Climate Fraud - Again

[ChickakooKookoo]

I'm out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[airbornedeerhunter]

Climate change is the greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind in our lifetime, there is no such thing. 40 years ago, large groups of scientists and political liberal elites declared the earth was actually cooling and we were potentially headed for a new ice age within a century, their solution was increased government control of the economy, industry and energy sectors. Unfortunately for them, the data disproved it, they had to re-cock. Their new theory was global warming and funny enough their solution was the same as their solution for their now de-bunked theory of global cooling. Again, unfortunately for them the actual scientific data did not support their theory so they again re-cocked. The new term is climate change- perfect, a term that it is impossible to disprove. A colder than average winter-climate change, a milder winter-climate change. Dryer or wetter than average-climate change. It can't be refuted and that finally suits their agenda and their solution is the same massive government control of the energy sector, increased taxes etc as it was for their de-bunked theories of global cooling and global warming. How many times have you heard some idiot on the news talking about the fact that it's 10 deg C in Feb on any given day so that must be global warming, never mind the fact that the record high for that particular day was 17 deg C a century ago. Take today for example, -19 here in Morinville, the record high was +13 deg C in 1913. Now if today had been +10, these same dolts would be screaming about global warming not knowing that 105 years ago it was +13- was it global warming then? This is a scam and the masses have fell for it and we're all going to pay through the nose for a lie.

[Sundancefisher]

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-st...t-global-ocean

“Our precision is about 0.2 ºC (0.4 ºF) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,” he said, adding that advanced equipment can provide more precise measurements, allowing scientists to use this technique to track the current warming trend in the world’s oceans.

With this study, Severinghaus and colleagues have shown that measurements of noble gases in the atmosphere provide the historical record long sought by the scientific community, and can be further optimized to gain insights into modern ocean temperature changes as well.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Well, actually, there are 'actual' scientists who would be happy to dispute the so called science behind the climate change hoax. I suppose you would call them 'deniers' too, because if you can paste a negative label on them (as you did to me, by sarcastically labeling me as the foremost expert), you can then discount anything they may have to say on the matter. Don't bother to do the research on it, it's probably just me making stuff up, because all 'real' scientists support your viewpoint on the matter. Probably. Or maybe not. There is really no way to know, unless you actually wanted to do some unbiased investigation into the matter. And that just wouldn't do.

But you go on disparaging anyone who disagrees with your ideological belief system. I get it. Religion is a hard thing to let go of. As a good friend of mine used to say, 'Martin, Martin, why must you go on so? Leave the Pope alone....'

Aligning one's beliefs with the findings of an overwhelming number of research papers is religion now?

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sinking-pac...rowing-1660174

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration. Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics.

Tuvalu demands money.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-0...-claim/7004090

And for fun...check out the sea level trend since 1806 on the rocky shore of France...

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...?stnid=190-091

Does it look like mankind is making sea levels rise? Or are people just building in the wrong places on naturally eroding islands or land made up of limestone like Florida that has had their aquifers depleted and land to subside?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Aligning one's beliefs with the findings of an overwhelming number of research papers is religion now?

Actual paper proving a theory that is testable and falsifiable are few to none.

Most papers you talk about are defined as "what if studies".

What if...

Temperatures rise and termites spread north.

Temperatures rise and malaria spread north.

Temperature rise and sea levels rise 5 meters.

and so on.

Then there are the computer models.

My computer model ran 1 million times. On the millionth time the plot looks like my assumptions and therefore we die.

1 year later that study is proved false...however the author reruns the models 1 million times with new "data". On the millionth time the plot looks like my assumption and therefore we die.

1 year late that study is proved false...however...and so on.

Those are not studies either.

I posted a plot of sea level rise since 1806. Show me where man increased sea level rise over natural processes started 13000 years ago at the last ice age.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Aligning one's beliefs with the findings of an overwhelming number of research papers is religion now?

You might be overwhelmed by them, but I am underwhelmed. You disparage me after I publicly and accurately say that the earth's climate has been constantly changing for hundred of millions of year's. Did I deny something that hurts your feelings?

[ReconWilly]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Well, actually, there are 'actual' scientists who would be happy to dispute the so called science behind the climate change hoax. I suppose you would call them 'deniers' too, because if you can paste a negative label on them (as you did to me, by sarcastically labeling me as the foremost expert), you can then discount anything they may have to say on the matter. Don't bother to do the research on it, it's probably just me making stuff up, because all 'real' scientists support your viewpoint on the matter. Probably. Or maybe not. There is really no way to know, unless you actually wanted to do some unbiased investigation into the matter. And that just wouldn't do.

But you go on disparaging anyone who disagrees with your ideological belief system. I get it. Religion is a hard thing to let go of. As a good friend of mine used to say, 'Martin, Martin, why must you go on so? Leave the Pope alone....'

Nicely done TC!, ONE UP, ONE DOWN!

BATTER UP!

Who's on deck?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Actual climate scientists have been coming on back with science for decades but somehow, you've leaped ahead of the lot of them as the foremost expert on the earth's climate.

What constantly amuses ME is that people with no background in climate science parade around as if they know better than people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying it.

Imagine if I walked into your workplace and started loudly declaring that you, all your co-workers and everybody in your industry are idiots for overlooking points you'd already dealt with years ago.

---

Deniers would do much better to stop fighting scientists and start actually attacking the crappy ideas and systems that public figures and politicians are trying to use to deal with it.

Do you believe the Earth has been warming since the last ice age? Do you believe there is warming today and if so what percentage is natural and what is man made? Do you believe Canada contributes less than 2% of green house gas in the world? Do you believe in Canada spending billions of dollars in our 2% when the rest of the world is spending nothing on the 98%? Do you believe in paying more for Alberta power by decommissioning our 3 coal plants? Do you know China is building over 1000 new ones?

[drhu22]

http://www.ucalgary.ca/envirophys/gwposter

Argue with her...
alnorman@ucalgary.ca

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

Im really curious about something here and I'd like to hear from both sides of this argument.

First some background...

Confirmation bias is relatively new to the world of psychology and it's not well understood yet. The simple version is that we, humans, have something inside of us that allows us to believe something that just simply isn't true. We're the only mammals on the planet this behavior has been observed in. It's a behavior left over from our hunter/gathered days. This behavior is akin to a mouse not believing in a cat is the aspect that it's very dangerous.

Climate change seems to be one of those topics that it really doesn't matter what the "science" is as both sides have science backing up their beliefs.

So here's my question - irrelevant or what you currently believe, what would you actually need to see/hear/feel for you to believe the other sides position?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I’m really not sure what your mouse and cat analogy, or hunter gatherers has to do with confirmation bias. My understanding of it is that you only agree or seek info that supports your bias. As opposed to weighing all possible avenues of thought or conclusions.

I think that is where the entire problem comes from. As a “denier” I’m asked to prove that climate isn’t changing. Well I believe it is changing, so how do I prove it’s not changing? I have an open mind but nobody cares about my thoughts because I’m a “denier”. Any kind of conversation that a fellow like me puts forward is met with as you say the same old, “it ain’t true” standard response.

For me, it’s nothing to do with belief, it’s about simple common sense. Why when we have some of the cleanest coal plants in the world are we shutting them down instead of continuing the research of cleaning it more and sharing those advancements with the world? The 1000+ coal plants being built in China right now that will operate for 30+ years are going to be of far inferior emissions standards than ours. So instead of shutting down 30 (just a random but probably fairly close guess) plants in Canada at an extreme cost; why not spend that money to improve the Chinese emissions. Really!!! We could do 100 times more good by making the worst performers better, than trying to squeeze a half a percent more efficiency out of the best performers. Once we have the rest of the globe performing at our levels, then proceed with improving our own standards. When people start to point at the real problems in the world I will start to acknowledge them more. This is akin to a boat with two holes in the hull. One the size of your head, and one the size of your finger and blaming the boat for sinking on the finger sized hole.

When the proponents of climate change begin to address the true cause of carbon, which is population I will give them more credence. If we cut the global population to one billion people emissions would never be an issue.

When the scientists can tell me how much the temp will rise for every liter of gasoline burned I will believe it. It should be a simple correlation.

When Canada tells the world to start paying us for the carbon we absorb as a country, over what we produce, instead of charging the residents of the most carbon-negative nation on the globe for carbon I will believe.

When scientists can tell me exactly at what point carbon in our atmosphere turns from a fertilizer to a poison I will believe it.

When the proponents can lay out plans that affect the globe instead of my wallet I will believe.

When proponents look at real world solutions like burning coal at the mine in Alberta with good emissions is a good choice, and tidal generation is a good choice for the bay of fundy, and nuclear is good for (I don’t know, insert proper answer here), and hydro works well in Ontario...... instead of just saying solar and wind is the answer for everyone I will believe. As opposed to us using the carbon to mine coal, then ship it to a port, then ship it around the world and burn it in the dirtiest plants in the world.

When the proponents admit that things need to change globally and it won’t happen overnight. That it will happen without crippling North Americans and that the entire world should do what’s best for the world I will believe.

When solutions come to improving existing technologies instead of the idea of only replacing technologies. For example ICE vs EV vehicles. I will believe.

When both sides can come together and work out solutions instead of fighting over their religions I will believe.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

What constantly amuses ME is that people with no background in climate science parade around as if they know better than people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying it.


Deniers would do much better to stop fighting scientists and start actually attacking the crappy ideas and systems that public figures and politicians are trying to use to deal with it.

There are no climatologists that have spent there life researching this. The science is about 3 years old now. I’m exaggerating of course but the fact remains. Is there actually a branch of science that is climatology yet? Otherwise they are botonists making guesses about a science they are uneducated on. Just like me.

The second paragraph would be 100% correct if you changed the word “Deniers”, to “all Canadians”.

[mooseknuckle]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Climate change is the greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind in our lifetime, there is no such thing. 40 years ago, large groups of scientists and political liberal elites declared the earth was actually cooling and we were potentially headed for a new ice age within a century, their solution was increased government control of the economy, industry and energy sectors. Unfortunately for them, the data disproved it, they had to re-cock. Their new theory was global warming and funny enough their solution was the same as their solution for their now de-bunked theory of global cooling. Again, unfortunately for them the actual scientific data did not support their theory so they again re-cocked. The new term is climate change- perfect, a term that it is impossible to disprove. A colder than average winter-climate change, a milder winter-climate change. Dryer or wetter than average-climate change. It can't be refuted and that finally suits their agenda and their solution is the same massive government control of the energy sector, increased taxes etc as it was for their de-bunked theories of global cooling and global warming. How many times have you heard some idiot on the news talking about the fact that it's 10 deg C in Feb on any given day so that must be global warming, never mind the fact that the record high for that particular day was 17 deg C a century ago. Take today for example, -19 here in Morinville, the record high was +13 deg C in 1913. Now if today had been +10, these same dolts would be screaming about global warming not knowing that 105 years ago it was +13- was it global warming then? This is a scam and the masses have fell for it and we're all going to pay through the nose for a lie.

Im with you.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Do you believe the Earth has been warming since the last ice age? Do you believe there is warming today and if so what percentage is natural and what is man made? Do you believe Canada contributes less than 2% of green house gas in the world? Do you believe in Canada spending billions of dollars in our 2% when the rest of the world is spending nothing on the 98%? Do you believe in paying more for Alberta power by decommissioning our 3 coal plants? Do you know China is building over 1000 new ones?

Historical climate change is already accounted for by climate researchers. It's not as though we've made all these models without taking natural climatic fluctuations into account.

That was my original point.

As to the rest, I already stated that I don't think we should be looking to governments to address climate issues, especially given how much more effective private industry is proving to be.

I also don't think that forcing incomplete or inefficient tech into a marketplace is effective.

[urban rednek]

Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo

What it would it take for you to believe the other side? What science or or facts or video or whatever... What would it take for the other side to be right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What would it take? The same thing it would take to make me believe in god; irrefutable proof. None of this "Give us more of your money, you will feel good about it and everything will get better. You can trust us, we have good intentions and we mean well."
Global Climate Change proponents are just another organized religion mixed with big business. And business is good for those at the top, not so much for the "True Believers" footing the bill.
I don't see either happening any time soon.

