Climate Change Solution that Everyone Will Hate

[RealDave]

There is the time factor. We can't sit around & do nothing because of stupid ass deniers.

Could you explain how you were brainwashed into becoming a stupid ass climategate denier?

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

1) there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements. Data from various sources & times are often manipulated to blend everything together. Today's temperature readings are adjusted from urban areas or perhaps other situations just like unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted.
It does not mean the data is being adjusted to fir an agenda.

2) Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used. You fucking idiots decided it was them trying to trick you but the use of trick was quite obvious. For example, "the trick to growing better tomatoes is to plant them next to the house". A trick is a clever way of doing something.

3) They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said. Like the denier crowd does with NASA data & graph. Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD. They take data & assign their own analysis which is incorrect.

THAT is how it was debunked. The idea Anyone still thinks otherwise is just a testament to the ignorance of the denier ilk.

Chill. It is just a meme, and I didn't make it. It is to make a point that this climate change/global warming bull is just more fear mongering.

All it is is just a testament to your ignorance.

A lot of those changes happened because people saw the warnings & acted.

They didn't happen because a bunch of stupid people ran in circles yelling "OMG OMG OMNG Hoax!!! Hoax!!!"

They were fixed through action you stupid shit. Scientists warned & action was taken.

The amount of recoverable known oil reserves were estimated out 25 years & the industry improved techniques & higher oil prices enable them to spend more & sell it.

Air quality improved because pf things like the Clean Air Act.

Climate model;s change when action is taken to reduce emissions.

You people really need to get a fucking brain.

 

[RealDave]

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

1) there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements. Data from various sources & times are often manipulated to blend everything together. Today's temperature readings are adjusted from urban areas or perhaps other situations just like unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted.
It does not mean the data is being adjusted to fir an agenda.

2) Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used. You fucking idiots decided it was them trying to trick you but the use of trick was quite obvious. For example, "the trick to growing better tomatoes is to plant them next to the house". A trick is a clever way of doing something.

3) They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said. Like the denier crowd does with NASA data & graph. Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD. They take data & assign their own analysis which is incorrect.

THAT is how it was debunked. The idea Anyone still thinks otherwise is just a testament to the ignorance of the denier ilk.

there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements.

Using actual data......so why do they need to hide anything, let alone a decline?
Hiding in terms of science sounds dishonest. Because it is.

Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used.

So what does it really mean?

They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said.

Nothing says science like hiding your data.
Or stopping others from publishing their disagreement.

Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD.

He an idiot. That doesn't debunk the lies exposed by Climategate.

"Hide the decline" is another example of dumbfucks assigning their own meaning.
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

The meaning of trick was obvious. A clever scheme.

The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature

Of, they weren't hiding a decline in temperature, they were hiding the decline in tree growth.

Does hiding the decline in tree growth help their global warming scam...err...story or hurt it?

The meaning of trick was obvious. A clever scheme.

Exactly. Can't let the truth get out. Gotta be clever.

So how did they debunk stopping opposing views from getting published?

They were trying to figure out why tree growth above a certain elevation did not fit the pattern. They were not manipulating temperatures. And they certainly were not taking about global temperatures like you said.

The trick to not being a dumbass like you is to get a fucking education.

If you still believe climategate, then you ate just plain dumber than shit. But hey, who does not already know that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

1) there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements. Data from various sources & times are often manipulated to blend everything together. Today's temperature readings are adjusted from urban areas or perhaps other situations just like unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted.
It does not mean the data is being adjusted to fir an agenda.

2) Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used. You fucking idiots decided it was them trying to trick you but the use of trick was quite obvious. For example, "the trick to growing better tomatoes is to plant them next to the house". A trick is a clever way of doing something.

3) They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said. Like the denier crowd does with NASA data & graph. Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD. They take data & assign their own analysis which is incorrect.

THAT is how it was debunked. The idea Anyone still thinks otherwise is just a testament to the ignorance of the denier ilk.

there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements.

Using actual data......so why do they need to hide anything, let alone a decline?
Hiding in terms of science sounds dishonest. Because it is.

Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used.

So what does it really mean?

They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said.

