North Pole Movement

Wow, this just in- Prince Charles blaims GW as root cause of Syrian war.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/britains-prince-charles-climate-change-root-cause-syrian-092031663--business.html

 

How To Talk About Global Warming With Your Crazy Isis Relatives at Thanksgiving Dinner- John Hayward
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/26/talk-global-warming-crazy-isis-relatives-thanksgiving-dinner/

 

Earths climate went through a similar climate change 100,000 years ago.
Chris Mooney at the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/another-danger-of-climate-change-giant-flying-boulders/2015/11/27/81bdf026-9384-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html

Minus 11F in California
http://www.latimes.com/local/weather/la-me-ln-california-freeze-sierras-20151128-story.html

The hypocrisy of oil
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/governor-big-oil-brown-jets-off-paris-climate-summit/

 

What utter bull****!

Check e.g. here, what NASA thinks - correction: knows - about the subject:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Here are some facts:

Sea level rise

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.[SIZE=11.232px]4[/SIZE]

Global temperature rise

[SIZE=16.64px]All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.[/SIZE][SIZE=11.232px]5[/SIZE][SIZE=16.64px] Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.[/SIZE][SIZE=11.232px]6[/SIZE][SIZE=16.64px] Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.[/SIZE][SIZE=11.232px]7[/SIZE]

 

Again, if we can't agree that the numbers have been altered to skew in favour of warming...
Again, yes pollution is bad and those responsible should be heavily fined and regulated...
Again, climate changes always and peoples may be displaced, species die off, water tables vary...
China won't play, they know it's a cash grab.
Alarmists try to brow beat with fake numbers.
Explain the vast increase of ice in the Antarctic.

Heard anywhere from 100 billion to 1.5 trillion is to be collected ANNUALLY.
Please say where and how the money is to be used.
Businesses who are taxed heavily will simply pack their bags and move to where they won't be.

Nothing more than wealth transfer with db's like Agore and his ilk's hands in our hardworking pockets.
They don't give a fig about the earth, only their bank accounts and power. ..Why is oil at 40/barrel if MMGW is soo bad.
Correct in saying: utter bullshit.

Lets worry about the human condition, and those who wish to destroy the Earth via fanaticism and bringing end times.
Poor polar bears - not. They are doing fine.

 

People in Finland and places up north really hope for global warming. Maybe then their brain will finally thaw out.

 

Ouch. Rather harsh Fiddy.
I'd really like KJ to respond to the questions posed.
Not here to beat KJ up, looking for discussion.

 

I suppose with "KJ" you mean me? The initials are fine by me, just can't figure how you ended up with those ones...

The numbers in your post are mine.

1. It might be totally possible that some people, who have become frustrated with the denial attitudes, have tried to cut the corners. It still doesn't change the bigger picture.

2. Yes, climate changes always - slowly. The major climate changes have caused devastation before in prehistory. Now we are just doing it ourselves - within few decades. It is extreme stupidity not to do anything while we can.

3. Actually they are playing now, because they have to. Of course it is to some extent already too late locally, but internationally better late than not at all.


"The statement, released following a meeting in Paris between Li and French President Francois Hollande, said China aimed to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65% by 2030, from 2005 levels.
The carbon intensity target builds on a previous plan to cut carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020.
China also aimed to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its primary energy consumption to about 20% by 2030, the statement added.
Beijing previously set a goal of getting around 15% of its energy from clean sources by 2020."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33317451

4. See my answer #1.

5. Can't explain it, since it is NOT happening!

"Most of Antarctica has yet to see dramatic warming. However, the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into warmer waters north of Antarctica, has warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1950. A large area of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, probably because of warmer water deep in the ocean near the Antarctic coast. In East Antarctica, no clear trend has emerged, although some stations appear to be cooling slightly. Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice, but so far the process has not become as quick or as widespread as in Greenland."

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

6. Not fighting the MMCC would be even more costly. It's a no-brainer really: do you want to spend some now or much more in the (too near) future?



7. That's not the point. The point is, that making the polluters to pay and thus forcing them to include ALL costs to the price of e.g. oil, it encourages people to make more sensible choices.

8. That won't happen, if and when all/most countries are making the similar kind of decisions. Developing environment friendly technology is also an opportunity to create profitable business, which benefits everybody in the long run.

9. Your opinion only. Oil is indeed (too) cheap now. That's because the World's economy is still not doing well and thus the demand is low. Also there are new oil sources in the market to lower the price even further. You should tax the oil properly in the USA too - as the rest of the civilized World does.

10. Opening one's eyes and fighting the MMCC is worrying about the human condition.

11. Polar bears are NOT doing fine.

"As climate change melts sea ice, the U.S. Geological Survey projects that two thirds of polar bears will disappear by 2050. This dramatic decline in the polar bear is occurring in our lifetime, which is but a miniscule fraction of the time polar bears have roamed the vast Arctic seas."

http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat/Polar-Bears.aspx

What is more alarming is the fact, that the Polar bears are unfortunately not alone.

http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming.aspx

We do not. We understand, that globally it's disastrous, which is not good for us either.

