Just keep insisting its all a bunch of bullshit until the earth is nothing but smoking ruins---of course what the fuck do any of you care you and your kids and grandkids will all be dead but "screw the future" lets play political football with science, because, Im a conservative christian"
You folks can't read, or maybe comprehend.
Quote from my very first post; "No doubt our climate is changing, earth is warming, ice is melting, etc. So I look at the Great Lakes and see a parallel in how we as humans react, determine cause and effect, and then create remedies to correct the problems."
Another quote; "YES, human activity is affecting the earth, climate, pollution, etc. YES, we can try an about face to stop CO2 emmissions (will China?? they say "sure we will", you go first. We'll come along in say.....10 years from now) Meanwhile China builds more coal fired power plants. "
SO YOU CAN STOP THE DENIER CRAP.
Here is a graph of Great Lakes levels since 1918. https://lre-wm.usace.army.mil/ForecastData/GLBasinConditions/LTA-GLWL-Graph.pdf
Note that between 1997, 1998, and 1999 all the lakes were above the median. So why the 1997-2000 reduced shipping claim?????
Also note lakes have been this low before, 1926, 1933-34, 1963-64. NOTHING NEW!!
MY POINT IS THIS; THE GREAT LAKES LEVELS HAVE NOT GONE CRAZY BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. LEVELS ARE DOING SAME AS THEY DID 100 YEARS AGO.
CLIMATE CHANGE REVERSAL IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IF CHINA IS ALLOWED TO BUILD ALL THE COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS THEY PROPOSE TO BUILD. YOU CANNOT GO HELL BENT IN THE U.S. WHILE BURYING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND WHEN IT COMES TO ASIA.
Odd that you 2 just joined and keep piggy backing each other in multiple posts ...
Maybe pick 1 username and roll with it 
It¡¯s getting hotter till it turns to hell
you¡¯ll be smelling like a bratwurst burnt and swelled
it hurts to tell
regal people about their lethal evils
believe I¡¯m policing when I¡¯m just speaking , ¡° you¡¯re see through ¡°
Its clear as glass
and bitter like a rim job
If we¡¯re talking windex and shitt still sticking and clinging to the sphincter throb
did you vision the syllables ? Did it illicit a response ?
your twatt¡¯s too squashed gotta hit it wit a bigger cocck
abysmal plot , horrible story
gifted a place to live , pitiful garbage , farcical warring
harmful ignoring
lets sweep it under the rug
till judgement comes , next summer the summit reaches two hundred and one
degrees
as the scene is dreamily bequeathed to me
on your knees as the piano keys hammer the dramatic and the weak have heart attacks and scream
It plays out in a painful serenade ,
find some shade or find a grave ,
time¡¯s wasting away , you¡¯re just a violent ape ,
DNA done changed , stay silent , lie , for shame
otherwise rise and change shape
the Phoenix , the ashes , Im bleedin¡¯ , I¡¯m laughin¡¯
treason , compassion , there¡¯s a reason there¡¯s seasons you demons you bastards¡.
honestly, that Cornwall Alliance is set up specifically to argue against the necessity of climate change policy... I don't believe a word they say.
I think 99.99% of acclaimed and qualified academics think global warming is real, man-made and very serious.....
to me, this is what needs to be done/understood about global warming:
1) need a more serious discussion about the consequences of global warming...... I never really see that..... it's just hysteria and a massive narrative, but few facts presented.
2) what's the point of me voting to make a difference in global warming policy if A) china/india generate massive amounts of CO2, 2) same with industries like steel, fertilizer, petrochemical, cement etc. (massive CO2 emission); B) so many places still use coal for electricity....... my efforts and those of my countryman don't matter whatsoever except to set an example for others... and china/india have some pretty good arguments for using coal. after all, cheap abundant fossil fuels were close to #1 factor driving the massive increase in standards of living in the western world the last 150 years.
3) to combat global warming and meet aggressive CO2 targets, people can't drive SUV's, have cottage/vacation home or have 3 cars per household... mass transit will have to be advocated for many travel needs. like no car in central area of a city unless you live there, and then even restrictions on that. or massive taxes on gasoline.... but no one wants this, even those who believe and vote for aggressive progressive agenda...... google a recent interview with Vaclav Smil. he talks about people having no idea the lengths required to hit aggressive CO2 goals.
4) economic growth, fuelled by cheap abundant fossil fuels, has lifted 3 billion people out of extreme poverty the last 50 years. if we'd followed tight CO2 guidelines, most of those people would still be in extreme poverty.. there is a MASSIVE TRADEOFF here.
You forgot private jets, huge azz trophy homes, private yachts, etc. that the "elite own". Same people who scream about climate change live in total excess.