Nothing says science like hiding your data.
Or stopping others from publishing their disagreement.

Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD.

He an idiot. That doesn't debunk the lies exposed by Climategate.

"Hide the decline" is another example of dumbfucks assigning their own meaning.
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

The meaning of trick was obvious. A clever scheme.

The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature

Of, they weren't hiding a decline in temperature, they were hiding the decline in tree growth.

Does hiding the decline in tree growth help their global warming scam...err...story or hurt it?

The meaning of trick was obvious. A clever scheme.

Exactly. Can't let the truth get out. Gotta be clever.

So how did they debunk stopping opposing views from getting published?

They were trying to figure out why tree growth above a certain elevation did not fit the pattern. They were not manipulating temperatures. And they certainly were not taking about global temperatures like you said.

The trick to not being a dumbass like you is to get a fucking education.

If you still believe climategate, then you ate just plain dumber than shit. But hey, who does not already know that.

They were trying to figure out why tree growth above a certain elevation did not fit the pattern.

They needed to be honest. They should have said, we think the trees rings used to behave this way, but something changed, we're not sure what, and now they don't work the same way we think they did in the past.

Instead, they lied. They added a fudge factor to make the recent behavior fit the old chart.
If the data wasn't being used to push for trillions in spending and changing the world economy, nobody would give a shit about their dishonesty.

They were not manipulating temperatures.

LOL! From your link....""I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.""

They manipulated the temperature input....to get the output they wanted. That's not changing reported temperatures, but don't lie and say they weren't manipulating temperatures.

​

The trick to not being a dumbass like you is to get a fucking education.​

The trick is they lied. They got caught. So fuck them. Liars.​

​

If you still believe climategate, then you ate just plain dumber than shit.​

You know, the first thing I'd do if 97% of scientists agreed with me is I'd try to suppress any paper
that disagreed, because I'm a dishonest hack......oh, wait, that's what the warmers did.

So, I keep looking for your debunking of that little thing, and you keep failing. Weird.​

 

[RealDave]

1) there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements. Data from various sources & times are often manipulated to blend everything together. Today's temperature readings are adjusted from urban areas or perhaps other situations just like unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted.
It does not mean the data is being adjusted to fir an agenda.

2) Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used. You fucking idiots decided it was them trying to trick you but the use of trick was quite obvious. For example, "the trick to growing better tomatoes is to plant them next to the house". A trick is a clever way of doing something.

3) They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said. Like the denier crowd does with NASA data & graph. Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD. They take data & assign their own analysis which is incorrect.

THAT is how it was debunked. The idea Anyone still thinks otherwise is just a testament to the ignorance of the denier ilk.

there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements.

Using actual data......so why do they need to hide anything, let alone a decline?
Hiding in terms of science sounds dishonest. Because it is.

Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used.

So what does it really mean?

They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said.

Nothing says science like hiding your data.
Or stopping others from publishing their disagreement.

Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD.

He an idiot. That doesn't debunk the lies exposed by Climategate.

"Hide the decline" is another example of dumbfucks assigning their own meaning.
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

The meaning of trick was obvious. A clever scheme.

The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature

Of, they weren't hiding a decline in temperature, they were hiding the decline in tree growth.

Does hiding the decline in tree growth help their global warming scam...err...story or hurt it?

The meaning of trick was obvious. A clever scheme.

Exactly. Can't let the truth get out. Gotta be clever.

So how did they debunk stopping opposing views from getting published?

They were trying to figure out why tree growth above a certain elevation did not fit the pattern. They were not manipulating temperatures. And they certainly were not taking about global temperatures like you said.

The trick to not being a dumbass like you is to get a fucking education.

If you still believe climategate, then you ate just plain dumber than shit. But hey, who does not already know that.

They were trying to figure out why tree growth above a certain elevation did not fit the pattern.

They needed to be honest. They should have said, we think the trees rings used to behave this way, but something changed, we're not sure what, and now they don't work the same way we think they did in the past.

Instead, they lied. They added a fudge factor to make the recent behavior fit the old chart.
If the data wasn't being used to push for trillions in spending and changing the world economy, nobody would give a shit about their dishonesty.

They were not manipulating temperatures.