Don't know about our brains...

 

As with several of your other points this also is opinion and or selective definition of "too cheap". I'd certainly like to see it cheaper, if you believe in supply and demand then it's only too cheap or too expensive if someone is manipulating the values.

 

I indeed strongly believe in supply and demand. However at the moment the price is manipulated in the USA by NOT including all the costs - e.g. to the environment and to the health of the people. In TRUE market economy ALL the costs must be counted and payed for. If that is not done, it's plain robbery - not "supply and demand".

 

Is that done with all other commodities? I don't think so. Indeed oil doesn't have any intrinsic environmental or health cost. That's very much dependent on how it's used.

 

If the north pole continues to thaw, and the polar bears continue to lose their habitat, what'll we do then? Polar bears are so mean anyway, it's sort of like feeling sorry for great white sharks getting hunted out or dinosaurs going extinct. Maybe some of the peta people can go and try to catch some polar bears and transplant them into the Antarctic. It's cold down there and it's getting bigger. No, that won't work. They'll eat all the penguins.

 

The polar bears, which were the alarmists poster boy, are doing fine. Articles saying as much are repressed.
There are hundreds of recently extinct animals. Man is responsible for some, nature/climate/evolution claims more.
Mans fault for building too close to (long term) fluctuating water tables, on islands that didn't use to exist, and are doomed to be swallowed.
Current Antarctic ice levels should be something we can prove, today. Not like fantasy world wide temperature increase stats on some government employees computer hockey stick graph.

The Sun/ Earth tectonics play a much larger part in our climate than man ever could.

 

Dr Jay Zwally, the lead author of this week’s surprising Nasa study that confirms that the Antarctic is gaining far more ice than it is losing.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

NASA knows who pays its budget.

Methods used by alarmist cash grabbers:

"-reducing the annual mean in the early phase
-reducing the high values in the first warming phase
-increasing individual values during the second warming phase
-suppression of the second cooling phase started in 1995
-shortening the early decades of the first datasets
-with the long term datasets, even the first century was shortened

If the raw data is compared to NASA's revisions- since 1940 the earth has been cooling, NOT WARMING"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

Does anyone disagree the famous hockey stick graph was a deliberate attempt to skew data

Government tries to create an atmosphere of fear/alarm regarding climate. Why?

 

Another bit that will be ignored. Imagine it'd be tough for some to change their minds after so much indoctrination.
Lamar Smith's NOAA Climate Change Science Fiction:
The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/

 

I don't know, but that naturally should be done. Oil products, such as benzin/gasolin, definitely have "intrinsic environmental and health costs", as they are being used today.

Not cool, Dude...

I prefer the scientists' view instead of your opinion. As I showed earlier, e.g. the polar bears are NOT doing fine. Unfortunately they are not the only ones.

You are SO TOTALLY wrong...

"It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel. "

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

Those water tables did not use to fluctuate in a way they do today - "thanks" to human activity.

Temperature rises, ice melts. How hard can that be to understand?!

Wrong again.

Here's just one example of what the SCIENTISTS of the knowledge say:

"Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions."

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

 

Facts:

- overall ice coverage AND mass in the World diminishing
- in the Antarctic rising temperatures mean more snow = more mass. That is still not enough to counter the losses elsewhere, neither it does not stop the coverage of ice diminishing

I was not aware, that NASA changes it's views according to each government. Please show some evidence of the changing NASA views in correlation with the politics...

Your source seems to be a politically motivated propaganda site with cherry picked referencies.

Did you read the comments of that article? It might be, that the professor have compered apples with oranges.

Could the simple reason be, that there's a reason to be alarmed...?

Here's one of the comments to that article:

"Why do the deniers focus on Satellite data? Because it is the ONLY data that does not show obvious warming. Why the 18 years? Because if you go out past 18 years, the warming is obvious. But you deniers will soon run out of data to cherry pick. October 2015 was the 3rd warmest month in the history of satellite date. Watch November continue the trend. It is real, and conservative brains can't handle it."

 

Oil products are not oil. You can't reasonably put such a price on oil without knowing what is to be done with it. Even then there is little reasonable way to do it.

It's easy to say something should be done. Actually doing it is a far different matter. Especially when there is clearly no good way to do it.

 

So when is the earth supposed to tilt it's axis? That'll make a cool movie too. Tired of hearing about all this global warming this, water rising that, ice melting there, glaciers going backwards where. If we can just save one polar bear....Jeez.

 

They will build islands of cold cash that would provide habitat... Our taxes will soon skyrocket. Then everyone (except those with a hand in it) will be crying the blues. Then "i told ya so" will be a small compensation.
Oil is now 39/barrel. Because burning fossil fuels is soo bad.