Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Tisme]

e.g., Grasshopper

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...his-hypocrisy-gives-the-finger-to-his-message

Hipster greens drinking hot unnecessary coffee from manufactured drinking cups, with milk from methane cows, transported in fossil fueled vehicles, while wearing petrochemical derived synthetic shoes, pants, shirts and coats,etc etc

 

[Tisme]

Deforestation has stopped in wealthy countries. Europe’s forest area grew by more than 0.3% annually from 1990 to 2015. In the United States it is growing by 0.1% annually

 

[Humid]

Hipster greens drinking hot unnecessary coffee from manufactured drinking cups, with milk from methane cows, transported in fossil fueled vehicles, while wearing petrochemical derived synthetic shoes, pants, shirts and coats,etc etc

You forgot man products

 

[luutzu]

Thanks for the sermonising.

Why would the fact of casually observable changes, equate to the imminent doom of the human populace?

Why is every noticeable variation in the weather, automatically deemed to be evidence of imminent catastrophe?

Where is empirical science to be found within the Climate religion?

Who says every weather event is a "Climate Change" event?

btw, again repeating... the term "Climate Change" was invented by vested interests to replace "Global Warming". No, not changed by the greenie commies, but by that high-paid consultant they go to for electioneering.

Why the change? Because "Climate Change" will fool some people into thinking that it's just the weather changing, no duh! "Global Warming" sounds bad.

As to "empirical evidence"... ask the Pentagon why some 60 million people around the world are displaced each year. No, not the ones escaping the war zones...

And no, people don't pack their family off and away because of a few bad months of harvest. They move, mostly to refugee camps or the capital cities, because their farm turns to dust or salt to to it.

 

[luutzu]

Sigh, such a hard Grasshopper to teach.

Did you not read the research I posted about relative behaviours?

My views on cc are well documented I won't go through the tiresome process of repeating them for the millionth time for them to be disingenuously ignored and/or misrepresented... again.

Irrespective of co2 emissions, there are 1001 other ways gratuitous consumption is polluting our planet, which the alarmists seem intenr on ignoring in favour of the CC political agenda.

Meanwhile, absurdly, grotesquely, CC "warriors" are flying about in private jets and psrtying on megayachts and preaching to the great unwashed and collecting environmental prizes.

It's you alarmists who turn out to be doing the most damage. Do you not find the hypocrisy totally nauseous?

I think that line of argument has it backwards Sifu.

The "alarmists" are the ones who like the current way of life; like, for the most part, our current organised way of existence. Hence the "alarm" about it being swept away if no alternative source of energy etc. are seriously taken up.

It's like a person who enjoy driving or a train ride pointing out that maybe we ought to repair and maintain the thing lest it collapses and derail one day.

That's not to say certain behaviour and ways don't need to be changed. For example, recycle more; more investment into recycling, into alternative sources of energy; maybe eat more variety of food rather than just meat and more of it.

 

[cynic]

Who says every weather event is a "Climate Change" event?

Don't you read your own posts?

btw, again repeating... the term "Climate Change" was invented by vested interests to replace "Global Warming". No, not changed by the greenie commies, but by that high-paid consultant they go to for electioneering.

Why the change? Because "Climate Change" will fool some people into thinking that it's just the weather changing, no duh! "Global Warming" sounds bad.

No that wasn't the reason. It was to enable alarmists to have an each way bet, thereby avoiding eggs on faces each time the weather thwarted their warming prophecies.

As to "empirical evidence"... ask the Pentagon why some 60 million people around the world are displaced each year. No, not the ones escaping the war zones...

And no, people don't pack their family off and away because of a few bad months of harvest. They move, mostly to refugee camps or the capital cities, because their farm turns to dust or salt to to it.

Where is the empirical evidence for this?
What does NaCl have to do with CO2?
(Ask the pentagon?!!! And people accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist!)

 

[wayneL]

I think that line of argument has it backwards Sifu.

The "alarmists" are the ones who like the current way of life; like, for the most part, our current organised way of existence. Hence the "alarm" about it being swept away if no alternative source of energy etc. are seriously taken up.

It's like a person who enjoy driving or a train ride pointing out that maybe we ought to repair and maintain the thing lest it collapses and derail one day.

That's not to say certain behaviour and ways don't need to be changed. For example, recycle more; more investment into recycling, into alternative sources of energy; maybe eat more variety of food rather than just meat and more of it.

Err... Not quite Grasshopper. A parry should be effective, not simply a denial that one has been struck. You cannot win this one against insurmountable odds, ie the now established fact of alarmist hypocrisy.

There is more honour in standing back and conceding.

Back to Grasshopper school, Grasshopper.

 

[luutzu]

Err... Not quite Grasshopper. A parry should be effective, not simply a denial that one has been struck. You cannot win this one against insurmountable odds, ie the now established fact of alarmist hypocrisy.

There is more honour in standing back and conceding.

Back to Grasshopper school, Grasshopper.

I thought I made sense on that one but alright. Try this one:

Don't kill the messenger.

Read the message. Judge its content. Don't judge the hypocrisy or whatever of the person delivering it.

I mean, going by that line of argument and there wouldn't be any innovation, or sense.

It's like laughing and mocking at some genius who suggests that maybe the light bulb could more efficient than Edison's version. Maybe even safer, less heat, brighter, cheaper.

It'd be pretty silly to say to that person that... what, you don't like electric lights? You don't use them?

 

[luutzu]

Don't you read your own posts?

No that wasn't the reason. It was to enable alarmists to have an each way bet, thereby avoiding eggs on faces each time the weather thwarted their warming prophecies.
Where is the empirical evidence for this?
What does NaCl have to do with CO2?
(Ask the pentagon?!!! And people accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist!)

You know you can google these stuff right?

The Pentagon, as claimed in an interview with US Col. Wilkinson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell... said that the Pentagon have war games and planning papers on how to deal with the "national security" threat caused by Climate Change.

You probably might have heard it from former Sec of State John Kerry... that Climate Change and "climate refugee" poses a great danger to (the rich countries). i.e. you can't shoot them all dead on site at the border.

Anyway, from memory the war plans assume catastrophic climate refugee/migration in the hundreds of millions in coming decades.

And of course there's those damages to civilian/domestic infrastructure from severe "weather" event. You know, if it floods in a few region, the army and its reserves can't cope. Civilians will be dead, those alive will not be happy... and they can't all be Puerto Rican you can just ignore.

Not to mention drought, severe bushfires etc. affecting agriculture and its exports; taxing emergency services.

Anyway, the Pentagon (and I'm assuming all other national security agencies around the world) takes Climate Change seriously. So serious that even Donald Trump and its band of psychos can't remove mentions of Climate Change in the Pentagon's plans. They can muck around with the EPA and stuff, not when it come to more serious places.

 

[luutzu]

...
What does NaCl have to do with CO2?

Sodium Cloride? Salt?

Salt water, the sea.

If the rivers dries up, shrinks... sea water will move inland. That's how water in the world's oceans and deltas work.

A fairly large chunk of the world's food are grown in the deltas. If it's salted... You know what Rome did to Carthage after they took it over right? Carthage don't exist no more.

 

[basilio]

Echoing Luutzu comments, at what stage will anyone on this forum as well as the wider community respond to what is happening in the Antartic at the Thwaites glacier ?

Do we just ignore what scientists are observing because ... it's only alarmists talk ?

Do we say it can't be happening because...it hasn't actually happened right now ?

Do we say it doesn't matter if the oceans rise 3 to 30 metres because ... it happened hundreds of thousands of years ago as well ?

Or is Thinking the Unthinkable just too confronting ?

 

[cynic]

Sodium Cloride? Salt?

Salt water, the sea.

If the rivers dries up, shrinks... sea water will move inland. That's how water in the world's oceans and deltas work.

A fairly large chunk of the world's food are grown in the deltas. If it's salted... You know what Rome did to Carthage after they took it over right? Carthage don't exist no more.

As usual, the alarmist doesn't understand enough science to understand, let alone answer the question. (Water is H2O). Where does CO2 feature in your latest rambling?

 

[cynic]

You know you can google these stuff right?

I can google all sorts of things, like the following:
http://weeklyworldnews.com/aliens/26535/alien-spaceships-to-attack-earth-in-2013/
Does the fact that it is found via google make it true?

The Pentagon, as claimed in an interview with US Col. Wilkinson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell... said that the Pentagon have war games and planning papers on how to deal with the "national security" threat caused by Climate Change.

You probably might have heard it from former Sec of State John Kerry... that Climate Change and "climate refugee" poses a great danger to (the rich countries). i.e. you can't shoot them all dead on site at the border.

Anyway, from memory the war plans assume catastrophic climate refugee/migration in the hundreds of millions in coming decades.

And of course there's those damages to civilian/domestic infrastructure from severe "weather" event. You know, if it floods in a few region, the army and its reserves can't cope. Civilians will be dead, those alive will not be happy... and they can't all be Puerto Rican you can just ignore.

Not to mention drought, severe bushfires etc. affecting agriculture and its exports; taxing emergency services.

Anyway, the Pentagon (and I'm assuming all other national security agencies around the world) takes Climate Change seriously. So serious that even Donald Trump and its band of psychos can't remove mentions of Climate Change in the Pentagon's plans. They can muck around with the EPA and stuff, not when it come to more serious places.

War games and catastrophic climate assumptions?!! Seriously!! So how are theses anything more than hypothetical explorations of "What if...?" scenarios?

 

[luutzu]

As usual, the alarmist doesn't understand enough science to understand, let alone answer the question. (Water is H2O). Where does CO2 feature in your latest rambling?

I thought we all agreed that high level of CO2 in the atmosphere warms up the earth - the greenhouse effect. No?

But unlike the greenhouse where you grow plants and things, the planet have these icecaps at either end. Too hot and ice tend to melt, releasing trapped water etc.

Anyway, I'm no climate science surgeon man. Just got paid by Al Gore to hurt the poor oil industry who's just trying to make ends meet.

 

[luutzu]

I can google all sorts of things, like the following:
http://weeklyworldnews.com/aliens/26535/alien-spaceships-to-attack-earth-in-2013/
Does the fact that it is found via google make it true?
War games and catastrophic climate assumptions?!! Seriously!! So how are theses anything more than hypothetical explorations of "What if...?" scenarios?

Here you go:
What if Superman crashed his spaceship in the North Pole and killed Santa.

 

[cynic]

I thought we all agreed that high level of CO2 in the atmosphere warms up the earth - the greenhouse effect. No?

I understand its presence to insulate the escape and penetration of some forms of radiation. It is unclear to myself, as to whether or not the climate is warming, cooling or in equilibrium and the extent (or lack thereof) of CO2's contribution to any trend that may exist.

But unlike the greenhouse where you grow plants and things, the planet have these icecaps at either end. Too hot and ice tend to melt, releasing trapped water etc.

The ice caps aren't the only part of the plaent, nor is CO2 the only part of the atmosphere, nor is this planet the only part of the solar system etc. Way too many other factors need to be considered before jumping to hasty conclusions

Anyway, I'm no climate science surgeon man...

Your posts, to date, have made the truth of that statement blindingly apparent!

 

[cynic]

Here you go:
What if Superman crashed his spaceship in the North Pole and killed Santa.
...

Well it's obvious that he didn't, because I saw children lining up to be photographed with Santa last December.
So hopefully superman also survived the crash.

Anyway, even if Santa had somehow been killed, that would be one heck of a lot more credible than the apocalyptic rubbish being published in peer reviewed papers courtesy of the climate clergymen.

 

[wayneL]

Echoing Luutzu comments, at what stage will anyone on this forum as well as the wider community respond to what is happening in the Antartic at the Thwaites glacier ?

Do we just ignore what scientists are observing because ... it's only alarmists talk ?

Do we say it can't be happening because...it hasn't actually happened right now ?

Do we say it doesn't matter if the oceans rise 3 to 30 metres because ... it happened hundreds of thousands of years ago as well ?

Or is Thinking the Unthinkable just too confronting ?

What the.... ?

How duplicitous can you people get? The reasearch shows that those such as yourself are doing nothing at all, quite the opposite, soothing your grotesque hypocrisy with consicious consumption, large centrally heated and air conditioned homes, and holiday apartments on the other side of the world.

All the while lecturing us who are either doubtful or moderate beliefs to do something... WHEN WE ARE DOING MORE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAN YOU!!!

Then you further console yourselves as being "messengers" making you exempt.

How ****ing obscene!

 

[Knobby22]

Better call the exterminator.
Infestation of trolls.

 

[basilio]

Which people are telling us what is happening on the Thwaites glacier ?
What are they saying ?
Do they have credible expertise in the area?
What are the consequences for all of us if their observations are correct?

How much, how fast?: A science review and outlook for research on the instability of Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier in the 21st century
Author links open overlay panelT.A.ScambosR.E.BellR.B.AlleyS.AnandakrishnanD.H.BromwichK.BruntK.ChristiansonT.CreytsS.B.DasR.DeContoP.DutrieuxH.A.FrickerD.HollandJ.MacGregorB.MedleyJ.P.NicolasD.PollardM.R.Siegfried…P.L.Yager
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.04.008Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811630491X