LOL! From your link....""I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.""

They manipulated the temperature input....to get the output they wanted. That's not changing reported temperatures, but don't lie and say they weren't manipulating temperatures.

The trick to not being a dumbass like you is to get a fucking education.

The trick is they lied. They got caught. So fuck them. Liars.
If you still believe climategate, then you ate just plain dumber than shit.

You know, the first thing I'd do if 97% of scientists agreed with me is I'd try to suppress any paper
that disagreed, because I'm a dishonest hack......oh, wait, that's what the warmers did.

So, I keep looking for your debunking of that little thing, and you keep failing. Weird.​

No one tried to suppress an honest paper.

They worked hard for their data so why should they give it away to a denier who has a record of twisting facts?

Sort of like you are doing. You are so sure you know what was meant by the word "trick".



Now you are just being the same lying hack that you have always been.

The emails were between scientists so why would they lie to one another?

The only one lying is you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements.

Using actual data......so why do they need to hide anything, let alone a decline?
Hiding in terms of science sounds dishonest. Because it is.

Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used.

So what does it really mean?

They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said.

Nothing says science like hiding your data.
Or stopping others from publishing their disagreement.

Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD.

He an idiot. That doesn't debunk the lies exposed by Climategate.

"Hide the decline" is another example of dumbfucks assigning their own meaning.
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

The meaning of trick was obvious. A clever scheme.

The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature

Of, they weren't hiding a decline in temperature, they were hiding the decline in tree growth.

Does hiding the decline in tree growth help their global warming scam...err...story or hurt it?

The meaning of trick was obvious. A clever scheme.

Exactly. Can't let the truth get out. Gotta be clever.

So how did they debunk stopping opposing views from getting published?

They were trying to figure out why tree growth above a certain elevation did not fit the pattern. They were not manipulating temperatures. And they certainly were not taking about global temperatures like you said.

The trick to not being a dumbass like you is to get a fucking education.

If you still believe climategate, then you ate just plain dumber than shit. But hey, who does not already know that.

They were trying to figure out why tree growth above a certain elevation did not fit the pattern.

They needed to be honest. They should have said, we think the trees rings used to behave this way, but something changed, we're not sure what, and now they don't work the same way we think they did in the past.

Instead, they lied. They added a fudge factor to make the recent behavior fit the old chart.
If the data wasn't being used to push for trillions in spending and changing the world economy, nobody would give a shit about their dishonesty.

They were not manipulating temperatures.

LOL! From your link....""I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.""

They manipulated the temperature input....to get the output they wanted. That's not changing reported temperatures, but don't lie and say they weren't manipulating temperatures.

The trick to not being a dumbass like you is to get a fucking education.

The trick is they lied. They got caught. So fuck them. Liars.
If you still believe climategate, then you ate just plain dumber than shit.

You know, the first thing I'd do if 97% of scientists agreed with me is I'd try to suppress any paper
that disagreed, because I'm a dishonest hack......oh, wait, that's what the warmers did.

So, I keep looking for your debunking of that little thing, and you keep failing. Weird.​

No one tried to suppress an honest paper.

They worked hard for their data so why should they give it away to a denier who has a record of twisting facts?

Sort of like you are doing. You are so sure you know what was meant by the word "trick".



Now you are just being the same lying hack that you have always been.

The emails were between scientists so why would they lie to one another?

The only one lying is you.

No one tried to suppress an honest paper.

Of course, they only suppressed the ones that disagreed with them.
Lying hacks.

They worked hard for their data so why should they give it away to a denier who has a record of twisting facts?

Of course, because climate data should be kept secret, like we kept secret the diffusion technology for separating U-235 from U-238. Especially when you want to change the course of the world's economy and influence trillions in spending. By all means, keep it secret. Wouldn't want a doubter to catch your lies...err...errors.

