Resisting Climate Hysteria

noco · 18 July 2016

basilio said:
The scientific communities response to Climate Change denialism in the US Congress.
Getting xxxxing real

http://mashable.com/2016/06/29/science-groups-statement-congress/#13OfYKNXoEqI

How much is the United Nations contributing to these so called Scientific communities to falsify information and promote their propaganda in an effort to squash Deniers....It is all about the UN seeking World Government and they will stop at nothing to fulfill their aim and with our KEVVIE at the top who knows what will happen next.

What a load of CLAP TRAP.......Lots of IFS and BUTS......MAYBE....COULD BE.....SUPPOSITION.....but in actual fact we are not really sure.

A nice video of a melting glacier with the time frame sped up to make it look worse than it really is.....Take a cruise up the Alaskan Coast and into Glacier Bay where you will see some 6 or 7 glaciers creeping into the sea with chunks of ice as big as a bus falling into the sea as has been happening for 1000's of years.....No doubt that video WAS taken in Glacier Bay....I have been there and have seen it with my own eyes and true to the video.

Nobody can deny the influence of the Sun plays a major part of Climate Change on Earth and other planets.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...ain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=paid outbrain

explod · 18 July 2016

cynic said:
So basically, what you're confirming here is that the IPCC has a history of getting their worst case scenarios wrong!

In fact a number of commentators suggest that prior to release the IPPC reports are massaged down to satisfy the respective government lobby (oil cartels etc) groups.

cynic · 18 July 2016

explod said:
In fact a number of commentators suggest that prior to release the IPPC reports are massaged down to satisfy the respective government lobby (oil cartels etc) groups.

Well that only makes matters worse!

Where is their credibility if they are incapable of reporting actual scientific findings rather than having to pander to the whims of others?

trainspotter · 18 July 2016

basilio said:
The rate of increase in global temperatures has been extremely fast. But ice sheets can't and won't melt at such a pace. Historically they have taken anything from hundreds to thousands of years to reflect the increase in global temperatures. In fact it was this belief that ice sheets are relatively stable that gave climate scientists hope that even if/when the ice sheets melted it might be way into the future even if that was 200 years away.

But new evidence, new facts has caused that theory to be revised. That is the basis of the National Geographic article which analyses these papers.

Because the past 50 years has seen such steep increases in temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic quite new mechanisms of ice melting have been noticed. It is the evidence of these warm water flows under the ice caps and through the ice caps that gives glaciologists the concern that we face metres of sea level rise with the next 100 years rather than the longer time frame previously believed.

PS We don't need 20 metres of sea level in a century to destroy civilisation as we know it. 1-2 metres will be quite sufficient

Still hasn't answered any of my questions and is now trying to weasel his way out of it by backtracking on previous statements of HYSTERIA and now is claiming other "mechanisms" are at play. PURE FALSEHOOD basilio.

You have been hoist with your own petard and proven to be a follower of the religion of CC and GW. Al Gore blesses you and the IPCC summons you to their Holy Tower of religious fervour. I can hear the bells tolling for you now.

You made rash statements about GW and CC and claiming polar ice caps would melt and the water would be 20 metres deep within 100 years. FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP there goes basilio.

And your ridiculous statement ...

PS We don't need 20 metres of sea level in a century to destroy civilisation as we know it. 1-2 metres will be quite sufficient

Click to expand...

A sea level rise of 1 - 2 metres is going to destroy civilisation as we know it? REALLY basilio ??? Do you even read this nonsense you are drivelling?

DESTROY CIVILISATION !!!

There is that better for you ??

But wait there is a solution that is being worked on already ...

Sea water over the Sahara desert will evaporate due to the high temperatures. However, pumping sea water and releasing it underground within the Sahara desert may counteract global rising sea levels and promote vegetation amenable to high temperatures that may in turn reduce warm air streams that would otherwise result in eastern super storms or hurricanes. The local vegetation may also lead to sustainability in agriculture and a means by which future well water from moisture of plants can manifest. Funding is needed for initial pumps and piping as well as initial planting for propagation of vegetation. Well water will take time to establish but some sea water pumps can be diverted toward desalination facilities for immediate use of water where necessary.

ADAPTATION !!

PS You have completely ignored the FACT you have been caught out with your own HYSTERIA !

luutzu · 18 July 2016

cynic said:
Talk is cheap luutzu!

If you want people to believe in yourself and your chosen religion then you need to be seen practicing rather than merely preaching!

Beside Jesus Christ himself, show me a religious person who practise what he preaches. ha ha

Serious man, we've gone through this before... people who raise the issue of CC and the danger it poses - they do it, aside from the obvious fact that they can read and think and care about the world their grandkids or their neighbours' inherit... beside that, they also raise the alarm bell because they do use, do enjoy, do want the life that's made better by advances in technology... tech like, planes, cars, trains, boats, air conditioners.

It's them liking it, wanting others to live in a world that could provide such... that they raise the issue. Ey, the world as we know it cannot be polluted; oi, there are other ways to generate electricity; other ways to fly and travel.

No climate fanatics say stop all these tech and good living stuff and get back to living like it was 5000BC.

Maybe it's not "us" that are hypocritical... maybe it's those who want to live and enjoy the good things in life, yet at the same time don't give two shiet about what an overwhelming number of knowledgable scientists are warning... maybe those are the hypocrits.

But naaaa... you travel man, you shouldn't talk about fossil fuel.

cynic · 18 July 2016

luutzu said:
Beside Jesus Christ himself, show me a religious person who practise what he preaches. ha ha

Serious man, we've gone through this before... people who raise the issue of CC and the danger it poses - they do it, aside from the obvious fact that they can read and think and care about the world their grandkids or their neighbours' inherit... beside that, they also raise the alarm bell because they do use, do enjoy, do want the life that's made better by advances in technology... tech like, planes, cars, trains, boats, air conditioners.

It's them liking it, wanting others to live in a world that could provide such... that they raise the issue. Ey, the world as we know it cannot be polluted; oi, there are other ways to generate electricity; other ways to fly and travel.

No climate fanatics say stop all these tech and good living stuff and get back to living like it was 5000BC.

Maybe it's not "us" that are hypocritical... maybe it's those who want to live and enjoy the good things in life, yet at the same time don't give two shiet about what an overwhelming number of knowledgable scientists are warning... maybe those are the hypocrits.

But naaaa... you travel man, you shouldn't talk about fossil fuel.

My house does not feature an air conditioner. I have never driven a motor vehicle other than my ride on lawn mower. My house is surrounded by trees and foliage.

In my entire life I have made a total of three domestic flights -two of which were business related.

Now explain to me again why I should believe in your commitment to your religion?

trainspotter · 18 July 2016

OMFG I just read this on a basilio post ...

A documentary is taking a new twist on climate change: THE AGE OF CONSEQUENCES, to be released in late 2016, investigates the impacts of climate change, resource scarcity, migration, and conflict through the lens of US national security and global stability. Through unflinching and eye-opening analysis, distinguished admirals, generals, and Pentagon insiders take us beyond the headlines of the European refugee crisis, the conflict in Syria, the social unrest of the Arab Spring, the rise of radicalized groups like ISIS, and lay bare how climate change interacts with societal tensions, sparking conflict.

Whether a long-term vulnerability or sudden shock, the film unpacks how water and food shortages, extreme weather, drought, and sea-level rise function as accelerants of instability and catalysts for conflict. Left unchecked, these threats and risks will continue to grow in scale and frequency, with grave implications for peace and security in the 21st century and lay bare how climate change interacts with societal tensions, sparking conflict.

Click to expand...

SO climate change is now under the eagle eye of the War Machine because it causes societal tensions? REALLY !!!

Yep .... when it is winter and rains too much and I can't go out, I get cabin fever. When it is summer and too hot and I can't go out, I get cabin fever. When it is autumn and it is too windy and I can't go out, I get cabin fever. When it is spring and it is glorious and the birds are singing and everything is alive and ... what is cabin fever again?

Smurf1976 · 18 July 2016

luutzu said:
there are other ways to generate electricity; other ways to fly and travel.

Electricity - technically not hard, cost is the barrier.

Cars - technically harder depending on the usage. Easy for commuter travel but problems arise when someone does a 500km trip (and not being able to do so is a barrier to purchasing such a vehicle for many).

Planes - not totally out of the question but we're a long way from the point where we've got a non-liquid fuel alternative that works to power affordable and practical aircraft for the movement of people and goods as we know aviation today. Someday probably, but not now.

We could reduce the use of coal for electricity far more easily than we're going to reduce the use of oil for transport, particularly heavy vehicles and aviation. Gas is somewhere in the middle in terms of ease of replacement.

Now, you wouldn't want to be a country that had an energy strategy that involves selling coal in order to pay for imported oil now would you. Oh wait, I think I know of such a country.....

wayneL · 18 July 2016

basilio said:
The rate of increase in global temperatures has been extremely fast.

