“There is No Climate Emergency”

[Rightguide]

I just hope he hasn't got to drive away from his property destroyed by fire, flood, hurricane or tornado. or because his county has run out of water, while shouting 'There is no such thing as a climate emergency!'.

There's plenty of water where I live. There could be fire, flood, and snow, but hurricanes and tornadoes are rare in these mountains.

 

[ll74]

Nothing has been more idiotic and wrong than the climate doomsayers of the past 50 years and that probably includes you:

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions​

• BLOG
• Myron Ebell • Steven J. Milloy • 09/18/2019

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today.

None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.

What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.

More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science.

While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.

You can view the list here: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

They include:

• 1967 — Stanford University expert Paul Erlich predicted “time of famines” in 1975.
• 1971 — A top NASA expert predicted an “ice age” by 2021.
• 1988 — It was predicted that the Maldives would be under water by last year.
• 2008 — Gore said the Arctic would be free of ice by 2013.
• 2009 — Charles said there was just 96 months left to save the world.

Oh, and Ogg you can view real climate science here: https://realclimatescience.com/

You're a fucking moron

 

[LukSkyFokker]

You're a fucking moron

/thread

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Only because in today's toxic atmosphere against free speech, nobody wants to be doxed, canceled, or fired for holding an alternative view than that of the power elite.

The fact is, there is "zero" evidence we, the human race, can do a thing about the ever-changing evolutionary processes of the planet that are as old as time itself that define the weather conditions in the various eras of its history. Wake up, you're being played.

Nobody? What about the 1200 people in this prestigious report?

 

[Rightguide]

IT was very extensive. Royal Navy survey ships have been taking ocean temperatures for over 250 years. as have other maritime nations such as the French and Dutch. You just deny the evidence because you are STUPID!

Archaeological data from ocean floor sediments can calculate ocean temperatures from the deposits for thousands if not ten thousand of years and they have NEVER been so hot since the Jurassic.

At what points on earth did the Royal Navy test ocean temperatures 250 years ago? What technology did they employ? Did they use registering or non-registering thermometers? Where can I find Royal Navy Ocean temperature data prior to the Challenger Expedition of 1872 and 1876? Which was only 150 years ago?

Assuming they have core samples from the bottom of the ocean maybe you can tell us what those temperature deviations were over the last 10,000 years or so, or produce a link that backs up your assertion this information is understood.

 

[oggbashan]

N

At what points on earth did the Royal Navy test ocean temperatures 250 years ago? What technology did they employ? Did they use registering or non-registering thermometers? Where can I find Royal Navy Ocean temperature data prior to the Challenger Expedition of 1872 and 1876? Which was only 150 years ago?

Assuming they have core samples from the bottom of the ocean maybe you can tell us what those temperature deviations were over the last 10,000 years or so, or produce a link that backs up your assertion this information is understood.

No. Find it yourself. There is ample evidence out there that you won't believe so why should I bother?

Darwin's voyage with the Beagle recorded oceans temps. So Did Cook's voyages to Australia and New Zealand.

 

[Rightguide]

N

No. Find it yourself. There is ample evidence out there that you won't believe so why should I bother?

Darwin's voyage with the Beagle recorded oceans temps. So Did Cook's voyages to Australia and New Zealand.

So, no 250-year-old evidence to back up your assertion, got it.

BTW you cantankerous old huff, here's a link to the Challenger Expedition of 1872 that proves your contention of 250 years to be false:

The expedition also revealed the first broad outline of the shape of the ocean basin, including a rise in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean that we now know is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Scientists compiled the first systematic plots of currents and temperatures in the oceans. The Challenger Expedition’s exciting discoveries encouraged other countries to take interest in the oceans and to mount their own expeditions.

https://divediscover.whoi.edu/history-of-oceanography/the-challenger-expedition/

 

[ll74]

So, no 250-year-old evidence to back up your assertion, got it.