Sort of like you are doing. You are so sure you know what was meant by the word "trick".​

Their graphs using tree ring data started to decline while actual temperature measurements increased.
Can't admit their old methods no longer worked, so they had to add the actual temperatures to the derived temperatures, to make it fit. Dishonestly. And then whine when they get caught.
​

The emails were between scientists so why would they lie to one another? ​

Exactly. They admitting their hackery and suppression......to each other.
They still lied to us. Fucking hacks.​

 

[ChrisL]

Meh, I think it's a scam, just like all the past "end of the world" scenarios. When the people who shout the sky is falling start following their own advice, then maybe I'll believe it. They seem to be wrong a lot and make a lot of assumptions though. They can't even predict regular weather patterns with complete accuracy.

While these rich politicians (and internet weirdos) go on lecturing the rest of us about "climate change" yet they are still driving automobiles, still living on the coasts, taking jets around the world, etc., then I have to say that it's a bunch of crap. Lol!

How about concentrating on cleaning up our oceans, fining people more for littering, stop deforestation, stop cutting down trees and building new houses, malls, plazas, etc.? That makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Meh, I think it's a scam, just like all the past "end of the world" scenarios. When the people who shout the sky is falling start following their own advice, then maybe I'll believe it. They seem to be wrong a lot and make a lot of assumptions though. They can't even predict regular weather patterns with complete accuracy.

While these rich politicians (and internet weirdos) go on lecturing the rest of us about "climate change" yet they are still driving automobiles, still living on the coasts, taking jets around the world, etc., then I have to say that it's a bunch of crap. Lol!

How about concentrating on cleaning up our oceans, fining people more for littering, stop deforestation, stop cutting down trees and building new houses, malls, plazas, etc.? That makes a lot more sense to me.

Meh, I think it's a scam, just like all the past "end of the world" scenarios.

If global warming was the worst thing ever, they'd support nuclear power.

 

[ReinyDays]

Meh, I think it's a scam, just like all the past "end of the world" scenarios.

Some would say John the Baptist was right ... so there's one ...

 

[flacaltenn]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Where's your proposal?? WHO gets "exemptions"?? Does this shut down NASCAR races? Do farmers get stuck 1/3 the way thru the plowing? Do airplanes have to GLIDE into their destinations??

But more importantly, all this sacrifice you're asking for here -- HOW MUCH of a decrease will there be in the 0.6DegC warming that's occurred during your lifetime? You feel that heat daily do you???

 

[flacaltenn]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Go blow a goat hippie.

Well, that certainly is an incisive response. What's YOUR solution?

Not rationing. That's stupid. It encourages nothing but sitting. I'll go the part about encouraging everyone to join the fight against climate change. No one believes in man made climate change. Those who advocate for it aren't subject to it. Sure, Leonardo Decaprio gets to keep his jet and so on, what about me? How do me and my family get to be free? So our gas ration would be enough to go to work cool, but what about when I want to jump in the ol'family truckster and go to corpus? That's a few hundred miles from me so you know. How about kids who ride a school bus? that bus has to idle, that uses fuel. its just not practical. in time I feel it will be used less because something better will come along.

News Flash! Lots of people believe in man-made climate change. Gasoline rationing would make everyone much more conscientious about their gas use. They'd be much less likely to just leave their car or bus idling if it wasn't necessary. And you'd still have gas to use, but you'd have to be more careful about how you did it. You wouldn't waste it.

You AWARE that most consumer cars now SHUT THEMSELVES OFF at every stop sign and light? I think maybe you need to understand what's been DONE already before you take the Stalin approach to dictating things.. You have a driver's license yet??

 

[Uncensored2008]

They are not saying a particular degree.

You are lying

Realdunce, you have a disadvantage, you are abysmally stupid, and ChrisL is smart. It's unfair to you.

{All of the models predicted an average warming of 4.3 degrees Celsius — plus or minus 0.7 degrees Celsius — between 2081 and 2100, assuming that current atmospheric emission levels continue unabated.}

Global Warming: Best Climate Change Models Predict Most Alarming Results

Yes, they are saying a particular degree.

Does it bother you even slightly that your priests and shamans have never once gotten a prediction correct?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Debunked? Not in this universe, sploogy.