Apart from the El nino, which is breaking down, these fast rises are only after revisions. An artificial construction by alarmists.

sptrawler · 18 July 2016

Smurf1976 said:
Electricity - technically not hard, cost is the barrier.

Cars - technically harder depending on the usage. Easy for commuter travel but problems arise when someone does a 500km trip (and not being able to do so is a barrier to purchasing such a vehicle for many).

Planes - not totally out of the question but we're a long way from the point where we've got a non-liquid fuel alternative that works to power affordable and practical aircraft for the movement of people and goods as we know aviation today. Someday probably, but not now.

We could reduce the use of coal for electricity far more easily than we're going to reduce the use of oil for transport, particularly heavy vehicles and aviation. Gas is somewhere in the middle in terms of ease of replacement.

Now, you wouldn't want to be a country that had an energy strategy that involves selling coal in order to pay for imported oil now would you. Oh wait, I think I know of such a country.....

None are so blind, as those, who don't want to see.

The reality, will come crashing down, around their ears. IMO lol

luutzu · 18 July 2016

cynic said:
My house does not feature an air conditioner. I have never driven a motor vehicle other than my ride on lawn mower. My house is surrounded by trees and foliage.

In my entire life I have made a total of three domestic flights -two of which were business related.

Now explain to me again why I should believe in your commitment to your religion?

If CC is a religion, there won't be any need to do research and conclude base on probabilities. Us religious nuts would just say it and it shall be.

Come to think of it, isn't that what the deniers are doing?
Na, can't be climate change... climate always changing. So there, can't be.

By your logic... if you have a proper flushing toilet you wouldn't care whether the neighbours take a dump outside your lawn or not? Shouldn't care whether some poorer people downstream might be affected by raw sewage since it can't possibly be yours?

You going to run for political office or what? Same kind of mentality dude.

basilio · 18 July 2016

A sea level rise of 1 - 2 metres is going to destroy civilisation as we know it? REALLY basilio ??? Do you even read this nonsense you are drivelling? basilio

2 metres of sea level rise will make the following cities uninhabitable. (You don't have to flood an entire city to stuff it up. Submergence of key roads, key infrastructure, ports, sewage farms are sufficient to make the city useless.)

So clearly all the people will need to leave and find accommodation elsewhere. Does that sound like the destruction of civilization as we know it ? Can anyone see the society we currently have continuing with the steady simultaneous inundation of hundreds of large commercial, industrial and residential hubs on the coasts of every continent? Seriously ?

Say goodbye to

Brisbane, Shanghai. Maimi, most of The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Hague, Antwerp, Hamburg, The Nile Delta, All of Bangladesh, Riga, St Petersberg, New York, London, Venice, Mumbai, Culcutta, Hue (in Vietnam) Ho Chi Minh City Guangzhou, Foshan, Yancheng, and lots and lots more.

But the really significant issue is that once we reach 2 metres it will be clear that the melting won't stop for a long time.

So where do we start rebuilding ? 3 metre line, 5 metre Line, 10 metre line? Once the ice caps start melting we are talking of anything between 6 - 20 metre rises in sea level.

Check out the effects of various increases in sea level around the world
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

This website offers a very detailed analysis of the evidence behind the various scenarios of possible sea level rise.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise

noco · 18 July 2016

basilio said:
2 metres of sea level rise will make the following cities uninhabitable. (You don't have to flood an entire city to stuff it up. Submergence of key roads, key infrastructure, ports, sewage farms are sufficient to make the city useless.)

So clearly all the people will need to leave and find accommodation elsewhere. Does that sound like the destruction of civilization as we know it ? Can anyone see the society we currently have continuing with the steady simultaneous inundation of hundreds of large commercial, industrial and residential hubs on the coasts of every continent? Seriously ?

Say goodbye to

Brisbane, Shanghai. Maimi, most of The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Hague, Antwerp, Hamburg, The Nile Delta, All of Bangladesh, Riga, St Petersberg, New York, London, Venice, Mumbai, Culcutta, Hue (in Vietnam) Ho Chi Minh City Guangzhou, Foshan, Yancheng, and lots and lots more.

But the really significant issue is that once we reach 2 metres it will be clear that the melting won't stop for a long time.

So where do we start rebuilding ? 3 metre line, 5 metre Line, 10 metre line? Once the ice caps start melting we are talking of anything between 6 - 20 metre rises in sea level.

Check out the effects of various increases in sea level around the world
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

This website offers a very detailed analysis of the evidence behind the various scenarios of possible sea level rise.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise

Bas, you had better start building your Noah's ark now before it is too late...

cynic · 18 July 2016

luutzu said:
If CC is a religion, there won't be any need to do research and conclude base on probabilities. Us religious nuts would just say it and it shall be.

Come to think of it, isn't that what the deniers are doing?
Na, can't be climate change... climate always changing. So there, can't be.

By your logic... if you have a proper flushing toilet you wouldn't care whether the neighbours take a dump outside your lawn or not? Shouldn't care whether some poorer people downstream might be affected by raw sewage since it can't possibly be yours?

You going to run for political office or what? Same kind of mentality dude.

What the FTSE has my toilet got to do with your religion?

Oh don't tell me! Let me guess! They're both full of it! Right?!

trainspotter · 18 July 2016

basilio said:
2 metres of sea level rise will make the following cities uninhabitable. (You don't have to flood an entire city to stuff it up. Submergence of key roads, key infrastructure, ports, sewage farms are sufficient to make the city useless.)

So clearly all the people will need to leave and find accommodation elsewhere. Does that sound like the destruction of civilization as we know it ? Can anyone see the society we currently have continuing with the steady simultaneous inundation of hundreds of large commercial, industrial and residential hubs on the coasts of every continent? Seriously ?

Say goodbye to

Brisbane, Shanghai. Maimi, most of The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Hague, Antwerp, Hamburg, The Nile Delta, All of Bangladesh, Riga, St Petersberg, New York, London, Venice, Mumbai, Culcutta, Hue (in Vietnam) Ho Chi Minh City Guangzhou, Foshan, Yancheng, and lots and lots more.

But the really significant issue is that once we reach 2 metres it will be clear that the melting won't stop for a long time.

So where do we start rebuilding ? 3 metre line, 5 metre Line, 10 metre line? Once the ice caps start melting we are talking of anything between 6 - 20 metre rises in sea level.

Check out the effects of various increases in sea level around the world
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

This website offers a very detailed analysis of the evidence behind the various scenarios of possible sea level rise.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise

So you have gone from HYSTERICAL claims of 20 metres and the destruction of civilisation as we know it to possible 2 metres sea level rise and some cities become uninhabitable over a 100 year period?

And in your own words ...

1) When glaciologists are looking at the meltdown of billions of tons of ice we are not talking of weeks, years, even decades. Really big ice mountains- hundreds/thousand of years ... but

I do not see why ALL the people would have to abandon the cities, only the low lying parts would be effected and the inhabitants would ADAPT and SURVIVE. OR engineers will design and contractors will build tidal surge barriers, wharves, water displacement canals, sea barriers and dykes etc. Which is going on right now basilio if you care to look.

Google "Mose flood barrier project" and educate yourself a little whilst you are at it

Then you come out with this GEM of a statement ...

Can anyone see the society we currently have continuing with the steady simultaneous inundation of hundreds of large commercial, industrial and residential hubs on the coasts of every continent?

Nothing to do with global warming but more of a Greenie "save the aboriginal gay whales" kinda stance

Your shrill hysterical claims from the Guardian and such media outlets have worn thin basilio when faced with some FACTS and logic. I am still waiting for a sensible response for the Q's I posed earlier but alas alack I am sure you will choose to ignore reality and continue on in your blinkered myopic ways.

I am still getting the dead salmon out of the heat exchange inlet pipe of a 1930's steamship using a mercury thermometer to figure out that the oceans are warming

luutzu · 19 July 2016

cynic said:
What the FTSE has my toilet got to do with your religion?

Oh don't tell me! Let me guess! They're both full of it! Right?!

Walk through your logic dude.

What you're saying is that since you don't have much of a carbon footprint, you're not responsible for, and do not care about, the cause and consequences of CC.

That's like walking down a street full of raw sewage, you just wade through it and not raise any issue because... well, because those aren't your shiet and so why should you or anyone care about the street being clean.

That's how ridiculous your thinking is if we replace carbon footprint with raw sewage.

luutzu · 19 July 2016

Smurf1976 said:
Electricity - technically not hard, cost is the barrier.

Cars - technically harder depending on the usage. Easy for commuter travel but problems arise when someone does a 500km trip (and not being able to do so is a barrier to purchasing such a vehicle for many).

