They might say the same about you. Let's just not go there, pixel, OK?
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
How Silly is Climate Change Denial?
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
They do not know the very most basics of the topic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Again. Start a pollution thread. You might do well there. This is about climate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Climate in the context of being effected by man made emissions, I think my contribution is relevant to the gestalt of the discussion.
Though i am sure Gene will let me know if i step out of line.
Man made emissions are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, at the same time they are pumping all sorts of other HAP's and toxic nastys.
Thats the full story and worth discussing in this thread
While you might try and debate the effects of CO2 as a component of those emissions, there can be nothing but consensus as to the disatrous effects the other components of man made emissions are having on the biosphere.
Once you get your head around that, the course forward becomes clear.
You've allowed yourself to fall prey to Neros folly.
Meaning
To occupy oneself with unimportant matters and neglect priorities during a crisis.
Fixing the core problem will render the CO2 one moot, something perhaps you are opposed to since it seems to be your Raison d'être here
Though i am sure Gene will let me know if i step out of line.
Man made emissions are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, at the same time they are pumping all sorts of other HAP's and toxic nastys.
Thats the full story and worth discussing in this thread
While you might try and debate the effects of CO2 as a component of those emissions, there can be nothing but consensus as to the disatrous effects the other components of man made emissions are having on the biosphere.
Once you get your head around that, the course forward becomes clear.
You've allowed yourself to fall prey to Neros folly.
Meaning
To occupy oneself with unimportant matters and neglect priorities during a crisis.
Fixing the core problem will render the CO2 one moot, something perhaps you are opposed to since it seems to be your Raison d'être here
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
What we have to look forward to in the US for the next two years. This is as close to a report from the ALEC meeting as we will get. [See Post#1286, on page#65 of this thread, for a video that explains/describes the ALEC Meeting.] These are the plans for control by the gas and coal interests. Can't get more obvious than this. The onslaught begins - or continues. This is what we will see more of.
Fossil-fuel lobbyists, bolstered by GOP wins, work to curb environmental rules
LINK: Fossil-fuel lobbyists, bolstered by GOP wins, work to curb environmental rules - The Washington Post
TEXT: "Oil, gas and coal interests that spent millions to help elect Republicans this year are moving to take advantage of expanded GOP power in Washington and state capitals to thwart Obama administration environmental rules. Industry lobbyists made their pitch in private meetings last week with dozens of state legislators at a summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an industry-financed conservative state policy group.
"The lobbyists and legislators consideredseveral model bills to be introduced across the country next year, designed to give states more power to block or delay new Obama administration environmental standards, including new limits on power-plant emissions. The industry’s strategy aims to combat a renewed push by President Obama to carve out climate change as a top priority for his final two years in office. The White House has vowed to continue using executive authority to enact more environmental limits, and the issue is shaping up to be a major flash point heading into the 2016 presidential election.
"With support from industry lobbyists, many Republicans are planning to make the Environmental Protection Agency a primary political target, presenting it as a symbol of the kind of big-government philosophy they think can unify social and economic conservatives in opposition. “There is a palpable anger at the EPA in America,” said Nate Bell, a Republican state legislator from rural Arkansas who championed a measure at the ALEC meeting supporting the replacement of the agency. “Mention them, and you will get laughed out of any coffee shop or feed store in my district.”
"The power of anti-EPA sentiment in Washington was evident last week when the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), a vocal denier of science showing a human role in climate change, sent a letter demanding that the EPA withdraw the new power-plant limits. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have discussed how to stop the agency from moving forward, efforts that could include denying funding the EPA would need to enact the regulations.
"Meanwhile, underscoring the extent to which fossil-fuel industry allies will pressure Republicans seen as squishy on key issues, the group Americans for Prosperity began an advertising campaign in two dozen House districts after the November elections, pressing GOP lawmakers to oppose tax breaks for wind-energy firms. The organization was founded and funded in part by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch.
"The industry’s aggressive posture in the weeks after the elections is raising anxiety among environmental groups and their allies, some of whom had poured tens of millions of dollars into losing efforts to boost Democratic campaigns — but have seen Obama’s recent climate actions, including an emissions-reducing deal with China, as major triumphs.Two dozen chief executives of national environmental groups met last week in the Washington offices of Friends of the Earth to talk about how to respond to what participants called “the assault” by fossil-fuel industry allies. The groups plan to solicit contributions from major liberal donors to support a new organization to counter the industry’s growing effectiveness on the state level.
"The advocacy groups worry about the role played by ALEC, which has asuccessful track record of designing conservative legislation on issues such as guns, criminal justice and voting that has won widespread passage in state capitals. If enacted by states, ALEC’s measures targeting the EPA could be used to delay the federal rulemaking process, fuel lawsuits and build public opposition to an environmental movement that once had bipartisan support, environmental advocates say. If the industry could delay implementation of the carbon regulations until after Obama leaves office, a Republican president could reverse the limits.
"Aliya Haq, a climate change specialist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the ALEC proposals would “handcuff” states just as they would be required to comply with new federal standards. She said that “ALEC and their cronies would love to see as much delay as possible.” In Washington, Democrats are gearing up for major battles to defend what many see as a significant piece of Obama’s legacy. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is losing her chairmanship of the Senate’s environment committee to Inhofe, foreshadowed the hostilities in a statement to The Washington Post, saying the panel is “now dominated by deniers on climate and very strong allies of the polluters.” She said she would “use every tool at my disposal” to fight industry efforts to combat Obama’s climate change initiatives.
"In addition to the fights over power-plant emissions, GOP lawmakers are expected to push proposals that could roll back proposed rules on ozone pollution — rules described last month by American Petroleum Institute chief executive Jack Gerard as “the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public.” A critical component of the industry’s strategy is an effort to apply pressure on Washington from state capitals, where the GOP has gained substantial ground. Republicans now control 31 governorships and more than two-thirds of state legislative chambers, a near-record level of dominance, GOP officials say.
"The industry’s approach was evident at last week’s ALEC meeting, where officials of fossil-fuel firms such as Koch Industries and Peabody Energy mixed with lawmakers and ALEC organizers to discuss and sometimes edit proposed model bills. The Post was granted rare access to some parts of the meeting, which was attended by more than 400 people, including industry representatives and state officials from across the country. Multiple participants in the private sessions that focused on environmental and energy policy provided accounts of what happened. In one closed-door meeting, for instance, Sarah Magruder Lyle, a former Energy Department official who is now a vice president at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers association, made the case for a proposal that would scale back Obama administration rules on ozone. Her argument, a spokesman for her trade group said, was that the ozone rule was “threatening states’ economies while providing little benefit to the environment or to consumers.”
"A separate proposal debated by ALEC participants would give legislatures a role in setting state limits for carbon emissions, including the requirement of a cost-benefit analysis. Another proposed resolution would call for abolishing the EPA and replacing it with a committee of state officials. The idea was put aside after some corporate lobbyists cautioned that it could hurt ALEC’s credibility. Nevertheless, participants said, the anti-EPA feelings ran so deep at the meeting that an ALEC task force weighing the various proposals agreed to create a “working group” to further consider ways state legislatures could support replacing the federal agency. “Everywhere I travel in my district, people tell me they are seeing the consequences of EPA overreach,” said state Rep. Yvette Herrell, a New Mexico Republican who attended the meeting. She cited “astronomical” rises in utility bills for her state, which she said relies on coal-fired power plants.
"Industry lobbyists said that, after the sweeping GOP victories last month, their clients were optimistic that they could better position themselves against the perceived threat of more regulations. Scott Segal of the Bracewell & Giuliani firm in Washington said lower public confidence in the EPA will heighten pressure on politicians of both parties to “be sure that benefits of proposed rules are properly calculated and that they do in fact outweigh the costs.”
"Industry and state government officials meeting last week also considered ways they could undercut the credibility of the environmental movement and its leading spokesmen. One session held Thursday, called “Big Green Radicals,” included discussion of a national campaign attacking celebrity activists. Among other things, the campaign has posted a few billboards of prominent environmentalists such as actor Robert Redford, with the headline: “Demands green living. Flies on private jets.” "
Fossil-fuel lobbyists, bolstered by GOP wins, work to curb environmental rules
LINK: Fossil-fuel lobbyists, bolstered by GOP wins, work to curb environmental rules - The Washington Post
TEXT: "Oil, gas and coal interests that spent millions to help elect Republicans this year are moving to take advantage of expanded GOP power in Washington and state capitals to thwart Obama administration environmental rules. Industry lobbyists made their pitch in private meetings last week with dozens of state legislators at a summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an industry-financed conservative state policy group.
"The lobbyists and legislators consideredseveral model bills to be introduced across the country next year, designed to give states more power to block or delay new Obama administration environmental standards, including new limits on power-plant emissions. The industry’s strategy aims to combat a renewed push by President Obama to carve out climate change as a top priority for his final two years in office. The White House has vowed to continue using executive authority to enact more environmental limits, and the issue is shaping up to be a major flash point heading into the 2016 presidential election.
"With support from industry lobbyists, many Republicans are planning to make the Environmental Protection Agency a primary political target, presenting it as a symbol of the kind of big-government philosophy they think can unify social and economic conservatives in opposition. “There is a palpable anger at the EPA in America,” said Nate Bell, a Republican state legislator from rural Arkansas who championed a measure at the ALEC meeting supporting the replacement of the agency. “Mention them, and you will get laughed out of any coffee shop or feed store in my district.”
"The power of anti-EPA sentiment in Washington was evident last week when the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), a vocal denier of science showing a human role in climate change, sent a letter demanding that the EPA withdraw the new power-plant limits. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have discussed how to stop the agency from moving forward, efforts that could include denying funding the EPA would need to enact the regulations.
"Meanwhile, underscoring the extent to which fossil-fuel industry allies will pressure Republicans seen as squishy on key issues, the group Americans for Prosperity began an advertising campaign in two dozen House districts after the November elections, pressing GOP lawmakers to oppose tax breaks for wind-energy firms. The organization was founded and funded in part by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch.
"The industry’s aggressive posture in the weeks after the elections is raising anxiety among environmental groups and their allies, some of whom had poured tens of millions of dollars into losing efforts to boost Democratic campaigns — but have seen Obama’s recent climate actions, including an emissions-reducing deal with China, as major triumphs.Two dozen chief executives of national environmental groups met last week in the Washington offices of Friends of the Earth to talk about how to respond to what participants called “the assault” by fossil-fuel industry allies. The groups plan to solicit contributions from major liberal donors to support a new organization to counter the industry’s growing effectiveness on the state level.
"The advocacy groups worry about the role played by ALEC, which has asuccessful track record of designing conservative legislation on issues such as guns, criminal justice and voting that has won widespread passage in state capitals. If enacted by states, ALEC’s measures targeting the EPA could be used to delay the federal rulemaking process, fuel lawsuits and build public opposition to an environmental movement that once had bipartisan support, environmental advocates say. If the industry could delay implementation of the carbon regulations until after Obama leaves office, a Republican president could reverse the limits.
"Aliya Haq, a climate change specialist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the ALEC proposals would “handcuff” states just as they would be required to comply with new federal standards. She said that “ALEC and their cronies would love to see as much delay as possible.” In Washington, Democrats are gearing up for major battles to defend what many see as a significant piece of Obama’s legacy. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is losing her chairmanship of the Senate’s environment committee to Inhofe, foreshadowed the hostilities in a statement to The Washington Post, saying the panel is “now dominated by deniers on climate and very strong allies of the polluters.” She said she would “use every tool at my disposal” to fight industry efforts to combat Obama’s climate change initiatives.
"In addition to the fights over power-plant emissions, GOP lawmakers are expected to push proposals that could roll back proposed rules on ozone pollution — rules described last month by American Petroleum Institute chief executive Jack Gerard as “the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public.” A critical component of the industry’s strategy is an effort to apply pressure on Washington from state capitals, where the GOP has gained substantial ground. Republicans now control 31 governorships and more than two-thirds of state legislative chambers, a near-record level of dominance, GOP officials say.
"The industry’s approach was evident at last week’s ALEC meeting, where officials of fossil-fuel firms such as Koch Industries and Peabody Energy mixed with lawmakers and ALEC organizers to discuss and sometimes edit proposed model bills. The Post was granted rare access to some parts of the meeting, which was attended by more than 400 people, including industry representatives and state officials from across the country. Multiple participants in the private sessions that focused on environmental and energy policy provided accounts of what happened. In one closed-door meeting, for instance, Sarah Magruder Lyle, a former Energy Department official who is now a vice president at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers association, made the case for a proposal that would scale back Obama administration rules on ozone. Her argument, a spokesman for her trade group said, was that the ozone rule was “threatening states’ economies while providing little benefit to the environment or to consumers.”
"A separate proposal debated by ALEC participants would give legislatures a role in setting state limits for carbon emissions, including the requirement of a cost-benefit analysis. Another proposed resolution would call for abolishing the EPA and replacing it with a committee of state officials. The idea was put aside after some corporate lobbyists cautioned that it could hurt ALEC’s credibility. Nevertheless, participants said, the anti-EPA feelings ran so deep at the meeting that an ALEC task force weighing the various proposals agreed to create a “working group” to further consider ways state legislatures could support replacing the federal agency. “Everywhere I travel in my district, people tell me they are seeing the consequences of EPA overreach,” said state Rep. Yvette Herrell, a New Mexico Republican who attended the meeting. She cited “astronomical” rises in utility bills for her state, which she said relies on coal-fired power plants.
"Industry lobbyists said that, after the sweeping GOP victories last month, their clients were optimistic that they could better position themselves against the perceived threat of more regulations. Scott Segal of the Bracewell & Giuliani firm in Washington said lower public confidence in the EPA will heighten pressure on politicians of both parties to “be sure that benefits of proposed rules are properly calculated and that they do in fact outweigh the costs.”
"Industry and state government officials meeting last week also considered ways they could undercut the credibility of the environmental movement and its leading spokesmen. One session held Thursday, called “Big Green Radicals,” included discussion of a national campaign attacking celebrity activists. Among other things, the campaign has posted a few billboards of prominent environmentalists such as actor Robert Redford, with the headline: “Demands green living. Flies on private jets.” "
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Omg. Will you PLEASE understand that the core problem according to your science in regards to climate IS CO2.
We probably agree on many pollution issues. The problem we are having here is you know nothing about the issues.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Oh spare me. The only people being catered to on this thread is the two of you. You regularly sling insults and use derogatory language towards those who don't share your simplistic, conspiracy driven view of things. Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance, and it's that very ignorant arrogance that allows you and Pixel to be so sure of yourselves, while the other posters on this thread have the decency not to pretend to be all knowing. You both come across as disingenuous and laughable.
You ask for models, but why would anyone bother at this point? We can show you the IPCC models, which, by the way, are endorsed by scientific organizations from over 100 foreign countries (American only issue my ass) with nary a dissenting viewpoint among them, but you'll just tell us it's all some giant liberal conspiracy, which is almost as ridiculous as the idea that two guys on the internet, neither of whom are climate scientists or seem to know, well, anything beyond "CO2 good, everyone who says it isn't, BAD" have this whole thing figured out. Give me a fucking break.
I hope that adios is sincere, please take Pixel with you, he's been proven to be ridiculously wrong on any number of issues within this thread and has acknowledged none of them. All he does is spew insults, generalities and typical denier talking points ad nausea until anyone with two brain cells to rub together is forced to ignore him or vacate the thread. I've literally never seen anyone so willfully ignorant in all my life.
I wasn't going to post anymore on this particular thread, but since @GeneSteinberg is here, I'd love for him to review some of the abuse you two have directed at some of the posters in this thread, especially the abuse directed towards Tyger and for him to take notice of the skads of posters driven from this thread by you and Pixels collective ignorance and downright nastiness to anyone with a conflicting viewpoint. If anyone is driving members from this forum, it's the two of you and the rest of the tinfoil hat brigade.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
These are the failed models that show your 97% CONsensus to be wrong. The blue squares and green dots are OBSERVED DATA, the squiggly lines are your failed computer models that you think are so accurate.
For 40 years now none of the doomsday predictions of famine, increased hurricanes, increased drought, melting poles, disappearing glaciers, etc etc etc... have happened. None of you alarmists can back up anything you say because you don't even know the very fundamentals of the topic. Please educate yourself before commenting further. Thanks!
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Arctic Sea Ice Decline:
"Arctic sea ice decline describes the sea ice loss observed in recent decades in the Arctic Ocean. The IPCC AR4 reported that greenhouse gas forcing is largely, but not wholly, responsible for the decline in Arctic sea ice extent. More recent studies found the decline to be “faster than forecasted” by model simulations. The IPCC AR5 report concluded with high confidence that sea ice continues to decrease in extent and there is robust evidence for the downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 1979. It has been established that the region is at its warmest for at least 40,000 years and the Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5 days per decade (from 1979 to 2013), dominated by a later autumn freezeup. Sea ice changes have been identified as a mechanism for polar amplification." - Wikipedia
Graph: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Graph: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
So maybe what we should do here is separate the economic side of the argument such as carbon trading from what is actually going on in the environment. Depending on which conspiracy one has aligned themselves to, graphs like the one above will be considered as propaganda and fake if it doesn't support their views. So how do those who want to know the truth tell what we should and should not believe? Simply because some data may not agree with ones conspiracy theories doesn't automatically make it false.
Special update: The Extraordinary California Drought of 2013-2014: Character, Context, and the Role of Climate Change
"Using these climate model simulations, we found that the human emission of greenhouse gases has very likely tripled the likelihood of experiencing large-scale atmospheric conditions similar to those observed in 2013. This claim is based upon the simulated 500mb geopotential heights over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, which are strongly related to California precipitation."
"Using these climate model simulations, we found that the human emission of greenhouse gases has very likely tripled the likelihood of experiencing large-scale atmospheric conditions similar to those observed in 2013. This claim is based upon the simulated 500mb geopotential heights over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, which are strongly related to California precipitation."
If I look for evidence for the rest of the predictions you say haven't happened, how likely is it do you think that I'll find something that provides counterpoint to each of your claims? I suggest it's very likely. How likely is it that you'll simply hand-wave those examples claiming your superior knowledge of the subject matter? I don't know. We can all probably find charts and data and interpretations out there to support our views if we want to cherry pick it and present it within a context that only allows for our pet interpretations.
So let's keep it simple. Has there been a decline in Arctic sea ice as the graph above claims? Has there been a draught in California as the article above claims? Can both be reasonably linked to climate change as both articles claim? How much of that climate change has to do with GHG? How much of that GHG has to do with human emissions? Again it all boils down to the question of whether or not human emissions have any effect at all. Personally I cannot get behind the notions of those who suggest that adding GHG to the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever.
Like I said before add another 20% of insulation to the attic and there must be some effect, and as the link in my previous post showed, satellite measurements have been measuring a slight increase in GHG trapping of solar radiation. It's not of Armageddon like proportions. But where's the tipping point? Maybe it doesn't have to be as bad as a Hollywood disaster movie to have consequences we'd rather do without. Maybe we're cooking ourselves just slowly enough that some people thinks it doesn't matter enough to worry about. I don't know. It seems like for every argument and variable there is some counterargument and variable.
The one thing that seems obvious to me is that the whole carbon trading scheme seems to be more about money than climate change, and that getting governments and industry to sign onto agreements that include the carbon trading scheme is not the greatest plan. Setting aside the argument about CO2 and it's actual effect on climate change, here's a primer for those ( unlike you ) who don't know:
Last edited:
Thats been my own observation from the land down under.
The carbon trading scheme we had was just a round robin. The only change was money changing hands.
The biosphere got nothing, worse it got a lot more emissions via growth, both population and its associated industrial systems.
We see the problem with the various summits that take place, everyone agrees something should be done, but then when they drill down and look at how the fix will effect their individual economys........ suddenly the cure is a bitter pill to swallow.
Nationl interests take sway over global problems.
Its one of the reasons why a global body like the UN is better suited to making the unpopular decisions required.
Though i'm not holding my breath on that either
Our best hope as far as i can see, is that some of these clean energy projects like the polywell reactor pan out and become a viable alternative for fossil fuels
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Far from it. They are the worst possible entity to be involved... Unless you want a one world government.
flipper
Paranormal Adept
Sunday I woke up to a bright blue sky. This is something that we had not seen for over a month. It was clear and not a cloud in the sky. Two hours later I was going home and admiring the same bright blue sky when I turned a corner to see the familiar white streak across the sky. It was only one. I new there would be more, and there was. Walking in the country side later, I could see them busy making there many x,y,v,and w. I new that by today, Wednesday, we would have a storm which we do. It is on the third day after they start their spraying that the storm comes.
Here is an article that I think all should read:
Elite Think Tank Admits to Ongoing Climate Engineering Experiments
Let's bypass for a moment that there still is intense scientific debate about the legitimacy of those who assign climate change to certain man-made activities, and instead look to these attempts to portray a full consensus that leapfrogs us to do-or-die solutions.
Even though the above story appears to have been originally disseminated by the Associated Press, what was not mentioned in any of the establishment outlets is the backstory that indicates a much longer timeline in getting to the conclusion that geoengineering is possibly the only hope that remains for saving the earth.
Activist Post: Elite Think Tank Admits to Ongoing Climate Engineering Experiments
More sites to visit:
Obama Takes Bold Step to Geoengineer Climate Change | Bill Chameides
AirCrap.org | Monitoring the Planned Poisoning of Humanity | Monitors and Reports on the Geo-Engineering of our Planet
Chemtrails: The Exotic Weapon
Geoengineering Watch
Atmospheric particles can brighten cold clouds as well as warm ones
The site above is the research on which the first article (Elite Think Tank Admits to Ongoing Climate Engineering Experiments) is based.
Elite Think Tank Admits to Ongoing Climate Engineering Experiments | Global Research
Here is an article that I think all should read:
Elite Think Tank Admits to Ongoing Climate Engineering Experiments
Let's bypass for a moment that there still is intense scientific debate about the legitimacy of those who assign climate change to certain man-made activities, and instead look to these attempts to portray a full consensus that leapfrogs us to do-or-die solutions.
Even though the above story appears to have been originally disseminated by the Associated Press, what was not mentioned in any of the establishment outlets is the backstory that indicates a much longer timeline in getting to the conclusion that geoengineering is possibly the only hope that remains for saving the earth.
Activist Post: Elite Think Tank Admits to Ongoing Climate Engineering Experiments
More sites to visit:
Obama Takes Bold Step to Geoengineer Climate Change | Bill Chameides
AirCrap.org | Monitoring the Planned Poisoning of Humanity | Monitors and Reports on the Geo-Engineering of our Planet
Chemtrails: The Exotic Weapon
Geoengineering Watch
Atmospheric particles can brighten cold clouds as well as warm ones
The site above is the research on which the first article (Elite Think Tank Admits to Ongoing Climate Engineering Experiments) is based.
Elite Think Tank Admits to Ongoing Climate Engineering Experiments | Global Research
Of course i do, a global currency and taxation system makes perfect sense.
Why an SGC
Environmental governance and managing the planet[edit]
"The crisis brought about by the accelerated pace and the probably irreversible character of the impact of human activities on nature requires collective answers from governments and citizens. Nature ignores political and social barriers, and the global dimension of the crisis cancels the effects of any action initiated unilaterally by state governments or sectoral institutions, however powerful they may be.
Climate change, ocean and air pollution, nuclear risks and those related to genetic manipulation, the reduction and extinction of resources and biodiversity, and above all a development model that remains largely unquestioned globally are all among the various manifestations of this accelerated and probably irreversible impact.
This impact is the factor, in the framework of globalization, that most challenges a system of states competing with each other to the exclusion of all others: among the different fields of global governance, environmental management is the most wanting in urgent answers to the crisis in the form of collective actions by the whole of the human community. At the same time, these actions should help to model and strengthen the progressive building of this community."[27]
Proposals in this area have discussed the issue of how collective environmental action is possible. Many multilateral, environment-related agreements have been forged in the past 30 years, but their implementation remains difficult. There is also some discussion on the possibility of setting up an international organization that would centralize all the issues related to international environmental protection, such as the proposed World Environment Organization (WEO). The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) could play this role, but it is a small-scale organization with a limited mandate. The question has given rise to two opposite views: the European Union, especially France and Germany, along with a number of NGOs, is in favor of creating a WEO; the United Kingdom, the USA, and most developing countries prefer opting for voluntary initiatives.[28]
The International Institute for Sustainable Development proposes a "reform agenda" for global environmental governance. The main argument is that there seems to exist an unspoken but powerful consensus on the essential objectives of a system of global environmental governance. These goals would require top-quality leadership, a strong environmental policy based on knowledge, effective cohesion and coordination, good management of the institutions constituting the environmental governance system, and spreading environmental concerns and actions to other areas of international policy and action.[29]
Global governance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by a moderator:
flipper
Paranormal Adept
Should this not be crap and trade?Arctic Sea Ice Decline:
BTW: Everyone who signs up with the forum should have a right to express their opinions and present their views here so long as they're not breaking any laws or participating in obvious flame wars and personality attacks for the sake of personal online harassment. I don't see any of that going on. Also, on the news here today the government decided that in the face of declining oil prices they were going to take a hands off approach to GHG regulation as part of their climate change agenda. Note that the subject was framed as GHG ( greenhouse gas ) not simply CO2. So although we can focus on CO2 if we want to, it's not the only factor to consider."Arctic sea ice decline describes the sea ice loss observed in recent decades in the Arctic Ocean. The IPCC AR4 reported that greenhouse gas forcing is largely, but not wholly, responsible for the decline in Arctic sea ice extent. More recent studies found the decline to be “faster than forecasted” by model simulations. The IPCC AR5 report concluded with high confidence that sea ice continues to decrease in extent and there is robust evidence for the downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 1979. It has been established that the region is at its warmest for at least 40,000 years and the Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5 days per decade (from 1979 to 2013), dominated by a later autumn freezeup. Sea ice changes have been identified as a mechanism for polar amplification." - Wikipedia
Graph: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
So maybe what we should do here is separate the economic side of the argument such as carbon trading from what is actually going on in the environment. Depending on which conspiracy one has aligned themselves to, graphs like the one above will be considered as propaganda and fake if it doesn't support their views. So how do those who want to know the truth tell what we should and should not believe? Simply because some data may not agree with ones conspiracy theories doesn't automatically make it false.
Special update: The Extraordinary California Drought of 2013-2014: Character, Context, and the Role of Climate Change
"Using these climate model simulations, we found that the human emission of greenhouse gases has very likely tripled the likelihood of experiencing large-scale atmospheric conditions similar to those observed in 2013. This claim is based upon the simulated 500mb geopotential heights over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, which are strongly related to California precipitation."
If I look for evidence for the rest of the predictions you say haven't happened, how likely is it do you think that I'll find something that provides counterpoint to each of your claims? I suggest it's very likely. How likely is it that you'll simply hand-wave those examples claiming your superior knowledge of the subject matter? I don't know. We can all probably find charts and data and interpretations out there to support our views if we want to cherry pick it and present it within a context that only allows for our pet interpretations.
So let's keep it simple. Has there been a decline in Arctic sea ice as the graph above claims? Has there been a draught in California as the article above claims? Can both be reasonably linked to climate change as both articles claim? How much of that climate change has to do with GHG? How much of that GHG has to do with human emissions? Again it all boils down to the question of whether or not human emissions have any effect at all. Personally I cannot get behind the notions of those who suggest that adding GHG to the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever.
Like I said before add another 20% of insulation to the attic and there must be some effect, and as the link in my previous post showed, satellite measurements have been measuring a slight increase in GHG trapping of solar radiation. It's not of Armageddon like proportions. But where's the tipping point? Maybe it doesn't have to be as bad as a Hollywood disaster movie to have consequences we'd rather do without. Maybe we're cooking ourselves just slowly enough that some people thinks it doesn't matter enough to worry about. I don't know. It seems like for every argument and variable there is some counterargument and variable.
The one thing that seems obvious to me is that the whole carbon trading scheme seems to be more about money than climate change, and that getting governments and industry to sign onto agreements that include the carbon trading scheme is not the greatest plan. Setting aside the argument about CO2 and it's actual effect on climate change, here's a primer for those ( unlike you ) who don't know:
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Are there really no disasters? According to great bell-weather of what's what the insurance industry is taking notice of their payouts over the years and the dramatic increases due to severe weather, and yup, climate change. Someone earlier on this thread pointed out that this wold be the industry that would herald what's what regarding truths about climate change. Last year's payout in Canada topped 3.5 billion - biggest year payout ever.
Last year's severe weather = unprecedented insurance payouts | equiterre.org - For socially and environmentally responsible choices
Last year's severe weather = unprecedented insurance payouts | equiterre.org - For socially and environmentally responsible choices
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Look back at the big picture. For most of earths history it has been warmer and nearly ice free. There has also been higher levels of co2 when it was warmer and colder. Humans do have a small contribution to warming. No scientist disputes that. The warming is almost immeasurable tho and a doubling of CO2 does not mean a doubling of temps. CO2 does not work that way.
The alarmists here keep confusing pollution and climate and also think normal weather events are in some way unusual.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The alarmists here keep confusing pollution and climate and also think normal weather events are in some way unusual.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity.
Is CO2 a pollutant?
Is CO2 a pollutant?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
What is the lowest amount of CO2 plants can survive on?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Duke FACE experiment (Free-Air CO2 Enrichment) of artificially fertilizing trees with CO2 is an important one. Its results are consistent with other experiments on other plants: Plants' growth is limited by whichever nutrient or other condition is in shortest supply or detrimentally high supply, or by inherent physiological limits. A plant whose growth is limited by water supply isn't going to grow more if you give it more CO2, or more sunlight, or more soil nutrients. If initially the CO2 supply is the limiting factor, then giving the plant CO2 will let it grow faster only until some other factor that was sufficient for the previous growth rate becomes the bottleneck for the higher growth rate. Farmers and gardeners know this, which is why they don't waste money by giving plants too much of any one thing. Even greenhouses whose air is spiked with CO2 don't have 100% CO2 atmospheres.
"Detrimental conditions" include temperatures that are too high. Even if a plant has sufficient other nutrients and conditions to allow it to take advantage of extra CO2 to grow more, if that CO2 is accompanied by higher temperature, the temperature can slow growth. The net growth then will depend on the balance of the enhancement from CO2 and the detriment from temperature.
But even if you keep all the nutrients and conditions in synch, there are inherent physiologic limits to growth rate. All plants in the world today have evolved for, or been bred for, approximately the current CO2 levels. There was no survival advantage of being able to use more CO2 than was available.
Not all plants respond the same to increased CO2 levels. For example, the Aspen FACE experiment (different from the Duke pine tree FACE experiment) found that "aspen grow much faster in response to elevated carbon dioxide, [but] similar effects have not been observed in other trees species, notably oak and pine."
And aspen in moist soil take advantage of additional CO2 by growing faster, but aspen in dry soil do not. In contrast, loblolly pines react oppositely: They grow more with extra CO2 only during dry years, not during normal or wet years.
The bottom line is that"Forests will continue to be important to soak up anthropogenic carbon dioxide," says [the aspen FACE experiment's] Waller. "But we can't conclude that aspen forests are going to soak up excess carbon dioxide. This is going to plateau."
"Aspens are already doing their best to mitigate our inputs," agrees Cole. "The existing trees are going to max out in a couple of decades."
The Duke pine FACE experiment's Schlesinger said:Based on available evidence from the Duke experiment, “I’d be surprised if the forests of the world will take up more than one-third of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions in the year 2050, which is what our experiment simulates,” he predicted.
More information on biologic carbon sequestration, with a number of links to even more info, can be found on an EPA page. Wikipedia has a broader page.
"Detrimental conditions" include temperatures that are too high. Even if a plant has sufficient other nutrients and conditions to allow it to take advantage of extra CO2 to grow more, if that CO2 is accompanied by higher temperature, the temperature can slow growth. The net growth then will depend on the balance of the enhancement from CO2 and the detriment from temperature.
But even if you keep all the nutrients and conditions in synch, there are inherent physiologic limits to growth rate. All plants in the world today have evolved for, or been bred for, approximately the current CO2 levels. There was no survival advantage of being able to use more CO2 than was available.
Not all plants respond the same to increased CO2 levels. For example, the Aspen FACE experiment (different from the Duke pine tree FACE experiment) found that "aspen grow much faster in response to elevated carbon dioxide, [but] similar effects have not been observed in other trees species, notably oak and pine."
And aspen in moist soil take advantage of additional CO2 by growing faster, but aspen in dry soil do not. In contrast, loblolly pines react oppositely: They grow more with extra CO2 only during dry years, not during normal or wet years.
The bottom line is that"Forests will continue to be important to soak up anthropogenic carbon dioxide," says [the aspen FACE experiment's] Waller. "But we can't conclude that aspen forests are going to soak up excess carbon dioxide. This is going to plateau."
"Aspens are already doing their best to mitigate our inputs," agrees Cole. "The existing trees are going to max out in a couple of decades."
The Duke pine FACE experiment's Schlesinger said:Based on available evidence from the Duke experiment, “I’d be surprised if the forests of the world will take up more than one-third of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions in the year 2050, which is what our experiment simulates,” he predicted.
More information on biologic carbon sequestration, with a number of links to even more info, can be found on an EPA page. Wikipedia has a broader page.