My whole arguement here is stop attaching everything to climate change and by doing that it is actually being watered down! Detroit freeways flood, a pump station crew could not open a gate to get to their backup generator!! So it's all climate change!!! NO, it was poor management.
Recent wildfires in CA. CLIMATE CHANGE!!!! NO, it was some pyro professor.
I would simply recommend more research if you think this is true. The number is absolutely nowhere near that high on any of those 3 categories, let alone on all 3 combined.
Jimrockford22 is right. Every top science organization in the world agrees with you. According to wikipedia, 98% of published scientific studies support consensus on man made climate change. The 2% contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors. James Powell's 2019 survey of over 11,600 peer reviewed articles found consensus at 100%. However Fox news continue to promote disinformation about global warming despite overwhelming evidences to the contrary.
Uniman, of course if you are going to put restrictions on automobile use by general public, then private jet use should have been BANNED long before it.
yes, elites are hypocrites in many ways. no reason to support trump though or watch tucker carlson/laura ingraham non-stop though.....
lastly, i agree completely that every single bad development to do with weather gets blamed on global warming. there doesn't have to be any more underlying theory than "global warming causes more variation in weather"
i'm sure i was high on 99.99%........ i see a 97% figure out there, but i need to see who that 3% represent. the 97% is pretty solid, i'd think. OTOH, people may be brow-beat in finally agreeing on climate change. not worth the fight.
Thirdperson is wrong again on this.
There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts in letter to the United Nations
...a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here¡¯s the press release, here¡¯ the list of 500 signees, and here¡¯s the opening of the letter:
A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.
Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation
Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:
1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.
What about that ¡°consensus¡± and ¡°settled science¡± about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there¡¯s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the ¡°settled science¡±?
Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General¡¯s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it¡¯s ¡°deja vu all over again.¡±
@jimrockford22
This is usually the 97% folks refer to:
In any conversation on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (man-made global warming, or ¡°AGW¡±), proponents of the AGW hypothesis cite this supposed ¡°97% consensus¡± as fact. When questioned, however, few are able to explain how this ¡°fact¡± was determined. The story behind the origin of this statement demonstrates how readily people accept as fact something they either want to believe is true or feel they don¡¯t have the background to question.
So, how was this 97% ¡°consensus¡± actually determined? Shockingly, its unscientific origins are found in a 2013 article put forward by a former Australian cartoonist and web developer who subsequently obtained a PhD in the ¡°cognitive science of climate denial.¡±
I did not know such a degree existed.
Cook¡¯s article documented his survey of some 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991 to 2011 matching the topics ¡°global climate change¡± or ¡°global warming.¡± This survey was conducted in an effort to determine ¡ª presumptively ¡ª the evolution of the ¡°consensus¡± on man-made global warming.
What this survey found was that 66.4% of the 11,944 abstracts in fact expressed no position whatsoever on man-made global warming. Of the remaining 33.6% that did express a position on global warming, Cook found that 97.1% of these endorsed the hypothesis that global warming is the result of human activity.
When I first read the Abstract of Cook¡¯s article, I thought that I had misread his conclusions ¡ª they made no sense. Clearly, the survey results showed that the great majority of the 11,944 research papers on topics involving ¡°global climate change¡± or ¡°global warming¡± ¡ª fully 66.4% of these papers ¡ª expressed ¡°no position¡± on the question of whether global warming could be the result of human activity. If this was ¡°settled science,¡± how could so many scientist-authors fail to take a position one way or another on arguably the most important and urgent question in the history of climate science?
In calculating this supposed 97% scientific consensus on the ¡°fact¡± of man-made global warming, Cook disregarded the 66.4% of the research papers he surveyed that expressed ¡°no position¡± on that question. If these papers are properly taken into account, the percentage of scientist-authors who support the hypothesis of man-made global warming (based upon Cook¡¯s survey) is actually 32.6% ¡ª hardly a ¡°consensus¡±!
Since it appears that the Cook article was not subject to prior scientific peer review, and the authors had an obvious bias, I understand that they would try to skew the results. However, the level of intellectual dishonesty in the calculations is breathtaking. How is it that intelligent people can be fooled by such chicanery?
99% of top climate scientists accept man made climate change. Since so few experts deny the truth, oil and gas industry fund non-experts as lobbyists. Climate intelligence foundation is a political organization campaigning to oppose carbon emission laws in Europe. Founder Berkhout previously works for oil and gas industry. According to dutch broadcaster KRO NCRV, CLINTEL has little or no expertise in climate science.
Desmog analysis found members list includes fisherman, writers, air condition technician and retired geologists. A fact check by real scientists for Climate feedback rate CLINTEL very low in scientific credibility. Biased, misleading and inaccurate disinformation unsupported by proof. CLINTEL 6 points in letter have been widely debunked. See rebuttals reported by Skeptical science. CLINTEL is no match for United nations team of thousands of real climate scientists.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