Planes - not totally out of the question but we're a long way from the point where we've got a non-liquid fuel alternative that works to power affordable and practical aircraft for the movement of people and goods as we know aviation today. Someday probably, but not now.

We could reduce the use of coal for electricity far more easily than we're going to reduce the use of oil for transport, particularly heavy vehicles and aviation. Gas is somewhere in the middle in terms of ease of replacement.

Now, you wouldn't want to be a country that had an energy strategy that involves selling coal in order to pay for imported oil now would you. Oh wait, I think I know of such a country.....

Yea, the world won't be able to completely get off of fossil any time soon; and some area are harder and all that... but there are alternatives right now, and there will be alternatives if we start putting serious effort into it.

I mean, household solar panels costs a fortune a decade or so back, they're very cheap and quite affordable now. Battery and storage like Tesla's wallpack weren't even available until recently.

With some incentives, more R&D, more investment, and more uptake of just these two options alone, we could economically power at least half of household electricity need all year. The other half? Some solar farm in the US could provide power more cheaply than gas-powered station already.

Imagine the rate of progress and what new alternatives we can come up with if CC is taken seriously. But yea, slowly does it... we got another hundred years.

trainspotter · 19 July 2016

luutzu said:
Yea, the world won't be able to completely get off of fossil any time soon; and some area are harder and all that... but there are alternatives right now, and there will be alternatives if we start putting serious effort into it.

I mean, household solar panels costs a fortune a decade or so back, they're very cheap and quite affordable now. Battery and storage like Tesla's wallpack weren't even available until recently.

With some incentives, more R&D, more investment, and more uptake of just these two options alone, we could economically power at least half of household electricity need all year. The other half? Some solar farm in the US could provide power more cheaply than gas-powered station already.

Imagine the rate of progress and what new alternatives we can come up with if CC is taken seriously. But yea, slowly does it... we got another hundred years.

Ummm you might want to do some research luutzu

In Australia to name a few ...

A $650 million wind farm with 96 turbines will be built in Victoria's southwest, making it the largest in the state.

The approval of the Dundonnell project means 300 direct and indirect jobs will be created during construction, and the turbines will generate 1000Gwh of clean energy each year.
"There's nothing ugly about wind farms, because there's nothing ugly about jobs. The world is shifting to renewable energy and Victoria can't get left behind," Premier Daniel Andrews said on Tuesday.

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/61347-new-$650m-vic-wind-farm-approved.html

South Australia has the highest per capita take up of household solar power in Australia. The first commercial-scale PV power plant was opened in 2011, the Uterne Solar Power Station, a 1 MW capacity grid-connected solar photovoltaic system located 5 km south of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory.

Around the world ...

As of November 2014, Topaz Solar Farm was the largest PV solar plant in the world at 550 MWAC in central coast area and a second 550-MW plant, the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm is located in the far eastern desert region of Riverside County, California.

The Alta Wind Energy Center in California, United States is the largest onshore wind farm outside of China, with a capacity of 1,020 MW. As of April 2013, the 630 MW London Array in the UK is the largest offshore wind farm in the world, followed by the 504 MW Greater Gabbard wind farm in the UK.

So you see there are steps being taken to transition over to clean energy once the nasty Co2 and oil runs out.

cynic · 19 July 2016

luutzu said:
Walk through your logic dude.

What you're saying is that since you don't have much of a carbon footprint, you're not responsible for, and do not care about, the cause and consequences of CC.

That's like walking down a street full of raw sewage, you just wade through it and not raise any issue because... well, because those aren't your shiet and so why should you or anyone care about the street being clean.

That's how ridiculous your thinking is if we replace carbon footprint with raw sewage.

I said nothing of the sort whatsoever!

What I did say was:

cynic said:
Talk is cheap luutzu!

If you want people to believe in yourself and your chosen religion then you need to be seen practicing rather than merely preaching!

luutzu · 19 July 2016

cynic said:
I said nothing of the sort whatsoever!

What I did say was:

Obviously you didn't think you said such thing. But like I said, walk through your argument and see how crazy it is.

Stop straw manning dude. I'm not a climate scientist or climate warrior. Maybe just one of those who thought that ey, maybe the experts who study these stuff actually know stuff.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

noco

explod

explod

cynic

trainspotter

luutzu

cynic

trainspotter

Smurf1976

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

sptrawler

luutzu

basilio

noco

cynic

trainspotter

luutzu

luutzu

trainspotter

cynic

luutzu

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

explod

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency