The Combine Forum banner

341 - 360 of 394 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
Speaking of criminal con artists NF, did you catch the latest that we are now down to 18 months to save the planet?

Yup. Don't need to wait 11.5 years. It's 1.5 years now. You can look up what Prince Charles and associated experts have to say.



I follow what you are saying BoSot. Things are always changing yet there are more than enough people who will beleive what ever you tell them. For instance Canada has a great track record of building on flood plains these days. And then when the flood plain floods it becomes a national news story and the government gives tax payer money to help with the "disaster" and rebuild - on the flood plain. Our latest news story was Quebec where flooding on a flood plain was blamed on global warming. No one can explain why the buildings flooded are always less then 40 years old though and why no one built there before that time.There will always be climate cycles, some worse than others, but being flooded out in a flood plain and having government and media call it the effects of global warming is simply criminal con artists at work. Wouldn't you say NF? You can include Brandon, Manitoba in there too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,462 Posts
. But reading the article, makes me wonder. 60 years is a long time, but in the bigger picture, it is not that long.

60 Years is nothing. A generation is nothing. In fact, the entire time that anything resembling a human being is less than a fart in the life time of the earth. It's almost impossible to fathom how insignificant our existence has been in comparison to the earth's. To make the case for global warming, the data needs to be used from Earth's day one, not just the most extreme of the last few years.


On another note, read a part in the local paper that has clips from past papers, in around 1889 I think it was, people were still working in the fields. No mention of climate change in the article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Glowbull warmers = eco terrorism propaganda
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,221 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
Greta represents how SJW's work. You are led to beleive a social activist movement is a grass roots development that gathers public attention that government then notices and makes corresponding changes to address the demands of the movement. When in reality the decision was made long ago that something unfavourable to the masses will be done and so some sort of narrative must be created to bring it to the public attention and then control the narrative so people can be led to beleive that even though they themselves don't agree, clearly many others do - and so the change is implemented by those who originally designed it. The problem for Greta is the US is not playing along and the general population is starting to understand they are not alone in calling global warming the biggest hoax attempted on mankind.

How are those climate models doing? Anyone find one that is accurate? Been 30 years now for the IPCC and untold models based on "settled" science. Last I saw there were 20 or so models backed by IPCC and none of them are close to the actual temperature trend. How can so many experts be wrong. Maybe because there are very few who actually beleive it.
Some quotes from people who are not brought forward to control a narrative:


Dr John R. Christy, State Climatologist, Alabama, USA: “I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, and that humans are causing catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.”
Dr Charles Wax, former president, American Association of State Climatologists: “First off, there isn’t a consensus among scientists. Don’t let anybody tell you there is.”
Stanley B. Goldenberg, Meteorologist, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
William Kininmonth, former head of National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology: “Climate science is not settled. Four decades of observations highlight that computer models have exaggerated the influence of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. The Paris Agreement has been negotiated from faulty premises.”
Dr David Evans, former consultant to Australian Greenhouse Office: “Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
Dr John T. Everett, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer: “I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even with the IPCC’s warming, than the next ice age that will likely last over 100,000 years and bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA Paleo Climate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were two to four times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated.”
Dr Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT: “What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays.”
Dr Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics: “I am a sceptic … global warming has become a new religion.”
Dr Robert Laughlin, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics: “You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the Earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
Dr Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist: “Those people [at the IPCC] don’t always tell you the truth. There’s nothing in their contract in fact that makes it to their advantage, always, to tell you the truth.”
Dr Judith A. Curry, climatologist, former chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology: “There are a lot of natural forces in play here that determine the climate and thinking that we can really control the climate by dialling down the CO2 emissions is really misguided hubris.”
Dr Madhav Khandekar, meteorologist, Expert Reviewer for UN IPCC 2007 Climate Change Report: “Finding global warming in Canada and elsewhere is like the proverbial ‘finding a needle in haystack’. I am sorry to say that there is no global warming anywhere in the world today [19 April 2018].”
Dr Patrick J. Michaels, former president, American Association of State Climatologists: “It is nowhere near as warm as it’s supposed to be. The computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors over the entire tropics which is 40 per cent of the earth, and it’s where all our moisture comes from or almost all of it.”
Dr Roy Spencer, climatologist, former NASA scientist: “This is the state of climate science today: if you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors (and make them resign), and even violate the law. As long as you can say you are doing it for the children.”
Piers Corbyn MSc, astrophysicist, Managing Director, WeatherAction: “Global warming/climate change policy causes massive suffering from Africa to France where ‘yellow vests’ have ripped off the mask of creeping green fascism. Follow the Money! Climate policy is [designed] to brainwash and control us all and make mega-rich corporations richer. Destroy the CO2 con!”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
So in order as a human being to help Climate Change, I am going to be Net Zero/Carbon Neutral in the future as it is the right thing to do. The thought is I will die from old age in the future and I will then be Net Zero/Carbon Neutral. I think all the people that are thinking as a species that uses carbon for all things we do from cooking, staying warm or cool and transportation, that a Carbon Tax is going to fix it, THIS IS A PIPE DREAM FALLACY. Government wants to help carbon emissions, how about a $10.00/litre carbon tax on fuel and I can guarantee there would be less people driving. $3000.00/ month to heat your home, yup they would be made energy efficient. No more airplanes in the air period or at least $15000.00 to fly 500km would be a start. The only airplanes that right now are Net Zero are the Boeing 737 Max 8s as they are sitting on the ground. Peoplekind it is time to really think about the B.S. that is being fed to you, Canada is a drop in the bucket for carbon emissions. Change up to the old Vulcan proverb "Only Greta can go to China", and i will pay for her flight or her boat trip, which ever she prefers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Been 30 years now for the IPCC and untold models based on "settled" science. Last I saw there were 20 or so models backed by IPCC and none of them are close to the actual temperature trend
Actually the INM-CM4 model did a reasonable job of predicting the recent climate events. The INM-CM5 update is supposed to be even better. Both are developed by a Russian research team. The problem with this particular model is that it predict "only" 1.4°C of warming by 2100. Which doesn't fit the sky is falling narrative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I find it funny how hypocritical these climate activists are!! They yell and scream we are killing the world, but don't go to the countries that are the biggest emitters! They should go to China to protest and see how that goes for them!! China has put enough coal fired power plants online in the last 18 months to power all of Canada!! I'm not sure how efficient they are, but I'm guessing they don't run as clean as the ones we are shutting down here!! Put more money into technology to make coal fired power plants burn even cleaner, there is lots of coal and we should be using it instead of natural gas fired plants!! No other uses for coal, but many more uses for natural gas!
Also these activist love to fly around the world but have no idea the impact of flying has! They are more interested in updating their social media to show all their fake friends where they travel to! For instance, a 747 holds 48,000 gallons of fuel, which will last 15 hours!!! I farm 2200 acres of wheat, barley and canola.That same 48,000 gallons of fuel would last me 8 years...so I could grow 17,600 acres with that same amount of fuel and feed thousands of people!! There is also approximately 9800 aircraft in the air at any one time and 1.2 million people in those aircraft!! If people would cut out frivolous air travel, that would help matters somewhat!
The climate activists worry about global warming, and the icecaps melting...I wonder how they explain the gold miners in northern Yukon and Alaska that find woolly mammoth tusks under 5 feet of permafrost?? Obviously it wasn't always cold in the north!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
Those are the specifics that the media does not mention hoodpins. I see references to 28, 39 and 48 climate models used by the IPCC and none are correct - they all overestimate the observed temperatures. And it does appear that INM-CM5 comes closest and version 6 is expected to be closer yet. An interesting thing that CM5 and 6 are doing is they are reducing TSI which would therefore follow the solar cycle data. Remember the story that the sun does not effect temperature because its output is fixed. End of story. All temperature change is therefore human caused. Well it seems some people are considering the sun's output is not constant.
Would it not turn the global warming world upside down if it became accepted that all prior models were wrong because they did not allow for a variable output from the sun.
But then we would need to question what data they are using to compare observed temperatures to the models. There seems to be a lot of observed temperature manipulation so just because a model shows a temperature increase from 1940 to 2000 who is to say there was an actual temperature increase. Many bits of data say 1940-45 was as warm or warmer than 1990-2000. But if you massage the data to show a warming trend and then find a model that models a warming trend then how accurate is that model.
But long story short, there are no climate models that are matching up with present day observed temperatures though we can look at one that is coming close but still overestimates warming. But the people peddling the climate crisis narrative forget to tell you that. Even though they beleive the science is settled. It may be settled - but it's just not accurate.
Next is to watch what solar cycle 25 does and see if any climate model comes close to reproducing the results. I suspect that a lot will depend on if solar cycle 25 is equal, weaker, or stonger than 24. And I beleive real science knows the answer. Things will look different by 2025 and that is why the crisis is now to ramrod things through before the truth gets out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
I find it funny how hypocritical these climate activists are!! They yell and scream we are killing the world, but don't go to the countries that are the biggest emitters! They should go to China to protest and see how that goes for them!! China has put enough coal fired power plants online in the last 18 months to power all of Canada!! I'm not sure how efficient they are, but I'm guessing they don't run as clean as the ones we are shutting down here!! Put more money into technology to make coal fired power plants burn even cleaner, there is lots of coal and we should be using it instead of natural gas fired plants!! No other uses for coal, but many more uses for natural gas!
Also these activist love to fly around the world but have no idea the impact of flying has! They are more interested in updating their social media to show all their fake friends where they travel to! For instance, a 747 holds 48,000 gallons of fuel, which will last 15 hours!!! I farm 2200 acres of wheat, barley and canola.That same 48,000 gallons of fuel would last me 8 years...so I could grow 17,600 acres with that same amount of fuel and feed thousands of people!! There is also approximately 9800 aircraft in the air at any one time and 1.2 million people in those aircraft!! If people would cut out frivolous air travel, that would help matters somewhat!
The climate activists worry about global warming, and the icecaps melting...I wonder how they explain the gold miners in northern Yukon and Alaska that find woolly mammoth tusks under 5 feet of permafrost?? Obviously it wasn't always cold in the north!!
Yup 747 at 4litres a second at cruise, never mind take off. 737 a paltry 1litre a second, but the politicians, UN officials and other Climate idiots have no problem jet setting around the world so they can point fingers and give us an unwanted and not required carbon tax. Website aeso.ca is a breakdown of electric power generated and how its generated in Alberta. Have to laugh at the "Green Power" Solar has been less than a Megawatt anytime this week(daytime only) and wind has been a hit and miss and hydro, not much there either. If it isn't Coal or Natural gas "carbon burning" we would be in the dark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Discussion Starter #354 (Edited)
What the sheeple fundamentally fail to grasp is that it is a carbon CYCLE. Carbon is released into the atmosphere, then reabsorbed back into organisms. It is a closed cycle or system. Matter cannot be destroyed. We have the same amount of carbon within that system that we have always had. The faster carbon is released, the faster it is reabsorbed. Without it nothing lives.
Regarding carbon released by humans, keep it in perspective people...Nature periodically releases carbon in huge doses into the atmosphere by volcanic eruption or wildfire and also by water erosion and landslide, which is then reabsorbed within the system. This has been happening for billions of years. Nature controls us!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
What the sheeple fundamentally fail to grasp is that it is a carbon CYCLE. Carbon is released into the atmosphere, then reabsorbed back into organisms. It is a closed cycle or system. Matter cannot be destroyed. We have the same amount of carbon within that system that we have always had. The faster carbon is released, the faster it is reabsorbed. Without it nothing lives.
Regarding carbon released by humans, keep it in perspective people...Nature periodically releases carbon in huge doses into the atmosphere by volcanic eruption or wildfire, that is then reabsorbed within the system. This has been happening for billions of years. Nature controls us!!!
Wonder if Jacinda is going to put a carbon tax on that volcano. My heart goes out to the people that were lost though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Discussion Starter #356 (Edited)
Wonder if Jacinda is going to put a carbon tax on that volcano. My heart goes out to the people that were lost though.
That eruption sums up, in a nutshell, how idiotic the whole carbon tax fiasco is...and if Jacinda doesn't see that, she's either really stupid or very cunning. New Zealand is a land of volcano's and landslides, with relatively few people. Which do you think emits more carbon? I think it's a no brainer.
According to Australia's top IPCC representative, Australia is responsible for just 1.4% of the worlds anthropogenic carbon emissions. He says if Australia was shut down tomorrow, it would make NO difference to carbon levels. On that scale, New Zealand wouldn't even rate as a carbon emitter, yet Jacinda has a carbon tax going. I smell a rat!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
That eruption sums up, in a nutshell, how idiotic the whole carbon tax fiasco is...and if Jacinda doesn't see that, she's either really stupid or very cunning. New Zealand is a land of volcano's and landslides, with relatively few people. Which do you think emits more carbon? I think it's a no brainer.
According to Australia's top IPCC representative, Australia is responsible for just 1.4% of the worlds anthropogenic carbon emissions. He says if Australia was shut down tomorrow, it would make NO difference to carbon levels. On that scale, New Zealand wouldn't even rate as a carbon emitter, yet Jacinda has a carbon tax going. I smell a rat!
The first thing I said yesterday was I hope Jacinda is going to pay her carbon tax on that eruption, as she regards bushfires in Australia as counting towards our carbon count.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Discussion Starter #359 (Edited)
The first thing I said yesterday was I hope Jacinda is going to pay her carbon tax on that eruption, as she regards bushfires in Australia as counting towards our carbon count.
If the past record of ex New Zealand Labour Party P.M.'s is anything to go by and yes I'm talking about you Helen, then Jacinda's greasing up for a lucrative position in the U.N. after her time in office, using carbon taxes sacrificed by hapless New Zillander's as an offering, so my bet is she will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
If you follow that path you started rcyung what you will find you are learning about is how the central bankers are "debating" if it is their role to be involved in climate change. Since our economy is fossil fuel dependent and would collapse if governments implemented the zero carbon policies then it may fall on central bankers to assume all control in order to save the planet. This is all new ground of course, never been thought of before so they are simply discussing the possibility. Central Banks with infinite wealth working with government to assume all control of your lives to save the planet from 2 deg C warming. So once again we come back to the very first item - which data says we have 2 deg C warming? Perhaps the central bankers and government should address that point first before debating how exactly they will take control of the world economy.
 
341 - 360 of 394 Posts
Top