{
The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.[1] The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists.[2] The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU's apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg.[3] Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation.[4][5]

The Climategate emails and climate data became the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. The legitimacy of climate science, and the charges leveled by the CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claim humans cause climate change, was severely shaken by Climategate. Evidence revealed told the truth about man-made global warming: it's a fraud.[6][7][8][9][10]

Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on the theory suggesting humans cause climate change, in a profoundly bizarre situation the Mainstream media attempted to bury the Climategate story.[11] At the same time, liberal Wikipedia quickly censored Climategate and referred to it as an illegal "incident," as the work of computer hackers stealing data — contrary to Freedom of Information Act requests. In spite of the liberal media's bias attempt to hide the scandal, news of Climategate quickly spread because many other more notable sources of media covered the story. Commentators and others in the media covered news on Climategate, many of which outlined important takeaways about specific information valuable to the public.[12]}


Climategate - Conservapedia

You're such a lying dumbfuck.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, lets do nothing & figure it out later?

Some movie star flies in his own jet, so lets do nothing.

The gasoline rationing plan has one aspect that is good, it would encourage higher mpg vehicles & really encourage EV.

The performance of EVs will encourage their use as the technology matures.

Gasoline rationing is simply not necessary to encourage the use of EVs.

There is the time factor. We can't sit around & do nothing because of stupid ass deniers.

Could you explain how you were brainwashed into becoming a stupid ass climategate denier?

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

The left has one tool in their bag, lying. They think the answer to every problem is just to lie. Realdunce told one of the dumbest lies I've ever encountered. The boi is an idiot.

 

[ReinyDays]

{All of the models predicted an average warming of 4.3 degrees Celsius — plus or minus 0.7 degrees Celsius — between 2081 and 2100, assuming that current atmospheric emission levels continue unabated.}

Some of the models produce this result ... not all ... and these results are published as click-bait ... the more realistic models (using RCP4.5) give results closer to 2ºC rise by year 2100 ... and these models assume we burn fossil fuels at a much much higher rate than what is really probable ... so the 2ºC figure is an extreme value, actual results should be lower ...

No ... just 2ºC rise won't do all the things predicted, only a tiny fraction will be realized ... weather patterns won't change, there won't be more floods or droughts, sea level rise will be trivial, ocean circulation won't collapse, the worst effect will be lost revenues for the Panama Canal due to open sea lanes through the Arctic Ocean ...

 

[flacaltenn]

They are not saying a particular degree.

You are lying

Realdunce, you have a disadvantage, you are abysmally stupid, and ChrisL is smart. It's unfair to you.

{All of the models predicted an average warming of 4.3 degrees Celsius — plus or minus 0.7 degrees Celsius — between 2081 and 2100, assuming that current atmospheric emission levels continue unabated.}

Global Warming: Best Climate Change Models Predict Most Alarming Results

Yes, they are saying a particular degree.

Does it bother you even slightly that your priests and shamans have never once gotten a prediction correct?

Those models assume the cataclysmic adjunct theories of GW which ARE NOT "generally accepted".. Those include massive ACCELERATION of the warming from "all positive feedbacks" and "trigger temps" beyond which the Planet will commit suicide regardless of what we do...

If you step back and just LOOK at the claims of 4 degC warming in a just a 20 year period, they are ludicrous..

CURRENT satellite trend is more like 0.14 degC per decade.. And there's NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ACCELERATION in that record.. The idea that we reach a "permafrost melting:" powerful enough to QUADRUPLE the current atmospheric CO2 in a span of 20 years, by exposing sequestered carbon compounds, just does not pass reason tests...

We had FOUR Ice Ages as our recent climate past.. And at the ENDS of each of those four deep freezes, there was an opportunity for the climate system to GO bananas and expose every last bit of that buried CO2 and Methane.. Did not occur...

The Earth is NOT the "junker of a planet" that is gonna be rattled by another 1 or 2 DegC in global mean temperature by 2100.. And the BETTER predictions are done by minimizing or ignoring all that extreme theory about instabilities in the system...

Kinda convenient that the way these jerks PHRASE the prediction, no one will KNOW or EVEN DETECT accelerations in warming until 2080...

Isn't THAT damn convenient???? We are just supposed to HAVE faith in models that ASSUME catastrophic consequences....

 

[flacaltenn]

{All of the models predicted an average warming of 4.3 degrees Celsius — plus or minus 0.7 degrees Celsius — between 2081 and 2100, assuming that current atmospheric emission levels continue unabated.}

Some of the models produce this result ... not all ... and these results are published as click-bait ... the more realistic models (using RCP4.5) give results closer to 2ºC rise by year 2100 ... and these models assume we burn fossil fuels at a much much higher rate than what is really probable ... so the 2ºC figure is an extreme value, actual results should be lower ...

No ... just 2ºC rise won't do all the things predicted, only a tiny fraction will be realized ... weather patterns won't change, there won't be more floods or droughts, sea level rise will be trivial, ocean circulation won't collapse, the worst effect will be lost revenues for the Panama Canal due to open sea lanes through the Arctic Ocean ...

Part of the problem is that the media and political leadership grab the WORST case numbers out of ANY climate model and go "HAIR ON FIRE" to the microphones and cameras.. If you LOOK at a suite of model runs assuming DIFFERENT CO2 emission scenarios, you'll find they have typically a 3 or even 4 to one range of predictions that are equally likely...

A MEAN or statistical variance of those predictions just NEVER MAKES it to the general public or the minions of morons in leadership....

 

[ReinyDays]

[Part of the problem is that the media and political leadership grab the WORST case numbers out of ANY climate model and go "HAIR ON FIRE" to the microphones and cameras.. If you LOOK at a suite of model runs assuming DIFFERENT CO2 emission scenarios, you'll find they have typically a 3 or even 4 to one range of predictions that are equally likely...

A MEAN or statistical variance of those predictions just NEVER MAKES it to the general public or the minions of morons in leadership....

Another part of this is when researches set the catastrophic conditions, then run the models backwards and somewhere within the distribution curve will be our current conditions ... of some vanishingly small probability ... the headlines read "climate models predict this", and in the broadest sense of the word, they do ...

"Hypercanes and Hockey Sticks" were fabrications ... it is fair to weight any other claims of climate crisis against these ... the good news is that if I'm wrong, then perpetual motion will be a reality, and our energy worries are over ...

 

[RealDave]

{All of the models predicted an average warming of 4.3 degrees Celsius — plus or minus 0.7 degrees Celsius — between 2081 and 2100, assuming that current atmospheric emission levels continue unabated.}

Some of the models produce this result ... not all ... and these results are published as click-bait ... the more realistic models (using RCP4.5) give results closer to 2ºC rise by year 2100 ... and these models assume we burn fossil fuels at a much much higher rate than what is really probable ... so the 2ºC figure is an extreme value, actual results should be lower ...

No ... just 2ºC rise won't do all the things predicted, only a tiny fraction will be realized ... weather patterns won't change, there won't be more floods or droughts, sea level rise will be trivial, ocean circulation won't collapse, the worst effect will be lost revenues for the Panama Canal due to open sea lanes through the Arctic Ocean ...

Maybe, Could be, yep there could be nothing to it.

What if the effects are major? Then what?


Models that assume trends remain as they are. If the industrial nations can not reduce their emissions sufficiently to end the climb of CO2 concentrations, then as other nations develop it gets worse & worse.

You have nothing to back your clam that weather patterns would not change. Are you assuming that the temperature rise is uniform?

Why won;t sea levels rise with the ice melt?

Your post appears to be quite stupid.

 

[RealDave]

The performance of EVs will encourage their use as the technology matures.

Gasoline rationing is simply not necessary to encourage the use of EVs.

There is the time factor. We can't sit around & do nothing because of stupid ass deniers.

Could you explain how you were brainwashed into becoming a stupid ass climategate denier?

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

The left has one tool in their bag, lying. They think the answer to every problem is just to lie. Realdunce told one of the dumbest lies I've ever encountered. The boi is an idiot.

Trumpettes survive on lies.

 

[RealDave]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Where's your proposal?? WHO gets "exemptions"?? Does this shut down NASCAR races? Do farmers get stuck 1/3 the way thru the plowing? Do airplanes have to GLIDE into their destinations??

But more importantly, all this sacrifice you're asking for here -- HOW MUCH of a decrease will there be in the 0.6DegC warming that's occurred during your lifetime? You feel that heat daily do you???

It was a concept. Not a detailed plan. Quit being a jerk.