BTW you cantankerous old huff, here's a link to the Challenger Expedition of 1872 that proves your contention of 250 years to be false:

The expedition also revealed the first broad outline of the shape of the ocean basin, including a rise in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean that we now know is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Scientists compiled the first systematic plots of currents and temperatures in the oceans. The Challenger Expedition’s exciting discoveries encouraged other countries to take interest in the oceans and to mount their own expeditions.

https://divediscover.whoi.edu/history-of-oceanography/the-challenger-expedition/

Ice cores.

If you don't understand how that works, then that's the first clue that you're a moron.

 

[Chobham]

Peterson on Climate Change.

He's right.

 

[ll74]

Peterson on Climate Change.

He's right.

Peterson isn't right on anything

 

[oggbashan]

More

So, no 250-year-old evidence to back up your assertion, got it.

BTW you cantankerous old huff, here's a link to the Challenger Expedition of 1872 that proves your contention of 250 years to be false:

The expedition also revealed the first broad outline of the shape of the ocean basin, including a rise in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean that we now know is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Scientists compiled the first systematic plots of currents and temperatures in the oceans. The Challenger Expedition’s exciting discoveries encouraged other countries to take interest in the oceans and to mount their own expeditions.

https://divediscover.whoi.edu/history-of-oceanography/the-challenger-expedition/

More bullshit from you. The Danish established hydrological surveys in 1692. The British were about 50 years later but even before then ALL Royal Navy ships were expected to and did log sea conditions, sea depths and sea temperatures even before then.

You don't understand anything just keep denying everything because you are intellectually challenged.

 

[Chobham]

Peterson isn't right on anything

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

He is on this one.

1. NO workable plan with measurable outcomes. Just a long political wish list supported by various factions that will profit from any implementation.

2. There is NO SUCH THING as "Green Energy." There is only some energy productions that are less impactful on the environment than others. Nuclear being the least impactful and most reliable of all.

Germany aside, China has just funded no less than 17 coal mining projects to fuel their coal fired plants. Africa is currently running at 90.5% fossil fuel power generation with a growing demand as they catch up. India, SE Asia, and S. America likewise. The Western world is impoverishing itself while the rest of the world is laughing their asses off and making up the Carbon loading difference. And that is the basis of his "nothing meaningful is going to be done" statement.

 

[ll74]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

He is on this one.

1. NO workable plan with measurable outcomes. Just a long political wish list supported by various factions that will profit from any implementation.

2. There is NO SUCH THING as "Green Energy." There is only some energy productions that are less impactful on the environment than others. Nuclear being the least impactful and most reliable of all.

Germany aside, China has just funded no less than 17 coal mining projects to fuel their coal fired plants. Africa is currently running at 90.5% fossil fuel power generation with a growing demand as they catch up. India, SE Asia, and S. America likewise. The Western world is impoverishing itself while the rest of the world is laughing their asses off and making up the Carbon loading difference. And that is the basis of his "nothing meaningful is going to be done" statement.

No, he isn't.

We all need to work on reducing carbon emissions. Saying "well they aren't doing it" is stupid and selfish not to mention childish.

We either lead or we don't.

 

[jomar]

Peterson on Climate Change.

He's right.

Entertaining interview. Opinions can be entertaining.

 

[Chobham]

No, he isn't.

We all need to work on reducing carbon emissions. Saying "well they aren't doing it" is stupid and selfish not to mention childish.

We either lead or we don't.

An allegory.

I live in a run down neighborhood, a four square block of desolation. One day my neighbors and I got together and went to a city council meeting and bitched about the state of our neighborhood. We wanted to see things cleaned up.

So the council took action and passed an ordnance that all lawns had to be mowed. It would clean up the neighborhood and be good for the economy. We'd have to go out and buy the lawnmowers or pay for a lawn service. A win win all the way around. There was a catch though, the ordnance only applied to me and my immediate neighbors.

The council, seeing that they could be impactful, passed another ordnance, everyone had to paint their houses. Another boon to the economy. Had to buy paint and do it ourselves or hire painters. But alas, the ordnance only applied to me and my immediate neighbors.

The council, now feeling the power, decided that only certain colors would be allowed. Some of us fell within the ordnance. Others had to buy new paint or hire painters again.

That was soon followed by an ordnance for white picket fences, but the fences didn't match so along came a new ordnance as to the design of the fences.

Next came flower boxes for the windows. There was no limit to the beautification measures the council wanted to impose.

So here we are today. A goodly portion of our income is devoted to the maintenance of all these ordnance mandates, good for the economy no doubt. And we, and the council, all feel good about ourselves. But the reality is that our property values are still going down because in spite of all these efforts we are still nothing more than an island of civility in a sea of shit because NONE of those efforts or mandates applied to the rest of the neighborhood.

 

[ll74]

An allegory.

I live in a run down neighborhood, a four square block of desolation. One day my neighbors and I got together and went to a city council meeting and bitched about the state of our neighborhood. We wanted to see things cleaned up.

So the council took action and passed an ordnance that all lawns had to be mowed. It would clean up the neighborhood and be good for the economy. We'd have to go out and buy the lawnmowers or pay for a lawn service. A win win all the way around. There was a catch though, the ordnance only applied to me and my immediate neighbors.

The council, seeing that they could be impactful, passed another ordnance, everyone had to paint their houses. Another boon to the economy. Had to buy paint and do it ourselves or hire painters. But alas, the ordnance only applied to me and my immediate neighbors.

The council, now feeling the power, decided that only certain colors would be allowed. Some of us fell within the ordnance. Others had to buy new paint or hire painters again.

That was soon followed by an ordnance for white picket fences, but the fences didn't match so along came a new ordnance as to the design of the fences.

Next came flower boxes for the windows. There was no limit to the beautification measures the council wanted to impose.

So here we are today. A goodly portion of our income is devoted to the maintenance of all these ordnance mandates, good for the economy no doubt. And we, and the council, all feel good about ourselves. But the reality is that our property values are still going down because in spite of all these efforts we are still nothing more than an island of civility in a sea of shit because NONE of those efforts or mandates applied to the rest of the neighborhood.

Either we are leaders or we aren't.

Blaming someone else is childish.

We have been and continue to be a top producer of CO2 and we need to reduce it.

 

[Chobham]

Either we are leaders or we aren't.

Blaming someone else is childish.

We have been and continue to be a top producer of CO2 and we need to reduce it.

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Greenhouse Gas Emissions (in million metric tons, 2019 data):*​

1. China — 9,877
2. United States — 4,745
3. India — 2,310
4. Russia — 1,640
5. Japan — 1,056
6. Germany — 644
7. South Korea — 586
8. Iran — 583
9. Canada — 571
10. Saudi Arabia — 495

 

[ll74]

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Greenhouse Gas Emissions (in million metric tons, 2019 data):*​

1. China — 9,877
2. United States — 4,745
3. India — 2,310
4. Russia — 1,640
5. Japan — 1,056
6. Germany — 644
7. South Korea — 586
8. Iran — 583
9. Canada — 571
10. Saudi Arabia — 495

The attitude "if China doesn't do it why should we" is

Either we are leaders, or we aren't.

 

[Chobham]

The attitude "if China doesn't do it why should we" is

Either we are leaders, or we aren't.

This is obviously not resonating with you and you're 'virtue signaling' friends.

The issue is NOT whether we 'shouldn't' as it is whether others 'should'. You're argument is akin to believing that others are going to play the 'keeping up with the Jone's' game. I can assure you that neither China nor India have any intention of doing so, the same is true with Germany. Each are going to do whatever they think is best for their respective nations and the rest of us be damned.

 

[ll74]

This is obviously not resonating with you and you're 'virtue signaling' friends.

