Climate Change According to the Co-Founder of Greenpeace

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,424
Reaction score
15,659
Location
Collinsville
My hypothesis is that climate change is directly attributable to all the mouth breathers spewing their verbal diarrhea about climate change. If they stopped wasting oxygen, there might not be an issue! :)
 

Nraman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
6
Location
Florida former Okie.
And before anyone asks.. here are some great places you can search and find where I gathered not only my stats, but many other informative stats and facts as well!
Again, unfortunately this has become an emotional and political argument for most naysayers, so I know this won't change anyone's mind for some reason.. but you wanted the facts, so here they are.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
http://www.globalissues.org/article/231/climate-justice-and-equity
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

:popcorn:

You are so well informed, perhaps you can help me with some numbers.
We know that the US and its surrounding waters produce CO2 thru several processes and at the same time they also act as a carbon sink. What is the net CO2 that we produce?

One more thing, NOAA just released the information that there is no warming, are they also having a problem "hiding the decline?"

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/
 

Nraman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
6
Location
Florida former Okie.
skepticalscience.com? Really? What should I do? Retort with wattsupwiththat.com?

Come on. Stick with the science, rather than the spin.

Back during the Climategate scandal, Jones, the head of the East Anglia CRU said it and it might still be on Utube that there has been no significant warming.

Let's play devil's advocate and assume that we need to do something about it.
How is it that nukes with 0 CO2 are out and unreliable means like wind and solar are in while we are in the 21st century when electricity is the most important part of our lives.
How much CO2 we save when we use ethanol?
How sending more billions to the third world will cut down on CO2?
Money, Leftist agenda of wealth redidtribution and control, that's what it's all about.
 

Capm_Spaulding

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
670
Location
Uganda
Back during the Climategate scandal, Jones, the head of the East Anglia CRU said it and it might still be on Utube that there has been no significant warming.

Let's play devil's advocate and assume that we need to do something about it.
How is it that nukes with 0 CO2 are out and unreliable means like wind and solar are in while we are in the 21st century when electricity is the most important part of our lives.
How much CO2 we save when we use ethanol?
How sending more billions to the third world will cut down on CO2?
Money, Leftist agenda of wealth redidtribution and control, that's what it's all about.

As I said I'm really not interested in the political side of it as there becomes a lot of lies and manipulation from both sides to further specific agendas. I'm looking at it from strictly my experience and knowledge. I don't have a professional opinion past what I already said as the other parts do not interest me, so I don't have any answer for the best avenue to go down to repair what has been done, we have become so reliant on our ways that it will take many people a long time to develops better methods. That's more for a different field to figure out. My field is the impact it has on our Eco system and recognizing the fact it even exists. All of the rhetoric and the political actions that have happened have nothing to do with what interests me. Again it's just that no one can separate these two things, everyone sees it as a one package type of deal, when really it doesn't have to be.
 

Capm_Spaulding

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
670
Location
Uganda
You don't actually buy that 97% stat? The Oreskes, et. al., study that came up with that nonsense has been very reasonably shown to have been biased and, in some cases, downright irrational, in study selection and attribution. You don't have to roll around in the mud with "deniers" to understand this. The study methodology has been widely dissected.

These aren't just random numbers for me, they are my peers and those I studied with and under. I've never met a colleague that's been one of the conspirator types, it's hard to illustrate this, but these people are typically scene in the same light an MD sees homeopathic "physicians." There are plenty out there any plenty who believe them. Their science makes sense, but it's a half painted picture.

skepticalscience.com? Really? What should I do? Retort with wattsupwiththat.com?

Come on. Stick with the science, rather than the spin.

If you were to have clicked and navigated through that site, they have gathered their information from journals and other educational sources that is cited at the bottom of every page.
It's really a waste of my time if you aren't interested in learning objectively. We can debate rhetoric and politics all day, but I have no interest in that. I was asked specific questions about a field I've dedicated years of my life to and gave you my professional opinion along with pages that echo what I've said. You can look objectively and get to the bottom of it to form your own opinions or you can do what you're doing it. It's all up to you, I've given you some tools as you asked for.
 

Nraman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
6
Location
Florida former Okie.
As I said I'm really not interested in the political side of it as there becomes a lot of lies and manipulation from both sides to further specific agendas. I'm looking at it from strictly my experience and knowledge. I don't have a professional opinion past what I already said as the other parts do not interest me, so I don't have any answer for the best avenue to go down to repair what has been done, we have become so reliant on our ways that it will take many people a long time to develops better methods. That's more for a different field to figure out. My field is the impact it has on our Eco system and recognizing the fact it even exists. All of the rhetoric and the political actions that have happened have nothing to do with what interests me. Again it's just that no one can separate these two things, everyone sees it as a one package type of deal, when really it doesn't have to be.

That's unfortunate because IMO, it is a politically and profit driven scam.
Take away the politics and profit and I don't see anything left.
 

doctorjj

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
7,042
Reaction score
1,178
Location
Pryor
These aren't just random numbers for me, they are my peers and those I studied with and under. I've never met a colleague that's been one of the conspirator types, it's hard to illustrate this, but these people are typically scene in the same light an MD sees homeopathic "physicians." There are plenty out there any plenty who believe them. Their science makes sense, but it's a half painted picture.



If you were to have clicked and navigated through that site, they have gathered their information from journals and other educational sources that is cited at the bottom of every page.
It's really a waste of my time if you aren't interested in learning objectively. We can debate rhetoric and politics all day, but I have no interest in that. I was asked specific questions about a field I've dedicated years of my life to and gave you my professional opinion along with pages that echo what I've said. You can look objectively and get to the bottom of it to form your own opinions or you can do what you're doing it. It's all up to you, I've given you some tools as you asked for.

Wattsupwiththat has much more scientific basis and backing than skepticalscience. And if you don't know the names of the scientists posted above, then you aren't nearly as informed as you think you are. Also, regarding your earlier post, there is nothing new, novel or unprecedented about the current rate of change of the global temp. That is pure fallacy. It's changed this rapidly many times in the past, in both directions.
 

Shadowrider

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
21,505
Reaction score
9,294
Location
Tornado Alley
As I said I'm really not interested in the political side of it as there becomes a lot of lies and manipulation from both sides to further specific agendas. I'm looking at it from strictly my experience and knowledge. I don't have a professional opinion past what I already said as the other parts do not interest me, so I don't have any answer for the best avenue to go down to repair what has been done, we have become so reliant on our ways that it will take many people a long time to develops better methods. That's more for a different field to figure out. My field is the impact it has on our Eco system and recognizing the fact it even exists. All of the rhetoric and the political actions that have happened have nothing to do with what interests me. Again it's just that no one can separate these two things, everyone sees it as a one package type of deal, when really it doesn't have to be.

Do you have any scientific data that shows we CAN actually make any "repairs" to the planet? I would think we would have to affirm that we caused some damage first? And that seems to be the issue that's in question is it not? Color me skeptical, the pinko commie nutjobs have infiltrated academia and have sold their souls and credibility to advance their agenda. They made it political whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
 

Nraman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
6
Location
Florida former Okie.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8623-un-official-admits-cap-and-trade-is-wealth-redistribution

UN Official Admits Cap and Trade Is Wealth Redistribution
Written by Raven Clabough
Assertions made by climate-change skeptics that there are ulterior motives behind climate-change legislation were confirmed by a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

During an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, UN official Ottmar Edenhofer declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

The interview went as follows:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capital basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11,000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Emphasis mine.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom