Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[Centerpiece]

29 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It's really irresponsible to say that "average global temperatures have been almost completely flat for 20 years" when our warmest years on record have been in these past 20 years, and the temperatures are accelerating.

Of course there are several "warmest years on record" - that's because the world is in a warming cycle - similar to back in the 20's and 30's but maybe a touch warmer. Don't be fooled by the latest IPCC ploy - combining ocean with land temperatures - which are even less reliable than land. The only temperature readings that can be trusted to a large degree are the satellite readings that are faithfully recorded by Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH. Have a look - not much to report over the last 20 years. Here's another factoid for you. Did you know that in spite of these "warmest years on record" - not even one heat extreme record has been set in any state in the Continental US? Not one. Most were set in the 20's and 30's. Does that make any sense?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Edited December 31, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Zeitgeist]

32 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Of course there are several "warmest years on record" - that's because the world is in a warming cycle - similar to back in the 20's and 30's but maybe a touch warmer. Don't be fooled by the latest IPCC ploy - combining ocean with land temperatures - which are even less reliable than land. The only temperature readings that can be trusted to a large degree are the satellite readings that are faithfully recorded by Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH. Have a look - not much to report over the last 20 years. Here's another factoid for you. Did you know that in spite of these "warmest years on record" - not even one heat extreme record has been set in any state in the Continental US? Not one. Most were set in the 20's and 30's. Does that make any sense?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

How do you know that we're in a warming cycle?  Sunspot activity?  The period since the start of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago is the greatest acceleration in annual global temperatures since pre-history.  Sure, we can roll the dice and continue to emit at current levels or even increase emissions.  That's one hell of a gamble and there are no guarantees that adaptation will be possible or affordable.  Look, I'm of agreement that some of this is inevitable because even if all emissions of gg stopped, we'd see an acceleration of temperatures for some time, but making no attempt to curtail emissions through policy, when we have the means of doing so in a reasonable way, is just plain stupid.  On another thread I gave a long list of measures that would go a long way to reducing emissions, some of them quite cheaply.  For example, make solar roof tiles part of the building code.  Boost public transit (especially light rail, subway, and heavy rail RER), implement price incentives for energy use (discounts during off peak periods), incorporate green roofs, geothermal heating, deep water cooling, and substantially increase the tree canopy (tree planting to create carbon sinks), grow food locally where possible... 

There's much more I could say, but many of these measures don't require heavy subsidies to the green industry and in fact would boost productivity and improve quality of life.  Just stopping coal energy generation, as was done in Ontario, would go a long way.  Cap and trade would've been a lower cost option for incentivizing lowering emissions than the Trudeau carbon tax plan, but I'm okay with his plan if it's largely revenue neutral and doesn't hurt household spending.  It's a matter of having sensible and affordable policies that give the biggest bang for the buck.  I also agree that some of the so called "developing countries" aren't so developing anymore and shouldn't be let off the hook from making major cuts to emissions.  That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and carry on business as usual.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Centerpiece]

48 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

How do you know that we're in a warming cycle?  Sunspot activity?  The period since the start of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago is the greatest acceleration in annual global temperatures since pre-history.  Sure, we can roll the dice and continue to emit at current levels or even increase emissions.  That's one hell of a gamble and there are no guarantees that adaptation will be possible or affordable.  Look, I'm of agreement that some of this is inevitable because even if all emissions of gg stopped, we'd see an acceleration of temperatures for some time, but making no attempt to curtail emissions through policy, when we have the means of doing so in a reasonable way, is just plain stupid.  On another thread I gave a long list of measures that would go a long way to reducing emissions, some of them quite cheaply.  For example, make solar roof tiles part of the building code.  Boost public transit (especially light rail, subway, and heavy rail RER), implement price incentives for energy use (discounts during off peak periods), incorporate green roofs, geothermal heating, deep water cooling, and substantially increase the tree canopy (tree planting to create carbon sinks), grow food locally where possible... 

There's much more I could say, but many of these measures don't require heavy subsidies to the green industry and in fact would boost productivity and improve quality of life.  Just stopping coal energy generation, as was done in Ontario, would go a long way.  Cap and trade would've been a lower cost option for incentivizing lowering emissions than the Trudeau carbon tax plan, but I'm okay with his plan if it's largely revenue neutral and doesn't hurt household spending.  It's a matter of having sensible and affordable policies that give the biggest bang for the buck.  I also agree that some of the so called "developing countries" aren't so developing anymore and shouldn't be let off the hook from making major cuts to emissions.  That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and carry on business as usual.

Where to start:

1) We're in a warming cycle. It was cool from 1900 until around 1920 - and then hot until the 40's - most of the extreme heat records were set in the 20's and 30's. Then it started to cool again into the 70's - which spawned the fears of another ice age. Then in the 80's it started to heat up again until 2000 and we've been stuck around the same temperature since then on average. All these ups and downs were not at all in tandem with CO2. And it's still puzzling to me why no heat records have been set in any US state over the last 20 years.

2) "Greatest acceleration in temperatures since pre-history" - back to point number one - it's arguable that the increase leading up to the 20's and 30's were just as "dramatic" - but in reality, it's silly to think that you could take the 30 year "hockey stick" - fraudulent though it is - and accurately compare it to every other 30 year time-frame "since pre-history". Roman and mideivel warming periods were just that - periods of warmth after/before periods of cooling. It's possible that it was even warmer back then but that's not as important as the fact that they occurred - without the need of burning fossil fuels. Can you grasp that?

3) "Reduce the use of coal - like Ontario did" - if you truly believed that to be helpful, you would be on a bandwagon helping to get Canada's oil to China, India and other places to help reduce the use of coal. Stop wringing your hands and admit to yourself that the West can accomplish nothing unless the developing world also stops burning fossil fuels. If not, their economies will expand, their populations will grow. and modernity will have demanding even more fossil fuels......assuming their political systems can handle the stress. Anything less that total global cooperation would be a fool's errand - and that's only if you think it would make any difference in the Climate.

4) I'll agree with some of your ideas for a green transition - but to think we have to save the world by 2030 is complete nonsense and even if true. we're dead anyway. So it's time to stop squabbling and do things pragmatically around the world. Use oil to replace coal. Use gas to replace oil. Develop Hydro where appropriate. We are not that far away from fusion power - here's an interesting link. It won't happen as quickly as stated but it shows how relatively close we are to limitless, clean energy.......and the Man Upstairs has given us enough natural fuels to help us get to where we need to go.

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2018/08/01/will-lockheed-martin-change-the-world-with-its-new-fusion-reactor/#642361504c49

[Guest]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well thankfully I can help you with that.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=common+sense+scientific+research

Yeah, I disagree with that.  I find the whole Climate Change thing obvious.  I didn't need scientists to convince me about it.

[Iznogoud]

On 12/30/2018 at 8:57 AM, Canuck100 said:

It appears from most if not all MSM reports that this question has already been settled.

I have written the governing party of my own province asking their policy on climate change. I suspect they don’t have one or are trying to avoid the subject. 

The problem in my oppinion is that the answer to this question was never properly answered. For years now MSM has simply said “scientists agree with each other that humans have caused climate change (global warming) or whatever. 

I could go on and on, but there are many credible scientists that have never been allowed by the MSM to have their say. It may be true that most people who only follow MSM may agree that “Humans are causing Climate Change”. That does not make it true. 

Only if enough people do their own research, will there be any hope of getting at the truth and stopping what I believe is a historically evil hoax intentionally put in place to allow for a world governing dictatorship, never seen before.

For the sake of your grandchildren you at least owe it to them to explore this issue further. Here is a good article to get you started on some alternative views:

https://www.iceagenow.info/

It appears that the source you have chosen is advertising literature that is contradicted by almost every recent climate study.  How can it be getting colder when each of the last three decades has been warmer than the last?  Even a casual study by any non-scientist reveals that climate change is real and affecting the Earth in a variety of ways.  A simply example is that the USA has experienced five "Once in a century" hurricanes in the last two years.  Another is the devastating fire that destroyed Paradise, California; a fire that occurred at a time of year that is considered the rainy season.  Except that in 2018, the dry season extended into September and October, two months longer than normal.  There are hundreds if not thousands of such examples occurring every year worldwide.  They can't all be "once in a century" flukes. 

[bush_cheney2004]

The climate change alarmists have already lost the battle.    Too little...too late.    

Canada is one of the worst performing developed nations on reductions in emissions growth.

[ReeferMadness]

Wow.  I see we've reached a whole new level of wingnuttery around here.  There must be a run on tinfoil for the hats.

If the average level of intelligence is anything like what exists on this forum, we are well and truly doomed.

Don't worry about that, though.  It's New Year's Eve.  Get out there and drink your faces off.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

Wow.  I see we've reached a whole new level of wingnuttery around here.  There must be a run on tinfoil for the hats.

If the average level of intelligence is anything like what exists on this forum, we are well and truly doomed.

Don't worry about that, though.  It's New Year's Eve.  Get out there and drink your faces off.

I think we are doomed regardless.  If, given your superior level of intelligence, you have any suggestions that would actually work, please don't waste them here, but get them to the UN immediately.  There is no time to lose.

 

[Rue]

12 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

What the heck are you talking about?........I'm not talking about pollution - Canadians and most global citizens care about clean water, clean air and sustainable forests - and we've made great strides over the past 50 years in looking after the environment. My post was about the Climate Change scam and it's CO2 tunnel-vision. And please - please don't parrot Climate Barbie's use of the term "pollution" in place of CO2. Who or what is behind or influencing the UN agenda - which more and more drives globalist policies? Personally I don't know but it's clear that the agenda is driven by a globalist ideology - and it doesn't "just happen". And it's not the oil companies. So just who are these great "influencers"? Was/is it really the Maurice Strongs and Rothschilds of the world - I have no idea. I can't say I don't care because the UN has become an un-elected danger with Trudeau at the helm here in Canada.

Climate change and air pollution are of course inextricably linked and to suggest otherwise is like saying lung cancer and lungs are not related. Your calling me Climate Barbie because you have no substantial response and fill it with such inane references speaks for itself.

Globalist ideology please define. You are so full of buzz pop words you have no idea what they mean. Globalist ideology my ass. Air pollution is an atmospheric condition of the planet of course it has no borders and treatment for itvwould be global.

No the Rothchilds and your illuminati new world order have nothing to do with that. Go on please explain how the Rothchilds invented co2 emission scams. Are you that silly? Yah they made it up.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Rue

[cannuck]

I have stayed out of this topic because it is far too complex and the battle lines are too deeply involved with ideology instead of hard science.  Even the science is horribly tainted.

There is no question that anthropomorphic climate change exists, but what the real questions are: how much is our contribution and can we actually make any difference?

While the Euroweenies and their fellow travellers march to the "all carbon bad" drummer, they conveniently ignore the two largest factors of all:  natural carbon release and human population.   A single large forest fire or volcano has far more effect than the total emissions of all of mankind over some measured interval greater than the natural event.   Now the extremists claim that the forest fires are caused by our contribution to warming - but anyone with a half a conscious thought will point out that coniferous forests MUST burn to survive, and when they do, they will take whatever else is around them along for the ride.  One of the poorest controlled combustion processes is burning wood at atmospheric pressure.  One of the very best controlled combustion processes is a modern internal combustion engine.

Earth exists in its current form because of the carbon cycle.  It has been happening for billions of years, and will continue for billions more - with or without our meager participation.   Ever see all of that limestone out there?   Where the hell do you think it came from?

It is an extremely complicated and poorly understood thing, this cycle of carbon coming and going between atmosphere and geological components of the geosphere.  But one thing is absolutely certain - it will continue to go on long after us, and the extremes that nature has produced in the past are well outside of the narrow range we need for mammalian subsistence.

Another overlooked detail:  temperature trends do NOT match the ideal assumption of most observers.  Generally speaking, by far the most active and rapid response carbon sink is the oceans.  Usually ocean temp rise, and thus CO2 release precedes atmospheric temp rise, not the other way around.

And, NO, I don't have the time to research a thousand links to support, as one can support ANY position one chooses from the endless supply of information on the interwebs.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, cannuck said:

While the Euroweenies and their fellow travellers march to the "all carbon bad" drummer, they conveniently ignore the two largest factors of all:  natural carbon release and human population.  

I don't think anyone who believes that Climate Change is real ignores the human population factor.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  It is also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[cannuck]

Yeah, post and run error.  I was thinking anthro + change...i.e. wasn't really thinking at all.  Thanks for catching that.

I would like to think a lot more people appreciate how serious the population contribution to almost all of today's "problems" is, but I seldom see any evidence.  The left thinks they can ignore it and it will go away (and the truth is, it WILL, it just won't be pretty) and the right doesn't have the balls to stand up and deal with it.

Edited January 1, 2019 by cannuck

[Guest]

1 minute ago, cannuck said:

Yeah, post and run error.  I was thinking anthro + change...i.e. wasn't really thinking at all.  Thanks for catching that.

I would like to think a lot more people appreciate how serious the population contribution to almost all of today's "problems" is, but I seldom see any evidence.  The left thinks they can ignore it and it will go away (and the truth is, it WILL, it just won't be pretty) and the right doesn't have the balls to stand up and deal with it.

The problem is, those who don't ignore it can't do anything about it.  Those who can do something about it dare not, and even if they dared, it wouldn't make any difference because someone else would happily take up the slack. 

 

[cannuck]

You CAN do something about it:  make it a part of your everyday conversation.  No, not one person is going to take it over the line  - this isn't football, it is war.  Have to first strategically win the hearts and minds and then go for tactical gains.   It all starts with doing what you CAN do, and that is have a reasoned point of view and express it as often as you can.  One of the many weaknesses of humankind is that we react fairly well to crises, but can't get our shit together to avoid the obvious before that.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, cannuck said:

You CAN do something about it:  make it a part of your everyday conversation.  No, not one person is going to take it over the line  - this isn't football, it is war.  Have to first strategically win the hearts and minds and then go for tactical gains.   It all starts with doing what you CAN do, and that is have a reasoned point of view and express it as often as you can.  One of the many weaknesses of humankind is that we react fairly well to crises, but can't get our shit together to avoid the obvious before that.

With all due respect, I think this is the problem.  People thinking that if they do their bit, everything will turn out just fine.  So some of us recycle, some of us buy hybrids, some of us take the bus, etc.  Governments invest in windmills and solar panels, and balk at the occasional pipeline.  It doesn't work.  None of it is even close to working.  In an act of the most extreme optimism, the French decided to push it a little.  And the French pushed back a lot.  That's the kind of thing we can expect wherever anyone makes an effort that is likely to make a difference. You can turn your furnace off, but the only difference you will see is that you will be cold. 

[cannuck]

Yes, people are doing a lot of things regarding carbon, but I don't think those are the real issues with regard to actually solving any problems.  Carbon use in the majority of the world will keep on increasing - as long as population and prosperity continue to rise in developing nations.   If you look at natural carbon cycles, I just don't think we are the breaking point size of contribution.  Nature always has been and always will be.  Our contributions are directly proportional to population and prosperity.  The cycle of economic development has been on the backs of carbon burning for two centuries - and the solution side of doing that responsibly depends upon mature and prosperous economies that can afford that luxury.

BTW: everyone likes to take cheap shots at China for burning so much coal, but they fail to appreciate that the Chinese are simply playing catch up to the West by repeating the exact steps that we all took to get where we are.  The difference is that they long ago realized that coal is NOT the long term answer, but is needed as that is what is currently viable.  The CPC's central plans have already sworn off further coal fired power generation and is making all new plant designs run on natural gas - until I assume they have nukes in the WalMart scale of production and cost.

BTW: the mere fact that the place where all of the low cost solar stuff comes from has to burn coal to keep the lights on tells you where the reality of alternatives is today.

Edited January 1, 2019 by cannuck

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, cannuck said:

BTW: everyone likes to take cheap shots at China for burning so much coal, but they fail to appreciate that the Chinese are simply playing catch up to the West by repeating the exact steps that we all took to get where we are. 

Sure.  It became a question of:  Have a planet or be nice?  We were nice.

[montgomery]

On 12/30/2018 at 7:57 AM, Canuck100 said:

It appears from most if not all MSM reports that this question has already been settled.

I have written the governing party of my own province asking their policy on climate change. I suspect they don’t have one or are trying to avoid the subject. 

The problem in my oppinion is that the answer to this question was never properly answered. For years now MSM has simply said “scientists agree with each other that humans have caused climate change (global warming) or whatever. 

I could go on and on, but there are many credible scientists that have never been allowed by the MSM to have their say. It may be true that most people who only follow MSM may agree that “Humans are causing Climate Change”. That does not make it true. 

Only if enough people do their own research, will there be any hope of getting at the truth and stopping what I believe is a historically evil hoax intentionally put in place to allow for a world governing dictatorship, never seen before.

For the sake of your grandchildren you at least owe it to them to explore this issue further. Here is a good article to get you started on some alternative views:

https://www.iceagenow.info/

You raise a good point, investigate ourselves. But when we do we find over 90% of the experts telling us that Anthropogenic climate change is very real and threatening humanity. Then we look for an opposite POV and all we find is biased pseudo-experts paid by big oil to say it isn't. So what do we do now? Do you suggest we just accept the word of big oil fat cats with money in the game. How has your research gone so far, following your own advice? Mine just continues to lead me into accepting AGW more and more. So let's move on and hear what you've found to be the truth, and from what oil company you heard it? 

Or does a denier actually exist who can be said to be an expert who hasn't learned his/her trade in oil school?

[Michael Hardner]

On 12/30/2018 at 10:57 AM, Canuck100 said:

It appears from most if not all MSM reports that this question has already been settled.

I have written the governing party of my own province asking their policy on climate change. I suspect they don’t have one or are trying to avoid the subject. 

The problem in my oppinion is that the answer to this question was never properly answered. For years now MSM has simply said “scientists agree with each other that humans have caused climate change (global warming) or whatever. 

I could go on and on, but there are many credible scientists that have never been allowed by the MSM to have their say. It may be true that most people who only follow MSM may agree that “Humans are causing Climate Change”. That does not make it true. 

Only if enough people do their own research, will there be any hope of getting at the truth and stopping what I believe is a historically evil hoax intentionally put in place to allow for a world governing dictatorship, never seen before.

For the sake of your grandchildren you at least owe it to them to explore this issue further. Here is a good article to get you started on some alternative views:

https://www.iceagenow.info/

You are foolishly looking at a complex field that requires training, and specialized knowledge through the eyes of someone with no clue.

Robert W. Felix, author of Not by Fire but by Ice and Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, attended the University of Minnesota School of Architecture in the mid-1960s.

The answer to your question is simply 'Yes, humans almost certainly do cause climate change.  We are certain enough that we need to discuss how to assess impacts.

[montgomery]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are foolishly looking at a complex field that requires training, and specialized knowledge through the eyes of someone with no clue.

Robert W. Felix, author of Not by Fire but by Ice and Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, attended the University of Minnesota School of Architecture in the mid-1960s.

The answer to your question is simply 'Yes, humans almost certainly do cause climate change.  We are certain enough that we need to discuss how to assess impacts.

Denial is easy for them and I would suggest that they don't look at ACC or AGW with eyes of any sort. They just irresponsibly allow their knees to jerk at denial.

The very sad thing about it is that there are far too many like them and they have likely gotten their way with their denial. We're not doing enough and that's because the almighty dollar in their pockets today is their god. At least there's some little satisfaction in embarrassing some of them

[Argus]

On 12/31/2018 at 1:47 PM, turningrite said:

The problem with the current climate change agenda is that any progress made by cooperating states, mainly in the developed world, is being more than offset by rising emissions in the developing world. The current climate change strategy, then, is doomed and for the West is economically absurd. We are being told or made to sacrifice without adequate regard to the deleterious economic impacts we're absorbing, and these impacts are often most seriously felt by the least empowered.

This is pretty much my position. I'm not going to argue with most of the world's scientists that the world is warming, or that we're having an impact. What to do about it, though, is the question. I also agree with whomever said China and the rest of the developing world are just catching up to the West, and it would be unfair to freeze them in place as they try to industrialize.

But as long as China alone is increasing its emissions each and every year by far and away more than Canada's total promised cutbacks any action by us is pointless. Giving them, the Indians and the rest another twenty five or thirty years before they have to stop their emissions growth means we'll be well past the point of actually impacting global warming until long, long after I'm dead anyway. There is a delay factor, you know, in that even if we completely eliminated CO2 emissions it would take decades to have any impact. So a warmed globe is what we're gonna get. Best start planning for that.

[Michael Hardner]

On 12/30/2018 at 11:28 AM, bcsapper said:

It's really basic.  You don't need scientists. 

Are CO2 and CH4 greenhouse gases (do they hold heat in the atmosphere)? - check - no argument there.

Have they increased dramatically along with the Earth's population since the industrial revolution? - check- again, no scientists required.

Everything else is just modelling and posturing.

 

IN the 2nd post on this thread you encapsulated the answer.  It's pretty simple and the denial-lovers and conspiracy-lovers who can't see this should be ignored.  

We can still talk about whether the response proposed makes sense, but not about conspiracies.  I think that whoever funded the conspiracy industry on this helped lay the groundwork for Russia, and others who are subverting our democracy.  I actually think we have to start curtailing anonymous dissemination of false information based on what happened here.

Centrepiece, Sillywalker and Oftenwrong don't want to believe our institutions, which is their right. But they shouldn't be allowed to publish lies.

Typical horse-shit from anonymous people is stuff like this:

Quote

It's all part of the elitist undertaking for that one-world government (AKA Globalism)

It's the technique of the Big Lie, repeated forever and it's bringing us down.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

  I actually think we have to start curtailing anonymous dissemination of false information based on what happened here.

Centrepiece, Sillywalker and Oftenwrong don't want to believe our institutions, which is their right. But they shouldn't be allowed to publish lies.

Typical horse-shit from anonymous people is stuff like this:

It's the technique of the Big Lie, repeated forever and it's bringing us down.

How does one do that?  I'm of the opinion that Holocaust denial ought not to be illegal, so I would find it difficult to go along with making Climate Change denial against the law.

I do acknowledge that we are living in a very different world, communications wise, that the one that was around when I first developed my opinions on things.  I still can't see stopping people saying idiotic things.

[bush_cheney2004]

47 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

How does one do that?  I'm of the opinion that Holocaust denial ought not to be illegal, so I would find it difficult to go along with making Climate Change denial against the law.

 

Welcome to the Theatre of the Absurd....some climate change alarmists, having lost a battle they could never win, now want to "deny" people their freedom of expression rights.

 

 

[taxme]

On 12/31/2018 at 8:22 AM, -TSS- said:

If you believe in man-made climate change then in order to be logical you surely must be opposed to mass-immigration from low carbon footprint countries to high carbon footprint countries such as Finland or Canada. 

We are told that the carbon footprint of an average Finn is more than 10 times that of a person from the so-called development countries. 

Just continue on with this ridiculous massive amounts of immigration from those low carbon footprint countries and add them to Finland and Canada to help create more man made global climate warming. That sounds logical to me. Lol.