Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since every species alters its environment and the baseline carbon footprint per human is basically flat over thousands of years, I assume you mean the "human" problem. Obviously we need to get rid of some humans. Since you're obviously more concerned than me, you can go first.
Humans are not going to devolve or regress - it's counter to who we are as a species. What we do well is adapt, as we have proven for thousands of years. I suggest you quit crying and worrying and go have a beer with a friend. Just make sure you walk - cars are evil. And don't drink it cold - refrigerants are bad for the ozone. And it better be a local beer - transportation uses fossil fuels. And the hops - make sure they are organic - pesticides are a huge carbon emitter.
Interesting statistic for the board: Canadian carbon footprint per capita has increased since 1990 while the per capita footprint in the US has fallen since 1990.
Exactly right! The whole reason why each IPCC has a "summary for policymakers" is that they don't have the time or inclination to read the hard science. I've read that many of them don't even read that. As a result the summary for policymakers is much more alarmist than the rest of the report.
Do not get me started on the IPCC fraud. They completely, and no doubt deliberately, misrepresent the data they cite in their report.
For example, the NASA's GISS data shows that between 1880 and 2011 there was a total increase in the mean surface temperature of 0.85°C, and a total decrease in the mean surface temperature of 0.34°C, resulting in a net mean surface temperature increase of 0.51°C. Yet the IPCC, which cites the NASA's GISS data, only reports the total 0.85°C increase and erroneously claims that was the net increase.
As far as I am concerned, there is nothing in the IPCC report that can be taken as valid. Every source they cite needs to be verified to ensure they are reporting the data correctly, and that is just not worth the time.
They make all these bogus alarmist predictions in an attempt to gain attention, then deliberately alter the data to suit their alarmist agenda. That is not even remotely "the scientific method," that is a political agenda, which makes the IPCC report purely propaganda.
Alaska currently exports coal to Chile, South Korea, and other Pacific Rim nations, but not China - yet. Indonesia is China's primary supplier of coal, but we are looking at ways to make Alaska's coal more competitive on the global market. So Alaska may soon be feeding the Chinese coal-machine.
Interesting statistic for the board: Canadian carbon footprint per capita has increased since 1990 while the per capita footprint in the US has fallen since 1990.
I am not in the least bit surprised. Canadians are producing more energy per capita, and their standard of living has increased since 1990. Whereas, the US is producing less energy per capita, and our standard of living has declined since 1990.
As we have been saying since the 1970s, the Democratic Party wants to push the US back into the stone-age and turn the US into a third-world nation. Their goal is to make the US exactly like North Korea, or worse.
If that is not very apparent after 20+ years of the Democratic Party blocking every source of energy production in the US, and lowering our standard of living, then people must be blind and/or utterly stupid.
Since every species alters its environment and the baseline carbon footprint per human is basically flat over thousands of years, I assume you mean the "human" problem. Obviously we need to get rid of some humans. Since you're obviously more concerned than me, you can go first.
Humans are not going to devolve or regress - it's counter to who we are as a species. What we do well is adapt, as we have proven for thousands of years. I suggest you quit crying and worrying and go have a beer with a friend. Just make sure you walk - cars are evil. And don't drink it cold - refrigerants are bad for the ozone. And it better be a local beer - transportation uses fossil fuels. And the hops - make sure they are organic - pesticides are a huge carbon emitter.
Interesting statistic for the board: Canadian carbon footprint per capita has increased since 1990 while the per capita footprint in the US has fallen since 1990.
The reason that Canada's CO2 has increased and your's has decreased is simple....We have an evangelical conservative AGW denier as a leader, and you don't.
The reason that Canada's CO2 has increased and your's has decreased is simple....We have an evangelical conservative AGW denier as a leader, and you don't.
And we will have one soon.
Whatever the idiot signs into law by decree, can be unsigned by his successor.
Do not get me started on the IPCC fraud. They completely, and no doubt deliberately, misrepresent the data they cite in their report.
For example, the NASA's GISS data shows that between 1880 and 2011 there was a total increase in the mean surface temperature of 0.85°C, and a total decrease in the mean surface temperature of 0.34°C, resulting in a net mean surface temperature increase of 0.51°C. Yet the IPCC, which cites the NASA's GISS data, only reports the total 0.85°C increase and erroneously claims that was the net increase.
As far as I am concerned, there is nothing in the IPCC report that can be taken as valid. Every source they cite needs to be verified to ensure they are reporting the data correctly, and that is just not worth the time.
They make all these bogus alarmist predictions in an attempt to gain attention, then deliberately alter the data to suit their alarmist agenda. That is not even remotely "the scientific method," that is a political agenda, which makes the IPCC report purely propaganda.
You really need to read more slowly..... The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. All you have to do is look at the graph you posted to see that you have misinterpreted the data.
The reason that Canada's CO2 has increased and your's has decreased is simple....We have an evangelical conservative AGW denier as a leader, and you don't.
Plus you have that cool carbon tax to make it all better and we don't
The reason that Canada's CO2 has increased and your's has decreased is simple....We have an evangelical conservative AGW denier as a leader, and you don't.
So he generates all that additional carbon by himself?
When I said misguided policy decisions, I was referring to a carbon tax and the numerous failed green initiatives.
What's wrong with a carbon tax coupled with a reduction in spending in...oh say the military?
What are these other failed green initiatives?
Quote:
We were talking about your misguided assertion that scholarly articles drive
policy decisions here. Try and stop going off on different tangents when you
can't debate the subject we are on.
Where do you think the IPPCC gets their information from, if not peer reviewed scholarly articles?
Quote:
Why are you asking me? It's your camp that claims this constantly. They keep saying we need to act now before it's too late and it's urgent.
Here's the Secretary General of the U.N.
"Climate change has been one of my top priorities since the day I took office in 2007. I said then that if we care about our legacy for succeeding generations, this is the time for decisive global action. I have been pleased to see climate change rise on the political agenda and in the consciousness of people worldwide. But I remain alarmed that governments and businesses have still failed to act at the pace and scale needed.
Time is running out. The more we delay, the more we will pay. Climate change is accelerating and human activities are the principal cause, as documented in a series of authoritative scientific reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. " Now Is the Time to Act on Climate Change*|*Ban Ki-moon
.....so you have no timeline? How are we supposed to take action without a timeline or an idea?
Obviously you are more knowledgeable about my alleged camp than am I ironically....
Quote:
I was defending myself from your assertion that it was my unrealistic dogma that
we need to act fact before it's too late and take extreme measures for an
extreme problem. You mentioned political will. Political will doesn't factor
into that discussion. I was following the logic that an extreme problem requires
extreme measures. Whether or not the political will exists to address that is an
entirely separate discussion from correcting another one of your
misinterpretations.
How is political will not relevant? How are we supposed take extreme measures without political will? Like I said, you build up the unrealistic expectations only to tear them down.
Quote:
Horsecrap. You changed the subject from hypocrisy to trying to claim I didn't understand the article. We had been talking about hypocrisy and how you incorrectly thought asking Obama and the other people in your movement should "walk the walk" was grandstanding. I guess that wasn't going your way so you decided to change the subject.
What does hypocrisy have to do anything with the validity of AGW or the OP you started? You're the one who started this thread about oceanic warming, what ever happened to that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
