Trudeau's mantra is "fighting climate change".

[blackbird]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Peter Lilley is obviously a prat of the first order.  My countrymen are not in the top ten but according to this 2019 report, we are just under Canada with only 7% of the population under the impression that climate change is not a threat.  Granted, the data is from 2018, but I don't think there's been a major change in attitudes over the last four or five years.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/

So when the herd decides to run over the cliff, you think they are correct and will run with them.

[Guest]

Just now, blackbird said:

So when the herd decides to run over the cliff, you think they are correct and will run with them.

Don't take on so, Peter...

[RedDog]

He also hates white people.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. Nobody would be convinced by a statement like that.  It is completely irrelevant.

2. "15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

3. 16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

4. 17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

 

1. And yet your source included it.
Let's look at the others...

2. A professor of Geology is not a climate scientist.  Does this person publish Climate papers ?  "stated that" ?  Where ?  When ?

3. Astrophysicist... is embarrassed ?  Ok.   Did he publish a paper ?  Oh wait... he DID ... 20 years ago ... and it was widely criticized as having poor methodology and the publisher admitted it shouldn't have been published.

4. It's a general statement.  There isn't much disagreement - and I'm sure you can see why - that greenhouse gasses and solar radiation are the most important factors.  
 

Your source was published in 2009.  It was criticized at the time, and given what I (a non expert) picked out of it it's not hard to see why.

How have things been going since then ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#:~:text=The warmest years in the,in the period since 1850.

 

Quote

 

In recent decades, new high temperature records have substantially outpaced new low temperature records on a growing portion of Earth's surface.^[20]

The warmest years in the instrumental temperature record have occurred in the last decade (i.e. 2012-2021). The World Meteorological Organization reported in March 2021 that 2016 and 2020 were the two warmest years in the period since 1850.^[21]

Each individual year from 2015 onwards has been warmer than any year prior to 1850.^[21] In other words: each of the seven years in 2015-2021 was clearly warmer than any pre-2014 year.

 

[Legato]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And yet we made it happen.  Odd, that.

You're beginning to sound like Al the Gorical. Odd that.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Legato

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not.  Climate has been around for a long time.  I would have thought you knew that.

My God but you're thick, man.

Do you not understand that you can have a climate trend within climate but weather is just weather. It's not considered climate. Embedded within but no indication of long term climate effect until it becomes at least a 30 year trend.

Seriously, is this the first time you ever heard about the distinction between weather and climate?

If so I can only see two explanations. You really are that ignorant and determined to remain so or you're putting me on.

Either way that's enough of you. This is my last response to you here on this. You have enough to figure it out.

[blackbird]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

A professor of Geology is not a climate scientist.  Does this person publish Climate papers ? 

Yet you must be one of the ones that claim 97% of scientists support man-made climate change.  Almost all of these scientists would be scientists from every field that exists and likely very few produced climate papers.  Right?  Be honest.  Almost all of them are only nodding their heads in agreement, not because they studied any climate change science, but simply because they work in jobs that depend on their agreeing with the mob or the accepted paradigm.  It is a fact that scientists who do not go along with the majority paradigm may not receive grants or positions in many universities or institutions.  So of course they nod in agreement with whatever is the popular idea.

That is the same reason creation scientists don't have "published papers" in the Darwinist system.  Unless one agrees with the majority, they are rejected. Their papers are not even considered worthy of consideration.  Simple as that.

[I am Groot]

You can believe that the climate is warming. You can believe that some part of that is man-made. But what you can't intelligently believe is that anything that sophomoric twat Trudeau and the Buttheads he's surrounded himself with will do anything useful to combat it. All he's likely to accomplish is making Canada a much poorer nation.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

A professor of Geology is not a climate scientist. 

Yes and almost all of the scientists who agree with man-made climate change are not climate scientists, yet you are happy to accept their opinion and support.  So why do you question a geologist's opinion?  Isn't that being hypocritical?   I am sure we can find many scientists who know something about climate science who reject "man-made climate change".  We on here don't have the resources or ability to examine the world of scientists either.  We mainly have to trust on what is reasonable, rational and what makes sense.  

I am still waiting for the explicit proof that man is the cause of excessive climate change. Where are the actual scientific facts.  The honest answer it it doesn't exist.  It is all speculation and based on assumptions.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

My God but you're thick, man.

Do you not understand that you can have a climate trend within climate but weather is just weather. It's not considered climate. Embedded within but no indication of long term climate effect until it becomes at least a 30 year trend.

Seriously, is this the first time you ever heard about the distinction between weather and climate?

If so I can only see two explanations. You really are that ignorant and determined to remain so or you're putting me on.

Either way that's enough of you. This is my last response to you here on this. You have enough to figure it out.

Pretty convenient this being your last response.