The issue is NOT whether we 'shouldn't' as it is whether others 'should'. You're argument is akin to believing that others are going to play the 'keeping up with the Jone's' game. I can assure you that neither China nor India have any intention of doing so, the same is true with Germany. Each are going to do whatever they think is best for their respective nations and the rest of us be damned.

And the answer is yes...others should. That doesn't equate to, we won't if they don't. We either lead or we don't. Waiting on someone else to do something we already can do is childish.

Thankfully Biden just signed the largest climate law in history

China has already committed and have dropped their output significantly. India still needs to up their effort.

 

[Chobham]

And the answer is yes...others should. That doesn't equate to, we won't if they don't. We either lead or we don't. Waiting on someone else to do something we already can do is childish.

Thankfully Biden just signed the largest climate law in history

China has already committed and have dropped their output significantly. India still needs to up their effort.

You are now coming across like a record that keeps skipping a groove, it's fucking annoying.

First of all, China hasn't 'dropped' a damn thing. What you are looking at is a decline in their economy.

2020 numbers;

Top 10 CO2-emitting countries in the world (Total CO2 in Mt) - EU JRC 2020

• China — 11680.42.
• United States — 4535.30.
• India — 2411.73.
• Russia — 1674.23.
• Japan — 1061.77.
• Iran — 690.24.
• Germany — 636.88.
• South Korea — 621.47.

I have a challenge for you. Take each of those top ten nations and divide the nations GDP in trillions by the emission numbers in trillions. ie. For the US that number would be 4.5 for 2020. The resultant number would be the relative unit of productivity per unit of energy.

It's not a matter of who's using the most energy (CO2 emissions), it's who's getting the most productivity out of the energy they use.

 

[ll74]

You are now coming across like a record that keeps skipping a groove, it's fucking annoying.

First of all, China hasn't 'dropped' a damn thing. What you are looking at is a decline in their economy.

2020 numbers;

Top 10 CO2-emitting countries in the world (Total CO2 in Mt) - EU JRC 2020

• China — 11680.42.
• United States — 4535.30.
• India — 2411.73.
• Russia — 1674.23.
• Japan — 1061.77.
• Iran — 690.24.
• Germany — 636.88.
• South Korea — 621.47.

I have a challenge for you. Take each of those top ten nations and divide the nations GDP in trillions by the emission numbers in trillions. ie. For the US that number would be 4.5 for 2020. The resultant number would be the relative unit of productivity per unit of energy.

It's not a matter of who's using the most energy (CO2 emissions), it's who's getting the most productivity out of the energy they use.

Sorry you don't like the answer and that you want China and India to lead the world rather than the US.

We've always led the global community. We should continue to do so and we will

 

[Chobham]

Sorry you don't like the answer and that you want China and India to lead the world rather than the US.

We've always led the global community. We should continue to do so and we will

Back to the broken record thing.

Committing economic suicide is NOT leading.

 

[ll74]

Back to the broken record thing.

Committing economic suicide is NOT leading.

Reducing carbon emissions and reliance on finite resources while innovating new technology is absolutely leading. And we're doing that.

It will lead to more businesses coming here hiring more people and growing GDP, all while contributing to carbon reduction globally and setting an example for bad actors to shape up.

 

[Chobham]

Reducing carbon emissions and reliance on finite resources while innovating new technology is absolutely leading. And we're doing that.

It will lead to more businesses coming here hiring more people and growing GDP, all while contributing to carbon reduction globally and setting an example for bad actors to shape up.

Yes, it will be good for a synthesized, mandate driven economy...............for a while. (Back to the allegory)

You, as a part of, or you, as a disciple of, the arm chair intellectuals seem to believe that the rank and file American is content to live in environmental squalor. And that notion makes you a clueless elitest. No matter how noble your notions you have absolutely no idea as to the consequences. You remind me of a scene from the movie "Crocodile Dundee" where he's at a party of New York socialites.

Ending the allegory. I sold my house (at a loss) and moved to a place where folks generally took care of their property with out having the government to tell them how.