[EZM]

For those of you who do not believe in climate change - I'm sorry I can't help you. Climate change has been going on since the dawn of time. Science has proven it. Some of you understand/accept that - but I am still utterly stunned by those who don't.

I'm also stunned how many arm chair experts with zero science background can even attempt an intelligent argument with the overwhelming majority of scientist (and the nations of the world), who have all accepted climate change as a reality.

There is only one REAL argument .......

Has man's activity affected climate change, and, if so, to what extent?

Breitbart is a rag and the fact they used misleading headlines and confused weather with climate is such a big joke that it's EPIC solid gold clown ridiculous.

That's was my point.

[Jimvinny]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Historical climate change is already accounted for by climate researchers. It's not as though we've made all these models without taking natural climatic fluctuations into account.

That was my original point.

As to the rest, I already stated that I don't think we should be looking to governments to address climate issues, especially given how much more effective private industry is proving to be.

I also don't think that forcing incomplete or inefficient tech into a marketplace is effective.

That's completely ridiculous. They have no way of accounting for something they couldn't measure, and can only wildly guess at. To claim they have taken it into account basically invalidates anything else you have said.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Historical climate change is already accounted for by climate researchers. It's not as though we've made all these models without taking natural climatic fluctuations into account.

That was my original point.

As to the rest, I already stated that I don't think we should be looking to governments to address climate issues, especially given how much more effective private industry is proving to be.

I also don't think that forcing incomplete or inefficient tech into a marketplace is effective.

Can you just answer all the questions?

Start with one. Do you believe all warming is man made? If not what is the percentage natural versus man made?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by EZM

For those of you who do not believe in climate change - I'm sorry I can't help you. Climate change has been going on since the dawn of time. Science has proven it. Some of you understand/accept that - but I am still utterly stunned by those who don't.

I'm also stunned how many arm chair experts with zero science background can even attempt an intelligent argument with the overwhelming majority of scientist (and the nations of the world), who have all accepted climate change as a reality.

There is only one REAL argument .......

Has man's activity affected climate change, and, if so, to what extent?

Breitbart is a rag and the fact they used misleading headlines and confused weather with climate is such a big joke that it's EPIC solid gold clown ridiculous.

That's was my point.

I believe everyone agrees the earth has been warming since the last ice age? You agree with that? Who do you think doesn't believe that?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

As to the rest, I already stated that I don't think we should be looking to governments to address climate issues, especially given how much more effective private industry is proving to be.

I agree, the problem is gov't has seized on this and other schemes, is using it as a marketing scheme/tool to mandate and justify additional taxation that would not be accepted in a conventional tax scenario, thereby increasing needless ineffective bureaucracy justifying ever increased control over industry and society as a whole. Stifling free enterprise and free thinking. And some people still think they live in a democracy.

[Drewski Canuck]

It is a fantastic COMEDY that all the scientists relying on ice core data, lake and ocean sediment data, tree ring records, never mention the concept of POLAR DRIFT.

What's that you say? Poles Drift? No not people from Poland little girl, the NORTH POLE ITSELF!!!

Why are there petrified Cypress Tree Stumps on Elsmere Island? Was it that warm in the past all over the world? OR was it that warm at Elsmere Island?

(think hard boys and girls) Could it be that our cold and frozen north once was not on the top of the world? Could it be that these Epoch records do not reflect the fact that we have had the north and south poles migrating, over centuries, from the North Pacific Ocean to the current location on the top of the Arctic Ocean?

(Answer is YES!)

Ask any Climatologist about the geological source of their records, and they will say that is the proof of change. Ask them if the change could be attributable to the shift in the north and south poles skewing the very records relied on, AND THEY ARE STUMPED!

By the way EZM, it has been one very cold winter. I for one and in favour of Climate Change and Global warming.

Drewski

[Fish along]

Originally Posted by EZM

For those of you who do not believe in climate change - I'm sorry I can't help you. Climate change has been going on since the dawn of time. Science has proven it. Some of you understand/accept that - but I am still utterly stunned by those who don't.

I'm also stunned how many arm chair experts with zero science background can even attempt an intelligent argument with the overwhelming majority of scientist (and the nations of the world), who have all accepted climate change as a reality.

There is only one REAL argument .......

Has man's activity affected climate change, and, if so, to what extent?

Breitbart is a rag and the fact they used misleading headlines and confused weather with climate is such a big joke that it's EPIC solid gold clown ridiculous.

That's was my point.

Climate change has been happening forever correct, and it will keep changing, in many years to come it will all flood and many years later turn to the ice age again.peoplekind will probably be extinct by then.unless we move to another planet.

[Dynamic]

I have tremendous respect for people who dedicate their lives to studying this planet and how climate change will affect us and when. I have a hard time believing that all these experts on climate change have some sort of hidden agenda.

I find it weird that we will listen to experts on subjects such as hunting, fishing, or anything that you find interesting. We listen and accept the word from the experts because we acknowledge that they know more about the subject than we do. But when the general consensus from leading climate scientists ( a.k.a. Experts ) so many people just have their heads in the sand.

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by Dynamic

I have tremendous respect for people who dedicate their lives to studying this planet and how climate change will affect us and when. I have a hard time believing that all these experts on climate change have some sort of hidden agenda.

I find it weird that we will listen to experts on subjects such as hunting, fishing, or anything that you find interesting. We listen and accept the word from the experts because we acknowledge that they know more about the subject than we do. But when the general consensus from leading climate scientists ( a.k.a. Experts ) so many people just have their heads in the sand.

Just like they were right wrt global cooling then global warming? Both of which were debunked. Their hidden agenda is their massive government grants and the ones who crow loudest are the ones most full of it, like Canada's climate change champion David Suzuki who charges $40,000 for speaking fees and has the carbon footprint of perhaps 20 people but scolds us all for how much energy we use. It's all a lie for profit and an excuse for governments to tax us into the poorhouse to pay for vote grabbing social programs that they otherwise couldn't afford.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Dynamic

I have tremendous respect for people who dedicate their lives to studying this planet and how climate change will affect us and when. I have a hard time believing that all these experts on climate change have some sort of hidden agenda.

I find it weird that we will listen to experts on subjects such as hunting, fishing, or anything that you find interesting. We listen and accept the word from the experts because we acknowledge that they know more about the subject than we do. But when the general consensus from leading climate scientists ( a.k.a. Experts ) so many people just have their heads in the sand.

It has been proven that there is zero scientific consensus of dangerous man made global warming just some falsely promoting such.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by hal53

AVB3 is that you??

Looks like old Andy is holding out before staring up another account to get up on that soap box again.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by Dynamic

I find it weird that we will listen to experts on subjects such as hunting, fishing, or anything that you find interesting. We listen and accept the word from the experts because we acknowledge that they know more about the subject than we do. But when the general consensus from leading climate scientists ( a.k.a. Experts ) so many people just have their heads in the sand.

Really though? You wouldn’t have to search very long on this site to find somebody that’s an electrician or something going on about how the provincial wildlife bios don’t tknow what they’re doing. Look at the fly fishing section for the many threads about the upcoming Red Deer basin closures. More than once I’ve had a poster here tell me I’m wrong about things I’ve been doing professionally for over 20 years.

I can’t say I understand it either but IMO the trend isn’t going the way we need to. Upton Sinclair famously wrote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not understanding it.” In our current climate substitute just about any perceived interest for salary and the trend becomes clear.

[Dynamic]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The general consensus among people who are experts in and continually study climate change are pretty much certain that man has a part in how fast the climate is changing. I’m not expecting anyone will change there minds. Heck we could all post articles all night supporting our own personal views.

My own personal views are based on what the experts in their particular field seem to be saying. I got kids and maybe eventually grandkids and that also guides my personal views, we must at least try to be certain we are at least moving in the right direction.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Trees are still green.
Sky is still blue
Oceans are still wet
Rain still falls
Things still grow.
Air is breathable.


Tell me again how things are so bad?

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

It has been proven that there is zero scientific consensus of dangerous man made global warming just some falsely promoting such.