                                Re your closing points on taxation: I haven't looked into the tax recommendations you mentioned but take them to be detail accurate. However one cannot use local bad tax policy enactment as an indictment of the larger issue We have a global warming problem and human factors have much to do with it. To be clear there are corrupting/ible interests on the issue. Lets try and out them.

                                Re Obama's promises of pollution decrease: Best laid plans and motivations yada yada...but seriously, we know that it is Congress which enacts laws in the US. And we know who is running the ship in there politically. Not everything Obama wants does Obama get and quite often nothing at all especially when it comes to curbing the use of fossil fuels.



                                http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...limate-change/

                                We have a pollution problem and human factors have everything to do with it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X