Page 34 of 65 FirstFirst ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 850 of 1611
  1. #826
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Vancouver
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by raisingarizona13 View Post
    If you want to save the earth then you should probably be pro-global warming since the biggest threat to everything are the humans and some good ole warming should clear a lot of that up.

    This is my new Sig !
    What if "Alternative" energy wasn't so alternative ?

  2. #827
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,854
    The only debate is what percent of global warming is anthropogenic. That figure is unknown. However it appears that it is a contributing -and perhaps the driving- factor. Only a fool would argue that we ignore something simply because we are uncertain as to exactly how bad it is. Which is why I have no interest in anything Exxon Ron has to say.


    Well that, and he's dead wrong on solar.

  3. #828
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by NWFlow View Post
    But the accumulated surface mass balance for the year is actually well under (more melt) the 81-10 mean and is actually approaching outlier territory.
    I didn't see the graph in the tabs. That is the case. Low snow cover year + early melt seem to be the main contributors.

  4. #829
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,854


    fuck you you corporate whore.

  5. #830
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    The only debate is what percent of global warming is anthropogenic. That figure is unknown. However it appears that it is a contributing -and perhaps the driving- factor. Only a fool would argue that we ignore something simply because we are uncertain as to exactly how bad it is. Which is why I have no interest in anything Exxon Ron has to say.

    Well that, and he's dead wrong on solar.

    If you believe that is the crux of my argument you are either not paying attention or just dumb. I don't believe I have ever argued that we do nothing simply because we don't know how bad it will be.

    What am I getting wrong on solar? My stance is that 100% non carbon renewables is unfeasible with our current tech. Given that we don't have a single solar plant with adequate backup to look at for an example proves my point.

  6. #831
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,854
    Oh I'm definitely not paying attention. Fuck you, by the way.

    edit: admittedly I was paying attention for a few minutes there
    Last edited by iceman; 08-22-2019 at 06:03 PM.

  7. #832
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141
    Arguing the science of the climate crisis with Ron only furthers his agenda of spreading doubt. He is lying.

    99% of climate scientists agree dangerous climate change is occurring and it is Caused by humans.

    These scientists have told us we must keep global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees C, and to do this we must cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/

    Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.

    The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C was approved by the IPCC on Saturday in Incheon, Republic of Korea. It will be a key scientific input into the Katowice Climate Change Conference in Poland in December, when governments review the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.

    “With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.

    Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.

  8. #833
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Jong Kong
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Arguing the science of the climate crisis with Ron only furthers his agenda of spreading doubt. He is lying.

    99% of climate scientists agree dangerous climate change is occurring and it is Caused by humans.

    These scientists have told us we must keep global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees C, and to do this we must cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/
    https://climatechangedispatch.com/97...-97-consensus/

    Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app
    "Skiing is the easy part, Carl."

  9. #834
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Arguing the science of the climate crisis with Ron only furthers his agenda of spreading doubt. He is lying.

    99% of climate scientists agree dangerous climate change is occurring and it is Caused by humans.

    These scientists have told us we must keep global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees C, and to do this we must cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/
    Over 6,000 scientific references, thousands of reviewers, Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries


    With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.

    Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.

  10. #835
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,764
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Over 6,000 scientific references, thousands of reviewers, Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries
    I don't know what report you read. The IPCC report says that temperature variability is to be expected and nothing to worry about, that doing anything about carbon emissions is too expensive and unnecessary, and that bears do not shit in the woods and the pope is not catholic. I know this because RJ told me so.

  11. #836
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,567
    According to a July 2019 article in Nature all the folks here posting local proxy charts and then (falsely) claiming their cherry picked proxy means anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, are wrong.

    There is no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.

    Utilizing reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, the team reports in Nature that, although the Little Ice Age was the coldest epoch of the past millennium, the timing of the lowest temperatures varied from place to place. Two-fifths of the planet were subjected to the coldest weather during the mid-nineteenth century, but the deepest chill occurred several centuries earlier in other regions. And even at the height of the Medieval Climate Anomaly, only 40% of Earth’s surface reached peak temperatures at the same time.

    Using the same metrics, global warming today is unparalleled: for 98% of the planet’s surface, the warmest period of the Common Era occurred in the late twentieth century.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

  12. #837
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    According to a July 2019 article in Nature all the folks here posting local proxy charts and then (falsely) claiming their cherry picked proxy means anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, are wrong.

    There is no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.

    Utilizing reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, the team reports in Nature that, although the Little Ice Age was the coldest epoch of the past millennium, the timing of the lowest temperatures varied from place to place. Two-fifths of the planet were subjected to the coldest weather during the mid-nineteenth century, but the deepest chill occurred several centuries earlier in other regions. And even at the height of the Medieval Climate Anomaly, only 40% of Earth’s surface reached peak temperatures at the same time.

    Using the same metrics, global warming today is unparalleled: for 98% of the planet’s surface, the warmest period of the Common Era occurred in the late twentieth century.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
    Rebuttal: http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/era...ery-continent/

  13. #838
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Arguing the science of the climate crisis with Ron only furthers his agenda of spreading doubt. He is lying.

    99% of climate scientists agree dangerous climate change is occurring and it is Caused by humans.

    These scientists have told us we must keep global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees C, and to do this we must cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/
    SlyFoxxx's link shows how you are being lied to about the 99% consensus.

    I have shown you how you are being lied to about every headline connecting fires, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and heat waves to global warming.

    I have shown how you are being lied to about polar bears.

    But I'm the liar.

  14. #839
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    5,825
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    SlyFoxxx's link shows how you are being lied to about the 99% consensus.

    I have shown you how you are being lied to about every headline connecting fires, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and heat waves to global warming.

    I have shown how you are being lied to about polar bears.

    But I'm the liar.
    Yes sir, you are liar. Repeating lies does not make the lies true as you know but apparently you'll do anything for a ruble.

    The reason you have been hired and the reason you and your coworkers are here is to repeat lies and create the illusion of truth. Unfortunately that is an effective technique, but it makes you a scumbag bootlicker...as you also know.



    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by uglymoney; 08-23-2019 at 11:20 AM.

  15. #840
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by uglymoney View Post
    Yes sir, you are liar. Repeating lies does not make the lies true as you know but apparently you'll do anything for a rubble.

    The reason you have been hired and the reason you and your coworkers are here is to repeat lies and create the illusion of truth. Unfortunately that is an effective technique, but it makes you a scumbag bootlicker...as you also know.



    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    You got an example of a lie from me?

  16. #841
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141
    I follow real award winning climate scientists who worked on IPCC and National Climate Assessment reports. They say Ron Johnson and his comrades are full of shit.

    Many of these scientists have faced death threats and character assassination. They personally have nothing to gain, and lots to lose, by telling the truth about the climate crisis. They say there is no question about anthropogenic climate change, and that we must stop burning fossil fuels ASAP.

  17. #842
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,071
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You got an example of a lie from me?
    Let's start with your name..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  18. #843
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,797
    We all know Ron is full of shit and that we will not stop burning fossil fuels and exacerbating climate change until it is to late. There are to many deep pocket (fossil fuels industries) spending billions to convince some people all is well. That will make any meaningful change in time impossible. The world will be a very different place in 2100 and man like cockroaches will still be here. I could make it to about 2050. It should be an interesting 30 years coming up.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  19. #844
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    We all know Ron is full of shit and that we will not stop burning fossil fuels and exacerbating climate change until it is to late. There are to many deep pocket (fossil fuels industries) spending billions to convince some people all is well. That will make any meaningful change in time impossible. The world will be a very different place in 2100 and man like cockroaches will still be here. I could make it to about 2050. It should be an interesting 30 years coming up.
    We don't know that we won't act until it is too late. We still have time. We can't give up. We can and we will do this. Because failure is not an option.

  20. #845
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,797
    I like the enthusiasm of youth, you keep banging that drum WMD. There are to many fucks out there like Ron who are sabotaging the message. Do we get to sting all those fuckers up once it is to late?
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  21. #846
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    All of you think the IPCC is some holy scientific institution. It is a corrupt political organization. The IPCC is an arm of the UN, a known corrupt political body. The IPCC's mandate is not to study climate change on the whole, it is to specifically report and find human impact on climate.

    The IPCC is designed to put politicians, not scientists in control of the project. The governments that created the IPCC fund it, staff it, choose which scientists get to contribute, and review and revise the reports from the scientists. The final editing of the IPCC reports are done by politicians, the scientists have no say.



    I'd think most of you heard the about the hacking of email exchanges among leading contributors of the IPCC reports. Some quotes:

    “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.” - Phil Jones

    “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.” - Phil Jones

    “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” - Phil Jones

    “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]. Keith will do likewise. ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!” - Phil Jones

    “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.” - Jonathan Overpeck

    “I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.” - Michael Mann

    “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.” - Peter Thorne

    “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” - Peter Thorne

    “Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.” - Tom Wigley



    In 2010 the InterAcademy Council did a report on the flaws in the IPCC's peer-review process and other procedural problems that undermine the IPCC's credibility. In 2012 the IPCC officially recognized the truth of the critique and promised to "reform" itself. Some quotes from the report:

    The lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views," fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors,” and fail to “consider review comments carefully and document their responses."

    “The IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents." Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications.”

    The auditors wrote, “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated.” The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political.”

    “The lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and lead authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work."

  22. #847
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Like these guys? ^^^^^

    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    I follow real award winning climate scientists who worked on IPCC and National Climate Assessment reports. They say Ron Johnson and his comrades are full of shit.

    Many of these scientists have faced death threats and character assassination. They personally have nothing to gain, and lots to lose, by telling the truth about the climate crisis. They say there is no question about anthropogenic climate change, and that we must stop burning fossil fuels ASAP.
    Nothing to gain except advancing their careers, getting funding, pushing their ideologies, etc. What do they have to lose exactly? It's those that question the consensus that have lots to lose.

  23. #848
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,764
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Like these guys? ^^^^^



    Nothing to gain except advancing their careers, getting funding, pushing their ideologies, etc. What do they have to lose exactly? It's those that question the consensus that have lots to lose.
    Pot meet kettle.

  24. #849
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    I like the enthusiasm of youth, you keep banging that drum WMD. There are to many fucks out there like Ron who are sabotaging the message. Do we get to sting all those fuckers up once it is to late?
    We prosecute the fuckers as murderers.

    100 companies reaponaible for over 70% of greenhouse gases. They must pay to help fix this.

    "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says"

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change

  25. #850
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Like these guys? ^^^^^



    Nothing to gain except advancing their careers, getting funding, pushing their ideologies, etc. What do they have to lose exactly? It's those that question the consensus that have lots to lose.
    More to the point, it's the petro companies that you work for that have lots to lose, and are therefore paying amoral twats like yourself to try to spread doubt about settled science.

    Maybe you should head back to whatever flat earther forum you usually hang out at.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •